人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


2条评论

(中英文对照)People of All Strata Unite In Our Struggle For A Truly Free, Democratic, Just an Fair Singapore 各阶层人民团结起来,为实现一个真正自由、民主、公正和平等的新加坡而奋斗

 Date of posted:   28th Aug,2015

People of All Strata Unite In Our Struggle For A Truly Free, Democratic, Just an Fair Singapore

 

Note: this statement represents the outcome of a discussion centering on the current political situation in Singapore, and in which several members of the older generation, notably those who have come from the 50s to 80s in the last century took part;

To all those members of that generation who have made the efforts to relate, for the benefit of those of us coming from the generations after them, the history of their struggle in chasing out the British colonialists and gaining independence for this nation, and their deep concern for the future direction of this country we would like to express our sincere gratitude and deep appreciation.

   

In the 1950s during the last century, struggles on a grand and spectacular scale were mounted to get rid of the British colonialists with the aim of realizing a truly independent Federated States of Malaya, including Singapore. Those were indeed heart-breaking struggles. In the course of that, we incurred ruthless suppression, arrests, imprisonment, and banishment imposed by the colonialists. Numerous patriots even lost their lives in that process. However. we did not succumb to the obscene and despotic power of the suppressors. Instead, we united people of all strata, organize them, and launched our struggles using legal and constitutional means to defeat the government of Lim Yew Hock, which was supported by the British colonialists and established a self-governing government.

With positive support from left-wing organizations and progressive, democratic activists, the People’s Action Party took power, with Lee Kuan Yew at its head. However, Lee Kuan Yew failed to keep his promise which he made to the people before he obtained political power, namely to release all patriotic, progressive and democratic activists detained by the colonialists as well as to scrap the notorious Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.

In an agreement which Lee Kuan Yew conspired and reached with the British, only eight detainees : Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Chan Chiao Thor, Tan Chong Kin, Sydney Woodhull, Tan Say Jam, Devan Nair, and James Puthucheary were released. All other anti-colonial fighters under detention during that time continued to be incarcerated. Then, the crafty Lee Kuan Yew proceeded to employ dirty tactics to try to drive a wedge between Lim Chin Siong and other detainees! The fruits of our struggle were thus misappropriated in a act of swindle engineered by Lee Kuan Yew.

In order to further his act of cheating the fruits of our struggle and eradicate his leftist opponents in the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew joined forces with the British and the Tungku Abdul Rahman clique in the Federation of Malaya in 1961. In May that year, the “Greater Malaysia” Plan was hatched and floated by the Tungku. This was followed by a series of moves to surpress and clean out the leftist influence led by Lim Chin Siong in the PAP, as part of LKY’s push to wrest control of the PAP and to pave the way for his domination of Singapore.

This resulted in Lim Chin Siong and his leftist colleagues being forced out of the party which they had helped to form. In July 30 1961, they established the Barisan Sosialis to fight the PAP in a momentous irreconcilable stance. At the same time, they reached out aggressively to the left-wing political parties in Malaya, particularly the Socialist Front, which included the Labour Party and Party Rakyat, and the Sabah Kadazan Organization, as well as the Sarawak People’s United Party to forge a common stand against the Malaysia Plan.

We all know that after taking its turn to the right and having betrayed the righteous stand it espoused at the time of its original formation, the PAP had lost the support of and reviled by the people. Almost in an instant, the progressive forces of all races, including erstwhile cadres and members of the PAP turned up in droves to unite around Barisan Sosialis to form a fresh mighty force. That rocked the flimsy political base of Lee Kuan Yew and made him tremble in fright. He was literally on tenderhooks. Worse, the spectre of losing the Hong Lim and Anson bye elections (held respectively on 29/4/1961 and 15/7/1961) was to haunt him and strike him further like a double whammy. At once, his political future was shrouded in gloom. In order to save his political life, he threw himself at the feet of the British colonialist while bowing to the Tengku for help. Together, they conspired and hatched a plan to harm the anti-colonial forces. The “Twelve Broadcasts” was part of that loathsome plan — a pact of lies and fiction which he cooked up to demonize leaders of the Left.

Faced with this unworthy and despicable move of Lee Kuan Yew, we retorted by laying out all the facts and presented reasoned arguments within the framework of the constitution. This was done through numerous mass rallies and publications of all sorts in various languages despite multitudinal restrictions being imposed to restrict our freedom of action.

So as to realize his plan of moving Singapore into Malaysia. Lee Kuan Yew proposed to conduct a referendum. Yet, this was another trick, ludicrous and laughable to the core. Thanks to the painstaking efforts of Lee, the voters were given three choices. No matter how you vote, the results would be taken as supporting the proposition of the PAP government. Even a blank vote was “by law” deemed as a vote for the government! The nonsensity of it was unprecedented. Even the Chairman of PAP and Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Toh Chin Chye was filled with disbelief, as he later commented on this in an interview with Melanie Chew quoted in “Leaders of Singapore”.

On the issue of merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, Barisan Socialis held the view that any merger must be genuine. This means that the status of Singapore state must be equal to that of any constituent state of the Federation of Malaya in the new set-up, and all Singapore citizens must automatically become Malaysian citizens. At the same time, the number of seats alloted to Singapore in the new central parliament must be proportionate to Singapore’s population.

But this was not to be. PAP did not fight for it because it feared that the Federation government, i.e. the Tengku and his clique would not concur. We know that the PAP did not even have the chips necessary to go to the bargaining table to fight for the equal rights we deserve! It was only concerned with its own political survival! And, precisely for that alone, it was willing to sell out the rights of all Singaporeans.

On much earlier occasions, Barisan Sosialis had pointed out in all seriousness that unequal merger conditions were apt to bring about grievous consequences, including social tensions and perilous after effects. True enough, Barisan’s foresight and prediction was “unfortunately” but unavoidably proven right. Horrendous racial riots between the Chinese and Malays broke out in July and September of 1964! Just one year after that, the PAP-dominated Singapore State was kicked out of Malaysia. Lee Kuan Yew’s dream of a greater space to realize his ambition was greivously dashed. He had committed a glaring error. Singaporeans were treated to a YOYO journey of mistake after mistake. And did he ever confess to Singaporeans in all honesty how and why he went wrong?

Today, it is both shocking and shameful that the PAP has the cheek to relaunch the “Twelve Broadcasts” and the “Battle for Merger”— something that has been proven bankrupt beyond any doubt by ensuing events. God knows what diabolical dream are they harbouring again?

As it stood, what Barisan Sosialis embraced was a genuine merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya where true and long-lasting interests to the people of both territories would be ensured. It would be a merger that would foster the coming together of socialist forces to further bridge the wider political ideals, such as a common federated citizenship, common electoral registers, as well as centralized administrative and legislative systems. In addition to this, a meaningful common way of life and common destiny of the people would allow for struggles through peaceful and constitutional means to achieve political and social transformation. However, what the PAP’s merger plan meant was a sell-out of the fundamental rights and interests of all Singaporeans. Because it is clear to all that in the absence of proportional representation of all constituent states in the federated parliament, Singaporeans would be reduced to second class citizens.

Their power to exercise  political influence in the political arena in the greater Malaysian state therefore will be very much slimmer and ineffectual.

The series of events described above show that Lee Kuan Yew is an irresponsible politician and the PAP an erratic political party. Their policies have often gone against stern and solid walls.To say that they possess remarkable abilities and be ever victorious as their propagandists would like to make them appear can only be described as a sham.

We are of the opinion that PAP’s merger plan has the effect of turning back the wheel of history. It is harmful to the achievement of a truly harmonious relationship between peoples of the two territories which all of us aspire for. Indeed, it has poisoned the amicable feelings which had hitherto been existing between the two peoples. On this point, Singaporeans visiting Malaysia in the aftermath of separation in 1965, and indeed even till this day, would be able to attest to because the freezing irony and burning satire emanating from the other side and even unfriendly attitude, both latent and obvious make our hearts ache! People are questioning :

Can the PAP shirk this responsibility?

Declassified British archival records tell us that in order to set up Malaysia through merger, Lee Kuan Yew had submitted a long list of names of between 180 and 200 people from leftist political parties, trade unions, cultural and art societies, and student organizations to the British authorities for the tripartite Internal Security Council to take police action. This was the notorious Operation Coldstore mass arrests which took place on February 2, 1963.

Now, some 50 years later, a book entitled “The 1963 Operation Coldstore In Singapore” has been published. On the day of its launch, November 16, 2013 the hall with a seating capacity of 400 was full to the brim. Many attendees had to stand on the aisle or sit on the floor, just to be there to witness that rare occasion of great historical significance. Mrs. Jean Marshall, the widow of the first Chief Minister of Singapore the late David Marshall, was there with members of her family. So were the  widows of the late Dr. Lim Hock Siew’s and Tan Jing Quee’s.  The large number of people present and the highly spirited atmosphere combined to sketch a scene rarely found in Singapore for a long long while. It was like an atmosphere of great expectation at a mass rally of years past in which Lim Chin Siong was to be addressing the crowd. This shows that Coldstore is still fresh in people’s mind. It also indicates the deep concern of the people about what the historians in the book have learned from the newly declassified records in the British archives about Lee Kuan Yew, the nature of the man in the eyes of senior colonial officials such as Selkirk and Moore, and how he played his tricks on them, etc. Of course, people also wanted to know how the victims of Coldstore — the patriots of the nation — pass their time in prison and how they kept up their spirit against the onslaught of prolonged detention. From another angle, it also shows that people have by now shaken off their fear of this “white terror” which the PAP had deliberately culltivated as a shapeless tool to intimidate innocent people over a long period of time. People will not spare a glance at it now. Indeed, they are giving it a snort of contempt!

The new book exposes thoroughly the lies and myths fabricated by Lee Kuan Yew over the last 50 years or so. People now understand clearly that those myths were spawned by Lee Kuan Yew at the time for use on his political adversary and anti-colonialists so as to save his shaky regime from falling.

The historical facts of the 50s to 80s in the last century have eloquently proved that it was not the Left who repudiated the legal parliamentary struggles.

It was Lee Kuan Yew who resorted repeatedly to fascist brutal means by imprisoning leftist leaders and activists, and/or forcing them to go into exile, living a vagabond life so as to evade his devil’s clutches; it was precisely because Lee Kuan Yew had clamped down on all left-wing and legitimate organizations and societies, arresting their activists, including even duly elected representatives of the people, and depriving them of their freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, forcing those organizations into a state of impotence and inability of operating in an open and legitimate environment, that stripped them of their ability to make constructive contributions on matters concerning the state and assisting the people in overcoming their difficulties.

When this is set on the same plane as what happened in the United States in the mid-fifties when the whole of that country was caught in a state of hyper frenzy about communism, one cannot fail to find the absurdity, idiocy and abhorrence of the whole performance. One cannot but be sickened and aggrieved by the whole episode. During those times in the US, thousands of innocent people were smeared and accused of being pro-communist and stuck with “RED” labels, thereby having their livelihood destroyed for life. Joseph McCarthy, the senator who started it all, began by falsely accusing that several hundred “communists” were hiding in the State Department. He then turned his guns at numerous guiltless officials, framing up charges against them and continued to attack progressive elements and dissidents. Even top scientist such as the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, Robert Oppenheimer, “China expert” John Paton Davies, and famous comedian Charlie Chaplin were targetted in that wild and mindless witch hunt. On October 3, 2014, when the secret files of the Atomic Energy Commission’s case hearing and archives were declassified after a period of 60 years, Oppenheimer was finally proved innocent from all those accusations — he was not a communist after all.

This episode lead us to wonder, closer to home, how long do we have to wait for the planners and executors of those “black box” operations in which we — and numerous other innocent patriots — who were falsely accused of and labelled “RED”, to be stoke by their conscience and move out of their dark cavern to give us back the justice we deserve. When will there be a hearing or a commission of inquiry be held so that we will be able to clear our name in a fair, just and open manner?

However, we remain perplexed after much thought as to what exactly are they after in re-launching the “Twelve Broadcasts” and “The Battle for Merger” recently? Some people say: In the face of all the dirty linen about Lee Kuan Yew exposed in the British archives ever since they were declassified, Lee Kuan Yew is caught speechless like a thief caught red-handed. He cannot come up with any explanation whatsoever to justify what he did. The whole nature of him being the crooked man is for the world to see and curse. Even his hired propagandists frequent visits to the Archival Chamber in Kew Gardens could not find a clue whatsoever to mount a defence. In the light of this emptiness and impotence, the only strategy left for them is to “fry the cold rice” as the Chinese say, which means that when a lie or a false claim is repeated enough times, there is hope that people will come to believe that it is true! But there are others who say: They are like the hard core Japanese right wing militarists who are out in force to stick to their stand of never admitting to the monstrous crime they committed against mankind during the Second World War. The Japanese right wing militarists will continue to refuse to face up to historical facts and have even gone to the extent of denying that the Nanjing Massacre ever took place. They will even destroy material evidence. This hideous shadow now flashes before our very eyes, making us shiver all over even though it is not cold!

Just where are they taking this country of ours to?

statement

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4haXXgYHv7M

(本文章发表于2015年 1月29日转载自:wangruirong@wordpress.ocm)

各阶层人民团结起来,

为实现一个真正自由、民主、公正和平等的新加坡而奋斗

按语:这篇声明是在上个世纪50-80年代的前辈们就当前的政治形势进行讨论后发表的。

对于老前辈们为后辈们讲述他们当年为赶走英国殖民主义者和争取祖国的独立的历史以及他们对祖国的未来发展的关切。

我们对此表示诚挚的感激和赞赏.

在上个世纪50年代,为了要把英国殖民主义者驱逐出去,实现一个包括新加坡在内真正独立的马来亚联合邦,我们曾经展开轰轰烈烈,震撼人心的斗争。在这个过程中,我们被英国殖民主义者残酷镇压、逮捕监禁、驱逐出境、许多爱国志士甚至献出宝贵的生命。但是,我们并没有屈服于英国殖民主义者的淫威之下。我们团结各阶层人民、组织和发动了各族同胞,在1959年通过合法的宪制斗争推翻英国殖民主义者扶持的林有福傀儡政府,建立了新加坡自治邦政府。

在左翼组织和爱国的进步民主人士的积极支持下,以李光耀为首的行动党上台执政。然而,李光耀并没有实现他在取得政权之前对人民许下的承诺;那就是必须释放在英国殖民统治期间被捕入獄的全部爱国、进步、民主人士和废除当时实施的“公安法令”。

李光耀阴谋与英国人“达致协议“只释放了林清祥、方水双、曾超卓、陈从今、兀哈尔、陈世鑑、蒂凡那与普都遮里等8位政治拘留者。其他反对英国殖民主义的政治拘留者则继续被关押。狡猾的李光耀使用肮脏的离间手段、分化林清祥与其他政治拘留者之间的关系!

各族人民的斗争果实就这样被非法攫取了!

李光耀为了进一步骗取人民的斗争果实和彻底消灭行动党内的左翼对手,从1961年开始,便利用英国人和马来亚联合邦的东姑阿都拉曼集团在1961年5月提出的《大马来西亚》计划,开始部署其对以林清祥为首的行动党内左翼力量进行排挤和清算行动,为自己最终能控制行动党和巩固自己统治新加坡的地位铺路。

在这种情况下,以林清祥为首的左翼成员在1961年被迫退出他们曾积极参与成立的行动党,于该年7月30日正式组建新加坡社会主义阵线(简称“社阵”),代表广大人民与行动党分庭抗礼, 并与之展开势不两立的斗争。同时还积极与马来亚的左翼政党:主要是马来亚人民社会主义阵线党(由马来亚劳工党和人民党组成)、砂巴卡达山机构、砂劳越人民联合党和汶莱人民党,进行协调,组成声势浩大,反对《马来西亚》计划的一股巨大的进步力量。

大家都知道,向右转后的人民行动党背叛了当初成立时的正义立场,不得人心,深受人们所唾弃。而骤然间,团结在新近成立的社阵周围,包括大批行动党党员干部的各民族进步力量已然如同旭日东升,艳阳高照,实质上动摇了李光耀薄弱的政治根基,令其心惊胆跳,坐立不安。因为眼看着它在芳林区与安顺区的两个补选中(分别在29/4/1961年和15/7/1961年举行)都节节失利,前途暗淡。为了挽救他的政治生命,李光耀一边投靠英国,一边借助东姑集团的势力,阴谋计划向左翼力量与反殖进步人士展开反扑。他的电台广播《12讲》,就是他在此处境中编造出来的谎言和荒谬故事,极尽其妖魔化左翼领导人的肮脏伎俩。

对于李光耀的这种卑鄙无耻手段,我们坚决采取摆事实、讲道理的方式,在宪法範围內对他作針鋒相对的抗争。我们通过群众大会,出版各种语文的刊物驳斥和揭穿李光耀的各种谎言。

为了实现新加坡加入《大马来西亚》的计划,李光耀提出要搞一个所谓全民公投。原来,这是一个天大的骗局,既荒唐又可笑。在李光耀精心设计的这一个骗局里面,他列出3个选项,不管人民怎么投,结果都会被当成是支持行动党政府的方案,连投空白票都被视为支持它的票。荒唐至极,前所未有。

即便是时任人民行动党主席和副总理的杜进才博士在与《新加坡的领袖》作者Melanie Chew访谈时也表示费解。

就新马合并这个课题而言,社阵的主张是若要合并,就必须是真正的合并。这也就是说新加坡的地位和马来亚联合邦其他各州的地位必须平等,新加坡的所有公民必须自动成为马来西亚公民。同时,必须按照人口比例分配中央国会议席给新加坡。

可是,行动党并没有这么做,因为它认为马方不会答应。而实际上它也没有所需的筹码去向马方讨价还价,争取应得的平等条件。一味只为了自身政权的生存,甘心把新加坡人民的切身利益给出卖了。

对此,社阵早已严正指出,不合理的合并条件必定会带来严重的社会紧张与后遗症。果然不出所料,就在合并后的一年左右时间内 — 1964年7月与9月,可怕的华巫种族暴力冲突爆发了。再过一年,李光耀的人民行动党主导下的新加坡被东姑一脚踢出了马来西亚。结束了他们想在更大的地域版图内实现其政治野心的美梦!他们犯了这么大的错误,误国误民,他有没有好好向人民做过交代?

今天,它竟然还厚颜无耻把已经被事实证明破产了的什么“十二讲”抬出来再炒作,又费钱印制什么“合并的斗争”一书,当作什么“宝”来向人兜售.

本来,社阵心目中的真正合并应该是会给新加坡与马来亚联合邦两地人民带来真正又长远的福祉的。同时也会促进两地社会主义力量的融合,推动全面政治弥合,如共同的联邦公民权,共同的选举登记册,中央行政与立法制,并在共同生活与命运的基础上一起通过和平与符合宪法的手段实现人民期待的社会政治变革。而行动党的合并方案确实在政治上阉割了新加坡人民的基本利益,在联合邦国会里没有比例代表权的情况下,新加坡人民变成二等公民,作为大马政治体制内的成员所能发挥的政治影响力是微薄的。

以上一连串的事件发展说明了李光耀是个不负责任的政客,行动党是个不负责任的政党。他们的政策也常常到处碰壁,绝不是像他们公然宣传的什么“神通广大,所向无敌”。

我们认为行动党的合并计划是开历史倒车,对我们争取两地人民之间的真正亲密融洽的关系是不利的。它实际上大大地毒害了两地人民原有的良好感情。这一点,凡是在星马合并失败之后访问大马的人都会深深的感觉到来自对方的冷嘲热讽与不友善的态度,常叫人欲哭无泪,心痛不已!这都应该归咎于李光耀与人民行动党的失败所导致!

已经公开的英国档案告诉我们,为了达到合并与大马计划的实现,李光耀曾经向英国人提供了180–200名新加坡左翼政党、工会、文化艺术团体、学生组织等干部与领导人的名单,准备向他们采取逮捕行动。这就是恶名昭著的“冷藏行动”。

如今,时隔50年后,一本名叫:《新加坡1963的年冷藏行动50周年纪念》的新书出版了。在2013年11月16日新书发布当天,可容400人的会场座无虚席,许多无位子可坐的访客还不得不在走道上站立聆听,新加坡首任首席部长马绍尔遗孀金恩女士及其家属,已故林福寿医生遗孀与已故陈仁贵先生遗孀都出席了。整体出席人数之众,气氛之热烈,情绪之高昂是许久以来,在新加坡举行的新书发布会上所少见,让人们重温了过去林清祥群众大会上的温馨与热情,足见冷藏行动还牢牢印记在人心,显示人们对新书中几个历史学者配合英国现已公开的档案而总结出李光耀的弄权造作,假反殖的奸诈本质与丑陋嘴脸的记述以及多位当年经受牢狱之灾的爱国志士的切身实况回忆寄以深深的关切。这也充分折射出人们已经把行动党多年黑暗统治所刻意制造的白色恐怖置之度外,不屑一顾,乃至嗤之以鼻!

这本新书中,彻底揭露了李光耀50年前捏造的谎言和神话。老百姓终于更清楚地认识到这些神话是当年李光耀为了挽救摇摇欲坠的政权而给其政治对手与反殖人士加扣的莫须有罪名。

上个世纪50年代到80年代的历史事实雄辩地证明:

不是左翼抛弃‘合法的议会斗争路线’,而是李光耀接二连三,不断采取法西斯的强暴手段,把左翼领导人和干部关进牢房、迫使不少左翼领导人为逃出李光耀的魔爪,不得不在国外流亡,过着颠簸漂泊的生涯。正是李光耀封闭了所有的左翼合法组织,逮捕其活动分子,包括中选的人民代议士,剥夺了人民的结社自由,集会自由等基本人权,造成那些团体无法在公开合法的环境中生存;爱国人士无法在合法的宪制框架下议论国事,为国家献言计策,为人民排纷解难。

如果与五十年代中期发生在美国的恐共,惧共与反共狂潮同出一辙的五六十年代的新加坡摆在同一个台面上的话,人们就不难理解两者的极其荒谬,既可恶,又叫人不能不痛心疾首的事态演变。当时在美国,成千上万的无辜人士惨遭污蔑与指责,被贴上红色标签而倒霉一辈子。当时,右派参议员约瑟麦卡锡尽其夸张之能事,诬指美国国务院匿藏数百名共产党人,把炮口对准许多清白官员,陷害忠良,打压进步人士和异议分子。连顶尖科学家,有“原子弹之父”尊称的罗伯特奥本海默,“中国通”约翰戴维斯与享誉国际的著名谐星卓别林等都不幸遭殃。2014年10月3日,被尘封了六十年的原子能委员会秘密听证会资料和档案的公布,证明了奥本海默是清白的,不是共党分子。默默含冤了一甲子的奥本海默终于得到平反!

而这起事件让人们深刻反思的是在我们自己的国家里,要等到什么时候那些当年策划与执行黑箱手段,加害于我们身上,包括许许多多清白无辜的爱国志士身上的那些黑手到底要等到什么时候才会良心发现,从黑暗中走出来还给我们一个公道,给我们平反?什么时候才会有听证会或是调查庭,让我们在公平,公正,公开的平台或庭上进行申诉与抗辩

可是,令我们百思不解的是最近的“十二讲“ 与”合并的斗争“的再次炒作所反映的到底是什么?有人说:面对英国档案中所揭露出来的肮脏东西,他们没法解释,也无从招架,连他们御用的所谓历史学者频频进出邱园档案馆(英国伦敦外的Kew Gardens)去查看回来都脑子空空,江郎才尽!绝望之中,只好拿冷饭来炒炒,可骗就骗,成就多少就多少。但也有人说:就像日本右翼顽固分子与军国主义分子一样老死不肯认错,不肯面对现实,甚至还狂妄自大到说”南京大屠杀“并没发生过。妄图修改铁证如山的历史事实,消灭证据。天啊!这个狰狞的影子,就在我们眼前闪进闪出,令人不寒而栗!

他们到底要把我们的国家带到何方?

链接网站:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4haXXgYHv7M

statement

Advertisements


留下评论

(中英文对照)Singapore’s ‘Battle for merger revisited’ 新加坡的《争取合并的斗争》的再版第二部分

Related website:

1. DR Poh’S Part 2:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2015/01/14/singapores-battle-for-merger-revisited-part-ii/

2.  Dr Poh’s Part I can be read here.    

3.The response to Part I from Mr Burhan Gafoor, Singapore’s High Commissioner to Australia, can be read here.    

4.Lim Chin Siong: Letter to The Straits  TImes Website:

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/lim-chin-siong-i-am-not-a-communist-%e6%9e%97%e6%b8%85%e7%a5%a5-%ef%bc%9a-%e6%88%91%e4%b8%8d%e6%98%af%e4%b8%80%e4%b8%aa%e5%85%b1%e4%ba%a7%e5%85%9a%e5%91%98/

新书:1963年冷藏箱的50周年        张素兰 2

林清祥 2-page-001          赛查理回忆录

The historical background

For the benefit of the younger generation, it is necessary to describe the historical background at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, i.e. the period prior to merger and Operation Coldstore.

Let us not forget that World War II was a ferocious battle between two imperialist camps for control of global wealth. In the Southeast Asia, it was fought out in the colonies with total disregard for the untold sufferings it brought upon the local population, including our forebears in Singapore and Malaya. Therefore, their desire for independence from colonial Britain in the aftermath of World War II was fervent and uncompromising.

   

With the end of the War in 1945, Britain sought to reimpose its exploitation of the colonies including Singapore even though as a member of the newly-established United Nations, it was obliged to grant them independence. Hence it began casting about for the person or party, most committed to protect British interests in Singapore, upon whom it could bestow independence. In brief, Singapore was still a colony in the period before merger and Operation Coldstore, with Britain having the final say in all matters affecting us. It had the right to suspend the constitution.

 

Unless history is to be revised, no one can deny that Britain abandoned Malaya and Singapore during World War II and that it was the colonised people and the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) that bore the brunt of resisting the Japanese invaders. However, with the Emergency unleashed in 1948, the CPM was a decimated force in Singapore by the 1950s. Historian TN Harper has quoted the 1959 Singapore Special Branch report by the police commissioner that the CPM strength was low: an estimated 40 full party members, 80 ABL cadres, 200 or so sympathisers and less than 100 released for ‘White Area work’.[I]

However, the mood of anti-colonialism was unabated. Even Lee Kuan Yew saw that the way ahead for him politically was to take on the appearance of an anti-colonial fighter though he recognised that his future rested firmly with the British.[ii] Chin Peng in My Side of History (2003) revealed that Lee had contacted the CPM for support when the PAP was being formed. At that time in 1954, Lee was fully aware that Samad Ismail was a communist, yet he appointed him the pro-tem chairman of the PAP at its inaugural meeting at Victoria Memorial Hall.

Because of the pressure for independence from the people, including the efforts of the Anti-British League (ABL), the British allowed an anti-colonial party – the PAP – to come into existence legally in 1954. Its founding constitution stated that it stood for independence, freedom of speech and assembly, human rights, abolition of detention without trial and even socialism. With the advent of the PAP, the clandestine ABL lost its relevance as anti-colonial activists could now join the PAP openly. In the sense of being at the forefront of the struggle against British colonialism for independence, the PAP in 1954 was the successor of the ABL.

The anti-colonial, democratic and socialist platform of the PAP ensured its landslide victory in 1959. But by 1961, it was becoming clear that the PAP leadership under Lee was not carrying out the goals listed in its 1959 electoral platform notably that of releasing political prisoners and trade unionists detained by the Lim Yew Hock regime. Lee’s PAP was also tightening the screws on the rights of trade unions to organise to protect its members’ welfare and hard-won benefits.

And so the test came in April 1961 during the Hong Lim by-election, when Ong Eng Guan cashed in on the failings of the PAP leadership. His election platform prioritised the release of all political prisoners, abolition of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (subsequently Internal Security Act) and easing of restrictions on trade union activities.

However Lee was assured of CPM support for the Hong Lim by-election. Citing Special Branch files, Lee Ting Hui referred to the letter that CPM leader in Singapore Fong Chong Pik (the Plen) wrote to Lee assuring him that the CPM was not interested in overthrowing Lee; on the contrary it was keen to continue the alliance with him.[iii] Lee Kuan Yew believed in his own propaganda that the communists were all powerful and that he would thus win Hong Lim easily; he forbade Lim Chin Siong and the trade unionists to speak on the PAP platform during the campaign. He wanted to demonstrate that he had no need for Lim and that he was capable of getting the votes by himself. Lee lost Hong Lim in a clean and fair election.

On the other hand, the British Acting High Commissioner PBC Moore recognised the depth of feeling that the electorate had for the key issue in the by-election: freeing of the political prisoners as the PAP had pledged in the 1959 election. In Moore’s view, ‘everybody in Singapore except the PAP seemed to know before the election that Ong Eng Guan was going to win’.[iv]

British strategic interests in the region at that time rested on its military base in Singapore from where it could effectively interfere in neighbouring countries as near as Sukarno’s Indonesia or as far as Mao’s China. But with the ground swell of anti-colonialism in Singapore, Britain was faced with the prospect of whether the base would be able to serve its purpose given Singapore’s largely hostile population. Therefore, to contain this threat to their interests, the British enticed the otherwise reluctant Tunku to accept merger with Singapore by expanding ‘Malaysia’ into the Grand Design, with the British Borneo states and Brunei thrown in. With the conservative Tunku in charge, the base would be safe.

In an interview with a German journalist in early 1961, the Tunku had said that merger was something in the distant future. He was clearly not keen on merging with the predominantly Chinese-populated Singapore. However within a month of the PAP loss of Hong Lim, the Tunku did a 180-degree turn. He was persuaded to agree to merger.

Even with communist support, Lee Kuan Yew’s political life was at stake with the loss of these two by-elections in 1961. It was not the communists that Lee feared, it was the larger anti-colonial movement that had lost faith in the PAP. Merger was a life-line thrown by Britain to save Lee in order to secure its strategic interests in the region.

So we now come to the issue: whether the motive for Operation Coldstore arrests was justified on security grounds as evidenced by existing acts of violence and riots; or a premeditated conspiracy with preparatory acts in furtherance of an uprising for which weapons had been procured and stocked, and secret arms training conducted, etc; or whether the arrests of Operation Coldstore were simply politically motivated to mow down legitimate opposition.

The Internal Security Council (ISC) did not have the luxury of blatantly arresting the political opposition, much as the British wished it could decimate the anti-colonial forces openly. Given the international climate of post World War II and the setting up of the United Nations, Britain would have to present any arrests for political domination under the guise of ‘security’. The assessment of the British officials in Singapore was that the ‘subversives forces were not plotting an insurrection as did the communist cadres in Malaya in 1948’, hence taking police action against them might well remove all hope of bringing about Malaysia peacefully, for it would raise the political temperature in Singapore and strengthen the support for the opposition.[vi]

On the part of Barisan Sosialis and the people’s movements in Singapore, there was no unconstitutional struggle, no plot or conspiracy for insurrection, no Occupy Raffles Place as we know the occupy movements today, to justify Operation Coldstore. Rather it was Selkirk who had to alert London that Lee would advocate a policy of provocation of Lim Chin Siong and his associates with a view of forcing them into unconstitutional action justifying their arrest. The UK high commissioner hoped that the colonial secretary would be able to impress on Lee when he visited London of the risk to merger of such a course and ‘our doubts whether we could give our support’.[vii] Specifically, Lee was in favour of a Special Branch proposal to create ‘just the right degree of provocation to force Lim Chin Siong into taking action’ by removing Federation-born leaders in the Barisan and trade unions to the Federation.[viii]

Lee had to give the impression that the arrests were not against his political opponents but a security exercise in conjunction with Malaya. So for the arrests to be seen as a Pan-Malayan security arrest, he insisted that the meeting of the Internal Security Council deciding on the arrests, be held in Kuala Lumpur and not in Singapore; he further insisted that the Tunku should arrest Lim Kean Siew, Ahmad Boestamam and other Malayan leaders. The Tunku refused to play ball.[ix] Thus Operation Coldstore, scheduled for 16 December 1962, was called off at the eleventh hour. This state of affairs goes to show that there were no pressing security issues to justify Operation Coldstore!

Azahari’s rebellion in Brunei had taken place a week earlier on 8 December. The Barisan Sosialis gave it moral support as it was wont to do in international solidarity with colonies rising up to overthrow colonial rule. The British were confident that the revolt would be squashed quickly. So before the Brunei uprising dissipated, the order came from London, giving Selkirk the green light to arrest us in Singapore to which the Internal Security Council concurred.[x] Lee grasped it as a ‘heaven sent’ opportunity.[xi] It allowed the ISC to claim there was concrete evidence of communist terrorism being plotted and spin a security scare while all that happened was that we expressed verbal expression of international solidarity. Till today, no evidence of any Barisan Sosialis involvement in the Brunei uprising has been presented. It would be the easiest way to settle the issue if indeed such evidence exists.

 

The security myth trotted out to justify Operation Coldstore is further and completely debunked by Lee’s insistence to arrest Ong Eng Guan[xii] and three members of his party, the United People’s Party (UPP).[xiii] Lee was afraid that Ong would capitalise on the arrests and pose a threat to him at the next general election.[xiv]

As stated earlier, merger was a life-line thrown to Lee after the PAP lost the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections in 1961 to a hostile Singapore electorate, which also threatened British strategic interests in the region, that were being safeguarded by the military base in Singapore. Therefore, it was no small wonder that Lee worked feverishly to get the Tunku to agree to merger to the extent of ‘fawning and bowing to the princeling’, as he put it.[xv]

Here I would say to Lee’s propagandists that they would do well to have a holistic reading of his works. Lee Kuan Yew had said, in no uncertain terms, that he agreed to Operation Coldstore to clinch merger – which is a political matter and NOT a security concern. In a letter dated 12 February 1963 to Lord Selkirk, Lee said:

It was because of your Government’s firm assurance given by your Deputy endorsing the view of your High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur that if the arrests were not agreed to, then merger and Malaysia would fail that made us agree….

It was because of this appraisal of the Federation position by your Government and the assurance that you would dissuade them from departing from the publicly agreed terms that we agreed to the decision of the I.S.C.[xvi] [The I.S.C. decision referenced is the mass arrests of Operation Coldstore.]

Therefore, Lee had to conceal his role and responsibility in Operation Coldstore as he was well aware that this move was against the people’s anti-colonial aspirations. Upon return to Singapore from Kuala Lumpur on 2 February 1963 – the day of Operation Coldstore – he denied responsibility for it, saying if he had had his way, Operation Coldstore would not be executed.[xvii] And the next day, pressured by fellow members of the Internal Security Council, the British and the Federation, he denied his denial!

Lim Chin Siong

The official PAP propaganda has it that Lim Chin Siong was a communist. Lim himself refuted this allegation in his letter to the Straits Times published on 31 July 1961. He said: (Linked to https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/lim-chin-siong-i-am-not-a-communist-%e6%9e%97%e6%b8%85%e7%a5%a5-%ef%bc%9a-%e6%88%91%e4%b8%8d%e6%98%af%e4%b8%80%e4%b8%aa%e5%85%b1%e4%ba%a7%e5%85%9a%e5%91%98/)

i m not communist-page-001

Your editorial comments and news reports in the last week have focused attack on me. By repeating the fiction that I am a Communist front-man I suppose my political antagonists hope that it would stick in the minds of some.

While Mr. Lee and his men keep crying Communism to cover up a multitude of sins, let me, for my part, try to set the record straight.

Let me make clear once and for all that I am not a Communist or a communist front-man or, for that matter, anybody’s front-men.

Lee Kuan Yew in his Radio Talks, subsequently published in Battle for Merger (1962), produced documents obtained in a raid on an ABL outfit in 1953/4 and claimed that the handwriting was that of Lim’s. Notwithstanding this opinion from the police handwriting expert, what these documents prove is simply that they are ABL and not CPM documents. A strong anti-colonialist, Lim had always admitted that he was in the Anti-British League.

The ABL was not a party with an ideology. Its membership was not limited to adherents of Marxism-Leninism or to the working class; the bourgeoisie was welcomed. Thus, members of the ABL hailed from all strata of society, embraced different worldviews and were only glued together by an anti-colonial commitment.

Clearly, the ABL was not the CPM and should not be confused as such even though in the climate of the early 1950s, it had to operate in the twilight zone since the British had declared Emergency and outlawed all anti-colonial activities, causing the demise of the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU).

If the PAP logic concludes that the ABL is communist, would not that conclusion logically apply to the PAP itself as well?

Meetings at Barisan Sosialis HQ

01 01-page-001  02 03-page-001 04 05-page-001 06 07-page-001 08 09-page-001 10 11-page-001 12 13-page-001 14 15-page-001 16 17-page-001 18 19-page-001 20 21-page-001 22 00-page-001-2 封面与封面-page-001

The Barisan Sosialis was a democratically constituted party that must listen to its cadres and grassroots.

In the atmosphere of that time after the phony merger referendum where the democratic process was obviously flawed: anti-colonial fighters for freedom locked up without trial; the Legislative Assembly prorogued indefinitely to avoid disclosing the terms of merger; and a phony merger referendum (whose choices were best characterised by David Marshall as choices to beat your mother, wife or daughter) had just been foisted on the electorate; it was no small wonder that Barisan cadres and rank-and-file were questioning the fairness or even the viability of the constitutional path. All avenues of lawful activities had been blocked in the name of the law or guise of it by the powers-that-be.

The Barisan Sosialis, as a legally constituted party that abided by the rules of parliamentary democracy and elections, was faced with the insurmountable obstacle of a grossly uneven playing field that was always tilted against it. An analogy to the current tenacious struggle of the BERSIH (CLEAN) movement across the causeway illustrates Barisan’s dilemma at that historical epoch.

 

Barisan Sosialis cadres in the branches were activists, not well paid civil servants. The threat of arbitrary arrest constantly hung over their heads. These young and brave activists struggled on at great sacrifices to themselves and their families for the lofty cause of social justice and freedom from colonial rule. We had to address their legitimate fears and disillusionment with the so-called constitutional path dished out to us by colonial Britain and the PAP. Hence these meetings and debates in Barisan Sosialis headquarters where all views and skepticism could be expressed and encouraged to be aired. These meetings were open with minutes recorded, and taken out of context by Mr Gafoor. These meetings concluded with the Barisan Sosialis cadres and members affirming the constitutional and parliamentary path.

It is not true as Mr Gafoor suggested that the Barisan did not recognise Singapore’s independence in 1965. Lim Chin Siong smuggled a letter out of Changi prison in which he asked Barisan cadres to accept this fait accompli and to move on despite the crippling blows. This letter was openly read out to Barisan assemblymen. Apparently, Mr Gafoor forgot to mention the Barisan ‘rump’ intentionally left behind by Lee Kuan Yew to his advantage when the entire moderate leadership of Barisan had been wiped out in Operation Coldstore.[1]

Poh Soo Kai

傅树介照片

Mr Gafoor claimed that I was not an unwitting dupe of the communists. As evidence, he mentioned a Katong bomber incident in December 1974.

1974年加东爆炸案

What proof can he proffer that this bomber was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya apart from bare assertion? Would the files be opened for scrutiny?

Just as Lai Tek was a known British agent infiltrated into the highest level of the CPM, so could bogus revolutionary groups be set up by the Special Branch or similar intelligence organisations like the CIA and MI6 in this devious game of spy and counterspy with unwitting and innocent youth duped into executing extreme violence. I have reasons to believe that the outfit to which the bomber belonged is a fake radical group called the Singapore Revolutionary Party.

