๐.๐. ๐๐๐ฒ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ง๐๐ฆ: ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ค๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ง๐๐ฐ ๐ก๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐ฌ
Everyone knows Pritam to be the minority leader of the Worker's Party. But he's not the first. Many have forgotten their fiery Tamil leader of the 20th century. Yes, we're talking about J.B. Jeyaretnam.
Few figures in Singapore's political history evoke as much admiration, discomfort, disagreement and fascination as Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam.
More than four decades after his famous Anson by-election victory in 1981, Singapore is still trying to decide what exactly J.B. Jeyaretnam represented.
๐๐๐ฌ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐?
This is where opinions diverge.
His supporters remember his courage. His critics remember his confrontational style.
Some believe he fought impossible battles because someone had to.
Others believe those battles consumed him, distracting from building a stronger opposition movement.
History offers examples of both.
Many pioneers are not necessarily the best institution builders.
Sometimes their greatest contribution is simply demonstrating that the impossible is possible.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ค๐๐ซ๐ฌ' ๐๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ
Perhaps the most intriguing chapter of JBJ's story is not his rivalry with the PAP.
It is his relationship with the party he helped build.
The Workers' Party today is widely regarded as Singapore's leading opposition party.
In JBJ's day, it was very different. The members of the old days would say that the modern WP is "nothing more than a cheap apologist for the PAP".
JBJ was fiery. Personal. Combative.
He was prepared to confront institutions head-on.
In 2001, JBJ left the Workers Party after Low Thia Khiang and other CEC members refused to help him pay off his debts arising from a defamatory article written in Tamil in the Hammer (party newsletter of the Workers Party).
JBJ denied writing the article.
The disagreement surrounding legal liabilities from The Hammer newspaper became the final breaking point, and JBJ left the Workers' Party in 2001.
Low Thia Khiang and the rest of the CEC escaped liability altogether and JBJ was made to bear the burden on his own, leading to his eventual bankruptcy thereby paving the way for Low Thia Kiang to take over WP.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam accused the Workers Party of showing disrespect to JBJ:
โ๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก ๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ต๐ฝ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐ค๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก. ๐ผ๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐ค๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐คโ๐๐ก๐๐ค๐๐ โ โ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก ๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ โ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ฆ ๐คโ๐๐ โ๐ ๐ค๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐.โ
Yet there is another way to view Low Thia Khiang's role in this history. Throughout his leadership, Low developed a reputation for insisting that party members take responsibility for their own actions, even when the consequences were politically painful.
๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ก ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฌ๐๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ.
Two decades earlier, he had similarly declined to have the Workers' Party shoulder JBJ's personal legal liabilities arising from The Hammer.
Whether one agrees with those decisions or not, they reveal a consistent leadership philosophy: ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ.
In both episodes, Low appeared prepared to put his foot dow, even when it involved some of the most significant figures in the party.
๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ๐๐๐ฒ'๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐๐?
History suggests otherwise.
Institutions rarely emerge from nowhere.
They usually require someone willing to absorb extraordinary personal costs before the path becomes easier for everyone else.
Many of today's opposition politicians operate in an environment that is, in many respects, less lonely than the one JBJ entered.
Whether they would have reached this point without his breakthrough in 1981 is impossible to prove.
But it is difficult to imagine Singapore's political history unfolding in quite the same way.
Not everyone agrees with JBJ.
Not everyone even liked him.
But Singapore cannot discuss its democracy without mentioning his name.