By Andrew Loh, Photos by Lawrence Chong/Thum PJ

On 22 August 2013, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the setting up of a steering committee to plan Singapore’s 50th year of Independence celebrations in 2015. To be headed by Education Minister, Heng Swee Keat, the plan is for Singaporeans “to reflect on who we are and how far we have come as a people.”

“We want every Singaporean to be able to connect through their personal stories with the broader Singapore story, and be a part of the anniversary celebrations,” Mr Heng said.

Indeed, this tiny island has come a long way from its tumultuous beginnings, and there is much to celebrate and be thankful for, even as we work together to solve the problems we face today.

But one cannot truly celebrate our nationhood without also being honest about how we came to be. In fact, that should and must be the starting point for our look-back on the last 50 years of being one people.

In other words, what is the truth of how we became a nation?

Throughout these 50 years, there has mostly been one version of that story, told by one party, repeatedly – a one-sided, unquestioned, narrative presented as the factual truth on television and radio programmes, in books, in government-controlled newspapers.The victors of the battle for Independence told our story, our history, from their view, and in the event, glorified themselves.

The losers were communists and that was that.

But how true is this narrative?

Historians of late have started to tell a different story.

Those who were detained under 1963’s Operation Coldstore, long painted by the PAP Government as communist insurgents who posed an extraordinary threat to our very survival, have emerged in recent times to tell their side of the story.

More importantly perhaps, their account is supported by the work of historians and declassified 50-year old secret papers from our former colonial rulers, the British.

The latest historian to step up and offer an alternative narrative is the very distinguished Dr Thum Ping Tjin.

A Rhodes Scholar and a Commonwealth Scholar who attended Harvard (when he was 16-years old) and Oxford, Dr Thum’s research areas included Decolonisation and the Cold War in Southeast Asia; and the history of Singapore and Malaysia.

Dr Thum has presented his research into Operation Coldstore at various occasions, including at NUS and in private talks.

Most recently, on 16 November, Dr Thum gave a 20-minute speech at the launch of the book on the February 1963 arrests, titled: “The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore – Commemorating 50 years”.

Dr Thum related a significantly different story of Operation Coldstore from the state narrative we have been offered all these years. The declassification of the British papers, particularly, gave important insights into the behind-the-scenes political manoeuvres by the main interested parties at the time – the British government, the Tunku of Malaysia, and Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister of Singapore.

Dr Thum says the events which led to the arrest of the members of the Barisan Socialist, branded as “communists”, were in fact politically motivated, and were not ideological.

Indeed, he empathetically rejects any suggestion that the detainees were communist at all.

“Let me get this straight, let me say this,” Dr Thum told the packed room at last Saturday’s book launch. “Were the Barisan and the other detainees of Operation Coldstore part of a communist conspiracy? No. No. No. No.”

“Special Branch and the ISD did not, does not have any evidence that the Operation Coldstore detainees were engaged in any communist conspiracy.”

This directly contradicts the very reason which the PAP government, and Lee Kuan Yew in particular, have always given for the arrests of the 133 detainees in 1963.

The arrests, according to Dr Thum, were to accede to the Tunku’s desire for the more liberal political opposition in Singapore to be curtailed. The arrests also assured that there were no alternatives to the PAP in the next general elections, a result which would not be unwelcome by the PAP then.

In an interview with website The Online Citizen (TOC), Dr Thum explained:

“The Tunku was openly worried about the impact of the Barisan Sosialis in a unified Malaysia. He feared their organisational skills and the inspired, ‘talismanic’ leadership of Lim Chin Siong. He thus demanded that Singapore’s political opposition be arrested as a condition of merger.”

Dr Thum also revealed that Operation Coldstore was originally planned to take place on 16 December 1962. It was, however, postponed because Mr Lee had wanted to include a further 15 of his political opponents onto the list to be detained, which the Tunku rejected. And a stand-off ensued, with the British playing middleman. Eventually, it was agreed that the operation would proceed in February 1963.

[Do read the interview and watch the video of Dr Thum’s speech. They are most enlightening.]

The story of Singapore’s birth is not the one-dimensional portrayal of Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP as benevolent victors over the “communists”, as we are often told. Instead, historians such as Dr Thum and Dr Lysa Hong, and the former detainees themselves, tell us that there is more to it than what we have been told all these years.

But we need courage to tell the whole truth about how our nation came to be, and to shine a spotlight on the facts.

There is no better time than Singapore’s 50th anniversary to do so.

Will the steering committee led by Mr Heng see the importance of giving space to historians to tell our history factually and dispassionately, on a national platform, as part of our 50th anniversary celebrations?

Will Mr Heng’s committee have the courage to allow the voices of those who are an integral part of our history be heard, besides that of the ruling party; and let Singaporeans – finally – see that there were more than one who believed in and fought for and sacrificed for Singapore?

“We want every Singaporean,” Mr Heng said, “to be able to connect through their personal stories with the broader Singapore story…”

I agree. There is no better place to start than with the facts surrounding Operation Coldstore.

 

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

社会家庭发展部公布报告 称我国制度“非完美无缺惟表现优于多国”

随着近期贫富悬殊和社会分化问题闹得沸沸扬扬,社会及家庭发展部,昨天公布《改善新加坡低收入和弱势家庭生活》政策报告,阐明“新加坡制度并非完美无缺,惟比多数国家表现来得好。” 该部透过报告向民众交代政府今年在改善社会贫富悬殊的努力,包括: 更好教育成果 五至六岁新加坡孩童,有超过90巴仙报读幼儿园. 底层25巴仙家庭的15岁新加坡学生,在国际学生评估项目(PISA),优于其他发展国家同龄学生。 属于底层20巴仙家庭学生,10人中有九人学历达中学以上。(15年前每10人中仅五人) 收入增加,七万人在渐进式薪金制下受惠 过去五年,底层50巴仙家庭实际收入增长率,高于首50巴仙家庭。 月入1千200元的60岁劳工,可在就业入息补助计划(Workfare Income Supplement)下活得300元、近25巴仙的月入补贴。 有七万劳工从渐进式薪金制受惠…

Ex-NUS student rewrites Dean’s statement on sexual harassment case, giving it more humanity and compassion

Following the story of a National University of Singapore (NUS) student, Monica…

A charitable cause

Fundraising for charities needs a relook, suggests Tan Kin Lian.

本社要求内政部撤回更正指示 遭高庭驳回

新加坡内政部于22日援引《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),对于马国捍卫自由律师团(LHL)、《网络公民》、雅虎新闻以及新闻工作者韩俐颖,发出更正指示。 本社已向内政部长尚穆根要求撤回指示,不过被部长驳回,为此本社在上月28日转向高庭上诉。即便准备法庭文件,都需要989元六角的费用,约占了本社运营成本的10巴仙。 昨日(19日)高庭作出判决,驳回本社的申请,高庭法官洪素燕(Belinda Ang)称本社的辩驳出现“两个严重错误”,首先误以为在《防假消息法》下对于“陈述”(Statement)还有其他诠释,实则在该法第17项下只有两种:“事实(fact)”和“意见(opinion)” 至于其他理智人士阅读本社有关报导,都会以为那是“事实陈述”。故此法官裁定本社在这一论点的辩述失败。 上月16日,本社报导捍卫自由律师团发表一篇新闻稿,指责樟宜监狱以残酷和不合法方式处决囚犯。包括本社、雅虎新闻以及马国主流媒体,都有报导上述律师组织的声明。 本社在申诉中强调,报导中已对资讯作出均衡报导,也强调那是来自上述组织的的第三方指控,且本社亦有向内政部求证,惟未获得后者核实。 根据判决书,法官也认为本社应证实有关陈述的真实性,而不是由被告(指内政部)证实。 在《防假消息法》第17(5)项下,如有关人士未在新加坡传播有关陈述、有关陈述不是事实陈述/确实是真相,又或者技术上无法发出更正指示,高庭才可裁决撤回指示。 总检察署的论点是,内政部长对本社发出的更正指示,是针对有关樟宜监狱行刑手法的指控。且本社未能提出任何证据,来抵消举证的责任。 对此法官认为,本社的“举报辩护”(reporting defence)是基于对有关陈述的误解。…