Tuesday, October 31, 2006 

PAP-Bashing with Reasoning II

I guess most of the entries on why you've dislike the PAP are already in. Thus, I'll take the next week or so to distil the comments into few key arguments and take it on from there. Many thanks for your "bashing with reasoning". Perhaps, after this "PAP-Bashing with Reasoning", we could start something of ex-President and lesser appreciated Founding Father of Singapore, Devan Nair. His speeches are often inspirational and maybe it would be good to start by publishing some of his speeches before commencing an article on him. Stay tuned!

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 | |

Monday, October 16, 2006 

PAP-Bashing with Reasoning

As many of us do have our fair share of reasons for criticising the PAP, at many times these may not be as fair as we assume ourselves to be. As such, I was wondering to do it differently by having anyone who is willing to share your (well-thought) reasons for criticising the PAP, and either I'll reply to it, or I might even invite an undisclosed public official to reply to it.

If this suggestion appeals to you, may your PAP-bashing start now on this posting. But may I just add that the reasoning should be specific and not too generic that it takes a 10,000 words thesis to reply to you.

Negative example: (I hate PAP because I think they are non-democratic!)

Positive example: (I dislike the PAP for their inability to solve haze problem attributable to their weak foreign diplomacy approaches.)

Please be event or policy-specific (as the title suggest it) to demonstrate that you do have legitimate reasons for our criticism. Rest assured this will not be a Mao Tze Tung-like "Hundred Flowers Campaign". If you have fully comprehended the rules of the game, then "may the hundred flowers bloom and the hundred thoughts flourish"!

Monday, October 16, 2006 | |

Monday, September 25, 2006 

IMF/World Bank – A Pseudo-Government’s Perspective

The 61st IMF/World Bank meeting has just concluded couple of days ago, in our little island. While there are much breakthrough on the IMF/World Bank policies and voting rights, I guess most Singaporeans can’t be bothered by it. Perhaps the issues that interest most is the CSO – Civil Society Organization matters and what is the government’s take on these CSOs’ protests. This is just a pseudo-government’s perspective on what was possibly the sentiment on the government. Of course, don’t take this as gospel as I am only trying to second-guess the government!

Background
Just a little background for the “uninitiated”. The IMF/World Bank meeting held in Singapore from the 11 – 20 September 2006, was the largest turnout for an overseas-held meeting. A total 23,000 delegates and 300 finance Ministers from all over the world came to this much-maligned (or deservingly named, depending on which angle you see) authoritarian state called Singapore. Policy-wise, there have been major breakthroughs with the voting reforms in the IMF and policy against corrupted third-world countries. But away from the meetings, the issue that dominated some foreign press was the Singapore’s treatment to the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

For the second time in the meetings' history (the first was Dubai 2003), outdoor demonstrations are outlawed due to Singapore laws banning outdoor protests and marches. Numerous appeals to the authorities to approve such protest were rejected as the government cited security reasons including potential terrorist threat. The authorities are also denying entries of accredited civil society representatives whom the police regards as "troublemakers", despite the IMF/World Bank appeals to the government to allow them to attend the meetings. Registered civil service organisations (CSO) may hold indoor demonstrations on the ground floor of Suntec Singapore outside Starbucks Coffee, within a 14 by 8 metre space boundary, but CSOs are disappointed with the arrangement. The CSO protests were supposed to start on 11 September, but the police has pushed the date to 13 September.

On 11 September, when civic activists began arriving in Singapore, 27 activists were denied entry and had to leave the country. The police explained that these people were involved in violent demonstrations, including breaking into the World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C.. These individuals claimed that they had permission from the IMF and World Bank, but the police had stated that it is the local government's decision whether or not to allow them to enter the city state. Later, the World Bank and IMF accused the Singapore government of failing to allow the protestors into the country, with Paul Wolfowitz calling it a “going-back on an explicit agreement”, saying that Singapore had signed an open-access agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding in 2003. The World Bank added that it is a “breach” of their agreement and they worked with them and also valued their role even when they disagree on their views. They were cleared by their home governments beforehand and the World Bank believed that all of them should not be excluded from the annual meetings. The organising committee told the press, they were looking into the matter at that point of time. Later condemning the restrictions as "authoritarian". At that time, the Singapore police tried to contact the individuals via the World Bank or the embassies in Singapore, to prevent them from making a wasted trip to the country.

On 15 September 2006, the Singapore government announced that they will allow 22 out of the 27 banned activists into the country after reviewing the list of activists whose entry was subject to an interview if they entered the city-state. The organising committee said it reviewed the input provided by the IMF and the World Bank earlier that morning. On an another occasion, two Filipino activists were deported back to their country on 13 September as they were not accredited by the IMF/World Bank, and could post a security and public order threat. It was after interviews and full consideration of the circumstances. 14 September, an Indian national was denied entry into the country, and has been deported by the police.

If there were ever going to be protest in Singapore, how could ever do without Dr Chee Soon Juan and gang. The self-styled “martyr for his own voice” did his protest at Hong Lim Park with more foreign press than supportors. Many apologies, but I just can’t resist any opportunities to deliver punts at him. Just a note, have you ever visited Dr Chee’s blog? The strongest advocate for freedom doesn’t even allow comments on his blogs! So much for freedom of expression. Sorry, I really have to stop this bad habit of poking fun at him, but in my defensive, I am exercising my health need for freedom of speech! =P

The Pseudo-Govt’s Perspective
So the question, really, is the Singapore government even bothered about the protest about the protest? And what is the government’s opinion in this whole saga? Well, for the true answer, you might have to ask PM Lee or members of the Cabinet. But, pseudo-government’s guess is this.

For once, the government managed to turn the public opinion in favour of them with the help of media. Why do I say that? Firstly, this is the first time in recent history that protest was an non-event in IMF/World Bank. Hardly any solid (or liquid, for that matter) object was thrown at delegates. Naturely and diplomatically, the delegates have to say that the CSOs have the right to protest and their opinions are much appreciated. Deep down, they are extremely happy that there wasn’t any trouble and flying objects thrown at them. Put your shoes into a highly-paid CEO of an international bank being invited to attend an overseas that often resulted in a traumatic experience of fearing from your own safety and protests outside your meeting area. You fear walking in the streets being haressed or scorned and for much the 10 days. Effectively, you are stuck between the hotel and the meeting area. This is the feeling of my CEO on the past IMF/World Bank meetings, and probably the same feeling for most of the delegates.

Despite whatever have been said about the barring of protest by the CSOs, the strong turnout by the delegates was testimont to the their satisfaction. This will do Singapore lots of good and enhance our reputation as a place to hold conventions and meetings. The criticism from foreign presses and journalists are irrelevant and of little concern. The common mentality of these foreign presses and journalists are that they felt it is their moral obigation to push and expand the boundaries of freedom of speech and write on news that is of interest. While they might be opinion shapers in their own sphere, it is the opinions of the delegates, those with clout to shape economic balance of the world, that matters most during these 10 days. Singapore has demonstrated their ability to curb a traditional protest and guarenteed unprecedented security to these delegates, yet rank highly in conducive investment environment. This must have a lasting impact on these delegates and bankers. To add to the sobering effect, the Thailand military coup happened just 1 day before the end of the meetings. If you are an investor thinking of where to park your millions, Singapore just became the best alternative in Southeast Asia with Thailand shoot themselves in the foot.

For Wolfowitz to “cry wolf” and calling foul on Singapore, isn’t a problem as well. I am sure, with top legal brains like DPM Jayakumar in the Cabinet, we wouldn’t be liability for any contractual breach. Even if we do, the Singapore government would have choice their words carefully to circumvent the clauses. To the public, the blame game by Wolfowitz was made too blantly even for the CSOs to buy into that argument. This has worked in our favour.

So, the foreign opinions that needed to be secured were secured. This leads me to my second point. Locally, the papers have published letters by Singaporeans speaking in support of the government against the remarks by Wolfowitz. For the government not to reply too deeply and reactively (aka Bavani-style), they actually gained more goodwill for themselves. Seemingly, the government has used this incident to good effect to gain support from the local Singaporeans. While Dr Chee tried to use this event to rally support, it didn’t work well. He landed up bunching himself with the Wolfowitz-Singapore-government-bashing gang, that happens to be “target of the month” of Singaporeans.

In summary, it is really a win-win for the Singapore government. They have won local opinions and the delgates’ opinions without bending backwards for it. Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions.


Note: After reading some of the comments, I guess most people would disagree with this article. Very rightly so. That is one reason why I stated the title as pseudo-govt's perspective. This is possibly the opinion of the government, hence, they didn't really bother much about the external noises by the foreign presses. But keep your comments coming in and all opinions are very much welcomed.

Monday, September 25, 2006 | |

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 

Article from BBC: Singapore welcome raises doubts

Came across this article from BBC that I've found quite interesting, given the perspective of an outsider look into Singapore. Since there are also lots of pro-Singapore comments on local papers (why am I not surprised that those are published on local papers... =P), I am still trying to reconcile the true perception. Do let me know your views on this issue and the article. Should we or shouldn't we be so uptight over the "traditional" civil group protest?


Singapore welcome raises doubts
By Andrew Harding BBC News, Singapore


Sometimes the adverts can be as revealing as the front pages.

This week some of Singapore's newspapers have been teeming with new recruitment ads put in by the city's many escort agencies. They're all busily hunting for what they describe as "young, outgoing girls... in their twenties".

The apparent hiring frenzy has been triggered by the arrival of some 24,000 visitors - all coming to town this week with just one thing on their minds... the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The front page headline in this morning's Straits Times boasts that this is the biggest turnout ever. The delegates do have some serious business to discuss here - in particular, plans to restructure the IMF's voting system to give countries like China and Mexico more clout. But for Singapore - a tiny, humid and tightly-controlled city state - the real issue is how well it looks after its guests.

Citizens are being urged to smile. To make sure the delegates respond in kind, they're being offered discounts on botox injections and other beauty treatments. An article in the New Paper urges visitors to venture out of their convention centre and discover the city's secrets, declaring that there is much more to this place than "rules, laws and squeaky clean streets".

Campaigners barred
But it is Singapore's laws which are in danger of overshadowing this week's meeting. It is illegal here for more than four people to demonstrate together outside. So what to do with the many thousands of international activists who usually congregate at such events?

A number of campaigners have already been barred from entering the country. Those who have been allowed in are being carefully chaperoned. They will be allowed to protest, but only in designated indoor areas. They are also being provided with special, soft placards to wave.
Thursday's Straits Times carries a small article - tucked deep inside the newspaper - which some might argue belongs nearer the front page. The World Bank has come to its critics' defence, accusing Singapore of breaching a formal agreement by barring 28 activists from the country. In a statement, it says: "We work with these representatives of civil societies, and we value their role - even when we disagree with what they say."

More criticism has come from one of Singapore's tiny opposition parties. In an open letter, the Democratic Party has accused the authorities of stifling dissent, behaving like despots. What is more, the party has thrown down a direct challenge, vowing to go ahead with a big outdoor protest this Saturday, and inviting all the visiting delegates to come along and see what happens.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 | |

Friday, August 25, 2006 

National Day Rally without "Harm"

Upon an anonymous suggestion, I’ve decided to write something and some thoughts on the National Day Rally (NDR). Since many of us are sick of the “aerial” and “ground bombardment” of post-NDRs, I should write something different about this year’s NDR. Perhaps before starting on any thoughts it might be interesting (things that I’ve found boring was interesting to the readers and vice versa, so when I say its interesting, it might be boring! Readers beware!) to have some fun facts on the NDR.

Things you didn’t get to see on national TV
1) Who was the last MP to arrive at the National Day Rally?
Mr Ong Chit Chung. The MP from Jurong GRC, Bukit Batok Division, came in the hall a whooping 5 minutes late and after PM Lee had already started his speech. It didn’t help much to be stealth when he wore a red shirt brighter than the PM’s. It was a close fight between him and the former MP, Wong Kai Yuen who came in slightly later than Ong Chit Chung. But Wong Kai Yuen lost out on this one, as he is no longer a MP. Unanimously, the award had to go to Ong Chit Chung.

2) Who was the last Minister (aside from MM Lee and PM Lee) to be seated?
Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The Minister for Education and MP from Jurong GRC (there must be something with MPs from Jurong) took his seat just before the tradition last arrival of MM Lee. However, he was one of the earliest Ministers to arrive to the University Cultural Centre and mingled with the audience during the reception before the Rally. Other early comers included Foreign Minister George Yeo and Minister Lim Swee Say. Strangely, Tharman was the last to take his seat. Perhaps he might have remembered the perpetually endless toilet queues during the “half-time” break of NDR at last year’s NDR.

3) What was most peculiar and different about this year’s Rally that no one noticed?
This one is really curved-ball and has to do with SM Goh. Traditionally, just before the start of every rally, all will be seated before MM Lee Kuan Yew enter the hall to a rousing applause by all. The past two NDRs, SM Goh entered just before MM Lee and was received by applauses from the audiences. This year’s National Day Rally, GCT entered the hall with no one applauding him despite him turning around to face the audiences, expecting an applause. He intended to wave at the audience, but given the zero response, he turned back, sat down and didn’t move until to the Rally ended. Maybe he met with tough audiences or was just a victim falling from grace. But you could sense and see his disappointment. After the Rally, GCT was with Mah Bow Tan chatting about their perception on the youth near the buffet table. From my “eavesdropping”, I believed they weren’t talking about his non-applause. ;)

4) Did former Ministers get any stick from their ex-colleagues?
Unlike last year, when David Lim (former Acting Minister for MICA) walked across the whole front row Cabinet Ministers without any eye contact and smile from both parties, this year’s former Ministers faired better. Former DPM Dr Tony Tan had a lengthy conversation with now DPM Wong Kan Seng just before the Rally started and was well-received by all Ministers and MP. Former Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong had some mixed reactions. He was largely ignored by some Ministers (DPM Wong Kan Seng rather focus on his mobile phone than to look at his ex-colleague) but was greeted with smiles by some others like the ever-friendly Lim Swee Say, Lee Boon Yang and Teo Chee Hean. Only Dr Balaji Sadasivan, literately and physically, bent backwards to shake Yeo Cheow Tong’s hand.

5) Who was notably absented from this year’s NDR?
MM Lee’s wife. This is probably the first National Day Rally that she didn’t attend, or maybe I just didn’t see her there. I don’t think anyone did. Usually, she will be seated on the right side centre stand of the auditorium, with her daughter, Lee Wei Ling. But no conspiracy or wild guess, please! I do have vested interest in the stock market!

6) What usually happen after National Day Rallies?
This is something good-to-know if you ever get invited to National Day Rally. Traditionally, there will be receptions (of course with food) before and after the Rally where the Ministers and MP mingled with the attendees. But there is an implicit observation that many don’t see. Grassroots and Party (PAP of course) cadres are usually invited to the rallies. And Ministers and MPs will also gather with their constituency members for discussions and chitchats. Occasionally, the Ministers will be talking among each other on work related issues or with prominent businessmen. But most of the time, they will be with their own grassroots. Before going to that, just some quick observations. Dr Vivian was seen with DPM Jayakumar, Mah Bow Tan with SM Goh and Lim Hng Kiang was with Kwek Leng Joo, the Managing Director of City Development Limited (CDL) – formerly in the running for the Marina IR with Las Vegas Sands. Now for the main course: what is the implicit message?

PM and the rest of the senior leaders will also be at the reception to mingle with the crowd. But sometimes, what is evident is that this is one of the occasions to assess how well supported are the Ministers and MPs by their grassroots. Every NDR, there are two areas for reception, the second floor and the first floor. For the MPs and Ministers to get maximum exposure, they will usually be at the floor where the PM is. Second floor is a lot quieter. But those Ministers and MPs who are not too concern over this will visit the second floor to mingle. Some spotted at the second floor includes, Foreign Minister George Yeo, Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji Sadasivan and MP Wee Siew Kim. {See Photo: PM Lee is in red shirt with back facing the camera. Can you spot the other Minister "near" him?}

The support from the grassroots can be quite an important assessment guide of the MPs, by the PM. If a MP doesn’t seem to have grassroots support for the major events, how well can he/she even connect with the rest of the constituency and the voters? Don’t need to believe my words, by if you have a chance, observe it for yourself and make the conclusion.

7) Was Thrasymachus at the National Day Rally?
If he wasn’t there, how could he write the above observations (not conclusions)? ;)

Thrasymachus’s Thoughts on the National Day Rally
This section could be potentially so boring that it could tranquilize an elephant that can read. So please beware! Lame jokes aside, I’ll not be mentioning the stuff and so-called “analysis” on the papers but just some implicit notes and punts (not the “mee siam mai harm” kind) used by the PM.

Contrary to popular belief that only the PM drafts the NDR speech, it is not the case. The whole Cabinet is involved in the process of tailoring the speech. Thus, long before the day itself, all Ministers would have already known the content but not the delivery. This year’s NDR, he highlighted several key areas to focus on, namely, population, digital age and Singapore Heartware. Through his speech, you can also see which Ministers he has more interaction with and which Ministers are not. Many people also underestimated the NDR as a platform and channel to communicate implicit messages to the people. Like in 2003, then-PM Goh Chok Tong mentioned several key Ministers that LHL should retain when he steps down. NDR remains as an important platform for the PM.

Rising Stars and Setting Sun
In the past three National Day Rally by LHL, only one Minister was mentioned in every of his speech: Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Each time, the comment regarding Tharman was directed on their seemingly casual conversations. Perhaps he was consulted often by the PM and might be groomed for greatness. Aside from the commonly mentioned Ministers, there are also the “punts intended”. In this year’s NDR translation from his Chinese speech, he mentioned this, “Two years ago, we introduced major policy changes to encourage couples to have more babies. So far the results have been very modest.” Two years ago, Lim Hng Kiang was the Minister-in-Charge of the birth rates policies. Punts intended? Maybe. Given the amount of budget spent on improving the birth rates, he has done quite an abysmal job. But in the first place, this task was not something that one could easily manage and be done within two years. In other words, this is quite a suicidal task.

