(中英文版)陈仁贵(1939年1月18日——2011年6月14日)TAN JING QUEE (18 Jan 1939 – 14 June 2011)

Teo Soh Lung 张素兰

Function 8 – Posts | Facebook

TAN JING QUEE (18 Jan 1939 – 14 June 2011)

I shall always remember that day in 1986, when without any prior arrangement, Jing Quee came to my office in Geylang. It was during the time when the Law Society of Singapore was under attack from various quarters, including anonymous writers to the Forum Page of The Straits Times. He was in a sort of a hurry and came straight to the point. He told me to be careful and asked why I had set up my law office in Geylang and not in the city. He said I was attracting undue attention.

I was surprised and asked him why he thought I was in danger. I told him that everything I did was in the open and the government knew that I have hidden nothing from them.

Jing Quee was agitated and snapped back. “We also did nothing and yet we were detained.”

I was taken aback and was silent. But still, I did not experience any fear of arrest. The 1977 arrests of my former boss, G Raman together with other lawyers – Jing Quee, R Joethy, Ong Bock Chuan and many of their friends who I knew had long been forgotten. I didn’t know what they did to get arrested. When they were released, they never spoke about their detentions though I must admit that I never asked them. But I believed then and now, that they were innocent of the allegations brought against them by the government.

Jing Quee’s visit was short. It was as if his mission was just to warn me of the danger ahead. But even if I had wanted to take precautions of any kind, it was I think, too late. The eggs had been cracked and turned into omelette. A few months later, Jing Quee’s words rang in my ears when I shivered in the dark cold room!

Jing Quee was a man of many talents. He was not only an excellent lawyer but also a thinker, poet, writer and self-taught historian. He would have written a play. It was all in his head. But alas, his health did not permit that. He had to finish his more urgent work which was the Operation Coldstore book.

When I visited Jing Quee in hospital, he was at peace. He had already dictated the outline to Lysa Hong and he knew that she would finish the book when he is gone. He was lucid and told me in a calm voice: “Everyone must go this way.” Yes, he was prepared to go into the void.

Jing Quee wrote his final farewell to his family six months before he died.


I had a vision cruising down the canal

The ship chugged along the left bank

lined with beautiful flowers of multi hues

the music filled the air

as I sailed along towards open seas

If you wake up to find that I have gone

do not shed your tears

When I fade away

and the qi has departed from my body

construct a life for yourself and those close to you

do not shed your tears when I have finally gone

When I shall glide away

towards the void of peace sans consciousness

No one will even remember what good I may have done

nor the wrongs I may have committed

So do not shed your tears

when I eventually slide

into absolute silence and peace

So my loved ones

do not shed your tears when I finally go

I shall go gently when it is time

I shall not rail or curse

against the declining sun

I shall go gently

Into a vastness

I have not seen or experienced

I shall go gently

Knowing that I have done what I have

In my allotted span of time

The parade of all images, faces

appear one by one across my mind

I shall go gently when it is time

Only memories of others may retain my presence

I shall go gently when it is time

So my beloved

do not shed your tears when I have gone

My humanity is but a speck

Within the vast cosmos


Therefore as I go gently

though body and spirituality be severed

the larger body remains

Existence is but a bleep

Followed by

a permanent silence

December 2010





我此时保持缄默。但是,我仍然是坚持这样的看法。因为我没有任何对被捕感到恐惧的经验。1977年我的老板拉曼(G. LAMAN)与其他的律师一起被捕——他们包括了仁贵、R. JOETHY、ONG BOCK CHUAN,以及他们的朋友。由于是时间太久了,我已经忘记他们的名字。我根本就不知道他们为什么被捕?他们被释放时,他们没有提到自己被捕的事件,当然我也没有问他们。但是从那时起到现在,我已经相信,政府对他们的指控都是莫须有的。他们是无辜的。





Jing Quee wrote his final farewell to his family six months before he died.


I had a vision cruising down the canal

The ship chugged along the left bank

lined with beautiful flowers of multi hues

the music filled the air

as I sailed along towards open seas

If you wake up to find that I have gone

do not shed your tears

When I fade away

and the qi has departed from my body

construct a life for yourself and those close to you

do not shed your tears when I have finally gone

When I shall glide away

towards the void of peace sans consciousness

No one will even remember what good I may have done

nor the wrongs I may have committed

So do not shed your tears

when I eventually slide

into absolute silence and peace

So my loved ones

do not shed your tears when I finally go

I shall go gently when it is time

I shall not rail or curse

against the declining sun

I shall go gently

Into a vastness

I have not seen or experienced

I shall go gently

Knowing that I have done what I have

In my allotted span of time

The parade of all images, faces

appear one by one across my mind

I shall go gently when it is time

Only memories of others may retain my presence

I shall go gently when it is time

So my beloved

do not shed your tears when I have gone

My humanity is but a speck

Within the vast cosmos


Therefore as I go gently

though body and spirituality be severed

the larger body remains

Existence is but a bleep

Followed by

a permanent silence

December 2010



── 叶德民 ──

Nanyang University and Beyond -4026- 深深地怀念林清祥 (nandazhan.com)




  好多年前,吉隆坡友人送了一套《林清祥与他的时代》给笔者,书是在2002年12月朝花企业和社会分析学会联合出版,《马来西亚历史的另一面》系列之五。书是按《Comet in our sky:Lim Chin Siong in History》原编者陈仁贵等人的建议,保持原固有的风格,独立成册,取名《林清祥与他的时代》。

  《马来西亚历史的另一面》系列丛书的编委合共有59人,他们基本是受华文教育,反对殖民主义、伸张正义的普通参与者,他们是通过集体的智慧,客观地来对历史负责。《Comet in our sky:Lim Chin Siong in History》的主要编辑是陈仁贵和 Jomo K. S.。陈仁贵是众人皆知,他双目已近失明同时身患癌症多年,却依然孜孜不倦地收集新、马人民反对殖民主义和争取独立的历史记录、数据和有关档案。本着对历史负责的真诚,从不计较其个人的得失,默默耕耘人民的历史,直到最后的一口气,可谓为客观、公正、公平的正义事业鞠躬尽瘁,死而后已。其人格值得世人的敬佩,是学习的楷模。


  《林清祥与他的时代》由 Jomo K. S. 作序,上册按《Comet in our sky》汇集了11篇对林清祥及那段历史的评述和1篇陈仁贵纪念林清祥的诗篇。这些文章分别由11位受英文教育的各族知识分子评述林清祥在这段历史的作用及其影响,具有较高学术性的探讨,颇具价值,值得参阅。陈仁贵写《林清祥的政治生涯》中有也有提到“一直被扣留在牢里的林清祥,患上严重的忧郁症,使他身体不能再支持下去,而精神上也饱受创伤。于是,他宣布退出政治,自我流放到伦敦去。……政治生命被摧毁。不可避免,有人谴责他,使他极端痛苦”(《林清祥与他的时代》上册138页)。下册分为第一单元,编委收集各类报章上林清祥的文章、谈话和讲稿,第二单元收集了叶敬林写《林清祥光辉的一生》,以及林清祥葬礼和新、马各地追悼会上朋友们的讲词及附录。

  林清祥活跃在新、马的学生运动、职工运动以及反殖争取独立运动的时间不是很长。从1951年他反对初中三会考算起,到1969年7月21日他公开致函李绍祖,“从今天起辞掉在党的一切职位,并宣布放弃政治”(1969年7月24日星洲日报星加坡新闻),同版的政府文告提及“P.W. 魏医生,他诊治林君之情绪消沉”。他的政治生命被击溃了,从此生活低调至生命的终结,政治生涯仅有短暂的18年。

  1996年林清祥逝世时,震撼了新、马两地的社会,各大报章均以显著标题予以详细报导及评述,朝野政要以及各界人士纷纷发表谈话,予以相当的评价,肯定他的贡献。2月9日朝野政要与各界人士参与了葬礼,约700位各界人士到火化场高唱《友谊万岁》送别。3月17日数百名各界人士在吉隆坡为林清祥和 T.T. 拉惹律师(于3月13日逝世)举行追悼会。

  林清祥活跃政坛18年,政治生涯就被击毁,然而死后获得众多朝野政要和各界人士的褒扬,包括林福寿、赛扎哈里、T.T. 拉惹、陈仁贵、拉惹古玛等等。2002年还有出版社和数十人参与编辑,出版具有学术性地评价林清祥在历史上的影响和作用的书,肯定其对历史的功勋。毫无疑义,大家都肯定了林清祥的贡献。

  2016年新加坡 Fuction 8 Ltd. 出版了《清水长流 祥光永晖》来纪念林清祥逝世20周年,这本书的编辑是陈国防和陈慧娴,其中傅树介医生撰写了「深深怀念林清祥牢记我们的反殖民主义历史」,充分说明了林清祥的政治生涯就是一面反殖的旗帜,有力地推动了新、马人民反对殖民主义的浪潮。这本书也附录了林清祥1956年10月25日在《美世界》演讲实况录音,当时林清祥是用闽南话演讲,用非常平民化和通俗化的语言批判了当时的林有福政府,获得了广大群众和人民的支持,充分说明了人民群众对林清祥这位普通工人的平民化作风感到亲切如兄弟姐妹而获得热烈的支持。




这是美国美军参谋长联席会议主席的豪言壮语:“美国有能力保卫台湾”!(据美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)6月11日消息,美军参谋长联席会议主席马克·米利(Mark Milley)周四(10日)在参议院听证会上鼓吹,美国“有能力‘保卫台湾’”)




















一旦共产党决定要实现统一,绝对不会像目前一样“倾听台湾同胞”的态度 ,‘倾听’蓝皮绿骨国民党人的‘倾诉“!因为自从连战到北京打破两岸僵局,与胡惊涛“一笑泯千愁”后,该谈的、该听的、该采纳的,共产党人都一一接纳和兑现了!反过来,蓝皮绿骨国民党人却利用共产党的这点‘耐心’继续采取‘维持两岸现状’——‘不统不独’!



