A Blast from the Past - An Assessment for the Future
-
Francis Seow's piece on the Politics of the Judicial Institutions in Singapore carry with it the credibility of someone who once was working from deep in the corridors of power, and now a fallen star.Originally posted by walesa:For some reason, I find your article incomplete without taking into consideration how the Judiciary has evolved into a state mechanism which abets this regime in its tyranny.
Here is a link to a realistic account of how the Singapore Judiciary has evolved from colonial times to the politicised fascist institution it now is.
This should serve as an interesting read of sorts - no prizes for guessing why the Privy Council's recognition in Singapore was abolished and how the Chief Justice has come to receive, in Francis Seow's words, "more than the combined stipends of the Lord Chancellor of England, the Chief Justices of the United States, Canada and Australia".
Suffice to say, the future implications of such a farcical Judiciary tells a tale of its own...
He was the Solicitor-General and was privy to all the instructions to prosecute those who dare challenge the authority of LKY and his Government.
This piece should answer some of the questions raised by some cynics in the other thread -
''A must read for all!!!'', which somehow had its opening post editted out. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
He knew too much, like snowball who had to be banished.
Francis Seow's piece on the [b]Politics of the Judicial Institutions in Singapore carry with it the credibility of someone who once was working from deep in the corridors of power, and now a fallen star.
He was the Solicitor-General and was privy to all the instructions to prosecute those who dare challenge the authority of LKY and his Government.
This piece should answer some of the questions raised by some cynics in the other thread -
''A must read for all!!!'', which somehow had its opening post editted out.
[/b] -
A review of an interview with the late President-Elect Ong Teng Cheong will reveal some insight into the internal politics of the Ruling Political Party :
MARCH 10, 2000 VOL. 26 NO. 9
E X T E N D E D I N T E R V I E W
'I Had a Job to Do'
Whether the government liked it or not, says ex-president Ong
The Straits Times, Singapore
Ong (in cap after chemotherapy treatment) says his health is fine now
Ong Teng Cheong will go down in history as Singapore's first elected president. But for twenty years before that, the Chinese-educated, foreign-trained architect was a stalwart of the nation's People's Action Party government led by its first PM Lee Kuan Yew. Ong, now 64, was minister of communications, of culture, and of labor; he was also deputy PM, secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress, and chairman of Lee's PAP.
By common consent, he was the man who kept the Chinese ground loyal to the party; indeed, his command of the language was such that Lee always asked Ong to accompany him whenever he visited China. In the 1980s, Ong was one of the party's four senior 'second echelon' leaders who were considered as possible successors to Lee. It was Ong's longtime friend, Goh Chok Tong, who got the nod for the job. Ong, who was diagnosed as suffering from lymphatic cancer in 1992, chose instead to run in the first elections for the presidency the following year.
He won -- and soon became embroiled in a six-year long festering dispute with his former colleagues in government over how much information he should have in order to fulfil his role in safeguarding Singapore's prodigious financial reserves. The altercation came to a head last year when Ong and his mentor Lee and friend Goh clashed publicly and rancorously in a rare display of disunity among PAP heavyweights.
He decided not to run for re-election as president -- but not before he had spooked Goh's men by leaving the announcement until the last moment. He has now returned to the private architecture firm he set up with his late wife, Ling Siew May, and which is now run by one of his two sons. His doctors have given him a clean bill of health after a debilitating bout with lymphatic cancer -- though he still wears a cap to cover the baldness caused by chemotherapy treatment. Last week, he gave his first in-depth interview about his presidency to senior correspondent Roger Mitton in a nearly two-hour long talk. Extended Excerpts:
It's now six months since you stepped down. How do you feel about your time as president?
I am satisfied with what I did. I hope it was all for the best. I was elected to do a job. And I had to do that job whether the government -- or anyone else -- liked it or not.
It seems that often they did not like it, but let's go back: How did you first get into politics?
In the early 1970s, Lee Kuan Yew asked me for an interview to get me involved to stand for election. I stood in 1972 and I won and became a PAP backbencher. A year later, Lee asked me to take up ministerial office but I turned it down because my younger brother was dying of cancer. I had to assist him and to settle his affairs after he died at the age of 25. Then Lee Kuan Yew approached me again and this time I agreed to take up office. Lee is very persuasive.
He must have been impressed to make you a minister so quickly -- you were a young architect with no experience of politics.
Yes, I was not trained to become a minister or a politician, but you learn on the job. Whenever I went to a new ministry, I always asked myself basic questions: What is this job all about? What am I supposed to do? That's what I did in 1980, for instance, when I became minister of labor, in addition to being minister for communications. I went through all the legislation and I decided that the trade unions should not just be designed to organize and finance strikes, but instead should help improve the workers' social and economic wellbeing.
You became head of the NTUC and also remained a cabinet minister -- and Singapore remained strike free.
Yes. But in January 1986 I did sanction a strike, the first for about a decade. It was in the shipping industry where the management was taking advantage of the workers. I did not even tell the cabinet about santioning the strike. And some of them were angry with me about that. The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore? -- we are non-strike. I said: if I were to inform the cabinet or the government they would probably stop me from going ahead with the strike. It only lasted two days. Then all the issues were settled. It showed that management was just trying to pull a fast one. So I believe what I did was right.
It marked a trend -- that you have never been afraid of doing something your ministerial colleagues might disagree with?
No. If they don't like it, I can always come back here to my architecture firm.
Around this time you were discussing the succession to PM Lee?
Lee Kuan Yew had been discussing this since about 1983. At that time, the second echelon was Tony Tan, S. Dhanabalan, Goh Chok Tong and myself.
Were you a candidate for the top job?
I was considered as a member of the group. At that time, we did not know who would be the successor to Lee. We finally made the decision to pick Goh Chok Tong. He agreed on condition that I agreed to be his number two. So I was the second DPM; he was the first DPM. In 1988, Lee asked Goh to take over, but he was not ready. He said: two more years. So two years later, he took the job.
Lee did not agree with your decision to pick Goh.
No, he did not disagree. He said he would leave it to us. His own first choice was Tony Tan. Goh Chok Tong was his second choice. I was his third choice because he said my English was not good enough. He said Dhanabalan was not right because Singapore was not ready for an Indian prime minister. That upset the Indian community. There was quite a bit of adverse reaction to what he said. But he speaks his mind. He is the only one who can get away with it.
Personally, you felt Goh was the right man?
Well, among the four of us, he was the youngest. Tony Tan said no. I said no. And he sort of accepted being pushed into the position, on condition that we stay on to assist him.
Soon after taking over, Goh called a snap election in 1991 -- but the PAP's vote slipped and there was talk he would quit.
Well, we did discuss about that. But he didn't indicate that he wanted to step down.
At that time, you were no. 2 in the executive after PM Goh.
Yes. Well, no. 2, no. 3, doesn't matter.
So why run for president?
The elected presidency was Lee Kuan Yew's initiative. He came out with the idea way back in '82, '83. After parliament passed the measure in 1991, I considered it seriously. At that time, after 20 years in politics, I was thinking of a way to ease myself out, to exit the political arena. I wrote to the prime minister twice to say that I'm prepared to go.
continue below -
continuation
You saw the presidency as a way to do that?
Yes, the unionists egged me on. They came to see me a couple of times and they suggested that I take it on. I discussed it with the prime minister, being old friends, and he gave me his support.
The well-known oppositionist J.B. Jeyaretnam wanted to run against you?
Yes, but he was not allowed to because he did not qualify under the stringent criteria. Maybe too stringent.
You were glad Jeyaretnam could not run?
No, it's okay. I think it would have been more fun.
Some of your colleagues did not think it was much fun when your only opponent, a former accountant-general, Chua Kim Yeoh, got so much support?
Yes, all of them were quite worried. Some ministers even called me to say: Oh, we are worried about the outcome. At first, we were quite confident about getting over 70% of the vote. But there was a swing of support over to my opponent's side, especially in the educated class -- civil servants and the Shenton Way group. The issue was whether they wanted a PAP man as president to check on a PAP government, or whether it would be better to have a neutral independent like Chua. That's why they voted against me because I had the PAP government support. I would have been happier without the PAP's open support. I think I would have been better off with just the unionists' support and the Chinese-educated heartlanders. Without them I would not have been elected.
But you did win and you had to figure out how to do this new job as Singapore's first elected president.
Yes. At the first opening of parliament after I was elected, I was given a speech prepared by the government. I read the speech carefully. Besides ceremonial functions, it said that I'm supposed to safeguard the reserves and to help society become more compassionate and gracious. So I decided that, well, if that is what is said in the speech, then that's going to be my job. And I am going to do it. That's what I tried to do. In fact, during the six years I was president, I was very busy.
Doing what?
Well, I got involved in a lot of things. The Istana presidential palace and other places had to be renovated. All this had to be planned and these places got ready one by one, so that ceremonial functions and other business could go on as usual. I had to press the government to finalize the procedures for the protection of the reserves. A lot of the teething problems and misunderstandings were because there was a lack of clearcut procedures of what to do. Towards the end of my term, I pressed the prime minister for a White Paper to be tabled in parliament that would set out all the principles and procedures for the elected president. Then I will announce my decision to step down. I want to get the job done.
Initially, he did not want to do that?
It's not that he did not want to do that, but it had been dragging for a long time. They produced a White Paper eventually, tabled it in parliament last July, and that made the future president's job easier. We have already tested out many of the procedures during my term, except for asking the president to approve a draw on the past reserves during a deep economic crisis. That was never done. It's that part of procedure that was not tested. How to do it?
It was this issue that caused the dispute between you and the government?
Yes. But I don't want to go into details and upset everybody. The thing is that the elected president is supposed to protect the reserves, but he was not told what these are until five years later. From the day the Constitution was amended in 1991 to provide for an elected president, he was supposed to fulfil that role. My predecessor, Wee Kim Wee, although he was not elected, was supposed to play that role during the last two years of his term. But he did not actively check. So, when I came in in 1993, I asked for all this information about the reserves. It took them three years to give it to me.
The holdup was for administrative reasons?
Either that or they did not think there was any urgency. You see, if you ask me to protect the reserves, then you've got to tell me what I'm supposed to protect. So I had to ask.
Why did they not want to tell you?
I do not know. Don't ask me, because I don't have the answer. I've been asking them. In fact, in 1996, exactly halfway through my term, I wrote prime minister Goh a letter. At that time, everybody was expecting a general election in December or January. After the election, a new government would be sworn in. When that happens, all the reserves, whether past or current, become past reserves and are locked up on the changeover date. As president, I have to safeguard them and they can only be drawn upon with my permission. So I said to Mr Goh: It's already halfway through my term, but until today I still don't know all these figures about the reserves.
So the government had been stonewalling you, the president, for three years?
Yes. What happened actually was, as you know, in accounting, when you talk about reserves, it's either cash reserves or assets reserves. The cash side is straightforward: investment, how many million dollars here and there, how much comes from the investment boards and so on. That was straightforward -- but still we had to ask for it. For the assets, like properties and so on, normally you say it's worth $30 million or $100 million or whatever. But they said it would take 56-man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. So I discussed this with the accountant-general and the auditor-general and we came to a compromise. The government would not need to give me the dollar-and-cents value, just give me a listing of all the properties that the government owns.
They agreed?
Well, yes, they agreed, but they said there's not the time for it. It took them a few months to produce the list. But even when they gave me the list, it was not complete.
It seems the Singapore government does not know its own assets?
Yes. It's complicated. It's never been done before. And for the assets of land, I can understand why. Every piece of land, even a stretch of road, is probably subdivided into many lots. There are 50,000 to 60,000 lots and every one has a number. If you want to value them all, it would take a long time. In the past, they have just locked everything up and assumed it is all there. But if I am to protect it, at least I want to know the list.
When they eventually gave you the list -- the incomplete list, did you have enough staff to do the checking and other work?
No, I did not. I only had one administrative staffer and two part-timers from the auditor-general's office. For things like approving the budget of statutory boards, the auditor-general's office would normally go through that for me. They are very good. They check on everything. And they query and ask for information.
continue below -
continuation
For government financial policy matters that you had a veto over, did you get all the details?
They finally came with an executive summary to say that they had checked through all this, and that this is what they have, this is how much they are going to spend, and that it won't need any draw from the reserves -- or that there's likely to be a draw. There never was a draw during my time, but there were instances where it was a bit dicey whether the budgets of one or two statutory boards would require a draw. But finally we resolved that.
Eventually then, with the list of properties and the executive summaries, you were kept informed?
I wouldn't be able to say that. Even in my last year as president, I was still not being informed about some ministerial procedures. For example, in April last year, the government said it would allow the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank POSB to DBS Bank. In the past, when there was no elected president, they could just proceed with this kind of thing. But when there is an elected president you cannot, because the POSB is a statutory board whose reserves are to be protected by the president. You cannot just announce this without informing him. But I came to know of it from the newspaper. That is not quite right. Not only that, but they were even going to submit a bill to parliament for this sale and to dissolve the POSB without first informing me.
What did you do?
My office went to tell them that this was the wrong procedure. You've got to do this first, do that first, before you can do this. It was question of principle and procedure. We had to bring all this to their attention. That they cannot forget us. It's not that we are busybodies, but under the Constitution we have a role to play and a responsibility. Sometimes in the newspaper I came to know of things that I am responsible for, but if it had not been reported in the newspaper I would not know about it.
You must have been pretty angry that this was still happening in your last year as president?
Yes, I was a bit grumpy. And maybe not to the liking of the civil service. They did not like what I said. But I have to be a watchdog all the time, you see. So this is where they are supposed to help me to protect the reserves. And not for me to go and watch out when they do right or wrong.
Under the Constitution, you have the right to all the information available to the cabinet.
Yes. That's right. And I sourced much information from the cabinet papers. But they are not used to it. So I said: I understand, it's something new, and I know you don't like my interference and busybody checking up and so on. But under the Constitution it is my job to do that.
Despite all this, it was widely believed that you wanted to run again for a second six-year term as president?
No, I'd been telling my friends since late 1998 that my inclination was not to stand for re-election. But of course, life is unpredictable. In March last year, I went to Stanford and my American doctor confirmed that my cancer was in complete remission. He is very experienced, a world authority on my sickness. So I was fine after my treatment. I gave a complete report to the prime minister and we discussed it. I told him that my inclination was not to stand, but that I'd make the announcement later on. Then the cabinet met and they decided that if I were to stand again, they would not support me.
You had been given a clean bill of health, yet your former colleagues would not support you. Did that annoy you?