To Make or Import?
Since Goh Chok Tong’s time as PM until LHL, birth rate policies and incentives have always been a permanent fixture in NDRs and Budget speeches. But for the PM to highlight this issue but totally not speak about birth rates policies or incentives is quite a significant deviation from the norm. First, this might signal that they have given up their continual monetary incentive efforts of improving birth rates. Second, they would rather opt for a short-term fix in getting foreign talents than to pursue a seemingly lost cause. Lastly, if both are true, then they have to resolve the tension between the foreigners and locals. The foreign talents policy has been around for sometime, but seldom mentioned in NDRs as it is potentially touchy. Phrasing in the wrong manner, may have significant consequences. But I think the PM carried it well.

The Policy “Face”
Political science lesson 201: Every policy needs a “face”. This means that for every policy, some ministers must take responsibility or take the face of it. Name any policy, and you should or must be able to find a face to it. Like Goh Chok Tong’s initiative of the CPF cuts during the economic downturn, George Yeo to FTAs, or the building of MRT to Ong Teng Cheong’s credit, are the faces of the policies. So far, Lee Hsien Loong has been elusive in doing that, rightly so. Since taking on the post of Prime Minister, he has been careful in avoiding putting his face on any policies, except the IR. I don’t think that he is trying to sidestep any responsibility or controversy but is a deliberate strategy to strengthen his hold on his leadership.

Every Prime Minister needs to step out of the shadow of his predecessor, just like GCT differentiating himself from LKY, Abdullah Badawi from Mahathir. This is no easy task. But LHL is a quick learner in this field. What some new leaders did wrong was taking an issue or policy to benchmark as “success” over the transition. When Badawi took over from Mahathir, he took himself to task of eliminating corruption in the government as his report card. And he announced this even before he has grip and control over the government. Without the good ground support, he was doomed to fail from the start and is now attacked because that was his benchmarking policy and he is the face to it. LHL has smartened from this. Instead of putting his face to the policies, he delegates the policy implementation to other Ministers once he has initiates it. An example would be the population control responsibility being with Wong Kan Seng after the NDR.

Political leaders can only be criticized or attacked in two areas, leadership and policy. Leadership can be hidden as long as your team publicly voice support for you. Policies are in the public eye and success depends also on the public eye. This, of course, is more difficult to predict or manage. Thus, unless LHL is confident that he has control over the government, with his people in place, he will be and should be “elusive” in the policy limelight. And NDR is the stage where he has to be in the policy limelight. Hence, this NDR was purposely focused on broad issues, no specific policies, general and directional at best.

The Brown Man Causing Black Faces?
Yes, the latest Mr Brown’s “mai hum feat. PM Lee” got me tickling. Maybe this is already stale news to many but maybe I could just give a little heads up on what happened behind the Brown saga from MICA’s point of view.

We all reacted strongly in the way the MICA’s Press Secretary K Bavani responded to the article. But maybe you didn’t know this but several Ministers were very upset with the Press Secretary as well. Apparently, some of the MICA Ministers (except Lee Boon Yang) and other Cabinet Ministers were not informed when the press letter was published. And many Ministers were angry with her and her badly crafted letter. Simply, she reacted too soon, too harsh and without much consideration. Considering that she was also the President of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore, her mistake was inexcusable and was not taken too lightly. But being part of the civil service the Ministers can’t turn around and scold her in public. Unity has to be presented under every circumstance. This is the rule of thumb of the government. However, this is case of forgiven but not forgotten. Thus, if you read the statements of the Ministers after the letter was published, there was a slight disjoint in statement and tune. While seemingly supporting the Press Secretary, they tried to soften the damage done. All sang the same song with a different tune (no punt intended). Don’t be surprised if you see some changes to her position in the coming 2 years (but not within this year).

It will be interesting to see or find out if Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister of MICA, shouldered most of the blame during the stormy Cabinet meeting. In any case, it doesn’t matter, as he will be joining Yeo Cheow Tong on retirement soon.

I was supposed to talk about the National Day Rally, but landed up talking about many other things that are not really related. As usual…

One more note:
Well, while many thought that the government "forced" TODAY papers to suspend Mr Brown, they didn't. When the editor of TODAY decided to suspend Mr Brown, out of fear of kanna knocked in the head by his boss or pure stupidity or purely to push the blame to the government, they did not inform the government or MICA. The officials only learnt about the suspension when it was published. This led many MICA Ministers even more upset as the whole would have thought that the government "forced" TODAY into doing that. You may not believed me in this, but trust my MICA source and TODAY papers friend. TODAY did a screw job on the government, well enough to think that it was the "MICA's heavy hand" in action again. I'm so sure about this statement that I double dare TODAY to sue me on this one (Ooops, sorry James Gomez, for bringing up unhappy and familiar GE2006 memories. I was well indoctrinated by the white forces during my early education.).

Friday, August 25, 2006 | |

Sunday, August 13, 2006 

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
The Benevolent Leader or The Unwilling Candidate?

I think to those who read my blog, they often have five conclusions: 1) I don’t update my blog that often (in my defense, I am rather busy and each article takes lots o f research… *eyeballs rolling*); 2) This blog seems like a FAQ for the govt and PAP (doesn’t mean that I am pro-PAP); 3) Each article is so damn lengthy (that is if you read them); 4) I wrote more on the dead than the living (or when the living becomes dead); 5) Whatever you wish to read, I’ll try to write! (*fingers crossed*)

In this article, I’ll be writing on a recent and continuing history of SM Goh Chok Tong with a slight twist. There are little doubts that he was a popular PM in comparison with his predecessor and successor. His “softer” approach and style was a breath of fresh air to many. Upon his stepping down from his premiership, there have been many articles written on his policies, his leadership and his achievements. This will not be one of them. Simply, if I do write on those standard contents, you will be better off reading the Straits Times than this lengthy blasphemy (not that Straits Times always purport the unbiased truth!).

The first lesson of observing political truths is to never treat an entity as one (btw, who am I to teach lessons of politics…Ooops). In other words, is never to stereotype or characterize the entity. What is the PAP? What characteristics does the PAP MPs or Ministers have? These questions are fallacies. Behind the scenes of unity, there may be differences in opinions, characters and ambitions. There is no PAP character or person but is just an amalgamation of diverse people and their motives. Anyway, many of policies made within the Cabinet are not unanimous. That is politics; the innate and unseen character of each participating entity. Of course, like what Lim Kim San mentioned about assessing people is that one could only briefly know the other person through observation and instinct. This is what made assessing politicians so difficult. In the public face and media spotlight, we thought we know them like friends but there are more that we don’t know than we thought we know. The resulting impact is that we place mental and perception brackets on their names, like Lee Kuan Yew (the Authoritarian), Goh Chok Tong (the Good Guy) and the Cabinet (the group of “Yes-men”) based on what the media feeds to us. This article (or blasphemy, depending on how you see it) will just add fuel for your thoughts with statements from GCT and on GCT. Ultimately, this blog can’t claim to know or speak the unspoken truth on GCT or any politicians, but just form an alternative perception track. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions.

His Political Beginnings
In LKY’s memoirs (Chapter 41 – Passing the Baton, Pg 735), he mentioned about how he ease the way for GCT to succeed him. For those who have not read that chapter, I strongly recommend that you do. That chapter is very interesting as words are contained within words. Depending on which angle you read, you will get a different story.

First, we must know that LKY’s book was an international bestseller across many countries, and read by most leaders around the world. Second fact is that whatever he wrote in his book about GCT or LHL would be what foreign leaders read about them. In that chapter, he described GCT as “not a natural politician…tall, gangling and awkward, and spoke English with a heavy Hokkien accent.” This is not the best description for the person who is about to succeed you. LKY also described GCT as “self-conscious and without the gift of speech-making but had ability, dedication and drive, and was interested in people”. Later LKY even mentioned that he found an English women to teach GCT to speak in a more relaxed and natural way. For a person who will be Prime Minister, he still needed someone to assist him to look for a tutor? This might have pointed out that GCT wasn’t really in the “driving seat” but had an instructor beside him, constantly.

Another interesting point to the chapter was GCT not wanting move into LKY’s office. “I did not suffer any withdrawal syndrome. Chok Tong did not want to move into my old office in the Istana Annexe, which I had occupied for 20 years since I moved from City Hall, but chose to create a new office on the floor above mine.” Aside from the niceties that one might think of when he first read it, there might be more significance in that statement. Maybe LKY was literately the “power behind the throne”, or maybe it suggested how much power LKY had and wish to remind GCT about it. More importantly, what is the message that LKY wants to bring to all the leaders in the world about his deputy?

Building His Own Legitimacy
Perhaps the second lesson of politics is the word, “legitimacy”. Whether be it an organization or leader, it or he has to have some form of legitimacy. The forms of legitimacy includes: mandate from people (elections), leadership charisma (eg: Mao Tze-Dong), expert knowledge (for technocrats), military power (like in Indonesia) or economic performances. The last form of legitimacy, economic performances, is developing into the most important form for any political office. For the case of PAP, the core strength is their ability to provide economic success and is unmatched by any parties. No opposition parties came close to challenging them in that area. The trends for the past few GEs was for the oppositions to divert away from economical issues and focus on other side issues such as human rights infringements.

