Chitchat SDP vs Chiams – Lina Chiam bites back

http://theindependent.sg/sdp-vs-chiams-lina-chiam-bites-back/

In their latest attempt to clarify the misunderstanding between Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and its founder Chiam See Tong, the political party’s assistant secretary-general John Tan accused Mr Chiam’s wife of spreading “complete and utter falsehood” with her comments to The Straits Times.

Mr Chiam left the political party he founded due to irreconcilable differences, to start Singapore People’s Party (SPP). His wife Mrs Lina Chiam is the Chairman of SPP. In the lead up to Bukit Batok by-election, Mrs Chiam took issue with SDP for including a picture of her husband and Dr Chee in the political party’s publication. She said that both husband and wife were not giving their endorsements to any candidate in the by-election.

The SDP responded and said that they were not looking for the Chiams endorsement to contest the election.

Then on the eve of Cooling-Off Day, Mrs Chiam spoke to an academic, Derek Da Cunha, to explain why relationship between the Chiams and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) broke down soon after their meetings in 2011.

Mrs Chiam told Mr Da Cunha that SDP’s claims, that in the 2011 meetings between the Chiams and SDP’s leadership, Dr Chee was willing to let Mr Chiam return to the SDP and head the party, were false.

She said: “Among their [SDP] proposals was that Mr Chiam should return to SDP by himself to take on a non-CEC position as Honorary Chairman, or a similar position that will acknowledge his role as the founder of SDP.”

SDP further laid down a “condition that the proposal had to be accepted within one week, among other terms, (therefore) it was a non-starter,” she added.

Mrs Chiam also took to Facebook to explain why she took issue with SDP circulating an older edition of their newsletter with Mr Chiam’s picture in it. She claimed that SDP had re-circulated the newsletter in the early days of their walkabouts in Bukit Batok, and so she objected to it.

Dr Wong Wee Nam, the man who had tried to bring the Chiams and SDP together, had written a note on behalf of SDP when the Chiams came out to say that they were not endorsing anyone for the Bukit Batok by-election. Dr Wong asked the Chiams why they were upset with an old edition of SDP’s newsletter, and also detailed what happened at the meetings between the Chiams and SDP.

Mrs Chiam told Dr Wong in her Facebook that he was “missing some of the facts pertaining to the meeting (which) needed clarification from our side.” She said that there is a book which is being written that will cover in part about the events in SDP in 1993.

“I believe the public should await its publication to get a balanced perspective of the whole SDP saga in 1993,” Mrs Chiam said.

Mrs Chiam further told the Straits Times (ST) that she was unhappy because “there was an understanding that the details of the meetings should be kept confidential if the whole thing fizzled out. We kept (our) side of the bargain.” ST published this comment on Cooling Off Day.

Since the conclusion of the by-election in which Dr Chee lost by attaining 38.8 percent of the votes cast, Dr Chee and SDP have called for a press conference as well as written several articles to claim that Mr Chiam’s ouster from SDP was his own doing.

In referring to Mrs Chiam’s comments to ST that they (Mr and Mrs Chiam) had kept the details of the meetings in 2011 confidential as was agreed by both parties, Dr John Tan claimed that his is a complete and utter falsehood.

In referring to a ST article published just before the 2011 General Election, titled ‘Chee invited me to return to SDP’, Mr Tan claimed that it was Mr Chiam who first breached the confidentiality clause of the private meetings.

In responding to Mr Tan’s accusation in his Facebook Mrs Lina Chiam said that she stood by what she said to the media at the time of the by-election.

She said, “John Tan was never privy to the proposal meetings at Hotel Royal, albeit the first meeting when he generously piled us with food in his house.”

“What details does he know during those subsequent meetings at Hotel Royal,” she asked.

“All subsequent meetings and proposals were arranged by Dr Wong Wee Nam and Mr Bently Tan with Dr Chee in the shadows,” Mrs Chiam added.

Mrs Chiam reiterated that the negotiations were a non-starter because SDP wanted Mr Chiam alone to crossover to the party from SPP. It is unclear if offers were made for both parties to merge or for other party members from SPP (including Mrs Chiam) to crossover. SDP wanted Mr Chiam to lead a GRC team in the 2011 General Election, but did not offer him leadership position in the party.

Mrs Chiam claimed that it was SDP which first broke the confidentiality clause of their 2011 meetings with “their misleading article about the meeting by Dr Wong Wee Nam in their 2015 newsletter and we (the Chiams) did the clarification accordingly.”

