Part 1: The truth about Chiam See Tong's departure

Chee Soon Juan

Mr Chiam See Tong has accused Dr Chee Soon Juan of usurping his post in the party and challenged him to resign if he really had not sought to lead it. He also criticised the acting secretary-general of the SDP for "hopping onto a power vehicle, a ready-made party” which he, Mr Chiam, had founded 13 years ago.

This report appeared in the Straits Times on 3 Jul 93. Since then this idea that I usurped Mr Chiam's position has been so extensively repeated - and continues to be repeated - that it has become historical fact.

The PAP was only too happy to propagate this falsehood. That same year it published a cartoon (above) in its magazine Petir showing a series of drawings which related the story of a camel with my face on it being invited by a man resembling Mr Chiam into a tent. The camel was very well taken care of inside the tent. The cartoon then shows the camel kicking the man out of the tent, dazed and bruised.

This cartoon was obviously meant to drive home the point that I had ungratefully forced Mr Chiam out of the SDP after he had so kindly taken me in. For maximum effect, the story was repeated in the Straits Times (14 Aug 93).

Seventeen years later, the Straits Times is at it again this time reporting Mrs Lina Chiam as accusing me of "oustering her husband from the party he founded in 1980." (29 Mar 10) Mrs Chiam is quoted as saying: “If he (Dr Chee) really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he could have politely declined the position of secretary-general.”

It has come to a point where even an academic has documented in his book, which he uses to teach his political science class, this falsehood as fact. I will provide the details of this matter in Part 3 of this series.

For too long this story has circulated and it has been ingrained in the minds of Singaporeans that I had actually usurped Mr Chiam's post. Worse, the issue is still being resurrected today.

The PAP and the media must be stopped from continuing to spread these untruths about the SDP and me as and when they like it, especially whenever the elections draw near.

It is for these reasons that I need to present my side of the story which has hitherto been largely obscure. For the sake of my party, my colleagues and my supporters, I must set the record straight.

I will do this not by depending on my memory because that will give rise to criticisms about selective remembering on my part. Instead, I rely on facts that were presented in newspaper reports and on what was recorded in court. I provide the dates of these reports so that readers can independently check and verify what I have written.

Even before I joined the party...

Problems were already brewing between Mr Chiam and his CEC colleagues even before I had joined the SDP. This was revealed in court when he sued the SDP in 1993. Even he had admitted to this:

Mr Chiam: "To me, the problems started in 1988, when Wong Hong Toy and about 15 other Workers' Party members joined the party...there was backbiting and other problems..."

Former SDP chairman Mr Ling How Doong confirmed this: "In my view, all the troubles between Chiam and Wong Hong Toy started after the 1991 General Elections, when Wong came to help me full-time."

Mr Ashleigh Seow (Mr Francis Seow's son), then a CEC member, testified: "Most people have had a difficult time with [Mr Chiam] at one time or another." Mr Seow was referring to the period between 1988-1991 and to CEC members like Messrs Jimmy Tan, Cheo Chai Chen, Francis Yong and himself.

Mr Kwan Yue Keng, another CEC member had, in 1987 spoken up against "one-man shows" referring to Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam replied: "Someone must lead. Who initiates? The leader." He claimed credit for the winning "by-election effect" strategy.

Mr Ling retorted that it was actually the idea of Mr Mohammed Jufrie Mahmood (then) of the Workers' Party.

Mr Chiam: "Who implemented it?"

Mr Ling: "The CEC."

Mr Chiam: "Collective leadership is nonsense."

Mr Ling: "You're talking of dictatorship."

( Chiam's 'strained ties' with SDP, Straits Times, 24 Nov 93; SDP split: Chiam against the rest, Straits Times, 4 Dec 93)

Readers must note that all the above happened between 1988-1991 before I had joined the party. But after the split, I am suddenly blamed by the PAP for kicking Mr Chiam out. Like all the rest of the CEC members, I had only one vote. How could I have single-handedly forced Mr Chiam out?

We persuaded Chiam to return

The unalterable truth is that it was Mr Chiam who first resigned as the secretary-general of the party on 17 May 93. When the CEC refused to support his motion to censure me for going on a hunger strike, Mr Chiam tendered his resignation on the spot:

Chairman
SDP
Singapore

Dear Sir,

Resignation as SG of the Party

In view of the whole CEC voting against me on the question of the hunger strike of Dr Chee Soon Juan, there is in effect a no confidence vote in the S-G.

The only decent thing for him to do is to resign.

According I resign as the S-G of the party forthwith.