他们经历了1948年9月12日到1949年 1月31日面对共产党的三大战役:淮海战役、平津战役和辽沈战役,以及1949年4月21日到6月2日的渡江战役(也就是最终解放军占领南京、蒋介石全面“战略性撤退到台湾”)!这是现在的蓝皮绿骨国民党人以及民进党未曾见识过和领教过的!







现在西方国家为了阻止中国的和平崛起,不惜人为操弄台湾问题,这只是表象!(这与2019年6月,西方开始在香港进行所谓的“返送中”一样)一旦他们的目的达到,或者真的海峡战争爆发,他们就只能在世界范围内进行舆论战争——进行反华反共的舆论攻势!而台湾的民进党人跑到日本!蓝皮绿骨国民党人也只能是“识时务者为俊杰”——向中国 “表达诚意”、或者跑到日本或者美国去!














(中英文版)英国华裔职业人士代表给 G7国家领导人的一封公开信An open letter from representatives of Chinese professionals in the U.K. to the leaders of the G7 countries

An open letter from representatives of Chinese professionals in the U.K. to the leaders of the G7 countries

陈华彪 TAN WAH PIOW 10 June2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

We are a collective of professionals of Chinese ethnic origin residing in the United Kingdom. We wish to express the community’s hope that leaders at the 2021 G7 will take all necessary step to defuse the current hostility towards China and the Chinese people. Many of us had lived experience in China, and extensive relationships with the country and people. We implore the leaders of the G7 to regard China as a friend and not as an enemy. We are glad that the Covid-19 pandemic is the main agenda for the 2021 G7 conference. However, we are anxious that this forum should not be abused as a platform to propagate anti-China covid-19 related myths. As the 7 April, 2020 Nature publication rightly warned, “continuing to associate a virus and the disease it causes with a specific place is irresponsible and needs to stop. As infectious disease epidemiologist Adam Kucharski reminds us in his timely book The Rules of Contagion: history tells us that pandemics lead to communities being stigmatised, which is why we all need to exercise more care.

The international rule-based system has designated the WHO as the competent body to deal with such a pandemic. Hence, all political accusations about the virus that is not science-based are unhelpful and a distraction to making the world safe from the pandemic.

A member of this collective, Dr Michael Ng, a community leader and a university professor in the U.K., is involved in combating pandemic related hate crimes against the Chinese community. He wishes to remind the G7 that any attempt to politicise the Covid-19 issue against China would fan the flame of hate crimes against the community. That would undo all the excellent efforts of the local councils, civic groups, police force and community leaders who had helped defuse the spread of hate crimes.

Dr Ping Hua, a research scientist, is concerned that the rise of hate crimes and daily demonising of China has created such a hostile environment for Chinese scientists that could stymie the scientific and intellectual exchanges between the West and the world’s fastest-growing economy. We note with concern the United States anxiety over the economic rise of China. China’s per capita is only one-fifth of the United States, with only one military base abroad compared to 800 of the United States. She is not a threat to

the West. China’s rise is complementary to Western interests. A more prosperous China could only benefit the working people in the West through higher demands for western goods and services. Treating China’s rise as a threat to the United States or the West is based on fiction.

China is not a utopia, but it is undoubtedly not a dystopia as Western critics and media visualise. The Chinese people are aware of the ideological differences between the West and China. Yet over 90% supports the government in Beijing. This is the finding from a 13-year long survey carried out by the Ash Center of Harvard University. They found that the majority of the population surveyed feels that today is better than yesterday. They expect tomorrow to be better than today. The millions of Chinese who voted with their feet to return home after their travel and studies in the West corroborates with the Ash Center findings.

China’s governance is different from the West. That does not necessarily mean that the Communist Party of China can defy the wishes of its citizen. This is the conclusion of the Survey. According to Edward Cunningham, who co-authored the research from 2003-2016, “CCP isn’t immune to shift public opinion, especially in areas like corruption, environmental degradation, health, and overall standards of living.”

 When considering whether China is a friend and partner, or enemy, G7 should consider the independent findings of the Ash Center. We are concerned that current hostilities towards China in the West are manufactured and ratcheted up in the United

States to serve the interest of the military-industrial complex and the electoral needs of both the Democrats and the Republicans.

The alleged genocide in Xinjiang and the threat of invasion of Taiwan are the two most important examples.

On Genocide in Xinjiang

We believe that the claim of genocide in Xinjiang is untenable as the Uighur population has increased from 5 million to 13 million since the 1950s. If China does enslave a million Uighurs, the CIA enhanced aerial surveillance technology could easily prove the allegation with video images of prisoners in the yards. They have not done so.

Critics of China have studiously ignored a World Bank statement of the 11 November 2019 that dealt with the allegation that skills and learning institutions associated with the Bank were defacto prisons.  “In line with standard practice, immediately after receiving a series of serious allegations in August 2019 in connection with the Xinjiang Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project, the Bank launched a fact-finding review, and World Bank senior managers travelled to Xinjiang to gather information directly… The review did not substantiate the allegations.” Mr Bitu Bhalla, a member of the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn and International Arbitrator, and Mr Wah-Piow Tan, a Balliol-educated Human Rights solicitor, were unimpressed by the various legal opinions supporting the claim of genocide against China. “China and the World Bank’s $100 million

education and training program in Xinjiang,” they observed, “is cast-iron evidence that China has no specific intention to kill a part or whole of the Uighur population.  Without specific intention, there cannot be any genocide.” What genocide regime would spend $100 million to educate and train the people you plan to kill?” They are also disappointed that the issues of proportionality were not adequately addressed, or addressed at all by those Barristers criticising China’s response to the threats of terrorism.

“Unlike Britain or the United States, China confronts an Al-Qaeda and ISIS-inspired insurgency seeking to establish an Islamic Caliphate in Xinjiang and Central Asia. Even the  Indian government, an ally of the West, has argued for the suspension of human rights when fighting terrorism,” said Tan.

On China threat to Taiwan

According to the Economist, Taiwan has become the most dangerous place globally because of the risk of military conflict between the United States and China. There is enough nuclear arsenal between them to destroy the planet. What the United States perceives as China’s threat to Taiwan is viewed differently by the Chinese people. At an International Affairs Fellowship forum, a U.S. think tank, a panellist reported that 100% of overseas Chinese students in the United States considered Taiwan a province of China. “The possible validity of Chinese claims” over Taiwan, remarked historian Max Hastings in a recent opinion piece in Bloomberg, was not even considered by the China experts advising the American administration. Max Hastings had raised a valid question. The overwhelming majority of countries worldwide recognise the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government of China and pursue the one-China policy.  This is de facto recognition of China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.  To China, it is an unfinished reunification process.

The United States has its own hidden agenda to embolden the Taiwanese separatists, in the same vein as encouraging Uighur or Hong Kong separatists. We hope the G7 should advise the United States to refrain from redefining its one-China policy, thereby destroying any likelihood of an amicable arrangement for reunification.

The impending war

We are particularly concerned that Britain’s aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth II,  the third-largest globally, is speeding towards Taiwan to flex its muscles at China.  Instead of supporting the hawkish approach of the United States towards China, the G7 should review the futilities of wars launched since the 2001 9/11 attack. The wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya had caused 800,000 deaths, displaced 21 million people, wasted $ 6.4 trillion. These wars  created failed states, not democracies.

