In Parts One and Two, I laid out the facts that clearly demonstrated that neither I nor any of the CEC members had ousted Mr Chiam from the SDP in 1993. Despite this, Mr Chiam still charged that I had usurped his position. I countered that I was thrust into his position.
Mr Chiam retorted: "He has not been thrust into my position. He has usurped my position!" He also challenged me to resign my post. (Chiam challenges Chee: QUIT, The New Paper, 2 Jul 93).
In this 4th and final part, I explain why I became secretary-general and how I am taking the SDP forward.
A constitutional responsibility
The following facts are not in dispute:
One, Mr Chiam resigned as secretary-general. Two, the CEC delayed the announcement of his resignation and tried on several occasions to persuade him back. Three, Mr Chiam was expelled only after he gave a talk at the SPC and attacked his own party. Four, the CEC still tried to reconcile with him after voting to expel him.
And yet Mrs Lina Chiam, despite the facts and my repeated denials, continues to insist that I had wanted to kick Mr Chiam out. She told the Straits Times only last week: "If he (Dr Chee) had really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he could have politely declined the position of the secretary-general."
Again, let's examine the facts. I was elected by party members as the assistant secretary-general in 1993 while Mr Chiam was still the secretary-general. After he resigned his post, I had to manage the party in his absence because under the party's constitution:
The Assistant Secretary-General shall assist the Secretary-General in the discharge of his duties, powers and responsibilities and in the absence of the Secretary-General shall act in his place. (emphasis added)
Mr Chiam was not just absent, he had resigned and refused to return! As his elected assistant, I had to takeover his work and duties. If I didn't, the party administration would come to a standstill. What is all this talk about usurpation?
Even then I had refused to assume the position of the secretary-general and remained as the acting secretary-general. Records at the Registry of Societies will verify this.
It was only in 1995 during the party elections that members elected me secretary-general. If I had coveted the position so badly, why did I wait for two years to be elected secretary-general?
The hot seat
Should I not have taken up the position of secretary-general? It would definitely have been the safer thing to do because whoever assumed the post was going to be accused of usurping Mr Chiam. It was a position I would gladly have given up to someone else.
But it would also have been the height of irresponsibility on my part. I knew that the party was hurt and hurt badly from the fallout with Mr Chiam and the attacks from the PAP. In times of difficulty leaders step up, not shy away.
For that I have come under intense and unfair criticism from Mr Chiam. But I have absolutely no regrets.
The SDP today
Because I persisted we have, today, a group of leaders that are dedicated to the cause of standing up for Singaporeans. I can say without reservation that having served with nine sets of CEC members, this present group is the best yet in terms of their courage and competence.
As a result we have been able to establish the first opposition youth wing in Singapore. The Young Democrats have through the years become a dynamic force, its members constantly looking to develop themselves to become future leaders of the party and country. The CEC is exceedingly proud of them.
Today, we have a party that has developed this website which has become a valuable source of information on politics and political issues for Singaporeans.
Today, we have an alternative economic programme. With an abiding sense of humility, I daresay that this is the first time that the opposition has presented a direct challenge to the PAP on the economic front.
Today, we have been able to celebrate our 30th anniversary in a manner befitting a growing and dynamic political party. We demonstrated that the opposition can match, and even surpass, the PAP in competence and creativity, taking into consideration the vast difference in our resources.
Today, we have been able to establish an extensive network with democrats all over the world where we support each other in our quest to make the entire globe democratic, free, and just.
Most important, today, we have this:
No one is indispensable
But whatever I do and however much I contribute as secretary-general, I will abide by the collective view of my colleagues. I confess that I am accountable to them. I am subject to the same rules that they are, the sames rules that governed the party when I first joined it.
No one in the party, no matter how popular he or she might be, is indispensable and no one is above the constitution.
As secretary-general, I hope to encourage and motivate my fellow members, not scold and threaten them. I hope to inspire them so that they can realise their full potential and self-actualise, not control them. I hope to earn their respect, not demand it from them.
Looking back, I am glad that I did not shy away from taking the lead in the SDP. I am proud that my fellow CEC members in 1993 did not take the easy way out and sacrifice our principles just to keep Mr Chiam - even though the PAP, through its media, made sure we paid, and continue to pay, heavily for it.
But I am convinced that we made the right decision. For a party that does not practice democracy internally has no moral authority to criticise the PAP for not being democratic in its governance of Singapore. Principles cannot be adhered to only when it is expedient.
Without a strong democratic foundation upon which our work is erected, the SDP house will come tumbling down everytime ill-winds blow from the PAP.
The SDP has come a long way and, more important, we have a bright and exciting future ahead. But that future can only be bright and exciting if we hold steadfast to the principles of democracy, both for our party and for our nation.
To this end I am, and will always be, a proud and unrepentant Singapore Democrat.
Thank you, Dr Chee, for a fully documented account.
Channel News Asia reported that Chee had said that Mrs Chiam's statement, on behalf of her husband, was a "blatant lie". This public accusation involves the PAP, especially LKY (he recently repeated the "lie" in the face of Chee in court), for they had flagged the "lie" in the manner related by SDP in these postings.
So, the PAP and LKY, and also Chiam (who had said that Chee should sue. having been accused a "liar"), must sue if they have not been liars, as accused here by SDP.
Serious, for it involves whether LKY, Goh Chok Tong, and all else in government have the character and imtegrity to lead!
Thu 08 Apr 2010 2:13 PM
|
orange - SDP boleh!
A picture speaks a thousand words. It is clearly evident that the support that SDP is beginning to gather trancends racial boundaries. Unlike the PAP who segregate the population in classes and race, through forced HDB racial ratio, we are still at the state of racial tolerance rather than racial harmony.
