Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam
Ironic Intellectual, Principled Politician
By Nurfadzilah Yahaya
Opposition pioneer
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, better known as J.B. Jeyaretnam was one of the most prominent opposition leaders in Singapore. As the first opposition Member of Parliament in 1981 and leader of the Workers’ Party, he became an iconic figure, “a Singaporean maverick,” leading a forceful critique of the ruling party for decades (Burton, 2008). Jeyaretnam showed the importance of having an opposition party and served the role of helping provide checks and balances. His believed in a rights-based liberalism as he called out oppression and asked for more transparency. He was unyielding in his approach which was rarely nuanced, and even more rarely backed down once he decided something had to be addressed.
Likely due to his vocation as a lawyer, he valued exposition in Parliament. He frequently chose to be ironic in his presentation. He demonstrated how an injustice came into being or how inconsistencies played out in government policies by bringing his audience on a journey through a series of questions rather than showing his cards immediately. Outside of Parliament, when he was dismissed due to a conviction for false accounting of the party’s funds in 1986, and later due to bankruptcy in 2001, he constantly channeled his moral outrage towards criticizing the government to his own detriment because it led to many lawsuits.
Throughout his political life, J.B. Jeyaretnam formed a formidable pillar of opposition to the ruling party beginning in 1971 when he was the Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party. He took part in three general elections and two by-elections but lost them all. His main political breakthrough came ten years later in a by-election when he broke the ruling party’s complete dominance of Parliament, by being elected the Member of Parliament for Anson. Right off the bat, in a tense and heated exchange in Parliament, he accused the ruling party of campaigning in the last General Elections using police vehicles (Jeyaretnam, 1981).
He was a Member of Parliament from 1981 to 1986 and a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from 1997 to 2001 In parliamentary proceedings, Jeyaretnam addressed wide-ranging issues. Parliamentary records revealed that these included purchase of planes for the Singapore Air Force, increase hospital charges, different aspects of criminal law, welfare of pig-farmers in Punggol, role of house unions in Singapore, freedom of the press in Singapore and academic freedom in local universities. He constantly engaged in heated debates with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and over the decades, their relationship became more acrimonious usually in the form of ad hominem attacks on both sides (Loke, 2019, 14–15, 22–23).
Early formations
How did Jeyaretnam develop as an intellectual and as a politician? He was born in Chankanai in Jaffna when his parents were on home leave in Sri Lanka in January 1926. His parents were Tamil Methodists. Jeyaretnam identified as Anglican himself at the end of his life having attended Anglican churches. His family had been in Jaffna for thousands of years and by the early twentieth century, Sri Lankan Tamils viewed Malaya as the land of “milk and honey” which saw the great migration of Tamils who became prominent in Malayan railways. They moved to Taiping in Perak before moving to Johor when his father worked for the Public Works Department when Jeyaretnam was 13 or 14 years old (Standard VII). He credited his father for influencing his independent and questioning nature (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 33).
He came of age during the Japanese Occupation when he was struck by British disastrous defeat in Malaya. He experienced first stirrings of nationalism, and witnessed how evil people could be (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 81). Early on during the Occupation, Jeyaretnam volunteered for fire-watching during the war and saw up close arrogant and officious white Australian and New Zealand army officers. He also observed signs saying “No Indians and dogs allowed” outside the officers’ mess and resented that Australian soldiers arrived to great fanfare although it was Indian soldiers who bore the brunt of the fighting in north of Johor against Japanese invaders (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 39–40).
Steeped in English education, he attended schools in Muar, Johor Bahru, Singapore and in Jaffna whenever his family visited. British teachers and headmasters, he noted were mostly condescending and aloof with one exception in Muar — a John Taylor who did not uphold racial divisions as far as Jeyaretnam saw. “You can’t judge a whole nation or race by the actions of behaviour of a few,” he constantly reminded himself (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 158).
As soon as the war was over, his father sent him to Singapore (schools in Johor were not open yet) to resume his education at St. Andrew’s School where he was influenced by Australian Canon R. K. S. Adams who once said he did not believe in racial classifications (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 90, 96). For an English assignment leading up to his Senior Cambridge exams at St. Andrew’s School, Jeyaretnam questioned why the atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese but not European belligerents — “was it because (Japanese) lives were expendable? (Because) they’re Asians?” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 108). Jeyaretnam later taught at the school after his exams.
In awe of Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 against the repressive British salt tax in India, he was very much drawn to the rhetoric of non-violence so he did not join the Indian National Army when Subhas Chandra Bose came to Malaya although he knew many who did (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 79, 131). He nonetheless aimed to be of service to fellow Malayans during the Occupation so he learnt to speak and write Japanese in Syonan-to (Singapore) three evenings a week in Queen Street for three months while still living in Johor Bahru staying overnight at Ramakrishna Mission.
In order to escape working on the Death Railway, upon his receiving his certificate, he worked for the Census Department for six months before it closed, he worked as an interpreter for the Transport Department in the Japanese colonial government and became head of his department although he was only 17 years old (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 52–53). One of the harrowing things he did was to interview Malayans who had already undergone torture at Kempeitai headquarters, “a gruesome place,” suspected of stealing tyres.
