INTERVIEW: My exclusive interview with SINGA CREW (editor of "Singapore Sucks!" book), 4 October 2011

The young and enthusiastic Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Youth cheer when the news is announced that the opposition has won in either Aljunied GRC or Hougang SMC at Quality Hotel, Balestier Road, election night, 7 May 2011. Activist SINGA CREW is a strong supporter of the SDP and he became politicised ten years ago after reading one of Dr Chee Soon Juan's books. However, he suggests Singapore activists must move away from traditional street protests to more subtle and post-modern forms of culture-jamming activities and online activism.

My exclusive interview with SINGA CREW (Singapore culture-jammer and editor of the 2011 book Singapore Sucks!) “We have a lot of foreigners in Singapore who honestly believe in the PAP constructed illusion. I want those foreign visitors to know the truth. The foreigners are not doing native Singaporeans any favours if they come here with this mentality” – Singa Crew “The various Opposition parties are taking the conventional approach to activism but that won’t work in Singapore. There is hope if the current batch of activists evolve and we see a new breed of activists, much like the hacker collective known as Anonymous” – Singa Crew   By Dr Kieran James (University of Southern Queensland), Interview at: Vietnam Eatery, Joo Chiat Road, Singapore, 4 October 2011 (as amended by SC on 15 March 2012) Please note that SINGA CREW prefers to remain anonymous and did not wish to be photographed Introduction by Kieran James: I met SINGA CREW for the first time when he walked in somewhat breathless into the reception area of my hotel in Joo Chiat Road just after 2pm on Tuesday 4 October 2011. Although we had communicated online and I had contributed a poem to his edited book Singapore Sucks! we had never met before and I did not even know whether to expect a Chinese, Malay, Indian or (to use the official Singaporean terminology) an “Other”. We went down the road to the Vietnam Eatery for this extensive three-hour interview and after this retreated into a pub on Joo Chiat Road for a late afternoon jug of Tiger beer. After our drinks we departed and I watched him walk in the other direction and merge into the crowd, a nameless and anonymous but very interesting character who is fully committed to rising up and inspiring a new generation of Singaporean political activists and culture-jammers to challenge PAP hegemony in the country. We wish him well. Although SINGA CREW uses a pseudonym he differs from the online political commentator Bryan Ti as with the former there is no doubt which side of the political fence he claims allegiance to. Kieran James: By the way Roderick Chia says “hello”. Singa Crew: Ah, I know him, my greetings to him. Roderick Chia, Kieran James, Jarrod Luo, 29/3/2012 KJ: OK, first question: Please explain the events in your life that caused you to become an opposition supporter? SC: There isn’t really one single event that politicised me. My awakening from ignorance to a conscious decision to oppose the status quo has been an interesting one. I remember buying a book from Dr. Chee Soon Juan at the Orchard MRT station. That was in the year 2000. I was so afraid then that I hid the book under my shirt as I made my way home! When I got home I started reading about ISA [Internal Security Act] and activists back in the 1980s who were arrested and tortured. I was in my mid-twenties then. That was when I read about the torture and stuff; I became afraid of PAP. I started to learn more about the PAP and human rights abuses here right on my doorstep in Singapore as a form of self-defence. I had to know if they were still torturing people in some dungeon somewhere. In that same year, I embarked on a journey of self-discovery, travelling to some really liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and London. I met and learned from an eclectic bunch of people. There were those who struggled for religious tolerance, for misunderstood religions like Wicca to enjoy the same legitimacy and mainstream status as Christianity in America. Some took to the parks and fed the homeless and I went with them. And the ex-military personnel who taught me martial arts also taught me about their Second Amendment rights. I will always be grateful to my overseas friends and mentors who taught me there’s more to life than blind adherence to the status quo. KJ: Did you become involved in opposition party activities here in Singapore around this time? SC: I was not involved in party activities, I attended some forums organized by the SDP [Singapore Democratic Party] but that’s it.    KJ: Tell me why you decided to compile and edit the book Singapore Sucks! which has just been published by the Malaysian publisher Gerakbudaya Enterprise in Petaling Jaya? SC: A writer once described Singapore as “Disneyland with the death penalty”. But many Singaporeans, like myself, who have to put up with the draconian rules for decades now, we are not feeling the Disney at all just the penalties. Therefore, we get very annoyed with the mainstream media – especially the government-owned dailies circulating in Singapore– for their unhealthy fixation on the “Disney” side of Singapore. There is a limit to how high you can suspend your disbelief. So the time came when I said “enough is enough” and pitched the idea to write Singapore Sucks! to some people I know. KJ: What will happen to Singapore politics, in your opinion, over the next 10-15 years? SC: If activists in Singapore do not expand their repertoire beyond conventional methods of public protests or petition signings then nothing will change in Singapore. It will remain stagnant. I believe in culture-jamming tactics. That has more meaning for the 21st Century especially in Singaporean society where most of the people are just too shy for public protests. Perhaps it will be better if there is more chaos at the ground level and more activists springing up everywhere and not just clustered under one political party. KJ: Would you use the word “activist” to describe yourself? SC: Yes, I would call myself an activist although many activists in Singapore will disagree with me because I don’t attend protests, sign petitions or speak at public forums. Writing Singapore Sucks! is a form of activism in my opinion, and I feel that the activists should not limit themselves to a set of old-school methods to promote their various causes. There is hope if the current batch of activists evolve and we see a new breed of activists, much like the hacker collective known as Anonymous. The modern police state is wise to the traditional tactics commonly employed by activist groups. You need to be subtle and get under the radar. KJ: Would you ever consider standing for election? SC: No, I would not stand for election. I am honestly not looking forward to any future General Elections. KJ: Why do you say this? SC: Because PAP is bringing in more and more foreign talents who will be naturalized into Singaporean society. We know these “new citizens” [KJ: SC indicates quotation marks by the usual hand signals] will most probably vote for PAP. For every Singaporean citizen we can convince to vote for opposition, PAP can bring in an extra one thousand. It’s a numbers game. There will be a sense of gratitude to those who gave them citizenship in a first-world country. KJ: It may not be 100% PAP support from the new citizens. I know two young Indian foreign students here, one has gone back already, and they are cynical about PAP. SC: For every new citizen who will not vote for the PAP, there are probably a thousand more who will. The floodgates are open and I don’t see any way to shut it. Not with only six opposition members in Parliament. KJ: What do you think of internet political activism? SC: Internet activism is a form of leaderless resistance. Bloggers and online commentators lack command links and operate without the constraints that hierarchies impose. Since there is no visible hierarchy, like in a political party or NGO, internet activists are not susceptible to the sort of "infiltrate and destroy" tactics commonly employed by government agents. And, given the current climate in Singapore, internet activism is more effective than street protests because you can get more participants, and not just from around here but from outside of Singapore as well. Trying to shut down the internet would be like trying to punch fog, but if you take to the streets in the dozens they just have to send in the police. KJ: Please tell us about your own experiences in culture-jamming? SC: My first culture-jamming project was when I printed a set of postcards about Singapore. The Singapore Tourist Board uses postcards to promote tourism by showing off glamorous images of Singapore. The postcards I printed showed activists being arrested by police. I had them printed in England and distributed them to show the world the other side of Singapore that they [the PAP] try to hide. Singapore Sucks! is my second project. I have other ideas but they cost funds to implement. KJ: What do the opposition parties need to do to go from 25% to 50.1% and what type of people makes up that next 25% that opposition must win over? SC: They need to win over the older generation. Younger generation like myself mostly support the opposition. The opposition needs to win over the HDB uncles and aunties. Kieran James & Ravi Philomen (former Ed, The Online Citizen) KJ: What is your main motivation for editing and publishing Singapore Sucks? SC: I hope to excite my fellow Singaporeans into thinking. About Singapore. About the problems plaguing our country. KJ: Tell us about your use of the pseudonym SINGA CREW? I like it with its American gangsta rap connotations. SC: I’m trying to build a reputation for my pseudonym. A pseudonym can be as a powerful as a real name, even more than a real name. [KJ: Yes, we remember the early punk rock legends such as Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious, and Joe Strummer more readily today than we remember those other musicians from that same movement who did not use pseudonyms.] If you use your real name, the PAP can use personal attacks against you. With a pseudonym they can’t do that and your message remains pristine and unadulterated from the petty politics which the PAP seems to favour. I also believe firmly that anonymity and freedom of speech go hand in hand. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then you can’t say “Oh, but certain things can only be said when you use your real name”. Freedom of speech is not a buffet where you get to pick and choose. Either you believe in it unequivocally or you don’t. KJ: Do you mind me asking whether you have any other jobs, part-time or full-time? SC: I am just a menial labourer. I have cleaned toilets in hotels and washed dishes in restaurants. KJ: What do you think of those Christians here who rely on Bible verses such as St Paul’s letter to the Romans chapter 13 verse 1, “let everyone be subject to the governing authorities”, as a basis for not opposing the PAP system? SC: I have met Christians who have mixed religion with PAP propaganda. I have heard it said that the PAP leaders are guided by the divine wisdom of the Holy Spirit or some nonsense like that. That shows how messed up we are. KJ: Have you got any plans for a follow-up book on Singapore? SC: Yes, I plan to write another book on Singapore, a collection of untold stories of the victims of suicide in Singapore. The catch-phrase of the book will be: You Die Your Business, Don’t Blame the Government – that is rule number one governing suicide in Singapore. There was this girl who committed suicide; the newspaper said it was due to her own personal problems. What they did not say is she suffered a lot of stress due to our cutthroat education system. KJ: According to one of the WikiLeaks documents for Singapore the Singapore Government does not want too many people to go to college in Singapore. What is the reason for this do you think? SC: I will say there is no one reason for that. There is an amalgam of reasons. One reason is because the PAP Government believes foreign investment here is the key to our success. You don’t even really need high-school qualification to do factory work. They need many Singaporeans to labour in the factories. It would be detrimental to their plan if there were too many college graduates. Also the Government does not want more Singaporeans to be smart. Intelligence is not a virtue in Singapore. They especially do not want more humanities graduates. Probably because humanities graduates will be good at lateral thinking and all that PAP propaganda you read in the Straits Times will be rendered useless.    KJ: Have you got any other interesting stories to tell me based on your time spent overseas? SC: Yes, I was distributing Chee Soon Juan’s books in London when a Singaporean girl came up to me and told me off. “Chee Soon Juan is a trouble-maker, Singapore is a democratic country!” She declared loudly. She then told the people who had gathered around us: “Come to our country and see how high our buildings are and you will see how democratic we are” [KJ: KJ and SC both laugh out loud at this point and we only narrowly avoid spitting beer all over our table]. It says a lot about the PAP when they have a supporter who thinks the height of the buildings is synonymous with the state of democracy! Even the most conservative Americans will not take this bullshit. I also participated in some protests and saw for myself they are not necessarily evil or disruptive as the PAP tells us. In San Francisco a bunch of us were sitting around drinking hot soup, the police were there looking bored. It did not degenerate into a riot or anything. The bored-looking police officers made a big impression on me. If that took place in Singapore they would probably have sent in a SWAT team after us. Those experiences helped me become the person I am today. KJ: Is there any other important thing you want me to write for my book? SC: You really need to write about how activism in Singapore should evolve. Certain new concepts, such as culture-jamming, need to be explored...I hope to popularise Singapore Sucks! as a name, so when people think of Singapore they will think: “Singapore Sucks”. If you don’t think “Singapore Sucks” you will not think about changing the country for the better and the PAP will use it as an excuse never to change; the status quo will remain the same. The book is for foreigners as well, to know the true Singapore. We have a lot of foreigners in Singapore who honestly believe in the PAP constructed illusion. I want those foreign visitors to know the truth. The foreigners are not doing native Singaporeans any favours if they come here with this mentality. When foreigners say to me “you are living in a great country” I feel like they are kicking me in the balls. It’s like telling an abused housewife to ignore the bullying because her husband earns a nice salary. KJ: Foreigners will say Singapore is a very safe country; that is what some American PAP supporter here was telling me not long ago... SC: For us Singaporeans living in HDB estates we don’t feel safe. Often I see unruly people gathering in the void decks and I certainly don’t feel safe then. Singapore is safe for certain foreigners probably because of our colonial heritage. The criminal elements know not to attack a white tourist or they will suffer swift retribution from the authorities. Native Singaporeans like myself don’t enjoy the same level of protection. KJ: What changes do you think will happen here after the Minister Mentor Mr Harry Lee Kuan Yew passes away? SC: LKY has always been "The Man". There can never be another LKY. But on the other hand, there are many contenders in the PAP and some might push us just that much harder and further to prove their mettle.    KJ: What do you think of National Service? Isn’t it ridiculous to think reservists could help defend the country in a modern invasion? I think the PAP is still thinking in terms of guys with guns advancing by foot down the peninsula as in World War II. The upper middle classes will fight to the death at the gates of their condominiums.... SC: Let us call a spade a spade. National Service is conscription and that’s just modern-day slavery. It is inhumane and not very effective. Due to the insecurities of the PAP leaders, they make sure the citizens of Singapore are disenfranchised and do not dare stand up for their own rights. So when you have a bunch of disenfranchised serfs – do you think they can really stand up to any foreign invasion? If we Singaporeans let one group of tyrants ride over us then I guess we would be just as comfortable letting another group of tyrants rule over us. Also, any professional soldier will tell you he would rather have any one volunteer on his side than a dozen conscripted men. Our leaders, however, do not seem to understand this and seem to think national defence is just a numbers game. Passive Resistance? Chairman Mao statue for sale, Tanglin SC KJ: Any concluding comments? SC: Yes. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate what I just said about the future of activism in Singapore. In dealing with the modern police state, activists must learn to think outside the box of traditional tactics. Otherwise, they are just making the PAP’s efforts at suppression uncomplicated. Also, I no longer believe in the political myths of intellectual messiahs who will save us from ourselves. The 21st century is shaping up to be an age of leaderless resistance and ordinary, anonymous heroes. Conclusion by Kieran James: The interview began at 2.30pm and concluded at 5.30pm. After this we headed up Joo Chiat Road for a jug of Tiger beer before going our separate ways. I was honoured to be in the presence of this hardened cultural and political warrior who has so many important and fresh ideas about and for his country. He could be that 30-something guy who sat next to you on the 147 bus this morning or even your quiet HDB neighbour...You will never really know. For those of you who are interested, Singapore Sucks! is available at selected bookstores in Singapore and Malaysia. Information about the book can be found at www.singaporesucks.net Read the Wikipedia article on "culture-jamming" at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming The Facebook fan page for the book is at the following link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Singapore-Sucks-The-Book/112417752183097

INTERVIEW: Patrick Lee Song Juan talks about the battle for Pasir Ris-Punggol, 6 October 2011

My exclusive interview with Mr Patrick Lee Song Juan (Singapore Democratic Alliance contestant for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, 2011 GE)

“I’m very happy with the 35.2%, we are all greenhorns, first-timers in politics. I met many residents who said: ‘you dare fight with Teo Chee Hean?’ I said purposefully: ‘Who is Teo Chee Hean?’” - Patrick Lee Song Juan

“For James Gomez and Goh Meng Seng if they had stayed with Workers’ Party they would have been MPs already” - Patrick Lee Song Juan

  

By Dr Kieran James (University of Southern Queensland),

Interview at: Tiong Bahru Plaza, Singapore, 6 October 2011 (amended by PLSJ, 3 February 2012) 

Kieran James & Patrick Lee, 28 March 2012

Kieran James: Hi Patrick. First of all can you tell me how it came about that you contested with the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) team in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC at the May 2011 General Election?

Patrick Lee Song Juan: To put it from the beginning, Desmond [Lim] [current Secretary-General of SDA] head-hunted me on FaceBook, he befriended me [and] read my writings. I found he’s a nice guy; he doesn’t have an evil motive.

KJ: I recall that at one stage you planned to be part of an independent team...

PLSJ: I felt as an independent the resources would be logistically tough. He [DL] took me as his mentor. I advised him on a couple of things. I was not even on the [Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC] team yet. I was invited to sit on their CEC meeting [Singapore People’s Party, SPP, the lead party of SDA at that time]. This was the year before the election. He brought up his plans to contest in single seat versus Teo Ser Luck. We thought they wanted to divide [Pasir Ris-]Punggol GRC into Punggol West [and remainder]. I said to him “you are a veteran in 06, why do you want to go to a single seat? We are novices”. He did not agree with me. A Malay guy working in Dubai came back for the meeting. I was not happy. I told him I will not have anything to do with it. His strategy is very poor.

On the first outreach I wrote an article. He wanted to put me as Mass Communication Manager. I said: “don’t put a title on me”. Goh Meng Seng [GMS] said: “you are in SDA now?” He [DL] should listen to what I tell him. I was behind the scenes in politics for many years. I left him as did the Malay guy. We never thought SDA would put a team in Punggol GRC. The Malay friend was a candidate from Jalan Besar GRC before and contested in it in 2006..He does not want his name to be published...Now [he is] still in Dubai working!

KJ: Why was that?

PLSJ: There were not enough people to contest. I felt sad for him [DL]. You can see what happened. He lost his deposit. Even so if not a three corner fight [in Punggol East SMC] he will still lose his deposit but not by so much. He cried during the election campaign. He claimed Workers’ Party supporters [were] harassing him.

KJ: So how did you come back into the team for Pasir Ris-Punggol just before the election?

PLSJ: I came in two days before Nomination. My photo was taken. [KJ note: Patrick Lee’s very late re-entry to the team is why Wikipedia did not list him as a candidate even after the poll.] I talked to Desmond before this. I talked to Sidney Soon. I said “one day Chiam See Tong will play him out” and, sure enough [it happened]. I told him to leave SPP early, six months ago before the GE!.

KJ: What state was SJP [Singapore Justice Party] in prior to Desmond taking over there?

PLSJ: SJP was just a shell party with a few core people [such as] founding President [and] Treasurer. He said: “I think Chiam See Tong will play me out”. Chiam See Tong withdrew his SPP from SDA. Desmond had no choice but to fall back on SJP. Six months out I told him to pull out of SPP. I predicted it. It’s very sad. SDA was only PKMS, SJP, and SPP. I declined to be on CEC of SJP because he refused to listen. PKMS supported him a lot. He thought he was very safe.

