
Politics is dirty
There will be can of worms everywhere
Francis Seow - Hero or Zero?
In 1956, Francis Seow joined the Singapore Legal Service and was promoted to Solicitor-General in 1969 and held office until 1971. He served directly under then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and rose to the rank of a senior counsel to a Commission of Inquiry during the Secondary 4 examination boycott in 1964 before the merger with Malaysia.
In recognition, Seow was awarded the Public Administration (Gold) Medal but eventually left to join private law practice in 1972. In 1976, he was elected a member of the Council of the Law Society and became his firm’s president in 1986. His new role led to his falling out with Mr. Lee as Seow got involved in politics of the Law Society, using it as a platform to attack the government.
Mr. Lee passed an amendment to the Legal Profession Act under Section 38 (1) depriving the Law Society to comment on any legislation unless asked by the government. In the 1988 general election, Seow contested the Eunos Group Representation Constituency under Worker’s Party and lost marginally to PAP. However, just before the election, Seow was accused of receiving political campaign finance from the US to promote democracy in Singapore and was thus detained without trial for 72 days under the Internal Security Act.
In his semi-autobiographical To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison, Seow wrote about his experience of being detained. He accused the Singapore government of “authoritarianism” and “abusing human rights under then-PM Mr. Lee”. He also claimed that he was tortured, sleep deprived and subjected to intense cold conditioning.
On the flip side, late criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan wrote about his experience with Francis Seow in his autobiography, describing him as “someone who is fuelled by deep-seated motives but did not have what it took to be a leader”. He also said that Mr. Lee must have been astonished that someone “could lie so glibly like Francis Seow”.
Subhas recalled his experience with Seow in 1987:
" The other time Law Society stood out, when lawyers walked with pride, was when Francis Seow was its president. It would subsequently be proven though that many of his actions were fuelled by deep-seated motives or what one would consider as personal desires.
Whatever his motives may have been, the way he conducted himself as president and the speeches he made had lawyers walking with their heads held up high. We had the feeling we could not be trampled upon. We had a leader who would stand by us.
Little did we know that that same leader would some day pack up his things and slink away from Singapore leaving behind a lot of disillusioned people who believe in him. There were those who gave him money. He still owes me $25,000. I suppose I should say goodbye to it. Most of all, there were many who thought that he would open up a new chapter in Singapore politics.
But he was a disappointment and a disaster. He didn’t have the moral courage to return to Singapore to face income tax charges. Even if he was convicted of those charges, it would only amounted to a fine but he was not prepared to take risk. In the final analysis, he was after all, nothing.
A man who spoke well-his eloquence was often very charming-but other than that he did not have what it took to be a leader. He was not prepared to through the test of fire which all politicians must face.”
It is very difficult to confront a man who is lying when only he and the other person know the truth. I don’t think Lee was in a position to go into details because some of his conversations they had must have been quite serious and he was not prepared to discuss the circumstances. Francis Seow took full advantage of Lee’s difficulty, lied through his teeth and came out victorious. But his victory was short lived because in the end the statute was amended. He was statutorily terminated and had to cease being the president because he had been suspended before and the new amendment will not allow him to hold office in the Law Society. “
So, did LKY really fix Seow purely because he helped the 'wrong side' ? Or was Seow an opportunist who will bite the hand of his master when the occasion calls for it? We might never know.
Francis Seow - Hero or Zero?
In 1956, Francis Seow joined the Singapore Legal Service and was promoted to Solicitor-General in 1969 and held office until 1971. He served directly under then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and rose to the rank of a senior counsel to a Commission of Inquiry during the Secondary 4 examination boycott in 1964 before the merger with Malaysia.
In recognition, Seow was awarded the Public Administration (Gold) Medal but eventually left to join private law practice in 1972. In 1976, he was elected a member of the Council of the Law Society and became his firm’s president in 1986. His new role led to his falling out with Mr. Lee as Seow got involved in politics of the Law Society, using it as a platform to attack the government.
Mr. Lee passed an amendment to the Legal Profession Act under Section 38 (1) depriving the Law Society to comment on any legislation unless asked by the government. In the 1988 general election, Seow contested the Eunos Group Representation Constituency under Worker’s Party and lost marginally to PAP. However, just before the election, Seow was accused of receiving political campaign finance from the US to promote democracy in Singapore and was thus detained without trial for 72 days under the Internal Security Act.
In his semi-autobiographical To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison, Seow wrote about his experience of being detained. He accused the Singapore government of “authoritarianism” and “abusing human rights under then-PM Mr. Lee”. He also claimed that he was tortured, sleep deprived and subjected to intense cold conditioning.
On the flip side, late criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan wrote about his experience with Francis Seow in his autobiography, describing him as “someone who is fuelled by deep-seated motives but did not have what it took to be a leader”. He also said that Mr. Lee must have been astonished that someone “could lie so glibly like Francis Seow”.
Subhas recalled his experience with Seow in 1987:
" The other time Law Society stood out, when lawyers walked with pride, was when Francis Seow was its president. It would subsequently be proven though that many of his actions were fuelled by deep-seated motives or what one would consider as personal desires.
Whatever his motives may have been, the way he conducted himself as president and the speeches he made had lawyers walking with their heads held up high. We had the feeling we could not be trampled upon. We had a leader who would stand by us.
Little did we know that that same leader would some day pack up his things and slink away from Singapore leaving behind a lot of disillusioned people who believe in him. There were those who gave him money. He still owes me $25,000. I suppose I should say goodbye to it. Most of all, there were many who thought that he would open up a new chapter in Singapore politics.
But he was a disappointment and a disaster. He didn’t have the moral courage to return to Singapore to face income tax charges. Even if he was convicted of those charges, it would only amounted to a fine but he was not prepared to take risk. In the final analysis, he was after all, nothing.
A man who spoke well-his eloquence was often very charming-but other than that he did not have what it took to be a leader. He was not prepared to through the test of fire which all politicians must face.”
It is very difficult to confront a man who is lying when only he and the other person know the truth. I don’t think Lee was in a position to go into details because some of his conversations they had must have been quite serious and he was not prepared to discuss the circumstances. Francis Seow took full advantage of Lee’s difficulty, lied through his teeth and came out victorious. But his victory was short lived because in the end the statute was amended. He was statutorily terminated and had to cease being the president because he had been suspended before and the new amendment will not allow him to hold office in the Law Society. “
So, did LKY really fix Seow purely because he helped the 'wrong side' ? Or was Seow an opportunist who will bite the hand of his master when the occasion calls for it? We might never know.
Saya cekap saya shiokThis Wot is as good as not saying anything
Francis Seow - Hero or Zero?
In 1956, Francis Seow joined the Singapore Legal Service and was promoted to Solicitor-General in 1969 and held office until 1971. He served directly under then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and rose to the rank of a senior counsel to a Commission of Inquiry during the Secondary 4 examination boycott in 1964 before the merger with Malaysia.
In recognition, Seow was awarded the Public Administration (Gold) Medal but eventually left to join private law practice in 1972. In 1976, he was elected a member of the Council of the Law Society and became his firm’s president in 1986. His new role led to his falling out with Mr. Lee as Seow got involved in politics of the Law Society, using it as a platform to attack the government.
Mr. Lee passed an amendment to the Legal Profession Act under Section 38 (1) depriving the Law Society to comment on any legislation unless asked by the government. In the 1988 general election, Seow contested the Eunos Group Representation Constituency under Worker’s Party and lost marginally to PAP. However, just before the election, Seow was accused of receiving political campaign finance from the US to promote democracy in Singapore and was thus detained without trial for 72 days under the Internal Security Act.
In his semi-autobiographical To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison, Seow wrote about his experience of being detained. He accused the Singapore government of “authoritarianism” and “abusing human rights under then-PM Mr. Lee”. He also claimed that he was tortured, sleep deprived and subjected to intense cold conditioning.
On the flip side, late criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan wrote about his experience with Francis Seow in his autobiography, describing him as “someone who is fuelled by deep-seated motives but did not have what it took to be a leader”. He also said that Mr. Lee must have been astonished that someone “could lie so glibly like Francis Seow”.
Subhas recalled his experience with Seow in 1987:
" The other time Law Society stood out, when lawyers walked with pride, was when Francis Seow was its president. It would subsequently be proven though that many of his actions were fuelled by deep-seated motives or what one would consider as personal desires.
Whatever his motives may have been, the way he conducted himself as president and the speeches he made had lawyers walking with their heads held up high. We had the feeling we could not be trampled upon. We had a leader who would stand by us.
Little did we know that that same leader would some day pack up his things and slink away from Singapore leaving behind a lot of disillusioned people who believe in him. There were those who gave him money. He still owes me $25,000. I suppose I should say goodbye to it. Most of all, there were many who thought that he would open up a new chapter in Singapore politics.
But he was a disappointment and a disaster. He didn’t have the moral courage to return to Singapore to face income tax charges. Even if he was convicted of those charges, it would only amounted to a fine but he was not prepared to take risk. In the final analysis, he was after all, nothing.
A man who spoke well-his eloquence was often very charming-but other than that he did not have what it took to be a leader. He was not prepared to through the test of fire which all politicians must face.”
It is very difficult to confront a man who is lying when only he and the other person know the truth. I don’t think Lee was in a position to go into details because some of his conversations they had must have been quite serious and he was not prepared to discuss the circumstances. Francis Seow took full advantage of Lee’s difficulty, lied through his teeth and came out victorious. But his victory was short lived because in the end the statute was amended. He was statutorily terminated and had to cease being the president because he had been suspended before and the new amendment will not allow him to hold office in the Law Society. “
So, did LKY really fix Seow purely because he helped the 'wrong side' ? Or was Seow an opportunist who will bite the hand of his master when the occasion calls for it? We might never know.

knn i see so many of u replied "wot" blah blah blah.
no wonder sinkies are daft.