Following the news of the passing of Lim Chin Joo (林清如) at age 87, a former political detainee and younger brother of Barisan Sosialis leader Lim Chin Siong, many Singaporeans from civil society, as well as those involved in political, literary, or historical studies, expressed their condolences on social media.

According to Lianhe Zaobao, Mr Lim, a former student activist and former president of the Ee Hoe Hean Club, sustained a severe head injury on 1 October 2024 after an accidental fall and was rushed to the hospital.

He passed away the following night, leaving behind his widow, four children, and several grandchildren.

Lawyer Tan Wah Piow, a political dissident and former student leader from the 1970s, recalled a chance encounter with Lim Chin Joo on 4 October 2016 at a pedestrian crossing in Bayswater, London.

Lim introduced himself, and although both were headed to different restaurants for dinner, they briefly parted ways. Later that evening, Tan managed to meet Lim again at the Mandarin Kitchen, where they took a photo together.

Tan expressed regret that they didn’t have more time to converse. Although they maintained occasional contact over the years, they could not meet again, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Lim’s health condition.

Mr Tan noted that while Lim Chin Joo was widely recognised as the brother of Lim Chin Siong, “In his own right, Chin Joo was a patriot whose political journey began as a middle school student activist.”

He highlighted Mr Lim’s contributions to the anti-colonial movement, later becoming a trade unionist.

Lim shared the fate of many Chinese-educated youths at the time, suffering imprisonment without trial—first under British rule in 1957, and later until 1966, even after Singapore attained self-rule and independence.

“Why did his own government imprison him without trial after the British left? That was the subject I would love to explore.”

Mr Tan also remarked that despite the interruptions to Lim’s life, he managed to qualify and practice as a lawyer in Singapore.

“That evening, the subject of Chin Joo’s brother Lim Chin Siong, weighed heavily on my mind. This was because within 100 yards of the restaurant where I was dining, Lim Chin Siong once lived and worked during his exile in the 1970s.”

“Arrested without trial in 1963, Lim Chin Siong was exiled to London in 1969 as a condition of his release. The six years of imprisonment from 1963 to his exile greatly affected this national hero’s health and well-being. ”

Mr Lim’s Significant Contributions to Singapore’s Civil Society and Historical Study

Dr Thum Ping Tjin, a Singaporean historian and activist, shared in a Facebook post on Sunday (6 October) that Mr Lim was highly supportive of his work, assisting with his research and showing great enthusiasm for the publication of Nationalism and Decolonisation in Singapore, 1953-63.

Despite being very unwell, Mr Lim was insistent on meeting up to discuss the book.

“He even bought a dozen copies of my book on the spot! He was also really looking forward to my upcoming biography of his brother, Lim Chin Siong.”

“I’m sad that he will not be able to read it. Rest in Power, Chin Joo.”

Illustrator Sonny Liew also recalled that Mr Lim, along with the Ee Hoe Hean Club, provided a small grant to support the development of a new graphic novel some years ago.

Mr Lim also assisted with a book launch at Grassroots Book Room (草根書室) in 2019.

Separately, historian Dr Loh Kah Seng shared his first meeting with Mr Lim in 2007 while working on his PhD. Dr Loh explained that he had reached out to Mr Lim because of his experience working at the Land Office after his release from detention.

“He picked me up and drove me to his house. He told me a few things about squatter laws and reiterated that he would not talk about his brother. ”

Dr Loh also noted that Mr Lim mentioned he was working on his memoir at the time. The memoir was published in 2014, and Mr Lim kindly sent him a copy. By then, he had become more open about sharing his story and Singapore’s history.

Former Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo Pays Tribute to Lim Chin Joo

Former Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo also shared a photo with the late Lim Chin Joo in remembrance of him.

In her tribute, Singaporean writer Loo Li San expressed deep sorrow over the passing of Lim Chin Joo, reflecting on his profound influence on her and others in Singapore.

She shared personal memories, highlighting his encouragement for her writing and how he served as both a mentor and a guiding figure in her life.

She recalled what Mr Lim told her: ‘Li San, would you like to write for Yihe Shiji  (怡和世纪, quarterly publication by Ee Hoe Hean Club)?’

‘You can write anything; I love to read whatever you write.’

Ms Loo emphasised that his legacy would continue to inspire her and others to strive for greatness.

From Student Activist to Legal Scholar

Born in 1937 in Pontian, Johor, Lim Chin Joo attended The Chinese High School in Singapore after World War II, and became actively involved in student and labour movements, notably as a key member of the Singapore Chinese Middle School Student Union in 1957.

At the age of 20, he was detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, now known as the Internal Security Act (ISA).

His detention lasted nine years, during which he pursued his education and earned a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of London.

Upon his release in 1966, he joined the Singapore government’s elite administrative service, later transitioning to private legal practice in 1973, where he continued to work until his retirement in 2002.

Lim authored several books, including My Youth in Black and White, reflecting on his life and his brother, Lim Chin Siong, and in his later years, he served as an honorary adviser to the Ee Hoe Hean Club, a gathering place for Chinese businessmen in Singapore.

In a thought-provoking interview with Viswa Sadasivan, the founding executive chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings and former political detainee, Ho Kwon Ping, offered his insights on Singapore’s meritocracy, diversity, and his detention under the Internal Security Act.

During the discussion on Inconvenient Questions, hosted by Viswa, a former Nominated Member of Parliament, Ho explored key issues that continue to shape Singapore’s development and societal landscape.

Ho began by dissecting Singapore’s meritocratic system, critiquing both its strengths and its darker side.

He acknowledged that while Singapore’s meritocracy was intended to be fair and largely functions without corruption, it has also created unintended consequences.

Ho argued that the system promotes a false sense of entitlement for the successful and self-blame for the unsuccessful, leading to societal stagnation. “The insidiousness of meritocracy,” Ho said, “is that both those who succeed and those who don’t, believe they deserve it.” He attributed the success of many not just to merit but to factors such as connections, educational background, and sheer luck.

Reflecting on a book that influenced his thinking, The Tyranny of Meritocracy by Michael Sandel, Ho likened meritocracy to capitalism and democracy—flawed but with no better alternatives.

He stressed, however, that while meritocracy should not be discarded, it needs reform to prevent the entrenchment of privilege.

“The majority of university graduates have parents who are university graduates; the majority of doctors have parents who are doctors,” he said, citing structural issues that limit social mobility despite the appearance of fairness.

Ho also shared a critical analysis of how Singapore’s society, in its current form, is shaped by meritocracy.

He argued that the psychological toll on those who fail within such a system leads to passivity and resignation.

“If you are in a meritocracy and you fail, you don’t rebel because you think it’s your fault,” Ho explained. He warned that this mindset, if left unchecked, could lead to a society where the majority accepts mediocrity rather than striving for systemic change or greater personal achievement.

The conversation then turned to Ho’s personal experience as a political detainee under the Internal Security Act in 1977.

Viswa referenced a government press release from the time, accusing Ho of promoting Marxist, pro-communist ideas through his work at the Far Eastern Economic Review.

In response, Ho addressed the complexities of his detention and the emotional toll of being imprisoned at a young age. While he refrained from confirming whether his televised confession of being a communist sympathizer was coerced, he described the immense mental pressure of solitary confinement.

Ho acknowledged that he did what he needed to do to secure his release, stating: “I wasn’t willing to sacrifice my freedom forever.” He contrasted his own experience with political prisoners like Nelson Mandela and others who were willing to give up their lives for their cause.

Ho spoke candidly about the realization that his earlier idealism, while deeply believed, could not withstand the harsh realities of long-term incarceration.

“I was a rebel without a cause,” Ho said, admitting that his privileged background allowed him to engage in activism without fully understanding the consequences.

He recalled telling late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew directly that he believed his detention had been a mistake, although he harbored no resentment. Ho expressed respect for Lee’s willingness to place national security above personal grievances, recognizing that his own detention had likely been motivated by what the government believed was necessary for Singapore’s stability at the time.

The conversation shifted to diversity—a topic Ho has frequently discussed in public speeches, including his Nathan Lectures at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

He highlighted the importance of “dynamic meritocracy,” linking diversity to the resilience and survival of societies. “Diversity strengthens the system,” he remarked, comparing it to biodiversity in the natural world.

However, Ho pointed out that Singapore’s diversity often remains limited to traditional markers such as race and religion. He argued for a broader understanding of diversity that includes socio-economic backgrounds and life experiences, stating that this type of diversity is critical for Singapore to remain competitive and innovative in the global economy.

Viswa prompted Ho to elaborate on how diversity can be fostered in Singapore’s education system.

Ho expressed pride in his role as founding chairman of Singapore Management University (SMU), which he described as an experiment aimed at breaking the mold of the traditional Singaporean education system.

“We created a generation of young people who are articulate, who can stand up for themselves,” Ho said, emphasizing that education should focus not only on academic success but also on developing well-rounded, independent thinkers.

He called for continued reforms in the education system to promote greater creativity and to reduce the current emphasis on academic achievement as the sole measure of success.

Ho further advocated for the dismantling of elite schools or at least reforming the selection process. He argued against perpetuating an “aristocracy of schools,” where the top 1% of students are funneled into prestigious institutions such as Raffles Institution, based solely on academic performance.

Instead, Ho proposed that every school should be encouraged to develop its own areas of excellence, allowing for a more diversified education system where students’ unique talents are nurtured, whether in the arts, sports, or other fields.

Reflecting on his broader vision for Singapore, Ho urged for a “deeper, more comprehensive” understanding of diversity. He warned that the kind of diversity that has led to fragmentation in the West—defined by political, ethnic, and sexual identity subgroups—should be avoided.

Ho emphasized that Singapore must find a balance between maintaining social harmony and fostering greater inclusivity in leadership, education, and corporate boardrooms.

The interview concluded with Ho reaffirming his belief in the importance of diversity and meritocracy working hand in hand. “Diversity can be divisive if not handled correctly, but it can also be the key to Singapore’s resilience and future success,” he said.

Ho expressed optimism that with careful management, Singapore could continue to evolve and thrive without falling into mediocrity or passivity.