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

NUS seeks to attract overseas Singaporean academics via grant — but many professors previously left due to high research output requirements

The National University of Singapore (NUS) is offering a S$200,000 grant to…

Phey Yew Kok has the “temerity to instigate his staff to fabricate false evidence”

By Richard Wan It was reported that former Member of Parliament from…

SPP’s Khan Osman Sulaiman urges Josephine Teo to do better instead of crying and being emotional

Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo teared up in Parliament yesterday (1 Sep)…

新冠病毒最长潜伏24天? 淡马亚:追踪接触者资料或不全

日前,中国流行病学专家钟南山领导的团队,发表论文称2019新型冠状病毒潜伏期最长可长达24天。 该研究由中国工程院院士钟南山领衔,也是迄今为止样本量最大的一项新冠肺炎回顾性研究成果,已发表于医学研究论文预印本平台medRxiv。研究基于全国552家医院的1099例病例数据,名为《中国2019年新型冠状病毒感染的临床特征》调查报告。 medRxiv亦提醒,该研究尚未经评议,不应用于指导临床实践。其中引起争议的则是报告中提及,新冠病毒的潜伏期介于零至24天,而其极端值也被媒体广为报道,引起关注。 对此,临床微生物学与传染病学亚太学会会长淡马亚(Paul Tambyah)医生分析,潜伏期是指病毒入侵宿主细胞时间,一般不需要很久,其他冠状病毒如沙斯(SARS)病毒的潜伏期为二至七天,中东呼吸道综合征(MERS)病毒为二至14天,流感病毒则是二至四天。 病毒从细胞汲取养分后破坏细胞,接着人体免疫系统消灭被感染的细胞时,病患就会出现症状。 而研究指出,潜伏期中位数为三天,尽管只有三天,但多数呼吸道疾病的病毒最长潜伏期为14天,因此我国实施14天隔离期是适当的措施,而中国确诊病例相当多,追踪接触者手机到的资料也未必百分百准确,可能会出现遗漏。 可能出现二次传染 淡马亚表示,“你可能以为是A传给B,而两者之间可能最后一次接触是在24天前,但这可能是错的,因为中间可能出现C,是C比B早接触A,被感染了再由C传给B。” 淡马亚是接受《联合早报》采访时,这么分析。此前他曾接受《海峡时报》采访,其中也分析坊间戴不戴口罩的疑惑。 淡马亚医生是国立大学医学教授、国大医院传染病学部高级顾问,也是新加坡民主党主席。 另外,上述中国论文并未针对追踪接触者的方法加以说明。…