Hock Lee Bus Riots revisited

Not too long ago, Channel News Asia had a documentary "Days of Rage" on the Hock Lee Bus riots of 1955. Pretty much as expected, it was a one sided affair demonizing the Communists while ignoring the fact that the PAP are partners with them then, with Lim Chin Siong being a founding member of the PAP together with Lee Kuan Yew (Lim broke up with Lee's PAP in 1961 to form Barisan Sosialis).

Historian Dr Thum Pingtjin rejected the narrative of the CNA piece; according to him the antagonist is not the Communists, but the Hock Lee management, who repeatedly reneged on their promises to the workers, and directed drivers to drive out over the picket line, resulting in scores of unionists being injured. His interview with TOC can be see here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).

Of particular interest is that Dr Thum refers to the Singapore Parliament Reports to support his version of the events.

Here are some excerpts quoting the words of Lee Kuan Yew (who was the lawyer of the Bus unionists then), pointing to why the Unionists and the Chinese population got so angry :

"... Sir, the Chief Secretary has complained about the attitude of some sections of the Chinese Press in their presentation of the events of the last week. I do not have any complaint. I just wish to record a fact - that we are really living in different worlds: those who read the English Press, those who read the Chinese Press, those who read the Malay Press, and those who read the Indian Press. In the Chinese Press, in the Malay Press and the Indian Press, everyday, was published the evidence presented before the Commission of Inquiry, the evidence of how the workers were cajoled, were coerced, to join the employer's union on recruitment. Evidence was heard of how the employer tried to buy trade union leaders over with rewards, and of all the other disreputable tactics which readers of the English Press were so happily spared... 

...I think the Chief Secretary's very efficient C.I.D. could have told him this - the Chinese-speaking people were talking about the Hock Lee Bus workers. They knew the Hock Lee Bus Company. They knew what was happening, and the thing was before their eyes everyday...

...It was a straight fight between an employer who had decided, the day the union was formed in his company, that he was going to crush it, and who then systematically set out to recruit redundant workers whom he fed at two dollars a day, whom he forced into his own union. He just waited for the time which he knew was coming when wage claims would be made, and an industrial dispute would arise, and either they would go on strike, in which case he would just carry on with his new workers; or he would dismiss them, which was what he did. It was a plain straight fight for survival. That was the basic cause of the bitterness, the hostility, the anger in the dispute... "

Lee's account in that Parliamentary report can be read from columns 200-218.

Empathy in a cold concrete jungle

2014.

Been quite sometime since I last posted anything.

Recently there's quite a commotion over the antics of the Brit Anton Casey who joined the ranks of many other fools in risking reputation, career, life and limb with reckless postings on the pages of his Facebook.

What is even more bewildering than the rank stupidity of Anton is the appeals of William Wan, general secretary of the Singapore Kindness movement for Singaporeans to show kindness and graciousness to that capering cretin.

In his opinion article to the Straits Times he asked Singaporeans to show understanding and empathy to the pompous prick; he compared that arrogant ass's suffering to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he lamented about the herd mentality of the many critics of that insufferable idiot.

I find William's misguided benevolence... deeply disappointing.

---------------------


Commented on the Kindness.sg blog article that is a replica of the ST article, though the comment awaits moderation :

"The bottom 20% of our population struggle on a daily basis with stagnant or negative income growth against back breaking inflation, and the men on our streets face transport and housing woes while having to fight tooth and nail for jobs against foreign workers with families that cost a fraction of we need to sustain ours here. And there are plenty of old and sick that lie forgotten in old folks home and hospices while shunned by our mass media … until the next fundraiser arrives.

So many people in need of empathy and support, and the best story you can come up with is Anton? You can have your compassion for the arrogant lout facing the consequences of his action; for me I’d rather reserve my empathy for folks who deserve it."

SDP's masterful pie splitting - I get the pie, you get the crumbs

Michael Palmer, Speaker of the Parliament and MP of Punggol East has fallen to sexual indiscretion and resigned. After some pressure and much speculation, the PM announced the Punggol East by-election.

And at the sight of this tasty single seat constituency all notions of Opposition solidarity flies out of the window and they all scramble in haste to make a grab to lay their claim. SDP in particular made a gaffe by publicly announcing a shocking offer to WP for their idea of a collaboration for Punggol-East - that the SDP's candidate gets the endorsement and support of the WP, and the Parliamentary seat as well if they win, while the WP get the dubious honor of running the Punggol town council.

Predictably, the WP rejected SDP's offer after careful consideration - they probably spend more time crafting the words of the rejection than actually considering whether there's a glimmer of feasibility in it.

Some parties, however, are not so happy. They seem hang on to a notion that the opposition parties are in a grand alliance alike Malaysia's PKR, that they all should make sacrifices and work towards the noble goal of bringing down the ruling party. WP, by virtue of being the strongest opposition party, got alot of flak for not working with the other parties to avoid a unavoidable multi-cornered fight at Punggol East. 

I was reading this article, which actually attempted to talk some sense into the SDP's proposal. The author tried to explain that the split is actually quite fair - by highlighting that the SDP is know for being outspoken, hence they can contribute by bringing a stronger message in Parliament, while the WP is particular known for their extensive efforts at the ground level, hence they can continue and expand on that by taking over the Punggol East Town council.

I pretty much disagreed with the author - fair splitting is one party doing the splitting and the other party getting to choose from the split portions, not a single party doing the splitting and choosing. More importantly, I feel that while the WP's favoured approach is to work the ground of the constituency, I doubt that they have  a fetish for estate management (ie town council work) - the ground work is a means to an end, which is getting the seat in the Parliament.

In the comments section of the webby above, one of the posters commented : 
"Now if the SDP pushes into a multi-cornered fight, then its overarching goal would be to demonstrate that it will not put up with bullying. (And I'm told, that a few other political parties are backing the SDP up on this.)"

How does WP's refusal to accept SDP's proposal make WP a bully? 

It is the right of SDP and other parties to compete in the PE by-election - did the WP declare somewhere that the other parties cannot take part? Did the WP take any action to negatively impact the other candidates from taking part?

Unlike the general election where there's a broad electoral map to make compromises, this time round there's one and only one battle ground and very little space for concessions to be made over it. If the WP is committed to contesting, there is case to argue that it's possibly pointless to meet up with SDP, opening them to the onus of also consulting other parties and even independent candidates. How then can the pie be split amongst 5+ parties? 

Operation Spectrum - a dark page in Singapore's history?

SingaporeKopi Tok, a blog writing in Singaporean matters, have a posting questioning Alex Au's article  where Au brought up that the Archbishop Chia had written a letter of support for Function 8 (a group of Ex-detainees of the ISA that are fighting for the abolition of the ISA), but was subsequently invited for lunch with DPM Teo. After the session he abruptly asked for the letter to be withdrawn.

I wrote under the comments :

"All these letter and retractions tie back to the ISD's Operation Spectrum in 1987. Function 8 and Alex Au's assertion is that the social workers arrested then was falsely accused of involvement in a Marxist conspiracy.

Amongst those arrested was Vincent Cheng, a full time church worker who was previously studying to be a priest. Catholic Priests issued statements questioning the detentions, and Church services were held for the detainees, leading to the build-up of tension. A meeting was arranged between then PM Lee Kuan Yew and Archbishop Gregory Yong which led to the Church backing down and suspending the priests who issued earlier statements.

Was there a Marxist Conspiracy? So far the consensus seems to be doubtful of such - the few sparse government statements so far have nothing in reply to accusations of torture and ill-treatment to obtain confessions; and even Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, speaking in 2001, declared, “Although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the system.” Indeed there have been repeated calls for the government to unveil their evidence of the Marxist Conspiracy, or to have an independent commission - so far the government have resisted any and all calls for transparency on this matter.

So, if we were to approach this matter from the angle that the detainees of Operation Spectrum might be innocent, is it then far-fetched to see Archbishop Chia write them a letter of support, since it will also mean that the Church have abandoned their own back in 1987?"

In my opinion, the heart of the matter is whether the detainees under Operation Spectrum are guilty as charged or innocent victims. If the detainees are guilty as charged, the Archbishop then should be praised for standing with the government and reining in parties within the church that supports subversive elements out to undermine our society.

However, if the detainees are just innocent social workers, the outlook of the matter changes dramatically - not only would the ISA had been grossly abused, the Church leaders at that time would have abandoned and forsaken their own, because of direct intimidation from the then PM.

Why would the government arrest a handful of social workers in 1987 for nothing? Speculations was that the detainees were open in their support for the Workers Party, and that most of them were English educated professionals and graduates - if they were to stand as candidates for the WP they will be a force to be reckoned with, especially with their ties to the ground as social workers, and ties to the Church, for parties like Vincent Cheng. (In perspective, the GE was called in 1988, and that was the GE where GRCs are introduced. The PAP still lost 1.6% of the total votes as compared to 1984.)

  

-----------------

Looking back at the MHA statement in regards to this matter, it was mentioned that "As part of building trust and understanding and to maintain religious harmony in Singapore, government ministers meet regularly with various religious leaders in Singapore." - we can say that it is a fact Chia had met up with DPM Teo. Interestingly enough, the MHA statement did not challenge Au's sequence of events - i.e. that after Chia have sent his letter, he was summoned to meet DPM Teo.

So with the above perspective - I personally find it believable that DPM have indeed intervened with the current Archbishop Chia, who backed down like Archbishop Gregory Yong did in 1987.

 

To be fair, if the allegations of a Marxist Conspiracy are true, the government are doing themselves a disservice by being so tight lipped. They owe it to the people and to themselves to expose the evidence they have - in a single stroke they would be able to vindicate themselves, instead of leaving the shadow of this matter to fester as a dark page in Singapore's history.

The sentence on Sun Xu - overly harsh, or simply too lenient?

Just read a blog discussing the fate of the infamous Sun Xu.

The author argues that Sun was fined around $11k for what was basically a private message that was exposed. He questions whether the fine is proportionate to the 'crime', and whether there are any real 'victims' to justify a harsh punishment.

My comments which was posted in facebook, and in the comments section of Ben Leong's blog (awaiting moderation - tsk tsk seems like a trend) :

You argue that it’s a 11k fine for a private message. I would argue for another perspective,

The 11k comes from a much larger amount that was given to him by a organization with a code of behavior for recipients of that monetary benefit. He was caught breaking that code of behavior, hence resulting in the said penalty.

It’s the same if an employee is sponsored by a company for an expensive course, but is caught making disparaging comments on the company (e.g. referring to co-workers as dogs?) and the matter escalated to management. It would hardly be shocking for part of the sponsorship to be revoked, and entirely possible that the person be given the sack.

Overly harsh punishment? I don’t think so.

Comment on NSP page

Just made a comment on the NSP homepage in regards of their official response of no response in regards to requests for them to clarify their position on the Hougang by-election.

AC→

March 27, 2012 at 9:43 am #

The choice to not announce NSP’s intentions to dispel/confirm the rumours created by Goh Meng Seng is an action by itself.

As seen from the public reaction, these rumours have affected the image of the NSP. By not actively refuting Goh (if there are no intentions to contest), this lingering doubt festers and further erode the NSP’s credibility to opposition supporters.

Inaction by itself is an action. And as of all actions there is always a price to pay.

The comments are awaiting moderation after 2 days. Maybe non-supportive comments are not welcome to NSP.

*Edit* The Hougang By election came and went. WP won, and NSP did not participate as a spoiler.

Happy Birthday, Singapore

Just heard Kit Chan's Home on the NDP on TV moments ago, and it did bring back memories of me hearing it when overseas and how it made me homesick. I wonder - do we need to be away from Singapore to miss or appreciate our home?

Was reading "National Day must remain a day of pride" on The Online Citizen

I think that sometimes we accuse the government of mixing the state with the PAP, but some of us are guilty of the same by linking the dislike for PAP to the dislike of all things Singaporean.

If we do not have any pride in our country, if we do not have any pride in being a Singaporean, then we have given up completely, and do not have any will to work to improve our nation and our lot in it.

Stand tall, fellow Singaporeans! On this day of all days, let us all wish our country a Happy Birthday!