• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Untold story of PAP

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sonny Yap got me 'salivating' when he told me in passing sometime back that he was writing a more balanced story on PAP, in particular dealing with the leftists...asked him for some tidbits, he told me "must wait for the book to come out"...and this transpired while we were both marketing @ Finest where i tried to cajole him with a bottle of chardonay:rolleyes::biggrin:...now must hold him to his word and get my autographed freebie unfortunately not the one with Harry's 'dogprint':p...seriously though i too doubt all shall be revealed by the leftists in this book...

btw i recently thumbed through Kevin Tan's book on David Marshall....you probably have read it eh?...found it a good read not just on Marshall himself warts and all but also general things like: old singapore (1920s to 1960s); colonial rule/colonial attitudes; legal developments including law firm/local lawyers historical developments etc...recommended to all interested in Singapore in the 20th century...

I wonder if it about the PAP? Its probably about the struggle to gain power and rule the country involving the communist and moderates who were both party members.

I doubt that they are going to talk about cadres, party structures, factions, funding, the Chinese walls between party branches etc.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
this long running facade never fails to amuse me...especially when i see them driving back to their Ds9,10,11 palatial mansions in their mercs/beemers/lexus/porsche/ferrari/masserati etc...after calling each "comrade":rolleyes::biggrin:
. To this very day, PAP calls their membership cadres, and address each other as Comrades, etc. Just like most communist parties do.
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
this long running facade never fails to amuse me...especially when i see them driving back to their Ds9,10,11 palatial mansions in their mercs/beemers/lexus/porsche/ferrari/masserati etc...after calling each "comrade":rolleyes::biggrin:

Actually, probably the newer members still scratching their head as to why they are calling each other "Comrades", and why the whole fucking party is set up along the lines of a prototypical commie party. Unfortunately, only lau chiaos can tell them why, and now there is only one of them left, Lee Con You. And they are too scared to approach him. LOL.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
One of the 3 authors is dead scared of his wife, so I am not sure if he has it in him to be bold in this instance.

These are the orginal founding members
Dr Toh Chin Chye
Lee Kuan Yew
Ong Eng Guan
S Sockalingam
Lee Gek Seng
C V Devan Nair
Mofradi b Haji Mohd Noor
Chan Chiaw Thor
Tann Wee Keng
Ismail Rahim
Fong Swee Suan


I am curious if they will reveal more about Chan Chiaw Thor who was an original member of the basement gang but whose name and activity has been kept rather quiet and I know that he has been banished to Malaysia. I am guessing that it will be a book on leftist personalities airing their personal views rather than a reveal-all book. Milne and Mauzy as well as Fong Sip Chee covered the party to some extent

Agree on Kelvin's book on Marshall. Very good read.


Sonny Yap got me 'salivating' when he told me in passing sometime back that he was writing a more balanced story on PAP, in particular dealing with the leftists...asked him for some tidbits, he told me "must wait for the book to come out"...and this transpired while we were both marketing @ Finest where i tried to cajole him with a bottle of chardonay:rolleyes::biggrin:...now must hold him to his word and get my autographed freebie unfortunately not the one with Harry's 'dogprint':p...seriously though i too doubt all shall be revealed by the leftists in this book...

btw i recently thumbed through Kevin Tan's book on David Marshall....you probably have read it eh?...found it a good read not just on Marshall himself warts and all but also general things like: old singapore (1920s to 1960s); colonial rule/colonial attitudes; legal developments including law firm/local lawyers historical developments etc...recommended to all interested in Singapore in the 20th century...
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
I'm disappointed that Ong Eng Guan chose to remain mum. He holds the key to a lot of controversial info. Those who know history would know that the UPP which he led had in way handed PAP the victory over BS in 1963.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Comrade, you are spot on. Comrades who govern a country where the Gini index is at the wrong end of the scale.


These fucktard journalists are really PAP cocksuckers. Don`t they know that everyone who is not with the PAP is branded a leftist. U could be a nationalist, a patriot, etc. u would still be called a leftist. In fact, when Lee Con You first entered politics, he was so far left that the Brits thought he was a communist. To this very day, PAP calls their membership cadres, and address each other as Comrades, etc. Just like most communist parties do.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
i think some newer Papees actually questioned the relevance of wearing the all white outfits sometime back...but with harry still around no change is allowed...must dress like school kids:rolleyes::biggrin:
Actually, probably the newer members still scratching their head as to why they are calling each other "Comrades", and why the whole fucking party is set up along the lines of a prototypical commie party. Unfortunately, only lau chiaos can tell them why, and now there is only one of them left, Lee Con You. And they are too scared to approach him. LOL.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
what about samad and tt rajah?...

One of the 3 authors is dead scared of his wife, so I am not sure if he has it in him to be bold in this instance.

These are the orginal founding members
Dr Toh Chin Chye
Lee Kuan Yew
Ong Eng Guan
S Sockalingam
Lee Gek Seng
C V Devan Nair
Mofradi b Haji Mohd Noor
Chan Chiaw Thor
Tann Wee Keng
Ismail Rahim
Fong Swee Suan


I am curious if they will reveal more about Chan Chiaw Thor who was an original member of the basement gang but whose name and activity has been kept rather quiet and I know that he has been banished to Malaysia. I am guessing that it will be a book on leftist personalities airing their personal views rather than a reveal-all book. Milne and Mauzy as well as Fong Sip Chee covered the party to some extent .

fascinating read...jean marshall was very cooperative

Agree on Kelvin's book on Marshall. Very good read.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Samad and TT are extensively covered but not Chan. There are many articles on both of them. I was not even aware Chan existed until I learnt that OCT in NS had a father who was banished. By fluke I found out that he was in the basement as well. Its a real mystery and if it is not mentioned in Sonny's book it confirms that there is one remaining skeleton in the cupboard.

Still I hope they cover Samad as he was founding member and TT who was badly affected by what Devan did.

what about samad and tt rajah?...



fascinating read...jean marshall was very cooperative
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Scroobal

Here's my own rather paranoid analysis, the silence over chew coincides with gaps of the stories in that period. We know the communist even from Chin Peng's sparse history were very much part of the PAP and had agents left and right, we do know the leftist who might or might not have know their were part of or helping the communist but were sympathetic, the only lacking gap in the story is who were the agents of the special branch, within the left and the communist. I would not have put it past then then SB under Malaysian control to have infiltrated the PAP in some form :_)))





Locke
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
You are right and I share your views. There is no doubt that PAP at its founding and early years were a firm mix of communist and the leftist moderates. I also notes that there is mutual reciprocity by both sides not to reveal about the others. Even Chin Peng kept evading questions about Singapore communist. Hard Core communist that crossed over included James Fu and Jek Yuen Tong. Even old man did not want to produce the evidence about Chin Siong despite his strong words at the time of his death.

By the way, STV Lingam, a PAP member was unveliled as a Malayan paid agent and withdrawn as a candidate for GE until the last moment.

Dear Scroobal

Here's my own rather paranoid analysis, the silence over chew coincides with gaps of the stories in that period. We know the communist even from Chin Peng's sparse history were very much part of the PAP and had agents left and right, we do know the leftist who might or might not have know their were part of or helping the communist but were sympathetic, the only lacking gap in the story is who were the agents of the special branch, within the left and the communist. I would not have put it past then then SB under Malaysian control to have infiltrated the PAP in some form :_)))





Locke
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
You are right and I share your views. There is no doubt that PAP at its founding and early years were a firm mix of communist and the leftist moderates. I also notes that there is mutual reciprocity by both sides not to reveal about the others. Even Chin Peng kept evading questions about Singapore communist. Hard Core communist that crossed over included James Fu and Jek Yuen Tong. Even old man did not want to produce the evidence about Chin Siong despite his strong words at the time of his death.

By the way, STV Lingam, a PAP member was unveliled as a Malayan paid agent and withdrawn as a candidate for GE until the last moment.

