Singaporeans have exchanged colonialism by the British for colonialism by the PAP elites.
Below is the text of a Parliamentary speech made by Lim Chin Siong in 1955 against enactment of the Preservation of Public Security Bill (renamed as the ISA). A "blast from the past".
Singaporeans have had the "Kiss of Judas" for 50 years but have been brainwashed to believe otherwise. In the eyes of PAP, the people are not the "backseat drivers" but are instead "beasts of burden".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. The restrictions on democratic liberties under the Emergency Regulations are just as repugnant under any other name. The claws of the beast remain the claws of the beast, whether in velvet gloves or in silk gloves. For seven years now the forces of colonialism in this country have sought to frustrate the aspirations of the people for democracy and political freedom.
The Emergency Regulations were enforced by the colonial power on the excuse that they were necessary for the suppression of Communism in this country. We were told that once the wicked Communists were destroyed, good, god-fearing, democratic-minded and freedom-loving people like our Hon. the Chief Secretary and other executives of colonialism in this country would be able to solve all our political, social and economic problems for us. But after seven years of Emergency Regulations; years of arrests and detentions without trial; or banishment orders and broken families and homes; of untold miseries suffered by thousands of men and women; years of suppression of the basic democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, association and publication; of the suppression of the intellectual liberties of the people, - the general social and political unrest in this country continues. This general unrest will continue and even grow, until its basic cause has been removed. This basic cause is colonialism. If the general unrest, the political, social and economic dissatisfactions are to cease, colonialism must cease first. That is an essential pre-condition.
Why have the Emergency Regulations failed in achieving anything at all, besides increased human misery and suffering? They have failed because they do not provide any solution for the political, social and economic problems of this country. These problems require political, social and economic solutions - not punitive or military solutions. The anti-democratic provisions of the Emergency Regulations and now of the new Public Security Bill are essentially punitive and completely ineffective colonial remedies for the deep-rooted political, social and economic diseases of colonialism. Colonialism and colonial officials cannot cure this disease, because they are part of the disease themselves. The only solution for the disease of colonialism is the ending of colonialism and its replacement by complete political independence and full democracy for the peoples of this country.
Colonial officials will, of course, claim that they are busy getting the people of this country ready for freedom and democracy. I am not a very clever person, Sir, like the Hon. the Chief Secretary, who can prove that black is white, and that Fascist laws and democratic laws are one and the same thing. I must confess that my Party and I cannot understand how the people of this country can progress towards democracy when they are denied the most basic democratic rights. Only the wilfully blind and the politically ignorant will claim that the powers of detention without trial, and the restriction on freedom of speech, expression and assembly, have not had a repressive effect on genuine political expression and development in this country.
Restrictions on democratic liberties have always got a political purpose behind them. Laws which deny democratic rights are valuable, for instance, to colonial officials for the purpose of intimidating the free expression of political views which are contrary to the aims of colonialism. Such laws are useful for the suppression of political and social expressions of popular discontent which are dangerous to the colonial system. They are also extremely useful to those who hate to see the emergence of a strong and genuine trade unionism in this country. There is nothing surprising or shocking about colonial officials who support these laws. Repressive laws are necessary for the preservation of colonialism, and it is part of the duties of colonial officials to pass such laws. But it is an entirely different matter for elected representatives of the people to support such laws. Not only must they not support such laws, but they must actively oppose Bills like the Public Security Bill. Failure to do this will be a great betrayal of the interests of the people to the interests of colonialism. It is especially true for hon. Members of the Labour Front. The Labour Front fought and won the elections on a platform which condemned the Emergency Regulations and asked for their repeal. Everyone knows that the Preservation of Public Security Bill is the same old enemy of democratic liberties in a new and more permanent disguise. The Labour Front now preserves the restrictions on democratic rights which they promised to repeal. It looks as if the Labour Front has changed its backseat drivers! During the elections they behaved as if the people were the backseat drivers of the Labour Front. It is right and honourable for the elected representatives of the people to recognise only the people who elected them as their back-seat drivers, but the people appear now to have met with a tragic rebuff. The Labour Front has chosen the forces of colonialism as their backseat drivers.
It is ridiculous to talk of public security under colonialism. What public security is there when members of the public can be arrested and detained without trial? What public security is there when members of the public are denied their basic human rights? Let us not be hypocrites! Let us call things by their correct names. The Bill before this House today is not a Public Security Bill, but a colonial security Bill.
Mr Chew Swee Kee: Nonsense!
Mr Lim Ching Siong: The laws of colonialism are meant to protect colonialism, not to protect the people. Only a free and democratic Malaya can pass a genuine Public Security Bill which will guarantee the public freedom from detention without trial and the enjoyment of basic human rights.
To the Chief Minister who once warned this House against the hand of friendship proffered by my Party, by referring to the Kiss of Judas, I issue a challenge. Will he explain to the people of Singapore, "Whose one now is the Kiss of Judas?" As far as my Party and I are concerned, we shall never commit the grievous sin of exchanging the people as our back-seat drivers for the colonial officials who sit on the Government Benches.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rumpole of the Bailey
* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.