When CST withdrew from SDA, SDA was and is even now a total empty shell. I told GMS when we had a telephone conversation that CST is not a gentleman to Desmond.  GMS said “he’s a lawyer, he will sue you”. I gave it to my lawyer friend to vet; it was all factual statements of what CST said. Desmond was left dangling. No-one was there to form our team. He wanted to recruit some Masters guy; Sihita Nilesh was to stand but he later declined saying his US Company did not give him permission to stand. Desmond fell back on me.

Desmond barred me from speaking. When Teo Chee Hean asked me (in the toilet) “why don’t you join us?” I said “you go after the PhD, Masters, Mistresses, and Bachelors!” I graduated from the University of Lifelong Learning.

George Yeo lost big time, he’s an idiot, [and] he always thinks he’s intelligent. “Aljunied voters will have "emotional dilemma” says George Yeo. I said: “It’s George Yeo’s own emotional dilemma”.

KJ: So what are your opinions of the campaigning performance of your SDA team in Pasir Ris-Punggol?

PLSJ: Desmond made very major mistakes, every speech took one hour; his speeches are not entertaining. He banned me from the press and speaking at rallies.

KJ: How many rallies did you actually speak at then?

PLSJ: Officially I spoke at one rally and I was last-minute replacement for the second rally. I spoke for twelve minutes; that was my best rally speech and I spoke off-the cuff with no preparation..because was not slate to speak..Only for party sake I stood in for Tony Tan (same name as president)..when he got stage fright..And he never spoke in any rally at all!

KJ: What were the crowds at the rallies?

PLSJ: At the second rally crowd of 7000-8,000 in Punggol-Pasir Park. At the first rally [there was] only 1,000 at Senkang because it was raining. At third rally he excluded my name. He did not want me to speak. We only had three rallies. He put his wife up and she cried onstage. I was at home, I didn’t attend, [and] she said “people harass my husband”.

Teo Chee Hean asked me why he doesn’t see me with them [other SDA]? Only after election I put on FaceBook saying “this will be my first and last election”. I resigned from SDA through FaceBook. He did not give me an official reply. Jeffrey Lim resigned as did Tony Tan.

KJ: OK, key question: Are you happy with the 35.2% result achieved by your SDA team?

PLSJ: I’m very happy with the 35.2%, we are all greenhorns, first-timers in politics. I met many residents who said: “you dare fight with Teo Chee Hean?” I said purposefully: “Who is Teo Chee Hean?” Then I say: “I’m joking with you”. I say: “Does he have four arms? He is an ordinary person made good, we fight on equal terms”. These people are so intimidated by ministers [but] we are all equal except for different circumstances when they (ministers) are catapulted to high positions.

KJ: Can you remember any interesting or funny incidents from the campaign?

PLSJ: One incident is I met this Penny Low, she has got the worst brickbats from the residents, [and] many promises are not kept. I met her at Pasir Ris MRT campaign. She was still on crutches recovering from leg operation. I said: “Are you OK Penny?"  I was sarcastic, you are limping, [and] it’s a very small thing. She told me the truth: “I had operation”. I said: “Take care, goodbye” and [then] she was upset. I have the guts and humour to do it.

Teo Ser Luck is a nice baby-face guy.  He was shouting all the names of his gang at the rally. I said: “This is not the way”. He said laughing: “I’m not a politician”. He is a nice guy, he does not show pretense. I like also the new [PAP] guy, DBS banker [Mr Gan Thian Poh]. He shook my hand, very courteous. One of the other PAP interrupted our talk. The crony was sarcastic. I said: “A lot of you guys talk bird language, talk cock”. I said: “What’s the point, at the end of the day you are just cronies”. He wanted to argue with me. I forgot his name, grassroots guy, not on the team. They know my credibility. Gan showed me respect by telling the grassroots guy to be quiet. I departed cordially from Gan after asking about his family. I catapulted to a bit of prominence during the election but all the time I’m a behind the scenes guy.

KJ: What were the reasons behind your friend Goh Meng Seng’s resignation from the NSP [National Solidarity Party] Secretary-General’s post after the election?

PLSJ: GMS was pressured to resign. It [NSP electoral results] is seen as a failure. GMS is a very nice guy, very accommodating. He took all the RP [Reform Party] group in as a mass exodus. Gilbert Goh asked me which party to join. I said: “KJ [Kenneth Jeyaretnam] is not a good leader [and] I don’t think Workers’ Party will accept you. I said: “NSP is a good choice”. Out of the blue he joined RP but when the exodus happened a few days later he quit right away!

KJ: What do you think of the NSP’s election campaign strategy?

PLSJ: The NSP strategy was not really that good. He [GMS] should have put himself, Hazel [Poa], [and] Tony Tan in Tampines [GRC]. GMS approved me joining the NSP and I would have been a member in Tampines.

KJ: Ah, really? That’s new information to me. When was this?

PLSJ:  Before the election. SDA had problems getting people and Desmond and Sidney Soon asked me to join them again. I said to GMS: “I’m sorry; I have to leave the party”. I do it for the best interests of the people. GMS wanted to put me into Tampines to contest Mah Bow Tan, I dislike Mah Bow Tan. and his handling of the HDB escalating price.I left to join SDA with GMS blessing..(Ken Sun was not happy about that!)  GMS asked Gilbert Goh to take over Tampines. I told Steve Chia I was interested to join NSP, straight away my membership was approved. I was only in NSP for one week, they approved my membership already, [and] they all know me already. Ken Sun said: “You played us out”. I said: “What about all those who played out the RP?” I wrote in the blog that the old birds of NSP should give way to the young. Sitting too long in the CEC of NSP..the main old veterans!

KJ: What did you think of the NSP’s result at the election including Steve Chia?

PLSJ: I was surprised Steve Chia did not do well; I thought it might be due to the personal incident, PAP capitalized on this. The opposition did not have their presence felt at all. They should have functions better at walkabouts. Tony Tan can’t speak very well. He’s a scholar but his rally speech was quite mediocre..lacked punch!

KJ: Tell me about your role in the presidential election of August this year as well as your thoughts on the election.

