This looney call our beloved founding Father, LKY, a liar
PJ Thum’s written submission to the SC was short, 5-6 pages. But in a submission ostensibly about deliberate ONLINE falsehoods, PJ devoted much space to attacking the Singapore Government as the main source of fake news in Singapore. In particular, he indicted Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister, as the source of "fake news", going far back as the 1960s, decades before the Internet was invented. He referred to Operation Coldstore, and accused Mr Lee and the other founding fathers of Singapore of having falsely tarred their political opponents as communist, or pro-communist.
When he appeared before the Select Committee, he was taken through his accusations against Mr Lee. Operation Coldstore and the history of communist activity in Singapore became issues because of the accusations Dr Thum himself made in his submission to the Committee.
What was Dr Thum was expecting: Absolution for accusing the founding PM of Singapore of being a liar, a perpetrator of fake news? A free pass?
In the course of his testimony, Dr Thum admitted to many things, among them the following :
1. His statements were inaccurate/ misleading, on the key points he makes.
2. The British honestly believed in December 1962, that Operation Coldstore was necessary.
3. That many members of the Barisan Sosialis did in fact believe that "armed struggle" to overthrow the government, if necessary, was justified.
Dr Thum also admitted that he had not read some of the writings of key ex-communist leaders, which contradicted what he said. What's more, he told the Select Committee he dismissed what these leaders said -- including Chin Peng, the Secretary General of the Malayan Communist Party -- on the astounding grounds that they were "unreliable". Many are particularly baffled by this assertion. On what grounds does he reject the accounts of the leaders of the CPM about the CPM, without even explaining that he was rejecting those accounts ?
Dr Thum was asking us to believe that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Chin Peng, the British Government, were all perpetrators of "fake news". Only his account, based on cherry-picked evidence, is accurate.
And he's now complaining that he was called out to account for his outlandish claims?
If he could not stand by the claims, he should not have made them in the first place. To make outlandish claims, and then complain that he was shown up, the questioning was too tough and so on, is odd.
Genuine feedback is one thing. Genuine, honest views is one thing. But when these sort of claims are made, surely the claims should be carefully tested ? if the claims are true, then it would have been silly to question him, and if he was questioned, he would not have to concede as he did.
And to be inaccurate about what he actually holds. No full time job anywhere, not in Oxford, not anywhere else. But seems to give the impression that he is a professor at Oxford. Very odd.
PJ Thum’s written submission to the SC was short, 5-6 pages. But in a submission ostensibly about deliberate ONLINE falsehoods, PJ devoted much space to attacking the Singapore Government as the main source of fake news in Singapore. In particular, he indicted Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister, as the source of "fake news", going far back as the 1960s, decades before the Internet was invented. He referred to Operation Coldstore, and accused Mr Lee and the other founding fathers of Singapore of having falsely tarred their political opponents as communist, or pro-communist.
When he appeared before the Select Committee, he was taken through his accusations against Mr Lee. Operation Coldstore and the history of communist activity in Singapore became issues because of the accusations Dr Thum himself made in his submission to the Committee.
What was Dr Thum was expecting: Absolution for accusing the founding PM of Singapore of being a liar, a perpetrator of fake news? A free pass?
In the course of his testimony, Dr Thum admitted to many things, among them the following :
1. His statements were inaccurate/ misleading, on the key points he makes.
2. The British honestly believed in December 1962, that Operation Coldstore was necessary.
3. That many members of the Barisan Sosialis did in fact believe that "armed struggle" to overthrow the government, if necessary, was justified.
Dr Thum also admitted that he had not read some of the writings of key ex-communist leaders, which contradicted what he said. What's more, he told the Select Committee he dismissed what these leaders said -- including Chin Peng, the Secretary General of the Malayan Communist Party -- on the astounding grounds that they were "unreliable". Many are particularly baffled by this assertion. On what grounds does he reject the accounts of the leaders of the CPM about the CPM, without even explaining that he was rejecting those accounts ?
Dr Thum was asking us to believe that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Chin Peng, the British Government, were all perpetrators of "fake news". Only his account, based on cherry-picked evidence, is accurate.
And he's now complaining that he was called out to account for his outlandish claims?
If he could not stand by the claims, he should not have made them in the first place. To make outlandish claims, and then complain that he was shown up, the questioning was too tough and so on, is odd.
Genuine feedback is one thing. Genuine, honest views is one thing. But when these sort of claims are made, surely the claims should be carefully tested ? if the claims are true, then it would have been silly to question him, and if he was questioned, he would not have to concede as he did.
And to be inaccurate about what he actually holds. No full time job anywhere, not in Oxford, not anywhere else. But seems to give the impression that he is a professor at Oxford. Very odd.
