Separating Myths from Reality


During this time of mass sympathising, I think it is important to keep certain things in perspective.


1. Both Sides of the Historical Narrative

I’ll preface this with a recent comment I saw on Facebook:

“Dear friends, it is important for all of us to hear all sides of Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. ‪#LKY‬ has done many things right but history will record both sides of the narratives.”
(– Hani Mohamed, founder/CEO of Alertist)

I downloaded The Straits Times’ special 24-page edition to mark the life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I have also read several local as well as foreign publications praising LKY’s reign, chiefly for leading the country from a “third world” state to one of economic prosperity.

I noticed one comment on a Politico article which brings some objectivity into remembering LKY’s legacy (comment edited for grammar):

“The worst and inhumane DISRESPECT for anyone who has passed away, is to simply laud only the good things, without noting also the bad things in their lives, and framing all of these in a proper context fitting for this person as a HUMAN BEING, however larger-than-life this person may be. History is for Objective Balance!”
(– Jonathan Li)

It comes as no surprise that a lot of the details from the darker side of Singapore’s history have been left out of the eulogies for LKY. For instance, in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, T.J.S. George writes that “only the PAP possessed weapons with which to fight battles for the people’s minds.” LKY’s techniques in the early 1960s were described as then chairman of the Barisan as “Legal fixing.” (Perhaps that is where PM Lee Hsien Loong got the term “fixing the opposition” from.)

In that same book, LKY is described as applying “the free employment of authoritarian methods to eliminate all opposition,” because in his mind, no one else in Singapore “could be right.” What he achieved was a “one-man party and a one-party state.”

His old comrade-in-arms, Lim Chin Siong, was denied trial or right of appeal and sent to Changi jail for seven years, of which some time was spent in solitary confinement. Political insiders in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur claimed that “Lim was fed drugs which induced depression and self-destructive tendencies” (also mentioned in an Amnesty Report and a political detainee’s account). Let us also not forget Dr. Chia Thye Poh, detained for 32 years and left with poor health, Former Solicitor General Francis Seow, Former Magistrate JB Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong, Tan Wah Piow, Chee Soon Juan, Teo Soh Lung, Dr. Poh Soo Kai, Dr. Lim Hock Siew, and countless others who were repeatedly imprisoned and/or bankrupted for being perceived as a real threat to the PAP’s hold on power.

Even with this knowledge, I found myself semi-enthralled by the halo effect certain mainstream media outlets have granted LKY, by portraying him in a saviour-of-Singapore, saint-like manner.

The thing that snapped me out of my enthrallment were presentations about LKY’s loving and caring side as a father and husband. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a model father and husband, I find it outrageous that this type of portrayal spares no thought for the political detainees/exiles — who had been LKY’s fellow Singaporean citizens — whose entire lives and ties with their family and homeland were majorly disrupted because of one man’s ruthless beliefs and access to state apparatus.


LKY supporters justify his actions by saying that everything he did was for Singapore’s survival, to take it from a “third world to first world country.” He was also a shrewd, clever and pragmatic politician who had to (by his own words) do what was correct. T.J.S. George adds that LKY “seemed convinced from the outset that anyone who opposed him was an enemy of Singapore,” so in that sense, it can be viewed that LKY was “protecting the country” from people he viewed as enemies.

2. For Whose Survival?

LKY may have viewed himself as The Right Man for the job, but that doesn’t mean it was fair to 1) use the law to incarcerate and intimidate opponents because he could, and 2) that it’s correct to explain away such actions as “simply something that had to be done” to ensure the future “success” of Singapore. How can it be guaranteed that any of these political opponents would have been political failures, when none of them were given a chance to prove their mettle and implement their own vision?

Depending on which side you’re on, it wouldn’t be wrong to categorise such actions as cruel, underhanded, and a significant cost to human rights.

Some people might say that concepts like democracy, human rights, and fair play, are too “idealistic” for the arena of politics. Real life just doesn’t work that way, so we, the people, have to just live with it.

The more I study LKY’s (and by extension, the PAP’s) behaviour and actions, the more it seems like certain things were implemented to ensure “the PAP’s survival.” Would a government who truly cares about its citizens have such an aggressive foreign talent policy?

Kenneth Paul Tan, the vice dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said:

“It cannot be just the government leading the way forward. The people have to be as much a part of this, so a new social contract can be forged which can be legitimate to all.”

If one reads between the lines, one could even infer that the current social contract is not “legitimate to all.”

The Straits Times is widely known by discerning Singaporeans as a government mouthpiece.

Presenting a one-sided view of history is dangerous, because if we have knowledge of some of LKY’s past actions and choose to justify those cruel actions as “necessary,” what type of effect does this kind of outlook and behaviour have on the rest of The Cabinet and Government of Singapore, and further down the line, on the mass populace?

It brings to mind Chris Ho’s recent post about the shameless brazenness of the government and how this is creating a more aggressive, callous society at the ground level.

It also brings to mind Alfian Sa’at’s recent poem, on “the other side of the news” that isn’t reported during this time of national mourning.

It breeds an outlook that is desensitised and inhumane — never mind if your fellowmen are suffering, never mind if they are poor, never mind if they can’t seem to get their act together and get ahead in life financially. It’s their fault, life is nothing but a rat race, and “economic prosperity” justifies everything at the end of the day.

It’s up to each of us to decide what matters most at the end of the day, whether “the end justifies all means” is the right type of outlook to take, and whether a lack of compassion in the name of power and economic success are values we aspire to uphold.

Speaking of “economic success,” we should also ask ourselves who chiefly benefits from this much-lauded national prosperity.

3. Separating Myths from Reality

Propaganda can be defined as:

Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
(– Google)

We elect governments officials whom we are made to believe can be trusted in being capable, “incorruptible,” and of integrity to handle the country’s affairs.

No one in their right mind would elect an elite force to spread lies, half-truths, and/or mismanage funds while enriching themselves and their families. It is up to each of us to make a collective, sustained effort to counter propaganda, so that government accountability is not reduced to a piece of fiction or a romantic pipe-dream.

I hope discerning individuals will be able to see through some of these myths that have been built up and propagated over decades, not because we want to “attack” a person or be “haters,” but because of the importance of being able to separate myths from reality.

We owe it to ourselves and future generations to have an accurate version of history, which provides us with a real connection to a reliable, honest past. If we don’t ask tough questions, we risk being brainwashed by state-supervised mainstream media propaganda. Furthermore, we risk being left in a permanently comatose and brain-DEAD state, from decades of propaganda which tells us what is the right story to accept — never mind if it’s really real or not.

Knowledge and awareness aid a society in moving forward. Learning from past errors or wrong-doings prevents the same things from happening again in future or being indefinitely prolonged.

How else could we ever be sure we are progressing in the right direction, if we can’t even tell if we’re standing on a secure enough foundation?

Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew dies at 91



Just read on the news (at 22 March 2015, 5:17PM EST) that LKY has passed away.

1) CNA

2) CNN

3) BBC

4) WSJ

5) TOC / Human Rights Watch

6) Guardian

I will take this chance to point readers to Carlton Tan’s recent article once again:

UPDATE (9:12 PM): “For all our sakes, I hope that Mr Lee’s passing will mark the start of a new era, of Singapore 2.0—a nation without the worst of Mr Lee but with the best of him, a nation that is willing to make its own hard choices.”
(– Carlton Tan)

And Roy Ngerng’s article from a few days ago:

“Only with unity and equality, and justice and fairness, can we see Singapore move towards a brighter possibility, and this also requires Singaporeans to let go of the fear that the idea of Lee Kuan Yew has created, and to be willing to restart our engagement with our country.”
( — Roy Ngerng)

UPDATE (7:18PM): This moment brings up strong feelings in me. It makes me recall Dr. Thum Ping Tjin’s post (from 2014), Mr. Yoong’s post (from 2009), Tan Wah Piow’s (exile in London / 2015) and Chris Ho’s post (2015) which give a glimpse of the darker side of Singapore’s history (re: the Singaporean lives that were utterly ruined, because they committed the crime of having divergent political views from LKY). While I wonder if these issues were on LKY’s mind during his last days, I am not the person/entity to be the final judge on it.

I hope Singaporeans will be able to “stay united” and build upon the good that is there, so that the nation as a country/society evolves in a positive direction in the post-LKY era.


* UPDATE (11:22 AM / 23 March): Mr. Yoong’s balanced and truthful commentary (2015).

As One United People (Part 1)


Let me preface this with the Singapore Pledge (English version):

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

I have listed 10 points here from “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes,” an article by academic professors Marc Morjé Howard and Philip G. Roessler.

Simplified Version: Part 1 (this post) | Part 2

Excerpts Version: Part 1 | Part 2

Original PDF: Link

Part 1 refers to Singapore’s political situation. Part 2 offers a solution.

* * *

PART 1: Singapore’s Political Situation

1. Singapore is classified as a hegemonic authoritarian regime.

Figure 1: Where Singapore is placed on a table showing “five types” of political regimes.


2. A breakdown of these 3 words (defined by Google):

i. Hegemonic: Ruling or dominant in a political or social context.

ii. Authoritarian: Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

iii. Regime: A government, especially an authoritarian one.

3. Hegemonic authoritarian regimes do hold regular elections as part of their system of governance, but in addition to widespread violations of political, civil, and human rights, the elections are not actually competitive.

4. Because no other party, except the ruling one, is allowed to effectively compete (i.e. the opposition is completely shut out from access to state-owned media coverage, banned from holding political rallies, or forced into exile or in jail), the dominant candidate or party wins overwhelmingly, leading to a de facto one-party state.

5. Elections in authoritarian regimes occasionally result in a “liberalizing electoral outcome” (LEO), which often leads to a new government that is considerably less authoritarian than its predecessor.

6. LEO’s provide at least a chance for a new beginning, in terms of a country’s political situation.

7. Democracy involves much more than just elections.

8. Robust civil society, effective and independent legislatures and judiciaries, and a civilianized military are just three of the many factors that are necessary for a genuine democracy.

9. “Hybrid regimes” combine democratic procedures with autocratic practices. They are the most widespread political system globally at the start of the twenty-first century.

10. Singapore was classified as having “No Liberalizing Electoral Outcome Electoral Outcome.”

NOTE: Table 1 below lists Singapore under the “No Liberalizing Electoral Outcome Electoral Outcome” section.


Reference: “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes,” by Marc Morjé Howard and Philip G. Roessler (2006)

* * *


Part 1 refers to the situation. Part 2 offers a solution.

Simplified Version: Part 1 (this post) | Part 2

Excerpts Version: Part 1 | Part 2

Original PDF: Link

Singapore Pledge image at top of post from SG Newspaper.

As One United People (Part 2)


Let me preface this (once again) with the Singapore Pledge (English version):

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

I have listed 10 points here from “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes,” an article by academic professors Marc Morjé Howard and Philip G. Roessler.

Simplified Version: Part 1 | Part 2 (this post)

Excerpts Version: Part 1 | Part 2

Original PDF: Link

Part 1 refers to Singapore’s political situation. Part 2 offers a solution.

* * *

PART 2: A Solution

1. Forming an Opposition Coalition has its purposes. The more divided the opposition parties, the more susceptible they are to governmental manipulation, co-optation, and repression. 

2. A quick definition of a couple of words (by The Free Dictionary):

i. Co-opt: To assimilate or win over into a larger group.

i. Coalition: An alliance or union between groups, factions, or parties, especially for a temporary and specific reason

3. What is important is the ability of opposition leaders to work together, in order to form a strategic coalition (whether formal or informal) for the specific goal of winning an election.

4. An opposition coalition can do the following:

  • Take votes away from the ruling regime.
  • Prevent incumbents from playing opposition parties and leaders against each other.
  • Mobilize people to vote against the ruling party, as people have a sense that change is possible.
  • Mount a credible challenge to the ruling party, since the authoritarian henchmen could face recriminations for their actions if the opposition wins.

5. An economic crisis undermines support for an authoritarian regime, divides the ruling elites, and creates opportunities for the opposition to mobilize.

6. [This analysis suggests that] the opposition and its ability to put aside differences and form a coalition, is likely to have a greater effect than waiting for the current ruler to resign or for the political system to open up sufficiently.

NOTE: Figure 2 below shows the statistical analysis (refer to Part 1 for a definition of “Liberalizing Electoral Outcome.”)


7. Kenya’s 2002 election is an illustration of a “liberalizing electoral outcome.” The opposition parties were able to [work] as a cohesive political force, and ally with a younger generation of [politicians], who were not afraid to challenge [the incumbent].

8. [cont. from Kenya case study]: With this degree of coordination, the coalition positioned itself to exploit the electorate’s antipathy to the Moi regime and channel votes to one opposition presidential candidate.

9. The case of Zimbabwe 2002 reminds us that the relationship between an opposition coalition and a liberalizing electoral outcome is probabilistic.

10. The achievement of an opposition coalition, even if it dissolves later, will likely remain as a pivotal historical moment, an inspiration to future opposition movements in that country and elsewhere.

Reference: “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes,” by Marc Morjé Howard and Philip G. Roessler (2006)

* * *


1) “Mr Low Thia Khiang should heed the famous saying: Unity is Strength (团結就是力量) if he wants to fulfill the opposition historical role of annihilating the PAP as the ultimate objective.”
( — Mr. Yoong / Singapore Recalcitrant, 24 Jan 2013)

2) Opposition unity in Singapore will only be possible if all the opposition leaders are “prepared to be honest [and] do what is expected of them by fighting for real change.”
( — Gopalan Nair / Singapore Dissident, 13 April 2010)

3) “Only with unity and equality, and justice and fairness, can we see Singapore move towards a brighter possibility, and this also requires Singaporeans to let go of the fear that the idea of Lee Kuan Yew has created, and to be willing to restart our engagement with our country.”
( — Roy Ngerng / TheHeartTruths, 20 March 2015)

4) An interesting page on “unity” from Page 57 of a Chinese Idioms book (collected by Qin Xue Herzberg and Larry Herzberg; also posted on my Instagram).


i. “Only when the group prospers, be it the family, the community, or the entire society, can the individual prosper.”

ii. “A single thread cannot make a cord; a lone tree cannot make a forest.”


* * *


Part 1 refers to the situation. Part 2 offers a solution.

Simplified Version: Part 1 | Part 2 (this post)

Excerpts Version: Part 1 | Part 2

Original PDF: Link

Singapore Pledge image at top of post from SG Newspaper.

List of Detainees, Singapore


According to Mr. Teo Chee Hean, a total of 2,460 arrests were made from 1959 to 1990, of which 1,045 persons were detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (1959-1963) and Internal Security Act (1963-1990).

Mr. Teo also added that “many of these individuals and their families have put the past behind them and carried on with their lives over the past several decades.”

Screenshot of Webpage (20 March 2015):


Link: Ministry of Home Affairs

Table 14.1 (page 432) of The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore contains a list of 1,190 names of political detainees in Singapore from 1950-2013.


Edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang and Hong Lysa; 2013

I have added some pictures of the list here — for the full list, do check out the book (and some other links at the bottom of this post). You can also download a PDF with the list (this version updated in 2011; this version updated in 2012).


Political Detainees in Singapore, 1950-2013 (Numbers 1 to 48); from “The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore (pub. 2013)”


Political Detainees in Singapore, 1950-2013 (Numbers 1181 to 1190); from “The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore (pub. 2013)”

On Page 489 of the book, historian Hong Lysa writes:

“We would thus want to emphasise a simple fact: the government has a duty to make public the names of the political detainees and information about their detention. The people have a right to know!” (– Hong Lysa)

Contrary to Mr. Teo’s statements in the second paragraph, Dr. Poh Soo Kai (Assistant Secretary-General of Barisan Sosialis; imprisoned twice under the ISA for a total of 17 years by Singapore’s PAP government; called LKY a “political pimp” in 1963) said in 2014:

“I have rebutted the High Commissioner’s first response of 18 December 2014. With reference to his second response of 22 January 2015, it would be flogging a dead horse no less for me to reply to his attempt at a ‘holistic’ reading of the archives. Quite clearly he is happy to display his understanding of how he uses historical documents and makes sense (or non-sense) of them.

The High Commissioner would do well to monitor debates in Singapore. Neutral third parties have emerged, with no stakes in the 1963 events except for the truth. Recent articles carried in “The Online Citizen” and “TR Emeritus” continuing series (now 7 parts) have effectively demolished each and every piece of his so-called documentary evidence by simply going through the sources he cited, and showing what they actually said.

I have every confidence that the aspiration for decency and humanity in ordinary Singaporeans will prevail and we will build a society based on solidarity and respect for human rights and democracy. It has been too long overdue!”
(– Dr. Poh Soo Kai)

A Yale-NUS student had this to say in Feb 2015:


[Full article at TR Emeritus]

“The rule of law in Singapore is a mockery, because the ISA, despite all the checks and balances, still allows for the detention of political opponents and social activists without an open trial. . .

[Ho Kwon Ping] does not speak for my generation today.

We will continue to speak out bravely against injustice and the ISA. We won’t forget the sacrifices of leaders and activists in the past. Most importantly, we won’t back down without a fight. Even Malaysia has recently abolished its own ISA. We will work for the day when Singapore abolishes this outdated and brutal piece of colonial history.”
(– Denny, Yale-NUS student)

During an event back in 2012, where over 400 people gathered to mark the 25th anniversary of ISA arrests in 1987-1988:


“People in Singapore are getting concerned [about] a lot of issues that matter to them, and are willing to stand and speak up for these issues…I think we will have a better civil society who will engage the government on issues that will matter to them.”
(– MARUAH president Braema Mathi)

“The turnout is beyond my expectations. I think the young people are the most important in the crowd. The younger ones may not know (about what happened).”
(– Teo Soh Lung, one of the 24 who had been detained)

A modest collection of links is listed below for more information on these (dark) chapters in Singapore’s political history.

Thanks to TR Emeritus reader, Mr. Chong Wen Wah, and TR Emeritus readers’ comments on a TRE post about Ms. Loh Meow Gong, which prompted me to compile some of the info here.

* * *

More Information:

1. Buy the Book: Operation Coldstore (Select Books | Kinokuniya | MPH)
2. Editors of the book (Dr. Poh Soo Kai | Tan Kok Fang | Dr. Hong Lysa)
3. Operation Coldstore (Wikipedia)
4. Operation Coldstore (Singapore Rebel)
5. S/pores (Community of Singapore ‘Home Scholars’)
6. “Which amounts to 80 arrests/year and 35 detentions/year, over a span of 30 years.” (TOC)
7. Function 8
8. That We May Dream Again
10. Reluctance to open official records discredits government’s rebuttal on ISA detainees
11. Detention without trial: Going beyond Coldstore? (Dr. Poh at TOC)
12. Conversation on FB post on political detainees (TR Emeritus)
13. PDF List of Political Detainees (this version updated in 2011; this version updated in 2012)

Lim Chin Siong


I am currently reading Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore by T.J.S. George. If my schedule permits, I should be able to post a review in a week or two (I am a slow but thorough reader…).

The chapter I was reading today contained several mentions of Lim Chin Siong (included in the first excerpt below), which reminded me that I wanted to do a post on him quite some time ago.

Described in a sentence, Lim Chin Siong was “a young rising star in Singapore’s political firmament in the 1950’s and 1960’s,” who was arrested and detained during Operation Coldstore (1963).

I have very strong feelings about Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum, because the destructive element in them is dark and depressing.

The first time I heard about these events was early last year. The more I read about it, the more I came to realise the reason for The Straits Times’ reputation as a government mouthpiece. (That reputation is also mentioned in this Contemporary World History academic text published by Cengage Learning.)

I have an interest in history and historical accuracy because I don’t like being lied to, especially when it’s a “deeply personal topic” such as the political history of one’s birth country. It’s the same with trust in any kind of relationship — in the case of governance, nation-building can’t be fostered if there is a lack of genuine trust between a nation’s citizens and its leaders.

These are some excerpts on Lim Chin Siong from books and online resources. I hope the snippets are easily understandable for people who would like an introduction to the side of Singapore and/or a portion of its history that runs contrary to the official state narrative (so far).

* * *



Artwork on right by Captain Ness

1. Chapter 3: The Making of a Prime Minister

“[Lee Kuan Yew] was afraid. Lim Chin Siong had qualities that made him a formidable political rival, and he was superior to Lee as a human being. First, his, charisma and mass appeal were embellishments evidently beyond Lee Kuan Yew’s reach. Second, his interest in general reading to Lee’s inclination then and now to avoid everything that was not immediately and directly relevant to his job (some say he stopped reading when he left Cambridge). Third, Lim was widely recognized as being utterly selfless.”
(– T.J.S. George, Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore1973 / Pg-47)

2. Feature: Comet in Our Sky: Lim Chin Siong in History

“Lim Chin Siong [is] the vanquished other hero of Singapore’s political history. . .Lim’s bright career however, was abruptly destroyed before he could realise its full potential.

It was during his third imprisonment, says his friend Dr M.K. Rajakumar, that Lim was “destroyed, both psychologically and politically”. He had a nervous breakdown, became depressed and suicidal. In 1969, in this state of depression, he was released from detention after announcing that he would quit politics.”
(– Cheah Boon Kheng,, July 2001)

3. Former President of Singapore Devan Nair’s 1988 Letter to Lee Kuan Yew

“Memorable words of your own, uttered 27 years ago, will attest to the fact that this is not the first time I have been the victim of a total smear, a furious attempt at utter demolition. I quote from a radio talk you gave to Singaporeans in 1961, when you and I were fighting real enemies, and not tilting at windmills as you are doing today:

. . .Lim began to fight Devan Nair relentlessly and ruthless, by fair or unfair methods, by smears and intimidation, to destroy every influence that Devan Nair had with the workers and the unions. His personal friendship for Devan Nair meant nothing. I knew that this was what one must expect of a good Communist.

Well, the Lim Chin Siong of 1961 turns out to be an incompetent juvenile in the art of demolition compared to the awesome efficiency displayed by the Lee Kuan Yew of 1988.”
(– Devan Nair, 1988 Letter to LKY)

4. Youth of Singapore: It’s Time to Rise

“The Student Movement gave rise to leaders like Lim Chin Siong who co-founded the PAP, [and] Dr Lim Hock Siew, Soon Loh Boon and Dr Chia Thye Poh, just to name a few.

The movement was thriving in Singapore and it gave birth to a new dawn after a successful fight with the colonial rulers. That is, of course, until the PAP themselves started clamping down on student activism more ruthlessly than what the colonial rulers did. They witnessed the power of the students first-hand and they were afraid of it.”
(– Ariffin Sha, July 2014)

5. An open letter to Lee Kuan Yew

“…a response to open records of the National Archives of UK which contained testimonials that contradict the government’s long-held assertions that Mr Lim Chin Siong and the detainees of Operation Coldstore were engaging in communist activities.”
(– Martyn See, June 2014)

6. Lim Chin Siong was never a communist…?

“As much as LKY wanted him to be a communist, he could never prove Lim Chin Siong as one, conclusively. Even if he was one, he would never publicly admit to being a member of the Communist Party of Malaya as that would land him in jail. The CPM was an outlawed organisation.”
(– Kampong Academic, October 2014)

7. What Is History

“If Kumar Ramakrishna, author of Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look had only identified himself as Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University, I would not have bothered with his article at all.”
(– Hong Lysa, June 2014)

8. The Sobering View of an Ex-ISD Officer

“It was a well-known fact that Lim Chin Siong, the former general secretary of the powerful Singapore Factory & Shop Workers Union, was the undisputed leader of the communist united front and controlled the mass base. Lee Kuan Yew could not have been unaware of this fact and knew that he had to depend on Lim Chin Siong and his mass base to advance his political ambition.”
(– Former ISD Director Mr. Yoong, December 2009)

9. Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew

“But in his memoirs, The Singapore Story, published in 1998, Lee Kuan Yew condescendingly described Lim [Chin Siong] as “modest, humble and well-behaved, with a dedication to his cause that won my reluctant admiration and respect.”
(– SDP Blog, July 2007)

10. An annotated bibliography of Operation Coldstore

“. . .to consider how Lim Chin Siong’s contribution to Singapore lay in his ability to harness international and local forces to build a strong multicultural alliance against British colonialism. . .”
(– Loh Kah Seng, New Mandada, Jan 2015)

11.  Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained

“For over five decades, the official government narrative of Singapore’s history has justified Lim Chin Siong’s detention by asserting that he was a communist who advocated violence and subversion.”
(– Dr. Thum Ping Tjin, The Online Citizen, May 2014)

12. Chapter 4: Living in a Time of Deception

“Detaining Lim Chin Siong was always in the cards. Following the PAP defeat in the Hong Lim by-election, the British high commissioner, Lord Selkirk, reported:

He [Lee Kuan Yew] seemed to accept that this [the detention of Lim Chin Siong] was a desirable end and in fact, claimed that he himself had suggested this to S.B. [Special Branch] a year ago [i.e. early 1960 not long after Lim’s release] that the best way to deal with Lim was a direct attack, but that S.B. had persuaded him to adopt the alternative policy of detention of prominent trade unionists near to Lim.”
(– Poh Soo Kai, The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, 2013 / Pg-172)

13. Message via email (this does not mention Lim Chin Siong, but contains an important message to younger generations)

“Whatever the political activists achieve presently are always built on things done by the generations before them over the decades. I remember Dr Ang Swee Chai (the widow of the ex-exile Francis Khoo) said at a small private gathering followed her husband’s memorial service in Singapore. She said she would like the younger generations to know that it was not that their generation didn’t try — they tried so hard and so many of them ended up in jail or in exile…”
(– CMX, sent to me via email, December 2014)