Shan vs. Thum.

If you ask me about fake news, I think it is a scary thing. The only question here is, "Who is the final arbiter of truth?"

Yesterday's grilling of Oxford's research fellow, Dr Thum Ping Tjin by our law minister Shanmugam for a rather relentless six hours hinted to this scary prospect. 

Both sides implicitly laid claim to being more true than the other. 

Both sides appeared to be intransigent or uncompromising about their core stand. 

And both sides walked away from the Select Committee hearing with their version of truth held tightly to their chest.

The target of their dispute? Operation Coldstore. 

It happened more than 55 years ago. It resulted in a crackdown of more than 100 leftists politicians and unionists in one major swoop. 

It reports that "it aimed at preventing subversives from establishing a "communist Cuba" in Singapore and mounting violence just before Malaysia.""

The human cost of Operation Coldstore was that some were detained for more than 15 years. 

Our longest detainee was Dr Chia Thye Poh, who was arrested on the follow up of a Operation-Coldstore-like roundup in 1966. 

He was denied his freedom for about 30 years (including being confined to a one-room guardhouse in Sentosa).

Dr Poh said: "I am confident that no matter how much difficulties I face, and how long it will take, the government will have to release me unconditionally one day... I hope that with continued support from the people, I can one day gain my complete freedom."

Going back to yesterday's session, I guess the highlight was our law minister's "put-like" questions to Dr Thum. 

He was bent on discrediting Dr Thum's professsorial objectivity. Somehow, you have a feeling that Dr Thum was lured into a trial proper.

Here is what I mean.

"Mr K. Shanmugam: These are the essential documents on which the Operation Coldstore was decided upon...(he went on to cite telegrams, notes, quotes from Professor Richard Evans)...can I suggest to you that you have pretty much breached a number of rules that he set out. Let's not argue about it. You can just disagree.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin: Yep, I disagree.

Mr K. Shanmugam: I would say you have fallen completely through the standard of an objective historian. You can also disagree.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin: Disagree.

Mr K. Shanmugam: Your views on communism, CUF (Communist United Front) in Singapore, Operation Coldstore, which you have been repeating at multiple fora, are contradicted by the most reliable evidence...You ignore and suppress what is convenient and in your writings you present quite an untrue picture. You can agree or disagree.

Dr Thum: I disagree. Of course, I disgree."

At one point, it was reported that "Dr Thum was subjected to yes-no questions, which he said he could not answer because nuances would be lost. He repeated a few times that as an academic, he had to qualify his answers." 

And "defending his research, he also said that if his work was inaccurate or if he had neglected to include any sources, he would have received a bad peer review, which he had not."

Lesson? One.

The Chairman of the Select Committee Mr Charles Chong mentioned yesterday that there were two recurring themes that emerged in the proceedings:-

"The importance of free speech and the need for added legislation."

Well, we all know free speech is not free here. It is a precious commodity in our guarded political climate. In other words, it comes with a price tag. 

And should you be made to pay for it, you would then know intimately what it would cost you to say what you want to say that exceeds the OB markers set by our government. 

But however controversial this right to speak freely is, I nevertheless endorse the government's move to hold these proceedings to gather and marshall feedback from people of all walks of life and professions to speak freely about their views and opinions on fake news and how to tackle it, especially news that are "demonstrably false and harmful."

Yet, my only concern here is, what "truth" really means?

Are we biased towards one truth against another truth? Or, is it as simple as Aristotle puts it, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false"?

Here I recall a quote, "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."

And my point is that sometimes, the opposite of a truth one speaks may not be a lie that another keeps. They may both be credible in some ways, and their truth may overlap in a meaningful, constructive and self-correcting way. 

Let me add that where they do overlap, and where parties are able to keep an open mind to the opposing ideas, there is undoubtedly the flourish of knowledge, the deepening of character, and the radiance of humility.

In the end, like what philosopher Julian Baggini said, "our problem is not primarily with what truth means but how and by whom truth is established." 

You see, the truth of one group might lead them to kill for just cause. The truth of another may lead them to arrest for political ends. The truth of still another may lead them to tolerate no dissent. 

And the truth of another may lead them to apply political means no different metaphorically from using "tomahawk blade to mow the lawn" should the same be infringed. 

Examples of what I mean is that we will never know where the truth really lies in such events like Operation Coldstore, the Marxist Conspiracy in 1987, what President Ong Teng Cheong meant when he revealed a "long list" of obstacles he had encountered in discharging his functions of his office, the Lee family disputes, the controversial reserve election, and the recent Sylvia-PAP split on the GST issue and the elusive apology (and if I may add, where the truth lies with what CEO Kuek meant by "deep-seated cultural issues").

And for the above reasons, it is quite unfortunate that our law minister took upon himself the exclusive duty to turn yesterday's Select Committee hearing into a trial of some sort when he encountered dissenting opinions from the one he (and his government) holds. 

Such battle-ram defence of "truths" (or opinions) tends to divide more than bridge, and feeds antagonism more than heals wounds (or promote deeper understanding). 

It also gives the impression that history indeed belongs to the victors, and the losers (and their narratives) are relegated and reduced to footnotes that are best kept hidden from public sight and scrutiny.

On defending truth, Julian Baggini wrote that "the greater, unifying enterprise is to defend the shared values we place on truth, the virtues that lead us towards it, and the principles that help us to identify it."

Alas, in my view, the Shanmugam-Thum exchange yesterday was a step back for this "greater, unifying enterprise" where our "shared values" were challenged, our "virtues" were sidelined, and our "principles" duly retired. Cheerz.