A good way to test whether you consider Dr Thum to be objectively fair or not is to watch the exchange between him and Minister Shanmugam with regard to the minutes of a meeting of the Barisan Sosialis on 23 September 1962.
This was one of the key documents - notes of a BS meeting taken by a mole and made available to Special Branch - which convinced Lord Selkirk in late 1962 of the need to take action against the (alleged) communists.
Minister Shanumgam says that the notes of the discussion clearly show the communist nature of the BS, and also that while they intended to adopt constitutional methods of struggle for now, they envisaged moving to an armed struggle in a few years time to (in effect) 'complete the revolution'.
Dr Thum argues that BS members were discussing ONLY the anti-colonial struggle and that the minutes did not contain any evidence of the communist control of BS.
When asked about whether the British officials (Selkirk and Moore) genuinely believed in the communist threat based on their reading of the BS meeting notes, Dr Thum at first tried to argue that the British had already decided to act and were looking for justifications, but then accepted that the British genuinely believed (based on the notes) in the communist threat.
Dr Thum wrote in his 2013 ARI paper that : "Barisan members had complained that the constitution was pointless if it was so easily manipulated, asking if there was another way forward. Selkirk "chose to interpret" these as calls to abandon constitutional action, and disregarded their unanimous agreement to keep following peaceful constitutional action. ..."
Minister Shanmugam had (earlier in the exchange) asked Dr Thum what "another way forward" meant, and particularly if it meant "armed struggle". Dr Thum refused to be drawn on what it meant, saying that it just meant some other way forward, whatever that might be. At most, he conceded that it could include armed struggle. He was also asked he he could have worded his description of Selkirk's conclusion better (i.e. in a more fair way) and he conceded that he should have worded it better.
All in all, I think Dr Thum really fell flat in his analysis of the 23 Sep 1962. His claim that the BS members were thinking only of anti-colonial action was not believable, nor does his assertion that they had unanimously decided to follow constitutional action provide a complete picture necessary to assess BS (or at least the British view of BS) - because what Dr Thum omitted is that, according to the minutes, BS had decided they had no alternative to peactful constitutional action for the time being, but were prepared to armed struggle later if necessary and anticipate it as likely. Finally, Dr Thum claims that the minutes do not show the communist nature of BS at all, where Minister Shanmugam says that evidence that this was a communist pparty is plain from the whole tenor of the discussion. I think the Hon Minister was plainly right on this.
People should listen and decide for themselves, My view is that despite the limitations of a cross-examination format, Minister Shanmugam was able to show that Dr Thum did not deal with the evidence in relation to this meeting fairly and objectively as a historian.
By Lian Chuan Yeoh
Lawyer
