人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


12条评论

(中英文对照)FEAR is DEAD 恐惧已经死亡!

By Teo Soh Lung 张素兰

张素兰 1

四天前,我和曾志成(Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng)与香港的《苹果日报》记者问见面。记者问道我们是否准备去吊唁李光耀。肯尼.惹耶惹南回答说。他将不会去。当记者追问什么原因时,他嘀咕的说了好像是没有必要的意思。

这位年轻的记者接着追问为什么?接着他们转来问我。我也一样回答说,我不会去。他们还是继续追问这个问题。我给他们一个很勉强的理由,那就是排队吊唁的人龙太长了。我对自己这样的回答感到惊愕。

过去一个星期的“全国哀悼”。我的邻居问我,谁是李光耀的狂热的粉丝?我会要去吊唁吗?我简单的回答说:“不”。我没有进一步的说明为什么。他们也不再追问了。假设现在要我说明这个问题,我想,这是我对死者尊重的方式。我不要伤害向我提问的人。因为这个死者在他担任总理期间是伤害到我和我的家人及朋友。

在吊唁期间,群组的人在聊天时就谈起了在烈日下排队的人龙、吊唁的策划和葬礼的安排,包括了公交车及地铁的延长川行服务时间、以及不可思议的死者所取得的成就等。在第六天,我不再忍受这样的讯息,我离开了群组。我并没有告诉他们什么原因。当然或许就是对死者的尊敬的问题。

那些了解我的朋友问我是否需要撰写一些有关李光耀的文章。我在20多天前是有想过这么着的。但是我的脑袋一片空白。我无法找到感觉。那是由于我的内心告诉我要继续保持沉默,不要干扰目前全国的悲痛。让这些人在平和中发泄悲痛。在李光耀逝世后的隔天,我只是在324日写了一段有关自己的妈妈的短文。我并没有刻意的去写这篇短文的。但是,它确实自然的产生。这大概是我的妈妈唆使我去写这篇短文吧。我到妈妈的坟前吊唁。这是妈妈逝世三周年了。突然间,我的妹妹开始谈起妈妈的过去。她回忆起与妈妈唠叨的往事。她所说的事我知道得不多,以及妈妈对我的被捕的感受。她憎恨这个死者以及她拒绝观看这个死者在电视机荧幕上出现的镜头。在回家的路上。我从她的想法里找到了灵感。我是不会理会李光耀的。比起死者和全国的吊唁,我的妈妈更加悲痛。在我撰写完这篇短文并把它上载到脸书(FACEBOOL)时我哭了。这个时候是她三年前逝世的日子。

 

好了,让重新回到记者的问题。我思考了几个小时。我为什么不可以给她一个真实和直接的答案呢?为什么我不可以说我不去参与吊唁是因为李光耀不经审讯把我关在监牢2年半呢?这样理由不是更好吗?当我回想起来,我越觉得自己是愚蠢的。这是某些下意识造成了我避免给予记者真实的答案。我对自己感到生气。这确实是荒唐的。

在思考了几个小时后,我终于醒悟过来了!——真正的原因是:因为恐惧感造成的!

——我恐惧,人们在进行沉痛吊唁和极端悲伤的这段时间谈起我的这段遭遇会让人们有不好的想法。

——我恐惧,他们会达到的结论是我由于个人的遭遇感到生气和痛苦。正如大主教所说的,成了一个不肯原谅他人继续往前看的人。

这就像是一个被人强奸的受害者的感受。他们的反应是拒绝向警方举报。因为他们害怕调查官不会相信他的说法,或者反指受害者自己的穿着或者行为不捡所致的。他们害怕自己的名义和个人安全将会因为举报而受到侵害。社会上的人们将会怎样看待她们?社会上的人们将会有什么反应?这是确实非常复杂的、危险和让人惊吓的。因此最好的方法就是保持沉默,忘记那些肮脏的事件和‘继续前进’。让强奸者逃避应受到的惩罚和继续犯下更多的罪行。让更多的妇女遭受痛苦。

在认识到让我不想向记者说出真正的原因是因为恐惧感造成的后,我终于解脱了。这正如一个超重的包袱从我的身上卸了下来一样。我立即解决了另一个问我要不要去国会大厦吊唁的人提出的问题了。我直接告诉他, 我不会去向一个不经审讯把自己的公民关进监牢,造成了这么多痛苦的人、他们的家人和朋友致敬!

就在那天傍晚,一个在排队对轮候了数个小时在黎明后才得以进去吊唁的人问我是否会去吊唁时,我的回答是:‘不会。他曾经对我做了什么?他把我关进监了2年半。您说,我还会去向他致敬吗?’在我向他说出了这段经历后,他惊讶的问我为什么被关进监牢里?我告诉了他有关内部安全法令的问题。假设他要知道我的遭遇,我请他到谷歌搜索我名字。他说,他并不知道那个伟人的另一面。事实上,他并不知道这一切,同时我给他的答案可能让他感到惊讶。那天傍晚,他向其他2位朋友询问是否知道我的被捕情况。其中一位说他知道。另一位推说她不知道。

1987年和1988年,李光耀和他的部长们在内部安全法令下,不经审讯的逮捕和监禁了24人。他们的名字如下:

1 Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan, Church worker

钟金全教会工作者

2 Teo Soh Lung, Lawyer

张素兰律师

3 Kevin de Souza, Lawyer and Church worker

凯尔文.德苏沙工艺学院学生会

4 Wong Souk Yee, Researcher and journalist

黄淑仪高级研究员

5 Tang Lay Lee, Lawyer and Church worker

董丽莉律师

6 Ng Bee Leng, Church worker

黄美玲社会志工

7 Jenny Chin Lai Ching, Journalist

陈丽清新闻工作者

8 Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng, Advertising executive

曾志成广告执行员

9 Chung Lai Mei

钟丽薇工人

10 Mah Lee Lin, Polytechnic graduate and Church worker

马丽玲工艺学院学生

11 Low Yit Leng, Project manager

刘月玲规划经理

12 Tan Tee Seng, Sales executive

   陈智成销售执行员

13 Teresa Lim Li Kok, Publisher

   林丽国出版商

14 Chia Boon Tai, Engineer and businessman

   谢文泰商人

15 Tay Hong Seng, Translator and subtitling editor

   郑方升编辑

16 William Yap Hon Ngian, Translator and subtitling editor

   叶汉源副编辑

17 Tang Fong Har, Lawyer

   陈凤霞律师

18 Chew Kheng Chuan, Harvard University graduate and Businessman

   周庆全商人

19 Chng Suan Tze, Polytechnic Lecturer

   庄碹芝工艺学院讲师

20 Ronnie Ng Soon Hiang, Polytechnic student

   黄顺贤工艺学院学生会秘书

21 Fan Wan Peng, Polytechnic student and president of the students’ union

   范运冰工艺学院学生会会长

22 Nur Effendi Sahid, National serviceman

   诺挨芬德国民服役人员

1988年在上述被逮捕的拘留者中的8位因为发表了联合声明后与他们的律师一起重新被逮捕的还包括前总检察长和新加坡律师公会主席萧天寿(Seow Tiang Siew)和律师以及新加坡律师公会执委常国基(Patrick Seong Kwok Kei)。在2年内,2位在欧洲的朋友的新加坡公民权被遞夺了。他们是英国牛津大学毕业生的陈华标(Tan Wah Piow)和在比利时的博士生Paul Lim Huat Chye

他们与陈凤霞(Tang Fong Har)都成了政治流亡者了。Tang Fong Har8位给他发表联合声明的签署人之一,但是,她成功的逃脱了被重新逮捕的命运。她最终流亡到伦敦。在接下来的几年,Francis Seow(萧天寿)也成为了政治流亡者。萧天寿是在几乎赢得1988年大选的席位下被追捕的。他是一个政治被迫害者。

当李光耀在弥留前的最后几天他的孩子和孙子可以陪伴在他的身边时,那些政治流亡者,包括了那些在60年代和70年代却不准与自己的至亲见面会和无法出席在新加坡逝世的自己双亲和伴侣的葬礼。

我们经常都会听到一些人说,他们的逮捕行动是为了国家的利益。这事实就是要牺牲一部分自己的公民。我无法理解这样的声明。假设他们和他们的至亲在不经审讯下被逮捕并监禁起来,他们是否也持有相同的看法?

李光耀是一个狡猾的政客。他知道哪些他需要逮捕的人的本性和性格。他知道林清祥是能干的人,是一个比他还要能干可以担任总理职位的人。他知道林福寿医生和傅树介医生的智慧与他的智慧是一样,但是不比他还高。他知道赛.查哈利老先生在马来人社群里具有崇高的地位。赛老可以与他挑战管理新加坡。假设这些人都能够允许参与1963年的大选的话,他们将会中选。为此,他们在冷藏行动下被逮捕并被监禁超过数十年。这些人当时如果能够中选进入国会将会为我们的国家取得比现在更高的成就。他们将会为我们的国家的政治和法律事项,在国会里与那个人以及他的那群温顺的内阁进行辩论。

那个“两个就够”的家庭计划和限制新加坡公民与外国人结婚的政策可能就不会被通过实施了。新加坡也就不需要为人口增长率的下降和劳动力短缺而烦恼。语言和方言将会更加活跃,将让新加坡成为一个更加具有特性性的文化和多元种族具有刺激性的社会!滨海湾的赌场就不会成为推动新加坡经济的主要动力,新加坡的社会就不会成为一个赌徒的国家。

即便是在1987年和1988年的拘留者当中,有很多当时都是在社会的底层工作的。他们知道引进外来劳工的危险性。在促进我们国家的经济时将不会照顾到外来劳工的福利和为他们提供最低的生活工资收入。他们知道,政府采取引进外来劳工政策的结果是外来劳工最终将对我们的公民产生影响。这样对咱们国家有好处的劝告的人会被逮捕呢?假设当时政府是聆听这些拘留者的话并和他们一起改进有关的政策实施,今天新加坡可能会成为一个更好的国家。您可能会不同意,但是,请您不要告诉我说,逮捕这些一小部分国家未来潜在的人是为了国家的利益的。不要告诉我,当你不知道过去发生了什么?以及李光耀对我们的公民做了什么事又要我们继续前进!

恐惧已经死亡!

废除内部安全法令!

justice now

FEAR is DEAD

By Teo Soh Lung

Four days ago, and I were asked by journalists from Hong Kong (http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150328/19093087) if we were going to pay our respect to Lee Kuan Yew. Kenneth replied that he would not. When pressed for an answer as to why, he muttered something like it was not necessary.

The young journalists were persistent in finding an answer and they turned to me. I too replied that I was not going. They pressed for an answer and I gave them the lame excuse that the queue was too long. I was dismayed at my own answer but didn’t know why.

For days during the week of “national mourning”, I have been asked by neighbours who were ardent fans of Lee Kuan Yew, if I was going to pay my respect. My answer was simply “no”. I did not elaborate and they never probe further. If I could interpret such an answer now, I think it was my way of respecting the dead, that I didn’t want to hurt the questioner that the dead had harmed me and my family and friends during his term of office as prime minister.

For days before the funeral, group chats had been flooded with reports of the long queue in the sun, the plans and funeral arrangements, the longer bus and train schedules, the unbelievable achievements of the dead and so on and so forth. On the sixth day, I could no longer tolerate such messages and left the groups. I did not give a reason, again perhaps out of respect for the dead.

Friends who knew my past had asked incessantly if I was going to write about Lee Kuan Yew. I did intend to write but for 20 days or more, my mind was a blank. I just could not put anything sensible on paper. It was as if an inner voice was telling me to remain silent and not disrupt the nation’s grief. Let them grieve in peace. I did however write a short piece about my mother’s thoughts on 24th March, a day after Lee died.I had no intention of doing so but the piece came naturally, as if my mother was instigating me to write for her. That morning, I had visited my mother’s niche, it being the third anniversary of her death. Suddenly, my sister started to talk about the past. She was having a conversation with my mother. I didn’t know much about what she went through and how she felt about my arrest, how she detested the dead and how she refused to watch the television whenever his image appeared. On the long journey home, I penned her thoughts. I didn’t care about Lee Kuan Yew. My mother’s grief was larger than that of the dead and the national mourning. I cried when I finished writing and posted it on my facebook. It was about the time of her death at home three years ago.

And so coming back to the journalists. I thought for many hours. Why was I not able to give an honest, direct answer? Why didn’t I say that I was not going because Lee Kuan Yew had imprisoned me up for two and a half years without trial and for no good reason? The more I pondered, the more ridiculous and stupid I felt. It was something in the sub conscience that prevented me from giving an honest answer. I was angry. It was truly absurd.

After thinking for a few hours, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason was Fear – fear that people will think badly of me especially at a time when they were in deep mourning and hysteria, fear that they would conclude that I was angry and bitter, unforgiving, a person who refused to “move on” as the archbishop said. It was like the reaction of rape victims. They decline to report the crime because they were afraid that the investigator would not believe them or even accuse them that they had asked for the rape to happen because of the way they behaved or dressed. They were afraid that their own reputation and safety would be damaged with the report. How would the public view them? What would their reaction be? It was all just too complex, risky and intimidating and it was best to remain silent, forget about the nasty incident and “move on”. Let the rapists escape punishment and commit more crimes. Let more women suffer.

Realising that fear was the reason which prevented me from giving an honest answer to the journalists, I suddenly felt liberated. It was as if a heavy load was lifted. I immediately resolved that the next person who asked me if I was going to Parliament House to pay my respect, I would let it be known that I do not respect a leader who imprisoned citizens without trial, who caused so much suffering to those imprisoned, their families and their friends.

That evening, someone who had just paid his respect to the dear leader after waiting for several hours before day break, asked if I was going. I replied: “No, after what he did to me, imprisoning me for two and a half years, how can I go and pay respect to him?” Taken aback, he asked why I was imprisoned. I told him about the ISA and asked him to google my name if he wanted to know more. He said he didn’t know the other side of the great leader. Indeed, he didn’t know and was probably shocked at my answer. He asked two friends that evening if they knew about my imprisonment. One said he did and the other pretended she didn’t know.

In 1987 and 1988, Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers arrested and imprisoned 24 people without trial under the ISA. They were:

1 Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan, Church worker

2 Teo Soh Lung, Lawyer

3 Kevin de Souza, Lawyer and Church worker

4 Wong Souk Yee, Researcher and journalist

5 Tang Lay Lee, Lawyer and Church worker

6 Ng Bee Leng, Church worker

7 Jenny Chin Lai Ching, Journalist

8 Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng, Advertising executive

9 Chung Lai Mei

10 Mah Lee Lin, Polytechnic graduate and Church worker

11 Low Yit Leng, Project manager

12 Tan Tee Seng, Sales executive

13 Teresa Lim Li Kok, Publisher

14 Chia Boon Tai, Engineer and businessman

15 Tay Hong Seng, Translator and subtitling editor

16 William Yap Hon Ngian, Translator and subtitling editor

17 Tang Fong Har, Lawyer

18 Chew Kheng Chuan, Harvard University graduate and Businessman

19 Chng Suan Tze, Polytechnic Lecturer

20 Ronnie Ng Soon Hiang, Polytechnic student

21 Fan Wan Peng, Polytechnic student and president of the students’ union

22 Nur Effendi Sahid, National serviceman

In 1988, eight of the above were rearrested after issuing a press release together with their lawyers, Francis Seow Tiang Siew, former Solicitor General and President of the Law Society of Singapore and Patrick Seong Kwok Kei, Lawyer and member of Council of the Law Society of Singapore. In the two years, two friends who were then in Europe had their Singapore citizenship revoked. They were Tan Wah Piow, an Oxford University undergraduate and Paul Lim Huat Chye, a PhD student in Belgium.

They became political exiles together with Tang Fong Har, a signatory to the press release but escaped rearrest as she was then in the United Kingdom. In subsequent years, Francis Seow too became a political exile after nearly winning the general election in 1988. It was political persecution.

While Lee Kuan Yew’s children and grandchildren were able to be by his side during the last days of his illness and funeral, the political exiles, including those who left Singapore in the 1960s and 70s were not able to see their loved ones or attend the funerals of their parents and spouse who died in Singapore.

It is common to hear people say that for the good of the nation, it is perfectly in order to sacrifice some of its citizens. I never understand such a statement. Would they have the same opinion if they and their loved ones were arrested and imprisoned without trial? Lee Kuan Yew as an astute politician knew the nature and character of who he demanded arrest. He knew Lim Chin Siong was as capable if not more capable than he as the prime minister. He knew that Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai were intellectually his equal if not superior to him. He knew that Pak Said Zahari commanded the respect of the Malay community and was capable of challenging his way of managing Singapore. If they had been permitted to contest in the 1963 general election instead of being arrested in Operation Coldstore and imprisoned for decades, their presence in the legislative assembly may have helped our nation to achieve even greater heights. There would have been genuine debates on policies and laws in parliament for the good of our country instead of bad policies and laws being rammed down our throats by one man and his docile cabinet.

The “Stop at two” and restrictive marriage policies of Singaporeans and foreigners may not have been implemented and Singapore would not need to fret about its dwindling population and labour shortage. Languages and dialects may have flourished, making Singapore a unique and exciting multicultural and multi racial society. Casinos may not be necessary to propel the economy resulting in Singapore becoming a nation of gamblers.

Even among the 1987 and 1988 detainees, many were working on the ground and knew the precarious nature of importing foreign labour to boost our economy while not looking after their well being and providing them with a minimum living wage. They knew that the way the government managed the foreign workers would ultimately have an adverse effect on our citizens. What good can such arrests bring to our nation? If the government had listened to the detainees and worked with them to improve policies, Singapore may be a better country today. You may disagree but please don’t tell me that arresting a small number of people who were or have the potential of being future leaders is for the good of our country. Don’t tell me to move on when you don’t even know what happened in the past and what Lee Kuan Yew had done to his own citizens.

Fear is dead.

Abolish ISA.

   


留下评论

(中英文对照)Detention without trial: Going beyond Coldstore?《再议新加坡“争取合并的斗争”:第三部分》

傅树介照片

本文章作者:傅树介 BY DR. POH SOO KAI

–发表于2105年2月2日

Logically, this piece should be entitled, Singapore’s “Battle for Merger” revisited: Part III, but for the fact that Mr Gafoor, the Singapore High Commissioner to Australia, has deviated from the original grounds of the debate centred around merger and Operation Coldstore, and retreated to the half-century-old People’s Action Party (PAP) practice of making allegations to lock up opponents without having to prove them in any court of law!

Singapore’s ‘Battle for Merger’ revisited, 2014: The poverty of its history debunks Lee Kuan Yew’s radio talks that the mass arrest of February 2, 1963 were on grounds of security with the full weight of the declassified material now available in the British archives.

Linked to:

傅树介与老战友于2011年春节合照

I have rebutted the High Commissioner’s first response of 18 December 2014. With reference to his second response of 22 January 2015, it would be flogging a dead horse no less for me to reply to his attempt at a ‘holistic’ reading of the archives. Quite clearly he is happy to display his understanding of how he uses historical documents and makes sense (or non-sense) of them.

The High Commissioner would do well to monitor debates in Singapore. Neutral third parties have emerged, with no stakes in the 1963 events except for the truth. Recent articles carried in “The Online Citizen” and “TR Emeritus” continuing series (now 7 parts) have effectively demolished each and every piece of his so-called documentary evidence by simply going through the sources he cited, and showing what they actually said.

Conspicuous silence of the HC

However, the High Commissioner is conspicuously silent on his boss’ very own admission of the political nature of Operation Coldstore. Or would he be so bold as to say that the letter in question by Lee Kuan Yew to Lord Selkirk was a pure British fabrication: in other words, to call the British, blatant liars?

Let me reproduce the relevant portion of my previous text as reminder.

‘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. [The I.S.C. decision referenced is the mass arrests of Operation Coldstore.]’

Shifting gear from 1963 to 1974-76

Given that the security pretext for the 1963 arrests of Operation Coldstore is now in complete shambles – in no small part, thanks to the assiduous efforts of the Singapore public in following the issues closely and pouring over the historical material, the High Commissioner shifts gears; he abandons 1963 and leaps into the period 1974-76 focusing on unproven allegations against me for my second arrest in 1976: in other words, resurrecting PAP’s well-worn tactic of the communist bogey.

