人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


一条评论

网友们,既然行动党要挤到芳林公园和咱们凑热闹!行!让我们扩大宣传对象!向所有当天在芳林公园的同胞有关我们要求行动党归还我们的公积金的诉求!

鄞义林韩慧慧007

008

答网友问:

明天去不去芳林公园?

答案:去!

这是好事!芳林公园是一个新加坡人民和平集会的公开合法的场所!谁都可以去!谁都可以用!

行动党明知道我们在一个月前已经 宣布了这一天要举行第四场集会,他们还要挤进来!

好!既然行动党要和我们凑热闹!那就让我们使出18般武艺!

我们感激行动党帮我们召集了这么多的国人来,我们就让这些人聆听我们有关《归还我们的公积金》的课题!

网友们、同胞们!利用这个机会向在场的行动党找来的国人进一步宣传我们在要求行动党《归还我们的公积金》的立场和诉求!!

网友们、同胞们,行动起来!团结起来!与韩慧慧小姐和鄞义林先生站在一起,展示我们的力量!!


留下评论

回归正题:撰写新国历史的责任Back to the basics: The responsibilities of history

【http://sahabatrakyatmy.blogspot.sg/编者按:应作者要求先行贴出英文文稿;作者征求自愿工作者翻译成为华文,有意协助者,请联系mminimyna@gmail.com。】(9月26日更新:华文译文已经于9月26日贴出)

原文作者:Hong Lysa孔莉莎 / 中文译者:伍德南

我欢迎《人民之友》主动以专题形式贴出最近发表的有关新加坡“五一三学生运动”的系列文章,让读者们得以进一步评审各作者所言。

不过,凡事应当适可而止。

陈剑(以下以“该作者”代称)在其题为《五一三学运的历史不容歪曲》文章中称我为“自我任命为左翼学术发言人”,同时也是否认马共在这一场学生运动中扮演的角色的某一帮人的喉舌。

我很荣幸,有缘曾经跟几位在上世纪50年代和60年代初活跃于政坛的人士合作、编辑,迄今出版了两本书,这不是什么秘密。我无比尊敬这几位男士和女士的廉直、坚韧不拔精神和智慧。他们根本不需要别人替他们说话。他们能够坚定而明确地表达自己的意见。

我并不自认是左翼的学术代言人。我的目的是,以一名历史学者的身份来检视官方历史,或已称谓的“新加坡的故事”, 或更准确地说,是“人民行动党故事“。这部故事具有无上权威,它蒙蔽了我国民众对新加坡的过去和现在的了解。历史课本教导的是,人民行动党击垮了共产党破坏势力,挽救了新加坡。它断言共产党人不断颠覆宪政体制、破坏社会,以便建立一个在其领导人独裁统治下的压迫性制度。因此,为了国家安全,必须援引公安法令拘留马共份子。共产党控制的工会发动罢工,不是为了改善工人的待遇,而是向资方提出过分要求,借以破坏经济;华校中学生被洗脑、操控,深信不疑地服从一切,正如他们在”五一三事件“以及福利巴士工潮引发的暴动中的所作所为。他们不会自己思考。Dennis Bloodworth在其《老虎与特洛伊木马》(The Tiger and the Trojan Horse, 1986)一书中,最最拙劣地阐述这一段历史。据我所知,新加坡人有二十多年的时间都无从普遍涉猎另类叙述的资讯。

所以,当该作者的文章于2014年5月13日在《联合早报》上一出现,说什么1954年5月13日事件(“五一三事件“)是由马共策划和领导的,并简介该党的组织结构、各级小组负责人的名字,我就认为应当作出回应。该文要是发表于其他地方,我才懒得理呢。

2014年5月13日,在过了大半个世纪后的第一次大规模纪念活动当天,在《联合早报》著文论述有关马共在“五一三事件“和反殖运动中的领导地位,日子或场合皆不适宜。一般读者对马共是什么,对有关华文教育的华校课题、华校中学生的世界观等,都一无所知。他们得出的结论必然是,《联合早报》刊载的这篇亲共文章承认马共在背后操控学生;而在福利巴士罢工事件中,他们是暴行和暴动的幕后鼓动者。

