Connect with us

Commentaries

Why history matters to Singapore

Published

8 years ago

on

The following is the text of Dr PJ Thum’s remarks at the Singapore Theatre Festival’s Art and Life Session #03, “History, His Story, Whose Story?”, Sunday 24 July 2016. His fellow speakers were Tan Pin Pin, Sonny Liew, and Jason Soo, and the panel was moderated by Alfian Sa’at.

By Thum Ping Tjin

Our assumptions about our past shape how we read the events of today. Not just that, but they are used to justify certain policies, and argue for certain values which shape our society.

Last week, Daniel Goh mentioned the 1964 riots. I disagreed with his characterisation of the riots and tried to argue with him about it. I don’t think he understood the point I was trying to make, but to be fair, I didn’t make it very well. Which was that context matters in how we understand history. Framing matters in how we understand history. And how we understand our own history affects how we understand events today. Calling the 1964 riots “race” riots implies that it was a fight between two races, between Malays and Chinese, and it is routinely trotted out to explain why Singapore has extremely fragile race relations, why we need to clamp down on any discussion on race, for fear of upsetting a fragile racial balance.

The problem is, to call it a race riot is to neglect the fundamental cause of the riot. Which was politicians manipulating the race issue for their own political gain. And by misunderstanding it, we then apply the wrong lessons to Singapore today.

The problem is, to call it a race riot is to neglect the fundamental cause of the riot. Which was politicians manipulating the race issue for their own political gain. And by misunderstanding it, we then apply the wrong lessons to Singapore today.

So let me briefly explain the root cause of the riot. It starts in 1961, as Lee Kuan Yew was losing popularity in Singapore. He was going to lose the next election, and he needed an issue that he could control, to regain popularity, to reassert his authority within the PAP, and to win the next election. And the only issue that he could immediately control was merger.

But the Federation leadership did not want all of Singapore’s Chinese in the Federation. And not because of race, but because of politics. It would dilute the UMNO vote and undermine its claim to power. That’s what they really cared about. So how could Lee change the Tunku’s mind? By scaring him into believing that Singapore’s Chinese were communist and chauvinist, and were about to kick out the PAP and elect a militant communist, Pro-China government.

This was totally untrue – it was Lee Kuan Yew, not the PAP Left, who was in an active conspiracy with the Malayan Communist Party. But Lee argued that the only way to save Malaya from descending into civil war was merger, for the Federation to take in Singapore and assume control of Singapore’s security. So it is Lee who plays the race card first, painting a false picture of Singapore’s domestic political situation to scare the Tunku and the UMNO leaders.

Naturally when the Tunku finally agrees to merger, he wants a form of merger that guarantees two things. That Singapore’s citizens cannot vote in the rest of Malaysia, and that Singapore political parties do not run in the rest of Malaysia. That way, Singapore’s “dangerous” Chinese are quarantined in Singapore. And Lee agrees to this situation because he needs merger to save himself. He agrees that Malaysia must always be a Malay country. He does not care that merger, as constructed, is a form of semi-colonialism for Singapore, because we are under-represented in the Dewan Rakyat (the Malaysia parliament).

In Singapore’s 1963 Elections, UMNO politicians actively campaigned in Singapore for the Singapore UMNO, arguing that Singapore’s Malays are second-class citizens. UMNO Secretary-General Syed Jaafar Albar came to Singapore and called the PAP Malay politicians un-Islamic and traitors to the Malay race. Singaporeans ignored him and every single UMNO candidate lost. But the next year, Lee uses this as an excuse to break his promise to the Tunku. The PAP ran candidates north of the causeway in the 1964 Malaysia General Election, and Devan Nair won in Bangsar. This is the exact thing that the UMNO leadership feared. And to them it proves exactly the point that Lee had made before merger, that Singapore’s Chinese are dangerous, they cannot be trusted, they will stab you in the back, try to take over Malaysia and end Malay supremacy.

Worse, Lee then forms the Malaysia Solidarity Convention with opposition parties in Malaysia, attacking the one thing that UMNO can never compromise on: Malay supremacy. Lee’s actions embolden the more hardline nationalist elements in UMNO, whom he called the Malay Ultras. Lee became UMNO’s archenemy, and the more Lee tried to address this growing antagonism, whether by conciliation, compromise, or confrontation, the worse it became.

