CNA: Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew will not contest the General Election

It’s interesting to pay attention to Lui Tuck Yew stepping down.

I believe it was probably the best call for him to make as a PAP member, for the sake of the party.

Here’s why.

First of all, public sentiment is a real thing that every party has to account for.

Perceptions are leaky: your car always seems to drive faster after you’ve washed it thoroughly.

So even if Tuck Yew wasn’t responsible for SMRT’s failures, he will still be associated with it. People are going to think of train breakdowns when they see his face. And it’s something that they would take with them to the voting booth.

By stepping down the way he did, LTY has earned goodwill for being self-sacrificial, and the PAP earns a little goodwill by extension (for trying to keep him, despite ‘populist sentiment’).

Also, now instead of focusing on LTY’s failures, people are going to focus on the details that the two of them mentioned in their open letters to one another.

The two open letters LTY and LHL wrote to each other are very skillfully done to influence public sentiment positively.

Here’s what stood out for me:

LTY: “You reminded me that the responsibility of Government was a collective one,, and no minister carried difficult problems like public transport alone”.

This is masterfully done! I mentioned before that it’s political suicide for politicians to talk about how difficult their jobs are, because common citizens wouldn’t sympathize.

But this is the one unique circumstance where they can do exactly that. LTY is leaving, so he can speak honestly about what a wise, thoughtful leader LHL is, and how challenging it is to be a Transport Minister.

LTY: “The BSEP has produced shorter waiting times, new routes and less crowded buses […] … the total train fleet will continue to grow some 50% over the next 3-4 years. The entire Downtown Line will open within the next 24-30 months.”

Now, under what circumstances do you take the trouble to tell your ex-boss all of these details in a “I quit” letter, when he already knows?

When your letter to him is going to get national press.

PM Lee Hsien Loong does a really great job handling this whole situation, too. So much is communicated in the sentence “I reluctantly accepted his decision”, whether intentional or otherwise.

The very subtle undertone here (with perfect plausible deniability!) is that LTY “has to suffer” because of flighty public sentiment. LHL wishes he could keep LTY, but he can’t.

LHL: “My senior colleagues share my view that you have more to contribute, both in transport and in other areas in government. We discussed the matter with you several times, but could not persuade you to continue.”

So that’s how the narrative is set. LTY wasn’t asked to leave. He wasn’t a scapegoat. He left despite the PAP urging him to stay, and it was a subject that he had “broached early in the year” – NOT a knee-jerk response to the most recent events lingering in everybody’s memories!

Is this the first time that this has happened?

All of this made me think back to Wong Kan Seng and the Mas Selamat incident. What happened then?

Wong Kan Seng was the Minister of Home Affairs when Mas Selamat escaped from Whitley Detention Center in 2007.

Coincidentally, Wong Kan Seng chose to step down as Minister after GE2011.

(Also, people were chanting “Mas Selamat! Mas Selamat!” when he spoke at Nomination Day.)