For leaders, they too have to build their own legitimacy and mandate as well. “Inherited” authority will not last long without legitimacy. Similarly, if a leader managed to last long (in at least a semi-democratic country), you could somewhat say that he is not riding on “inherited” authority but has some form of legitimacy (yes, I am hinted at someone).

In the case of GCT, many assumed that he was a seat-warmer, sandwiched between the Lees. In his early political years as PM, he needed to gain support from three areas, within the Cabinet, within the Party cadres and with the Singapore population. His apparent tactics was to first gain the mandate of the Singaporeans by General Elections then gradually make changes within the party and Cabinet to place the men loyal to him in key positions. Doing the opposite might anger his predecessor who still has considerably power and influence over all matters. He has seen lessons from his neighbouring counterparties and will be careful not to make the same mistakes. However, his election mandate will not come easy. Since Independence, LKY has been Singapore’s only Prime Minister. For GCT to step into his shoes and gain the confidence of the population was no easy feat.

Altered Ego in Elections
However, his first GE (1991) was setback from him and probably changed his “election personality” several degrees. In the 1991 GE, the PAP lost a record of 4 seats to the opposition, one of which was his female Senior Minister of State, Seet Ai Mee. Other wards, such as Bukit Batok, were barely won by the PAP. That election was the turning point of his “election mentality”. Since then, he has opted to be tougher during elections with his words and actions.

In the 1997 Election, he was determined to be tough on the Oppositions and would take them out by any means, previously endorsed by LKY. During the “Battle of Cheng San”, GCT gave this message,

“You decide. You choose Tang Liang Hong, Jeyeratnam, raise their status and lower the Prime Minister’s the Deputy Prime Ministers’ stature, in Singapore, internationally, that will have very serious consequences.”

“What we are now doing is to… put all the chips on the table. It is a winner-takes-all situation. MRT, LRT, Punggol 21, upgrading, estate improvement, libraries, kindergartens, better schools… all these are plans which… have put to the people.”

“We win, Cheng San will get not just the attention of Lee Yock Suan and the team. Cheng San will get the Government’s attention, my attention, Lee Hsien Loong’s attention, Tony Tan’s attention. Even in Marine Parade you don’t get such attention. So you win big or you lose big. So tomorrow, you have to decide.”


Of course, we all knew what happened to Tang Liang Hong and JBJ after that Election.

Era of Disposed Number Ones & Downfall of Twos
“cheng ye xiao he, bai ye xiao he” – He who gave you success, can bring your downfall.

If one reads the memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, both volumes, you could sense his apprehension over several domestic issues such as Party splits (which I will mention later), succession planning, ousting of top Asian leaders and the downfalls of Number Twos. Not known to many is that the PAP suffered a Party split twice, once by the charismatic Mayor Ong Eng Guan and by the leftist, Lim Chin Siong. The latter split was devastating and almost permanently crippled the PAP. In recent history of our neighbours, UMNO suffered two party splits when Tengku Razaleigh openly challenged Mahathir in 1987 and when Anwar fell out with Dr M. These incidents, locally and abroad, remained deeply entrenched in LKY’s mind, even until today.

The world has seen plenty of examples of the difficult relationships between the leaders and their deputies. All these incidents led both LKY and GCT to rethink their own potentially precarious position. No matter what LKY said, deep down, he wanted LHL to be the Prime Minister someday. And he could only exert his influence if he is still in Cabinet. And for GCT, he knows what LKY wants from him and knows that LKY still has the ability and power to remove him should there be a need to. This is a tango that both are dancing in secret. Given their delicate relationship, it is not surprising to see GCT echoing most of LKY views and words. If you look through all the news reports on GCT, majority of his words are singing in the same tune as what LKY previously sung. In the opinions of many, GCT never really stepped out of LKY’s shadow.

Unwillingly Unseated?
Many often wondered if GCT stepped down willingly from the position of PM or was he pressed into doing so. Perhaps only three people in Singapore know the answer. But what we can do is to decipher his actions and words leading up to his stepping down. In the article on Lee Hsien Loong, I’ve mentioned this before and will do it here again. During GCT’s last National Day Rally as Prime Minister, he mentioned this:

“You may also have heard this old story about Loong. Back in 1990, Loong had a quarrel with Richard Hu. Dhanabalan sided with Richard. Loong lost his temper, reached across the table, and gave Dhanabalan a tight slap! The whole Cabinet was thrown into commotion. I then forced Loong to apologise.

I must be suffering from amnesia. I just cannot remember this incident! Now you know how creative Singaporeans are!”

GCT need not mention the Dhanabalan incident since it was already 13 years ago (from the National Day Rally). People wouldn’t remember if they weren’t reminded by him. But he still made that comment and later claimed amnesia. And for the first time in Singapore history, GCT created a three-step process to the transition of power, through endorsements from the PAP Central Executive Committee, PAP Cabinet Ministers and the PAP MPs. The words and actions of GCT during that year can be quite intriguing. But I’ll leave you to decipher that.

Can there be Three Tigers in One Mountain?
One question that no one explicitly asked was whether the system and post of Senior Minister would exist when LKY passes. The current situation, of having two former Prime Ministers in the present Cabinet (plus the present PM), is unprecedented in any part of the world. Since it currently exists, the question should really be whether it should continue to exist and will it cease to exist. There are some coffeeshop talks on this issue that before LKY passes, GCT will either step down or have his loyal men removed. (According to market talks) Given LKY sensitive nature developed during the tumultuous times (see the History of PAP) and struggle of the traumatic party split, he will leave nothing to chance. Although the possibilities of a party split or power struggle is negligible, he will not rest until that has been resolved even after his death.

Necessary Stage of Change: Uprooting the Roots
Some might find this (removing GCT or his men) objectionable or unwarranted, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The mistake that Abdullah Badawi (Malaysia’s current PM) made was his inability to gradually and systematically remove his predecessor’s men from the Cabinet and plant his loyal lieutenants into key positions. Now, he is facing a situation of having policies with no one loyal enough to him to implement it. With half of the Cabinet still loyal to Mahathir and a strong number two candidate in Najip, his position is vulnerable to ousting. That is the main reason for him to undertake several key Ministries (PMO, Home Affairs and Finance) himself.

For LHL’s team to be effective, it is vital and necessary for him to place his people into the key Ministries. As predicted before the GE 2006, I expected Yeo Cheow Tong, Lee Boon Yang and Lim Boon Heng to gradually step down (within one year) and it is taking shape now. Yeo Cheow Tong has stepped down, and both Lee Boon Yang and Lim Boon Heng have indicted their stepping down within a year. MPs loyal to GCT like Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Golf partner of GCT) have also stepped down. For GCT himself, he has been assigned to foreign and finance affairs issues such as Middle East Islamic finance hub and Malaysia bilateral issues. This isolates his impact on “domestic politics”, leading him away from the public eye and leaving room for LHL in the spotlight. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, all in the name of “renewal”.

Deciphering GE2006
Similarly, during the GE2006, two incidents are worth analyzing. Firstly, before the GE, GCT openly challenged the opposition parties to test Marine Parade GRC (his ward). Yes, all MPs and Ministers also challenged or stated that they welcomed opposition contest. But for GCT, it was different. He needed the contest to demonstrate that he is still more popular than LHL, something which he is sure of but required undisputable figures. If he scored well in the contest, it might prolong his career in LHL’s administration or (very remotely and speculatively) offer him a chance of a comeback (which GCT himself wouldn’t even expect or probably want). But he didn’t receive a contest and it turned out worse.

The second incident was his assignment to win back Potong Pasir and Hougang from Chiam (SDA) and Low Thia Khiang (WP). This is an astute move by LHL (possibly LKY). On the face of it, it demonstrates the new PM’s serious intent on recovering Potong Pasir and Hougang. The implicitly explicit reason is to keep the opposition leaders, Low and Chiam, busy in their own wards and negate their effects on the neighbouring GRCs, especially Aljunied GRC. But the real beneficiary of this strategy is LHL. There are four possible scenarios out of this strategy: 1) winning both Potong Pasir and Hougang back; 2) winning one of them back, like to be Potong Pasir; 3) losing both wards by lesser margins and; 4) losing both wards by larger margins.


If (1) happens, LHL will be credited for winning back the PP and Hougang but not GCT, since GCT was not able to do it when he was PM. But the government will run into lots of foreign affairs (such as democracy advocators) issues of having no oppositions in parliament (inter-parliamentary visits require oppositions as well). If (2) happens, LHL will still be credited more than GCT. If (3) happens, it shows the slight impact of GCT’s campaigning influence. Lastly, if (4) happens (which happened), it will be the worst scenario for GCT. As he mentioned during the campaign, the losses will affect his “personal prestige” and “reputation”, almost like a slap in his face. Since scenario (4) materialized, GCT doesn’t have the chip to say that he is more popular than LHL or LHL is any less popular than him. And since LHL didn’t campaign at PP and Hougang (at all), the burden of loss is solely and squarely on GCT.