我认为,《联合早报》刊载的该文,在帮助新加坡人了解我国历史方面,存在负面影响。我也认为,该报是刻意在当天发表这样一篇文章。我没说该作者是代言人。我并不知道一个人要被认定为代言人,需要具备什么素质;同时,我也没格外的兴趣对此追根究底。在标志性日子当天,报章发表的一篇亲共文章跟人民行动党对同一事情有同样说法,两个针锋相对的立场 ——马共历史和行动党历史 ,竟然出奇的不谋而合。如果我说该作者是没有觉察到这一“巧合“,他是否会更乐意听到这样的说法?

该作者声称,今天的新加坡已经改变了、更加开放了,因而《联合早报》便能够刊载正当评价马共在反殖运动中的作用的文章。这种开放是否也意谓该报也可以刊登批评人民行动党版历史的文章,批评该党惯用的伎俩,给学生贴上无知之辈的标签,把他们描绘成不懂思考的、危险的闹事者,完全被马共控制?尽管英国情报局的文件披露,没有掌握证据可证明骚乱和暴乱发展的每一步骤,都是马共策划和鼓动的(见覃炳鑫博士引述文件:编号CSO.DSF.00516/54, 9 June 1954, CO 1030/360),然而,殖民地当局从来没有停止发布公开声明,指控共产党人在“五一三事件“和福利巴士工潮暴动事件背后,鼓动暴乱,破坏经济和社会。当今的新加坡政府的行为到底有没有超越此界?

要让新加坡人从更多方面、以开明的史观了解马共及其成员,须让他们取得关于该党的更多方面和开明的史志。对各级组织关系图表及其英雄和烈士的牺牲事迹作刻板的偶像化的传记式叙述,把英雄和烈士制作成个个雷同的纸板式人物,这不足以激发《早联合报》读者的兴趣,促使他们了解战后新加坡殖民地中学生的生活领域。

当该作者告诉《联合早报》读者,马共对新加坡的一大成就或贡献是,该党为人民行动党政府培养了一位部长,若是,肯定在某方面是大有问题的。该作者在其后续一篇文章详述这一点:前马共党员易润堂于1963年出任劳工部长,续任行动党部长直至1980年。而最“荣耀的”莫过于前马共党员蒂凡那,他当过新加坡总统。三声欢呼马来亚共产党!或应当是三声欢呼人民行动党?肯定不可能一起欢呼这两个党。

易润堂已向李光耀坦承自己是马共党员,已经背弃共产主义。他身为劳工部长的任务是“改造已被共产党人接管的工会”;这是读者搜索国家图书馆局关于“新加坡历史、社会与文化“网站《Infopedia》时,点击“Jek Yuen Thong“(易润堂)词条能读到的。

至于蒂凡那,他对人民行动党历史的最大贡献,可以这么说:凭借着他的前共产党员身份而对共产党如何运作,了如指掌。因此,他便告诉世人,他和朋友们号召罢工,仅仅是为了坚持政治鼓动。左翼工会领袖利用工人,他们在跟资方谈判时,故意蛮不讲理,每当谈判将近达致协议时,又提出更多利益要求。工人们在他们领导下,展开经常性和持久性的罢工,结果丧失了薪资和工作。

今年新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院院长、兼任通讯与新闻部属下政府通讯组主任詹纳达斯•蒂凡(Janadas Devan)在谈论“动荡的日子”(Days of Rage)的系列电视纪录片,一再重复这一宣传资讯;詹纳达斯•蒂凡是蒂凡那的儿子。

易润堂和蒂凡那都是前马共党员,他们作为人民行动党政府的成员,其任务是为了要摧毁马来亚共产党和左翼运动 特别是社会主义阵线,公然引以为傲地一路为此工作,并登上高官位。

研究马共的历史学者应当会给马共更好的评价,而不是因培养像他们这两位的一样人而受褒奖和尊崇。

我谨敦促那些有意向年轻一代讲述马共事迹的人(我本人无意也无能为力)要明白,他们务必要重新确定方向;对把马共和左翼视为敌人、认为誓必将之消灭的人士和组织,必须纠正对他们的看法。必须深刻反省,要用何种具体的词语来解说马来亚共产党所担当的历史任务,远非仅是以“反对殖民主义“一词带过。人民行动党的李光耀派系如何利用“反对殖民主义“?为什么马共要全力以赴,让李光耀认定他已得到他们的全力支持,直到1961年中期?当时,李光耀已在着手对付左翼,于1957年在伦敦举行第二次宪制谈判时,情况尤其明显。每当我们在这些事例中提到”马共“,我们意谓什么?谁做的决定?如何达致决定?两位负责新加坡事务的马共最高领导,已经写下回忆录,但情况依旧没有彻底搞清楚。

华校中学生、左翼工会和乡村协会负责人惨遭不经审讯的拘禁和驱逐出境,人民行动党的宣传机器仍在不断诬蔑他们为盲从者、颠覆份子和邪恶者。那些居住在新加坡、被贴上“共产党“标签的人,遭遇国家对他们的压迫,选择埋没自己的过往,是可以理解的;另一些人则选择跟自己的过去一刀两断,过完全的新生活。

五一三事件60周年纪念庆祝会之所以得以举办, 并非单纯因为政府当今的开放和宽容。能够汇聚傲然自认是前左翼人士和前学生活跃分子的数百人到会,能够安排林福坤到场致词,这实际上是个标志性时刻,是经历多年坚定而谨慎的迈步才得以实现的。记得在2006年,内政部明白表示和语带恐吓地宣布,前政治被扣者不得撰写历史。

左翼在争权的政治斗争中,已告失败。但是,争取赢得历史之战的斗争,才刚刚开始,尽管在时间上颇为晚了些。

此非其时,不应让公众目睹宗派斗争、深仇大恨的争执、怀恨报复性的谩骂,这显然是荒谬可笑的、扭曲事实的和不负责任的举止,看来仅仅是为了赢得一场辩论。

现在是那个历史时代的参与者有机会倾诉他们的生活经历的时候了,把他们的事迹留下来,供新加坡人看看,将他们描绘成无知之辈的形象,是多么的虚假。

我还是认为,这就是贺巾在其文学著作中所表达者。读者们欣赏他的著作,并不在于要知道他属于马共的哪一个派系,或是书中的某个角色在现实生活中是谁,而在于深入了解他所叙述一个中学生在那个充满政治激情年代的生活。

有一位精通双语的新加坡青年博士研究生正在研究贺巾的著作,作为撰写新、马文学博士论文的部分题材。贺巾的小说,并非贵在呈现历史或关于马共的“真相”,而是贵在“为人生而艺术”引人入胜的叙述。贺巾在1950年代学生时期撰写的短篇小说,就是遵循这种马华文学形式展开的。他描写同为森林中同志的普通士兵生活的短篇小说,极好地让人深入了解那些男女所经历的深厚友情、失望、日常战斗和精神上的小胜利等。这些小说内容,都是真实生活的写照。贺巾的短篇小说集和《巨浪》都是1989 “合艾和平协议“放下武器的十年后出版的。

跟易润堂和蒂凡那不同,贺巾对自己的马共党员身份,依然感到自豪。

要写出具有意义的新加坡战后历史,必须了解当今历史著作对政治实况的现实意义。仅有现居新加坡的少数几位遭遇“冷藏行动“以及1960年代和1970年代的其他逮捕行动的前政治被扣者,愿意书写自己的经历;而在这少数几位当中,没有一位是共产党员。这并非意谓否认共产党员在1960年代初的事件中所扮演的角色。而是说,只有那些不是共产党成员的人,或不愿表露党员身份者或不愿表露跟党有任何关系的人,才愿意书写。

