Dear Scroobal,
You are strange and weird. When I put up the facts of criticisms, you question me on why I did it. Now in a different breathe, you are just practically implying the same thing here.
I would just say, don't put too much hope here. WP would rather put 3 months of effort to prepare a musical show in the effort to raise funds for their HQ instead of fine tuning their political operations... the irony is that, even when the report cards of their Town Management is below par, corporate management reports not submitted, they would still put priority in some non-core business in putting up that musical for fund raising.
Apparently there is some misplaced priority somewhere.
It is really an irony that when WP people and apologists were giving the excuse that ground work and TC management is of utmost importance, it turns out that even for the TC management report card, they got red marks. While there are legitimate concerns on the apparent glaring conflict of interests in the AIM saga, but I guess it is only made used to act as a means of smokescreen of politicking distractions. If AIM issue is so important to WP, why didn't they raise it at the very first instance but wait more than 1 year later?
On top of that, I cannot see how, the AIM saga could affect the running of Aljunied TC so much when the issue of software migration and transfer have been done since Sept 2011. How could this issue affect the performance of AHTC for the whole year of 2012? So much so that they could not produce the report on corporate governance on time?
Yes, PAP is throwing smokescreen and indulging in politicking, but WP is as guilty of such as well.
I believe, you can only do one thing well at any one time. WP hasn't got its house and acts together in TC management, basic political education (oh dear, buying votes for HDB upgrading by using lucky draw?) and training on ethics (no more plagiarism please!), we should not expect it to get itself involved in the larger plot and role of policy debates unless you want another Mx 9 kind of blunders.
As I have said, WP should get its house in order first, get its priority right first, before it should move forward, to get more seats. Well, from the party's perspective, getting another seat may be important for their BIG plans on buying their multimillion HQ shophouse as there would be additional monetary contributions from the new MP if it is won, but seriously, would it be good for the democratic process?
Goh Meng Seng
As the social media and Alex Au in particular carries the country's load in the latest crisis and ironically on a matter that involves WP's constituency and TC, one has to wonder what WP think its role is in contemporary politics both in the local and in the international sense under the Westminster Model.
Ptader has also raised the same issue and I think it is time for WP to step back and seriously re-consider (1) the role of an elected parliamentarian, (2)the role of a political party that is in parliament and more (3) importantly a party that is the official designated opposition under the Westminster model. In essence there are 3 distinct roles that need to be examined critically with previous perceived or existing role remit wiped clean.
The party is the oldest after the PAP, has contested numerous electons, has had luminaries and established identities such as Marshall, JBJ and recently LTK. So we are not talking about a bunch of new babes in the woods. There is history. WP has also being in Parliament intermittently since the historic win in 1981 and uninterrupted since 1991. That is 2 decades of residency.
They now have 6 plus 2 representatives in Parliament. They have an energetic and relatively big support base of members, supporters and volunteers. They seemed to have nailed the formula of grassroots engagement that gets it seats in parliament.
The role that they are struggling is that of a co-driver which they themselves have defined. Frankly I don't think we have seen the co-driver for sometime. Some of you must have also realised that the Salary Review Committee met 7 times only and conveniently used the WP's submission to the committee as the base model. It must have been the most spectacular piece of self-ambush in living memory.
What do you guys think? This in no way suggest that PAP is a better and should be brought back. What we need is for WP to step, move away from property management and grassroot activities and move to handle the primary role that they were elected for.
At the end of the day, all 8 members of WP Parliamentary Team need to ask themselves as they get the first sip of morning coffee on Sunday, is Alex Au doing the job of all 8 with no renumeration received at his end.
At the ultimate irony is the AIMs saga is a property management issue involving residents' fund. A core competency of the WP amongst all the roles.
i.e. Just cut the bonus, full stop! 
