FEB 18 — When the Workers’ Party (WP) alerted the media last Wednesday afternoon of its press conference later that same day, with no further details, there was an immediate buzz among journalists.

Over the years, journalists have become used to the WP simply issuing a press statement whenever it had news to convey.

This had to be big. The expulsion of erstwhile Hougang Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong was widely anticipated, yet the contrast with the WP’s traditional “no comment” was still stark.

Pressed by reporters on a number of occasions to talk about issues dominating the news agenda or to open up about party developments, the WP has often opted to keep its heads down. Years of past missteps by the Opposition seem to have cemented a cautious mindset. Having said that, this approach did not hurt its performance at the ballot box last year.

But now, the question being asked is whether the party could have handled the entire Yaw affair better. And did it make the right decision?

The latter question is really for the voters of Hougang to answer, and no one else.

Some voters may make the distinction between the private and public lives of their elected representatives. Others may not.

Some may be concerned that their constituency’s seat in Parliament is vacant. Others may not.

Some may worry about who will look after municipal matters. Others may not.

After People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Ong Chit Chung died in 2008, his Jurong Group Representation Constituency team member, Halimah Yacob, said that grassroots leaders and residents were satisfied with the arrangements made to look after his ward.

The WP now has five full MPs, including one who had served Hougang for 20 years. The ball is in the party’s court, and they will eventually get their reply from the voters of Hougang.

Less easy to answer is the first question. Could the WP have handled the Yaw affair better?

Since the general election, opposition observers have argued the emergence of a political halo effect — voters, it seems, care less about individual candidates than about the image of their party.

Outside of Hougang, the concern is not about how well the WP will look after the residents in the Single Member Constituency henceforth.

What Singaporeans want is an insight into the manner in which the WP handled the matter and the thinking of its leadership.

Not so much those voters entrenched on either side of the political fence, but the middle ground, the ground for instance that is said to have tipped neighbouring Aljunied GRC into the hands of the WP.

Despite all the allegations against Yaw online and in the mainstream media, we do not yet know conclusively if they are true or not.

But from what the WP leadership said at its press conference, it is clear that they were unable to get one of their key, young leaders to account to the party — and by extension, his constituents — for almost a month.

That was the reason given for his expulsion. It may well be said that the final decision was a brave, principled one. But in a crisis, such principles have to be displayed from the start.

This may be the first time since the Low Thia Khiang era that the WP is finding itself under such intense media scrutiny outside the hustings.

The party’s overly cautious mindset might have been the default as it sought to ferret out the truth.

Unfortunately for the WP, the electorate has high expectations of the party that campaigned on the slogan of wanting a “First World Parliament”.

Just as it has been said that the PAP is sometimes a victim of its success, it is hard to forget that the WP promised repeatedly at the last election to put the nation’s interests before those of the party.

Given that the WP had said it wanted Yaw to account for himself all along, it should have done the same by spelling out what it had planned to do as soon as the damaging media reports about Yaw began surfacing. Setting out a course of action is not tantamount to passing pre-emptive judgment on Yaw, and should not be seen as such.

But one might ask: Was this a matter of concern to the public in the first place?

Many readers have written in with different views but, in the words of the WP leadership themselves, the party believes strongly in transparency and accountability.

If media strategy — and not a U-turn in party position — was where the WP slipped up, then this may be a high-profile lesson for the WP, that there is a difference between keeping the media at bay and keeping the public in the dark.

If, however, this is a case of the WP leadership not being able to reach a consensus or initially turning a blind eye to a lapse in discipline, then some might wonder if the WP is coming apart at the seams.

Gerald Giam, who heads the WP media team, said the final decision on Yaw was not unanimous. WP chief Low Thia Khiang said there was a clear majority.

Disagreements within political parties are to be expected, some might say even encouraged, at least on matters of policy.

However, we have seen what has happened all too often in the past, in other Opposition parties, when the leadership core fails to show unity on discipline, decision or direction. — Today

* Derrick A Paulo is senior editor (Voices) with Today.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.