SEPTEMBER 23 — Thum Ping Tjin aka PJ Thum, an increasingly prominent Singaporean historian, believes Singapore is part of Malaya.

He is almost certainly right. This is a historical and geographic fact. It has (in-itself) nothing to do with politics and modern Malaysia which is also part of the broader Malaya but not equal to it.

There are parts of Thailand, Myanmar and Indonesia that are clearly part of Malaya.

Where the boundaries of this (long defunct) entity should be drawn or what the term means is open to debate by scholars and historians (like Thum) but no matter how you draw the boundaries, Singapore would probably be in it.

Still despite this clear win on the history front, I’m not sure Thum is well served by pushing this Malaya narrative.

The rather impressive historian (he entered Harvard at 16, then decided to get another degree from Oxford and followed this up with a doctorate, also from Oxford, all while being a national swimmer — he would even go on to be the first Singaporean to swim the English Channel) has made quite a name for himself.

His outspoken historical opinions on matters like Singapore’s position within Malaya and apparent sympathy for those detained by the Singapore government’s anti-communist crackdowns in the 60s has put him at odds with the establishment.

His fractious relationship with the government came to a head in March when he was grilled by a parliamentary select committee over a paper he wrote on Operation Coldstone (a major 1963 anti-communist drive).

Some were sympathetic towards Thum after the grilling. People were asking themselves just why the government was going out of its way to question historians.

To some, it seemed, Thum represented a promising strain of opposition in Singapore — young, educated presentable. A walking contradiction to the narrative that Singapore is just too small to have an effective government and a competent opposition.

But Thum’s attachment to his Malayan narrative appears to be holding him back.

PJ Thum with the prime minister of Malaysia Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. — Picture from Dr Thum Ping Tjin Facebook

His interest in a greater and historical Malaya may be valid but it just provides ammunition for critics and in general makes him seem a bit of a disconnected geek rather than a powerful voice of constrictive criticism.

He was criticised for being disloyal to Singapore when he put up a Facebook post asking Singaporeans to celebrate Malaysian Independence Day.

Perhaps Thum’s objective was to make people aware of an important moment in both our nations’ histories, but obviously this can easily be misconstrued as disloyalty.

As expected, Thum was criticised by MPs and various other online commenters for the post.

This perception of Thum as being too close to Malaysia was only furthered after his now infamous August 30 meeting with Malaysia Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed.

Thum urged Mahathir to "take leadership in South-east Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of information.”

Inevitably, once again, he was attacked. This time for inviting foreign leaders to interfere in our affairs.

Now I don’t I believe Thum has any interest in foreign interference but why go see the prime minister at all? It is just poor optics and seems to be politically immature.

Now I’m not saying that Thum has political ambitions; I have no idea if he does or does not, but he certainly does seem to have an interest in increasing the space for debate and discussion in Singapore (which is a good thing).

I just don’t see how this case is helped by hanging out with a foreign leader who in the past certainly wasn’t too well disposed towards Singapore.

It looks a lot like Thum and his coterie got excited by the chance to the meet Dr Mahathir (okay, yes, I can see how this is legitimately exciting) and started posting over-excitedly on social media.

Not the behavior one would hope for from leaders of the charge towards a more open Singapore. Maybe he has no interest in being a political leader at all, but he needs to be clear.

He needs to either be an activist or a historian — he should not try to be both at the same or he’ll end up becoming a propagandist. The one thing he seems to be most opposed to.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.