Excerpts from the Singapore Democratic Party’s website on the resignation of Mr Chiam See Tong from the party in May of 1993:
When Mr Chiam’s resignation as secretary-general was made public, the PAP wasted no time in exploiting the issue. The ruling party knew that it could inflict maximum damage if it pitted Mr Chiam against me. Mr Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, had once told his party members:
Mr Chiam was no threat but had, in fact, been “good” for the PAP as “without him, it would have been more difficult to destroy (Singapore Democratic Party chief) Chee Soon Juan”. (Party sets five goals to win elections in 2002, Straits Times, 12 Jan 98)
During a Parliament sitting in June 1993, PAP Ministers and MPs took to the floor to pile it on, extolling Mr Chiam and skewering the SDP. One even called the situation “a coup” against Mr Chiam. There was no question whose side the PAP was on:
Mr Wong Kan Seng stated: “Without him (Mr Chiam), what is the SDP?”
Former PAP MP Mr Tan Cheng Bock: “Mr Chiam appreciates the whole political scene, I think he did not want to rock the boat although he genuinely believed that certain things must be changed, which is fair enough.”
Former PAP MP Mr Loh Meng See: “It is sad because the whole event sounds like a coup against Mr Chiam.”
Even former Nominated MP, now Attorney-General, Mr Walter Woon weighed in: “He (Mr Chiam) founded the SDP and I don’t see that he should give it up.”
(Chiam back to one-man show? Straits Times, 20 Jun 93)
Read Dr Chee’s explanation of the saga here.
Goh Chok Tong was not very smart in letting the cat out of the bag, or maybe he thought that he was just telling it to the PAP members at its party convention?
Or could it be his directive and a clear signal for the local media and its dogs to do the necessary jobs?
SM Goh is right. With Mr Chiam still in SDP, it would be impossible to bring down Dr Chee. That is because Mr Chiam would had brought credibility to Dr Chee if he remain in SDP.
I agree with the “no threat” part of Chiam See Tong. It’s still the one single seat at Potong Pair after 25 years.
In Today’s interview with RP’s Kenneth Jeyaretnam, KJ was quoted as commenting on Chiam: “But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.”
Chiam does serve the function of providing the “feel good” factor for Singaporeans voters though.
“In a democratic country, if a party……”
Hmm..,we a democracy?..Kidding right?
What has Chiam done for Singapore?
Even Kenneth Jeyaretnam doesn’t think Chiam has done much. Look at what he said on TODAY: “Mr Chiam is much-loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.”
But wait. Didn’t Kenneth just go on a joint walkabout with Chiam? And now he’s saying this?
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1048649/1/.html
Opposition unity is not about licking each other’s balls, but about pointing out observations for what they are, be they good or bad, and then learning from their collective past experiences and subsequently moving forward together.
The irony is that people always point out and ask what has Chiam achieved.
I think most people cannot remember the look of then PM Goh the night of the 1991 election results when Chiam leading the SDP got 3 seats + ah low with the 4th. If one had been there on that night, one would have instead asked what Chiam could have achieved IF the opposition had been united.
Unfortunately, history tells us whether the opposition were truly united after that election… how many parties are going on in their own direction today and how many want to be indian chief?
Sigh. Spilt milk.
<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } –>
Chiam-Gate: See Tong’s own folly:
http://dlzj.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/chiam-gate-part-deux/
Nonetheless, Dr Chee’s assertions are not new. In Cherian George’s Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation (published in November 2000), the author covers this saga in one short chapter that practically supports Dr Chee’s own side of the story, and reveals a very shameful side of Chiam See Tong you don’t often read about in the media…
Even if the opposition was splintered, like it is right now, there is no excuse for an elected MP to be ineffective in parliament. If he is worth his salt, he would have done more in making a difference.
As for licking balls. No need for that to show opposition unity. Just don’t stab another’s back. Simple.
This is called ‘divide and conquer’. Oldest trick in the textbook.
Splinter the opposition, turn them upon one another. Now the incumbent can fix the disunited resistance much easier.
“ if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.”
Please for God sake ppl check your FACTS, Don’t Anyone here read History? The SDP expanded to 2 seats (200%!) in 1991 (Handshake with fishmonger incident ).Ling How Doong became a one term MP and but lost due to the infighting in SDP in the following election (with CSG ) and so on.
Everyone expected SDP to do well in that election , but well, you know the rest of the history.
Ling How Doong lost Bukit Timah because the Shit Times played up the dumb notice board and uncut grass incident. The truth was voters were stupid enough to let petty issues determine their choice.
If the only things that concerns you is whether your drains is cleaned and MPs write appeal letters for your son to postpone his NS, then it really don’t matter if you have LKY or Stalin for a leader.
@mic o mic,
In this respect, Ling wasn’t able to fully concentrate on the cleanliness of his precint. However, there are also similar issues at potong pasir.. esp lorong 8, which looks quite old .. these things are basic amenities for the ppl which they can FEEL immediately.. so they have to be looked after. Hougang, however, didn’t had such problems and it’s precinct was well maintained. So it goes to show the management abilities of the party as well.