According to the late Dr Lee Siew Choh, the historical facts
have been twisted, and knowing his days are coming to an
end, he had feverishly written his memoirs as a response to
LKY's memoirs, so as to set the record straight for the sake of
future generations.
Unfortunately, after he died, his brother-in-law {selected
to manage and sat on the Boards of Directors of several
GLCs} persuaded Dr Lee's wife to drop the idea to publish the
memoir, so as to avoid any complications
- {a.k.a litigations} - that may arise from its
publication.
It is interesting to read Dr Lee's views with regards to the
events around the Referendum:
DR LEE SIEW
CHOH:
"That’s the PAP’s version of history"
I REFER to the letter "S'pore story based on
facts and documents" (ST, May 28) by Mr Mohamad Maidin Packer Mohd,
Parliamentary Secretary (Education).
He has given the PAP version of what
happened. I wish to add mine in support of Mr Gopal Baratham on the
issue of "objective truth", "based on facts and documents".
Contrary to Mr Mohamad Maidin's claim, the referendum on Sept 1,
1962, may be said to be something which the PAP Government would
like to forget.
The reasons for saying so are simple. The
three questions in the National Referendum gave voters no
opportunity to express their wishes with a simple answer of "Yes"
or "No" as is normally the case in fair democratic referendums. The
1962 referendum was thus unfair and undemocratic.
Moreover, the important questions were all
posed by the ruling PAP alone with no consultation of opposition
parties.
To say now that since all political parties
agreed in principle to the merger, and that therefore the three
alternatives of the merger were put to the voters without the need
to pose the questions requiring a "Yes" or "No" answer, is like
saying that since all parties, not the people, agree to take fruit
in principle, therefore three alternatives of a rotten apple, a
rotten pear and a rotten orange are given to the voters to choose
without the need to ask whether or not they wish to take
fruit.
In the 1962 referendum, three questions were
put to the people. Voting was compulsory. Thus voters were
compelled by law to vote for one of the three questions.
* Alternative
A: This
represented the PAP's White Paper merger proposals. The proposals
were debated thoroughly in the then Legislative Assembly. The press
carried the debate fully.
The opposition parties pointed out that the
PAP merger proposals were unequal, unfair and undemocratic, and
that they made Singapore citizens into second-class citizens of the
proposed Malaysia Federation. The Barisan Sosialis pointed out that
the proposals would lead to national disunity and racial strife.
These proved to be true in subsequent events.
* Alternative
B:
According to PAP's propaganda, this was supposed to represent the
Barisan's so-called Penang-type full and complete merger, and this
would disenfranchise about 310,000 to 340,000 Singapore citizens on
merger.
This was a gross distortion of Barisan's
stand, which was that Singapore citizens would automatically become
Federal citizens on merger. There would be no loss of citizenship
for Singapore citizens. The Barisan position was in total contrast
to that of the PAP, whose merger proposals would make Singapore
citizens second-class citizens of the Malaysia
Federation.
In spite of Barisan Sosialis' repeated
denials, the PAP continued to distort the Barisan's stand on
merger, and resorted to the Geobbel-tricks of constant repetition
of the distorted Barisan stand through the radio and the press to
confuse and mislead voters on the Barisan position on the one hand,
and to influence voters into supporting the PAP merger on the
other.
No such so-called Penang-type merger was
debated in the Legislative Assembly.
* Alternative
C: This
was supposed to represent terms no less favourable than terms for
the Borneo Territories (that is, Sarawak and British North Borneo,
now called Sabah).
But no one, not even the PAP, knew what those
terms were. In fact, those terms were not made known until some
time well after the referendum was held in Singapore.
Thus voters were asked to vote for something
which was totally unknown to them.
From this brief factual history, it can be
seen that the 1962 referendum was a most dishonest referendum. And
it was criticised severely by the United Nations Committee of
17.
An honest referendum would be one in which
only one proposal that had been well debated, (for example, the PAP
White Paper merger) was put to the voters requiring only a simple
answer of "Yes" or "No". This was what the PAP was not prepared to
do in 1962. How should we describe such a referendum?
The Barisan Sosialis opposition called it a
sham referendum. The late Mr David Marshall called it a most
dishonest referendum.
As for the blank votes, it was clear that the
special Section 29 of the Referendum Law was intended to allow the
PAP, with its majority in the Legislative Assembly, to decide as it
pleased with the blank votes.
If the PAP Alternative A had only 25 per cent
of the votes, and 75 per cent were blank votes, without a doubt, it
would have no hesitation to count the blank votes for PAP's
Alternative A.
As events turned out, on Sept 1, 71 per cent
voted for Alternative A and only 25 per cent cast blank
votes.
In the circumstances, which had surprised
even the PAP, the PAP Government "acted openly, responsibly and
constitutionally" and did not claim the blank votes as "votes for
Alternative A". However, with already a clear majority of votes for
Alternative A, the 25 per cent blank votes were no longer of any
consequence.
The offer to allocate the blank votes
according to the wishes of the opposition smacked somewhat of PAP
self-satisfaction and a crude attempt to mock and poke fun at the
opposition. Naturally, the Barisan rejected this offer and walked
out of the Legislative Assembly.
-- The
writer was the last secretary-general of the Barisan Sosialis, a
communist organisation.
First
published in The Straits Times, June 3, 1997
http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/headline/yakref2.html