Tan Wah Piow  (Universal Common Sense)

On behalf of the Collective of Chinese Professionals

Tan Wah Piow –Balliol-educated Human Rights solicitor, practising in London. Director Universal Common Sense

*“War No More” a DVD production. www.abolishwar.org.uk

英国华裔职业人士代表给 G7 国家领导人的一封公开信

2021年6月10日 -伦敦 陈华彪



我们感到高兴的是COVID-19大流行是2021年七国集团会议的主要议程。然而,我们急切地希望,这个论坛不应被滥用为传播反华神话的平台。正如2020年4月7日《自然》杂志恰当地警告那样,”继续将病毒及其引发的疾病与特定地点关联是不负责任的,必须停止。如传染病及流行病学家亚当·库查斯基(Adam Kucharski)在他适时的著作《传染的规则:历史告诉我们,流行病导致社区被污名化》一书中提醒我们的那样,这就是为什么我们都需要多加小心。


我们中一员,黄蒿钧博士 ,社区侨领和大学教授,参与了打击针对华人社区的与大流行有关的仇恨犯罪的活动。他想提醒七国集团,任何将COVID-19问题政治化的企图都将煽动针对华人社区的仇恨犯罪的火焰,使得地方议会、民间团体、警察和社区领导人为化解仇恨犯罪做出的所有出色的努力都化为乌有。



中国不是一个乌托邦,但毫无疑问不是西方批评家和媒体想象中的反乌托邦。中国人民了解西方和中国之间的意识形态差异。然而,超过90%的人支持北京政府。这是从哈佛大学阿什中心(Ash Center)进行的一项长达13年的调查中得出的结论。他们发现大多数被调查者认为今天比昨天好。他们预计明天会比今天更好。数百万中国人在西方旅行和学习后选择回国也证实了阿什中心的结论。

中国的施政与西方不同。这并不一定意味着中国共产党可以违抗其公民的意愿。这是调查得出的结论。爱德华·坎宁安(Edward Cunningham)从2003年至2016年共同撰写了这项研究报告。据他说,”中共也不能幸免于公众舆论的转变,尤其是在腐败、环境恶化、健康和整体生活水平等领域。”







格雷律师学院荣誉协会成员,国际仲裁员比图·巴拉先生(Bitu Bhalla)和受过牛津大学巴利奥尔学院教育的人权律师陈华彪先生对支持指控中国犯下种族灭绝罪的各种法律意见嗤之以鼻。他们注意到:”中国和世界银行在新疆的1亿美元教育和培训项目,是”中国没有特定意图杀害部分或全部维吾尔族人口的铁腕证据。 没有特定的意图,就不可能有任何种族灭绝。哪个要种族灭绝的政权会花费1亿美元来教育和训练你打算杀害的人?他们还感到失望的是,那些批评中国应对恐怖主义威胁的大律师没有充分论述甚至根本只字未提相称性问题(指恐怖主义的威胁和反恐手段的相称性-译者注)。

“与英国或美国不同,中国面临着基地组织和ISIS煽动暴乱以试图在新疆和中亚建立伊斯兰哈里发的问题。就连作为西方盟友的印度政府也主张在打击恐怖主义时暂莫谈人权,” 陈律师说。



美国认为的中国对台湾的威胁,在中国人民看来是不同的。在美国智库国际事务联谊会论坛上,一位小组成员报告说,100%的在美中国留学生认为台湾是中国的一个省。历史学家马克斯·哈斯廷斯(Max Hastings)最近在彭博社的一篇评论文章中指出,中国对台主张的”可能的有效性”,甚至没有被为美国政府提供建议的中国专家们所考虑。马克斯·哈斯廷斯提出了一个有价值的问题。世界上绝大多数国家都承认中华人民共和国是中国的合法政府,奉行一个中国政策。 这是事实上承认中国对台湾的主权。 对中国来说,这是一个未完成的统一进程。



我们尤其关切的是,全球第三大航空母舰”伊丽莎白二世女王号”正驶向台湾,向中国秀实力。 七国集团不应支持美国对中国的鹰派态度,而应重新审视自2001年9/11恐怖袭击以来发动的徒劳的战争。阿富汗、叙利亚、伊拉克和利比亚的战争已造成80万人死亡,2100万人流离失所,浪费了6.4万亿美元。这些战争制造了失败的国家,而不是民主国家。


危险如此严峻,资深和平活动家布鲁斯•肯特(Bruce Kent)的建议应该受到严肃对待:”我们可以学会像邻居一样和谐相处……我们必须学会作为合作伙伴生活。

陈华彪 (常理创办人)








  1. 新加坡并没有在1963年“加入”马来西亚!














23/6李光耀在巴耶利巴机场对记者说: “我不知道买米兰达的军事专家怎样说,不过,我十分相信新加坡在马来西亚以外(意思‘就是新加坡退出大马’),你们这就意味着它的根据地非常快地消失掉,到时就没有防卫马来西亚的力量了……如果马来西亚有没有新加坡,我想,一些人一定在一些地方作了一些错误的计算,因为我能够看到很多麻烦在新加坡发生,将彻底地动摇了英国的基地……”
5行动党带头成立‘马来西亚团结机构’统合了争取‘马来西亚人的马来西亚’各个政党,加剧了巫统 和行动党之间的敌意。





小鬼扰人间 也得请示钟馗

最近网上流传了一则视频。(见视频网址:Viral video showing racist remarks made towards interracial couple, “Chinese” man tells them to date people of their own race – The Online Citizen Asia











1. 巫统以保护新加坡马来人的幌子,先发制人在新加坡开杀!

2. 李光耀以反对种族主义为借口,接机砍掉巫统在新加坡的势力!

3. 英国人已经把新加坡安排进入马来西亚(请注意:新加坡不是李光耀争取 加入马来西亚的。当时新加坡还是英国人控制下的新加坡自治邦政府。没有资格与东姑和英国人谈论或参与讨论加入组织马来西亚的一切事宜!)。它在远东地区的军事、经济和政治利益已经获得保证了!新加坡的马来人与华人之间的猜疑矛盾,或者新加坡有行动党与马来西亚巫统之间的狗咬狗,都与它无关,或者说,有利无害!


历史告诉我们,每当统治者面对不可摆脱的政治经济危机困境,它们就是使出”反对种族主义、沙文注主义和排外思想”的口号,背后唆使 一些人进行各种各样的种族主义言论行为,以便转移人民对现状的不满,要求改变现有的政治体制!



新加坡人就是一个人民!就是一个国家!One People, One nation, One Singapore!新加坡各族人民绝对有能力可以拒绝任何散播种族主义者、沙文主义者和排外思潮者的挑拨离间!






(中英文版) 别以貌取人Don’t judge a book by its cover!

作者: 张素兰 TEO SOHL UNG

Function 8 – Posts | Facebook



This book with an unattractive cover tells the important and sad history of Singapore when bright and idealistic people who would have been great leaders were arrested and imprisoned without trial. Anyone who has an iota of doubt about the innocence of the victims of Operation Coldstore of which A. Mahadeva was one, should read this book.

I met Mahadeva in the 1970s, before his second arrest in 1977. I remember him to be a witty and humorous person whose twinkling eyes belie the trauma he had undergone in prison and which ended his career as a gifted journalist and trade unionist. He never spoke about his incarceration and how he and his family suffered as a consequence of his arrest and detention. His father lost his job with the Housing and Development Board and the family faced tremendous financial hardship.

Back in the 1970s, no one spoke about Operation Coldstore and few knew of the victims of Coldstore. Even after Mahadeva’s second arrest in 1977, I did not know about Operation Coldstore and the fate of hundreds if not thousands of victims who were swept into jail and tortured by the PAP government throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s.

Reading Mahadeva’s memoirs saddens me. He would have written his autobiography had he not suffered a stroke in 1996. He had already amassed a great deal of materials – his prison diaries, notes, newspapers, documents etc. Fortunately for us, his younger brother, Arun Bala has managed to read and research the documents and put together his memoirs for us today.

The book tells of Mahadeva’s childhood. Born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1931, he came to Singapore with his mother when he was four months’ old. His father had migrated to Malaya as early as 1919 and worked with the railway board. His mother passed away when he was five. Some years later, his father remarried and his step mother doted on him.

When the British enacted the Citizenship Ordinance in 1957, Mahadeva registered as a Singapore citizen. That was in 1958.

It is thus mind boggling how in 1967 (while Mahadeva was in prison) the Committee of Inquiry could deprive Mahadeva of his citizenship on the grounds that he had allegedly been “engaged in activities which are prejudicial to the security of Singapore.” Even if the allegation was true (which it was not), the committee had no right to deprive him of his citizenship as that would render him stateless, a status that is not permitted under our Constitution. The fact that his citizenship was revoked despite the constitutional protection showed the powerless and compliant nature of the committee.

Mahadeva was not the only person to be deprived of citizenship. There were others too. Deprivation of citizenship is a practice that is still prevalent today.

The book give us an insight into the lives of idealistic young people of the ’60s. Mahadeva and his friends were anti colonial and filled with the hope that Singapore or rather Malaya would one day be a democratic, socialist and multi racial country with Malay as the National language. Unfortunately, as we all know, Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues who were much older than Mahadeva and his friends not only worked with the British to gain complete control of Singapore but went on to imprison many of them for decades. Lee’s small mindedness is well known. Offend him once, and that was what happened with Mahadeva who refused to give Lee a straight answer about his loyalty, and the consequences would be devastating and totally disproportionate.

Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues lost no time in taming and destroying trade unions once they were in power. Mahadeva’s memoirs tell of the disturbing case of K. Koya who was a journalist of ten years experience with the Kerala Bandhu Daily. He was dismissed by the daily in 1961.

As Secretary-General of the Singapore National Union of Journalists, Mahadeva took up his case before the newly inaugurated Arbitration Court. Mahadeva presented a brilliant case before the President of the Court, Charles Gamba. Gamba was Mahadeva’s lecturer when he was an undergrad with the University of Malaya. But even before the case was concluded, politics meddled with the court’s proceedings. Apparently, the Malayan government was not happy with the Tamil Daily under the leadership of Koya and complained to the Singapore government, alleging that the paper was pro communist. As a consequence, the hearing before the court was abandoned midstream by the president. He unilaterally dismissed Koya’s case on security grounds but strangely, awarded $2,000 as compensation to him. It was an absurd decision. It exposed the arbitration court as partisan to politics.

Mahadeva contemplated pursuing the matter further but abandoned it for practical reasons. What if Koya loses his compensation?

The book detailed the case of Koya and the work of Mahadeva as a brilliant and courageous advocate of workers’ rights. Sadly, Koya was also arrested in Operation Coldstore and subsequently banished to India.

While Mahadeva was in prison, two race riots occurred. The first took place on 21 July 1964. The second incident took place on 3 September 1964. They were the result of both the PAP and UMNO playing up their race cards. The two riots resulted in 36 deaths while the other frequently cited riots resulted in much less casualties. The Maria Hertogh Riots resulted in 18 deaths, Hock Lee Bus Riots (4 deaths) and Chinese Middle School incident (13 deaths).

I am glad that the author also gave us a good account of how Mahadeva spent his days in prison, their being shifted from Changi to Queenstown and CID and how the prison authorities suppressed correspondence to his family and his lawyer, T T Rajah.

We are fortunate that Mahadeva was in possession of statements addressed to the ISA advisory board explaining why he and his fellow prisoners refused to attend hearings before the board.

Mahadeva had probably experienced all the prisons for political prisoners in Singapore – CID, Outram, Queenstown, Changi and Whitley. Four of these prisons have already been demolished and it is likely that Whitley is no longer used for political prisoners. The Memoirs provide a good record of all the notorious prisons for political detainees in Singapore.

Finally, the book disclosed the painful process of writing “security statements” and compulsory television appearance before Mahadeva was released. Only an authoritarian government would insist on prisoners giving such interviews and statements after robbing them of their freedom. In Mahadeva’s case it was six years for Operation Coldstore and another four months in 1977 for allegedly being involved in a “Euro-Communist” plot which resulted in the expulsion or resignation of the PAP from Socialist International.

If not for his arrest and detention, Mahadeva would probably have been a famous journalist of international repute.

Any person who still believes that the victims of Operation Coldstore were communists, pro communists or communist sympathisers and were threats to national security should read Mahadeva’s Memoirs.

This book is available from Word Image https://www.wordimagesg.com/…/completing-the-singapore…

Price S$35; 516 pages







当1957年,英国人实施公民权法令时,马哈迪哇在 新加坡成为注册公民。那是1958年。1967年马哈迪哇还被监禁在牢里时,调查委员会指控他“从事有损于新加坡安全的活动”而剥夺了他的公民权。即便是这项指控是事实(事实上是捏造的罪名),委员会也无权剥夺他的公民权,浙江 导致他成为无国籍者,这是在国家宪法里所不允许的。事实是,他的公民权被剥夺是失去国家宪法的保护。这恶显示了委员会的无权和委员会的本质。



李光耀和他的同僚在他们取得政权后,不失时机地驯服和摧毁职工会。马哈迪哇在他的回忆录里例举了一名在Kerala Bandhu 日报工作了10年,具有丰富经验的记者,名叫K. Koya的为例子。他在1961年被报馆解雇。

马哈迪哇是新加坡全国记者联合会的秘书长。他的自己的案件提交到刚刚成立的仲裁庭。他呈交了一起极其精彩的案例个仲裁庭主席。仲裁庭主席查理斯干巴(Charles Gamba)是马哈迪哇在马来亚大学读书时的讲师。但是在这起案件被裁决前,发贴的裁决受到了政治的干预。很明显的,马来亚政府不欢迎Koya领导《淡米尔日报》。政府投诉该报是亲共的。理所当然的结果是,上诉仲裁庭主席半途放弃众筹上诉。他给予安全的政治因素拒绝了Koya上诉的案件。Koya获得2千元的赔偿。这是一个荒谬的决定。它暴露了仲裁庭是属于政党的政治工具。

马哈迪哇尝试继续追索周期案件,但是基于现实的情况最终是放弃了。假设Koya获得赔偿?这本书详细记载了Koya的案件 ,以及马哈迪哇作一名为敢于争取工人权益的倡导者。令人遗憾的是,Koya也在《冷藏行动》被捕,接着就被驱逐到印度。

当马哈迪哇被监禁在监狱时,新加坡发生了2次种族骚扰。第一次是发生在1964年7月2日。第二次是在1964年9月3日。导致这2次 种族骚扰的导火线是行动党与(当时的)巫统之间在玩弄种族主义牌子。这2场种族骚扰导致36个人死亡,而其他经常提到的骚乱造成的伤亡要少得多。《玛利亚事件》的暴动导致18人死亡、福利巴士工友罢工导致4人死亡,以及华校中学生于1954年5月13日,即“513事件”导致的死亡人数是13人。







(中英文版)人权是至关重要的,但不是单向的 Human Rights is vital, but not one dimensional.



Many human rights defenders in Southeast Asia use today 6th June to commemorate the events at Tiananmen in China.

I too am eager, awaiting for the arrival of this new book. Vijay Gokhale was junior diplomat then in1989, and later became indian foreign minister.

His book criticises western reporting on Tiananmen at the time, and also criticised Western embassies take of the event. He was at the square. he said there was no massacre, or fights between different PLA factions as reported in Western media. He wrote as an eyewitness.

During an interview with Book Corner, Vijay Gokhale criticised one well known US journalist for taking out a Tiananmen ‘hunger striker’ for dinner without mentioning it in the report which was about the man going on hunger strike till his death.

A similar ‘contrarian’ account was published in 2010.

Certainly something happened in 1989, there were deep resentments in Chinese society over the economic impact of rolling out the market economy and neo-liberalism; there were competing political narratives.

Most importantly very few in the West, in Singapore or HongKong who ritually use today to vent their disapproval of Beijing are aware, or care to investigate the ideological debates within China since 1989.

These debates are in Mandarin, amongst intellectuals of the 1989 generations on democratisation in China, on rule of law, on how technological changes have injected a new culture of mass democracy taking on a new form which is in the making.

 As ‘Human Rights Defenders’ we need to extend our world view of democracy beyond the narrow remit of our own political experience; and at the same time be conscious that the ‘human rights industry’ in the West is currently being weaponised as the instrument in the service Western political-cultural imperialism, in place of Christianity in the 18th and 19th Century. If you have doubt, read The Elements of the China Challenge, US the Secretary of State Department policy paper published in Nov 2020 by Mike Pompeo, and adopted in spirit by Blinken.

My view is Human Rights is vital, but not one dimensional.



我也是一样渴望等待着一本Vijay Gokhale撰写的新书的出版。作者Vijay Gokhale在1989年是一名初级外交官,后来成为印度外交部长。


在图书馆角落接受采访期间,Vijay Gokhale批评了一位我所知道的美国记者谈到天安门事件的‘绝食者’。他并没有报道这些声称将绝食直至死亡的‘绝食者’进食晚餐的情况。


在1989年肯定发生一些事情。人民对对东市场经济和新自由主义给 中国社会经济冲击深感不满;有相互竞争的政治叙事。



身为‘人权捍卫者’,我们需要超越受自己的狭隘的政治经验的影响,扩大对民主的世界观;与此同时,要意识到目前‘人权工业’在西方已经被利用为一种工具为西方帝国主义的政治-文化服务,取代了18和19世纪的基督精神。假设您感到疑惑,你可以阅读2020年11月由美国国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥(Mike Pompeo)撰写的《美国国务院政策白皮书》:《中国挑战的因素》。日


My post’s Feed back from netizens


My posting on Vikay Gokhale’s Tiananmen book attracted an attack within 2 minutes, with the usual unintelligent cold-war era vitriolic, accusing Vijay as a ‘communist dog’ or was wearing tinted glasses. Understandably, many questioned his account as contrary to what we believed to have happened. I was not there.

But Vijay was at The Tiananmen Square. What he then observed was reported to his boss, the Indian Ambassador to Indian, Mr Menon.

Mr Menon was recently at the Carnegie India forum as a panelist discussing Vijay’s book. If Vijay account is not credible, Mr Menon, a man of the Indian Establishment would not have publicly endorse such a controversial publication which challenges the entire western media take on Tiananmen.

Vijay is also from the Indian Establishment. His account of what he saw is consistent with the report of a Chilean diplomat who later briefed the US Embassy. The excerpt below is worth reading if TRUTH MATTERS.

An excerpt from Vijay Gokhale’s book, its free.


To assess the man, watch the Carnegie India forum before calling names. Freely available on Google.

Photoshot below: Vijay on the Too Right; the former Ambassador on the Bottom Left at the Carnegie India Book Talk.


我上载了 Vikay Gokhale出版的有关天安门时事件的书,在短短的2分钟就引来了网民的反驳。他们使用了冷战时代不正常、无知的语言指责了 Vikay Gokhale是‘共产党走狗’或者是‘带着有色的眼睛’。可以理解,很多人对他的说法与我们所相信的恰好相反。我并不在现场。

但是,Vikay Gokhale当时是在现场。他把当时现场所见向上级汇报。他的上级就是时任印度驻华大使Mr Menon。Mr Menon最近在印度的一个Carnegie India的一个座谈会上作为一个专家组成员的身份参与讨论Vikay Gokhale出版的这本书 。假设他出版的书内容不值得信赖的。那么,Mr Menon作为一名来自印度体制机构具有身份的人是不会公开赞同这本具有争议性的书籍了。意味着是在挑战西方媒体在天安门事件的观点。

Vijay Gokhale也同样是来自的印度体制机构的。这本书的内容是本人所见的事实是与智利外交官后来想美国大使所做的报告是一致的。如果真相重要的话,下面的摘录值得一读。

摘自Vijay Gokhale出版的书,只是免费的:


要判断一个人,就得先去Carnegie India了解再给予下定论。可以到谷歌网站下载有关信息。

以上这组照片是摄于Carnegie India论坛有关出版这本的讨论会。


(中英文版)林福寿医生于1972年3月18日发自监狱发表的声明Dr Lim Hock Siew speaks from Singapore Prison Public Statement——Dated 18 March 1972

 NOTE: The Statements was released by His Wife, Dr Beatrice Chen

I and hundreds of others were arbitrarily arrested on 2 February 1963. Many are still in prison. Ever since that day, we were, and are, unjustly and arbitrarily detained in prison without any kind of trial whatsoever for over nine years. We have gone through various kinds of persecution, struggles, hardships and difficulties during this very long period of over nine years of detention in prison. Recently an unusual development took place. On 13 January 1972, I was taken to the Headquarters of the Special Branch at Robinson Road where I was detained for 40 days together with my brother, Lim Hock Koon.

Two high-ranking special branch agents of the PAP regime indicated to me that if I were to issue a public statement of repentance, I would be released. They told me that nine years had passed since the date of my arrest and that it was time that my case be settled. They admitted that nine years was a long time. I told them that it was pointless to remind me of this long period.

A week after my transfer to the Special Branch Headquarters, the same two high-ranking employees spelt out the conditions of my release. They demanded from me two things. They are as follows:

  1. That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, “A security statement”. This was meant for the Special Branch records only, and not meant for publication.
  2. That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points:

        (a) That I am prepared to give up politics  and  devote to medical practice thereafter.

         (b) That I must express support for the parliamentary democratic system.

I shall now recall and recapitulate the conversation that took place between me and the same two high-ranking Special Branch agents during my detention at the Special Branch Headquarters.

Special Branch –

You need not have to condemn the Barisan Sosialis or any person. We admit that it is unjust to detain you so long. Nine years is a long time in a person’s life; we are anxious to settle your case.

Dr Lim Hock Siew –

My case will be settled immediately if I am released unconditionally. I was not asked at the time of my arrest whether I ought to be arrested. Release me unconditionally and my case is settled.

Special Branch –

The key is in your hands. It is for you to open the door.

Dr Lim Hock Siew –

To say that the key is in my hands is the inverted logic of gangsters in which white is black and black is white. The victim is painted as the culprit and the culprit is made to look innocent. Four Gurkha soldiers were brought to my house to arrest me. I did not ask or seek arrest or the prolonged detention for over nine years in prison without trial.

Special Branch –

You must concede something so that Lee Kuan Yew would be in a position to explain to the public why you had been detained so long. Mr Lee Kuan Yew must also preserve his face. If you were to be released unconditionally, he will lose face.

Dr Lim Hock Siew –

I am not interested in saving Lee Kuan Yew’s face. This is not a question of pride but one of principle. My detention is completely unjustifiable and I will not lift a single finger to help Lee Kuan Yew to justify the unjustifiable. In the light of what you say, is it not very clear that I have lost my freedom all these long and bitter years just to save Lee Kuan Yew’s face? Therefore the PAP regime’s allegation that I am a security risk is a sham cover and a facade to detain me unjustifiably for over nine years.

MY STAND ON THE MAKING OF A SECRET ORAL SECURITY STATEMENT FOR THE RECORDS OF THE SPECIAL BRANCHI cannot and will not make any statement to condemn my past political activities. My past political activities were absolutely legitimate and proper. Whatever I had done or said was in the interest of and in the service or the masses of our people and of our country. Even an accused person need not say anything to incriminate or to condemn himself. Why should I who am arbitrarily detained without any kind of trial for over nine years be coerced to act as an agent to the Special Branch by making a secret deal behind the backs of the masses?

I resolutely reject this demand. Furthermore, I have not the slightest obligation to account my past political activities to Lee Kuan Yew.


 I completely reject in principle the issuing of any public statement as a condition of my release. This is a form of public repentance. History has completely vindicated my position. I was arrested for opposing merger with “Malaysia” because I held the view that “Malaysia” was a British-sponsored neo-colonialist product and the creation of “Malaysia”, far from uniting our people and our country, would cause greater dis-unity and dissension among our people. I believe that the formation of Malaysia would be a step backward and not forward in our struggle for national unity.

I have nothing to repent, to recant or to reform. If anything I have become more reinforced in my convictions, more reaffirmed in my views and more resolute to serve the people of Malaya fully and whole-heartedly. I have nothing to concede to Lee Kuan Yew. By right, he should make a public repentance to me and not I to him.


I hold the view that these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is democracy, I need not give up politics. The fact that I had been detained for over nine years in order to coerce me to give up politics is proof enough that there is no parliamentary democracy. The question of taking part in politics is a fundamental right of the people.

An indirect offer was made to me to leave Singapore for further studies. I have replied to the PAP regime that if I had to leave the country at any time, it must be on my own free volition and not under coercion by the PAP regime.


I hold the view that to support the PAP regime’s so-called parliamentary system would mean giving the public and the masses a false impression that there exists today a genuine parliamentary democratic system in Singapore Island. It is an undeniable and unforgettable fact that comrade Lee Tse Tong who was elected by the people of Singapore in the 1963 General Elections, was arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial soon after he was elected. Subsequently, he was deprived of his citizenship and he is still under detention as a so-called “banishee” in prisoner’s clothes in Queenstown prison. The arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention of Comrade Lee Tse Tong affords concrete proof that the so-called parliamentary democracy is a cruel mockery. It does not exist in Singapore Island. Giving support to such a sham parliamentary system means complete betrayal of the people. I will never betray the people of my country under any circumstance. Bitter sacrifice strengthens bold resolve.

Parliamentary democracy does not mean merely casting of votes once in five years during election time. Far more important than this is the freedom of thought, the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the freedom of organisation everyday during the five-year period and continuously thereafter. I was arrested when the Barisan Sosialis was actively participating in the parliamentary system. For such participation, the colonial government, the Lee Kuan Yew and Rahman regimes had rewarded me with over nine years of imprisonment. This again amply indicates the utter shamness of the so-called parliamentary democratic system. After over 9 years of detention, I am now asked to give support to their so-called parliamentary system in order to secure my release. I firmly refuse to give my support for the sham and illusory democracy in Singapore Island.



Since history has fully vindicated my stand and my position, Lee Kuan Yew should openly and publicly repent to me and to all other political detainees, now unjustifiably detained in prison. By right a just and proper base for my release from my prolonged and unjustifiable detention (and this equally applies to all political detainees now under unjustifiable detention) should be:

1.Our unconditional and immediate release from detention and the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights.

2.Payment of adequate compensation to me and to all other political detainees for the prolonged and unjustifiable detention in prison.

3.The issuance of public apology by Lee Kuan Yew to me. We are willing and prepared to concede the last two conditions as listed above. We do not believe that an arrogant man like Lee Kuan Yew will apologise or compensate us. On the first condition that is to say, our demand for unconditional and immediate release from detention, and for the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights – we must resolutely say:









我必须立下一份口述声明,交代我过去的政治活动,这等于一份是“安全声明” 。这仅供政治部备案,不公开发表。

  1. 我必须发表一份公开声明,表述两点:































(中英文版)林福寿医生于2011年10月25日在《改变中的世界》座谈会上的答问Questions and Answers with Dr Lim at the Changing Worlds Talk on 25 October 2011

Questions and Answers with Dr Lim at the Changing Worlds Talk

25 October 2011

Q: Many people in the Barisan were aware of the arrests in 1963, and you and your colleagues were expecting it. What went on in your mind that night? Did anyone of you consider running away before the ISD officers came?

A: I think some of the Barisan cadres decided to run away and some did. But the top cadres were all arrested because we did not know who was going to be arrested. I expected myself to be arrested because I knew I was on the three lists of the British, Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew. The option I had was to run away from Singapore. We did discuss the idea of forming a government-inexile but we dropped the idea because there was not much point at that time. We would just go in and fight it out in prison, hoping that after merger, we would be released. Then we would fight within the context of Malaysia with our comrades in Malaysia to have a socialist front throughout the length and breadth of Malaysia. We believed, at that time, with our united forces the left-wing forces we could bring about a radical change in the whole political context of Malaysia.

The fact that we were all suppressed has led to this present state of Malaysia where the feudal and conservative elements started propagating their racist policies. These racist policies would not have been able to emerge if we had the influence in Malaysia because our fight would be on class lines, not on racial lines. We would unite the Malay peasants and the Chinese Appendices: Lim Hock Siew’s writings, statements, speeches and interviews workers to form a united front to overthrow the feudal system and the British.

At that time, the British owned the rubber and tin industries and Malaya was the mainstay of British economic strength. About 400 million sterling pounds of reserves were brought into the British economy, more than what they had in India and Pakistan. They could not afford to lose Malaya. To them, Malaysia was of strategic importance. When Selkirk was quibbling about how to arrest these people when there was no evidence of communist links or subversion and that they were fighting strictly within constitutional means, he was scolded by the Colonial Secretary, Duncan Sandys. He said, “you carry on these arrests because they are for strategic reasons for the overall interest of Britain.” It was a political decision, not a security decision. They wanted to secure British interests. They knew who were the real anti-colonial fighters. They knew if the left came to power in Malaysia they would have nationalised the tin and rubber industries. We would take over the main trade and industries in Singapore. The entrepot trade was controlled by the British, especially Sime-Darby. We were getting no benefits from all this prosperity. What is the government doing when it cannot take over all the economic interests for the benefit of the country?

I will read part of The Fajar Generation here which is very important. The basic justification for existence of Malaysia was explained by the British High Commissioner, in his speech at Eden Hall at end of May 1963. He said: “Where do our interests lie? If we approach it from the point of view of enlightened self-interest, what conclusion can we arrive at? Here in Malaya, we have something like 400 million pounds sterling permanently invested, mostly in rubber and tin, investments which we cannot withdraw. This is far greater for example, than our corresponding investment in India and Pakistan. Gold earnings from rubber and tin are, I believe, essential for the balance of our payments.” That was Britain’s economy, that’s why they were keen to suppress the left in Malaya.

The British trusted Lee Kuan Yew because there was a secret agreement that if the PAP were allowed to take over power, they would not endanger British military and vested interests. One of the military interests, is understanding that Singapore was part and parcel of the nuclear encirclement of China. This is very shocking because it means Singapore had nuclear weapons stored by the British in case they attack China. How could you allow this? If you are an independent country, you could not allow this to happen. The Barisan Sosialis would not have allowed that to happen. The British knew we meant business. We were not people who just wanted to change flags. We wanted to change substance as well. The bigger fight was between the British and us. Lee Kuan Yew was not important. He was the British’s man.

Q: When you and Lee Kuan Yew were comrades in the PAP, what was your relationship with him? Did you, at times, irritate him?

A: At that time, before we broke up, I could go to his house at anytime. Even at night time, I could knock on his door to see him. We discussed politics, we discussed the manifesto of the PAP. In one of his by-elections, I helped him with house to house campaigns. We were on very good terms. Very often, after he had given a speech in the Legislative Assembly, he would ask me what I thought about his speech. We were on very good terms. I had nothing personal against him but he had a lot of personal things against me.

It was only after we broke up, that I faced him at two public forums. There, I irritated him. At the public forum held at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, he lost face. He was telling lie after lie and all I had to do was to expose his lies. He just couldn’t take it.

(Someone from floor said: In fact, he started attacking your brother.)

A: My brother was from the Chinese school. He was a leader of the May 13, 1954 demonstration. He led the Chung Cheng School delegation and had been scheduled to hand the petition against military conscription of young men between the ages of 18 to 20 to the Acting Governor.

In 1963, I was 31. We matured very fast during the war years. We went through a lot of experiences. I was 14 or 15, we were thinking of how to free our country from colonial rule.

We were living in a climate where everybody was fighting for independence. India obtained independence in 1947, Sukarno declared independence for Indonesia in 1948; Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic of China in 1949. We were inspired by all those events. Ghana and Kenya were fighting for independence. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were brutally suppressed by the British. We knew of the British tendencies to suppress us. We fought the British with our eyes open.

In a way, we are lucky to be alive because you could expect to be killed as they were safeguarding their properties. They had no problem getting people to do the work for them. Note how they massacred the university students in Calcutta machinegunned them in the streets. Where were the so-called merciful British gentlemen? You threaten their interests, they would defend that to the hilt. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were brutally suppressed.

In Congo, Patrice Lumumba was assassinated on the orders of American President Eisenhower. This was revealed by the BBC. Eisenhower personally ordered the assassination of Lumumba after he was captured. It was a life and death struggle. You wanted to fight the British, you must be prepared to sacrifice your life. It was with that kind of spirit that we went in, and it was with that kind of spirit that we spent so many years in prison. It is all or none. You don’t go in half-heartedly. We knew where we stood, We knew what we were up against.

Q: The PAP was at its lowest ebb after the 1961 Anson by-election when Marshall won. You didn’t think about merging with Ong Eng Guan to take over the PAP Central Executive Committee?

A: We had 16. But our friend, Lim Yew Hock, would not support the overthrow of Lee Kuan Yew. And UMNO would also not overthrow Lee Kuan Yew. Every time we threatened to overthrow him, they abstained and 16 would not work. Every time we had a resolution against PAP, Ong Eng Guan abstained in the Legislative Assembly. Marshall always supported us. Marshall was the only one. Singapore People’s Alliance (SPA), Lim Yew Hock and United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) would never support us. You could never win them. Ong Eng Guan would not vote for you, SPA would not vote for you, UMNO would not vote you. So it was left with 13 plus Marshall, 14 only. We were hoping to have a by-election in Sembawang when the Minister for Health died. I was suppposed to be a candidate for Sembawang if they had a by-election, but they never held it.

The fact is, before we were arrested, we were very busy preparing for the general election, drawing out the candidates, our manifesto and everything. We were not preparing for armed revolution. We thought we would definitely win the election. We wanted to preserve our strength to win the electoral battle. We refused to hold any demonstrations. We restrained our members trade unions were preparing to go on strike but we told them not to because we didn’t want to provoke any trouble.

In 1962, the May Day rally was a huge rally. About 100,000 people attended our rally in Jalan Besar stadium whereas Devan Nair’s rally had only 2000 people and those 2000 were mainly Public Works Department (PWD) workers. They were given a day-off, food, transport plus pay. They only got 2000, whereas we got 100,000. The whole stadium was filled. It was a demonstration of our strength. In retrospect, it was not quite the right tactic. We should not have revealed our strength.

Two months later, on 3 June 1962 , we wanted to celebrate National Day. PAP came into power on 3 June 1959. We were given permission with lots of conditions. You could not speak on this or that or they would come and interfere. We knew if we held that rally, there would be provocation from the PAP and there would be trouble. Then they would use that to suppress us. So we had a last-minute cancellation of that rally.

To that extent, we were very restrained. We wanted to preserve our strength for the general election.

Q: You said you were prepared for the arrest in 1963. Did you anticipate that you would be imprisoned for 20 years?

A: No. When I said goodbye to my wife, I said: “See you in 8 years’ time.” The longest serving detainee then was Ahmad Boestamam who was imprisoned by the British for 8 years. I did not expect my imprisonment to be so long. I thought Singapore would merge with Malaysia, and I would not be detained for so long. But at the end of 10 years, I decided to make another 10-year plan. I wanted to be realistic. If you are not psychologically prepared, you would surely break down. As leaders of the movement, we could not betray our followers, we had to stay firm. Lim Chin Siong would have stayed firm if not for his mental breakdown. Poh Soo Kai, Said Zahari and many others were imprisoned for decades. It was no big deal.

Q: If you were a candidate, would you have been arrested?

A: Yes, in fact I was planning to stand in the Sembawang byelection. For general election, sure, I would be a candidate.

Q: Why do you think some were detained for a long time, while others were not?

A: You have to ask Lee Kuan Yew. The excuse they gave was that I refused to renounce violence. In 1977, I was approached by the head of the Special Branch, Lim Chye Heng, also former head of the Special Branch Wong Su Chi. Both of them came to see me. They said all you have to do is to release a statement to renounce violence. I asked: “Is there any evidence that I have been advocating violence?” I have been strictly following peaceful, legal, constitutional struggle.

Q: Was the detention to prevent you from standing in future elections?

A: We cannot win the election as an independent candidate. You must have a group of people supporting you. The Barisan Sosialis was completely dismantled by the time I was released. It was only a shell without substance. At the time of my release in 1982, the Assistant Director of ISD, Tjong Yik Min said: “Dr Lim I am not warning or threatening you. I am only informing you. I have a standing order from you know who. If you show defiance after release, we will put you in prison again without reference to the cabinet.”

Q: You were a high-profile case.

A: I was adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. Lee Kuan Yew wanted me to leave the country. In fact when Gough Whitlam, prime minister of Australia came to Singapore, he told Whitlam: “These two doctors are good doctors and you can take them. So they approached me twice to leave the country. I said if I wanted to leave, it would have to be my own decision.”

Q: How was life on Pulau Tekong?

A: Very interesting. I was at Whitley Road Centre. One day, the officer told me to pack up. They drove me to a road off Changi Prison. I called him: “Hey, you are missing the road. Changi prison is here, not there.” He said, “No, no. We are taking you to another place.” I said, “Where got prison on the beach?” So we went to the beach and there was a big boat. He said, “We are taking you to Pulau Tekong.” It was a police boat. He said: “This is police boat number 1, the same boat Lee Kuan Yew used to travel around the Southern Islands.”

They took me to Tekong, gave me a house and said: “Now you are a free man.” I said: “Now I can go home is it?” They told me to accept all the conditions for my stay on Tekong. I said: “This is a sham release to show the public, to pacify the international community.” Prior to that, Lee Kuan Yew went to the United States. Jimmy Carter was then the president. Carter gave him just two minutes. Congress then demanded human rights. Lee Kuan Yew lost face. He had to do something. He sent me and Said Zahari to the islands to give the impression that we were released.

Life on the island was better than prison. There were 200 people, all friendly to me. I was the only doctor on the island. All emergencies came to me. For the first month, they gave me $300, then $200 then $100 a month subsequently. After that they told me you have to survive on your own. Then they offered me a job at the dispensary, three times a week for two hours each. They would pay me $300 a month. I said in principle, I could not accept the job. I was still detained by the government and I could not accept a job from the government. They had the obligation to support me.

At first I did not charge my patients. After some time, I had to charge for medicine and for my survival. I lived as though I was in prison. I had my own television and was allowed to write. At the end of the four years, they still asked me to write a statement.

Q: How is it that your Rakyat Clinic is still around today when you were imprisoned for 20 years?

A: When Poh Soo Kai and I were arrested (Soo Kai and I were founders of the clinic), another doctor, Ahmad Bakar took over. When Soo Kai was released, he went back to the clinic. Then he was re-arrested. After his second release, he opened his own clinic. Then I came out and returned to my clinic.

Q: How did you keep your sanity during those long years in prison?

A: It’s a question of conviction. You know what you are doing is right. I am a socialist. I believe everything in socialism in a society where man does not exploit man. It is something akin to a Christian who believes that all men are brothers. And we should all live like brothers and sisters. The turmoil in the capitalist world all the financial troubles today, convince me even more that socialism is the answer to mankind’s struggle. You are witnessing now, the end of capitalism. This  is what Karl Marx said in the last century, that this is the self-destructive phase of capitalism. The contradiction cannot be settled. The accumulation of wealth is so concentrated in such a small section of the population that the majority cannot turn around, unless they turn the system around. That is why there is the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. I believe in another year or so, there will be an intense struggle in the western world. Hopefully not in violence. Hopefully they can do it without violence.

Q: Can you let us know which prison you went to?

A: I survived many prisons. I went to Outram. It has been demolished. Then Changi, also demolished. After that Queenstown. Also demolished. I was in Central Police Station. Again that was demolished. That was the most horrible prison. Then I went to Moon Crescent, Changi. Then to Whitley Road.

I was in Queenstown for four years. We were locked up most of the time. Inside the cell was a tin can for your toiletries which we washed the next morning. At night we had chamber pots and a small bowl of water to drink The food was practically the same as that supplied to common prisoners.

For over a year, they put me in a very luxurious place. The home of two top special branch men. One at Mount Rosie and another at Jervois Road. There I was allowed to live with the families as though I was a free man. They encouraged me to take walks outside, which I refused. If you did that, they would ask you to sign a statement. I knew they were trying to bribe me into doing that.

Q: Are you optimistic for democracy in Singapore?

A: I am afraid not. I do not see how this place can develop. Now it’s dependent upon casino industries with all these immoral practices. Trade is dependent upon American markets. Chinese don’t need Singaporean goods, they have all they want.

In fact they would want to export here. The only way to survive is with Malaysia. But the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore is so bad that I cannot think of a reunion. The ultimate goal of socialists in this country is to have merger with Malaysia. Of course many people will be reluctant. Merger?

Malaysia that kind of country? So much racism? But that is the consequence of the lack of left-wing influence. If we had been in parliament in the past 40 years, it would have been very different. They have arrested thousands, not hundreds. They had to close down the Labour Party and Partai Rakyat all the top leaders were arrested. Dr MK Rajakumar, Syed Husin Ali so it is a free for all for those conservative groups. Now the Malays are awakened, that privilege must not only be for one Unless these groups of people wake up, there will be no change.

We are optimistic in the sense that historically, we have to be optimistic. There will be change. How it comes about, whether peacefully or by violent process, we may never know. But change is inevitable. We cannot go on like this.

Q: What was the reaction from people when Operation Cold Store took place?

A: When we were arrested, the main organisation was destroyed. All the cadres were put in prison. The rest ran away or kept quiet. Unless you got people to mobilise, you cannot have any reaction. In 1956, there was spontaneous reaction when Lim Yew Hock was suppressing the Chinese school students and the trade unions. The riots were very spontaneous and the Chinese newspaper played up the repression. It was the Chinese population that rose up. People hated the government so much that everything symbolic of it was fair game for them to destroy. Lamps, postal boxes, anything.

Q: What was your relationship with other PAP leaders?

A: Toh Chin Chye was my lecturer in the university. We did meet to talk about politics. He was then chairman of the PAP. He knew I was a former member of the PAP. With Goh Keng Swee, there was hardly any talk. He was an aloof man. We did talk with Kenny Byrne and S Rajaratnam but not profoundly. We communicated mainly with Lee Kuan Yew.

Q: You were a member of the PAP before the cadre system was implemented. Were you a member after the cadre system was started?

A: Anyone who was pro-left was not made a cadre. I was expelled in 1959. I was not even a cadre even though I was a founding member. At that time there were three people in charge of reviewing membership. Lee Kuan Yew, Ong Pang Boon and Lim Shee Ping. When my membership came up, Lee Kuan Yew took it up, threw it into the waste paper basket and looked at the other two. They kept quiet. Shee Ping was subsequently arrested.

Q: Najib recently announced that the ISA would be abolished. What are your views on why the Singapore government is so reluctant to abolish it, especially in view of the fact that the younger leaders will not have the stomach to use it?

A: My assessment is that they are going to use the ISA as a reserve weapon to safeguard the PAP’s interests. I believe they would have the stomach to use it if they are faced with the grim reality of losing the elections. After all, Lee Hsien Loong is groomed by Lee Kuan Yew. Monitored and mentored. When faced with reality he will use it. He might provoke you. And then use it as an excuse to arrest. I hope it will not be used but I think it will be their reserve weapon.



问: 在社会主义阵线内,有许多人,包括您和您的同僚,都预知1963年将会有逮捕行动。当天晚上您是怎么想的?你们当中是否有人打算在内部安全局人员到来之前逃走?

答: 我想,在社阵干部当中,有部分人决定逃走,有人确实走避了。但是,我们的最高级干部全部都被捕,因为不知道谁会被捕。我确信,在英国人、东姑和李光耀三方的逮捕名单中,都有我的名字;可作的选择是逃离新加坡。我们曾经讨论过成立一个流亡政府,但是,后来放弃了这个想法,因为在当时没有太大意义。我们决定去坐牢,在监狱里进行斗争,希望在合并后会获得释放。



当时,英国人拥有橡胶园和锡矿业,马来亚是英国经济实力的主要依靠。约4亿英镑的国库储备金来自马来亚,多过从印度和巴基斯坦取得的金额。他们是不可以失去马来亚的。对他们而言,马来西亚具有重要的战略价值。在没有证据证明我们与共产党有联系或者从事颠覆活动,而是严格遵循宪制手段进行斗争,薛尔克在无谓地纠缠于要用什么理由逮捕我们时,遭到殖民部大臣桑迪斯(Duncan Sandys)的责骂。





问: 当您还在行动党、跟李光耀是同志时,两人关系如何?您曾激怒过他吗?

答: 那个时期,在我们分裂前,我随时可到他家去。即是晚上,我也可敲他家的门见他。我们讨论政治课题,讨论行动党的创党宣言。在他的其中一次补选时,我帮忙他进行沿户访问,我们的关系非常好。他在立法议院发表演讲后,往往会征求我对他演说的意见。两人关系非常好。我对他没有个人成见,但他存有许多个人恩怨。



我弟弟来自华校, 是1954年5月13日示威运动( 译注:“5•13事件”)的学生领袖。他是中正中学的学生代表,准备向代总督呈递请愿书,反对征召18岁到20岁的学生服兵役。



在刚果,卢蒙巴(Patrice Lumumba)是美国总统艾森豪威尔下令加以杀害的,英国广播电台(BBC)揭露了内情。卢蒙巴被捕后,艾森豪威亲自下令杀害他,这是一场生死斗争。要和英国人斗争,就必须准备牺牲性命。


问: 1961年马绍尔赢得了安顺区补选是行动党陷入最低潮的时候。您没想过联合王永元一起推翻行动党中央委员会吗? 

答: 我们有16人。但是,我们的朋友林有福将不会支持我们推翻李光耀,巫统也不会支持推翻李光耀。每当我们恫言要推翻李光耀,他们就弃权,16人起不了作用。每当我们提出反对行动党动议,王永元在立法议院都弃权,马绍尔一直在支持我们;只有马绍尔一人支持我们。








问: 您说您已准备好面对1963年的逮捕行动。您曾否想过会被监禁20年?

答: 没有。当跟太太说再见时,我说:“8年后再见”。当时, 被监禁最久的政治犯是波斯达曼(Ahmad Boestamam),他被英国人关了8年。我确实没想到我的监禁期会这么长,我以为在新加坡加入马来西亚后,不会被关太久。但是,在监禁满10年后,我决定准备再坐牢多10年,我必须从现实情况考虑问题。如果没有做好心理准备,你肯定会崩垮。作为运动的领导人,我们是不可以背叛我们的追随者的,我们必须站稳立场。林清祥要不是精神崩溃,他必然会坚持下去。傅树介、赛查哈利和其他许多人都被监禁了十几二十年。这没什么大不了。

问: 如果您是个候选人,您是否会被逮捕?

答: 会的。事实上我正打算参加三巴旺的补选。举行大选,我肯定会是候选人。

问: 有些人被监禁的时间那么长,另一部分则不长,您认为原因何在?

答: 这个您得去问李光耀。我被监禁这么长久,他们的藉口是,我拒绝谴责暴力。1977年,内部安全局局长林再兴(Lim Chye Heng)和前局长王旭之来见我,他们对我说,我只要发表声明谴责暴力,就可以获得释放了。我问他们:“有什么证据证明我一直在鼓吹暴力?”我一向严格遵循和平、合法和宪制途径的斗争。

问: 您被监禁是要防止您参加未来的大选吗?

答: 我们以独立候选人身份竞选,是无法当选的,必须要有一群人支持。当我被释放时,社阵已经被彻底被摧毁,只剩个空壳。我在1982年获释时,内部安全局局长张奕民对我说:“林医生,我不是警告您或者威胁您,我只是提醒您。某人,您知道是谁,给我发一道持久有效的命令(standing order),如果您在获释后表现桀骜不驯,我们将再把您直接关进监牢,不必请示内阁。”

问: 您的个案是个高度引人关注的案件。

答: 国际特赦组织把我列为良知犯(prisoner of conscience)。李光耀要我离开这个国家。其实,当澳大利亚总理惠特兰(Gough Whitlam)到访新加坡时,李光耀告诉他:“这两位医生都是好医生,您可接收他们。”因此他们找我谈过两次,要求我离开新加坡。我说,如果我要离开的话,必须是由我自己做的决定。

问: 您在德光岛的生活如何?

答: 非常有趣。那是我被监禁在惠特里路拘留所的时候,一天,一个官员叫我收拾个人物件。他们的车子把我载到偏离樟宜监狱的路上。我喊道,“嘿,走错路了!樟宜监狱就在这里,不是在那边。”他说,“不!不!我们要把你带去另一个地方。”我说,“在海边哪有监狱啊?”接着,我们去了海边,那里停靠着一艘大船。他说,“我们要送你到德光岛。”那是一艘警察船艇。他说,“这是编号1的警察船艇,是李光耀巡视南部岛屿巡视时常乘坐的同一艘。”





问: 您被监禁了20年,您的人民药房怎么还存在?

答: 当我和傅树介(我们俩是人民药房的创办人)都被捕时,另外一位医生是巴卡(M A Bakar)医生接替我们;傅树介获释后,他回去药房恢复行医;后来,他又再被捕。在他第二次获释后,傅树介医生开设自己的药房。我获释后,就回去人民药房工作。

问: 遭长期监禁,您是如何保持神志正常的?

答: 是信念,因为你知道自己所做的事情是正确的。我是个社会主义者,相信社会主义主张的一切――在社会主义社会,不存在人剥削人;打个比方,就像一个基督教徒相信“四海之内皆兄弟”一样。我们必须像兄弟姐妹一样,和睦相处。今天,在资本主义社会出现的动荡和发生的金融乱象,让我更坚信社会主义是人类奋斗的最后目标。你正在见证资本主义的没落,这就是马克思在上世纪所说的,这就是资本主义自我毁灭的阶段。资本主义存在的矛盾是无法解决的。财富的积累高度集中在一小撮人手中,大部分人都无法翻身,除非他们把这个制度推翻。这就出现占领华尔街的示威行动。我认为,在一两年内,在西方世界将会出现更激烈的斗争,但愿不是暴力性的斗争,但愿可以通过非暴力手段。

问: 您能够告诉我们您住过哪些监狱吗?

答: 我住过的许多监狱都消失了。我住过欧南园监狱,拆掉了。接下来是樟宜监狱,也拆掉了。后来去了女皇镇监狱,也拆掉了。我也住过中央警署,还是一样拆掉了;


曾经有一年多的时期,他们把我安置在很舒适的地方,分别是2名政治部高级人员的住所,一处在露茜山(Mount Rosi),另一处在泽维士路(Jervois Road)。在那里,我可以和他们家人住在一块,像是个自由人。他们鼓励我到住所外面走走,但是我拒绝。如果你照做,他们将会要求你签署声明,我知道他们试图笼络我就范。

问: 您对新加坡的民主抱乐观态度吗?

答: 恐怕不乐观。我看不到民主发展的环境。目前的状况是,他们以赌博产业为支柱,容忍这许多不道德的行为。贸易是依赖美国市场,中国人拥有自己所要的一切,他们并不需要新加坡的产品;实际上,他们要往这里出口。新加坡生存的唯一出路是跟马来西亚合作。但是,新加坡与马来西亚之间的关系恶劣,我是不认为两国可望重归统一。我国社会主义者的终极目标是跟马来西亚合并。当然,很多人是很不情愿的。合并?跟马来西亚那样的国家合并?那里存在许多种族主义!但是,这是因为缺少了左翼的影响的结果。在过去40年,如果我们在国会有代表,情况会是很大不同的。他们逮捕的人,不是数以百计,而是数以千计。他们不得不封闭劳工党和人民党,逮捕他们所有的高级领导人,包括拉惹古玛医生、赛胡申阿里……。这样一来,那些保守集团就可以无拘无束、为所欲为。现在,马来人已经觉醒,认识到特权不能只属于一部份人。除非这些群体的人都觉醒起来,否则,一切照旧不变。



问: 当冷藏行动发生时,人们的反应是什么?

答: 当我们被捕时,主要的组织已经被摧毁。所有干部都被投入监牢。其他的人,有的潜逃,有的沉寂下来。除非有人出面动员,否则,不会有任何的反应。1956年,当林有福镇压华校学生和工会时,出现了自发性的反对行动。暴动是自发性的,华文报章对镇压行动大肆渲染,华人社会挺身而出。人民非常痛恨政府,以至于对任何象征性的东西,如电灯杆、邮筒等等,肆意进行破坏。

问: 你和行动党其他领导人的关系如何?

答: 杜进才是我在大学时期的讲师,我们曾经在一起谈论政治课题,他当时是行动党的主席,他知道我曾是行动党党员和发起人。跟吴庆瑞少有交谈,他是个冷漠的人。


问: 您在干部党员制实行前是行动党党员。在这个制度实行后,您还是党员吗?

答: 任何左倾分子都不会成为干部党员。我是在1959年被开除出党的。尽管我是党的发起人之一,也没有入选干部党员。当时,由三个人负责审查党员资格,他们是李光耀、王邦文和林使宾。当我的党员证出现时,李光耀把它拿过来,扔进字纸篓里,并看看其他两人的反应,两人沉默不语。后来,林使宾也被捕。

问: 最近,马来西亚总理纳吉宣布将要废除内部安全法令。您认为新加坡政府为什么不情愿废除内部安全法令,特别是鉴于较年轻的领袖没有那么强烈的意愿动用这条法令?

答: 我估计他们会把内部安全法令作为捍卫行动党利益的后备武器。我相信,如果他们在面对可能会败选的严酷现实,他们是会有意愿使用这个法令的。李显龙毕竟是李光耀亲自监督和指导,一手培养起来的。在面临严酷状况时,他是会动用的。他可能先挑衅你,然后制造藉口,利用这个法令进行逮捕。我当然希望他们不会用上内部安全法令,但是,我相信他们会把该法令当后备武器。