I was arrested in 2 February 1963 under Operation Coldstore and released unconditionally in late 1973 after 11 years of imprisonment without trial. Immediately, I called a press conference to demand the release of all political prisoners in Singapore. At that press conference, I called Lee Kuan Yew a ‘political pimp’. All this is on record. Ilsa Sharp of the Far Eastern Economic Review who interviewed me then, wondered how long the PAP government would tolerate my challenge to its stifling hegemonic rule over all aspects of political life in Singapore. (FEER December 1973.)

Then I threw myself headlong into setting up a civil rights committee, an NGO, to fight for human rights and civil liberties in Singapore. The pro-tem committee consisted of G Raman, Michael Fernandez, Ong Bok Chuan and I. It was agreed at our first meeting to enlarge the committee by inviting Father Ho, Dr Gwee Ah Leng and Dr Un Hon Hing. However, before we could conduct any activities, I was rearrested. Shortly thereafter, G Raman, Michael Fernandez and Ong Bok Chuan were also arrested.

The formation of the civil rights committee coincided with the effort of the Socialist International (SI) to demand accountability from the PAP government for its horrendous record of keeping political prisoners without trial for over a decade. (Singapore now has the notorious reputation of keeping Chia Thye Poh longer than Nelson Mandela was kept by the apartheid government of South Africa!) I met the SI delegations from UK and Sweden, and provided them with information on political prisoners and detention without trial in Singapore. I sent a tape recorded speech with the same message to our students in UK. Would any responsible Singaporean who supports human rights and democracy, have done less? Devan Nair was sent by the PAP government to the SI conference to defend Singapore. In Brussels, he labelled me a ‘communist’ which was carried in the papers in Singapore. It was the writing on the wall for my second arrest that came in mid-1976, even before Devan returned from Brussels.

However, the PAP government could not cite the above reasons for my re-arrest in 1976 and so the pretext must be sought in sensations like the Katong bomber and the fabricated Masai midnight trip. Interestingly, these events occurred (with one allegedly) two years before my re-arrest in 1974.

I think it would be more honest for Mr Gafoor to produce the 1976 charge sheet and the Government’s statement of facts (still to be proven legally) against me, and any subsequent amendments to it, for full public scrutiny instead of referring to the allegations in convoluted drips and drabs. It is never too late for the Singapore government to try me in an open court instead of hiding behind the Internal Security Act (ISA). In fact, Singapore is morally obligated to as a member of the United Nations that subscribes to the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights. Article 9 (4) of said covenant states:

Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

To repeat, with respect to the Katong bomber, I have challenged the High Commissioner to open up the files. All he had produced do far is bare assertion; he has yet to proffer evidence that I was a pro-communist with proof that the Katong bomber was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya. As I have pointed out in my previous text, I have reasons to believe that the outfit to which the bomber belonged is a fake radical group called the Singapore Revolutionary Party. 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.

Mr Gafoor alleged that I had ‘provided medical aid to the injured bomber through an ex-detainee’ and ‘supplied medicine through an ex-detainee to the 6th Assault Unit … between 1974 and 1976’.

Mr Gafoor framed the issue not as ‘treating’ but providing medical aid and medical supply. It is evident that the High Commissioner does not appreciate that the crux of this issue lies in medical ethics, – unlike his boss, Lee Kuan Yew, who had, at that time, called the bluff in the docile press that he would have me judged by my peers in the Singapore Medical Council and struck off the rolls. If indeed, I had contravened medical ethics, it is strange that to date, I have not heard from the august body and had, in fact, continued my medical practice in 1982 upon my second release.

Rule of Law

Mr Gafoor said that my statement that I have not treated any bomber — communist or otherwise — is a bare assertion. Let me remind Mr Gafoor that under the rule of law, an accused is not obliged to bring proof of his/her innocence. The onus is upon the accuser to bring proof beyond reasonable doubt in any criminal matter. Mr Gafoor’s very comportment belies that Singapore subscribes to the rule of law.

Furthermore, Mr Gafoor has also nothing to be very proud of in producing evidence of my ‘crimes of subversion’ extracted under torture from two ex-detainees. Under the Rules of Evidence, these are inadmissible evidence. No self-respecting courts would rely on such unsafe evidence. It is ironical that these admonitions on what is the rule of law should come from me, a medical doctor, and not a lawyer!

As to the allegation of ‘providing medical aid’ to the bomber via an ex-detainee, XX was suddenly and dramatically thrown into my interrogation room after being severely beaten up by the Special Branch. DSP Szeto and some 8 toughies were in the process of interrogating me. It was a disgusting scene with an injured person on the floor. I calmly told XX not to be afraid and just tell the truth. DSP Szeto was surprised and somewhat disappointed with my reaction. Later, the Special Branch produced his case notes, confiscated from the clinic and showed them to me. His diagnosis and treatment was written in the case notes. As a medical doctor, I had treated him for his sore throat.

As to the allegation of supplying medicine to the assault unit from 1974-76, I had known Ms YY as a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioner who had occasionally obtained free medical samples from me. It is not unethical nor a crime for a doctor to give out medicine. Her patients were known to her and not to me. Ms YY was forced to witness her husband being severely beaten in Whitley prison. There is no doubt in my mind as to why she signed that statement; I sympathised with her plight. The corroboration mentioned of the other ex-detainee was that of her husband, who was brutally assaulted.

A civilized nation should not resort to such barbaric practices. Unfortunately, Singapore is still in the dark period of the McCarthy era, where thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies, such that the term ‘McCarthyism’ is now associated with the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism. (Quoting freely from Wikipedia’s definition of McCarthyism.)

No human being should be subject to detention without trial. Much less any Singapore citizen in this post World War II era that witnessed the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, of which Singapore is a member state. We should always be mindful to afford any accused, the rule of law, lest we forget these great words of the eminent jurist, Robert H Jackson at the Nuremberg trial:

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

In my alternative vision of Singapore, Mr Gafoor sees Soviet Union!

Last but not least, in response to my vision of an alternative Singapore under the Barisan Sosialis if it could have come to power in 1963 via a fair and clean election instead of being crippled by the arrests of its entire moderate leadership under Operation Coldstore, Mr Gafoor resorted to scare mongering by associating the Barisan Sosialis with the Soviet Union! In all seriousness he asserted:

Hundreds of millions of people suffered misery and deprivation under the yoke of communist regimes, resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc in 1989. Yet Dr Poh asserts in all seriousness that Singapore would have enjoyed a glowing future if the communist-backed Barisan had gained power.

What is there that Mr Gafoor finds objectionable or akin to the Soviet Union, in my vision of an alternative Singapore under the Barisan Sosialis that I have laid out, where:

          There would be freedom of speech and assembly; the ISA would be abolished; and I would add, defamation and bankruptcy suits against political opponents would be outlawed through legislation;

          There would be social justice and economic dignity for the sick and disabled, the old and retired and other vulnerable groups, and I would add, guaranteed via their CPF and other governmental agencies;

          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);

          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 and I would add, we would introduce a proportional representative system and outlaw gerrymandering.

Let me end by saying I have every confidence that the aspiration for decency and humanity in ordinary Singaporeans will prevail and we will build a society based on solidarity and respect for human rights and democracy. It has been too long overdue!

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.

第三部分:

再议新加坡“争取合并的斗争”

傅树介发表于2015 2 2

傅树介照片

 

照理,本文的标题应该是《再议新加坡“争取合并的斗争”:第三部分》。可是,由于新加坡驻澳大利亚最高专员嘉福尔(Gafoor)先生偏离了原来围绕着合并与冷藏行动展开的辩论焦点,我只好跟着转移,改为谈论人民行动党半个世纪以来,随意作出不须在任何法庭上证实的指控,然后把反对者关进牢里的行径。

傅树介与老战友于2011年春节合照

左起:谢太保博士、傅树介医生、林福寿医生陈仁贵先生共同摄于2011年初春节

 

2014 年再议新加坡“争取合并的斗争”:历史的匮乏》一文,以英国档案局大量的解密资料,揭穿了李光耀电台十二讲所谓19632 2 日进行大逮捕是基于维安(维护国家或社会安全)的谎言。

最高专员在2014 12 18 日对我文章所作的第一次回应,我已经反驳过了。至于他2015 1 22 日的第二次回应,要对他那种致力于“全盘”检阅档案的做法作出答复,我怕只会白费力气,没多大意义。他显然很乐意于展示他如何利用历史文件,从中梳理出其意义(或毫无意义)的功力。

 链接:

 

 

最高专员其实该去留意新加坡此刻正在进行中的辩论。除了出于探索真相的目的,和1963 年事件没有其他关系的中立第三方出现了。

“公民在线”(The Online Citizen)和“名誉淡马锡论坛”(TR Emeritus)新近发表的连载文章(现在已刊出七篇),干脆根据最高专员引述的资料来源,找出这些资料真实的说法,进而有效地推翻了他每一篇所谓的文件论据。

最高专员明显在装聋作哑

我们发现,最高专员对他主子关于冷藏行动出于政治动机的自我供认,却明显在装聋作哑。要不然,他还能怎么样?他难道胆子大到敢说,李光耀写给薛尔克勋爵(Lord Selkirk)的那封信,纯粹是英国捏造的,换句话说,把英国叫做公然撒谎的骗子?

为便于读者记忆,容我引述我前文有关的部分:

我在这里要向李家的宣传大员们说,他们该去全盘查阅他的著述。

李光耀曾经直截了当地说,他是为了推进合并才同意开展冷藏行动的——那当然是政治,和维安毫无关系。在1963 2 12 日写给薛尔克勋爵的信中,李光耀说:

因为你的副手转达了你方政府坚决肯定对你方驻吉隆坡最高专员所持观点的支持,认为假如不同意展开逮捕,合并与组织马来西亚邦联的计划就会失败,我们才同意……因为你方政府对马来亚联合邦立场的这个评估,以及你保证会劝促他们不违背经已公开同意的合并条件,我们才对内部安全理事会的决定表示同意(内部安全理事会的决定,指的就是采取冷藏行动,进行大逮捕)。”

 

1963 年转移到1974-76 鉴于1963 年冷藏行动大逮捕的维安面纱,现在已经被彻底揭穿——不只是揭穿一小部分(感谢新加坡公众紧密跟踪这个课题,翻阅大量历史资料才有以致之),最高专员于是转移辩论的标的;他放弃了1963 年,一下子跳到1974-76 年,聚焦于对我在1976 年第二次被捕时所面对的未经证实指控:用另一个说法,他在重新耍弄人民行动党乱套共产党帽子的老把戏。

1963 2 2 日,我在冷藏行动下被捕,在未经审判情况下坐了十一年牢,至1973 年底才被无条件释放。我出狱后马上举行记者会,要求释放所有的新加坡政治犯。

在记者会上,我把李光耀叫做“政治皮条客”。这些都有记录可查。《远东经济评论》当时来采访我的记者艾沙夏普(Ilsa Sharp),还对以铁腕统治新加坡政治生态的人民行动党政府究竟能容忍我的挑战多久表示过担心。(见1973 12月出版的《远东经济评论》)

随后,我投身于建立人权委员会的工作,这是一个旨在为新加坡争取人权与自由的非政府组合(NGO)。临时委员会成员包括G 拉曼(G Raman),迈可佛南迪(Michael Fernandez),王木全(OngBok Chuan)和我。我们在第一次会议上决定要扩大委员会,邀请何约瑟神父(Father Joseph Ho)、魏雅聆医生(Gwee Ah Leng)与翁汉兴医生(Un Hon Hing,音译)加入。然而,在我们还没能开展任何活动前,我就被捕了。不久,G 拉曼、迈可佛南迪和王木全也全都被捕。

人权委员会成立的时间,凑巧和社会主义国际( SocialistInternational, SI)要求人民行动党政府对不经审判把政治犯关押超过十年的可怕记录负责这事碰在一起。(新加坡现在已经因为关押谢太宝比南非种族隔离主义政府关押尼尔森曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)更久而声名狼藉!)我和来自英国与瑞典的社会主义国际代表团见了面,向他们提供新加坡政治犯的信息与不经审判拘留的情况。我也将容纳相同资料的讲话录音带,寄给我们在英国的留学生。任何一个支持人权与民主的负责任的新加坡人,能不这么做吗?人民行动党政府派蒂凡那(Devan Nair)去出席社会主义国际会议,为新加坡辩护。在布鲁塞尔(Brussels),他把我贴上“共产党”的标签,新加坡的报章对此大事作了报道。我第二次被捕的凶兆,甚至在蒂凡那从布鲁塞尔回来之前,就已经在1976 年中浮现。然而,人民行动党政府不能用以上所述作为1976 年重新逮捕我的理由,于是便找了如加东爆炸案和生造出来的半夜赶赴马西(Masai)救人的煽情事件作为借口。有趣的是,这两起事故(其中一起是口说生造的)都是早在1974 年就发生的,即我重新被捕的两年以前。

我想,嘉福尔先生与其零星、迂回地谈论对我的指控,不如干脆把1976 年针对我发出的拘留令,以及政府陈述我罪状(仍待证实的罪状)的声明,连同后来所作的任何修改都一起公开出来,接受公众的审阅。这么做比较公道。新加坡政府仍然来得及起诉并在公开的法庭审判我,不必躲在内部安全法令的后面。实际上,作为联合国的会员国,新加坡在道德上有义务遵照联合国的公民与政治权利国际公约(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)。

该国际公约的第9(4)条规定:

由于受逮捕或拘留而被剥夺了人身自由的任何人,有权通过法庭进行诉讼,以便法庭不拖延地对他的被拘留是否合法作出裁决,假如拘留不合法,则由法庭下令开释。

我在此重申,针对加东爆炸案,我曾经向最高专员发出挑战,叫他公开有关的文件。他至今拿出来的仍只是空洞的片言只语;他还没有提供能证明加东爆炸案的炸弹手是马来亚共产党党员的证据,以佐证我是个亲共分子。如同我在前文所指出的,我有理由相信那炸弹手所属的组织,是一个叫新加坡革命党(Singapore Revolutionary Party的伪装激进的假组织。就如莱特(Lai Tek)以英国特务的身份渗透打进马共最高层,政治部(Special Branch)或类似的情报机关,如美国中央情报局(CIA)与英国军情六处(MI6)在间谍与反间谍的奸诈游戏中,也可能设立伪革命组织,利用被蒙在鼓里的无辜青年去从事极端暴力的行动。

嘉福尔先生指控我,“通过一名前被扣者给爆炸手提供医药援助”和“介于1974 年与1976 年期间……通过一名前被扣者给第六突击队供应药物”。

嘉福尔先生在加罪于我时,不说“医治”(treating)而改说是提供医药援助和供应药物。最高专员显然对该课题的关键牵涉到医务人员操守这一点很不开心——他不像他的主子,李光耀当时曾经向听话的报章大言不惭,说他要让我在新加坡医药理事会的同业来制裁我,撤销我行医的资格。奇怪的是,我要是当真有抵触医务人员操守的行为,作为专业自律团体的医药理事会为什么时至今日仍悄无动静。实际上,我第二次获释后还继续行医至1982 年退休为止。

法治嘉福尔先生说,我关于不曾医治过任何炸弹手——无论他是不是共产党——的声明,只是个空洞的辩辞。我要提醒嘉福尔先生,在一个法治的社会里,被告并没有责任提供证明自己无辜的证据。无论什么样的刑事案,提供可排除任何合理疑点的证据,都是起诉方的责任。

新加坡既然宣称是个法治社会,只好让嘉福尔先生深感失望了。

另外,嘉福尔先生利用对两名前被扣者动刑取得的供词,作为证明我有“颠覆罪行”的证据。他这么做,没什么值得骄傲的。根据证据法(Rules of Evidence),这些都是法庭不接受的证据。任何一个有尊严的法庭,都不会依赖这类不可靠的证据来判案。讽刺的是,这些关于什么是法治的原则,竟然要由我来说明。我是一名医疗病人的医生,我可不是律师!

为了指控我通过一名前被扣者给炸弹手“提供医药援助”,甲甲在被内安局严重打伤后,忽然并充满戏剧性地被丢进我所在的侦讯室里。司徒副警监(DSP Szeto,音译)和约八名壮汉当时正在盘问我。这样把一个受伤的人丢弃在地板上,真是令人恶心得很。我平静地告诉甲甲,别害怕,告诉他们实情。我的反应,让司徒副警监感到意外,也有些失望。后来,内安局把从诊所搜查到的甲甲的病例记录,拿出来给我看。病例记录上写着对他病情的诊断与治疗。作为一名医生,我给他看诊的是喉咙发炎。

至于对我在介于1974 年至1976 年间给突击队供应药物的指控。

我认识乙乙女士,她是一名传统中医师,偶尔从我这里拿些免费的药物样本。医生给出药物,没有抵触医务人员操守,也不犯罪。她的病人,只有她认识,我不认识。乙乙女士被迫在惠德里路监狱亲眼目睹丈夫被暴打。我毫不怀疑,这就是她签署供词的原因;我同情她的处境。被提出来作为佐证的另外一名前被扣者,就是她遭受冷酷殴打的丈夫。

一个文明的国家,不该采取如此野蛮的行为。不幸得很,新加坡仍然处在麦卡锡年代的黑暗时期。那个年代,数千名美国人被指控是共产党或共产主义同情者,成为被政府或私人行业调查团、委员会、机构进行高压调查与盘问的对象。因此,现在才有“麦卡锡主义”这个词,这个词和未正当考虑证据就动辄指控别人颠覆或叛国(特别是目的在压制异议或政治批评的情况下)的行为,紧密联在一起。(大致引自维基百科对麦卡锡主义的定义。)

任何人都不该遭受未经审判的拘留。新加坡是联合国的会员国,见证了联合国发表国际人权宣言的后二战时代的新加坡公民,更不该遭受如此待遇。在法治下,我们对别人作出任何指责时都应审慎为要,除非我们遗忘了杰出法学家羅伯特傑克遜(Robert H Jackson)在纽伦堡审判(Nuremberg trial)时所说名言:

我们千万不能忘记,我们今天审判这些被告的记录,就是明天历史审判我们的记录。把盛放毒酒的圣杯拿给这些被告喝下,犹如把它端近我们自己的唇边。

在我为新加坡描绘的另一种景观中,嘉福尔先生看见苏联!

最后但同等重要的一点。我为1963 年社会主义阵线如果在公平与干净的大选中获胜上台,而不是因全体温和派领导人都在冷藏行动下被捕而受挫的新加坡,描绘了一个我心目中的另一种景观。嘉福尔先生在对此作出回应时,采用散播谣言、蛊惑人心的恐吓手段,把社会主义阵线和苏联强行挂钩。他一脸严肃地宣称:

数亿人口在共产主义政权统治下受苦、遭受迫害,导致1989 年苏联倒台、苏维埃集团解体。然而傅树介医生却一脸严肃地宣称,假如以共产党为靠山的社阵上台,新加坡将有光明的前景。

在我列出的新加坡在社会主义阵线治理下的另一种景观中,嘉福尔先生到底找到什么该反对或类同于苏联的东西?我列出我心目中的另一种景观是:

——享有言论与集会自由;废除内部安全法令;我要在此补充,用来对付政治对手的毁谤与破产诉讼,将通过立法列为非法行径;

——生病与有残疾的人,年老与退休的人以及其他弱势群体,可享有社会正义和经济上的尊严,我要在此补充,以他们的公积金及通过其他政府机关提供这样的保障;

——再也没有人民行动党统治下的一波连接一波的恣意逮捕与不经审判的监禁,他们借此向人民制造白色恐怖以保住自己的权势。

指控教会与其他社会工作者为马克思主义者并加以逮捕的荒唐事不会发生;

——绝对不会有天文数字的部长薪金;不会有一个贫富两极化的社会;部长在就职时须宣布公开资产,禁止拥有可联同政府投资公司(Government Investment Corporations, GICs)一起投资的私人控股司;

——占领莱佛士坊,绝对不会被视为非法集会!!

