It was an extraordinary outburst as Mr Goh threw his colleagues – then housing minister Mah Bow Tan, transport minister Raymond Lim, and home affairs minister Wong Kan Seng – under the bus in a desperate attempt to 'exchange' them for his favoured colleague.
“Well, that is just SM Goh's personal opinion,” Mr Wong fired back, “if you heard the Prime Minister (Lee Hsien Loong) three years' ago, his views are very clear as to what needs to be done and I don't need to repeat what the Prime Minister had said of me. If he didn't think I could contribute, I wouldn't be here.”
The episode, the first of its kind in the PAP world, laid bare the schism within the party. That it had taken place at all, let alone smack in the middle of the election campaign, was eyebrow raising. It was evidence that secretary-general Lee Hsien Loong did not have full command of his party.
Hard questions were also asked of his leadership of the government. Mr Lee had to apologise – twice – during that GE for his administration's poor performance over matters such as the negative social effects brought on by the opening of the casinos, problems plaguing the public transport system, the mass intake of foreigners, and floods.
He admitted: “These are real problems,” and promised, “we will tackle them.”
Only he didn't. MRT breakdowns continue to frustrate commuters six years later, the gambling scene here was enhanced with the introduction of online betting in 2016, Singaporean workers are still being displaced by foreign ones, and floods have become a regular feature on our roads whenever the heavens open up.
But what about GE 2015? Didn't the up-turn in the results for the PAP vindicate Mr Lee's leadership?
Barely months after the last tear dried over his father's death, the PM called the election in September 2015. It was hard not to see the move as anything less than a ploy to capitalise on the late Lee's standing. Politically, it worked like a charm; the polls raised the PAP's vote share to nearly 70 percent.
Indeed, surveys, both pre- and post-election, showed that Lee Kuan Yew's death and the ensuing outpouring of emotions were a major contributing factor to the PAP's improved showing. As it stood, the outcome could hardly be attributed to the electorate's ratification of Lee Hsien Loong's performance as PM.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang contributed to this observation. They had lambasted their brother over his leverage on their father's fame for his own political ends during their Oxley Road altercation. They said out loud what many held silently: that their brother's “popularity is inextricably linked to Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy”.
For the love of expediency
Because of the wanting leadership, circumstances in Singapore have taken an increasingly desolate turn. Since he took over as prime minister in 2004, the country has been bedevilled by a litany of problems, many manufactured by his politics.
Take the Elected Presidency (EP). In order to get one of his own elected to the office, Mr Lee had to ring-fence the election for Malays, the stated reason being that we have not had a Malay president since Yusof Ishak. But the maneuver contradicts the raison détre for the office, to wit, safeguarding our reserves. This being the case, shouldn't the nation be picking the best possible citizen, regardless of the melanin in his or her skin, to do the job?
No, the real reason for the change of the EP rules is that the PAP-endorsed candidate, Dr Tony Tan, came to losing within a hair's breadth to Dr Tan Cheng Bock in the presidential elections in 2011. It was a scary moment for the rulers, and to ensure that the presidency remained firmly in their grasp, the EP had to be further restricted.
And as if the matter is not discombobulated enough, the PAP's presumptive candidate's ethnicity has been called into question. House Speaker Halimah Yaacob's father is Indian and, by her party's own logic, she should not qualify as a Malay.
Mr Lee's clumsy gambit has thrown up all manner of questions: What if the candidate is of mixed parentage? What if the candidate does not imbibe the culture and customs of the race she hopes to represent? What if he is a Malay but not a Muslim? What, in the first place, is “race” – a construct which anthropologists are still struggling to define?
Mr Lee has had to perform intellectual cartwheels and somersaults to justify the unjustifiable and defend the indefensible. In the process, he has further eroded the people's trust. At a time when we should be moving away from fracturing the Singaporean identify, the PM seems bent on racially cleaving the citizenry, all for his own political expedience.
Another measure of Mr Lee's implausible leadership is in our relations with China. With distressing efficiency, the PM squandered the goodwill we had with our giant neighbour up North. His ineptness at reading changes in geopolitical circumstances resulted in recriminations from China and culminated in his exclusion from the One-Belt-One-Road summit in Beijing earlier this year.
Read also Our China policy a confused mishmash of positions
The controversy even elicited rebuke from establishment circles. The dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Mr Kishore Mahbubani, kicked up a storm when he questioned the government's approach to international relations.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man?
But perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of Mr Lee's prime ministership is his inability to rejuvenate the deteriorating economic situation. Apart from the hand-wringing about 'max-ing' out on easy ways of growth and lamenting that raising productivity is hard to do, the PM has shown little forward thinking on how to take our economy to the next level – unless you consider his call to Singaporeans to steal other people's lunches forward thinking.
Even his Committee for our Future Economy related precious little in terms of viable ideas for the road ahead.
Read also The PAP is lost
It is clear that Mr Lee is clinging on to past achievements and policies that have long passed their expiry date. The problem is compounded by his sticking his head in the sand; he seems to prefer ingratiating himself with the public with Facebook posts of often inconsequential photos of himself (cuddling dolls or eating durian) rather than mobilising the nation to rise to the formidable challenges that our nation faces.
When even his siblings declare: “We have no confidence in PM Lee Hsien Loong and are worried about Singapore's future”, you know Singapore is in a bad place.