Almost 10 years ago to the month, the National University of
Singapore’s newspaper, The Ridge, published an interview with the
late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam. At that time, he was the Workers’
Party secretary-general and in Parliament as a non-constituency MP.
This may be 10 years old, but some of the issues that he touched on
are still relevant.I finally won in the 1981 by-elections at Anson
where the PAP’s share of the vote was overturned
Initially, NUS did not want The Ridge to publish this
interview and the matter went up to the highest levels of the
university’s administration.
The editors, though, stood their ground and wanted that issue of
The Ridge to come out with the interview intact. After a delay of
almost a month and much negotiation, the university finally
relented.
The interview was published without any changes, and was one
of the few that JBJ gave at that time to come out uncut.
How did you get involved in politics?
Before 1959, I was very much in support of what
the People’s Action Party [PAP] was saying – they were claiming to
be champions of the workers. Lee [Kuan Yew] was the champion of
worker.
So I thought, “Very good. I’m very glad that this
man is standing up for the freedom of the
individual.”
But soon after the PAP took over, I became very
disillusioned because it became clear to me that the man had
changed drastically.
I wanted to form an opposition party initially and the Workers’
Party [WP] was more or less dormant after Marshall left in 1962.
The leadership then invited me to lead the party in 1971.
How much of progress has the WP made all these
years?
In the 1976 and 1980 general elections, I came very close to
entering Parliament in Kampong Chai Chee and Telok Blangah
respectively. For example, in Telok Blangah, only 1,000 votes
separated me from the PAP candidate. But though I lost, the WP had
grown in the public’s estimation.
I finally won in the 1981 by-elections at Anson where the PAP’s
share of the vote was overturned overturned from 84% in 1980
to 48%. This signalled the introduction of opposition in Parliament
after 16 years.
In 1984, Chiam See Tong and myself were elected and the PAP’s share
of the vote dropped to 62%.
Then, I was disallowed from running for Parliament for five years
from 1986 till November 1991. Elections were brought forward to
before that to prevent me from running.
In 1996, I contested Cheng San with four other candidates and you
must know the story. The PAP were desperate to stop from getting
elected not just myself but also my co-candidate Tang Liang Hong
who was well known among the Chinese community and had been
outspoken on Chinese affairs.
And he was like me, a daring man, and so, they were desperate. So
they dug up an old speech he had made in 1992 and some other
speeches or remarks he had made and said he was a Chinese
chauvinist and anti-Christian.
I think we would have won still if not
for the frightening of the voters in Cheng San by the PM Goh Chok
Tong. On the eve of polling day rally, he had a crowd of 2,000
people brought there in their lorries. We had more than 50,000
people listening to us.
He told them, “It’s all or nothing for
you. You vote for us and you’ll get everything and more. The MRT,
the LRT, the new township and we’ll upgrade your HDB and so on.
Only on one condition – you vote us in.”
He said the Government was at stake. That will tell you how
important it was for them to keep us out. As though the government
would collapse if we had won. It may be right, the government might
have collapsed.
So, all I am trying to say is, we lost because of their allegations
that Tang was a Chinese chauvinist and anti-Christian. But even
despite that, we would have won, if not for this “frightening” of
the voters.
Yet, we emerged far stronger than any other opposition party. So
that’ll tell you the progress that has been made by the WP in all
these years.
Do you feel there is a need for a change of tactics by the
opposition; perhaps moving away from the by-election strategy of
giving the PAP power on nomination day to actually trying to form a
government?
Well, it was not our strategy. We didn’t it put up. Anyway, I don’t
think it makes any difference. I don’t know what tactics you think
we need to change. The PAP and the media, which is under their
control, will say that we have no alternative programme.
We have an alternative programme – ‘Towards a caring society’. We
first produced this in 1976, again for the 1988 elections, made
some changes and had the latest one in 1995. We have a programme in
every subject.
But of course, the press doesn’t comment on it and no one ever
bothers to tell the public about it and the PAP keep pointing that
“they have no programme”.
Why is it difficult to attract people to the
WP?
Again, the fear.
Let’s talk about this fear of people joining and voting for
WP and other opposition parties.
An important factor is the fear of the ISA.
You spoke up recently in parliament about
that.
Yes, the speeches by NMPs [Nominated MP] replying to me
appeared in the newspapers, but they never published my speech.
The ISA was used after the 1976 elections when they attempted to
detain one of our own candidates but he evaded arrest and is now in
London. They have used it against those who have come to help the
WP in some way or if they are potential candidates.
Apart from detention, people have lost their jobs. After the ’72
elections, two of our candidates lost their jobs. So this fear
became embedded. There was no need for the PAP to make an
announcement.
I have mentioned this. Candidates who themselves are very keen to
join in, then suddenly come in at the last minute and say, “I spoke
to my employer and they said, yes please join the WP as a
candidate, but we will give you our notice.” So, what does the man
do?
So that’s how people have been kept out. Not just the employer, the
family too. At the last elections, 3 candidates withdrew.
One said, “My wife is crying and can’t sleep while my children are
asking me why am I doing this to the family. So I can’t break up
the family.”
Another told me, “My father is in the hospital, he’s worried. My
brother is worried, my sister in-law is worried.”
The last one said, “My wife and family are worried and saying that
I shouldn’t stand.”
As I said in Australia recently, unless this fear is broken,
Singapore is never going to advance anywhere. They seem to have
broken it in Indonesia, and it’s happening in Malaysia – but when
in Singapore?
What about the voters then? Why do think they are afraid to
vote?
Like in Cheng San, they don’t want to lose everything.
So what do think they should do?
They must say, “It doesn’t matter. You can take whatever you want
but we are prepared.”
But that is a very difficult choice for people to make.
The voters are afraid because they will lose things and this will
affect their family and children. It is all these tactics. And they
call it free and fair elections!
It is a very depressing state of affairs in this country. You get
NMPs in parliament saying that Singapore’s elections are free
and fair.
I say what do they know? Have they taken part in elections to
pronounce that they are free and fair?
What do you think about the NMP scheme?
I’ll only say this. NMPs have no place in parliament as they never
went through the electoral process. I am an NCMP and I went through
the electoral process and the constitution provides for my place as
a reflection of the voters’ preference.
I am in Parliament because 46.9% of voters in Cheng San wanted me
in there. Which voter wanted NMPs in Parliament?
The WP was initially against the NCMP scheme as
well.
I’ll explain that. The scheme
was initially introduced to buy off the voters. Then, they put out
another half-truth that non-Chinese would find it difficult to get
into parliament.
The ignored the fact that in
Anson, it was 78% Chinese votes and I got in. What they mean is
that their own non-Chinese candidates will find it difficult to get
into Parliament. So, we opposed it.
But in 1984, the PAP hadn’t
resorted to the tactics they used from 1988 onwards, and especially
two years ago when they resorted to large-scale frightening like
announcing that votes would be counted precinct by
precinct.
My party decided that in these circumstances, I should accept the
seat.
Do you think it is possible for a party other than the PAP
to come to power in Singapore?
Of course it is. If one day, the people stand up and say, “We’ve
had enough of this. We don’t care anymore.”
Do you see that happening?
However you look, it will eventually happen. In spite of all that
they did in Cheng San, nearly 47% voted for us. It will come about
if the people decide it is enough.
What is your personal opinion of the NUS
undergraduate?
In other countries, students are in the forefront of political
change, for example in Indonesia. Not in Singapore.
But I can sympathise with you because the University might throw
you out. I can’t expect you to lose your place in the
university.
It is important to want to further your education and get something
out of your life. The University is wrong in clamping down on
student participation in politics. I understand your problem and am
not willing to condemn.
Do you believe that the general apathy in Singapore is due
in part of the political culture here?
There is only one culture here – that of fear.
Everyone knows that they have to be frightened and mustn’t speak
out. They can’t do anything that displeases the
government.
Do you refer to the government or the PAP as a political
party?
There is very little difference between the government and the
PAP.
What is your view of the Singapore 21
committee?
A lot of words, nothing else.
Where do they talk about people living in dignity without fear,
about people having the basic freedoms? They don’t talk about
removing the fear from the hearts and mind of the people – I said
that in Parliament.
They are always talking about making Singapore the best home, a
happy place. Just more and more words, which is what the PAP is
good at.
What is your vision of Singapore in the 21st
century?
I want the people of Singapore to be possessed of
their own basic human dignity which they are denied and enjoy what
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “The inalienable
rights of human beings” – which is to live without
fear.
I want Singaporeans to be allowed to make their
own choices – to participate in the decision making process of
their country, which they are not given at the
moment.
How do you respond to criticism JBJ is out of with the
younger generation?
That was something that the papers put out.
It was a question at the last elections.
Well of course they want me to retire and give way to the younger
generation. Isn’t that obvious?
But all I can say is, whenever I walk along the streets sometimes I
get even school students who come up and say, “Sir, may I shake
your hand? We admire you so much.”
So, have I lost touch? I don’t know.
What is your motivation to stay in politics for so
long?
I believe that life is not to be lived for oneself, but there’s a
duty.
What would you like to say to the NUS
undergraduates?
Well, this is also what the PAP says – the future of any country
lies in those who are going to take over from their parents.
Something has to be handed over to the next generation. This is
what I have asked the people and the voters – what are you going to
hand over to your children?
A few notes on some of the topics that were touched on in this
interview:
1) Mr Jeyaretnam was part of the Workers’ Party team that
narrowly lost to the PAP at Cheng San GRC in the 1997 General
Elections. It was one of the most fiercely contested election
campaigns in recent times.
2) Opposition parties used the by-election strategy,
through which they would contest less than half of the
seats that were up for grabs in an election and therefore
make sure that the People’s Action Party returned to power
on nomination day. The premise was that
Singaporeans wanted the PAP to remain in power, and would
therefore be more amenable to voting for opposition candidates
during the elections if that was confirmed before polling day. This
was most successful in 1991, when four opposition MPs were
elected.
3) Singapore 21 was a government programme to reach out to all
Singaporeans in an effort to gather feedback on how they would like
the country to develop in the new millennium. It resulted in a set
of aims, which are listed on the official
website that has not been updated since January
2004. Whether the country has actually achieved
all of that is debatable.
http://jbjmemorial.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/meeting-jbj/
