From Third World to First The Singapore Story pdfdrive com

Yazhou Zhoukan
, in
the subsequent general elections he would have gone to town with more wild
claims. By then it would have been too late to rebut him, and even PAP
supporters would have wondered whether I had done something wrong. But
because Singaporeans knew I would challenge any defamatory untruth, when
Tang defamed me, he immediately prepared for its consequences by moving all
his funds out of Singapore.
There is another important reason for suing those who have defamed me.
Since the 1950s we have established a political climate under which politicians
have to defend any allegation of misconduct or wrongdoing.
Opposition MPs also sued when they were defamed. Chiam See Tong won
damages against two PAP ministers, Howe Yoon Chong and S. Dhanabalan,
who settled the cases out of court. Jeyaretnam sued Goh Chok Tong, then
minister for trade and industry in 1981, but failed. He appealed to the Privy
Council but lost. Voters have come to expect any allegation of impropriety or
dishonesty to be challenged in the courts. PAP ministers have been able to
command the respect of people because they are ready to be scrutinised and
cross-examined in court for any alleged wrongdoing. Those who allege that my
libel actions were designed to silence the opposition do not understand how
readily an allegation of dishonesty or corruption would be believed in a region
where corruption, cronyism and nepotism are still a plague.
Some critics have alleged that our judges were compliant. The judges who
heard these cases were senior members of the bench with their standing and

---

reputation to uphold. Their judgements were published in the law reports and
cited as precedents that can stand the scrutiny of over 2,000 lawyers at the Bar,
and of teachers and students at the National University of Singapore law faculty.
The allegation that we use the judiciary in defamation suits to bankrupt our
political opponents came to a head when the 
International Herald Tribune
of 7
October 1994 carried an article by Christopher Lingle, an American lecturer at
the National University of Singapore, attacking me: “Intolerant regimes in the
region reveal considerable ingenuity in their methods of suppressing dissent …
Others are more subtle: relying upon a compliant judiciary to bankrupt
opposition politicians.” I sued the editor, the publisher and the writer. With the
foreign media present in strength to give them wide publicity, both the editor and
publisher, through their lawyers, admitted it was untrue and apologised for it.
The court awarded damages and costs against the 
IHT
. To avoid being cross-
examined in court, Lingle fled from Singapore when the writ was issued.
Far from oppressing the opposition or the press that unjustly attacked my
reputation, I have put my private and public life under close scrutiny whenever I
appeared as a plaintiff in court. Without a clear record, it would have been an
unnecessary hazard. Because I did this and also gave the damages awarded to
deserving charities, I kept my standing with our people.
To straddle the middle ground and win elections, we have to be in charge of
the political agenda. This can only be done by not being beaten in the argument
with our critics. They complain that I come down too hard on their arguments.
But wrong ideas have to be challenged before they influence public opinion and
make for problems. Those who try to be clever at the expense of the government
should not complain if my replies are as sharp as their criticisms.
At the same time, the PAP has sought to reach out to those outside the party,
to a new generation of Singaporeans who are better-educated and informed, and
who want to participate in the national debate. The large PAP majorities in
Parliament, and the poor quality of opposition MPs, led the public to feel that
alternative views were not being adequately aired in Parliament. We changed the
constitution in 1990 to provide for a small number of non-elected MPs, called
Nominated MPs (or NMPs), to reflect independent and non-partisan views. The
scheme has turned out well. It has enabled non-PAP people who are of good
quality to enter Parliament. The NMPs have played a constructive role airing
carefully considered criticisms of government policies, and the government has

---

taken them seriously. One, Walter Woon, moved a private member’s bill, which
Parliament passed to become the Maintenance of Parents Act.
After the 1984 election we created a Feedback Unit to give the public a
channel to express opinions on policies through forums and feedback sessions.
MPs with a sympathetic ear chair these meetings to solicit views, not to persuade
people. This encouraged people to speak up. Not all contrary opinions led to
reversals of policies, but the feedback helped the government to improve its
policies.
After separation from Malaysia in 1965 and as British forces started to
withdraw in 1968, elections were referenda on the level of our support, not
whether we would win. The percentage of votes for the PAP began to trend
downwards in the mid-1980s, mainly because the younger voters, whose number
was increasing, had not been through the early struggles and were not so
committed to the PAP. They wanted an opposition to check the PAP, to pressure
the government for more concessions and to soften hard policies. It was bound to
lead to less than adequate men getting elected, as indeed happened.
When Prime Minister Goh called general elections in 1991, the opposition
changed tactics. Instead of fielding more candidates of poor ability, they allowed
the PAP to win a majority of seats uncontested on nomination day. They knew
that the people wanted some opposition MPs, but also wanted to be sure they
had a PAP government. They called it their by-election strategy. It worked. Low
Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party, a Nanyang University graduate and a
Teochew, won the mainly Teochew constituency of Hougang. He turned out to
be a good grassroots leader. The SDP led by Chiam won three seats, becoming
the largest party in the opposition, with Chiam the official leader of the
opposition. The new SDP MPs were lacklustre and did not measure up. Chiam
was constructive and could have built up a sizeable political party had he been a
shrewder judge of people. In 1992 he proudly produced a plausible young
lecturer as his prize candidate for a by-election. Within two years, his protégé
had ousted him as the leader and forced him to form a new party.
In the 1997 election, out of 83 seats, the PAP lost only to Low Thia Khiang
and Chiam, who by then represented a new party. The PAP’s share of valid votes
cast rose by 4 per cent to 65 per cent, reversing the downward trend. We
defeated the two SDP MPs who had won in 1991 but had disappointed their
voters. The PAP had countered the opposition’s “by-election” strategy with the

---

electoral carrot that priority for upgrading of public housing in a constituency
would be in accord with the strength of voter support for the PAP in that
constituency. This was criticised by American liberals as unfair, as if pork barrel
politics did not exist elsewhere.
The present PAP leaders are in the process of forging their bonds with a
younger generation. The regional financial meltdown of 1997–99 was a test for
this generation that has not known hardship. Together, people and leaders
overcame the problems and emerged the stronger. This crisis and the periodic
difficulties with Malaysia have made Singaporeans acutely aware of the realities
of life in Southeast Asia.
Will the political system that my colleagues and I developed work more or
less unchanged for another generation? I doubt it. Technology and globalisation
are changing the way people work and live. Singaporeans will have new work
styles and lifestyles. As an international hub of a knowledge-based economy in
the information technology age, we will be ever more exposed to external
influences.
Will the PAP continue to dominate Singapore’s politics? How big a
challenge will a democratic opposition pose in future? This will depend on how
PAP leaders respond to changes in the needs and aspirations of a better-educated
people, and to their desire for greater participation in decisions that shape their
lives. Singapore’s options are not that numerous that there will be unbridgeable
differences between differing political views in working out solutions to our
problems.

---