More Questions Than Answers in New Coldstore book

Recently, a book "The 1963 Operation Coldstore inSingapore: Commemorating 50 Years" was launched in Singapore. The book edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang & Hong Lysa aims to present history from the perspective of those arrested during Operation Coldstore. (Note: Poh Soo Kai was one of those detained during Operation Coldstore)

From excerpts and articles published online, Operation Coldstore was positioned as a political move that aimed to shore up Lee Kuan Yew's waning political support during 1963. Apparently, Lee Kuan Yew's own party base was not supporting him and due to that, he sought help from the Malayan Communist Party and then the British. Furthermore, it is claimed that Lee Kuan Yew inserted names onto the arrest list to ensure that even if his own popularity collapsed after the arrests, there would be no real alternative to the PAP. 

With such mouth watering details extracted from de-classified British documents, I look forward to reading the book! To make this even more mouth watering, what the British documents said were in contradiction to other British documents and the records of the local government and Special Branch. For the uninitiated, read Dennis Bloodworth's Tiger and the Trojan Horse.

Strangely though, amongst the publicity there was little mention of the links between these individuals and the Malayan Communist Party, especially for those who were in the Barisan Socialis. This is problematic as we know for certain that Lim Chin Siong, the leader of the Barisan Socialis was a Communist and this important fact was conveniently omitted. Even Fong Chong Pik, the leader of the then Singapore underground  Communist network admitted in his book written in 2008 that he possessed a special relationship with Lim Chin Siong. 

Interestingly, perhaps in their attempts to whitewash their relationship with the Communist cause, it is such glaring gaps in narrative that draw further attention to their relationship with the Communist Party of Malaya. 

Despite this historical tug of war between the PAP government and ex-ISA detainees, one fact is for certain - the Communists were an armed insurgency that caused undeniable physical damage to Singapore's infrastructure and terrorized the population. At the end of the Communist insurgency, no less than 12,000 people perished. This violent doctrine only officially ended in 1989 when the CPM signed a peace treaty to cease all hostilities. Therefore, maybe it is the CPM's violence that presented the advantage and legitimacy to Lee Kuan Yew's PAP government to clamp down on the Malayan Communist Party and its affiliates.

That said, there were innocent individuals scooped up for their political allegiances and became the collateral damage in this Communist insurgency.  But at a time when the CPM waged a physical insurgency and conducted shrewd political manoeuvrings through its political proxies, weeding out the Communists at its bud would be no easy task.

For your viewing pleasure, I have embedded a History Channel documentary on the Malayan Emergency depicting the the dire situation at the height of the Communist insurgency (1948 - 1950s). 

Mystery Behind Tan Wah Piow's Flower Wreath

On 29 September 2013, theonlinecitizen.com published an article claiming that Tan Wah Piow denies having sent the flower wreath to Chin Peng's funeral. Aside from his denial, Tan added that "the Sin Chew report was ... publicised in a Singapore blog which was devoted to demonising me and those detained in 1987 Operation Spectrum as 'Marxist conspirators'".

Upon reading this, the history buff in me came alive, ever so hopeful to find another like-minded individual who blogs about such long forgotten historical issues. Alas to my dismay, a simple search on the internet turned up only two blogs which mentioned the Sin Chew report. My own blog and another titled Where Bears Roam Free which carried a rather dim view of Tan Wah Piow, calling him "a commie sympathizer" who "achieved nuthin in life". The commentary may be crass but to each his own.

Just to clarify, my interest in this long forgotten past of Singapore is rooted in facts scoured from openly available resources and painstakingly pieced together as a coherent whole for the reading pleasure of like-minded history buffs.

From this latest development, the question that begets me was: "why would anybody "plot" against Tan Wah Piow'"? There are a few plausible conjectures:

Firstly, there may be the possible involvement of the Malaysian tabloids. The media focus after Chin Peng's death revolved around the Malaysian authorities' refusal to allow him back in to Malaysia. What better way to differentiate oneself from the other run of the mill press articles than to get a firsthand scoop of Chin Peng's close affiliation with Singapore activist Tan Wah Piow? In this cut throat industry, reporters are constantly looking for new sexy angles to publish their articles and we should not be surprised at what reporters are willing to do.

Secondly, there is also the nefarious possibility that the Malaysian authorities are the orchestrators behind this entire facade. The mounting flak heaped on the Malaysian government after their high-handed handling of Chin Peng's passing, the Malaysian authorities turned to their favourite bogeyman Singapore to deflect some of this negative attention. Just recall the number of times Malaysia made use of little brother Singapore during periods of domestic crisis and such a plot is not entirely impossible.

The third possibility may be as what Tan Wah Piow claims and "the person or persons behind the “mysterious wreath” falls on his “detractors in [Singapore]", in particular the Singapore government. On account of the past antagonism Tan Wah Piow had with the Singapore government, the government of Singapore does indeed have an axe to grind.

But then again, my lonely sojourn on this part of Singapore's history reflects an unfortunately dismal public and academic interest in this topic. Hence, this "sleek piece of dark propaganda" appears rough at the edges and only succeeds in shining the spotlight on the Singapore government. An ill-conceived move like this by the Singapore government ultimately provides a platform for Tan to hit back at his detractors and backfires spectacularly on the Singapore government.

This brings us to the last possibility where Tan Wah Piow staged this entire show to bring further attention to his case. Having explained the negative trade offs for the Singapore government in the previous point and the somewhat unsophisticated method employed, this potential soliloquy by Tan Wah Piow should not be rejected outright.

If we were to juxtapose Tan's public denials of being a member of the Communist Party of Malaya together with his penchant for offering assistance to known CPM elements in the past, Tan Wah Piow's words and actions do not often go hand in hand. Just as the Singapore government has an axe to grind with Tan Wah Piow, I am sure Tan is no pushover either.

All these are but speculative talk and the mystery of the flower wreath remains unresolved. What we do know for sure is the attempt by someone to leverage on the death of an old man to further their own selfish agenda.

From London to Bangkok: A Comrade Remembers

Seeing Chin Peng's portly self in his later years, few would believe that this was the man who once waged a bloody Communist insurgency in the Malaysian peninsula. For years, he fought with his brothers-in-arms but was finally forced into exile in Thailand. Others who fought alongside him, both physically and ideologically, were similarly forced to flee into exile around the world. In recent years, Chin Peng fought to return to Malaysia and was denied entry every single time. Such is the fate of a man who was at the losing end of history. Maybe it is in his honour that even his ashes wrecked such apprehension in the BN government that they were denied entry for the fear of reopening old wounds.

Now in his death, with his former comrades scattered all over, tributes began to trickle in for a man they once revered and struggled alongside with. From distant London, a flower wreath sent by Tan Wah Piow, rekindled a long forgotten connection. In this dog eat dog capitalistic world that we live in now, such loyalty and sentimentality is a breath of fresh air. Self-exiled in the UK, constantly fighting for his innocence against the Singapore government's charge of being the mastermind behind the Marxist Conspiracy, he once stated vehemently in his book Let the People Judge that he was no communist.

"How could there ever be such a plot to establish a communist state when the so-called "mastermind", that is, my humble self, confessed in no uncertain terms that I oppose the very idea of turning Singapore into a communist state? Why does the Singapore goverment insist on calling me a communist when I am not one?" Tan Wah Piow in his book Let the People Judge

In the same vein, Wah Piow's sentimental self was already evident in 1982, when despite his own trying circumstances, he was instrumental in securing political asylum for another five members of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in Europe. Be it Communist or Nationalist or Socialist, the display of camaraderie that neither time nor distance can hope to extinguish is indeed worthy of a mention.  

(Source: http://news.sinchew.com.my/node/324537?tid=1)

Rough Translation:


"Former Singapore student movement activist Tan Wah Piow, who went into exile in the United Kingdom in 1976 and had a close relationship with former Communist leader Chin Peng, sent a wreath to the latter's wake today. From self-exile, he instigated a movement to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia and Singapore and asked for the release of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) members.

Tan was a student at the University of Singapore in the 1970s and became the president of the student's union in 1974. In the same year, he was charged by the Singapore Government for organising and taking part in an illegal gathering and sentences to a one year jail term.

Information revealed that Tan was influenced by Marxism when young and therefore became passionate about student movements.

Based on online information, after his release from jail in 1976, Tan flew to UK on a Singapore passport with forged renewal endorsements to seek political asylum and stayed there till today.

In the UK, he continued to lobby for the abolishment of the ISA and release of CPM members.

Although Tan fled Singapore in mid 1970s, the Singapore Government named him as the mastermind of the Marxist Conspiracy in 1987."



Side Note: Ms Teo Soh Lung, one of those arrested during the Marxist Conspiracy, shared her views on Chin Peng's passing.

Ms Teo: "it is not right to say that the MCP wanted to establish a communist Malaya. They were prevented from joining the political process after the war even though its members fought against the Japanese when the British fled".

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the MCP did try to participate in the political process but they were repeatedly outwitted by the English-educated neo-colonialists, namely LKY and his comrades. The MCP did participate in the political process, first through Lim Chin Siong when he shared the leadership of PAP with LKY, and later through Barisan Socialis when they participated in the 1963 General Elections; but sadly chose to boycott parliament thereby depriving Singaporeans of an alternative to which we still seek today. Hence, MCP members had two major forays into the political arena and both ended in disappointment.


I shall end this post with a quote by German scholar Martin Luther:

Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.

Subhas Anandan on Law Society Presidents after Francis Seow

This is part two of prominent lawyer Subhas Anadan writing about his experiences with Law Society's presidents. The first part about self-exiled lawyer and former solicitor general, Francis Seow, can be found here.  

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

After Francis Seow stepped down, Giam Chin Toon took over. He had lost to Francis Seow the previous year. Giam was a very unassuming person and not very eloquent or demanding. But he had the knack of getting the right people to do the right things and he would get the job done. In that sense, he was an effective leader. Of course, he paled in comparison with Francis Seow, who was flamboyant and outgoing. Giam was the opposite. He was quiet and was not interested in publicity. He just wanted to be left alone to do his work.



I still remember the time when Giam met with an accident during his tenure. He was driving his Porsche when he knocked down a cyclist against the flow of traffic. The cyclist, an old man, was riding up a slope and Giam couldn’t see him in time to avoid him. The cyclist died. Giam was badly shaken up but he still attended the council meeting and was re-elected president of the Law Society for a second year. I recall the man’s family was threatening him. In fact during the coroner’s inquiry, word went around that the family was going to create a scene and possibly harm Giam. I was asked by some council members to show support for him in court and I roped in some lawyers to join me. We hung around there to make sure that nothing happened to Giam. He was a friend and our President. We felt that it was our duty to ensure that nothing happened to him. Finally the matter was settled. Giam was not charged because he was simply not responsible for the accident.

Giam Chin Toon

After his term was over, Chelvarajah, who was his vice-president took over as president of the Law Society. Chelva is remembered for his courage in speaking out over Chief Justice Yong Pung How’s demands to get things done quickly. The Chief Justice wanted backlogs cleared quickly. He did not want justice to be delayed, all the time emphasising that justice delayed is justice denied. He was always rushing everyone. He wanted the law to be swift but in his enthusiasm, he did not take into consideration the practical problems lawyers faced, for instance, when bringing in foreign witnesses in time for trials. No quarters were given. The registrar was given instructions to issue early dates and to clear the cases quickly. If people could not accept the dates given, the registrar was told to strike off the court action. It was getting to be a very serious problem.



At an annual dinner held during his term as president between 1990 and 1992, where the Guest of Honour was then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, Chelva made his speech. He took a dig at the Chief Justice, who was present at the dinner, when he said: “When we talk about justice delayed being justice denied, we must also remember that justice hurried is justice buried.” There was practically a standing ovation for him because he had put it so aptly at the appropriate time. I think it took a lot of guts for the Law Society president to stand up and say that. Though enthusiastically received, his speech did not have any effect on the judicial administration. Cases were still being rushed but I felt Chelva made his point that evening.

Chelvarajah

After Chelva, we had Peter Low as president for two years. He was a very insipid president, not noted for anything good or bad. He did not make any changes and there was no effect on the Law Society or on the layers. He just plodded along. How he managed to remain president for two years, no one knows. That’s all I can say about him. After Peter Low, came another friend of mine, Chandra Mohan. He used to clash with Chief Justice Yong on policies, the Legal Profession Act and many other matters. He was quite bold and spoke his mind. The next president was the late R Palakrishnan. During his three-year tenure, there wasn’t much dispute between him and the judiciary. In fact, we called him a ”yes” man because practically everything the Chief Justice wanted, he gave. I suppose that was the best way out. There was no point fighting if you were not going to win anyway. You might as well give in gracefully and reap the ensuing rewards.

Peter Low

The late Pala Krishnan

Arfat Selvam took over from Palakrishnan. She was a disaster. She did not read the minds of the lawyers. There was an attempt to pass a vote of no-confidence against her and her council by the general body of lawyers. I think it’s the first time in the history of the Law Society that such a motion was tabled. After two hours of serious debate, my good friend, Lee Tow Kiat, wisely suggested that the meeting be adjourned. That motion was carried and the meeting was reconvened again. After the incident, I think she decided that she had enough after being president for one year. She stood down. She blamed me amongst others for making her life as president miserable and blamed us for all the problems she had. In some ways what she said was true.

Arfat Selvam

We also had Philip Jeyaretnam, another effective president. During his time, we set up the Association of Criminal Layers of Singapore. He misunderstood the motive behind its formation and clashed with us. We hit back at him. There were some antagonistic exchanges between the both of us. Finally, during his last few months as president, we met for lunch and managed to resolve our differences. We realised that it was all a case of miscommunication. After Jeyaretnam, we had Michael Hwang, who is the current president. To me, he seems to be doing well and making the right moves, but others say “a new broom sweeps clean”. We’ll have to wait and see how his tenure progresses.





I am not in a position to say much about other Law Society presidents. I know Harry Elias very well. He was president before Francis Seow. I worked with Harry in some of his sub-committees. I know T P B Menon who was president for four years. He managed to run the Law Society with a small secretariat. People like him did not have the luxury of the type of secretariat the current president has.

Subhas Anandan: The best I could-Chapter 27-On Francis Seow

This is an excerpt from the autobiography of prominent lawyer Subhas Anandan who wrote of his experience with Francis Seow, the self-exiled former Solicitor-General and politician, who is now living in the United States. In Subhas words, he described Seow as someone who is fuelled by deep-seated motives but did not have what it took to be a leader. Seow still owes Subhas $25K, a huge sum of money in the 1980s. Teo Soh Lung, on the other hand, was said to have strong principles and believed in fair play.

Subhas Anandan: Francis Seow and The President of The Law Society


I consider the Law Society Council’s decision not to adduce evidence against me when the complainant was none other than the Attorney-General to be a very courageous act. The Law Society stood by a member to ensure that he was not bullied. I look upon this as its finest moment. I believe the reason the Law Society Council took that stand was partly due to the calibre of its members, with the likes of Teo Soh Lung, a lawyer who was later detained for what she believed in as a member of the council. There were many others like her who had very strong principles, who believed in fair play and that no one should be bullied.


The other time the Law Society stood out, when lawyers walked with pride, was when Francis Seow was its president. It would subsequently be proven through that many of his actions were fuelled by deep-seated motives or what one would consider as personal desires. Whatever his motives may have been, the way he conducted himself as president and the speeches he made had lawyers walking with their heads held up high. We had the feeling that we would not be trampled upon. We had a leader who would stand by us. Little did we know that the same leader would someday pack up his things and slink away from Singapore leaving behind a lot of disillusioned people who believed in him. There were also those who gave him money. He still owes me $25,000. I suppose if should say goodbye to it. Most of all, there were many who thought that he would open up a new chapter in Singapore politics.

But he was a disappointment and a disaster. He didn’t have the moral courage to return to Singapore to face income tax charges even if he was convicted of those charges, it would have only amounted to a fine but he was not prepared to take the risk. In the final analysis, he was after all, nothing. A man who spoke well – his eloquence was often very charming – but other than that he did not have what it took to be a leader. He was not prepared to go through the test of fire which all politicians must face. Whatever you may say about Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and the other first-generation PAP leaders, they all went through their “baptism of fire” and came out stronger. It is a pity that Francis Seow was not made of sterner stuff.


Francis Seow was the reason behind the 1986 amendment to the Legal Profession Act. Section 38(1) was introduced to prevent the Law Society from commenting on any legislation that was passed by the government. Francis Seow was making use of the Law Society as a sort of political platform to attack the government and to make political in-roads with the Singapore public. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister then, did not like it at all. In fact, there was a Parliament Select Committee hearing for which I was subpoenaed along with many council members including Francis Seow, who was then president of the Law Society. Those who were there at the hearing will remember the confrontation between Francis Seow and Lee Kuan Yew. Most of them said that Francis Seow had the upper hand. When the hearing was over, I remember asking him about what I had heard. He told me: “Well, when I was solicitor-general, there were many instances when it was only between me and the PM. So, when I said these things happened, and if they didn’t, there was nothing he could do because it is his word against mine.” I honestly thought that when you lie so glibly like Francis Seow, it must have astonished Lee Kuan Yew that a man can like that well. I think in an interview Lee himself asked how can one handle somebody who tells lies.

It is very difficult to confront a man who is lying when only he and the other person know the truth. I don’t think Lee was in a position to go into details because some of his conversations they had must have been quite serious and he was not prepared to discuss the circumstances. Francis Seow took full advantage of Lee’s difficulty, lied through his teeth and came out victorious. But his victory was short lived because in the end the statute was amended. He was statutorily terminated and had to cease being the president because he had been suspended before and the new amendment will not allow him to hold office in the Law Society.


When we were going through this turmoil in the Law Society, the trouble and confrontation with the government, and changes in the law, I couldn’t help but think of what my good friend Chelvarajah, a person whom I have a lot of respect for, told me a long time ago. He said “Subhas, you do not know Francis Seow. He can be a dangerous person.” How true his words were.

To be continued...