——我们会积极促进健康、有活力的两党制,确保国会具备相互制衡机制,我要在此补充,我们会引进比例代表制(proportionalrepresentative system),把杰利蝾螈(Gerrymander)的“包赢”选区划分法宣布为非法。

结束前我要说,我有十足的信心,一般新加坡人追求正派与人道的意识将会抬头,我们将会成功建立一个团结的,尊重人权与民主的社会。这已经拖迟太久了!

傅树介医生曾经担任社会主义阵线副秘书长。先后两次被新加坡人民行动党政府以内部安全法令——允许不经审判关押的恶法——关进牢狱,监禁共达十七年。

 


留下评论

(中英文本对照)历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀——第一部分

 March 26, 2015

share from http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/TOC)

《公民在线》网-2015325

Your browser does not support native audio, but you can download this MP3 to listen on your device. 

Malaysia’s independent radio station, BFM 89.9 interviewed Thum Ping Tjin, Research Associate at the Centre for Global History at the University of Oxford and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, on Lee Kuan Yew’s

新书:1963年冷藏箱的50周年

Lee Chwi Lynn: So just for the uninitiated, because I think colonisation is a phrase that most of us will be more than familiar with, but decolonisation – I suppose that is the process of removing said colonisers?

Thum Ping Tjin: Yes, it kind of spans several levels, because on one level you have the very obvious transfer of power which is the term that the British like to use, because it’s very clear-cut. You lower one flag, then you raised the other flag and that’s it.

But at a deeper level you have to ask yourself, when you have a whole generation of political leaders in a colony who have been raised in the schools of the coloniser to think like the colonial power, and then you hand power to them, how much do they then defer from the interests of the colonial power?

So decolonisation is not just transfer (of) political power but it’s a process of social cultural change where we learn to adapt, in that we find our own identity, find our own past through the world.

And when we look at decolonisation in the context of Malaysia and Singapore, I think one figure that we had to talk about is of course Lee Kuan Yew, who was an important figure in shaping of Singapore and post separation from Malaysia. And its relatively safe to say that his legacy is Singapore.

Lee Chwi Lynn: So going back in time in 1965 when he was faced with the challenge of forming this nation state where one hadn’t existed before – how would you described his reaction to Malaysia’s expulsion of Singapore?

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, it is very interesting how you phrase that question because there are so many assumptions within that question that directly come from the way the Malaysia and Singapore governments have shaped (and) kind of portrayed the narratives of our history.

So the fact that they use 1965 as a significant date, the fact where you say that he was faced with a challenge of forming a nation-state, the one that never existed, and the fact that you say Malaysia’s expulsion of Singapore – of course, we see it differently in Singapore. The PAP says they voluntarily chose to leave but I think you really need to understand separation in the context of Malaysia in order to understand Lee Kuan Yew and how he saw things.

Because Lee Kuan Yew’s goal was to reunify Singapore with the rest of Malaya before the partition of Malaya in 1946, the people of Singapore and the people of the rest of Malaya – Malaya in the geographical sense being the whole peninsular – did not perceive Singapore as a separate entity, and the partition of Malaya into Singapore and the Federation was a very traumatic and destructive act and it was the avowed goal of politicians on both sides of the Causeway to reunify Malaya.

I mean, why should some white people from the other side of the world come and tell us on what should be one country, what shouldn’t be another country? And the fact is most Singaporeans had family or were even born north of the Causeway. So when the PAP was elected in 1959 the central plank of his campaign was reunification. In fact, every single political party that ran in 1959 campaign explicitly on a platform of merger with the Federation to the reunification of Malaya.

So in order for any political party to be successful – in 1957, a survey found 90% of Singaporeans in favour of merger – this was not just an ideal; it was, for a politician, something that you have to campaign openly for.

The problem is after Merdeka in 1957, Tunku Abdul Raman and the leaders of UMNO were less and less keen on merger and the fundamental fact was that if you have political parties based on race and you had reunification, there would be more Chinese than Malays in Malaya, I think 43.3 versus 43.1%. And that would then undermine UMNO’s political dominance.

So leaving aside any question about race and who is the rightful owners of the country – this is not a racial issue. Let us think of it as an electoral issue – you don’t want to dilute your own electoral base, so Tunku Abdul Raman and the other leaders said, why should we bring Singapore back in if it means that our hold on power will be loosened? They are politicians, they are pragmatic people, they know that they need to win elections so that’s why they became very unenthusiastic – increasingly unenthusiastic – about reunification.

Lee Kuan Yew, in order to reunify Malaysia had to play the race card very very strongly. He had to play the Communist card very strongly and he had to say Singapore was an existential threat to the Federation if it was outside of the Federation.

So that is the background, so after playing this card very strongly, you have merger but on terms in which Singapore is basically excluded from the rest of Malaysia. Sabah, Sarawak in the Federation – their citizens have certain rights. They can move around and vote wherever and they are equal. But Singapore, Singaporeans can only vote in Singapore. Singapore politicians can only run in Singapore.

Now put yourself in Lee Kuan Yew’s shoes. He has achieved merger and on the back of merger, let us  not forget he won the 1963 elections in Singapore as a consequence of all the events of merger, the deals and compromises. He was able to win an election which people had thought the PAP would lose. It was his big triumph, he has nothing else to turn to the electorate with, nothing else to campaign on in 1963 except merger, but there was such a massive success that they squeaked home.

Now, what is his next ambition? If you know Lee Kuan Yew, he is not going be satisfied with being in Singapore, he is a man of great ambition, he is a man with great towering intellect, he thinks he can do better than anyone else in Malaysia for Malaysia.

So he wants to go north, he wants to become Prime minister of Malaysia and therein you have the fundamental problem, because in order to now overturn the limitation of Singapore’s politicians being limited to Singapore, he now has to turn around and ignore everything he said between 1960 and 1963 or so, about Singapore being Chinese and dangerous and communist and now turn around and say, “No, we are all Malaysian and we should have a Malaysian Malaysia, we should all be equal.” And this of course, you know, (means) he has reneged on all his promises to Tunku Abdul Raman and after provoking in the worsening of the racial situation, now he’s trying to make an about face.

Lee Chwi Lynn: This is a massive reversal.

Thum Ping Tjin: Yes, massive reversal, and of course this then eventually leads to the conclusion on both sides. Basically by 1965, you have one of two options. Either Singapore leaves Malaysia or Kuan Yew leaves Malaysia, you know, leaves power.

And Lee Kuan Yew had a choice – do I keep myself in power by taking Singapore out, or do I ensure the future of Malaysia by taking myself out? And he made his choice: He chose to take Singapore out of Malaysia against the majority of his Cabinet, half of whom were Malaysia born, against the advice of his closest advisers. You know, Toh Chin Chye and Goh Keng Swee were both born in Malaysia and very passionately committed to the Malaysian ideal. Malaysia still could have worked but Lee Kuan Yew would never have been Prime Minister and that was the choice he made.

So faced with this choice in the challenge of forming a nation-state, to go back to your question: I think that he would have been incredibly, sorely disappointed; but he would have been very very relieved because now he was unchallenged once again as the leader of Singapore and he could do things his way as he saw best.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: So with all that you know with that background, with all the challenges that came with trying to put things together and having to take them apart again – how did that informed the first few years of Singapore’s growth, in the first years of Singapore’s creation as a nation-state?

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, he has to very much distinguish Singapore from the rest of Malaysia, and here again you see something very interesting, because from the moment he was elected in 1959 he had been seeking to create a Malayan identity.

 

They set up a na tional language Institute which sought to develop and teach Malay. Until 1957 or so, Singapore was the artistic intellectual capital of Malaya and it produced a lot of innovative Malay language literature and they wanted to develop that. But the moment we separated, suddenly you have to assert a separate identity for Singapore and because of all the racial issues and because of the majority, it became very natural to emphasise the Chinese identity, the English language identity to distinguish yourself from Malaysia and to now assert a whole new trajectory and identity for Singapore that is not Malayan but Singaporean.

So that really inform the first few years; and of course, you know you have to seek a new economic path, but again this was a huge tension with the central government. Because even though the merger agreement gave Singapore a lot of autonomy in terms of its economic policies, industrialisation, labour policies, they still face huge problems struggling with Kuala Lumpur, which had a far more protectionist attitude (compared) to Singapore, which is fundamentally a free-trade port. Cannot escape from that. So they were free of that for the first time in two years, so that also enabled them to quickly move in that direction.

历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀

 

您的浏览器的软件可能无法支持这个视频。但是,您可以下载MP3来聆听.

马来西亚独立电台BFM89.9邀请牛津大学全球历史中心的客座研究员和牛津大学东南亚项的协调员覃炳鑫博士就李光耀的逝世进行访谈。(译者按:覃博士也是《新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年纪念》(The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore)一书的共同作者之一。他撰写的文章是:《‘骨肉团聚’:新加坡中文社群与人他们对新马合并的观点》(Flesh and bone reunite as one body”Singapore Chinese-speaking and their Perspectives on Merge)。他还撰写了一篇极其重要的文章:《Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained林清祥被拘留是错误的!》https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/lim-chin-siong-was-wrongfully-detained)

冷藏行动中文版以下是访谈的全文中文翻译。(本中文翻译内容如与英文原文有不符之处,均以英文版本为最终的解释权。)

Lee Chwi Lynn: 由于缺乏有关这方面的知识,因此我想,殖民地化是一个术语。这是大家所熟知的。但是,非殖民化——我假设这是去殖民主义者的过程。

覃炳鑫博士:是的。这是跨越几个层次的。因为因在某种程度上它有非常明显的权力移。这是英国人喜欢使用的词句。因为这是非常明显的区分的。您降下一面旗帜,你又升起另一面旗帜。

但是,再深一层思考下去。你的问自己,在殖民地时代当一代人的政治领袖,他们在学校升起殖民的旗帜时是具有殖民地权利的想法的。接着,把权力移交给他们时,他们从殖民地哪儿可以获得多少利益?

所以,非殖民地化就不是一个纯粹政治权利的转移的问题了。这是一个社会文化进程的改变。我们必须尝试去接受它。为此,我们要通过是这个世界去寻找自己的过去。

当我们在看马来西亚和新加坡的非殖民化的情况时,我想,其中一个主要的任务我们必须谈及的当然就是李光耀了。他在塑造新加坡和新加坡从马来西亚分离后是一个极其重要的人物。相对安全的说,他的遗产就是新加坡。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 这样,让我们回到1965年,当他面对这个国家诞生时的挑战。这是前所未有的——您怎样看待新加坡被马来西亚驱出出去?

覃炳鑫博士:好的。您提出的这个问题是让人感到非常有兴趣的。因为,在这个问题上是有许多不同的假设的。马来西亚政府和新加坡政府对这个问题有着不同版本描述我们的历史。

所以,事实上他们把1965年视为是一个具有意义的日子。事实就如您所说的,他(指李光耀)面对着建立一个国家的挑战,这是前所未有的。正如您所说的,新加坡被驱出出马来西亚——当然,我们才能够方面来看这个问题是有不同的。人民行动说,他们是自己选择脱离。当时, 我想,您必须确实要真正的了解到(新加坡)从马来西亚分割出去的情况。这样,您才可能了解李光耀和他是如何看待这些事情的。

1946年前,马来亚与新加坡分割开来。因此,李光耀的目标是要新加坡与马来亚其他州重归统一。让新加坡人民和马来亚人民重新团聚在一起。马来亚在地理上的认知是整个马来半岛——这个马来半岛并没有把新加坡视为分割开来的一部分。把马来亚(半岛)和新加坡(岛)分割开来是一个极其沉重的创伤和具有破坏性。这就成了长堤两岸的政治家公开提出的政治目标(指新加坡岛与马来亚半岛的重新统一)。

我的意思是说, 为什么在地球的另一边的白人为什么要到这儿来告诉我们要成为一个统一的国家?或者不要成为一个统一的国家?事实上,许多新加坡人的家庭成员甚至是出生在长堤的北段。因此,1959年当行动党上台执政的运动核心任务就是重归统一。事实上,在1959年参与竞选运动的每一个政党在竞选纲领上都明确的的提出要新加坡与马来亚重归统一。

这就是说,如果任何一个政党想要取得选举的胜利——1957年的满意调查发现90%的新加坡赞成合并——这不仅仅是一个理想!而是每一个政治家在开展运动时必须公开声明的目标。

问题是在1957年的独立。东姑.阿杜拉曼和巫统的领袖对合并感不兴趣。问题实质的根本在于:假设一个政党的组成是建立在种族基础上,那一旦重归统一,那么马来亚将出现华人躲过马来人的情况。我想,这个比例大约是在43.3%43.1%之间,这样将会破坏巫统的政治优势。

让我们暂且把有关种族的问题搁置一边。问题是:我们的国家的真正主人是谁?——这可不是一个种族问题。让我们看一看选举的课题——稀释自己的选票。因此,东姑.阿杜拉曼和他的领袖说,为什么我们要把新加坡拉回来。这不是意味着我们会失去手中的权利吗?他们都是政客,他们是实用主义者,他们自己知道必须赢得选举。这样就是为什么他们这样的不乐观——在重归统一的课题上是极其不乐观的。

李光耀为了要马来西亚的重归统一必须热衷于操弄种族注意的牌,他必须热衷于弄共产主义的牌。他必须说,新加坡如果被排除在马来西亚之外将会存在极大的威胁。

就是这个历史背景。好了。(李光耀)在热衷于操弄了这些牌后,新加坡与马来西亚合并了。但是,新加坡与马来西亚合并的基本条件是建立在不属于不包括在马来西亚联邦的一个州。沙巴和沙捞越是属于马来西亚联邦的一个州——他们拥有和马来西亚其他州的公民一样的权利。他们可以在马来西亚联邦自由行动和拥有投票权,他们的地位和马来西亚人民一样是平等的。但是,新加坡人只能在新加坡内部旅行自己的投票权。新加坡的政治家只能在新加坡进行政治活动。

您为李光耀设身处地想想吧。他已经取得了合并和背靠合并。让我们不要忘记,他在新加坡赢得了1963年的大选是在一连串有关合并的事件上——这是包括了交易和妥协。当人们以为行动党会输掉(这次选举)时,他确实赢得了这场选举。这对他而言无疑是说一个极大的胜利。在1963的选举运动中,他除了有关合并的课题外,并没有任何(有利的条件)足以改变选民的支持。他就这样凯旋而归。

好了。现在他的另一个野心是什么?假设您了解李光耀。您就知道,他并不满足于自己留在新加坡。他是一个具有野心的人。他是一个属于高智商的人。他认为一旦加入马来西亚,自己可以比任何人做的更好。

因此,他北上了。他想要成为马来西亚的总理。其中一个根本的问题是,因为,与其现在推翻新加坡的政治家被限制在新加坡进行政治活动。他现在推翻和忘记了自己在1960年和1963年以及后来所说的有关新加坡的华人以及威胁和共产党的论调。他现在反过来说,“现在我们都是马来西亚人。我们必须要有一个马来西亚人的马来西亚。我们必须平等。”理所当然,您可以想象得到,这是他对东姑.阿杜拉曼所做的一切承诺的食言。在挑起和激化种族关系之后,现在他开始苦楚自己的真面目。

Lee Chwi Lynn: 是一个极大的倒退啊!

覃炳鑫博士:是的。这是一个极大的倒退。理所当然的接着就导致双方的结局。基本上在1965年,您可以有一到两个选择。要吗新加坡离开马来西亚,或者李光耀离开马来西亚。这就意味着李光耀失去了权力。

对李光耀而言, 他只有两个选择——是把新加坡从马来西亚开出来让自己继续保有权利。或者,我确保未来的马来西亚将把自己除掉?李光耀做出了决定:他决定把新加坡从马来西亚分割出来,这是与他的内阁向背的,因为超过一半的内阁成员是是在马来西亚出世的,特别是与他最亲近的顾问,杜进才和吴庆瑞。他们对马来西亚是有的理想是充满感情的。马来西亚可以继续存在,但是,李光耀却绝对不会成为马来西亚的总理,这就是李光耀做出的选择。

好了,现在回到您的问题。他面对着这个选择建立一个国家的选择。我想,同时非常失望的。但是,他得到了极大的解脱。现在,他已经再一次成为新加坡不可挑战的领袖了。他可以根据自己的设想做要做到事,这就是您所看到的。

Lee Chwi Lynn: 好了。依据您所知道的这些历史背景。那就是把所有的事情尝试放在一块儿和尝试把它们分开。——如何看待新加坡开始的几年的增长?在第一年新加坡被视为是一个非真正的国家。

覃炳鑫博士:是的。李光耀与马来西亚其他州有着很大的区别。在这点上,您可以看到一个有趣的问题。因为,当他在1959 年当选后。他就开始以一个马来亚人的身份出现。

他们设立了一个国家语文学院,目的在于推广和教导马来语。直到1957 或者之后,新加坡是马来艺术文化中心。它产生了许多现代化马来语文学。他们要推广开来,但是、当时(新加坡和马来亚)被分割开来了。突然间,由于种族问题和属于少数种族的关系,必须维护分割开来的新加坡身份。他就很自然的强调华人的身份了。英语本身就与马来西亚区分开的。而现在新加坡要维护新的轨道和身份不是马来西亚而是新加坡人本身。

因此,刚开始的几年是真正的不正常的。当然,您是知道,你必须寻找新的经济出路,但是,与中央政府还是存在着极其紧张的关系的。尽管合并的协议给予新加坡在经济上、工业上和劳工政策上拥有的很大自主权。他们还是面对做与吉隆坡直接按的巨大的问题。(与新加坡相比)这包括了更多的保护主义的态度,那就是自由贸易的港口的基本问题。这是无法避免的问题。在开始的两年是免费的。因此这就让它们可以迅速的朝着这个方向前进。(待续…………)

 

 


留下评论

光耀一生欺百姓、誉满天下哄世人

 我的说明:

 本篇文章原计划在李光耀之后几天就发表。但是,在网友的提议下延至今天发表;

  • 我不是一个没有悲天悯人之心的人。我也不是一个把慈善之心乱施予的人。我不会向一个在50年前双手沾满了我的同志与战友鲜血、又不公开承认自己已经犯下的法西斯罪行施以这样心;

  • 我也不是一个背着历史包袱的人。我不记仇。任何人在确凿的历史证据面前还不承认自己的错,还要指使他的下一代和追随着继续沿用当时加在我的同志和战友的莫须有罪名并继续对他们进行污蔑的人!对我来说,不论他是活着还是逝世,我绝对不会原谅他。

    特此说明。

 第四代行动党必须为李光耀以铁腕统治手腕、牺牲三大种族社会核心价值和消灭与变质民族文化换取经济繁荣第一世界地位承担历史罪责!

翡翠再完美清澈都有瑕疵!

李光耀以法西斯残酷手腕统治新加坡的历史问题-page-001 卜告

毛泽东把一个几个世纪四分五裂、战火连年的中国统一起来(除台湾岛以外),但是,死后连中国共产党人也提出需要三七开评价!

蒋介石尽管双手沾满了中国人民的鲜血、眉日亲美,但是在中国领土统一的问题的目标和建设台湾岛还是受到中国共产党人的赞赏的!

邓小平尽管为建设一个现代化的中国,让中国人民走向全世界、实现了毛泽东的中国立足于世界民族之林的伟大梦想,他自己也定下三七分账!

李光耀百年了。 2015年3月24日出版的《早报》头版标题:‘光耀一生、誉满天下’!? 您说这是真的吗?

早报-光耀一生、誉满天下

让我们给李光耀的一生结算一下吧!

李光耀靠欺骗左翼和人民两次得以上台掌权

50年代,新加坡各种族人民联合起来反对英国殖民主义者和争取新加坡的独立时期,左翼力量的支持和领导下,新加坡各阶层人民,特别是各族广大的劳动人民推翻了英国殖民主义者。

李光耀当年利用了华校中学生和各族工人、各阶层人民的不满,以维护工人的利益和社会的正义为幌子取得老百姓对他信任,让在当时成立的人民行动党站稳了落脚点,成为了人民行动党的秘书长。这是他第一次欺骗新加坡各族人民!

