Charles vs. Tham: The Fake News Saga.

Is this an Oxford conspiracy? Is Dr Thum (as Charles Chong puts it) guilty of engineering academic support for his politically motivated cause? 

The backdrop of this has to do with 284 signatories worldwide "some of whom were academics - voicing concerns about a lack of academic freedom here."

And it goes even further back when Dr Thum was intensely questioned by our Law Minister Shanmugam for 6 hours with one brief toilet break during the Select Committee session on deliberate online falsehoods.

Mr Chong, its chairman, is now turning the turret on Dr Thum with today's caption: "Historian suspected of engineering academic support for himself?"

It is said that the best defence is a good offence and Mr Chong is mounting a quick offence against Dr Thum by hinting to his "possible involvement in "a coordinated attempt, with foreign actors involved, to try to influence and subvert" Singapore's parliamentary processes.""

I think the hot trail is quite undeniable (from a reasonable bystander's perspective). Hear me out here. 

Dr Thum has an alternative narrative about Operation Coldstore 1963 and Operation Spectrum 1987, which the ruling party take umbrage at. 

He wrote extensively about it and even submitted his "inflammatory" version to the Select Committee alleging that our founding father was involved in a political coverup. 

In addition, the company that he and Kristen Han set up is currently being investigated for their link to American billionaire George Soros, whose organization funds politically driven operations in sovereign states. 

Then, there is the New Narratif which encourages "active participants, rather than treated as passive consumers" and espouses "openness and transparency" that "are core parts of (its) ethos, providing (its) members with opportunities to engage not only with (its) team, but with one another."

And now, according to preliminary evidence gathered by Mr Chong, Dr Thum and his Friend Dr Philip Kreager (from Oxford Institute of Human Science) had kept "continuous contact" to draft the open letter in order to secure the 284 signatures in support; amongst them are a large number of well known academic, both locally and aboard.

You see, it's a fine thin line between disseminating one's research for purely academic purposes and evangelising the same to win converts to one's side to covertly challenge state politics. 

If Dr Thum had been a biologist publishing works on reversing cancerous cells' mutation or an ecologist spreading the word on how to save the environment, he would not be so easily seen as harbouring a political agenda. 

But he is a historian, writing about something extremely politically sensitive concerning a past event that is highly controversial, and frown upon by the ruling party because it is one part of our national narrative that we are scarce to want to revisit. 

The truth is, each of the above evidence standing alone could be perceived in either direction - the dice is still spinning. 

But when you put them all together, in their proper context, you tend to be able to connect the political dots, can you? 

So, in all good sense, I can't deny that Dr Thum would have been perceived to have a political agenda. And whether he had intended so, well, if the glove fits right? 

In any event, I'll leave that to his own conscience. 

But the aim of this post is not so much about Dr Thum and his alleged political ambition. It is more about our government and their political miscalculation. 

Let me start by punctuating every elaboration below - just for effect - with this theme: "They just don't get it." 

Here goes.

...they just don't get it. 

Mr Chong referred to the 6-hour questioning of Dr Thum in the papers today, and in the same breath, he wrote, "we must protect our independence and our institution of Parliament". 

Yes, I agree, protect you must, but at what cost? In other words, is the 6-hour questioning necessary? (Like what HFK wrote earlier last month, wouldn't it risk being perceived as a political platform as well?).

Yes, fight the good fight all you want for our independence and parliamentary institution, our freedom and democracy, and we will salute you, but do it with grace, wisdom and humility. 

Alas, I feel that our government missed the point about the 6-hour grilling. 

Every minister who came out in support of the Select Committee after the Shan-Thum exchange were largely acting as "echo chambers" bouncing off the groupish script that our government has the right to defend their position. 

But that's not the point. That's not what the people in general are aggrieved about. If you discern the majority's sentiments online, it is about how it was done and not why it should be done. 

Most of us know the "why" but it was the "how" that we felt was the wrong forum, that is, inappropriate and unnecessary, even embarrassing. 

I think I speak for the silent majority when I say that in the 6-hour questioning, our Law Minister acted more like a lawyer cross-examing a suspect with yes/no answers rather than as a moderator trying to understand the issue in its proper context. 

The bravado demonstrated in the SC session is simply glaring and jarring. 

...they just don't get it.

Mr Chong wrote that the email exchanges between Dr Thum and Dr Kreager show that Dr Kreager is ""actively campaigning for Dr Thum" by circulating the Oxford statement and asking for signatures to the open letter.""

And so, Mr Chong concluded that the "support" seems to have been primarily engineered by Dr Thum himself...in close concert with Dr Kreager.""

Well, Dr Thum may be the galviniser of his own cause, because he felt unjustly treated or he may have an axe to grind, but that does not detract from the fact that the open letter was supported by 284 signatories, some of whom were historians and history professors both here and abroad. 