I told the prime minister over lunch: Well, I don't need your cabinet support. If I want to stand, whether I do or not, it will be my personal decision. And I'll make that decision nearer the date of the presidential election -- because I have another checkup in June, July, and I want to know my latest position. Also my wife was sick with cancer and we knew that if she died, it would be difficult for me to stand without a first lady. She felt very apologetic and that was another reason why my inclination was not to stand. I hoped that if I stepped down I would have more time to be with my wife, because her prognosis was not very good.
By waiting until July to announce your decision, were you ruffling the government for the way they had treated you?
Maybe so. Maybe it was my miscalculation that my stated inclination not to stand again had not been good enough for them. But I had been telling that to all my friends. And I did not want to tell people my wife was dying, either.
But the government worried that you might suddenly decide to run again.
No, I made it very clear and I called a press conference in July to tell everybody. But I believe some people were still afraid that I might turn up on nomination day. Even friends asked me if I might do that. How could they? I had given my word that I would not stand.
A straw poll apparently indicated you would beat the government's candidate, S.R. Nathan, if you had stood.
Yes. But I gave my word that I would not run. And I don't think it's right. I'm a very old-fashioned man. Also, my wife passed away in September. And I became more sceptical about all these medical reports. Well, not sceptical, but certainly I find life more unpredictable than I thought. Full of uncertainties.
In the end you were happy to stand down?
Yes, I'd been preparing for that psychologically since late 1998. I was quite happy when the decision was made, happy to return to private life to do the work that I enjoy.
How are your relations with PM Goh these days?
They are okay. I just had lunch with him last week. I can't invite him now, so he invited me. When I was president, we took turns to invite each other for lunch in the Istana.
Did Senior Minister Lee join you?
No, we did that separately.
Lee spoke out against you last year. How are your relations with him now?
We've never quarrelled.
It's said that your recalcitrance upset him and your former colleagues, leaving you estranged and bitter?
I would not call it recalcitrant. I mentioned some of the problems -- or many of the problems -- that I faced. If they regard that as an attack on the government and on the civil service, then that is for them to interpret. The prime minister and I spoke at my farewell reception. We agreed that we would say what we have to say. I think it came out well. He said that my statements, and his rebuttal in parliament, were probably a good thing. They showed the transparency of the system. I stand by what I said.
This review reveals as much shocking internal politics of this over paid government, on the same scale as that experienced by an outsider in the opening post of this thread with Tay Kheng Soon's experiences with the Government. -
This was the interview that catapulted the neutrals' view on the inner workings of the ruling party.
That a PAP-man came forward with this frank assessment was both humbling and insightful.
The late Mr Ong made one minor mistake - he mentioned that only MM Lee gets to speak his mind and get away with it. Mr Ong neglected to include the subtle fact that he has finally, spoken his mind concerning the discrepancies and difficulties that bugged his presidency.
In fact, based on his own resume, he has done many things that were transparent and principled, despite it going against ranking members of the ruling party. His sanctioned strike remains, to this day, the sole example of union workers combating what was perceived as management abuse. And he was correct in assuming that the ministry would have prevented him from carrying out his threat.
End of the day, he certainly proved a more than adequate president, and even those who voted Chua Kim Yeoh must be secretly pleased that Mr Ong proved himself a worthy elected president, and as a watchdog of the ruling government. -
I read the interview years ago, and it still feels shocking to me everytime I think about it. Perhaps this was one of the few things that completely changed my perspective on the Govt for good.
Never again is this Govt to be trusted, nor the civil service. If an Opposition party comes to power, it must purge the Civil Service top ranks for good and rebuild it anew. The Civil Service proved itself incapable of being trusted and is in fact a willing accomplice to the Govt's incompetence. -
These article has shown that some people up there have being running national reserve with convenience at the expenses of accountability and transparency. Not even the late president Ong Teng Cheong can stop that. Isn't it?Originally posted by Atobe:continuation
This review reveals as much shocking internal politics of this over paid government, on the same scale as that experienced by an outsider in the opening post of this thread with Tay Kheng Soon's experiences with the Government. -
Following the attempts by the late President Ong Teng Cheong to obtain the full information of the National Reserves that he is supposed to guard with the Second Key, LKY is on record saying that the late President was wrong in believing himself to have Executive Powers.
Was it not LKY's idea for the President and the Parliament to each hold a KEY to the National Reserves ?
The late President Ong was merely being practical to find out the size and shape of the National Reserves that he was supposed to guard.
Following his futile attempts, the Government had to make a grudging and incomplete report; while already putting in motion to curtail the powers of the President-Elect, so as to prevent another repeat performance from a maverick President.
The changes to the powers of the Elected President has resulted in this post again reverting back to a ceremonial role. While the publicity of this position in holding on to a ''Second Set of Keys'' is to be maintained, the changes had tantamount to the Elected President holding a useless ''duplicate key'' that is good for political showmanship, with the Government holding the ''Real Set of Keys'' to the National Reserves.
Singaporeans should note that while funds are removed from the National Reserves for investments managed by the GIC and Temasek Holdings; the profits from these investments are seldom returned to the National Reserves. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
If the profit is not going back to the national reserve, where will it go to? National reserve belongs to Singapore taxpayers' money, or it belong to private sector?
Singaporeans should note that while funds are removed from the National Reserves for investments managed by the GIC and Temasek Holdings; the [b]profits from these investments are seldom returned to the National Reserves.
[/b] -
Originally posted by Atobe:
If ex-President's directive to conduct asset valuations and presenting them to him is still not carried out due to technicality or manpower problems as presented to the citizens, then when will this be carried out.
Following the attempts by the late President Ong Teng Cheong to obtain the full information of the National Reserves that he is supposed to guard with the Second Key, LKY is on record saying that the late President was wrong in believing himself to have Executive Powers.
Was it not LKY's idea for the President and the Parliament to each hold a KEY to the National Reserves ?
The late President Ong was merely being practical to find out the size and shape of the National Reserves that he was supposed to guard.
Following his futile attempts, the Government had to make a grudging and incomplete report; while already putting in motion to curtail the powers of the President-Elect, so as to prevent another repeat performance from a maverick President.
The changes to the powers of the Elected President has resulted in this post again reverting back to a ceremonial role. While the publicity of this position in holding on to a ''Second Set of Keys'' is to be maintained, the changes had tantamount to the Elected President holding a useless ''duplicate key'' that is good for political showmanship, with the Government holding the ''Real Set of Keys'' to the National Reserves.
Singaporeans should note that while funds are removed from the National Reserves for investments managed by the GIC and Temasek Holdings; the [b]profits from these investments are seldom returned to the National Reserves.
[/b]
The Presidency has been changed to an elected presidency some years back for the purpose of safeguarding our national reserves.
This is especially urgent especially when the AG has just reported wrong doings and irregularities like pre-signing of cheques by overseas embassadors etc. These are taxpayers' monies whose interests need to be carefully protected by good corporate governance and diligence.
If ministers are our talents they must at least exercise this kind of basic abilities before being passed off as talents and being given all the million-dollar increments and lifelong pensions and many other benefits.
How is the elected Presidency to benefit citizens if ex-President Ong's directive still cannot be carried out by the current president.
Surely the current president must do his job in safeguarding national reserve and surely the executive and civil servants are not going to give some excuses and turn down his request (or his role) and treat the presidency as non-elected own figure head to be ordered around to do ceremonial duties. -
They picked the current president the same reasons they picked the new ministers.
Because they are capable of being obedient lapdogs. All conditioned by the system they were in; a system that includes the GLCs, the statutory boards and the civil service. -
Originally posted by (human):
Your question is a 'Million Dollar' question that no one in Parliament will want to ask.
If the profit is not going back to the national reserve, where will it go to? National reserve belongs to Singapore taxpayers' money, or it belong to private sector?
The profits generated from the overseas and local investments of funds taken from the Singapore Reserves should rightfully belong to Singaporeans.
It should not be returned to the Public Sector - (and definitely not Private Sector either, as you have mentioned).
The profits made amount to billions if one look at the Annual Results from the GIC and Temasek Holdings, and these should be used to supplement the funding of the Annual Budget instead of increasing the tax burden onto Singaporeans - even by an increase of 2% to the GST.
In the 2006 Parliamentary Debate on the proposed 2% increase to the GST - raising it from 5% to 7% GST, the PM cum Finance Minister LHL had very cleverly inserted an innocuous single line statement - which none of the MPs picked up after being numbed from listening a long Parliamentary speech from LHL.
This statement clearly shows the Government intention of by-passing current laws of the 2-KEY system to protect the Singapore Reserves, and giving the Government total freedom to manipulate the funds available from PROFITS generated from the use of National Reserves in overseas investments.
From Channel NewsAsia - 13 November 2006:
Another change will be the amending of the Constitution to allow the government to tap the capital gains received from investing the national reserves.
Is this not dishonesty in the Government's intention of actually protecting the National Reserves with the 2-KEY system ?
Clearly, this will add to further complications to accountability, when the funds are all mixed and become more convulted that the Accountant-General and Auditor-General Officers will have a hard time to unravel and trace the trails of all the funds taken from the National Reserves, and the trail of the funds from Profits generated and never returned to the National Reserves but remaining with GIC and Temasek.
The S$3 BILLION losses from the Shin Corp disaster will probably be submerged into the profits generated from other investments, which will probably conceal the sum totals of all other minor and medium size financial losses that go unreported. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
If this is truely the case, it will be of no different from old NKF. Dear singaporeans, brothers and sisters we are really having national crisis at the way the government is running our national reserve.
[/i][/color]
Is this not dishonesty in the Government's intention of actually protecting the National Reserves with the [b]2-KEY system ?
Clearly, this will add to further complications to accountability, when the funds are all mixed and become more convulted that the Accountant-General and Auditor-General Officers will have a hard time to unravel and trace the trails of all the funds taken from the National Reserves, and the trail of the funds from Profits generated and never returned to the National Reserves but remaining with GIC and Temasek.
The S$3 BILLION losses from the Shin Corp disaster will probably be submerged into the profits generated from other investments, which will probably conceal the sum totals of all other minor and medium size financial losses that go unreported.
[/b] -
Another Blast from the Past from an interview with a famous Singaporean - David S. Marshall, who was the First Chief Minister during the early days of experimentation of Singapore's Self-Rule.
The 1994 interview was made after David Marshall's retirement as the Singapore Ambassador to France, and is extracted from the blogspot : Think Happiness.
Meeting David Marshall In 1994
Many years ago, I made a promise to David Marshall, the first Chief Minister of Singapore and one of SingaporeÂ’s finest legal minds.
The promise was to publish in full an interview, which I had with him on 5 May 1994 at the offices of Singapore law firm, Drew & Napier. Today, about 12 years after the interview and as Singaporeans celebrate 41 years of independence, I am pleased to make public this interview in full and keep a promise made.
This interview was part of an assignment for my college newsletter, which I completed with two others. An edited version of this interview was published in my college newsletter that same year.
He died soon after in 1995. I felt privileged to have met David Marshall in his lifetime. It was a dream come true since, from the age of 12, I had always wanted to meet him.
He remains my inspiration in my law career. When I met him, I also returned having learnt the importance of doing something else – giving to the community.
I hope reading his words will inspire you similarly!
IN THE PAST, WHEN YOU WERE CHIEF MINISTER, YOUTHS PLAYED A POLITICALLY-ACTIVE ROLE. HOW HAS THE ROLE OF YOUTHS CHANGED AS COMPARED TO THE PAST?
The role of youths! Ha!
In my time, I tried to educate our people in an understanding of the dignity of human life and their right as fellow human beings, and youth was not only interested but excited about what I consider things that matter. Things of the spirit; the development of a human being to his true potential in accordance with his own personal genius in the context of equal rights of others.
Today, youth is interested in getting paper qualification and, as soon as possible, shoveling gold into their bank accounts. ItÂ’s a different world, even the law.
I am a consultant here [Drew & Napier]. When I left in ’78, there were three partners – it was supposed to be a big firm; two assistants – we were a big firm; 17 staff. This office has four floors. They think that it is a waste of time to use the lift so we have an internal staircase. We have more than 90 lawyers, more than 200 secretaries and I don’t know how many staff.
The law is no longer a vocation, it is a business. Everything is geared to business!
Of course, there is this pragmatic development of our country. Ah, our rising expectations of a pragmatic character! It is a fantastic and almost a miraculous development in my lifetime.
When I was Chief Minister, there were men dying of starvation and because of ‘beri-beri’. I took my PA [personal assistant] and an Inspector of Police for night at midnight. For two hours, we toured Singapore and we estimated there were two ten thousand men sleeping on the pavements. No homes.
Today - no unemployment, no homeless. I started this business of building homes for our people. Compare the puny work I achieved and the fantastic HDB homes that are available today for our people. I am deeply impressed and I take off my hat to this very able honest government. Dedicated!
But I am seen as a critic and I am a critic.
I am frankly terrified by this massive control of the mass media, the press, the radio, television, antennae, [and] public meetings. You canÂ’t write a letter to the Straits Times; if there is a shadow of criticism, itÂ’s not published. And the Chinese press follows suit. ItÂ’s a very dangerous position because experience proves that no one group of human beings has got all the wisdom in the world.
I meanÂ… well, two of you are Chinese and one Indian [Ed: actually, the interviewers were one Chinese, one Jew and one Indian]. I donÂ’t know much about Indian history but look at China. You had Confucian authoritarianism for more than 2500 years. What happened to China? She was a fossil. She had to reinvigorate herself with the Western ideology of communism. Another authoritarian ideology! And what was the result?
There must have been a million decent people who were transformed into vipers, vicious obscene vipers. IÂ’m afraid of this control of the mass media.
And are youths the miasma of apathetic subservience to authority? But you say to yourselves, “Well, you know, what do we seek in life? We seek a rice bowl, full!”
It is full and overflowing, in fact. They serve you your rice in a jade bowl with golden chopsticks; not that it makes much difference to the taste of the rice. But youÂ’re empty!
YouÂ’ve got technocratic skills and you are seeking more but internally you are empty. Money is your acid test of success.
IÂ’ve got nothing against money. IÂ’d like to have money myself! IÂ’d like to have a house and a garden and dogs and a car and a chauffeur but, look, IÂ’ve got a flat. IÂ’ve got a swimming pool attached to the flat. IÂ’ve not even got a car but I use taxis. I have a dignified way of life without being wealthy.
I donÂ’t see the necessity of owning a Mercedes-Benz and a swimming pool and a couple of mistresses. I think weÂ’ve got our values all wrong.
You know $96,000 a month for a Prime Minister and $60,000 a month for a minister. What the hell do you do with all that money? You canÂ’t eat it! What do you do with it? Your children donÂ’t need all that money.
My children have had the best of education. In fact, IÂ’m very proud of them. One of them is a senior registrar to two major hospitals in Oxford. Another of them is a consultant in European law to the Securities and Investment Board in the United Kingdom. TheyÂ’ve had their education. There are no complaints.
I never earned $60,000 a month or $90,000 a month. When I was Chief Minister, I earned $8,000 a month. Look, what is happening today is we are encouraged to and are becoming worshippers of the Golden Calf.
We have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the joy of the miracle of the living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost taste for heroic action in the service of our people.
We have become good bourgeois seeking comfort, security. ItÂ’s like seeking a crystal coffin and being fed by intravenous injections through pipes in the crystal coffin; crystal coffins stuck with certificates of your pragmatic abilities.
What has changed?
The self-confidence of our people has grown immensely, and that is good to see. Our pragmatic abilities have grown magnificently, and that is good to see. Very good to see!
You are very able. YouÂ’re ambitious, and the government has heroic plans for the future. It hasnÂ’t finished.
I take off my hat to the pragmatic ability of our government but there is no soul in our conduct. It is a difficult thing to speak of because it is difficult to put in a computer, and the youth of Singapore is accustomed to computer fault. There is no longer the intellectual ferment, the passionate argument for a better civilisation. The emphasis on the rice bowl!
Tell me IÂ’m wrong, come on.
continue below -
continuation
THE PAP GOVERNMENT HAS INDEED DONE A GREAT DEAL FOR SINGAPORE. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN INCREASING DEGREE OF DISCONTENT GROWING AMONGST OUR YOUTHS AGAINST THEM. WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS HAPPENING?
Our lives are empty. We donÂ’t understand the joy of living is not in the gold coins. It is not in the bank account. The joy of living is in human relations. We are not in appreciation of this miracle of life.
We are giving a lop-sided view, an unfairness to the government! We come out of a morass of imperial subjugation where people were dying of starvation and now?
You know, when I won a case once years ago, I was presented with a lovely porcelain Buddha with a big flowing belly and ears that reached to his shoulders and a chubby face.
I said to my client, “Look, you Chinese got a real feeling for aesthetics. How can you worship something so obscene?”
He said, “Mr Marshall, try and understand. China is a land of starvation where millions of people die for lack of food, and to be able to eat that much, to be that fat, that is heaven!”
Now, that is the attitude of our government: to be able to eat that much, that is heaven and you should be content.
So are youths not content? They are not anti. Our youths frankly, very honestly respect the pragmatic achievements of the government, and IÂ’m grateful, but they feel empty.
There isn’t this joy of living which youth expects and youth needs – to learn the joy of living. How do you teach it?
I think you teach it through respect for the individual. ThatÂ’s our tragedy. If you want to put it in a nutshell, our tragedy is that we emphasise the primacy of society as against respect for the individual. Mind you, both are right.
I mean both sides have the liberty. Of course, there should be respect for the needs of society over the right of the individual but you must respect the individual too in seeking the expression of the needs of society. Here, we have no respect for the individual.
Cane them! Hang them! There are more than a hundred queuing up to be hanged, you know that?
[Minister For Law] Jayakumar said, “I have plugged the loop-hole whereby they could escape being hanged and just have twenty years of imprisonment!”
Oh, wacko the ducks – you need a monument!
The joy of hanging people; flogging them, every stroke must break the skin. I donÂ’t like it. I donÂ’t believe it is a deterrent. I see no proof. Look, it seems to me logic! If every year we have more death sentences, how can you say death sentence is a deterrent? If it were, there should be less death sentences.
But you know IÂ’m in a minority and my father had one saying which IÂ’d like you to publish. It is a beauty. He was a true democratic heart although he didnÂ’t know it.
He used to say, “David, if ten men tell you your head is not on your shoulders, shake it and make sure. Don’t accept it. Just shake it and make sure!”
Well, IÂ’ve shaken my head again and again and again and I still think IÂ’m right. I know IÂ’m in the dog-house.
The government doesnÂ’t see I do respect them immensely. They donÂ’t see IÂ’m a genuine friend. They only see me as a critic and to be a critic is to be an enemy who must be erased and destroyed. There is no such thing as an honest critic to the PAP. ItÂ’s a blasphemy to criticise the emperor, spoilt son of heaven.
[Lee] Kuan Yew says you mustnÂ’t lampoon a Chinese gentleman. Oh, dear me! Ya, what happened? What happened to China?
In Europe, they institutionalised the court jester and the court jester had total immunity against any result from his public criticism of the kings and emperors and the courtyard. Open public criticism – that was his job! They tried to laugh it off but at least there was one person to prick the bubble of their overgrown egoism.
And which civilisation has progressed better for the development of humanity? The Western civilisation or the Chinese civilisation?
You talk of Asian values. I only know two Asian values and, I wish someone would really pinpoint them instead of pontificating ponderously in humbug and hypocrisy.
Family values - I think we have more family cohesion in Asia than in Europe; more family warmth and I like that. I accept that there is a greater tradition of family warmth and family cohesion.
Two, we have a greater passion for education. My secretary – I asked her once what her background is. She said her mother is a washer-woman and, here is this lovely secretary doing a damn good job. She was educated. How her mother could save enough to give her the education?
So these are the only two values I know. Somebody tell me what other values that are Asian, which everybody talks and nobody mentions the exact parameters.
And you know we use this concept of family cohesion to place on our youths the burden of caring for aging and ailing parents and grand-parents.
The young have got their own lives to make. To carry in your own homes aging irritable ailing parents and grandparents can destroy the family life of the young.
But then, the alternative is for the government to pour so much mountains of gold into building homes for the aged. That’s sacrilege – gold is to be gathered and not to be spent.
I want to see more crèches, more homes for the aged.
Our Prime Minister [Goh Chok Tong] talks about gracious living. Where is the gracious living?
So I am a bad boy, IÂ’m ostracised. The Straits Times makes slimy remarks about me.
The [press are] running dogs of the PAP.
continue below -
continuation
WHAT WOULD YOU TELL YOUTHS WHO INTEND TO PURSUE A CAREER IN LAW?
Try and understand that the law is a vocation and not a business. Respect your client irrespective of the fees. I used to charge $1 for a murder case if he was Malay because he had no money. I used to charge $1 to trade unions; all Malay unions, I charged $1 a year. And the $1 is simply because, if you do it for nothing, you are not liable in negligence whereas $1 makes a contract and, if you are negligent, they can sue you.
IÂ’d like them to also understand that justice is a meld of law and humanity. Law and humanity; decency in concepts; if we administer law by the soulless logic of the computer, we arenÂ’t on our road to progress.
You’re too young but ask your parents – the Japanese times, their draconian approach to anti-social activities. Ask your parents how they welcomed the returning British soldiers in 1945.
I was stunned when I heard about it; that we a colonial people, a subject people, should welcome rapturously the armed forces of Imperial power. How was that possible?
I learnt that they had a sense of relief to be back in the ambience of British justice; out of darkness, out of the draconian attitudes of the occupying power.
If you want to make money as a lawyer, you can. I see marble palaces. My juniors, ha! Marble palaces, swimming pools, Mercedes-Benz! Oh, bravo!
They work till nine oÂ’clock at night. I donÂ’t know how their children survive. They work very hard, they make a lot of money. Yes, itÂ’s true.
If you are going for corporate law, insurance law and the non-litigant aspects of law, you can make a lot of money.
If you’re a particularly good litigant – our litigation lawyers in civil cases – we’ve got some outstanding local lawyers. Yes, you can make a lot of money.
DonÂ’t go in for crime. The Criminal Bar is a very frustrating Bar today.
YOU HAVE FOUGHT MANY CASES. YOU HAVE SOME BRILLIANT CASES THAT YOU MANAGED TO SWEEP THE JURY OF THEIR FEET IN WORDS?
And I’m according to Lee Kuan Yew in Parliament when he sought the abolition of the jury, “David Marshall is responsible for 200 murderers walking freely the streets of Singapore.”
IÂ’m proud of that. I told him to put it on my tomb. If there are 200 people walking freely the streets of Singapore, it means they are contributing to Singapore. Singapore would have been poorer by hanging them. I have no compulsion.
Look, the purpose of criminal law is really two-fold: as a deterrent and as a catharsis of society to express its vengeance. If you escape it, youÂ’re no harm to society so long as you maintain a good police force and so long as you maintain a certain human justice in understanding.
For me, the punishment must not fit the crime, the punishment must fit the criminal and the punishment must fit the needs of society.
Recently, I accepted a brief – a Sikh sentenced to death. He was 21 when he was arrested. His appeal came on five years later. It was dismissed.
But during those five years, he studied religious knowledge. He got distinction in the New Testament and he became a Christian.
HeÂ’s now 26 or 27. HeÂ’s going to be hanged. I like that man. I think he can be a real asset. He is a delightful chap.
I asked his family, his elder brother. I said, “You Sikhs are really close in the family. How did your family take his becoming a Christian?”
He said, “What could we do? The poor man is going to be hanged. How can we be angry?”
There are more than a hundred people queuing to be hanged. There are decent people there.
Look, there’s a lovely phrase – I forgot who coined it – who said, “There but for the grace of God go I, I know no man who stood totally spotless that he can say I committed no anti-social act.”
And so in our criminal code, if some escaped, thatÂ’s an asset.
I’m reminded of a lovely story of Sir Walter Raleigh. On the scaffold, he went up and tested the axe with his thumb and turning to the master executioner, he said, “This is the surest cure for all diseases. If you want to eliminate all crime, you got to eliminate all humanity.”
I have absolutely no bad conscience about the men I have helped escape the gallows and escape the prison. IÂ’m grateful for the opportunity to have done that.
I say this, perhaps in conclusion, we have a judiciary of tremendous integrity. IÂ’ve been practising since 1948, except for three and a half years, there isnÂ’t a single case of financial corruption, neither in the High Court nor the magistratesÂ’ courts. ItÂ’s wonderful to practice in the ambience of total integrity.
continue below -
continuation
HAVE YOU EVER REGRETTED BECOMING A LAWYER?
No! I think it was a guardian angel that brought me there.
I suppose you know, you must have read that I wanted to be a psychiatrist. First, when I was young, I wanted to be a doctor. I thought medicine was the greatest profession in the world – helping heal and comfort the sick and the helpless. And as I grew into adolescence, I wanted to be a psychiatrist. Not to practice but to do research: why the goodwill of the young?
All youths no matter what race, no matter what country, goodwill flows from their hearts. They want to help the world, but by the time you reach 30, your goodwill like good wine turns to vinegar – the vinegar of crabbed egoism.
I wanted to study the wise and whether these could be some antidote for this unhappy transformation of the goodwill of youths to the crabbed egoism but I didnÂ’t have the money. Fortunately!
I donÂ’t know if I could have achieved anything that vast. I donÂ’t know whether I have the intellectual ability to do first-class research into the mind and emotions of man.
I fell, by accident, into the right career at the right time and it has been wonderful.
Regret? IÂ’m full of gratitude for having become a lawyer and, especially, a criminal lawyer; for having helped thousands of people terrified, helpless before the silly forces of society. TheyÂ’ve looked into me as their protector. I have no regrets at all for having helped them; humanity, if you can understand this.
If you ever become a criminal lawyer, never look down upon your client. He may be a murderer or he may be a thief; he is a fellow human being. You must try and respect your client no matter what he has done. It is very important in your own self-respect in your work, and to help who is helpless in seeking help.
Look, at the age of 86, I can say in all earnestness, the thing that matters most in bringing human satisfaction is human relations. To be able to care for your fellow human beings, to be able to give! Never mind about receiving.
Even today, my friends say, “Oh, David, stop it! Why do you have to keep making public noises that annoy the government? Live in dignity and retirement. They’ll respect you and you’ll have the honours.”
Ha, honours! I want to fight till IÂ’m dead!
What matters most in life is the right of human beings to live fully in the context of their own genius. In one word, perhaps, to fight for human justice. I once said humanityÂ’s cry for human justice reverberates down the corridors of the centuries, and it is still crying for human justice.
AN UNFORGETTABLE MOMENT IN ST. ANDREWÂ’S SCHOOL?
I was coming. That was the old building and I was coming along the corridor carrying a set of books. It must have been morning and, outside my classroom, there was a Chinese boy much slimmer than you [Dharmendra] with his back to the wall – absolutely pale, full of fear.
And in front of him was my friend, an American boy – same student, same class – and dancing an Indian jig saying, “Chink! Chink! Chinaman!”
Without the slightest warning, I dropped my books and lunged at him [the American boy].
DO YOU HAVE ANY MESSAGE IN GENERAL?
Recognise there is a lot of satisfaction in public service, foreign service, judicial service. A great deal of satisfaction in public service, even honorary public service in committees.
[If] you are totally engrossed in self-promotion, at the end of the day, youÂ’ll find itÂ’s dead seafood.
Try and give up yourselves to others.
I am so alien to this worship of the Golden Calf and the draconian attitude; the brutal attitude towards our fellow citizens. Here I ask people and, no doubt, if I ask you, “We’re all in favour so long as it’s not me having my bottoms cut! Yes, whip ‘em!”
Try to put yourself in the other manÂ’s shoes.
And, of course, what have I got to say?
You, the young – you’ve got a fantastic, absolutely fantastic potential before you; economic expansion, heroic plans that the government has for the future not only the present. You are so lucky! No unemployment! Great potential even beyond your capacity to fulfill.
ItÂ’s an exciting country, Singapore. ItÂ’s a lovely country. And you have to make your own space for your own spiritual and intellectual needs and have the courage. Have the courage to serve your fellow men with integrity.
IÂ’ll put it in one nutshell: have the courage to live, donÂ’t be afraid!
You know, IÂ’m told IÂ’m fool-hardy and always criticising, although I have such a gracious life. But fool-hardy or no, this is me; I am prepared to take what you give.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
This 1994 interview was made with a David Marshall who was already in his early 80s, and he passed away in 1995.
Since the interview, Singapore went through a 1997 recession, September 11 incident in 2001, made worse by SARS in 2004, a downturn in 2005, and have seen GST implemented and raised from 3% to the present 7%.
The future remains as challengingly bleak as when Singapore began a history of Self-Rule and Independence through merger with Malaysia, and thrown out of Malaysia with bleak and hopeless economic prospects.
The 25 year old Singaporeans of the 1950s were politically fired up against all the gross unfairness in the manner that Singapore was treated while in Malaysia, and in the manner that we were evicted from a Merger Agreement.
Can the 25 year old Singaporeans of today match the spirit of those in the 1950s - like LKY and his Team, David Marshall, and Tay Kheng Soon ? -
From the voice of one who was deep in the corridors of power, and fell to the wayside, can we now fully understand the labyrinths that has been created for the Alternative Parties to get a toe hold into Parliament ?
This piece is extracted from a 1999 interview with the late Devan Nair, and one can see the clear dishonesty of the GRC system that was sold to Singaporeans as a guarantee for the interest of minorities ethnic groups to be represented politically.
Devan Nair on JBJ
A SERIOUS threat of closure faces the Workers' Party led by Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam because of failure to pay the forbidding damages awarded against the Party by a court in Singapore. One hopes against hope that this might be avoided at the last minute. It is a slim hope. The world has come to assume, rightly or wrongly, that the political tactics used by the governing PAP against opposition politicians have for some time come to include suing their pants off, forcing them into bankruptcy and losing their seats in parliament as a result. Now the same device is resorted to against opposition political parties themselves, as registered institutions. The onus of proof is on the government of Singapore - not on global public opinion.
Nothing that smacks of opposition seems safe in Singapore any longer.
Singaporeans must sooner or later come to realise the harsh truth that nobody in Singapore is truly saved unless ALL are SEEN to be saved. The post of no return has long passed for Singaporeans, and one fears they will perforce learn this lesson the hard way. In the ultimate analysis, this is probably best. The more painful the price paid to learn basic human lessons, the more firmly might they become embedded in the national fibre.
A free Singapore will arise and justify the sacrifices and efforts of undaunted Singaporeans, now including the courageous Chee Soon Juan, who had immolated themselves on the altar of freedom. Phoenix-like, their dreams will rise once again from their ashes. Were this process not true, the world would have come to an end long ago.
It is just as well that I release this requiem now. If not timely yet, it will be soon enough. Here goes, for good or ill to myself:
Some months after I was kicked upstairs to the presidency of the republic of Singapore in October 1981, there was a by-election in the parliamentary constituency of Anson, which I had held prior to my ill-fated elevation. I had won that seat with a comfortable majority of some 80 percent of the votes cast. The PAP's candidate in the by-election was a relative unknown, while the Workers Party put up J.B Jeyaretnam. To the consternation of the PAP, Jeyaretnam won.
The day after the by-election verdict was declared, I had lunch with the Prime Minister. I was amazed at how he fretted and fumed like a caged fury. As I saw it, Jeyaretnam constituted no threat at all to the PAP whether in parliament or outside it. For one thing, despite Jeyas courage, he displayed a woeful lack of economics. He clearly never knew at any point of time how Singapore clicked economically. And it was as plain as a pikestaff to me that in five years of free performance in 'parliament against the likes of Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Lim Kim San et al, he would stand exposed in public for his abysmal ignorance of economics.
In truth, if I had to cope with J.B Jeyaretnam as a hostile delegate at regular National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) Delegates Conferences, I would have given him all the rope and more he wanted to hang himself with. And after free and open arguments over three days of conferencing, I would have beaten him hands down at the ballot box. I knew this, as did the workers. For they knew that in the colonial days, Jeyaretnam had never stood on a picket line. I had, not once but several times, not only stood on picket lines, but also bedded down for the night on the gravel with the workers whom I led.
I told all this to Kuan Yew. Nothing I said sank in. He fretted about a potential critical percentage drop in PAP votes across all the constituencies that could eventually bring the PAP government down, and he wouldn't stand for it. Only later did I realise that this was the moment that started his formidable brain box ticking away furiously at the fecund gerrymandering schemes he was to introduce later to ensure that all opposition parties would be put in a Gordion bind that would make it impossible for them to ever achieve control of parliament, unless an Alexander came along. Such a possibility appears impossible now, unless it takes the awesome shape of shattering geo-political circumstances already building up around Singapore.
Immediately, however, Kuan Yew's attention was concentrated on how he would deal with J.B Jeyaretnam in parliament. I was quite alarmed at some of the things he told me at that lunch. "Look," he said, "Jeyaretnam cant win the infighting. I'll tell you why. WE are in charge. Every government ministry and department is under our control. And in the infighting, he will go down for the count every time." And I will never forget his last words. "I will make him crawl on his bended knees, and beg for mercy."
Jeyaretnam was made of sterner stuff. To his eternal credit he never did crawl on bended knees, or ever begged for mercy. And it is to Lee Kuan Yew's eternal shame that Jeyaretnam will leave the political scene with his head held high, enjoying a martyrdom conferred on him by Lee. Lest I be misunderstood, let me state that Jeya more than deserves the crown of the martyr for his indomitable courage and dignity in the face of the vilest persecution.
Even greater human spirits than Jeyaretnam had refused to bend their knees to Lee Kuan Yew. It is my considered view that the greatest human being living in Singapore today is one who declined to surrender to the intimidation of prolonged incarceration and restrictions imposed on him without trial for a total period which exceeds that suffered by Nelson Mandela. And here was the mark of true greatness. He emerged from the experience like a god unembittered. His name is Chia Thye Poh. And it is Lee Kuan Yew who emerged from the episode as the knave and fool of his own mindless vindictiveness, while the real conqueror smiles benignly - unnoted, of course, by the local media. For only sound waves from the Istana Annexe are picked up and regurgitated by His Master¹s Voice.
There is no political justification for obliging the Workers' Party to close down. And not a shred of moral justification. What lies behind the move is among the most brazen vindictiveness ever shown in the political life of Singapore. It merely adds one more nail in the coffin of the PAP's reputation when the true history of the party will be exposed to the world, as it surely will be one day in the coming decades of the third millennium. As mankind accelerates to the abyss, the shining memories of the past will certainly not include Lee Kuan Yew and the department store dummies he boasts today as his acolytes. He clearly does not possess the foresight to avoid such a fate.
I gladly salute J.B. Jeyaretnam and the Worker's Party at this highly deserved requiem, even if I never once had shared their platform.
C. V. Devan Nair.
Former President
Republic of Singapore.
March 26, 1999
The vindictive immaturity of our Political Leaders towards their challengers seems to be truly churlish, considering that they are supposed to be the best amongst the best Singaporeans.
In countries with a more mature political environment, such display of venomous vindictiveness has never been displayed towards a fellow countrymen, who happened to take the opposite side from one's position.
Is this kind of churlish mindset becoming from one who claims to be a Member of the First World ? -
What first worldness are we talking about here? I don't see any difference between this regime and other totalitarian regimes as far as the political landscape is concerned.
Just look around these shores and it isn't hard to see the state mechanisms in place that effectively serve as the very tools upon which this regime survives. It isn't just political apathy from the masses that helps sustain this regime; it's a genuine lack of a brand of political acumen befitting the free world that keeps the fascist machinery going. Afterall, I don't see much difference between the subjects of this regime and those of DPRK - they're pretty much the same replica in the mould of a pre-determined, socially conditioned by-product. Or as George Orwell famously illustrated in Animal Farm, are the pigs in the farm aware of the dust behind Napoleon's illustrious stature? -
Sadly, all hogs live in the same mud, and revel in the same method of slinging mud at all critics who dare expose their filth into the open.
In George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' - the pups were removed from their parents, and bred separately to be loyal only to the pigs, and when grown will help to keep discipline within the 'Animal Farm'.
When these dogs have nothing else to do, they are trained to lie on the carpet and beg for rewards dispensed at the leisure of the Pigs.
No wonder we have the term - 'Carpet Beggars'. -
This piece fits nicely into ''A Blast from the Past - An Assessment for the Future'' - and should help remind us as what our future should take if we intend to make a better Future for ourselves from the Present one on this Little Red Dot.
:
Think Again, Mr Lee
The Straits Times, May 20, 1959
Leslie Hoffman, then editor-in-chief of the Straits Times, wrote this editorial on freedom and free speech, in response to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's speech during one of the election rallies before the 1959 election.
I have been a newspaperman all my working life and I have spent those 24 years on two Malayan newspapers -- the Malaya Tribune and the Straits Times.
I was born in Singapore and educated here and what knowledge of newspaper work I have, I acquired in Singapore.
It is with this background that I say that not since the Japanese conquered this island in Feb 1942, has the press of Singapore faced such a grave threat as it does today.
On Wednesday, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, secretary-general of the People's Action Party, said at a lunchtime rally at Cifford Pier:
"Any newspaper that tries to sour up or strain relations between the Federation and Singapore after May 30 will go in for subversion.
"Any editor, leader writer, sub-editor or reporter that goes along this line will be taken in under Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.
"We shall put him in and keep him in."
I have no doubt that Mr Lee means what he says.
So did the Japanese when they said no one must listen to short-wave broadcasts from outside Shonan -- as Singapore was then called -- or read any newspaper except the Shonan Shimbun, the only English-language newspaper published in Japanese-occupied Singapore.
But that did not prevent the people of Singapore from risking their lives to listen to the BBC or New Delhi, or from passing around cyclostyled transcripts of these broadcasts.
Recall those days
Mr Lee Kuan Yew should recall those days. He was here, as were other members of PAP central executive. So was I and numerous other newspapermen who refused to work for the Japanese.
The threat of death or imprisonment does not scare away anyone who believes in freedom -- the freedom of the individual to think, to read or to write as he pleases, within the confines of the laws of the state.
And there are laws in Singapore which ensure that sedition can be punished by the courts and that those found guilty of the offence can be sent to jail.
BUT MR LEE PREFERS TO USE THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF THE SEDITION ORDINANCE.
A strange choice for a man who once opposed this same Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in these words:
"What he (the Chief Minister) is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty and the most fundamental of them all -- freedom from arrest and punishment without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it.
And again: "If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law -- if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states -- then what is it ?"
What Indeed ?
Mr Lee cannot have his cake and eat it. He must choose between democracy and totalitarianism. And so must his supporters.
His supporters, like Mr S Rajaratnam, a former president of the Singapore Union of Journalists and a former member of the staff of The Straits Times.
Mr Rajaratnam, writing in October 1955, in the Singapore Journalist, organ of the SUJ, on "The Press and Mr Speaker" had this to say:
"The press is fair game for touchy politicians. In recent months the local press has been accused of wilful distortions of weighty and lengthy pronouncements by gentlemen who are struck by the facts that they do not read as well in print as they sound.
"Believing as we do in free speech, we think that politicians are perfectly entitled to air their views on whether a newspaper or a journalist has done justice to their speeches. "But it is a different matter when differences of opinion as to sub-editing could result in a newspaper or a journalist being denied facilities which are normally obtained in a free country...
City of Merdeka
"It is to be hoped that when they (the Assemblymen) cry 'merdeka' (with or without a clenched fist), they mean also 'merdeka' for the press and pressmen who have no objection to having their ears boxed.
"All they ask is that they be allowed to carry on their pleasant and unpleasant duties of reporting and commenting with the greatest possible freedom.
"There will not be that feeling of freedom if a newspaperman feels that he can be kept out of the Assembly by the Speaker, whose decision cannot be questioned."
AND MR RAJARATNAM SHOULD AGREE THAT NEWSPAPERMEN WILL NOT HAVE "THAT FEELING OF FREEDOM" IF THEY ARE DETAINED IN PRISON BY A GOVERNMENT WHOSE DECISION CANNOT BE QUESTIONED.
However that may be, Mr Lee and Mr Rajaratnam should know their newspapermen better.
Threats will not prevent a good newspaperman from publishing a story which he considers should be published, or from commenting on an issue which is vital to the common good.
The Straits Times will continue to publish the news and honest opinion, whatever the consequences -- even if the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is invoked against individual newspapermen.
Mr Lee and his comrades should think again -
With the opening of the archives of the Colonial Records Office in London throwing new light into past events, it is shocking to learn that the efficient British Internal Security Branch found no evidence that Lim Chin Siong was ever a Communist.
Lim Chin Siong was once introduced by LKY to David Marshall as the Future Prime Minister, and whom LKY later had also summarily accused to be a Communist and had him arrested in the ''politics of the day'' that led to Singapore entry into Malaysia. How could this turn about happen ?
With the new release of long held Secret Documents claiming that there were no evidence that Lim Chin Siong was a Communist, how should we view the accusations of LKY towards his political opponents with his summary judgment ?
Is there any truth in the accusations towards all those Singaporeans, who have been incarcerated for the better part of their youth - simply based on the summary accusations by LKY and with the backing of his political colleagues ?
Was there some truth in Chia Thye Poh's stubborn assertion of his innocence despite being incarcerated for 32 years, and constantly being tempted with release into Freedom - on condition that he make a signed confession to the charges which he had been accused of by LKY ?
What about Said Zahari persistent denial to the same political charges ?:
An extract from the ThinkCentre : ''Comet in Our Sky : Lim Chin Siong in History''
In a startling and revisionist essay, Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffiths University observes that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London had admitted that the police could find no evidence to establish that Lim was a communist.
Poulgrain claims it was actually Singapore's then Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, who had deliberately "provoked" the bus and other industrial workers and Chinese middle students to riot in 1956 in order to have Lim Chin Siong arrested.
Lim Yew Hock's own admission to responsibility for the riot appears in an official report to the British Government which Poulgrain found in the Colonial Office records in London which are now open to researchers.
"Lee Kuan Yew was secretly a party with Lim Yew Hock," adds Poulgrain, "in urging the Colonial Secretary to impose the subversives ban in making it illegal for former political detainees to stand for election."
In 1959, while Lim was in prison, the PAP won the general elections under which Lee became Prime Minister, and Singapore was granted self-government by the British in all matters except for internal security, defence and external affairs.
Although Lim and other leftist political detainees were released from prison, their co-operation and alliance with Lee ended in 1961 due to disagreements over policies and strategies.
Until then the media presented the PAP as a leftwing party, indicating the pervasive and dominant influence of Lim's faction within and outside the party. Their rivalry was intense and ideological. Lee finally resorted to arrests to remove Lim and his faction.
When Lim and other political detainees such as Fong Swee Suan and S. Woodhull were released, they were appointed Political Secretaries. But the honeymoon was soon over.
The PAP split in 1961 saw Lim taking away with him almost the entire PAP branches and personnel to form and lead a new party, the Barisan Socialis (Socialist Front).
With the Archives of Public Records Office being opened in London - after the statutory period of secrecy has expired - the ''Truth of the Past'' can now be fully known.
Since the release of new declassified information from the Public Records Office in London, Malaysians had the benefit of understanding the facts that led to their May 13 racial riots in 1969. The Malaysian are able to satisfy themselves that there were no racial tensions that sparked the riots, but that the purposeful accentuation of racial faultlines to cause a riot with racial overtones that will allow a small group of aggressive Malay Capitalist Politicians to usurp powers from the Conservative Malay Royalists under Tunku Abdul Rahman - (who had preferred a unified multi-racial approach in economic and political progress).
What will the Public Records Office in London reveal for those who have been accused of being communists by the Ruling Party - locked up unjustly, allowed to languish in prison for the better part of their youth ? -
Politic can be dirty, but some one out there has been playing it to the peak of it's dirtiness.
-
The Victors always write history.
That said, it's pretty obvious that LKY is a very vindictive person and he would grind the axe if really needed.