by Teo Soh Lung
Reading this news cutting of 31 October 1986 today, and knowing the history of Singapore and the PAP better than nearly 40 years ago, I can say that the PAP’s method of control has not changed. Its attitude towards those who disagree with them is simply “FINISH THEM OFF”.
Our first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew was a lawyer. E.W. Barker was his law minister. He was also a lawyer. Between the two of them, it was easy to use laws to wipe out any opponent. Anyone who poses a potential threat to the survival of the PAP would be “nipped in the bud”. If they can be won over, invite them to join the party. If not, just finish them off. Use any legal means to do that. It does not matter because everything is as Dr Lim Hock Siew who was detained for 20 years without trial puts it, “Everything is by the law”. They make the laws and everything they do is legal.
The first two paragraphs of the news cutting are interesting. I recall that I was asked at the select committee hearing about my involvement with the Workers’ Party. I was not a party member but I did help the party during one election. A fellow lawyer, Mr M.P.D. Nair asked me to be his polling agent. I agreed. As everyone knows, it wasn’t a big thing to be a polling agent. Indeed it was a citizen’s duty to be a polling agent. But at the select committee hearing, the home affairs minister, Mr S. Jayakumar made it sound like it was illegal to be one. I was surprised and wondered what he was up to. If he thought I would deny helping the WP, he was sadly mistaken. I admitted. He persisted in asking some silly questions. On seeing that he was getting no where with my honest answers, Lee Kuan Yew dramatically snatched his papers and took over the cross examination.
The third paragraph reminded me that the Law Society conducted an extraordinary meeting at the request of 62 members who sought the withdrawal of the Amendment to the Legal Profession Bill. The minimum number of members who wished to call a meeting at that time was 25. So 62 members was a very credible number. I think members were all unhappy with the bill which primarily sought the removal of Mr Francis Seow as its president.
Seow was elected as the president by members of the Council of the Law Society in late 1985. It was none of the business of Lee or his ministers to interfere in the leadership of the society. Between Lee and Barker however, they must have scoured through Seow’s personal history. They managed to dig out some old offence which took place decades ago. They made them disqualifying conditions for anyone to hold the office of president of the Law Society. It was most deplorable. Lee and Barker enacted the new law to take retrospective effect and thus to disqualify Seow as president.
The Law Society should have challenged the constitutionality of the law. I think they would have the entire backing of members back then. Sadly, the Council did not do anything. What was worse and utterly disgraceful was that its council did not hold any meeting to discuss the bill with members. Council members did not see it necessary to defend its president and the future of the Law Society!
And so it was left to ordinary members to defend its president and their Law Society. Sixty-two members called for the meeting. I was the proposer and Mr Patrick Seong was the seconder.
In later years, I discovered that the council did discuss the holding an extraordinary general meeting but the majority opposed the proposal. Perhaps members of the Council predicted that those who called the meeting would be arrested under the ISA!
Before 1986, members of the Law Society were generally not interested in standing for election to become members of its council. Council members were largely lawyers from big firms who were generally important to the government. The sudden interest of lawyers from small law firms standing for election to Council may have rung an alarm bell to Lee and Barker. They probably jumped to the conclusion that a “revolution” was on the way to turn the society into a socialist front! The old idea of communist united front must have terrified them.
While I can understand Lee and Barker’s fear of a “revolution,” I think it is most irresponsible of them to decimate decent citizens who want the best for their society and their country. A responsible government will listen to the people. If they cannot find solutions to the issues raised by the people, they should be voted out. Endless tweaking of laws to ensure that the party survives at all costs by decimating any form of competition from dissidents is most unhealthy for the survival of Singapore.
But throughout the history of the PAP, the only means to ensure survival is the crushing of dissent by laws. They have done that since independence in 1965. The “offences” they legislate have become more and more petty. Indeed, they have become ridiculous. How can it be an offence for one person to hold an A4 size sheet of paper with a smiley face be an offence?
The PAP have succeeded in retaining power for six decades at the cost of sacrificing the people of Singapore. Will it lose power one day?
Leave a Reply