1 a PERSONAL JOURNEY in SEARCH of FAJAR Lim Cheng Tju
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A PERSONAL JOURNEY IN SEARCH OF FAJAR Lim Cheng Tju Let me begin with my personal journey. I was teaching Singapore history at a junior college a few years back. It was a source-based paper, using primary and secondary materials to teach the history of Singapore from 1945 to 1965 – from the end of the Japanese Occupation to independence. The Fajar sedition trial of 1954 was central to the Singapore Story and the formation of the People’s Action Party (PAP). In 1953, the University Socialist Club (USC) was formed by left-leaning undergraduates at the University of Malaya located in Singapore. Their organ, Fajar came to the attention of the British colonial authorities and soon enough, they got into trouble for an editorial they wrote on “Aggression in Asia”, which criticized the formation of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization. The British deemed the article as seditious, arrested and charged the editorial team of Fajar for sedition, but in a twist of events, the students were acquitted in court. One of the lawyers for the students was the young Lee Kuan Yew. The trial strengthened Lee Kuan Yew’s credentials as a left-wing anti-colonialist and it brought him to the attention of the Chinese student activists. Later that year saw the formation of the PAP on 21 November 1954. The founding members of the PAP had people from Chinese student groups as well as members of the University Socialist Club, the very people who were involved in Fajar . All these facts have been well documented in Lee’s own memoirs. ( The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew . Volume one. 1998). I thought it would be useful to examine extracts from the alleged seditious article in class but I immediately hit a brick wall. There were no issues of Fajar in the collection of the National Library. The National University of Singapore Library (which inherited the collection of the University of Malaya) has an incomplete set (5 issues short of the total 62; lacking the first 2 issues, numbers 20 and 24 of Volume 1 and number 5 of Volume 2). However, the publication was still under lock and key. Access to it was restricted. This got me interested in the contributions of the English-educated in the anti- colonial struggle. I had done work on the Chinese-educated and have come across the standard portrayal of the feeble attempts of the English-educated in the anti-colonial movement. This has been a point strongly made by Lee Kuan Yew in his memoirs and speeches, from the 1960s to the 1990s. I think we have reached a point where we need to reconsider the history of the leftwing as more than the story of the Chinese-educated and include the English- educated as well as the involvement of the Malays and Indians in the leftwing 1 movement. i This is in light of recent scholarship by Tim Harper, Huang Jianli and others presented at the 2005 Paths Not Taken conference in Singapore. Last year, a group of my friends, mostly young researchers, got together to start an independent project to document the history of the University Socialist Club. So far, we have made some preliminary findings, including on the Fajar case. For this short essay, I will start off with the chronology of the Fajar case, followed by what we have learned from the Colonial Office (CO) papers on this matter and end with some questions that remain unanswered. CHRONOLOGY OF THE FAJAR CASE The Fajar 8: Poh Soo Kai (president of club), MK Rajakumar, James Puthucheary, Kwa Boo Sun, Lam Khuan Kit, Thomas Varkey, P Arudsothy and Edwin Thumboo (oldest – James Puthcheary, 32; youngest P Arudsothy, 19; Edwin Thumboo second youngest at 20) 21 Feb 1953 – inauguration of the University Socialist Club Mar 1953 – first issue of the organ of the University Socialist Club. It was only renamed as Fajar (Dawn) from the third issue onwards. Jan 1954 – reorganization of the Working Committee and a new editorial board formed for Fajar (8 members) 10 Apr 1954 – a new tone in Fajar was noted in its No 6 issue Singapore Police Intelligence Journal No 4/45 noted the publication was becoming “an excellent vehicle for fellow travellers” (Confidential Telegram No 308 from Governor John Nicoll to Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir John Martin on 8 June 1954) 10 May 1954 – “Aggression in Asia” editorial appeared on the front page of the No 7 issue of Fajar . The Special Branch noted the issue. (article written by Poh Soo Kai and MK Rajakumar) 13 May 1954 – “513 incident”; Chinese students clashed with police over the issue of Registration of National Service Bill 18 May 1954 – University of Malaya Students’ Union came out in support of the “513” students 2 23 May 1954 – Attorney-General Davis saw the “Aggression in Asia” issue of Fajar and gave instructions to the police to make enquires as to who was responsible for its publication. 