人们或许会对此感到失望,但是今天任何人都无权谴责他们,或是“揭示“他人的马共党员身份,无论是还活着的或是已逝世的。

这样做是低估或无视人民行动党依旧是在新加坡执政的唯一政党的现实。就在几天前,新加坡政府基于安全理由,宣布禁止在新加坡公映一部由新加坡人摄制的得奖纪录片,内容是有关新加坡的政治流亡者,其中有马共党员。

没有牢固地建立起正当的历史本来事迹的做法,只能是替人民行动党版的故事涂脂抹粉。

****************

这是我的最后评论文章,除非出现需要进行建设性辩论的实质事项。对其他性质的课题,我让读者们从阅读《人民之友》博客网站集结的文章中,自行总结。

I welcome Sahabat Rakyat’s initiative in grouping the set of recent essays on the May 13 movement in Singapore. It allows readers to assess further what the authors are saying.

But enough is enough.

CC Chin (hereafter, the author) in his essay ‘ The history of the May 13 student movement cannot allowed to be distorted’ has called me the ‘self-appointed academic spokesperson for the left’, and also a mouthpiece for a certain group who deny the role of the MCP in the student movement.

It is no secret that I have had the privilege of working with some members of the left who were politically active in the 1950s and early 1960s to produce two edited books so far. They are men and women whom I respect tremendously for their integrity, steadfastness and intelligence. They have no need of people to speak for them. They speak firmly and clearly for themselves.

I do not see myself as an academic spokesperson for the left. My aim as a historian is to examine the establishment history, or what has come to be called ‘The Singapore Story’ or more accurately, ‘PAP Story’. This history has enormous power over the way our citizenry understands Singapore’s past and present. The history textbooks teach that the PAP saved Singapore from the destructive forces of the communist party. It asserts that the communists were subverting the constitutional system, and destroying society to achieve a backward system of oppressive dictatorship by its leaders. MCP members thus had to be detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for the security of the country. The communist-controlled unions launched strikes not to get better terms for the workers, but to destroy the economy by making excessive demands from the employers, and Chinese middle school students are brainwashed and programmed to obey the party without question, as they did in the May 13 event, and the Hock Lee riots. They do not have a mind of their own. The book that expounds this version of history most crudely is Dennis Bloodworth, Tiger and the Trojan Horse (1986). As far as I know, there was no widely available alternative to it available to Singaporeans for more than twenty years.

Therefore, when the author’s essay was published in Lianhe Zaobao on May 13 2014 stating that the May 13 1954 event was planned and led by the MCP, and outlining the structure of the party’s organization chart with the names of the leaders at the various committee levels, I felt that there had to be a response to it. If the essay was published anywhere else, I would really not have bothered.

May 13 2014, the day of its first large-scale commemoration in almost half a century, and Lianhe Zaobao is not the occasion or place to present an argument about the leadership of the MCP in the May 13 event and anti-colonial movement. The general reader does not have the exposure to what the MCP was, to the issues relating to Chinese education and schools, to the world view of the middle school students. All they will conclude is that the pro-MCP article in Zaobao admits that the MCP is in the background manipulating the students, and in the case of the Hock Lee labour strike, behind the violence and the riots.

I maintain that the newspaper article has a negative impact on helping Singaporeans to understand our history. I also maintain that Lianhe Zaobao was meant to publish such an essay on that day. I did not suggest that the author is an agent. I do not know what qualities one needs to be accepted as an agent, and have no particular interest to pursue such a line of inquiry. I am not sure if the author would really prefer if I had suggested that he was not aware of the ‘co-incidence’ of a pro-MCP newspaper article saying the same thing as a PAP one published on that landmark day—an amazing confluence of what has to be opposing positions—MCP and PAP history.

The author claims that Singapore today has changed; there is greater openness, and Zaobao would publish an article giving due credit to the MCP in the anti-colonial movement as a matter of course. Would the openness also mean the newspaper would have published an essay criticizing PAP history for putting one-dimensional labels on the students, and portraying them as mindless, dangerous rabble completely controlled by the MCP, as they have consistently done? Even when British intelligence documents reveal that that they could not find evidence that the disturbance and violence was planned and instigated every step of the way by the MCP, (as in the document CSO.DSF.00516/54, 9 June 1954, CO 1030/360, cited by historian Thum Ping Tjin) it did not stop the colonial authorities from making public statements that the communists were behind May 13, and the Hock Lee riots, of using mob violence to undermine the economy and society. Has the Singapore government moved beyond that at all?

For Singaporeans to have a more complex and open-minded historical understanding of the MCP and its members, they would need to have more complex and open-minded historical writings on the Party. A static, structural hagiographic account of organization charts, of the sacrifices of its heroes and martyrs who have been all made to be identical cardboard figures is not enough to stimulate the interest and understanding of the Zaobao reader on the world of the middle school students in postwar colonial Singapore.

And when the author tells Zaobao readers that it is a great MCP achievement or contribution to Singapore that it has produced a minister in the PAP government, then definitely something is very wrong. This point was elaborated in the follow-up essay: Ex-MCP member Jek Yuen Thong became the minister of labour in 1963 and was a PAP minister till 1980. And the most ‘glorious’ of all is ex-MCP member Devan Nair, who was president of the Singapore. Three cheers, MCP! Or should it be three cheers, PAP? It cannot be both, surely.

Jek Yuen Thong had confessed to Lee Kuan Yew that he was a MCP member, and that he had rejected communism. He was appointed minister of labour in 1963. His job was ‘to reform the labour unions that had been taken over by the communists’ , This is what readers who google ‘Jek Yuen Thong’ will find in Infopedia, the National Library Board’s information site on Singapore history, society and culture.

As for Devan Nair, his greatest contribution to PAP history is to say that he knew the communists, as he had been one of them. And so he could tell the world that he and his friends called strikes just to keep up the political agitation. The left-wing union leaders made use of the workers. They were intentionally unreasonable in negotiations with employers, demanding more each time an agreement was about to be reached. The workers were led into holding frequent and prolonged strikes, and they suffered from the loss of salary and employment.

This propaganda was repeated this year in the television documentary series Days of Rage by Janadas Devan, the director of the Institute of Policy Studies which is part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, and Chief of Government Communications at the Ministry of Communication and Information. Janadas is the son of Devan Nair.

Jek Yuen Thong and Devan Nair were former MCP members who had openly and proudly worked to destroy the MCP and the left-wing movement as part of the PAP government, and gained high office.

The MCP deserves much better from its historians than to be credited for producing men like them.

I would urge that those concerned with presenting the MCP for the younger generation to understand (I myself have no interest or ability to do this) that it is imperative that they re-set the compass. There is the need to re-look what they are saying of the people and the organization that treated the MCP and the left wing as the enemy that needed to be eliminated. There is the need to reflect deeply on how to explain the historical role of the MCP in concrete terms, beyond just one word: ‘anti-colonialism’. How was ‘anti-colonialism’ made use of by the Lee Kuan Yew faction of the PAP? Why did the MCP go out of its way to convince him that he had their complete support, right up to mid-1961? Lee was already making moves against the left especially clearly in the second constitutional talks in London, in 1957. And what do we mean when we say ‘MCP’ in these instances? Who made the decisions? How were the decisions arrived at? The two highest-ranking MCP leaders in charge of Singapore have written their memoirs, but the issues have not been thoroughly addressed.

The Chinese middle school students and the leftwing labour union and rural association leaders have suffered from detention without trial and banishment, and continue to be vilified in PAP propaganda as mindless, subversive and evil. For the most part of their lives those in Singapore who were labeled ‘communist’ have understandably chosen to bury their past, given the state oppression against the; others have chosen to cut off their past, and lead a completely new life.

The 60th anniversary celebrations did not happen simply because the government is now open and tolerant. To have hundreds turn up to be proudly identified as former leftists and student activists, to have Lim Hock Koon deliver the speech is indeed a landmark moment. It took years of determined but cautious steps to bring about. In 2006 that the ministry of home affairs had said plainly and menacingly announced that ex- political detainees will not be permitted to write history.

The narrow political struggle for power has been lost by the left, and it is over. But the struggle to win the history war is only beginning, even though it may be rather late in the day.

This is not the time for the public to witness factional fighting, vendettas, vindictiveness no matter how ludicrous, twisted and irresponsible, just to appear to win an argument.

It is the opportunity for those involved in the historical era to reflect on their life and times, and to leave their accounts so that Singaporeans can see just how false the picture of them as one-dimensional people is.

I maintain that this is what He Jin has done in his literary writings. Readers will appreciate his works not for revealing which faction of the MCP he belonged to, or who a particular character is in real life, but for the insights he gives into the life of a particular middle-school student in those politically-defining times.

A young and effectively bilingual Singaporean is studying his works as part of his doctoral thesis on Singapore/Malayan literature. His stories are valued not as ‘the truth’ about History or about the MCP, but as compelling ‘art for life’ narratives. He Jin’s short stories written in the 1950s when he was a student was pioneering as this form of Malayan literature in Chinese. His short stories written about the lives of the ordinary foot-soldiers who were his comrades in the jungle gives an unrivalled insight into the deep friendships, the disappointments, the daily struggles, the little triumphs of the spirit that the men and women lived through. The stories are about life. Like Ju Lang they were published only after the laying down of arms with the Hadyai Peace Agreement.

Unlike Jek Yuen Thong and Devan Nair, He Jin remains proud of being an MCP member.

The understanding of the MCP’s role in the Singapore anti-colonial movement would be enhanced by participants leaving their testimonies. They should not remain strangers to posterity—with only their names and their high position in the party committees on record. We would benefit greatly from analyses of the course their life took, the decisions they made, the trials and tribulations they faced. There is need for as many accounts as possible, including thoughtful individual narratives which help us understand the narrator, even if that is only how they wish to be seen. The point is not to judge him or her, but to break out of the uniform and lifeless picture that they are imprisoned in by accounts written by the MCP and by the PAP frameworks.

It is not possible to write on the history of postwar Singapore meaningfully without understanding the political context and implications that the writings would have today. Only a handful of former political detainees from Operation Coldstore and other operations in the 1960s and 1970s who live in Singapore are willing to write, and of this handful, none of them who are members of the communist party have said so openly. This does not mean that there is a denial of the role of communist members in the events of the early 1960s. It means that only those who are not members of the communist party, or who do not touch on their party membership or links are ready to write.

One can perhaps be disappointed, but no one today has the right to condemn them, or to ‘expose’ others, living or deceased as CPM members. To do so is only to underestimate or ignore the fact that the PAP has been the only party in power in Singapore. It was only a few days ago that the government has prohibited the public screening of a documentary by an award-winning Singaporean film-maker on political exiles in Singapore on grounds of national security. To do so without the proper context being firmly established is to embellish the PAP story.

******************

This is my final comment, unless there are substantive matters to be debated constructively. I leave all other types of issues to readers to come to their conclusions from reading the essays compiled in the Sahabat Rakyat blogsite.


留下评论

紧急呼吁!行动党企图阻挠和干扰本星期六由韩慧慧小姐组织和推动在芳林公园《归还我们的公积金局》第四场集会!请大家踊跃出席这个集会!

同胞们、网友们!

韩慧慧小姐于本期六在芳林公园举行的《归还我们的公积金》-我们的工作的第四场集会遭到了行动党的基层组织的干扰!

他们也要在同一天、同一个时间举行集会!

他们要求韩慧慧小姐放弃举行这个集会!

他们恫言。如果韩慧慧小姐坚持要在当天举行这个集会,他们将把自己集会的时间从原本的早上10点挪后大下午4点!同时,他们在现场搭建的帐篷将会在隔天才拆除!他们将在现场安装更多的播音器掩盖我们的集会播音!他们将动员5千人出席自己的集会。

同胞们、网友们!

行动党在公积金局问题上无法给予老百姓一个说法!又无法压制以韩慧慧小姐和鄞义林先生为首的年轻人为咱新加坡人利益的提出的义正言辞的诉求!

行动党无法明目张胆的禁止咱们在芳林公园举行的《归还我们的公积金》!他们现在采取了与咱们争夺集会场所的招数!

行动党采取这样的手法只能唤起更多的老百姓的觉悟,更多的老百姓将加入我们要求行动党《归还我们的公积金》的队伍!

行动党这样变相的制止老百姓的言论自由和集会自由,只能加速他们走下神台!

仅此呼吁,同胞们、网友们。带上您的家人、动员您的同事和朋友踊跃出席本溪期刘的芳林公园《归还我们的公积金局》——我们的工作的第四场集会!

href=”https://wangruirong.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/07.jpg”>070302 Au=1979816722,1204598792&fm=21&gp=0鄞义林韩慧慧u=2367480924,2456181028&fm=21&gp=0

以下是韩慧慧小姐的呼吁书全文中英对照稿全文:

亲爱的同胞们,
Dear all,
我恳请您带上您的家人和朋友出席在9月27日(本星期六)在芳林公园举行的第四场《归还我们的公积金》和平集会——我们的工作!
I need you to bring your families and friends to come to HLP on 27 Sep 4pm.
Their grassroots will have 5000 people coming to HLP this Sat.
昨天,一张显示我们本星期六集会的规划图已经公布了。今天下午5点,我去领取了演讲台的布条。我也购买了哨子、标语头巾和画笔。
Yesterday, a map which shows the route of the march this Sat was being released.
I went to collect the banner for our stage at 5pm today, whistles, vanguard and markers are bought too.
当我抵达芳林公园与承包商确定咱们的集会会场所需要的一切东西时,三个帐篷已经在集会现场搭建起来,作为阻挡我们集会的入口处。
When I reached HLP to meet up with the contractor to finalise everything, three tents were being built to block the path of our march.
4名基层领袖走来与我商量。
4 grassroots leaders came out and negotiate with me.
他们在设法说服我不要在当天举行任何的集会。
They were trying to persuade me not to organise any event.
这几位基层领袖说,他们将与本星期六早上10点了开始举行活动。他们的帐篷只能星期天拆除。
Their event was supposed to be on Sat 10am, they said their tent will be demolished only on Sun.
但是,如果我坚持在本星期六举行集会,他们将更改自己的集会时间从下午4点开始,届时他们将载送5千人到会场。
But if I were to insist in holding an event this Sat, they will change the timing to 4pm and ferry 5000 people down.
他们同时向我展示了发电机,同时告诉我,他们将在现场安置比我们更多的播放器。
They also showed me their generator and said that they will get more loudspeakers than us.
当我要求他们的集会组织者出来对话时,他们拒绝我的要求。反过来,他们要求我取消本星期六的集会。
When I asked for the event organiser to come out, they refused and demanded me to not organise event this Sat.
这样的事情在过去是从来没有发生过的!
This has never happened before.
我们并不是要游行到国会大厦!我们是在芳林公园的范围内举行集会,为什么他们这样恐惧害怕呢?
We are not marching to parliament, just within HLP, what are they afraid of?
同胞们,我只是一个人,势单力薄。我需要您们帮忙把这个信息传送出去,让更多的人在本 星期六到芳林公园来出席我们的集会!
But I’m only one person, I need you to help spread the word and get as many people down this Sat as possible.
他们的集会时间是在下午4点开始,他们参与集会的人将于下午3点陆续抵达会场、他们的工作人员将于下午2点开始进入会场。
Their event will start at 4pm, their participants will come by 3pm and their volunteers will be there from 2pm onwards.
我们的承包商在听了这些基层领袖与我的谈话后表示,在本星期六他们只能够提供帐篷给我们,我们将不会有讲台。
Our contractor was scared after hearing what the grassroots leaders said.
We will only have a tent this Sat, there will be no stage.
请您帮忙把这个信息传递开去!让我们展示坚定的团结一致的力量!我将会在当天下午2点开始就在芳林公园集会的场所。
Please share this message out and let us all stand united in solidarity.
I will be there from 2pm onwards.
我们的机会将于在下午4点 开始!我们将如期举行我们的集会!
The event will start at 4pm, we will proceed with our march.
韩慧慧
Han Hui Hui
<a