On page 5 of your article, I believe there is an error in your description of Sir John Martin’s post in the Colonial Office. He never made it to Permanent Under-Secretary. He rose to become Deputy Permanent Under-Secretary.

As a former civil servant, you should be aware that in our correspondence, we would usually address the correspondence to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, but attention it to the relevant case officer. E.g.
PS(PSD)
Attn: Toh Boon Kwan
This does not mean I am the Perm. Sec. Notice also that I have no honorific before my surname. That means the case officer is male. If you sending the case to a female officer, it would look like this:
PS(PSD)
Attn: Mrs Mary Lim

It would not be incorrect to note that these work practices were inherited from British colonial administrative practice. Thus, to see Sir John Martin’s name after the Permanent Under-Secretary of State title does not necessarily mean Sir John is the Perm Sec. As you should be aware, the bulk of the work in a ministry rests on the shoulders of the Deputy Secretary, not the Perm Sec. (Just like in the army, it is the S3 not the CO who runs the combat unit) In this case, Sir John handles the bulk of the work, only surfacing it to his Perm Sec to make a decision, where necessary.

As ex-civil servants or serving civil servants pursuing academic research into British civil services, it serves our research well if we care to apply our bureacratic experience / public policy making experience to understand how our colonial civil servant brethren goes about drafting their documents. More often than not, academics without any admin or policy making experience have no understanding of the various notations on a historical document and of it’s significance. If only they knew.

Regards and with best wishes for the e-journal,

Boon Kwan
PhD Candidate, NIE, NTU.
B.A. Hons, NUS History Alumnus ‘99
Prime Minister’s Office (Public Service Division) ‘99 – present.

I would love to have an opportunity to meet for a chat. Till you return then :)

As I am away, I didnt read yr further comments and queries. You raised 2 queries. I would rather you mail to me these queries or others and will try to answer them at leisure or send me yr contact and on my return home we can meet for a chat.

Warm regards,

Michael Fernandez

I myself had the opportunity to delve into the history of the institution and was absolutely fascinated by the experience. The things the students did, the things they said, the things they wrote. I eagerly await the completion of the book Mr Lim and his colleagues are writing and the exhibition on student activism organized by Tangent scheduled for late this year.

Hopefully, both efforts would have probed a little into what do we mean by ‘the real history of the university’. Should it be written with an emphasis on certain key themes or tropes rather than others? How to decide which groups or positions to privilege in the recuperation of the university’s history and what are the bases and implications of doing so? The representations would inadvertently vary in complex ways from the points of vew of different groups – the students, their lecturers, the university as an institution, the general public, and of course, the government. Is one perspective or position to be privileged over another?

In relation to the USC, I bear this curiosity which I beg to voice – how important was it in determining the University’s relationship with the PAP government, post-1959? As much as we can argue that the USC’s political views and influence reached further and greater than would be proportional to its numbers, what was the real place the USC occupied in the thinking of the government in its attitude and policies towards the University after self-government? Again, I eagerly await the answers to my curiosity in Mr Lim’s book.

2 examples wd suffice: (1) After the 2 “preview” Seminars..on 15th Jan. 2007 in Singapore and 24th Feb. 2007 in KL, many students and academics wanted to know more abt the 50s and 60s; (2) Who invited DN Pritt in now settled by the then student leaders, Dr.Poh Soo Kai and Dr.MK Rajakumar.

I do agree that the University of Malaya Socialist Club were a “vocal minority” but their political views and influence were much, much wider than their numbers which is a normal phenomina in an any inspired and intellectually vocal group.

I understand that the proposed research group is trying to write a “balanced view of history” would not only reveal, as unearthed by research, a true record of the history of the University of Malaya Socialist Club but would also record the role and reactions of the other student groups who played a role in the political development of Malaya/Singapore in the 50s and 60s.

But your last sentence leads me to beg to ask: inspire to do what?
What inspiration and lessons should we draw from the Fajar case I wonder? It seems to me that the outcome and results of Fajar was more consequential towards stimulating student politicization than the initial outbreak, which seemed more of a case of the beleaguered colonial administration seeking to make an example of a vocal minority.

However, it is very refreshing to read a fresh perspective to the Fajar case than that presented in the MM’s memoirs and popular histories. I only beg that in recuperating the history of English-educated students in Singapore, we do not focus only on the University Socialists Club. There are other societies, individuals and organizations (which may overlap or have ties with the USC naturally) within the University who were actors in processes affecting the University and relations between the University and its Singaporean/Malayan milieu, with their diverse and particular concerns. In short, the history of the USC should not represent the history of the University, as much as it remains undoubtedly an integral part of it.

I am curious too about whether it is possible to get the Fajar off the list of banned publications so that the publication become more accessible