The stress of this period took its toll on Lee in highly visible and destructive ways. Lee found it increasingly difficult to exercise self-control in front of a microphone, and he developed a pattern of making outrageous and inflammatory speeches, which Toh Chin Chye later admitted were anti-Malay. Lim Kim San, years later, was asked in an interview whether they had asked Lee to tone down his speeches, and he replied:

“Oh yes! We did! But once he got onto the podium in front of the crowd, paah, everything would come out. Exactly what we told him not to say, he would say!” [1]

So it in this context of Lee inflaming the racial situation that the 1964 “race” riots happened. Thus, if we simply call them “race” riots then we totally neglect the fact that the conditions for the riots were created by Lee Kuan Yew and inflamed by selfish, short-sighted, racist politicians, on both sides of the causeway, for their own personal ambition.

And it is because of this whole situation that that Goh Keng Swee desperately opened secret negotiations with UMNO in mid-July 1965 to arrange separation. He wanted to avoid mutual destruction. And the final formula that both sides agreed on centred on the creation of a lie that would become the foundation of Singapore’s nation-building mythology: the myth that the Tunku expelled Singapore from Malaysia against its will. People today still repeat this myth even though Goh Keng Swee admitted the truth in 1996. Why did he admit the truth? I think it was because 1996 was the year National Education started. Goh felt compelled to finally reveal the truth to avoid the systemic perpetuation of a lie.

In Singapore’s official history, the riots have been depicted as racially, not politically, motivated, because in the immediate aftermath of separation, the government needed to create a narrative which supported its actions throughout Malaysia. It needed to create this idea that the PAP was ultimately correct to aggressively push for a Malaysian Malaysia. It needed to draw distance between Singapore and Malaysia. It needed to rally people with the idea that we are alone, that the world is dangerous, that we need the PAP and we need its repression to keep us safe. Most of all it needed people to forget who was really to blame for the riots: our political leaders, who were supposed to keep us safe but irresponsibly risked our lives for their own political gain.

But the timing is revealing. The race issue was so dangerous that after the 1964 riots, the government rushed to create Racial Harmony Day in… 1997. If racial tensions were such a big issue, why did it take the PAP 33 years to start Racial Harmony Day? Because 1996 was the beginning of National Education. The reason for the day is not race, but politics.

Without this myth about the 1964 riots, we realise that Singapore has never had a riot caused primarily by racial antagonism or racial hatred.

Without this myth about the 1964 riots, we realise that Singapore has never had a riot caused primarily by racial antagonism or racial hatred.

Do we have race problems? Yes! Of course we do. But this myth prevents us from dealing with them properly. Until you understand a problem, until you are free to discuss a problem, you cannot properly deal with it. This myth justifies the idea that we are somehow stupid about race, that Singapore is fragile, that Singapore’s race relations are fragile, that Malays and Chinese are natural enemies, that it is the government’s oppression that is saving us from fighting each other right now, that we need the sedition act, the GRCs, the Ethnic Integration Policy, the self-help groups, even things like the bilingual policy and CMIO racial categories. Most crucially, this myth tells us that we need the systemic racial discrimination that is built into the system in order for Singapore to survive.

The whole house of cards comes tumbling down if we realise the truth. That it was politicians who caused this situation to begin with. That the real lesson of the 1964 riots is that politicians must be accountable, that we must have checks and balances, that we must have ways of restraining our politicians from unchecked arbitrary executive power. That Singaporeans are better people than what our government thinks we are. We can handle race if we are free to talk about the problem and find our own solutions to it.

We have a choice. We can fight back. And I propose we start in a very simple way. It starts by not calling the 1964 riots “race” riots but the “political riots”. The 1964 political riots. Take back your country’s history.

We have a choice. We can fight back. And I propose we start in a very simple way. It starts by not calling the 1964 riots “race” riots but the “political riots”. The 1964 political riots. Take back your country’s history.

And this is why history matters.

Notes

[1] – Melanie Chew, Leaders of Singapore (Singapore: Resource Press, 1996), p. 167.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin is a Research Fellow and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia at the University of Oxford, UK. This post was first published on PJ Thum’s Facebook page.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending