The life of Comrade Yan Chiang Ding

The following is my translation of the life of communist operative Yan Chiang Ding who was arrested by the Lim Yew Hock government and during Operation Coldstore for his underground communist activities. The original article in Chinese can be accessed here. The website is a treasure trove for those interested in communist history of Singapore and Malaysia.

Briefly, Comrade Yan was involved in May 13 Student Movement, Hock Lee Bus Riots when he was a student at Chinese High. He was later arrested under Operation Coldstore in 1963. Yan was released after 11 years in detention and joined the armed communist insurrection in Malayan jungle shortly after. In 1979, at 38 years old, Yan was killed in a fire fight after being ambushed in the Selangor forested area.

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

Comrade Yan Chiang Ding was born in Singapore in 1941 into a poor family. His parents were employed by foreigners.

At the age of 13, Yan took part in progressive student activities. In 1954, soon after he began his studies at the Chinese High School, he took part in the May 13 student movement, which opposed the National Service Ordinance passed by the British colonial government. 

When the Lim Yew Hock government attempted to change the Chinese school education system in 1955, Yan took part in student strikes and collective struggles in school to safeguard mother tongue education. On May 12 during the Hock Lee bus riots, he participated in activities to show support for the workers who went on strike. On 18 Sep 1956, the Lim Yew Hock government, under instruction from the colonial government, took action to suppress anti-colonial forces, arresting many anti-colonial patriots and shutting down numerous progressive unions and student groups such as the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union, Singapore Farmers’ Association and Singapore Chinese Middle School Students’ Union. People were discontented and this eventually resulted in large-scale strikes by students and workers in October that year. Yan played an active role in the student struggles and his performance was outstanding. In 1961, he was admitted to the Nanyang University (Nantah). During his varsity days, besides focusing on his course of study, he also participated actively in academic research and social surveys. For example, in 1962, he played an active role in the opinion poll of residents in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer which showed that the people were against the merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya that was proposed by the colonial government and reactionary forces. Yan took on the work of educating the masses in his free time. Besides giving lessons on culture and knowledge to village dwellers, he also hosted talks on current affairs and often worked until late at night. He was well-liked by classmates and village dwellers as he was diligent in his studies, responsible in work and brave in struggles.

In 1955 when Yan was 14, he was detained for one week by the Lim Yew Hock government for safeguarding mother tongue education. However, he did not flinch and took greater strides towards the road of revolution.

On 2 Feb 1963, the Internal Security Council which comprised reactionary forces from the colonial government, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore launched Operation Coldstore to shut down progressive unions that oppose the merger and arrest union leaders and patriotic people. Yan was again detained.

Early that morning, agents from the Special Branch and policemen charged into Nantah to arrest the students. Yan remained calm and cleverly hid documents that could implicate his comrades while a search was conducted. Although he was eventually arrested, his composure and quick-wittedness ensured the safety of comrades and students.

Yan and other comrades went on several hunger strikes when imprisoned, with the longest one lasting more than 140 days. One day, in a bid to extract a “confession” from Yan and another political detainee who was a paid union secretary, the reactionary authorities brought them from Changi Prison to the Central Police Station and put them in solitary confinement. During that time, Yan and the comrade were stripped of the freedom to move around and read books and publications. They were also interrogated and tortured round the clock by Special Branch agents. To protest against the unreasonable suppression by the reactionary authorities, they went on a hunger strike and were prepared to sacrifice their life to expose the ruthless means of the reactionary authorities. When the reactionary authorities saw that they were in critical condition, they became afraid that the hunger strike would arouse public opinion and cause condemnation which could adversely affect the reputation of the reactionary rulers. In the end, they acceded to Yan and the comrade’s request and sent them back to Changi Prison.

During the hunger strike, Yan became unconscious on several occasions and almost lost his life. The reactionary authorities used all means, including threats and inducements to make Yan say things that were unfavourable to the people and write a “confession” against his belief. When Yan refused to do as told, he was given all kinds of torture, but that did not weaken his fighting spirit a bit. He reproduced articles from the Voice of Malayan Revolution and PRC radio stations and secretly circulated them among comrades who were detained. He remained firm and refused to accept the conditions for release put forward by the reactionary authorities.

After 11 long years in prison, Yan was released in early 1974. After his release, he continued to secretly engage in revolutionary propaganda and helped to raise funds for the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). He told comrades firmly that he was ready to go to jail again. He said that going to jail was just a temporary loss of freedom and that the walls of a prison would never be able to stop a real revolutionary. He also said that being tortured was nothing and only weaklings would succumb to it.

Under the arrangement of the underground party organisation, Yan joined the Malayan National Liberation Front a year later in 1975. He was responsible for organising and publishing work in the beginning and later went on to head the group in Selangor.

In 1978, Yan fulfilled his long-time aspiration of joining the CPM. From then on, he set high standards for himself and devoted himself completely to revolutionary work. At the same time, the reactionary forces also tried to hunt him down. Later, the party organisation decided to deploy him to the troops for fear of his safety.

In May 1979, Yan joined the 6th Assault Squad to fight for the independence and liberation of the motherland. On Aug 7 that year, when passing by a forested area in Selangor, he was ambushed and killed by the enemy. He was only 38.

Whether he was working in the underground or deployed with the troops, Yan led a simple life and was a responsible and friendly person. He loved his comrades, he was decisive, had great fighting spirit, served the people wholeheartedly. He was loyal to the revolution and had profound hatred for the enemy.

Comrade Yan has left us, but his gentle smile and good character will always remain in our heart. The comrades have vowed to avenge him and fight the revolutionary war to the end!

Thum PJ: "Public anger" caused the 1956 riots

It is with some interest that I read the latest assertions by historian Thum PJ on how Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully arrested for inciting a riot in 1956.

According to Thum, he had discovered an archival record which contained the transcript of Lim Chin Siong's speech during the night of the riot and that in this record, Lim Chin Siong did not ask the people to “pah mata” (beat up the police) but wanted the police to join him and his cause. Thum proceeds to assert that the subsequent arrest of Lim is wrong and thus, fits into his persistent historical assessment that Lim was not a communist - although Lim had joined the outlawed communist Anti-British League and rose to prominence in several communist trade unions.

If it was not Lim's fault, than whose fault was it? Why was the crowd so worked up that day and not any other day? Having absolved Lim from all responsibility, Thum's historical investigation is reduced simply to the claim that “public anger was too strong” and therefore the riots occurred.

So the elephant in the room was, why was public anger so strong on that day, as claimed? This, Thum did not bother to find out.

A dusty piece of paper from the colonial archives cannot convey the emotions of a fiery night when words spoken from the podium carry a lot of underlying meanings. One cannot even know the tone that was used. It could be “mai pah mata...” or it could very well be “mai...PAH MATA!”

Only those present at that historical moment can understand what Lim spoke ahout and what he wanted the people to do. If I were to read this historical document now, I would also wonder why I was so angry then. UNLESS you read through the entire document, you will find how words were played with sparks and could possibly set off fire.

And I quote Lim Chin Siong:

“(let's) quickly unite together for tonight there is a possibility that something big will happen. But, dear brothers and sisters, if any of our sons are assaulted we will not tolerate it.”

“We must also use method to get rid of this oppressive Government and to attain our final objective..We must take certain action to retaliate against their oppressive action.”

“Mayday is the workers' struggle for better living and to commemorate past events of bloodshed (believed to be referring to Hock Lee Bus riot). Workers must zealously celebrate and be united to fight to the end.”

As a historian, Thum is entitled to make his assessment. But even my lecturer constantly drilled me to question sources and not make simplistic prima facie assessments from one single historical source.

For example, CPM chief Chin Peng said in his memoirs that left-wing trade unions in Singapore were receiving instructions from the communists. The Plen, Fong Chong Pik, in his memoirs, said that he had a “special acquaintance” with Lim and had met him 3 times. In fact, it was the British Security Council assessment that also pinned Lim as a communist...so Chin Peng, The Plen and the Brits were all lying about the same thing?! So there were no communists, no riots, no bombings? Or all these just random acts of “public anger” also?

Now, for Thum to put the blame of the riot on “public anger” is perhaps somewhat disrespectful to those who there on that night.

Cuz Lim Chin Siong would never lay the blame on the people.

Play Review: Square Moon - A Moon That Struggles to Illuminate

Square Moon is a play that narrates a series of cover-ups by the fictional Homeland Security Department after a terrorist, Golden Hartono, escapes, and Hartono's lawyer, Kristina Hu, is unlawfully detained without trial. Hu develops feelings for a fellow detainee, River Yang, who is an opposition politician that subsequently gains political office. When in office, the hopes of Hu being released are dashed as Yang did not abolish the Homeland Security Act.

If the audience were expecting a multi-dimensional, satirical, and intense reflection of the Internal Security Act and the issues surrounding detention without trial juxtaposed against how it infringes upon individual liberties, they would be disappointed as I was.

As it turned out, the play Square Moon does little to merit the 26 years that former Marxist detainee, Wong Souk Yee, has kept her silence on the theater stage. Fans would no doubt call it advocacy theater where Wong's political bias was laid bare throughout the play, from the power hungry and nefarious royal family (read Lee family) to the evil and dimwitted intelligence officers of the Homeland Security Department (read ISD).

Critics would, however, argue that the characters were under-developed, with the dichotomy between good and evil, weak and powerful, so clearly separated that there was almost no room for moral maneuvering and meaningful debate. The ending was as predictable as a Stallone action film and a far cry from The Live of the Others (a superb film about Stasi spying in defunct East Germany). Still, it should be applauded that former ISA detainees have found the courage and outlet again to participate in the arts and public life.

Part 1

The play opens by bringing the audience straight into the theme of torture with the prison guards and directors of the HSD dressed in BDSM-inspired leather bondage gear (but not to worry, there is no actual beating involved). Kristina Hu and River Yang, played by Zelda Tatiana Ng and Lim Kay Siu respectively, are seen cowering under the power that their captors have over them. The captors are kept in line by Neo Swee Lin, who acts as the evil but pious “Madame Minister”, daughter of the reigning political party, desperately hanging on to power.

The opening act is the weakest part of the play as Wong Souk Yee's script and Peter Sau's direction hardly gels together. The BDSM theme and Catholic imagery appears awkward and coerced, as torture of the inmates are portrayed blatantly (perhaps needlessly) when instead “torture” would be better understood as a more subtle form of psychological warfare; of threats, fears against one's principled beliefs in democracy and freedom. Here, the playwright could have added a layer of sophistication by delving further into the decision-making process of the Homeland Security Department officers and the minister, rather than the simplistic portrayal of them as unsophisticated evil-doers.

The highlight in this first part was played by Erwin Shah Ismail, who as a prison guard and political fence sitter, helped Hu and Yang to deliver their written notes and feelings. The point of casting Erwin Shah as a cross-dresser is lost on me, or perhaps that was just to show his identity crisis as a Liberal-Socialist sympathiser. It is also a pity that his role as a political fence-sitter was not further developed.

Part 2

The second part of the play is much better, but still doesn't escape the simplistic binary tale of good and evil, lacking humanisation and dilemmas. Surely, if the Homeland Security Department and Homeland Security Act were so cruel and evil as portrayed by Wong, they would have been removed by the general populace already? So, for the sake of analysis, if they have survived for such a long time, it is a pity that the writer did not grasp the opportunity to illuminate the tensions between the politics of majority against the rights of individual liberty. It was also a missed opportunity to contrast how the ISA was used somewhat unpopularly in the 70s and 80s, with its less controversial use in the recent decade against radical Islamic terrorists, who were accused of plotting to cause mass destruction.

The climax of the second part of the play is when Yang gains political power and it becomes apparent that, despite being imprisoned by the Homeland Security Act himself, the Liberal-Socialist sinks familiarly back into self-preservation as the Act is not repealed. The Director of Homeland Security Department, along with everyone else, ingratiates themselves to Yang and more prisons are built. Nothing seems to have changed, as those in power can only think of ways to stay in power, just as Yang urges Hu to compromise for a just and strong nation. Hu rebuffs Yang's attempts to make her sign a confession saying that she was a “terrorist” and remains as a detainee.

Ending

In all, the play spoke plainly from the voices of the former 1987 detainees, Wong Souk Yee and collaborator, Chng Suan Tze, who must have felt injustices after being detained without an open trial; hence the constant theme of evil and power vs good and weak in their play. We and many Singaporeans know of their hardship and it is only for the better that they put out their art for the public's benefit and debate.

What was missing was from this artistic display was an analysis of the issues surrounding detention without trial. Should individual liberties be at any time suspended because of security concerns? And to what extent? In what sort of situations? Who are these people who carry out these draconian laws? Are they humans or plain villains? Why hasn't the general Singapore populace called for a repeal of the ISA?

26 years later, it seems the same Square Moon is equally capable of illuminating as well as casting a shadow.