1959 年李光耀获得了英国人的默许下上台执政了。

李光耀在当年正式宣誓成为新加坡自治邦总理前还假惺惺的说明如果英国人不释放被林有福政府扣留的主要政治犯(极为林清祥、方水双、兀哈尔等人),他将不会宣誓就职。

这是李光耀在配合英国殖民主义者上演一场兑现大选的诺言的演技!

2013年出版的《新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年》这本书已经非常详细的揭露这是英国人为了积极配合李光耀的坚决要求’——释放了8名李光耀所宣称的与人民行动党有直接关系的的政治拘留者的一场政治秀!目的在于安抚当时的广大左翼工会组织和人民行动党内部的左翼成员的的要求吧了!

过后,李光耀对那些还继续被扣留在章宜监牢的政治拘留者采取了可以拖就拖的政策。在1959年举行的大选,当时行动党的竞选纲领是要废除英国1948年在马来亚实施的对付马来亚共产党的《紧急法律》和当时在马来亚半岛和新加坡的公开左翼进步力量的《公安法令》(后来改称为《内部安全法令》)。

可是,李光耀在释放了与行动党执政有直接关系的政治犯后就不了了之了。为此,当时的左翼力量开始对李光耀采取了坚决的惩罚行动!行动党在当时举行的安顺区和芳林区的补选遭到了他自1959年取得执政上台以来最大的挫折!

对此,李光耀并没有悬崖勒马!他把这两场补选的失败归罪于以林清祥为首的行动党内部左翼领导人。

事实上,李光耀后来的电台12透露了自己在这两场补选前已经和马来亚共产党打过招呼了。 就李光耀而言,他认为,以林清祥为首的行动党内部的左翼力量和职工会都是在马来亚共产党的直接领导下,只要搞定马来亚共产党,行动党内部的左翼力量和职工会都会主动的与他合作。

正如林清祥当时写给《海峡时报》的信里所说的,李光耀在这两场补选进行期间,通知行动党内部的选举委员会不要让以林清祥为首的被释放的8名左翼工会领袖参与竞选活动!

 见链接;https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/

经过了这两场补选失败后,事实上李光耀自己终于看到了一个自己判断错误、不可改变的事实:以林清祥为首的行动党内部的左翼力量和工会组织并不是接受马来亚共产党直接领导的外围统一战线的成员和外围组织

为此,李光耀下定决心要清除以林清祥为首的行动党内部的左翼力量和工会组织。英国人为了保住其在远东区的政治、军事和经济利益,让当时的马来亚联合邦总理东姑.阿杜拉曼提出了大马来西亚联邦计划

狡奸巨猾的李光耀不失时机的利用的这个契机,把彻底消灭新加坡的左翼力量的冷藏行动计划付诸于行动中!从此,对于当时的李光耀而言,他已经不再需要把自己伪装成为一个社会主义者了!

接着,李光耀当时的下一个目标是要与马来西亚的马华公会会长陈修信争当英国人在远东区专门控制华族的总管!他提出了马来西亚人的马来西亚的口号!为此,立即引起的了马来西亚巫统党内的极端种族主义者的警惕和不满。

李光耀是一个从来就不敢公开承认自己错误的大骗子 李光耀不顾一切鼓吹新加坡不加入马来西亚将会是一场浩劫的神话,终于在609天后彻底破灭!——李光耀被马来西亚巫统赶出了马来西亚联邦!李光耀被迫在1965年宣布新加坡共和国独立

请所有在80后出世的新加坡同胞们记住:

李光耀是在89日这一天自己宣布新加坡共和国独立!但是,至今,他没有就自己在609天所说的话做出任何的歉悔或者说明!李光耀在1965年8月9日宣布的不是脱离英国殖民统治而独立,而是脱离马来西亚独立!这就是说,新加坡加入马来西亚前的地位是英国殖民主义统治下的新加坡自治邦。 1959年行动党上台时,李光耀当时是宣誓成为新加坡自治邦的总理!过后,新加坡自治邦加入马来西亚联邦,成为其中的一个州!

李光耀与马来西亚巫统之间的矛盾公开化。在19658月9日被迫主动宣布新加坡退出马来西亚成立新加坡共和国后。李光耀非常明白,巫统絕對不会让李光耀的新加坡共和国生存下来!因此他就开始着手建设新加坡共和国!

直到2015323日李光耀逝世那一天为止,他并没有对自己在新加坡共和国成立之前所发生的一切事件发表过正式和公开的谈话。这就是李光耀!

李光耀的建设成就就是牺牲前辈们所凝集的社会价值观支离破碎、民族文化被彻底消灭!

行动党在歌功颂德李光耀建设新加坡的丰功伟绩!就是要年轻一代的新加坡人,特别是90年代后出世的新加坡人和全世界都相信事实真相的一面!

咱们就给李光耀在过去50年里建设新加坡共和国所取得成绩,新加坡人民付出的代价算一笔帳。(以下所罗列的各项是从1963年的冷藏行动开始前直到21世纪,没有李光耀的李光耀时代为止。)

1.捏造莫须有罪名,在196322日的冷藏行动以及其后一系列的逮捕了所有反对新加坡加入马来西亚计划的左翼政党和工会组织的领导人,为自己的法西斯行径合法化掩饰;

2.无限期和不经审讯的拘留政治犯、去强迫他们接受在电视台或者主流媒体发表谴责暴力革命忏悔自己过去的一切活动作为释放的条件,作为彻底摧毁政治异议分子的思想意识;以起诉破产、威胁逮捕的手腕,迫使异议分子流亡在全世界;

已故林福寿医生说了以下的这段话,足于证明李光耀以莫须有罪名逮捕左翼组织领导人:

I met Chin Ping about four years ago, when he came to Singapore to speak at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. It was at the invitation of Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. During the talk, he said that they were not prepared at that time. The British were arresting all the communists. He said when lee Kuan Yew formed the PAP in 1954,he asked the Communist Party of Malaya to help him to start the PAP. How didi lEE Kuan Yew contact all these people? I don’t know. Chin Ping said “we sent a few cadres to help him.” So what role they played , I din’t know. (extracted from <Remrnbering of DR. Lim Hock Siew OUR FREEDOM FIGHTER> page 40)

四年前当陈平受李光耀和吴作栋的邀请到东南亚研究进行演讲时我见到了陈平。。在谈话中,陈平说,当时他们(马共)尚未。准备好。英国人已经逮捕了所有的马来亚共产党员。他说,在1954年要人民行动党要成立时,李光耀要求马来亚共产党给予协助。李光耀说这样与这些人(马来亚共产党员)联系的?我不知道。陈平说,“我们派来几位干部帮助他们(人民行动党)”。这些人当时是扮演什么角色?我不知道。(《向坚定的自由战士林福寿医生致敬》第40页)”

3.关闭南洋大学、变质华校中学制度、把华社开办的小学以各种借口一一关闭或变质为以英语为主要教学媒介的华校;迫害华文教師、维护华文文化生存的陈六使先生为首华社领以及数以百计的华校教师;造成目前华人后代不懂自己的母语文化;

4.精英治国为幌子,无限制和无限量的引进外来移民,从而造成今天新加坡都充斥了外来移民;

5.居者有其屋的幌子,把大量的居民从乡村地区迫迁到政府组屋。这是李光耀为了消灭广大乡村地区的群众当年支持社阵和乡村组织的计划的一部分。最后,李光耀的居者有其屋变成了今天套在老百姓脖子上的一条永远扯不断的铁锁链!——因为组屋价格一再上涨,老百姓成了李光耀的居者有其屋政策下的终身房奴,行动党成了全世界最大的房地产发展商!老百姓再也无法也不敢为社会的正义和良知发声!

6.工运现代化劳资政铁杆关系的指导下,李光耀把以林清祥为首的左翼工会(SATU)关闭,让自己培养的工贼帝凡那成立目前的NTUC。他们培养了自己的工会干部、在争取和改善工人的工作条件的待遇时采取了压制工人的不满的立场!他们引进了大量的外来产业工人,从而改变了个人队伍的结构新加坡工人不再是新加坡各行业工人的骨干。这样一来,他们就不会成为,也不敢反对行动党的亲资方(特别是大量的跨国企业)的政策;外来劳工从此成了压制新加坡工人要求提高薪金的砝码;

 

7.在新加坡走向世界、企业改革现代化和引进跨国企业的幌子下,李光耀采取了威权手段挪用了人民的公积金设立投资公司新加坡政府投资有限公司(GIC)和淡马锡控股集团目前已经成为一个新兴和新型的官僚买办集团!行动党政府控制的国家企业和与政府有直接和嫁接关系的企业(简称政联企业)垄断和操纵了新加坡的各行各业。跨国企业和大量外资与这两家企业集团结成投资伙伴在新加坡进行各种投机倒把的商业活动。中小型民营企业面临着破产或者成为它们附属的下游供应链之一;

8.为了加强和巩固自己的政权,不惜滥发公民权和永久居留权给予外来移民和外来劳工及其家眷,造成了物价高涨老百姓生活日益艰辛、基本社会基础设施无法满足老百姓的需求、外来移民的孩子涌入造成老百姓的孩子读书难和上学难、青年人面对工资低、工作时间长,无法在职场上与外来移民竞争、社会的治安日益恶化;

9.为了控制老百姓领取养老退休金,李光耀不断的提高公积金存款顶限和提高工人退休的年龄,造成老百姓无法,也不敢退休!目前,在新加坡的各个负责维持卫生清洁工作的都是年龄以届满65岁以上的年长国人!

50年过去了。土生土长的新加坡人及其后代都在各个层面遭受李光耀的独霸独行的政策的欺凌(因为很多网民已经网上列出李光耀数不尽的恶霸行径了。这里咱们就不一一阐述了)。这个欺凌政策至今还未终止。 李光耀直到他临终的遗愿也不对这些事件作出公开的交代!

可以毫不客气的说:

行动党的党棍、走狗和御用文人在歌功颂德李光耀的光耀一生”,这就是:

欺压新加坡人民!

夺了人们的基本权利和权益!

践踏人权的一生!

行动党的党棍、走狗和御用文人在歌功颂德李光耀的誉满天下就是:

新加坡是让大量的外来移民和跨国企业资本家摧毁土生土长的前辈们凝集的核心社会价值观,作为赢得了跻身第一世界的美誉的代价!

李光耀走了。李光耀对在过去50年历史事件是否会后悔?我看,他不会!绝对不会!如果李光耀会后悔,那个后悔的人绝对不是李光耀!

50年过去了。李光耀走了。李光耀对上述历史事件是否要反驳?我看,他要!而且绝对会从棺木跳出来反驳!因为他活着都不对这些历史事件感到忏悔!否则,他将不会寿终正寝!他的幽魂将会在新加坡的上空游荡!

50年后的今天,我们不必理会李光耀会不会后悔!我们也不需要担心李光耀的幽魂是否会在新加坡上空游荡!这是李光耀个人的事!

死亡,这是人生老病死的必然规律。不论李光耀愿不愿意,他和我们每个人一样都得走完这个过程!

我不是西方极乐世界的如来佛或者观世音!我没有哪个法力引领他前往极乐世界!

我也不是抓鬼神的钟馗!我没有哪个法力把李光耀抓到阎王殿去接受阎王的审判!

我当然不会笃信恶有恶报的因果论,因为恶人的罪恶行径已经给我们的前辈及子孙后带来的罪孽已经历历在目、看见了!不是预见的后果了。

反正,李光耀就是:

光耀一生欺百姓

在这里咱们也谈一谈外国政府和外国人有关誉满天下的事。

对于外国领导人发表对李光耀的诵词,我们可以理解。因为这是符合‘1954年印尼万隆会议的精神:互不干涉他国内政的外交,各国人民有权选择自己本国的社会制度原则下,国与国之间的外交言辞的往来。要不要采纳李光耀的那套统治手腕,那是各国政府自己事。

对于外国人民(不论在新加坡工作、学习、旅居和投资)或者刚成为新加坡新移民的外国移民对李光耀表示感激之恩,我们也是可以理解的。因为,他们正在享受着土生土长的前辈以及土生土长的新加坡三大种族及其后代用鲜血和汗水建设起来的新加坡这一切!但是,他们并没有经历过前辈以及我们所经历的那段艰苦岁月!他们并没有为目前的这一切付出高昂的心血代价!他们只是用金钱购买和使用我们已经建设起来的这一切

这些新移民在新加坡今后遭遇不可预见的灾难时是否会和我们土生土长的新加坡人后代一样与这块土地共存亡,历史将会给予我们明确的答案!

 

我们并不需要与那些居住在新加坡的外国人和外国人争论有关李光耀的功过!因为这是没有意义的!他们对咱们的祖国是怎样诞生?前辈们为争取祖国人民的自由、民主和平等的斗争所做的一切牺牲经历,根本就一无所知或者一知半解!

为什么世人会对李光耀过去半个世纪的法西斯统治一无所知呢?

在上个世纪70年代,李光耀在完成了对左翼组织中进行血腥镇压后,接着就对公开媒体展开了一场名为“黑色行动”的镇压。全面肃清了在公开媒体不同意或者不愿意与李光耀合作的媒体人。在学校的课本全面的歌颂李光耀的‘建国功绩’和‘把新加坡的左翼组织领导人形容为是马来亚共产党的成员或同情者;把左翼组织形容为是马来亚共产党外围组织或受马来亚共产党渗透的亲共组织’。

在长达半个世纪 ,因此,不仅仅是外国人,就是在90年代后出世的新加坡人完全无法知道上个世纪60-80年代李光耀法西斯统治的暴行以及发生的所有事件。

所以李光耀就是:

誉满天下哄世人

对李光耀的人民行动党和第四代行动党人来说,在李光耀死后纷纷呼吁全国人民要在李光耀死后团结一致,继续共同建设未来新加坡!?他们是要向那些人喊话?

如果他们是向那些新移民喊话,那就看李光耀所积的阴德了!

如果他们是向咱们土生土长的新加坡人及其后代喊话?特别是超过40%的人民喊话,特别是在50年前在李光耀的法西斯手腕统治下遭受迫害和至今还流亡国外的当事人及其家属亲戚朋友而言,那就得看第四代行动党人了!

新加坡是我们祖辈及土生土长的后代用鲜血和汗水建设起来的国家!我们没有理由让自己的祖国推向水深火热的深渊!

我们不是要背着历史的沉重包袱嫉恨终身!所有在50年遭受李光耀法西斯统治手腕迫害人及其家属就是要向第四代行动党讨个说法!就是要在新加坡见过史册上给予平反!

第四代行动党人必须承认如下历史事实:

1. 从1954年行动党成立到1959年李光耀的上台执政:这是依靠了当时的左翼组织领导老百姓进行反对英殖民主义运动时牺牲生命扶持起来的!林清祥和他的同志是领导实现这场运动的杰出领袖!不是李光耀!

2.1961年开始直到1963年新加坡加入马来西亚联邦计划前,李光耀捏造和指责以林清祥为首的左翼领导人是接受马来亚共产党的指示、以社阵为首的新加坡左翼政党和组织是马来亚共产党外围组织所进行的反对李光耀提出的新加坡加入马来西亚联邦计划假合并条件是是一项要消灭新加坡左翼力量的阴谋!以林清祥为首的左翼领导人当时反对李光耀提出的假合并条件是正确的!

3.1963年李光耀利用英国人致使当时的马来亚首相东姑阿拉曼提出的马来西亚联邦计划,以及其后在70年代和80年代以莫须有罪名、不经审讯逮捕、监禁政治拘留者、迫使他们上电视台和报章上发表所谓的悔过声明是事实!是违反新加坡宪法约定的人民拥有言论、结社、结社和集会的权利基本人权! 必须让那些为逃避李光耀的政治迫害被迫流亡的爱国者无条件的回国与家人团聚!

4.在1965年新加坡被迫退出马来西亚是证明了李光耀当年提出的新加坡加入马来西亚是唯一不可避免的选择是一项不可原谅的错误!李光耀必须承担当年发生的种族骚扰的责任。

5.李光耀时代必须承认吊销陈六使老先生的公民权、迫害数百名华社民族资本家、华校中小学教师是为了进一步控制整个华族社会、消灭和变质华文教育、造成今天母语是华族的第二语文!

6.李光耀在新加坡脱离马来西亚独立后,进行的所谓的城市重建计划是一个幌子,其真正的政治目的是要把广大支持左翼的新加坡乡村地区的群众瓦解!即便是在这个城市重建计划本身也违反了吴庆瑞当时的设想:要给新加坡的劳苦大众一个廉价的安身居所的概念!今天,居者有其屋已经不再是老百姓的安身居所了!它已经成为了套在老百姓脖子上一生无法解开的绞索铁链!

 

7.李光耀时代不断修订和制定的公积金法律条款已经违背50年前设立的公积金制度的原来宗旨!必须恢复到当年无条件的让所有年龄届满55岁的国人领取公积金户头的退休金安心度过晚年!以及在公积金使用条例下有关年长者使用公积金支付医药保健的限制条例!

8.李光耀时代为了巩固自己的政权,在假借为了加强国际竞争能力,必须对华文教育改革而华校全面英文化、提高南大的国际学术水准而把南洋大学关闭。这是李光耀在与林清祥为首受华文教育的左翼进行斗争的经验已经告诉他,必须彻底的消灭华文教育在华人社会的影响!

9.李光耀时代不惜利用国家的储备金设立官营企业和政联企业与外国跨国集团控制新加坡的经济命脉,彻底摧毁了新加坡民族资本家及其企业!同时,必须把已经挪用的公积金款额全部连本带利拨回全体公积金会员的户头。

10.李光耀时代挪用公积金资金投资组成和形成的新型官僚买办集团(政府投资有限公司和淡马锡控股集团以及它们直属或附属、全资或参股的国内企业)必须立即退出参与国内经济竞争!让国内的中小性企业在自由、平等和公平的环境进行竞争!

11.李光耀时代为了改变新加坡的社会人口结构组成,以便自己能够容易控制新加坡,不惜无限制和无限量的引进外来移民,造成今天的社会出现分裂!

结束语

美国是全世界上移民最多的国家,为什么美国人民可以同心同德建设美国?那是因为林肯总统发表了《解放黑奴》的宣言!—— 承认了所有有色人种的基本人权!

在蒋介石统治下的台湾的人民,为什么能够后来成为亚洲四小龙之一?那是因为蒋介石的儿子蒋经国在60年代中号召台湾人民放弃蒋介石的《反攻大陆》的幻想,一心一意建设台湾!为什么蒋经国会获得台湾人民尊重!那是因为蒋介石逝世后不久,蒋经国让被软禁了几十年的张学良立即无条件的回复自由行动!

为什么中国共产党人能够在中国人民大会堂的红地毯的一端与来自红地毯另一端的国民党主席连战握手,结束共产党与国民党长达半个世纪的恩怨、打破台湾海峡的隔阂?那是因为双方敢于面对过去的历史!

为什么经过几十年种族歧视的南非黑人与白人能够携手共同建设新南非?那是因为南非白人领袖向全世界承认了自己犯了种族歧视的罪行,南非的黑人领袖曼德拉主动抛弃历史的创伤!

李显龙和第四代行动党领导人有没有林肯总统的远见?有没有蒋经国的勇气!有没有中国共产党人和台湾国民党人的宽大胸怀!有没有曼德拉的大智!

不知道。

咱们只知道,第四代行动党也应该知道,李光耀用法西斯手腕统治新加坡超过半个世纪的时代是绝对一去不复返!

新加坡是属于全体新加坡人民的!不是李光耀的私人遗产!更不是行动党祖先留给他们的!

第四代行动党人要全体新加坡人民一起同心同德建设一个没有李光耀的新加坡第四代行动党人必须:

1.实事求是的承认李光耀确实在历史犯上了的罪行!所有在过去半个世纪遭受李光耀政治迫害的爱国、进步、民主人士必须得到平反!必须立即无条件的让所有目前还继续被迫流亡国外政治受害者们回国与家人团聚!

2.公开承诺实现新加坡共和国宪法约定下人民享有真正的自由、民主和平等的基本权利!

3,所有在李光耀时代所实施过时的法律法令和不符合土生土长新加坡人的政策必须立即废除或修订!

我们反对的是一个由李光耀生前已经制定和实施的引进外来移民的路线!不是李光耀个人!