I hereby state categorically that I have not treated any bomber, communist or non-communist that:

I, my wife Grace and G Raman went in the stealth of the night to Masai in Johore to treat an injured bomber. Lee even publicly told the people of Singapore that as a medical doctor, I would be charged and judged by my peers in the Singapore Medical Council and struck off the rolls. Up till today, I have not heard from the Singapore Medical Council on so serious a charge.

I have consistently asked for a public trial. Should evidence of the alleged crime that I had committed be presented in a court of law, I will accept its verdict.

It still pains me that on the basis of this serie noir (dark thriller), my wife Grace, was subject to arrest and tortured for a month.

 

Surprisingly, these new sensational charges of treating the injured bomber were never added to my charge sheets.

What if the Barisan Sosialis had won in a fair and clean election…

What if Operation Coldstore had not been carried out and the Barisan Sosialis had won in a fair and clean election?

This prospect has been and remains so terrifying to the PAP that its propaganda has repeatedly raised the spectre of a “communist millennium”. There would certainly be no such millennium should the Barisan accede to power in a fair and clean election. I reiterate that even as late as 18 July 1962, PBC Moore wrote that, though the British colonial office was of the view that Lim Chin Siong was a communist,

(T)here is no evidence that he is receiving direction from the C.P.M., Peking or Moscow. Our impression is that Lim is working very much on his own and that his primary objective is not the communist millennium but to obtain control of the constitutional Government of Singapore. It is far from certain that having obtained this objective Lim would necessary prove a compliant tool of Peking or Moscow.[2]

As a founder member of the PAP as well as of the Barisan, I can assure the people of Singapore that the Barisan was established to carry forward the founding constitution of the PAP, much of which was incorporated into the constitution of the Barisan.

There would be freedom of speech and assembly; the ISA would be abolished. There would be social justice and economic dignity for the sick and disabled, the old and retired and other vulnerable groups.

There would not have been the wave after wave of arbitrary arrests and imprisonment without trial that we have witnessed under the PAP to instill fear in the population and keep itself in power. The ridiculous arrests of Church and other social activists as alleged Marxists would not have happened.

There would certainly be no astronomical salary for ministers; no polarisation of wealth in society; ministers would have to declare their assets on taking office and be prohibited to have personal holding companies, exposed to the lure of investing in tandem with the Government Investment Corporations (GICs); and definitely, OCCUPY Raffles Square would not be deemed an illegal assembly!!

We would have promoted a robust 2-party system for checks and balances in the parliament which till today I would very much welcome.

Dr Poh Soo Kai was Assistant Secretary-General of Barisan Sosialis. He was imprisoned twice under Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA) – which allows for detention without trial – for a total of 17 years by Singapore’s PAP government.

Notes

[1] ‘Note of Meeting held with Mr Lee Kuan Yew’, attended by Minister of State Lord Lansdowne, Lord Selkirk and Mr West in Lee Kuan Yew’s office, 27 November 1962, CO 1030/ 1159:

“He (Lee Kuan Yew) considered that it was necessary to take in the leaders before Malaysia, leaving the lesser men to be proceeded against more quietly and gradually after Malaysia. At this point he said with surprising candour that it was to his advantage to preserve a pro-communist rump in opposition. He thought that this strengthened his position in Singapore.”

[2] No. 363, Moore to Secretary of State, 18 July 1962, CO 1030/1160.

Sources

[i] EJ Linsett, ‘The security threat to Singapore (Communism and nationalism)’, 24 July 1959, DO 35/9870, PR0, cited in TN Harper, “Lim Chin Siong and the ‘Singapore Story’”, in Comet in our Sky: Lim Chin Siong in History, ed Tan Jing Quee and K S Jomo (2001), p. 31.

[ii] Colonial Office assessment, 1958. ‘Singapore – Political situation and outlook’, August 1958, CO 1030/451, Future of Singapore.

 “Lee Kuan Yew and moderate leaders of the PAP regard the continued presence of UK in Singapore as an assurance for themselves. They considered it unavoidable that in order to be consistent with the public image they have created, they must continue to be highly critical of U.K. Policies”.

[iii] Lee Ting Hui, The Open United Front: The Communist Struggle in Singapore 1954-1966 (1995), p. 197.

  [vii] Selkirk to R Maulding, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 28 April 1962, CO 1030/ 998.

[viii] Selkirk to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 24 April 1962, DO 169/247 Telegram 224 .

[ix] Secret 996, UK Commissioner, KL to Commonwealth Relations Office, 28 December 1962, CO 1030/1160.

“Tunku’s refusal to authorise arrest of Members of Parliament was genuine due to professional advice given to him that there was no security case which could justify it. Reason for his anger was realisation that Lee was taking advantage of atmosphere of urgency to include a number of political opponents in list of arrest on purely political grounds and by implicating the Tunku was hoping to shift the onus.’

[x] Selkirk to Secretary of State for the Colonies, Report on Internal Security Council meeting, 14 December 1962, CO 1030/1160.

[iv] PCB Moore to WIJ Wallace, Colonial Office, 22 May 1961, CO 1030/1149, Political situation, Singapore 1960-1962.

[v] Secret 263, Selkirk to Colonial Office, 17 July 1961, CO 1030/1149.

[vi] ‘Singapore Political and Security Situation’, United Kingdom Commission in Singapor, 10 April 1962, CO 1030/998.

[xi] Moore to Secretary of State, Colonial Office, 10 December 1962, CO 1030/1160.

[xii] Selkirk to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 23 January 1963, CO 1030/1576, p. 49, para. 2(b):

Lee has mentioned on several occasions that he fears Ong Eng Guan may attempt to make political capital out of the arrest. He wants to make it clear that if Ong Eng Guan were to cause serious trouble, action would have to be taken against him. I told Lee we could give no undertaking at this stage and that he was not a communist (he agreed) and there would have to be a strong case to take any action against him.

[xiii] Selkirk to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 29 January 1963, CO 1030/1576, telegram 53, p. 63:

Lee in effect admitted that the object of the U.P.P. arrests was to strengthen his own chances of political survival….The Director of Special Branch admitted however that he had been directed specifically by the Prime Minister to select several members of the U.P.P. for arrest and that it would never have occurred to Special Branch to propose these names for arrest. It is clear therefore that Lee’s purpose is to bring home to all who might entertain the idea of making political capital out of the arrests that they would not themselves be safe from arrest. In this way he hopes to ensure that the Chinese speaking electorate are not encouraged to transfer their political allegiance to Ong Eng Guan.

[xiv] Selkirk to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 31 January 1963, CO 1030/1577,

[xv] Record of Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew on July 25, 1961, CO 1030/1149, p. 93

[xvi] Selkirk to Secretary of State for the Colonies, 13 February 1963, DO 169/248, Secret No. 108, appending text of letter dated 12 February received from Lee Kuan Yew.

[xvii] ‘Lee: Reds were ready for violent action’, The Straits Times, 4 February 1963.

新加坡的《争取合并的斗争》的再版第二部分

编者说明:作者文章内的部分插图为本网站附录;本中文本词句如与原文本有出入之处,均以英文本原文为最终解释权。

一、本文章网址:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2015/01/14/singapores-battle-for-merger-revisited-part-ii/

二、傅树介医生本篇片文章第一部分网站:Dr Poh’s Part I can be read here.

三、新加坡驻澳大利亚最高专员回应傅树介医生本篇文章第一部分的网站:The response to Part I from Mr Burhan Gafoor, Singapore’s High Commissioner to Australia, can be read here.

历史的背景

为了年轻一代着想,是有必要叙述有关上个世纪50末到60年代初的历史背景,如有关在(新马)合并之前的时期和(1963年)冷藏行动。

让我们不要忘记二次世界大战来年整个资本主义阵营为了控制世界的财富而发生惨烈的战役。在东南亚,在这些殖民地国家里,包括新加坡和马来亚在内,殖民主义者漠视这些国家人民的痛苦。所以,在二次世界大战后这些国家的人民渴望摆脱英国殖民主义者的殖民统治而独立的愿望是强烈和不可妥协的。

在1945年二次世界大战结束后,英国寻求重新剥削它的殖民地包括新加坡,  尽管英国是新成立的联合国的员国有责任让殖民地独立.   因此,它开始制造了一个可以承诺为保护英国在新加坡的利益的政党或个人。简单的说,当新加坡在合并和冷藏行动之前还是一个殖民地时,英国人在所有的问题还是持有最后话语权以至于影响我们。他们有权终止宪法。

在1945年二次世界大战结束后,英国寻求重新剥削它的殖民地包括新加坡,  尽管英国是新成立的联合国的员国有责任让殖民地独立.   因此,它开始制造了一个可以承诺为保护英国在新加坡的利益的政党或个人。简单的说,当新加坡在合并和冷藏行动之前还是一个殖民地时,英国人在所有的问题还是持有最后话语权以至于影响我们。他们有权终止宪法。

无论如何,反对殖民主义的情绪并没有因此而低落。就是李光耀自己也看到,尽管他认识到自己的未来是必须紧紧依靠英国人,但是,为了政治前途,他必须是把自己扮演成反对殖民主义的战士。[ii]2003年出版的陈平:《我方的历史》揭露,在人民行动党成立初期,李光耀已经与马来亚共产党接触并寻求获得支持。在1954年,李光耀已经清楚知道沙末.伊斯迈尔(Samad Ismail)是一个共产党员,但是,李光耀还委任他作为在维多利亚纪念堂举行人民行动党成立大会的筹备委员会主席。

那是由于要求独立的压力来自人民和抗英同盟的努力  英国人只好批准人民行动党在1954年成为合法存在的政党。人民行动党成立的党章已经声明,它为争取独立、言论、集会和人权的自由,要求废除不经审讯的扣留法律和社会主义纲领。随着人民行动党的诞生,抗英同盟的秘密组织的存在已经不再需要了。抗英同盟的积极分子已经公开的加入人民行动党。从这个意义上而言,人民行动党已经替代了抗英同盟,成为了反对英国殖民主义争取独立的先锋力量……

一个反对殖民主义、争取民主和社会主义的平台确保了人民行动党在1959年的大选取得了压倒性的胜利。但是,到了1961年,在李光耀领导下的人民行动党已经非常清楚显现了它不再继承它在1959年选举时所许下的明确目标:释放所有被林有福政权所拘留的政治犯和工会领袖。李光耀的人民行动党也恐吓要紧缩工会为维护工人的权利和争取血汗利益而领导和组织其会员进行抗争到底的权利

为此,考验(人民行动党)终于到来了。在1961年的芳林补选期间,当王永远提出了人民行动党领导人没有实践诺言。他在自己的竞选活动中提出了优先释放所有在押政治犯、废除防止公共安全法令(俗称‘公安法令’,其后又改称为‘内部安全法令’)和停止限制工会的活动。

无论如何,李光耀获得了马来亚共产党的承诺支持芳林的补选。李廷辉引述了政治部的档案,马来亚共产党在新加坡的领导人方壮壁(李光耀授予的代号为‘全权代表’)写给李光耀的信中保证马来亚共产党对于推翻李光耀并不感兴趣;相反地,马来亚共产党热衷于继续与人民行动党建立联盟的关系[iii]。

李光耀相信自己所宣称的共产党是非常强大的。为此,人民行动党将会赢得芳林区的补选;他禁止林清祥和他的工会领袖在人民行动党的竞选群众大会上演讲。他要展示自己并不需要依靠林清祥的(影响力),自己有能力取得选民的支持。李光耀在这场干净和公平的补选失败了。

在另一方面,英国驻新加坡副最高专员PBC Moore深深的意识到在这次补选的主要问题是:人民行动党在1959年大选时许下的释放政治犯是一个极其重要的问题。他的观点是。“在芳林区补选前,除了人民行动党外,全新加坡人民都知道王元必然会赢得这场补选”[iv]

英国人在那个时候战略上的兴趣是放在新加坡的军事基地。因为这将会可以有效的干预(新加坡)邻国的事务,特别是靠近新加坡的苏卡诺的印度尼西亚,或者是毛泽东的中国。但是,在新加坡的社会上所嗅到的是反对殖民主义的气氛。英国人所面对的是:在这样众多敌对人口的环境下,新加坡的基地是否能够达到其设想的目的。为此,为了制止这种情况对它们的利益的影响,英国人诱使东姑勉强接受新加坡加入马来西亚,以‘扩大’马来西亚成为庞大的计划。这包括加入了北婆罗洲和汶莱。英国人相信,在保守的东姑管理下,它们的军事基地将会安全的存在。

在1961年初,东姑接受德国记者的访问时说,合并是一件未来的事。东姑非常清楚,他说,他不积极在与以华人占多数的新加坡进行合并。无论如何,在人民行动党失去芳林区补选后不到一个月,东姑在这个问题的态度产生180度的转变。他被说服同意接受新加坡加入马来西亚的合并。

在1961年7月,人民行动党面对第二次的考验。那就是安顺区补选。马绍尔采取了与王永远在芳林区补选一样的立场。为了确保自己的选票的诚信,李光耀把释放政治犯的责任推给了英国人。他说,那是英国人没有在内部安全理事会上提出来(注:5)李光耀把‘憎恨’推给了英国人。尽管如此,李光耀在安顺区干净和公平的补选还是失败。

即便是在共产党的支持下,李光耀在其1961年的政治生涯中还是失去这两场补选。李光耀害怕的不是共产党,而是一个强大的反对殖民主义运动对人民行动党失去信心。英国人为了确保自己在本区域的战略利益而抛出了合并来拯救李光耀。

所以,现在我们可以看到这个问题:确定冷藏行动的目的到底是基于存在着暴力和骚乱的行为的保安原因;还是有预谋的先发制人的行动为防范。因为为了起义而获取与储存屋契作为秘密的军事训练……等等;或者,冷藏行动仅仅就是一个简单的政治目的是把合法的反对党连根拔起。

内部安全理事会并无法大方的打开逮捕反对党。英国人只是希望可以通过逮捕行动公开削弱反对殖民主义的力量。考虑到二次世界大战后和联合国的成立的国际氛围,英国人要提出任何为了政治控制目的而进行逮捕行动,只能是假借‘安全’的理由。英国人对新加坡(政治局势)的评估是‘颠覆势力并没有像马来亚共产党的干部在1948年那样蓄谋进行暴动’。因此,使用警察行动对付他们可能会让他们失去人民希望和平的愿望,这将会使新加坡的政治温度升温进而加强反对者获得支持的力量。【vi】

在社阵和人民运动的这一边,并没有任何的非宪制的斗争,没有任何计划或阴谋的暴乱,没有像今天出现各国的占领运动一样,占领莱佛士坊的行动来确定冷藏行动的合法性。而是Selkirk提醒伦敦有关李光耀在鼓动对林清祥和他的同伴的挑衅。迫使他们进行非宪制推进斗争,这样可以找到逮捕他们的证据。英国最高专员希望,在李光耀访问英国时,殖民地秘书可以警告李光耀:这样的做法是对合并有危险的,而英国人可怕不会支持【vii】。特别是李光耀倾向于政治部的建议创造‘适合挑衅的条件迫使林清祥采取行动’,把在马来亚出生的社阵和工会领袖移到马来亚联合邦。【viii】

李光耀必须给人制造一个印象,这个逮捕行动并不是要对付反对党,而是一项为了安全的理由而配合马来亚联合邦政府采取的行动。所以整个逮捕行动似乎是一项泛马来亚性的逮捕行动。李光耀一定要绝对逮捕行动的会议在吉隆坡举行;李光耀个人进一步要求东姑必须逮捕林建寿、阿末.波斯达曼和其他马来亚的领袖。东姑拒绝与他一起进行这场游戏【ix】.因此,原定在1962 年12月16日进行的冷藏行动计划在晚间11点被取消。这个事件将出示证明没有任何涉及威胁安全问题可以确认采取冷藏行动!

在汶莱的阿.查阿里的起义提早在12月8日发生。社阵对于汶莱的起义给予道义上的支持。这种道义上的支持是展现国际间相互支持殖民地人民起来推翻殖民统治的团结惯例英国人有信心汶莱的这场起义将会很快的被镇压下来。因此,在汶莱的起义被全部镇压下来前,伦敦向Selkirk发出指示,同意在新加坡逮捕我们,这就是内部安全理事会的介入。【x】李光耀不失时机抓住了这个‘上帝送来’的机会【xi】.这就让内部安全理会能宣称说他们有足够的证据证明蓄谋进行共产党恐怖活动和造成对安全产生威胁。直到今天,并没有任何证据可以证明社阵与汶莱的起义事件与任何关联。事实上,要证明社阵是否涉及汶莱的起义事件有关联的最简单的防范就是提交现有存在的事实根据。

威胁安全的神话来确认冷藏行动的合法性,可以从李光耀当年坚持要逮捕王永元【xii】和他的人民统一党【xiii】三位党员而追溯到揭穿,李光耀害怕王永元利而用逮捕乘机行动以获取更多的选票,确保自己在来届大选的胜选。对自己在未来的大选产生威胁【xiv】

正如我在前面所叙述的一样,1961年行动党在芳林区和安顺区补选失败是选民对行动党怀有敌意的反应,也是威胁到英国人以新加坡为军事基地以保护其在本区域的战略利益的讯号。为此,合并就是这两场补选后抛向李光耀的一个救生圈。所以,对于李光耀以表现极其‘奉承和卑躬尽乞’态度与东姑一道合作同意合并的条件。【xv】

在这里,我要说的是,李光耀的宣传者他们会有一个全面阅读李光耀的作品。李光耀十分明确的说过, 他同意冷藏行动是与合并相关联的——这是一个政治问题,而不是一个涉及威胁安全的问题。在1963年2月12日,李光耀致给Lord Selkirk的信里说道:

“这是您的副手给予坚定的保证,批准了吉隆坡最高专员的观点,假设逮捕行动不被获准,那么,合并和马来西亚(计划)将失败所以我得同意……”

“正是因为您的政府对联邦局势的这个评估和保证,您会劝阻他们离开(顾虑)公共同意的条件而我们同意内部安全理事会的决定【xvi】”(内部安全理事会的决定是指大规模逮捕的冷藏行动)

因此,李光耀在冷藏行动计划里隐蔽了自己的角色和责任。因为,他知道这是与人民的反对殖民主义运动背道而驰的。在1963年2月2日,他从吉隆坡回到新加坡时,他拒绝承担这个涉及冷藏行动的责任。他说,假设我可以有自己的方式,冷藏行动将不会出现。在隔天,来自内部安全理事会的成员、英国人和马来亚向他施加压力,他又否定了自己的否认!

林清祥

行动党的官方已经宣传林清祥是一个共产党员。林清祥在1961731日致给海峡时报的信中已经驳斥了这些指控(见:林清祥致给海峡时报信件网址: https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/lim-chin-siong-i-am-not-a-communist-%e6%9e%97%e6%b8%85%e7%a5%a5-%ef%bc%9a-%e6%88%91%e4%b8%8d%e6%98%af%e4%b8%80%e4%b8%aa%e5%85%b1%e4%ba%a7%e5%85%9a%e5%91%98/

i m not communist-page-001

他说,

你们的编辑部文章和新闻在上个星期集中焦点在攻击有关我的问题报道。不断的编造神话,说我是一个共产党前线人物。我的政治对手希望这样将会使我的形象烙在一些人的脑海里。

李先生和他的人在叫嚣共产主义是为了要掩盖许多阴谋的当儿,让我直接明确本身的立场。

让我做一次性明确清楚的申明:我不是一个共产党员,或者是共产党的前线人物,或者是任何人的前线人物。

李光耀在他的12讲里,随后出版书名叫《合并的斗争》(1962年)提供了在1953/1954年从抗英同盟搜获的文件资料,然后说这是林清祥的手迹。尽管如此,从警方的笔迹专家鉴定这些文件只是简单的证明他们是抗英同盟的文件,而不是马来亚共产党的文件。林清祥是一个坚定的反殖民主义者。他承认自己是一个抗英同盟的成员。

抗英同盟不是一个具有意识形态的政党。他的成员并不限于马克思列宁主义的追随者,或者工人阶级。也包括了资产阶级分子。因此,抗英同盟的成员是来自社会的各个阶层,包括具有各个不同的世界观和凝集了反殖民主义的承诺。很明显的,抗英同盟并不是马来亚共产党。即使在50年代初期有这样的氛围也不可以混淆一谈的。在英国人宣布紧急状态和所有的反殖民主义活动是非法时被削弱。即使在50年代初期在英国人宣布紧急状态和所有的反殖民主义活动是非法组织,包括了抗英同盟和马来亚民主同盟。

假设人民行动党把抗英同盟视为是共产党的结论,那逻辑上岂不是也适用于人民行动党本身了吗?

在社会主义阵线总部的会议

党章 01

党章 02

党章 03

党章 04

党章 05

党章 06

党章 07

党章 08

党章 03

党章 09

党章 10

社会主义阵线是一个建立民主基础的政党。它必须听取自己的干部和基层的意见。

在虚假合并全民投票后的当时的气氛是明显有缺陷的:反殖民主义者在不经审讯的情况下被监禁;立法议会通过无限期休会避开了披露有关合并的条件;和一个虚假的合并全民投票(马绍尔所说的,你是要选择打你的母亲、妻子或者女儿)偷偷的欺骗选民;为此不少的社阵干部和成员对于公平或者甚至宪制斗争的道路产生怀疑。在法律伪装的幌子下,所有的合法途径已经被当权者所堵塞。

社会主义阵线是一个合法的政党。它是受制于议会民主和选举的约束。它面对着周边许多不能克服的障碍,钳制着它的活动场所。目前在马来西亚的BERSIH运动所面对的困境就如当年所社阵经历的历史困境一样。

社会主义阵线支部的干部是活跃分子,但不是有待遇良好的公务员。随意的逮捕威胁不断的挂在他们的颈项。这些勇敢的年轻人是为了社会正义事业和从殖民地统治中解放出来而战斗是建立在自我牺牲和他们的家庭基础上。我们必须重视他们对英殖民主义者和人民行动党的恐惧和对所谓宪制斗争的道路的绝望。因此,当时,在社阵总部进行的这些会议和辩论所产生的各种看法和怀疑可以公开的发表和鼓励。这些会议都是公开和有记录的。Mr Gafoor断章取义。这些会议记录了社阵的干部和成员确定了宪制斗争和议会斗争的道路。

Mr Gafoor说,社阵不承认新加坡在1965 的独立不确实的。林清祥在1965年让人从章宜监牢里偷偷带出来的一封信,呼吁社阵干部接受这个即成的事实,不要理会目前遭受到的打击并继续前进。这份信是公开在社阵的集会上宣读的。明显的,Mr Gafoor忘记提及有利于李光耀的全面逮捕了全部温和派的社阵领导人,为李光耀的统治创造一个有利的局面【I】

傅树楷

傅树介照片

Mr Gafoor说,我不是一个无辜者。我是被共产党设立陷阱让我做了他们要做的事情。我知道自己在做一个共产党员该做的事情。他以有关1974年12月在加东发生的汽车爆炸案事件作为例子以支持他对我的指控。

1974年加东爆炸案

除了空洞的指责外,他能够提供什么证据证明这个爆炸案涉嫌者是马来亚共产党的成员?他们可以把这个案件的档案公开解密让人审核吗?

正如众所周知的历史,莱特是英国人潜伏在马来亚共产党的最高领导层的。因此,政治部是否可以也同样设立一个假的集团,或者类似于中央情报局或是英国的M16的情报组织进行这种分裂的特务活动和诱使不知情和无辜的青年人涉及这种执行极端的暴力的反特务活动。我有理由相信,这个制造爆炸者是属于一个虚假的极端集团。它的名称为:新加坡革命党。

我在此明确的表明, 我并没有为任何涉及爆炸案件的人,不论他是共产党员或者非共产党员进行任何的治疗。

李光耀没有取得任何我为爆炸案件的人进行治理,因此,他捏造了我的妻子、G.拉曼和我在夜间潜到马来西亚的马西为一个伤者治疗的故事。他公开的告诉新加坡人民,身为一位医务人员,我将会因此被控告。我也将会被我在新加坡医药理事会的会员将裁决并遞夺我的医生资质。

直到今天,我并没有听到任何新加坡医药理事会对我发出的任何这样严厉的指控。

我不断的要求进行公开的审讯有关这起案件。把指控我涉及有关此案件的所有证据呈上法院。我将会接受法院的裁决。

对我而言,这个恶意的指责至今还是一个极其的伤痛。它导致了我妻子GRACE被捕并被在牢内遭受虐待一个月。

让人惊奇的是,这项最新的耸人听闻的指控我为爆炸案伤者治疗的指控没有加入我的诉状中。

假设社会主义阵线赢得一个公正和清洁的选举的话……

假设没有进行冷藏行动和社阵在一个干净和公平的选举中取得胜利?

对人民行动而言,这一直是一个令他们恐惧的预期情况。他们的宣传机构一直不断的进行宣传‘共产主义千禧年’的幽灵。对于社阵而言,在一个公平和干净的选举让它们取得政权的话,可以肯定的是绝对不会有共产主义千禧。我再一次强调,即便是在1962年7月18日,PBC Moore 写道,虽然英国殖民地办公室的认为林清祥是一个共产党员。

根本就没有证据证明,他接受来自马来亚共产党、或者是北京、或者说莫斯科的指示。我们的印象是林清祥依靠自己非常努力的工作和他的主要目标并不是共产主义社会,而是取得控制新加坡宪制的政府。假使林清祥达到这个目标的话  我不能肯定他会愿意一直做北京 或莫斯科的工具。【2】

我作为一个社阵的发起人之一,我可以向新加坡人民保证,社阵的成立是继续为弘扬人民行动党所制定的宪法。这大多数都列进了社阵的党章。

这就是:言论与集会自由、废除内部安全法令、社会正义、让所有病者和残障者有尊严、老年人和退休人士以及其他脆弱的人也是一样的。

这将不会发生一波接一波的蓄意逮捕行动和不经审讯被拘留在监牢的事件。我们见证了在人民行动党统治下,在人民当中灌输了恐惧的心理和自己牢牢掌握了政权。以指责教会活跃分子和其他的社会活动者为马克思主义而被逮捕的时间将不会发生。

部长们将绝对不会领取天文数字的薪金;不会出现财富不均的两极化的社会;部长们在担任公职之日必须宣誓呈报自己的财产,以及禁止个人拥有自己控制的公司,公开和清晰有关与政府投资公司(GIC)的投资关系;‘占领莱佛士坊’不是一个非法的集会!!

我们将会促进在国会的两党制作为监督和平衡作用。一直到今日我仍然会乐见这个制度的推行。

傅树介医生是社会主义阵线的助理秘书长。他在不经审讯的内部法令下被人民行动党总关押了17年。

备注:

    【1】档案编号:1962年11月27日CO 1030/ 1159: 国务大臣 Lord Lansdowne, Lord Selkirk and Mr West与李光耀先生在李光耀办公室会谈记录。    

“他(李光耀)考虑到,假设有必要的话,在马来西亚(成立前)把领导人抓进去,留下少部分人在马来西亚(成立后)继续以比较平静和有次序的反对。在这个问题上,他令人惊奇的直率的说法,这样说有利于维持共产党在反对党的残留势力。他认为,这将加强他在新加坡的地位。”

  【2】1962年7月18日,第363号,编号CO 1030/1160,Moore致给国务大臣的信件    

链接:

     【i】EJ Linsett,《(共产主义和民族主义)对新加坡的安全威胁》。1959年7月24日,编号:DO 35/9870,PRO,引述自TN Harper,“林清祥和‘新加坡的故事’”,我们天空的彗星:林清祥的年代,编辑:陈仁贵和K. S. JOMO (2001),第31页。      【ii】1958年的殖民地评估报告。“新加坡——政治局势和展望”,编号: 1958年8月 CO 1030/451,未来的新加坡。     

“李光耀和现代化的人民行动党领袖重视新加坡继续留在英联邦是对自己的一种保障。他们认为,他们必须继续高度的批评英国的政策,作为保持他们在大众面前所树立的形象,这是不可避免的。”

     【iii】李廷辉:《公开同统一战线——1954年-1966年(1995年),第197页     【iv】1961年5月22日PCB Moore 致信WIJ Wallace,殖民地办公室:新加坡的政治局势》,编号:CO 1030/1149     【v】1961年7月17日Selkirk致信殖民地办公室,密件:263,编号:CO 1030/1149.     【vi】1962年4月10日,英国最高专员公署:《新加坡的政治与安全局势》,编号:CO 1030/998.     【vii】1962年4月28日,Selkirk 致信 R Maulding,殖民地国务秘书,编号:CO 1030/ 998.     【viii】1962年4月24日,Selkirk 致电文244号 殖民地国务秘书,编号:DO 169/247       【ix】1962年12月28日,最高专员公署致函吉隆坡共和联邦联络处,编号:CO 1030/1160.     

“东姑拒绝授权逮捕国会议员基本上是基于顾问提供给他的意见,因为没有任何涉及安全的原因可以确定。他愤怒的原因是实际的。李光耀借题紧急的气氛加入了一份要逮捕的反对党名单,是纯粹基于这种因素和暗示东姑通过这样的方式把责任转移到东姑的身上。”

【x】1962年12月14日Selkirk致信殖民地国务秘书:内部安全理事会会议记录 .编号:, CO 1030/1160.     【xiv】1963年1月31日Selkirk致信殖民地国务秘书,‘1963-1965新加坡内部安全理事会’编号:CO 1030/1577     【15】1961年7月25日与李光耀进行会谈的记录,编号:CO 1030/1149, p. 93 第93页     【xvi】1963年2月13日Selkirk致信殖民地国务秘书,编号:DO 169/248.密件号码:108,附件:受到李光耀2月12日的来信。     【xvii】李:‘共产党已经准备进行暴力行动’,1963年2月4日海峡时报。     【xi】1962年12月10日Moore致信殖民地国务秘书,编号:CO 1030/1160.     【xii】1963年1月23日Selkirk致信殖民地国务秘书,编号:CO 1030/1576, 第 49页, 第 2段(b):    

他在不同的场合里已经说过,王永远可能企图累计累积资本以避免被逮捕。他要明确的说,假设王永远要制造严重的麻烦,他将会采取行动对付他。我告诉李,在这个阶段,我们将不会承担任何责任,同时。他(指王永远)这不是一个共产党员(他同意这个观点)。而且,这不是要具有确凿的证据才可以采取行动对付他。

李实际上承认,对人民统一党的逮捕行动目的是要加强自己的政治生存……无论如何,政治部主任承认,他受总理特别指示列出几个要逮捕的人民统一党成员。但是,这几个名字并不在政治部提交的名单里。这是非常明显的,李的目的是要把那些可能具有想要累积政治资本的避开被逮捕。这样,他们就不会被逮捕。因此。从这方面而言,他确保受华文教育的选民就不会受鼓动转向他们的同盟者王永远。

    【xiii】1963年1月29日Selkirk致邮电53号殖民地国务秘书,第63页,编号:CO 1030/1576

 


留下评论

(中英文对照)Weapon of the powerful? By Dr. Hong Lysa 人民的力量是创造历史强大的武器?——作者:孔莉莎博士

Wondering about The Response to Poh Soo Kai, “Singapore’s ‘Battle for Merger’ revisited: the poverty of its history” 

 

这是历史学家孔莉莎博士在2015年1月17日在其博客网站就新加坡驻澳大利亚专员发表回应有关前社阵助理秘书长傅树介医生在2014年12月10日发表的文章:《Singapore’s ‘Battle for Merger’ revisited新加坡的《争取合并的斗争》的再版》而撰写的。

(见文章网址:https://minimyna.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/weapon-of-the-powerful-wondering-about-the-response-to-poh-soo-kai-singapores-battle-for-merger-revisited-the-poverty-of-its-history/)

注:

本翻译中文版本与英文版本之间如有不符之处,皆以英文版本作为最终解释权。

傅树介医生的第一部分文章可以在这个网址阅读。

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/%e4%b8%ad%e8%8b%b1%e6%96%87%e5%af%b9%e7%85%a7singapores-battle-for-merger-revisited%e6%96%b0%e5%8a%a0%e5%9d%a1%e7%9a%84%e3%80%8a%e4%ba%89%e5%8f%96%e5%90%88%e5%b9%b6/

 high-commissioner-001

 Battle royal

 

 

The Battle over Operation Coldstore—between the PAP establishment case that the fateful arrests of 2 February 1963 was rightly justified as a security measure that saved Singapore from subversion and imminent outbreak of violence, and the former political prisoners who maintain that it was to prevent the opposition forces from winning the 1963 general election has been going on in the last few years, following almost 50 years of virtual state monopoly on the subject.

 

 

In October 2014 the government took up the cudgels directly with the re-issue of The Battle for Merger (1962) by then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, which cast the 1950s and 1960s as the time of pitched battles between the communists and the non-communists in the PAP.

 

The challenge from those who have queried this version of history has caused the present PAP government to declare on that occasion that it is imperative that the ‘correct’ history be reaffirmed, in order to honour and emulate the spirit of our pioneers to rise above the ‘dire threat of communism’.  In other words, the battle is over; it has been won. History serves as an inspiration.

 

 

However, in the latest round of Battlefield Operation Coldstore, the importance of the communist vs non-communist trope and the legitimacy or otherwise of the Operation has been ratcheted right up.

 

 

High Commissioner of the Republic of Singapore, ‘Response to Poh Soo Kai’s Allegation’ [18 December 2014] vs Poh Soo Kai, “Singapore’s ‘Battle for Merger’ revisited” [ 3 Dec 2014]  both in New Mandala which is put out by academics based in the Australian National University is not just about fighting over narratives of the past.

 

 

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pointed in his Facebook posting of 20 December 2014 to ‘A few hard core ‘old Communist and pro-Communist activists [who] don’t want to admit that they had fought on the wrong side’, and ‘some revisionist historians’ who support their version of history share one motivation: cast doubt on the legitimacy of the PAP government, not just in the 1960s, but today.

 

 

And the PAP government has risen to the challenge.

 

 

The Response by the high commissioner is written on the letterhead of his office, and signed in his official capacity. It thus emanates from the government of Singapore and issued is by its representative to Australia, where New Mandala is published.

 

 

On his Facebook which is maintained by the Prime Minister’s Office, the prime minister wrote that ‘We have put together an account using evidence from the British archives as well as CPM sources, which confirm that Mr Lee Kuan Yew told the truth’ when he provided the url of ‘The Response’ for his readers.

 

 

What then would the government have to say should those British archival and CPM sources are shown in fact NOT to confirm in the least that ‘Mr Lee Kuan Yew told the truth’?

 

 Disingenuousness?

 

 

Given the high stakes that the government has put into Battlefield Operation Coldstore, including drawing Singapore’s high commissioner to Australia into the fray, one can expect that it would have poured in every resource at its disposal to present the most convincing, water-tight case possible, perhaps even using Singapore’s Internal Security Department confidential records to tear Dr Poh’s statements about the exercise to shreds for once and for all.

 

 

Yet the research and analysis in ‘The Response’ is plainly incompetent and quite embarrassing indeed. It is as if it is not meant to be read closely, not to say taken seriously; it is simply going through the motions to register that a Response has been made.

 

 

It actually reads like a spoof of itself. The Response claims that ‘revisionists’ conveniently omit mention of incriminating evidence in the documents against its own arguments, and merrily proceeds to do exactly that itself.

 

Dr Poh’s ‘Battle for Merger revisited’ quotes the following:

 

While we accept that Lim Chin Siong is a Communist, there is no evidence he is receiving orders from the CPM, Peking or Moscow. Our impression is that Lim is working very much on his own and that his primary objective is not the Communist millennium but to obtain control of the constitutional government of Singapore. It is far from certain that having obtained this objective Lim would necessarily prove a compliant tool of Peking or Moscow. (Philip Moore, deputy high commissioner to secretary of state, 18 July 1962, CO 1030/1160.) [Emphasis added]

 

 

This quotation has been oft-cited since it first appeared in T N Harper’s ‘Lim Chin Siong and the ‘Singapore Story’ (in Comet in our sky: Lim Chin Siong in history ed. Tan Jing Quee and Jomo K S, 2001) by those who query the authority’s claim that it had evidence that Lim Chin Siong was a member of the Malayan Communist Party. In some instances, the first part of the first sentence is omitted. Moore’s passage has been simply ignored by the establishment and its stable of defenders.

 

However, The Response to Dr Poh no less has the temerity to write: “There is ample evidence in the British archives to show that Lim Chin Siong was a CPM member….[In a] dispatch in July 1962, Deputy UK High Commissioner Philip Moore wrote: ‘we accept that Lim Chin Siong is a communist.’”

 

 

Could The Response be playing a joke on itself?

 

 

History class: Text and historical context

 

 

If the colonial office records do contain any concrete evidence that Lim Chin Siong was a communist, that would have been brought to light from the start, and not fester as a thorn in the PAP’s flesh even fifty years later. Colonial officials, whether in the mother country or in Singapore all worked on the premise that Lim was a communist. Deputy commissioner Philip Moore and high commissioner Selkirk were certainly not exceptions in this respect.

 

 

To the colonialists, communists in Singapore fit a checklist: They were Chinese-speaking, particularly students and trade unionists; took part in group activities; were concerned with political and social issues; called for greater government recognition of Chinese-medium schools; demanded the departure of the colonial power; called for the abolition of the Emergency regulations, primarily detention without trial. Given the importance of its military bases to its defence of Southeast Asia, the British refused to grant self-government to Singapore if they did not have some control over internal security, fearing that Singapore’s left-wing forces could build up sufficient momentum to put the future of the bases in jeopardy.

 

 

Moore’s remark that Lim was not acting on orders was made when debates in the Internal Security Council over whether arrests should be carried out was at its fiercest. On 3 July 1962 a PAP assemblywoman resigned over the stipulation in the Referendum bill that all blank votes would be counted as a vote for the PAP’s Alternative A. The ruling party lost its one-seat majority in the legislature, which it held when it expelled the left wing of its party in July 1961. The liberal forces rallied to the Barisan, forming the Council for Joint Action. The police arbitrarily broke up anti-PAP merger moves, and coerced the press into not reporting the views of the opposition.

 

 

Analysing the developments, Philip Moore combed through Special Branch and M15 reports which ‘proved’ that Lim Chin Siong was a communist, and concluded that nevertheless Lim was working very much on his own. (S J Ball, ‘Selkirk in Singapore’, Twentieth Century British History, vol. 10 no.2, 1999 pp. 179-180)

 

 

Selkirk told London that the Federation and Singapore governments had plans to arrest 25 and 250 ‘effective political opposition’ respectively, and put the blame for the arrests on the British. (PREM11/1951, GM (62) 26 Selkirk to R Maulding, 17 July 1962, cited in S J Ball, ‘Selkirk in Singapore’, p. 180.)

 

Selkirk and Moore, both supporters of Lee Kuan Yew, were expressing their apprehensions of the impact of the proposed arrests on Lee and the British themselves.

 

 

Moore’s report continues:

 

 

I would like to take this opportunity to stress again that in Singapore today we have a political and not a security problem. We know who most of the potential subversives are and they could easily be gathered in at any time they seemed to threaten the security of the state. Our problem however is to prevent left wing parties from gaining control of the constitutional Government of Singapore by a chauvinist appeal to the Chinese educated. The Tunku’s threat in his ‘Close the Causeway’ speeches and Lee Kuan Yew’s Phase One have only had the effect of solidifying the political opposition to Merger and Malaysia. But I am not impressed by the opposition leaders who came to see me today. I believe moderate forces can prevail in Singapore provided either the Tunku nor we make stupid tactical mistakes. Nothing could provide a moderate effective rallying point for the chauvinistic and moderate elements against merger and Malaysia than to arrest leading members of the main Opposition party without adequate cause.

 

 

Moore was giving input to his superiors on the best strategy to ensure the defeat the left-wing Barisan Sosialis at the general election; he was not ‘soft’ on Lim Chin Siong. His professional judgment as Her Majesty’s servant was that the intelligence reports did not contain sufficient evidence to prove that Lim was acting on orders as a communist, which would create problems for the authorities if he were to be arrested on that ground.

 

However around that time, the colonial office was moving to a less open position on how to deal with the ‘communists’. Duncan Sandys became secretary of state for the colonies concurrent with his position as secretary of state for commonwealth relations on 13 July 1962. As minister of defence (1957-1959) he had made the plans to reduce the size of the armed forces by going for nuclear weapons, and a large air transport force to ensure mobility of troops. His key interest in Singapore was as a military base, and he regarded Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew as guarantors of British military interest in Southeast Asia. Sandys did not object to the Federation and Lee’s view that arrests should be made ‘to reduce the communist threat’, provided that the Internal Security Council approved individual cases for which reasonable grounds were presented, and that the arrests would not cause domestic unrest and difficulties for him in the British parliament.

 

The high commission in Singapore was thus no longer consulted for its view on the wisdom of launching arrests; its job was only to ensure that none of the detention cases would cause embarrassment. The outbreak of the Brunei uprising on 8 December 1962 made even that no longer necessary. Selkirk immediately asked the colonial office for an agreement in principle that he might ‘concur on behalf of the British government in the arrest and detention of the leading communists and communist sympathisers in Singapore.’

 

 

The colonial office internal minutes noted that that it was a ‘reasonable inference’ that as the Barisan had expressed its support for the revolt in Brunei, they would favour similar action in Singapore if the opportunity were present.   (CO 1030/1160 CS Roberts to Higham, colonial office memorandum, 11 December 1962)

 

It is thus facile to counter Moore’s much-cited statement by simply spouting others which show that Moore was actually convinced that Lim was a communist. Such statements are the stuff of police intelligence reports; equally numerous are UK high commission reports which freely note that Lee Kuan Yew was bent on arresting his political opponents which the British did not object to, so long as Lee took the responsibility for it publicly, and there would not be a popular backlash.

 

 

Moore’s observation about Lim Chin Siong being an independent actor inadvertently goes beyond the run-of-the-mill intelligence reports on Lim’s activities. In that paragraph, Lim Chin Siong is accorded a human dimension rather than being a stereotype whose every move is always predictable if not predestined. It was written when the colonial office was uncertain about the best strategy to adopt. Moore was performing his duty when he alerted the colonial office to the absence in the documents of what the authorities needed.

 

 

There is no contradiction at all when with the Brunei uprising the UK commission in Singapore was very gung-ho about drawing convenient lines to connect the Barisan, Brunei’s Azahari and communism.

 

 

Along with seeking permission from London to act against the left with the Brunei uprising,Selkirk sent the minutes of a Barisan meeting held 3 months earlier, on 23 September 1962. The Response quotes from this document central executive member Chok Koh Thong’s remark that ‘Experience elsewhere showed that ‘there was no country in the world which had attained a thorough success in revolution through constitutional processes.’

 

However, CS Roberts of the colonial office noted in internal minutes that the records of the Barisan meeting that Selkirk sent did not reveal ‘more than [the fact] that certain elements of the Barisan Sosialis would resort to violent acts if they thought it expedient.’ Nonetheless he went on to recommend ‘On the other hand we must take Mr Moore’s word that this evidence does show more conclusively than anything we have had previously that the Barisan Sosialis is communist controlled.’ (CO 1030/1160 CS Roberts to Higham, colonial office memorandum, 11 December 1962)

 

 

It is not a case of the devil citing scripture for its purpose.

 

 

Rather, the script in this instance has all along been written by the devil itself.

 

 

Perpetuating Lim Chin Siong as communist bogey

 

 

The Response sticks to the 50-year old format of treating Lim Chin Siong as the all-powerful leader whose every word is sacred to Barisan Sosialis and trade union members.

 

 

Dr Poh Soo Kai, Barisan assistant secretary general has given an account of his political involvements, which started with the postwar spirit of anti-colonialism. As a student of the University of Malaya he was the key defendant in the Fajar trial, prosecuted by the colonial government for sedition. The Fajar trial had nothing to do with Lim Chin Siong. Dr Poh has explained why he decided to join the Barisan Sosialis when he was approached, giving up two postgraduate medical scholarships to do that, and his relationship with Lim Chin Siong. Had the PAP expulsion of its left wing taken place just a couple of months later, Dr Poh would have already gone overseas, and his life would have taken a different course. His narrative can be found in his chapters in The Fajar Generation: The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore (2009), and The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore: Commemorating 5o years (2013).

 

 

Despite this, The Response simply portrays Dr Poh and every Barisan member and trade unionist who was arrested on 2 February 1963 as an obedient follower of the diabolical Lim Chin Siong, more likely reflecting the type of leadership that PAP members and sympathisers are used to than anything else.

 

 

The memoirs of Chin Peng (2003), Fong Chong Pik (2008) and the publication of the Singapore Oral History Centre’s interview transcripts of Eu Chooi Yip (2006) have been around for some years, but the establishment narratives have not till now brought them into service at all.

 

 

Perhaps there is a reason for that. While readers are disappointed that Fong Chong Pik (‘The Plen’) revealed very little indeed of his secret meetings with Lee, his memoir is centred on the anti-colonial fervor of the time. It was the CPM that sustained the fight against the invading Japanese imperialists; in Singapore it was the Chinese-speaking youths like Fong who carried this over into the anti-colonial post-war movement. It is not a life-story that would have a place in the recommended reading lists of school textbooks.

 

 

The Response uncharacteristically treats the words of the MCP leaders in this instance as nothing but the truth. MCP secretary general Chin Peng, and leaders in charge of Singapore Eu Chooi Yip and Fong Chong Pik surely were fully cognizant of the significance that their comments on Lim Chin Siong would have on the PAP story, and given Lim’s stature, MCP history as well.

 

Chin Peng and Fong have chosen neither to deny nor confirm that Lim Chin Siong was a member, leaving a trace of the complexity of the politics of the time. What they have done is to remind Singaporeans that the communists were there, once a force which no serious anti-colonial group could simply ignore. Chin Peng reminds us that from the start, the PAP through various means, vitally kept its channels open to the spectrum of the left, including the CPM. One can surely assume that Lim Chin Siong would have his channels too. Being ‘influenced’ by the very knowledge that the CPM was in the background and keeping in touch with its reading of politics, even working surreptitiously with them in specific instances where it was deemed beneficial to one’s own interests did not make one a member of the communist party. This is only stating the obvious.

 

 

Unless one is talking about Lim Chin Siong, but of course.

 

Eu’s oral history transcripts which have been published (in Chinese, 2006) is particularly problematic. He renounced communism and on returning to Singapore in 1991, underwent debriefing by the internal security department and was taped by the Oral History Centre of the Singapore National Archives a year later. His 2002 transcripts are painful to read. He was concerned to distance himself Fong Chong Pik’s ‘mistakes’ in pledging total support to Lee Kuan Yew [which Fong accepted responsibility for in his memoir]. Eu claimed that as a graduate of Raffles College (the predecessor of the University of Malaya) he knew the likes of Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee well, while Fong was out of his depth. Chin Peng’s memoir takes a dig at Eu, who had apparently told the MCP leaders that Rajaratnam was not Lee’s man, and could be counted on to break with him.

 

 

So much for pedigree.

 

 

Or the notion that communists think alike.

 

 

The Response asserts this, despite the fact that while Chin Peng wrote that Coldstore shattered the CPM’s underground network throughout Singapore, Fong Chong Pik, the closest to Singapore of the three, (Chin Peng was based in China, and Eu Chooi Yip in Indonesia)  claimed that he had started withdrawing cadres who were likely to have been exposed in small groups from Singapore at around the end of 1961 to 1963-4. ‘As a result ‘practically the entire effective strength of the organization was withdrawn.’ The sum total of the cadres was more than 50 males and females. (Fong, page 172)

 

 

Communist leaders do have clashes of egos too. Just read their memoirs.

 

 

Weapon of the weak?

 

 

Fifty years after Coldstore, it is no longer so easy to hype up the PAP’s first two decades of history as a feat of basically destroying of one person, (and more than a hundred others, just in case) and one deserving of  eternal gratitude.

 

 

But it does not mean that the PAP has not kept trying.

 

Perhaps at this point,  it has no choice but to resort to the ways of its founders: Make is simple, make it loud and brazen. Bring out the government machinery. Capture the headlines– the actual text doesn’t matter.

 

 

To outsiders, it would seem irresponsible and even suicidal for the government to come up with an empty vessel like The Response and its echoes.  Why not simply continue to send out the well-trained troopers from the ranks of academia? Why do cabinet ministers, a minister of state and a high commissioner have to put their names to really ludicrous statements?

 

 

Just what is going on?

 

 

It has taken me almost a month before giving up trying to figure it out.

 

 

Only those directly involved at the highest levels will know what the battle is really about, and how it is faring.

 

 人民的力量是创造历史强大的武器!——作者:孔莉莎博士

 

——为(驻澳洲最高专员)的‘回应’有关傅树介医生的文章:《“新加坡合并斗争”的再版》感到惊讶 :这是对历史本身的贫瘠

傅树介照片

按注:本翻译中文版本与英文版本之间如有不符之处,皆以英文版本作为最终解释权。

 

1.这是历史学家孔莉莎博士在2015117日在其博客网站就新加坡驻澳大利亚专员发表回应有关前社阵助理秘书长傅树介医生在20141210澳大利亚国立大学的网站《新曼达拉》(New Mandala)邀约傅树介医生撰写一篇有关的文章:《Singapore’s ‘Battle for Merger’ revisited新加坡的《争取合并的斗争》的再版》而撰写的。

 

(见文章网址:https://minimyna.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/weapon-of-the-powerful-wondering-about-the-response-to-poh-soo-kai-singapores-battle-for-merger-revisited-the-poverty-of-its-history/

 

2.傅树介医生的文章网址:

 

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/%e4%b8%ad%e8%8b%b1%e6%96%87%e5%af%b9%e7%85%a7singapores-battle-for-merger-revisited%e6%96%b0%e5%8a%a0%e5%9d%a1%e7%9a%84%e3%80%8a%e4%ba%89%e5%8f%96%e5%90%88%e5%b9%b6/

 

 

3.在傅树介医生发表了上述文章后,新加坡驻澳大利亚专员Mr Burhan Gafoor’s致函有关的的网站发表了一篇文章:《回应傅树介医生的指控》“Response to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations”。(见网址及有关函件扫描件:http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/12/28/rebutting-high-commissioner-burhan-gafoor-part-2/

high-commissioner-001

一场激烈的辩论战斗

 

 

一场有关‘冷藏行动’的激辩——行动党设置的案件——行动党把1963年2月2日一场致命性的(对付新加坡左翼运动)的逮捕行动(按指:‘冷藏行动’)定性为是一项安全措施,行动党视为是把新加坡从受到颠覆和即将把爆发的暴力危机中拯救出来;另一方是前政治拘留者则坚持:(‘冷藏行动’)是行动党防止左翼势力赢得在1963年(即将)举行的大选的阴谋。这个课题是随着过去在50年被虚拟的垄断而从 近年来就开始了这场激辩。

 

 

 在2014年10月,政府抡起大棒重新出版时任的总理李光耀在1962年出版的《合并的斗争》而爆发。这本书是集中讲述有关行动党内部共产党和非常共产党之间的激战。

 

 

哪些对这段历史存有疑问的人向政府提出了挑战下,已经造成了现在的行动党政府在这个场合下重申‘正确’的必要性,为了尊重和学习我们的建国前辈的精神提出来了超越‘共产主义的可怕威胁’。换言之,斗争已经结束了,已经能够取得胜利了。历史为此作为精神。

 

 

不过冷藏行动的战斗最新战役,被扣留者是否是共产党员 或者(冷藏行动)是否是正当合理的这些问题的重要性 都增加了好几倍

 

 

新加坡共和国(驻澳洲)的专员的文章于2015年12月18日发表了《回应傅树介的指控》,与傅树介于2014年12月3日的《新加坡的‘合并的斗争’的再版》同时在以澳洲国立大学为基地的New Mandala刊物上刊登,这不仅仅是在为狭窄的过去(历史)而辩论。

 

 

总理李显龙于2014年12月20日在自己的面书网站的帖文指出,‘一些死硬的共产党员和亲共分子拒绝承认他们是为错误的一方而战’,以及‘一些历史修正主义者’支持他们对历史的看法分享着共同的动机:制造有关行动党政府的合法性的怀疑,这不仅仅是1960年代而是今天 。

 

 

行动党政府已经接受这个挑战。

 

 

专员公署的文章是以自己官衔和官方的信笺发表的。因此这是出自新加坡政府和其驻澳洲专员代表新加坡政府在New Mandala发表 的。

 

 

李显龙的面书是由这里办公室负责管理的,当他提供了‘全球定位资源器’ ‘回应’(下同,此称呼。)了其读者时,他在自己的面书上这么写道,‘我们引用了英国档案管和来自马来亚共产党的资料,我们确认了李光耀说的是事实’。

 

 

那么. 如果那些在英国档案馆和马来亚共产党信息都根本没说明 ‘李光耀说了事实’的话 政府又怎样呢?

 

 

是虚伪?或是不真实的?

 

 

为了冷藏行动的这场战役,行动党已经加大赌注的砝码了,包括让驻澳洲的最高专员公署加入这场战役。可以想象的是,他们将会为了让人信服,他们将为此动用一切无懈可解的资源,甚至利用内部安全局的机密记录来反驳傅树介医生的声明,以让它永远支离破碎。

 

 

然而对‘回应’的研究与分析显然是真的没什么水准 甚至是丢脸。写得似乎是不想读者仔细地阅读,不想观众认真看待。它的‘回应’只是为了应付(傅树介医生的声明)而走过场应对吧了。

 

 

这篇(回应)确实就像自欺欺人。‘回应’指责‘(历史)修正主义’轻易的删略了对自己的立场不利的证据 后。接下来就沾沾自喜的自己犯这个罪.

 

 

傅树介医生在他的《合并的斗争再版》一文说了以下的一段话:

 

 

尽管我们都认为林清祥是一个共产党员,但没有证据证明他在接受马共、北京或莫斯科的指令。我们的印象是,林清祥在很大的程度上是自主工作的,而他的主要目的并非要实现共产主义的黄金时代,而在于掌控新加坡的宪制政府。远远无法肯定,在实现这一目标后,林清祥必然会听命于北京或莫斯科,成为其工具。[v]  (1962年7月,Philip Moore, 副最高专员致给国务大臣函件。编号; CO 1030/1160.)【重点附加】

 

 

(傅树介医生)引述的这段话最早是出现在T N Harper的撰写的著作:《林清祥和新加坡的历史(我们天空中的一颗彗星:林清祥的故事)》(2001年由陈仁贵和Jomo K S编辑出版)。

 

 

那些对当局的声明说林清是马来亚共产党员有疑问的人,都常常引用这一段话在某种情况下,甚至把第一部分的第一句删掉 。当局和他们的走俎从来没提起Moore的 这一段文字。

 

 

无论如何,‘回应’对傅树介医生的文章仍然鲁莽的写道:“在英国档案馆的广泛资料证明;林清祥是一个马来亚共产党员……在1962年7月,英国副最高专员Philip Moore写道‘我们接受林清祥是一个共产党员’”

 

 

‘回应’是不是在给自己开玩笑?

 

 

 上一堂历史课:资料和历史背景

 

 

假设殖民地文献真 的记录拥有确凿的证据证明林清祥是一个共产党员的话,这 一定会一早就被暴露而这个问题不会50年后 还是一个 行动党体内糜烂的刺。殖民地的官员,不论是在自己的祖国或者新加坡的所有工作都是把林清祥视为是一个共产党员的前提。 英国副最高专员Philip Moore和最高专员Selkirk理所当然是不是超越这个前提的。

 

 

对于殖民主义者来说,共产党在新加坡已经列为一个清单,那就是:讲华语者,特别是学生和工会会员、集体活动参与者、关心政治和社会问题者、呼吁政府进一步扩大承认中学资质者、要求殖民主义者转移政权者、要求废除紧急法令者, 不经审讯被逮捕者。 考虑到它们的军事基地保护东南亚的利益,英国人拒绝给予新加坡获得自治权。假设他们无法在内部安全方面有所控制的话,他们将会感到担心新加坡的左翼势力可以建立有效的力量在车队军事基地的威胁。

 

 

 Moore在讨论有关林清祥时,在内部安全理事会上进行辩论是否要执行逮捕林清祥时极其激烈的。在1961年6月,行动党把左翼赶出行动党时,它失去了在立法议会议席中大多数的一席进行立法。在1962年7月3日,一位行动党的女议员就有关全民投票条款的约定投空白票也被视为支持支持行动党(李光耀制定的全民投票三项选择中的)选择A问题时提出了辞职。这股自由的力量聚集在一起成立了社会主义阵线。警察任意的对付反对行动党的合并运动和压制媒体不可以报道有关反对党反对合并声音的报导。

 

 

 Philip Moore依据形势的发展,把政治部和英国M15情报部有关证明 ‘林清祥就是一个共产党员’的情报进行了梳理后,下的结论说,然而林清祥(当时)所做的工作是自己的决策的。(见:S J Ball。‘SELKIRK’在新加坡——20世界英国历史,第10卷第2部分,1999年,第179-18-页)

 

 

Selkirk告诉伦敦政府,马来亚联合邦和新加坡政府分别计划逮捕25名和250名‘有政治影响力的反对党’,并把这个责任推到英国政府头上。(见: 1962年7月17日Selkirk 致给 R Maulding的信件S J Ball,引述‘Selkirk in Singapore’,第180页。编号:PREM11/1951, GM (62) 26,。)  

 

 

Selkirk 和 Moore两人都是李光耀的支持者。他们表达了理解李光耀和英国人提议的逮捕计划。

 

 

Moore的报告继续说:

 

我要再一次的强调说,在新加坡今天面对的不是安全的问题,而是政治问题。我们知道谁是真正潜在的颠覆者,我们任何时候可以轻易的把他们集中在块儿加以逮捕。无论如何,我们的问题是如何防止左翼政党和受华文教育的沙文主义者获取宪制上的新加坡政权。 

 

 

东姑威胁‘关闭长堤’的讲话和李光耀的第一阶段只有有效的反对合并和马来西亚。但是,那些与我见面的反对党领袖并没有给予我 怎样的好印象。我相信温和派的势力可以在新加坡获得胜利,除非是东姑或者我们犯上愚蠢的策略上的错误。如果要令温和分子 和沙文主义分子聚集起来 温和的 有效的 反对合并和马来西亚的话 那就得 在没有足够理由的情况下 逮捕主要的反对党领导人。

 

 

Moore 是在给他的上级提议打败左翼的社会主义阵线在大选的战略;他对林清祥并没有采取‘宽容’的态度。作为英国陛下一个公务员的专业判断。 他的情报书里的判断是没有任何确凿的证据证明林清祥是在执行共产党的指示。所以,把他拘捕是会给政府带来麻烦。

 

 

总之,大约在那个时候,英国殖民地的官员对付共产主义的战略已经大概肯定了 。在1962年7月13日,Duncan Sandys成为国务大臣的同时,也担任共和联邦关系秘书。作为一位在1957-1959年担任国防部长的人,他制定计划通过生产核武器来裁军,以及通过大规模的空运军队的计划作为确保军队达到调动机制。他在新加坡最大的兴趣是军事基地,以及关心马来西亚和李光耀是英国在东南亚的利益保护者。Duncan Sandys并不反对联合邦和李光耀提出的通过逮捕行动‘降低共产主义的威胁’的观点。要获得内部安全理事会批准逮捕个别的人的案件,只要提出合理的证据证明。而且这些逮捕行动不会造成当地的暴乱和给予英国国会带来困难。

 

 

也就不再征求新加坡的最高专员关于进行逮捕事件的意见。他的主要任务是要确保每一起逮捕事件不会造成让人尴尬的局面。汶莱在1962年12月8日的起义事件后,连这也不再是需要的事了。Selkirk立即要求殖民地办公室草拟原则性协议,他可能会‘代表英国政府同意有关在新加坡逮捕和拘留共产党领导人和共产党同情者’。

 

 

殖民地办公室的会议记录注释。这是‘合理的推论’社阵表达了支持汶莱的起义革命。假设类似情况出现的话,他们(指社阵)将会在新加坡采取同样的行动。( 1962年12月11日,CS Roberts 致给殖民地办公室Higham的备忘录。编号:(CO 1030/1160).