Lina Chiam was responding to Kentang Man from SDP who write the following article on SDP's website on May 25:


http://yoursdp.org/news/a_falsehood...ecret_meeting_here_39_s_proof/2016-05-25-6128


[h=2]A falsehood that SDP broke agreement on secret meeting. Here's proof[/h]

During the Bukit Batok by-election, the Straits Times published a report on Cooling-off Day (6 May 2016) attacking Dr Chee over the matter of a meeting the SDP had with the Chiams in 2011.

Because the report was made on Cooling-off Day, it made it impossible for Dr Chee Soon Juan to provide a timely response.

The meeting in 2011, which the Chiams and the SDP agreed was to be confidential, was to discuss the possibility of Mr Chiam returning to the SDP.

But Mrs Lina Chiam said in the Straits Times report on 6 May 2016 that she was unhappy because “there was an understanding that the details of the meetings should be kept confidential if the whole thing fizzled out. We kept (our) side of the bargain.”

This is a complete and utter falsehood. The Chiams did not keep their side of the bargain. Here's the proof:

In early 2011, Dr Wong Wee Nam and Mr Bentley Tan, mutual acquaintances, had approached the SDP to meet with the Chiams. We agreed and the appointment was set up. The discussion subsequently grew over a few meetings, one of which was held at my home (picture above).

It was agreed by everyone in the meeting that the discussion was confidential unless both parties agreed to make it public. There is no dispute on this point as Mrs Lina Chiam acknowledged this in the recent Straits Times report on 6 May.

But then she added that it was the SDP that had breached this confidentiality when we published Dr Wong Wee Nam's article in The New Democrat in June 2015. She failed to mention one crucial fact:

On 19 April 2011 – the day Parliament was dissolved for the elections – the Straits Times published a report, "Chee ‘invited me to return to SDP’", in which Mr Chiam revealed what was discussed at the meeting (read the report here).

Yes, there was a breach of the agreement but it was the Chiams who broke that agreement – not the SDP and certainly not Dr Chee. In fact, the same Straits Times article reported that “Dr Chee yesterday declined to comment on the surprising turn of events.”

For Mrs Lina Chiam now to say that they had kept to their side of the bargain is outrageous. The 19 April Straits Times report in 2011 is incontrovertible proof of the untruthfulness of her statement.

We have stated repeatedly that falsehoods, if left un-rebutted and repeated long enough, become truth. Already the website The Middle Ground is repeating Mrs Chiam's words: “the meetings were meant to be private, and that the Chiams had kept to their 'side of the bargain'.”

It is such falsehoods that the PAP will seize on to attack the SDP and Dr Chee during elections. This has happened on numerous occasions in the past but it must not be allowed to happen again in the future.

John Tan
Vice-Chairman
Singapore Democratic Party

More to Chiams setting the record straight

May 5, 2016I refer to the 5 May 2016 six-six.com article “The Chiams Set the Record Straight”.

Chiam See Tong’s supposed setting the record straight is mainly against Dr Wong Wee Nam and Bryan Lim, both peripheral figures not central to the debate between Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan.

If Chiam See Tong really wants to set the record straight, then he must tackle head on SDP’s full, factual and coherent presentation of the events surrounding his departure from SDP available onlinehttp://yoursdp.org/publ/the_truth_a...about_chiam_see_tong_39_s_departure/11-1-0-16.

To merely poke at peripheral figures who may have added their own personal interpretations to the events surrounding these two central SDP figures without demolishing the central body of evidence presented by the SDP suggests that Chiam is merely grasping at straws.

Chiam’s claim that Chee Soon Juan has the habit of issuing deadlines for offers to both Chiam himself and the WP is something that will require verification from both SDP and WP. As far as WP is concerned, they probably can’t be bothered to add to the dirty laundry being washed in public.

But if that’s true then it probably points to a minor irritating personality issue that may be okay to some but not to others.

What’s most important is that all the allegations that PAP has been making all these years about Dr Chee are nothing but hogwash.

PART 1: THE TRUTH ABOUT CHIAM SEE TONG'S DEPARTURE


HOME / ARTICLES / THE TRUTH ABOUT / CHIAM'S EXIT FROM THE SDP

​

​

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."
​

Ashleigh Seow​

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.






​

I can believe that SDP is struggling with a 81 year old invalid wheelchair bound man and his 66 year old wife. And over something that took place 22 years ago. If they can't handle 2 old farts how are they going to handle contractors doing work for a town council. And they want to help the elderly.