Below is the text of a Parliamentary speech made by Lim Chin Siong in 1955 against enactment of the Preservation of Public Security Bill (renamed as the ISA). A "blast from the past".
Singaporeans have had the "Kiss of Judas" for 50 years but have been brainwashed to believe otherwise. In the eyes of PAP, the people are not the "backseat drivers" but are instead "beasts of burden".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. The restrictions on democratic liberties under the Emergency Regulations are just as repugnant under any other name. The claws of the beast remain the claws of the beast, whether in velvet gloves or in silk gloves. For seven years now the forces of colonialism in this country have sought to frustrate the aspirations of the people for democracy and political freedom.
The Emergency Regulations were enforced by the colonial power on the excuse that they were necessary for the suppression of Communism in this country. We were told that once the wicked Communists were destroyed, good, god-fearing, democratic-minded and freedom-loving people like our Hon. the Chief Secretary and other executives of colonialism in this country would be able to solve all our political, social and economic problems for us. But after seven years of Emergency Regulations; years of arrests and detentions without trial; or banishment orders and broken families and homes; of untold miseries suffered by thousands of men and women; years of suppression of the basic democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, association and publication; of the suppression of the intellectual liberties of the people, - the general social and political unrest in this country continues. This general unrest will continue and even grow, until its basic cause has been removed. This basic cause is colonialism. If the general unrest, the political, social and economic dissatisfactions are to cease, colonialism must cease first. That is an essential pre-condition.
Why have the Emergency Regulations failed in achieving anything at all, besides increased human misery and suffering? They have failed because they do not provide any solution for the political, social and economic problems of this country. These problems require political, social and economic solutions - not punitive or military solutions. The anti-democratic provisions of the Emergency Regulations and now of the new Public Security Bill are essentially punitive and completely ineffective colonial remedies for the deep-rooted political, social and economic diseases of colonialism. Colonialism and colonial officials cannot cure this disease, because they are part of the disease themselves. The only solution for the disease of colonialism is the ending of colonialism and its replacement by complete political independence and full democracy for the peoples of this country.
Colonial officials will, of course, claim that they are busy getting the people of this country ready for freedom and democracy. I am not a very clever person, Sir, like the Hon. the Chief Secretary, who can prove that black is white, and that Fascist laws and democratic laws are one and the same thing. I must confess that my Party and I cannot understand how the people of this country can progress towards democracy when they are denied the most basic democratic rights. Only the wilfully blind and the politically ignorant will claim that the powers of detention without trial, and the restriction on freedom of speech, expression and assembly, have not had a repressive effect on genuine political expression and development in this country.
Restrictions on democratic liberties have always got a political purpose behind them. Laws which deny democratic rights are valuable, for instance, to colonial officials for the purpose of intimidating the free expression of political views which are contrary to the aims of colonialism. Such laws are useful for the suppression of political and social expressions of popular discontent which are dangerous to the colonial system. They are also extremely useful to those who hate to see the emergence of a strong and genuine trade unionism in this country. There is nothing surprising or shocking about colonial officials who support these laws. Repressive laws are necessary for the preservation of colonialism, and it is part of the duties of colonial officials to pass such laws. But it is an entirely different matter for elected representatives of the people to support such laws. Not only must they not support such laws, but they must actively oppose Bills like the Public Security Bill. Failure to do this will be a great betrayal of the interests of the people to the interests of colonialism. It is especially true for hon. Members of the Labour Front. The Labour Front fought and won the elections on a platform which condemned the Emergency Regulations and asked for their repeal. Everyone knows that the Preservation of Public Security Bill is the same old enemy of democratic liberties in a new and more permanent disguise. The Labour Front now preserves the restrictions on democratic rights which they promised to repeal. It looks as if the Labour Front has changed its backseat drivers! During the elections they behaved as if the people were the backseat drivers of the Labour Front. It is right and honourable for the elected representatives of the people to recognise only the people who elected them as their back-seat drivers, but the people appear now to have met with a tragic rebuff. The Labour Front has chosen the forces of colonialism as their backseat drivers.
It is ridiculous to talk of public security under colonialism. What public security is there when members of the public can be arrested and detained without trial? What public security is there when members of the public are denied their basic human rights? Let us not be hypocrites! Let us call things by their correct names. The Bill before this House today is not a Public Security Bill, but a colonial security Bill.
Mr Chew Swee Kee: Nonsense!
Mr Lim Ching Siong: The laws of colonialism are meant to protect colonialism, not to protect the people. Only a free and democratic Malaya can pass a genuine Public Security Bill which will guarantee the public freedom from detention without trial and the enjoyment of basic human rights.
To the Chief Minister who once warned this House against the hand of friendship proffered by my Party, by referring to the Kiss of Judas, I issue a challenge. Will he explain to the people of Singapore, "Whose one now is the Kiss of Judas?" As far as my Party and I are concerned, we shall never commit the grievous sin of exchanging the people as our back-seat drivers for the colonial officials who sit on the Government Benches.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rumpole of the Bailey
* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.
