With 3 seats out of 25, LKY and the PAP were in opposition in the 1955 Labour Front government. In 1963, the PAP held 15 Federal seats out of the 159 in the Dewan Rakyat. That 9.4% of seats did not stop Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP from saying what they had to say. Lee Kuan Yew, to his credit then, before turning modern day autocrat, was passionate and was prepared to argue passionately and vociferously for his beliefs and his party's beliefs and what he and his party stood for.
The pussilanimous Low Thia Khiang and the Workers Party cannot be any more different. The constant harping by the Workers Party and its racial bigots that they are both powerless, hapless and helpless to do anything because of their size in Parliament is dishonest.
Well said.
One need only look at the debates in 1955 on the 2nd and 3rd readings for the Preservation of Public Security Bill (the future ISA) at:
http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topi...47237-ZZ_1#id014_19550921_S0004_T00081-bill##
http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topi...047279-ZZ_1#id018_19551012_S0003_T00131-bill#
In the end, the Bill was passed with 19 Ayes, 4 Noes and 7 Abstentions. The 4 Noes were Lim Chin Siong, LEE KUAN YEW, Goh Chew Chua and Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. If you look at the votes tally alone, you might assume that these four MPs did not speak much during the debates. Absolutely untrue, just click on the links and you will see that the 4 PAP MPs were the ones who were most vocal, vociferous and articulate in their objections to the Bill. And the one that made the most interruptions while Ministers were still talking is none other than the Old Fart.
LKY during the 3rd Reading:
""A little intelligent anticipation" would indicate to the Chief Minister that a volte-face could only lead to disillusionment and defeat. If we believe in freedom, then we must concede that same freedom even to those who do not honour it in the way we do. Further, if we want freedom to survive in this part of the world, then we must live it and not just talk it. If you want the people of Singapore to fight for democracy and freedom, it is no use telling them, "Ah! but one day we shall have this freedom, when we have destroyed Communism, when we have destroyed the P.A.P., and when we have destroyed any force which threatens to bring about a social revolution."
I can well imagine the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) hoping that there is a belt between him and Bukit Timah, because I can well imagine that he and his Party are not capable of standing up and fighting for freedom. They only stand up and fight for their own vested interests, to preserve a Singapore in which they, the fortunate few, have a comfortable niche. Any change which threatens to dislodge them from that niche must be fought. I may be wrong in believing that if you fight for freedom, and you live freedom, you will not be destroyed. But I would say that those who have given a pledge to bring freedom to us have no right to come here and quibble between three years and one year, or three months and one month. If what is wrong for three years can be made right because it is one year, then I say there is something gravely wrong with the logical faculties of those in the Progressive and the Democratic Parties. We are against this Bill in toto. We are not here seeking amendments to mitigate the harshness of this Bill."
When it's his turn in power, what made the Old Fart do the same volte-face that he accused the Labour Front of doing in the above speech? You be the judge.
The point is, MPs are elected to do a job. That job is to scrutinise the Government, including but not limited to the passage of legislation. So do it. If the PAP can do the job in 1955 with only 4 MPs, why can't the WP do it with 8?
Hint, hint ... time is now 11.49 am Singapore, 3.49 pm London. Some academic should be in court now.
