人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(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.

DO NOT SHED YOUR TEARS

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

Inseparable

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

陈仁贵(1939年1月18日——2011年6月14日)

我不会忘记1986年那一天。当我没有与仁贵预先约定的情况下,他突然间到我在牙龙的办公室。那个时候正是新加坡律师公会面对来自各个方面的攻击,其中包括匿名信者给《海峡时报》言论版。他有点匆忙地进入我的办公室,直接向我说明事情的要害。他提醒我要小心。并问我,为什么要在牙龙设立办公室,而不是在市区。他告诉我,我正在被引起关注。

我为此感到惊讶。我问他为什么认为我的处境危险?为什么会有这样的想法?我告诉他,我所做的一切都是公开的。政府也知道,我并没有任何可以隐瞒的东西。

仁贵感到激动,突然间回应说:“我们也是没有做任何事情,但是我们仍然被监禁。”

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。

仁贵的到访时间很短暂。他此行的目的是不是仅仅要提醒我的处境已经很危险。但是,我想,即便是我要采取任何的防范措施已经太迟了。鸡蛋已经被敲碎,煮成了煎蛋卷了。几个月后,当我关在冰冷的冷气黑暗的审讯室时,仁贵的警句在我的耳边响起。

仁贵是许许多多人才中的一名。他不仅仅是一名杰出的律师。他同时是一位善于思考者、诗人、作家以及自学的历史学者。他本来就会撰写剧本的。这一切都在他的脑袋里。但是,令人感到遗憾的是,他的个人健康不允许他的才华得到发挥。就他而言,他更重要的工作是完成《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动——50周年纪念》的出版工作。

当仁贵住院我去探访他时,体现的很平。他已经把这本书的编辑大纲等相关的工作交代给孔莉莎博士了。他深信,自己走后,孔莉莎博士必然会胜任地完成出版这本书的工作。他的神志不是很清醒,但是他以冷静的口气告诉我:“每一个人都必然要走这条路”!是的,太阳镜准备好走上这条路了。

在往生前6个月(即2010年12月),仁贵给家人写了以下这首诗:(煮%:由于原文没有中文翻译,本文只能以英文照登。)

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

DO NOT SHED YOUR TEARS

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

Inseparable

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


留下评论

深深地怀念林清祥

── 叶德民 ──

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

1955年4月2日新加坡殖民地政府举行林德宪制的立法议会选举,年仅22岁的林清祥代表人民行动党角逐武吉智马区议席,结果高票当选,时年22岁成为最年青的立法议员。

  林清祥立法议员于1956年10月25日在《美世界》演讲,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。1956年10月26日林有福政府逮捕了林清祥,林有福的暴政导至林有福政府在1959年大选时被人民唾弃而倒台,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。含着鳄鱼泪的李光耀要求释放人民行动党的林清祥等人才执政!

  英殖民统治者及其追随者搞马来西亚,林清祥等人反对新加坡合并到马来西亚,与李光耀决裂,另组成社会主义阵线。1963年2月2日李光耀政权开展冷藏行动逮捕了林清祥等一百多名反殖爱国人士。

  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。

  在整理和探索新、马的职工运动、反殖运动和争取独立斗争等人民正义事业的历史,笔者看到受英文教育和受华文教育的朋友,并没有彼此歧视和排斥,而是为了共同的目标,对历史负责,如同一个团队彼此分工,互相支持,合作无隙,共同推动,把历史的内容还给历史。

  《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。

  今年是林清祥逝世25周年,远在香港的朋友没有忘记反殖战士林清祥。


留下评论

美国“有能力保卫台湾”吗?

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’”)

您信吗?我信。我信的是:美国有强大军事能力!我不信的是:美国会为台湾在政治上、经济上和军事上付出任何重大的代价!

反正我不是住在中国大陆的中国人,或者是住在台湾的台湾人,而且台海战争还没打起来!

众所周知,历史上,美国要介入任何一场与自己国家有利的世界各国区域性战争,美国人一开始都是这么说滴。

但是,一旦进入纠缠和胶着状态,美国人也是第一是时间变态:美国国会反对介入XX地区或国家的战争,所以必须在限期时间内撤兵!

在40年代,美国参与了在中国的战争。但是眼看蒋介石无法战胜共产党,美国就开始准备撤军了!

在50年代,美国人在朝鲜半岛发动战争,在无法一气攻下朝鲜半岛,直插入中国东北辽宁后,美国人打着联合国的旗帜走到板门店与朝鲜政府将中国人民志愿军签署的临时停火协议。

在60年代,美国人发动了越南,或者说印度支那战争,眼看自己被陷入泥潭无法自拔了,美国人主动与越南共产党在巴黎举行和谈!

最新的例子就是阿富汗。拜登上台就宣布将在这几个月里从阿富汗撤军!

美国人至今没有全身而退离开的战场就是中东战场!那是因为那里仍然有丰富的石油可捞!

所以美国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”是说给在台湾民进党和国民党蓝皮绿骨派听得。——因为他们都明确地希望美国人真的可以“保卫台湾”!台湾人民不相信美国人会兑现自己的承诺!

对于民进党来说,它们是在40-50年代在台湾本土才诞生的。他们是在被日本统治了一个世纪后,又经历了蒋介石的白色军法统治!也就是说,他们从来就没有被共产党统治过!他们与共产党之间的‘集怨’或者‘集恨’,是属于新的政治生态环境下的思想意识形态的‘集怨’和‘集恨’!

他们无法说出为什么要死心塌地反对中国政府、中国共产党、中国的社会制度?在无法达到反对中国政府、中国共产党、中国的社会制度后,他们转其次反对台湾与中国的统一!最终演变成今天的要争取‘台湾独立’!要把台湾建成亚洲的“民主基地”!

现在我们回到主题。

台湾战争全面爆发,美国人是否会真的保卫台湾?

我相信,民进党和蓝皮绿骨国民党人心里没底!但是可以肯定的是:他们当中许多人会像当年越南战争一样,西贡(现改名为胡志明市)沦陷前,那些在南越的吴庭炎和阮文绍集团等都相信美国会保卫越南南方!但是,在1970年越共的春季大攻势爆发后,这些军人和政客都不顾一切的首先冲到总统府和美国大使馆争先恐后地乘搭美国的直升机或飞机,飞到靠近越南海面的美国军舰,离开越南南方。

我可以肯定,在台海战争全面爆发前,不是爆发时、也不是爆发后,民进党人绝对会走上这条路!这一点不必质疑!

至于蓝皮绿骨台湾国民党。他们都存有侥幸的心态!特别是以马英九为首的亲美反共派。他们既不希望共产党统一中国,也不敢公开拒绝共产党要求尽快实现祖国的统一。他们仅仅希望“维持现状、一中各表”!

为什么?

因为一旦共产党实现祖国统一,或者台海战争全面爆发,摆在蓝皮绿骨国民党人绝对是‘猪八戒’——里外不是人!

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’!

现在的蓝皮绿骨国民党领导人(不包括连战等)与现在的民进党人一样,他们都未曾在共产党统治下生活、也未曾与共产党在战场交锋过!他们和民进党一样都相信:

台海战争全面爆发美国人一定会保卫台湾!但是,老一辈的国民党人(就是随着蒋介石“战略性撤退”到台湾的国民党人及军人)都绝对相信:一旦共产党下定决心,把实现台湾的统一议程摆在台面上,意味着什么?

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!

在1949年10月1日,中国共产党领导人以及爱国民主人士在北京天安门城楼宣布中华人民共和国成立前,当时美国驻华最后一任大使司徒雷登(他是在中国土生土长的美国人。出生在中国杭州。北京燕京大学创办人)是在1949年8月离开中国的。1949年8月18日毛泽东还为此发表一篇著名的文章:《别了,司徒雷登》。

这意味着什么?美国人从来就不会做亏本买卖!绝不会与自己一手抚养起来的傀儡‘同生死、共患难’!

对于共产党人来说,宽阔的台湾海峡已经不是1949年当时的台湾海峡了!这一点美国人很清楚!因为今天的中国综合国力(包括政治、经济和军事)已经完全可以不必进行‘渡海’就可以瘫痪台湾本岛的一切活动(包括政治、经济和军事)!

因此美国人的所谓“有能力保卫台湾”就是一句空话!

关键的问题在于:

中国共产党人选择什么时候开打?从哪里打开台湾的缺口?要如何减少或减低由于开打而给台湾人民造成巨大的生命和经济损失?(当然战争必然会有死人的事情。)该抓谁?该与谁谈判可以和平解决台湾问题?

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!

中国解放战争打到福建前线,距离金门马祖停了下来。以当时的共产党军事势力,要渡过宽阔的台湾海峡绝对比‘强渡长江’还要困难几十倍!何况共产党的军队经历了长达几十年的战争(包括10年内战、8年抗战和3年的解放战争),共产党的军队必须进行修整,解放后的国家需要重建。以及尽快的恢复各地的正常经济活动是当时的急切任务!(中国共产党在解放广州市后也没有直接进入香港和澳门,那是基于解放后还要利用这2个城市进行对外的经济外交活动!这是题外。不谈。)

因此,可以这么说,台湾的民进党人和蓝皮绿骨国民党人继续拉日亲美是无法为自己自己的处境解套!

从1970年叶剑英的元旦《告台湾同胞书》到现在,已经是几十年过去了。共产党没有像现在这样坚定不移的公开宣布:

台湾的统一绝对不会留给下一代共产党人去实现!

那是因为宽阔的台湾海峡已经不是共产党人解决台湾问题的天然屏障了!在太空运行的中国卫星完全可以引导部署在全中国的长程导弹,准确和集中地对准台湾的所有军事目标!

这一点,美国人晓得!民进党人和蓝皮绿骨国民党人也晓得!

他们必须尽早为自己的未来找出路!(或者他们都已经为自己及家人安排好后路了。)这是唯一为自己寻找解套的最佳途径!

美国人有能力保卫台湾吗?有!关键的是问题是建立在:

台湾是否还有美国人所需要的价值吗?如果是让美国人去保卫一个孤岛,又无法直接包围和阻止中国和平崛起、中国的出海权,那美国人会干嘛?

这里需要补充的是,

一旦共产党实现台湾的统一,台湾海峡就是理所当然地说中国的内海,不是西方国家海军向来就来,向离开就离开的海上乐园!

也就是说,中国的国家领海权范围和经济海域权将从目前的福建、浙江、山东、渤海湾、黄海……等海域直接扩充到台湾以东,面向太平洋,遥望美国太平洋的西海岸!这也是美国人和日本人所不希望看到的结局!


留下评论

(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

亲爱的女士们和先生们,

我们是居住在英国的一群华裔职业人士。我们希望表达社区民意,恳请2021年七国集团领导人采取一切必要步骤,化解目前对中国和中国人民的敌意。我们中的许多人在中国生活过,与中国和中国人民有着广泛的联系。我们请七国集团领导人视中国为朋友,而不是敌人。

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。

基于国际规则的体系已指定世卫组织为处理这种流行病的权威机构。因此,所有关于病毒的不以科学为基础的的政治指控不仅是无益的,而且分散了世界应对大流行的精力。

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。

华萍博士是一位科研人员,她担心仇恨犯罪的抬头和对中国的日益妖魔化,给中国科学家制造了这般敌对的环境,可能会阻碍西方与世界增长速度最快的经济体之间的科研和学术交流。

我们关切地注意到美国对于中国经济崛起的焦虑情绪。中国的人均国内生产总值只有美国的五分之一,也只有一个海外军事基地,而相比美国则有800个。中国不是西方的威胁。中国的崛起与西方的利益是互补的。一个更加繁荣的中国,会对西方的商品和服务有更高的需求,这只会对西方劳动人民有益。把中国的崛起视作对美国或西方的威胁是基于虚构。

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。”

在考虑中国是朋友,伙伴,还是敌人时,七国集团应该考虑阿什中心的独立调查结果。

我们感到担忧的是,目前西方对中国的敌对行动是美国制造和加剧的,以满足合军工综合体的利益以及民主党和共和党的选举需要。

所谓的新疆种族灭绝和入侵台湾的威胁是两个最重要的例子。

关于新疆种族灭绝

我们坚信,所谓新疆的种族灭绝指控是站不住脚的,因为自50年代以来,维吾尔族人口从500万增加到了1300万。如果中国真的奴役了一百万维吾尔族人,中情局强大的空中监视技术可以很容易地拍到囚犯在院子里的视频图像来证明这一指控。他们没有这样做。

中国的批评家们刻意无视世界银行于2019年11月11日发表的一项对于与世行有关的技术培训学校实际是监狱这一指控的声明。”按照标准做法,世界银行在2019年8月收到一系列与新疆技术职业教育和培训项目有关的严重指控后,立即展开了实况调查,世行高级管理人员前往新疆直接收集信息…审查没有证实这些指控。”

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。

关于中国大陆对台湾的威胁

据《经济学人》报道,由于美中两国发生军事冲突的风险,台湾已成为全球最危险的地方。两国之间有足够的核武库来摧毁地球。

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。

美国藏匿着自己的议程,就是鼓动台湾分裂分子,就像鼓动维吾尔族或香港分离主义分子一样。我们希望七国集团奉劝美国不要重新定义其一个中国政策,而破坏任何为统一而做出友好安排的可能性。

即将发生的战争

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。

当前与针对中国的军事冒险相辅相成的宣传战是为试图保持美国的霸权所作的努力。与过去20年相比,现在有缺陷的政策会产生更可怕的后果。七国集团应该先回顾一下美国过去20年发动的战争,再考虑支持拜登的军事主导的印太倾斜策略——这就是在中国南海对抗中国的代名词。

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)

华人职业人士群体代表

陈华彪是牛津大学巴里奥尔学院毕业的人权律师,从业于伦敦地区。常理主席。


留下评论

世纪童养媳婚姻——英国人把新加坡‘嫁给‘马来西亚

国内外历史学者,特别是来自中国大陆的年龄介于50岁-60岁是所谓“历史学者”,他们自称是‘中国的新加坡通’,在谈到新加坡历史时,总是说:

新加坡在1963年“加入”马来西亚!?新加坡在1965年“退出”马来西亚!

历史的事实是:

  1. 新加坡并没有在1963年“加入”马来西亚!

直到1963年9月16日为止,新加坡仍然不是一个主权独立的国家!它是在英国统治下的享有内部自治和教育与劳工自主的“自治邦政府”。李光耀是自治邦政府的首任总理!当时新加坡的内部安全、外交与军事大全仍然掌握在英国殖民主义者手上!

新加坡是在英国人与马来亚联合邦时任总理东姑在伦敦谈商成立一个英国在远东地区的四个殖民地:包括新加坡、汶莱、沙巴和砂劳越的“大马来西亚联邦计划”!

新加坡是在英国人与东姑达致最终成立“大马来西亚联邦计划协议”后,由英国人负责把新加坡、汶莱、沙巴和砂劳越安排进入大马来西亚联邦!但是,汶莱拒绝加入马来西亚联邦。

英国人的目的是为了摆脱二战之后,联合国要求西方各国的殖民主义者和帝国主义者让二战之前的殖民地获得独立主权与自由平等的要求!

所以,新加坡是被英国人安排进入大马来西亚联邦的。李光耀并没有参与当时伦敦马来西亚联邦成立的谈判!李光耀只是在英国人与东姑谈判结束后受邀旁听。这就是为什么在新加坡被英国人安排进入马来西亚后,李光耀只能“接受”新加坡公民成立二等公民以及其他不平等的条约。

简单的说,就是老祖宗所说的,童养媳下的指定婚姻!英国人换取了它在新加坡享有的军事、政治和经济利益!

由于菲律宾和印尼向联合国投诉马来西亚计划书具有新殖民主义阴谋的,东姑不得不把原定8月31日宣布成立马来西亚联邦的日期挪后到9月16日!

当时,李光耀为了能够及早摆脱自己面对以林清祥为首的新加坡左翼力量要求在1963年与英国人进行谈判新加坡完全独立的强大压力下,自己在1963年8月31日在新加坡大会堂草场迫不及待地宣布新加坡已经是“一个独立自主的国家”!后来被时任马来亚联合邦总理东姑斥责!

这就是英国人把前殖民地新加坡安排进入马来西亚联邦的。

东姑前往伦敦与英国人签署有关安排新加坡进入马来西亚前,给李光耀96小时的时间,要不要接受他向英国人提出的各种协议条件。李光耀,作为英国人的忠实走狗别无选择,只能在接受协议的前提下,与东姑进行是付5毛还是一元的非原则问题上讨价还价吧了!

2.新加坡也不是自己退出马来西亚的!

由于李光耀野心勃勃要与东姑争当马来西亚联邦的总理。在进入马来西亚后不断挑战东姑以及马来西亚巫统的底线,迫使东姑放弃对他的容忍,也引起了马来西亚巫统党内的极端种族主义者的不满。终于在1965年8月8日凌晨,马来西亚中央国会在吉隆坡以绝大多数通过决议立即驱逐新加坡出马来西亚联邦。

马来西亚成立前后的历史背景

1963马来西亚成立前
20/6东姑在下午2.30分致函李光耀,要他48小时内答复加入大马的条件。李光耀回应自己遇到两个问题:(一)中央政府坚持新加坡在大马成立后头五年里缴交5千万元作为“婆罗洲地区的发展意图”的赠款;(二)中央政府坚持要征收一定百分比新加坡税,但是,有不愿清楚说明大马共同市场的问题。
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……”
7月中马来亚联合邦与英国进行谈判有关马来西亚合并的具体细节。英国政府邀请行动党政府参与磋商。
 东姑提醒英国政府,告诉行动党政府伦敦会议不是要讨论新加坡加入马来西亚合并的条件。在东姑的坚持下,行动党政府被迫接受如下条件,包括:(一)答应将税收总收入40%中的28%上缴中央政府;(二)原捐款5千万改为贷款给婆罗洲一亿五千万,其中一亿元首5年是无息贷款;(三)马来西亚共同市场问题通过各方协商(未具体公布)。最终,新加坡在国防、内部治安、司法、外交和财政决策权全部归属中央政府控制。
23/7在社阵呼吁下,统一党、新加坡联盟和两名独立人士在立法议院联手反对行动党政府在伦敦签署的加入大马协议,其中包括了一亿五千万贷款给婆罗洲。为此,李光耀威胁林有福敢不敢头反对票。在同一天,反对党也联手阻止了行动党提出的“新加坡立法议会选举(修正)法令”。
2/8立法议会一25票对17票强行通过了“马来西亚协定”,并宣布立法议会无限期休会。
 在“大马协议”签署后,原定8月31日宣布马来西亚成立日,因为印尼与菲律宾的反对,被迫展期。
1964马来西亚成立后……
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。
22/5李光耀开始出国为新加坡退出马来西亚寻找支持。
10/7在新加坡,由于王永元的辞职而举行芳林补选。这个时候刚好是行动党争取加入马来西亚联盟的活动的高潮。这次的补选背后的政治意义可能与东姑要试探新加坡选民对李光耀的支持率。选举结果是行动党的李炯才获选,社阵王清杉落败。
21/722/9新加坡发生穆斯林教徒庆祝先知诞生而导致2次的暴动。这使东姑坚信新加坡必须脱离马来西亚。
11陈修信针对李光耀提出退出马来西亚发表谈话。
 马来西亚中央政府宣布要向新加坡征收税。
23/10李光耀开始不满马来西亚。他在龙溪会馆发表谈话说,
25/10陈修信提出了有关“新加坡退出马来西亚”谣言时说:“任何一州要脱离联邦而自立,不仅没有宪法上的根据,而且是违反宪法的明文规定……要修改宪法就必须获得国会三分之二绝大多数的通过,照目前实际情况来看……要取得国会三分之二的绝大多数来分地而治,根本毫无可能……”
26/10马来西亚新闻部长说:“(某些)政治冒险家及取巧家梦想把新加坡交给欲摧毁民主的外国势力……一旦脱离大马,一定会完蛋……”
27/10李光耀回应联盟政府部长们的讲话:“新加坡希望看到大马成功,不需要谈脱离问题……(但他又说)当叙利亚退出阿联时,并没有遵照三分之二多数票通过该宪法的原则……”

李光耀被迫在1965年8月9日自己宣布在新加坡成立“新加坡共和国”!李光耀是迫不得已而为之所!所以,在1965年8月9日在世界各国通讯记者会上‘痛苦洒泪’?!

这就是新加坡共和国独立的简单真正历史过程!

如果您对新加坡建国历史过程感兴趣,可以到小坡书城新华文化企业有限公司或马来西亚吉隆坡学林书局购买《勇立时代潮头的左翼队伍–纪念新加坡社会主义阵线成了60周年》


留下评论

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

战后英国人重新统治新加坡和马来亚。它们为了对付和阻止当年领导马来亚和新加坡各族人民继续为争取实现一个真正新加坡和马来亚统一、独立、民主与自由的马来亚共产党,于1948年6月20日马来亚实施紧急法令,设立华人新村,把华人与马来人隔开。

它们宣传说,华人华校生是共产党和共产党的同情者!华人资本家剥削马来人,造成马来人经济贫困。为了收买了马来贵族,它们赐给了马来贵族拥有’马来人特权'(实际上这个特权是只有马来贵族所有。)。进而制造了分而治之的手段–造成华族与马来族之间的猜疑矛盾直到今天!

同样的,它们在新加坡也实施了’防止公共安全法令'(简称’公安法令’,新加坡独立后,李光耀把它改名为’内部安全法令’)。当时英国人也使用同样的宣传,华人及华校生是共产党和共产党同情者。它们立法保护马来亚贵族在新加坡的所有资产土地权利和权益等。

同样的伎俩,在新加坡埋下华族与马来族之间的猜疑和矛盾!

1964年7月和10月新加坡发生的严重种族骚乱就是英国人伙同马来西亚巫统及行动党一手造成的。它们三方为了各自的政治利益的需要,巫统喊杀,!李光耀喊打,英国人装聋作哑!终于让它们制造华族和马来族猜疑矛盾的阴谋实现了!

这三股势力都在扮演着自己应该扮演的角色!

当时他们共同面对的政治经济情况是:

印尼苏卡诺总统与马来西亚进行对抗。新加坡是印尼传统贸易转口集散地!新加坡的经济理所当然面对沉重打击!

李光耀野心勃勃要闯进马来西亚中央国会,取代巫统成为英国人在马来西亚的总管。最低限度要取代马华成为巫统的‘得力助手’。因此被人要遭到马华及巫统党内极端种族主义者的警惕和排斥!

因此:

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!

今天新加坡已经没有共产党了!没有人可以再利用共产党和共产党同情者来说事,以转移摆脱自己的政治经济困境!

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!

这就是说,今天发生任何人进行散播鼓动种族主义言行是与当前新加坡面对政治经济困境分不开的!

我们必须警惕别有用心者人为制造种族主义言行!

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!

网络视频里谩骂一对中年人的主角是在南洋理工大学的高级讲师。现年60岁。他已经在政府教育机构服务超过14年。他在2019年得过新加坡总统颁发的“长期服务奖”。时任高等学府的教育部长是王一康。

这就是说,他是行动党体制下培养熏陶下的公务员。他竟然敢开在大街上用种族主义的语言谩骂别人!?

对新加坡人来说,这简直是在阎王殿上与阎王论生死!这绝对是匪夷所思的事!

老祖宗说,阎王好说,小鬼难缠。说的是有人进去阎王殿,必须收买守门的小鬼!现在是小鬼要在人民撒野,它必然要问过钟馗!没有钟馗的点头默许,吃了豹子胆?!否则碎尸万段!


留下评论

(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

新书推荐:阿伦 巴拉(ARUN BALA)《完整的新加坡故事?—一未经审讯被监禁的新闻作者马哈迪哇回忆录》COMPLETING THE SINGAPORE STORY? MEMOIRS OF A. MAHADEVA JOURNALIST IMPRISONED WITHOUT TRIAL

马哈迪哇 A. MAHADEVA

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

别以貌取人

个本书的封面并不吸引人,但是。它告诉读者一个极其重要和令人伤心的新加坡历史。当聪明和怀有理想的人们被捕,在未经审讯情况下被监禁。任何人对于那些在《冷藏行动》下的受害者,包括马哈迪哇还存有一些质疑者,应该读一读这本书。

我在1970年与马哈迪哇见过面。这是他于1977年被捕之前。我记得他是一位机智诙谐者。他那对闪烁的眼睛掩饰了自己被监禁的创伤,最终结束了自己作为一名具有天才的记者会职工会领袖的事业。他从来没有提起有关自己被监禁和他和家人在他被捕监禁后所遭受的痛苦。他的父亲因为他而失去了在建屋发展局的工作。整个家庭面对着巨大的经济恐难。

回忆起70年代,没有人提起过有关《冷藏行动》事件,以及只有少数几个人知道有关这起事件。即便是马哈迪哇在1977年第二次被捕,我也根本不知道有关《冷藏行动》事件。在60到70年代,成千上百受害者被行动党政府逮捕、虐待和监禁。

阅读了马哈迪哇的回忆后让我感到伤心。如果他不是在1996年中风,应该可以撰写自传。他已经收集整理相当多的资料——其中包括了在监狱里的日记,记录、报章记忆文件等等。非常幸运,他的弟弟阿伦巴拉取得了这些资料目标能够进行阅读的研究这些文件资料,经过整理后编入这本书里,让我们今天有幸能够阅读到。

这本书记载了马哈迪哇的儿时生活。他是1931年出生在锡兰(现在改名为“斯里兰卡”)。他出世后4个月随着父母一起到新加坡。他的父亲在1919年移居到马来亚,到马来亚铁道局工作。他的母亲在他5岁时与世长辞。不久他的父亲再娶继母。续母溺爱他。

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。

马哈迪哇并不是唯一一位被剥夺公民权的人。还有其他人也遭受同样的遭遇。当局今天仍然采用通过剥夺公民权的手段。

这本书让读者了解在60年代充满理想的年轻人的生活。马哈迪哇和他的朋友们说反对殖民地的统治的。他和朋友们瞳景着新加坡或者是马来亚有一天能够实现民主、社会主义和多元种族的国家。这个国家是以马来语为国语的。不幸得很,众所周知,比马哈迪哇年纪很大的李光耀和他的同僚只是在为英国人效劳,为完全控制新加坡,而在过去数十年里把不断地大批人抓进监牢。李光耀的小心眼是无人不晓的。一旦你冒犯了他,其结局就是向马哈迪哇一样。他拒绝确地回答对李光耀明的效忠。其后果就是遭受毁灭性和完全不合理的对付。

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。

让我感到高兴地说,作者描写了马哈迪哇在监牢的生活。他们被当局从章宜监牢转移到女皇镇监牢,再到政治部,以及监牢当局如何阻扰他与家人及T.T.RAJAH律师的联系。

我们很幸运,马哈迪哇向内部安全局的咨询委员会阐述了为什么自己和他在牢内的同志拒绝出席咨询委员会的听证会。马哈迪哇大概都经历了新加坡所有关押政治犯的监狱——政治部、欧南辕监狱、女皇镇监狱、章宜监狱和维特里路扣留中心。这些监狱当中的3-4栋已经被拆除。维特里路扣留中心似乎已不再用来关押政治犯了。所有这些关押新加坡政治犯的臭名昭著的监牢都记录在这本回忆录里。

书的最后揭露了他在被释放前,被迫撰写“安全声明”和强制上电视的经过。只有极权政府在剥夺了政治犯的自由权利后,才坚持政治犯发表声明和接受电视采访。马哈迪哇的案件是在60年前的《冷藏行动》。又在1977年过了4个月,当局又指控有关涉及“欧洲——共产主义”阴谋。这次的结果是行动党被驱逐或者自我离开了国际社会主义组织。

假设不是由于被逮捕及监禁,马哈迪哇必然是一名妇幼盛名的国际杰出记者。

任何人如果换还相信在《冷藏行动》下被捕者的罪名是共产党员、亲共的分子、或者是共产党同情者,以及他们的被捕时因为危及国家安全,就阅读马哈迪哇的这本回忆录。


留下评论

(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.

作者:陈华彪 TAN WAH PIOW

Facebook

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.

人权是至关重要的,但不是单向的

在东南亚许多人权捍卫者利用今天纪念1989年6月4日天安门事件。

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。

他出版的书批评了西方国家在当时天安门事件的报道。同时也批评下西方国家的当时在这起事件所采取的立场,他当时是在天安门广场。他说,当时根本就没有如西方媒体所报道的大屠杀,或者是不同派系解放军之间互相残杀。他是以目击者撰写这起事件的。

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2010年类似于这样的‘反向’内容被出版。

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。

最重要的是,中国北京注意到,在西方、新加坡或者是香港,今天在形式上利用这起事件发泄不满,或者在1989年期间关于调查意识形态的争论.

于1989年的知识分子当中以普通话进行的争论有关中国的民主化,其中包括了关于法制问题、技术变革注入了新的大众民主文化,正在形成一股新的形式。

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

我认为,人权是重要的,但是,不是单向的。

My post’s Feed back from netizens

Facebook

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.

https://www.firstpost.com/…/tiananmen-square-read-an…

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.

网民对我的帖子的反馈

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:

https://www.firstpost.com/…/tiananmen-square-read-an…

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。


留下评论

(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.

MY STAND ON THE DEMAND OF MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT

 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.

MY STAND ON THE DEMAND THAT I MUST GIVE UP POLITICS IN EXCHANGE FOR MY RELEASE

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.

 MY STAND ON THE DEMAND FOR SUPPORT FOR PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

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.

MY STAND ON THE REQUEST BY THE AGENTS OF THE PAP REGIME

TO CONCEDE SOMETHING TO SAVE LEE KUAN YEW’S FACE

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:

WE WILL NEVER CONCEDE, BITTER SACRIFICE STRENGTHENS BOLD RESOLVE.

1972年3月18日林福寿医生发自狱中声明

由林福寿夫人陈宗孟医生从狱中带出

1963年2月2日,我和其他百余人遭蛮横逮捕,许多人至今仍在狱中。从那一天开始,我们在不公正和蛮横的情况下、没有经过任何形式的审讯而被监禁长达9年。在漫长的9年监禁期内,我们经历了各种迫害、斗争、磨难和困苦。最近事情却有了不寻常的演变。

1972年1月13日,我被带到位于罗敏申路的政治部总部,在那里跟我弟弟林福坤一起被拘留了40天。

两名人民行动党政权的政治部特工对我说,如果我愿意发表一份公开悔过声明,我将获得释放。他们告诉我,自我被捕至今,9年已经过去了,应该是把我的案子了结的时候了。

他们承认9年是一段漫长的岁月。我告诉他们,提醒我那是一段漫长的岁月是毫无意义的。

我被转移到政治部总部的一个星期后,那两位高官高声宣读释放我的条件。他们要求我做两件事,即:

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:

(1)我准备放弃政治活动,以后专注行医;

(2)我必须表示支持议会民主制度。

现在,让我回溯并扼要摘录在政治部总部被拘留期间,我跟该两位政治部高官的谈话内容。

政治部官员:

你不必谴责社阵或任何人。我们承认扣留你这么久是不公平的。人的一生,9年是个漫长的岁月;我们急切要了结你的案子。

林福寿:

如果无条件释放我,我的案子马上了结。当我被捕时,没有被问及是否应当被捕。无条件释放我,我的案子就了结了。

政治部官员:

钥匙在你手中,你可用来开门。

林福寿:

说钥匙在我手中,是颠倒是非的强盗逻辑,把白说成黑、黑说成白。将受害者描绘为罪犯,而将罪犯粉饰为无辜者。带了4名辜加兵到我家来逮捕我,我并没有要求或自讨逮捕我或不经审讯监禁我长达9年。

政治部官员:

你必须承认一些事情,以便李光耀可向公众解释为何拘留你这样久。李光耀必须保住面子。如果无条件释放你,他会失去面子。

林福寿:

我对保住李光耀的面子不感兴趣。这并非出于自尊心或傲慢,而是原则问题。我遭监禁,是完全不合理的,我不会随随便便地帮助李光耀把不合理的事情合理化。照你们的说法,岂不是一切明明白白,我在这些漫长而艰苦的年头失去自由,只不过是为了保住李光耀的面子?所以,行动党政权指控我对安全构成威胁,而不合理地拘留我9年多,是掩盖事实的蒙骗行径和托词。

我对私立口述安全声明供政治部备案的立场我不能也不会私立任何声明,谴责我过去的政治活动。我过去的政治活动完全是合法的、正当的。我所说的话和所做的事,都是为了我国人民群众和国家的利益,是为人民群众和为国家服务的。即使是一个被告也不需要说出任何归咎或谴责自己的话。那么,为什么要强迫不经任何形式的审讯而遭蛮横监禁9年多的我,来充当政治部的代理人,背着人民群众进行幕后交易?

我坚决拒绝这一要求。再者,我没有丝毫义务向李光耀交代我过去的政治活动。

我对被要求发表公开声明的立场原则上,我完全拒绝以发表公开声明为条件来换取释放,这是公开忏悔的一种方式。历史已经完全证明我的立场是正确的。我是由于反对跟马来西亚合并而被捕,因为我认为马来西亚是英国人谋划的新殖民主义产物,而马来西亚的创立,不但不能团结人民和国家,反而会加剧人民的不团结和纷争。我认为马来西亚成立,将使我们争取国家团结的斗争倒退,而不是进步。

我没有什么可忏悔、反悔或改造。反之,我的信念变得更牢固,观点更坚定,更坚决地要全心全意为马来亚人民服务。我没有什么可对李光耀让步。按道理,他应当公开对我表示忏悔,而不是我对他忏悔。

我对被要求必须放弃政治来换取释放的立场我认为这两项要求是相互矛盾的,因为如果有民主,我就不需要放弃政治。事实上,为了强迫我放弃政治而将我监禁了9年多,这就足以证明没有议会民主。参加政治活动是人民的基本权利。

另外,我间接得到一项献议,请我离开新加坡,出国深造。我对行动党政权的答复是,如果我任何时候想要离开这个国家,必需是出于我个人自愿的选择,而不是屈从于行动党政权的强权威逼。

我对被要求支持议会制度的立场我认为,支持行动党政权的所谓议会制度,等于是为广大人民群众制造假象,让人误以为今天的新加坡岛存在一个真正的议会民主制度。李思东同志在1963年的新加坡大选中获胜,随即被蛮横逮捕和未经审讯监禁,这是一个不可否认和不可忘记的事实。后来,他又遭褫夺了公民权,成为所谓的被驱逐者,身穿囚衣,仍被关押在女皇镇监狱。蛮横逮捕并长期监禁李思东同志,这具体证明,所谓的议会民主是个冷酷的嘲讽。新加坡岛不存在议会民主。支持这样一个假议会民主就是彻底背叛人民。我决不在任何情况下背叛我国人民。艰苦牺牲志更坚。

议会民主并不仅仅是每5年选举投一次票,更重要的是,在5年内及以后,天天都有信仰自由、言论自由、结社自由和出版自由。我是在社阵积极参与议会制度活动期间被捕的。参与这样的活动,殖民地政府、李光耀和拉曼政权给我的回报是9年多的监禁。这再次充分说明所谓议会民主制度是彻头彻尾虚假的。经过9年多的监禁,竟然要求我表示支持所谓的议会制度,来换取释放。我坚决拒绝支持新加坡岛的假民主和虚幻民主。

我对行动党政权特工要求做些让步来挽回李光耀面子的立场既然历史已充分证明我的立场正确,光明磊落,李光耀应当公开向我和其他还遭不合理监禁的所有政治扣留者,表示忏悔。按理说,将我从长期和不合理监禁中诠释的公正和正确标准(同样适用于其他还遭不合理监禁的所有政治犯)应当是:

1.立即无条件释放我们,并完全恢复我们的一切民主权利和人权;

2.对我和其他所有政治犯遭长期不合理监禁,给予适当的赔偿;

3.李光耀公开向我表示道歉。

我们愿意并准备放弃上述的最后两个要求,因为我们不相信像李光耀这样傲慢的人会道歉和赔偿。对第一项要求,即,立即无条件释放我们,并完全恢复我们的一切民主权利和人权,否则,我们坚决表示:

决不退让艰苦牺牲志更坚。


留下评论

(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.

林福寿医生在《改变中的世界》座谈会上的答问

2011年10月25日

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。

然后,我们将在马来西亚的框架内,跟我们在马来西亚的同志一道,组成社会主义阵线,在马来西亚的四面八方,共同进行斗争。我们相信,到了那个时候,形成一股团结力量的左翼势力,能够在全马来西亚的政治框架内,带来重大的变化。

我们全部遭镇压造成马来西亚眼前的局面,那里的封建保守分子开始推行种族主义政策。假设我们能够为马来西亚产生影响力,种族主义政策就不可能出现,因为我们的斗争是建立在阶级路线上,而非在种族主义路线上。我们将会团结马来族农民和华族工人,组成统一阵线,推翻封建制度和英国人的控制。

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。

桑迪斯说:“你径直逮捕就是了,因为是战略性的考量,是为了英国的整体利益。”这是一个政治性决定,跟安全无关,他们要保住障英国人的利益,他们知道谁是真正的反殖战士。他们知道,一旦左翼在马来西亚取得政权,就会将橡胶园和锡矿业国有化,我们将接管在新加坡的主要贸易和工业。新加坡的转口贸易是控制在英国人的手上,特别是森那美(Sime-Darby)公司。我们从这一切繁荣现象,得不到任何好处。政府如果无法接收这一切经济利益,造福国家,它在干什么?

我要讲一讲《华惹时代风云》书里的部分重要内容。英国驻新加坡最高专员于1963年5月底在伊登厅的一次谈话中,道出了成立马来西亚的基本论据。他说:“我们的利益在哪儿?如果我们从‘理性的利己主义’观点出发,可以得出什么结论?在马来亚,我有约4亿英镑的永久利益,其中大多数在橡胶园及锡矿业,都是不可以撤退的投资。这比起例如在印度和巴基斯坦的投资,金额更大。我相信,我们从橡胶和锡矿赚取的黄金,对我国的收支平衡,至关重要。”这就是当时英国经济的写照,就是他们热衷于镇压马来亚的左翼运动的原因。

英国人信任李光耀,因为他们之间有一个秘密协议,如果让行动党取得政权,他们将不会危害英国的军事利益和既得经济利益。其中一个军事利益就是谅解新加坡是对中国的核围堵圈的不可或缺的组成部分。这是令人震惊的事,因为这意谓英国人在新加坡储存核武器,必要时可用以打击中国。怎么可容许这样的事情?如果是个独立国家,绝不能容许出现这样的事情。社阵绝对不会允许这样的事情发生,英国人知道社阵是说到做到的。

我们并不是只要表面更换国旗的人,我们也要进行实质性的改变。更大的斗争是在我们跟英国人之间展开,李光耀并不重要,他是英国的人。

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。

在我们分裂后,我只在两次公开座谈会上跟他碰面,在会上激怒了他;在吉隆坡马来亚大学举行的那次公开座谈会上,让他下不了台。因为他一直在说谎,一个谎接一个谎,我必须揭露他的谎言,令他无法接受。

(这时,在观众席上有人说话:事实上,他开始攻击你弟弟。)

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。

1963年,我是31岁。在战争年代,我们成熟得很快。我们经历过许多事情,还在14岁或15岁时,我们就在思考国家如何摆脱殖民统治。我们生活的大环境,每个人都在为争取独立而斗争。1947年,印度取得独立;1948年,苏卡诺宣布印尼独立;1949年,毛泽东宣布中华人民共和国成立了。我们都受到这些事件的鼓舞。当时,加纳和肯亚正在为争取独立而斗争。在肯亚的毛毛党遭到英国人的残酷镇压。我们知道英国人镇压我们的习性,跟英国人进行斗争,我们的头脑是清醒的。

说来,我们可算是幸运的能活下来。他们为了保护自己的财产,是可能会把你杀掉,他们可以轻易地找人为他们干这类事。请看看,在加尔各答,他们是如何使用机关枪扫射、屠杀在街上示威的大学生。悲天悯人的所谓英国绅士风度去了哪里?只要你威胁到他们的利益,他们为了维护自己的利益,就会不惜一切、全力以赴。在肯亚,毛毛党就是这样被残酷镇压的。

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。

我们就是本着这种精神参加斗争,也凭这股精神在监牢内坚持度过许多年。这是获得全部或丧失一切的决战,不能半心半意。我们知道自己的立场!我们知道自己在反对什么!

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。

新加坡人民联盟(SPA)、林有福和巫统绝对不会支持我们,我们绝对无法把他们争取过来。王永元不会投我们一票,新加坡人民联盟不会,巫统也不会。因此我们只剩下13票加上马绍尔一票,就是14票罢了。当卫生部长逝世后,我们一直希望三巴旺选区会有补选。假设举行补选,我将是三巴旺补选的候选人。但是,他们一直不举行补选。

事实是,在我们被捕之前,我们一直在忙于筹备角逐大选的工作,如遴选候选人,草拟竞选宣言及其他工作。

我们不是在准备武装革命,我们认为我们一定会赢得大选,我们要保存实力来赢取这场选战,我们不举行任何形式的游行示威。我们约束我们党员的行动――工会成员正在准备展开罢工行动,我们劝告他们别罢工,避免挑起任何的麻烦。

1962年,我们举行了一场声势浩大的五一劳动节群众大会,在惹兰勿刹体育馆举行,出席人数约有10万之众。

蒂凡那当天也开了一个群众大会,只有约2千人参加,主要是公共工程局的雇员。政府让他们放一天假,提供食物、交通费和发薪金。他们只有区区2千人,我们的大会则有10万人,整个惹兰勿刹体育馆爆满。这是展示我们的力量。现在回想起来,这不是很正确的策略,我们本不应该展现我们的实力。

在2个月后的1962年6月3日,我们要举行国庆日庆祝大会。行动党是在1959年6月3日上台执政的。他们给我们庆祝会提出许多限制条件,不许谈这个,不许谈那个,不然他们会出面干预。我们知道,如果我们举行庆祝大会,行动党将会进行挑衅,制造麻烦,并以此为藉口,进行镇压。我们最后决定取消群众大会。

我们是尽量地约束自己的行动,为的是要保存实力,应对大选。

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。”

他们把我带到德光岛,给我一间屋子住,并说:“现在你是个自由人了。”我说:“我现在可以回家了,是吗?”他们告诉我要遵守在德光岛上居住的一切条件。

我说:“这是虚假的释放,做个样子蒙骗大众、安抚国际社会罢了。”在这之前,李光耀曾访问美国,当时的美国总统是卡特。卡特跟他见面的时间只有2分钟。美国国会当时要求尊重人权,令李光耀颜面尽失。他必须做一点事,于是,他把我和赛查哈里分别送去德光岛和乌敏岛,制造我们已经被释放的假像。

在德光岛上的生活是比监牢好得多了。岛上居民有200人,他们对我都很友善。我是岛上唯一的医生,紧急病患都来找我。在第一个月,当局给我300元,接着是200元,最后是每月100元。后来,他们告诉我必须自食其力。接着,便献议我到药房工作,每星期三天,每天2小时,每月给我300元。我告诉他们,原则上我不可接受这份工作,因为我还继续被政府监禁,政府有义务照顾我的生活。

起初,我没有向病患收费,过了一段日子,我必须向他们收费,以便偿付药品费和维持生活。我的生活就像坐牢一样。我有自己的电视机,允许我写作。在德光島囚禁4年后,他们还是要我签一份声明。

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;

中央警署是最恐怖的监狱。然后,就是去了樟宜明月湾监狱以及威特里路拘留所。我在女皇镇监狱关了4年。在那里,我们大部分时间是被禁锢。在牢房里放一个小铁皮罐,供拉屎撒尿之用,在隔天早上自己冲洗。到晚上,他们给我一个尿壶和一小碗水喝。我们的伙食,跟普通牢犯完全一样。

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。

基于历史观,我们是乐观的,我们必须抱持乐观态度。

事态将会改变,问题在于如何改变,是通过和平方式,还是暴力方式,我们谁也不知道。但是,改变是不可避免的,我们不能让现状这样继续下去。

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。

我们曾跟贝恩和拉惹勒南交谈,但话题不深入。我们主要是与李光耀交往。

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。