[h=1]NTU PROF SPREADS PAP PROPAGANDA THAT S'PORE UNDER BARISAN SOSIALIS WOULD HAVE FAILED[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
10 Dec 2014 - 12:48pm
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Associate Professor Kumar Ramakrishna wrote a commentary in the Today newspaper today to use the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) to paint the Barisan Sosialis black. He claimed that Singapore under the Barisan Sosialis would "have been anything but peaceful and successful". However, he harped on the communist links to Barisan Sosialis, without pointing out the links that ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had as well and the wrongdoings that Mr Lee had done against the opposition parties in Singapore.
Prof Kumar is also head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
The commentary he wrote is titled, 'If Singapore was ruled by Barisan Sosialis', but in his commentary, Prof Kumar spent more than half the article talking about the CPM before trying to link the Barisan Sosialis with the CPM.
But his link is very weak. All he said was that the Barisan Sosialis was "CPM-influenced". He based his claim on that, "Chin Peng himself publicly conceded in 2003 that the Barisan was influenced by the CPM."
Essentially, Prof Kumar's article was trying to drag down the Barisan Sosialis's name by drawing a loose link between the Barisan Sosialis and CPM so that he could then make the conclusion that a Barisan Sosialis "in charge of Singapore after 1963 would thus have been anything but peaceful and successful."
However, Prof Kumar's commentary is a one-sided portrayal devoid of the full story.
Prof Kumar claimed that the Barisan Sosialis was the "institutional form" of the Communist United Front (CUF) and that the Barisan Sosialis was "influenced by the CPM".
However, the British archives have shown that this is not true.
Maurice LB Williams, the Security Liaison Officer of the British intelligence unit in Singapore said in 1962: “In spite of intensive investigations, no evidence has been obtained of C.P.M. directions to open United Front workers as to how they should carry out their activities.”
Clearly, the Barisan Sosialis was not influenced by the CPM.
Then what was the United Front galvanised by?
"It is far more likely (as was envisaged by the Party themselves in the October Resolutions of 1951) that the “United Front” represents an amalgam of different and conflicting interests, individual ambitions, industrial grievances, Chinese nationalism, housing problems of the peasant population and educational frustration of the students," Mr Williams had said.
“At present they are united only in their dissatisfactions with the P.A.P. Government, and they cannot be considered to form a monolithic Communist edifice under strict Party management (as implied in para 24 of the S.B. paper).”
So the cause of their dissatisfaction? The People's Action Party (PAP).
Why did Prof Kumar not mention this?
Moreover, Prof Kumar also sidestepped the role that ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had played.
Historian Geoff Wade wrote in his book, 'Singapore’s History Wars', that, “Australian and British documents both affirm that during his visit to London in April 1957 Lee Kuan Yew colluded with the British in arrangements to preclude detained Leftists of his party from competing in upcoming elections.
"After returning to Singapore, Lee publicly stated that these restraints were imposed by Britain, that he was opposed to them, and that the PAP must fight to counter them.
"Such apparent chicanery does not sit well with PAP history of itself as a squeaky clean party.”
Again, why did Prof Kumar ignore these facts?
Mr Lee's actions did not sit well with his party. In 1961, Mr Lee had demanded a vote of no confidence in the Parliament. 27 of the 51 members supported him but 24 abstained or voted against him.
Mr Lee then had 13 of them expelled. They later formed the Barisan Sosialis. Later on, 35 branch committees resigned and joined the Barisan Sosialis.
In addition, ex-prime minister Lee was actually the one who had colluded with the communist themselves, but this is something Prof Kumar conveniently ignored.
Historian Thum Ping Tjin said, "Since his own party’s base was not supporting him, Lee secretly turned to the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) for support."
"Before Hong Lim, Lee had secretly struck a deal with the illegal Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) for their support. The CPM had been firmly behind Lee, and sent instructions to its cadres through its underground network that ‘the Party should support the PAP and it is necessary for the Party to spread propaganda among the masses with a view to exposing the true opportunistic features of Ong Eng Guan’. After Lee publicly speculated about collusion between Ong and the CPM, the local CPM chief Fong Chong Pik (later dubbed by Lee as The Plen, short for ‘Plenipotentiary’) wrote him a letter assuring him that the CPM was fully behind Lee.
"However, despite their promised support, Lee lost two by-elections in Hong Lim and Anson. Lee realised that the MCP was either unwilling or unable to command popular support."
Thus if Prof Kumar wants to make the claim that a communist-influenced political party would be detrimental for Singapore, then he should say the very same for Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Why did Prof Kumar only single out the Barisan Sosialis but not direct his attack at the PAP?
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Finally, Prof Kumar also conveniently ignored how the PAP had arrested politicians from the Barisan Sosialis on the pretext that they were communist insurgents, even though there was no such evidence.
Dr Thum also wrote that, "In February, Operation Coldstore detained over a hundred opposition leaders and activists for participating in a communist conspiracy. Ironically, because the arrests were so widely anticipated, the MCP had already withdrawn virtually all their remaining Party members in Singapore to Indonesia, leaving only non-Communist activists to be arrested."
Also, even though Mr Lee had instigated the arrests, Dr Thum said, "he did not want to take responsibility for the arrests. By launching them after merger, (he could make) the federal government ... take responsibility.
"The British did not want the arrests, so they stalled and played for time. They repeatedly pointed out there was no evidence of any violent communist subversion in Singapore.
Dr Thum revealed that the British archives showed that Operation Coldstore was driven by Mr Lee's eagerness to get rid of his opponents in the Barisan Sosialis and that Britain knew that there no threat from Communism at all.
“Singapore has always claimed it was a security operation but there is no evidence of this,” Dr Thum said.
Mr Lee Tee Tong, who ran under the banner of the Barisan Sosialis, later said, "I don't think Barisan lost in the 1963 election for lack of good people or a better party ideology, but because of the wave after wave of arrests of our leaders."
A wave of arrests by the PAP, where there was no ground whatsoever for the arrests at all.
Thus Prof Kumar's commentary is riddled with loopholes and not only that, portrays a one-sided view aimed with the sole intent of deriding the Barisan Sosialis but lacking strong evidence.
In recent years, more and more Singaporeans have spoken about what Singapore would have become if the Barisan Sosialis had beaten the PAP and governed Singapore instead. These thoughts have surfaced since the cost of living and income inequality have risen in Singapore.
This has caused a loss of confidence in the leadership of the PAP.
However, Prof Kumar's commentary does not help to further the discourse but rather, only serves to reinforce the PAP's propaganda.
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
10 Dec 2014 - 12:48pm
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Associate Professor Kumar Ramakrishna wrote a commentary in the Today newspaper today to use the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) to paint the Barisan Sosialis black. He claimed that Singapore under the Barisan Sosialis would "have been anything but peaceful and successful". However, he harped on the communist links to Barisan Sosialis, without pointing out the links that ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had as well and the wrongdoings that Mr Lee had done against the opposition parties in Singapore.
Prof Kumar is also head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
The commentary he wrote is titled, 'If Singapore was ruled by Barisan Sosialis', but in his commentary, Prof Kumar spent more than half the article talking about the CPM before trying to link the Barisan Sosialis with the CPM.
But his link is very weak. All he said was that the Barisan Sosialis was "CPM-influenced". He based his claim on that, "Chin Peng himself publicly conceded in 2003 that the Barisan was influenced by the CPM."
Essentially, Prof Kumar's article was trying to drag down the Barisan Sosialis's name by drawing a loose link between the Barisan Sosialis and CPM so that he could then make the conclusion that a Barisan Sosialis "in charge of Singapore after 1963 would thus have been anything but peaceful and successful."
However, Prof Kumar's commentary is a one-sided portrayal devoid of the full story.
Prof Kumar claimed that the Barisan Sosialis was the "institutional form" of the Communist United Front (CUF) and that the Barisan Sosialis was "influenced by the CPM".
However, the British archives have shown that this is not true.
Maurice LB Williams, the Security Liaison Officer of the British intelligence unit in Singapore said in 1962: “In spite of intensive investigations, no evidence has been obtained of C.P.M. directions to open United Front workers as to how they should carry out their activities.”
Clearly, the Barisan Sosialis was not influenced by the CPM.
Then what was the United Front galvanised by?
"It is far more likely (as was envisaged by the Party themselves in the October Resolutions of 1951) that the “United Front” represents an amalgam of different and conflicting interests, individual ambitions, industrial grievances, Chinese nationalism, housing problems of the peasant population and educational frustration of the students," Mr Williams had said.
“At present they are united only in their dissatisfactions with the P.A.P. Government, and they cannot be considered to form a monolithic Communist edifice under strict Party management (as implied in para 24 of the S.B. paper).”
So the cause of their dissatisfaction? The People's Action Party (PAP).
Why did Prof Kumar not mention this?
Moreover, Prof Kumar also sidestepped the role that ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had played.
Historian Geoff Wade wrote in his book, 'Singapore’s History Wars', that, “Australian and British documents both affirm that during his visit to London in April 1957 Lee Kuan Yew colluded with the British in arrangements to preclude detained Leftists of his party from competing in upcoming elections.
"After returning to Singapore, Lee publicly stated that these restraints were imposed by Britain, that he was opposed to them, and that the PAP must fight to counter them.
"Such apparent chicanery does not sit well with PAP history of itself as a squeaky clean party.”
Again, why did Prof Kumar ignore these facts?
Mr Lee's actions did not sit well with his party. In 1961, Mr Lee had demanded a vote of no confidence in the Parliament. 27 of the 51 members supported him but 24 abstained or voted against him.
Mr Lee then had 13 of them expelled. They later formed the Barisan Sosialis. Later on, 35 branch committees resigned and joined the Barisan Sosialis.
In addition, ex-prime minister Lee was actually the one who had colluded with the communist themselves, but this is something Prof Kumar conveniently ignored.
Historian Thum Ping Tjin said, "Since his own party’s base was not supporting him, Lee secretly turned to the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) for support."
"Before Hong Lim, Lee had secretly struck a deal with the illegal Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) for their support. The CPM had been firmly behind Lee, and sent instructions to its cadres through its underground network that ‘the Party should support the PAP and it is necessary for the Party to spread propaganda among the masses with a view to exposing the true opportunistic features of Ong Eng Guan’. After Lee publicly speculated about collusion between Ong and the CPM, the local CPM chief Fong Chong Pik (later dubbed by Lee as The Plen, short for ‘Plenipotentiary’) wrote him a letter assuring him that the CPM was fully behind Lee.
"However, despite their promised support, Lee lost two by-elections in Hong Lim and Anson. Lee realised that the MCP was either unwilling or unable to command popular support."
Thus if Prof Kumar wants to make the claim that a communist-influenced political party would be detrimental for Singapore, then he should say the very same for Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Why did Prof Kumar only single out the Barisan Sosialis but not direct his attack at the PAP?
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Finally, Prof Kumar also conveniently ignored how the PAP had arrested politicians from the Barisan Sosialis on the pretext that they were communist insurgents, even though there was no such evidence.
Dr Thum also wrote that, "In February, Operation Coldstore detained over a hundred opposition leaders and activists for participating in a communist conspiracy. Ironically, because the arrests were so widely anticipated, the MCP had already withdrawn virtually all their remaining Party members in Singapore to Indonesia, leaving only non-Communist activists to be arrested."
Also, even though Mr Lee had instigated the arrests, Dr Thum said, "he did not want to take responsibility for the arrests. By launching them after merger, (he could make) the federal government ... take responsibility.
"The British did not want the arrests, so they stalled and played for time. They repeatedly pointed out there was no evidence of any violent communist subversion in Singapore.
Dr Thum revealed that the British archives showed that Operation Coldstore was driven by Mr Lee's eagerness to get rid of his opponents in the Barisan Sosialis and that Britain knew that there no threat from Communism at all.
“Singapore has always claimed it was a security operation but there is no evidence of this,” Dr Thum said.
Mr Lee Tee Tong, who ran under the banner of the Barisan Sosialis, later said, "I don't think Barisan lost in the 1963 election for lack of good people or a better party ideology, but because of the wave after wave of arrests of our leaders."
A wave of arrests by the PAP, where there was no ground whatsoever for the arrests at all.
Thus Prof Kumar's commentary is riddled with loopholes and not only that, portrays a one-sided view aimed with the sole intent of deriding the Barisan Sosialis but lacking strong evidence.
In recent years, more and more Singaporeans have spoken about what Singapore would have become if the Barisan Sosialis had beaten the PAP and governed Singapore instead. These thoughts have surfaced since the cost of living and income inequality have risen in Singapore.
This has caused a loss of confidence in the leadership of the PAP.
However, Prof Kumar's commentary does not help to further the discourse but rather, only serves to reinforce the PAP's propaganda.
