WP chief Pritam Singh responds to activist on Select Committee's treatment of historian Thum

SINGAPORE — As much as he agreed that local historian Thum Ping Tjin was singled out by the Select Committee studying online falsehoods, Opposition leader Pritam Singh said Dr Thum had also reserved "special treatment in his representation" for the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

"There was no way (the other members of the committee) were going to let that stand on the parliamentary record, unrebutted. Singling out the PAP was (Dr Thum's) prerogative, consequences included," said Mr Singh, a committee member and secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP).

"That said, the indirect issues which were raised were important – opening of archives, freedom of information," said Mr Singh in an exchange with civil society activist Kirsten Han that stemmed from his Facebook post on the committee's report last Friday (Sept 21).

The 22 recommendations put up last Thursday by the committee – chaired by Deputy Speaker of Parliament Charles Chong – include new laws and criminal sanctions to go after "hired guns" by crippling their revenue sources, regimes that hold technology companies accountable, as well as coming up with a "national-level strategy and coordinated approach" to deal with state-sponsored disinformation operations.

In his Facebook post, Mr Singh spoke about the need for a "multi-pronged response, which to me is as, if not more important in the long-run than legislation". He also wanted carefully calibrated powers to deal with the problem.

It prompted a discussion on whether the WP agreed with what some called an attack on Dr Thum's character, its stance on bullying and other issues.

Ms Han questioned if the WP agreed with how Dr Thum was treated, given that the 10-member committee's decisions were unanimous.

In its report, the committee said it gave "no weight" to Dr Thum's views. It charged that the Oxford-trained historian lied about his academic credentials, and was not a credible historian due to the way he picked and chose historical evidence to support his thesis and disregarded contradictory evidence without providing adequate reason.

CONFIDENTIAL DELIBERATIONS

Mr Singh said he could not say anything on the confidential deliberations within the committee in order not to breach parliamentary rules.

When proposed laws are tabled to counter online falsehoods, "the Government will have to identify how the calibrated approach would work in practice because each situation will differ. Then we vote on it. If (the WP Members of Parliament) are not persuaded by the Government's bill – we vote against it", he said.

The issues raised by the committee are "much more significant" than Dr Thum, he added.

On Ms Han's call for the WP to "show more backbone in taking a stance against bullying", Mr Singh replied that "this episode may not be the best one to use as a barometer for the WP's stance against bullying, but I can respect that you have a different view about it and why you feel so strongly about it".

Both Ms Han and Dr Thum were among those who gave oral evidence to the committee, with Dr Thum's turn lasting six hours. He had submitted that historically, there has only been one body that has peddled falsehoods — the PAP government.

Dr Thum rejected the committee's characterisation of him in a Facebook post on Saturday. "I completely disagree with the Report of the Select Committee's allegation that I 'clearly lied' and misrepresented my academic credentials. I will respond more fully in due course," he said.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS 'NOT CONCLUSIVE'

Replying to another commentator Henryace Ace, who felt Dr Thum had "effectively rebutted" what the committee had accused him of, Mr Singh said the source documents used by Dr Thum to establish his thesis were not conclusive.

"My own view is that the conclusions (Dr Thum) drew from his available sources, and the explanation of his decision to exclude certain other sources cannot support the contention that only the PAP and (Lee Kuan Yew) peddled fake news with respect to Operation Coldstore," said Mr Singh.

Operation Coldstore was a 1963 internal security dragnet that saw more than 100 alleged leftist leaders and trade unionists arrested and detained.

Mr Singh also responded to netizen Hk Tan's hope that he had not "sold (his) soul" sitting on the committee.

"I spoke for more Select Committees to be set up when Parliament opened in 2016. The Select Committee's recommendations still have to be debated in Parliament. There is no law proposed as yet," he said.

"From the written opinions of many representors, you will find other Singaporeans sharing different views. In the Select Committee, the challenge for me as an opposition politician of the WP is to accommodate and find a balance between many legitimate views."

Singaporeans want an opposition but are "very discerning in the type of opposition they seek", he added. "In my view, it is not wise to pursue any approach that does not establish firmer foundations for a permanent and institutionalised opposition in Singapore."