Comment on Operation Coldstore

To make clear when I am presenting my opinion, and when I am presenting facts or other's perspective, or official records, I will post them separately.

LKY's "Fireside Chats" of 1961 is presented in a previous post. And this commentary came about firstly because a historian suggested that Operation Coldstore (1963) was politically motivated, and that there were no communists. Or something like that. And that LKY was a purveyor of fake news. Or something like that. Or that is what I was led to believe from a cursory reading of the confrontation between the Minister and the Historian.

So what happens when a Historian walks into the political realm with his alternative views of history, and his "cheeky" take on Singapore's history? What does he hope to do?
Does he intend to replace the orthodox history as accepted by the "mainstream" historians with his unique interpretation? Does he intend to rewrite history?

Well, he might be that "cheeky" and optimistic. But at the minimum, he should at least get a rise out of the powers that be (i.e. Shanmugam), and have his controversial interpretation of history argued in a public forum.
Mission accomplished! Shanmugam played right into his hands!
Not that he (Shanmugam) had any choice. The historian, having entered the political realm with his unorthodox history HAD TO BE TREATED AS A POLITICAL INTERLOPER. And his unorthodox narrative had to be treated as an attempt to upset the political status quo. The Minister then had no choice but to defend the status quo (the orthodox historical narrative).

So the Minister looked like a over-enthusiastic guard dog, and the historian got his objective of having his narrative argued in a public forum.

In case you don't get it, here's the explanation from a 2010 news story:

"In academic history, alternative narratives have become the norm rather than an exception. For example, research councils in Britain and the United States are more likely to fund projects that look at marginal or alternative narratives instead of those with state-centric agendas. In the field of historical scholarship, challenging the state has become the intellectual 'in-thing'."

In other words, no one will pay for standard history that takes the conventional line. Research Councils fund controversy. Tell them that Churchill was a cross-dresser; that Hitler danced ballet to relax, and Lee Kuan Yew was a racist, and you would make a name for yourself.

Which is what Thum set out to do - make a name for himself.

Two months ago, you might not have been aware of him. Then, the 6-hour "grilling" by Shanmugam. Now his name is known.

But his hypothesis is not new.

This question was revisited in 2015, just after LKY passed away.

... the British officials' reticence in acting against alleged communists had more to do with their inexperience on the job, as they were then new to Malaya, coupled with a concern not to repeat some of the scandals that had arisen in other British colonies.
Lord Selkirk was appointed Commissioner to Singapore in December 1959, while security liaison officer Williams arrived here in March 1962, one month before he dismissed the Special Branch paper. Officials were also reluctant to act in the absence of clear evidence of an imminent security threat...
Across the Causeway, however, the British High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur was warning his counterpart of the dangers of playing by the rules with the communists, while the Federation's top police officer felt British officials in Singapore were being timid.
In any case, both Lord Selkirk and his deputy were convinced of the communist threat by December 1962 - following ongoing Special Branch surveillance of Barisan committee meetings - and fired off an urgent "Top Secret and Personal" note to the Colonial Office of "conclusive evidence than we have had hitherto for the belief that Barisan Sosialis are communist-controlled"...

In April 1964, Lim [Chin Siong] himself conceded that within the Barisan there was a faction that felt that its political objectives could not be met via constitutional means and thus more drastic measures such as armed struggle should be considered, 

- Special Branch's report of its interview with Lim. 

Hence, the view that the Barisan was a legitimate political option to the PAP that was committed to principled peaceful and lawful constitutional struggle is off the mark...

One blogger noted that this Thum of 2018 was more reckless. In 2013, Thum was more prudent and cautious in his words. Which was the "real" Thum? And what changed between 2013 and 2018?

Lee Kuan Yew passed away.

If Thum had been reckless with his words in 2013, while Lee was still alive, he could be quite assured that Lee would have defended himself vigorously and scathingly. If he had accused Lee of lying about Operation Coldstore, he would have been sure that Lee would have removed Thum's gonads and handed it to him.

In any case, there is a very simple rebuttal for the ridiculous claim.

... the narrative on Coldstore from revisionists and former detainees is that "it is all done by Lee Kuan Yew and his party". "This is a total misrepresentation: it was done by the Internal Security Council with immense pressure from London and Kuala Lumpur to rein in the communists and their open-front supporters"

In Feb 1963, Singapore was still a British Colony, Merger was still to be decided, and so the British were in charge of security. Operation Coldstore was a British initiative. Not something LKY or the PAP could initiate for personal or spurious reasons to eliminate political rivals. The decision was made by the Internal Security Council. Revisionists such as Thum would select "evidence" such as,

Maurice Williams [Security Officer]... concluded in April 1962 that a paper written by the Singapore Special Branch on the communist network in Singapore was entirely "surmise".
Lord Selkirk...  saying in October 1962 that there was not enough evidence to conclude that some of the Barisan politicians were communist,and that arresting them would be politically indefensible in both the House of Commons, and at the United Nations.

However,  this all changed by Dec 1962 (see highlighted text above), and as recounted in A Ferocious Struggle for Singapore's Future

Reporting to London in December 1962, Moore [UK Deputy Commissioner in Singapore] noted that "knowing what we now do about the extent of Communist penetration within Barisan Sosialis, it will be more difficult to acquit many of the other leading members as unwitting dupes"

Moore was referring to two reports of meetings at Barisan HQ that he described as "of considerable importance not only for what they reveal of the future intentions of Barisan Sosialis, but they provide more conclusive evidence than we have had hitherto for the belief that Barisan Sosialis are Communist-controlled"

Operation Coldstore was executed in Feb 1963.

So if the British are in control of Internal Security, what reasons do they have to serve LKY's and PAP's interests?

And the revisionist claims that the detainees and the Barisan Sosialis were not actually communists is also ridiculous.

Associate Professor Albert Lau of the National University of Singapore history department notes that available accounts from former ABL [Anti-British League] members show that Mr Lim was a key ABL and CUF leader and also a CPM member.
Senior CPM leaders have also revealed - whether under questioning by the police, or in their memoirs - that he was a member of their circle.
This included Fong Chong Pik, the highest CPM authority in Singapore who was known as "the Plen", calling him "a person with whom I have had a special acquaintance" .
The evidence is corroborated by two CPM leaders in Malaya, who cited him as a member deployed in open-front activities.
More instructively, Dr Kumar shows that Mr Lim had admitted during multiple interviews with the ISD that he had met Fong three times, including once five days before the big split within the PAP in 1961. Mr Lim also said he joined the PAP at the urging of the CPM, through instructions passed down by his superior in the ABL.

The claims are absurd and does not require a lot of knowledge to rebut. 

But it does take a lot of time to rebut all these nonsense (this blog post for example). That they can put forth a half-arsed conspiracy theory and gain sufficient support is testimony to our ignorance of our near history.

"Give out more information!"

Would that help? 

I doubt it. 

People will believe what they want to believe. 

Facts bore them. 

Logic is often beyond them. 

Truth eludes them. 

Take any anti-science conspiracy: "Vaccination causes autism", "GMO foods are unhealthy", "Fluoridation of our water is a mind-control exercise to keep us stupid!" (Apparently it is working), "I am gluten intolerant!" (Dunno about the gluten, but yeah, definitely intolerant). 

The facts have been around for years. Andrew Wakefield has been discredited YEARS ago. There are still people who believe vaccination causes autism.

The answer isn't more facts. People can't deal with facts. People aren't logical. People CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

<Insert GIF of Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men".>