I think someone ought to set his criticism direction and know where others are coming from, unlike a blind horse, before he calls me a frog in the well.
I have no doubts that any opposition party's manifesto has room for improvement.
However, this is different from:
1) Claiming the opposition does not have a good manifesto when he cannot point out what is good about the PAP manifesto. And had to bring in a manifesto from another foreign country.
2) Claiming that statistics make a good manifesto when there are hardly any in the PAP manifesto.
3) When opposition have statistics in the manifesto, he claims they are not good enough because they do not contain ideas on how to achieve them.
4) When there are ideas, he claims they have to turn the ideas in action without a mandate.
5) Questioning others if they represented opposition parties when he looks like he is obviously representing the PAP.
When one says the opposition is "not credible", who is he benchmarking "credibility" with? The PAP of course, correct? Is it relevant to compare the opposition's "credibility" with a a foreign party? After all, I do not think the British Conservatives are going to field candidates in Singapore

I think someone is very much the same as what he is accusing opposition of - opposing for the sake of opposing

Regards