One of the big untold story of the PAP was along these lines too. I understand that at one time, Lee Con You was so good at wayang, that the Brits thought he was a hardcore communist and dispatched an Aussie special forces chap to put 2 in his head. Somehow, he was dissuaded by Con You thru some begging on his part, and after a private face to face, he turned pro western and delivered the PAP into the western (Brit) sphere of influence later on. Anyway, that is what I heard. Could be wrong.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
The person that was dispatched was from HK Special Branch and who was educated either in Cambridge or Oxford. His service was specially requested by Governor General himself as the local special branch had old man firmly in the communist league due to his campaigning for leftist labour candidates in the UK elections while he was studying there. The matter was compounded when old man's little brother who was studying in England at that time attended a leftist gathering in Europe which sponsored by the communist.

The interview session was held at Malcolm Park over many hours and old man was compelled by Special Branch to attend with his wife who both returned from England shortly.

It was a long session conducted by the chap from HK and a British Officer. The notes indicate that old man drank copious amounts of beer that was offered and that his wife had to restrain him from time to time. It became very evident that old man was no communist but a political opportunist. Anti-British sentiments were naturally strong with the communist and thus the need to get in bed with them.

By the way, HK Special Branch Officer decided to settle down in Singapore and eventually became a Perm Sec and I think he now works for Hong Leong.

One of the big untold story of the PAP was along these lines too. I understand that at one time, Lee Con You was so good at wayang, that the Brits thought he was a hardcore communist and dispatched an Aussie special forces chap to put 2 in his head. Somehow, he was dissuaded by Con You thru some begging on his part, and after a private face to face, he turned pro western and delivered the PAP into the western (Brit) sphere of influence later on. Anyway, that is what I heard. Could be wrong.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Scroo

Thanks for clearing up PAP's story :_)). I have always assumed SB was not stupid and heck "putting two in the head" using Australian SAS :_)). I would say that there were better targets up the totem pole then old LKY.




Locke
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
You are absolutely right. Old man was least of their issues.

There were couple of core issues for SB at that time

1) Communism was looming heavily on the horizon
2) Sikh separatist had made their way to Singapore and causing issues
3) Muslim fundamentalist from Pakistan/India were attempting to brainwash the Malays.

By the way, the origins of the Special Branch was related to handling (2) and (3) and many SB British Officers were transferred from India. Yes, Sikh separatist was operating then and Silat Road Sikh temple is related to the separatist issue.

The real communist was a hard nut to crack. One thing the British concluded very early was that old man could not be trusted. They sized his ambition very well and therefore always had links to the subversives. Old man had his panties in a twist when he found out that the Governor General had hosted tea for Chin Siong and company.


Dear Scroo

Thanks for clearing up PAP's story :_)). I have always assumed SB was not stupid and heck "putting two in the head" using Australian SAS :_)). I would say that there were better targets up the totem pole then old LKY.




Locke
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Thursday, September 03, 2009

New PAP book neglects founding members detained for 19 years
"It was a no-holds-barred report", gloats Richard Lim, one of three senior journalists who were commissioned to write the history of the People's Action Party in a new book entitled Men In White, The Untold Story of Singapore's Ruling Party.

In the above reports, the Straits Times goes to great lengths to depict the book as a definitive and objective account of PAP's history, supported by interviews with its opponents - including former communists now exiled in Thailand and leftists (a catch-all byword for staunch anti-colonialists) who had left the PAP to form the breakaway Barisan Sosialis.

But remarkably, the two full page report mentions not a single whiff of Operation Coldstore, the infamous 1963 mass arrests that decimated the entire leadership of the political opposition to the PAP.

Another glaring omission was how the writers failed to contact two founding PAP members, Dr Poh Soo Kai and Dr Lim Hock Siew, who were arrested under Operation Coldstore and detained without trial for periods of up to 19 years. Along with Said Zahari, Lee Tse Tong and Ho Piao, both of them were Singapore's longest-held political prisoners after Chia Thye Poh.


Dr Lim Hock Siew was a founding member of the PAP. But like many of his anti-colonialist colleagues of the PAP, Lim broke away from the PAP and formed the opposition Barisan Sosialis in 1961. On 2nd February 1963, he was arrested and detained under Operation Coldstore. Even after Singapore's independence in 1965, Lim continued to be detained under the Internal Security Act by Lee Kuan Yew's government. On 6th of September 1982, he was finally released, capping a 19 years 8 months incarceration - making him Singapore's longest-held political prisoner after Chia Thye Poh. Dr Lim has confirmed with me that he was never contacted by the writers of Men In White. He is now 78 years old and continues to operate his clinic on Balestier Road.


In a rare press statement released in 1972, nine years into his incarceration, Dr Lim Hock Siew recalled an interrogation session with the ISD where the jailers attempted to strike a "bargain" with the prisoner..


Dr Lim Hock Siew Speaks from Singapore Prison (Date - 18.3.1972)
(through his legal adviser)

(Released by Dr Beatrice Chia, wife of Dr Lim Hock Siew)

I and hundreds of others were arbitrarily arrested on the 2nd of February, 1963. Many are still in prison. Ever since that day, we were, and are, unjustly and arbitrarily detained in prison without any kind of trial whatsoever for over 9 years. We have gone through various kinds of persecution, struggles, hardships and difficulties during this very long period of over nine years of detention in prison. Recently an unusual development took place. On the 13th of January, 1972, I was taken to the Headquarters of the Special Branch at Robinson Road where I was detained for 40 days together with my brother, Lim Hock Koon.

Two high-ranking special branch agents of the P.A.P. regime indicated to me that if I were to issue a public statement of repentance, I would be released. They told me that 9 years had passed since the date of my arrest and that it was time that my case be settled. They admitted that 9 years was a long time. I told them that it was pointless to remind me of this long period.

A week after my transfer to the Special Branch Headquarters, the same two high-ranking employees spelt out the conditions of my release. They demanded from me two things. They are as follows: -

(1) That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, "A security statement." This was meant for the Special Branch records only, and not meant for publication.

(2) That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points : -
(a) That I am prepared to give up politics and devote to medical practice thereafter.
(b) That I must express support for the Parliamentary democratic system.

I shall now recall and recapitulate the conversation that took place between me and the same two high-ranking Special Branch agents during my detention at the Special Branch Headquarters.

Special Branch - You need not have to condemn the Barisan Sosialis or any person. We admit that it is unjust to detain you so long. 9 years is a long time in a person's life; we are anxious to settle your case.

Dr Lim Hock Siew - My case will be settled immediately if I am released unconditionally. I was not asked at the time of my arrest whether I ought to be arrested. Release me unconditionally and my case is settled.

Special Branch - The key is in your hands. It is for you to open the door.

Dr Lim Hock Siew - To say that the key is in my hands is the inverted logic of gangsters in which white is black and black is white. The victim is painted as the culprit and the culprit is made to look innocent. Four Gurkha soldiers were brought to my house to arrest me. I did not ask or seek arrest or the prolonged detention for over 9 years in prison without trial.

Special Branch - You must concede something so that Lee Kuan Yew would be in a position to explain to the public why you had been detained so long. Mr Lee Kuan Yew must also preserve his face. If you were to be released unconditionally, he will lose face.

Dr Lim Hock Siew - I am not interested in saving Lee Kuan Yew's face. This is not a question of pride but one of principle. My detention is completely unjustifiable and I will not lift a single finger to help Lee Kuan Yew to justify the unjustifiable. In the light of what you say, is it not very clear that I have lost my freedom all these long and bitter years just to save Lee Kuan Yew's face? Therefore the P.A.P. regime's allegation that I am a security risk is a sham cover and a facade to detain me unjustifiably for over 9 years.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
My stand on the Making of a Secret Oral Security Statement for the records of the Special Branch

I cannot and will not make any statement to condemn my past political activities. My past political activities were absolutely legitimate and proper. Whatever I had done or said was in the interest of and in the service of the masses of our people and of our country. Even an accused person need not say anything to incriminate or to condemn himself. Why should I who am arbitrarily detained without any kind of trial for over 9 years be coerced to act as an agent to the Special Branch by making a secret deal behind the backs of the masses? I resolutely reject this demand. Furthermore, I have not the slightest obligation to account my past political activities to Lee Kuan Yew.

A. My Stand on the Demand of Making a Public Statement

I completely reject in principle the issuing of any public statement as a condition of my release. This is a form of public repentance. History has completely vindicated my position. I was arrested for opposing merger with "Malaysia" because I held the view that "Malaysia" was a British sponsored neo-colonialist product and the creation of "Malaysia", far from uniting our people and our country, would cause greater dis-unity and dissension among our people. I believe that the formation of Malaysia would be a step backward and not forward in our struggle for national unity.

I have nothing to repent, to recant or to reform. If anything I have become more reinforced in my convictions, more reaffirmed in my views and more resolute to serve the people of Malaya fully and whole-heartedly. I have nothing to concede to Lee Kuan Yew. By right, he should make a public repentance to me and not I to him.

B. My Stand on the Demand that I must give up Politics in Exchange for my Release

I hold the view that these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is democracy, I need not give up politics. The fact that I had been detained for over 9 years in order to coerce me to give up politics is proof enough that there is no parliamentary democracy. The question of taking part on politics is a fundamental right of the people.

An indirect offer was made to me to leave Singapore for further studies. I have replied to the P.A.P. regime that if I had to leave the country at any time, it must be on my own free volition and not under coercion by the P.A.P regime.



C. My Stand on the Demand for support for Parliamentary System

I hold the view that to support the P.A.P. regime's so-called parliamentary system would mean giving the public and the masses a false impression that there exist today a genuine parliamentary democratic system in Singapore Island. It is an undeniable and unforgettable fact that comrade LEE TSE TONG who was elected by the people of Singapore in the 1963 General Elections, was arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial soon after he was elected. Subsequently, he was deprived of his citizenship and he is still under detention as a so-called "banishee" in prisoner's clothes in Queenstown prison. The arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention of Comrade Lee Tse Tong affords concrete proof that the so-called parliamentary democracy is a cruel mockery. It does not exist in Singapore Island. Giving support to such a sham parliamentary system means complete betrayal of the people. I will never betray the people of my country under any circumstance. Bitter sacrifice strengthens bold resolve.

Parliamentary democracy does not mean merely casting of votes once in 5 years during election time. Far more important than this is the freedom of thought, the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the freedom of organisation everyday during the 5 years period and continuously thereafter. I was arrested when the Barisan Sosialis was actively participating in the parliamentary system. For such participation, the colonial government, the Lee Kuan Yew and Rahman regimes had rewarded me with over 9 years of imprisonment. This again amply indicates the utter shamness of the so-called parliamentary democratic system. After over 9 years of detention, I am now asked to give support to their so-called parliamentary system in order to secure my release. I firmly refuse to give my support for the sham and illusory democracy in Singapore Island.

My Stand on the Request by the Agents of the P.A.P. Regime to Concede something to save Lee Kuan Yew's Face

Since history has fully vindicated my stand and my position, Lee Kuan Yew should openly and publicly repent to me and to all other political detainees, now unjustifiably detained in prison. By right a just and proper base for my release from my prolonged and unjustifiable detention (and this equally applies to all political detainees now under unjustifiable detention) should be : -

(a) Our unconditional and immediate release from detention and the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights.

(b) Payment of adequate compensation to me and to all other political detainees for the prolonged and unjustifiable detention in prison.

(c) The issuance of public apology by Lee Kuan Yew to me.

We are willing and prepared to concede the last two conditions as listed above. We do not believe that an arrogant man like Lee Kuan Yew will apologise or to compensate us.

On the first condition that is to say, our demand for unconditional and immediate release from detention, and for the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights - we must resolutely say : WE WILL NEVER CONCEDE, BITTER SACRIFICE STRENGTHENS BOLD RESOLVE.

Isrizal said...

I call to the readers attention the opening remarks made by Sdr. Jomo K.S. in the preface of the book, Comet In Our Sky - Lim Chin Siong In History. He wrote;

"Not unlike other scholarship, politically sensitive historical research in and about Singapore has been constrained, to put it mildly. Hagiography and apologia are well rewarded, while dissent from official versions often suffers from self- and other censorship as well as peer pressure. Some observers even point to a 'growing band of scholars who, more for career considerations, rather than political or ideological reasons are being absorbed into active scholarship in line with officially dictated projects' especially on the recent history of Singapore"
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
9) Wong Soon Fong on September 3rd, 2009 12.26 pm

May more truth come forth in the new book, “Men in White and Hearts not so white”

The truth can only be pubulished after MM return to atom and freedom of soeech opened up.

But it might be too late as Dr Poh Soo Kai and Dr Lim Hock Siew, who are already in their old age to give any interview.

Richard Nixon said ” to win your enemies, outlast them…. ” let’s see who would outlast who… stem cell injection may help
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
as an alternative to SPH's MIW Book i recommend the book below...

Paths not taken: political pluralism in post-war Singapore By Michael Barr, Carl A. Trocki

books.google.com.sg/books?isbn=997169378X...


Paths not Taken: Political Pluralism In Post-War Singapore
Author: Michael D. Barr & Carl A. Trocki (editors)

Publisher: University of Hawaii Press

paperback
pp 304
ISBN: 997169378X
Available: Amazon.com and Select Books


Singapore's era of pluralism between the 1950s and 1970s was a time of extraordinary cultural, intellectual and political dynamism. Students, labour unions, ambitious political contenders, and representatives of the various ethnic communities all stepped forward to offer alternate visions of Singapore's future from across the entire political spectrum. They generated a ferment of ideologies, priorities, perspectives and social visions such as mainstream 'official' Singapore politics had never known before and has not seen since. Post WWII Singapore history generally follows a central theme of progress to establish the PAP political, economic and social model. Alternatives receive cursory treatment as problems, false starts, or difficulties to be overcome. This book reveals a more complex situation that involved a much larger cast of significant players, and gives due weight to the middle years of the twentieth century as a period that offered real alternatives, rather than a chaotic age before the dawn. The book will remind older Singaporeans of pages from their past, and will provide a younger generation with a novel perspective at their country's past struggles. For outside observers, it offers a fascinating glimpse of a side of Singapore that has received relatively little attention.

Book Reviewed: (by Hugo Restall, Far Eastern Economic Review, 5 Dec 08)

The study of history is full of “what if” suppositions. Analyzing the forces underpinning the flow of events implicitly involves staking out a claim that if it had not been for particular causes, things might have turned out very differently.

However, Singapore’s post-war development into an independent republic poses a huge challenge to the hunt for root causes. The city was in a state of ferment, with so many different forces contending that it is often difficult to say which if any played the crucial role. One has to take into account not only the maneuverings of the major players, such as the departing British authorities consolidating strongman Lee Kuan Yew’s power by arresting his rivals, but also the foibles of individual actors, such as the inexplicable tactical errors committed by some of those same opponents.

The city emerged after World War II as a hotbed of leftist activism of various stripes. Yet within a generation the People’s Action Party, a movement that initially portrayed itself as left-wing, had morphed into a free-market, authoritarian regime. Nobody could have predicted this chain of events, and even in retrospect it is difficult to explain.

Not surprisingly, in the version of history sanctioned by the PAP, all the good things that have happened since derive from the party’s heroic struggle for power. If the PAP had not triumphed, the communists would have taken over and/or communal tensions would have devolved into violence.

This edited volume does not seek to present a coherent alternative view. But the individual essays examine the rival groups competing for influence and finds that most are not the bogeymen the PAP would have us believe.

It also restores missing depth to Singapore’s official history by showing the costs as well as the benefits of PAP rule. Singapore was once a polity that respected the British system of common law and paid heed to the importance of civil liberties and a free press, even if its implementation of these ideals was imperfect; today the government’s powers are unchecked by any institution and the notion of individual rights is ridiculed as a Western imposition.

Moreover, even if one accepts that Malay nationalism, Chinese chauvinism, and subversion by the Malayan Communist Party all posed real dangers to the new nation, these essays show how the PAP used these specters to crush dissent and establish a monopoly on political discourse. Time and again, the leaders of the competing groups were detained without trial or driven into exile based not on crimes committed, but rather because of what they might do, as the chapter on left-wing trade unions by Michael Fernandez and Loh Kah Seng makes clear.

How did the PAP turn its initially weak hand into a winner? Mr. Lee used the “united front” techniques of the communists against them, forming alliances in order to eliminate the biggest threat, and then betraying his coalition partners when the time was right, as C.C. Chin’s chapter shows. Mr. Lee garnered a reputation as a more ruthless street fighter than the communists that underpins his power to this day. As he has put it, “You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac.”

At various stages the PAP teamed up with the Malayan Communist Party, the trade unions, Malaysian nationalists, the Chinese-educated community and the Chinese business community. The muzzling of the latter two groups in particular has left a lasting rift, the subject of essays by Yao Souchou and Sikko Visscher.

Carl Trocki, co-editor of the volume, examines the legacy of David Marshall, Singapore’s first elected leader and later a prominent opposition politician. Marshall stands out as a symbol of all that might have been. An accomplished barrister, he was not skilled enough as a politician to carry the day. Yet he spoke forcefully for universal liberal values, as opposed to Mr. Lee’s self-serving idea that protecting the right to dissent runs against “Asian values.” His dismay at the abolition of the jury system still resonates today:

At the same time the jury can be relied upon to block the tyranny of kings and governments in resisting pressure to convict against conscience. It is impossible to punish 12 anonymous people whereas it is not impossible to get at a judge appointed by the government. Let us remember that in Singapore the Prime Minister appoints the judges and there is nothing to stop him from appointing reliable ‘yes-men’ to the Bench.

The volume’s other co-editor, Michael Barr, breaks new ground by tracing how young Catholic social workers fell afoul of the government in 1987. In “Operation Spectrum,” the Internal Security Department detained 22 suspects on the grounds that they were involved in a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the state, and then coerced them into signing false confessions. In fact, as it later emerged Mr. Lee admitted, they were simply naïve “do-gooders.” By conducting interviews with some of the detainees and their peers, Mr. Barr expands our understanding of the suspects’ backgrounds. It’s clear that while they were influenced by left-wing trends within the Catholic Church, they were far from being adherents of Marxist liberation theology and indeed their organizing posed less of a challenge to the government than priests who had been previously expelled.

In fact their only “crime” was to help abused maids and the like. Yet the PAP carefully guards its prerogative to set the parameters of public discourse, so these activities were soon noticed and unofficial warnings given. Still, the do-gooders might have stayed out of prison had it not been for Mr. Lee’s alarm at the political activism of the Catholic Church in the Philippines and Latin America during this period.

The 1987 arrests served an important purpose for the PAP: killing the chicken to frighten the monkeys. As the memories of the chaotic period surrounding independence faded, Mr. Lee needed to remind his people that the ideological struggles of the past could still be revived in order to justify a crackdown on dissent.

And it worked. Civil society groups took note that the free-lance actions of their members could bring terrible repercussions down on the whole organization. Lenore Lyons describes how the city’s main feminist group, the Association of Women for Action and Research, reacted by restricting its advocacy to behind-the-scenes lobbying, carefully allowing the PAP to claim credit for new ideas. The leaders set boundaries for members’ actions that were well within the regime’s own “out of bounds” markers, thus ensuring the group’s survival.

Finally, how is it that the PAP has managed to impose its view of recent history on Singapore’s population? Cherian George’s concluding essay on the media shows that during the 1970s the government closed down publications that insisted on criticizing the government and imposed licensing and ownership restrictions to ensure new challengers could not spring up. But the PAP also understood the importance of avoiding the mistake of crushing the media to the point that it became merely a Southeast Asian Pravda, which would cripple its effectiveness as a propaganda tool.

Paradoxically, the PAP’s media policy, which is also analyzed elsewhere in this issue of the REVIEW by Garry Rodan, involves embracing two aspects of the Western media: the imperative to make money and objectivity in news reporting. The government restricts competition, the media shies away from politically sensitive reports and shareholders are happy. The Western style of objective news reporting requires quoting experts, and in Singapore all authoritative voices have been coopted by the PAP. Thus the feedback loop is closed, and alternative views of current events or history are silenced, except in an occasional academic volume such as this.
 
Top