lizziechow

Hi, thank you for this! i know the session is over but my friend has some questions and for some reason, he's a bit shy to ask, so i'm asking on his behalf. they are as follows:

(1) Their speculation on what operation spectrum was about ? Neither the Marxist conspiracy nor catholic priests narrative makes any sense. 2) During the period leading up to Singapore's merger with Malaya - Did Tunku have a list of ppl that he wanted detained as a precondition to merger ? Did lky subsequently add lim chin siong's name to that list ? 3) was it true that lim yew hock lead ppl to believe or created a situation that made lim chin siong and Fong Swee Suan more responsible for the hock lee bus riot than was originally the case ? 4) were there really rumours that lky was responsible for the Bukit Ho Swee Fire ? 5) did Goh Keng Swee believe that Singapore should leave Malaysia and engineer for that to happen or was Singapore booted out ? Or both true ? How would this new narrative change the younger generation's view on Singapore's "independence" ? 6) when Singapore was part of Malaysia - did Malaysia start getting involved in Singapore's politics or was it the other way round ? Who started it ?

hi, this is a pretty general question: it seems as though people who vote and write against the ruling party are often perceived at best as "re-visionist" rebels who want to subvert and undermine the legitimacy and value of dominant narratives, and at worst, as ingrates who do no empathise with the pragmatics of everyday life and the exigencies of survival.

while your significant efforts, and that of others like yourselves, have disclosed and reframed facts of the past, forcing history into a point of re-vision, this re-vision doesn't seem to have resulted in the re-visioning of the grand narrative, but a spilt between the so-called 're-visionist' narrative, and the official narrative. this tension might have given the critical work you guys do a bad repute.

PJThum mentioned somewhere else in this thread that his critics who ply at the gates of the dominant narrative's custom house have in response, moved from an "evidence/factually based justification for Coldstore to a largely political/morally based argument" that pivots on the same body of (expanded) facts very much sponsored by the efforts of you guys. in short, the history of Singapore is more detailed, but the sentiment that these methods of tactical ruthlessness were necessary for Singapore, has remained largely unchanged.

does this mean that the arguments historians have to make beyond the factual into one that is increasingly soaked in moral and politically-based persuasions too? failing which would one otherwise be contributing towards a society which is is becoming more and more harden towards its own evil past, and ruthlessness?

in your view, how can history addresses this? for instance how do the Japanese and Germans write and tell their history in a way that come to terms with their decision to go to war without being too ashamed and guilty of it that they feel they are perpetual debt to others? has too much of Singapore's history become a question of moral and economic responsibility, attributable almost solely to the PAP and LKY, such that the very ruthless and savage strategies previously employed have been too much for one person or one party to accept the burden and responsibility for (something that has happened quite recently). could you comment on this?

lastly, what advice would you have for others keen on following this trail? and what tools and suggestions would you have for them to persuade others not to read and view "critical" work as a destructive villain, but for its "good"(?) intentions? any suggestions?

thank you so much! i really appreciate it!