TRE readers are given truth and facts. No one misrepresented CI

I refer to the 25 Apr 2015 TR Emeritus article “TRE commentators seek truth from facts! (Don’t misrepresent me)”

No one misrepresented CI. Instead, it is CI who has shamelessly denied what he said.

CI wrote:

“This is what Ng wrote: CI is making the same unqualified smearing of the Leftists by the PAP by labeling them as communists like those in Cuba and so on. Where is CI’s proof that the leftists were actually communists?)
Where did I call our leftists “communists” in http://brokensilencesg.blogspot.ca/2015/03/where-forgotten-heroes-are-born-chinese.html?
Ng may have wished I called our leftists “communists”, but where’s the proof?”

What CI actually wrote earlier was:

(Which brings me to the tot that if the leftists had won, would they be so magnanimous to Lee Kuan Yew and gang? For a start, LKY and gang and many others may not have been allowed to grow old and bitter. Think Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China, and I think you will get the drift of what I’m thinking: opponents and intellectuals not sympathetic to the leftists cause were, imprisoned, exiled or killed.
Much good it would do the PM and his PAP administration that these leftists benefit from their policies.

Thus, CI had referred to the Leftists as those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals. The question you have to ask CI is who were those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who collectively imprisoned, exiled or killed opponents and intellectuals? The answer to the question is the answer to what CI had referred to, namely the communists. Since there can be no other answer other than the communists who were in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals, it is therefore undeniable that CI had in fact referred to the leftists as the communists.

Thus, no one had misrepresented CI, it is CI himself who had strung together a list of communist countries and equated the leftists to those in these communist countries. There is no need to wish that CI had called leftists communists. The evidence that CI had referred to the leftists as communists can easily be found in his own writings.

CI wrote:

I would ask Chris K, Ng Kok Lim and others who believe the self-serving rubbish of the Coldstore detainees that they were a bunch of social democrat peaceniks with flowers in their hair) to go have a word with students (now in their 60s and 70s) of Chinese High, Chung Ching etc about their time in school. In their clandestine cell groups, did they study the works of leading European and British social democrats or socialists? Nope they would tell you that they studied the works of Mao.

Ask them about the cell leaders who led the discussions. Were they steeped in the tots of the ang moh social democrats or socialists? Nope they were acolytes of Mao, steeped in the doctrines Chinese communism.

Coldstore detainees fought and sacrificed for Singapore’s independence. How could they have been any more self-serving or rubbish than CI?

CI once recommended a book called “Singapore a Biography”. The book contains an example of what CI’s so-called Chung Cheng High student did at that time:

I write essays, poetry … critical political essays and so on attacking the government. Sometimes I will continue to write for three days and three nights, only in between I will have a little nap for 20 minutes, half and hour … because at that time everything moves so fast.

Chin recalled girls who would come over to his place and sometimes stay on after ‘a meeting or a study group’ … There was also the ‘student cells’ made up of five comrades who would swim, go to the cinema and do just about everything together, building up their ‘collectiveness’ in preparation for their call to revolutionary action. Not least, there were the famous student picnics, involving games, songs and an ‘interesting programme’ to ‘eventually get some messages across: anti-government or anti-British, to praise [the] socialist system and things like that’ …

[Singapore a Biography, Mark R, Frost and Yu-Mei Balasinghamchow, page 376]

Writing essays and poetry, swimming, going to the cinema, having picnics, games and songs – are these what CI wants us to know about these students? Even if these students weren’t peaceniks with flowers in their hair, surely they can’t be likened to those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals?

It was written in the same book:

Now I would say this, during the 1950s and 1960s, the entire struggle, we have to clearly define what is ‘Left’ and what is really communist activities. There are not really that many communists, okay? … But in terms of method of struggle, this is what the communists think: they would use the Left as a front. And the Left is actually leading the struggle in the anti-British movement or anti-whatever the system not to their favour.

[Singapore a Biography, Mark R, Frost and Yu-Mei Balasinghamchow, page 377]

Not that many communists, okay CI? Not that many of those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals ok?

It was written in the same book:

… Chinese student Han Tan Jian, who like Chin studied at Chung Cheng High School, where his after-school activities consisted of lessons in Chinese history and Marxist dialectics organized by Lim and Fong’s Chinese Middle School Students’ Union. Han frankly admitted that in the late 1950s he and his fellow students wanted to build a ‘socialist Singapore/Malaya’ on the ‘Chinese model’. But as he looked at the broader situation beyond the Chinese schools, such doctrinal certainty began to dissolve:

Malaya and Singapore could not establish a new country using the Chinese model. Although the communists could lead, […] even if they had the power to lead, they could not make Marxism the national ideology. There was the Malay issue. It was unimaginable that most Malays would, one day, give up being Muslim, convert to Marxism and give up on their Allah.

[Singapore a Biography, Mark R, Frost and Yu-Mei Balasinghamchow, page 377]

So contrary to what CI claimed, the students studied Chinese history and Marxism in general, not just Maoism. The students had also come to the realization that communism wouldn’t work and that they weren’t going to be one of those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals, ok CI?

It was written in the same book:

Apparently, Changi Prison during the late 1950s witnessed a similar realization take root amongst the PAP detainees. As Devan Nair recalled:

While we were in prison, the debate began. Where should we be heading? To a Chinese Communist Malaya, or to a multiracial, Democratic Socialist Malaya? What should be the meaning of Malayan nationalism?

We carried on the debate in prison. And the people who were supporting my stand, vigorously, were James Puthucheary and Sandra Woodhull. I persuaded Fong Swee Suan. And he agreed!

According to Fong’s more recent interview, though Lim Chin Siong was for some time detained separately, when he and Fong eventually debated the same issue Lim also agreed: a democratic, multiracial Malaya was the only way forward. It seems that as young revolutionaries got older they also got wiser.

These recollections give us the impression that in the late 1950s radical, anti-colonial leftists were still experimenting, still weighing the options – in fact, not so much ‘pro-communist’ but rather, as Lim described himself, ‘not [yet] anti-communist’.

[Singapore a Biography, Mark R, Frost and Yu-Mei Balasinghamchow, page 377]

Thus, even the Leftist leaders have also decided they weren’t going to be one of those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals, ok CI? All from the book you recommended, ok CI?

CI wrote:

Finally Chris K and fellow believers in the peaceful nature of the leftists’ movement here who fought the British and LKY should read the memoirs of the Plen and Chin Peng.

The book that CI recommended had already dissociated the leftists from the communists. In his memoirs, Chin Peng also drew the line between Singapore’s Leftists and his own revolutionary CPM which operated mainly in Malaya:

But neither Dr Lee Siew Chor … nor, I understand it, other prominent opposition figures like the Puthucheary brothers – James and Dominic – had ever been CPM members.

[Chin Peng: My Side of History, page 438]

In another book, Chin Peng referred to the Leftists as “them”, not “us”.

… Lee Kuan Yew seized the opportunity to have the Barisan Socialis leaders arrested in Operation Cold Store (February 1963), branding opponents of Malaya as pro-Indonesian. This harmed them badly at a time …

[Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party, C. C. Chin and Karl Hack, page 320]

Fong Chong Pik (Plen) too had denied that his work in Singapore had anything much to do with the revolution in Malaya:

I still need to declare that in Mr. Lee’s broadcast, the words “… wanted to help to bring about the Communist revolution in Malaya” were definitely not mine. Mr. Lee should admit that the person who spoke to him was not an idiot. Why should I say such a stupid thing? After all, the entire struggle at the time was far from being linked up with any “Communist revolution in Malaya”.

