CONSEQUENCE: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that two miracles had happened in those two consecutive elections? Has the country suffered as a result of that choice? Did we pay a great social cost having a person of a racial minority elected to the most highly-paid public office in our system? Did a field survey – that the Prime Minister has done and yet to share with us – showed that our racial-minority President has not been popularly accepted? What makes him say such things?

Does Singapore not deserve the best leaders available, regardless of gender, race and religion? Isn’t that the main reason we are paying the highest salary packages in the world per capita to our Ministers? To get only the best and not just the next best? Can some skin colours possibly be less “best” in the Prime Minister’s eyes? We are not seeing the logic here, but some true colours seems to be showing.

HISTORY: Ready or not ready, Singapore had accepted the President’s dedicated service to watch over the country’s reserve and perform distinguished ceremonial duties for more than 10 years. We haven’t seen violent objections. “Not any time soon” has been happening sooner than you think or remember.

One can never be ready for history. But some will continue to live in denial of history.

This country really has a warped and twisted sense of history and time…progress in this country happens in the most bizarre and topsy-turvy sequence – we can be so blind to what has already happened, and then when it is almost gone and happily over, realise we were never ready for it in the first place!!!

I am very thankful for your bite-size ‘lessons’ on democracy and its various possible permutations. Indeed, we do share the common desire of seeing Singapore the way you’ve described it:

to see a harmonious multi-racial Singapore where all citizens regardless of race,language or religion may particpate in and speak their minds without fear or favour about the affairs of the Nation.

I also noticed that you have given some very extreme examples of how democracy can go wrong and I cannot help but wonder if these examples would act more as a hindrance rather than a help in our pursuit of democracy, our own unique style or model of democracy (very much unlike what it is at the present moment, I must add).

Could this be scaring our present govt from even considering it?

We do know about American style democracy and the Hollywoodness of it. However, I feel we also need to look at the positive side to it, minus the Hollywooding, the shenanigans, as you have described.

One of the most telling positive of Western style democracy is freedom.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to choose etc. It gives the power to the people to decide how they want to live their lives. Nothing much like our beloved Singapore…sigh :(

Also, about your illustration on our growing children, I have a worry I need to highlight. You use the pronoun WE. Now I take this to mean the government of the day, although in your context, it probably means the parent or parents. It’s like a parent giving medicine to his child.

Won’t there be a problem if the parent/s have too much control on deciding how much of the dosage to measure out? Too much is no good, it might do more harm than good, and; too little is also no good, it might not be effective. So, the difficulty becomes a problem. How does the parent measure out the correct amount? It has to be almost perfect, won’t it. Quite impossible also.

Other than this, I am very glad that we do see the need to change some of the ways our beloved Singapore is presently being run.

And there may be a need to create a democracy of our own, different from the others, where every citizen has a part to play in.

Thank you for taking time to share these wonderful lessons with me.

Gemami P.

Actually, the riots did not burn the government’s credibility. Instead, it reflected the limited scope of power granted by the British to the autonomous government of Singapore.

You quote what I wrote below:
Please, we all know these things are true. It is for the Opposition to think of these constraints as challenges”.

Does this translate into my saying that they are not ‘impediments to the Opposition?’. Of course they are ‘impediments’. But do you give up in the face of these impediments? That is the thrust of what I intended to mean.

As for gemami on November 14th, 2008 9.04 am :

Hi Gemani,
I stand shoulder to shoulder with you in our mutual desire to see a harmonious multi-racial Singapore where all citizens regardless of race,language or religion may particpate in and speak their minds without fear or favour about the affairs of the Nation. YES, you have raised some very pertinent points. However the road to Democracy as practised in the West is a long and winding one even as it is an uphill climb. So patience isof the essence here.

You have seen what is happening in Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan where the People’s Representatives on both sides of the demarcation have been shown on TV behaving like hooligans and disrupting the business life of the Nation in one instance and in another, getting violent and physical by throwing objects at one another and and even getting into fisticuffs. This is not Democracy; it is Anarchy, to use the term loosely.

Also let us not allow ourselves to be bamboozled by the Americans about their being the model for Democracy. A lot of ’shenanigans’ and arm-twistings take place behind the scene. As a model Democracy, America should have abided by the consensus of the UN not to invade Iraq, but what happened? As the late Chairman Mao said of Western Democracy: “It is about power through the barrel of a gun”. It is about holding the Bible in one hand and the rifle in the other.

Also, like our children [to use an illustration to make my point], we need to teach them self-discipline, consideration for others, learning to put the common interest before self-interest under certain circumstances, their obligations and duties to their peers before we could grant them total freedom. So the way to go is to grant these children the freedom they want in instalments. When they have learnt to appreciate some pre-requisites of sustainable Democracy, then do we grant them some more freedom. Until such time when we feel they are mature, disciplined, responsible, civic-minded, law-abiding, possessed of good social values and able to co-operate for the good of the ‘commonweal’, they are not ready for absolute Democracy. Democratic issues such as freedom and the rights of the individual are not birth-rights. We have to be seen as ready and deserving of such privileges. We have to earn these privileges.

But yes, the Singapore Establishment must accord the citizens more trust and allow more freedom than they have at the moment. Personally I don’t agree with the reasons for having the GRC’s as well as the huge deposits individuals have to cough out inorder to take part as candidates in the GE’s. Taking part in elections whether as candidates or as supporters of a certain party is a sacred duty and right our citizens.

So YES, Gemani my Fellow Countryman, I agree with you where your arguments for a sustainable Democracy is concerned. Do also remember Democracy for different countries may mean differnt things at different stages of a Nation’s growth or development to full Nationhood.

Mao-zedung also believed in Democracy. For him it is freedom from foreign oppression, freedom from hunger for the people, a more equitable sharing of the Nation’s wealth, and the leaders must practise servanthood. Likewise the legendary Mahatma taught about unity in diversity, the sense of self-worth, being proud of one’s tradition and heritage, fortitude, and the readiness to make great sacrifices for the Nation that one loves.

Meanwhile thank you for your sharing. I enjoy this discussion with you.

Ho Cheow Seng

“Now don’t repeat that list of ‘PAP controls the media, PAP redraws the electoral boundaries before every election, PAP should do away with the GRC, and etc.,’. Please, we all know these things are true. It is for the Opposition to think of these constraints as challenges”

Interesting what MM had to say about this when the shoe was on the other foot :)

“But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right… ”
Lee Kuan Yew 1955

“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?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies – even those who do not subscribe to our views – as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself.”
Lee Kuan Yew 1955

“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”
Lee Kuan Yew 1956

“If we say that we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows for the free play of idea…then, in the name of all the gods, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework.”
Lee Kuan Yew 1956

“Repression can only go up to a point. When it becomes too acute, the instruments of repression, namely the army and the police, have been proved time and time again in history to have turned their guns on their masters.”
Lee Kuan Yew 1959

“I pointed to an article with bold headlines reporting that the police had refused to allow the PAP to hold a rally at Empress Place, and then to the last paragraph where in small type it added the meeting would take place where we were now. I compared this with a prominent report about an SPA rally. This was flagrant bias.”
Lee Kuan Yew 1959

One can almost sense his fervour and passion in these speeches. And I can definitely see why he had, and still has a great following.

Also, I am not triviliazing that the challenges Singapore faced in 60s, not by any means. No doubt, the PAP has accomplished a lot during this tumultous period, which as you mentioned, was achieved with “harsh” actions.

Thanks for the very gripping first hand account of what it was like in the early days of Singapore’s history. I have heard similar stories from my late father who also had a lot of stories to tell about the attrocities committed by the Japanese during their short occupation of Singapore.

They were all first hand accounts about his struggle to survive as well as about how the people of those times did what they had to do order to survive. These are parts of Singapore’s history that ought to be archived before they are forever forgotten.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to deviate and point out one portion of your narration, in particular:

And the MM does not want, I believe, a repeat of that past. This perhaps explain some of his harsh actions against opposition members he thought was trying to unscramble the present system. I’m NOT saying I agree with everything MM has done. And neither do many Singaporeans my generation and older.

Although the backdrop of events might have led MM to take harsh decisions to ensure that Singapore doesn’t go back to ever experiencing such events ever again, it does not mean that it gives him the right to imposed such decisions. Yes, it can shape his decision making process, and I am sure it did, but he cannot be always using it to force his decisions on the populace.

There is a mention of harsh actions (taken) against opposition he thought was trying to unscramble the present system which really puzzles me.

Was LKY in the opposition camp during the time these events happened? If he was, then he ought to see opposition in a better light. Unless, of course, the opposition were the trouble-makers who got Singapore kicked out of Malaysia. In this case, he is right to be wary of the opposition and worry that they might create the same sort of trouble the opposition created at that time, because he would be looking at himself, will he not?

Also, surely with all the intelligence he possesses, he would know that having too hard a grip on things can only lead to one result, you’ll break it, crush it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be smart or anything but these are questions I need to ask after reading this portion of you post, so that people like your good self might be able to provide me the education I seek.

Thanks.

Re. What you wrote below:

“You mentioned that you do not believe that
- the ever changing, ever expanding GRC system,
- the more than slightly biased media coverage of opposition members
- etc etc etc
are impediments to the opposition. ”

Show me in which of my postings on TOC have I written the above? You are putting words in my mouth. Read my comments in #47 above. Do you really understand English or is there someone ‘ghosting’ for you?

You consider yourself a ‘hero’ in the opposition camp by the swaggering manner or tone of what you say. Have you seen clips of what politics was like in the 1950’s and 1960’s? If you have been following the goings-on in Thailand in the recent past several months, you’d would have just a slim idea of what politics was like in Singapore in the 1950’s and the 1960’s.

I was a young teacher when racial riots broke out between the Chinese and the Malay Communities. In the block of SIT flats where I lived were a few Malay families. And the Malay families were on different levels. The family next to mine was Malay. We could hear the sound of knives being sharpened in the early hours of the morning. The heads of the Chinese households on the same floor spoke with the Malay family who occupied the flat next door to my family and assured the members of this Malay family that no harm would come to them and the other Malay families living in the same block. We assured them that we would stand up for them and shield them should they be in danger of being assaulted.

The riot had broken out along Geylang Road on the Prophet Mohammed’s Birthday and soon spread to other parts of the island. The same evening a few deaths by stabbing was reported. There were various versions of what led to the riots. Then Singapore was already a part of Malaysia and a big contingent of policemen and soldiers from West Malaysia were stationed in Singapore.

According to my friend, who was a young Police Inspector attached to the Kandang Kerbau Police Station (opposite the Tekka Mall), tensions developed even between the Singaporean Police Force and the Malaysian Police Force at several police-stations because of perceived indiscriminate shooting by the latter at the Chinese.

[I'm now writing randomly,so my thoughts may not follow one from another in a sequence.] I witnessed one episode during the Maria Hertog trial along Serangoon Road where Komala Villa Restaurant still stands. Young Malay men and youths were seen stopping cars along the main Serangoon Road and looking for ‘orang puteh’ or ‘white men’. I saw from a distance a caucasian being pulled out of his car and given a severe beating. Then they overturned the car and set fire to it. Singapore was a colony and the Police Force under the British could do nothing much.

I have much more frightening things to tell than what you try to portray of Singapore today in your comments above. And they are not stories I hear from my elders. The ‘oId guards’ of the PAP were at least a decadeolder than I am today. Even the older current PAP leaders are a few years older. They have seen what had happened in the past and knew the close calls we’ve had. And the MM does not want, I believe, a repeat of that past. This perhaps explain some of his harsh actions against opposition members he thought was trying to unscramble the present system. I’m NOT saying I agree with everythin MM has done.And neither do many Singaporeans my generation and older. I am just giving you a sampling of the background against which he had to fight to keep Singapore safe for all Singaporeans. AND, I am not a PAP member.

On another occasion, I followed my friends to KL when PAP contested in the Malaysian General Elections. PAP fielded 9 candidates. I followed my friends to KL and stayed at the then Coliseum Hotel along Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman. My friends were helping the PAP candidate for Bungsar. I literally trembled as I walked through the Malay kampongs. They were very hostile and you did not know if they would attack you although there were some policemen around. YES, UMNO was very influential and strong in KL and in Malaysia in general.

The Malaysian P.M. then, Tunku Abdul Rahman, was a good man. He booted Singapore out of Malaysia, so I was told, because the ‘ultras’ in UMNO wanted LKY arrested under the ISD and locked up without trial. Do you know what would have had happened if they did that to LKY? In Singapore the PAP had just won a landslide victory. Do you think Singaporeans then, would wring their hands in despair and do nothing? The Tunku acted swftly and decisively inorder to prevent a communal blood-bath on a national scale.

So let me assure you, Ah Kao, you haven’t seen politics at its most thrilling and frightening yet. Please believe me. All the references to Hock Lee Bus-workers’s protests and STC[Do you know what the initial stand for] Bus-workers’s strike, and oh yes,have you heard of Tay Koh Yat? Come on AhKau! Forgive me for saying this but the fact is, I have tasted more salt than you eaten rice.

Now let me share with you a song sung by the bus-workers on strike as they marched in two’s down the street where I lived off Serangoon Road. This song was translated for me by my Chinese Educated friends who also knew English. The title of the song was:

I Love My Malaya

I love my Malaya,
Malaya is my Home.
Japanese time we’re not free
Presently we suffer more [under the British]
After dogs[the Japs] gone, monkeys[the Brits] come,
Malaya is my Home;
Come dear brothers and sisters,
Let us wait no more.

The Chinese title of this song was : Woh ai wor de Mar-lai-yah

Wor ai wor de Mar-lai-yah,
Mar-lai-yah shi wor de chia.
Jepunshi-hoew, pu che yew,
Sian chye hern kern khoo.
Sui chi koew ch!i
Hoew-chi lai,
Malaya shi wor de chia.
Siong tee mern kern chi-ay mei mei
Bu nern chye tern tai!
[Repeat over and over]

AhKao, no offence O.K.? But you really don’t know about the politics of the 1950’s and1960’s. You may have realtives or friends my generation but they were casual onlookers, perhaps the Chinese chauvinists of the time, leftists and supporters of the MCP.

Ho Cheow Seng

You mentioned that you do not believe that
- the ever changing, ever expanding GRC system,
- the more than slightly biased media coverage of opposition members
- etc etc etc
are impediments to the opposition.

There are many who group such practices as a “conspiracy theory” to “fix the opposition” or “do them in”. And I merely referred to them as such. While I do not subscribe to the same theory, I am a realist enough to acknowledge that the dice is loaded against any who stands under the opposition flag.

I know Tang’s daughter and I witnessed first-hand how scary things can be when the whole party machinery is “brought down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger”, to quote a line from Pulp Fiction.

And the scrutiny on James Gomez after the PAP won the elections would have been so laughable for its pettiness, if it wasn’t happening to you personally. I doubt my own employer would have been as forgiving if I had to leave for a business trip and had my passport confiscated at the last minute.

In the light of how Obama and McCain handled their differences after the recent US elections, it just makes our PAP leadership look incredibly petulant.

I have a day job and that daily grind saps me mentally for the most part. It pays my bills, but with rising costs everywhere and a looming recession, I am forced to stay focused. I know of many in my predicament. With HDB prices at “market” rates rather than cost, I am stuck with a 30 year HDB loan, and I have to worry abt whether I have the minimum sum when I retire, or hope I can die before I have to retire. At least, then, the wife will get the insurance to pay off the home.

With my paltry bank balance, I doubt I can withstand even a single lawsuit. I’d be bankrupt in a day :)

I am however thankful that Mr TKL has come out of retirement and been championing the cause of the common man. Not all are called to serve, but seeing them, my morale is replenished.

I will definitely make sure my vote count.

Participating in an online discussion IMHO is not playing to the gallery. I have learnt from others here and I believe a good healthy discussion is fundamental for growth, spiritually or mentally.

My dear AhKao,

Who’s talking about conspiracy theories? And what do you mean by that? Let’s get real AhKao, if you really know how to fight the PAP you won’t be spending time on TOC site. You’ll be in the thick of things getting ready for the next GE especially as people are already anticipating a possible snap elections. But if you are on this site to play to the gallery, go and do sth more purposeful for the many people there who may need your help like what Tan Kin Lian is doing. Thank you for your time and good day!

Ho Cheow Seng

Witness what happened to Eunos after Francis Seow’s narrow defeat. Or Cheng San after JBJ and Tang Liang Hong contested.

I find it funny that in every link in Wikipedia regarding these narrow margin GRCs, they always seem to disappear the following elections :)

Having an Elections Office that reports to the Prime Minister’s Office just suggests a lack of even playing field.

And while I am not the “confrontational type”, I do understand why CSJ feels that campaigning for a complete reform of the electoral process is necessary. Sadly, MANY people I know are still seeing him the way the MSM portrays him. Mr Ho may not feel that having the MSM against you is a big disadvantage but I beg to differ.

I am inclined to think that CST and LTK are token opposition MPs that the PAP is content to leave standing. To appease those international observers and for fear of backlash here. Even so, their size of their constituencies have been marginalized over time. When CST steps down for the next elections, I suspect that seat will be lost.

But that seems to be waay off topic for this thread :)

For what it’s worth, I’d have supported Dhanabalan if he had been PM. I have worked with him before. Or JY Pillay, had he decided to go into politics.

And yes, in case the moniker AhKao isn’t a big enough clue, I am of Chinese descent, with both parents being TeoChews to boot :)

How ever brilliant and capable the people in the PAP maybe, the ultimate power still resides in the people of Singapore. I say this because short of the PAP turning Singapore into a military dictatorship, so long as we still possess that one vote, we still have the last say. The fact is every citizen has one vote like AhKao, but, to AhKao’s dismay not everyone will cast his vote in AhKao’s direction.

And again THE fact is, despite all cursing, swearing, bad-mouthing,etc., somehow the PAP still gets more votes than all the Opposition Party put together. Now don’t repeat that list of ‘PAP controls the media, PAP redraws the electoral boundaries before every election, PAP should do away with the GRC, and etc.,’. Please, we all know these things are true. It is for the Opposition to think of these constraints as challenges, and think of how despite all these disadvantages the Opposition can still get the people to vote for them.

Maybe we should ask Chiam See Tong how he manages to do it so far. Or maybe Low Thia Khiang. Think about it, man!

Ho Cheow Seng

I’d also like the way the discourse ended with both retreating to their positions and allowing the discourse to stand according to each one’s position.

I think there is a lot to learn for the rest of us tuning in to the arguments, especially on how to end an argument in a civilised manner.

Thank you both.

Fact is: David Marshall was able to serve Singapore as its first Chief Minister, irrespective of race. True, he had party members who were able to appeal to the Chinese-educated majority, but the fact that he himself was NOT Chinese did not have a bearing on those who supported him and his party in the first elections.

THIS was the whole point of the writer of this article. And it still stands.

In your treatment of history, I felt you gleaned over how PAP rose to power subsequently.

Fact is: Hock Lee bus riot (incited by PAP committee members) was a direct contributory cause as to why the British DID NOT grant Singapore independence, citing Marshall’s response to the crisis. And Marshall resigned as a result of not achieving his goals.

Fact is: PAP won in part because the Labour Front lost steam without Marshall at the helm.

Had the riots not been incited, another course of history might have emerged.

So, the point that the predominantly Chinese PAP came to power subsequently on the back of the Chinese educated majority is IMHO not as relevant. We can agree to disagree on what might have happened otherwise, but I still stand by these facts.

Hi Ho Cheow Seng (40)-You made many good highlights but miss one good point ie the Hock Lee Bus & STC Bus Workers strikes were masterminded and instigated by the communists, and the Chinese community at that time were poor and uneducated, and were easily taken for a ride by these events.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Please bear in mind the topic of discussion procceded from the short article by the 3rd year law ubdergraduate who had asked why it was possible for Siingapore to have a member of a minority ethnic group to be the Chief Minister in 1955 but not a P.M. in 2008.

My main point is that Marshall ‘was the man of the time’ when he became the first Chief Minister of Singapore. The Jewish community was very small numbering a few hundred. So Marshall could not have been perceived as representing the Jews. Besides, he was ‘cosmopolitan’ and very concerned with justice for the people under colonial rule. And his support came mainly from the Chinese community because he knew he had to play to the ‘Chinese gallery’ to succeed in his mission to become the Chief Minister and then to fight for Singapore’s independence. For that matter anyone who wished to be the Chief Minister had to ‘play to the Chinese gallery’.

However when LKY and Lim Chin Siong of the PAP came on the scene, the crucial support of the Chinese commnunity swung to the PAP. So, YES, race was a factor in the politics of the 1950’s. Why then do you think LKY thought it necessary for him to learn to speak Hokkien and to address his audience in that dialect at rallies and over the T.V.? And he subsequently went on to learn Mandarin as well. And you should have seen the crowd whenever Lim Chin Siong spoke. He was a great orator using the Hokkien dialect and equally adept at Mandarin. And both LCS and LKY knew the Chinese psyche and could empathise with the Chinese crowd. In short they could connect with the great majority of the Chinese community in their ‘lingo’ using their idioms and cultural norms to advantage. These were ‘things’ which eluded Marshall.

If you don’t mind my saying, you are nit-picking to no purpose. Please explain to me the relevance of the Hock Lee Bus Workers’s strike to the issue under discussion. Incidentally there was also the STC Bus worker’s strike.

A discussion should serve the purpose of participants being richer for it by having gained in their knowlege. It is not a game of one-upmanship. And sincerely speaking, I would acknowledge you were right if in fact that was the case. But you have been irrelevant from the very start of this dicussion. Without intending to offend you, I’d like not to continue this dicussion any further.

Cheers!
Ho Cheow Seng

My reply to Fedup (33) is the late JBJ did not represent the majority Singapore Chinese across the board in Singapore (he was elected on Anson seat)

Regards
Andrew Chuah

The point was and is: PAP was around and active during the short 2 years of Labour Front’s term as the ruling party. The Hock Lee bus riot, one of the key factors that led to the end, was orchestrated by at least 2 members of the PAP, one of whom was Lim Chin Siong, who was recruited by LKY

As you said, LKY knew with his background, he was unable to reach the Chinese educated majority but he recruited Lim Chin Siong and his contempararies, who did.

Without the Hock Lee bus riot, would Marshall have been successful in his bid for independence? We’ll never know. But if circumstances were different: we would not be asking “Is Singapore ready for a minority PM?” today.

:)

Under a state largely controlling every single thing from the press, financial institutions, politically and even the manipulating on her population demographics, the state increasingly wields power in controlling issues that may threaten their power.

Looking at the GRC policy that requires at least one minority to be in the team, it is another form to highlight the power still lies on the majority side?

Hullo Mr AhKao,

David Marshall entered the political arena in 1949 when he joined the Singapore Progressive Party. Then Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was still at Cambridge. Yes the PAP was formed in 1955. So Marshall had a good 6-year start ahead of LKY. Also before 1949, Marshall was already cultivating his political base by being involved in many civic organisations. The thrust of my message in my latest write-up was that Marshall although a member of the minority ethnic group was able to win over the support of the majority working class and perceived at the material time as the best person to be Singapore’s First Chief Minister.

The PAP which was formed in 1955 was able to defeat the Singapore Labour Front because it had the unquestionable support of the dialect speaking Chinese as well as the Chinese educated Singaporeans who were the majority group. The English educated politicians, by the time LKY had joined in the fray, were rejected by the majority Chinese community. LKY,although English educated, was discerning enough to know the crucial need to join forces with Chinese political activists like Lim Chin Siong who was equally fiery and especially eloquent in the Hokkien dialect as well as Mandarin. So YES, race was a factor in politics even in the 1950’s. Otherwise how do you explain that the PAP, which was formed one year after Marshall joined forces with the Labour Party , was able to convincingly defeat the Labout Front?

Ho Cheow Seng