I beg to differ

I REFER to the letter "Lee Siew Choh trying to rewrite record, reverse history" (ST, June 7), by Mr Mohamed Maidin Packer Mohd, Parliamentary Secretary (Education).

God forbid. I do no such thing. I do not have the incentive nor the facilities to do such a gigantic job.

Rewriting, reversing history is usually the work of rulers and powers-that-be. They have the incentives and the facilities to cover up past misdeeds which they do not want posterity to know about.

Private individuals can at best hope to prevent gross distortions and cover-ups of powers-that-be so that posterity may have a true perspective of how events developed and thus avoid having a lopsided view of history.

I have written in response to the Government's emphasis on the need for factual, documented history in order to better educate our people about events in the past. And since I played not an insignificant part in trying to prevent the People's Action Party from railroading the referendum through the people of Singapore against their will, it is my hope that my writing will contribute towards a more balanced view of the history of the period. This will help the people in learning the truth.

Let me now answer Mr Maidin point by point. PAP shift from yes/no referendum to three alternatives. Mr Maidin refers to the PAP Government accepting Mr Lim Yew Hock of the Singapore People's Alliance's counter-proposal in his amendment to my amendment, in the debate on the Referendum Bill suggesting that three questions be posed, offering Alternatives A, B and C. This was merely a debating procedure to defeat the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis in the debate, probably in collusion with the PAP.

It was well known that Mr Lim Yew Hock's Singapore People's Alliance was the Singapore mouth-piece of the Alliance government in Kuala Lumpur. And the latter was then actively promoting Malaysia and the PAP's merger proposals, which had been negotiated secretly between them.

History will, however, remember that in 1961, when challenged by the opposition, the PAP had said that the merger proposals would be put to the people in a yes/no referendum. It may well be asked: How was it that the PAP shifted from that position to that of a referendum with three alternatives, A, B and C?

Many people will remember that at that period of Singapore's history, the PAP was politically down in the dumps. It had lost the by-election in Hong Lim and then the by-election in Anson. There was disunity in the party, and it had lost the confidence of the people. If a general election was held then, many people doubted if the PAP would be able to retain five or six seats in the Legislative Assembly.

It had put out the White Paper on merger in order that it might cling to office. But it also soon realised that, as a result of strenuous opposition from the Barisan and other opposition parties, the White Paper's proposals had become highly unpopular.

Hence the most ingenious scheme, to put three unacceptable merger alternatives before the people, in order to manoeuvre them into supporting the merger proposals (that is, Alternative A), which the Barisan had exposed as a merger which would turn Singapore citizens into second-class citizens. Inadvertent admission of correctness of Barisan's position. Now Mr Maidin says: "Before the Referendum, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee got Tunku Abdul Rahman to agree that all citizens of Singapore would become citizens of Malaysia automatically", and that "in a radio forum with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Marshall agreed that this meant there was no difference between Singapore citizens and other Malaysian citizens, and that thus Mr Marshall demolished Barisan's position". Mr Marshall did not demolish Barisan's position.

There had been a great deal of twists and turns on the citizenship issue, but what the PAP really got from the Tunku was "Common Malaysian Nationality" with its attendant restrictions on voting rights and rights to stand for election throughout the country.

Interestingly, the fact that the PAP had to get the Tunku to agree to some citizenship change belatedly, (in spite of his repeated rejection of Common Malaysian Citizenship for Singapore citizens) shows: The White Paper proposals would bring Singapore citizens a form of citizenship inferior to the Common Malaysian citizenship (and which the Barisan had called "second-class citizenship") .

The acknowledgement that Malaysian citizenship could be obtained automatically, and that the Barisan position that Singapore citizens become Malaysian citizens automatically was not impossible, and indeed very correct.

Inadvertent admission that despite the PAP distortion of the Barisan position, there would be no loss of citizenship at all for the people of Singapore in a complete merger.

The truth of the matter about citizenship (and other matters) is that it all depended on negotiation and agreement between the two sides. Because of its weak political position, the PAP had failed to get the best for Singapore in its secret negotiation with the Federation. Alternative B. Mr Maidin also refers to the Tunku's letter and what Dr Goh said in a radio forum on Sept 21, 1961. I agree that at the time I had no answer to what Dr Goh said. But there was no such thing as automatic disenfranchisement of Singapore citizens. What Dr Goh said was only a PAP interpretation of the Barisan position. Mr David Marshall was emphatic on this point. And the PAP interpretation had no legal standing. We learnt from reliable sources, subsequently, that the Federation Constitution had certain specific articles which could make Singapore citizens into Federation citizens. Perhaps Mr Maidin could confirm this by consulting the Federation Constitution.

But all this talk about citizenship is taking the discussion away from the main issue -- namely, the dishonest Referendum. Alternative C.

Mr Maidin states that the Cobbold Commission Report was published on Aug 1, 1962.

But we must remember that the Borneo Territories included not only Sarawak and British North Borneo (Sabah) but also Brunei.

The people of Singapore never knew what the terms for the Borneo Territories really were. All we knew was that Brunei opted not to join Malaysia. It is now an independent state. All this shows that the terms of merger were most unacceptable.

Thus, how could the voters of Singapore be asked to vote on the unknown Alternative C? Were not voters in the Singapore Referendum asked to vote for a pig in the poke?

As is well known, the Committee of 17 was dominated by the US and Britain, whose representatives, with the help of the representatives of India, did their utmost to block or delay the petition from the Singapore opposition on the matter of the Referendum from being heard.

It was just lucky for the Singapore opposition that representatives from the then Soviet Union and Poland were there to prevent total denial of justice pore petitioners.

Their being communist countries had no bearing on the straightforward issue of justice for peoples of dependent countries (Singapore was, after all, a colony) in their struggle for self-determination.

The Committee heard Mr Marshall, and I learnt from Mr Marshall Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Marshall himself that he answered and demolished every point raised by Mr Lee. Representatives of the UN Committee then asked pertinent questions which even the US and British representatives could not ignore. Singapore Government then not truly independent.

Mr Maidin states that the Committee decided not to take any action on the petition. This was not unexpected in view of the strong influence wielded by the US and British representatives.

But he also adds: "In other words, it respected and upheld the actions of the freely elected Government of Singapore."

The facts of the matter are that Singapore was then a British colony, and the Government of Singapore was not a truly independent government.

It was, as emphasised by Mr Marshall, only a municipal government which had no legal status to transfer sovereignty of Singapore to the Federation of Malaya at the time.

Only the British colonial masters had that legal status. The Referendum was a mere facade for British manipulations behind the scene. Blank votes.

Many people will remember the screaming headlines in the press carrying the PAP's scare tactics in the days before the Referendum, all directed at frightening voters into voting for the PAP's merger proposals. The scare tactics were so successful that the PAP has not ceased to resort to such tactics again and again in Singapore elections, till the present day.

The Barisan had fought for a Referendum demanding a simple vote of "Yes" or "No". We believed that the people of Singapore should not be denied their inalienable basic right of dissent, the right to say "No". When this was denied, the Barisan was compelled to seek means to let voters show their non-acceptance of what was unacceptable to them in the Referendum. Hence the decision to cast blank votes.

But when even such blank votes could, and would, be deemed to be votes for PAP's Alternative A, we could only marvel at the devilish skill, cunning and machinations of the Machiavellian PAP. A farcical situation.

If voters refused to vote, they were deprived of their right to vote for an indefinite period, until the next revision of the electoral register, and on payment of a fine.

If voters cast blank votes to show their rejection of all the Alternatives A, B and C, then the blank votes were deemed to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly, that is, the decision of the PAP Government.

It was really an absurd situation, ludicrous but for the serious and grave consequences for the lives and future of all the people of Singapore.

I agree that we lost the Referendum. But did we really lose the argument? Many people would say "No".

The PAP gained the verdict in the Referendum by means which have been described as dishonest and dishonourable.

I summarise: The Referendum of 1962 was undemocratic, unfair and unjust. The voters were not allowed to say "No". When three alternatives were put before the people, only one was thoroughly debated. The other two alternatives were not debated and were practically unknown. In addition, there was no vote for an alternative of independence since Singapore was then still a British colony. An inglorious page of PAP history.

But if the PAP Government intends seriously to record factual and documented history, then I suggest humbly that it should really go by factual records and documented history, and speak the truth and shame the devil.

Mr Maidin has not commented on my statement that the merger proposals had led to national disunity and racial strife. His silence on this matter speaks volumes.

Let me close by saying that the PAP has done well, even very well, in many areas and in various periods of its long rule in Singapore.

But the 1962 Referendum must certainly be recorded and documented as a most inglorious page of PAP history.

-- 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