Surely, Mr Chong is not saying that they had signed blindly right? Surely he is not implying that Dr Thum had somehow tricked them into signing right? 

Alas, there is no smoke without fire and no fall without desire. Likewise, the larger picture at hand is the content of the open letter, that is, why they had penned their signatures in support. 

Most of them see it as a bully tactic by our government and that is the real issue. This time it is the "why" they signed the open letter that is most relevant, and not the "how" it came about. 

I know we don't play the number game, (isn't democracy about numbers?), but if one or two people call you a donkey, you may ignore him. But if more than 200 of them, and most are highly learned, shouldn't one start looking for the saddle?

Dr Thum may have a hand in it, but that doesn't change the fact that the hands that signed it agreed with what was written in it. 

Sometimes, we miss the elephant in the room to nitpick over the creased carpet caused by the elephant in the room.

...and finally, they just don't get it.

Is Dr Thum a historian? Is he qualified? Is he trustworthy? Is he really from Oxford, affiliated to Oxford, lecturing in Oxford, or just an Oxford wannabe?

Mr Chong is flogging the dead horse again when he wrote in the papers that "it is still not clear what Dr Thum's precise academic affiliation to Oxford University is, adding that his titles given to the Select Committee thus far have been "inaccurate, non-existent or misleading.""

Note to myself: The elephant in the room just farted, loud and visible with smoke arising from its rear end, and yet, we are accusing each other of breaking wind...

Back to the point, I thought Oxford University had recently clarified all that. 

Dr Thum is a research associate with the University's Anthropology and Museum Ethnigraphy. And yes, he has a doctorate in history in 2011, and he is a Visiting Fellow of the Fertility and Reproduction Studies Group within the school, and therefore an affiliate of the school.

Yes, Dr Thum may have misrepresented his full credentials or was not clear about it to the Select Committee. But the fog would have been sufficiently cleared with that Oxford University's clarification right? 

The disconcerting question here is this, where is Mr Chong going with that? 

Bottomline? Dr Thum is a historian, there's no doubt about that. He is affiliated to Oxford, it's open and shut. And he has submitted a piece critical of Singapore's history to the Select Committee, there's all established. 

So, let's deal with the issue that truly concerns Singaporeans. 

Let's open the unredacted archive up and let us be the judge of what really happened during the Coldstore and Spectrum operations (if we are going for the truth and nothing but the truth). Let's earn our respect and admiration for being candid and forthright with us. 

Let's treat us as independent adults in a nation we are born and have grown up in for the last 52 years. Let's not pretend that the government is protecting our interests, security and unity by self-appointing themselves as the sole custodian of the nation's truth, past, present and future.

If the 4G leaders are calling for openness and transparency with the people, then let's walk the talk and talk the walk, and talk and walk together and in step with the people they took an oath to protect, guide and provide. 

And I believe one of the many goals of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods is to fight obfuscation and avoid engaging in shadow boxing without causing a real dent to the edifice of falsehoods.

I think that goal is applicable to both sides, the government and her people. Cheerz.

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.

Desmond Lee/Janil Puthucheary vs. Han Fook Kwang.

Let me set the record straight. I do not know Han Fook Kwang ("HFK") personally. I have read about him, but not met him.

The only thing we share in common is our surname; while the only difference is that I have more hair than him, much more actually (if you want to split hairs about it).

But when MPs Desmond Lee ("DL") and Janil Puthucheary ("JP") came forward to write a rebuttal this morning (entitled "History is not the preserve of historians") of HFK's article (entitled "4G leaders need to find their own way to forge ties with people") written on Sunday, 8 April, I felt something's amiss.

In a totally hyped environment of who's manufacturing fake news and who's the fount of truth, I felt that DL and JP had missed some of the good points raised by HFK in his article.

Sadly, of late, we see a lot of this unnecessary back and forth between Sylvia and Grace, Thum and Shan, and now Fook Kwang and Desmond and Puthucheary.

And if you just woke up, here's where the line of scrimmage between them is.

First, DL and JP wrote as their opening salvo: -

"Mr Han Fook Kwang says politicians should have no role in interpreting history, and that history should be the preserve of only historians."

But if you read HFK's article, he simply did not say that. Not in the way as phrased. Note the operative words are "no role" and "preserve of only historians". They are meant to be "absolute".

The truth is, DL and JP are inferring; at times, overreaching. But such inference missed the forest for the trees.

In any event, the article is essentially about building trust as one of the cornerstone of political leadership, and not so much about interpreting historical event. HFK merely advised caution, not absolute abstinence.

In other words, politicians are not called to be eunuch in a harem, see and hear no evil; but wise counsels to a nation - always listening, encouraging, affirming, and building trust, mutual respect and hope.

The trust gap with the people can be bridged with this concluding words of HFK: "The objective is not to be able to win every argument but to be able to finally say: "Trust me, my approach is the better one." That's what leadership is about.""

Politicians are therefore gap-bridgers and not chasm-diggers.

Then, the DL and JP team went on to write:-

"This is so because the views of politicians are bound to be coloured by political interests, he says (HFK). Whereas all historians can be relied on to pronounce authoritatively on the historical "truth" because they view history objectively."

Wait a second, did HFK say all that, or is it another leap of inference? If he did, then the copy of Straits Times I bought last Sunday was a parallel black-market version?

I reread HFK's article and the closest I got was this:-

"It is best done by scholars and historians, not politicians whose motives would always be questioned even if they are legitimate. I hope more Singaporean historians - and there are quite a few who specialise in Singapore history - will join the discussion and throw light on the issues that have been raised."

If you compare the two, you can divine the nuances and differences.

HFK did not say "all historians can be relied on to pronounce authoritatively on the historical "truth"". He wrote, "it is best done" by them because politicians' motive risks being misinterpreted (or misperceived).

If you look at the unanimity on the majority side of our parliament when it comes to the reserved election and the potential GST hike, I think you roughly get what I mean.

Alas, there is a huge gap between constructive consensus and destructive groupthink (As an aside, I think we should not encourage groupthink, but thinking in different groups to allow for the flourishing of ideas and the approximation to truth).

Last but not least, the crew of DL and JP also wrote this:-

"For Mr Han to suggest after the fact that Dr Thum should not have been questioned because some of his writings have been peer-reviewed is to claim a privilege that is available to no other professional expert, let alone the Government or elected MPs."

And again, HFK did not say, write or suggest that. 

The flavour is lost (or masked) in the sugar?

If you read his article, he balanced the views of Mr Shanmugam and Dr Thum by allowing both to ventilate in his column.

He juxtapositioned the law minister's "parting shot" when he said, "Your views (Dr Thum's) on communism, Operation Coldstore...are contradicted by the most reliable evidence. It ignores evidence which you don't like, you ignore and suppress what is inconvenient and in your writings, you present quite an untrue picture," with that of Dr Thum's counter when he said, "(my) work had been published and subjected to peer review, and...no historian has come out and contradicted the central thrust of (his) work."

So, any discerning reader who reads those paragraphs side by side ought to come to the conclusion that the truth is still out there and somewhere between Shan and Thum.

That's as objective as one can ever get because not only politicians, but historians, often disagree - as "the past is never dead, it is not even past" (William Faulkner).

In the end, it is still a matter of wise distillation, and not blind endorsement of one version against another.

We don't live in a binary world of black and white when it comes to interpreting motives, intentions and goals giving rise to past events, but a world of more than 50 shades of grey.

In fact, in HFK's article, he did write:-

"To be fair to Mr Shanmugam, I did not think he was as unreasonable as online critics made him out to be in the way he conducted the questioning. Watching the six-hour video recording, I thought it was as civilised as you can get when two men disagree with each other as strongly as the two did."

HFK then added: "But it was a political exercise, not an academic discourse in search of the truth."

And that's why HFK "hope(s) more Singaporean historians...will join the discussion and throw light on the issues."

He definitely did not say that historians are the custodians of society's truth. And it is not about not questioning historians, but the proper forum to do so.

Let's admit this. In that 6 hours of intense questioning, none is wiser.

In such a session, truth is often the spectator with his popcorn and soda watching the back-and-forth from one side of the court (of vested interest) to the other.

And it has surely divided this little red dot more than it has united it...recall gap-bridgers?

That's the whole point of HFK's article, and DL's and JP's article today had unfortunately missed it. Alas, one small misstep for being right for right's sake, and one big missed opportunity for truth.

Lesson? Just one.

In my view, the fight for truth (or objectivity) risks becoming territorial, dogmatic and polarised.

And the reality is, when you shine the public spot light on an issue, you tend to get emotions high on it, and the desire to be right is often compelling, even possessive.

Most of the time, we are more teachable in private, where our errors or misinterpretations are kept within face-saving boundaries.

But when we are before the media or an audience, the vested interests harden or ossify, and we tend to get less receptive to ideas that differ from ours, even though there may be some validity to them.

Let me end with a short exchange between Sonny Liew and Shanmugam in the latter's FB.

In one of the commentary threads, Sonny concluded with this:-

"With regards to interpretation - everyone will have their own, of course, but debate over them only works if they take place in an open and fair environment. Whether or not the conditions of the Select Committee hearing achieved those standards... well, perhaps that will also be open to yet more interpretation, even if my own is that it did not. But we can agree to disagree :)"

And here comes Shanmugam's discourse...waitforit....ready?

"Thanks, note your point of view."

And he got 153 likes just for that short comment.

I guess that's what HFK was talking about when he urged politicians to build trust amongst the people.

Essentially, it is all about perception, and it is not just that we should not be arrogant. But we should not be seen to be arrogant. Cheerz.