Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

SA Communist Party ideologies have shaped and are shaping the country we see today – BizNews

The intriguing article below delves into the detail of the South African Communist Party and how its ideologies have shaped the South Africa we know today. Although there are many negative connotations associated to communism, the South African Communist party has done a lot of good in its more than a hundred year history. The party cut across racial and social divide from its inception and are in many ways a political force in which the ANC can look up to and admire. Justin Rowe-Roberts

By Tom Lodge*

Until recently, just living to a 100 was an achievement worth celebrating for itself. In England new centenarians receive a special card from their queen. Perhaps the same convention is maintained in South Africa and its Communist Partys 300 000 or so members can expect a birthday message from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on their centenary. Or maybe not.

In any case, they have more to celebrate than their partys extreme old age, though under often tough conditions survival itself is an achievement. Next to the 109-year old governing African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party is the second oldest political organisation in Africa. But, South African communists did more than outlive their rivals and opponents. They can make reasonable claims to have shaped South African history, as Ive outlined in my book, Red Road to Freedom: A History of the South African Communist Party 1921-2021.

In which ways did they do this?

And is it just history, though, that the party will be celebrating? What about today?

First, they initiated political solidarities that cut across South Africas racial and social cleavages. They began doing this from the partys formation in 1921 when it began recruiting black South Africans. Ten years later there were black people leading the party and joining it in thousands. This was in an era when most forms of social life were racially segregated, by custom if not by law. From 1948 apartheid would restrict any interracial contact still further. But, such confinements were fairly extensive well before then.

The partys commitment to cross-racial politics wavered now and then but, even so, it supplied real world evidence that black and white South Africans could share political goals and work towards them together. In the early 1930s, the first white communists were convicted and served prison sentences for sedition, that is for attempting to mobilise black followers.

Today in South Africa communists can take a considerable portion of the credit for the extent to which the countrys politics is nonracial.

Secondly, modern South Africa has one of the strongest labour movements in the developing world, a movement that still shapes government policy. Its historical gestation is a complicated story. Communists were not the only labour pioneers.

But in the 1930s and 1940s people like recently disembarked Lithuanian immigrant, Ray Alexander, assembled industrial unions that would constitute enduring foundations for what was to follow. Some of todays most powerful trade unions can trace their genealogy back to her efforts.

Communists in the 1940s such as the Port Elizabeth dry cleaning worker Raymond Mhlaba worked out a strategy of alliances beginning with community protests to support strike movements. This coalition between labour leaders and community activists would persist through the next five decades, helping to enable national liberation in 1994.

In fact, at a local level trade unionists often were community leaders in the 1940s, as well as belonging to the Communist party. In the places in which they were busiest, in New Brighton outside Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape, for example, or in the townships exclusively black residential areas dispersed along the East Rand, or in Cape Towns Langa, these leaders and their activist communist following in the 1950s after the partys prohibition continued to organise and mobilise.

It was no coincidence that the ANC had the most entrenched and systematic presence in the 1950s in the localities in which communists were best organised in the 1940s. In short, the Decade of Defiance, the ten years or so of mass action against apartheid in the 1950s, was incubated in party networks.

There are many other ways in which the party stamped its historic imprint. If the ANCs armed struggle against apartheid minority rule was decisive, and it was certainly important in inspiring other kinds of political action during the 1980s, then communists supplied most of the key members of its general staff and as well many field unit commanders.

Then from the 1920s onwards through its night-schools and other training facilities, the party educated successive echelons of South Africas political leadership. That the ANC today in its internal discourses still uses the jargon and phraseology employed by the partys commissars in the Angolan training camps 40 years ago is testimony to their enduring effectiveness as educators. Indeed, the concept of national democracy that the ANC uses to describe the kind of social order it is trying to build, itself derives from a Communist notion of a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism developed in Eastern Europe after the Second World War.

A final example of the partys pioneering role in shifting political norms: earlier than any other South African political movement, the Communist Party brought women into leadership. The pioneers whom the Party should be recalling on its birthday include key women: Rebecca Bunting , Josie Mpama, Molly Wolton, Dora Tamana, Betty du Toit and Ruth First.

The Communist Party is in a tripartite governing alliance with the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the labour federation.

Communists have held important positions in ANC governments for nearly 30 years. For example, in Cyril Ramaphosas first cabinet communists were appointed to a number of ministerial portfolios, including Trade and Industry and Higher Education. Former communists have held other key positions, including the presidency itself as well as the Finance Ministry.

Party leaders can count their membership in hundreds of thousands. But are they still shaping history?

South African communists argue that their participation in government makes a real difference, reinforcing its commitment to public employment programmes, to re-industrialisation, to better foreign trade policies, and increased financial aid for students.

But they also concede that much of their effort is undone by political corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency, and that they have failed to shift the governments neo-liberal macroeconomic policies significantly. They would prefer more market regulation and more support and protection for local industry. They dislike the extent to which public services are contracted out to private firms.

They do suggest that they play a role in limiting public venality. This may be true though initially they helped to defend President Jacob Zuma against his critics as well as contributing to his victory to become ANC president at its 2007 conference, and subsequently the head of state.

With such a large signed-up following youd think Communists would constitute a powerful grouping within the ANC and in the wider political domain. But does their membership really matter?

The partys following doesnt constitute a disciplined electoral bloc, either within the ANCs own internal voting procedures nor in national or municipal polls. Nor is it a membership that draws solidarity from its participation in manufacturing in the classic Marxian sense. The largest social group from whom the party recruits is young unemployed people, a group that keeps growing.

The partys present strategic purpose is about building capacity for socialism. This includes promoting local industry and strengthening the provision of public services.

In following this course, it is fair to say that its present challenges are as formidable as anything it has confronted in the past. Global markets make it very difficult to rebuild declining industries anywhere, but particularly in a country in which workers have rights and as a consequence are comparatively well paid.

South Africas earlier industrialisation happened under a forced labour regime. Then, arguably, South Africas developmental trajectory its history was on the partys side, building an increasingly skilled industrial workforce. But industrial employment has stagnated or declined. Under such conditions constructing a unified political base is so much more difficult. Under modern conditions hopes and faith have to replace old certainties.

Read also:

(Visited 508 times, 508 visits today)

Read more:
SA Communist Party ideologies have shaped and are shaping the country we see today - BizNews

Communism | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and …

Bob Fitch photography archive, Stanford University Libraries

In the Cold War climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the threat of communism galvanized public attention. In 1953 Martin Luther King called communismone of the most important issues of our day (Papers 6:146). As King rose to prominence he frequently had to defend himself against allegations of being a Communist, though his view thatCommunism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible did not change (King, Strength, 93). Although sympathetic to communisms core concern with social justice, King complained that with itscold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, communism provides no place for God or Christ (Strength, 94).

King first studied communism on his own while a student at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1949. In his 1958 memoir, he reported that although he rejected communisms central tenets, he was sympathetic to Marxs critique of capitalism, finding thegulf between superfluous wealth and abject povertythat existed in the United States morally wrong (Stride, 94). Writing his future wife, Coretta Scott, during the first summer of their relationship, he told her that he wasmore socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic. And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits(Papers 6:123; 125).

King began preaching onCommunisms Challenge to Christianityin 1952, repeating sermons on the same theme throughout his career and including one as a chapter in his 1963 volume of sermons, Strength to Love. Communisms presence demandedsober discussion,he preached, becauseCommunism is the only serious rival to Christianity(Strength, 93). King critiqued communisms ethical relativism, which allowed evil and destructive means to justify an idealistic end. Communism, wrote King,robs man of that quality which makes him man,that is, being achild of God(Strength, 95).

Despite Kings consistent rejection of communism, in 1962 his associations with a few alleged Communists prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to launch an investigation into his alleged links with the Communist Party. In 1976 the U.S. Senate committee reviewing the FBIs investigation of King noted:We have seen no evidence establishing that either of those Advisers attempted to exploit the civil rights movement to carry out the plans of the Communist Party(Senate Select Committee, Book III, 85). From wiretaps initiated in 1963, the FBI fed controversial information to the White House and offered it tofriendlyreporters in an effort to discredit King. In 1964 King told an audience in Jackson, Mississippi, he wassick and tired of people saying this movement has been infiltrated by Communists There are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida(Herbers,Rights Workers).

In 1963 King bowed to the wishes of the Kennedy administration and fired SCLC employee Jack ODell after the FBI alleged that he was a Communist. King also agreed to cease direct communication with his friend and closest white advisor, Stanley Levison, although he eventually resumed contact with him in March 1965. FBI surveillance and bugs tracked Kings political associations and produced evidence of Kings extramarital sexual activitiesinformation that was later leaked to some reporters.

In 1965 King faced questions from journalists on Meet the Press about his association with Tennessees Highlander Folk School, which had been branded aCommunist training schoolon billboards that appeared throughout Alabama during the Selma to Montgomery March and showed King attending a Highlander workshop. King defended the school, saying that it was not Communist and noted thatgreat Americans such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Reinhold Niebuhr, Harry Golden, and many othershad supported the school (King, 28 March 1965).

Kings position on the war against Communists in northern Vietnam, like his overall position on communism, was rooted in his Christian belief in brotherhood. Indeed, in the summer of 1965 the press reported Kings off-the-cuff remarks to a Southern Christian Leadership Conference rally in Virginia:Were not going to defeat Communism with bombs and guns and gases We must work this out in the framework of our democracy(Dr. King Declares). In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? King decried Americas morbid fear of Communism,arguing that it prevented people from embracing arevolutionary spirit and declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism, and militarism(King, Where, 190).

Link:
Communism | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and ...

Socialism and Mamatha Banerjee, Tamil couple who went viral, tie the knot in presence of Communism, Leninism – Hindustan Times

The marriage between Socialism and Mamatha Banerjee was called by many a match made in heaven as the Tamil couple's wedding announcement went viral last week. On Sunday, the couple finally tied the knot in Tamil Nadu's Salem district, news agency ANI reported, with the wedding ceremony being attended by Socialism's siblings Communism and Leninism. Communist Party of India (CPI) president R Mutharasan was also present at the wedding event in Panaimarathupatti, added the news agency ANI. What's more, Leninism's son, named Marxism, was also in attendance at the wedding, reported ANI.

Socialism, Communism, and Leninism are all the progeny of A. Mohan, a CPI district secretary. The kids were born during the fall of the Soviet Union, but were so named by their father to signify that there is "no end to communism as long as the human race lives on." Socialism is the youngest, while Communism the eldest. Pictures of the wedding invitation, embossed with hammer-and-sickle emblems, between Socialism and a woman named Mamatha Banerjee went viral last week. The bride is named after the West Bengal chief minister, who incidentally led to the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s downfall in the state. The match for irony couldn't have been better.

Mohan said that there was nothing unusual about his sons' names -- some of his "comrades" gave their children names such as Moscow, Russia, Vietnam and Czechoslovakia. But he admitted that his boys, especially Communism, were sometimes teased at school. One hospital refused to admit Communism when he was three years old.

The telephone numbers of the Tamil couple were printed on the wedding invite, and this prompted many netizens to shower blessings on the wedding duo, ANI reported, adding a bunch of reactions from the Twitter hivemind who revelled at this fated match. "Well... from communism to socialism, that's a welcome change lol:)," a Twitterati was quoted as saying.

(With inputs from agencies)

Go here to read the rest:
Socialism and Mamatha Banerjee, Tamil couple who went viral, tie the knot in presence of Communism, Leninism - Hindustan Times

As Chinas Communist Party turns 100, a look at 10 events in the last century that marked the CCP – Firstpost

From elementary school essay competitions to patriotic films to an unending parade of speeches, banners, and news headlines, China is in the midst of celebrating the CCP's 100-year anniversary

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is all setfor a patriotic extravaganza to celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding on 1 July. Since the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China in 1949, the CCP has been in sole control of that countrys government.

With its centenarian celebrations looming, party leaders are pulling out all the stops to celebrate the party's founding 100 years ago.From elementary school essay competitions to patriotic films to an unending parade of speeches, banners, and news headlines, China is in the midst of celebrating the CCP's 100-year anniversary.

The Communist Party of China has more than 91 million members, according to the official Xinhua news agency many of them grassroots cadres and ordinary civil servants.

The CCP was founded as both a political party and a revolutionary movement in 1921 by revolutionaries such as Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu. Those two men and others had come out of the May Fourth Movement (1919) and had turned to Marxism after the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Revolution of 1917. In the turmoil of 1920s China, CCP members such as Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, and Li Lisan began organizing labour unions in the cities.

It is a monolithic, monopolistic party that dominates the political life of China. It is the major policy-making body in China and oversees the central, provincial, and local organs of government to carry out those policies.

Let's take a lookat 10defining momentsfor the party in the last century.

1.May Fourth Movement

The party's journey started in 1921 when CCP was formed. China at that time was driven by feuding warlords, deeply mired in poverty, and powerless on the international stage. The Republic of China was established in 1912, but its government was weak and largely unable to solve China's problems, as noted byAxios.

However, in reality, there was awar between regional warlords and militias,who claimed independence from the national government and sought to serve their own needs.

On 4 May, 1919, thousands of students rallied in Beijing for a demonstration against the national government.

In what is now called the May Fourth Movement,on 4 May, 19191,more than 3,000 students from 13 colleges in Beijing held a mass demonstration against the decision of the Versailles Peace Conference, which drew up the treaty officially ending World War I, to transfer the former German concessions in Shandong province to Japan.

The Chinese governments acquiescence to the decision so enraged the students that they burned the house of the minister of communications and assaulted Chinas minister to Japan, both pro-Japanese officials. Over the following weeks, demonstrations occurred throughout the country; several students died or were wounded in these incidents.

2. Great Leap Forward

A decade after the Communist party took power in 1949, one of the largest manmade disasters in history struck an already impoverished land. In an unremarkable city in central Henan province, more than a million people one in eight were wiped out by starvation and brutality over three short years, as per The Guardian.

The ironically titled "Great Leap Forward",a five-year economic plan, was supposed to be the culmination of Mao Zedongs program for transforming China into a Communist paradise.

The campaign was undertaken by the Chinese communists between 1958 and early 1960 to organize its vast population, especially in large-scale rural communes, to meet Chinas industrial and agricultural problems.

As per the BBC, the drive produced an economic breakdown and was abandoned after two years. Disruption to agriculture is blamed for the deaths by starvation of millions of people following poor harvests.

3. Tibet's incorporation

Tibets incorporation into the Peoples Republic of China began in 1950 and has remained a highly charged and controversial issue, both within Tibet and worldwide. Many Tibetans (especially those outside China) consider Chinas action to be an invasion of a sovereign country, and the continued Chinese presence in Tibet is deemed an occupation by a foreign power.

In 1950, Chinese troops entered Tibet, and a year later, the Chinese government formally gained control over the region and its devoutly Buddhist Tibetans. The Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959, to India, following a failed uprising against Chinese rule.

The Dalai Lama and the exiled government, also known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), has proposed what they call a "middle way" approach that would allow the exiled Tibetans to return to China on the condition of "genuine autonomy" for Tibet, though not full independence.

In 2008, anti-China protests escalated into the worst violence Tibet had seen, just five months before Beijing was to host the Olympic Games. Pro-Tibet activists in several countries focussed world attention on the region by disrupting the progress of the Olympic torch relay.

However, since 2010, the CCPhas rebuffed attempts by the CTA to reopen dialogue and maintains that the Dalai Lama is a separatist.

4. Cultural Revolution

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a decade-long period of political and social chaos caused by Mao Zedongs bid to use the Chinese masses to reassert his control over the Communist party.

Fearing that China would develop along the lines of the Soviet model and concerned about his own place in history, Mao threw Chinas cities into turmoil in a monumental effort to reverse the historic processes underway.

In response to Maos admonishments, the Red Guard Movement was formed. The Red Guards was a mass student-led paramilitary social movement mobilized. While they sought to reinforce the Maoist standards of Communism, they were largely undisciplined and caused violence among those they saw as capitalists.

They formed under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1966 in order to help party chairman Mao Zedong combat revisionist authoritiesi.e., those party leaders Mao considered as being insufficiently revolutionary

The Revolution marked Mao's return to the central position of power in China after a period of less radical leadership to recover from the failures of the Great Leap Forward, which contributed to the Great Chinese Famine only five years prior.

The Cultural Revolution lasted for at least 10 years up until Maos death in 1976.

5.Rise of Deng Xiaoping

By orchestrating Chinas transition to a market economy, Deng Xiaoping left a lasting legacy on China and the world. After becoming the leader of the Communist Party of China in 1978, following Mao Zedongs death two years earlier, Deng launched a program of reform that ultimately saw China become the worlds largest economy in terms of its purchasing power in 2014, according to The Conversation.

Xiaoping was one of the most powerful figures in the Peoples Republic of China from the late 1970s until his death in 1997. He abandoned many orthodox communist doctrines and attempted to incorporate elements of the free-enterprise system and other reforms into the Chinese economy.

Under him, China undertook far-reaching economic reforms. The government imposed a one-child policy in an effort to curb population growth.With the "open-door policy", the party also opens the country to foreign investment and encourages development of a market economy and private sector.

6. Tiananmen Square

While Xiaoping hoped to boost the economy and raise living standards by opening up the economy, the move brought with it corruption, while at the same time raising hopes for greater political openness.

In spring 1989, the protests grew, with demands for greater political freedom. In May 1989, nearly a million Chinese, mostly young students, gathered in Tiananmen Square,initially to demand the posthumous rehabilitation of former CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang, who was forced to resign in 1987.

But soon the protestspiraledto demanding greater democracy and call for the resignations of Chinese Communist Party leaders, who were deemed too repressive. For nearly three weeks, the protesters kept up daily vigils.

On June 3 to 4, 1989, however, Chinese troops and security police stormed through Tiananmen Square, firing indiscriminately into the crowds of protesters.

7.SARS virus outbreak

The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), was firstdetected in humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002, with the region still considered a potential zone of its re-emergence. It was considered the first major novel infectious disease to affect the international community in the 21st century,prompting the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare the ailment a worldwide health threat.

8.Bo Xilai scandal

In March 2012,Chongqing Communist Party chief and potential leadership hopeful Bo Xilai is dismissed on the eve of the party's 10-yearly leadership change, in the country's biggest political scandal for years. Bo was considered a likely candidate for promotion to the elite CCP Politburo Standing Committee in 18th Party Congress in 2012.

In the fallout, Bo was removed as the CCP Committee secretary of Chongqing and lost his seat on the Politburo. He was later stripped of all his positions and lost his seat at the National People's Congress and eventually expelled from the party. In 2013, Bo was found guilty of corruption, stripped of all his assets, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is incarcerated at Qincheng Prison.

9. Hong Kong protests

In June, 2019,Chinaunveiled details of its new national security law for Hong Kong, paving the way for the most profound change to the city's way of life since it returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Hong Kong was always meant to have a security law, but could never pass one because italways hotly debated.

The law came into effect at 23:00 local time on 30 June, 2019, an hour before the 23rd anniversary of the city's handover to China from British rule. It gives Beijing the power to shape life in Hong Kong it has never had before.

China's move to impose the law directly on Hong Kong, bypassing the city's legislature, came after a year of sometimes violent anti-government and anti-Beijing protests that mainland and local authorities blame "foreign forces" for fomenting.

At the time of the handover, China promised to allow Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy for 50 years under what is known as the "one country two systems" formula of governance.

Soon after, Hong Kongstarted seeingmonths of anti-government and pro-democracy protests, involving violent clashes with police, against the proposed law, allowing extradition to mainland China.

The last year, 2020,will be forever linked with China. In December 2019, the first cases of a mysterious new pneumonia were detected, prompting Chinese officials to play down the danger and stifle news of the outbreak.

With inputs from agencies

Excerpt from:
As Chinas Communist Party turns 100, a look at 10 events in the last century that marked the CCP - Firstpost

Singapore Revisited (VII): Showdown with the Communists – OPINION – Politicsweb

James Myburgh writes on how LKY clawed back popular support through the battle for merger with Malaya

The previous article in this series described the first few years in office of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the Peoples Action Party (PAP). The article had concluded with the two by-elections in mid-1961 in which it appeared that the bottom was dropping out of the PAPs popular support.

It had lost a substantial chunk of the support of the Chinese-educated when it had expelled the populist non-Communist Ong Eng Guan from the party. Ong had easily defeated the PAP candidate in the by-election held following his resignation as an MP.

The pro-Communists too had withdrawn their support from the PAP in the Anson by-election in July 1961, and again the PAP candidate had gone down to defeat, this time to David Marshall, the Workers Party candidate.

This article describes the final political showdown between the non-Communists and the pro-Communists in the PAP, in the context of Singapores move towards independence through merger with the anti-Communist Malay Federation, and other territories, to form the new state of Malaysia.

I

Most African and Asian nationalist leaders of the 1950s had received Western-style educations in the language of the colonial power, something which distinguished and separated them from the great mass of (traditional) society. In his 1956 book Nationalism in Colonial Africa Thomas Hodgkin noted how the African nationalist leaders of that generation were the products of European schools and universities. They are asserting claims of a kind that have already been asserted by Europeans, around which a European sacred literature has been built up. And they have to state their case in a language that will be intelligible to their European rulers.

As an opposition politician between 1954 and 1959 Lee Kuan Yew fitted this mould. He had eloquently and acerbically presented the case against the British, in English, in the Legislative Assembly. But while he was fluent in both English and Malay, and had tried to learn Mandarin, he could not actually speak the dialect used by the great mass of the Chinese-speaking population of Singapore, namely Hokkien.

In an article in June 1959 the journalist Vernon Bartlett recalled attending a PAP rally in Bukit Timah in March 1956. Lee Kuan Yew spoke brilliantly in English, very effectively in Malay, and so haltingly in Chinese that he had frequently to rally his audience by interrupting himself and shouting merdeka. I can think of no other instance of a Prime Minister who finds it difficult to talk the language of the people he is called upon to govern. It is an obvious handicap although it is a tribute to his ability.[1]

There was only one small upside to the PAPs two disastrous by-election campaigns in April and July 1961. Previously Lee Kuan Yew had had to rely on first Lim Chin Siong and then Ong Eng Guan to mobilise the Chinese-speakers for the PAP. Over these months he finally forced himself to learn how to speak Hokkien. When I started, I was fumbling, awkward, almost comic. But here I was in front of them, suddenly able to express myself fluently in their dialect. I may have been unidiomatic, even ungrammatical, but there was no mistaking my meaning, delivered with vigour, feeling and conviction as I argued, cajoled, warned, and finally moved some of them to go with me.

On 18th July 1961, the leaders of the pro-Communist camp, Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, S Woodhull and James Puthucheary, met with the British Commissioner Lord Selkirk at his Eden Hall residence to ask what the British response would be if Lee Kuan Yews government fell. Selkirk, who regarded Lee with some disdain (a feeling which was reciprocated) said that if this was done in terms of the constitution, he would not interfere in efforts to depose Lee. Selkirks view, as expressed in a despatch to London, was that even if the next Government is much further to the Left or even communist manipulated, we must allow the full democratic processes to work under the Constitution, provided there is no threat to the internal security situation which requires our intervention.[2]

Lee Kuan Yews response was to press the issue and call for a motion of confidence in his government in the Legislative Assembly. In his address he accused Selkirk and the British of trying to engineer a collision between the non-Communist and the pro-Communist left to force the PAP government to instigate the security clampdown that he alleged the British secretly wanted.[3] In reality he was using this opportunity whereby it was the pro-Communists who could be framed as the British stooges to force a split with the pro-Communists.

If the motion were not carried, Lee Kuan Yew told the Assembly, his government would resign, and new elections would be held. In the end the vote early the following morning was passed by 27 votes out of 51. 26 PAP assemblymen voted for it and one opposition MP (CH Koh) did as well. Thirteen PAP assemblymen, along with Ongs group of three, abstained. Eight opposition MPs, including David Marshall, voted against it.[4]

The 13 PAP MPs who had abstained in the motion now joined with Lim, Woodhull and Puthucheary and announced their intention of forming the Barisan Sosialis (Socialist Front) party at the end of July, which they then launched at a mass rally of 10000 people on 14th August 1961.[5] Dr Lee Siew Choh, a non-Communist, became chairman, Lim Chin Siong secretary general, and Fong Swee Suan the organising secretary. PAPs majority in the Legislative Assembly now stood at only 26, though there were eight members of the more conservative SPA on the opposition benches.

While Lee Kuan Yew and what was left of the PAP had narrowly retained their majority, they had miscalculated the actual balance of forces between the pro-Communist and non-Communists within the PAP. The pro-Communist breakaway led to the obliteration of the PAP at branch level. Thity-one out of 51 branches crossed over to the Barisan Socialists, as did 19 out of the 23 branch secretaries appointed by the PAP leadership. The Works Brigade and Peoples Association mutinied and were wrecked from within.

Many of the young Chinese-educated activists that Lee Kuan Yew and his group had carefully screened for any Communist links (with Special Branch help) and whom they had then promoted, turned out to have been Communist moles. The mastermind of the uprising in the PAP branches and PA was, it turned out, none other than Lees parliamentary secretary, Chan Sun Wing.[6]

As Dennis Bloodworth later noted, if the communists were like radioactive dust as Lee Kuan Yew had once described them to him the English-educated leaders of the PAP sadly lacked anything resembling a Geiger counter. How was it that 19 out of 23 organising secretaries of the party had at once defected to the Barisan, along with several other Chinese-educated activists that that Lee and his grouping had appointed to strategic posts, trusting in their non-Communism?

Part of the answer must be, Bloodworth noted, that the communists were professional infiltrators who were not going to be caught out telling a truth. They had carefully studied Lee Kuan Yew and knew how to get around him by telling him what he wanted to hear. For their part, the PAPs English-educated leaders were desperate for Chinese-speaking lieutenants. These events, Bloodworth noted, had revealed the narrow corner into which the English-educated had been driven their dependence on men they could not quite trust to speak for them to men they did not quite understand.[7]

II

In response to these setbacks Lee Kuan Yew and two of his top lieutenants, Ong Pang Boon and Ahmad Ibrahim, took a break from their administrative duties and went into their constituencies to gauge the popular mood over the recent turn of events. This was uncertain but not hostile. There was still everything to play for.

The emergence of the Barisan Sosialis as a communist-dominated opposition and the British acceptance of their legitimacy now drove the merger with Malaya forward. It was widely expected that if there was no merger the PAP would be defeated at the next election and Singapore would then sooner rather than later flip over to the Communist camp. This was not acceptable to the Tunku or to the British government in London.

To restore the PAPs electoral position Lee Kuan Yew also needed to create a perception of the inevitability of merger. As he noted, The Chinese-speaking in Singapore, like the Chinese-speaking everywhere in Southeast Asia, traditionally preferred to sit on the fence until they saw clearly which way the wind was blowing. They would support whoever they perceived to be the winning side.

Lee sought to win public opinion over through a series of twelve radio broadcasts over the course of four weeks in September / October 1961. Versions were recorded and broadcast in Malay, English, and Mandarin. In these he explained the history of the PAPs relationship with the Communist underground and disclosed the secret meetings he had held with The Plen and made the case for why independence through merger with Malaya was an imperative. As he put it:

Everyone knows the reasons why the Federation is important to Singapore. It is the hinterland which produces the rubber and tin that keep our shopwindow going. It is the base that made Singapore the capital city. Without this economic base, Singapore would not survive. Without merger, without a reunification of our two governments and an integration of our two economies, our economic position will slowly and steadily get worse. Your livelihood will get worse.[8]

The Barisan Sosialis sought to undermine the PAP government by stoking industrial unrest and trying to mobilise (unsuccessfully this time) the Chinese middle school students. They were thrown off balance however by the sudden lurch towards merger. Their leaders, including the pro-Communists, were publicly committed to independence through merger. They were thus in the difficult position of trying to head off the move in practice while pretending to be in support of it in principle.

The deal struck by Lee with the Tunku was that while the federal government would take over responsibility for foreign affairs, external defence, and internal security, Singapore would retain significant autonomy in the new federation, including control over labour and education policy. In return it would send only 15 representatives to the federal parliament in Kuala Lumpur, not the 25 to 30 that its population warranted. Singapore citizens would not be allowed to vote in the Malay Federation and vice versa.

In response the Barisan Sosialis called for a full merger with Malaya on the same basis as the territories of Penang and Malacca knowing that this would not be acceptable to the Tunku as this would mean that Chinese voters would outnumber Malays. In a radio forum on 21st September 1961 the Barisan Sosialis chairman, Dr Lee Siew Choh, had reiterated this demand. We are asking for full and complete merger with the Federation with Singapore coming in as the 12th state of the Federation. In this case the citizens of Singapore would automatically become Federal citizens, he claimed.

The PAP representative on the panel, Goh Keng Swee, then dropped a bomb on this proposal. Goh pointed out that only 320000 of 650000 of Singapores electorate were born in Singapore and so could automatically qualify for citizenship under the constitution of the Malay Federation. The Barisan Sosialis proposal would thus, in effect, disenfranchise the other half of the adult population.[9]

In the referendum to be held on 1 September 1962 voters were given three choices: A) endorsing merger on the terms negotiated by Lee Kuan Yew; B) a complete and unconditional merger, as the Barisan Sosialis had called for; and C) an entry into Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those of the Borneo territories.[10] The Barisan Sosialis, Ong Eng Guang and David Marshall called for their supporters to cast blank votes. By this stage Lim had been outplayed tactically by Lee and a sense of inevitability had been created in favour of merger and the fence sitters in the Chinese community were beginning to come down in favour of the PAP. Of the 561 559 votes cast (the electorate was 624 000), alternative A received 397 626 votes, B 9422, and C 7911. 144,077 voters submitted blank votes.[11]

Although the matter had been under discussion for some time, the members of Singapores Internal Security Council could, up until this point, reach no consensus over whether, when and how security action should be taken against the pro-Communists. The Malay government had demanded a security clampdown ahead of merger and Lee Kuan Yew had, under pressure, acquiesced in principle. Lord Selkirk had refused to agree to this, as there was no good reason for it, and a number of the pro-Communists were now leaders of one of the main political parties in Singapore and their arrest without justification would, in my opinion, have serious repercussions for all three Governments concerned and also for Malaysia.[12]

III

The matter would however soon be forced by Indonesian President Sukarnos decision to try and kill Malaysia. Here it is necessary to go back and fill in some of the political background. Articles II and III in this series described the trajectory of Indonesia in the first several years after independence from the Dutch in 1949. In late 1957 President Sukarno had used the still outstanding West Irian question the failure by the Netherlands to hand over West New Guinea as a pretext to justify the dispossession and expulsion of the remaining population of Dutch nationals from that country.

Many Western commentators and diplomats, at the time, took at face value Sukarnos claims and huge sums of ink were expended on discussing the merits of this now largely forgotten issue. If only successive Dutch administrations had been less rigid and more yielding on this matter, the argument went, Dutch nationals in Indonesia would have been left unmolested. Such a view was soon undercut however by the actions taken by Indonesian authorities, led by the army, against the countrys ethnic Chinese minority.

The Chinese were a highly productive and entrepreneurial minority in Indonesia who, despite being banned from owning land, had taken the leading role in retail, commerce, and trade, in Java and elsewhere.

Following the 1949 Hague Agreement about a quarter of the countrys two million ethnic Chinese had chosen to reject Indonesian nationality. With Indonesias decision to switch diplomatic recognition to the victorious Chinese Communist Party government, many Kuomintang-supporting Chinese found themselves in diplomatic limbo, with neither Indonesian citizenship nor a foreign government able to represent their interests.

The precise status of other Chinese also remained uncertain through the 1950s, as the Indonesian government and Chinese Communist Party government negotiated around their status. In terms of a 1955 agreement between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Indonesia, ethnic Chinese would have two years in which to choose which citizenship to take. The dilemma was a familiar one to many other ethnically alien minorities following independence.

If they did not take citizenship of Indonesia, then they were vulnerable to being discriminated against on the ostensible basis that they were non-citizens. But, if they did, then they would no longer have a foreign government able to intercede on their behalf, or a place of sanctuary to which to flee, should the situation become intolerable. With the encouragement of Communist China many ethnic Chinese chose the former rather than the latter option.

It was commonly said in the mid-1950s that in Indonesia the nationalist resentments of the Intellectuals were directed against the Dutch, and those of the masses against the Chinese. As a press report from the late 1950s noted, over the years Chinese traders had penetrated to the remotest village, the most isolated island.

Their shops usually stock household requirements, a wide variety of sundry goods, foodstuffs, even fish and vegetables. Many of them even act as moneylenders to farmers, buying and fixing the prices of their products, even supplying their needs. The same is true in fishing villages along the coasts where they dominate the economic life of the fishermen. The Chinese are not new to rural areas. The majority of them have lived there for generations. They speak the language of the local people and in many ways are part of the rural scene.[13]

In his 1955 reports the journalist Guy Harriott described the Chinese as a universally detested minority. You must remember, he quoted one Indonesian minister as saying to him, that the revolution was for the intellectuals against Dutch political colonialism, but for the masses it was against Chinese economic colonialism, and to that extent the revolution has failed, for the Chinese still hold too many of the purse-strings.[14]

Frantz Fanon noted a similar bifurcation of nationalist sentiment in post-colonial Africa. He wrote that while on the morrow of independence the native bourgeoisie demanded the positions still held by Europeans, those lower down the class hierarchy imitate their leaders by going after the non-nationals with whom they are in more direct competition:

In the Ivory Coast, the anti-Dahoman and anti-Voltaic troubles are in fact racial riots. The Dahoman and Voltaic peoples, who control the greater part of the petty trade, are, once independence is declared, the object of hostile manifestations on the part of the people of the Ivory Coast. From nationalism we have passed to ultra-nationalism, to chauvinism, and finally to racism. These foreigners are called on to leave; their shops are burned, their street stalls are wrecked, and in fact the government of the Ivory Coast commands them to go, thus giving their nationals satisfaction.

The economic turmoil in Indonesia that followed the expulsion of the Dutch in late 1957 was not the cautionary economic lesson that might have been expected. Indeed, it only seems to have served to further inflame the resentments, and whet the appetites, of Indonesian racial nationalists.

With the Dutch gone and all constitutional restraints effectively obliterated the Chinese now came into their sights. In 1958 AJ Muaja published a pamphlet titled the Chinese problem in Indonesia. This described the biggest problem facing the country as the hold by that minority on the countrys economy. The Indonesian government had only recently awoken to the danger posed by Chinese predominance in commerce and trade, he wrote, and restrictive measures would soon need to be taken.[15]

Pro-Kuomintang Chinese were the softest targets within that population, and the axe fell on them first. The Indonesian government alleged that Taipei had supported the rebellions in Sumatra and the Celebes. This then became the pretext to act against their nationals across the country. In September 1958, a number of Chinese organisations were banned. Then, on 16 October 1958, the Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Nasution issued an order placing under government control all schools, business enterprises, estates, industries, insurance companies, shipping and mining firms partially or wholly owned by Chinese not citizens of countries having diplomatic relations with Indonesia. The Ministry of Education was to take over the schools and the business enterprises were to be seized and their assets placed under government control. This move, the UPI noted in its report from Jakarta, placed the affected enterprises on virtually the same footing as Dutch firms whose seizure began last December.[16]

The following day official teams were sent into these firms and schools. Military co-ordinators would run the organisations under martial law.[17] This move was followed up by further restrictions on Chinese schooling and the freedom of movement of aliens.

If the Chinese Communist government thought that its close relationship with Sukarnos regime would serve to protect its citizens, they would soon be disabused of this notion. Once again, the ever-worsening economic crisis facing the country also failed to stay the governments hand. An article by a Special Correspondent in The Straits Times on 14th July 1959 reported that This basically rich and resilient economy is in a pitiful mess... The currency is weak at the knees and growing weaker. On the official market the pound sterling is worth 84 rupiahs. On the black-market it fetches more than 400 rupiahs. To keep itself solvent the Government is churning out currency... The results, not surprisingly, is fast-rising inflation. A Bandung economist told me that the cost of living there has risen 20 per cent in the past three months. Luxuries like meat and eggs are for us things of the past, he said.[18]

A week later, on 21st July 1959, The Straits Times reported that Chinese businessmen operating in the regional areas of Indonesia had been given until 30th September to submit statements on the disposition of their enterprises, which had been ordered closed by the end of the year. Their two choices were (initially), firstly, to either completely close these enterprises or transfer them to Indonesian ownership; or, secondly, to transfer their shops to the major cities where theyd still be permitted to operate. The Jakarta newspaper Duta Masyarakat justified the ban by saying that Chinese merchants had greedily squeezed Indonesian businessmen for centuries and should be rooted out the economy.[19]

The ethnic Chinese population of Indonesia at this point was two and a half million of whom an estimated one million did not have Indonesian citizenship. The press estimates of the number of those likely to be affected by this ban ranged from 200000 to 500000 people. To avoid alien Chinese businessmen simply transferring ownership of their retail businesses to family members with Indonesian citizenship, government prioritised the takeover by co-operative organisations.[20]

The Indonesian Spectator magazine noted at this time that Many Chinese businessmen holding Red Chinese citizenship and affected by this regulation say they are not Communists. They took out Red Chinese citizenship because Indonesia recognised the Peking regime. Now they say they would prefer to live permanently in Indonesia if they could obtain Indonesian nationality. This does not seem feasible because the Indonesian Government reportedly is not enthusiastic about such a possibility.[21]

The Indonesian government, then enjoying the support of the Soviet Union, disregarded the protests of Communist China at the maltreatment of their citizens. In late 1959 the army began enforcing the expulsion of Chinese traders from rural areas. This attack on the livelihoods ultimately led to an estimated 119000 ethnic Chinese choosing exodus and repatriation to mainland China, a country in which most of them had never set foot before.

A series of two articles in The Straits Times in December 1959 by Dr R. Rajagopal described an Indonesian economy in total crisis.[22] The value of the currency had collapsed, inflation was out of control, retail trade had slumped, industrial output was down, imports of consumer goods had dried up, many industrial plants had folded, or were only operational part time, investment and foreign investment was nil. Government expenditure went to payment of foreign debts ($105m a year) and meeting the costs of a grossly overstaffed civil service (of 2,5 million) and its mammoth army of 220 000.

Rajagopal noted that exports had reached a peak in 1957, Dutch assets having only been seized right at the end of that year, of seven billion rupiahs. This had fallen to 4,2 billion rupiahs in 1958. Since then, the fall had continued further. The projected estimates for 1960 will be far below even the 1958 level since there has been a fall in output in the seized 253 Dutch estates and enterprises which have been placed under army supervision. The ban on Chinese rural traders earlier in the year meanwhile had resulted in the large-scale and ongoing flight of capital into Singapore, Hong Kong and the Malay Federation running into billions of dollars.

IV

One reason Sukarno was able to get away with the systematic ruination of the Indonesian economy was that the Soviet Union and the United States of America were trapped in an ongoing struggle for the loyalties of the new nation, with the focus of the US on securing the Indonesian army for the anti-Communist camp. One US government document described the stakes as follows:

Indonesias large population (sixth ranking in the world), wealth of natural resources, and strategic location constitute a major prize in the East-West struggle. All the major trade routes between the Far East and points west must pass through or near this massive island complex. The loss of Indonesia to the communists would gravely undermine the Free World military position in the Western Pacific.

The Soviets and Indonesian Communist Party (the PKI) had encouraged Sukarnos destructive revolutionary racial nationalism, as it suited their ends, while the Americans had tried to appease it, taking a neutral position on inter alia the dispute over Western New Guinea. The worse the economic conditions in Indonesia became however, the closer it moved to the revolutionary moment, and the greater its dependence on Soviet aid. The PKI which was not in cabinet but had great influence over Sukarno had power but avoided responsibility for the economically destructive policies it had helped initiate.

In 1960 Sukarno now moved towards launching war against the Dutch for control of Western New Guinea. In a meeting at the White House in October 1960 Joseph Luns, the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, warned President Dwight D. Eisenhower that now that Dutch nationals had been ousted, property confiscated, debts repudiated, diplomatic relations terminated there was no instrument left toSukarnoexcept the use of force.

When Eisenhower asked him whether Western New Guinea was not more of an expense to the Dutch than an asset Luns confirmed that this was the case. The Dutch however had a responsibility toward the Papuans, who were a completely different people to the Indonesians, to uphold the same principle of self-determination under which Indonesia itself had become independent.

Luns warned that the only thing which could surely stopSukarnofrom aggressive action would be aUSwarning that it would act against such aggression. The Americans however prevaricated over granting this request.

The US government was divided about what to do. In a memorandum submitted to the new US President John F Kennedy, Secretary of State Dean Rusk argued that the Netherlands should be prevailed upon to withdraw from West New Guinea. The dispute, he argued, has permittedSukarno, as leader of a popular national crusade, to make any challenge to his leadership appear unpatriotic; helped enable the Communists to undermine the conservative influence of Army leaders; and diverted attention from urgent internal problems.[23]

The Central Intelligence Agency meanwhile argued that such appeasement would buy the United States nothing. In a memorandum it argued that Communist ascendancy in Indonesia could not be curbed for as long asSukarnoremained in power. The CIA stated that:

We consider it likely that Indonesias success in this particular instance will set in train the launching of further irredentist ventures Success would be bound to cement relations between Indonesia and theUSSR, which, in addition to throwing the full weight of its political support behind the West Irian campaign, is liberally providing Indonesia with military aid specifically designed to enable her to oust the Dutch from West Irian by force of arms. PresidentSukarnos prestige and power in Indonesia and in Asia as a whole would grow immeasurably since nothing succeeds like success.[24]

Sensing President Kennedys irresoluteness on this and other matters, the Soviet Union now sought to prepare the Indonesians for war with the Netherlands by sending through a huge quantity of armaments along with military advisors. In a memorandum to the Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned in December 1961 that the Soviet Union was making a determined effort to win over Indonesia. The Soviets had wooed the Indonesians by supporting the latters position on West New Guinea and have plied them with massive economic and military aid. Soviet military aid commitments total $840 million A major Soviet objective appears to be the seduction of the one remaining pro-Western element in Indonesia the Army.[25]

In early 1962 Indonesia created an area command for West New Guinea under Major-General Suharto and began infiltrating troops into the territory through dropping paratroopers and landing guerrillas.[26] Faced with an imminent war the US now pressured the Dutch, who would not be able to defend West New Guinea against the Soviets and their Indonesian proxies without American help, into agreeing to a withdrawal in August 1962. The United Nations would take over briefly and then, after a brief transitional period, hand over control to the Indonesians. The Papuans and their right to self-determination were sacrificed like pawns to the demands of a voracious Indonesian imperialism.

V

Although a Soviet-backed war against the Dutch in Western New Guinea had been averted through Americas appeasement of Sukarno, the CIAs warnings from 1961 were soon realised. With West Irian now in the bag Sukarno now sought to keep national frustrations directed against external enemies and the army occupied by challenging and trying to destroy the yet unborn state of Malaysia.

In December 1962 armed rebels had, at the direction of Sheikh Mahmud Azahari, tried to seize power in Brunei in early December with the goal of scuppering Sarawak, North Borneo, and Bruneis merger with Malaya, and establishing an independent state in its stead. The British had had a days warning and were able to secure the airfields from the rebels in time. The revolt was then put down by British and Gurkha troops flown in from the British military bases in Singapore. Lord Selkirk would comment that the revolution came within an inch of being completely successful.

The British suspected at once that this had been with the support of Indonesia as Azahari had spent much time in Jakarta recently and would not have acted without a green light from Sukarno. This was confirmed by Sukarno himself, a week after the revolt, when he called on all Indonesians to support the rebels, saying that those who did not do so were traitors to their own souls.

In a despatch to Prime Minister Harold MacMillan Selkirk commented that Sukarnos words seem to me to echo some of the bouncing threats which we had to listen to from Hitler in the latter thirties, and with the introduction of Russian arms and military preparations for West Irian, he is now a formidable military power who clearly shows signs of wanting to flex his muscles. The following year Antony Head, the British High Commissioner in Malaysia, would describe Sukarno in similar fashion as an unpredictable, mystical demagogue with some resemblance to a minor Hitler.

Azahari had also been seen meeting with Lim Chin Siong in Singapore ahead of the revolt. The Barisan Sosialis now also came out in public support of the rebels. Then, at a rally on 23 December 1962 Lim Chin Siong gave the partys wholehearted support to Indonesia for its pro-revolution stand and said that we are confident that with the support of the newly emergent nations in the world the people of Kalimantan Utara (North Borneo) will soon achieve their national aims.[27] A few days later Lim again supported the rebellion in his New Years message and warned of the turning point in the political development of Malaya leading to the establishment of a Fascist and military dictatorship in the country. The left-wing forces must then make the necessary judgment on the matter.[28]

The tension further escalated after Indonesian Foreign Minister Subandrio announced a policy of confrontation (Konfrontasi) towards the Malay Federation to scupper the incorporation of Sarawak and Sabah into Malaysia (the Sultan of Brunei eventually pulled out of his own accord). Subandrio said such a policy was unavoidable because at present they [the Malaya government] represent themselves as accomplices of neo-colonialists and neo-imperialists, pursuing hostile policy towards Indonesia.[29] Confrontation, as pursued by President Sukarno, would come to encompass the breaking-off of trade relations, the infiltration of bands of guerrillas into North Borneo, the seizure of British and Malaysian assets, the landing of Indonesia troops on the Malay mainland, as well as terrorist actions in Singapore itself. This would all, Dennis Bloodworth noted, heavily compromise the left wing in Singapore.[30]

The Barisan Sosialis actions had created a consensus on the Internal Security Council on the need for action by December 1962, though there were still disputes over its precise scope. Operation Cold Store carried out in early February 1963 resulted in 115 suspected pro-Communists rounded up by the police. These included Lim Chin Siong, S Woodhull, James Puthucheary, Lim Hock Siew, Poh Soo Kai, assistant secretary general, D Puthucheary and Fong Swee Suan.[31] The Barisan Socialist MPs were, on the insistence of Lee Kuan Yew, not detained. In his autobiography Lee noted that this time there were no riots, no bloodshed, no curfews after the arrests. Everybody had expected that there would be a clean-up, and the public understood that the communists had it coming to them.

A document compiled and released by the ISC explaining the rationale for the operation said that before the Brunei revolt Lim Ching Siong had been in regular secret contact with Azahari. It also accused the Communists in the United Front of trying their utmost to prevent the State of Singapore from attaining complete independence through Merger with the Federation of Malaya despite this having been endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the National Referendum.

In an address to the Legislative Assembly on the operation Lee Kuan Yew accused the leaders of the pro-Communist movement, such as Lim, of having made veiled threats of an imminent turn to violent struggle. To us who have known the Communists for so long, and studied their thinking and their methods, the meaning is clear, he commented. They will use constitutional methods as long as these are useful to them. At the same time, they are ready to use more violent methods strikes riots, and, in the last resort, armed insurrection. These considered statements were made by persons of authority in the Communist front movement and were intended to prepare their cadres for stronger action when the time was ripe.[32]

VI

The endorsement of Lee Kuan Yews position in the referendum, and the detention of many of the most able open front leaders, had put the pro-Communists on the back foot. It would take years for the PAP to restore its party structures.

Lee Kuan Yew sought now to rebuild the PAPs popular support ahead of the elections he wanted to hold ahead of merger (then scheduled for 31st August 1963) by going out into the constituencies from November 1962 onwards, on an increasingly frequent basis. The shopkeepers, community leaders and leaders of all (non-Communist) local associations would be mobilised in advance by PAP assemblyman and government officials. I travelled in an open Land Rover, and with a microphone in my hand and loudspeakers fixed to the vehicle, spoke to the crowds that would have gathered and be waiting for me when I made scheduled stops. The government officials who travelled with Lee then followed up on the peoples requests for surfaced roads, drains power, streetlights, standpipes, clinics, schools, community centres. The easier needs they dealt with quickly; the more difficult ones I promised to study and meet if practical.

With the Communist threat which had impelled merger forward now in rapid retreat, the government of the Malay Federation sought to row back on the concessions that had been granted to Lee Kuan Yew in the run up to the referendum. Lee had to fight to ensure that Singapore would retain control over broadcasting and the raising of government revenue, after merger. He also suspected that the Tunku would like to have a more pliable and servile Chinese leader in charge of Singapore (such as Lim Yew Hock), of the kind the UMNO leader was used to dealing with in the Malay Federation. At a meeting in late June 1963, presided over by Malay Federation Minister Khir Johari, the SPA agreed to combine with UMNO, the MCA and the MIC to form the Singapore Alliance, to challenge the PAP at the elections expected later that year.[33]

In his autobiography Lee Kuan Yew wrote that his reception on his constituency tours had initially been frosty or indifferent, but as the population saw him standing up against the unreasonable demands of the government of the Malay Federation popular sentiment started to swing behind him.

Speaking in Hokkien and Mandarin, I had convinced the Chinese that I was not a stooge of the British, that I was fighting for their future. The Malays backed me because they saw me fighting the Chinese communists. The Indians, as a smaller minority, were fearful and therefore reassured to find me completely at home with all races, speaking bazaar Malay and English to them and even a few words of greeting in Tamil. News of how each tour had been more successful than the last spread rapidly by word of mouth in the coffee shops and through the press and television. It generated a groundswell of enthusiasm among the people, especially the shopkeepers and community leaders.

For various reasons the date of merger had been pushed back to 16th September 1963. The Malay Federation government was however stalling on enshrining in the constitution, or official documents, various assurances given to Lee during the final talks on merger held in London in July earlier that year. To force the issue Lee Kuan Yew announced a unilateral declaration of independence on 31st August, and a few days later announced that the Legislative Assembly would be dissolved, and elections held. He privately warned the British that if the Malay Federation did not implement the agreement by nomination day on 12th September, he would fight the election on a platform of seeking a mandate for independence outside of Malaysia. This brinkmanship worked and with prodding from the British the Malay Federation government grudgingly acceded to Lees demands.

In early August at a summit in Manila with the Tunku and President Diosdado Macapagal of the Philippines, President Sukarno had agreed to the formation of Malaysia provided that a UN mission confirmed that it was the will of the people of Sabah and Sarawak. On 14th September the UN Secretary General U Thant, acting on the recommendation of the UN team, confirmed that a sizeable majority of the population of these two Borneo territories wished to join Malaysia.[34] On the 16th of September 1963 Malaysia came into being.

Indonesia rejected these findings however, saying it would not recognise the new state, and signs were put up in the Indonesian capital Jakartas main thoroughfares saying, Crush Malaysia. Following the establishment of Malaysia on the 16th there were two days of rioting in Jakarta in which the Malaysian and British embassies were ransacked, and the latter torched. Houses and cars belonging to British businessmen and diplomats were also attacked. British and Malaysian firms and estates started being seized. Sukarno then announced the halting of all trade with Malaysia and promised to fight and destroy Malaysia.[35]

VII

The date of Singapores elections was announced on the 12th as to be held on 21st September 1963. It was also announced that Singapores 15 members of Parliament in Kuala Lumpur would be drawn from the 51 members elected, in proportion to their partys share of the vote. The main parties were the PAP, the Barisan Sosialis, Ong Eng Guans radical populist United Peoples Party (UPP), and the pro-UMNO Singapore Alliance. The Barisan Sosialis put up posters with pictures of their detained leaders including Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan and others. The PAP meanwhile centred their campaign entirely around Lee Kuan Yew.

In their election manifesto the PAP warned that the Barisan Sosialis hope to win by splitting the 72 percent of non-Communist votes cast in the recent referendum. If this 72 percent could be fragmented between the PAP, the Alliance and others, the Communists hope that the Barisan Sosialis might just slip in. It is, therefore, essential that this non-Communist vote should not be split. If this 72 percent unite solidly behind the PAP, then we can inflict a crippling defeat on the Communists. In a reference to Indonesias policy of confrontation the PAP added that such a victory would also act as a deterrent to foreign anti-Malaysia elements insofar as they harbour the illusion that the anti-Malaysia Barisan Sosialis has considerable support in Singapore.[36]

Immediately following the proclamation of Malaysia on the 16th Dr Lee Siew Choh, the Barisan Sosialis chairman, told a mass rally that his party would continue to oppose the new federation, and that it supported the demands of the people of the Borneo territories for self-determination and independence. Since neo-colonialist Malaysia seeks to frustrate and deny the people their legitimate hopes and aspirations and to prolong colonial domination in South-east Asia, we must continue to oppose neo-colonialist Malaysia. We continue our struggle against colonialism and imperialism in all their forms.[37]

This alignment of the Barisan Sosialis with the Indonesians and their objectives was not a popular one, especially given that the Chinese minority in Indonesia had recently been subjected to severe maltreatment. Devan Nair, whose wife was standing as a PAP candidate on his behalf in the election, pressed this point home in a speech a day or two later. He noted that in Indonesia, Chinese shops are looted and burned, Chinese schools are closed down and Chinese citizens go in fear of their lives. He stated that the Barisan Sosialis would blindly welcome the Indonesians into Singapore and will co-operate with the enemies of our prosperity and our way of life. Dr Lee Siew Choh and his party, he added, appear to think that President Sukarno is a better man than Lee Kuan Yew. We dont think so. We believe that the interests of the people of Singapore are more important than the anti-Chinese and anti-Malaysian policies of the Indonesians.[38]

In a broadcast on Radio Singapore on the eve of the elections Lee Kuan Yew further warned that if the Barisan Sosialis won the election through the splitting of the anti-Communist vote, the Malaysian government would declare an emergency and take over. In this case all the safeguards he had so carefully negotiated would be negated. Such a Communist government, anti-Malaysia as the Barisan Sosialis is, with links taking orders from the Indonesian Communists, will bring calamity on Malaysia.[39]

In a despatch to London ahead of the poll Deputy High Commissioner Philip Moore reported that although the PAP seemed to have the edge, and may well win a majority, the outcome was still highly uncertain. The PAP had governed effectively and well over the past 18 months, but its primary weakness was their lack of party organisation in the constituencies and in particular among the Chinese-speaking members of the electorate, who number 63 per cent.[40]

In the event the PAP secured an unexpectedly large majority. It won 46,9% of the vote and 37 seats to the Barisan Sosialis 33,24% and 13 seats. The UPP won 8,39% with Ong holding onto his seat in the Hong Lim constituency albeit with only 44,5% of the vote to the PAPs 33,3% and the Barisan Sosialis 20,6%. The Singapore Alliance won only 8,4% of the vote down from the 27% its constituent parties had won in 1959. It lost all its seats to the PAP including those previously held by UMNO in predominantly Malay constituencies. The PAP also won back the Anson constituency with Marshall, standing as an independent, receiving only 4,9% of the vote.

1959 elections

1963 elections

Percentage point change

Party

Vote

%

Vote

Go here to read the rest:
Singapore Revisited (VII): Showdown with the Communists - OPINION - Politicsweb