我们要求的是第四代行动党彻底放弃李光耀的引进外来移民的路线下制定的所有法律、法规和政策!

第四代行动党只有在认真看待和实现这些基本原则的基础上,才会赢得全体新加坡人民同心同德建设一个没有李光耀统治阴影的新加坡!

justice now


留下评论

南大校友會:當年關閉南大‧“壓制華教,不可原諒”

转载自马来西亚《星洲日报》

(雪蘭莪八打靈再也23日訊)馬來亞南洋大學校友會認為,新加坡建國總理李光耀所領導的政府在關閉南洋大學,壓制華教方面,是不可原諒的。

馬來亞南洋大學校友會今日發表文告,如是指出。

文告指出,關於李光耀對新加坡的經濟建設和貢獻已有很多的報道,該會則針對李光耀的華文教育和文化政策表達看法。

華裔失去母語教育權利

該會認為,在這方面,歷史上有許多不可磨滅的記載,首先是無理漠視民族權益而關閉由馬新兩地人民共建的南洋大學;其次是壓制華文教育,導致華文中、小學式微,癱瘓華文教育體系和文化的根基,令一個佔有新加坡人口75%的華裔人群失去母語教育權利。

在基本人權方面,他領導的政府以莫須有的罪名,褫奪了母校創辦人陳六使的公民權,因政見不同而囚禁我們的同學謝太寶長達20多年。我們的同學因其政策而被令停學、開除、逮捕,驅逐出境多達數百人,是世界高等學府受摧殘之最。

該會認為,李光耀的語文政策將英文提到最高地位,壓制母語教育,使得新加坡人民的精神文明處於無根狀態,歷史已有證明。

關於新加坡物質文明方面的建設,馬來西亞南大校友會認為,大家不能忽視新加坡200多年以來都是東南亞的最重要商業和經濟中心,憑著其優良的地理位置、勤勞人民和工商界的貢獻而取得的成績,將這一切榮耀歸功於李光耀是不恰當的。

 


留下评论

李光耀前总理署政务次长、马来亚共产党员 陈新荣:谈谈李光耀和我

本文转载自《柔佛州老友会》2015年03月23日  作者:陈新嶸

 

陈新荣

 

羊年春节期间传来「李光耀走了」的消息。昨日,他真的走了。

 

好些朋友认为,这位大人物身边有成群顶尖大医生不分日夜轮班照顾,他们一定会尽力让他至少能在病床上渡过8月9日新加坡独立建国的50週年国庆,以至能看到他的亲友在9月16日祝贺他92岁生日。

 

我年轻时曾经和李光耀共事,支持他反抗殖民统治。后来「道不同不相为谋」也就分手了。我离开家乡新加坡52年,超过了半个世纪。

 

2006年我无奈又庆幸地成了泰国公民。这些年,我多次趁节假日到马来西亚探亲访友,但还不能越过新柔长堤和弟妹们甚至是短暂的团聚,除非接受哪些有损个人尊严的条件,低头「认错」,「自愿向当局交待过去的一切」。明摆著的是:李光耀对我「背叛」他,还是耿耿于怀。也就是说,李光耀欠缺前马来西亚首相马哈迪的气量。儘管如此,当我看到李光耀病危的消息,我还是希望他多活些日子,感受感受英国人离开后一切由他说了算的那些他亲手培植的接班人能否顶得住他不想看到的世態变化。

 

已经有传媒开始论述「后李光耀时代」和李光耀凭铁腕治理新加坡的功过。人们对这位很怕被人遗忘的老人的一生事跡功过,会怎样「打分」?我认为取决于打分者所处的阶级地位、所持立场、所受的是当代西方教育或东方传统教育,以及打分指標有没有包括道义和民族骨气。

 

李光耀在新加坡执掌政权好几十年,被他的接班人列为「建国一辈」的新加坡公民,没有谁不知道他一向来多么讲求「实用」,以及怎样对待他的各式各样的竞爭对手。新加坡位于马六甲海峡咽喉,是个兵家必爭之地,长期以来在东南亚和南亚地区较劲的英国、美国、日本和中国执政者们,尤其熟悉李光耀的机灵且容易配合。这就使李光耀成了国际名人,李光耀的名字总是和新加坡连在一起。

 

客观地说,新加坡被踢出马来西亚之后,李光耀把这个曾经被方壮璧认为是「怪胎」的岛国治理得井井有条,既成绩显著,罪孽可不算少,有功也有过。依我看,无论人们將如何爭论他的功过是3比7或4比6甚至对半分,大都会同意:他的「功」是新加坡人民付出沉重代价换来的;他的「过」则出自他的唯我独尊、独断独行。

 

重用之际也受关注

 

这个春节期间我到柔佛新山探亲访友,在会晤趁假日专程来敘旧的新加坡朋友们的时候,大家除了互相问候近况之外,话题自然免不了谈到李光耀。他们催促我赶快把人们已知及未知的我和李光耀相处的陈年旧事写下来,以免误传。他们当中有一位提醒说:「当儿子的未必知道老爸的一切。」是的,这使我想起新加坡英文《海峡时报》2009年出版的那本《白衣人》。那本书有一章专谈陈新嶸。说李光耀选择陈新嶸当「最高助理」和「深为信赖的朋友」,在用陈新嶸做总理署政务次长之前,不是不知道陈新嶸是个「和马共有关係的顛覆分子」。我发觉《海峡时报》这本书,把陈新嶸当次长的权力夸大到当事人本身也不敢相信。现在確实有必要让读者朋友们瞭解实际情况啦!其实李光耀在「重用」陈新嶸的同时,也佈置不少人(包括和陈新嶸一起工作的行动党干部、立法议员、政务次长)向他打小报告。还有,在总理署的公务员中有位曾经被王永元下令迁出市长公署、后来被李光耀重用的、直接听命于「凤凰园」的英国MI-5特工,更不曾放鬆对陈新嶸KEEP AN EYE。

 

陈新荣合照

我不否认,从1957年李光耀找我帮他把演讲稿翻译成华文、教他学讲华语。

 

我当时十分敬重这位意气风发、替工人爭取权益的左派律师,我尽量把自己当过华文小报记者的见闻告诉他,让他瞭解华人社会,拉近他和受华文教育者的距离。就这样,他和我的交往日趋密切。他邀我陪他到马六甲办案,拉拢崇拜印尼前总统苏卡诺的巫统干部,还好几次邀我陪他一家大小到福隆港度假,等等。经过將近两年的零距离考察,他对我日趋信任和器重。且举两个例子作为说明。

 

例一:他僱用我做设在人民行动党总部的《新加坡职工会咨询研究所》唯一的一名调查员,主要职务却是负责编写出版行动党的华文机关报《行动报》等文字宣传。李光耀告诉我,林有福政府的政治部的某某高官,主张把他抓起来和封闭行动党。我记得很清楚,李光耀秘书长当时坦率向我披露说,他没把握这种事会不会发生,但他相信,即使连他也被抓,顶多3个月英国人就得放他出来协助恢復社会安寧。他说,那块掛在行动党总部的《职工会咨询研究所》招牌,是「以防万一的『救生圈』,可以靠它保存行动党的文件和党员名册!」

 

放下个人恩怨

 

例二:李光耀当上自治邦总理不久,我陪他一起到霹雳州《马来前锋报》创办人尤索夫·伊萨克(Yusof Bin Ishak)的家,邀请他出来当新加坡最高元首(Yang di-Pertuan Negara)。他告诉我,这位阅歷丰富的老报人非常瞭解马来亚各州苏丹,包括各州苏丹子女的姻亲关係。在宣誓就任最高元首之前,尤索夫来到新加坡总理署见李光耀,我照例先让来访者在接待室稍侯。

 

我按照李总理吩咐,告诉这位我所尊敬的马来新闻界知名前辈,將来在薪金方面,得按照行动党中委会的规定,需对党有所贡献。

 

为了说明李光耀和我之间个人恩怨的另一面。不妨也举两个例子。

 

 

例一:我离开行动党和林清祥、李绍祖医生一起发起成立「社会主义阵线」成了反对党议员后,我的从事新闻工作的弟弟,没有参加任何非法组织和非法活动,却在1963年的「冷藏行动」中被捕,而且好一段时期被单独关禁,精神临近崩溃。他迄今还没摆脱被单独关禁阴影的纠缠,身体非常虚弱。他避免和我有任何联繫。他是华文版《李光耀回忆录》三名翻译者之一。

 

例二:吴庆瑞对我说过:「一旦成立马来西亚,你就得自我保重」。当我感觉形势不对头,唯有选择离开了新加坡。在印尼过流亡生活期间,有一年我的从事小工商业的父亲申请去中国大陆治病,移民局官员回答他说:「可以去不可以回!」。我父亲在1975年病逝。我母亲去世时,我的那个在「冷藏行动」被捕的弟弟,获得批准离开拘留营半天,代替我这个不孝的长子披麻戴孝,向遗像上香跪拜和扶柩。

 

俗话说:「往事如烟」,今年6月我將满82岁。早在2003年,我就对来合艾做访谈的新加坡英文《海峡时报》高级撰稿员梁荣锦说过:

几十年过去了,何以李光耀先生不能站在歷史的高度、以拋开党派成见的胸怀回顾过去?

 

 

对个人恩怨「放得开」也好,「放不开」也好,我相信老人李光耀已经想不起很多往事了。

 

西方有位著名思想家和哲学家说过:「存在决定意识」。的確,我们每个人的思想观点以至喜怒哀乐,都不是与生俱来的。

 

 

每个人的教育、际遇、人生观、价值观各有差异,但都是时代的產物,离不开他所生存的社会环境的影响。因而,即使是凡夫俗子的生平事跡也反映著他那个时代的方方面面。在朋友们很不耐烦的催促下,我將在日常琐事、上网、看报之余,把我和李光耀相处的往事凭记忆一一写下来,或许可供史学者们参考

 

 

 

 


留下评论

左派運動領袖林清祥

林清祥 2-page-001本文转载自《泰和联》https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1431366570490801&id=100008524153148&substory_index=0

 

—— 五評賽扎哈利政治回憶錄(作者:飛揚日期: 8-9-2001 来源:星洲互動http://mag.sinchew-i.com/feiyang/index.phtml…

賽扎哈利的政治回憶錄中也提及五六十年代極出名的左派領袖林清祥。他是在1956年被人民黨主席阿末布斯達曼介紹給賽扎哈利相識,在場的尚有拉惹古瑪醫生和傅樹楷醫生。當時林清祥只有23歲,但已是名震新馬。

李光耀的回憶錄中這樣說:“1954年下半年的一個星期天早上,兩個年輕人到來。他們自稱來自新加坡巴士工友聯合會,一個是林清祥,另一個是方水雙。我深信能把他們爭取過來。我向他們解釋,我打算組織一個政黨。兩個星期後,他們到來,準備跟我一起組織政黨。我要他們成為發起人,擔任新加坡巴士工友聯合會受薪秘書的方水雙表示會成為會議召集人,林清祥暫不參加。

(1954年11月21日,人民行動黨正式成立,第一屆中央委員是李光耀、王永元、方水雙、蒂凡那、杜進才、伊斯邁拉欣、曾超卓、李玉成、陳維今、蘇卡寧甘及莫達里)。

1955年新加坡舉行選舉(尚未獨立),人民行動黨決定推出5名候選人,即李光耀、林清祥、蒂凡那、吳秋泉、阿末依布拉欣以獨立人士身份參選。方水雙因出生在柔佛州,不能當候選人。

李光耀說:“在這次選舉中,林清祥崛起成為善於打動人心的演講者。他年紀輕輕,長得清瘦,個子不高,說起福建話來娓娓動聽,姑娘們對他崇拜得五體投地。”

崛起魅力四射

在人們的眼裡,他已經是個魅力四射的人物,是新加坡政壇上不容忽視的人物,更是人民行動黨內不容忽視的人物。”

選舉結果,李光耀、林清祥、吳秋泉和阿末依布拉欣當選,行動黨唯一失敗的人是蒂凡那。李光耀說:“我心中的一塊大石頭放了下來,因為沒有蒂凡那的話,林清祥只好靠著我了。”

根據李光耀的統計,在4月份大選結束後不久,新加坡發生了260起罷工事件(從1955年4月7日到12月的9個月內),其中包括方水雙和林清祥領導的巴士工友和中國汽水廠的罷工,學生也參與支援。

緊接著,在1955年5月13日,暴亂中發生了一起嚴重事件。一名17歲學生據稱被一名英國警官開槍擊中後斃命,事態越形嚴重。政府更進一步採取行動,封閉3間華校,即華僑中學、中正中學總校和中正中學分校。學生群起反對,致使政府讓步(當時新加坡的首席部長是馬紹爾。他領導的勞工陣線在議會中佔有10席,是最多席位的政黨),禁令撤消,開除令也不執行,學生取得勝利。他們推舉林清祥為華中學生家長聯誼會主席,當時林清祥才22歲,未婚。

林清祥原是華僑中學的學生,於1951年參加罷考行動,被學校開除。

林清祥在會見學生時,鼓勵他們“以更大的力量繼續展開鬥爭,不要被政府的華文教育政策欺騙,而且還要預防政府今後採取的各種壓迫手段”。李光耀形容“這是馬共第一回合的鬥爭。”

1955年的12月,馬來亞聯合邦的首席部長東姑阿都拉曼(當時馬來亞未獨立,只是自治邦),連同馬華公會會長陳禎祿和新加坡首席部長馬紹爾,到吉打華玲與馬共書記長陳平舉行和談。會談不歡而散,馬共重入森林,東姑則領導聯盟政府到英國爭取獨立。這是歷史上著名的“華玲和談”。

不過,新加坡地位未明朗,東姑所要爭取的獨立未把新加坡列入其中。因此,馬紹爾在1956年率領各政黨13人代表團到英國展開憲制談判,其中包括李光耀和林清祥。

李光耀和林清祥在英國同住一道。他對林清祥也留下深刻的印象,希望能得到這樣一位的好幫手,但他們兩人在思想上仍有大距離。

馬紹爾領導的新加坡代表團,在憲制談判上卻無法取得進展,一敗塗地,致使李光耀有機會借勢越過馬紹爾,使後者臉上無光。一怒之下,馬紹爾在6月辭去首席部長職,由林有福取代其位。

這個時候,林清祥在人民行動黨的勢力進一步坐大,在黨執委選舉中。林清祥以最高票(1537)當選,李光耀則得1488票。林清祥派佔5席。李光耀這樣說:“他(林清祥)使人民行動黨中的溫和派只擁有微弱的多數席。他也借此表明,在群眾支持方面,親共份子掌握了所有的王牌。他們的力量巨大無比,他們隨時隨地能夠接管人民行動黨。”

在這種情況下,李光耀說他唯有走向左派統一陣線的路,代表人民行動黨攻擊馬來亞的東姑採取明顯的反共政策,使馬共沒有機會進行憲制鬥爭。結果觸怒東姑,矢言不會同共黨或人民行動黨打交道。

李光耀認為林清祥的激進策略將會被一網打盡。 就在這個隨時會發生變化的政局時刻,林清祥認識了賽扎哈利。

果然不出所料,1956年10月,林有福政府逮捕和拘留219人,其中包括林清祥、方水雙、蒂凡那、兀哈爾和詹姆斯普都遮里。

林清祥等人的被捕,也使到左派力量在人民行動黨中受挫,但影響力仍存在,雖然這些重要人物都無法參加1959年的大選。

選舉結果,人民行動黨在51席中贏得43席而上台執政。李光耀當上自治邦首任總理。在上台之前,林清祥、方水雙及蒂凡那等人獲得釋放。不過他們在新政府中未擔任重職,只被委為部長的政治秘書。李光耀的戒心,也開始埋下李光耀和林清祥的鬥爭伏線。

1961年,林清祥與李光耀分道揚鑣,他們先在議會內進行鬥爭。一場由李紹祖領導的不信任動議被提出,李光耀需要26個議員支持才能保住執政權。就在危急關頭,李光耀說他發現只爭取到25人,尚差一位,最後努力爭取一位馬來議員的支持,李光耀終於以26票挫了不信任動議,真是驚險萬分。

不信任動議不被通過後,林清祥領導左派份子脫離人民行動黨,另組社會主義陣線(社陣),由李紹祖擔任主席,林清祥出任秘書長,和人民行動黨打對台。此時熱切的課題是馬來西亞計劃,包括新加坡併入其中。李光耀決意要新加坡通過加入馬來西亞取得獨立;林清祥主張馬新合併達致獨立,反對馬來西亞概念,支持北婆三邦爭取獨立。

尖銳的鬥爭越發升級, 賽扎哈利則在此關鍵時刻也扮演重要的角色。

話說賽扎哈利在1961年《馬來前鋒報》發生工潮後,失去總編輯之職和工作。他先被遊說參加社陣,李光耀也想爭取賽扎哈利,希望他不會迷失在左派鬥爭中。賽扎哈利則在1962年選擇加入新加坡人民黨,成為黨主席,主要原因之一是他早就崇拜馬來亞人民黨主席布斯達曼,二是他認為人民黨基本上是馬來人領導的政黨。他想要通過人民黨凝聚新加坡的馬來人,爭取較大的政治參與權。社陣和人民黨都同樣走社會主義路線,雖然林清祥比較喜歡賽扎哈利加入社陣,但也尊重他選擇領導人民黨。

1963年2月2日,政府展開“冷藏行動”,一舉逮捕397人,包括林清祥和賽扎哈利。這樣一來,新加坡的人民黨黨務陷入癱瘓,社陣也元氣大傷。這是林清祥第二次被扣捕,而賽扎哈利則是第一次被捕,他們都被指為涉及共黨活動。林清祥於1969年獲釋到倫敦過著流放生涯,10年後才回新加坡,而賽扎哈利在1979年才獲得釋放。他們兩人在1980年又在監獄外的新加坡重逢。

社陣元氣大傷

1995年2月5日,林清祥因心臟病逝世,結束了他的多姿多采,曲折迂迴的政治生涯。一代政治風雲人物,從茲蓋棺定論。

李光耀說:“林清祥本意良好,而且態度看來很真誠,群眾的喝采聲和奉承,都不致沖昏他的頭腦。但是,我們之間始終沒有成為密友。相反的,我們承認彼此在思想上的陣營。他知道我不是共產黨人。我曉得他是一個共產黨員,或正要成為共產黨員。林清祥不是共產黨裡的重要人物,卻是一個重要的煽動家。”

賽扎哈利說:“林清祥令人讚賞之處,包括他對受壓迫者的同情,不論身份、種族或宗教。林清祥走了,可是他的功績將刻在歷史上,就像詩人東革華蘭所形容的:他像時代星空的一顆明星,在歷史的星空中湧現。他們塗黑林清祥的聲譽,他們歪曲林清祥的政治思想和鬥爭目標。他們妒忌,害怕林清祥在群眾心目中不可動搖的有效和真正左翼政治領袖的地位。“

林清祥本身則否認他是共產黨人,但從未否認是左派陣線的領導人。

歷史將來或者會清理出一個較為明顯的輪廓。


留下评论

(中英文对照)Lunch With Singapore’s Old Left 与新加坡老左共进午宴

本篇文章转载自Kirsten Han个人博客网站:http://roadsandkingdoms.com/2015/lunch-with-singapores-old-left/。全文翻译如下:

数百名年长的前左翼成员聚集在一家不显眼的老旧的购物商场畅饮。他们在叙旧、高谈、争论以及痛骂有关政府(政策)。其中一位与会者上台提出了在来届大选出现政治改变;他的讲话获得了在场的与会者的热烈欢呼和喝彩。(按:上台演讲者是受主办方的委托致辞。详见《老友春茗》聚餐会视频网址:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-LloIXRvoaONFlkWXRvVjRHWEE/edit

春节聚餐会的出席者大多数年龄是介于70岁和80岁。他们当中一些出席者需靠伴侣、孩子、或者拐杖跚地来回于自己的席位。餐馆的职员在服务期间必须让轮椅走动,或者迂回于餐桌间为与会者添加茶水或果汁。

农历春节初三是新加坡的老左们作为常年聚会的日子。这些成员都是5060 年代的前学生运动的活动分子、工会成员和政治活动家。他们集聚在一块儿回顾当年的峥嵘的日子。这传统聚会已经是已久了。他们已经无法计算次数了。

“我看,应该是从1980年开始吧”,一位格子瘦小、满头银发的80岁的长者,卢妙萍这么说。她使用华语和英语相互交谈过程中平和的说,“除非我有急事要办,每年我一定出席这个聚餐会。”

这个集会代表了在课本里被删除的新加坡历史的一部分。广大的受华文教育者,他们现在都是年长的国民,都是站在反对英殖民主义运动的最前线的。他们竭尽全力把目前仍然是执政者的人民行动党扶上台并取得最终的胜利。他们当中很多人为此付出了沉重的代价。殖民主义政府,后来是行动党政府把这些杰出的领导人逮捕和监禁起来。李光耀却自己继续担任总理超过30年。

在春节聚餐会上-page-001

人民行动党在1959年所取得第一次全国大选的胜利后又有取得多数席位、李光耀和人民行动党今天在建设新加坡所扮演的角色是与当时这些政治家们的活动事迹是无法切割的。

但是,无可争辩的事实。那些公民自由运动的批评执政党的批评者被镇压下来!——新加坡根本就没有游行抗议的集会自由。严格的审查制度是普遍存在的。一些关于早期的逮捕左翼的行动就是首先开创了后来在这个弹丸小国的一系列削弱公民自由的行动。

记住这个当年的动乱的年代在今年是特别敏感的。政府在“SG 50”在旗帜下,铺天盖地的庆祝新加坡独立50周年纪念。许多有关“新加坡历史”的叙述正在被强调,但是,这些左翼人士(对新加坡的独立)做出的贡献似乎不被承认。正是如此,年轻一代的新加坡人对于左翼在国家的历史一无所知。

人民行动党始终坚持诸如1963年的冷藏行动等逮捕行动——数百人在不经审讯下被捕是必要的。因为这是为了牵制共产党的威胁和保护新加坡。那些认为(行动党的)的逮捕行动是具有政治动机的历史学者被冠以“历史修正主义者”。这些历史学家已经反驳了(行动党)重新出版“李光耀的电台12讲”所提到的共产主义的威胁和与马来西亚合并的必要性。新加坡目前的总理李显龙(即李光耀的儿子)是在2004年上任的。他自己在质疑叙事之间的联系和质疑执政党的合法性

在春节聚餐会上-page-002

但是,这些老左们至今还是紧紧的团结一致。在当天聚餐会一共宴开超过30桌。每桌10人。这些桌子很快就坐满人了。他们告诉我,参与聚餐会的人数逐年增加。过去彼此间的派系和对抗已经逐渐消失了,遗留下来的是分享过去斗争的回忆。他们不会忘记、拒绝放弃自己是国家最后的抗争行为是主导力量

他们甚至在这个聚餐会上出版一本书:《反假合并斗争50周年文献辑》。这本书的内容是有关60年代新加坡与马来西亚的短暂合并。但是由于印刷成本的因故,书中的一部分资料显得比较小。他们为此向老朋友表示道歉。当然他们只能依靠放大镜来阅读这本书反假合并斗争50周年文献辑封面-page-001

反假合并文献目录-page-001

76岁的陈国防在聚餐会开始致辞时说

“是什么力量把我们一直拉在一起?应该说一方面是我们共同的遭遇所促成,我们都曾经在不合理的情况下被强行推进牢狱,白白被囚禁了几个月、几年、十几年、乃至二十年、三十多年之久。那是因为残酷的法令在执政者手里。”

陈国防本身是在1963年的冷藏行动中被捕的。他被监禁了4年半。他当时是南洋大学学生会外交事务的秘书。他是一个积极的学生运动者。他回忆说,“我毕业于南洋大学。我并没有让它学以致用。”

在春节聚餐会上-page-003 他补充说,

“那是一个充满理想的年代。全世界年轻人都起来反对殖民主义。我与亚非拉的青年人一样。我不是一个共产党员。但是, 我认为,作为一个年轻人,我们必须为自己的祖国做出贡献。”

卢妙萍被监禁的时间更加长。她是在1956年学生运动积极分子,她被逮捕并监禁了三年。当时她的辩护律师就是李光耀本身。过后,他(李光耀)是一个年轻政治活动者以及工会学生团体的法律顾问。卢妙萍说,

“他(李光耀)为我辩护时,他说(这些)指控都是毫无根据地。”

1963年,她成为社会主义阵线的大选候选人。社会主义阵线是由前人民行动党的左翼成员由于理念的不同而分裂出来组成的。她击败了其他三位候选人当选为议员。但是,她并没有就职。

卢妙萍自我挖苦的说,

“我是在(当年)9月中当选的。在10月初我被带走去吃免费餐了。”关于她的被捕和接下来超过6年监禁,她补充说,过去为他辩护的律师也是与10年前她(被捕)同样的理由逮捕我。当时,他(李光耀)就是以这样理由进行辩护的。

在春节聚餐会上-page-004

所有的中餐宴席佳肴都是一道道的上桌。这样出席者可以在这期间进行交谈。他们的宴席传统春节佳肴是捞鱼生。这是一道生鱼片。还享受的炸虾和焖熟的蔬菜以及烧鸡。一般而言,每个人支付的餐费是物有所值并不昂贵。在台上,表演者轮流上台表演过去年代的老歌,他们的表演受到了台下的老同志们的热情欢呼与支持。

在最后一道佳肴上桌后,一队演唱者上台演唱。全部以华语歌词演唱。这些演唱的歌曲在宴席开始前已经印成歌词分发到每张桌子。他们当一些是佩戴做眼睛在阅读,一些是注视着这张歌词。这个时候大家啥事都不做,就是听着大家唱歌或者自己加入合唱。

最后一首歌大家不需要看着歌词合唱了。每一个左翼成员都会唱。一个与会者从自己的座位上站了起来拍掌大声的唱着:“团结就是力量!”这就是我所能够告诉大家的,中文著名的“歌曲团结就是力量”!

“团结就是力量!”一位坐在台下的长者在歌声结束时把拳头高高举。

在春节聚餐会上-page-005

没有任何东西可以把他们带回过去的年代。改变太多了。但是,不是全部都是坏事,他们当中很多人都承认,在过去50年里很多发展商让人留下印象的。

但是,进步和发展不是等于让年轻国人抓住了它的认同性和过去的一切。拉维。沙玛,他的父亲是具有争议的马来亚共产党员,他指着那些在宴席结束后开始离开餐馆的男女长者说:

“政府要承认新加坡的建国一代是好事。但是,他们不可以1965年开始作为节点。在这之前有许多长者为此奠定了基础啊。”

当问到对有关统治新加坡50年的印象时,卢妙萍笑着、看着远处、思考着而自言自语的说,

“我能够说什么?我对新加坡有那么多的感慨和我们的50年。”

接着,她凝集了自己的思路,望着我说,

“我们感到非常愤慨、最失望的是:他们不止是否定了我们的贡献,而且还说我们是对国家是威胁。李光耀是踏着牺牲的学生的背上台的。”

她停顿了一下。一个瘦小的老妇人至今仍然隐藏着几十年前遭受让人背叛的感受。她为了要去向一年后再见的一位老朋友说再会而向我告别了。

相关链接:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/

Lunch With Singapore’s Old Left

http://roadsandkingdoms.com/2015/lunch-with-singapores-old-left/

 

Hundreds of aging leftists gather in a restaurant tucked away in an obscure corner of an old shopping complex. They talk, shout, argue, and rant about the government. One of them goes onstage and demands political change in the next elections; he is greeted with raucous applause and loud cheers.

The attendees are mostly in their seventies or eighties. Several lean on spouses, children, or canes as they hobble to and from their seats. The restaurant staff has to make way for a wheelchair or two as they weave between the tables filling glasses with tea or orange juice.

The third day of Chinese New Year marks the annual lunch gathering of the Old Left in Singapore. Members of the leftist movement of the 1950s and 1960s—former student activists, union workers, and politicians—meet to reminisce about the good old days. It’s been such a long-standing tradition that some have lost count of how many they’ve attended.

“Since the 1980s, I would say,” says 80-year-old Loh Miaw Gong, a tiny white-haired lady who switches between Mandarin and English with ease. “Unless I’ve had really urgent matters to attend to, I’ve attended every year.”

This assembly represents a slice of Singapore history omitted from school textbooks. Largely Chinese-educated, these senior citizens were once at the forefront of the anti-colonialist movement on which the still-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) rode to prominence and, ultimately, victory. Many of them paid a high price for their efforts, too, through arrests and detentions carried out by the colonial government, and later by the PAP itself under its indomitable leader, Lee Kuan Yew. Lee went on to be Singaporere Prime Minister for over three decades.

在春节聚餐会上-page-001

Both the PAP and Lee played major roles in making Singapore what it is today, so much so that it is often difficult to separate the actions and decisions of the politicians from the trajectory of the nation. The party has won every election since the country’s first in 1959, and it continues to fill the vast majority of seats in Parliament.

 

Yet it is not without controversy. Critics have criticized the ruling party for clamping down on civil liberties—Singaporeans generally do not have freedom of assembly for protests and demonstrations, and censorship is common. Some point to the early arrests of the leftists as the first salvo in a series of actions that have diminished civil liberties in the tiny island nation.

Remembrance of this tumultuous period has become particularly sensitive this year. The government is going all out to celebrate Singapore’s fiftieth year of independence under the “SG50” banner. Many aspects of the “Singapore story” are being emphasized, but these leftists are unlikely to get much recognition. As it is, most young Singaporeans know next-to-nothing about the leftist’s role in the nation’s history.

The PAP insists that sweeps such as Operation Coldstore in 1963—in which over a hundred individuals were detained without trial were necessary to contain the communist threat and protect Singapore. Historians who have suggested that the arrests were politically-motivated have been branded “revisionists,” their analysis countered with the erection of memorials and the republishing of Lee Kuan Yew’s old radio talks on the dangers of communism and the need for a merger with Malaysia. Singapore’s current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (the son of Lee Kuan Yew), who has governed since 2004, himself drew the link between questioning the narrative and questioning the legitimacy of the ruling party.

在春节聚餐会上-page-002

But these old school leftists have stuck together with remarkable solidarity. There are over 30 tables laid out in the restaurant, each accommodating ten people, and they fill up fast. I’m told the crowd grows every year; old factions and rivalries fade away, leaving only the memory of a shared struggle. Their refusal to give up and forget is their final act of defiance of the state-led amnesia.

They’ve even put together a new book for the occasion: a collection of historical documents and writing on Singapore’s short-lived merger with Malaysia in the 1960s. But publication costs have led to some documents being presented in rather small print, and it’s suggested to the assembled old folks—with apologies, of course—that they read the book with a magnifying glass.

反假合并斗争50周年文献辑封面-page-001

反假合并文献目录-page-001

“People wonder what brought us together. I believe the answer lies in a common suffering. We have been thrown into jail for months, years, because of a draconian law invoked by the party in power,” says 76-year-old Tan Kok Fang during his speech at the beginning of the meal.

Tan himself was arrested in 1963 under Operation Coldstore, and was detained for four-and-a-half years. He had been the external affairs secretary of the student union in a Chinese-language university known for its left-leaning student activism. “I had just graduated from Nanyang University. I didn’t even make it to my convocation!” he recalls.

在春节聚餐会上-page-003

 “It was the spirit of the time,” he adds. “Young people across the world were fighting the colonialists, and I wasn’t any different from a young person in Africa or South America. I am not a communist, but I felt, as a young man, we should do something for our country.”

Loh Miaw Gong spent even longer in detention. She was first arrested as a student activist in 1956, and was detained for about three years. Her defense lawyer was Lee Kuan Yew himself, then a young politician and legal advisor to trade and student unions. “He defended me. He said the charges were baseless,” she says.

In 1963 she stood as a candidate in the general elections as a member of Barisan Sosialis, a party set up by former PAP members who left the PAP due to ideological differences. She beat three other candidates to become an elected Member of Parliament, but never took possession of her seat.

“I was elected in mid-September. In early October I was taken in for my free meals,” she says wryly, referring to her arrest and subsequent detention of over six years. Her former defense lawyer, she added, arrested her on similar grounds to those he had argued against less than a decade earlier.

在春节聚餐会上-page-004

As with all Chinese banquets, courses are brought out one-by-one, and attendees make conversation at their table as they toss the traditional Chinese New Year yusheng—a raw fish salad—and enjoy the fried prawns, braised vegetables, and roast chicken. The consensus is that the per-head cost of the lunch isn’t expensive enough for it to be real fin. On stage, performers take turns singing old favorites, buoyed by the support and enthusiastic applause of their comrades.

The high point comes as the last courses are cleared away, and a line of singers file on to the stage. Lyrics, all in Mandarin, had been distributed to each table beforehand. Some reach for reading glasses while others squint at the sheet; as the choir belts into the microphones, it’s impossible to do anything but listen or sing.

Then comes the final song, and printed lyrics are no longer needed. Every leftist worth his or her salt knows this one. A man pops up from his seat, clapping his hands over his head as he shouts the lyrics: “Unity, unity is strength!” It is, as far as I can tell, the Mandarin version of the famous union anthem “Solidarity Forever.”

“Tuan jie shi li liang! (Unity is strength!)” another elderly man bellows as the song ends, pumping his fists over his head.

在春节聚餐会上-page-005

Nothing will bring back the Singapore of their youth. Too much has changed, and not all for the worse. Many assembled will readily admit that the city has made impressive gains in the past fifty years.

But progress and development is not the be-all-end-all for a young nation grappling with its identity and past. “It’s good that the government wants to recognize the pioneers of Singapore,” said 60-year-old Ravi Sharma, whose father was a member of the controversial Communist Party of Malaya. He gestures at the elderly men and women, slowly trickling out of the restaurant at the end of the meal. “But they can’t just start from 1965. There were so many before, and they lay the foundation.”

When asked about her impression of a 50-year-old sovereign Singapore, Loh laughs and looks into the distance, thinking. “What should I say about this? I have so many feelings about Singapore and our fiftieth anniversary.” She’s almost speaking to herself.

Then she gathers her thoughts and looks me in the eye. “What we are most angry, most upset about is that they’re not only denying our contribution, but saying we threatened the nation. Lee Kuan Yew rose on the back of the students’ sacrifice.”

She nods, a little old lady still hurting from a decades-long sense of betrayal. She bids me farewell, and rushes off to say goodbye to an old friend for another year. 

 

linked to:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/


留下评论

鄞义林:争取实现一个人民的平等、公平和正义以及真正关心人民的新加坡。

编者按语:

这是鄞义林受国际学生节邀请于2015年2月13日在挪威的特隆赫姆(Trondheim位于挪威这部的一个港市)的演讲中文译稿。本文章刊登在鄞义林个人博客网址:http://thehearttruths.com/

演讲的现场录像视频:

[Video] My Speech at the International Student Festival in Trondheim (ISFiT) in Norway on 13 February 2015

鄞义林在挪威演讲

鄞义林的说明:

上个月,我受国际学生节的邀请,在挪威的特隆赫姆市举办一个《分享我在新加坡工作的心得》。我在2014年五月被新加坡总理起诉,接着,我又被政府以刑事罪名控上法院。我在这个分享会上谈及了有关在人民行动党政府管理下的新加坡公积金退休金基金缺乏透明度和可信任性。

以下是我的演讲现场录像视频网址:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoHk93Q7gAQ

以下是我为这个演讲会所准备的讲稿。

各位在特隆赫姆市的朋友们

今天,我为能够与大家在一起成为你们当中的一部分动力和热情并向你们学习,为此感到十分愉快与荣幸。这样的交流将有助于改进我的国家。   我的名字叫鄞义林。我是新加坡的一名博客和社会活动分子。但是, 在2104年5月,新加坡总理李显龙以个人诽谤罪起诉我。   他说,我诽谤他滥用了新加坡人民的退休金。

政府之所以要起诉我的真正原因,那是因为我暴露了新加坡政府如何把新加坡人民的退休金转移到两个投资主体。他们控制着这笔退休金资金不要退还给新加坡人民。

但是,我并没有这么说啊!我完全没有诽谤总理。

在我被起诉后,政府同时要求聘用我的医院对我进行攻击。接着,我又被他们引用刑事法典起诉。我是在行使自己的言论自由和表达自己看法的自由。我是在保护自己抗议权利被剥夺和争取新加坡的人权。

从去年5月开始,政府也同时使用受他们控制的国家媒体工具对我展开个人的攻击,这个个人攻击的运动至今还没有停下来。

我个人的博客网站的名字叫:《真心的事实》(The Heart Truths)。这个网站是我在3年前开设的。它主要是在讨论有关同性恋和社会政治课题。

在去年5月,当时总理因为我在网站里写的一篇文章而起诉我对他个人的诽谤。我被起诉的真正原因并不是因为这篇文章而引起的。

在我被起诉前的3个星期,我的上司已经与我谈起有关我活跃于博客的事情。那就是我知道政府正在注视着我了。

大家看看,在我被起诉的两个月前,我写了两篇文章。这两篇文章是在暴露政府从1960年起就已经挪用了我们的退休金,并从中赚取了利润,但是,政府并没有归还给我们。当我撰写这篇文章时,我知道政府正在注视着我了。

两个月后,他们终于找到了对对付的藉口了。

在我被起诉后,政府要求我受聘用的医院对付我了。我收到了解雇信,并被要求在1小时内离开医院。在那个时候,我的同事被告知留在办公室里,不允许任何人到我的办公室来向我道别。假设他们接近我,他们将会被通知离开医院。我已经被他们视为罪犯。

接着,医院和卫生部一起向报章发表声明支持对我采取的行动。

我在(在芳林公园举行的抗议集会)的第一次演说后,他们采取行动对付我。就是对我进行起诉。当时,我在演说中提出要求政府在执行退休金的问题上要采取透明化和可信任的政策。三天后,他们又再一次的攻击我。

当我呈交诽谤案件的诉状书和证据时,国家控制的媒体完全不报道这件事。无论如何,他们只是报道了总理的诉状书的新闻。

在我的诉状书里,我重点提出了我是如何获取有关政府从公积金户头里划走新加坡人民的退休金进入那两家投资机构以及政府是如何掩盖和删除我发现的这些证据。

我同时暴露了,政府是如何否认他们在2001、2006 和2007年拿走我们的退休金用于这两家投资机构。在我被起诉后,他们已经无法在掩盖任何有关这方面的信息了。他们在2014年5月承认了这个事实。这是他们有史以来第一次承认这个事实。

新加坡的第一任总理在2001年和2006年先后否认动用我们退休基金投资在政府投资机构——新加坡政府投资有限公司(GIC)。

李光耀说GIC与公积金无关联

新加坡政府也狡辩说,他们并没有干预GIC的运作。GIC,这个投资主体也狡辩说,它们不知道自己是使用新加坡人的退休基金进行投资。

无论如何,新加坡总理、两位的副总理和几位部长、前部长和国会议员读书GIC董事部的成员。

GIC董事部

因此,政府不干预GIC的运作的说法就根本就不可能存在的。GIC不知道他们的机构是使用新加坡人的退休金去进行投资活动的说法,这也是根本就不可能存在的。

无论如何,即便是他对我进行的起诉书因为我撰写了有关退休金的问题,但是,他说,我在诉状书里所提出有关退休金问题是与诽谤案件没有关联。他说,我在诉状书里详细罗列了这些证据是“不可接受的”、“毫无相关的”、“滥用了法庭的程序的”。

但是,起诉并没有到此结束。在去年9月份,我出席第四场有关要求政府执行透明化和可信赖性的退休金政策。

犹有甚者,他还向法院申请禁止我揭露更多有关退休金的问题。

政府对此预先为我们设下了阴谋。

当我们在(芳林公园)进行这场活动时,另一场活动也同时在同一个时间进行。这个活动的组织者把一些孩子拉出,然后说,在场的孩子受到我们的‘惊吓’。

假设您不知道什么叫做‘惊吓’,不需要感到忧虑。大部分新加坡人在那个时候也并没有受到‘惊吓’。但是,政府刻意选择‘惊吓’这个字眼。

‘惊吓’的意思即是正在参与活动的人受到骚扰。但是,政府选择‘惊吓’这个字眼是那具有更多的含义的。

但是,我并没有这么做啊!事实上,我是经常在教导那些自闭的孩童,我很疼孩子的。我不可能要去‘惊吓’孩子。

与此同时,几位部长和国会议员,包括了哪些政府的支持者和行动党控制的国家媒体随即展开了一场针对我的联合行动,指责我‘惊吓’了会场的孩子。

最终,在线新闻说我并没有进行‘惊吓’孩子。我要求政府向的道歉。但是,他们拒绝。

在事件发生后的两个星期,警方为进行调查此事件传召我去问话。一个月后,我被控告涉嫌危害公共安宁的罪行。这包括了在抗议活动场所进行摇旗和喊口号的行为。这是正常的抗议行动和非法游行集会。

政府的目的就是要摧毁我的个人声誉。

当我第一次被起诉时,我为了这场官司的法律费用进行了筹款活动。我筹措到10万元,或相等于6万5千元欧元。

这是筹款活动是一个极其明确的支持我的事业的信号。那是因为政府已经划走了新加坡人民的退休金。今天,很多新加坡人都无法过退休生活。他们当中一些人还必须一致工作到死去为止。很多新加坡人对政府很生气。一项调查显示超过半数以上的新加坡人支持我的看法。

无论如何,新加坡人不会站出来说话。他们会协助我筹措款项,但是,他们不敢站出来(与政府)进行斗争。

在新加坡恐惧思想的存在还是很严重。

当政府说我‘惊吓’孩子时,(公开)支持我的人数就明显的消退了。人们都愿意让自己的恐惧心理证明他们放弃支持。

在今年较早的时间里,总理又拿了九篇我写得文章来起诉我。他用这九篇文章来指责的是目的是要求我支付给他的律师更多的钱。

就是在政府制造诋毁我的个人名义的行动后,我被判决诽谤总理个人名义的案件也接着下判了。

但是。事实上这些文章中的一些文章中只是关于我个人的生活和对新加坡的许愿,但是,总理说这是我企图‘攻击’他。

接着,总理的新闻秘书发表声明说,我不愿意在法院审讯时进行交叉盘问,她撒谎。我并没有这么说。显然,政府再次要诋毁我个人的声誉。我向她提出挑战。我要求她起诉我指控她是在说谎,或者,她向我道歉。她两者都不选择。

但是,您看,新闻秘书可以谈论这个案件。总理,作为一个公众人物,是不可以个人的身份起诉我的。无论如何,如果他是以个人的身份起诉我,那他就不是什么特殊人物了。总理的新闻秘书仍然坚持她有权为总理辩护,因为诽谤案件是与新加坡人民的退休金有关连的。

不过,当我在自己的诉状里谈及有关退休金时,总理说这是‘没有关连的’?

非常明显的。他们是在自相矛盾,是在使用自己的言论在压制我。

我之所以要对这起诽谤案件进行抗辩,并不会是因为相信我会赢得这起诉讼案件。我知道我将会输掉这场官司,为它本身就是一起政治性质的案件。

无论如何,我所以愿意进行这场法院的斗争是因为我坚信一些观点,新加坡人民将会起来进行斗争,但是, 这个时刻尚未到来。

如您所知,我并不仇视总理谈所做的事。事实上,我同情他的处境。当年他是出生在一个富裕的家庭、他是第一任总理的长子、他所要的一切有人已经把它端到盘子里给你时。他将会怎样?

但是,总理却厚颜无耻的起诉一个普通的公民时,他却没胆到法院于我对峙,或者到讲述这个案件。倒过来, 他却一直躲在法律的背后保持沉默。

到目前为止,我一直在等待着今年7月的审讯判决。我赔偿总理诽谤名义损失的数额是多少?总理已经向高等法院提交有关诽谤诉状。根据以往的判例是超过25万元新币,或者相等于10万元欧元。这是我必须准备赔偿的数额。

在世界上贪污清廉指数国家排名新加坡是最佳的国家之一。我们的国家排名在第7位。但是,在过去数年,我们的排名已经开始往下跌。

但是, 反贪污指数并没有完全准确的含盖了在新加坡存在贪污的范围。这个指数只是含盖了衡量观察新加坡的商业贪污的水平。非常显著的是,新加坡是受到那些赚钱的资本家宠爱的国家。

同时,据统计,新加坡的经济超过60%是控制在政府手中的。理所当然的,大部分的商业观点将会倾向有利于政府的。

但是,假设你看到其他相关的指数,新加坡的表现是极其低劣的。

当你看《经济学人》杂志编辑的裙带资本主义指数,新加坡的指数是紧跟在俄罗斯、乌克兰、香港和马来西亚之后的第五国家。这就是说,这是世界上5个让富人最容易通过隶属于政府变得更加富裕的国家。

当你看到收入不平等的水平时,新加坡是早发达国家中一个最不平等的国家,也是一个最不平等的国家。

当你看到俄罗斯、乌克兰、香港和马来西亚这些裙带资本主义最高指数和高度不平等的国家时,你将会看到它们都是出于高度贪污水平的国家。

新加坡的指数是同样类似于裙带资本主义指数和收入不均的国家。

在表面上,新加坡的每个国内人均生产总值(GDP)单位是世界上最高的,实际上却是相等于挪威的水平。无论如何,挪威是世界上最平等的国家,而新加坡则是世界上发达国家中最不平等的国家。

在挪威,人民最低收入是大约5千元新币或相等于2万5千克朗(挪威的货币单位)。但是,在新加坡,最底层的人民每个人每月赚取的是1千元新币,或相等于5千克朗。

在医药保健方面,挪威人民支付医药保健的费用最高顶限为4百新币或相等于2千克朗。但是,在新加坡,支付医药保健这是没有顶限的。新加坡人已经有无数可以证明必须支付医药保健账单超过1万新币或超过5万 克朗的例子了。

在儿童保健方面,挪威人民只需支付新币400元或相等于2千克朗。但是,在新加坡,平均 个新加坡人必须支付儿童的保健费用是960元新币或相等于5500克朗,它可能会更高的费用。

但是, 新加坡人民却是发达国家中赚取最低薪金的国家,同时,也是发达国家中人民购买力最低的国家,与印度和马来西亚同属于一个水平。

事实上,新加坡政府在支付医药福利和教育方面的费用在发达国家中占国内人均生产总值(GDP)是最低的,也是世界上最低的国家。

你已经看到香港人民争取民主的斗争了。那是因为他们要在缩小自己国家的不平等情况。无论如何,在许多水平上,新加坡的情况是比香港更加恶劣。但是,新加坡人民将会争取回来。

我读了一篇文章。在香港有一位父亲说,为了我的家庭和孩子们。我将会继续斗争。无论如何。在新加坡,他们会说,为了我的家庭和孩子们,我将不会参与斗争。

正如一位国际组织的演讲者告诉我,世界上没有人真正知道新加坡到底是咋样的?因为太多的事情被隐藏起来了。

作为一个执政党,新加坡人民行动党已经掌控了50年的政权。在今天,反对党在国会的87个议席中只拥有7个议席。事实上,这是反对党在过去50年来拥有最多的议席了。

就在昨天,世界报章自由度最新排名指数出炉了。新加坡在无国界记者排名是180个国家中的第153位。不仅如此,没有民主指数,新加坡的报章自由度指数也同时跌倒与俄罗斯、伊拉克、巴基斯丹和卢旺达一样属于最低的排名。

总的来说,假设我们要获得更加美好的生活,最终只有新加坡人自己挽救自己的国家。我们必须站起来进行斗争。我们知道自己手中握有神圣意义的一票。我们将通过选举另一个政府来保护人民的利益。

但是,在此,我呼吁世界各国人民支持我们。在过去几天里,很多人告诉我,过去他们都只知道新加坡展现良好的一面,当我把真相说出来后令他们感到吃惊。其中一个人告诉我,假设这就是新加坡的真正榜样,那么,他将不会让他们的国家跟随新加坡。

因此,请大家帮忙我们。让全世界知道新加坡目前所发生的一切。因为这将会影响到你的国家。许多发展中国家都在学习新加坡。但是, 今天我听到了许多人,其中包括来自卢旺达、秘鲁和土耳其度都取类似于新加坡的手段的压制反对他们的人民。

我非常担心,当新加坡政府和这些发展中国家的领导人见面时,他们会不会也把这些经验与他们分享,那就是:告诉这些的国家领导人,如果要取得国家的经济增长,就得必须同时压制人民的反抗?但是,这是否是他们的人民所要的政府?这是不是我们要求其他国家学习新加坡的榜样?

难道目前在新加坡出现的不平等情况要世界上其他国家追随吗?

因为新加坡是世界上发达国家中收入不平等的最高的国家。今天,我们也是发达国家中属于最低诚信水平的国家。我们也是发达国家中犯罪水平最高的国家。我们也是发达国家中社会流动性最低的国家。这一切都不是我们希望成为其他国家学习的榜样。

我们要的是,希望新加坡和其他国家能够更加平等和世界各国人民的生活水平提高,这样,我们将不会逃离自己的国家到另一个国家寻找更好的生活。但是,在我们国家,我们知道,我们可以通过斗争改变目前的一切情况,进而创造平等保护我们的人民。

在此,我仅此与大家帮忙新加坡人民争取改变的斗争。即便是新加坡是一个世界学习的亮丽榜样。这是因为我们是为了人民的平等、公平和正义,以及真正关心人民的新加坡。

谢谢。

人民力量

ROY:

Last month, I was invited to the International Student Festival in Trondheim (ISFiT) in Norway to share on my activism work in Singapore. I was sued by the Singapore prime minister in May last year and was subsequently charged with two criminal charges, because I had spoken up about the lack of transparency and accountability on the Singapore PAP-run government’s management of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) pension funds of Singaporeans.

Below is the video of my speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoHk93Q7gAQ

Below is the text of the prepared speech:

鄞义林在挪威演讲

Dear friends at ISFiT,

It is my pleasure and honour to be able to with you here today, and to be part of your dynamism and enthusiasm to learn so that we can improve our countries.

My name is Roy Ngerng. I am a blogger and activist in Singapore. But in May last year, I was sued by the Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation.

He said that I had said that he had misappropriated the pension funds of Singaporeans.

But I have never said that. I have never defamed the prime minister.

The reason why the government wants to prosecute me is because I exposed how the Singapore government was siphoning off the pension funds of Singaporeans into the two investment firms that the government controls and does not want to return to Singaporeans.

After I was sued, the government also asked the hospital that I was working at to fire me. I have since been charged with two more crimes, for exercising my freedom of speech and expression, and for protesting to protect my own rights and the rights of Singaporeans.

The government has also used the government agencies, state-controlled media as well as online media affiliated to it to launch a campaign against me since May last year. And it has not stopped.

I started blogging 3 years ago and wrote on gay issues as well as on sociopolitical issues. I write on The Heart Truths.

In May last year, the prime minister then sued me for defamation for an article I wrote. But the reason why I sued was not because of the article that I was sued for.

Three weeks before I was sued, my supervisors at work already spoke to me about my blogging activities. That was when I knew that the government wanted to get me.

You see, two months before I was sued, I wrote two articles which exposed how the Singapore government has been taking our pension funds to use since the 1960s, for the past 50 years, to earn from it and not return it. When I wrote the articles, I knew that the government was going to get me.

Two months later, they found an excuse to do so.

After I was sued, the government asked my hospital to fire me. I was given a termination letter and was asked to leave within an hour. During that time, my colleagues were told to stay in their office. No one could come to my office to say goodbye and if they came near, they were asked to leave. I was treated like a criminal.

The hospital and the Ministry of Health then sent out press releases to support my firing.

The firing also came after I spoke at the first protest that we held after I was sued. I spoke at a protest to demand for the transparency and accountability of our pension funds. Three days later, I was fired.

When I submitted my affidavit and evidence for the defamation suit, the state-controlled media did not want to report on it. However, they would report on the prime minister’s affidavit.

Inside my affidavit, I outlined evidence of how I had managed to trace how the government has siphoned off Singaporeans’ pension funds into the two investment firms and how the government had covered their tracks and deleted the evidence that I had found.

I also exposed how the government had denied taking our pension funds to use in these investment firms in 2001, 2006 and 2007. And they only admitted to the truth for the very first time in May last year, after I was sued and they could not hide the information anymore.

In 2001 and 2006, it was the first prime minister of Singapore who denied having taken our retirement funds to invest in the investment firm GIC.

李光耀说GIC与公积金无关联

The Singapore government has also claimed that it does not interfere in the GIC’s operations. GIC, the investment firm, also claimed that it does not know if it uses the pension funds of Singaporeans to invest.

However, the Singapore prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers, ex-ministers and members of parliament also sit on the board of directors of the GIC.

GIC董事部

So it is impossible that the government does not interfere in the GIC. It is also impossible that the GIC does not know if it uses the pension fund of Singaporeans to invest.

However, when I detailed all of these evidence in my affidavit, the prime minister said that my affidavit is “inadmissible”, “irrelevant” and “an abuse of the (court) process”. He said that the evidence that I had brought up about the pension funds were not relevant to the defamation suit, even though he sued me because of what I wrote about the pension funds.

And even though he wanted to apply to court to stop me from revealing more about the pension funds.

But the prosecution did not end there. In September last year, I attended the fourth protest to demand for transparency and accountability.

The government then set us up.

Another event was being held where our protest was held. When we marched past that event, the organisers of the event pushed some children out and said we “heckled” the children.

If you do not know what “heckling” means, don’t worry, most Singaporeans at that time did not either. The government had purposefully chose that word to use.

 “Heckle” means to disrupt an event. But the government chose the word, “heckle”, because it gave a more negative connotation.

Right after the protest, several ministers and members of parliament as well as supporters of the government, and state-controlled media and online media affiliated to the government launched a coordinated campaign to say that I had “heckled” the children.

But I did not. I used to teach children with autism and I love children. I couldn’t possibly want to “heckle” the children.

Eventually, an online news site wrote that I never did “heckle” the children. It asked the government to apologise. They never did.

Two weeks after the incident, the police called us up to be investigated. A month later, I was charged with two criminal charges for public nuisance, but for things like waving flags and chanting slogans, things which you pretty much do in a protest; and for holding an illegal demonstration.

The government’s aim was to pull down my reputation.

When I was first sued, I conducted a fund raising to pay for my legal fees and raised more than $100,000 Singapore dollars, or 65,000 Euros.

There was clear support for my cause because the government has siphoned off the pension funds of Singaporeans. Today, many Singaporeans are unable to retire and some have to work until their deaths. Many people are angry with the Singapore government. A survey showed that more than half of Singaporeans supported what I say.

However, Singaporeans wouldn’t stand up and speak up. They would help in the fund raising but they did not dare to come out to fight.

The fear in Singapore is strong.

When the government said I “heckled”, there was a clear withdrawal of support. People were willing to allow their fear to justify their withdrawal.

Soon after the government created this campaign to pull down my reputation, the judgment that I had defamed the prime minister was then passed.

Early this year, the prime minister took issue with 9 more of my articles again. He wanted to use these articles to ask me to pay more money to his lawyers.

But some of these articles were personal articles where I spoke about own personal life and what I wished for Singapore. But the prime minister said that I was trying to “attack” him.

Later, his press secretary issued a statement to say that I do not want to be cross-examined in court. She lied. I never said that. Again, the government wanted to pull my reputation down. I challenged her to sue me for saying that she had lied or to apologise. She never did either of them.

But you see, the press secretary is not allowed to speak up on this case. The prime minister is not allowed to sue me in his capacity as a public figure, as a prime minister. He is only allowed to sue me as an individual. However, as an individual, the prime minister is nobody. Still, the prime minister’s press secretary insisted that she has a right to speak up for the prime minister because the defamation suit is pertaining to the pension funds of Singaporeans.

But then, didn’t the prime minister said that my affidavit was “irrelevant” when I had talked about the pension funds?

Clearly, it was their word against my word. And they were using their words to oppress me.

The reason why I decided to fight the defamation suit was not because I had believed that I would win. I knew that I would lose, because it is a political case.

However, I was willing to fight because I had believed that at some point, Singaporeans would rise and fight as well. But it still has not come.

You know, I do not hate the prime minister for doing what he has done. In fact, I sympathise with his position. What do you when you are born into a rich family and you are the son of the first prime minister, and where you have everything given to you on a platter?

But the prime minister has the audacity to sue an ordinary citizen but he has never had the balls to face me in court or to even speak about the case at all. Instead, he has hid behind the laws all this while and kept silent.

Right now, I am waiting for the hearing in July on how much I have to pay the prime minister in damages. The prime minister has filed the defamation suit in the Supreme Court which oversees cases of more than $250,000 Singapore dollars, or 100,000 Euros, so this is at least how much I am expected to pay.

Singapore is ranked well on the Corruption Perception Index. We are ranked 7th last year. But we have been falling down the index for the past few years.

But the Corruption Perception Index is not a fully accurate measure of the corruption that exists in Singapore. This index is only a measure of how businesses perceive the level of corruption in Singapore. And quite obviously, Singapore is well-loved by capitalists who want to make money.

And where some estimates put the government as controlling more than 60% of the Singapore economy, so naturally, the majority of businesses would view the government quite favourably.

But if you look at the other relevant indicators, Singapore performs poorly.

When you look at the crony capitalism index that The Economist compiled, Singapore ranks 5th on the index, after Russia, Ukraine, Hong Kong and Malaysia. This means that it is the 5th easiest for the rich in Singapore to get rich if they are affiliated to the government.

When you look at the level of income inequality, Singapore is the most unequal country among the developed countries and one of the most unequal in the world.

 When you look at Russia, Ukraine, Hong Kong and Malaysia, which rank high on the crony capitalism index and have very high inequalities, you realise that they have a high level of corruption as well.

Singapore ranks similarly on the crony capitalism index and income inequality.

On the surface, Singapore’s GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world, and is in fact on par with Norway. However, Norway is one of most equal countries in the world while Singapore is the most unequal among the developed countries.

In Norway, the minimum a person earns is about $5,000 Singapore dollars or 25,000 krones. But in Singapore, the lowest a person earns is only $1,000 Singapore dollars or 5,000 krones.

For healthcare, Norwegians pay a cap of about $400 Singapore dollars or 2,000 krones. But in Singapore, there is no cap and there have been many cases of Singaporeans who have to pay more than $10,000 for their hospital bills or more than 50,000 krones.

For childcare fees, Norwegians only need to pay a cap of about $400 Singapore dollars or 2,000 krones but in Singapore, the average a Singaporean has to pay is $960 or 5,500 krones. It can go even higher.

But this is when Singaporeans already earn one of the lowest wages among the developed countries and thus also have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries which is on par with India and Malaysia.

Indeed, the Singapore government spends the lowest on health and education as a percentage of GDP, among the developed countries and one of the lowest in the world.

You would have seen the Hong Kong protests where the people in Hong Kong would fight for democracy because they want to see the inequality in their country reduced. However, on many levels, Singapore’s inequality is actually worse than Hong Kong, but Singaporeans wouldn’t fight back.

I read a news article where a father in Hong Kong would say that, for my family and my children, I will fight. However, in Singapore, a person would say, for my family and my children, I will not fight.

As I’ve also asked one speaker who heads an international organisation tells me that no one really knows what is going on in Singapore because so much is hidden.

And the ruling party, the People’s Action Party, have allowed themselves to be kept in power for the past 50 years now. While today, the opposition only makes up 7 out of 87 seats in parliament, and this is actually the highest number over the past 50 years.

Just yesterday, in the latest World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 153rd out of 180 countries. Not only is there no democracy, Singapore’s press freedom ranking has also dropped to the lowest levels and is on par with Russia, Iraq, Pakistan and Rwanda.

At the end of the day, it is up to Singaporeans to help ourselves and to save ourselves. If we want a change to better lives, then we have to stand up and fight. We have to understand the significance of our votes and vote to put in another government in place which will protect the people.

But I also appeal to the world to help us. Many people have told me over the past few days that they have always known Singapore to be a shining example but are shocked to find out what I have said. One person told me that if this is what the Singapore model is about, then he would not want his country to follow it.

So, help us. Help us raise awareness on what is happening in Singapore because this will affect your countries. For many developing countries, they look to learn from Singapore. But as I have heard from many people today, from Rwanda, Peru and Turkey, these governments are also using similar tools of oppression against their people.

I worry because I do not know if when the Singapore government meets with the leaders of other developing countries, do they share with those leaders that in order to have economic growth, you would need to oppress your people as well? But is this the kind of government that we want? Is this the kind of example we want other countries to follow?

Is the income inequality that is happening in Singapore what we want other countries to follow?

Because Singapore has the highest income inequality among the developed countries, today, we also have the lowest level of trust, one of the highest levels of prisoner rate and one of the lowest social mobilities. This is not what we want other countries to learn from.

What we should want is for Singapore and other countries to be more equal and for the lives of people across the world to be uplifted so that we do not have to run out of our country to have a better life but where we know that even in our country, we can fight for change and create an equality to better protect our people.

So help us, help us raise awareness about Singapore and fight for change. Even if Singapore is to be a shining example for the world to follow, it should be because we are one which is equal, fair and just, and one that truly cares for the people.

Thank you.

 


留下评论

鄞义林:遭新加坡总理李显龙控诉‘诽谤罪“的博客主—鄞义林接受法国电台采访全文(中英文版本)

鄞义林接受法广采访

2015年3月8日,我接受了法国电台RFL的采访。

我在采访中讲述了我如何搜集的人民行动党政府如何从公积金中动用了公众的退休金投资在他们的投资机构,但是,他们拒绝告诉新加坡人民这个事实。同时,在我将所搜集的数据汇总并写成两篇文章后,政府要求我把这两篇文章删除,在我说出来这两篇文章后,政府接着就把刊登在官方网站上相关讯息删除了。

 

您可通过以下网址收听这段采访,并参阅采访的副本(采访以中文进行):

中文版本转载自《新国志》:https://xinguozhi.wordpress.com/2015/03/08

您也可参阅此采访的英文副本:http://cn.rfi.fr/%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB/20150308-

法国国际广播电台/艾米    2015-3-8

鄞义林:遭新加坡总理李显龙控诉‘诽谤罪“的博客主

东南亚国家新加坡经济繁荣,也鲜少传出这个国家民众的抗议声。最近,一位新加坡博客主鄞义林(Roy Ngerng)来到法国,记者无疆界组织联系到我们,希望可以讲述他因为通过博客文章曝光新加坡中央公积金使用真相而被总理李显龙以诽谤罪起诉,失去工作的经历。他的讲述可以可能有助于我们对新加坡的政治与社会有进一步的了解。

首先他介绍了事情发生的缘由:

鄞义林:新加坡总理在20145月份告我说我诽谤了他,因为那时我写了一篇文章(《你的公积金款项去了哪里?城市丰收教会审讯的启示》),提到政府拿我们的退休金和公积金去用,进行投资,但是没有把利息还给新加坡人。在文章里,我将政府拿我们的公积金使用和一个教堂资金的用法进行比较,说的是教堂牧师和他的两个同事开了两个机构,将钱转进去,让他们的妻子使用……所以我就此比较说,政府的做法和教堂的做法有相似之处。所以,新加坡的总理就说我是在诽谤他,随后就向法院控告我。我在三个星期之后就失去了工作。

我在医院做艾滋病的宣传工作,开除我之后,医院高层也向媒体发出了信息,告诉新加坡人医院解雇了我。

八月份,我就将证据交给法庭,告诉他们我已经查到这些资料,表明政府如何拿我们的公积金使用,转进两个公司投资,但是他们并没有告诉公民。然后他们就让我把两篇文章从(博客上)拿下来。我的资料来源是新加坡政府的网络。在要求我删除我的文章后,这些资料也被删除了。

我也查到资料表明政府把我们的退休金投资在一个公司里,但是政府说他们没有参与到这个公司的管理,这个公司也说他们不清楚有没有用我们的退休金。但是我查到的是,新加坡总理,副总理和两个部长都是在这个公司里担任领导职位,所以他们就不可能不知道发生了什么事情。

但是我将证据交给法庭时,总理说这些证据并不重要,跟案件没有关系,所以不能当证据来用。

所以,这几个月以来,政府一直采取各种方式来我。比如去年九月份因为整个新加坡只有一个公园可以举行抗议活动,我们在这里举行抗议活动的时候,刚好遇到另一个机构举行另一个抗议,当时我们经过这个抗议活动的时候,政府以及十个部长,媒体都说我们在那里搞破坏。抗议过后,法官就说我诽谤了总理。所以我认为他们就是一直在想办法破环我的名誉,让我诽谤总理的罪名能够成立。

被告以后,由于需要资金来支付律师费用,我有一个捐款活动,三四千人共同帮我筹集到十万新币。因为有很多新加坡人支持我,所以政府就有意破坏我的名誉,让我比较难得到别人的支持。

法广:是新加坡的总理亲自告你,还是通过手下的机构?

鄞义林:其实,新加坡的总理不可以用总理或政府人员的身份来告我,所以他只能用私人的身份来告我。但是他一直在用政府的资源来帮助,比如他的秘书写信来攻击支持我的人。但是总理实际上是用私人的身份来告我,所以他不可以用他的秘书来帮他讲话。

法广:如果我理解正确的话,您认为新加坡政府总理利用退休金和公积金来为自己谋利,是吗?

鄞义林:实际上我从来没有讲这句话,是他们想办法说我讲了这句话,但是我没有讲过。

法广:你披露的这些与公积金有关的资料都是在政府的网络上得到的吗?

鄞义林:其实这些资料也没有在网络上公开,我需要在政府机构不同的网上收集资料。因为政府1520年来都没有让向新加坡人透露这些东西。其实,我们的公积金现在被投资在一个叫GIC的公司,但是GIC属于总理管。他们在200120062007年已经告诉新加坡人没有将我们的公积金放在GIC里,公积金获得的利息和GIC没有关系。但是去年他们在控告我以后,就曾首次透露公积金有投资在GIC

我之所以知道的原因并不是政府将这些资料放在网站上,我需要在不同的网站上收集资料,在20122013年写了两篇文章,解释政府如何将公积金的钱放在这两个公司。在告我的时候,他们也要求我把这两篇文章从网上拿下来,然后他们自己也从不同的网站上将这些资料拿下来了。

法广:您的爆料在新加坡引发什么样的反应?

鄞义林:如果你来过新加坡就可以看到,很多老人不能退休,他们要做清洁工之类的工作,所以新加坡有不少人都在讨论,为什么这么多的新加坡人不能退休,这就是因为他们的退休金和公积金不够。

另外,欧洲的一个报告指出,新加坡的退休金在不少国家中是最低的。有新加坡人支持我,首先是总理告一个普通的博客主,这也是第一例,但是在新加坡还是有很多反对党人和国际媒体被新加坡政府告过,所以我是第一个普通人被告。而且我也是因谈到公积金被告,我的博客这两年也有很多人阅读,所有这些因素就会让新加坡人质疑总理告一个普通人的原因,而且,我问的是国民的退休金和公积金的真正去向。

所以就有很多人支持我,有一个调查就显示,超过58%的新加坡人支持我说的东西,觉得我们的公积金不公平。但是,支持是有人支持,但新加坡人不敢站起来,因为新加坡人很害怕。

新加坡政府让国民没有发言权是有原因的,因为从外边看,新加坡是一个很有钱的国家,但是仔细看,人民的生活其实是蛮困难的。经济学家现在将新加坡排在最贵的国家行列,价钱和挪威和伦敦相差不大,而且有些东西甚至还要更贵。新加坡人的工资在发达国家实际上并不高,甚至是最低的国家之一,新加坡政府花在教育和医药领域的钱也是发达国家中最低。所以新加坡人需要自己掏钱来支付教育和医疗费用,消费很高,但同时我们的薪水又很低。

换个角度,如果要看在一个地方有多少钱才能生存,新加坡大概有38%的人每个月大约要花105%151%的薪水,就是说入不敷出。但是,这些情况从外边是看不到的,因为国家很有钱,但是这些钱都被投到新加坡政府控制的公司,新加坡政府部长的薪水也是居世界首位。回馈给新加坡人的钱就很少。

因此,新加坡政府就需要通过法律来阻止我们有自由发言权,是因为他们不想让我们将这些东西挖出来,透露出来。

法广:您目前失去了工作,靠什么生活?

鄞义林:其实现在很难找工作,新加坡政府现在控制整个社会。我的工作是社会义工,但是社会机构要生存都需要政府的钱,所以要在这方面找工作也很难。而且今年七月要有宣判,宣布我需要赔偿新加坡总理多少钱。这个案例已经到了新加坡的最高法庭,一般新加坡的最高法庭只管那些超过25万新元的案例,所以我至少要赔偿新加坡总理2530万新元,甚至50万。所以到时候如果真是这样,我就会破产了。因为我以前筹到的钱已经全部给了我的律师。

目前我暂时帮一些网络写些文章,但这也不是长远的东西。我想可能以后我要出国去找工作,因为新加坡肯定是很难了。

法广:您认为七月份的审判没有任何胜诉的可能?

鄞义林:这个比较难讲,因为之前被新加坡总理和政府告过的人从来都没有胜诉过,所以机会比较难。

实际上,我自己对目前的这种局面也感到十分惊讶,因为我觉得自己写的这些东西是为了帮助新加坡,让大家了解新加坡发生的事,也是让大家看到新加坡的另外一面,让我们以后作出正确的选择来帮助自己。

当然,我想过可能政府会叫医院解雇我,但是没有想到过政府会来告我诽谤罪,因为我真的只是想知道新加坡究竟发生了什么事,提出一些我认为比较客观和重要的问题。

其实我还是有点天真,因为这五十年来,政府从来没有停止过压迫新加坡人,他们一直用法律和条例来阻止新加坡人问的问题,所以我也没想到自己进入了这样大的一个洞。

但是同时,我也想告诉大家,很多人觉得新加坡是一个很漂亮的地方,看起来很美,很发达,但是其实很多新加坡人都享受不到这些东西,没有钱来享受,所以,我只是希望利用这个机会让人了解到新加坡到底是怎样的一个国家,如果一些政府希望学习新加坡的模式,这些国家的居民应该好好观察这些模式到底怎么用。

感谢来自新加坡的博客主鄞义林先生接受法广专访。他于2014年被新加坡雅虎列为年度新闻人物。

英文版本转载自: http://thehearttruths.com/2015/03/11/

 [Radio] My Interview with French Radio RFI on 8 March 2015

Last month, I gave an interview to the French radio station RFI, which was aired on 8 March 2015.

I spoke about how I managed to trace how the Singapore PAP-run government was taking our public pension funds from the Central Provident Fund (CPF) to invest in two of its investment firms but stopped telling Singaporeans about it. Also, after I put the information together and wrote two articles, I was asked by the government to take the two articles down and the government then deleted the information from its websites.

Dear listeners, Southeast Asian country Singapore is an economically prosperous and politically stable country. People on the outside also rarely hear about protests in Singaporeans. Recently, a blogger from Singapore, Roy Ngerng, got in touch with RFI, through Reporters Without Borders. He hopes to share about how he had written and exposed how the CPF pension funds in Singapore are being used and was subsequently sued for defamation by the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and lost his job. His sharing might be useful to help us understand Singapore’s politics and society.

Please listen to the interview with Roy Ngerng.

Roy Ngerng: The Singapore’s Prime Minister sued me in May last year and said that I had defamed him, because I had written an article (“Where Your CPF Money is Going: Learning from the City Harvest Trial”), which talked about how the how the government has been taking our CPF pension funds to use and invest but did not return the interest earned back to Singaporeans. In the article, I compared how the government was using our pension funds with how a church was managing its funds. The church pastor, had with his colleagues, set up two companies to siphon off the church’s funds into these companies, to then use for his wife’s singing career. So, I compared and said how the government’s use of our pension funds is similar to the church’s mismanagement of its funds. The prime minister then said that I have defamed him and that I had said that he has taken our money to use. In May, he sued me and three weeks later, I lost my job. 

I was working in developing HIV/AIDS programmes at a hospital. When I was fired, the hospital and the government also sent out press releases to say that I have been fired. In August, I submitted evidence to court to detail how I had uncovered how the government has been taking our pension funds to invest in two of its investment firms but it did not tell us about this. The government also told me to take down the two articles that I had written about this, where I have traced the information from several government websites. After the government asked me to take down the articles, it also deleted the information from its websites.

The other thing that I found out was that the government had taken our pension funds to invest in one of its investment firms (GIC) but it told us that the government does not interfere in the GIC. The GIC also claimed that it did not know if it was using our pension funds to use. However, I revealed that the Singapore prime minister, two deputy prime ministers and several ministers also sit on the GIC’s board of directors so that is no way that the government does not know what is going on.

But when I submitted the evidence to court, the prime minister said that the evidence is “irrelevant”, “inadmissible” and an “abuse of the court process”, and has no relevance to the defamation suit and cannot be used as evidence.

So, for the past few months, I have been constantly prosecuted and “harmed’ by the Singapore government. In September last year, we held a protest. You cannot protest in the whole of Singapore, except in a small park in Singapore. When we held the protest, there was another organisation which was also holding an event. At that time, when we walked past that event, suddenly, the government, several ministers, members of parliament, state-controlled media and online media affiliated to the government said that we were trying to create trouble. After the protest, the judge then ruled that I have defamed the prime minister. So, the government have been trying to think about how to pull down my reputation, so that they can say that I have defamed the prime minister.

After I was sued, I conducted a fund raising because I needed to raise funds to pay for the legal fees. There were more than 3,000 or 4,000 Singaporeans who helped to raise more than S$100,000. There are many Singaporeans who support me, so the government kept thinking of ways to destroy my reputation, to make it difficult for me to gain support.

RFI: Do you mean that the Singapore prime minister was suing you personally or is he suing you using the agencies under his control?

Roy Ngerng: Actually, the Singapore prime minister cannot sue me in his capacity as a prime minister or as a government official. He can only sue me in his personal capacity. However, he has constantly used state resources to help him. For example, he has used his press secretary to write letters to attack others who have spoken up for me. But the prime minister is suing me in his personal capacity, so he cannot use his press secretary to speak up for him.

RFI: If I understand correctly, you believe that the Singapore prime minister was taking the pension funds for his own personal benefits, is that it?

Roy Ngerng: But actually, I have never said this. So, it is them who have wanted to make it sound like I have said this but I have never said this.

RFI: Just now, you also said that there are many people who support you and helped to raise funds. What is the reaction that your expose has triggered in Singapore?

Roy Ngerng: If you come to Singapore, you can actually see a lot of elderly Singaporeans who have to keep working and cannot retire. There are many elderly Singaporeans who are working as cleaners or work as cardboard collectors on the streets. So, many Singaporeans are discussing about why so many elderly Singaporeans cannot retire and why their CPF pension funds are not enough.

Also, an OECD report also revealed that Singapore’s pension funds are the least adequate among many countries. Singaporeans support me because first, the prime minister is bullying an ordinary blogger. Also, I am the first blogger to be sued but there have been many opposition politicians and international media which have been sued by the Singapore government before. In addition, I spoke up about the CPF pension funds. Fortunately, my blog has amassed many readers over the past 2 years (so it gave me some protection). So when all these factors are considered, many people asked why the prime minister wanted to sue an ordinary Singaporean without any rhyme and reason, and what’s more, I have also questioned where our CPF pension funds have gone.

There are many people who support me. A (Blackbox) survey showed that more than 50% of Singaporeans support what I say and think that the CPF pension funds are unfair. However, even though there is support, Singaporeans do not dare to stand up because Singaporeans are fearful.

There is a reason why the Singapore government wants to use the law to curb our freedom of speech. This is because from the outside, Singapore looks like a very rich country but when you look at the lives that the people are living, it is quite difficult. The Economist has ranked Singapore as the most expensive place in the world. When you compare Singapore’s prices with Norway and London, prices are not that much different. In fact, prices in Singapore for some things are even more expensive than in Norway and London. Also, the wages of Singaporeans are actually one of the lowest among the developed countries. Furthermore, the Singapore government’s expenditure on healthcare and education (as a percentage of GDP), is also the lowest among the developed countries and in fact, one of the lowest in the world. So, Singaporeans have to pay the most out from our own pockets for healthcare and education in the world. Yet, our wages are one of the lowest among the developed countries. Thus the income inequality in Singapore is also the highest among the developed countries.

And if you look at how much a person need to earn in order to survive, there are about 30% of Singaporeans who have to spend 105% to 151% of their incomes. So, they cannot earn enough. But you cannot see these things from outside the country because Singapore looks rich. But most of this money goes to the companies controlled by the Singapore government. Also, the Singapore ministers also earn the highest salaries in the world. So, very little money goes back to Singaporeans.

Thus the Singapore government wants to use the law to curb our freedom of expression because they do not want people to dig out this information to expose it for others to see.

RFI: Now that you have lost your job, how do you make a living?

Roy Ngerng: Actually, it is now very difficult (for me) to look for a job because the Singapore government controls most probably the whole of Singapore. I used to work in the social services and the social service sector all rely on the government for funding or it will be difficult for them to operate, so it will also be very difficult to find a job in this field. Also, in July this year, I have another hearing to decide how much I would need to pay the Singapore prime minister in damages. The prime minister has filed the defamation suit in the Supreme Court which oversees cases of more than S$250,000, so this is at least how much I am expected to pay, but it can go up to as high as S$300,000 or even S$500,000. So when the time comes, I will become bankrupt because with the money that I have raised, I have already used it to pay my lawyer (and the prime minister’s lawyers).

I am currently writing for some online websites but this is not a long term solution. I think in the long term I might even have to go abroad to find work because it is definitely very difficult (for me) to look for a job in Singapore.

RFI: Regarding the CPF information, did you obtain them from government websites to expose the information?

Roy Ngerng: Actually, the government did not disclose the information. I had to go to several different websites to put together the information because the government has over the past 15, 20 years not allowed Singaporeans to know this information (and has been hiding this information). The fact of the matter is that our CPF pension funds are invested in the GIC. However, the prime minister also controls the GIC (as the chairman). But in 2001, 2006 and 2007, the government told us that they do not give our CPF pension funds to GIC to use and that the interest earned in the GIC has no connection with the CPF. However, after they sued me last year, they admitted for the first time that yes, the CPF pension funds are invested in the GIC.

I know of all this information, not because the government has put this information on its website. I had to go through several different websites to trace this information. Then, in 2012 and 2013, I wrote two articles to detail how I had traced that our CPF pension funds were invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings. Then when they sued me, they told me to take down these two articles and after that, they also took down the information from several of their websites. First, they have never told Singaporeans about this because there is no transparency. Second, they told me to take down my articles and then deleted the information from their websites.

RFI: Do you think that you have no chances of winning the defamation suit in July? 

Roy Ngerng: This is difficult to say because everyone who has been sued for defamation by the Singapore prime ministers have never won, so it is difficult.

Actually, at that time I was also quite surprised because I had thought that I had written all these things because I wanted to help Singapore, to let people know about what is going on in Singapore. It is also to let people see the other side of Singapore, so that we will make the right decision to protect ourselves.

I did think that the government might ask the hospital that I was working at to fire me but I did not think that I would be sued for defamation by the government, because I really wanted to know what is going on in Singapore and to ask more objective questions and questions that I think are important.

But actually, I am a little naive, because over the past 50 years, the government has never stopped prosecuting and oppressing Singaporeans. They have constantly used the different laws and regulations to prevent Singaporeans from asking them questions, so I did not realise that I was stepping into such a big hole.

But what I also want to tell everyone is that many people think that Singapore is a very good place, very beautiful and very developed, but in fact, many Singaporeans do not get to use these things and do not have the money to enjoy. So, I just hope that we can use this opportunity to let others know what Singapore is really like as a country and if the other governments want to follow the Singapore model, then their citizens have to ask their governments to carefully analyse the Singapore model.

The interview above is conducted with a blogger from Singapore, Roy Ngerng. He was ranked by Yahoo Singapore as the top newsmaker in Singapore in 2014.