Yours faithfully,

(signed)
Chiam See Tong

Immediately after he handed over his letter, a few CEC members chased after him and told him not to be so rash. Mr Chiam nevertheless drove off in his car.

In the following days and weeks a few CEC members, including me, made several overtures to persuade him back.

But Mr Chiam insisted that he would return as secretary-general only if the CEC gave him sole power to appoint and dismiss CEC and cadre members. He also wanted us to sack Mr Wong Hong Toy, then vice-chairman.

This was clearly undemocratic and, more importantly, against the Party's constitution. It was a demand that we could not accede to.

What was Mr Wong's transgression? Mr Chiam pointed to Mr Wong's four criminal convictions in 1986 when he was the Workers' Party chairman. Mr Wong was fined $5,000 and jailed for one month for making a false declaration of the party's accounts. (It's Wong Hong Toy that Chiam wants out of party's CEC, Straits Times, 16 Jul 93)

Wong Hong Toy (glasses) beside Jeyaretnam The problem was that Mr Wong was convicted together with the late J B Jeyaretnam who was subsequently struck off the rolls because of the convictions. On appeal by Mr Jeyaretnam, London's Privy Council wrote that both men, "by a series of mistrials...have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty."

We, of course, subscribed to the Privy Council's ruling and that was why we could not agree with Mr Chiam's condemnation of Mr Wong, which was akin to condemning Mr Jeyaretnam.

Besides it was Mr Chiam who, as the secretary-general, had negotiated and approved Mr Wong's entry into the SDP. The irony of ironies was that he did this without the knowledge of party chairman Ling How Doong. (SDP split: Chiam against the rest, Straits Times, 4 Dec 93)

We kept Chiam's resignation under wraps

Through all the negotiations, the CEC kept Mr Chiam's resignation under wraps for one full month. It was only when we felt that we could not conceal the matter anymore that Mr Chiam's resignation was made public.

Important questions that readers must ask are: First, if the CEC wanted to force Mr Chiam out, why did we wait one whole month to announce the matter? Second, why did we repeatedly visit Mr Chiam and asked him to change his mind if we really wanted him out? Why did we not, instead, pounce on the opportunity and quickly announce his resignation? After all, we were in possession of Mr Chiam's hand-written resignation note - complete with signature.

The truth is that nobody - including me - wanted Mr Chiam out. Yes, CEC members differed with him about the censure motion but this didn't mean that we wanted him to step down as secretary-general.

What it does mean is that Mr Chiam could not have everything his way in the CEC. But what democratic leader could? Is this not what we criticise the PAP for?

The truth is that Mr Chiam was having a rocky relationship with his colleagues in the CEC way before I had come onto the scene because of his own leadership problems. It was at bursting point when I joined the party. I certainly was not the one who forced him out.

But some may ask why, if we did not want to force Mr Chiam out, did we expel him fom the party? I will explain this in Part 2.

In 1993, during the hearing where Mr Chiam sued the SDP former party chairman Mr Ling How Doong testified that, "In my view, all the troubles between Chiam and Wong Hong Toy started after the 1991 General Elections, when Wong came to help me full-time."

Mr Chiam himself confirmed this when he told the court: "To me, the problems started in 1988, when Wong Hong Toy and about 15 other Workers' Party members joined the party."

* * * * *

Mr Ashleigh Seow (Mr Francis Seow's son) then a CEC member testified: "Most people have had a difficult time with [Mr Chiam] at one time or another. Mr Seow pointed out CEC members like Messrs Jimmy Tan, Cheo Chai Chen, Francis Yong and himself.

* * * * *

Mr Kwan Yue Keng, another CEC member had, in 1987 spoken up against "one-man shows" referring to Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam replied: "Someone must lead. Who initiates? The leader. "

Mr Ling: "The CEC."

Mr Chiam: "Collective leadership is nonsense."

Mr Ling: "You're talking of dictatorship."

Share this article:

Comments (14)

Mon 05 Apr 2010 7:43 PM | chua q m - Mr Chiam & Dr Chee

SDP 应该马上将事实登报公布给人民知道，希望SDP和其它反对党来届进入国会为民造福。

Mon 05 Apr 2010 11:26 PM | Robox

I welcome this three-parter.

The truth is that EVERYONE, and that includes the hypocritical multitudes in the opposition camp claiming to want that elusive thing called "opposition unity", has been banking on the SDP's and its supporters' maintaining a polite silence in the face of cruel and severe criticism. And when that polite silence is returned, these same people - addicted to incessant bitching as they are - only become more emboldened to proceed even further.

One thing that maintaining this silence accomplishes is to entrench the internalized oppression that I have previously said no Singaporean is exempt from being impacted by in the targets of that oppression. If for no other reason than to reverse the effects of internalized oppression in himself - which he is doing on behalf of his supporters too, incidentally - I do want to see Dr Chee write this series.

As I have said before, just as the LGBT community will not have "ex-gays" - gays with severe internalized homophobia who not even "ex" but are celibate instead - lead the charge for gay rights, Singaporeans would be at their unself-respecting best if they continue to believe that the fundamental change in the paradigm in governance that is needed in Singaporecan is going to come from those who appoint themselves political leaders but are afflicted by internalized oppression.

The fact of the matter is that I can only see opposition unity as desirable in that Singaporeans derive confidence in seeing them united and will be more be more likely to vote for ANY opposition party as a result.

But, with Chiam using his wife as proxy, having done this and worse, by now sabotaging relations with the SDP even more by stomping on grounds that the SDP has been working - Bishan-Toa Payoh - together with the leader of another party, it is he and not Dr Chee by writing this, who has sabotaged the electoral chances for all parties.

Who wins? Why, the PAP naturally. And when that happens, my fingers will remain pointed at those in the opposition camp who ensured that outcome. That includes all the SDP bashers online who also happen to have the tacit support of the owners of the 'pro-opposition' newsblogs and forums they write in.

I used not to believe in the maxim that 'every country deserves the government it gets' - not in the case of Singapore at least.

But I do now.

Singaporeans, have even more fun under the PAP!

SDP, endeavor for the long-term instead; I still have faith that you are on the right track and time will prove me right.

So when can we have the other two parts?

Mon 05 Apr 2010 11:43 PM | Robox

On a brighter note, I have been noting that more and more netizens are speaking out in defence of the SDP and Dr Chee; I used to feel lonely being the only one.

Those who do are playing a very instrumental role in helping to reverse internalized oppression in other netizens, and all this is being watched by those who wish to perpertrate it in other Singaporeans.

Don't do it, and continue to live under the rule of the PAP and its proxies in the opposition camp.

Tue 06 Apr 2010 1:59 AM | Robox

As I mentioned in my first post, a major culprit in helping 'The Opposition' remain in the political doldrums is none other than the two major socio-political newsblogs themselves.

They do this not by obliterating the SDP, but by painting a lop-sided image of the party to its readers. Reading those thoroughly unprofessional rags, one would think that the SDP is ONLY dogged by controversy after controversy which they know intuitively will scare the already Frightened Monkeys that they and their readership are further away from the SDP.

In keeping with that agenda, this article has already been picked up by one of them.

Not for them are truly newsworthy events held by the SDP like walkabouts and especially the recent economic forum. That might just give their readers, who are more than willing to be led around by their noses by another addition to SPH and Mediacorps, a well-rounded image of the SDP, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps I am asking for the moon from a people who definitely fit into the category of Singaporeans who are working only at 60-70% of their productive capacity.

If RSF was in the business of ranking online media, I wonder how those two repositories of hate would compare with the rest of the Singapore media, their mentors in deception.

This is precisely why I believe that any continued silence is not only unhealthy but counterproductive.

The other side of The Opposition must also be heard and must be unafraid to be heard.

Let them squirm in the same discomfort that they perpetrate when the mirror is held up to them instead.

Tue 06 Apr 2010 11:21 AM | orange - second part is out

Im sure readers would not take what is written here as the gospel truth without hearing what CST has to say, but then again what else does CST have to say?

1) Since Chiam's depature from SDP, CSJ has held back from feeding the MSM with more ammo to disparage and disunite the opposition camps.

2) Chiam's wife, forgetting that Chiam resigned, has again decided to rake it up and rub salt into old wounds by commenting on the issue after 17 years saying that Chiam was oustered.

3) Chiam's refusal to budge even after SDP members tried repeatedly to recoincile with him shows he was overly confident that, being an opposition MP with a seat in parliament, the party members would give in to his unreasonable and unconstitutional demand that one of its party member to be sacked because he didn't like him.

Chee, being the punching bag for the MSM and opposition supporters who've become disillusioned with the non-unity of opposition camps, has had enough and has come out to set the record clear and straight once and for all.

I've heard that the other side of the story that Chiam said if CSJ did not intentionally oust him from the party, why did he then take up the seat of the Sec-Gen? My take is that Chee being the Assistant Sec Gen it only seem to be the next best thing to do after the difficult decision to expel Chiam from the party!

Of course, I would like to hear CST side of the story, but these are damning court documents and newspaper reports, and they're not verbal rebuttal which could have been all made up. CST would have a hard time refuting this side of the story which Chee has kept mum about for the last 17 years.

Tue 06 Apr 2010 12:02 PM | Kit - Democracy

This factual presentation is important and I am glad that it came up way before the election. There is enough time to spread the truth.

SDP has shown time and again the ability to present facts rationally and without emotions. The message is consistently strong. Empower the people!

Democracy does not reside in any form of government or political parties. It resides in the hearts of the people willing to seek and find answers. We must decide today that we will do the deciding!

Tue 06 Apr 2010 4:10 PM | AnnA - Once and for all.

Syabas Dr Chee. I guess this is another right move.

Tue 06 Apr 2010 7:21 PM | btan

Sometimes the truth is not really the right way to deal with a situation.

If your young child ask you to critique his/her drawing and in your honest opinion, you think it is ugly, do you crush his/her fragile ego by telling him the truth? Any sane parent will not do so. Instead, we will tell a little white lie to assure the kid that his/her drawing is in fact wonderful and can be even better with gentle urgings.

Similarly, in the case of the exit of Mr Chaim, the truth is simply he acted in a manner that is not mature or is detrimental to the principal of democratic process.

However, there are a few things we have to keep into perspective. Chaim is a very well respected opposition member and for the longest time, he is the symbol of the sole opposition struggle against the PAP machine. To be ejected out of his party by the CEC, for whatever reasons, spoke of the lack of respect for one such symbol. This is the prime reason why SDP's supported dropped dramatically. No amount of mainstream media spinning can do that amount of damage.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, SDP is seen as a party created by Mr Chaim. This is like people see apple belonging to Steve Jobs or microsoft belonging to Bill Gates.

Can you imagine what happened to these companies if they kicked their founder out? Well, that is what happened to apple and it declined as a company and then got back up again when Steve returns.

The right thing, in my humble opinion, was that Mr Chaim should retain SDP, even if he was to control the party dictatorially, and the rest of CEC should resign and form a new party.

Just imagine this, you created an organisation and successfully raised its profile (whether it is really YOUR contribution or not, is beside the point, the point is you are PERCEIVED to be the one).

Just like I don't think the rise of PAP was due solely to LKY but he is perceived to be the one who lead PAP or even own it. If PAP were to kick him out through democratic process, it will not survive long as a party.

Whether you like it or not, every organisation has a heart or mascot or whatever you call it.. Without that, the organisation is seen as different and no longer the same anymore.

The more you explain, the more things stayed the same.

By playing into the hands of PAP again, SDP is yet falling into the traps of PAP and tearing the opposition cause apart, even if there were no unity to begin with.

Is it then a wonder that other opposition parties chose to distant themselves from such a debacle?

Tue 06 Apr 2010 8:41 PM | betrayed

When a political party believes in democracy, it should never be just rhetoric something you say like our national pledge. If the party allows this mascot to continue to behave undemocratically, when they come into power, will they change over night? A leopard does not change its spot.

In contrast with JBJ, when he was kicked out of Workers Party, he wasn't vindictive to take down WP whereas Chiam did everything he could to destroy the party. This speaks of the narrow mindedness of his leadership. Should he be allowed to continue on by the CEC?

The PAP & MSM played the biggest role in propping up Chiam & destroying Chee reputation. Thru the internet, Dr Chee support base has become stronger & stronger and is regaining back his reputation he lost. This can be seen by the number of new members despite his "bad" reputation. The number of members is just one aspect of a party, it is the number of active members that count. How many members actually willing to sacrifice their time for the party's activities.

Tue 06 Apr 2010 11:19 PM | Jufrie - The Truth Matters

I have been involved in opposition politics for a long time now. I have heard all and seen all. The truth matters very much to me.

After a long absence I have returned to throw my full support for Dr Chee and the SDP. I will do my utmost to persuade and convince other Singaporeans to also do the same.

The PAP and its media keep on vilifying him for a reason. Its as clear as daylight. Though they have bankrupted him and make it impossible for him to stand for elections for now the harrassment has not stopped.

He is only human and is far from being perfect. But as imperfect as he is I do not see any other individual in the opposition now who has done more than what he has done to advance the opposition cause.

The PAP and its sympathisers will of course disagree. Let it be. My colleagues and I strongly believe that the SDP way is the way forward.

Though Dr Chee and some others in the SDP now cannot stand for elections the struggle goes on. He and a few others have gone to jail so many times and still face the prospect of serving more time, judging from the cases that are still to be disposed of.

What are their crimes? Are they being stupid? Or are they out of his minds? On most counts they have gone to jail for providing public entertainment without a permit.

