Tuesday, 22 September 2009 @ SDP office, Singapore
Interview length: 2 hours.
Kieran James: Will there be major changes when Lee Kuan Yew passes away?
John L. Tan (Assistant
Secretary-General, SDP): Yes and no, I don’t think so- change is something we
are certain of, it will not be that dramatic. LKY has put in place machinery
that is well-oiled. Judging by how things are going, the system that he put in
place will not collapse overnight. The ministers are so highly paid, will they
allow the system to collapse? They are so highly paid, far beyond what they
deserve really. There may be subtle changes.
There
is this notion, I am trying to think of how to best explain this- in psychology,
cognitive dissonance theory has been a very influential theory. Many events do
fit in with this theory. I am specifically thinking about the ministers in
charge after LKY is gone. They have begun to sing the song according to LKY-
this has been assimilated in people’s thoughts. Some things may change like you
see in China. These people are so well rewarded. There is this minister Vivian
Balakrishnan- he was not in partisan politics, he was a vocal critic who writes
to the newspaper forum, expressing his view against government policy. He might
be a member of the Round Table; Raymond Lim is now Minister of Transport. Bala
is now Minister of Youth and the Arts, I think. Round Table was set up to
criticize government policy. Both were co-opted. R Lim is quiet; he doesn’t say
a thing anymore. For Bala, he now sings the establishment song verse by verse,
note by note. This is where I believe cognitive dissonance is at work. He does
some amount of rationalization and judgement over time. He has come to believe
in the current system that he used to criticize. There is not only reward but
also penalty for not following the norms. If you go against the norm the
penalty is always there whether it is real or virtual or imaginary- it is still
real.
My prediction is PAP will not change; they may give some handouts and concessions here or there. Things will not change in the core. A good example is Deng Xiaoping- he still controls the core but has given up certain areas.
KJ: How relevant as an example of surprise change is the removal of the right-wing Howard government in Australia in 2007?
JT: You cannot compare
Australia and Singapore- you are talking about comparing a democratic and
non-democratic society. For what happened in Australia to happen here it is a
long shot. What happened in Malaysia is a better comparison. You had a voice
working behind the scenes, people that are not happy with the current system,
they become emboldened. I hope that can happen in Singapore. It will take a
couple of things: The vocal opposition must not just be kept alive but must be
driving it. Just in the last two or three years, the number of our supporters
has risen.
There are two kettles of fish: those who go on their own expense, we go overseas and look at the system there, I went to the USA for 10 years, I saw the system there, I thought there is hope for Singapore. We come together and try to do things for the society. Other students go overseas, funded by the government, and whenever they give scholarship, they require a bond of 4-10 years. Typically, these people come up, they are considered the elite, their whole career path is figured out for them. We have this capacity to compartmentalize, I suppose.
KJ: So, these people are seen as the creative ones.
JT: I want to talk
about the word you use, “creative”. They
may be brilliant and intelligent but I’m not sure about creative though. Once
you break the norm, there is always penalty. We call them in Singapore “the OB
markers”, the out-of-bounds markers, the invisible lines you do not want to
cross. The teachers, the lecturers know not to cross it. It’s a very subtle
thing, it becomes a part of us, everybody seems to know of it, where it comes
from. I do not think a parent consciously tells a child “Take off your shoes as
you walk into the room”. This is subtly
being transmitted from one to another in our culture. The journalists have
their OB marker, and the main thing is not to cross the establishment.
Last
year, the party was being sued. I walked into the court compound with a T-shirt
of a kangaroo with a judge’s robes- just that alone cased me 15 days’
imprisonment last year, 15 days for a T-shirt, I was not shouting any slogan,
there was just a T-shirt and over $8,000 costs I am supposed to pay. People may
be shocked at that, that is nothing compared to what happened to me out of the
legal system. James Cook University fired me. You throw the whole notions of
academic freedom out the window. They (JCU) did not have to fire me, but they
did. They are worried that they will be penalized one way or another. The
government can take away the licence to run a business.
With the election system they have in hand, I think they have been manipulating the electoral system for the past 40 years. They have been getting more sophisticated at it, a level of precision you have not seen anywhere else. The level of gerrymandering you see here is like nowhere else, we are talking about extreme precision.
KJ: Why does the opposition contest just a few seats using the by-election strategy?
JT: Contesting just a
few seats is not really a strategy, we don’t just have enough people to put
into every seat. Our election is no longer free; it is no longer fair. It is so
highly manipulated that I think everyone who comes from a truly democratic
society will be shocked by what goes on here. I have a friend who wrote a book
banned in Singapore. There was once where in 1982 JBJ became the first
opposition parliament member in an Anson by-election. This guy [the friend who
is an author] told me the PAP campaign member came to this guy- this is not
verified- and said to LKY there is a real danger this election will fall into
the hands of opposition. The guy asked LKY should we rig the election? LKY said
“no”, he said “let him come in, we will deal with him as an insider”.
We are in a fix. Sometimes in a situation, if I can bring you back to Florida some years ago-Bush versus Al Gore- and the results depended on Florida. There were claims of miscounting. If the Supreme Court had decided for Al Gore- the decision can be either/or, they have a choice between two alternatives, either will be perceived as out of line by each other’s supporters. In Singapore, the lack of independence of judiciary is here. LKY said “let JBJ come in”. Initially, LKY said in his braggard pride “good, we welcome the opposition into Parliament. My MPs do not have the opportunity to spar. He will be a great punching bag for them”. He allowed live TV debate into Parliament. He said the people saw how farcical it was to have an opposition. JBJ turned out to be a guy much stronger to be reckoned with. He was no punching bag. LKY had to jump out of his seat to cancel JBJ, LKY looked so bad in the debates he banned the live telecasts that he asked for! There are no live telecasts today. Live telecasts are over now.
KJ: Are there three approaches, Chee and Chiam, with Low in the centre?
JT: There are those like Chee and JBJ that are confrontational. The establishment has sold the idea to Singaporeans that our style is not to be confrontational. I would dichotomize it: Chiam and Low are the “approved”. Both did not start out as establishment figures. True to his form and words, LKY struck to his words and kicked JBJ out of parliament. LKY worked out ways to remove him. First, they had a parliamentary committee to investigate. They decided he was abusing his parliamentary privileges. They removed his privileges and sued him for criminal libel. They passed a law to disqualify anyone from standing for election who has been fined $2,000 over 5 years. That is what they did to JBJ. They charged him on several counts. He was a former district judge, and he stood before Michael Khoo. Here you see the OB markers at work.
KJ: What is the situation like now for your party?
JT: Right now, is
really hard. Right now, we are seen as radical, so we are not widely accepted.
Michael Khoo found JBJ
guilty and he fined JBJ $1,900! He knew where the OB markers were. He tried to
be smart; he followed the OB markers, but he broke them just a little.
Immediately after that decision he was transferred and today he is a lawyer in
private practice. Also, a retrial was called. There was no flaw, substantial or
procedural. The sentence was not up to what LKY wanted. A re-trial was called.
The second judge knew exactly what to do and JBJ could not stand for election
for five years. He was thrown out of Parliament twice and forced bankrupt
twice. Chiam came in around this time. During the next GE, Chiam came in. Chiam
was not as fiery as JBJ but yes, he did ask some serious and good questions.
But, after he saw what they did to JBJ, he mellowed, he mellowed to the extent
that you hardly hear any good questions from him as he wanted to keep his seat.
By controlling, you kill a rooster to scare all the monkeys., LKY said this,
that’s his philosophy, he killed JBJ to scare all the politicians, now he
[Chiam] became so mellow, he hardly questions anything at all. He threw up some
tokens, but he was never in serious debate. The latest I heard- he had more PAP
ministers and MPs at his daughter’s wedding than there were opposition.
Chiam
was the founder of SDP. I was with Chiam
in 1987 or 1988- before Chee joined in but I got disillusioned with the party
and I left. After that, Chee came in, that’s when the upheaval starts. A lot of
people blame Chee for that, the bubble bursts when Chee came in but it was
already brewing.
Low
Thia Khiang is a different story altogether. Francis Seow wrote a book, the two
faces of the judiciary, based on that. After the lawsuit that ensued, they were
after the head of Tang; Seow lives in exile now in Boston, Tang went off to
exile in Australia. This was the first time that someone claimed there was
rigging, he ended up with 40% plus [Cheng San GRC, 1997GE]. This guy, an
ex-journo, claimed he was sitting at the school where the vote was being
counted. The time for submission of slips was over and the gates were closed. A
van came in carrying more slips into the compound. The rest is up to people’s
imagination.
Robert
Ho was a journalist; he is a little mentally unstable. When he tried to sell
his story on the internet and elsewhere, the police arrested him and put him in
the IMH, mental hospital. That seems to be one of the tactics, to put hot
potatoes into the asylums. Robert Ho has a history, so it is hard to argue on
that point. They put another guy, C.J. Remesier, a broker, into IMH when he has
no record. It was after this incident in 1996 that JBJ got sued again.
The
facts are that JBJ wanted WP, his party, to help him pay for the defamation,
for his loss in court. But the party refused. It was around this time that he
was ousted from the party and at this time Low took over as party chief. Since
that time, the party was no longer the same.
Low
has been less vocal than he was before. In recent years, he has said nice
things about the PAP. This is part of the culture here. It is a culture here by
necessity, but it is not necessarily our natural root. It is a culture. Low was
bought over, co-opted. If you read the newspapers, an average Joe would start
out praising PAP. We understand what Low did is natural and we would not have
been surprised. It is part of “our culture”. But he has gone beyond that. He
said P”AP has a passing grade”. Coming from opposition that is kind of weird.
Low has come to the place where he says the two nice things about PAP but not
the three negative things. They are somehow co-opted or cowed, I’m not sure if
that’s the right words.
There
was one person who escaped from prison, a terrorist. Low in Parliament asked
the Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, if the guy already died in
prison. There were rumours he died but government said he escaped to cover up.
Low asked if the rumours were correct. The minister said, “do you believe in
the rumours?” Low said no. Minister said “well, there you have it”. People were
asking for Wong’s resignation. Low asked the PM should Wong resign. He said,
“What do you think, Mr Low?” Low stammered, sat down quietly. This is the type
of lame thing you see, not like the Westminster parliamentary debate.
This may not be a fact, not verified. If JBJ was ousted, the former PM Goh Chok Tong approached Low and gave him an option- did he want the party to survive or be wound up? If JBJ continued as leader, it would be wound up. If you want the party to continue, oust your current leader. This was unsaid, but the implication was there.
KJ: Does SDP need a charismatic Anwar type leader?
JT: It will be helpful for sure if we can get a charismatic figure like Anwar. But I don’t see that as essential. Anwar plays a pivotal role in getting the various races to work together. The majority is Malay, so he is able to garner that type of support. He is friendly to the Chinese and Indians; the Indians are the most marginalized there. In Singapore, I don’t see that as totally essential but anything of that nature will help. In Singapore, I don’t see the dynamics as being the same.
KJ: Which demographics do you think make up the SDP core support?
JT: It is very hard to
gauge who our supporters are. Those who are vocal and who dare to be identified
with us- English-educated. Because of the leadership [being English-educated]
as well. When Chiam ran SDP, the name was the same. Before they had more of the
Chinese-speaking people, back in the 1980s I was one of the few English
speakers. Chiam was not running the party like a democracy. My opinion is he runs
the party like a dictator, that’s my opinion. People on the street who donate,
these are clearly supporters.
In
the last election, the opposition got 33% as a whole. It’s really hard to
speculate on our percentage support. If we really had a free and fair election,
we could get more than 25% but how much more is very hard to gauge. If you are
to write about the party, you must change the perception of the readers as to
what SDP are about. If there is anything positive about the party, it is not
understood or it is spun around. Readers have a very erroneous view about who
we are and what we stand for. That I think is very important. We have to get
them all in order to win- liberals and workers. The perception game is very
hard to fight. LKY is a master at that, he knows that. There is a problem in our
society over the term “liberal”. I am comfortable with that but Chee and Siok
Chin are not so comfortable with that, this is something more internal. The
word “liberal” has been demonized. I like to stay away from the word in
politics but in private life it will be debated. I am happy to call myself
liberal.
This is one of the greatest misconceptions people have about the SDP. We also engage in civil disobedience and press for freedoms. People think that is all we are about. The mainstream media love to point this out. People cannot connect freedom of speech with bread-and-butter issues. They have a right. People think we are just idealistic. If you compare us with the current WP, traditionally they should be similar to Labour in the UK. But look at what they are proposing in their Manifesto. We advocate minimum wages, helping the people to be able to stand on their own two feet financially, so to speak. The WP tend to be more inclined to what the PAP are saying, it maybe they do not want to offend them too much, they are just tweaking their policy. For the poorer people to be helped, we need a revamp of what we are doing. It benefits the elite. I don’t think a minor tweaking here and there is going to work. The Average Joe on the street has no voice at all. People will talk about cost-of-living but they do not politicize it. There is no alternative voice.
KJ: Are your political views influenced by religious belief?
JT: My wife and I are
from a very religious [background], I was a missionary. It’s so easy for them
to look at the bible and pick up phrases and verses that justify the ways they
behave. I was deeply involved with them for some time.
The
moment you talk about politics, they will pull out one verse. You will find
that verse does not hold water at all, that is what cognitive dissonance is all
about. There is your action, your thoughts. These two are in conflict, they are
in internal dissonance.
Unlike
Freud, cognitive dissonance has gone through much empirical study, and it has
held up. Freud had a big picture; cognitive dissonance looks at small topics. It finds people cannot live with this type of
contradiction between belief and action. Something has to give- either change
behaviour [or thinking]. Leon Festinger predicted that it is harder to change
your behaviour but easier to change your thinking. Because they have found so
much justification they continue smoking. Marx and Freud looked at the forest,
but Festinger looked at the individual and the leaves.
They
[government] are charging 19 of us, some have already pleaded guilty, there are
12 or 13 of us, for illegal assembly, procession without a permit. Chee got 10
weeks this time, a brand-new sentence for speaking in public, he will appeal-
$10,000 or 10 weeks in lieu. Chances are he will go jail, and we do not want to
pay as a sign of protest as well. Nowadays, we won’t use that word “protest”
again, that word has been demonized- confront, protest, liberal, they have all
become dirty words. Some people have advised us to soften our image. I think we
have reached a point where we can soften our image.
In years past, I think we had to push the envelope. Now we have done enough- in protests to attract a small number of young people who have bought our ideas. They have similar ideologies- “We are very media-savvy. We use the internet to reach out to the online community.”
*****THE
END*****
No comments:
Post a Comment