人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋

(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》

留下评论

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 Quite clearly he is happy to display his understanding of how he uses historical documents and makes sense (or non-sense) of them.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。

 

Advertisements

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 更改 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 更改 )

Connecting to %s