PLSJ: I was helping Tan Jee Say. I will give you a perspective. George Yeo announced he first did not want to be presidential candidate but later said he wanted to be. He was asked to step down. I knew Tony Tan would win. I lobbied for Tan Cheng Bok, he has a presence in west coast, he is a respected doctor. I arranged a meeting with Tan Jee Say with the Hainanese Association through a Hainanese friend who came back from Sydney (He quit S'pore to live in Australia). Twenty people attended at a coffee shop at  Liand Seah street ...our Hainan enclave ! Later on we went to the Kheng Chiu Association [premises].

KJ: Returning to something we touched on previously do you think Mr Goh Meng Seng will return to active politics?

PLSJ: I think GMS will contest in next election. He just needs a break.

KJ: What did you think of performance of SDP [Singapore Democratic Party] in the May election?

PLSJ: SDP performance is not that good too - honestly it’s pathetic. They will not be able to redeem themselves if they do not change their political ideology in Singapore, they are too belligerent. In Singapore you cannot be too belligerent, you cannot connect in [the[] American way – democracy, freedom, human rights, ISA. They [the Establishment] don’t harm you if you don’t do anything wrong. Why bother with ISA?

KJ: What is your opinion on James Gomez’ move to SDP earlier this year?

PLSJ: Gomez is on the way down. He is an intelligent guy. He does not have a mindset to stay in one place. For him and Meng Seng if he stayed with Workers’ Party he would have been an MP already. I said to GMS: “Why do you need the [SG] title?”

KJ: Earlier we were talking about the presidential election result? I think I interrupted you and we got distracted...

PLSJ: The result is already foregone, once Tony Tan comes in. The reason why he did not win so well is Tan Cheng Bok. TCB scored 70% in west coast. [KJ: I’m not sure here whether Patrick meant West Coast GRC or the whole west coast area.] The vote was split due to Tan Jee Say. Otherwise I think TCB could have won. Tony Tan has the experience but he cannot speak Mandarin unlike TCB; how can he speak to Hu Jin Tao? He lost $60 billion with the GLC. How can he say he is an expert in economics?

KJ: Why do you think Workers’ Party chose to ignore the presidential election?

PLSJ: I think the Workers’ Party are very shrewd, they know what they are doing; they understand the politics of Singapore much more than SDP, that is why PAP is more in tune with them than with SDP,... SDP is rather confrontational. 

KJ: Can I ask you for your revised view on the third question in my original research project: “What do you think will happen in Singapore politics in next 10-15 years?”

PLSJ: I wrote an article [saying] Singapore cannot have a one-party system. I hope one-third will be opposition and then there will be a constitutional right to speak on any topic. The people are more politically aware [now] and their mentality has changed. It can certainly happen [i.e. one-third opposition MPs in 10-15 years]. Workers’ Party can definitely win some more seats and officially become leader of the opposition then.

KJ: What has been one of your more important public speaking engagements?

PLSJ: My speech Mothers’ Day on filial piety at YWCA, 9 May 2010 arranged by Active Retirees Association. Two hundred people attended. I spoke freely as a volunteer.

KJ: On another matter what do you think are the reasons behind Mah Bow Tan’s exit?

PLSJ: MBT was unpopular due to the housing board issues. People never accepted what he said about HDB being affordable. Lee Hsien Loong got the cue and removed him.

Kieran James & Patrick Lee, 6 October 2011

KJ: And NSP’s showing in Tampines was another factor?

PLSJ: [Yes] NSP’s success in Tampines was another reason. If you put Hazel Poa  in there NSP could have gone higher. They [NSP] were quite disappointed. I’m not with them. I needed to help SDA to see Teo Chee Hean not do a walk-over...Citizens will be disappointed that no voice represented them..Hence we are happy we put on a good fight and scored 35.2% of the votes..

KJ: Why did you agree to rejoin the SDA team in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC right at the last minute after having previously withdrawn?

PLSJ: I’m a voice for the poor, I go for the deprived, those who are marginalized. If I don’t stand in Pasir Ris it will be a walkover for PAP. Me and Sidney Soon came in two days prior, 35% was fantastic. Teo Chee Hean was DPM, he lost face, [and] we scampered in. KJ  is unpopular, we beat him and his team by 3% point. We should have just got 18%, [and] Kenneth is finished.... [KJ: PLSJ here is not talking about me of course but about Kenneth Jeya of RP].

KJ: Can Desmond Lim bounce back?

PLSJ: His performance was terrible, 1,386 plus votes, he should not have nominated if he knew Workers’ Party would contest.

[Our two-hour interview ended here.] 

Patrick Lee's blog: www.leesjuanpatworld.blogspot.com

Patrick Lee's contact e-mail (published with permission): leesjuan@yahoo.com 

INTERVIEW: Interview with Mr Desmond Lim (Singapore Justice Party/ Singapore Democratic Alliance), 6/10/11

Mr Desmond Lim (left) with Dr Kieran James, Joo Chiat Road, Singapore, 6 October 2011 

My exclusive interview with Mr Desmond Lim Bak Chuan (Secretary-General, Singapore Justice Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance)

By Dr Kieran James (University of Southern Queensland),

Interview at: Singapore, 6 October 2011 as amended by DL 6 January 2012

Part I

Kieran James: Hi Desmond. First of all can you tell me how and why you first got politicized on the opposition side?

Desmond Lim: As early as 1989 I served the Rochor CC as one of our grassroots. From there I kept on forming this question: Why was the [Rochor CC] management so concerned about surpluses? The PM’s Office allocates funds to the People’s Association to CCs to organize community activities. We were asked to raise funds. Something is not right; you have the money and don’t want to spend. The poor shopkeepers, they feel obliged to donate, [and] not just once a year. These are the people that keep quiet and don’t object. They donate and buy [raffle and function] tickets. If a country is too focused on surpluses at every community event the people have to pay for it. What [then] is the responsibility of the Government? That caused me to swap to another camp, 1992.

In 2001 I first stood for election. SJP [Singapore Justice Party] was my first party. I crossed to SPP [Singapore People’s Party] before the 97 GE. We entered Memorandum of Understanding with Syed Farik, then Secretary-General C. K. Tong on the basis of consolidating our resources and working towards united operations. Half my CEC members crossed over, Chiam joined after we crossed over. Whatever we agreed [regarding] to form GRC [team] in 97 did not materialize. Some in SPP went to three-cornered fights with SDP [Singapore Democratic Party]. They abandoned the original [GRC] plan. I did not contest in 97. SPP asked me to contest in three cornered fight in Yishun Central but I refused. When we contested all the expenses came from our own pockets, the party was not rich. Without any reason if we go into three cornered fights on our own pocket money it is unfair to ourselves.

