That's PAP's version of history

I REFER to the letter "S'pore story based on facts and documents" (ST, May 28) by Mr Mohamad Maidin Packer Mohd, Parliamentary Secretary (Education).

He has given the PAP version of what happened. I wish to add mine in support of Mr Gopal Baratham on the issue of "objective truth", "based on facts and documents". Contrary to Mr Mohamad Maidin's claim, the referendum on Sept 1, 1962, may be said to be something which the PAP Government would like to forget.

The reasons for saying so are simple. The three questions in the National Referendum gave voters no opportunity to express their wishes with a simple answer of "Yes" or "No" as is normally the case in fair democratic referendums. The 1962 referendum was thus unfair and undemocratic.

Moreover, the important questions were all posed by the ruling PAP alone with no consultation of opposition parties.

To say now that since all political parties agreed in principle to the merger, and that therefore the three alternatives of the merger were put to the voters without the need to pose the questions requiring a "Yes" or "No" answer, is like saying that since all parties, not the people, agree to take fruit in principle, therefore three alternatives of a rotten apple, a rotten pear and a rotten orange are given to the voters to choose without the need to ask whether or not they wish to take fruit.

In the 1962 referendum, three questions were put to the people. Voting was compulsory. Thus voters were compelled by law to vote for one of the three questions.

* Alternative A: This represented the PAP's White Paper merger proposals. The proposals were debated thoroughly in the then Legislative Assembly. The press carried the debate fully.

The opposition parties pointed out that the PAP merger proposals were unequal, unfair and undemocratic, and that they made Singapore citizens into second-class citizens of the proposed Malaysia Federation. The Barisan Sosialis pointed out that the proposals would lead to national disunity and racial strife. These proved to be true in subsequent events.

* Alternative B: According to PAP's propaganda, this was supposed to represent the Barisan's so-called Penang-type full and complete merger, and this would disenfranchise about 310,000 to 340,000 Singapore citizens on merger.

This was a gross distortion of Barisan's stand, which was that Singapore citizens would automatically become Federal citizens on merger. There would be no loss of citizenship for Singapore citizens. The Barisan position was in total contrast to that of the PAP, whose merger proposals would make Singapore citizens second-class citizens of the Malaysia Federation.

In spite of Barisan Sosialis' repeated denials, the PAP continued to distort the Barisan's stand on merger, and resorted to the Geobbel-tricks of constant repetition of the distorted Barisan stand through the radio and the press to confuse and mislead voters on the Barisan position on the one hand, and to influence voters into supporting the PAP merger on the other.

* Alternative C: This was supposed to represent terms no less favourable than terms for the Borneo Territories (that is, Sarawak and British North Borneo, now called Sabah).

But no one, not even the PAP, knew what those terms were. In fact, those terms were not made known until some time well after the referendum was held in Singapore.

From this brief factual history, it can be seen that the 1962 referendum was a most dishonest referendum. And it was criticised severely by the United Nations Committee of 17.

An honest referendum would be one in which only one proposal that had been well debated, (for example, the PAP White Paper merger) was put to the voters requiring only a simple answer of "Yes" or "No". This was what the PAP was not prepared to do in 1962. How should we describe such a referendum?

The Barisan Sosialis opposition called it a sham referendum. The late Mr David Marshall called it a most dishonest referendum.

As for the blank votes, it was clear that the special Section 29 of the Referendum Law was intended to allow the PAP, with its majority in the Legislative Assembly, to decide as it pleased with the blank votes.

If the PAP Alternative A had only 25 per cent of the votes, and 75 per cent were blank votes, without a doubt, it would have no hesitation to count the blank votes for PAP's Alternative A.

As events turned out, on Sept 1, 71 per cent voted for Alternative A and only 25 per cent cast blank votes.

In the circumstances, which had surprised even the PAP, the PAP Government "acted openly, responsibly and constitutionally" and did not claim the blank votes as "votes for Alternative A". However, with already a clear majority of votes for Alternative A, the 25 per cent blank votes were no longer of any consequence.

The offer to allocate the blank votes according to the wishes of the opposition smacked somewhat of PAP self-satisfaction and a crude attempt to mock and poke fun at the opposition. Naturally, the Barisan rejected this offer and walked out of the Legislative Assembly.

-- The writer was the last secretary-general of the Barisan Sosialis, a communist organisation.

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