Guess it does matter for the Opposition to have several seats in Parliament.

3. The politics of impatience

When the Hep C cluster was first announced on Oct 6, MOH told the public that the review committee will complete its work in about two months’ time.

It's been less than a month since the committee was appointed. The public, including our opposition politicians, needs to be more reasonable with their demands for answers and quick solutions. Yes, there was a huge delay, but that ship has sailed — the committee now needs time to conduct a comprehensive investigation and "after-action" review.

In the 24/7 news cycle, it is easy for everyone (Mothership.sg included) to raise questions and engage in finger-pointing. But the hard work lies with the seven members of the review committee who have two months to perform the following tasks:

a) To provide an independent, objective and critical review of SGH’s report, and seek to ascertain if all possible measures had been taken to:

i.    Identify the possible points of infection control breach;

ii.    Remedy any weak points in the overall workflow particularly with regard to infection control;

b) To reasonably investigate any activity within its terms of reference, which will include but is not limited to the following:

i.    Review the work and findings of the two Committees convened by SGH to investigate this Cluster (i.e. the Medical Review Committee and Quality Assurance Review Committee)

ii.    Interview any staff member to clarify issues; and

iii.    Perform site inspections at SGH.

The above were recently expanded to include purview over the Ministry's actions as well.

Let's use the Little India Riot COI as a point of reference: it took the committee nearly six months to submit their report (June 27) to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean after they were convened on Dec 13, 2013.

Two months to conduct a review is reasonable. Let's give the committee some breathing space.

4. The defensive tone in the responses offered by the government

It is important for the government to shield the review committee from the public demand for quick answers so that the review committee is given ample time to conduct a fair and neutral review.

However, some of the responses by the Press Secretary to Health Minister to uncomfortable questions are perceived by some to be rather defensive.

Here are two examples:

Example 1: When Straits Times journalist Rachel Chang raised questions about the Hep C timeline provided by MOH, the Press Secretary to Health Minister instead questioned the "baseless allegations of political motive" by civil servants.

In other words, MOH did not engage Chang's observations that the MOH Hep C timeline raises questions in terms of the proper flow of information to MOH, the Minister, and the public.

Example 2: On WP's call for a COI, Press Secretary to Health Minister told the media on Oct 25 that the government will convene "a COI provided the WP is prepared to lead evidence before the COI, to substantiate whatever allegations it might have".

In other words, MOH did not engage with WP's reasons for reconstituting the current review committee as a COI and decided to put the ball in WP's court instead. So this becomes a staring contest between the government and WP — the COI will only be constituted if WP is willing to lead in providing evidence.

5. On scoring political points

During the GE 2015 campaign, WP chief Low Thia Khiang told Lianhe Zaobao how he felt when people accused him of scoring political points.

In the Lianhe Zaobao exclusive, he said,

“It will be a failure for the People’s Action Party (PAP) if it does not know how to score political points. How does PAP govern? If it does not score points from politics, how does it govern? If PAP is unable to score points from politics, it means that it is cheating, don’t you think? This means that it is using underhanded means and does not need to score political points to govern.

First of all, if you are a politician, you must have the political acumen to score political points. PAP’s way of accusing opposition parties of scoring political points is a childish way of politics.

However, every politician needs to be responsible. The change in policies will affect people’s lives. You cannot just say populist things to score political points or raise populist subjects…We also have to think about the long-term future of the country”.

WP has been able to score "political points" by providing suggestions on how they think the review committee could be improved, namely the reconstituting of the current review committee as a COI.

However, the last two responses on Oct 26 and Oct 31 by Perera is the reiteration of the same point — the government has not engaged with WP on the case for a COI.

As Low said, "every politician needs to be responsible". The Health Minister has made the judgement call to conduct a review first, before considering other options. We should respect his decision to do so.

And we hear you, WP. The government did not engage WP on the case for a COI.

Let's hope the WP will not overreach in its political point-scoring by repeating the same arguments over and over again.

Top photo from Workers Party Facebook.

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.