Connect with us

Current Affairs

Lim Ching Siong says: I’m not a communist

Published

on

[youtube id=”2pzfsCaXIE0″ align=”center” mode=”normal”] The following was written by Lim Ching Siong and published in The Straits Times on 31 July 1961.

Your editorial comments and news reports in the law week have focused attack on me. By repeating the fiction that I am a Communist front-man. I suppose my political antagonists hope that it would stick in the minds of some.

While Mr. Lee and his men keep crying over Communism to cover up a mulititude of sins, let me, for my part, try to get the record straight.

Let me make it clear once and for all that I am not a Communist or a Communist front-man or, for that matter, anybody’s front-man.

My political association with Mr. Lee began in 1954 when together we conceived and brought into existence the PAP. I was at one time its assistant secretary general and a PAP assemblyman.

Since 1956, and particularly since my release from jail in 1959, Mr. Lee has sought to isolate me from the rest of my colleagues and the party by smearing me as a Communist front-man. Despite this sustained smear in private, he found it fit to persuade me to accept the post of political secretary.

Not only was I reluctant to accept the post, but I had offered to withdraw from politics if he so desired it. He did not desire it. Instead, he wished to show the people that I was identified with the Government.

For my part I was prepared to do what he urged of me because I felt I should do everything in my power to support the PAP Government so that there could be stability in Singapore and we could get down to solving some of the problems that face our people.

Even after having been appointed political secretary I was not allowed any say in the formulation of Government policy. On the other hand, I soon discovered that my responsibility was to support any action or chance utterance of Government Ministers.

Having denied me any participation in the party and Government. I was still to be used as political secretary to give the impression that the workers and the Government were one.

But this position could not go on for ever. During the Hong Lim by-election, I gave my categorical support to the PAP though the election sub-committee was instructed by Mr Lee not to allow me to appear at any of the party mass rallies.

After the defeat at Hong Lim the campaign against me was intensified. At the party conference some Ministers tried to attribute the causes of defeat to me and my associates in the trade unions.

Every protest or criticism from the party branches against the absence of internal party democracy or the policies of the Government was considered to be engineered by me. By trying to turn me into a whipping-boy it was hoped to cover the failings and sins of the leadership.

However, I and my colleagues had felt it our responsibility to remind the leadership of its every deviation from party policies in respect of civil liberties, trade unions and the release of detainees, in the hope of getting it to rectify.

In spite of their blatant disregard of our advice, we continued to emphasis the importance of left-wing unite. This was taken to mean that we had no alternative but to support the Government.

On the question of our constitutional future we had proposed, what we considered, certain minimum and realistic demands so as to help point the way ahead. Instead of considering these proposals, the party leadership had committed the entire people and party to the Malaysia proposals without letting anyone know the details.

Even when they acted in this callous manner, we sought for the details in the hope that proper consideration could be given to the matter.
The leadership, on the other hand, was more interested in playing politics. They said they were going further than we – who are now branded as the Communist left – by demanding “the total eradication of colonialism”

Quite obviously, it was their intention to impress the people by this apparent militant stand. But when we asked for certain concrete steps to be taken to strengthen the anti-colonial stand we saw how nervous and jittery the leadership became.

In their nervousness they began the shout about communism and chaos, expecting to frighten some people into believing them.

The Communist left who are supposed to be arch-conspirators have now, we are told, been taken for a ride by the British. How funny can people get?

My meetings with Lord Selkirk have been few and far between. If meeting Lord Selkirk makes one a plotter then Mr. Lee is the greatest of all poltters for he has dealings with Lord Selkirk more than anyone else in Singapore

By crying Communist on the one hand and British imperialism on the other. Mr Lee must have hoped to win sympathy from both the Chinese-educated and the English-educated.

Unfortunately, he treats the people as simple onlookers who could be impressed by his political acrobatics. This time of course he has learnt that the people are not all that simple.

Amid all his song and dance, Mr. Lee has been forced to make three important admissions:

1. He has agreed to consult the people on the question of merger, and this is what we have asked for all the time.

2. He now declares that he will not start a wave of arrests of political opponents, in contrast to his threats of earlier days, though he still hopes that the British will do it for him.

3. He now openly promises to release the detainees. Sometime ago, Mr. Lee stated that so long as the Federation Government remains anti-Communist and there are British bases in Singapore, it would be impossible for Singapore to become Communist. He now raises the alarming prospect of a Communist Singapore.

Mr. Lee contradicts himself this time without his usual sophistry. We may look forward to such further contradictions.


Background and footnote
Lim Chin Siong co-founded the People’s Action Party (PAP) in 1954 with Lee Kuan Yew.
At the young age of 22, he was elected into the legislative assembly as a member for Bukit Timah in 1955 and together with Lee, represented PAP in the 1956 constitutional talks in London.
He then left the PAP and formed the Barisan Sosialis in 17 September 1961 after PAP tried to eliminate its own left-wing sections.
Mr Lim and many opposition party members were detained under the Internal Security Act by the ruling PAP government via Operation Coldstore on 2 February 1963 after the referendum of the merger with Malaysia.
The PAP government continues to refer to Mr Lim as a Communist and the threat that he and his party posed for Singapore, in order to justify Operation Coldstore.
One can argue about whether a socialist government under Mr Lim would produce a better outcome for Singapore, or if it will eventually become more repressive than Lee Kuan Yew’s regime.
But it is hard to disagree that the election was stolen from Lim Chin Siong, considering that he was vastly more popular than Lee Kuan Yew back then. There was also hardly any rational reason why he would resort to an armed insurrection when many signs indicated that the Barisan Socialis would defeat the PAP at the General Election in 1963.
[youtube id=”2pzfsCaXIE0″ align=”center” mode=”normal”] Also read the following articles on The Online Citizen:

Continue Reading
14 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending