在与Pritam Singh团结一致的同时，我也邀请他阅读Michael Leigh教授的书第12页……
我不断在思考毕丹星的话：“尽管我同意覃炳鑫是被故意挑出来的，但在供证时他也挑行动党出来并施以特殊对待。他们 (指行动党) 不会让这事情出现在议会的记录内而不作出反驳。覃炳鑫有权针对行动党，但也要包括面对后果。”
毕丹星选择忽略覃炳鑫博士的陈词是一件不幸的事。由于毕丹星没有接受过正规的历史教育，作为一项有建设性的建议，请他考虑最近我从Michael Leigh教授的书中发现的一些证据，Michael Leigh教授是有关砂劳越和大马来西亚课题的大约60项包括书本、章回或文章的作者。
Dear Pritam, please see page 12…
I was not surprised when Dr Ping Tjin Thum was savagely mauled by the PAP establishment for his intervention as a concerned citizen and historian at the select committee hearing on the proposed legislation against fake news.
That the PAP dominated Select Committee would rubber stamp the proposal was a foregone conclusion.
What troubled me, and no doubt disappointed many, was the unfortunate fact that the Workers’ Party Secretary-General Pritam Singh voted together with the PAP members approving the report, thereby endorsing the Report attack on the integrity of Dr Thum as a person, and a historian.
I have been pondering over the words of Pritam Singh: “As much as I agree PJ (Thum PingTjin) was singled out, he also singled out the PAP for special treatment in his representation. There was no way they were going to let that stand on the parliament record, unrebutted. Singling out the PAP was PJ’s prerogative, consequences included.”
In layman term, Pritam Singh was almost saying “Hey PJ, you asked for it”.
What should be my appropriate choice of words to rebuke Pritam Singh without offending those who support the Workers’ Party? For a mild rebuke, I would say that Pritam’s failure to empathise with Dr Thum was because he lacks the requisite emotional intelligence required of a politician.
It is unfortunate that Pritam Singh chose to ignore Dr Thum’s submission. As Pritam Singh is not well schooled in history, as a constructive suggestion, I recommend him to consider a piece of evidence I recently discovered in the latest book of Professor Michael Leigh, an author of “some 60 books, chapters and articles on Sarawak and Greater Malaysia”.
In “Sarawak and Brunei in the Making of Malaysia” published in 2018, Michael Leigh wrote at page 12:
“The fact-finding Commission [Brunei Commission of Inquiry on Malaysia] reportedly record stiff and almost 100 per cent opposition to merging Brunei into Malaysia, from all sections of the population. That report was never released. In fact, the Secretary of State for the colonies cabled that Lee Kuan Yew had threatened to close the Reuters News Agency in Singapore, unless their reports on the Brunei fact-finding Commission was suppressed. Reuters obliged.”
The suppression of this important piece of news was important, because the Brunei revolt was later used as one of the justification for the suppression, and detention without trial of many Barisan Socialist politicians and activists.