Simply put, CST and his wife are helping PAP in every which way they can. SDP has to right to defend themselves against their falsehood.

Leepotism said:

Simply put, CST and his wife are helping PAP in every which way they can. SDP has to right to defend themselves against their falsehood.

Click to expand...

Nothing to defend, Chee and his gang ask for it. Chee can talk till the cows comes hme, yet, everyone noes SDP without Chiam is no SDP. Chee will nvr win a ticket to Parliament under the banner SDP.

shittypore said:

Nothing to defend, Chee and his gang ask for it. Chee can talk till the cows comes hme, yet, everyone noes SDP without Chiam is no SDP. Chee will nvr win a ticket to Parliament under the banner SDP.

Click to expand...

If Chiam and wife lie, SDP cannot keep quiet, right? What do you think?

Leepotism said:

If Chiam and wife lie, SDP cannot keep quiet, right? What do you think?

Click to expand...

Today SDP is Chee 100 per cent, many ask if Chee is an honest person?

How many honest persons are there in the PAP? Come on, no honest persons in politics.

Leepotism said:

How many honest persons are there in the PAP? Come on, no honest persons in politics.

Click to expand...

We noe the answer but 70% tink that all of PAP is white.

You do know that many people think its the other way around. SDP's historic win in 1991 was under Chiam and Chee was not even in politics. He took over and handed the seats back to the PAP promptly at the next elections. He and the SDP collects the most donations of any political party in Singapore's history and never delivered anything in return. Forget about he selling books during the rallies. Why do you think the PAP released him from his bankruptcy for such a paltry sum which he quickly cleared thru donations within 48hrs. They cleared JBJ when he was 81 years old and going to die and even then it was a 6 digit figure. The PAP could not pry Potong Pasir from Chiam despite sending Goh Chok Tong to lead the campaign personally in PP.

You and I know the PAP are absolute bastards when it comes to politics and why do you think they allow Chee to leave bankruptcy for less than 3% when he owes them much much more.

You know that Chiam successfully sued 2 cabinet ministers Dhanabalan and Howe and they had to apologised to him for defaming him. Ever heard of PAP minister ready to admit mistakes.

Leepotism said:

Simply put, CST and his wife are helping PAP in every which way they can. SDP has to right to defend themselves against their falsehood.

Click to expand...

Lina Chiam's sole claim to infamy or fame is being the wife of CST. She has zero credibility as far as opposition politics is concerned. Many much more experienced and stronger aspirants have been bypassed in PP to succeed CST. The rest is now history. PP is now back in PAP's folds. Nobody respects her. Tolerance is not the same as respect! Someone please tell her. Pride and vanity comes before a fall! Her presence as an NCMP in Parliament was most unremarkable and short-lived. Good riddance!
The SPP or any other opposition party can kiss goodbye forever to PP. I am sure PAP will run PP as a tight ship and transforming it into a shiny jewel. I congratulate the good fortune of PP residents.

scroobal said:

I can believe that SDP is struggling with a 81 year old invalid wheelchair bound man and his 66 year old wife. And over something that took place 22 years ago. If they can't handle 2 old farts how are they going to handle contractors doing work for a town council. And they want to help the elderly.

Click to expand...

You hit bull's eye. Why does the SDP bother to explain all these things that happened 22 years ago, it is not like they want to merge their parties, besides the younger voters, those twenty something old probably don't care much about this or who Chiam was.

SDP shouldn't let Chiam, Lina and the SPP bogged them with this nonsense, besides the more SDP is explaining, the more they are losing.

Thats one of my points. They are struggling with Lina. When he appointed his wife as his successor, we know he lost the plot and it spelt the end of SPP. So why is SDP wasting their time . Even the residents of PP know the good times have gone.

KuanTi01 said:

Lina Chiam's sole claim to infamy or fame is being the wife of CST. She has zero credibility as far as opposition politics is concerned. Many much more experienced and stronger aspirants have been bypassed in PP to succeed CST. The rest is now history. PP is now back in PAP's folds. Nobody respects her. Tolerance is not the same as respect! Someone please tell her. Pride and vanity comes before a fall! Her presence as an NCMP in Parliament was most unremarkable and short-lived. Good riddance!
The SPP or any other opposition party can kiss goodbye forever to PP. I am sure PAP will run PP as a tight ship and transforming it into a shiny jewel. I congratulate the good fortune of PP residents.

Click to expand...