Photos during the trial in 1974 of Tan Wah Piow (Left), Phey Yek Kok (Right).
Tan Wah Piow Phey Yek Kok
Tan Wah Piow and Phey Yew Kok

Political exile Tan Wah Piow had consistently maintained that Phey Yew Kok had framed him and other unionists for the riots in the mid-1970s.

Phey has recently returned to Singapore after 35 years on the run, having turned himself in to be subject to charges of misuse of union funds during his term as the chief of NTUC.

In Escape From The Lion’s Paw, a compilation of articles from Singapore’s political exiles, Tan further detailed the circumstances that led to his incarceration under Phey. Tan had indicated that Phey was instrumental in bringing charges of rioting on him and other unionists, which eventually led to the quashing of his university’s student union.

The framing was apparently also a view held by Tan’s prison minders, and his chapter puts a different light on Phey’s assigned role in the NTUC.

The following are extracts from the chapter by Tan in Escape From The Lion’s Paw, which is also available for sale on TOC’s online store in both English and Chinese versions.

“That morning, 24 October 1975, was exactly eight months to the day of my conviction after a marathon 47-day trial. At the time of the rial, I was the President of the University of Singapore Students Union (USSU). Together with two workers from the American Marine factory, I was charged with causing a riot inside the premises of the government-controlled Pioneer Industries Employees’ Union (PIEU) based in Jurong. I have always maintained innocence, and likewise the two workers Ng Wah Leng and Yap Kim Hong. It was, we argued, a frame-up hatched by Phey Yew Kok, President of National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) and Secretary-General of PIEU.”

“Throughout my stay at Queenstown, I enjoyed good relationship with the prison wardens. Due to the extensive coverage of my trial, which was unprecedented in Singapore, the prison wardens were sympathetic to me. They could see that the student movement was articulating issues dose to their hearts. and challenging the hegemony and omnipotence of the ruling PAP. As far as the wardens were concerned, I was a political prisoner dressed up as a convict. The key culprit who staged the “riot” to fabricate the charges against the two workers and myself was Phey Yew Kok, the party-anointed union baron, whose brief was to keep workers in the new Jurong industrial estate in check. Even before this rogue Phey Yew Kok met his downfall in 1979 as a corrupt trade union baron who embezzled workers’ funds, his reputation for ‘fixing up’ his opponents was already well known in many quarters in Singapore, including among the prison wardens. In “No Man is an Island,” James Minchin notes how several people he interviewed connected with the NTUC and the PIEU “claimed it was common knowledge that the charges laid against Tan had been trumped up.””

“In 1975, many of the founders of the ruling PAP such as Dr Lim Hock Siew, who had disagreed with Lee Kuan Yew, were still languishing in jail, detained without trial since 1963. The traditional opponents of the PAP from the predominantly Chinese-educated left were pushed into a corner and repressed to such an extent that those who were still active existed either in small political and cultural ghettos, or were forced underground. The left-wing Barisan Sosialis was no longer the political force it once was. There was no imposition in Parliament. and the few opposition parties including the Workers’ Party led by J B Jeyaretnam were struggling to be heard, let alone setting any alternative political agenda. The tentacles of the ruling party reached out to each and every community organisation especially through its network of Peoples’ Association branches and Residents’ Committees. Workers who did not get to enjoy their fair share of the expanding economic cake, and were suffering the effect of the world recession, were kept in check by the trade unions headed by Phey Yew Kok and Devan Nair.”

“We aimed to make available the facilities at the students’ union house to the workers as a meeting venue, as they were unable to use the facilities of their own unions. However, by setting up an independent workers’ base on campus, free from the control of the ruling party, we had unwittingly undermined all that the PAP was trying to achieve. When American Marine workers were unfairly retrenched in October 1974, the RRC (Retrenchment Research Centre) sprung into action. Workers were able to hold discussions in our union conference room. The students also joined the 100 workers from American Marine who gathered outside the PIEU to confront Phey Yew Kok. I was amongst those present, and it was there that Phey, the union boss and President of the NTUC declared that he would “put [me] in the right place.” It was, I believe, the campaign in support of the retrenched workers, and the challenge to the hegemony of the PAP-sponsored trade unions, that eventually determined the fate of USSU (University of Singapore Students’ Union), and mine as well.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

“We will implement the law firmly,” says Wong Kan Seng

Apec meeting and Mas Selamat – two issues on Minister’s radar.

何晶转载文章“为何总理薪资那么高” 为夫君高薪说理

还记得荣誉国务资政吴作栋,在去年引起网民怒火的“部长高薪论”吗?吴作栋当时捍卫“高薪养廉”,也批评要部长减薪的建议乃民粹主义做法,引起网民热议。 时隔一年,总理夫人何晶,在个人脸书分享一则文章,题为《为何新加坡总理的薪资那么高?》,并且发表个人观点,似乎也有意为夫君的高薪说理。 她开头先言“对于谁值得拥有什么”没有意见,但对于他所分享的文章表达看法,指出在新加坡“裸薪”政策下最大的区别是,为官期间除了薪资外不会再享有任何其他额外待遇,即便离职后也不会有任何退休金和其他福利。 她续指,即使不是全部,大部分其他国家的领导在位时,都能享有许多待遇,例如可以有管家、理发师、乘坐免费航班,甚至家庭假期;而如美国等国的领袖,即便退位后都还享有其他待遇。 她在贴文中说道:“不论是对公共服务,还是在协助贫穷、弱势群体的社会服务领域,我们都需要的确有热诚、肯付出之人,且拥有相符的能力和知识,且拥有智慧和理解长远影响和可持续性的体制。” “不应占便宜”给不足薪资 她需称,如果这些能人都拥有这些卓越的素质,更不应该“占他们便宜”给他们过低的薪资,或者强要他们戴上圣人的高帽”。 然而,当她提及在其他国家,从政者即便退休后都有额外待遇,但不禁令我们想起,包括前总理公署部长林文兴2011年在离开政坛后,隔年就加入淡马锡基金;前副总理兼内政部长黄根成也受聘为淡马锡旗下子公司星桥腾飞董事长,尚有其他例子,不胜枚举。 至于有关探讨为何总理李显龙薪资为何全球居首的文章,作者声称“没有任何政治背景”,仅是透过研究分析,摆事实讲道理,来厘清网络上对总理薪资的各种流言。 文章内容不外乎对比包括中、美、英和邻国马来西亚领导人的薪资,并提出尽管总理的年薪(220万新元),几乎是香港特首林郑月娥的两倍(约86万6千新元),但文章也指出,许多私人企业的总裁,例如星展银行总裁高博德(Piyush Gupta)的薪资,在2018年入账约1千190万新元。 文章又继续阐述,试图透过说明国内生产总值(GDP)自独立以来节节上升,以该表现来合理化本地领导人的高薪。文内举例,美国在2017年的人均GDP达到8万0662元,而新加坡是7万8161元,顺序排在后面的是香港、英国、马来西亚和中国。…

对“越南入侵柬埔寨”论感惊讶 柬防长要求李显龙更正

根据柬埔寨媒体《高棉时报》报导,因不满我国总理李显龙指越南在1979年“入侵柬埔寨”,柬埔寨国防部长狄班(Tea Banh)和当地国会议员对李显龙发言感到惊讶,且反驳其发言未反映史实。 李显龙是在5月31日,于个人脸书专页发文哀悼泰国前首相布勒姆的逝世。其中提及布勒姆当年曾反对“越南入侵柬埔寨”,且不承认取代红高棉的柬埔寨政府。 李显龙指泰国站在最前线,在柬泰边界面对越南部队。布勒姆当时坚决不接受此情况,与东盟伙伴合作,在国际论坛上反对越南的侵占,“这阻止了军事入侵和政权更迭被合理化,保护东南亚各国的安全。” 李显龙也形容布勒姆是新加坡的好朋友,和其父亲已故建国总理李光耀密切合作,加强新泰关系。 针对总理言论,柬防长向黄永宏反映 对于李显龙的上述言论,柬埔寨国防部长狄班乘着上周末出席在新加坡举行的香格里拉对话会,向我国国防部长黄永宏反映此事。 狄班在周一晚上返抵金边国际机场,接受媒体访问时表示,他已要求黄永宏告知李总理,对其言论作出更正。 “他(李显龙)的言论是不实、未反映史实的,说越南军队入侵柬埔寨完全不对,我们请他作出更正。” 狄班表示无法接受李显龙的言论,“我们已经澄清,当年越南志愿部队来到解放我们的人民,我们仍认为他们是来解救百姓的性命,对我们有显著意义。” 事实上,我国总理在香格里拉对话会的开幕晚宴上致词时,也曾提及越南曾入侵柬埔寨。 另一方面,根据《柬中时报》报导,柬埔寨一名国会议员洪玛尼(现任首相洪森的小儿子)同一天在脸书发帖,对李显龙文章表示不认同,而且非常惊讶。…

How to deal with rising health care cost – Part II

~By: Tan Kin Lian~ In part I, Tan Kin Lian explored about…