Conclusions
Once again, I’ve asked more questions than provide answers. This is probably what makes a perceivably dull local politics interesting. As mentioned in the beginning, I am no pseudo-Lim Kim San and can never be and never will be. Never can I claim to speak the uncensored truth about one’s character since I don’t know him in person. What I can do is to spark some interest that allows you to question the answers you see or hear in public and make judgments of your own. Of course, we maybe wrong and must accept that we might be wrong. There is always more that we don’t know than know. This article provides only an alternative view which might be wrong, so do make your own judgment call.

Sunday, August 13, 2006 | |

Saturday, July 22, 2006 

Tribute to Lim Kim San

Another great founding father has passed us, Mr Lim Kim San. He passed away peaceful on Thursday, 5.30 pm, at his Dalvey Road residence. The Straits Times and other major local papers have listed his many achievements in HDB, Ministry of National Development, MAS, PUB, PSA, SPH and the Council of Presidential Advisers. Deservingly so. The list of achievements can go on and on for Lim Kim San but, undoubtedly, he will always be remembered as the man who gave us shelter with the creation of the HDB. With his leadership, Singapore is one of the rare success stories of public housing. Another label that he will always be remembered by is his ability to spot talents and judge one’s character and integrity. Rather than duplicating what most papers are writing by stating his childhood, life and achievements, I’d just add in some of his comments in an interview conducted in 1996 with Melanie Chew. By his quotes, one could feel the personal touch of Lim Kim San and his unwavering commitment towards the Singapore Story.

Qn: You were strictly volunteer. You were not paid at all. (With reference to Lim Kim San joining the the PSC and HDB as a volunteer in 1959)
Lim Kim San: Yes, Although I was the Chairman of the Housing Board, I was just a volunteer. I didn’t get paid a cent. Largely because Ong Eng Guan was the Minister. I thought that if I go in there and get paid, first it is not fair because I have my own business. Secondly, if I am a paid employee, he can kick me out! If I don’t like it, I could just lump it.

I had my reservations about Ong Eng Guan. I felt he was a megalomaniac and rabble-rouser. Well, I explained my feelings about him to the Cabinet, and they scolded me! “He knows Three Kingdoms!” they said. “Can you speak Hokkien like him?” Well, my feelings were proved correct.

Qn: It must have been quite a step, to volunteer to serve in the HDB. The HDB and the building of low-cost housing was a central pillar of the PAP government. It was a huge job, a demanding job. And you took it on as a volunteer!

On reflection, I think it is a case of “fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.” But when you are young, you feel everything is possible.

But there was another reason. Have you heard of a street called Upper Nanjing Street? I went down there to look at the housing conditions for the poor. What a shocking experience it was! I have never been down to that part of Singapore. Of course, I had passed by in the car but I have never been inside the houses.

I went into a three storey shophouse with one lavatory and two bathrooms. We countered 200 tenants living there. It was so dark and damp. It was an inhuman and degrading existence. I saw for myself how really poor they were.

Underneath the staircase was a single plank. A man was lying on the plank. He had rented it. That was his home! And he was lying down covered by a blanket made in China. I paused and asked him if he was sick. “Why are you covering yourself with a thick blanket?” He replied, “I am covering myself out of respect for you. I am wearing only undershorts. My brother is wearing my pants.” They were too poor to afford clothing. In those days, there were shops which pulled clothing and shoes off the dead to sell them. “My God,” I thought to myself, “I must really help these people.”

Qn: You did not begrudge the amount of time you spent in HDB? I am sure there was sacrifice of your time and effort. Did you own business suffer?

When you are working hard and enjoying what you do, you don’t think of it. I am doing something that needs to be done and, in the process I am enjoying myself. Anyway, my own business needed very little minding. Once I don’t owe people money I don’t worry.

Qn: How did you build so quickly?

Firstly, we were never denied of funds from the government. We had a very high priority project.

Secondly, I broke the hold of the bureaucracy. The Singapore Improvement Trust worked by committees. God knows, they had ten or 15 committees, I abolished the whole lot. I said, “I’m the Committee.” There was a secretary there who would give me many reasons why things couldn’t be done. He would cite this law and that law and this Committee and that Committee. I had to get rid of him.

And in fact, if I don’t like a project and I’m pressed to do it, I form a Committee. That really slows things down and sometimes the project just dies.

We broke through all the red tape. No red tape. As I said, “I’m the Committee.”

Qn: What was your formula? What made the HDB so very successful?

In any organization that one goes into, the first few decisions are the most important. If taken correctly, they will set you on the right road. I think there were three important decisions which we made in those early days which enabled us to build 10,000 units a year.

First, we broke the hold contractors’ cartels. Secondly, we decided to do our own earthworks. There were only two companies doing earthworks, Gammons and United Engineers. So every time we asked them to do the earthworks to prepare the site, they said it would take six months. I said, “That won’t do.” We decided to do it ourselves. I had a friend who was a contractor. He later became the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Tan Teck Chwee. I asked him, “Hey, what’s the problem with earthworks? Why does it take so long?” He said, “No problem. I’ll show you how it’s done.” So he did. And then we did our own earthworks and saved valuable time. I would put that as the number two decision.

The third decision was standardization. You know, we used standardized concrete slabs. Standardization made it so much easier to design and faster to build. We also made specifications which we knew were realistic and could be achieved. Plus we made sure that contractors fulfilled the specifications. We went around, inspecting all the buildings very closely to make sure that the contractors fulfilled the specifications. We kept contractors under very close supervision. Yet we managed to keep the quality relatively high through strict supervision.

We had a good competent team, earnest, and honest. Through inexperienced, they were energetic and capable. They showed great interest in the work and by that, stimulated each other. They challenged each other.

Qn: You were a volunteer all that time?

Yes, until 1963, when I became a Minister.

Qn: So for four years you gave your time voluntarily.

Yes! I should have asked to be paid one dollar, and then I could claimed a pension. At that time these things don’t occur to you at all! In fact, I asked for a driver because I was going all over the place, driving all over Singapore. So I asked for a driver. And they said, “You are not a paid employee, you don’t get a driver.” So I had to drive myself. (Laughs)

Qn: What about the statutory boards? You served on the PSC and HDB. Then, after that, the PUB and the PSA.

Yes, I think I did my most satisfying work in the statutory boards. In the ministries you do policy-making. In the statutory boards, you really get involved in implementation. I like to get involved with detailed work. I also like to do several jobs simultaneously. I ran Ministries and statutory boards concurrently. Everyday, I would spend time with several projects. I like that. Otherwise, I would get board. I can’t sit still.

Qn: What was your major task in the PUB & PSA?

It was to build reservoirs, to make ourselves more self sufficient in water. So we would be less dependent. I built Upper Pierce, Seletar, all those reservoirs.

The PSA appointment was because of my own big mouth. I saw PSA building the World Trade Centre for 5,000 people. I thought it was not a good time or place. Well, the lifts were so inadequate, they would have taken all day to get 5,000 people to the top. So I opened my big mouth and before I knew it Prime Minister had put me there as Chairman! Well, it was as interesting post. Within one week, I had ordered 110 million dollars worth of port handling equipment. That was a lot of money in those days. Again, by listening to the experts, I discovered that we were short of handling equipment.

I also redirected the PSA back to its core business. The PSA had containerized its port thanks to Howe Yoon Chong. He was a very good man. He could really get things done. We were already the second busiest port in the world, after Hong Kong. We had overtaken Rotterdam.

One problem we had to face was our very limited cargo handling area. So we had to have computerized handling of cargo, so that we could stack containers six units high. No other port does that! But this requires very sophisticated handling systems. Each container has a computerized tag which says where it is going. The container passes through a gantry and the tag is registered. We know where each container is any time. Incidentally, we used this technology as the basis for the Automatic Road Pricing scheme.

Qn: How did you approach each statutory board? Each was so different in nature.

My job was to get the organization going, build a team, and then leave.

Qn: And you held so many positions! I can’t imagine how you managed to juggle all these jobs!

Oh, well, I probably have a grasshopper mind. It helps! The whole thing boils down to two things: understanding your objective, and man-management. Whether you are in big ministry, or statutory authority, or in Singapore Press Holdings, it is a question of man-management.

Qn: You do it so well! Do you have a policy?

My policy is roughly this: I am not a specialist at anything. Neither am I a professional. But I listen to the specialist and the professional. The electrical engineer, the quality surveyor, the architects. And they may have different points of view. I am open and I listen, and allow them to express their views and opinions.

I use my common sense to ask questions, like “How about this or that?” If they cannot agree, them I must myself decide. But most of the time, if you sit down, talk, listen and discuss, you are likely to find a solution.

But the whole thing is this: listen to people. I listen to them, and I know that this chap can be trusted, he knows his work. Then I leave him alone. He will grow! Instead of me telling him what to do. He is the man who runs the show! He will make suggestions to be to ponder, “Is it OK?” If it is OK, I say, “Proceed.”

Qn: Then you leave him to it?

I leave him! And then he will grow! If I look over his shoulder, well, who am i? I know nothing of that job.

Qn: How do you deal with mistakes?

I always tell my officers that if they do things within the agreed responsibilities, and they make an honest mistake, a genuine mistake, without any vested interest – I’ll back them up all the way. If you back your people, even when they make mistakes, they will learn from their mistakes! Furthermore, they will also learn to make decisions by themselves.

But if you pick up on their mistakes and bawl them out, they will never make another decision again. All decisions will land up on your desk and you will never build your organization.

If they make too many mistakes, however, maybe they don’t deserve the job and you should get rid of them.

Qn: What are your shortcomings as a manager? What do you feel needs improvements?
Lack of patience! But age and experience have mellowed me. Now, I listen more.

But if you are sitting at the top, you must be unpleasant sometimes. Disciplining is never pleasant. Once I called up a chap and said, “You just get out.” He said, “Why?” I said, “You didn’t do your work, that’s why.”

It has to be done. When I was in the PSC, I used to go through thousands of personnel annual reports and not find a single adverse or unsatisfactory report. It is our Eastern way. We don’t want to be unpleasant or break anyone’s rice bowl. But if you are at the top, you must have to courage to speak out when things are wrong.

I can be short tempered and impatient. If you act unreasonably or dishonestly, I will throw you out of my office! I remember a delegation came to see me to ask for tax exemptions for traders. Well, Singapore is a trading economy. Why should they be exempt? I was so fed up. I was wearing a neck collar at that time because I had injured my neck. I took the thing off and threw at them!

Qn: In the 80’s you became known as the government talent scout.

Yes

Qn: How did you learn to judge people?

I think that comes from experience. To me, it is instinctive. You listen to the chap talk and you think, “The chap is quite alright,” or “This chap, you can’t trust him.” I think all successful businessmen have that kind of instinct. You meet a chap, you make a deal. You feel you can rely on this man. He’s on the level. You can trust him. For me, it’s quite instinctive.

Sometimes I shake the guy by the hand and I feel revolted. I feel like throwing off the hand. And you look into his record, you find that, sure enough, this man has done something wrong. Have you heard of Slater Walker? I told the Cabinet to stop them from coming into Singapore. They said to me, “You have a suspicious mind!” Businessmen must have such an instinct.

Qn: Have you made bad judgments? Have you trusted people and later, found yourself wrong?

Not in a big way. Not in a big way. Because if I try out a chap I don’t give him the whole project. I watch his progress. I have some nephews who have spent many years running the business. I watch them and halfway through, I know. if they cannot handle nig things, I put them elsewhere. So it is a question of watching and observing.

It’s the same in government. You ask me, how do I find leaders? You don’t. Or rather, you cannot. You can only spot potential leaders.

First and foremost, I’ll look for an intelligent man. Secondly, I look for a man who has a social conscience. Maybe they were giver a chance to progress, for example, a scholarship.

Some of the Ministers that I interviewed felt that they must somehow repay society for the opportunity given by the government or institutions to further their studies. Some of them were very poor. They were given a chance to progress. Now, they wanted to do something in return. Of course, they may not be sincere. But you watch them to see whether they are sincere.

And I look for people with robust health. Because politics is a strenuous thing. In politics, you are under pressure every day. I don’t know what it is like now, but in our time this was the case. You must be able to take it. I have seen chaps literally going mad before my very eyes. They could not take the pressure. Yes!

But in the end, as one General has said, you will never know the man until he is in the firing line. People whom you think will stand, will run. Wait until crisis and you will know!

Qn: Is the problem that we now that we have too little crisis? You have no chance to observe people under crisis?

You need not have a full-blown crisis. You just watch them working under pressure. There are certain policies which are unpleasant to carry out. You make them do it and you can see. Can he take criticism? Can he stand up to it? Can he fight back? Nothing like trying the man on the spot. I also know many men who are very good as number two. But as number one, they fail.

Qn: Why was the Civil Service in Singapore able to function so well without the problems of corruption, red tape and bureaucracy that plague some other countries?

The civil service was something inherited from the British, and at that time the British were known for their honesty. So I think the tradition was there and it was a matter of continuing it.

Out leaders were honest. So if you have honest leaders, the civil service will be honest. If anyone is corrupt, they will get punished. But if you have corrupt leaders, the civil service will just follow suit.

Qn: So the key to getting rid of corruption is to have honest leadership.

Yes! To set the example. Yes! And anyway, now the civil services are so well paid, why would they bother being corrupt? Well, perhaps, you can’t say. Some people can have all the money in the world and they will still be corrupt.

Qn: You have an instinct, which you have derived over many years of experience. If you have to make it into a system, which someone else can apply, how would you do it?

Look for an intelligent person. Look for someone with commitment. With very good health. Someone who shows interest in things. Some people are very narrow. When you see some chap who is very interested in things, possessing an inquisitive, enquiring mind, well, he has the potential.

Mind you, these persons have potential only. You cannot pick them up straight away. They just have potential. You’ll be lucky if you can get three out of ten.

Qn: If you had stayed out of politics, would you have made more money?

I would have.

Qn: It’s been a sacrifice for you.

Well, I cannot ear more than what I eat now. I have enough. I cannot use more. I am quite happy. I don’t want to be the richest man in Singapore. I could possibly have made more money.

You know, some of my Cabinet colleagues were bitter about having to retire. No one gives up power voluntarily. Myself, I was not disappointed. What did it mean to retire? I had to carry my own bags. No one hailed me on the street. Never mind!

I look at it this way: I was given a chance to serve my country. How many people are given this chance? I was fortunate to have been a part of the team which built Singapore. I had some skill and some strength that was useful to others.

To serve your country is a privilege. It is an honour. I am very proud to be able to say, “I have served my country.”

Qn: Do you have any regrets?

No, my only regret is that I should have taken more pains with my work. I did many things in a rush. I should have taken more time to think things through. Well, even working in my rushed fashion, I did not commit many major mistakes. But if I had taken more time, and given more thought to everything, I would have done my job better.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 | |

Thursday, July 06, 2006 

History of PAP (Part IV) – Lim Chin Siong
The Man Who Almost Became Prime Minister

“Chin Siong was introduced to me by Lee Kuan Yew. Kuan Yew came to visit me in my little office underneath the stairs and said, “Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore!” I looked at Lim Chin Siong and I laughed. LKY said, “Don’t laugh!” He is the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister!” - David Marshall

Lim Chin Siong is an elusive figure in Singapore’s history. He was a charismatic catalyst to the mass movements of the 1950s and early 1960s, and his political personality helped define an era. To Lee Kuan Yew, Lim Chin Siong was probably his greatest adversary that he respected. Lim did what LKY could not do in the 1950s: mobilize tens of thousands ethnic Chinese just by his words. Lim Chin Siong, was not recognized but is one the founding members of the PAP. His very presence in our history shaped not only our independence but also how the concept of detention without trail (by ISD) and the affiliation of the labour union (eg: NTUC) to the PAP.

Time and time again, I’ve mentioned that history is often written by victors, victors of a political dogfight and victors of unfair competition. The winners will get titles that remain across time encapsulating their distinguished successes but not their failures. The losers sometime suffer a fate worse than death, which is that their name being erased of annals. Simply, their lives and their accomplishments never existed. If one mentioned about Dr Goh Keng Swee, the title of “the architect of Singapore’s economic success” comes to mind. Similar, Lee Kuan Yew, the “founder of Modern Singapore”. But if one mentioned about Lim Chin Siong, it might be a slate of blank. At most, he is remembered as the “Communist” or the “vanquished” (mentioned in Lee’s Lieutenants). Personally, I would favour the title “the Man Who Almost Became Prime Minister” for Lim. For this article, I’ll be drawing information from “Comet in our Sky – Lim Chin Siong n History” by Tan Jing Quee (published by INSAN press Kuala Lumpur) and Melanie Chew’s interview with Lim Chin Siong himself.

The Making of the Hokkien Hero
Lim Chin Siong was born in Telok Ayer in the Hokkien heartland of Singapore’s Chinatown in 28 February 1933. Life was harsh in his early years, and had to stop school during the Japanese Occupation when he was around 9 years old. It was during this hardship that shaped his political inclinations and to be supportive to radical anti-colonial causes mashed with Chinese Nationalism.

When the war ended, Chin Siong returned to school at Pei Chun and completed his primary school education; he had lost three years and was considerably older than he would have been if not for the war. The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) had emerged from the war as an ally of the British in the prosecution of the anti-Japanese was and was accorded honours and lawful status in the political life of the country. However, in 1948, MCP’s relations deteriorated to breaking point; widespread labour demonstrations and strikes, arrested and political organization bans led to retaliation, murders and open declaration of war. The MCP was outlawed and took to the jungle to wage an armed guerilla struggle.

In 1949, Chin Siong enrolled into Catholic High School. He soon found school life there restrictive and transferred himself to Chinese High School. He was now sixteen years old and began to show interest in Chinese patriotism, national salvation and social justice, leading him to read writers like Lu Xun and Lao She. He would soon make his mark as an active student leader, espouse radical causes, and become firm friends with Fong Swee Suan, his classmate in Chinese High School.

Baptism of Politics
In 1951, they were in Junior Middle III and required to sit for an external examination, before graduating or advancing to Senior Middle School. This common external examination was a throwback to the pre-1949 Kuomintang era and precondition for access to further education in China. With the China Revolution in 1949, admission to higher education was closed in Mainland China. Hence, the retention and continuance of such common examination was an attempt by the British to limit further education to the Chinese left-wing students.

Chin Siong and Fong organized a body called, “Students Opposing The Junior Middle III Examinations, galvanizing support for boycotting the examinations. They wrote pamplets, made speeches condemning colonialism and advocated fair and equal treatment for Chinese schools and students. It was in these years, Chin Siong joined the Anti-British League (ABL). These activities eventually caught the attention of the Special Branch (British version of ISD). Chin Siong was detained for a week in August 1951 and again in October 1951 over the examination boycott. He was released, but was expelled from school, together with more than eighty students in the class of 1951.

Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union
In 1954, an innocuous event would transform and catapult Chin Siong into greater prominence. He was elected Secretary of a small union bearing the grandiose name of Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union (SFSWU) with a membership of barely 300 members. Within a brief period of just a year, the membership of SFSWU had expanded rapidly to more than 30,000, making it one of the most powerful trade unions in Singapore at that time.

Chin Siong would be prominent enough to attract the attention of Lee Kuan Yew and colleagues when they were looking around for grassroots leaders to form a new political Party. Chin Siong was inducted into the fortnightly discussion group in the basement of LKY’s house at Oxley Road to work out an agreement to launch the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Mountain with Two Tigers: Lee Kuan Yew & Lim Chin Siong
The newly established PAP decided to contest the elections on 2 April 1955 in four constituencies. The four were, Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Goh Chew Chua (Punggol-Tampines), C.V. Devan Nair (Farrer Park) and Lim Chin Siong (Bukit Timah). It was then when the beacon of Lim Chin Siong shined brighter than Lee Kuan Yew’s. James Puthucheary, who was in charge of PAP publicity for the elections recalled the first rally held in a remote Chinese village.

“Toh Chin Chye spoke first, in English! No response from the crowd. Ong Eng Guan was next, in Hokkien, but not very good. The crowd was restless. Then, Chin Siong stood up. He was brilliant and the crowd was spellbound.”

In Lee Kuan Yew’s book, The Singapore Story, he mentioned his experiences and impression of Lim Chin Siong during the election.

“One man emerged from this election as a powerful public speaker. He was young, slim, of medium height, with a soft face but a ringing voice that flowed beautifully in his native Hokkien. The girls adored him, especially those in the trade union. Apart from Chinese culture, his themes were the downtrodden workers, the wicked imperialists, the Emergency Regulations that suppressed the rights of the masses, free speech and free association. Once he got going after a cold start at the first two meetings, there was tremendous applause every time he spoke. By the end of the campaign, Lim Chin Siong was seen as a charismatic figure and a person to be reckoned with in Singapore politics and, what was of more immediate concern, within the PAP.”

LKY later describe Chin Siong’s speeches as having a “hypnotic effect” on the crowd.

Behind the Singapore’s Independence Talk’s Failure
Chin Siong was elected to his seat in the Bukit Timah constituency and entered the Legislative Assembly at the youthful age of 22 years old. At the time, the Legislative Assembly only permitted the use of English in debates. Chin Siong’s hesitant English became a safe target for red-baiting, which he handled as well as he could, but without damage to his standing among the non-Chinese speaking population. During that time, he has his colleague, Devan Nair to draft his parliamentary speeches. Having won 10 of the 25 elected seats in the 1955 Elections, David Marshall emerged as Chief Minister.

In April 1956, David Marshall led a 13 man all-party delegation to London for the scheduled constitutional talks. Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Chin Siong represented the PAP in the delegation. Despite the rhetoric of “Independence talks”, this underlying premise on the urgency to curb the left wing in Singapore, implicitly accepted as the programmatic consensus for the next phase of constitutional advance by all members of the delegation, except Lim Chin Siong. The talks eventually collapse when the British refused to compromise with the proposal of a Malayan chairman of the Defence and Security Council to oversee internal security. The British wanted control over the Internal Security. The talks collapse on this single issue.

Repression by Lim Yew Hock
The failure of the talks had major consequences on Singapore politics. David Marshall resigned and Lim Yew Hock took over, initiating a new wave of detention without trial to suspect left-wing activists. Meanwhile, 8 July 1956, Lim Chin Siong was elected to the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP with the largest number of votes, ahead of Lee Kuan Yew and Toh Chin Chye. But he was not on stage or at the photo taking as he was advised by LKY from it as he has a record of detention which might harm the Party. Months later, Lim Chin Siong and the rest have been made scapegoats for the later success independence talks with the British.

In October 1956, Lim Yew Hock ordered six persons to be arrested under banishment orders from the Chung Ching High School, with several unions being banned. The Special Branch detained Chia Ek Tian, a CEC member in PAP and Soon Loh Boon. At a rally at Happy World Stadium to celebration the anniversary of the SFSWU, Chin Siong denounced the repression. But the repression escalated further when Minister of Education Chew Swee Kee issued orders to the management committees of the Chung Ching High School and Chinese High School to expel 142 students. When the students went on strike, the Government ordered the closure of schools. At the PAP rally held at Beauty World Park, Bukit Timah, Chin Siong condemned the repression and urged support for the besieged students. Singapore was in the state of riot. 13 people died and 123 injured. All the major Middle Road trade union leaders were detained, including Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair, James Puthucheary, S. Woodhull and Chen Chiaw Thor.

The arrest effectively excluded Chin Siong from participation in the PAP deliberations regarding the new rounds of constitutional talks led by Lim Yew Hock. Only Lee Kuan Yew would represent the PAP. A clause would be adopted prohibiting Chin Siong and his detained colleagues from contesting the first elections under the new constitution. The result was obvious: the popularity of Lim Yew Hock sank with each new repression, just as Lee Kuan Yew’s star continued to rise with each successive debate. Lee Kuan yew’s identification with the detained left wing leaders strengthened his own popularity and public image as champion of the dispossessed. The spotlight was on him alone, benefiting from the repression launched by Lim Yew Hock. LKY had added confidence knowing that he would be the more natural and obvious choice for the British for the mantle of power as he continued to ride the wave of the martyrdom of his detained left wing colleagues.

The Straits Times report of 5 April 1957 on the return of the conquering heroes summed up the mood of the people back home. “It was an unexpected silent crowd. There was a marked absence of the usual spontaneous shout of Merdeka.” David Marshall described the new constitution as a “fraud” and nineteen trade unions lobbied the PAP leadership to withdraw the mandate given to Lee Kuan Yew to accept the new constitution. LKY took up Marshall’s challenge in By-elections contesting based on the constitution. Marshall lost and quit politics.

Released from Detention
After assuming power, the PAP government released eight left wing leaders on 4 June 1959, after ensuring that they were excluded from participation in the parliamentary elections to the central committee. Five were appointed as political secretaries, but with little real substantial power to initiate or influence polices. More significantly, none of them were made cadre members, which meant that they would never be in any position to challenge the leadership in future party elections. When Chin Siong was released, he was only 26 years old.

Here, LKY played his political cards to perfection. Being the solicitor of the detainees, he was seen as the freer of the oppressed. Putting Chin Siong and the rest in political office, he could ride their popularity amongst the Chinese population without giving Chin Siong and the rest any power. In that, LKY would not be threatened by his popular rival, but not for long.

PAP: The Empty Shell
Soon after assuming power, the PAP government formed a ten-men secretariat of the Trade Union Congress to reorganize the labour movement. Lim Chin Siong returned to his old post as supreme of the Middle Road Unions. A duel power situation developed; while LKY faction controlled the state and the party, Chin Siong’s faction was dominant in the trade union and other mass organizations.

By mid-1961, following two humiliating defeats for the PAP at Hong Lim and Anson by-elections, it was clear that a decisive break was inevitable. LKY’s government sought a vote-of-confidence at the Legislative Assembly meeting on 20 July 1961. 13 PAP Assemblymen abstained from the vote and were promptly expelled from the party. The expelled men joined forces with the left wing trade unions to form the Barisan Socialis. In August 1961, they formed a rival party, the Barisan Sosialis, led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong. They took 35 branch committees, 19 of the 23 organizing secretaries and an estimated 80 percent of the membership. PAP under LKY was a mere shell, according to Dr Lee.

The PAP government was on the verged of being toppled. Every session, the opposition would motion of no confidence. But across the shores, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman, watched the events and feared that Singapore was about to become a Communist State, a “second Cuba” and a danger to Malaya. Thus, this was the start of the intense and frantic, Battle for Merger.

Tunku: LKY’s Last Dice
Barisan Sosialis held sway in Singapore but it knew that in a wider Malaysia they would be crushed. On the other hand, PAP needed Malaysia to break the Barisan’s hold on the Singapore Electorate. Thus, they enlisted Malayan Tengku and the British as allies, playing on their long standing fear of Communism.

On July 1962, the Barisan Sosialis, led by David Marshall and Dr Lee Siew Choh, appealed against the merger in the United Nations in New York. The Merger Referendum, issued in 1962, was testimony to the murkiness of the Battle. It was deliberately ambiguous. It asked voters to choose what kind of merger they wanted, not whether indeed they wished for a merger. The referendum was not to be a simple YES or NO response to the merger, but included three choices:

Option A endorse merger on terms suggested by the White Paper.
Option B distorted the Barisan Sosialis formula and threatened to disenfranchise 250,000 Singapore citizens
Option C purportedly represent the position of the Singapore Peoples Alliance, which neither it not any other political party advocated or adopted.

25% rallied to the call of Barisan and cast blank votes, objecting to the manner in which the exercise had been carried out. 71% chose Option A. With this controversial tactic, the PAP won the Battle for Merger.

Operation Coldstore: Wiping out Lim Chin Siong
Tengku then decided to clean out the Left Wing with “Operation Cold Store”. Hundreds of arrest was made and effectively decapitated the Left Wing Barisan Sosialis. Nearly the entire central executive committee of the Barisan Sosialis, including Chin Siong, was arrested. Chin Siong was just shy of thirty years old at the time of his third detention. In the decade spanning his entry into the political fray in 1954 and 1963, he had already spent more years in jail than outside.

A snap elections was called, under the protection of the Malaysian Security Council, produced a clear PAP victory. The Barisan, with most of their leaders in prison, garnered only 13 out of 51 seats. On September 1963, the PAP government had won its battle against the Left. By 1965, Singapore was kick out of the Federation after a mere 1071 days in Malaysia. As foreseen by Chin Siong, the merger was never what it was meant to be but could be just an excuse to eliminate political opponents.

End of a Great Singaporean
Chin Siong would remain in jail and suffer severe depressions, until physically broken and mentally traumatized. He announced his decision to quit politics and took off in exile in London (in 28 July 1969), his physical health ruined and his political life destroyed. He married Wong Chui Wan in London, in 1970, had two sons in his marriage. He struggled earning a living doing odd jobs and would continued to suffer bouts of depression. He never recovered. In 1979, he decided to return to Singapore and stayed in Serangoon Gardens until his death in 5 February 1996. Former political colleagues, political foes, former ministers, trade union leaders and ordinary citizens came to pay their last respects to the man who almost became Prime Minister of Singapore.

Many (former and present) leaders have condemned Lim Chin Siong as a Communist. But this was one charge that Chin Siong never acknowledged. In his words, “To brand someone as Communist at that stage was the best and most convenient way to put him in jail.” Perhaps his view on detention without trial was the most awakening,

“The fact is that all of us were detained, without trial for ages. Not knowing when we would be coming out. That, I would say is a torture. A torture. You are detained for years, until such a time that you are willing to humiliate our own integrity. Until you are humiliated publicly. So much so, when you come out, you cannot put your head up, you cannot see your friends. Alright, then they may release you. It is a very cruel torture. It is worse than in Japanese time, when with a knife, they slaughter you. One shot, you die. But this humiliation will carry on for life. It is very cruel.”

He died a broken man, 23 days short of his 63rd birthday and forgotten by Singaporeans today.

Coming Up Next:
SM Goh Chok Tong: The Willing Unseated or the Unwilling Seated?
More details in the coming future, stay tuned and keep guessing the double meaning to the subtitle.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 | |

The Idealist

  • Thrasymachus
  • Propagating In: Singapore
  • The Critic, The Philosopher, The Pragmatist, The Moralist, The Egalitarian, The Confused, The True-Blue Singaporean
My profile

Email Me At:

    thrasymachus.sg@gmail.com

Singapore Info

The Cast

Classic Propaganda

Souls of Blogs

Singapore Time

Poll Your Agony!

    NEW!
    Do you support the government's decision in barring certain Civil Society Organization members from the IMF/WB meetings?
    Fully support!
    Yes, but could have been more lenient
    Don't know...
    No, the govt is too rigid
    Absolute no!
    I don't give a damn about it...
    Current results


    Which topic do you wish to read at Singaporegovt?
    SM Goh Chok Tong: Behind the Scene
    Oppositions: Singapore Democratic Party
    Super Seven: Khaw Boon Wan, Dr Ng Eng Hen
    Super Seven II: Dr Vivian, Raymond Lim
    History V: Devan Nair
    History VI: Dr Goh Keng Swee
    Who is Thrasymachus (aka me)?
    All of the Above!
    None of the Above - I hate reading!
    Current results


    NEW!
    What do you think of the General Election 2006 (GE) Results?
    Accurately reflects the political preference of Singaporeans
    Somewhat accurate in reflecting Singapore's political preference
    PAP's win was too flattering
    Oppositions' percentage was too high
    Not accurate in reflecting the political preference of Singaporeans
    Totally inaccurate!
    Current results


    NEW!
    What do you think of the Gomez Issue?
    He is guilty of deceiving!
    He is not guilty!
    The whole issue was overblown by the PAP & media
    Don't care, Don't know!
    Current results


    NEW!
    What do you think of this site (singaporegovt.blogspot)?
    Good, Fair, Objective, Interesting Read
    Above Average
    Average
    Below Average
    Total Rubbish!
    Total mouthpiece of the PAP government!
    I HATE this site!
    I LOVE this site!
    Current results


    NEW!
    Which (Senior) Minister of State do you wish to see promoted to Full Minister?
    Ho Peng Kee
    Dr Balaji Sadasivan
    Zainul Abidin Rasheed
    Heng Chee How
    Lim Hwee Hua
    Grace Fu
    Radm Lui Teck Yew
    Lim Yi Shyan
    Gan Kim Yong
    Current results


    Which Election Candidate do you prefer?
    Low Thia Khiang (WP)
    Chiam See Tong (SDA)
    Sylvia Lim (WP)
    Chee Soon Juan (SDP)
    J.B. Jeyaratnam (Formerly WP)
    Lee Hsien Loong (PAP)
    Dr Ng Eng Hen (PAP)
    Sitoh Yih Pin (PAP)
    Eric Low (PAP)
    Current results


    How do you rate PM Lee Hsien Loong's Performance (as Prime Minister) so far?
    Excellent
    Very Good
    Above Expectation
    Average
    Poor ("I can even do better!")
    Very Poor
    Current results


    Do you have confidence in PM Lee Hsien Loong's leadership and his team of Ministers?
    Yes
    No
    Too early to tell...
    Any one but them!
    Current results


    Do you think Lee Hsien Loong became Prime Minister on his own merits?
    Yes!
    Yes! ("He was the best candidate")
    No! ("He has obvious backing from LKY")
    No! ("There wasn't any alternative candidate to challenge him in the first place")
    Current results


    Which of the (Junior) Minister to you wish to see him/her step down? (Part III)
    Raymond Lim
    Balaji Sadasivan
    Ho Peng Kee
    Chan Soo Sen
    Lim Hwee Hua
    Heng Chee How
    Gan Kim Yong
    Yu-Foo Yee Shoon
    Zainul Abidin
    Current results


    Which Minister do you wish to see him step down? (Part I)
    Lee Hsien Loong
    Goh Chok Tong
    Lee Kuan Yew
    Lim Boon Heng
    Lee Boon Yang
    Yeo Cheow Tong
    Mah Bow Tan
    George Yeo
    Teo Chee Hean
    Current results


    Which Minister do you wish to see him step down? (Part II)
    Lim Hng Kiang
    Wong Kan Seng
    S Jayakumar
    Tharman Shanmuguratnam
    Lim Swee Say
    Ng Eng Hen
    Vivian Balakrishnan
    Khaw Boon Wan
    Yaacob Ibrahim
    Current results


    What is your utmost concern for the coming General Elections?
    "Bread & Butter" issues - Jobs, economy, salary, etc
    Freedom of Speech - or lack of
    HDB issues - upgrading, high housing cost, etc
    International Issues - govt's handling of foreign relationships
    Transport issues - LTA, NEL, MRT
    Change of Leadership - from SM Goh to PM Lee
    All of the above
    I'll vote any party except PAP!
    I'll only vote for PAP!
    Current results


    Which is your favourite Minister?
    PM Lee Hsien Loong
    SM Goh Chok Tong
    MM Lee Kuan Yew
    DPM Jayakumar
    Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
    Teo Chee Hean
    George Yeo
    Tharman S.
    I Hate of them!
    Current results

Faces of Singapore

    www.flickr.com
    Thrasymachus' photos More of Thrasymachus' photos

Last posts

Archives

Disclaimer

    The author of this blog bears no responsibility for any misinterpretation, libel, defamation, injury and death as a result of reading this blog. Contents are high subjective and readers should read with caution. All readers should be 18 years and above, with half a decent brain to judge the validity of the articles.

Search Blog


    Search WWW Search singaporegovt.blogspot.com

Number of Visitors

Syndicate this site (XML)
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates