by Mavis Puthucheary
Today, the second of February, we mark the 60th anniversary of Operation Coldstore, when 113 persons were arrested in Singapore under the repressive Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and jailed without legal recourse for an unspecified period of time. At that time and, indeed, since then, there has been a tendency for historians, political analysts and the general public to accept the official view that the main conflict was between the moderate PAP leadership and the communists. The PAP has generally won accolades for eliminating the threat of communism in Singapore.
In recent years new information made available in the National archives in London and research work by independent scholars have provided evidence that the reason for the arrests were of a political rather than security nature. For example, one independent scholar has stated categorically that:
“By 1959 organised communism in Singapore was practically dead. However, Lee continued to maintain its spectre in order to publicly denounce his opponents. This culminated in Operation Coldstore: the mass arrests of supposed pro-communist activists in February 1963. Lee’s willingness to use Cold War narratives and the anti-communist security machine sometimes dismayed even British diplomatic observers. The irony, of course, was that this legacy was their own bequest to Lee.” (Alexander Nicholas Shaw “The British Intelligence Community in Singapore, 1946-1959: Local security, regional co-ordination and the Cold war in the Far East” Ph.d thesis University of Leeds 2019 page 276)
With more information now available to us, it is time Singaporeans re-examine the events of the past with a view to gaining a better understanding of the past. The Singapore story is much more complicated and nuanced than the history books tell us. For one thing, we know that when the PAP was formed in November 1954, the party’s objectives was to create a society that was democratic, socialist and non-communist. What happened to those who wanted Singapore to be democratic and socialist as well as non-communist? As early as September 1957 James Puthucheary while still in jail wrote a letter to Lee Kuan Yew in which he agreed that communism had no place in Malaya because of the communal problems but suggested that social democrats must strive for a system of parliamentary democracy that would ensure the freedom of expression for all as well as ensure social justice. As one of the founder members of the PAP James had supported the statement in the first PAP manifesto which denounced the repressive Emergency Regulations. When he and 6 other political detainees were released James continued to work hard to secure the release of the other political detainees. As one political analyst put it:-
“While James Puthucheary was willing to compromise with Goh [Keng Swee] on the question of capital’s roll in development, it proved harder for him to concede on limiting political freedom in the nation’s development. He saw social democracy as providing a strong hand for the state to direct economic development at the same time as “inviolable personal political rights acting as a check against tyranny” (Seng Guo Guan “How I wish that it could have worked” in Living with Myths in Singapore page 101)
James was outraged when he found out that it was Lee who had insisted that the leftwing political detainees remain in prison after the PAP formed the government in 1959. Records of a meeting between Lee and Selkirk on the 18th June 1961 show that after the PAP candidate lost the Anson by-election Lee suggested to Selkirk that in order to gain popular support, Lee would recommend the release of the political prisoners but Selkirk would then countermand this. Selkirk refused to do what Lee requested. His deputy, Moore remarked that “Lee lived a lie about the detainees for too long giving the Party the impression that he was pressing for their release while in fact agreeing in the Internal security Council that they remain in detention” T.N Harper “Lim Chin Siong and the Singapore Story” in Comet in the Sky edited by Tan Jing Quee and Jomo K.S. page 33)
As the wife of James Puthucheary I was witness to events leading up to his arrest and deportation to Malaya on 2nd February 1963. A few days before Operation Coldstore my employment in the Singapore Civil Service as Assistant Director of Education was terminated. . But shortly afterwards I was summoned to meet Lee Kuan Yew who told me that although there were no complaints about my work, his colleagues had insisted that I be sacked because of my relationship with James. He told me that although he was convinced that James was not a communist he had allied himself with the Barisan Sosialis and was therefore tainted with the same brush. Here was a clear example of how the Special Branch was influenced by politics rather than by security concerns.
Today although many of the institutions and structures of a democratic system are in place in Singapore it is the PAP that dominates the political scene. Most of the institutions and structures civil service, the social media, the universities and even, to some extent, the judiciary, are not independent but subordinated to the Party.
In order to find out how the PAP was able to amass so much power we need to understand the past especially as many of the undemocratic methods that are still practised today had its roots in the early years of PAP rule when they were defended as necessary to fight communism. We need to find new ways of understanding and interpreting history that reflect a more accurate picture of the past. Unfortunately, until now there seems to be little interest in gaining a better understanding of the past. Instead of recognising transgression of the past so that the country can move forward, there has been a tendency to turn a blind eye and conveniently forget or obscure the truth. . This has prevented the country from moving forward towards a establishing a democratic system that ensure social justice and protects the rights of all its people to freedom of expression without fear of arrest under repressive laws.
One way that Singapore can confront its past is through the figure of Lee Kuan Yew. He was like a Colossus dominating the political sphere especially in the early years of PAP rule. How will History remember him? What kind of a human being was he? In assessing Lee’s legacy we need to consider what sort of man he was: was he a man of principle who believed in social justice and playing according to the democratic rules or was he willing to sacrifice democratic rules if they came into conflict with his own interest or the interest of the PAP? Although he had developed close friendship with some of the leftwing leaders including James Puthucheary –Lee found time during his visits around polling stations on the day of the election on 30th May 1959 to visit James in Changi jail – in his desire to denounce all Barisan Socialis leaders as communists he showed he was prepared to sacrifice democratic principles and personal friendships for political power.