The truth about the 1962 merger referendum

I REFER to the letters "Who will recount the objective truth?" by Mr Gopal Baratham (ST, May 22) and "Syllabus should have room for historical controversy, creativity" by Mr Donald Low How Tian (ST, May 24).

Mr Baratham proposed that students be given as many sources as are available, so that they can make up their own minds. On his premise, only professional historians who research primary sources can know what happened in the past. Writing, teaching and learning history would all be considered propaganda and wrong.

The Singapore story is based on facts and documents, and the consensus of historians who have studied them. Since these facts and documents are all on record, any dispute can be resolved impartially and objectively. It is objective history, seen from a Singaporean point of view.

The facts of the Singapore story will always be subject to reinterpretation in the light of new information or fresh analysis, like all other historical facts. But this should not pose any special problem in teaching National Education.

Schools have always taught history. Historians have always drawn lessons from historical events - that is the whole point of studying history. Historical controversy and creativity must be consistent with the facts. Facts will not and cannot be ignored, however inconvenient.

I agree with Mr Donald Low that National Education should not degenerate into mind-numbing jingoism. National Education is to develop thinking and committed Singaporeans.

Our young need to understand the facts of our past and the circumstances and challenges facing Singapore. They have to think actively and responsibly about issues affecting their future, and later make decisions with realism and conviction.

Most countries, including Japan and the US, inculcate their young with the knowledge and values they believe to be intrinsic to responsible citizenship. There is no reason Singapore cannot achieve the same.

Mr Baratham cited the 1962 referendum on whether Singapore should join Malaysia as an example of facts which "few remember". He criticised the referendum for offering three alternatives, instead of a yes/no vote.

The referendum did not offer a yes/no vote because when the Legislative Assembly debated the White Paper on the merger in 1961, no party objected to merger in principle.

The White Paper proposals, for merger as a state within the Federation with special conditions and a large measure of local autonomy for Singapore, became Alternative A. The Barisan Sosialis argued instead for full and complete merger as a 12th state of the Federation. This was Alternative B.

Subsequently, the Singapore People's Alliance suggested entering Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the Borneo territories. This became Alternative C. As Mr Baratham pointed out, Alternative A "was the most favourable to Singapore citizens".

Despite this, the Barisan Sosialis mounted a campaign outside the Legislative Assembly to get people to cast blank votes in protest against the merger.

Mr Baratham's claim that the PAP declared that all blank votes would be counted as votes for Alternative A is wrong. The National Referendum Ordinance provided that anyone who cast an unmarked ballot paper would be deemed willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly, the lawful representative body of the state.

On referendum day, 71 per cent voted for Alternative A. Only 25 per cent cast blank votes. After the referendum, the PAP moved in the Legislative Assembly to allocate the blank votes according to the wishes of the opposition. Cornered, the Barisan Sosialis rejected this and walked out of the Assembly.

Throughout the referendum, the PAP Government acted openly, responsibly and constitutionally. Its actions are all on public record.

MOHAMAD MAIDIN B.P.M.
Parliamentary Secretary for Education:

Singapore story based on facts

Lee Siew Choh trying to rewrite record, reverse history

DR LEE SIEW CHOH:

That’s the PAP’s version of history

I beg to differ, Mr Maidin