Your stand is that they are peaceful social activist.
Again putting words in my mouth.
Check my previous posts. I repeat, these were not social activists fighting for a social cause on the streets. These were tough, committed politicians fighting to establish a
socialist state through constitutional means. They stand for, among other things, wokers' rights, unionism, income equity, poverty eradication, protection of local industries and anti-colonialism. Of course in an era where colonies were fighting for emancipation from colonial powers, a patent nationalistic current also underlies the entire anti-colonial struggle.
But these socialists were committed to achieving power, not by violence, but through peaceful means. I wouldn't call protests and strikes violence: they're part of any citizen's rights to freedom of association, assembly and political expression in all democracies, socialist or otherwise. They can turn violent as any demonstration can, but that's not the same as overthrowing a ruling power in an armed revolt.
So please stop twisting my words. If you still have trouble differentiating: Greenpeace is social activism; Obama is a socialist politician.
No ordinary social activists would have been locked away.
Of course not. These were not social activists, they were politicians fighting for power to rule an independent nation.
They would have to be threat to the British, the Tungku and old man.
Naturally, they were a threat. A political threat, not a security one. Should Bush engineer to have Obama locked up because he holds socialist values and has all the wherewithal to wrestle political control from the Republicans, PEACEFULLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY?
Only the communist fitted the profile.
Not true. Any left-leaning, socialist, nationalistic, anti-colonial political platform would have been a threat to British colonial policy.
The question still remains: Were the Cold Store arrests based on
security or
political considerations?
And the answer from the Kew documents is clear:
political. And a very brutal, very opportunistic operation at that, considering the long years that many of the top adversaries were held.
Cold Store was a gold opportunity by old man to put away his former allies.
Now you see it. And not just old fart. It was expedient for the Brits as well, for different reasons of course.
But his allies were no pussies neither were they ordinary social activist. They played a game and lost to a ruthless man. A man who had no ideology or dogma.
Of course they were no pussies. They were hardened politicians fighting for — in their eyes — a noble cause: freedom from colonization and independence, and socialist state policies, built upon the political and constitutional legacy of the British. A lot of the English-educated socialists were more inspired by Roosevelt's New Deal and the British Labour Movement than by Mao and Lenin. Talk to Drs Poh Soo Kai and Lim Hock Siew and you'll know where they stood.
They lost to a ruthless man for one reason: while they were committed and fervently devout to the socialist cause, they had something that old fart didn't have:
principles and
integrity. That was their Achilles' heel, the lot of most leftist politicians. They may have charisma, oratory, intelligence, leadership and organizational abilities, but their idealist personality made it impossible to succumb to the kind of Machiavellian shenanigans that a bright amoral thug like old fart could get up to.
When a man of principle fights a devious thug on the political battlefield, the latter almost always has the upper hand. Ditto in the office.
During that time, you had to make tough and hard choices. It was not a time for any peaceful social activist movement. The only way to get rid of the British was to force them out.
One can force a colonial power out through a variety of ways, some violent, some non-violent (Ghandi's campaign of non-cooperation, non-violence and peaceful resistance).
There was however no evidence — and the Brits admitted as much — that these people were planning to use violence to usurp power.
The peaceful social activist would not have been a threat to anyone. There must be a basis for them to be conceived as a threat.
Repetitive. See above. And for the last time, don't misquote me. I never used the phrase "social activists"; throughout my discussion I've described the key Cold Store detainees as
leftist and
socialist politicians.
When you make a mistake once, it can be attributed to ignorance. When you deliberately keep misquoting a forummer's words despite his informing you, then it can't be anything but sheer dishonesty and a shabby attempt to win an argument through deceit.