In the 97 GE, SPP contested three seats: Potong Pasir, Ayer Rajah, [and] Bukit Gombak. Nevertheless it was not a right move for us [our grouping which moved from SJP] to shift back to SJP. We never forgot our goal to have a united opposition front. Finally we had the blessings of the leaders of SPP to approach other political parties like NSP [National Solidarity Party] [for united front]. At initial stage SDP was approached but no response from WP [Workers’ Party] to our proposal. Only four parties agreed to terms and conditions, SDP did not agree to veto powers given to Chairman and neither did Singapore National Front.

An alliance was formed November 2006 – NSP, PKMS, SPP, [and] SJP. SPP was artificially created as the dominant party because we had an MP [Mr Chiam See Tong in Potong Pasir SMC]. It was agreed to give him veto power for two terms. The alliance was formed on the basis of a marriage of convenience. It had no solid plan. It was not able to generate a common goal or belief. There was no proper succession plan.

KJ: Then the NSP seriously weakened the SDA by pulling out in 06?

DL: SDA was formed 2001. We participated in the 2001 elections. 2006 was never a break through, still only the one MP. Therefore the NSP felt that there was no purpose for them to continue with SDA. There was no room for expansion or taking over the leadership so they left us. They have proven that they were right based on the 2011 election but not 100% right. They had a little bit of luck with the RP [Reform Party] guys crossing over, without that they would only have made a slight improvement.

KJ: Tell me about the Potong Pasir saga. I know Patrick Lee thought it ridiculous when Mrs Chiam said “Desmond Lim does not have the X factor”.

DL: In 2007 there was some saga in the [SPP/SDA] leadership. It is a very bad situation when there is no proper succession plan and the leader has poor health. There was a power struggle, everybody wanted to be number one. I have made myself clear. When CST was in a good condition there was talk of a succession but nothing proved [i.e. nothing actually was finalized].

My intention was to contest in a single seat in Pasir Ris-Punggol [at 2011 GE]. It never registered with the wife [Mrs Chiam], she saw me as a threat. Take it. The election results show. I said I will support her in every way. It does not work like a dynasty [meaning “should not work like a dynasty”]. Why do I help him run the party and the town council for fourteen years and then at the critical moment close to the election [we] have a fight? We should hold hands together and stop fighting. If you believe in democracy you should allow different views. It’s OK we have arguments but at the end of the day we need to hold hands together. The wife said: “I will fight with you and will still win Potong Pasir”. They asked me to resign which means quit politics.

Part II - Previously unpublished

KJ: What happened with the Reform Party first joining and then not joining the SDA?

DL: The “Eleven Points” document, agreed among KJ and the Chiams, was made without the knowledge of SDA’s SEC and it was published in the Straits Times. It’s against [the] interests of the SDA; it’s against [the] dignity of the party leader. I will quote one or two points. How can a newbie come in and tell veterans to change? [Regarding the proposed] Reformed Singapore Democratic Alliance, if RP joined to become RSDA, if other parties later joins what will the name then be? RP has the right to reject the candidates nominated by other component parties to contest in GE. The “11 Points Agreement” is like a commercial takeover; it will only work if there is consensus from the entire group and not by one or two leaders because we are a non-profit organization; volunteers have contributed money and family hours and want to uphold their identity. Hence, newcomers should come in and be humble. [He should] make changes [later] people [when] can accept him.

The [original] aim was for many parties to be under one umbrella, it was a good political move but the execution was wrong. So the whole mess was started with one party leader who does not believe own members can make it and wants to bring in talent from other parties. But newcomers will have their own agenda. For any organization, it is good to recruit new members and bring in new ideas and develop a new culture. But the approach [to] give in and agree with the 11 points, without consensus of the SDA’s SEC, was non-democratic and politically highhanded. Any politician to be the leader, he must stay connected with the grassroots [and not] come in as an economist, a professional, and very confident of himself; [he] ignored existing members’ feelings [and] past contributions and neglected their needs.

KJ: How did it happen that you became the Secretary-General of SJP?

DL: SJP was still within the SDA so to continue to represent SDA I had to join [either] PKMS or SJP, but the constitution of PKMS only accepts Muslims as full members. SJP was my former party. They welcomed me [back] with open hearts. After SPP left SDA I had to quit SPP. There is no dual membership [for example of both SJP and SPP].

KJ: Can you tell me more about events relating to your departure from SPP?

DL: I was suspended from the CEC because I wrote a condolence to the Lee family for passing away of the mother [i.e. PM Lee Hsien Loong’s mother]. This was one of the issues put on me but the Chiams attended the wake. PM’s principal secretary, on behalf of the Lee family, thanked me for writing and [for] recognizing Mdm. Kwa Geok Choo’s contribution. Leader in SPP was upset with the letter. There are altogether nine charges. They recruited new members without proper CEC meeting to obtain approval to outnumber me. They got nineteen that were approved without call for CEC meeting; neither was presented during OPC for approval. OPC was commenced, while registration of entry in progress. Two of them, one who was not even an official member; the other one owed the party money and never repaid back the money. [They] tried to prevent me and members to enter into the room on time. Not to cause delay or interruption of the OPC, I instructed members and potential members that I brought to enter into the room and register later when we [had] settled down. Some of the Chiams' supporters later twisted the story and projected me as [the] trouble maker for the said event.

Under the SPP’s constitution, members are allowed to bring in new members during OPC, to seek cadre members’ approval. I got about 60 new member applications. My intention was not to overthrow the leadership. As long [as] the nineteen withdrew, let the existing members vote [excluding newcomers].  I will not pursue with the 60 new member applications.  I think that’s a fair arrangement and party’s election. The members in the OPC agreed and I scored better their people. Some failed to pass the post on the first round voting, and were given two votes each by the Chairman to qualify to became CEC members to outnumber me (SPP’s constitution does not state that Chairman has more than one vote).

