The genealogy of criticism against National Service

It gets picked up so regularly among the men during class gatherings and the festive seasons' idle chat that many would not think National Service could be such a heated and sensitive issue. It seems almost given that National Service is an institution in today's Singapore. Many a times, it has been quoted as an example where Singaporeans across all races and social classes bond together in a common cause; despite the many criticisms that Malays are excluded from certain military vocations due to geopolitical considerations.

Nevertheless, NS does have its fair share of criticism and in the recent years the most common complain is not against the fundamentals of NS, but rather how it has hindered individuals in our increasingly competitive economy where time away from improving one's career is only accentuated by the foreign workforce who do not have such obligations. 

Today, we mostly criticise the form in which NS should take. But how Singapore has moved away from questioning the very basis of why we perform NS, to protesting the form in which it takes place is a reflection of how we have grown as a nation.

It was not so long ago that Singaporeans actually denied the idea of doing NS. The first of these were actually on 13 May 1954 where students of Chinese middle schools who were protesting against conscription by the British colonial power, clashed against riot police resulting in 26 injured. For many historians, the National Service Riots of 1954 marked the beginning of communist subversion in the Chinese middle schools, which subsequently became the breeding ground for communist sympathisers in Singapore.

In fact, just a couple of days ago, these same pioneers celebrated the 60th Anniversary of this event with a lunch, singing of old battle songs and solace in common memories of a past struggle. The event was well attended with a crowd of about 700 including members of the opposition political parties, mainly NSP and SDP.

Photo source: https://www.facebook.com/hochoonhiong/media_set?set=a.10152393531047453.1073741948.699302452&type=1

In analysis, protests broke out in 1954 because the colonial government expected full compliance from the students of the Chinese middle schools, who at the same time were excluded from many economic opportunities that were available to those who were English educated. 

"The National Service Ordinance ruling angered the Chinese middle school students because they were compelled to defend the same British order that had discriminated against them and in which they saw no future in. Many Chinese who felt that they were not being treated as equals by the British also did not feel obliged to serve the colonial government."

So, despite the fact that the idea had public support, and registration for national service went smoothly with 98% of eligible students having registered themselves, the tide slowly turned against the Brits and culminated in the National Service Riots of 1954.

Due to the strong opposition, the colonial government had no choice but to postpone the implementation of the National Service Ordinance. Thereafter, it was said that this episode awakened the Chinese students' political consciousness and strengthened the influence of student leaders and they subsequently formed the Singapore Chinese Middle School Students Union (SCMSSU) - which became a pro-communist organisation that was sometimes radical and violent.

Looking at the anniversary event held 3 days ago, it was interesting to note that the event was organised by F8, which is an organisation formed by the Marxists detainees of 1987.

And, it was not surprising to see that the the detainees of 1987, especially Vincent Cheng, produced various publications in the 1980s, such as the Singapore Highlights to question the need of National Service and a high defence budget. In one article, it asked "Why do we teach the young minds to hate and kill?"

Another publication produced by the so-called Marxist conspirators was the Commscord, which was a newsletter aimed at NS men, giving them a hostile view of the military life and using Marxist arguments to convince readers that NS was setup to further the evils of a capitalistic society. 

Looking back, while NS has become less controversial today, it can still be a touchy subject, because ultimately NS is a liability whether in 1954, 1987 or 2014; and no matter how much the state compensates the individual, the golden years of one's youth can never be recaptured, except through a common consensus that we do so for the survival of this little red dot. 

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.

The Marxist Sojourn of Comrade Bala

Shocking news gripped the United Kingdom when a 73-year-old man named Aravindan Balakrishnan (aka Comrade Bala) was arrested on suspicion of holding three women captive in a south London flat for 30 years. According to the UK press, the victims were brainwashed by the Marxist Comrade Bala, held against their wishes for years, and were often beaten by Balakrishnan and his wife. 

The three victims were Josephine Herivel (daughter of a renowned Bletchley Park codebreaker during the Second World War), Aishah Wahab (a Colombo plan scholar who came to Britain to study in 1968) and Sian Davies, who died in 1997 (a high-flying law student who studied at Cheltenham Ladies’ College). Having an academic discussion about Marxism is one thing but taking it to the extreme is disconcerting to say the least. Furthermore, the victims being western educated individuals rekindles the point that Communism is not reserved exclusively for the typical Chinese chauvinist but also Western intellectuals who are equally attracted to the ideology.  

In a weird turn of events, the perpetrator of this heinous crime is apparently a Singaporean so obsessed with Marxist ideology that he left for England to set up a commune in the 1960s. By the 1970s, he had worked his way up and became a member of the Communist party of England's central committee. However, he soon left the party in 1974 and set up a separatist group styled as a direct component of Maoist China, calling on the Red army to come to south London to liberate working people. 

Because of his Marxist ideology, the Singapore government deemed him to be pursuing "activities that are prejudicial to the security of Singapore" and stripped of his Singapore citizenship for his close ties with Eurocommunists in 1977 (see below for newspaper clippings). Was this a blessing in disguise for Singapore? No one can say for certain but history has its unique way of eventually unravelling the truth. 

Another interesting point observed was the time period (1960s) in which Balakrishnan left for England. If we recall it was in 1963 that Operation Coldstore was launched to counteract the spread of Communism in Malaya. Was Aravindan Balakrishnan one of those Communists who slipped past the security dragnet and escaped to the United Kingdom?

In the 1960s, the United Kingdom was viewed as a safe haven for Communists and notable local Communists like Lim Chin Siong went into self-exile in the UK after being released from detention. This trend of Communists/Marxists relocating to the UK stretched till the late 70s; the most notable of whom was Singapore Marxist Tan Wah Piow who fled to the UK with forged immigration renewal endorsement and sought political asylum.