- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 13,755
- Points
- 113
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AMjk9MZJ3/
’ - — ,
The Workers' Party eleventh hour withdrawal from - is not just a campaign decision. It is a profound act of betrayal, of opposition unity, of voters’ rights, and of the very spirit of democratic contestation.
The timing of the move, and the refusal to give space for others to contest, makes one thing clear: this was not about resources. This was about control. And it exposes a broader, more troubling realignment between ’s leadership and the very political dominance it once claimed to oppose.
This analysis does not come from hostility toward the idea of . It comes from disappointment at what has become under Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim , a party once feared by the establishment, now folded into its comfort.
- was not lost. It was handed over.
And ’ did it with the kind of precision that made sure no other party could step in.
This is not political strategy.
This is sabotage dressed up as pragmatism.
It was an ambush, not on the People's Action Party , but on the very voters who believed in as a force for change.
—
Let us be fair, redrawn boundaries in - may have presented valid electoral challenges for . Internal calculations could have indicated limited prospects or resource constraints, and party strategists might have opted to concentrate efforts where holds stronger ground.
Such tactical choices are not uncommon. In fact, many observers were prepared to understand if had publicly stepped aside early, allowing another opposition party to step in and carry the fight.
But that’s not what happened.
Instead of strategic transparency, we saw a strategic ambush.
remained silent until the last possible moment, preventing any other party from stepping in, and in effect, locking the constituency in a one-party grip.
So while we may understand the why behind the decision, we cannot and must not excuse the how, because that is where the betrayal lies.
The core issue was not withdrawal.
It was secrecy. It was timing. It was the quiet coordination with the ’s electoral convenience.
And in that, chose to serve the system, not the people.
—
Since assuming party leadership, gradually reshaped ’s posture, from one that challenged power directly, to one that carefully navigated within the boundaries of institutional comfort. The tone of changed.
Public defiance was replaced with managed speeches.
Engagement with grassroots activism dulled.
And now, direct withdrawal from one of the most symbolic GRCs in the East.
, once respected for her sharpness and independence, has become silent in the face of this strategic collapse.
Together, this leadership has led not to the next chapter, but to its expiration date.
- —
Let’s not sugarcoat this:
The didn’t come to win. came to lose.
And the way was cleared by silence, secrecy, and last-hour abandonment.
’ - — ,
The Workers' Party eleventh hour withdrawal from - is not just a campaign decision. It is a profound act of betrayal, of opposition unity, of voters’ rights, and of the very spirit of democratic contestation.
The timing of the move, and the refusal to give space for others to contest, makes one thing clear: this was not about resources. This was about control. And it exposes a broader, more troubling realignment between ’s leadership and the very political dominance it once claimed to oppose.
This analysis does not come from hostility toward the idea of . It comes from disappointment at what has become under Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim , a party once feared by the establishment, now folded into its comfort.
- was not lost. It was handed over.
And ’ did it with the kind of precision that made sure no other party could step in.
This is not political strategy.
This is sabotage dressed up as pragmatism.
It was an ambush, not on the People's Action Party , but on the very voters who believed in as a force for change.
—
Let us be fair, redrawn boundaries in - may have presented valid electoral challenges for . Internal calculations could have indicated limited prospects or resource constraints, and party strategists might have opted to concentrate efforts where holds stronger ground.
Such tactical choices are not uncommon. In fact, many observers were prepared to understand if had publicly stepped aside early, allowing another opposition party to step in and carry the fight.
But that’s not what happened.
Instead of strategic transparency, we saw a strategic ambush.
remained silent until the last possible moment, preventing any other party from stepping in, and in effect, locking the constituency in a one-party grip.
So while we may understand the why behind the decision, we cannot and must not excuse the how, because that is where the betrayal lies.
The core issue was not withdrawal.
It was secrecy. It was timing. It was the quiet coordination with the ’s electoral convenience.
And in that, chose to serve the system, not the people.
—
Since assuming party leadership, gradually reshaped ’s posture, from one that challenged power directly, to one that carefully navigated within the boundaries of institutional comfort. The tone of changed.
Public defiance was replaced with managed speeches.
Engagement with grassroots activism dulled.
And now, direct withdrawal from one of the most symbolic GRCs in the East.
, once respected for her sharpness and independence, has become silent in the face of this strategic collapse.
Together, this leadership has led not to the next chapter, but to its expiration date.
- —
Let’s not sugarcoat this:
The didn’t come to win. came to lose.
And the way was cleared by silence, secrecy, and last-hour abandonment.
Last edited:
