|
|
|
February 02, 2006
Singapore History I
In researching Singapore history during the period between World War II and independence, two people really stand out. The first is well known: Lee Kuan Yew. The second is famous in name, but not much is known about him: Lim Chin Siong. Singapore's story has become so inextricably tied to the former that the latter has been overlooked. Yet it is very much possible to depict the period as a battle of minds and wills between them. It became clear, early on, that Singapore was going to be led by one or the other. No one else had the ability that they did, no one else commanded the respect that they did, and no one else was in the position they were in. Their political rivalry was deep and intense, and their respect for each other quite profound. As I read about both, my respect for both men has also grown. Lim Chin Siong was idealistic, scrupulously honest, extremely principled, a brilliant orator, and held deep beliefs in egalitarianism, equality, and democracy. Lee Kuan Yew was a brilliant tactician, extremely pragmatic, long-sighted and had great strength in character, and had an equally opposing deep belief in the enlightened leadership of the elites, the principles of market forces, and conservative progressivism. Despite how their rivalry shaped Singapore, the imbalance on our understanding is a gaping chasm in our understanding of history. There are so many misconceptions of Lim Chin Siong and the Barisan Sosialis- misconceptions that I shared myself. So my work has held a lot of surprises for me. So, as a preview of my upcoming seminar presentation in Oxford (and in the hope that others will read and comment on my work), I present some preliminary thoughts on what I've found so far in the course of my research. Everything here is on the basis of primary sources, mainly archival documents, that I've been reading. It is, of course, subject to revision as I continue to research (and definitely will be revised before I write up). I also make no value judgements on who is "right" and "wrong". I'm a historian- I just want to find out the facts. 1. Lim Chin Siong wasn't a communist. In fact, he was never linked with any communist organisation, nor was any evidence found to prove he had any link to the communists. In fact, once in government he so scrupulously adhered to constitutional, legal, democratic methods of government that it put him at a huge disadvantage. Evidence at the Colonial Archives shows the British officials admitting he wasn't a communist. To them, however, he was something worse: an extremely popular Singaporean patriot who was fiercly anti-colonial and would not ensure the protection of British interests and security after independence. BUT equally, there is no doubt that almost all leaders believed that he was a communist, which is just as important as whether he really was one or not. He certainly appeared to be one. 2. The PAP never convincingly demonstrated that the electorate favoured them over the top Barisan leaders. They won the 1959 election with the left-wing leaders as part of the PAP; The 1961 referendum had only one reasonable choice (the other two would have reduced Singaporeans to second-class citizens in Malaysia); the 1963 election was a snap election fought in the wake of Operation Cold Store, which arrested all the top Barisan leaders; and the 1968 election was boycotted by the Barisan. 3. There never has been a good understanding of the Barisan Sosialis, its platform, and its leaders. They are depicted in our textbooks as communists- but in actual fact, we have no idea about who they are or what they stood for. In other words, far from them being a left-wing communist front; they could actually be a moderate party led by a few left-wingers... we don't really know. 4. Singapore never had paternalistic government until the PAP came along. The colonial government ruled mainly through intermediaries and followed a mainly non-interventionist policy designed to reduce costs and increase British trade. The PAP depict themselves as part of a long tradition of enlightened government, but they run counter to prevous trends in Singapore history. 5. Singapore has always been an extremely global city, with constant traffic in and out. There is very little to our experience which is unique or specific. In fact, we were probably one of the most global cities on earth in the 1800s. We tend to think of Singapore as quite the opposite today- a very unique, insular city given special status due to geography. Quite the opposite. We've always drawn upon a huge variety of cultures and traditions. We've used ideas from everywhere else and just adapted them to our fertile soil. I think in recent years the National Education Policy has back-tracked and has started to emphasise our cultural heritage again. 6. There is a long tradition of multi-ethnic mobilisation and shared interests. Far from "divide-and-rule", the various ethnic groups had common interests and interactions, even if they never had a common platform for expressing them. Multi-ethnic cooperation has long precedent in Singapore, even if it was not daily practice. 7. Singapore has always been separate from Malaysia. There was little precedent for assuming we should join Malaya in 1963 for economic reasons. There were sound reasons, to be sure, but equally we oculd have likely made it on our own since we always had been. Joining Malaya in 1963 was for political reasons: the British wanted to protect trade and their base; the Malayans wanted to ensure a left-wing, socialist government which was possibly sympathetic to communist regimes, did not arise on their doorstep; and the PAP wanted to hold on to power since the Barisan was much more popular and would have easily defeated them in an election unless they were locked up. Any thoughts, anyone? Posted by pj at 04:21 PM
|
|
|
| o |
Psssttt... you planning to interview the Old Man??
Anyway, the so-called distortion of history is no surprise at all - it's winners' history all the way through. I've been reading a bit about the 1963-65 Malaysia era, and I think at a certain level, people like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Siew Sin had concluded that LKY was a smooth enough politician that eventually, he would be able to usurp the Perikatan governing coalition and take power over the whole country, without having to beat it outright in an election. What the LKY-controlled PAP had achieved in S'pore was just that - the careful boxing in of a popular political movement that by all accounts should have been the one in power.
What I can say for LKY is that he is not particularly superhuman in talent or intelligence. What he does possess is super-pragmatism - an ability to recognise what the important issues are, and then go all out to grab at them. That is why he planned out all those cold-store operations with such split-second timing. He gets what he wants - the opportunity to grab the levers of power. You will notice that while he's got this great bias for action, some of the time the long-term consequences turn out to be a lot more trouble than it is worth.
Take the case of Chia Thye Poh. When first detained, the authorities probably thought him a rabble rouser, who ought to be placed inside due to the political situation of the moment. When he decided that he would make a statement by continuing his protest, he threw a spanner in the works. Special Branch could not very well have released someone who was publicly unrepentant, and yet they had no real reason to detain him as the poltical storm had passed by then. Before they knew it, years had passed and his detention was becoming a severe embarassment to a Republic keen to burnish its international image. So much for super-intelligent strategising.
Even LKY's book makes clear that the pre-LKY S'pore was dramatically different from the sanitised, sterile apolitical state that it has become. This is a remarkable achievement. A comparable event, may be the breaking of British Unionism by Maggie Thatcher, an effort so successful that it managed to transform Labour into a neo-Thatcherite party.
I think it's sad that the various other communities that made Singapore in its first 100 years or so have dimished so much already. There are hardly any Armenians or Parsees left. The most significant contemporary mark of Singapore's Jewry is... Coffee Bean. And Arab is the name of a street - the people having been subsumed into the plurality of the Muslimin of Singapore.
Wei Yi spoke on February 3, 2006 02:39 AMWhat little I know of Singaporean history is related to its place in the overall trend of twentieth century reactions to British colonialism surrounding the wars. Singapore doesn't fit neatly in this trend thanks to the Japanese "liberation" and (what strikes me as) an odd affection for the Crown.
So, I'm gonna have more questions than comments. I imagine most of my questions come from ignorance of Singaporean history, but they might be helpful.
==>2. The 1961 referendum had only one reasonable choice (the other two would have reduced Singaporeans to second-class citizens in Malaysia);
Reasonable choice? Not according to the Barisan Sosialis. The legitimacy of calling the referendum is suspect at best; additionally, without the blank votes, the referendum would not have passed. Is the PAP simply creating an illusion of choice (and popular mandate) by framing the referendum with extremely limited options?
The lack of true alternatives makes the outcome rather difficult to judge. For example, would you rather be shot in the foot, the spine or the head? You have options, after all.
How much of the division between the Barisan Sosialis and PAP was over communist ties (real or imagined) and how much was over this question of the sovereignty (both national and class) of Singapore?
It seems like the PAP was an uneasy marriage of convenience between pro-British bourgeoisie and the interests of the union-led Chinese working class. A divorce was almost inevitable and it is not surprising that Barisan Sosialis were then painted as the radicals and a chaotic influence in Singaporean society.
Lim Chin Siong seemed dedicated to a completely independent Singapore and was in touch with a sense of Chinese nationalism as well as union / labor movements.
Lee Kuan Yew, however, seems much more in touch with the British colonial roots of Singapore. How linked was Lee's family to the British elite? How closely tied to British culture was the Raffles School and College? And then there's Cambridge law, LSE, Laycock and Ong, and the Progressive Party. What are the Lee's family's ties to Singaporean business and industry? How much did the Lees gain from the political maneuvering leading up to and after independence?
As an outsider, I fail to see how he would have gained popular Chinese support in an independent Singapore without some kind of significant stamp of approval from the Chinese working classes, exactly the kind of legitimacy Lim brought to the PAP.
It is tempting to paint the history of Lim and Lee (and PAP and Barisan Sosialis) as a traditional class struggle narrative: the pro-Colonial bourgeoisie working with and eventually selling out the pro-national working class. This seems particularly clear if you look at the merger with Malaysia and the arrest of Lim and other leaders of the Barisan Sosialis as a betrayal (or even exploitation) of the Chinese working class. (Did Lee have his sights on Singaporean control of all Malaysia - or was that just another marriage of convenience for the political opportunist?)
==>3. There never has been a good understanding of the Barisan Sosialis, its platform, and its leaders... we don't really know.
Since the history you're dealing is so contemporary, have you tried getting in touch with the principals themselves? Although Lim has passed, some of the leaders of Barisan Sosialis are still around, like Chia Thye Poh.
Andrew spoke on February 3, 2006 02:58 AMHave been reading on and off for some time, and actually matriculated from Magdalen in 2004, so I enjoy some of your vignettes of Oxford life - which I miss terribly now that I'm back on our little island!
This was really good stuff. Such little attention is paid to this period in our history. As you rightly point out, it tends to be glossed over and simplified in the standard textbooks: PAP anti-communist and good, communists bad, nothing much else to be said about the other political parties of the period.
I left this post to ask about access to the Colonial Office records. I hope to do some doctoral work on the Constitutional Commissions - I'm a lawyer, and am interested mainly in ethno-religious minority management regimes. How easy is it to get access to the records in London? Have you had any trouble at all getting to the papers you need?
greenmail spoke on February 3, 2006 03:03 PMHi- is that Davinia? I have a policy of not responding to anonymous comments on my blog. If you want me to contact you, leave your name and email. Thanks.
PJ spoke on February 8, 2006 01:36 PMHi, your view-points are refreshing and thought-challenging to most Singapore (We are used to accepting whatever information fed to us).
I probably don't disagree with your point about Lim Chin Siong not being a communist. However, Could you provide the source of the British officials in the Colonial Archives ?
I remember Harry Lee in his in"famous" 12 radio talks in 1960's providing few handwritings to "prove" that Lim Chin Siong was indeed a communist ? So far I haven't seen anyone questioning the validity of this proof.
Jon Shewwin spoke on March 6, 2006 09:29 AMSorry, I mis-spelled my name. iy should read Jon Sherwin.
Jon Sherwin spoke on March 6, 2006 09:31 AM