School teacher perpetuates same old baggage against WW2 Japan, ignores SE Asian Chinese own undoing

History of the Birth of the Elected Presidential System

Brief Background

For those who are too young to know or remember, here’s the history on the Birth of the Elected Presidential System. Before the 1990s, our President was appointed and not elected. He was a non-executive President, which means, just a figure head without any executive powers.

One of the biggest issues prior to the 1988 GE, was the introduction of the Elected President (EP) System. There was fear among the electorate that the EP system was designed for PAP to hold onto power. The 1981 By Election in Anson saw JB Jeya winning his seat. For the first time in about 20 years, the all PAP Parliament rule was over. An opposition MP was elected.

The 1984 GE saw JBJ winning Anson and Chiam See Tong winning Potong Pasir. There was a heavy swing vote against the PAP.

It was hence believed by many that the introduction of the EP was to transfer some executive powers from Parliament to the EP. The bigger concern was this was just the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope. It was believed that as more opposition members come into Parliament in future, more Exec Powers would be transferred to the EP.

Thus, the authority of Parliament, the people’s representation by virtue of the one-man-one-vote system, would be eroded and taken over by a single man – the Elected President.

This concern was brought up by WP and SDP. One suggestion was to have a referendum to get the people to vote if they want the EP system. PAP did not wish for that.

There was also a debate on TV between PAP’s Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong (then DPMs) vs WP’s then Sec Gen, the late JB Jeya, and then SDP’s Sect Gen Chiam See Tong. Videos below.

The Elected Singapore President – TV Debate (1988) 1/5



4:15 – Goh Chok Tong gives opening statement. Says the Elected President (EP) is to safeguard the Reserves. Should an irresponsible govt spends away our money, EP would be around to check. Ironic statement, on hindsight, if we were to look at what happened during the Ong Teng Cheong era, when he was the EP!

The Elected Singapore President – TV Debate (1988) 2/5



0:35 – (The late) JB Jeya speaks and says issue is not about safeguard because there are safeguards already in place. Issue is that would EP override Parliament, such that Parliament’s role and power is eroded.

3:45 – Chiam speaks and calls for a referendum on the EP issue and let people decide if they want. Says real purpose is to undermine the people’s one-man-one-vote system. The fear is that what is to stop PAP in future from handing over more exec powers to President, should more opposition members get elected into Parliament.

The Elected Singapore President – TV Debate (1988) 3/5



7:45 – Watch LHL’s irritating trademark “Hahaha ha ha….” such that if you were next to him, your eardrums would burst.

8:30 – JBJ questions LHL. Must watch and see how he whacks the BG Lee.

The Elected Singapore President – TV Debate (1988) 4/5



Cont’d from last part, GCT joins in to help out LHL, gets whacked himself! IMO, this is the best of the 5 parts – for those who enjoy seeing how GCT and LHL get whacked, that is!

5:55 – Chiam asks the questions. See how he gives GCT a headache, albeit not as bad as how JBJ gave GCT and LHL headaches! LHL subsequently helps GCT out.

The Elected Singapore President – TV Debate (1988) 5/5

Only 40 sec in this part, no point embedding.

Twisted Irony

Two months back, I discussed how PAP’s attempt to thwart the opposition, by introducing the GRC backfired – PAP’s Town Council idea to hinder opposition backfires

As for the EP issue, whether the EP was introduced by the PAP to thwart opposition, as what JBJ and Chiam argued then, we don’t know. But the fact is that the EP system, like the GRC system they introduced, sure is giving the PAP a headache too. First, when the late Ong Teng Cheong tried to discharge his duties as EP. Now, we have EP candidates who are going to ask some tough questions and not just be compliant to what PAP wants.

What irony that the tools PAP introduced keep coming back to haunt them.

PAP gloats its "glory" days, Socialist Left gloats its "gory" days

You’d think it is bad enough for our leaders in the PAP to reminisce their good old days when they had a very strong support from the electorate. Today, much of their support has been eroded.

However, that kind of wishful thinking (dreaming about the past that is), isn’t as bad as this one I found in the link below. I’m talking about the Socialist Left in Singapore. What’s left of the Left, that is – hur hur.

A memorial gathering in honour of Tan Jing Quee

Tan Jing Quee, historian, writer, poet and lawyer who passed away on 14 June 2011, was the person who has given us, Singaporeans back our history of a powerful local progressive movement, which has been erased from our memory.

The textbooks and mainstream memoirs only tell us about the Cambridge-educated leaders and their friends in the Malayan Forum based in London who decided that the British must go. In fact, the main forces which persisted at bringing colonial rule in Singapore to an end were the Chinese middle school students, the English-educated University Socialist Club members, and the trade union movement led by Lim Chin Siong.

A leader of the University Socialist Club from 1960 to his graduation in 1963, a trade unionist at the Singapore Business Houses Employees’ Union, a Barisan Sosialis candidate in the 1963 general election and detained under the Internal Security Act in 1963, Tan Jing Quee wrote about all three groups, and the ties that bound them. One common feature that the groups shared aside from their anti-colonial position was that they supported Lee Kuan Yew as the key English-speaking champion of the left, and regarded the PAP of the time as their party.

However, the PAP left was expelled by the faction led by Lee Kuan Yew in 1961 over the terms of the merger with Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah, which they argued was not workable as it was based on accommodating to the racial politics of the traditionalist leaders in Malaya.

They were proven to be correct with the race riots in 1964 in Singapore, and the island’s separation from Malaysia in 1965, but this did not bring to an end the detention without trial of the left-wing leaders from the trade unions, Barisan Sosialis and the Nanyang University who were arrested in Operation Cold Store (February 1963) and subsequent detentions. Tan Jing Quee had planned to write a volume on the Malay left as well.

Like people of his generation, he believed in the Malayan dream, which saw Singapore as part of a socialist Malaya. To them, the politics of race in Malaysia today, as well as the persistent vulnerability of Singapore, and its problematic attempts at nation-building are a result of the betrayal of this dream. The decimation of the left was not achieved through the strength of popular mandate against them, but through using state power to effect detention without trial and other forms of persecution such as banishment orders. The repressive measures were undertaken in the name of battling communism.

Singapore has had the same rulers since 1959. They have institutionalized their disdain for the people’s will in the name of knowing best what is good for them. Tan Jing Quee has reminded us of how these rulers came to power, consolidated their regime, and also how our society had been, and can be more politically inclusive, socially egalitarian and culturally vibrant.

Don’t mean to show disrespect for the deceased, but I think that article is an opportunistic attempt to glorify the bloody (I’m using that word to describe “violent strikes” and am not using it as a swear word) days of the Socialist Left.

It is true that LKY locked up those leftists and that’s how Singapore came to give the overloaded, over-glorified idea that LKY was the one who brought Singapore from zero to hero. But then, the Leftists were a violent lot who used strikes which resulted in many deaths, injury and damage to public property.

History could well have been slightly different. It well could have been Lim Chin Siong, leading the Left to lead Singapore into the modern age. Then we would have to bear to the Lim Dynasty, instead of Lee Dynasty.

What I find amazing is the remnants of these Leftists (like the author of the article, Teo Soh Lung), who thinks it is glamorous to blow their horn about the fact that:

1) They had the idea of chasing the Brits out using VIOLENCE (hellooo?)

2) They endorsed the Malayan Communist Party (which was even more violent than themselves – helloo?)

3) They believe all Singaporeans and Malaysians, would love to be under Chinese Communist style rule than to be under the Brits, PAP or in the case of Malaysia, BN.

Mind you, while the PAP are about 15 to 20 years behind time because they still think that they have strong ground support, these leftists are at least half a century behind time, because the last of their “glory days” are 50 years ago! That’s if you can consider bloodshed, violence and death as “glory”! (Shouldn’t it be more of “gory”?)

The Violent Nature of the Socialist Left in Singapore -

I have discussed about the riots in Singapore. There were more riots in Singapore caused by the Chinese Left, than there were riots involving the Malays against the Chinese. History of Riots in Singapore – LKY’s racist version has to be stopped

If you look at Singapore’s history, the Chinese Left was very much involved in many of those riots. Lim Chin Siong, together with his right hand man Fong Swee Suan, used the Chinese ground to riot, caused mayhem and perpetuated violence.

They used Chinese run organizations like the now defunct Singapore Bus Workers Union, The Chinese High School (now Hwa Chong Institute), and Chung Cheng High School.

These riots are not something to be proud of. Incidentally Hwa Chong Institute and Chung Cheng High Schools are SAP schools today. If you go to their website and click their history, you will find NOTHING about their dark past of blood and violence. Obviously they are too ashamed and embarrassed to tell the world of their violent history.

Yet, time and time again, you find some Leftists talk proudly about it?

Malaysia had it worse -

If you thought that Singapore’s past was peppered with strikes, riots and violence, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. It was far worse in Malaysia. It was war in Malaysia. That war lasted 12 years. It was known as the Malayan Emergency – Singapore’s history of turbulence nothing compared to Malaysia’s – The Malayan Emergency

In the link above, I discussed how Chin Peng, the leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), roped in the Chinese as their runners, spies and feeders. During the 12 year war between the MCP against the ruling Brits and other Malayans, more than 11,000 Malayans died.

And this is the kind of person (Chin Peng), the kind of organisation (MCP), the kind of ideal (freedom from Brit rule through terror), that Teo Soh Lung, a remnant Leftist upholds?

Teo Soh Lung was an ISD Detainee herself -

Much as I would like to empathise her pain for her unwarranted detention under the ISD in the 1980s, I feel that she should stop living in the past. I don’t think she’s a threat, but isn’t it gory and bizarre to celebrate someone like Chin Peng, and his ideology of a Chinese Communist style rule, who was responsible for over 11,000 deaths?

My Conclusion -

There isn’t much left of what’s left of the Leftists. However, I find it strange that such people can glorify their past violence as heroic acts. Not to mention their very highly chauvinistic idea that all Singaporeans and Malaysians love to live under Chinese Communist style rule.

At least, when PAP blow their horn, they have in part brought Singapore to where we are today.

What have the Leftists done, other than etching their names in history that they are a violent lot, to the point even their past affiliates, The Chinese High and Chung Cheng High, are so embarrassed and ashamed, that they hide their dark violent past from public eyes!

PS – note that TOC the Maverick, is the one that publishes Soh Lung’s article. Why do these guys at TOC always keep giving us gooney political stuff? Isn’t this kind of article that would popularise PAP? After all, PAP always claim that it was because of PAP, Singapore prospers. Otherwise, another party (like the Leftists) would take over.

What a gooney way to score an own goal, TOC!

Early Singapore Immigrants

Some years back, Discovery Channel aired a series of documentary episodes on Singapore. I’ll take the this opportunity to give my thoughts on some points brought up in the documentary.

I will be discussing on the early immigration and how these immigrants shaped Singapore today. This is the second series of documentary on Singapore aired on Discovery Channel. This series itself comes in 5 parts uploaded on Youtube. My relevant points of discussion covers Parts 1, 2 and part of Part 3. Hence, I will leave Parts 4 and 5 out of this particular post.

View the three embedded clips (or just read the summary if you are in a hurry) first. I’ll give my comments later.

History Of Singapore 新加坡的歷史 (II) Part 1

4:10 – In the early of last century, immigrants came (mostly Chinese) to Singapore to escape civil war in mainland China.

5:10 – Chinatown was packed with Chinese immigrants. Their allegiance was not to Spore, but to their home villages in China.

(Sounds familiar, just like today we question foreigners, huh?)

5:45 – Racially, Singapore is made up of mainly Chinese in a geographical area made up of Malays. In the decades ahead, people would be forced to question their loyalties. Is it towards China, Malaya, or Singapore itself?

(Sounds familiar again, just like today we question where are these foreigners’ allegiance, huh?)

7:00 – Nationalism swept China in 1911. The man behind that was Sun Yet Sen. He propagated the idea that China should be a power of influence like England, America, France and Germany. And the way to do it is Nationalism.

7:25 – News of nationalist victory over Imperialism reached Singapore. The Chinese working class wanted to emulate this ideology. Gangs of young men imposed this nationalism on other fellow Chinese.

(Now why is it that some Chinese always expect other Chinese to support Chinese just because “we are all Chinese” – and when there are those who don’t support, they are considered traitors of their own race? It sux that some Chinese are so chauvinistic, even today, huh?)

8:00 – These men were excited about the future of China. This is the start of the politicization of the Chinese community in Singapore.

8:15 – But this political awakening did not take hold on the Straits Chinese (Peranakan). These Straits Chinese have lived in Singapore for many generations, unlike the new Chinese immigrants. In fact, many Straits Chinese spoke Malay more than Chinese itself. They also had close links to the Brit Empire, rather than with China.

(Again, sounds familiarly so today-like! The “true Singaporeans” at that time were the Malays and Peranakans, and their culture, their language, their livelihood were being dominated by the new immigrants from China!)

8:45 – Take a look at young Harry Lee Kuan Yew. What a cutie boy. I’m sure many girls during his school days eyed on him. Oopsie, forgot he was schooled in a boys’ school.

(Yep, he’s a Peranakan himself and he betrayed his own culture by transforming all Chinese, minority Chinese like Peranakans included, into Hans. See this link – PAP’s Racist MT Policy, Part 2 – PAP is forcing Han Culture, not Chinese Culture, on us)

9:05 – Lookie who had problems with the Chinese Language and asked his dear mommy to transfer him to an English stream school. And you Sinkies thought you suffered under this stooperd Mother Tongue policy set by the MOE. This guy was in a full Chinese stream school. And no Hanyu Pinyin to boot!

History Of Singapore 新加坡的歷史 (II) Part 2

Summary (of part 2) -

- Japan attacked mainland China in 1937. The Chinese in Singapore organised themselves and raised funds to help China. More importantly, they tried to hit Japan economically by boycotting Japan’s cheap goods.

- Years later, when Singapore fell to the Japanese, those who were identified as anti-Japanese (mainly Chinse, of course) were killed.

- So you wanna know how Harry Lee escaped the wrath of the Japanese, although he was lined up in the same queue that was presumably meant for execution? Hear it from himself from the 6:15 min mark. That’s his version – but note there are “other versions” which cite that he escaped because he worked for the Japs. Nope, you won’t get to see that in his memoirs.

History Of Singapore 新加坡的歷史 (II) Part 3

Summary (of part 3) -

- The Chinese felt incensed that the Brits let the Japs off too easily after the war.

- Brit Admin decided to give Malaysia independence, but kept Singapore under its rule.

- In 1949, Mao Zedong led Communist China. In Malaya, the Chinese who fought with Brits against the Japanese, now turned against the Brits to drive them out – to set up a Communist Malaya, a la mainland Communist China. I have also discussed this episode under the subtitle “The Malayan Emergency” in this article – Singapore’s history of turbulence nothing compared to Malaysia’s – The Malayan Emergency

- The Malayan Emergency’s turmoil spilled into Singapore.

- The Chinese in Singapore were rallied by Lim Chin Siong, propagating China’s Communism ideals to overthrow the Brit Admin rule. ((Nope, I don’t think Chin Siong was a commie. He just propagated commie ideals. But he wasn’t one himself. There’s no record to show he was backed up by Chin Peng’s MCP or got help from Mainland China.)

- Chin Siong used the Chinese ground, including the trade unions to riot against the Brit govt.

- Harry Lee made a symbolic change to his name to “Lee Kuan Yew”, to appease the Chinese community, and set up the PAP with Lim Chin Siong.

- It was Chin Siong and not Lee KY who was the influential guy who controlled the mainly Chinese ground.

- PAP did not win the first elections (under Brit rule to gain autonomy, not independence). Fong Swee Suan (Chin’s Siong’s right hand man) later organised a strike and riots to provoke the Brit govt. Note that at the same time in the north, Chin Peng in Malaya was waging a war against the Brits to set up a Communist Malaya – using the Chinese ground.

I will stop here, as the rest of the documentary is not about early migrants and what they did.

My Comments -

1. I find it an irony that many Singaporeans now fear foreigners. The fear is that these foreigners may change the cultural landscape of Singapore. But then again, many Singaporeans are descendants of immigrants 100 years ago.

Didn’t these immigrants then changed the cultural landscape and virtually wiped out the culture of the Peranakans, as well as stymied Malay culture in Singapore, the two ethnic races that had been living harmoniously for generations earlier?

Today, we have Singaporeans who claim that foreigners are dominating and overshadowing the ethnic cultures of Singapore’s Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians (who have been living harmoniously the last 2 generations) with their own native homeland cultures from abroad.

2. Singaporeans question foreigners today about their allegiance. But then again, 100 years ago, when Sun Yet Sun liberated China from Imperialism, and 50 years ago when Lim Chin Siong rallied for commie ideals like China, weren’t the Chinese showing more allegiance to mainland China rather their own homeland, Singapore?

3. Note that the history of Singapore (or for that matter Malaysia) is centred on the Chinese society’s fight against the Brits. In Malaya, Chin Peng was at war with the Brits. In Singapore, there was no war against the Brits, but Chin Siong rallied the Chinese community to riot.

4. I have mentioned a few times in this blog before, and I will mention it again. In spite of the fact that it was the Chinese (led by Lim Chin Siong) who dominated the riots in Singapore, and a war led by Chin Peng (using the Chinese community as well) in Malaysia, PAPpy’s “racial harmony theme” is always about the 1964, 1969 race riots, implicating the Malays as the “provocateurs”.

Final Words -

To end this post, let me add that Parts 4 and 5 of the documentary are about how LKY got the better of Lim Chin Siong. It is also about the merger with Malaysia, the Confrontation Period, and finally, Singapore’s road to true independence.

If I can find the time, I’ll write another article on that in future.

Singapore’s history of turbulence nothing compared to Malaysia’s – The Malayan Emergency

Introduction -

With the coming of the production of “1965″, which we can expect Lee Kuan Yew would be immortalized and glorified, let’s put things in its proper perspective.

First of all, let’s be reminded that Singapore’s history and social studies that is taught in schools have been revamped to make LKY look good. Those who studied Singapore’s history more than thirty years ago, will remember that the emphasis was the British rule and in particular, how Sir Stamford Raffles played an important role.

Today, it is all about LKY. Too much credit is given to him. Here is a link to show that he has taken far too much credit than he deserves. It’s an article I wrote to explain that he never really deserved all the credit he has been given. Dumping the fallacies LKY created

One of the common beliefs, or should I say myths about Singapore, is that we had a turbulent past that is peppered with race riots. I have also commented on how erroneous that belief, or should I say that myth is. I wrote an article on that too. History of Riots in Singapore – LKY’s racist version has to be stopped

It could be seen that there were more riots against the govt, rather than riots that centred on the issue of race. So what’s with this race riot stuff that is overlinked to our past?

PAP’s version of “S’pore’s Turbulent Past” puts Malays on defensive -

Although I am not a Malay myself, I do feel that the Malays somehow feel quite defensive whenever the PAP plays the “we had race riots” card to emphasize racial harmony. But as can be seen from my immediate link above, it is not quite true that race riots was the biggest issue in our past.

Yes, there were race riots, but as discussed in the links, only two of the major six riots were race riots, while we had four riots that were linked to the issue on governance. Furthermore, the Malays were involved in three of the six riots, while the Chinese were involved in five of the six. Yet, PAP keeps finger pointing the Malays as the centre of the turbulent past?

Singapore’s Turbulent Past -

We had six major riots in Singapore. They are:
1. 1950 – Maria Hertogh Riots
2. 1954 – National Service Riots
3. 1955 – Hock Lee Bus Riots
4. 1956 – Chinese Middle School Riots
5. 1964 – 1964 Race Riots
6. 1969 – 1969 Race Riots

The one person who was a major thorn to the (Brit) govt then was Lim Chin Siong. He was directly responsible for the organisation of two of the above riots. They are the Hock Lee Bus Riots and Chinese Mid School riots. These riots were planned and were organised by Lim Chin Siong – using the Chinese ground as support. Furthermore, the NS Riots was also instigated by mainly Chinese Middle School students (possibly with Chin Siong’s involvement too, though I can’t find records to confirm). While the Maria Hertogh and 1964, 1969 riots were unplanned and spontaneous, the other three were organised riots – by the Chinese.

So it does look a little strange that the Malays keep taking the flak for our turbulent past, when it was actually some sections of the Chinese who were in the thick of the action.

Chin Siong campaigned for a Brit pullout. These riots were a direct affront to the Brit rule. To the Brits, it is an act of defiance and civil disobedience.

Chin Siong was portrayed to be a communist, although I seriously doubt him to be one. I will explain that later in this article. But that is not my point here.

My point is that Lim Chin Siong used the Chinese ground to riot and many sections of the Chinese ground (yes, that includes The Chinese High School, now known as Hwa Chong Institute, and Chung Cheng High School) rioted in unison with him.

If that’s the case, why does PAP, LKY in particular, keep scapegoating the Malays as provocateurs of racial tension during our turbulent times, when it was some sections of the Chinese who dominated the History of Riots in Singapore?

To fully understand and appreciate why the Brits were so uptight and upset with Lim Chin Siong (and the riots he caused), we need to look up north – Malaya. There’s another guy who also used the Chinese ground against the Brits. And he was far shrewder and much more violent than Lim Chin Siong. His name was Chin Peng. Let’s take a look at this episode.

The Malayan Emergency -

(Before Singapore’s merger with Malaysia, Malaysia was known as Malaya.)

The only reason why this was called “Emergency” and not war was because the Brit govt didn’t want to jeopardize insurance claims. If the Brits had declared a war, insurance claims could not be made. But for all intent and purposes, it truly was a war. A long and painful war for many Malayans.

Chin Peng led the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) during WW2. MPAJA was mainly a Chinese based group. Chin Peng and his men fought side by side with the Brits. He was given a medal for that.

During WW2, the Brits armed MPAJA heavily so as to defeat the Japs. It turned out to be a big mistake. After the war, the MPAJA did not return those arms. Instead, they used it to turn against the Brit govt. This was the start of the Malayan Emergency, which lasted 12 years which killed more than 11 000 people, innocent civilian lives included.

There was a documentary on this aired on History Channel recently. Someone uploaded the 90 min documentary on Youtube. Here are the links. I embedded the first one only.

The Malayan Emergency ( 1/9 )

The Malayan Emergency ( 2/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 3/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 4/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 5/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 6/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 7/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 8/9 )
The Malayan Emergency ( 9/9 )

View the documentary if you have the time. It gives you a good picture of the history of our northern neigbours, and a true perspective of what political turbulence truly is.

Summary -

For those who are too lazy or don’t have the time, here’s a summary of the major points:

1. Chin Peng used the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) to fight a guerilla warfare to overthrow the Brits. He engaged in guerrilla and terrorist tactics. He depended mainly on the Chinese community. Those who did not co-operate, faced his bullets.

2. From the jungles, he had a sophisticated network. He got many Chinese in the villages to finance and supply food to his men in the jungles secretly and discreetly.

3. The Brits tried to cut off this supply by relocating Chinese villages from the countryside and setting up curfews, but the MCP members still managed to control the Chinese villagers.

4. Another means to cut off the MCP from the Chinese villagers was to register everyone with an IC. That way, anyone who does not register immediately becomes a suspected MCP member or a suspected sympathizer. That did not work too, because the MCP killed those who helped the govt register.

5. Chin Peng garnered mainly fellow Chinese for support. Anyone who does not support MCP was considered anti-MCP and he was tortured or even killed.

6. The most brazen and blatant attack by the MCP on a govt office was the Bukit Kepong Incident, where a police station was set on fire. Several policemen and their wives and children residing in the station were killed.

7. To cut a long story short, the Brit govt, together with the Malayans, after years of fighting the war against the MCP, got the upper hand. One big factor was the decision by the Brit govt to ration rice and have it cooked at the villages. This stopped the possibility of villagers smuggling uncooked rice to the MCP living in the jungles. Another factor was the govt’s prize money for the capture of MCP leaders. With food cut short and the enticement of big payments in the amounts of hundreds of thousands, many MCP members betrayed their leaders.

8. When Brit handed over autonomy (but not full independence yet) to Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman was made Chief Minister. Just before full independence, A Rahman offered Chin Peng to lay his arms down and join Malaya in peace. Chin Peng asked for a negotiation. A Rahman agreed and it was held in a town called Baling, near the Thai border. The meeting was hence called the Baling Talks.

9. The Brits were nervous and were worried that A Rahman would crumble under Chin Peng’s influence. He did not. Chin Peng was agreeable to a ceasefire, but not to give up arms. He also wanted the MCP to be recognised as an official party. A Rahman rejected outright. Chin Peng returned to the jungles on the Thai side of the border.

10. Malaysia finally was given independence and Chin Peng’s reign of terror was almost over.

The Original Merdeka (video below at 1:45 min) by Tunku Abdul Rahman, celebrating the independence of Malaya and hence, victory over Chin Peng’s terrorist communist party – marking the beginning of an end to an era of terror, fear and thousands of deaths of innocent Malayans.

Compare the above video to LKY’s imitation of Merdeka (video below), hoping to ride on the hard work of others, by alluding to the Malayans’ long hard fought war against communist terror, and he himself taking almost sole credit for pulling S’pore out of a “turbulent political” situation.

My Analysis and Comments -

1. I don’t believe Lim Chin Siong was a commie. Earlier, I mentioned that. Here are my reasons:

- There has been no confirmed records that shows Lim Chin Siong and Chin Peng were collaborating or working with each other. Both men had their own agenda and worked independently. Both also had different objectives. Chin Peng wanted to set up a Communist based Malaya. Chin Siong was only interested in Singapore.

- I would even further add that Chin Peng was working alone, without the back up of mainland communist parties from China. There is no confirmed reports that China armed Chin Peng. All his arms were acquired from the Brits during WW2. Some may argue that China is too far off to have supplied arms to MCP and that does not prove MCP had no links with China. But that argument supports my view – China didn’t arm MCP! The claim that Chin Peng was backed up by China is just that – a claim.

- In spite of the lack of evidence (especially pertaining to Lim Chin Siong) that these two men had commie back up, the Brits were nervous about Lim Chin Siong. Earlier, I mentioned that to understand the Brits’ concern about Chin Siong, you need to know about another man – Chin Peng. After all, Chin Peng had commie ideals and he showed what he was capable of, ie killing thousands of Malayans. The Brits were only too worried that Lim Chin Siong, another man who used commie ideals to riot, could have been capable of the same.

- But then again, that may be an over-nervousness on the part of the Brits. After all, Chin Peng was armed to the teeth by the Brits during WW2. Chin Siong on the other hand had no arms.

Lim Chin Siong denying he is a Communist.

2. Tunku Abdul Rahman, unlike LKY, did not use the race card.

- It can be seen that while the MCP was Chinese based, the Tunku did not use that to polarize the Malayans. Most Malayans saw the MCP as a national threat and many races worked and fought hand in hand against the MCP.

- LKY on the other hand, keeps playing the race card, mentioning race riots (even implicating Malays instigated them) when it is shown that it is the Chinese, egged on by Lim Chin Siong, who were the instigators of at least three major riots.

3. LKY tries to ride on the fame and takes credit he does not deserve.

- In schools, if you look at the syllabus students have in their Social Studies, it is all about how LKY brought Singapore up from zero to hero. But again, we know that is not quite the truth. He has taken much more credit than he deserves, as discussed in the second url link I put up in this article . Furthermore, the “turmoil” Singapore went through is nothing compared to what our northern neighbours went through. Short of naming it a war, the Malayan Emergency was truly a war – and it lasted twelve long years. That’s longer than WW2.

4. “1965″, the movie, is just another opportunity for LKY to polish his ego before he goes.

It is said that in the movies, the biggest casualty is truth. How true. We won’t see the real truth about how it was Malaya who went through the real turmoil, fighting a 12 year war with the MCP. What we will see is just another big $$$ churner, in the form of another propaganda to godify and immortalise the Old Man.

My Conclusion -

It is sad that LKY tries to claim credit he doesn’t deserve. It is sadder that he keeps playing the race card, scapegoating the Malays, polarizing Singaporeans further. Not to mention that he keeps jibing Malaysia for its bumi policies, creating a tense situation between Singapore and its northern neighbour.

The real truth as one can see is that Malaysia and Singapore had their own turmoil in their own ways. But by comparison, Malaysia went through a much more difficult time than we did. But you don’t hear Malaysians or their govt “boasting how they pulled through”, unlike PAP and/or some Sinkies, do you?

While the Tunku did not play up the race card against the Chinese, LKY keeps reminding us about race issues. Not that we truly had that many race riots to start with.

Finally, whether we are Chinese, Malay, Indian or any other race, we are all Singaporeans. Also, Singaporeans and Malaysians are neighbours. There really is no need to fight each other or be suspicious of each other.

In fact, there is no need to listen to leaders who try to make us fight each other.

>Did LKY Lie We Were Kicked Out of Malaysia?

>I was too young to remember the time when Singapore separated from Malaysia. All I know is that Lee Kuan Yew put up a good show crying crocodile tears on TV.

According to LKY, the Tengku kicked us out. However, I have come across other sources, which point that it was LKY who wanted out and threatened the Tengku with the Chinese Race Card if he did not let Singapore go. The Tengku relented.

That meeting happened in a place where there were only two people – The Tengku and LKY himself. The Tengku has since passed away and that leaves LKY to tell the world whatever (corrupted) version he wants to, unchallenged.

Well, as you know, when you tell a lie, you have to tell another lie to cover that lie. Then you have to tell yet another lie to cover that one too. It carries on until you cannot remember what lies you told.

So, it finally had to happen. The pack of lies told to us, that we were kicked out from Malaysia has finally collapsed. Here is an article in the ST Forum, which touches on LKY’s eulogy, which gave away the fact that we were not kicked out, but instead, Singapore had planned to leave all along.

Separation from Malaysia: How crucial was Dr Goh’s role?

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew made an interestingly significant remark about Singapore’s separation from Malaysia in his eulogy at Sunday’s state funeral for his colleague-in-arms, former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee.

MM Lee said he had asked Dr Goh to negotiate a looser rearrangement for Singapore, but to keep Singapore within Malaysia.

Added MM Lee: ‘He (Dr Goh) decided that the best alternative was a clean break. After (Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister) Tun Abdul Razak and (Minister for External Affairs) Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman agreed, (Law Minister) Eddie Barker and I worked furiously to settle the terms of the separation.’

MM Lee’s remark is intriguing in the light of the conventional narrative of the events leading up to Separation in 1965. From all that historians have gleaned prior to MM Lee’s remarks on Sunday, MM Lee, who was then Prime Minister, played the pivotal role involving Separation.

His remarks suggest that the decision to break away from Malaysia was decided unilaterally by Dr Goh at the crucial moment; against the proposition MM Lee, and perhaps the collective Cabinet, had decided; which was at the very least, to still remain a part of the Malaysian federation of states.

If the above is true, the apparent contradiction should be resolved. A key question that arises from MM Lee’s remarks is this: What was the extent and significance of Dr Goh’s role in Separation? Furthermore, MM Lee’s remark also suggests that the key Malaysian leaders – Tun Razak and Dr Ismail – agreed to Dr Goh’s proposal of a clean break.

This would imply that it may well have been Singapore which precipitated the idea of Separation, rather than Malaysia, as has been the notion all this while, stemming from first Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman’s view. He reconfirmed, when I interviewed him a few years before he died, that he overruled the strident objections of his extremist colleagues in Umno in deciding to sack Singapore from Malaysia.

It would be informative, if not instructive, if MM Lee or Dr Toh Chin Chye (then chairman of the PAP and the only key surviving member of the Old Guard today) shed more light on this critical turning point in the history of Singapore and Malaysia.

Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib

I have always suspected that it was LKY who wanted Singapore out. I never believed his claims that Singapore was “kicked out”. While the LKY’s eulogy implies that it was Dr Goh’s idea for separation, I still believe that it was LKY’s idea. After all, he has been known to fib about history.

Besides the point that he misrepresented Singapore was kicked out, he has also tried to cover up the fact that he was elected as PM in the early days only by virtue of the Chairman’s vote. It was a tie between him and Ong Eng Guan for the post. Dr Toh casted the final (Chairman’s vote) for LKY. However, LKY tries to deny that did happen, as can be seen in this article I wrote in Sep 2009

Old Man wants all the glory to himself

In the following article published in the Straits Times dated 5 Sep 09, Did Lee become PM by one vote?, Old Man claims he has no knowledge of the one vital vote, casted by Dr Toh Chin Chye (the Chairman of the PAP then), that allowed him to be the PM of Singapore. It was a nail-biting 6-6 vote, casted by the “inner core” of the pioneer PAP leaders. It was a tie between Ong Eng Guan and Lee Kuan Yew.

Being a tie, the chairman, Dr Toh, exercised the chair’s vote, and Old Man became the PM.

But, Old Man, being what he is, does not want to admit it. He denies that there was such an event. Phew! Now why did Old Man have to wait for 50 years to say that? All along, it was written in the history books that he won by the chair’s vote.

In the same article, I mentioned how LKY probably planned the merger in the first place, with the intention to leave the Federation later, so that he could be the PM of Independent Singapore. It was a perfect plan to oust his greatest rival then, Lim Chin Siong.

The article continues below.

A search on the internet will also reveal a few startling things about the history of Singapore. Here are some pointers.

Before independence, Chin Siong was Lee’s biggest threat. While Chin Siong controlled the Chinese ground, Lee had the favours of the British government. But everything was hanging precariously and power could swing to either side.

Lee then planned a merger with Malaysia. It appeared that the merger was an excellent way to rid Chin Siong. Both the Brits and Tengku were uncomfortable with Chin Siong because he appeared to be a communist.

Till today, there is still controversy if he was communist. I would be inclined to believe the Chin Siong sounded communist because he used the Chinese race card to rally the people. (Hey, hasn’t Old Man used the same Chinese race card for decades too? And no one dares claim he is a commie?)

I do not believe Chin Siong was a communist. The Brits (whom LKY was very much aligned to) were only too keen to link Chin Siong with the commies to contain him. With the merger planned, Lee had an excellent excuse to get Chin Siong locked up since both the Brits and Tengku did not like to have Chin Siong around.

You can do a search on “Lim Chin Siong” to get more news about the Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew dispute. That was really something.

My opinion on the Lim vs Lee episode

It was either Lim Chin Siong or Lee Kuan Yew. The fight for power to control was on the balance. While Lim used the Chinese ground for his support, Lee used the Brits for his support. What probably tilted the balance was the merger. Lee got the Tengku on his side too, because the Tengku was wary of Lim as well.

After the threat of Lim was over, it was time for Lee to create enough trouble for the Tengku, so that Singapore could be fully independent. Lee’s story was that the Tengku kicked Singapore out. Tengku’s story was that Lee wanted out and hence created problems.

So who is to be believed?

With the fact now exposed that Old Man is willing to twist history about the single vote by Dr Toh Chin Chye, who knows what other facts he has been twisting since the 1950s? After all, the Tengku is no longer around to dispute the story.

My viewpoint on the merger

The merger probably served Lee very well. It was the perfect way to rid of his biggest adversary, Chin Siong. At the same time, he could engineer for Singapore’s independence so that he could be the PM of a truly independent Singapore.

It was not that Lee did not know that Malaysia’s constitution stated the special privileges for the Malays. He asked for the merger with his eyes opened. Yet, after merging, he contested that very special privilege. It is like asking your neighbour to invite you to a party, then when he graciously lets you in, you start ordering him how he should host the party.

The merger itself caused Malaysia to have problems with Indonesia and Philippines. Malaysia’s plan was to include Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. Singapore was initially NOT on the list. Singapore asked to be invited and was accepted.

Indonesia and Philippines saw the merger as an expansionist plan by Malaysia and felt threatened. This was the Confrontation period. There were terror attacks from Indonesia against Malaysia. And Singapore, being part of Malaysia by virtue of the merger, was also attacked.

A point that I would like to make here is that, the PAP cites this incident was that the “sea of Malays around us” seeked to attack the majority Chinese Singaporeans.

I feel that Lee is trying to play the race card that Singapore being majority Chinese, are seen as enemies by the Malays around us. The fact was that this was actually about one Malay country (Indonesia) against another Malay country (Malaysia). Singapore was dragged in, because we were part of Malaysia. Not because the Malays were against the Chinese.

The above is yet another twist and lie, in the books of the PAP, headed by Old Man.

My Conclusion

Lee can claim that he is the “Father of Singapore” and that he is the one behind Singapore’s success. But we have seen how he twists history, such that he is seen that he has attained a godlike status.

My opinion is that if Ong Eng Guan had been PM, he would have taken Singapore the same path. Perhaps, we would see the Ong Dynasty instead of the Lee Dynasty.

As for Lim Chin Siong, I also feel that if he had been Singapore’s PM, we would still be the same Singapore, more or less. Some critics say that he was a communist and would steer away from Western technology, which brought about Singapore’s economic success.

I dispute the above. Firstly, it was never proven he was communist. Secondly, if he had been PM, I am sure he would have abandoned his reference to China, changed allies, and taken advantage of the Western influence.

If Lee could have changed so quickly from let’s merge with Malaysia to let’s create trouble for Malaysia, surely Chin Siong could have changed his spots as quickly as Old Man.

Of course, also if Lim had been PM, in all probability, we would have to tolerate the Lim Dynasty instead.

Singapore does not depend on one man alone. Singapore’s success is due to a group of hardworking leaders and citizens. The man at the top is shaped by what the group of leaders and the community do. He is dispensable…..no, he is expendable.

It looks as time goes on, LKY has difficulty in remembering the number of lies he has told Singaporeans. For every slip up he makes about the past, he reveals a ton of untold secrets about Singapore’s, PAP’s and his own history.

The latest slip up to be exposed is of course, we were never kicked out of Malaysia. It was planned by the Singapore side to use Malaysia as a scapegoat to get independence from the Brits – and to lock Chin Siong up, so that LKY could be PM of Independent Singapore.

>Old Man wants all the glory to himself

>The Old Man wants it all. Everything. Every single bit of glory there is, he wants it all to himself. And he is doing it, before he checks into the world beyond.

In the following article published in the Straits Times dated 5 Sep 09, Did Lee become PM by one vote?, Old Man claims he has no knowledge of the one vital vote, casted by Dr Toh Chin Chye (the Chairman of the PAP then), that allowed him to be the PM of Singapore. It was a nail-biting 6-6 vote, casted by the “inner core” of the pioneer PAP leaders. It was a tie between Ong Eng Guan and Lee Kuan Yew.

Being a tie, the chairman, Dr Toh, exercised the chair’s vote, and Old Man became the PM.

But, Old Man, being what he is, does not want to admit it. He denies that there was such an event. Phew! Now why did Old Man have to wait for 50 years to say that? All along, it was written in the history books that he won by the chair’s vote.

Excerpts from the article above:

When chairman Toh Chin Chye received the votes, he opened and counted them one by one. There was a hushed silence when he declared six for Lee and six for Ong. The deadlock could not have been more dramatic. Then exercising his prerogative as chairman, he used his casting vote to break the tie, and Lee went on to be prime minister and to preside over the miraculous transformation of Singapore for the next 31 years.

This cliff-hanger reconstruction is culled from the reminiscences of Toh and then organising secretary Ong Pang Boon in a series of interviews for this book. It corroborated the account making the rounds in countless publications that there was a CEC vote to decide the premiership.

One oft-quoted source was Thomas J. Bellows’ The People’s Action Party of Singapore: Emergence of a Dominant Party System in which the American scholar recorded that the CEC met to designate a prime minister after the elections and that party chairman Toh voted twice, first in the original vote and then as the result of a tie, a casting vote.

In 2006, the political science professor recalled that ‘the person I interviewed was an individual in whom I had especial confidence and was very courteous to a struggling graduate student’. His dissertation for Yale University was based on extensive interviews with members and supporters of all major political parties in 1964 and 1965.

References to the vote were never refuted publicly. In fact, a column on 12 July 1960 by Gordon Hung in The China Mail, which preceded the South China Morning Post, noted Ong’s tremendous popularity saying that ‘the only thing that seemed to stop him from becoming Singapore’s first prime minister was the formality of a vote by the central executive committee’.

Yak Keow Seng, a former PAP activist and close aide of Ong Eng Guan, remembered the former mayor and minister confiding in him and saying that there was indeed a CEC vote after the elections and that he lost to Lee by one vote.

….In what must surely go down as the greatest mystery of the PAP story, Lee said he was completely puzzled by accounts of such a vote. ‘I don’t remember any such thing. I cannot understand this, that Ong Pang Boon and Toh Chin Chye would say so. If one said so, I can dismiss it, but two said so…

‘I led the elections. I crafted the strategy. I made the major campaign speeches. I made the last major broadcast. It was assumed that I would be the leader. I was the man meeting governor William Goode before, during and after the elections, not Ong Eng Guan. I negotiated with him for the release of the detainees, not Ong Eng Guan.’

Boy oh boy. That shows much about Old Man’s character. He wants to be worshiped as a god before he leaves this world. If he could “forget” this very important incident (how he became PM of Singapore), what more about all the other tales in his memoirs? Can he be trusted that history as what he told is accurate? Including the merger, and our eventual ouster?

Another article, in relation to the above was also published in the ST on the same day – Was Lim Chin Siong a communist?

In the article above, we are told that Lim Chin Siong was a communist and the PAP had to lock him up, because he was a dangerous man. However, Discovery Channel aired the documentary “History of Singapore” a few years ago. Chin Siong was portrayed in a very different light.

A search on the internet will also reveal a few startling things about the history of Singapore. Here are some pointers.

Before independence, Chin Siong was Lee’s biggest threat. While Chin Siong controlled the Chinese ground, Lee had the favours of the British government. But everything was hanging precariously and power could swing to either side.

Lee then planned a merger with Malaysia. It appeared that the merger was an excellent way to rid Chin Siong. Both the Brits and Tengku were uncomfortable with Chin Siong because he appeared to be a communist.

Till today, there is still controversy if he was communist. I would be inclined to believe the Chin Siong sounded communist because he used the Chinese race card to rally the people. (Hey, hasn’t Old Man used the same Chinese race card for decades too? And no one dares claim he is a commie?)

I do not believe Chin Siong was a communist. The Brits (whom LKY was very much aligned to) were only too keen to link Chin Siong with the commies to contain him. With the merger planned, Lee had an excellent excuse to get Chin Siong locked up since both the Brits and Tengku did not like to have Chin Siong around.

You can do a search on “Lim Chin Siong” to get more news about the Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew dispute. That was really something.

My opinion on the Lim vs Lee episode

It was either Lim Chin Siong or Lee Kuan Yew. The fight for power to control was on the balance. While Lim used the Chinese ground for his support, Lee used the Brits for his support. What probably tilted the balance was the merger. Lee got the Tengku on his side too, because the Tengku was wary of Lim as well.

After the threat of Lim was over, it was time for Lee to create enough trouble for the Tengku, so that Singapore could be fully independent. Lee’s story was that the Tengku kicked Singapore out. Tengku’s story was that Lee wanted out and hence created problems.

So who is to be believed?

With the fact now exposed that Old Man is willing to twist history about the single vote by Dr Toh Chin Chye, who knows what other facts he has been twisting since the 1950s? After all, the Tengku is no longer around to dispute the story.

My viewpoint on the merger

The merger probably served Lee very well. It was the perfect way to rid of his biggest adversary, Chin Siong. At the same time, he could engineer for Singapore’s independence so that he could be the PM of a truly independent Singapore.

It was not that Lee did not know that Malaysia’s constitution stated the special privileges for the Malays. He asked for the merger with his eyes opened. Yet, after merging, he contested that very special privilege. It is like asking your neighbour to invite you to a party, then when he graciously lets you in, you start ordering him how he should host the party.

The merger itself caused Malaysia to have problems with Indonesia and Philippines. Malaysia’s plan was to include Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. Singapore was initially NOT on the list. Singapore asked to be invited and was accepted.

Indonesia and Philippines saw the merger as an expansionist plan by Malaysia and felt threatened. This was the Confrontation period. There were terror attacks from Indonesia against Malaysia. And Singapore, being part of Malaysia by virtue of the merger, was also attacked.

A point that I would like to make here is that, the PAP cites this incident was that the “sea of Malays around us” seeked to attack the majority Chinese Singaporeans.

I feel that Lee is trying to play the race card that Singapore being majority Chinese, are seen as enemies by the Malays around us. The fact was that this was actually about one Malay country (Indonesia) against another Malay country (Malaysia). Singapore was dragged in, because we were part of Malaysia. Not because the Malays were against the Chinese.

The above is yet another twist and lie, in the books of the PAP, headed by Old Man.

My Conclusion

Lee can claim that he is the “Father of Singapore” and that he is the one behind Singapore’s success. But we have seen how he twists history, such that he is seen that he has attained a godlike status.

My opinion is that if Ong Eng Guan had been PM, he would have taken Singapore the same path. Perhaps, we would see the Ong Dynasty instead of the Lee Dynasty.

As for Lim Chin Siong, I also feel that if he had been Singapore’s PM, we would still be the same Singapore, more or less. Some critics say that he was a communist and would steer away from Western technology, which brought about Singapore’s economic success.

I dispute the above. Firstly, it was never proven he was communist. Secondly, if he had been PM, I am sure he would have abandoned his reference to China, changed allies, and taken advantage of the Western influence.

If Lee could have changed so quickly from let’s merge with Malaysia to let’s create trouble for Malaysia, surely Chin Siong could have changed his spots as quickly as Old Man.

Of course, also if Lim had been PM, in all probability, we would have to tolerate the Lim Dynasty instead.

Singapore does not depend on one man alone. Singapore’s success is due to a group of hardworking leaders and citizens. The man at the top is shaped by what the group of leaders and the community do. He is dispensable…..no, he is expendable.