Historian Thum and RSIS academic trade fresh criticisms over analysis of Communist-era crackdown

SINGAPORE — Two local academics have traded fresh criticisms of each other’s analysis of the Government’s 1963 crackdown on alleged communists and their supporters, one week after one of them, historian Thum Ping Tjin, engaged in a marathon exchange on the subject with Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.

Mr Shanmugam and Dr Thum had locked horns last Thursday (March 29) over the academic’s central claim in his written representations to the Parliamentary Select Committee for Deliberate Online Falsehoods that historically, there has only been one body that has peddled falsehoods — the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government.

The Oxford University research fellow added that the PAP Government has been spreading “fake news” about Operation Coldstore, for example, “for narrow party-political gain”. More than 100 alleged leftist leaders and trade unionists were arrested and detained during the operation in 1963.

But Dr Thum asserted that there is no evidence that the detainees were involved in any violent communist conspiracy to overthrow the Singapore government, and the operation was conducted for political purposes.

In a commentary published in The Straits Times on Wednesday (April 4), Associate Professor Kumar Ramakrishna, author of the book “Original Sin? Revising The Revisionist Critique Of The 1963 Operation Coldstore In Singapore”, slammed Dr Thum for his “skewed interpretations of the past”, and accused the Oxford University research fellow of “baiting the Government” with his controversial claims.

Assoc Prof Ramakrishna, the head of policy studies at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, also criticised Dr Thum’s approach to his work, calling the younger academic’s central argument “an example of misinformation in the form of a slanted argument”.

Assoc Prof Ramakrishna added that such “skewed interpretations of the past” by Dr Thum and others who held similar views may cause younger generations of Singaporeans to develop “historical amnesia” and cynicism towards public institutions.

Dr Thum responded with a Facebook post on Thursday, saying that Assoc Prof Ramakrishna’s 2015 book challenged his work but “did not contradict my central thesis”.

Posting images of several pages of the book, Dr Thum said Assoc Prof Ramakrishna’s work had in fact supported his point that “political considerations were the primary reason for Operation Coldstore”.

Dr Thum noted, for instance, that the book by Assoc Prof Ramakrishna had quoted former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee saying: “The real nature of the threat was that they could be in a position to take over the state in a future general election.”

He also urged Assoc Prof Ramakrishna, who he claimed was given “privileged access to the Internal Security Department’s archives for his book”, to make his sources public so the public could decide the truth for themselves.

“Prof Kumar has previously not accepted invitations to debate me, but I still welcome the opportunity to have an honest academic debate with him,” Dr Thum added.

During his appearance at the select committee hearing last week, Dr Thum also engaged in an extensive back and forth with Mr Shanmugam on differing interpretations of historical events, with the minister pointing out that the academic had disregarded evidence from key figures — namely Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) secretary-general Chin Peng, and communist leaders Fong Chong Pik and Eu Chooi Yip — because he considered them unreliable.

Pressed by Mr Shanmugam, Dr Thum admitted that he had not read the writings of several ex-communists, and acknowledged that the Barisan Socialis, formed by the left-wing members of the PAP, was planning on overthrowing the Government with violence if necessary.

The Cabinet Minister also criticised the Oxford research fellow for having “fallen completely” short of the standards of an objective historian, saying: “Your views on communism, Communist United Front in Singapore, Operation Coldstore, which you have been repeating at multiple fora are contradicted by the most reliable evidence.

“You ignore evidence which you don’t like. You ignore and suppress what is inconvenient and in your writings you present quite an untrue picture.”

Their marathon exchange sparked an online debate about the events surrounding Operation Coldstore, as well as the tone of the questioning by Mr Shanmugam.

The minister took to Facebook earlier this week to say that staying silent “was not an option” given the academic’s “serious allegations” against founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Shanmugam said: “(Ping Tjin’s) main point, in his written submission to the Select Committee, was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest creator of fake news in Singapore, a liar, and Operation Coldstore was based on falsehoods,” wrote in a Facebook post on Monday (April 02).

“These are serious allegations made in Parliament about our founding PM. Either they have to be accepted, or shown to be untrue. Keeping quiet about them was not an option.”