Famous Last Words

Famous Last Words:

1994: “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky”— Bill Clinton

2010: “HDB flats are affordable”—Mah Bow Tan

2012: “I took my name out of the ballot for NCMP post”—Png Eng Huat?

Frankly, that was stupid. Why did he even bother to respond directly to Teo Chee Hean at all?

Png could have said, “That is an absurd assertion. The party selected Gerald for NCMP because it wanted to help party leadership succession by elevating the profile of its young leaders. The party chose me for Hougang because I have been here since 2006 and I am familiar to Hougang voters. End of story.”

Instead, now we have Png-Gate.

I don’t think any amount of “clarification” can correct the impression in voters’ minds now.

The only question is—can WP’s brand withstand this slip-up? Clinton got re-elected despite being shown to be a liar. But Mah Bow Tan was “eased out”.

Can Png get elected?

BTW—no prizes for guessing who leaked the meeting minutes. Must be a disgruntled CEC or ex-CEC member.


About politicalwritings

Someone who sees beyond PAP and "opposition" in Singapore politics. To understand more please see the Top 10 link below.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Famous Last Words

  1. EverybodyKnows says:

    Storm in a teacup.
    Will give him benefit of doubt. Perhaps he meant to say he has removed himself from the ballot but party went ahead with the selection procedure anyway…he is a man of brief (or incomplete) words.
    But more importantly, loose lips sink ship. They have a bigger problem with party betrayal. Time to impose non-disclosure agreement for exiting disgruntled members.

    • How could you enforce such an NDA?

      • dexter says:

        Not sure how many are salaried or voluntary members. If there’s an employment or contractual agreement you can stipulate NDA within 1 year of departure. After that is fair game. They need to consult legal. Also, they should do a CSI scan if their computers have been hacked at all. The’ anonymous tipper” could have been an ” anonymous hacker”, who knows.

      • The point is the anonymity.

      • dexter says:

        Sure. But put it in contract, if caught, they will be hauled to court may have deterrence effect. Especially if involves senior management members.

      • Hauling implies an officer of the law arresting them and presenting them in court. That is hardly possible with a civil litigation. Further, how could you quantify the damages?

  2. Hans says:

    Is this such a big issue to the voters in Hougang? Are the voters going to vote for Desmond Choo because Png Eng Huat was not telling the truth about something that does not interest many voters? There is no way that the PAP can reclaim Hougang, not now and not in many other elections………

    • I certainly hope so. Notwithstanding this, we don’t a very clever politician in Png here. That you should be concerned about. If one small remark like that can cause Png to slip up like this, imagine what will happen if Png takes on PAP bigwigs in Parliament!

    • You’re not very politically astute if you cannot see that Png’s slip-up has cost WP valuable time, caused Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim to waste time defending him instead of attacking PAP, caused him to be on the defensive, derailed their campaign plan, and created a major distraction for WP. It has lost WP the initiative, and it has probably also caused some fence-sitters to doubt WP.

  3. anon says:

    I don’t see how this is a big issue or relevance to the BE.
    Just because it was thrown up by Teo to score a point against the WP, you see it fit to wade into it too and make a meal of it? You can, if you openly say you are pro-PAP, then we all know where you are coming from. But if you are trying to sound or appear neutral, yet make a big deal of it, then I should inform you that you have failed the acid test of neutrality.

    • Your allegations are absurd. The 120+ postings on this site prove my political views are hardly pro-PAP.

      • Macy says:

        Hi, politicals writings,
        I really like to say how you write the articles because if your post can stir the shit and cause people to vote for PAP regardless, it shows that the people deserve PAP.

      • Thanks. I write as a political consultant.

    • If you cannot see that this post is about what Png should have done, rather attacking him for being dishonest, then you really are blinded by the “opposition cause”.

      For you and others like you, any time anyone criticises an “opposition” party in any way, that critic must be a PAP mole. Yes– you belong to the “Ugly” opposition supporters league.

      • richard yeoh says:

        Political writing,

        You state it clearly enough. The quality of opposition is still below par. What to do ? The smart one like you would not brak out from the closet. Yet the brave one like Png does not cut it as savvy politician.
        Objective observation like yours been labeled as PAP mole. For the good of singapore we need less ugly opposition support with blind faith. A small by election already wreck major havoc for WP. I serious doubt their claim now ” Fist world parliament”….Pui pui…

  4. Han Teck says:

    agree with politicalwritings, Teo’s assertion was absurd, and could have been rebutted easily. why should there be only one best candidate? hopefully voters in Hougang can see the bigger picture and not distracted by all these. they should send a strong message to PAP to let them know that what they have done so far are still not enough.

  5. SIMPLE says:

    I’m disappointed that a senior PAP politician and minister fights the BE on such a frivolous issue to ridicule opposition candidate where there are so many other more important issues. The question he posed can also be turned around to question him if a rookie and junior PAP candidate like Desmond Choo is the best that PAP can field. And if it is not, does it not reflect that PAP is not taking the BE seriously and fears to risk any of its star politicians to another defeat ?

    • Cheng says:

      Like Ang Yong Guan said ” When PM Lee select two DPMs , he must have his reasons too”. Implicitly, does that mean DPM Teo is also NOT the best man?!
      Same can be argued for Desmond Choo. He has served as grassroots in Tampines and Marsiling previously. Why was he not on the GRC ticket then?
      These and many more could have been easily rebutted by WP.

  6. Ivan says:

    It’s simple really. The WP leadership has been doddering for the past year. Watch their insipid performance in Parliament. Observe how LTK and SL kept silent during the debate on the MInisterial Pay Revision. Sense the helplessness of GG and even CSM when they were grilled on the MX9 issue. Befuddled by their impotence over the YSL’s indiscretions, and amused by the many ” No comments” which finally led to YSL’s sacking, whitewashed as “transparency” and “accountability”. The litany of oops and more oops recently cannnot be the hallmark of an opposition party intent on heralding in the 1st World Parliament. Plenty of useful materials for a local drama series on ” Oops Not Enough”

    • Cheng says:

      True that it hasn’t been smooth-sailing for WP as the team grow and expand.
      Is only reasonable that they will make some fumble here and then.
      But part of the blame can be attributed to a political climate that has been stifled by the previous PAP era, that the nascent scene is only just finding its feet , even for voters. A necessary rites of passage.
      I am sure if you go back to early years when PAP took office, there were many more instability and fumbles that they made.
      Seen in that context, voters can be more forgiving to WP versus a far more experienced team that has been governing it with draconian iron-fisted hands in a autocracy.

  7. george says:

    “Your allegations are absurd. The 120+ postings on this site prove my political views are hardly pro-PAP.”

    Absurd? Allow me to take side on this issue based on what is manifest.

    Your ulterior motives are quite clear when you choose to compare it with Clinton and Mah Bow Tan. Any reasonable minded person would not be able to see such a comparison as appropriate, justified or fair by any stretch of his or her imagination. This is for the very simple reason which seem to have escaped you that Png HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING TO EVEN REMOTELY DESERVE YOUR INSTIGATION OR CASTIGATION.

    We all know this is election politicking, you know it is election politicking, yet you choose to take side.

    If you are interested in how others interpret the actions of Teo, you may want to read this blog:

    By the way, past actions is no guarantee of future performance as they say in the investment industry. It is abundantly clear the proliferation of moles in our political scene is a given, given the Machiavellian tendency of the old man of the PAP throughout his nefarious political career. Moles pop out at desired moments as decided by their master. Ostensibly, they has even infiltrated the WP.

  8. Pingback: Daily SG: 23 May 2012 « The Singapore Daily

  9. Ah Kow says:

    MIW can blow anything out of proportion and mangle what their opponents say because they control the mainstream media. Peng Huat is a victim of the ruling party hit machine. The social media should not abet this sort of gutter politics.

  10. Stop This Juggernaut says:

    Lets all agree to express one’s views so that we can find a consensus of how Singapore’s political future can proceed for the benefit of all Singaporeans. There is a letter in a traditional media this morning calling on Hougang residents to abandon WP for PAP’s goodies. We must stop this PAP’s juggernaut consuming us!

  11. Ivan says:

    It’s the stridency and shoot-from-the-hip tendencies of some opposition supporters/sympathisers which denigrates a calm, balanced and matured discussion of political issues, in particular governance. That the MIW had also fumbled and doddled is a fact.
    Giving due credit for the many great stuff they done correctly shows one’s ability to recognise the wheat from the chaff.
    This discussion centred on Mr Png E H’s gaffe, especially his flip-flops which caused considerable angst to WP leadership.
    PW ‘s “tongue-in-cheek” take on the aforesaid matter had a sharp edge to it but to suggest he is partisan showed just how fragile the mental state of some posters was,: Ready to explode and implode at the very faint whiff of veering off anti-govt crusade.
    PW’s “you really are blinded by the “opposition cause”.is as good a repartee as any.

  12. Limcy says:

    Uncle the date for Clinton should be 1994 not 2004

  13. george says:

    ” t’s the stridency and shoot-from-the-hip tendencies of some opposition supporters/sympathisers which denigrates a calm, balanced and matured discussion of political issues, in particular governance…”

    Tit for tat. it’s a silly man who insists on civility in the face of a downright insult to ones intelligence. As the saying goes: one gives back as hard as one gets. That’s the universal law of equality.

  14. Ivan says:

    Speaking for yourself or on behalf of the enraged? :))

  15. Pingback: Lucky Png | Political Writings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s