Public service
Singapore’s shared history with Malaya as part of the Straits Settlements, and the ease with which he moved from the peninsula to Singapore influenced his thinking the latter was part of Malaya so he was unhappy when the British separated the administration of Singapore from the rest of Malaya in 1946 (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 140). Influenced by his grandfather, father, Gandhi, and his schoolteachers, Jeyaretnam committed himself to public service. Speaking about his father, he said:
“he was a civil servant…in my father’s life what mattered most was security that one has to have a secured position in life so that one isn’t battered by circumstances or fortune…For him, I suppose as well for most Jaffna people, security — financial security — meant having a job for life with a guaranteed income, salary, every month…” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 9–10)
Seeing lawyers in action in Muar and Singapore led him to choose law as his chosen vocation. He said
“But I think partly because in 1946, 47, it was people like John Laycock was a lawyer, who was in the Legislative or executive Council; someone the British had appointed, All the time inside me, was this urge to go into public life, not so much achieving high office but to do public service. That was one of the reasons why I joined the legal service when I graduated. I don’t immediately think of going into private practice. My idea that, or my thinking was that life should be one of public service rather than serving oneself first.” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 162)
In 1948, Jeyaretnam went to study law in University College London. While there, he was inspired by members of the British Labour Party, in particular Ernest Bevin and Minister of Health Aneurin Bevan who came from a working class background and played a huge role in the establishment of the famed National Health Service funded out of general taxation in the United Kingdom. Observing them led him to think about how Malaya (he had not yet committed to living in Singapore) “had to be with people who had to….cater or see that every single person lives in the dignity that God had intended for him” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 176).
He decided to plan “(a) society which would be caring and fundamentally promoting the dignity of the human being which would of course, include caring and looking after his material needs and all the other needs” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 177). He became a British national in 1952 since those born in Sri Lanka was entitled to it (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 337).
Upon his return to Johor that year, he was informed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Johor that he would not go far in Johor public service partly because he was not Malay (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 256). He was encouraged to go to Singapore so he searched for a job there, and subsequently entered the Singapore Legal Service. Commuting everyday from Johor Bahru, he came to Singapore to become Magistrate in the Second Traffic Court at Sepoy Lines which largely deals with minor traffic offenses and after two months, the first local Criminal District Judge dealing mostly with opium cases, followed by Second Civil District Court where he dealt with moneylending cases (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 259, 268–272, 315).
He later became Registrar of the Supreme Court and Deputy Public Prosecutor. As a judge, he was uncomfortable with the death penalty (towards the end of his life he became opposed to capital punishment) and was uneasy with being the person who meted out sentences (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 353; Jeyaretnam, 2001). After the jury system was abolished in Singapore he thought it more crucial that judgement over life should not be left to just a single person (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 371).
The principled liberal
Jeyaretnam’s manner and style significantly shaped opposition politics in Singapore at a time when opposition parties increasingly became a force to be reckoned with in Parliament (Loke, 2019, 4–5). To a great extent, he aligned his political life against Lee Kuan Yew and admitted as much. Parliamentary session transcripts reveal that over time, he developed his ideas in opposition to the ethos of the ruling party, the People’s Action Party. In his early years in Singapore as a lawyer and judge, Jeyaretnam came to admire Lee Kuan Yew whom he considered a “great chap” in the 1950s because of the Fajar trial, “a great victory for free speech and public opinion, a good boost for Singapore.” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 297, 313).
“So there he was, a great champion of freedom and outside, he was in all the trade unions. He was working with the mob and calling, holding protest rallies, working up the middle school students. As I said, in those days…I saw myself completely with him because of what he was doing. It was only after he book over and had this metamorphosis, whatever you like to call it, suddenly change, that I then decided I had to perhaps go into politics. It didn’t happen overnight, of course….But here was the man who I had supported and who I had even admire, suddenly proving to be a complete reverse of all the things that he had stood up, stood for what I was standing for.” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 297)
Over time, he became more disillusioned:
“(Lee) was a great democrat, champion of the workers’ rights. He was the adviser to several trade unions and spoke up for freedom of speech and assembly, complaining about the restrictions that the British government had place, saying, ‘ Why should it only be at night that rallies could be held? Why can’t it be held at anytime of the day?’ and today, he has…imposed greater restrictions.” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 377)
Jeyaretnam concluded towards the end of his life that Lee was “playacting” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 297). He also found Lee Kuan Yew’s objection to the jury system abolished in 1969, disingenuous (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 366).
In Parliament, Jeyaretnam often started debates thus bringing these issues to public attention though he was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing motions and amendments from being passed. Known for his rhetorical prowess, he was fond of making speeches and came well-prepared. One of his more famous speeches issues in a parliamentary session in February 2001 on the importance of freedom of the press showcased his rhetorical style and most important values.
Sir, this motion that I have tabled this evening is in line with the motions that I have tabled in the earlier sittings of Parliament urging for a greater freedom of expression in this country as is provided for in the Constitution. It goes without saying that freedom of the press is an integral, perhaps even the sine qua non of the freedom of expression. It is the press which will provide the people the freedom of expression that the Constitution guarantees in the widest manner possible… I present, we have really one newspaper, or one company, one stable, which brings out broadsheets or tabloids but all reporting faithfully whatever the Government or the PAP wishes them to put forward. They have failed in their duty of being a voice for the people and they have become a voice for the Government and that has been made possible by the amendment that was passed in 1974 which legalised the de facto control of the press which was already in place before 1974. Members will recall that it was before 1974, the years preceding that, that the Eastern Sun was closed. It was accused of being anti-Singapore because there was some money received from abroad. Then there was the forced closure of the Singapore Herald for what the Government termed “black operations”. No paper which was even mildly critical of the Government was allowed to operate. But this was all done, as I said, de facto, without the legal control over it. And so it was in 1974 that a new Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill.” (Jeyaretnam, 1999)
He ended his speech with a poem by Rabindranath Tagore which began:
“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;”
Another issue he felt strongly about was, not surprisingly the Singapore legal system. Perturbed by the lack of opportunities for appeals brought about by Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322), he locked horns with Minister for Law in November 1998. He began by saying,
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have to say in this House that justice lies at the heart of every human being. And he wants justice in his conduct of his daily life and in any action taken against him by the Government or the public prosecutor who is a member of the Executive. So, he must be given access to the Courts and to the highest Court, if necessary, if he feels that it is important enough to him. So he must have ready access.” (Jeyaretnam, 1998).
The uncompromising intellectual
As empowered by law as he was, he was also brought down by it through a series of defamation lawsuits against him which effectively drained him emotionally and financially. This aspect of his life, which he detailed in his book The Hatchet Man of Singapore was an embodiment of politics through litigation, specifically through the use of defamation lawsuits (Jeyaretnam, 2003). He resigned from the Workers’ Party when his deputy Low Thia Kiang prevented him from raising any money. (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 191) They found me a liability, he said.
Coming out of bankruptcy, he established Reform Party because of his “complete dissatisfaction with the system” which he saw the Workers’ Party accepting.” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 192). His desire to revive his political career in public life was cut short when he passed away in September 2008 due to heart failure. Until the day he died, Jeyaretnam held on to his belief that “life was meant to be lived, serving people.” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 255). He did not compromise at all, and his personality outgrew that of his political parties who preferred to pursue a moderate path.
In Singapore history, Jeyaretnam is constantly cast as an extreme opposition politician, as someone intractable outside the spectrum of political acceptability in Singapore politics. Throughout his life, he retained fixed values and principles regarding “human liberty and freedom and dignity of the individual” (Lee & Jeyaretnam, 2005, 294).
He can be considered a public intellectual in the style of Edward Said who described a public intellectual as someone who not only presents their concerns before an audience or constituency, but also was someone who is trying to advance the cause of freedom and justice through their personality and actions (Said, 1996. 12, 20). The intellectual’s representations, Said clarified, are not meant primarily to fortify ego or celebrate status, but are the activity itself, dependent on a kind of consciousness that is skeptical, engaged, unremittingly devoted to rational investigation and moral judgment; and this puts the individual on record and on the line.
Nurfadzilah Yahaya is an Assistant Professor at the Department of History, National University of Singapore.
References
Burton, J. (2008, September 30). Death of Singaporean Maverick. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/death-singaporean-maverick/docview/229214593/se-2?accountid=13876.
Jeyaretnam, J. B. (1981, December 22). “Singapore Parliamentary Debates.” Singapore. Parliament. Hansard, 41. 5th Parliament, 1st Session, 6th Sitting. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report?sittingdate=22-12-1981.
Jeyaretnam, J. B. (1998, November 26). “Singapore Parliamentary Debates.” Singapore. Parliament. Hansard, 69. 9th Parliament, 1st Session, 11th Sitting. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report?sittingdate=26-11-1998.
Jeyaretnam, J. B. (1999, February 11). “Singapore Parliamentary Debates.” Singapore. Parliament. Hansard, 69. 9th Parliament, 1st Session, 13th Sitting. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report?sittingdate=11-2-1999.
Jeyaretnam, J. B. (2001, July 11). “Singapore Parliamentary Debates.” Singapore. Parliament. Hansard, 73. 9th Parliament, 2nd Session, 15th Sitting. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report?sittingdate=11-7-2001.
Jeyaretnam, J. B. (2003). The Hatchet Man of Singapore. Jeya Publishers.
Lee, P., & Jeyaretnam, J. B. (2005, April-May). Political History of Singapore 1965–1985, Accession Number 002932. National Archives of Singapore.
Loke, H. Y. (2019). The First Wave: Jeyaretnam, Chiam & The Opposition in Singapore. Epigram.
Said, E. W. (1996). Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures. Vintage Books.