KJ: Now for a key question I think many people will be interested to know your answer to. Why were you involved in the only three-cornered fight in the May 2011 GE?

DL: Normally we have closed [inter-]party meetings [for] horse-trading [and to arrange] compromises to avoid three-cornered fights. We had a big party [WP] just there to listen, [with] no room for negotiations.

There was a three-cornered fight in Punggol East SMC. I had no choice. If not, the next round Workers’ Party will know that, whenever their open their mouth, we have to give way because of fear [of] losing deposit. Then we will be no constituencies left for SDA to contest. Since we have contested there we will go out [i.e. contest] at all costs. I think I made a right decision. Although I lost the S$16,000.00 deposit my objective was achieved. I have made the PAP realize our people want Singapore for Singaporeans, and Singaporeans First Policy (SDA’s campaign slogan [which was] proposed by me as early as 2008).

Also, I think if you look at it overall we [SDA] did quite well, Pasir Ris [GRC] team performed over 30%, around the same as star performers in Yishun Central and Holland-Bukit Timah [GRC]. [KJ: Here Desmond is referring to the WP team which scored 41.6% in Nee Soon GRC, formerly known as Yishun Central, and the SDP “A” team which scored 39.9% in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.]

KJ: Why do you think the Workers’ Party was so successful in this GE?

DL: This is my own interpretation: they know how to play with ground sentiment. The ground sentiment is that they [voters] are unhappy and they will vote for whoever stands against PAP. It [final vote result] depends on the PAP propaganda machine and the demographic. It is not so much about the candidates even in Aljunied [GRC] – it is about the demographic and being able to stir up the emotions and fear. The fear factor propaganda [was] that there will be no opposition in Parliament [i.e. if PAP had won Aljunied].

KJ: Why do you think Workers’ Party allowed three-cornered fight in Punggol East SMC?

DL: My guess was the three-cornered fight was to test to WP’s brand. Their machinery [went] all out with proper branding [and] they strategized and mobilized their propaganda and played with the sentiments and emotions.

If I [truly had] wanted three-cornered fight I would have gone to Potong Pasir, I had my cell groups. I had my networks or send another candidate to contest in Punggol West, which was also part of Punggol-Pasir Ris GRC in the 2006 GE. For fourteen years I’m first one on site to solve practical problems. Why should I go and fight against my own people? We want to contest against the men in white. The people want fewer men in white in the Parliament. Three-cornered fight reduces chance of opposition victory. [It is] sad that the Workers’ Party don’t care [about] that. I believe that they think of all the opposition I am the weakest [hence WP contested in Punggol East SMC versus Desmond and Michael Palmer of PAP].  One of the rumours was I never kept my promise that all Secretary-Generals [would] contest in GRC, hence LTK [would] walkout of Hougang to contest in Aljunied GRC and [this] would cause him [to] lose everything. That was totally untrue, no such agreement was made. The reason why all the other Secretary-Generals contested in GRCs [is] because they wanted to win big.

To me, JBJ [Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam] made this Workers’ Party logo burned into the hearts of the people. The brand was built up by JBJ; the name of the party represents workers. None of the current group is workers. What the Workers’ Party has achieved I will give [the credit] to JBJ. JBJ built it from scratch, he was sued so many times [and] there is a lot of goodwill associated with him. Do not discount the goodwill of what JBJ had built, he made a great sacrifice, sued and bankrupt many times. God made him more than us.

   
KJ: What do you think explains your own result in Punggol East SMC?

DL: I had a five-year development plan for the estate, mine is the most concrete. In general people do not understand how the Town Council functions and operates, they think SDA has no money to implement [which] made me seem [to be] over-promising. Many do not understand that if I won I would take over the Town Council and use funds collected from monthly S&C to operate and function.

I think [I] over-prepared and over-sold, secondly was the [strength of the] Workers’ Party brand, LTK and Sylvia Lim banners were displayed within the constituency which they were not [personally] contesting, this [may] have misled some older voters [into thinking] that either one will be serving them ... and the Chiam saga ... all of these things were not to my advantage. I’m losing one battle, but not the whole war.

SDA will not do nothing. We will get involved with the younger generation to understand the social issues and the need for them to come forward to take up ownership, and later we [will] convert them [the younger generation] to play a bigger role. We can only attract people if we have a big name. But in the past we mostly attracted people with their own agenda or grievances with PAP. It became a platform [for such people with agendas and grievances], a manner of convenience. Hence, selection of new candidates is important.

KJ: What caused the negative atmosphere around your Punggol East SMC campaign towards the end of the campaign period apart from, obviously, people not liking the three-cornered fight?

DL: There was also a rumour I was a Government plant to contest versus the Workers’ Party. I could feel the ground was different before and after the smear campaign. In the second half of the campaign people started to accuse me and scold me in the market as the perceptions had changed. People defaced my posters. The diehard opposition supporters had the perception that opposition candidates will never be employed by Government Link-Companies or [by] companies [in which a] GLC has shares.   But they had a wrong conception. If the person adds value to the company why should they sack him? [KJ: Desmond is referring to his own case here not to the case of Dr Chee.] I do not bring politics back to the office or behave like a yes-man with respect to ruling party policy. I’m there to present my case, peruse my cause, advocate for “a Singapore for Singaporeans, Singaporeans First Policy”.  Why was there this doubt [among the constituency]?

KJ: Why were you so desperate to get a team into the contest at Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC?

DL: It’s a commitment. I will not allow walkover. A promise had been made. Whether I had [a] big gun with me or not I did not want to see [a] walkover. I knew we wouldn’t win with last minute team. They didn’t have common ideology. One thing I achieved is to prevent walkover, gave our people a chance to vote and made the PAP take the ground sentiment seriously and work harder for our people, which was my service to the people.

KJ: Patrick Lee has said that it was not a good look when your wife cried on the stage during the rally...

DL: My wife witnessed that I had put in so much effort, wholeheartedly to serve the people in Potong Pasir for the last 14 years (no personal and family lives) and also working on the ground in Punggol - Pasir Ris GRC (including Punggol East & Punggol West) and this was how people treated me, it was a normal reaction.  I [could] see she truly supports me. It [had] never happened before, our relationship [is] even more solid after the GE.

KJ: What happened with the planned move to contest in Tanjong Pagar GRC?

DL: To contest in Tanjong Pagar was never planned, SDA has no resources. The resources that I gathered personally could only cater for Pasir Ris-Punggol [GRC] and Punggol East [SMC]. TP was the idea of few individuals from other parties and one or two members of the component party without consultation of SDA SEC.

KJ: What are your personal plans for the future?

DL: I will stay in politics for SJP. To survive we need common belief – there has been no foundation in SDA until today. SDA is a vehicle to enable each opposition party to come together to have a mass movement and mass impact. For next five years it will be easier to focus only on SJP.

We can’t go the conventional way with a prominent figure. With CST, even with his health condition, people came forward still. A layman would retire; the rational part was already gone [regarding the Potong Pasir succession issue]. SJP has to find a new position and make people to identify with [its] ideology.

Tan Jee Say has a proposal to form an alliance. If it excludes SDA component parties, and it happens it will be seen as a competitor with SDA.

KJ: Should SDA dissolve and join a new alliance?

DL: I have reservations, it’s a complex issue, [and] everyone wants to become the leader. When it happens then we talk.

KJ: Do you still plan to contest in future in the Pasir Ris-Punggol region? It is a politically crowded part of Singapore close to Workers’ Party’s existing stronghold in the north-east. 

DL: We will not run away from Pasir Ris-Punggol. Even if it is a three-cornered fight we will stay there. Politics is not about cowardice; democracy is a multi-party system. Today I have no regrets. The policies I proposed came to pass by elected MPs.

In 2006 in my manifesto I proposed a new exit and a new highway to Punggol, heavy vehicle car park lots near neighbourhood and a sports complex – it happened, Cineplex also happened, 2011 GE, one of the proposal was to have a new hawker centre in Punggol East, yesterday they announced it will be built. In this way I have contributed. If I want recognition and rewards I would have stayed in the CC. It’s about responsibility as a citizen not about the fame. I see myself as a warrior; a warrior will not run away from the battle unless I die.

I also don’t know what will happen in next five years. I have to see how Workers’ Party will perform in Parliament. What does “First World Parliament” mean? It is not just about checks and balances [in my opinion]; it means you have to be the alternative government.

I still have a chance. One thing about SDA is we don’t punch hard. Our percentage [support] may improve if we latch on [to] an issue and kick hard. Our candidates were very mild; we just touched on many issues.

KJ: What is your personal political philosophy?

DL: To me it’s very simple. My presence must always be value-added to the people. If I have no value-add I must withdraw. If I can do value-add to the society and nation I will always be there. These values keep me going on. I lost all my deposit which was from my savings (blessed by [my] wife to touch it for the good cause).  I believe I add value to the community by my presence. Sincerity is very important be sincere [and] be truthful. When we do community work there are no returns, just a heart to serve for the people. Today [if] I serve [then] I keep the Government on its toes. My children will have less suffering in life.

KJ: What are some of the policies you have been putting forward?

DL: I have been advocating for re-employment of the elderly. CPF [Central Provident Fund] should not be cut. It is stated in the Manifesto. Why should a senior employee with much experience have salary cut to do the same job? Now the Government is reviewing the CPF; hopefully employers will agree to keep the same contribution rates. Elderly still have fixed expenses; there should be no discrimination against elderly workers if they can do the job. The ruling party hears us loud and clear now. That is a great achievement [by the combined opposition], money well spent.

KJ: Are there any other policies you want to mention?

DL: To create a co-operative to run the hawker centres, to engage the residents to be shareholders, to create jobs for the retrenched, and to keep food prices low. This is the way we will keep the prices down. Most food courts are operated by a chain with high rental, high profit margin, for example S11, Kopitiam (run by private entity).

We are talking about public transportation. It is a semi-monopoly run by GLC [Government Linked Corporation]; it does not create positive competition. I propose to issue new licences to private operators. Let the operators decide and determine prices and risks. Who regulates the regulations?  The stat [statutory] board would do inspections of the operators – give them a mix of profitable and unprofitable routes. Public funding is a burden to the taxpayer. In Hong Kong it is run by the private [sector]; none of the operators, small or big, have lost money.

One of the aims of HDB is to create ownership and keep people occupied servicing the loan so people have less time to be involved in politics and have full control over the population. Hence, HDB flat prices were artificially increased over the past [few] years, through HDB price valuation and reduction of supply.

HDB pricing is a similar issue. If you suppress pricing [then] 80% to 90% of [the] people will suffer. If you sell new ones at a low price resale prices will suffer. I propose those who can’t buy on open market can rent 5-room flats from the Government. Then after five years they can decide whether to buy the same unit at Government price. They are angry and afraid they can’t afford a house. Our proposal is rent first, buy later. [We want to avoid upsetting] the existing flat owners. The only time they have hard cash, S$50,000 to S$100,000,  is when they sell their HDB flat. They have no other opportunity perhaps to earn this [kind of] money for a normal income earners.

KJ: Can I get your opinion on an interesting demographic question? Why do you think it is hard for the opposition to make gains in the western half of Singapore?

DL: From my own opinion, most true-blue Singaporeans live in the north-east. In the west there is a mix of foreigners, New Singaporeans, and Singaporeans because of the industrial estate [Jurong/ Tuas].
 

KJ: Will the SJP keep its current name through to the next GE? It seems to have a branding problem. No-one has heard of it and those that have might associate it with old-fashioned opposition politics.

DL: I can’t rule out the possibility of changing party name but SJP has no scandals, no shame, it has a low profile but it has been there for twenty years. It depends on the situation. A race-based party cannot make it in Singapore.

[KJ note: After the interview was over DL informed me that SJP was started by Indian shipyard workers in the west of Singapore who had thought that the union did not represent them. They started the party with the idea that they wanted justice, they still live in the west. DL moved the HQ of SJP to the east and the existing members said it was too far for them to travel!]

KJ: Thanks very much for your time, Desmond. You have shared many interesting things. Best wishes for you and your party in the future.

DL: Thank you.

[Kieran James' note: Desmond Lim has authorized Part I of this interview also to be posted on THE ONLINE CITIZEN. However, he has authorized that Part II only be published on this website].