 |
| 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.
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].
No comments:
Post a Comment