Dr Chee has kept mum over the Chiam episode far too long. The truth is long overdue. Our youth especially need to know the truth about what really happened to their "Uncle" Chiam. Those who doubt Chee's version are free to mount a challenge. Let's have it out. Prove Dr Chee wrong if you can.

Am I indulging in apple polishing? Do I need to?
Surely not!

Wed 07 Apr 2010 3:32 PM | johntoh

Quote:""""....However, there are a few things we have to keep into perspective. Chaim is a very well respected opposition member and for the longest time, he is the symbol of the sole opposition struggle against the PAP machine. To be ejected out of his party by the CEC, for whatever reasons, spoke of the lack of respect for one such symbol. This is the prime reason why SDP's supported dropped dramatically. No amount of mainstream media spinning can do that amount of damage.....""""

Quote:""""....Secondly, whether you like it or not, SDP is seen as a party created by Mr Chaim. This is like people see apple belonging to Steve Jobs or microsoft belonging to Bill Gates....""""

Just because the PAP formed the first government in Singapore after independence, does it mean that Singapore as a country will collapse when the PAP is ousted one day. This is too simplistic, don't you think?

Lim Chin Siong, (with whom LKY was once in the same political party) was a well respected politician fighting for independence from the British and was a charismatic leader (more so than LKY) who can rouse the masses to the struggle.

For Lim Chin Siong to be eventually arrested, incarcerated and ousted from politics by LKY (with British helping hand) speak volumes of the downright vicious, despicable, flaw character of LKY.

You don't find the MSM reporting about this piece of history now and then. Do you?

That is why the mainstream media was ultimately owned and tightly controlled by the PAP. Besides whitewashing the past of the many misdeeds and poliies, it's also use as a channel of the PAP to regurgitate a one-sided falsehood favouring their PAP masters while demonizing those that they see as a threat...not just any opposition threat but those that pose a REAL threat.

Because they are view as a real threat, SDP did have its support eroded in the past with the completely PAP controlled MSM lamblasting them from all sides, putting SDP in any conceivable negetive light that they can conjure up. But that is change with the internet.

Contrast this with Chiam See Tong who was many times in the past been openly declared even by his political opponents - the PAP leaders - as "harmless". A view, unfortunately, shared by growing number of Singaporeans over the years.

Chiam and his party is viewed as not only NOT even a thorn to PAP status quo, he has for the past 2 decades as opposition leader had neither vigorously debated, spoke out loudly nor protested angrily to all those controversial or flawed policies enacted by the PAP. His core anger seems to be reserved primarily for his former SDP comrades which is extremely unfortunate.

Don't think so? Then why else would even his wife - Mrs Chiam - harbour such thoughts to this day in her maiden MSM interview? She should be speaking out about the hardship that Singaporeans are facing in recent years and what she intend to do to help, speak out or fight for help them. Unfortunately, rather unfortunately, it was not where her passion lies during the interview. Speaks volume about their character, doesn't it?

And what about Chiam's intention/declaration to contest in Bishan-Toa Payoh in the next election, knowing full well that SDP have been 'working the ground' there in recent years. To sabotage their efforts? To get back at them when he knows that the time is ripe for all opposition parties to break PAP's stranglehold in the next election? Deny SDP any shred of a chance to get elected?

Why he does want to do that?? Is his agenda for the people of Singapore or is it, in all these years a personal vendetta to tarnish Dr Chee name and to bring down SDP. Although it's still a far-fetch notion to me, there are some initial rumblings in blogging community that Chiam may be a stooge of the PAP afterall.

Come to think of it, when was the last time Chiam had led all his party members for a cause against some of PAP flawed policies. Where has his lifetime of "non-confrontational" politics got him? Not much. Because PAP has gotten virtually bolder in its ways, becoming unbearably arrogant, totally unaccountable, acting as if they are the lords of the land with the ordinary people their peasants or slaves to be RULED over by them.

Chiam See Tong does have alot to answer especially his role as opposition leader in parliament for the past two decades.

Who cares why he was kicked out of SDP 17 years ago.

Wed 07 Apr 2010 8:17 PM | quantum

At the very least , Dr Chee is not moved by the MP salary.
How much is MP salary in Singapore, anyone?

Thu 08 Apr 2010 11:34 PM | Jufrie

quantum,

You mean you really don't know? Its close to $14,000.00 per month- tax free. Way above what lesser mortals are getting. Is it any wonder that the struggle is to retain and then pass over to the Mrs rather than be concerned about the plight of Singaporeans?

Fri 09 Apr 2010 3:11 PM | quantum

It would be a good idea for an elected MPs to donate this salary away for a good cause, since they usually have other sources of income.