 

 

所以拿Moore 声明林清祥确定是共产党员的说法 来否定它他那句‘(历史)修正主义者’ 时常引用的话根本是个幼儿的做法。

 

 

这些声明都是警方的情报材料。相等于英国最高专员大量有关李光耀热衷于逮捕他的这种反对者的说明。就英国人而言,只要李光耀公开承担逮捕的责任,和不会引起大众的强烈反应, 英国人就不会反对。

 

 

这些声明都是警方的情报材料。相等于英国最高专员大量有关李光耀热衷于逮捕他的这种反对者的说明。就英国人而言,只要李光耀公开承担逮捕的责任,英国人就不会反对以及受到普遍的反弹。

 

 

Moore的观察,林清祥是一个独立的表演者。他无意超越情报的报告的活动。在这个段落里,林清祥的行为是符合人正常体态的人,而不是一个陈腔滥调的人。在一般的情报里 林清祥 的每一个行动都是可以预言的,也是注定的。Moore写 但没有证据证明林清祥在接受马共、北京或莫斯科的指令时 这是殖民地办公室无法确定接纳最好的策略 的段落。当Moore发现殖民地办公室缺乏当局所需要的文件见资料时,他是在履行自己的职责做出这样的报告。

 

 

当汶莱发生起义事件时根本就没有任何的矛盾,在新加坡的英国最高专员公署极其轻易的把社阵、汶莱的阿查阿里和共产主义联系在一块。 

 

 

为了寻求获得伦敦的批准采取行动对付左翼与汶莱起义事件挂钩,Selkirk在1962年9月23日,也就是汶莱起义前三个月给社阵发了开会的议程。‘回应’在这份文件里引述了(社阵)中委(卓可党)的话:“实践经验告诉我们,世界上没有一个国家取得革命的彻底成功是通过宪制进程取得的”。

 

 

可是殖民地办公室的CS Roberts注意到内部会议议程记录社阵的会议,Selkirk没有披露‘比(事实)更多的情况确定一小部分的社阵的成员将寻求武力行动,假设他们认为这是权宜之计’。尽管如此,他还是建议‘在另一方面我们必须接受Moore先生的说法,证据显示比我们所有的资料揭露非常清楚的是:社阵是被共产党所控制了。(1962年12月11日,CS Roberts致函给殖民地办公室的 Higham编号: CO 1030/1160)。

 

 

这不是魔鬼也能引用圣经的处境。

 

 

而是一直以来资料就是由魔鬼亲自写的。

 

 

把林清祥塑造成共产党的现象是一直永远存在的.

 

 

 ‘回应’坚持过去50 年来一直使用林清祥是一个全能的领袖社会主义阵线和工会的会员都把他的话当为圣话。 

 

 

傅树介医生,社会主义阵线的助理秘书长。他已经说明了自己参与政治活动的历史了。他说在战后开始就具有反对殖民主义的精神。作为一个马来亚大学的学生,他在‘华惹事件’(‘华惹’是当时马来亚大学社会主义俱乐部出版的机关刊物)是主要的被告。英国殖民主义者起诉进行煽动宣传。这个‘华惹事件’与林清祥无关。傅树介医生解释为什么他会加入社会主义阵线。当时他受邀加入社会主义阵线时,是他放弃了两个国外医药奖学金。他也曾经解释了他与林清祥的关系 。假使行动党迟了两个月才采取行动驱逐党内的左翼的话,那事情发生时傅树介医生肯定已经在国外了,同时,必将将会发生巨变。有关这方面的叙述可以阅读2009年出版的《华惹年代:社会主义俱乐部和它的马来亚与新加坡的战后政治》和《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动50周年纪念》的有关书籍。

 

 

‘回应’忽视这些事实,就简单的描述傅树介医生和那些在1963年2月2日被捕每个社阵的党员和工会会员是恶魔林清祥的盲目追随者。这是似乎反映了在行动党的党员和同情者对 他们的党领袖的态度吧。  

 

 

陈平的回忆录是在2003年出版。方壮壁的回忆录是在2008年出版。新加坡口述历史中心与余柱业进行的访谈是在2006年。这已经存在了许多年了。但是,行动党从来没有引用这些叙述资料。

 

 

这也许有一个原因。虽然读者对于方壮壁(‘全权代表’)关于他与李光耀之间的秘密会面揭露的情况甚少感到失望。方壮壁的回忆录主要是集中在当时的反对殖民地的斗争热潮。这是当时马来亚共产党继续反对日本军国主义侵略。在新加坡,像方壮壁这样讲华语的青年,把反对日本军国主义的侵略的斗争延续到战后反对殖民主义运动。由此方壮壁的回忆录 绝对不会在受推荐为学校历史参考书之一吧。

 

 

‘反应’不寻常的引申马来亚共产党领导人的话,这是事实是马来亚共产党的回忆录所说的是绝对真实的。马来亚共产党总书记陈平和负责主持新加坡活动的余柱业和方壮壁是完全认知他们对林清祥的评价的意义,对行动党的历史甚则于行动党的历史会有怎样的影响。

 

 

陈平和方壮壁选择不确认或否认林清祥是共产党员,是留下来让人追溯政治的复杂性。他们这么做是要提醒新加坡人,共产党当时就存在。这是一股任何人不可以轻视它是一股存在的反对殖民主义的力量。陈平提醒我们,从一开始,行动党通过不同的管道,积极的向左派的光谱打开渠道,包括了马来亚共产党。一个可以肯定的是,林清祥也同样有他自己的渠道。马来亚共产党的背景和一直在接触政治书籍、甚至秘密与他们接触具体的实例,被视为有利于双方的利益的情况下,并不一定就是马来亚共产党员。这是唯一明确的说法。

 

 

除非您是在谈论林清祥,但是,当然。 

 

 

余柱业在2006年的中文口述历史是特别有问题的。他谴责共产主义和在1991年回到新加坡后,向内部安全局提供了有关的情报。一年后他接受,国家档案馆的新加坡口述历史 的访问和录音。他在2002年的口述读起来是痛苦的。他对方壮壁犯上的‘错误’对李光耀保证马共的支持,采取了与方壮壁分割开来,(事实上,方壮壁在他的回忆录里接受承担这些错误)余柱业声言,作为自己是一个莱佛士学院的学生(马来亚大学的前身),认识李光耀与吴庆瑞和他们的阶级的人 而方壮壁并没无法了解他们 。陈平在的回忆录稍微嘲笑余柱业。他告诉马来亚共产党的领导人,拉惹勒南不是李光耀的人,可以指望他与李光耀决裂。

 

家谱是如此吧。

 

 

或者类似于共产主义相关想法的概念也如此.

 

 

‘回应’自我辩护的这么说,但他忽视了事实。那就是:陈平(马来亚共产党总书记)在写道有关冷藏行动事件时,说道,在整个新加坡的地下组织网已经被削弱。方壮壁是他们三个人当中唯一一个最接近新加坡的。(当时陈平是长驻中国、余柱业是长驻印尼)。方壮壁说,在1961年到1963年之间,他已经开始把已经开始进行干部撤退的工作了。  那些属于已经暴露的干部分成小组从新加坡撤退。由于这样安排的结果,从“‘实践’而言的结果是,撤退影响了整个组织的力量”。被安排撤退的人数超过50个男女干部。(方壮壁:第172页。)

 

 

共产党的领袖也有自我冲突的,就请看他们的回忆录。

 

 

弱者的武器?

 

 

在冷藏行动50年后的今天,已经不再是那么容易像在当时的10年到20年历史里通过哄骗来摧毁一个人的功勋(以及近超过一百人) 而觉得应该受到人民永恒的尊重。

 

 

但是,这并不意味着行动党没有进行尝试。 

 

 

或者在此刻,它没有选择的余地,只好寻求它的缔造者:把事情简单化、让它大声嘶喊和厚颜无耻。开动所有的政府机器。让它成为头条新闻——实际的主题, 别管它。

 

 

对于局外人来说,政府这么做似乎是不负责任的 对他自己的名声也同样产生极其恶劣的影响以及像‘回应’和他们发出的回应声这样拿出近乎于空洞无凭据的说法。为什么不要继续派出经过良好训练的学术界兵团来应战?为什么内阁的部长们,一个国家部长和一个最高专员的名义发出这样滑稽的声明。

 

 

到底是咋回事?  

 

 

它让我花了近一个月的时间进行探索,最终我放弃尝试去理解为什么会这样? 

 

 

只有那些在高层直接涉及的人才会知道这场战役真正内情。就目前这场战役的战情而言,战役的发展态势,到底谁是这场战役的胜利者?谁是这场战役的战败者 ?

 


留下评论

(中英文对照)Letter to The Minister for Home Affairs(through the Superintendent of Changi Moon Crescent Detention Centre ), sent by lawyer Mr. T. T. Rajah and others 4 political detainees on 19th June, 1975s T T拉惹律师与其他4位政治拘留者于1975年6月19日在章宜明月湾扣留中心致函内政部长的联名信

  按语

 

 

一、.T T拉惹律师是人民行动党成立的发起人之一。在他的一生中与李光耀进行了两次重大近距离的较量,以及在法庭为左翼政党、工会和学生文化艺术团体的领导人和干部成员、政治拘留者及其家属进行坚韧不懈的斗争。

 

 

二、第一次是在50年代,李光耀在无法取得控制行动党执委会的控制权下,以‘如果执委会拒绝拒绝王永元进入执委会,他将拒绝担任党的秘书长’的借口下被迫离开行动党执委会。(见1.《黄信芳回忆录》第30页:“四、是谁导致行动党分裂?”;2.《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动50周年纪念》- 傅树介医生:《生活在欺骗之中》第139页:“‘华惹’的小伙子”)

 

 

三、第二次与李光耀进行较量进距离较量是在1961年。当时他与林清祥为首的行动党内的左翼进步力量为反对李光耀提出的新加坡加入马来西亚的假合并条件,集体退出了行动党,并在1961年8月成立了新加坡社会主义阵线。

 

 

四、在1963年的冷藏行动后,他为反对李光耀残酷虐待在狱中的政治拘留者、争取狱中的战友获得公平待遇、支持政治拘留者家属为争取亲人早日获得释放,在新加坡所展开各种形式的请愿与示威游行斗争和在章宜监狱外进行绝食斗争而被捕控上在法庭上与行动党进行了法院的斗争。

 

 

五、1975年,李光耀以TT拉惹涉嫌参与马来亚共产党地下组织马来亚民族解放阵线的活动为藉口而被扣留并关押在卫特里路(Whitley Road Holding centre)拘留中心,随后转移到章宜明月湾扣留中心。

   

以下是他与4位同时被扣留的政治拘留者在章宜明月湾扣留中心通过监狱总监致函给当时的内政部长的扫描英文原件:

   

Letter to Minister for Home Affair (Through the Superintendent of Moon Crescent Detention Centre) sent by Lawyer Mr. T. T.Rajah and 4 others political detainees on 19th June, 1975。

 

We, the undersigned five persons, four of whom were arrested in June 1974,one in July, 1974, had been subjected to various barbarous forms of torture during our periods of detention in solitary confinement in Whitley Road lock-up (four of us)and Centre Police Station lock-up(one of us). In addition to the infliction of mental torture on all of us, three of us were subjected to extremely atrocious form of physical torture.

     

One ,among the three who were physically tortured, was kept in a specially built air-conditioned cell for the first three days and nights with only a bars pyjama trouser by way of protection against extreme coldness. On the 4th day, he was removed to a still colder cell with the same pyjama trouser only a further period of three days and nights. Throughout the six-days period, he was kept in a standing position. He was not allowed to sleep during these six days and nights. It was impossible even to nod as the cell was guarded by ay lease three police officials at any one time and they were replaced by others from time to time. A spot-light was so fixed that he had to face it throughout the 6 days and nights, he was unable to eat any food during this period . He was not seen by a doctor during these days of torture. In addition, he was fisted and kicked many times during periods of interrogation and he had blue-black marks on most parts of his body.

     

Another, among us, was stripped naked during the early part of his interrogation in a special built cold room. For the first one week, interrogation was carried out both in the morning and afternoon for a continuous period of about three hours each morning and afternoon. Although the cell was very cold, cold water was poured over his body and heads during period of interrogation. On one occasion during interrogation, he was handcuffed and pushed forcibly to the floor and thereafter he was fisted and kicked in various parts of his body, leaving blue-black mark and internal injuries. On one occasion, a lighted match stick was place very near his private parts. He was not seen by a doctor for nearly two weeks during the early part of the interrogation.

   

And another, among us was kept in a specially built cold cell on five different occasions for a duration of about two hours on each occasion. On two occasions, he was fisted several times in the region of the stomach. When he resisted to the physical assaults perpetrated on him, his hands were tied with his pyjama shirt and he was pushed to the floor and kicked. On some occasions during interrogation, he was spat upon with water by the police officials concerned. He was kept in solitary confinement for a continuous period of seven months without any form of interrogation.

   

In addition to these forms of physical torture, all of us were kept in solitary confinement, almost 23 hours a day in the cell. Four of us were kept in solitary confinement in Whitley Road Lock-up: three among us for about 5 and half months and one for about ten months. The flow of the air in the Whitely Road Lock-up was extremely inadequate and some of us succumbed to acute forms of dizziness for several days. One of us was almost paralysed with severe cramp-like pain from the back downwards for more than a month soon after his removal to present place of detention. Another, among us, is still afflicted with throat pain –these are after effects of continued solitary confinement for long period. In fact, all of us are still suffering from the aftermath of the tortures deliberately inflicted on us.

 

 

In the present place of detention, we are subjected to strict and unnecessary forms of control of our movement. We are locked-up in the cell for about 15 hours a day and for about 16 hours on Sunday and holidays. The food is of low quality. We shall elaborate on our conditions of detention here at the appropriate time.

    With regard to arbitrary arrest without trail, your prime minister said, words to this effect in the years 1955 and/or 1956 in the then Legislative assembly –      

To arrest a man and detain him without giving him an open court trail, if this is not fascism – then what is it?

   

Your prime minister has also publicly stated that

   

If he was asked to choose between communism and anti-communism, he would choose communism (about 1955 or 1956).

   

Yet in the name of “Communism”, “Subversive activities” and “anti-national elements” we had been subjected to most savage-like and primitive modes of ill-treatment and punishment even without a semblance of public trail. It is common knowledge that many political detainees are still being detained for varying periods – for indefinite   periods – 8 years, 9 years, 10 years and more, and three for almost 12 and half years. In this enlighten era, it is unthinkable than man can oppress and humiliate man just for his political convictions.

     

We hereby make a strong protect and express our strong indignation and condemnation at the atrocious treatment meted out to us in the police lock-ups. To express our indignation in a more tangible way, we have decided to take a one day hunger strike today.

   

Signed by:

 

1.Tan Ek

 

2. Lim Ah Kow

 

3.T. T. Rajah

 

4. Tan Kim Sew

   

5.Wong Hon Siak

RAJAH-page-001 RAJAH-page-002

张素兰 2

justice now

T T 拉惹律师与4位同时被扣留的政治拘留者在章宜明月湾扣留中心通过监狱总监致函给当时的内政部长的中文翻译全文如下:   

致:

     

内政部长,通过明月湾拘留中心监狱总监转交

我们,以下五位署名者,4位是在1974年6月份被捕的,另一位是在1974年7月份被捕的。在我们被扣留期间,我们在卫特里路扣留中心(Whitley Raod Lock-up)和中央警署扣留中心被施以各种形式的野蛮虐待,其中4位被单独监禁在卫特里路扣留中心,另一位被关在中央警署。犹有胜者,他们在我们的身上施加了各种精神虐待。

在三位拘留者中的其中一位,受到肉体上的虐待。他被捕后的开始三天,昼夜被关在一间经过特别装置温度极低的空调牢房。他只能依赖一套无袖口的睡衣来抵御温度设置极端的寒冷空调。到了第四天,他穿着同样的睡衣被转移到一间仍然寒冷的牢房里。他在这里又过了三天三夜。在这六天里,他被令一直站立着并不允许睡觉,即便是打盹也不允许。因为,在这期间,牢房里最少由三个警官负责日夜轮流看守着。同时一盏聚光灯对着他直照,也不获准让医生进行检查身体。在审讯期间,他多次被施以拳打脚踢,造成了身体多处出现淤青。

在我们当中的另一个人在一个特别装置的空调房间进行开始审讯时,被他们剥光衣服进行审问。这样的审讯方式是持续进行了一个星期,每次审讯是在早上和下午进行、每次进行审讯的时间约三小时。尽管审讯室的空调温度已经是很冷了,他们在审讯过程中还把冷水淋在他的身上和头部。在一次的审讯中,被他们扣上手铐并猛推在地上,接着,他身体的多个部位遭受脚踢。他的身体多处出现瘀伤和内伤。又一次,他们使用点燃着的火柴根靠近他的生殖器部位。在他被进行审讯初期,他不允许让医生进行检查身体。

我们当中还有一位在进行审讯时被关在不同的审讯室,每个审讯室逗留的时间约2小时。在这期间的其中两次他为了反抗身体持续的被殴打,结果他的肚子部位遭受殴打。当时,他们用他的睡衣捆绑他的手,接着他被推到墙角边遭受脚踢。在同样的审讯场所进行审讯时警方向他拨水。他被关在单独监禁的牢房里长达7个月没有进行任何形式的审问。

在上述的的各种精神上的虐待审讯手段外,我们还被关在卫特里路扣留中心,我们都是被单独的牢房里每天长达23小时。我们当中三个人是被关了5个半月,另一个被关了10个月。

卫特里路扣留中心关禁我们的单独牢房的空气流通情况是极其恶劣的。我们当中一些人被折磨甚至几天都出现昏沉状态。他的其中一个状况是甚至出现瘫痪状态,从他的背部直下几次类似于痉挛现象。这种情况持续超过一个月后,他们才把他转移到目前的这个牢房。

我们当中的另一个,目前还患上喉疾。这是因为遭受初期单独监禁后所产生的疾病。事实上,目前我们还继续是极其痛苦的。这是因为我们经受了蓄意的虐待后所造成的结果。

在目前的监禁的地方,我们被施以严格和不必要的各种控制我们的行动条例。我们每天被关在牢房里超过 15小时,在星期天和公共假日是16小时。食物质量极其低劣。我们必须进一步改善这里的禁闭条件达到一个合理的时间。

在1955和1956年期间,你们的总理在当时的立法议会上对这种专横不经公开审讯的扣留说:

“逮捕一个人,又不让他公开的法庭里进行审讯。

这是不是法西斯主义。那这是什么?”

在1955年/1956年期间,你们的总理也公开的说,

假设他被问到,在选择共产主义和反对共产主义时,他会选择共产主义。

但是在‘共产主义’、‘颠覆活动’和‘反国家分子’的名义下,我们连虚伪的公开审讯都没有的情况下,被扣上如此野蛮和原始似的的虐待和处罚。众所周知,还有许多政治拘留者还被扣留于不同的时期,他们当中有的被扣留8年、9年、10年或者更长的时间,其中有三个已经被扣留超过12年了。在这个开明的时代,这是很难想象,为了达到自己的对他人的这种定罪,一个人可以压迫和羞辱了另一个人来达到自己的政治目的。

我们在此提出严重抗议和表达我们强烈的愤慨及谴责,在警方的扣留中心施加这种残暴的手段在我们的身上。

为了表达我们的愤慨的唯一方式,我决定在今天进行一天的绝食斗争。

本函件签署人:

1. Tan Ek

2. Lim Ah Kow

3. T. T. Rajah

4. Tan Kim Sew

5.Wong Hon Siak     张素兰 2 

   justice now


一条评论

Present & Future Fernvale Residents said, we trust to right the wrongs 现在与未来的芬威尔的居民说:老百姓错误的把信任寄托在行动党身上!

10917264_1544065182513170_3848064811065233928_n Capture5-504x480 拼

(声明及对话会记录摘要中英文对照)本文章翻译自以下网址:

1.http://redwiretimes.com/singapore-in-brief/sengkang-columbarium-residents-life-corp/ 

2.芬威尔居民与国会议员蓝彬民、国家发展部、城市重建局以及Life Corporation Limited 的CEO举行的对话会现场视频网址:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=vb.295323107252451&type=2

我在盛港西各族同胞们,团结起来,把行动党安置在他们要建造的骨灰瓮塔!——支持盛港西Fernvale Lea预售组屋持有者的合理诉求(BTO BUYERS)》(见:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/%e7%9b%9b%e6%b8%af%e8%a5%bf%e5%90%84%e6%97%8f%e5%90%8c%e8%83%9e%e4%bb%ac%ef%bc%8c%e5%9b%a2%e7%bb%93%e8%b5%b7%e6%9d%a5%ef%bc%8c%e6%8a%8a%e8%a1%8c%e5%8a%a8%e5%85%9a%e5%ae%89%e7%bd%ae%e5%9c%a8%e4%bb%96/)说了:

“目前,行动党以及他们圈养在主流媒体和哪些得意洋洋自以为自己是‘房地产专业人士’在为行动党犯上的这个严重错误进行任何狡辩、扭曲和涂脂抹粉的事后‘返工修补工程’只能让行动党更进一步陷入泥潭里!

既然行动党大爷们以及他们圈养在主流媒体不承认自己犯上错误,执迷不悟,预售组屋的持有者就完全有理由反对者建设项目!

既然行动党大爷们这么执意要让一个属于以赚取商业盈利为主的性质的商业机构继续建设这个项目,那么,巴西立——盛港西集选区的选民们就有理由团结起来反对这个建设项目!

巴西立盛港西的同胞们,把行动党的大爷们送进和安置在这个他们执意要建设的骨灰瓮塔,让他们可以在这个骨灰瓮塔里安享晚年!

盛港的居民在芬威尔预售组屋者在2015年1月4日的对话会后也致函给总理李显龙和国家发展部许文远发表,表达了他们对建屋发展局执意要把芬威尔属于宗教用途性质地段颁发给一家非宗教机构或慈善机构,以商业盈利为主导的外国(澳大利亚)上市企业属下的全资子公司开发建设与经营华人庙宇骨灰瓮安置塔等殡葬业务。为此盛港居民发表了封信。

以下是芬威尔连路现有和未来的组屋居民致信给国家发展部长许文远的诉求信件全文:

以下是现已居住居民和即将居住在芬威尔区的屋主致信给总理李显龙和国家发展部长许文远有关国家发展部颁发有关芬威尔连路地段给予一家在澳大利亚注册的上市企业Life Corporation Limited (以下简称‘LC’)属下全资子公司Eternal Pure Land Pte Ltd (EPL)在拟议中建设发展芬威尔连路的组屋区地段范围建造骨灰瓮安置塔的项目。

 

 

 致:

尊敬的国家发展部长许文远先生

事项:关于芬威尔连路华人庙宇的骨灰瓮塔项目事宜

 

 一、我们再此向您提出有关家屋发展局盼发有关的地段给予一家属于澳大利亚上市公司Life Corporation Limited (以下简称‘LC’)全资子公司Eternal Pure Land Pte Ltd (EPL)(在芬威尔连路组屋)块地段开发建设华人庙宇事宜。

二、我们是一群目前和未来在建屋发展在此地段建设中的芬威尔组屋的屋主。尽管我们当中对上述发展项目有不同的看法,但是, 我们为此发展项目达致的如下的共同意见:

 

 

三、首先是我们是一个属于不同宗教的群体。我们认为,我们完全不同意由一个属于商业性质的企业参与投标属于宗教用地和在利用宗教的名义下进行赚取利润的活动。 

四、在有关的慈善法令约定下,任何与宗教活动的组织都必须依据上述法律的规定和受到慈善总监的监督。这就是说,在芬威尔连路建设的华人庙宇必须是一个在慈善总监注册下的非盈利组织。

 

 

 

五、显然,在上个星期天(2015年1月4日)我们与有关当局举行的对话会上,LC的代表在会上已经承认他们的公司并不是以一个非盈利组织或是一家注册属于宗教性质的组织。 

 

 

六、这将会立下一个极其恶劣的影响典范和为新加坡所有的宗教组织开了先例,其中包括了(不限于)佛教、基督教、天主教和兴都教……等等。这些宗教都注册成为非盈利的组织。对于它们而言,这是不合理的。它们是无法与这些具有雄厚资金实力的商业实体进行竞争投标适用于本来数量已经极少的宗教用途性质的地段(供建设庙宇或教堂)的。例如华人的庙宇。我们注意到,在过去20年,国家发展部拨出20个地块供他们投标。

 

 

 

七、犹有胜者,这家中标这地块的Eternal Pureland Pte Ltd是注册为一家从事于与殡葬等与殡仪相关业务范围(包括了提供遗体防腐、火葬、建造和维护坟墓、售卖丧家祭拜所需的祭品和服务)。这家公司的注册日期是在这地段宣布进行招标前16天才注册成立的。它完全不具备任何有关管理华人庙宇的实际经验。 

 

 

八、我们也获悉,EPL在刊登的广告里说,他们售卖的骨灰瓮原售价是每个是$15,000。现在的优惠价是每个$65,00。我们不认为,制定这样的骨灰瓮安置的特价对于我们这些住在的建屋发展局的组屋区的普通人有任何好处。

 

 

九、我们当中的许多人都有自己的宗教信仰。我们极其深切关注看到建屋发发展局允许宗教‘商业化’。我们为此重申:我们坚决反对任何具有商业性质的企业在宗教的幌子下牟利。

 

 

 

十、我们希望建屋发展局基于这种(招投标的)决定(以商业盈利为目的的企业参与招投标的企业)将会影响新加坡所有的宗教组织的行为的投标实属无效的。 

 

 

十一、我们希望,假设建屋发展局要重新招标该地段,它可以考虑这个建设发展华人庙宇的地段的项目可以把庙宇和儿童/学生护理综合中心结合在一块儿。这个儿童/学生护理综合中心必须是向所有的种族开放的。这样将有助于这个社区,特别是那些有孩子的年轻夫妇。 

 

 

十二、这是一个可以令人满意和完善的解决方案。对于许多预售组屋申请者和那些目前已经居住在这个地区,但是并不知道这个发展项目的计划的居民来说,它将是可以避免产生许多不必要的争论的。

 

 

 

十三、我们将非常遗憾,假设建屋发展局坚持建设这个骨灰瓮塔和华人庙宇(的地段)颁发给有关公司。 

 

 

十四、我们所以会措手不及的原因是:我们完全信任政府的法定单位。我们已经期望建屋发展局(在执行国家政策)提供重要信息时是具有透明化的、公开的和更前瞻性的。我们根本就不敢想象一个如建屋发展局这样具有很好的信誉和房地产发展巨子会在推销这个项目的说明文字里把最重要的信息隐瞒在深化图里和以模糊的文字(例如包括‘可能’的字眼)加上免责声明来推荐这个项目。 

 

 

十五、我们相信,假设这个建设项目附加了一些设施(如地铁、轻轨和康乐设施等)是有利于建屋发展局这个预售项目取得更好的销售价格。建屋发展局应该会突出和强调这些附加设施。建屋发展局提供(类似于建造骨灰瓮塔)这方面的信息将只会让更多有意购买者对这个区域的组屋失去吸引力和导致它的价格低落。 

 

 

十六、这并不是一起‘孤立事件’,而是出现在大范围了。因此,我们认为,建屋发展局必须认真看待我们的诉求,依据每个个案的具体情况,在无任何惩罚性质的先决条件下退还我们的预付款的诉求。建屋发展局必须在更加透明化和公平的基础上解决那些要求全额退还预付款的买主。 

十七、我们希望,建屋发展局在处理那些要求全额退还预付款予以的公平条件是: 

1..全额退还那些已经支付的押金;     

 

2.不可以施加任何的技术惩罚(例如:必须等待一年才支付。);

3.具有优先权购买建屋发展局在其他地段建设发展的组屋项目。

十八、即便是建屋发展局全额退还我们的预付款,对我们而言这是最坏的选择。我们还是坚持认为:建设一个附有儿童/学生护理中心的华人庙宇的项目将会受益于绝大多数人的利益的。

十九、我们非常遗憾的建屋发展局并没有撤销授予获得此地段的LC公司的标的,而是让它继续按照原设计计划执行。犹有甚者,建屋发展局已经拒绝了那些要求公平全额退还预付款的买主的诉求。

二十、我们希望,国家发展部可以做出正确决定的事情,确立了不允许属于商业性质的实体参与投资发展属于宗教用地性质的投标建设项目记录。这并不是仅仅对我们这个项目而已,而是整个新加坡。这样,就可以把目前LC已经获得的标的地段视为无效。

二十一、正如古人所说的,要取得他人信任是难如登天,但是,要是去他人的信任缺失易如反掌。对您而言,我们是错误的信任寄托在你们的。  

谢谢。

您诚挚的现有与未来的芬威尔居民

 

The below is an open letter sent by residents from Fernale to Minister Khaw Boon Wan for National Development and Prime Minister Lee .

     

Read the report on the dialogue session held with the residents and Dr, Lam Pin Min on Januarary 2015.

 

To:

Mr. Khaw Boon Wan

Minister for National Development

Dear Minister,

Re: Fernvale Link Columbarium of Chinese Temple.

 

1. We refer to the issue of HDB awarding the land meant for Chinese Temple to a private commercial company, Eternal Pure Land Pte Ltd (EPL), owned by the Australian Public Listed company, Life Corporation Limited (LC). 

 

2.We are a group of present and future residents of Fernvale HDB estate who will be affected by the abovementioned development. Although we have different concerns of the said project, but we have come to the following consensus and conclusions. 

3. First and foremost, all of us in the group, with different religions, agree that it is totally inappropriate for a commercial company to bid for a land meant for religious use and to make money in the name of religion. 

4. It is implied in the Charity Act that any organization with advancement of religion should be subjected to the Act and supervised by the Commissioner of Charities. It means that anyone who runs a Chinese Temple at Fernvale must be a non-profit organization registered with the Commissioner of Charities.                          

5. Apparently from the dialogue we had on last Sunday (4 Jan 2015), the representative from LC has admitted that they are not a non-profit organization or a registered religious organization.

6. This will set a very bad example and precedent for all the religious organizations in Singapore, including but not limited to Buddhist, Christians, Catholics, Hindu etc. Registered religious organizations are non-profit organizations and it is unfair for them to compete with commercial entities which have more financial power to tender for the very limited land slated for religious purposes. For the example of Chinese Temple, we notice that only 20 plots of land were slated for tender by HDB over more than two decades.

7. Moreover, the company, Eternal Pureland Pte Ltd, which won the tender, is registered as company which deals with Funeral and related activites (including embalming, Cremating and Cemetery services upkeep of cemeteries, sales of bereavement products and services). This company was incorporated only 16 days after the tender was called and it has absolutely no experience whatsoever in running a Chinese Temple.

8. We have also learned from the advertisement put up by EPL that they are marketing their niche at the price of $6,500, which is a discounted price from its original $15,000. We do not think such columbarium which put up such Premium Prices could serve ordinary HDB heartlanders like us at all.

9. Many of us have a religion and this is a grave concern to us to see the official stance of HDB in allowing religion to be “Corporatized”. We reiterate that we are against commercial companies making money in the name of religion.

 

10. We hope that HDB should declare the tender null and void as such practice affects all religious organizations in Singapore.

11. We hope that in the event of putting the land up for tender again, HDB could consider the combination of Chinese Temple with Childcare/Student Care. The Childcare/Student Care centre should be required to open to all races. This will serve the community well as many of the residents are young couples with kids.

12. This will be the most satisfactory and perfect solution to prevent any unwanted disruption to the many BTO buyers who were misled by HDB as well as present residents who weren’t even made known of this development at all when they bought their flats.

13. It will be totally regrettable if HDB insisted in carrying on the building of the columbarium and the Chinese Temple.

14. The reason why so many of us were caught off guard is because we have placed so much trust in a government statutory board. We have expected HDB to be transparent, open and more forthcoming with important information. We didn’t expect a reputable and biggest developer of properties like HDB would hide critical material information under ultra fine prints and vague uncertain phrases (eg. “may include”) coupled with disclaimers.

15. We believe that if there were information which could help HDB to fetch a better price for the BTOs (eg. Mall, LRT stations, amenities etc), HDB would surely have put them up prominently and affirmatively. We expect HDB to do likewise for information (eg. Columbarium) that may make the flats less attractive to most buyers and thus, fetch lower prices for HDB.

16. These are not “isolated cases” but happened in a massive scale. Thus, we feel that HDB should not treat our demand for refund without other penalties as a case by case basis. HDB should be more transparent and fair in dealing with all those who wanted a full refund.

17. We expect that HDB treats those of us who wanted a full refund fairly with the following conditions:

18. We feel that this is the worst option for all of us, even if full refund is given to some. We still hope that the option of having a Chinese Temple with Childcare/Student Care could be granted as it serves almost everyone’s interests.

 

a) full refund of whatever deposits paid;

b) no technical penalty (eg. 1 year wait) should be applied;

c) priority to select alternative flats in other development.

 

19. It would be utterly regrettable if HDB did not void the tender to LC and let it proceed as planned. Even worse if HDB refused to treat all of those who seek a full refund fairly.

20. We hope that you, as the Minister of the ministry, could do the right thing, not only for us but for the whole of Singapore, to set the record right by disallowing commercial entities to bid for land slated for religious purposes. Thus, void the current tender to LC.

21. As the old saying goes, Trust is hard to earn but easy to lose. In you, we trust to right the wrongs. Thank you.

Present & Future Fernvale Residents

Yours truly,

以下是2015年1月4日盛港居民与盛港西国会议员蓝彬民、建屋发展局及城市重建局就芬威尔连路建设骨灰瓮塔项目的对话会片段摘要记录:

盛港居民问:

为什么建屋发展局选择一家寻求赚取盈利高于宗教组织的公司去建造骨灰瓮安置塔?

Life Corporation

不是一家宗教组织或者是一家慈善机构、或者是非盈利组织、或者是在处理殡葬服务具有经验的公司。为什么建屋发展局要在所有的宗教组织之外选择专家公司呢?

这是愤怒的盛港居民要知道的是事实。

Redwire公司第一次披露有关Life Corp时,我们获悉Life Corp的注册资本是星币1元的公司。

Eternal Pure Land中标后将会自身进行开发、建设和管理这个庙宇/骨灰瓮业务。

但是,又如何?

接下来的问题是:对于Life Corp来说,是不是只是进行着一种推手的策略,这样它可以获取在盛港的这块土地。

民众已经发出强烈的呼吁,要求建屋发展局公开它们为什么会把这个地段的土地契约颁发给Life Corp’s Eternal Pure Land专家公司。

无论如何,这是一家由Life Corp以注册资本星币1元作为启动的公司。这家公司的业务是再生医药(这就说,它的专业是让人生存,直到2013年它收购了新加坡殡仪服务公司),它击败 了其他宗教组织的参与投标者而赢得了这块地段。

以下文字是摘录了居民与盛港西国会议员蓝彬民和Life Corp CEO 代表Simon Hoo在2015年1月4日上的记录。

 

Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):

你并没有回答我的问题:这块地段是否是由Life Corp or Eternal Pure Land管理?

 

 

Life Corp CEO 代表Simon Hoo,他以英语发言):

针对这个问题本身而言,Life Corp是其母公司;Eternal Pure Land是本庙宇项目的业主、发展商和经营者。因此,Eternal Pure Land将会营运这个项目,但是,它的管理层是来自相同的Life Corp团队。

 Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):

既然是这样, Life Corp/Eternal Pure Land在新加坡是否注册成为一个宗教组织?

 Life Corp CEO 代表Simon Hoo,他以英语发言):

不是的。它不是注册为一家宗教集团。

 

Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):(她转向在场的听众):

这样行末?还是不行?

 在场听众喝彩。

Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):

请问,这是不是一家非盈利的组织?

  Life Corp CEO 代表Simon Hoo,他以华语发言):

不是。

  在场听众再一次喝彩。

 Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):

请问,它是不是注册成为一家慈善机构?

Life Corp CEO 代表Simon Hoo

不是。

在场听众的喝彩声更大。

   

Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):

假设您(对我提出的问题)的答案都是‘否定’的,那么,这家公司肯定没有没有在新加坡佛教总或者是道教总会注册成为会员吧!您说,我说的对吗?

  Life Corp CEO 代表Simon Hoo

是的。是的。

这时在听众席上发出的喝彩声更加响亮了。

Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,她华语发言):

假设在这样的(公司)背景下,它怎么可以参与这块土地使用性质属于华人庙宇的招投标呢?

在场的听众继续发出强烈的喝彩声。

 Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,继续以她华语发言):

假设您是不是以Life Corp名义参与这场招投标。我想,这是一个极其严重的问题。假设您是以一家上市公司的名义参与这场招投标,那么,我可以这么说吗?您是在利用宗教的名义为您的上市公司……

 她的问题被在场的听众的喝彩声所淹没了。

 蓝彬民医生(以英语发言):

在Simon回答有关问题前,我想,这里实际上在这个对话会上是有两个层面的问题。对吗?第一个层面的问题是:在芬威尔连路设立一个骨灰瓮塔的问题。这是第一个侧面的问题。另一个问题是:我想,这是一个问题是其他的居民极其关注的问题的这个层面。另一个问题是实质上是有关招投标和华人庙宇的活动的问题。对吗?好的。那么,我们就得把这两个问题清楚的分开来。当然,我们将会得到Simon先生,以及城市重建局和建屋发展局在这里为我们提供这些问题的确实答案。

Sharon Toh(芬威尔居民,继续以她华语发言):

但是,蓝先生,假设(LIFE CORP 和Simon)不属于任何的宗教集团,他们怎么可以成为是华人庙宇呢?

‘浑蛋’,一些人在镜头外发出的声音。 

蓝:

我们的建屋发展局和城市重建局的同事将会针对这些问题给予回答,因此我们不要急着对这些过早下结论。好吗? 

有一个在镜头外发出的声音。

 ‘为什么不现在就回答呢?’

蓝彬民医生:

因要一些按循序,啦。我们不要把所有的问题混在一块儿。我们还有时间。行吗?我们有充足的时间回答所有的问题。 

Sengkang Residents Press for Answers:

Why did HDB Select a Profit-Seeking Company Over Religious Organisations to Build Columbarium?

Life Corporation isn’t a religious organisation, or a charity, or a non-profit organisation, or a company which has expertise in columbarium services. So why did the HDB select it over other religious organisations?

That’s what furious Sengkang residents want to know.

In Redwire’s first expose on Life Corp, we revealed that Life Corp set up a $1 company, Eternal Pure Land just days before the tender to bid for the temple/columbarium contract.

Eternal Pure Land won the bid, and will own, develop and manage the temple/columbarium site.

But, how?

Questions have been raised, as to whether Life Corp, is pulling a tactical stunt just so it can acquire the area in Sengkang.

There’s also been greater calls from the public for the HDB to come clean on its selection process before awarding the contract to Life Corp’s Eternal Pure Land.

After all, it’s a $1 company started by Life Corp which used to deal in regenerative medicine (which means it used to specialise in keeping people alive, until 2013 when it bought over Singapore Funeral Services), which beat other religious organisations to win the contract.

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of the dialogue session held by Sengkang West MP Lam Pin Min, Life Corp CEO Simon Hoo and residents on Sunday (4Jan).

 

Sharon Toh, Fervale Lea resident (speaking in Mandarin):

You didn’t answer my question: is this piece of land managed by Life Corp or Eternal Pure Land?

Simon Hoo, Chief Executive Officer of Life Corporation Pte Ltd (speaking in English):

To that question itself, Life Corp is the parent company; Eternal Pure Land itself is the owner, developer and operator of this temple site itself. So Eternal Pure Land will be operating it but the management is the same from Life Corp.

Sharon:

If that is the case, is Life Corp/Eternal Pure Land registered as a religious organisation in Singapore?

Simon:

Eternal Pure Land is not a registered religious group.

Sharon then said turn to the audience and said,

“Ok, no.”

The audience applauded.

Sharon:

May I know if it is a not-for-profit organisation?

Simon (speaking in Mandarin):

No.

The audience applauded further.

   

Sharon:

Is it a registered charity?

Simon:

No.

The applause grew louder.

Sharon:

If it’s “no” to everything, you all should also not be registered with the Singapore Buddhist or Singapore Taoist Association. Am I right?

Simon:

Yes, yes.

Even more applause came from the audience now.

Sharon:

If that’s the case how can you bid for this land in the name of a Chinese temple?

The audience went wild with applause.

     

Sharon (continued):

If you are bidding in the name of Life Corp, I think this is a serious problem. If you are bidding in the name of Life Corp, a listed company, can I say that you are using religion as a way for your listed company …

Her question became drowned out by the rousing applause from the audience.

Dr Lam Pin Min (speaking in English):

Maybe just before Simon answers the question, there is actually two aspects to this dialogue session, ok? The first aspect is having the Chinese temple with columbarium service located in Fernvale Link. That’s one aspect. I think there will be other residents who will actually be quite concerned about this aspect. Then the other aspect will be actually the tendering and the running of the Chinese temple activities. All right? Ok, so we have to separate it very clearly and, of course, we will have Mr Simon as well as URA and HDB here to actually help us answer some of this questions.

Sharon:

But Mr Lam, if he (Life Corp and Simon) does not belong to any religious groups, how can they call it a Chinese Temple?

someone off-camera uttered.

“Basket,”

Lam:

Later our HDB and URA colleagues will help explain these queries. So we don’t want to jump to conclusion yet. All right?

another person off-camera shouted.

“Why not explain now?”

Dr Lam Pin Min:

Because we want to have some sequence, lah. We don’t want to jump all over the place. We have time, ok? We have all the time to answer all the questions.

          

 

 

 


3条评论

盛港西各族同胞们,团结起来,把行动党安置在他们要建造的骨灰瓮塔!——支持盛港西Fernvale Lea预售组屋持有者的合理诉求(BTO BUYERS)

我在2015年1月2日的文章:《2015年对老百姓来说是:5所畏惧的一年!继续坚持争取实现合理的诉求!2015年对行动党来说是:5计可施的一年!继续妥协让步满足老百姓的诉求!》说了一下一段话:(见网址:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/2015%e5%b9%b4%e5%af%b9%e8%80%81%e7%99%be%e5%a7%93%e6%9d%a5%e8%af%b4%e6%98%af%ef%bc%9a5%e6%89%80%e7%95%8f%e6%83%a7%e7%9a%84%e4%b8%80%e5%b9%b4%ef%bc%81%e7%bb%a7%e7%bb%ad%e5%9d%9a%e6%8c%81%e4%ba%89/)

“就行动党而言,他们的主观愿望是要做到的!但是,由于他们在过去50年已经形成以一个极其庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团。

这个庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团已经全面控制了整个的经济命脉和经济利益。

这就决定了他们无法满足老百姓的诉求!

行动党的爷们看到这个问题吗?

当然,行动党的爷们当然看到这个问题!

但是,现实的实质是:他们力不从心!!!

行动党已经把一党私利——这个庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团利用置于国家和老百姓的最高利益之上了!

他们会不会主动答应、或承诺老百姓的诉求的!

不会!  为什么?

因为,这个庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团已经和国外的跨国垄断集团勾结在一起、纠结在一起了!他们已经无法摆脱这种贪婪和永无休止掠夺新加坡的民脂民膏的行为了!在他们的在贪婪和永无休止的掠夺行为的受益者和既得利益者也不会同意他们停止这种贪婪和永无休止的行径!

这就是为什么说,摆在行动党面前的困难时无法克服和解决的!

2015年是不是选举年不是问题的根本!”

今天盛港西芬威尔连路建设骨灰瓮项目的事件再一次证明了这个事实!

行动党的爷们不承认:

国家发展部在其发出的预售宣传手册里说明没有预先公开、透和详细有关建设地段规划用途的具体详细说明,是犯上误导购买有关地段的组屋屋主的错误!反过来,行动党的爷们竟然指责预售组屋的购买者事先没有详细阅读有关销售手册的说明,忽略了国家发展部对这个地段将建造的骨灰瓮安置处的附加发展项目!

行动党圈养在主流媒体的狗腿子眼看他们的主人陷于这场漩涡无法自拔处境,竟然能把整个事件扭曲成:

盛港西芬威尔连路(Fernvale Lea) 预售组屋屋主(BTO BUYERS)反对在该地段建设骨灰瓮安置处是基于今后会影响他们的屋价的理由!这是一个合理的诉求!

哪些被行动党圈养在主流媒体的狗腿子不知羞耻的把已经在盛港西范围里已经建造的庙宇也存放类似于骨灰瓮安置塔作为’例子’来为他们的主子犯上致命性的错误进行辩护和掩护!

这些狗腿子在本末倒置!

圣港西即将进行建造的骨灰瓮安置塔是由本质性的区别:

根据新加坡的有关慈善宗教组织的法律约定,投资建设方属于宗教性质建设项目必须是属于宗教组织机构!这个宗教组织机构必须是属于非商业盈利性质的组织机构!

现在,国家发展部和城市重建局批准在盛港西芬威尔连路建造的骨灰瓮安置塔的投资建设方是一家以商业盈利为主的商业机构。这是一家上市企业属下的一家全资子公司!它不是一家属于宗教性质的非商业盈利的组织机构!它不是一家属于以慈善和宗教活动为主要目的的组织机构!它与目前坐落在盛港西甚至全国各地已经存在的各个宗教和慈善团体建造的庙宇、教堂和清真寺是本质上不同的!

目前,行动党以及他们圈养在主流媒体和哪些得意洋洋自以为自己是‘房地产专业人士’在为行动党犯上的这个严重错误进行任何狡辩、扭曲和涂脂抹粉的事后‘返工修补工程’只能让行动党更进一步陷入泥潭里!

既然行动党大爷们以及他们圈养在主流媒体不承认自己犯上错误,执迷不悟,预售组屋的持有者就完全有理由反对者建设项目!

既然行动党大爷们这么执意要让一个属于以赚取商业盈利为主的性质的商业机构继续建设这个项目,那么,巴西立——盛港西集选区的选民们就有理由团结起来反对这个建设项目!

巴西立-盛港西的同胞们,把行动党的大爷们送进和安置在这个他们执意要建设的骨灰瓮塔,让他们可以在这个骨灰瓮塔里安享晚年!

2015年1月4日,盛港居民与国会议员蓝彬民、建屋发展局、城市重建局以及Life Corporation Limited 的CEO举行对话会网址:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=vb.295323107252451&type=2

 拼

(中英文对照)

Public statement from Fernvale Lea residents

盛港西芬威尔连路(Fernvale Lea) 预售组屋屋主(BTO BUYERS)关于建屋发展局批准发展商建造骨灰瓮建设项目的公开声明

(本文如与原文有不符之处,均以英文作为最后的解释权)(载自网址:http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/05/public-statement-from-fernvale-lea-residents/)

  Capture5-504x480 10917264_1544065182513170_3848064811065233928_n

The Singapore Mass Media has put up very negative report on us trying to portray us as some petty people who only care about our flat value and that is why we reject the columbarium. That is far from the truth.

I hereby represent the hundreds of affected stakeholders to put up the following statement:

 1. We are unhappy and felt aggrieved by HDB’s misrepresentation by way of omission of material fact in their sale brochures. We reiterate that there was absolutely NO MENTION of columbarium in the sale brochures while the stated “Ancillary Service” phrase is so general that anyone who read that would have misconstrued as something else. Such definition can only be found in URA website and not HDB website at all. Any ordinary man would not have known how to get access to the details at all.

 2. We are against such sales tactic as we should be treated fairly to be given FULL DISCLOSURE of information by the seller, HDB before we chose to buy the flat. We should have the right to make INFORMED choices and not short-changed with such omission of critical material information by HDB.

3.We are also very concerned about how HDB allowing a private commercial entity owned by a foreign public listed company to bid for the land gazetted for religious purposes. It is totally inappropriate for a commercial entity to make money out of any religion.

4.According to High Court ruling, any entity that advance religion cause, should be subjected to Charity Act and put under the supervision of Commissioner of Charities. Apparently HDB has not made appropriate screening prior to the award of this land, which is meant for religious use, to a commercial entity.

5。Commercial business should be restricted to land meant for commercial purposes, like industrial park. Land meant for religious purposes should be reserved to religious organizations registered in Singapore. This is to protect the interests of religious organizations as commercial entities would have more financial muscles to outbid them. It is totally unfair to these religious organizations which are Non-Profit Organizations to compete with Profit-oriented commercial entities in bidding for such limited land slated for religious purposes.

6.Most of us are buying a flat as a HOME, not for property speculation. Thus, property resale value is least of our concern. Our main concern is the conduciveness of our living environment for our families. Thus the Main Stream Media has put up a totally misrepresentation of our plight and this is really a double whammy to us. What we want is just a fair deal for our choice of home and we plead to the Main Stream Media not to put a double stabbing into our hearts and dignity by such grossly misreporting.

7. We are all law abiding citizens and we expect the Rule of Law to be adhered by the very institutions which are supposedly tasked to uphold the law and justice for citizens.

 

8. We sincerely hope that the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of development, HDB and URA to look into the matter as soon as possible.

Thank you.

On Behalf of Stakeholders, BTO Buyers.

新加坡的主流媒体在有关我们反对在芬威尔连路建造骨灰瓮安置处项目的事件上,把我们描绘是一部分人仅仅是因为关心自己的组屋的屋价的原因而反对该项目在建造是将设立骨灰瓮安置处。

这是一个与事实完全不符合的。

我们仅此代表数百名受此建设项目影响的预售组屋持有者(Stakeholders, BTO BUYERS)发表如下声明:

(一)建屋发展局在有关推出销售芬威尔连路组屋的销售手册说明时通过‘疏忽’有关项目的事实情况,让我们感到不愉快和受到误导的感觉。我们必须强调的是:他们的销售手册说明书只是提到‘相关的服务’,而根本就没有提起有关骨灰瓮安置处的问题。销售手册的这段说明对一般人而言,这就是普通的附属建设项目。这些建设项目的详细说明只能在市区重建局的网站找到,在建屋发展局的网站是根本看不到这些‘相关的服务’的信息的。任何一个普通的老百姓都无法晓得进入这些网站取得有关本项目的建设详细的信息的。

 

(二)我们坚决反对这样的销售策略方式!在我们觉得选择购买有关组屋前,建屋发展局必须以平等的销售方式透露给我们全面知道有关的项目的详细信息。我们有权在被告知的项目变更的选择权,而不是简略有关这个重要的信息的。

(三)我们也非常关心有关建屋发展局允许一个由外国人持股的上市公司以私人的商业机构参与投标一块属于宗教用途性质的土地。这与商业机构不可以从宗教活动中赚取利润宗旨完全背道而驰的。

 

 

(四)根据我国最高法院的有关法律约定,任何机构为了宗教目的活动必须是以符合有关公益的法令。这样的宗教活动必须是在公益总监的监督下进行的。显然的,建屋发展局在筛选有关地段给予(发展商)是与这项法令的约定背道而驰的,那就说,这块地段只能够用于宗教用途,而不是商业用途。

(五)商业用途用地性质的土地只能够限于商业用地性质,例如工业园。属于宗教用途性质的土地必须保留给在新加坡注册的宗教团体。这是为了保护宗教团体作为一个商业机构的利益。让他们能够持有经济实力标得有关地块。对于非营利的宗教团体与一个以营利为主导的商业机构在投标土地进行竞争而言,这是一个极其不公平的政策。这是局限了宗教活动的土地用途。

(六)我们绝大数人是购买一套房子的目的是作为住家,而不是作为房地产炒作。因此,屋子转售价的价格并不是我们所关注的。关注的是家人的居住周围环境是我们主要的考量。因此,主流媒体完全扭曲了我们的意愿,这进一步加重了国人对我们的产生错误的看法。我们要的就是一个公平买卖基础上选择我们的组屋。我们要求主流媒体在这个事件上,不要以‘我们的诉求是建立在组屋转售价’的错误舆论报道有关的。这将让我们的心灵受到深深的创伤。

(七)我们是奉公守法的公民。我们期望各个不同的法定机构坚持法律高于一切。这是我们公民视为最高神圣的任务。

 

 

 

(八)我们诚挚的期望有关的政府部门,包括国家发展部、家屋发展局和城市重建局尽快关注这个事件。

谢谢!

仅此代表芬威尔连路(Fernvale Lea预售组屋购买者

链接: www.facebook.com/columbariumisabadidea/posts/762234300491790 Deciphering HDB’s Fernvale Lea brochure


留下评论

2015年对老百姓来说是:”5″所畏惧的一年!——继续坚持争取实现合理的诉求! 2015年对行动党来说是:”5″计可施的一年!——继续妥协让步满足老百姓的诉求!

拼

justice now

 2015 年老百姓要什么?

 老百姓要:

1.要求行动党归还我们的公积金、反对提高公积金最低存款规定;

 2. 要求进一步降低组屋租赁价格的下降;

 3. 要求降低公交系统的车资涨价、要求严格恢复实行拥车证的缘由目的——控制车辆在路上行驶的数量,不是把拥车证当成交通部的摇钱树!

 4. 要求认真实行:真正提高低薪工人的起薪;严格履行国际劳工组织的8小时工作制的要求!反对年长工人每日工作超过8小时或每星期工作超过44小时;确实落实以聘用新加坡公民为先的法令,严格惩罚和执行工作场所招聘平等对待新加坡公民的工作待遇和条件;

 5。要求坚决反对无限制和无限量的引进外来移民政策;给予永久居民在公开组屋转售市场拥有购买组屋的权利;

 6. 要求实行属于建国一代的子女享有全面的大、中、小学和教育工艺学院的全额免费教育!提高新加坡公民进入大学的学额配给数额!确保新加坡公民子女大学和哲学毕业优先获得受聘机会!

 7.要求给予所有年龄已经届满65岁以上的新加坡公民在医药福利和养老退休的全额津贴!

 8.要求全面开放社交媒体的网络言论自由、让人们享有真正的集会、结社与言论权利!

 9。要求公开、公平和全面的新加坡的历史真实面貌!设立调查庭,公开调查所有有关对政治拘留者指责!取消内部安全法令、让任何属于政治性质被指控的政治案件在法院进行公开诉讼!

 10要求结束一党独霸的统治方式、反对肆意更改选区行政划分的决定!

 同胞们,不管是行动党还是我们,2015年是充满挑战的一年和困难重重的一年!

 是,一个不可改变的事实是:

 摆在我们前面的困难是可以克服的!

 因为这些困难是行动党一手人为设置和制造出来的!行动党如果想要获得绝大数的支持票继续执政,他们就必须废除我们的上述具体诉求!我们的困难就扫除了!

 行动党是否可以和愿意做到呢?

 就行动党而言,他们的主观愿望是要做到的!但是,由于他们在过去50年已经形成以一个极其庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团。

 这个庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团已经全面控制了整个的经济命脉和经济利益。

 这就决定了他们无法满足老百姓的诉求!

 行动党的爷们看到这个问题吗?

 当然,行动党的爷们当然看到这个问题!

 但是,现实的实质是:他们力不从心!!!

 行动党已经把一党私利——这个庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团利用置于国家和老百姓的最高利益之上了!

 他们会不会主动答应、或承诺老百姓的诉求的!

 不会!  为什么?

 因为,这个庞大的新兴和新型国家官僚买办集团已经和国外的跨国垄断集团勾结在一起、纠结在一起了!他们已经无法摆脱这种贪婪和永无休止掠夺新加坡的民脂民膏的行为了!在他们的在贪婪和永无休止的掠夺行为的受益者和既得利益者也不会同意他们停止这种贪婪和永无休止的行径!

 这就是为什么说,摆在行动党面前的困难时无法克服和解决的!

 2015年是不是选举年不是问题的根本!

 行动党要啥时候举行全国大选都行!即便是拖到2017年也行!我们不必为行动党操这个事!这是烦心事让行动党自个儿操心去!

 在目前已知的困难大环境下举行?行吗?他们得问自己:李光耀时代和吴作栋时代所制造的问题是否可以一揽子解决?

 他们是没有能力、也无法一揽子解决这些已经解决实施了超过半个世纪的法律、政策和法规?

 看看,我们在2011年5月全国大选以选票告诫他们必须停止李光耀的无限制和无限量的引进外来移民政策,他们就是不信邪!

 在大选过后,从李光耀到行动党第四代爷们和娘们对在叫嚣:土生土长的新加坡是排外主义!拒绝接受政府的外来移民政策将会造成不可想象后果!结果呢?

 后港区的选民和榜东区选民,特别是榜鹅东区的选民给了行动党的叫嚣明确的答复!

 他们制造的后港区补选失败!他们因为‘党国的精英分子’的行为不检点被迫举行的榜鹅东区的补选在短短的14个月行动党在榜鹅东区失去了近15%的支持票!

 这说明了什么?

 这说明:行动党耗不起!第四代行动党必须彻底解决李光耀时代所造成的所有历史余孽!否则,历史和时间不会再给他们另一次的机会!

 为此,他们被迫进行调整引进外来移民政策!——在组屋租赁政策、孩子教育问题、新加坡公民与非公民的职业受聘问题、公交系统车资问题、外来移民人融入新加坡社会的问题做出了局部的调整!

 调整结果是什么?调整的结果是:

 人力市场出现紧俏、市场经营成本的上涨、物价和屋价高涨、外国资金、大房地产发展商和投机买家在房地产炒卖活动所带来的家庭高负债率!

 为此,他们为此又进行调整行为改变上述的情况!其的结果是一切都没有改变,反而加剧矛盾的激化!

 现在,他们又要面对比过去三年还要棘手的问题!这些问题是涉及千家万户的切身利益问题(包括那些长期支持行动党和行动党本身的基础组织成员在内)!这些问题包括了:

  一、公积金最低存款问题;

 二、最低退休年龄提取公积金养老金户头的存续储蓄金问题;

 老年人住房和即将退休的老百姓的房贷问题;

 老年人的养老的问题;

 五、老年人长时间的工作制度问题;

 六、医药福利和住院问题;

 所以我们说,

 2015年对老百姓来说是:5所畏惧的一年!继续坚持争取实现合理的诉求!

 2015年对行动党来说是:5计可施的一年!继续妥协让步满足老百姓的诉求!

团结就是力量