PAP forgets that these things cannot be taught or forced. Yes, you may enforced some laws, some policies to encourage what you aim for, but to a certain extent some things just dont work in a dictatorship environment.
The SDP has seen its membership grown over the last few years and may I add also that all that happened while going through the most difficult time of continous lawsuits, court charges for distributing flyers, dealing with the heavily tilted media, and being shunned at by fellow Singaporeans for all the work SDP had done for Singapore over the years.
The transformation is nothing short of amazing.
Thu 08 Apr 2010 2:30 PM
|
AnnA
"To this end I am, and will always be, a proud and unrepentant Singapore Democrat". Nice quote.
Didn't people notice that actually PAP had tried killing two birds with one stone? - Mr Chiam for his weaknesses & Dr Chee as a 'traitor' using the media.
I hope people will understand you more by now, Dr Chee. And I truly hope this truth will be spread around Singapore ASAP so that people will change their negative view on you & SDP. And I sincerely hope that the 'bashing' will stop. Too bad that the media is playing for the other side and only one sided.
It was Mr Chiam's silence as an opposition member of parliament that had led me become curious of the whole saga. That has led me to this website 2 years ago. (Silence as in no debate whatsoever for the sake of Singaporean on stupid policies etc)
Your side of story do make sense after all those brainwashing propaganda on the news. Reading your manifesto was a plus. After reading it, I have concluded that this is the right party for Singapore. The one that truly stand on the ground, for the ground and with the ground. It is no wonder LKY was afraid of you because you are capable to sit on his son's 'throne'. LKY tried too hard but he showed the obvious.
I also do hope that Singaporean won't change their mind in voting for any alternative political parties. Vote for whoever who is not contesting for PAP. For now, Singaporean truly need people who can help change most of our system. In fact, Singapore actually needed an overhaul on it's system! Please do not allow them(PAP) to take up 82 seats in parliament anymore. I sincerely hope that the younger generation of Mr Chiam's party will help improve SPP (or SDA?).
I am looking forward for a new Singapore.
Thu 08 Apr 2010 4:09 PM
|
April Fool
There is salt in your words, Dr Chee.
Thu 08 Apr 2010 11:46 PM
|
quantum
Chiam should make a stand and not hide behind his wife.
Sat 10 Apr 2010 7:50 PM
|
btan
My take is that the entire CEC should have quit and form a new party. This way, you totally avoid the name of usurper and you can strike out yourselves and form a new brand name. If you folks are truly as good as you say, building up your own brand name party should be no problem. Not only that, you might have woken up Chiam to see his dictatorial ways.
As I said before. What Chiam did may be wrong as far as democratic principles are concerned but what the CEC did was also wrong in our deeply conservative society were respecting your elders are viewed as a virtue, regardless of whether that elder deserve our respect or not.
Sat 10 Apr 2010 10:52 PM
|
asoaso
btan, you just don't get it, do you? You say that CEC should leave and let CST have the party because we are a deeply conservative society respecting our elders. Should we all also leave Spore because we must respect our elderly LKY? Why must criticise LKY, he is 86, mah, so all must give in to him?
We are talking about democratic politics. Stop bringing in age like as if you are talking about family and social issues. If someone does not support another one, he has right to speak up or vote against it, irregardless of age.
Sat 10 Apr 2010 11:51 PM
|
quantum
btan:
i see, we must always listen to the elders because they eat salt more than you eat rice is it? In 1500AD, China did just that, and the Europeans took over the world.
This is not how modern societies work. Things are changing very fast. It is usually the younger people who are more knowledgeable and have better ideas.
Sun 11 Apr 2010 1:10 AM
|
ahchan
@btan
Wow you got to be kidding me? The last I heard, SDP still stands for Singapore Democratic Party, NOT singapore DICTATORSHIP party.
If one can't even abide by the principles that the party was founded upon, then good riddance to him. Why should all the members who have been sticking by the party principles even budge?
The party is formed as a vehicle to advance the cause of democratic principles, not the cause of one man. For that please look to other parties. I do not have to name names.
Thu 15 Apr 2010 8:46 PM
|
foxtrot
People I think you misunderstand what btan is saying. Reading his last sentence, it seems clear to me that he is making a distinction between what is right (by democratic principles) and what the public perceives to be right.
I disagree though, that the CEC should have quit. The party doesn't belong to Chiam, so there is no reason why they should be disbanded when he left.
Truth About 
In Parts One and Two, I laid out the facts that clearly demonstrated that neither I nor any of the CEC members had ousted Mr Chiam from the SDP in 1993. Despite this, Mr Chiam still charged that I had usurped his position. I countered that I was thrust into his position.
Mr Chiam was not just absent, he had resigned and refused to return! As his elected assistant, I had to takeover his work and duties. If I didn't, the party administration would come to a standstill. What is all this talk about usurpation?
The SDP today
Today, we have a party that has developed this website which has become a valuable source of information on politics and political issues for Singaporeans.
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
Channel News Asia reported that Chee had said that Mrs Chiam's statement, on behalf of her husband, was a "blatant lie". This public accusation involves the PAP, especially LKY (he recently repeated the "lie" in the face of Chee in court), for they had flagged the "lie" in the manner related by SDP in these postings.
So, the PAP and LKY, and also Chiam (who had said that Chee should sue. having been accused a "liar"), must sue if they have not been liars, as accused here by SDP.
Serious, for it involves whether LKY, Goh Chok Tong, and all else in government have the character and imtegrity to lead!