At long last, the great exposé?

Minimyna had been been in a state of flutter the last few days, as her longed-for retirement as a historian might well be imminent. Everything portended to a denouement. The question of whether or not Operation Cold Store was justified would finally be settled, almost half a century after the event.

As every student has been told, no less than the prosperity, stability and the very existence of Singapore have been attributed to that timely mass detention without trial, and subsequent ones through the decades.

On 2 February 1963 more than one hundred people from the Barisan Sosialis and the trade unions were detained, thus eliminating them as possible candidates in the general election to be held later in the year. These included the top political actors of the day: Lim Chin Siong, Poh Soo Kai, Lim Hock Siew, and Said Zahari.

Lim Chin Siong died in 1996; the other three headed the list of signatories who issued an open statement last week, (19 Sep 2011), along with 13 others, including those detained in other ‘operations’, calling for the abolition of the ISA. They were among the longest-serving detainees, incarcerated for almost two decades.

With keen anticipation, minimyna thought that after half a century, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) would finally silence its critics once and for all with the nitty gritty details which would pin down the subversive activities of at least the 16 signatories. After all, they asked for it. The rationale then for using the Internal Security Act rather than charging them in court was that the security situation was too volatile, and no one would have dared to testify against them.

This was indeed the moment for hard truths, to be found in the repositories of the Internal Security Department, and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The 16 were playing for high stakes. They were taking the risk of being thoroughly discredited.

Former political detainees on the offensive

At least since the last decade, the Cold Store detainees have protested their innocence, condemned the way the ISA had been used, and called for its abolition. They were not only out for personal vindication, but argued that Operation Cold Store decimated the left wing as a political force, and led to the imposition of an authoritarian political system. But Cold Store was only the first and most massive detention which the PAP government ordered. The Act was used throughout the 1970s. The last mass arrest launched against alleged communists was in 1987, which Teo Soh Lung has given an account of in Behind the Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner, which refuted claims that she was involved in any conspiracy, Marxist or otherwise, and detailed the logic that obtained in the Whitley detention centre.

The Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a short statement in 2006 when two former detainees—Tan Jing Quee and Michael Fernandez, spoke at a public forum, reiterating that the two had been members of the Communist United Front (CUF), and that while ex-detainees and their families were allowed to ‘enjoy the prosperity’ of Singapore, they would not be allowed to ‘re-write history’ and thereby mislead the young. (ST 8 March 2006) Aside from this blanket, generic statement, there has been no further elucidation on the charges made by the two that they were falsely accused, and of the mental and physical tortures which were inflicted on them.

Now, in a ‘never say never’ moment, the Singapore authorities faced questions about whether it would abolish the ISA when the Malaysian government announced that it would do so on 15 May. In 1991, and again in 1994 Singapore leaders had said that should Malaysia make such a move, they would consider doing so, or at least it would be ‘a factor’ in their calculations. (ST 17 October 2011) The public statement signed by the 16 former political detainees ensued from this.

Where’s the homework?

It was with utter disbelief and disappointment that minimyna read the MHA statement. Visions came to mind of high-level bureaucrats, including those in the Intelligence Service, who somehow have not kept up with their reading nor have an understanding of the issues, pouring through fifty years of official statements and cutting and pasting from them. But how could that be? We are told that the ISA is an indispensable piece of legislation that has served the nation well at critical junctures of threats to its security. Surely the MHA would realize the enormous significance of their task. The rebuttal to the open statement has to be head-on and meet the highest standards of fact and logic. Yet it turned out to be such an unbelievably sloppy job.

Take this classic paragraph:

4 On the issue of length of detention under the ISA, whether a person’s detention is extended depends on whether he still poses a security threat. For example, detainees who refused to renounce violence were detained for longer periods until they were assessed to no longer pose a security threat to society, whereas others who renounced violence and no longer posed a security threat were released much sooner.

‘Renouncing violence’ here means putting one’s signature to a written statement saying so.

MHA officials should have on file at the very least the Straits Times interview with Dr Lim Hock Siew, imprisoned for 20 years and released unconditionally, and whose name heads the list of signatories calling for the abolition of ISA. Dr Lim stated that since he had never advocated violence, he should not have to renounce it, even though putting his signature to a statement saying so would have gained his release. “It is like making me sign a statement that I would not beat my wife”. (’Still dreaming of a socialist Singapore’ ST 19 February 2010,) Dr Lim had made his life-long position clear in his 1972 statement explaining that he demanded nothing less than unconditional release, but this was suppressed in the local media at the time. This stand on principle has been made by all long-serving detainees, and not only those in Singapore.

There is also footage aplenty on Youtube of Dr Lim making statements on the abuse of the ISA which would certainly open him to libel charges should they be proven false. Dr Lim has also called for a Commission of Inquiry so that people like himself, now in old age, can have the privilege to answer the charges put forth by MHA.

MHA should also certainly be up to speed with The Fajar Generation, cited by Dr Lim when he referred to a Colonial Office document in which British Commissioner Lord Selkirk mentioned a Singapore Special Branch report of 1962 that outlined plans ‘to provoke Lim Chin Siong into unconstitutional action.’ This was to be followed by mass detentions. Selkirk stated that ‘we have made it clear to Lee (Kuan Yew) that we regard the Special Branch Paper more as an attack on a political party than on the communists.’ (Tan Jing Quee, ‘Merger and decimation of the Left-Wing in Singapore’ The Fajar Generation: The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore [2009] pp. 282-3)

Apart from Dr Lim, other former political detainees who have spoken and/or published to refute the charges made against them included Said Zahari, Dr Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee. Michael Fernandez and Loh Miao Gong. Loh won the seat of Havelock in the 1963 general election, but was arrested soon after in Operation Pechah, and was not allowed to be present for the swearing in of Members of Parliament. She was released unconditionally only in 1970. (‘The Two Faces of Men in White’, in The May 13 Generation: The Chinese Middle School Student Movement and Singapore Politics in the 1950s [2011])

A Damning Story

The Straits Times identified Dr Poh Soh Kai as the person who according to the MHA statement  had in 1974 given medical assistance to a Communist Party of Malaya saboteur.

Indeed when this story broke in Feb 1977 the newspapers carried extensive reports that Dr Poh had driven to Johor for this clandestine purpose. It was a convincing and damning story, told by a person who was present.

Except that the narrative was part of a ‘confession’ by a political detainee, who in fact was to retract it.

A question was raised in Parliament by a PAP backbencher as to why this particular detainee, who had ‘denounced the use of violence as advocated by the Communist Party of Malaya’ was not released, unlike others in his cohort who had signed the document to that effect. The Minister’s reply was that ‘detention for further interrogation was necessary on account of the retraction.’ (Singapore Parliamentary Debates, 2 Sep 1977, ST 3 Sep 1977)

The person was freed after one year with no further developments about the ‘bomber case’ thereafter, and the Medical Council never received any complaints against Dr Poh lodged by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which it was going to but for the retraction.

It sure is odd that the MHA would want to dig up this story as part of the  indictment against the signatories!

[Dr Poh Soo Kai, on reading this blog, sent the following statement:

1. When I was detained in 1976, the detention order, except for the catch-all 'pro-communist' activities, had nothing else.

2. My newspapers in prison were heavily censured. I found out that I was supposed to have gone to Johor to give medical treatment to a suspected bomber from the prison grapevine.

3. I DID NOT TREAT ANY SUSPECTED BOMBER

                                                                                                                          Updated 11.45 pm 29 Sep 2011 ]

Cracks in the ‘Conspiracy’

Even more in urgent need of a substantive and documented MHA ‘rebuttal’ are the 7 signatories, if not the other 1987 detainees in Operation Spectrum who were labeled as ‘Marxist Conspirators’. After all, questions about that have surfaced, significantly not only from the detainees themselves. It is on the authority no less of then prime minister Goh Chok Tong, speaking to Straits Times journalists who were writing the fiftieth anniversary volume of the PAP’s history that we learn that:

Dhanabalan was not comfortable with the way the PAP government had dealt with the Marxist group in 1987….At the time, given the information, he was not fully comfortable with the action we took…His makeup is that of a very strong Christian so he felt uncomfortable and thought there could be more of such episodes in future. So he thought that since he was uncomfortable, he’d better leave the cabinet. I respected him for his view.’ (Men in White: The untold story of Singapore’s ruling political party [2009] p. 468)

In addition, senior Straits Times journalist Chua Mui Hoong, who was commissioned to write Pioneers Once More: The Singapore Public Service 1959-2009, in discussing the ‘making’ of the book, mentioned that “Circumstances surrounding the arrest of the so-called ‘Marxist conspirators’ and the aftermath are another instance of public policy which calls out for further study”, suggesting that it was at least controversial, if not acknowledged as a mistakes. (ST 22 May 2010)

It would not be amiss for the public to think that the 1987 detainees deserve a proper MHA reply.

The Act and its Execution

In the recent Presidential Elections, the subject of the ISA led to ‘heated words’ and an ‘outburst’ when then presidential candidate Dr Tony Tan interrupted Tan See Jay to interject that it was a very serious charge to say that the ISA has been used against political opponents. He had also said, ‘The ISA is a very blunt instrument that should only be used in the most extreme circumstance.’

Just how blunt an instrument it is can be seen in particular in the lives of those who had been detained for more than a decade, but the length of deprivation of a normal life is not the only measure. The decades of silence of more than one generation of detainees speak also of the fear of re-arrest (as happened to Dr Poh Soo Kai), and the trauma and loss of dignity of those who were broken by having signed ‘confessions’ in order to gain release, especially when these incriminated others.

Indeed, so blunt an instrument is the ISA, and so totally under the Executive branch of government, that even a single case of its mis-use, intentionally or otherwise that has not been publicly acknowledged, should lead to questions about its continued existence, for what is brought to attention is the relationship between the Internal Security Department, and the Executive, which has been in the hands of the same party and leadership for the past fifty years.

Changing the course of history

The landmark presidential campaign has thrown up another quotable quote on the ISA. Dr Tan Cheng Bock, pressed for an explanation for his support as head of the Feedback Unit for the 1987 arrests during which time he was head of the Feedback Unit said that he was then acting to the best of his knowledge based on the information he was given. (ST 13 Aug 2011) He added: ‘I sympathise with the people who were involved because of what they have gone through. But I cannot change the course of history.’

But the course of history can indeed be changed. This will happen in this instance when the claims of Dr Lim and the others are shown to be valid. Mainstream history then would have to re-write their roles, and of those who ordered their detention.

If MHA simply persists with its blinkered regurgitation of clichés, similarly, the course of history would be changed, for the credibility and public confidence in MHA and other governmental institutions would be undermined.

But surely there is no need for an inconsequential minimyna to pontificate thus to her betters?

Then a horrifying thought struck her bird-brain.

What if that was really the best that they or anyone in their position could do?

A former political detainee was going to appear in flesh and blood to address a public audience at an event of which the Library was a ‘venue sponsor’, meaning that the institution would let its premises be used without charge. The Library insisted that it was not aware that Vincent Cheng was on the panel of speakers and once it found out, certainly could not allow him to do so, for the target audience were junior college and upper secondary school students. Mr Cheng, detained as the ‘mastermind’ in the ‘Marxist conspiracy’ arrests and political detentions in 1987 was dubbed ‘the man at the centre of the controversy’, in the Straits Times report of 2 June, a position that he would hardly have courted or welcomed. Presumably, the NLB considered that it had a duty of care to ensure that the students were not exposed to ideas they were not ready for.

This made the Board sound so much like a fretful, fussing minder, the sort that turns students off. The event was organized by the undergraduate NUS History Society, whose members themselves in fact outgrew their school and national service uniforms not so long ago. College and school teachers too, it can be assumed, would turn up at the talk with their charges, for it was the stuff of assignments and debates in class, given the current orthodoxy of ‘less teaching, more learning’, ‘more questions, less answers’ and so on. Mr Cheng would have spoken for about 20 minutes, and flanked by at least two if not three heavyweight academics, the sort NLB approved as being right and proper to speak on ‘Singapore history: Who writes the script?’

Vincent Cheng would also not have been the only non-professional academic historian to address the audience. There was Mrs Jean Marshall, invited as special speaker. In response to a question from the floor, she urged for studies on the women pioneers in Singapore history. Perhaps Mr Cheng too should have been billed as a special speaker for somehow students then would know that these narratives were a different order from academic wisdom, if he tried to pass his views off as such pearls.

If Mr Cheng had spoken, would the students have simply lapped it all up? Well.they do not seem to necessarily lap up what their textbooks on Singapore history tell them (or is that in fact the problem?) And if not the students themselves, those over-18s in the audience would surely have taken issue with Mr Cheng had he made outrageous, untenable claims. A lesson for the youngsters on how open and productive debates are conducted would have resulted.

In the end, the students lost an opportunity to hear a former political detainee speak, which perhaps the academically high achieving JC students among them would have found handy when they appeared before the Public Services Commission for their scholarship interviews. The ‘NLB experience’ would have been a perfect subject to show off their critical thinking skills, ‘thinking out of the box‘, ‘passion’, or whatever the current buzzwords are.

As it turned out, the NLB placed itself between a rock and a hard place. Its main stand was that it had not been told earlier that Mr Cheng was to be a speaker, though this implies that had it known, it would have rejected him from the outset. Thus the only point it really had to be aggrieved about was that its stand was made public, thanks to netizens who wrote open letters of protest. The NLB came up with only one point in its defence: the event was meant for academics to address students, ostentatiously listing the impressive titles and university affiliations of the speakers it considered bona fide.

The Board’s ‘explanation’ (reproduced below) revealed nothing more than what a tight spot it saw itself as being in. I think there is the expectation that this piece would be an excoriating critique of the NLB’s view of history, but really it is plain enough how lacking in substance its letter to its critics is, even to junior college and upper secondary school students of today who are familiar enough with the notion of history being the story written by victors. To treat the letter as a serious exposition of the Library’s understanding of Singapore history is to hold it in far too low esteem.

Pioneers once more: the Singapore Public Service 1959-2009, a commissioned history was launched on 22 May 2010. Had the NLB consulted the book when it was trying to find a proper response, it might have arrived at a more ‘noughties’, more ‘edgy’ resolution. Refusing to grant Vincent Cheng the podium is just so last century, the book would have told them. Ministry and government-linked services personnel are now asked to re-examine long-held assumptions, take calculated risks, think of creative ways to work for the public good, and not assume that they themselves have all the answers. The highest levels of civil servants now regale us with how they broke the rules, took decisions for which there were no precedents, and simply acted according to what they believed was in the best public interest.

Perhaps to show that it can be ‘with it’ after all, NLB could invite Ms Teo Soh Lung, 1987 detainee and author of the just published Beyond the Blue Gate: Recollections of a political prisoner (2010), to speak at its Experience Singapore Literature series, of which a recent speaker was member of parliament Irene Ng, author of a commissioned biography, S Rajaratnam: The Singapore Lion. [On this subject see the inaugural minimyna piece]

‘Singapore history: Who writes the script?’

It really did not need an entire afternoon, and the efforts of four professional historians to elucidate the question. What the high powered, cutting edge academics had to say earnestly about the breakthroughs in their painstaking scholarship that day can only be ironic, if not gratuitous, given the situation.

For the ‘venue sponsor’ had already drowned everyone else out with the answer, even before the speakers it professed to hold in high esteem had uttered a single word.

Not very courteous at all, I’d say.

********************************

For the benefit of General Paper and History students beating around for a smart topic to write on a couple of years down the road and who might want to revisit this event, here are the links from theonlinecitizen giving the correspondence between Fong Hoe Fang, ‘Arthur’ , Ravi Philomen and Vincent Cheng with the National Library Board:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/exchange-of-letters-between-nlb-and-member-of-the-public/

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/late-inclusion-an-excuse-vincent-cheng-tells-nlb/

**********************************

For those who prefer to be able to have the letter follow on from my commentary for easy reference:

Dear Mr Fong (Hoe Fang)/Ravi (Philomen)/Arthur (Tan)/Mr Vincent Cheng

Thank you for your email to all the members of the NLB Board. We would like to take this opportunity to explain the context and background to the seminar that you had raised concerns. [Version to Vincent Cheng: We would like to take this opportunity to personally explain the context and background of this seminar to you.]

The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore. This was in line with NLB’s focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore’s growth from a fishing village into a modern nation.

NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB’s support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB’s programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore’s history through research and study.  The late inclusion of Mr Vincent Cheng, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS.

As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS.  The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday. Mr Vincent Cheng, like any member of the public, is welcome to attend.

Director, Communications,
NLB
(1 June 2010)

**********************************

‘Why NLB did not want ex-detainee as forum speaker’
The Straits Times 2 June 2010

The National Library Board (NLB) yesterday explained why it stopped a former political detainee from being a speaker at an upcoming forum organised by some undergraduates.

The man at the centre of the controversy is Mr Vincent Cheng, who was accused in 1987 of masterminding a Marxist conspiracy and detained by the Government for three years.

The NLB said it asked the National University of Singapore History Society to remove Mr Cheng’s name from its line-up of speakers as it went against the original intent of the event.

It added that the society included the name at the last minute and did not consult the board, which was sponsoring the event by letting the students use facilities at the National Library Building along Victoria Street for free.

Mr Cheng, 63, was scheduled to speak at the seminar this Friday. Last Thursday, however, the NLB asked that his name be removed, History Society president Bernard Chen told The Straits Times.

The move led to a flurry of complaints on blogs and online forums, with some accusing the NLB of political censorship.

Yesterday, the board issued a statement setting out its position.

It said: ‘As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme, such as the panel of speakers, need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon.’

The NLB also said the History Society initially indicated it would be inviting academics from local tertiary institutions.

Mr Cheng’s inclusion was ‘not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up by the History Society’, the board explained.

However, Mr Cheng is welcome to attend the seminar as a member of the public and share his views as a member of the audience, said the board.

It also said it agreed to support the seminar, entitled ‘Who writes the script’, because the focus was ‘on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore’.

When contacted, Mr Chen admitted that he did not consult the NLB before inviting Mr Cheng, but he added that he did not consult the board on any of the other names either.

He said he ‘threw up a few names’ during a meeting with the NLB a few months ago, but there had been no further discussion on the matter until last week.

‘The line-up of speakers was finalised only on Monday last week. In that sense, everyone on the list is a late inclusion,’ he said.

The event was a talk given by Member of Parliament Irene Ng, author of the biography of S Rajaratnam, as part of NLB’s series Experience Singapore Literature. The book had been launched two days earlier by the prime minister, and was not available for purchase till then, so most of us, myself included had not read it.  As a member of the audience keen to learn about how the book was put together, I was treated to an insight of being a Writer in Singapore which took my breath away. The air in the stratosphere was so refined that the ivory tower of academia paled in comparison.

For a start, the audience was treated by the Writer (as the author sees herself as being) to the fascinating insight that writers are given scant recognition  in Singapore unlike say, in UK where journalists have long been respected for writing biographies of the country’s leading political leaders. One wishes she would go into the reasons why this is so. Perhaps it is because well-researched political studies have not quite been encouraged, and/or that what has been written so far has really not been deserving of respect?

At any rate, Our Writer thinks that her work is deserving of such respect, for she is serious about Writing. She had resigned from her job at the NTUC (which presumably she held after leaving SPH as a journalist on becoming an MP), so that she could dedicate herself to the task. By her account, when she handed out her name card which identified her as ‘Writer”, she would get quizzical looks, and be asked if it was a real job. It is! she assures us emphatically. She is very particular about use of words and slaves over her sentences, working till 3 am when she was holding her 3 jobs; is committed to writing a book for the people that is easily readable, unlike academics, who use ‘ponderous’ language, though of course she herself has had to plough through the requisite tomes. She wrote countless drafts, which her husband faithfully went through over and over again, giving invaluable comments. Her original manuscript, which Our Writer assured us we won’t want to read, was returned by her editor, with the comment that it should be reduced to a quarter of its length. While it is probably the case that not all writers have a spare job to give up, or a suffering spouse to go through their manuscripts, Our Writer is nevertheless probably not alone among writers in being particular about choice of words, burning the midnight oil or working through countless drafts.

At  the revelation that Our Writer had  been asked by the editor to make revisions a member of the audience who was apparently at home in cloud cuckooland leapt to her feet. She asked of Irene Ng, Member of Parliament, former Straits Times and New Paper journalist, and commissioned author of S Rajaratnam: The Singapore Lion, if at any point she faced censorship. Those of us not qualified to inhabit that fantasyland were aghast. How could it cross anyone’s mind that a person with the political qualifications of Our Writer would face censorship problems?  What on earth could she possibly say that would be considered subversive or unacceptable to the powers that be?

This question certainly took the prize hands down for its unreal quality, but it was not the only instance. An academic in the audience asked almost painfully: Our Writer had mentioned using an array of sources, including Internal Security Department records. How does one gain access to materials listed in the book such as Cabinet records and ministerial files, which most researchers have found impossible to. The explication given by the author was stunning in its simplicity—the files are in the National Archives—just fill up the form for permission to use them–that’s what she did! Some in the audience chuckled, while others smiled at the reply. Was it a neat, deadpan acknowledgment of her privileged position, or a charming ignorance of that fact? In any case, I will regard works which have used ISD files and the like with a degree of skepticism until the day arrives when such documents are routinely available to researchers.

As for Cabinet papers, which the academic noted was mentioned in the bibliography, but not used much in the text, well, Our Writer tells us that they are actually not really all that informative—the minutes only recorded decisions taken, not discussions that preceded that, nor do they record who said what. If that is the case, are there other files which would have served Our Writer better? Surely there must be records which document Rajaratnam’s work as Minister of Culture from 1959?

Academics certainly had a lot to learn that morning. Another hapless one found herself rebuked by Our Writer for having got it all wrong—’Raja’ did not think that Singapore history started in 1819 as this historian had written. Our Writer had been asked by a member of the audience for her view on Rajaratnam’s choice of 1819 as the starting point of Singapore’s history. Bursting with indignation and pride, she revealed that she had found ‘Raja’s’ writings done in the 1940s which talked about there being stone age civilization in Malaya. ‘Raja’ had also written that there were Indian and Chinese in this part of the world before 1819!  The thoroughly discredited academic in question, who happened to be in the audience, could only meekly point out that surely the question was not whether when Mr Rajaratnam believed Singapore history really started, but that as PAP visionary, how far back he thought Singaporeans should trace their history to, and that to him 1819 was the most sensible date to start for the building of a new nation out of a population the majority of whom were recent migrants with their different ancestral histories. Indeed, how they do waffle on, these historians!

Yet another come-uppance for academics was in store. Our Writer revealed that she had a scoop, which no scholar had managed to obtain so far. Fong Swee Suan, former Barisan Socialis member had revealed to her in an exclusive interview that there had been a meeting held over the question of merger between leaders of both factions of the PAP.  The team on the one side included Lee Kuan Yew and S Rajaratnam, and on the other, Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan and S Woodhull. Lee’s ultimatum was that the ‘other side’ had to support him on the question of merger, or else they would have to leave the party. The three decided they could not go along with the merger proposal.

If only Our Writer had explained to the audience just how earthshaking this revelation is. For it confirms what the left had been saying for decades, and what Dr Poh Soo Kai had asserted in his recent interview with the Straits Times (27Dec 2009): that the dissident MPs did not walk out on the party and cause the split in the PAP—they were expelled.  One would of course assume that Our writer, a veteran journalist, would have checked Fong Swee Suan’s story with Lee Kuan Yew, who called the meeting.

But yes, yet again the academics present must really have felt that they had been thoroughly outclassed by Our Writer, though the more uncharitable among them might have wondered where the glam factor of having interviewed Fong is concerned, if Our Writer had not been pipped to the post by the three Straits Times journalists of Men in White fame.

S Rajaratnam: The Singapore Lion is published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), an academic research institute, whose publications are peer reviewed.

But surely this Writer-in-residence of theirs is peerless.