26 May 1954 – Director of Special Branch AEG Blades informed the A-G office that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya, Sir Sydney Caine had been consulted on the investigation. Original proposal to confront the Fajar 8 on 27 May, 2.30 pm. (SSB 1149/2) Further discussions were made between A-G Davis and Governor John Nicoll. 28 May 1954 – A-G Davis gave written sanction to prosecute the Fajar 8. 28 May 1954 – between 5 to 6 am, the Fajar 8 were picked up by the police. 7 of them were arrested at the University Hostel in Dunearn Road; Poh Soo Kai was picked up from his Katong home. ii They were charged in court in the afternoon of the same day. (Edwin Thumboo was charged on 29 May 1954) Bail of $1000 each was provided by Vice-Chancellor Sir Sydney Caine, who felt it was his duty to bail out the students involved. Lee Kuan Yew (honourary advisor to the club) represented the students in court. 21 Jul 1954 – case was mentioned in court. Trial dates set for 23 to 25 Aug 1954. 11 Aug 1954 – arrival of Queen’s Counsel and leftwing champion, Denis Nowell Pritt, as senior defense counsel for the Fajar 8. 23 Aug 1954 – first day of trial (2 USC members not involved in the Fajar publication were called as witnesses by the prosecution – Jeyaraj Christopher Rajavao and Chua Sian Chin. Chua was later a PAP MP and was Minister for Home Affairs and Education in the 1970s.) 24 Aug 1954 – second day of trial (another USC member was called by the prosecution, Ong Pang Boon, later a PAP MP and Minister for Education, 1963 to 1970) (other than political leaders, future top civil servants were also members of USC – Ngiam Tong Dow was a member who helped to distribute Fajar. But he claimed it never sold a single copy at the newsstand and he wondered who was paying the printing cost) 25 Aug 1954 – District Judge FA (Freddy) Chua threw the case out. Fajar 8 acquitted of all charges. Coda: 3 7 Oct 1954 – Pritt returned to Singapore to appeal for the conviction of the “513” Chinese-medium school students. (7 students) 12 Oct 1954 – start of appeal hearings 15 Oct 1954 – appeal dismissed. Conviction of the Chinese-medium school students upheld. 21 Nov 1954 – formation of the PAP. Founding members included members of the USC. (eg. PSG Oorjitham) RESPONSE OF THE BRITISH TO THE FAJAR CASE: According to the Colonial Office papers on this matter, CO 1030/361, the British were divided on the action taken to prosecute the students. As I have shown in my chronology, Attorney-General Davis was only aware of the “Aggression in Asia” article on 23 May 1954. Action was taken rather quickly after that. The Fajar 8 were arrested 5 days later on the 28 th . Perhaps the British authorities were responding the “513 incident” and saw red when the University of Malaya Students’ Union came out in support of the 513 students on 18 May. Nonetheless, there is a certain amount of haziness to British decision-making between 23 and 28 May. Governor John Nicoll had discussions with A-G Davis on this matter. The Vice-Chancellor of the University, Sir Sydney Caine was consulted by the police and by the Director of Special Branch, AEG Blades on how to proceed in handling the students. However, after the arrests, Caine said that it was not made clear to him that the police would actually arrest the students to be prosecuted. He was under the impression that they would only be questioned by the police. After the arrests, more divisions became apparent among the British authorities on whether this was the right thing to do. The key disagreement was between Governor John Nicoll and the Commissioner-General for the UK in SEA, Malcolm MacDonald. MacDonald was of the opinion that the case should be dropped immediately and continuation would do the British Empire more harm than good. In fact, MacDonald drafted a government statement to drop the charges against the students for Nicoll’s consideration. Nicoll rejected this idea and said that while it might have been a mistake to arrest the students, to drop the case would make things worse. The British would be seen as weak and lose face, so to speak. All this happened in June 1954, just weeks after the arrests. Reading the correspondence between MacDonald and Nicoll, I get the impression that it might 4 be loss of face that led MacDonald to disagree with Nicoll on this matter.