(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。







 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’?





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.




——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




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。









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/





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。









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 。






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?









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.






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’”









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。






 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。








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。






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。






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。









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)。












 ‘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。  






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。












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。








‘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。)









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。






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。









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 ?