[Fong Chong Pik: The Memoirs of a Malayan Communist Revolutionary, page 137]

Thus, both memoirs of Fong Chong Pik and Chin Peng that CI wanted us to read contain the evidence to show that CI had been wrong. Neither gentleman associated Singapore’s Leftist movement with the armed revolution in Malaya. Stripped of any real association with the armed revolution in Malaya, there is no reason to consider Singapore Leftists as anything but peaceful.

CI wrote:

But at the very least they should read
http://brokensilencesg.blogspot.ca/2015/03/where-forgotten-heroes-are-born-chinese.html.
This blogger is anti-LKY (like Chris K and Ng), yet his view of the students chimes with LKY’s views of the students.

Not true, the blogger described the students in terms of song and dance whereas LKY tended to regard the students as militant. Whatever the case, the blogger certainly did not portray the students to be like those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals.

CI wrote:

Then come talk to me.

Who would want to talk to a shallow creature like CI?

CI wrote:

The very serious point I’m trying to make that LKY’s and PAP’s self-serving narrative of our history, is not all rubbish. Like all good propaganda, it has elements of the truth. In the 1950s and early 1960s
— the Malayan Communist Party and China used the leftist movement here for their own ends;
— the students and other Chinese-educated leftists here were highly influenced by the writings of one Mao.

That’s CI bullshit. Many books say it is the other way around – that the leftists were fighting for their own destiny even if their anti-colonial stance were aligned with those of the communists. The leftists being influenced by the writings of Mao didn’t mean they were employing Mao’s tactics of guerilla warfare. They were openly defying the government with strikes and demonstrations.

CI wrote:

But I’m sure Ng Kok Lim doesn’t “Gather truth from facts”.

CI was sure darn wrong. It is the other way around instead; it is CI who doesn’t gather truth from facts while Ng Kok Lim always does.

CI wrote:

He didn’t read what I wrote: I never called the Coldstore detainees “communists”. Or he decided to misrepresent me?

CI conveniently forgot about other occasions where he did refer to Coldstore detainees as “communists”.

Why make things complicated by KPKBing that the Barisan Sosialis detainees were not communists … But unless one doubts the memois of the “Plen” and Chin Peng , the party’s formation was part of the plan to by the communists to seize power.

[CI’s blog, Ex-Barisan gang and friends missing the point, 26 Dec 2014]

My conclusion? The SDP is the kingmaker of the Opposition. Remember how the Communists destroyed David Marshall and the WP in the early 60s? They told their supporters not to vote for the WP.

[CI’s blog, Who is the Opposition Kingmaker? 23 Sept 2011]

After all his dad, who speaks several languages, has shown that he can multi-task: merger with Malaya, economic dev and “fixing” the communists and British.

[CI’s blog, Why can’t our PM multi-task? 24 Oct 2010]

Thus, no one is misrepresenting CI. It is CI who is shamelessly and ballslessly denying what he said.

CI wrote:

Taz the quality of Ng Kok Lim: either not bothering to read what I wrote or trying to make me say what he wanted me to say, despite me not writing it, by accusing me of writing something I never wrote.

The quality of Ng Kok Lim is such that he can easily defeat CI anytime, all the time. CI’s claim that I did not bother to read what he wrote is falsehood, as I produced substantial evidence from his website to prove him wrong. CI’s claim that I was trying to make him say what I wanted him to say is ridiculous. There’s no need to try to make him say what I want him to say when anything he said can so easily be used against him.

CI’s accusation that I accused him of writing something that he never wrote is also falsehood. CI indeed referred to the Leftists as those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals. Even if CI would choose to be dishonest with himself, his invitation for readers to get his drift would put the onus on us to ask who those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China were who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals. If not the communists, then who? In the absence of any other sensible candidate other than the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals, CI cannot deny that he was actually referring to the communists.

For all his explanations, CI couldn’t even provide a reasonable explanation as to who those in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Red China were who would imprison, exile or kill opponents and intellectuals. What CI doesn’t say or couldn’t say says a lot about what he actually said.

That’s the quality of CI, falsehoods upon falsehoods without the slightest shame.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: