Two possible answers..both unsatisfactory

In his foreword to the memoir of Roland Frank (Roly) Oakes, Singapore Story, Charles Groves Wright Anderson (15 February 1948:i-ii) made the following observation:

Post mortems and laying the blame are ugly things. A great national disaster such as the fall of Singapore is one that readily invites public demand for enquiry, especially when its importance is enhanced by the critical time at which it occurred; but I would rather hold my judgment until commander’s despatches and Civil authorities’ reports are sifted by the Historian and made known...There are at times in the field of human endeavour conflicting forces operating to bring about conditions that even the wisest and ablest man cannot straighten out. (Emphasis added)

This is both a sound observation and good advice. However, it is not always heeded. In the case of Richards verses Anderson, what are we to make of the doctor’s ‘diagnosis’? I think that there are at least three possible readings that we could consider. Having considered them, I will propose an approach that provides one of the reasons for this ‘digital biography’.

The first possibility goes something as follows. If Captain Richards actually believed that Colonel Anderson truly was mentally ill and a danger to himself and others, then Colonel Anderson should have been relieved of his command. As RMO, the responsibility for taking this action might well have fallen to Captain Richards. He would have, no doubt,  required the support of the other medical officers.

I have been reading and reviewing the various reports and, especially, the diary of Brigadier Varley, for many years. I have also read the official history. I have yet to discover any indication this action was ever taken. There is nothing noted in the portion of Colonel Anderson’s military record available to the public.

So, unless there has been some insidious cover up, it hardly seems credible that such an event had actually occurred. If it had and had been covered up, this would surely be something that Dr Richards would wish to alert the public about. But, he does not mention this.

Of course, there is a second possibility. Captain Richards may have believed that Colonel Anderson was unfit for command at the time. Despite his concerns, Captain Richards may have failed in his duty to report such a circumstance. However, such a failure would hardly be characteristic of Captain Richards. It certainly would not redound to his credit. So, why would he raise it and incriminate himself?

There is a final reading to be considered.