Dissecting the typical PAPpy type article
What this post is about -
This post takes a look at a typical PAPpy type article. One that repeats ad nauseam all the myths and half-truths of the PAP. In this post, I will walk through those points.
The typical PAPpy type article -
An interesting article was published by the Straits Times on 22 Apr 2013. Interesting because all the ingredients of the myths and misinfo propagated by PAP the last 50 years or so is still being preached as history.
Here is the article:
A Singaporean Singapore has never meant a diminution of our different cultural, racial or religious identities. No matter what your race, you become a Singaporean by becoming larger than what you are, not less. — ST FILE PHOTO
So says PAPpy supporter, Janadas Devan, the writer who is director of the Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Chief of Government Communications at the Ministry of Communications and Information.
Let’s look at some of the myths and misinfo in the article.
1. We were “kicked out” -
The natural thing to do, having been booted out of Malaysia primarily because we were a Chinese-majority state in a Malay-majority Federation, would have been to base your political legitimacy on appeals to Chinese identity. Instead our founding fathers decided to base their legitimacy on an extraordinary dream: a Singaporean Singapore. To a remarkable degree, we have fulfilled their dream – not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.
But there was nothing natural or inevitable or even expected in how we got from there to here. We willed our trajectory; we didn’t let things take their “natural” or “inevitable” or “expected” course.
There is evidence that PAP wanted out, but used Malaysia’s Tunku as excuse that we were “kicked out”. In Lee Kuan Yew’s eulogy dedicated to the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lee (unwittingly?) mentioned that it was Singapore who mooted the idea of the separation, rather than Malaysia.
I highlighted that fact when I cited an ST forum letter by Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib - Did LKY Lie We Were Kicked Out of Malaysia?
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew made an interestingly significant remark about Singapore’s separation from Malaysia in his eulogy at Sunday’s state funeral for his colleague-in-arms, former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee.
MM Lee said he had asked Dr Goh to negotiate a looser rearrangement for Singapore, but to keep Singapore within Malaysia.
Added MM Lee: ‘He (Dr Goh) decided that the best alternative was a clean break. After (Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister) Tun Abdul Razak and (Minister for External Affairs) Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman agreed, (Law Minister) Eddie Barker and I worked furiously to settle the terms of the separation.’
This would imply that it may well have been Singapore which precipitated the idea of Separation, rather than Malaysia, as has been the notion all this while, stemming from first Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman’s view. He reconfirmed, when I interviewed him a few years before he died, that he overruled the strident objections of his extremist colleagues in Umno in deciding to sack Singapore from Malaysia.
It would be informative, if not instructive, if MM Lee or Dr Toh Chin Chye (then chairman of the PAP and the only key surviving member of the Old Guard today) shed more light on this critical turning point in the history of Singapore and Malaysia.
Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib
A very sharp observation from Prof Hussin Mutalib. Lee has not refuted the prof’s claim. Neither has Lee’s office, spokesman or rep done so.
2. Chinese revolution helped shape Singapore today -
This can be called a half-truth. The other half of the story, which actually tells a dark side of a minority vocal Chinese community, mainly led by Socialists, is not mentioned here.
The emergent Singapore nationalism was first mediated through the cultural nationalisms of the colony’s various racial groups. There would have been no such thing as a Singaporean nationalism – or, more accurately, Malayan nationalism, which was the only thing we knew prior to 1965 – if there had been no Chinese revolutions (1911 and 1949), no Indonesian revolution and no Indian national movement.
What inspired Chinese Singaporeans in the 1950s, for instance, was the victory of the Chinese communists in 1949.
The so called inspiration the Chinese Singaporeans had which Janadas refers to, happens to be the violence spread by an extreme group. This includes riots in the 1950s led by Lim Chin Siong in Singapore and even a guerrilla warfare led by Chin Peng in then Malaya. Many lives were killed and public property destroyed. How that can be “inspiration” for Chinese Singaporeans is bizarre to say the least. Let alone Janadas’ claim that this is what shaped Singapore!
Here is one of my past posts that highlights such violence - History of the violence the ‘Communist and Marxist’ Left keeps away from you
What “inspiration”, when the revolution these Chinese Singaporeans had in mind was actually the perpetuation and endorsement of violence?
Interestingly, it was this same “inspiration” that got the then Brit govt in 1963 so worried, they had to form an alliance with the Tunku and LKY to have Lim Chin Siong locked up, so as to facilitate Singapore’s merger with then Malaya. Yes, that’s the infamous Operation Coldstore.
Janadas, the PAPpy supporter fails to highlight that dark episode and tries to whitewash it as “inspiration”?
3:15 min – Brit gave Malaya independence, but not Singapore. It was LKY who campaigned for merger, while Tunku was very reluctant.
6:25 min - Deal reached among three parties. Brit govt, Tunku and LKY agreed that Leftists get locked up BEFORE the merger. This was 1963. That’s the infamous Op Coldstore we’ve been talking about.
So did the Chinese revolution help shape Singapore as what we are today? Is Janadas trying to say that we are now a Socialist nation or is he saying that we are now a nation that locks people up without trial? And what inspiration of Chinese in Singapore, as a result of China’s revolution, is this PAPpy supporter muttering about?
3. Mistaking Indonesia as a source of Malay inspiration -
I can’t understand why a so called analyst with such academic qualification can make this mistake. The Indonesians never like to be referred to as “Malays” the way a Singapore Malay or Malaysian Malay is comfortable to be linked with. Indonesians have their own ethnic culture and practices and they are proud of it.
To link Indonesians as Malay is akin to linking a mainland Chinese as “Taiwanese” or “Hongkonger”. Try to tell a mainlander that his roots are either Taiwan or Hongkong and see what you get.
Extract from Janadas’ article.
The political consciousness of Malays and Indians in Singapore was also formed in strikingly intimate ways by events in Indonesia and India, respectively.
Let’s put Janadas’ above naive and amateurish mistake aside.
Let’s talk about another more serious and glaring mistake – ie the so called political consciousness caused by “events in Indonesia during that period” is actually the Konfrantasi. Again, Janadas got his analysis wrong.
The merger of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963 was not well taken by Philippines and Indonesia because it was seen as an expansionist plan by the Tunku. During the Konfrantasi, Singapore, being part of merged Malaysia, was attacked. How that can be “inspiration” as what Janadas tries to claim is beyond me.
Unless he is saying that the Malays are being inspired to be like Mas Selamat, who the govt claims has intention to attack Singapore again (like during the Kontanfrasi Period). That would surely be a death nail to his job. But since he’s still around bootlicking and supporting PAPpy ideas, let’s just assume that he made a very schoolboyish mistake in his analysis.
4. Other myths -
There are so many myths perpetuated in Janadas’ article, the server would crash if I wrote about them all. So here’s just a quick non-detailed one. The claims include we are a meritocratic society, our policies are race blind, and that we are a melting pot. I have also refuted such claims and discussed such points in past posts. Some of them here:
- PAP’s Racist MT Policy, Part 1 – The Sidelining of other Races and Cultures
- Racist HDB Quota Policy begins to show its Effect
- Heng Swee Keat avoids answering racially sensitive question on SAP
It is quite easy to spot the typical PAPpy type article. It repeats ad nauseam all the old stale stories, even when it is obvious that those points are either only half-truths, or even totally ridiculous.
* The writer blogs at http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/-->>>>>>>>>> TO HELP ME, COMPLETE THESE STATEMENTS, THANKS: http://roberthorequestforstatements.blogspot.com/My wife, an accountant, then a manager in an MNC drawing a 5-figure salary before she retired, can confirm that I write the Truth in all these. <<<<<<<<<<RH: LKY LHL WKS ELECTION RIGGINGS EMAILED TO ALMOST ENTIRE GOVT:
ME ON VIDEO DESCRIBING lky lhl wks NUMEROUS ELECTION RIGGINGS + PoBoB and CCTV Ideas:
MY ACQUAINTANCE, MR DAVID DUCLOS, A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR, AND HIS LAWYER FRIEND, EYEWITNESSED LEE KUAN YEW RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC ELECTION. READ MORE AT MY BLOG ENTITLED "I CAME, I SAW, I SOLVED IT" :http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/
MY ONLINE POLICE REPORT ON LKY LHL WKS CHEATING ELECTIONS:
a. MY SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 16 JULY 2010:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2010/07/my-sworn-affidavit-of-16-july-2010.htmlb. SWORN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT:c. SOME LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH I GROUND MY CASE:d. THE PATTERN OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOINGS THAT PROVES MY CASE;e. 3rd EMAIL TO UK PM FOR OBSTRUCTING, PERVERTING JUSTICE:LEE Kuan Yew, LEE Hsien Loong, Tony TAN, HO Ching corruptions and theft of billions:
"I CAN CHANGE THE WORLD BUT I AM NOT ALLOWED TO, FOR REASONS TOO STUPID AND RIDICULOUS TO STATE."