Who’s the ‘albatross’ in the Singapore separation story?

I used to say that Singapore was not actually kicked out of the federation, unlike what Lee Kuan Yew wanted everyone to believe. Now a new book shows it was Goh Keng Swee who chose separation.

In December 2018, in an article on Malaysia’s Love-Hate Relationship with Singapore, I wrote that I had always believed the late Lee Kuan Yew had planned Singapore’s separation all along, wanting to break free from Malaysia – a sort of free ticket to independence — and he did enough to get Tunku Abdul Rahman riled up to grant separation.

I wrote: “In short, I used to say that Singapore was not actually kicked out of the federation, unlike what Lee wanted everyone to believe. However, I was told by many experts I was wrong. Even Singaporean political detainee Dr Poh Soo Kai told me Kuan Yew did not expect Singapore to be expelled. He was devastated and shocked. Poh said the tears Kuan Yew shed in his press conference announcing the separation were real. He was so overcome by emotion that the press conference ended abruptly. All this from a man no big fan of Kuan Yew, who had put him behind bars twice without trial for a total of 18 years.

“In hindsight, I must say that it wasn’t just Kuan Yew who wanted everybody to believe Singapore was kicked out. Tunku wanted the same thing, perhaps to show Malaysia was the “master” with the upper hand. And as for the press conference which I said ended abruptly – it actually stopped midway for a breather to help Kuan Yew overcome his sadness.”

What prompts me to bring up the excerpts above from seven years on was the recent publication of the Albatross File: a series of newly declassified handwritten notes and Cabinet papers between 1964 and 1965, kept by Kuan Yew’s right-hand man Goh Keng Swee, almost all of which were published in a 487-page book The Albatross File: Inside Separation.

It was launched on Dec 7 by Kuan Yew’s son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is also a former Singapore prime minister.

Goh Keng Swee’s role

The book reveals that it was Goh who, while tasked with negotiating Singapore’s future with the federation, decided on secession as the only viable option, taking the decision without Kuan Yew’s knowledge or approval.

Why the word “Albatross” in the book’s title? Apparently Goh used the metaphor of the Samuel Taylor Coleridge poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which tells the tale of a sailor who shot an albatross and was forced to hang it around his neck as penance, with the bird becoming a heavy burden and reminder of his guilt.

Somehow, Goh saw Malaysia as the albatross around Singapore’s neck, the burden becoming heavier by the day. This I can understand and even concur with, given the troubling period leading to the separation.

The albatross around the sailor’s neck was also penance and a reminder of guilt. Was Goh also saying that Singapore made a mistake in accepting a merger in the Malaysian federation? Yes. The book tells us it was Goh, not Kuan Yew, who mooted the idea of separation, and who wanted it badly because “I can’t take it any more”.

Jean Lau of the South China Morning Post cited Goh as saying in oral interviews from the 1980s, featured in the book: “The great expectations that we foolishly had – that Malaysia would bring prosperity, a common market, peace, harmony, all that – we were quickly disillusioned and it became an albatross round our necks.”

Goh was reported to have further said: “Well, Malaysia was the albatross. Very sad but instructive episode in our political education.”

How it came about

Janadas Devan, a senior adviser at Singapore’s digital development and information ministry who coordinated the book’s publication, said in a podcast by the Straits Times that Singapore’s 1963 merger was “fraught from the outset, with the 1964 race riots further straining ties”.

It is no secret Kuan Yew and the People’s Action Party blamed Kuala Lumpur and certain racist elements in Umno for the riots in Singapore; he believed they continued to have the ability to “switch riots on and off”.

Speaking at another podcast by CNA, Janadas – who I must say was excellent in walking the audience through the contents of the Albatross file – said Kuan Yew thus adopted a strategy to “make life intolerable for the Malaysian leadership”.

How? By working with all opposition parties in Malaysia, increasing political pressure and “organising politically up and down the peninsula and across Sabah and Sarawak”, where, in Kuan Yew’s words, the “battle could be taken to their home ground”.

Not to be forgotten is Kuan Yew’s famous, albeit fiery speech in the Malaysian Parliament, where he spoke in English and Malay attacking the federal government’s “racial” policies as opposed to PAP’s Malaysian Malaysia concept. Tunku said that was what broke the camel’s back .

There was also the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, which PAP was instrumental in forming. The convention was a major cause of the widening rift between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore – or between Umno, led by Tunku, and PAP, led by Kuan Yew.

Secret meetings

Was I so wrong after all in saying Kuan Yew managed to rile up Tunku and Umno so badly that Tunku likened Singapore to gangrene that must be cut off – for reasons Kuan Yew said were necessary, for want of a better word? Whether I’m right is not important.

The fact is, and I quote South China Morning Post once again: “It (the book) offers evidence that contrary to what was believed in the years following the 1965 separation, the city-state was not unilaterally ejected from the federation of Malaysia after two years of merger – rather, it came after several secret meetings of negotiation and mutual understanding.”

Janadas said the negotiations could have gone all sorts of ways if Goh had not been in charge, but added that he really did not think it “could have been postponed forever, because the fundamental differences that existed between the two societies were not resolvable”. In other words, he felt separation was inevitable.

But why release the files now? To justify Kuan Yew’s actions resulting in the separation? I don’t think so. No Singaporean has questioned his moves. In fact, Singaporeans young and old are proud, saying then and now that it was the best thing that had ever happened to Singapore. Hence justification is not necessary .

Is it meant for political mileage for PAP to win an election ? Definitely not. PAP had in fact won the election yet again in May this year. Convincingly as usual.

Two sides of the story

Then why? Hsien Loong said readers of the book will “not only understand the actions and events that led to the separation, but will also feel the emotions and passions of our founding fathers. It is a history well worth publishing”.

I spotted a comment on social media, posted in all probability by a Malaysian, saying: “It’s Singaporean propaganda at its worst”. I don’t know about that. But I do say the events in the book did happen, as seen from Singapore’s perspective. In short, it is a Singapore story.

Perhaps we need our own Albatross File. But we already have the Malaysian version of what took place, in books by Tunku himself: among them are Looking Back: The Historic Years of Malaya and Malaysia and Lest We Forget: Further Candid Reminiscences. There is also the book by the late Abdullah Ahmad, Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Read the Singapore version, read the Malaysian version, without being judgemental. Both sides did what they did believing it was the right thing to do. We have had our share of spats over the years, which will continue to pop up every now and then.

But in the words of Singaporean columnist Surekha A Yadav, whom I quoted in my 2018 article: “Malaysia and Singapore never played a zero-sum game. We win and have always won through cooperation and respect.” I fully agree with you, dear Singaporean. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.