人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

上了多有意义的一课

方山聚会上的讲话在霹雳老友联谊会悼念独立斗士赛扎哈里

方山

2016-05-15. 转载自《21老友》网站:http://blog.of21.com/?p=5521

13012600_998346776922716_3484738542918895984_n

【怡保29日讯】 我国争取独立的英勇斗士、马来报章著名编辑赛•扎哈里(Said Zahari)先生,于今年4月12日逝世,享年88岁。1928年,赛•扎哈里出生于新加坡。1951年加入《马来前锋报》(Utusan Melayu)(《马来西亚前锋报》的前身)服务,1959年至1961年担任该报总编辑。该报创刊时总部设在新加坡,1957年马来亚联合邦独立后,搬 迁至吉隆坡。

 1961年,赛.扎哈里因不满巫统高层发号施令,干预新闻自由,毅然出而领导同道,从7月至10月,进行了约4个月的罢工行动,捍卫新闻独立自由权利。

他在前往新加坡办公后,遭时任首相东姑阿都拉曼禁足马来亚内地,被流放到新加坡。此时,罢工因员工之间出现分裂,最终被瓦解。

为面对1959年5月新加坡自治邦首次选举,他获选为新加坡人民党主席,但该党在参选中因左翼运动政策失误而全败。

1963年新加坡当局出手发动 “2•2冷藏行动”,他连同林清祥等超过100名正义人士被逮捕。他在內安法令下被拘留长达17年,导致儿子罗士曼(Roesman)、诺曼 (Norman )和女儿丽丝玛瓦蒂(Rismawati)、诺琳达(Noorlinda,赛入狱约半年后出世),在没爸爸的陪伴下成长。1979年获释时,他已51岁。

 霹雳老友联谊会对这一位争取独立的爱国志士,至为尊敬。对他的逝世,尤为悲痛。为悼念这位老战士的离去,特邀约了吉隆坡21世纪出版社负责人方山于5月15日在怡保该会会所主办了一次论坛,对赛作了一个深入的论述。

 方山首先介绍了赛精彩的前半生。也介绍了赛的妻子。方山说:赛•扎哈里的妻子萨拉玛(Salamah)坚韧刚毅,不只独自将孩子们带大,也让赛•扎 哈里得以意志坚定,度过监狱的磨难。赛•扎哈里是在马新被关押最久的政治拘留者之一,也被新旧世代视为一颗为自由和正义发声的良心。

1989年,赛•扎哈里随家人从新加坡迁至吉隆坡,继续他的生活和斗争。

方山说:作为知名报人,赛•扎哈里的著作很能说明问题,获得各界很高评价。他曾出版一部诗集,即《狱中诗稿》(Puisi dari penjara,1973),以及3本回忆录 ——

  1. 《人间正道:赛•扎哈里政治回忆录》(Meniti Lautan Gelora: Sebuah Memoir Politik,2001);

  2. 《万千梦魘:赛•扎哈里回忆录II》 (Dalam Ribuan Mimpi Gelisah: Memoir,2006);

  3. Suara Bicara — Fragmen Memoir Said Zahari (2015)(暂译为《言为心声 ——赛•扎哈里回忆片片录》)。

方山介绍:赛将他本身的生活、斗争故事、对国土的感情、反殖信念及对人类的解放等理念,记录在三本回忆录。他举数例与听众分享 ——

“在回忆录中,可以知道赛一生都在贯彻和奉行着各民族都是—家人的民族平等思想。对各族人民,特别是下层老百姓之间的相互帮助、和睦共处,他花了颇 多篇幅加以描述。他这样的写道:“彼此之间的肤色、语言、文化与宗教都不同,然而,由于相同的生活命运.像一条绳子一样,把他们系在一起,彼此间建立起亲 密与真挚的友情。

“赛是个进步民族主义者,他有很高的觉悟。就我所接触的某些马来精英中,他们对民族平等的信念是很有问题的,特别在语文教育问题上,他们在处于马来 被压迫时期,高喊“语言是民族的灵魂”(bahasa jiwa bangsa)、“马来人绝不在世上消失”(tak terhilang bangsa Melayu di dunia)等等,对来自华印族进步人士的支持无限感激;可是,独立之后,马来官僚垄断集团大搞马来沙文主义和民族同化政策,这时期,这些马来精英大多反 过来向民族同化政策靠拢,说什么独立后应建立统一的“国族”,马来语是“国语”,华印族只是族群(sugu bangsa)不应再提倡华印民族语文,这会影响国民团结等等。赛没有同流合污,保持了马来进步民族主义者的本色,每当我们有幸参与赛•扎哈里的开斋节门 户开放活动时,他的客人一定是来自各个族群的。他也热情招呼所有宾客,我们常常听到他和华裔朋友们以华语沟通。

当然,赛也不是白璧无瑕,他也有一定的局限 性,例如,当南大同学希望他对李光耀关闭南大的问题作出谴责,他都不愿直接表态;在他晚年对第二本回忆录请人做推介时,却兜兜转转找来主张“单一语文政 策”的原新闻部长拿督斯理再努丁(Dato’Sri Zainuddin Maidain),令老友感到很不是味道。无论如何,瑕不掩瑜,赛还是我们深为尊敬的友族战友。”

第二个例子,这位对新加坡人民的斗争有深切了解的方山说:

“对统一战线,赛甚至在马共总书记陈平的面前,开诚布公地批评1950年代马共在新加坡的 ‘全权代表’所犯的错误。赛在回忆录论证了一个事实,即是 —— 新加坡人民行动党和李光耀是马共所大力支持与推行的统一战线下的‘受益人’;人民行动党能够上台执政,李光耀能够坐上新加坡总理的宝座,这项功绩,是马来 亚共产党统一战线的明显错误!他指出,抗日战争时,中共是与要抗日的蒋介石搞统战,而不是与已投降日本的汪精卫搞统战。可是,当时,新加坡的‘全权代表’ 却同投靠殖民主义的李光耀搞统战,扶持人民行动党,搞垮工人党以至战友组织人民党。

 “塞的指控完全正确,义正词严!这是血的历史教训!”

但方山也补充说:

“从大局着眼,控诉统一战线的错误,那是抓住主要矛盾;但作为有关者的人民党,也有自己的问题,也需吸收一些经验教训。要知道,失 去统一战线的支持,会输甚至大输,这是大势所趋,情有可原。但为什么它的3个参选人中的马来候选人会输得那么惨,这同他们斗争意志不强、作风散漫难道无关 吗?难道不也需要做些检讨吗?”

关于统一战线,方山总结说:

“无论如何,赛在统一战线大局上的发声,警醒了身历其境的不少战友!”

第三点,谈到一些鲜为人知的秘闻,方山说:

“在回忆录中,赛也记录了好多鲜为人知的秘闻,如1955年《华玲会谈》失败后,他对东姑作了一段特别采 访。他被允许提一个问题。他问道:“你(指东姑)对会谈失败是否感到失望?”东姑很快地回答:“不,我不失望。我从来就不要它成功。”请看,这就一语道破 东姑的那一副心肠,他东姑追求的不是真正要和马共达成共同争取独立的和谈协议,而是要利用马共浴血争取独立的行动和决心,但英国又镇压不下以至必须玩弄自 治独立把戏的时机,捞取政治资本。”

谈到第四个例子,方山指出:

“ 对历史事件,赛往往能够果敢地作出极为中肯的论断,例如他说:“林清祥是李光耀和英殖民主义者残暴政治的最大受害人。”虽然在谈起时他轻描淡写的说只是照 事实写下来,然而那是需要多么大的勇气啊!这又再次证明了,他是一个不畏强权、热爱自由、民主和敢于谴责暴政的战士,他是多么憎恨对政见不同者进行残酷迫 害的行为呀!”

方山也指出,

赛对新加坡前总理李光耀资政的评论,更是一针见血:“《合艾和约》的签署,李光耀如果不是破口大骂的话,也肯定很懊恼,原因是:在以 前,他可以乱套红帽子来囚禁政敌,如今,他得另找一个魔鬼来玩同样的把戏了。”对此,赛又说:“我们的反殖斗争,被反共、独裁的李光耀政权强行跟马共和武 装斗争挂勾,而剥夺了我们作为人民的基本权利,把我们丢进李光耀的政治‘冷藏库’关了很多年,毫无人性!”

方山引用了赛的提问:

“历史上有哪一个独裁政权能洗清自己手上沾染的血腥与污秽呢?”

这位在火红的年代里在祖国的大地上奔驰和战斗过的主讲人方山,在悼念赛的聚会上,深刻指出:

“有需指出,新加坡的独立建国历史,只能是一部反殖民主 义运动历史。在探索反殖民主义运动的建国历史过程中,李光耀是不是英国代理人的历史疑问,是一道绕不开的议题。今天,能够被肯定为争取独立建国的英雄人 物,并非李光耀,而是被李光耀长期囚禁的大批以林清祥为旗帜,包括傅树楷、赛前辈等真正的爱国人士。”

在讲座会开始时,出席者起立为向我国争取独立的英勇斗士赛•扎哈里战友致敬,愿他在祖国的土地上安息。

从座谈会出来,虽然生在同一个年代,却对那个年代的人和事的认识,有着太多的空白,今天,又上了多有意义的一课。

Advertisements


3条评论

(中/英文版)采访傅树介医生 An interview with Dr Poh Soo Kai

采访傅树介医生

傅树介访谈照片          生活在欺瞒的年代(中文版封面)    kirsten

作者:克莉丝.韩莉颖Kirsten Han

编者按:本文中文版与英文版之间如有不符之处,均以英文版作为最终的解释权。特此说明。

2016年2月13日,傅树介医生的回忆录:《生活在欺瞒的年代》发布会是在一个拥挤的会场举行。我和负责摄影的Tom White在(星期二)傍晚和傅树介医生见面了。我们谈及了有关他出版的这本书、被监禁期间的事以及对新加坡的看法。 这是一篇摘要访谈是经过编辑的。它刊登在4月份的《Southeast Asia Globe》刊物最后一页里。现在全文刊登这次访谈的内容。

我没有把我们之间的谈话及时全部输入——因为我不是机器,我无法快速的输入——我在过程中对某些词句进行修饰让大家便于阅读。

1:经过这么冗长的时间,是什么动机促使您撰写这本回忆录?

答:事实上,我很早就想撰写我的回忆录里。当我在监禁在牢内时就是想过要撰写了。这是其中一个原因,当我释放出来时想过的。——后来我赚了一些钱——我决定去英国档案馆查阅档案资料。

事实上,这是他们把我监禁在牢里的理由之一,我不是在接受他们的条件下释放出来。因为,假设我是接受他们的条件出来的话,那么,我所说的一切是无法令人置信的。

2:在您准备出版这本书之前时间已经流失了许多了啊!

答:哦!是的。首先,我是在很早的时候搜集资料的。那时我去了伦敦,我

搜集资料是在1994年。但是,当时我却不知从哪儿开始下笔。我完全没有构思过如何撰写这本书。

事实上,当我搜集后把它把带回来,我告诉了陈仁贵。但是, 他却说,“你所搜集的资料都没有注明日期!”

我们没有资料,我只是搜集了一些没有注明日期的资料。这样情况下我是不可能撰写任何东西的。我是从这儿开始学习搜集资料了。

我出版的第一本书是在仁贵的协助下完成的。这本书名叫《花惹风云年代》(The Fajar Generation.)。仁贵在逝世前告诉我,我必须撰写更多有关冷藏行动的书籍。在孔丽莎博士协助下,我撰写的内容改进了很多了。我从中知道一本书的完成所要经过的过程。

华惹一代

 在《在新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年》这本书出版后,我已经有了要出版一本书所具备应该包括哪些内容的概念了。你必须知道文章的索引和资料引自何处。但是我还是没有什么信心。这一切还是在后来,大约在4年后吧,在FUNCTION 8的成员一直说服我“你必须写”下,我才真正的实现。

冷藏行动中文版

但是,我始终一直在拖延着。我并不是不要撰写,而是我延后了一些时间。我确实有一点懒散。

在开始撰写的哪一刻我开始感觉到兴趣来了。但是,我要讲述一些事件时却苦于没有事实的依据。例如,我要谈到(关于林有福政府指责林清祥号召)“打警察(pah mata闽南语)”的事件时。您知道有关“打警察(pah mata闽南语)”的事件吗?这是林清祥在1960年和一起回家的路上告诉我,他根本就没有说过这句话。这是他们(指林有福政府)自己说的,他根本就没有用过这些字眼。但是,我要如何推翻他们指(林清祥)说过这句话呢?

每当他举行任何记者会时,例如他接受Melanie Chew的采访时,他说了。Melanie Chew也在自己出版的书籍里提到这件事了。她说,“清祥说,他没有说过“打警察(pah mata闽南语)”。但是,在这远远不足于让我说明清祥没有说过“打警察(pah mata闽南语)这句话。因为指控他这句话的人是一名部长。他是在立法议会做出这项指控的。当时李光耀本人是出席立法议会的。因为当时林清祥发表演讲时李光耀也出席了那场竞选群众大会。他应该知道清祥并没有说过这句话。这就造成了我很难下笔。我一直在思考着如何叙述这起事件。就在这个时候,谭柄鑫博士发现了一份(解密)资料,进而扫除了这个障碍就此解决了这个难题。

还有其他的问题造成了我的延误撰写这本书否则,它可能很早就面世了。我感到非常幸运,它最终是出版了。因为它拥有了更多的资料。你有了各种想法、你可以分析各种问题,但是,这一切都缺乏事实具有铁一般的可以驳斥的事实啊!

3:您认为,我们会看到新加坡政府解密他们的档案资料吗?

答:我不认为新加坡政府会这么做,因为这些资料太敏感了,除非他们把其中一部分资料内容删除掉。新加坡的档案馆并没有全部的文件。例如,关于伊登园的资料就不在了。我想,他们或许已经销毁了……一些历史学者去找过,但是,他们说并不在哪儿。

因为这将带来一个问题是否……或者为什么谢尔克要邀请我们?英国人没有否认邀请我们这件事。谢尔克没有否认邀请我们!他只是说,詹姆士.普都查理打电话和他约定茶会的时间,这一切都是事实。詹姆士.普都查理切实给他打了电话。是我们让詹姆士.普督查理回复他的邀请的。我们并没有要求谢尔克接见我们。因此,我认为,我们将远远不会拿到这些详细资料。

4.很多人要求设立调查庭。

答:是的。调查有关逮捕行动的问题。因为这是非常困难的……假设像林清祥这样的人,他是一个立法议员都可以被安上一个“打警察”(pah mata’闽南语)罪名,那么,您认为对其他人又怎么不可以呢?这是易如反掌的事,所以这是相当困难的。

同时,他们是在谈论到有关使用(有关法令)……是极其严格的。这样他们的《防止公共安全法令》(Presevation of public security ordinance,简称PPSO)不会被滥用。在英国人时代开始直到1959年取得政权为止。英国人就一直实施这条法律。你的案件时可以在一个委员会里进行检讨的。他们把这个委员会成为检讨委员会。这个委员会有权利超越由上级委员会的决定,自行决定是否要释放你或者继续扣留。在行动党取得政权后,他们更改了法令。他们设立了谘询委员会取代了原有的检讨委员会。这个谘询委员会没有实质的权利。我在1967年获得谘询委员会决定释放,但是,政府却取消了咨询委员会的报告。

5:谁被委任进入咨询委员会?

答:谘询委员会的委员是大法官和其他两位陪审法官。我们不知道他们是怎样被委任的。我的案件是由Winslow法官、杨锦成教授和一位不知道其职位的林先生。我曾经和杨锦成教授一起工作过。

6:您是如何为这本书命名的?

答:我给这本书命名为《生活在欺瞒的年代》。那是因为长久以来我们都是生活在欺瞒的日子里。谢尔克就是经常使用这个字眼的。他说,“我们将不会参与这个欺瞒。”他说的这句话是指李光耀在失去芳林补选后,他要内部安全委员会取消他要求释放政治犯的要求。他说,他不会要求释放政治犯的。行动党上台前时是要求释放所有被监禁在牢内的政治犯。但是,李光耀要谢尔克越权做出这个决定。但是,不管是谢尔克或是东姑都不会这么做。谢尔克把李光耀的这个要求形容为欺瞒。所以我也把这本书命名这个名字。

李光耀在处理人民是事情就是欺瞒。在法律第30条下,这就是一种欺瞒行为。在法律第30条项下有关被扣留者……那些拘留者不允许参与1959年大选。这是林德宪制有关大选的法律。拘留者不允许参与大选。

对于这个想法,我是在后来从李光耀哪儿发现的。他告诉英国人和林有

福必须做。英国人一开始是感到不高兴。因为他们担心将成为先例,因为身为政治拘留者,我们是拥有自己的政治权利的。我们不是刑事犯。但是,李光耀说服了他们。

后来我知道了。他就是那个说服英国人的人。他是在个别情况下说服英国人和林有福的。在这个问题上,他们没有同时和两个人谈。这是一个极其狡猾的行为。因为当周瑞琪(林有福时期的教育部长)提到立法议会上时,林有福说,“你在耍弄肮脏手段,我们也耍弄肮脏手段”。这就是说。你在谈有关周瑞琪的事情案件,那我将会谈第30条法令。

李光耀跳起来说,“这是一个极其恶毒的谎言。”从技术上而言,因为林有福说,“我们同时见了英国人”。这个意思是说,“我们一齐见了英国人”。他们没有同时与英国殖民官员交谈。他们是个别与英国殖民官员交谈的。所以,在技术上李光耀是对的。

7:您认为我们仍然还在欺瞒的年代?

答:我想,我不敢这么说。因为我说的是我的那个年代。今天我不是太了解现在的政府。您必须去问一问今天政治家。

8:在这本书里面最具有挑战性的是哪一部分?

答:我想,在写这本书时最有挑战性的部分是如何把你自己的思想跨越两代人,特别是50岁以下青年一代。他们完全不知道当年到底发生了什么事。

我可以告诉您一些事情:当我在《花惹风云时代》的新书发布会时,当时还存在一些担心行动党的将会采取行动对付的心理。这是在2009年。在2006年,新加坡政府发表声明不准前政治拘留者撰写有关历史问题的书籍。这是政府在2006年的声明。因此当时仍然还存在一些恐惧的心理,所以我也很小心。

所以,我在谈到李光耀是使用Botox一种可消除皱纹肉毒杆菌素……您应该知道这是使用在保护皮肤的。他要把自己装扮成青年人,但是事实上并不是年轻人。我是说他的年纪。这是原则问题。因为他在一个集会上说,每个人都想成为年轻人但他不是。当林清祥带上围巾要出席立法议会时,他说,“丫!我们有一个穿着像中产阶级的无产阶级领袖。” 我看着他笑。因为就我来说,他的外表……李光耀称他的外表是表现反殖民主义者,但是,他想伪成为一个殖民主义。这是我看法。没有人会想到他的这个想法的。

9:您认为李光耀曾经是反对殖民主义者吗?

答:不是。我不认为他是一个反殖主义者。他只是为了让获得在群众中的知名度而采取了妥协吧了。只要他可能的话……事实上,后来的解密档案资料显示是他是英国人栽培的。英国人挑选了他并栽培他。我想,大概是在1952年,当他在伦敦见了新加坡警察总监。当时警察总监在伦敦度假,邀请他一起度周末,整个警察部门的人都被告知必须友善的接待他。

在同样的解密档案资料里说明了,李光耀非常关心他的弟弟李金耀。我想,当时李金耀是参加了一个学生旅游团到莫斯科。这是一个免费的旅游团。他是反对的。当时李金耀要在新加坡申请一份法律工作,李光耀担心他的弟弟将不会获得录取。接着,他去见政府。政府的回复是,“很凑巧,我们已经得到上级的指示接受他了”。接受他的弟弟申请的工作。这是某些人已经为他的弟弟疏通了关系。

10:您期待这本书出版后将会产生什么样影响?

答:我只是希望年轻的一代那个知道历史。仅仅就是这样吧了。这是我们经历过的时代,这也是新加坡真正的历史。

11:您是否发现新加坡的年轻人越来越好求知?

答:是的。在大选过后确实是这样。他们已经更加有兴趣要知道到底发生了

什么事情?尽管他们经常会感到恐惧而不会参与其中。

但是,他们却很想知道。这本书出版后断货。这是我感到惊讶的。出版社告诉我,他们已经第二次再版……那家设在高岛屋的日本纪伊国屋书店(Kinokuniya)已经断货了。

12:您要向那些希望知道更多的新加坡青年人说些什么吗

答:我会对他们说些什么?我会说,“去买这本书吧!”

13:看来将会有更多有关这个历史时期的书籍出版?

答:是的。有关当时历史的书籍正在涌现。但是,我的书和那些书有不同之处。因为我撰写的书不仅仅是我个人的经历,而是在叙述这个历史发展时期的个人经历。在那个历史年代存在各种政治势力参与者,李光耀参与了;马来亚共产党的影响力和所产生的效用。您知道吗?我们当中有不少人,我预期那些人在想……特别的那些老左……他们认为我不应该对当时的左翼进行批评。但是,我觉得我必须对它(这个时期的历史)表达我的看法。

14:一些人把您标签为“历史修正主义者”?

答“丫……我们可以对此进行辩论。甭管别人是如何称呼我,但是,让我们就有关的(历史)问题进行辩论。当时的历史事件的真相是怎样发生的?它的结果是什么?——这就是历史对吗?假设苏卡诺没有取得政权。您认为(当时的局面)将会是怎样?假设是哈达(Hatta)副总统成为印度尼西亚的领导人,不是苏卡诺的话……我个人认为,这个地区的历史将会不同。我想,我也不会被逮捕了!

15:您在监狱的17年的情况是怎样的?

答:没有人愿意被关在监牢里。大家都害怕被管在监牢里。那是因为没有愿意在监牢里。

对许多人而言,关在监牢里首先想到就是被虐待的感觉。他们要嘛,被单独监禁、或者遭受殴打、被迫强制进行(体罚)运动,直到你无法支撑为止、一些人被泼冷水、一些人被刮掌等等……您所知道的不同的程度。

我是幸运的。因为可能我是医生的原故。他们只是把单独监禁,在一间空调温度极低的审讯室进行审问……审问也不多,但是,就是把我从早上6点到午夜12点都关在这间空调室。

当晚第一次被捕时,负责审问的官员在我的面前放了一个钟,对我说,“12点钟你回去,半夜12点钟。”当我问到,“对我指控罪状要审问什么就问呗!”

办案警官回答说,“我不可以审问你,因为一旦我审问你,您将会知道我们已经知道了什么。”

我听完感到惊愕。

16:他们是否向您提出任何的要求?

答:没有。从除了一件事外。那是在被捕很久之后,大约是半年的时间吧。当时……我并不知道发生什么事,他们突然间问我,您是否在晚上外出去治疗一个病人?

我回答说,“是的。我下楼去。我是住在一栋公寓。在楼下有一个邻居胃痛。他们来喊我去,所以我就下楼了。”

这名负责审问的警官是内部安全局的副局长。您知道是有点厌倦的。起初他以为我会说些什么东西。当我说,“是的。是的。”接着他……你可以看到他表现的很有兴趣的样子。但是,当我说是到楼下去为一名邻居看病时,他放弃了追问了。

他接着说,“没有其他人?”

我说,“没有。我是不接受夜间出诊的”。

我并不知道他们是在尝试找出我是否和G拉曼(Raman)一起去(柔佛州的)马西。这个故事是后来揭露了我才知道的。接着在一个月后,我回想起来才恍然大悟,“啊!这就是他们所要知道的事!”

但是,这是非常愚蠢的,对吗?假设我是去了马西。根据他们所说的,我和我的妻子及G 拉曼去了马西。G拉曼带路到马西,他的车是开在前头,我是跟随着他的后面。我们都必须经过长堤两边的边检站。在抵达边检站时,我们的车辆移动会被监控摄像镜头拍摄到。哪一辆车跟随在后面、我和G拉曼的护照也将会在哪儿受到检查。他们连这些都不要先进行调查。就是瞎编情节。

17:他们把您关在房间里多久?

答:哦!单独监禁,我被单独监禁在一个小房间里半年。事实上,大部分时间为是被关在这个小房间里。

这是一个很小的牢房,但是,我每天早上6点钟就被他们带出牢房直到午夜12点才回到牢房里。

牢房是非常非常闷热的。直到凌晨2点左右才比较冷。因为牢房屋顶上面没有屋瓦之类,只是水泥屋顶,所以说非常非常闷热的。反过来,在审讯室了却是非常非常的冷。

18:这么说来,在审讯室里没有人和你在一起?

答:不。一些官员在哪儿。每次2个官员轮换。他们的任务只是守着我。有些我们会说一些笑话。有一回,一名官员告诉我,“他是来自柬埔寨……”他告诉在那里发生的一些事情,就是一些闲聊。

19:6个月?

答:是的,是6个月。

20:那么其他时间又干嘛?

答:在我被从卫特里路转移到章宜监狱的明月湾中心——这是我的第二次被捕,不是第一次。在那里,我和2-3个人一起被关在一座小牢房。就这样从这一座转移到那一座……一个时期为被关在一座比较大牢房,大约是和8个人在一起。我在那里只是住了几个月吧了。最后他们把我转移到我们称它为TAF牢房。这座牢房有5个小牢房。住在这座牢房的政治犯有谢太保、何标以及第三个人是曾福华。现在我们知道曾福华是一名共产党员。曾福华是一名共产党员……谢太宝、何标和我一共4人住在一起。

21:在同一个牢房里……?

答:不。是同一座。因为在每一座有一个单独的牢房。你可以要2个牢房。但是,我们只能一人一间牢房。因为一共4个人被关在这座。

我们各自在自己单独的牢房。每天傍晚大约8-9点钟被关进单独的牢房,直到隔天早上6点钟。接下来,他们放你出来进行洗刷。到了早上点,他们就把我们放出来……我的意思是,我们在早上6点钟就可以上厕所和洗澡,然后就到楼下。每座牢房都分成楼上和楼下两层。楼上是单独监禁牢房,楼下是聊天室。

这样我们就在下楼了。楼上牢房房门是没锁的。我们到了楼下后7点钟就吃早餐。在早上吃完早餐后 ,大约8-9点钟,我又回到楼上的牢房被关在里面了。如果楼上的牢房没锁,我们可以在牢房走道走动。但是,你不可以到楼下去。但是,这样在牢房之间自由走动的时间只能是到了晚上8点钟。8点钟之后,我们就不能够自由走动了。

22;这是您第二次被捕吗?与您第一次被捕有不同吗?

答:第一次被捕?与第二次被捕相比,对我来说好得多了,第一次被捕好得多了。我关在欧南园监狱4个月。单独的牢房,面积同样的大小,但是,里面相当得冷。它不会像其他的单独监禁的牢房那样的热,风从旁边吹过来,也是有一个大的抽风扇洞口,这样你可以看到外面,但是一旦风从外面吹进来时,牢房是冷的。

我在欧南园监狱被关了4个月,然后我被转移到一个中等保安的监狱。对我来说……哪里有一个空旷的空间。我们有3座大牢房。每一座有3个牢房。牢房四周都围上来铁丝网。这样,我们可以进出和自由活动……只要我们没有越过铁丝网范围,即便是夜间我们也可以出来坐在一起聊天……整个环境是那么的宁静……不像是一座监狱。

23:他们把所有在冷藏行动下被捕者都关在一起吗?

答:没有。当我们在这三座大牢房时,我们白天可以在一起。我们一共10个人。在正常的8点钟或者6点钟,有时甚至半夜2点钟,你是可以自由走动和交谈的。当我在哪儿时,只有2名是在冷藏行动下的被捕者,其他都是在57年、59年被捕的。他们在那儿已经一段相当长的时间了。但是其他被关在章宜监狱。那里有2座牢房,我没有去过。

24:大多数人在被判决后都知道自己在牢里需要服刑多长时间,但是,(政治拘留者)被拘留是不是不同?

答:这是对的。对于我们这些未经审讯的犯人来说就是一个威胁。我们要求释放。

他们当中很多人与我、赛查哈利、或者福寿或者其他人比起来都有经济上的问题。就我而言,我还有一些希望。因为他们一直给我期望会释放出来。

我告诉过您,在1965年他们是要释放我的……1965年我的律师RCH林,他是在东姑手下工作的。他要求见陈修信。我并不知道这件事。他要见陈修信要求释放我。

他说,他将力尽所能。一个月后,也就是在新加坡脱离马来西亚前三个星期,他们把我从章宜监狱调到罗敏申路(当时的政治部总部)。到了那里,我坐在办公室外面的一张椅子,看到翁兆华走出来。翁兆华是他们其中的一名……顽固的人。他就是后来担任政治部主任的人。

他走过来对我说,“傅医生,您一定感到惊讶为什么会在这里?”

我回答说,“是啊。”

他说,“我们将要释放您了。”

我感到吃惊。接着,他继续说,“你并没有发表任何安全的声明,但是,我们将会建议释放你。”他说,我不再具有任何威胁的危险了。这是他们的意见。这就是说,他们认为我已经不是一个威胁到安全的人了。他说,“所以,你将从这里走出去。”

所以,我就这样在哪儿等了几个星期,直到新加坡脱离马来西亚。在新加坡脱离马来西亚的发生,他回来对我说,“傅医生,我们不可以释放

你了。除非你签署例常的释放条件。”——上电视台发表自白书、放弃政治活动等等一切。我拒绝了他们的一切要求。

结果他说,“那我们只能把你送回章宜监狱了!”这就是第一次。

第二次建议释放我的是咨询委局。我已经告诉您了。那是在1967年。接下来是1968年,我接受了德格拉斯·海德(Douglas Hyde)的访问。德格拉斯·海德告诉我,他以前是英国共产党机关报的主编、是英国共产党员。

接着,他就告诉我他的历史。他的儿子是一名医生,将成为一名精神病学家。他已经离开英国共产党了。那是因为苏联入侵匈牙利事件。我一直听他说。接着我们谈到俄罗斯的古拉格集中营。我同意他的看法。我不知道他是否感到惊讶我会同意他的看法。在访问结束时,他说,“傅医生,很难找到像您这样的人、这样具有高智力的人能够得到释放的。”

他的说法是在恐吓我?还是在给我劝告?“像你这样的知识分子很难被释放”我并不是很明白。这是在向我发出警告还是在给予我劝告,那就是我必须接受他们的条件,否则,我是很难获得释放的。

接着,我站起来和他握手。这场访问就此结束。狱卒就把我们带回去。我们一起喝茶……我告诉他,“我不明白为什么具有高智慧的人将会支持一个被逮捕不经审讯的政权。”他听我的说话,几乎从椅子上跌落下来。

他知道我在说什么?所以,他几乎从椅子上跌下来。他就和闲聊其他事情了。“你知道吗,我已经改信仰天主教了……我现在一名天主教徒”。我确实不明白的事,我在想,他可能是建议释放我的人。

25:他们需要您发表的声明的内容是什么?

答:他们要我放弃政治,说我过去的活动是错误的。

26:他们对于您所做的事情说了些什么?

答:我不知道啊!不论如何……你必须放弃。您看,我们是争取合并的。我们争取合并,我们一直都坚持新加坡及马来西亚合并成为一个国家。这个立场是从MDU开始,您知道,我们是在同一个国家的啊。

但是,我们说过,假设我们加入马来西亚,我们必须要有自己的……请看我们的条件。我们不受要盲目的加入马来西亚。加入后新加坡公民必须是与其他(马来西亚各州的)公民一样,我们将不要成为二等公民。假设他们要控制教育和职工会,我们是不会接受的。我们要求他们给予我们更大的自由权利。内部安全法令赋予他们权力,他们随时可以逮捕我们当中的任何一个人。

因此,我们像马来亚劳工党一样,我们准备接受这一切。我们将和马来亚劳工党一起为争取实现这一要求而进行斗争。这一切白纸黑字都写在我们的政策声明里。

但是,他们说我们反对合并,因此,我们的立场是错误的,我们必须放弃我们的立场。我们必须说……谴责马来亚共产党。我们必须谴责马来亚共产党。因为马来亚共产党是错的。接着,我们必须上电视把这些话都说了。您知道吗,除此之外,你还得谈及你的朋友。

例如,他们怎么说,“你认识这个人吗,他是你的朋友。你说,他是共产党员吗?”

我说,“我不知道!他是不是一个共产党员,我咋能知道呢?”不会有人会告诉你,他是一个共产党员。从来就不会有人会告诉你这样的事。从来就不会有人告诉你说,“我是一个共产党党员”。他们不会这么说,他们也不可以这么说。所以,我说,“从来就没有人告诉我。”

他们却说“但是你认为是不是有这种可能性呢?”

我的意思是说,假设你要想获得释放?你要想出去,你就自己想想这是不是有这种可能性。不可能是吗?因此。假设你说,“有这种可能性。我不知道。但是,这种可能性是存在的。”这样的回答,对他们来说是已经足够了。他们就把这话写了下来。当你获得释放后,他们又重施故伎在其他人身上。这样一来,你和朋友之间的友谊也就结束了。你就此感觉就不会好了。

27:是不是左翼最终分成了许多小派系?

答:是的。他们之间有许多不同的意见分歧。他们当中很多是“你出卖我。那我就出卖你”但是,这是……他们觉得某些人在背后说了有关他们的不确实的事情。就这样彼此间的误会就一直困扰着。正因为这样的人际关系已经被破坏,你就不可能组织起来。最重要的是你自己无法组织自己。

28:你认为在行动党统治下新加坡的未来趋向?

答:对于在行动党统治下的新加坡未来趋向我关心的是两方面。首先是经济方面、其次是社会问题方面。

首先是经济方面。新加坡已经把经济发展起来了,这一点是不可否认的。但是,是否已经规划好了?还是未规划好?当行动党取得政权时,我们是在那个年代的。那个时候是以替代入口。我们不买万豪顿巧克力,我们要在新加坡生产万豪顿巧克力。我们不买轮胎,我们要在新加坡自己生产轮胎。这是替代入口。但是,我们失败了。我们之所以失败,因为马来西亚不同意一个共同市场。我们没辙。

问题是在哪个时候的世界情况。经济上,资本主义国家资金充沛。他们把资本……这就是为什么有外国直接投资(FDI),这些资本流入了其他国家。一开始,这些资本是被欧洲国家所使用。后来他们又有充裕的资金,他们要到第三世界去投资了。至那时起。世界上就有了外国直接投资(FDI)的概念。

外国直接投资(FDI)的概念就此推广到全世界。在这样的情况下,第三世界国家都争相要获得外国直接投资的资金。“我要你来为这儿开设工厂。”为此,新加坡就开始加入竞争了。但是,第一个接受这样的投资是台湾的高雄。第二个接受这样的投资是南韩的釜山,新加坡的裕廊排在第三位。这就是说,我们是跟随在别人已经开始做的事情的后面。我们进行组装配件,然后再出口。我们是以出口作为导向的。这与行动党的政策没有任何关联。那只是因为新加坡遇上了世界经济发展的架构潮流。因为在台湾的高雄发展起来,高雄是第一个成功的例子,所以,我们的裕廊就尝试追随其后。

但是,当我们进行这样的经济模式时,在其他方面对挫折了。我们必须与其他想要进来分一杯羹的国家进行竞争。我们必须争取外国直接投资。因此,我们必须始终保持低工水平。我们必须给予他们各种优惠(的投资)条件。如提供尽可能低的税率。社阵认识到这一点。但是我们提醒他们必须谨慎,不要给予他们全部优惠的条件。你们必须坚持与他们进行讨价还价,这样工人才有可能获得更好的薪金待遇。这是在经济方面的。

事情终于发生了。正如李光耀在接受访问时所说的……他相当的坦白。他说,“星星在正确的位置上。”这一切情况与他个人无关。他说得相当的坦白。是的。星星刚刚好在正确的位置上。在那个时候,……电脑尚未面世。在那个时候所有的阀门,大收音机阀门,变成了小收音机,你拥有了半导体,它变成便于携带。接着,跨国公司到这里来投资建工厂。我们进行组装产品。海运也改变了。在这之前,我年轻的时代,我们当时是通过轮船去旅行的。轮船的头等舱是在船的最高层。船上有货物仓。货物仓上附有吊杆。它们把货物吊起来放进船上的货物仓里。就这样吊上来、放进去船上的货物仓。货物仓在船的底层。但是 现在已经不是这样了。所有的货物运输使用集装箱。这就是科技的变革协助了每一个国家。这不仅仅是新加坡吧了。每一个国家。这就是所谓的“星星在正确的位置上。”

但是在社会问题方面,我们最终是失去了民主、失去了我们的权利,这是极其恶劣的。我们正在向后倒退着。尽管我们已经工业化了……,在我们那个年代,我总是盼望着从一个落后的国家发展到工业化的国家。现在,我们的国家在工业化中了,但是,我们仍然还是贫穷。我们必须思考这一点。

我的意思是,现在我有1%和99%让您思考。但是,就我而言,行动党关心的并不是思考这个问题。他们不会去思考这个问题。正如您所说的,他们已经准备好新的劳工道路。他们不要把钱花在人口方面。他们不把钱花在人口上面那是因为他们要让(新加坡元)货币增值,我们现在是金融中心,可以把钱借出去。外国人来新加坡把钱存放在这里,接着,他们要求新加坡元增值。

新加坡元的增值,就等同于国民生产总值也随着提高了。这样一来,部长的薪金与国民生产总值挂钩就自然会获得加薪。这就是 我对这个问题的看法。国民生产总值的起落并不会对小贩和穷人产生任何的影响,它只影响部长们的薪金。

我们一直要保持新加坡元的增值。我们能够永远保持新加坡元的增值吗?我不知道。可能随着美元的增值,人民可能会去美国。我不知道。

29:您对上一届大选的看法如何?:

答:我回来是要办其他事情的。我只是后来去投票。我想,上一届大选……对我来说,尽管投票的结果表明行动党获得了大幅度的支持票,但是,上一届大选是令人鼓舞的。它与过去几届的大选有着相当程度的不同。

例如,徐顺全。您看徐顺全就好了。徐顺全是很难吸引群众的,即便是上一届的大选的第一天群众大会,出席聆听徐顺全演讲的群众并不多,大约就是几千人。但是,在选举的最后周末,出席的群众人数却非常的多了。他在莱佛士坊的演讲挤满了群众。这就是改变了。

但是, 来到投票的问题,我不知道了。明显的因素是外来移民……中国的新移民。工人并不是永久居民。您看看中国工人、印度工人,他们都不是新移民。他们的雇佣合约都是在中国签署后在送到新加坡的。因此新加坡的劳动法令并不适用于他们。我们的劳工法令不适用于这些工人。那是因为他们的雇佣合约是在中国签署的。因此这些矛盾是从哪儿来的呢?工人不高兴,中国籍的巴士车工人,他们是在中国国内签署雇佣合约。但是。这些人并不是选民啊!

有投票权的选民是来自华人和印度人的中产阶级。您知道吗,那些来自这里工作的都是属于永久居民。他都有投票权。他来到这里首先就会把票给行动党。最少是其中的一部分……我确实不知道有多少百分比。根据一些人的估算为数不少。我相信行动党仍然是会执政的。我也不会预计行动党会败选。我也没想到行动党赢得这么大的胜利。但是,这些新新移民扮演着其中的一部分角色。

30:您对全国的悼念(李光耀逝世)活动的看法如何?

答:我认为有两件事。第一,新的一代并不了解李光耀的历史背景和他过去所作所为。

这一代人觉得自己可以去上学。在过去他们是不可以去上学的。目前的这一切都是我们之前通过斗争取得的。是我们通过斗争为他们争取到的!妇女宪章是我们通过斗争为他们争取到的。李光耀被迫接受的。学校教育是因为当时我们左翼通过斗争争取到的。过后,已经不再有人为他们争取了。政府长期以来就一直严加管治。

但是,青年一代却不看到这一切。没有人告诉他们过去发生的这一切,他们把目前的这一切都当成是李光耀所赐给的。所以他们认为有人为他们建造政府组屋给他们一栋房子。

但是,假如您回顾建屋发展局的历史……之前是信托局组屋(SIT)。那是只有几座吧了。那就是建屋发展局的组屋。

当行动党取得政权后,由王永元负责推动建造建屋发展局组屋,我们是首先推动这项计划的人。王永元是主要的推动者,我不支持他,但是,他就是这个计划的主要推动者。

武吉红山是首先开始时。王永元说,“建!”但是,由于党内不同的派系原因,李光耀不要王永元的威望高过他。他要把王永元赶出去。吴庆瑞拒绝借钱给这个工程,他们是使用公积金的贷款建造房子的。

因此,王永元问:“为什么?”

他们说,“没钱。”

接着,王永元说“那我们就建造一栋卖一栋。这样我们就把卖掉的房子的钱去建造第二栋”。王永元是一名会计师。他的说法是对的。不是我不支持他,而是整个政策不是行动党的。

事实上,有一天李光耀看到我,他说,“树介,你认为我们应该做什么?”我说,“首先你必须建造房子,建屋发展局的房子。

但是,您知道他说什么吗?我完全惊愕了。他说,树介,你是对的。但是,假设他们投票反对你,这一切东西都会在街道上。这是在行动党尚未取得政权之前

我当时我感到惊讶,他是在把这一切视为政治工具。我并没有这样的想法。在那个时候,我想的是,你要建造房子,那是因为人民需要房子,而不会去想到,假设你不投我一票,我将把你赶出去。他向我说得很坦白,我感到惊讶。确实是非常惊讶。这也就是其中一个原因为什么我一直远离他。

我们都是理想主义者,年轻而具有一点理想。我们认为政府不应该这样处理事情。我感到惊讶是因为我在想,“我是在你的党内,我支持你,但是,这并不是我们要搞成这样的。”我实在有点幼稚了。

31:您在年轻时是如何活跃的?

答:在那个年代……,每一个人都很安静。但是,在“513”学生运动事件后,接着是“花惹”事件……。从那个时候开始,大家开始谈论政治。学生们也开始谈论政治。我们很活跃。与目前的情况是不同的。

但是,在几年后,在20年前,我们被捕后,因为大学生被镇压下来了……他们在工会仍然是很活跃的,接着,工会也被镇压下来了……但是,他们不可能一直采取镇压的行动啊。我想,今天他们要知道,我说的他们是指年轻人,呈现了对政治的兴趣。我想,他们不要应该是这样的。

在那个时候,我们看到了印度尼西亚。马来人是受到印度尼西亚的影响。马来人是受到在印度尼西亚所发生的事件的影响。当时他们很活跃。

32:受英文教育与受华文教育之间的差别在哪儿?

答:这两者之间并没有真正的分化。因为一些家庭家长把他们的孩子送去英文言流学校、一些家长把孩子送去华文言流学校,他们在家里还是坚持学习华文。但是,一个真正的分化的感觉是,假设你是在英语学校的,你将会升学到高级剑桥,毕业后你可以找一个文员的工作,这是一份铁饭碗的工作。这份工作是政府部门的雇员,你也可以到大学继续读书。

但是。对于华校生来说,他们就没有出路了。因为在那个时候没有大学。南洋大学是在较后才成立的,因此没有任何的出路。你无法到南洋大学啊,因为南洋大学根本不存在。你不可能去台湾、你可能去中国大陆,在那个时候,你不去台湾,你也绝对不可以去中国大陆,因为在1949年中国的局势还未确定啊。

华校生唯一的选择就是跟随着父辈的专业和他们一起经商。但是,他们发现面对着困难,因为市场竞争激烈。因此他们对未来感到渺茫。然而受英文教育觉得,“假设我的行为检点的话,我可以去大学就读。我可以加入现有的机构。”

他们的首选是加入现有的机构。其次。假设无法加入现有的机构,他们就申请成为教师。至于那些富有家庭的人就会到海外深造。回来成为一名律师和从事其他的事业。

 相关链接Related link:

1. 傅树介医生:《生活在欺瞒时代》新书伦敦发布会讲

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/

2.《人民论坛》:(/英文对照)Speech of Dr Poh Soo Kai at the launch of his historical memoir “Living in a Time of Deception” at Holiday Inn Singapore Atrium on 13 February 2016 作者傅树介医生的讲话 2016213日历史回忆录《生活在欺瞒的年代》发布会》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/ -atrium-on-13-f/

3.《人民论坛》:《(/英文版)傅树介医生于201642日在马来西亚八打灵再也举行新书《生活在期满的年代》发布会讲话 DR. Poh’s speech in book launch in Petaling Jaya on 2 April 2016

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/

4.《人民论坛》:《本书作者傅树介医生讲话》视频网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRImxixTb4

5.《人民论坛》:《马来亚大学社会主义 俱乐部秘书长R. Joety律师讲话》视频网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lJiUV89NAU

6.《人民论坛》:《历史学家孔丽莎博士讲话》视频网址:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FhkdJOsQgo

7.《人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)孔丽莎博士在傅树介医生新书《生活在欺瞒的年代》发布会上的致词 Speech at launch of PohSoo Kai, Living in a Time of Deception

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/

8.《人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)陈国防先生在傅树介医生回忆录推介会上的讲话》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/

9.人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)真理与激情代替了与谎言欺瞒 Truth and inspiration replacing deceit and deception

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/

10.《人民论坛》:《李万千:另一版本的新加坡故事》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/

 

11《人民论坛》:《Show Ying Xin开场白: 李光耀的故事同时就是新加坡的故事” Show Ying XinLee Kuan Yew’s story is also ‘The Singapore Story’

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/

 

An interview with Dr Poh Soo Kai

Kirsten Han

       傅树介医生      傅树介医生新书发布会封面      kirsten

 

Dr Poh Soo Kai launched his memoirs, Living in a Time of Deception, to a packed room on Saturday, 13 February 2016. Photographer Tom White and I caught up with him again the following Tuesday evening to talk about his book, his time in detention and his thoughts on Singapore. Excerpts of this conversation were edited and appeared on the final page of Southeast Asia Globe’s April issue, but so much more was said, which is why I’m now publishing the full transcript of the interview.

I didn’t transcribe the random chatty bits we had — I type fast but I’m not a machine — and did some minor editing (tenses and such) to make it an easier read.

1.What motivated you to write the memoirs after so long?

I wanted to write my memoirs right from the beginning. I wanted to write my memoirs while I was in prison. And that was one of the reasons why, when I came out — and then after a short while earning some money — I decided to retire to go to the UK to check up the archives.

In fact, it was one of the reasons that kept me in, and not come out on their terms. Because if I did come out on their terms, whatever I say will have less credibility.

2.But so much time has passed before you managed to launch it.

Oh yes! Firstly, I collected the data quite early. I went to London, I collected the data in 1994.

But I just didn’t know how to write. I just had no concept of how a book is written!

In fact, when I first collected data and I took it back, I talked to Jing Quee and he said, “Look,

you don’t have the dates!”

I didn’t have the dates, I just collected the material without the dates. And that was not possible, we couldn’t write. So as I went along I learned.

I came out with the first book, with the help of Jing Quee. That was The Fajar Generation. Before Jing Quee passed away, he said I must write more about the Operation Coldstore. And then I had Lysa to help me, and that improved a lot; it showed me how a book should be done.

华惹一代

And after the Operation Coldstore book, I had a better concept of what a book should be. Indexing, referencing, you know? But I was still not very confident. It was only much later, about four years ago, that I really… I was persuaded by Function8, who kept on saying, “You should write.”

新书:1963年冷藏箱的50周年

I kept on postponing. It wasn’t that I didn’t want to write, but I felt that I would postpone it for awhile. I was a bit too lazy!

But the moment I started writing, I got more interested. And I wanted to say certain things, but I had no facts. For instance, I wanted to talk about the ‘pah mata’ issue. You know the incident about ‘pah mata’? Chin Siong had told me way back in 1960 that he never said those words. It’s printed in other books and he said he never said those words. But how were we to disprove it?

Whenever he had a press interview, say he had an interview with Melanie Chew, he mentioned it, and she wrote about it in her book. She said, “Chin Siong said he didn’t say ‘pah mata’.” But it was not enough for me to say that Chin Siong never said ‘pah mata’ because the charge against him was made by a Minister in the Legislative Assembly, and Lee Kuan Yew was in the assembly and Lee Kuan Yew should have known that Chin Siong did not say such words, because he was on the platform of the election rally when Chin Siong spoke. So I had difficulties, and I was thinking how to write it. And then as things developed PJ Thum uncovered the transcript, and that solved my problem. It just solved my problem.

These are the issues that delayed further writing of the book. If not it would have been out earlier. I’m lucky it came out later, because there were more materials. You have ideas, you have analysis, but you don’t have facts, solid facts to go against it.

3.Do you think we will ever see the Singapore government declassify their documents?

I don’t think the Singapore will do it because it’s too sensitive. Unless certain parts of the documents are deleted. The archives don’t have all the documents. For instance the document on Eden Hall is not available. I think they’ve either destroyed it… there are some historians who have gone to look it up and they said it’s not there.

It brings into question of whether… why did Selkirk invite us? The British did not deny inviting. Selkirk never denied inviting us. He only said that James gave him a phone call to fix a date for the tea party. And it is true. James did give him a phone call. In fact, we asked James to reply; it was a reply to an invitation. We didn’t ask for an invitation. So I don’t think we’ll ever get the data, the details.

4.A lot of people have also been asking for a Commission of Inquiry.

Yes, a Commission of Inquiry into the arrests. Because it is rather difficult… if a person like Chin Siong who was then a Legislative Assembly member, can be fixed up with a ‘pah mata’ case, what do you think about other people? Lesser fries will just be taken in and banished. So it’s difficult.

And also they talked about having… making it stricter so that the PPSO will not be abused. During the British time up to when the PAP came into office in 1959, the British had this law where your case can be reviewed by a committee. They called it the review committee, which has the power to release you or not to release you, override the decisions made by the executive. As soon as PAP came in, they changed the law, instead of a review committee we had an advisory committee. And that has no powers. I was released in 1967 by the advisory committee. But the government just cancelled the advisory committee’s report.

5.Who gets selected on to the advisory committee?

The advisory committee has the Chief Justice, and two other assessors. We do not know how

they were appointed. In my case it was Justice Winslow, Prof Yeo Ghim Seng, who was a professor I worked with, and a certain Mr Lim.

6.How did you decide on the title of your book?

I call it Living in a Time of Deception because we were being deceived all the time. And Selkirk used that word. He says, “We will take no part in this deception.” And that was because Kuan Yew, pressured by the loss of Hong Lim, wanted the Internal Security Council to countermand his request to release detainees. He said he would release; the PAP shall order the release of all political detainees, but he wanted Selkirk to override it, and neither Selkirk nor Tunku would do that. Selkirk described it as deception, and I also call it deception.

It was deception in his dealings with the people. It was deception when it came to Clause 30. Clause 30 is the clause in which detainees… those detained were not allowed to take part in the 1959 elections. That is the Rendel Constitution, the general election. They were not allowed to take part.

This idea, I was to find out later, came from Lee Kuan Yew. He told the British, and he told Lim Yew Hock that it should be done. The British were not too happy at the beginning, because they were afraid this would be a precedent, because as political prisoners we were allowed to have our political rights. We’re not criminals. But he persuaded them to.

Later I was to find out that he was the one who advised the British to talk to him separately, and to talk to Lim Yew Hock separately, on this issue. Not together. A very smart move, because when the Chew Swee Kee case came up, Lim Yew Hock said in the assembly, “You play dirty, I will play dirty.” That means, you talk about Chew Swee Kee case, I will talk about Clause 30.

Lee Kuan Yew jumped up to say, “That is a bloody lie.” Technically it was a lie because Lim Yew Hock said, “We both saw the British together.” “We saw the British”, meaning “we saw the British together”. They did not talk to the British colonial officers together, they talked separately. So Kuan Yew technically was in the right.

7.Do you think we still live in a time of deception?

I’m afraid I can’t say that. Because I was talking of my period. Today I’m not so conversant with the government here so you have to ask today’s politicians.

8.What was the most challenging part of writing the book?

I think the most challenging part in writing the book was how to get your ideas

across to one to two generations, to young people below the age of 50, who have no concept of what has happened.

And just to tell you something: when I spoke at the launch of my first book The Fajar Generation it was at a time when there was still some fear that the government will take action. That was 2009. In 2006 the government came up with a statement that detainees will not be allowed to rewrite history. There’s a government statement in 2006. And there was still some fear so I was a bit careful.

So I talked about Lee Kuan Yew using Botox… you know, for the skin. He wants to look young when he’s not young. But I wasn’t talking of his age, I was talking of the principle. Because he said in the assembly everyone wants to appear to be what he is not. And he said that when Chin Siong went to the assembly with a cravat. And he says, “Yeah we have a proletarian leader coming in dressed, appearing like a middle class.”

And I was laughing at him because to me, his pro forma… as he calls it his pro forma performance as an anti-colonialist shows that he wants to be a colonialist masquerading as an

anti-colonialist. And that was my meaning, but nobody got the idea.

9.Do you think he was ever an anti-colonialist?

No, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. He wants himself up, and was prepared to compromise on that. So long as he can… in fact, later archives shows that the British cultivated him. The British picked on him and cultivated him. And in 1952, I think, when he was in London, the Singapore Commissioner of Police, who was on leave in London at that time, invited him to spend the weekend with him. And the department people were told to be nice to him.

And in the same archive material it was stated that Lee Kuan Yew is very concerned with the welfare of his younger brother Lee Kim Yew. Lee Kim Yew had gone to, I think, gone to Moscow for a student tour. Free. And that was held against him. So when he applied for the colonial legal service job in Singapore, Kuan Yew was afraid that his brother would not be accepted.

So he went to see the government, and the government official wrote, “Coincidentally, we got an order from above to accept him.” To accept the younger brother. Somebody had been doing some favour for him.

10.What do you hope the impact of the book will be?

I just hope that the younger population will know their history. And that’s all. This is a period in

which we went through, and this is the true history of Singapore.

11.Do you find that younger Singaporeans are getting more curious?

Lately, after the general election, I think they are. They are very much more interested with what’s happening, although there’s always the fear factor, they will not take part.

But they are keen to know, and that is why I was surprised the edition is sold out. They’re printing a second edition. That’s what I was told… Kinokuniya has no more.

12.What would you say to a young Singaporean who is hoping to learn more?

What would I say to them? I’d say, “Buy the book!”

13.There seems to be a lot more books coming out about this period of Singapore’s history.

Yes, a lot of books coming out of that period, but I think my book is a bit different, because it’s not just a personal experience, but a personal experience in which I describe the historical development at that time. The play of the various forces, the play of Kuan Yew, the influence of the Malayan Communist Party and what are the effects, you know? There are quite a number of people I expect who will think that… especially the Old Left… who may think that I should not criticise the left-wing. But I feel I have to express an opinion on that.

14.Some people would say that makes you a ‘revisionist historian’.

Yah… we can argue about that. It’s all right to call me whatever you like, but let’s argue on the case. The facts of the case, what has happened, what are the results. You know, there are so many interesting things that have happened — that’s history, right? If Sukarno had not come into power, what do you think would have happened? If Hatta had become leader of Indonesia instead of Sukarno, vice-president Hatta… I think the history of this area would be different. And I don’t think I’ll be arrested.

15.What was it like to be in prison for 17 years?

Nobody wants to be in prison. It was always the fear of being in prison. That is because nobody wants to be in.

Imprisonment involves first, for many people, they’re in a sense tortured. They’re either kept in solitary confinement, some were beaten up, some where abused to exercise, exercise until you’re very tired, some had cold water poured on them, some were slapped, you know… Various degrees, you know.

I was lucky, maybe I’m a doctor, but I was just given solitary confinement, a very cold room, interrogated… or not so much interrogated but kept in a cold room from morning 6 o’clock to midnight 12.

The officer would put the clock there: “12 o’clock, you go back. 12 midnight.” When I was first arrested, I said, “What are my charges, what would you like to ask? You ask!”

The inspector: “I can’t ask you, if I ask you, you will know what I know.”

I was just flabbergasted.

16.Did they ever ask you anything?

They didn’t. Except one case, where much later on, nearly about half a year later, when… I

didn’t know anything at that time, when I was suddenly asked, did I go out at night to treat a patient?

And I said, “Yes, I went downstairs, I was living in a flat, a neighbour downstairs was having a tummy ache, so they called me and I went down.”

The interrogator, he’s an officer, a Special Branch deputy director, was a bit fed up, you know. At first he thought I was going to say something when I said, “Yes.” “Yes,” and then he… you could see that he was interested. But when I said I went downstairs to see the patient, a neighbour, he just gave up.

And he said, “Nobody else?”

I said, “No, I don’t take night calls.”

I did not know that he was trying to find out whether I went with Raman to Masai, Johor. It’s only much later when the story broke and I knew about it. Months later. Then I think backwards, “Ah, that was what he wanted to know!”

But it’s so silly, right? If I did go to Masai, and I went to Masai, according to them, I went with my wife Grace and Raman. Raman was in the first car and I was driving the second car. He was leading me to Masai. And we crossed two Causeway checks. Photographs of the cars coming would have been there, photographs of which car following which car would have been there, my passport, Raman’s passport would all be there. But they didn’t even care to investigate. Just a fabrication.

17.How long did they keep you in that room?

Oh, solitary, I was kept for half a year. Half a year, in a small room. In fact, most of the time I was not in the small cell.

It’s a small cell, but I was taken out of the cell at six in the morning until 12 at night. Then I came back to the cell.

The cell was very, very hot. It cooled down only about 2am, because there was no roof, it was a concrete roof. It was very, very hot. And the interrogation room was very, very cold.

18.So no one would be in the interrogation room with you?

No, the officers would be there. Two. They went by turns. First group, second group. They just watched me, sometimes we just joked. Sometimes one of them said, “I came from Cambodia…” He was telling me what happened. Just small talk.

19.For six months?

For six months, yeah.

20.And the rest of the time?

After that I was transferred from Whitley Road — this is the second arrest, not the first arrest. I was transferred from Whitley Road to Moon Crescent Centre. MCC, in Changi. There I was kept with about two or three people, from one small block, another block, another block… At one stage I was kept in a big block, eight cells, and I was the only one for a few months. And then the last time they transferred me to what they called the TAF (?) block. That is, with five cells, which there was Thye Poh*, Ho Piao and the third person is Fu Hua (?). Now Fu Hua is a known Communist. Fu Hua is a Communist… Ho Piao, Thye Poh and me, four of us in that block.

21.In the same cell…?

No, block. We had one cell each in the block. You can take two cells each but we had one cell each. Because there were only four of us.

We were in our own cells. You were locked in at about nine, I think, eight or nine in the evening, until the next morning six o’clock, and then you were let out to have a bath, a wash, and then at seven o’clock we were let out… I mean, we were let out at six o’clock to the toilet facilities; we had a bath, we washed up, and then the passage downstairs — it was upstairs and downstairs, the cells were upstairs, downstairs was a sitting room.

So we were let downstairs, the passage was unlocked, and we could go downstairs at seven for breakfast. At seven for breakfast, then about eight, nine, we were upstairs again and locked upstairs. We could travel from one cell to another cell, but the passage was locked. You couldn’t go downstairs. We could communicate with each other. It was only at night, after eight or nine— after eight, I think — that we couldn’t.

22.This was the second arrest? Was the first arrest any different?

The first arrest? The first arrest was, compared to the second, for me, very much better. Very, very much better. I was kept in Outram for four months. One cell, it was about the same size, but it was cool. It was cool, it wasn’t hot like in the other cell. It was cool, the air came in from the side and the big angled vents — so you couldn’t see out, you couldn’t see in, but the air could come in, the cell was cool.

I was kept there for four months, and then I was transferred to medium security prison, and that for me… That was an open space. We had three rooms, three rooms in the block, and barbed-wire fence around, so we could come out and move… So long as we remained within that barbed wire fence, we could even come out at night and sit around. So it was quite… not like the prison cells.

23.Did they keep everyone from Coldstore together?

No, when we were in the three rooms, we could mix the whole day. There were 10 of us. After that usually about eight or six. Sometimes even two. You could move and talk. When I went there, only two were from Operation Coldstore, the rest were from previous arrests, ’57 arrests, ’59 arrests. They’d been there some time. But other detainees were kept in Changi, and they have two blocks which I did not go to.

24.Most of the time, people are sentenced and they know how long the sentence is. But detention is different.

That’s right. For most of us indefinite imprisonment was a real threat. We all wanted to come out.

Many of them had more financial worries than I had, and for me, on the other hand, unlike for Said or Hock Siew or the others, for me there was still some hope, because they kept on giving me hope of coming out.

I told you in ’65 they wanted to release me… ’65, my lawyer, RCH Lim, who was under the Tunku, went to see Tan Siew Sin. I did not know that. He went to see Tan Siew Sin and they wanted to release me. He said he would do his best. And I was, just after one month, three weeks before Separation, I was transferred from Changi to Robinson Road. And there, when I went there, I was sitting in just a chair outside the office, and out walked Yoong Siew Wah. Yoong Siew Wah is one of these… recalcitrant somebody. He was then the man in charge of Special Branch. The officer in charge.

He walked out and he said, “Dr Poh, you must be wondering why you’re here.”

And I said, “Yes.”

He said, “We are going to release you.”

I was taken aback. Then he continued, “You have not made any security statement

but we will recommend you” and say that in their opinion I was no longer a security risk. In their opinion I was no longer a security risk. “So you will be on your way out.”

So I waited. And then within a few weeks, Separation. As soon as Separation happened, he came back. He said, “Dr Poh, we can’t release you, unless you sign the normal conditions.” TV confession, recantation, everything, which I turned down.

So they said, “Then we send you back to Changi!” So that was the first time.

The second time I was recommended for release by the advisory board. I told you that one, that was ’67. And then after that in ’68 I was interviewed by Douglas Hyde. Douglas Hyde told me that he was formerly editor of the British Communist Party paper, he was a British Communist Party member.

So he gave me his history; his son was a doctor going to be a neurologist, and he left the Communist Party because of Hungary, Soviet invasion of Hungary. I listened to him and then we talked of the gulag. And I was in agreement with him. I don’t know whether he was surprised or not but I was in agreement with him. And then at the end of the interview he said, “Dr Poh, it’s very difficult for people like you, intellectuals like you, to get released.”

Was it a threat or was it advice? “It’s very difficult for intellectuals like you to be released.” I didn’t quite understand if it was a threat or if he was giving me advice, that I should accept the terms, or it’s difficult for me to get out.

And then I stood up, I shook hands with him, interview was over, the warder came in to take us back, we had tea… and then I told him, “I don’t understand why intellectuals will support a regime that arrests people without trial.” He nearly fell off his chair!

He knew what I was talking about, he nearly fell off his chair. And he mumbled something that, “You know, I’ve changed my… I’m now a Catholic…” Which I didn’t quite understand. I think he might have recommended my release.

25.What were the requirements of all the security statements?

They want me to recant, say what I did was wrong.

26.What were they saying that you did?

I don’t know! Whatever… you must recant. You see, we were for merger. We were for merger, we always stood for merger, Singapore with Malaysia as one country. Since the days of the MDU, you know, we were one country.

But we were saying if we come in we must have our… see your terms, we just don’t go in blindly. And Singapore citizens must be the same as the citizens we join; we’re not going to be second-class citizens. If you want control of the education, control of the trade unions, we have no say, because we want you to give us more freedom, but internal security is in your hands, so you can always arrest any of us.

So we would be like the Labour Party in Malaysia, and we were prepared for that, you see, we would join them and struggle with them. And that was in black and white in our policy statement.

But they said we were against merger, and therefore we had to recant that our stand was wrong. And we had to say that… condemn the Communist Party. We had to condemn the Communist Party, the Communist Party was wrong, and then we had to go on TV to say these things, and on the private side, you had to talk about your friends. You know?

They were not interested in facts. They knew a lot, but they wanted you to say something which was not factual.

For instance, they would say, “Do you know this person, your friend, is he a Communist?”

I said, “I do not know! How do I know if he’s a Communist?” Nobody ever told you he was a Communist, nobody ever told you that. Nobody ever told you, “I’m a Communist.” They didn’t say it, they couldn’t. So I said, “Nobody ever tells me this.”

They would say, “But what do you think? Is it possible?”

I mean, you wanted to go out, right? You wanted to go out. So you thought, it’s

possible, it’s not

possible, right? So if you said, “It is possible. It is, I do not know, but it is possible.” Then that was good enough for them. They’d write it down, then the record would say that I said he was possibly a Communist. And that was good enough. And then when you went out, they played one against the other. Then your friendship was gone and you didn’t feel nice about it.

27.Is that how the left ended up with many factions?

That’s right. There was a lot of disagreement, there was a lot of “you play me out, I play you out” but it was… they felt that somebody said something about them which was not true, and so there was bad feeling around. And because of that the relationship was spoiled and you couldn’t organise. One thing was you couldn’t organise.

28.What do you think about Singapore’s trajectory under PAP?

You see, Singapore’s trajectory under PAP, I have two concerns. First is economic, second is social.

Economically first. Singapore has made economic progress. That we don’t deny. But was it planned, or was it not planned? When PAP came into power, when we were there, the policy was import substitution. We didn’t want to buy Van Houten’s chocolate, we wanted to make Van Houten’s chocolate in Singapore. Import substitution. We didn’t want to buy rubber tyres, we made the manufacturer produce rubber tyres in Singapore. It was import substitution, but it failed. It failed because Malaysia didn’t agree to a common market. We couldn’t agree.

But the problem is at that time in the world, economically, the capitalist countries, they had a lot of capital. And they put the capital… that’s why you had the FDI, the capital goes to other countries. At first the capital was used for Europe. But after that they had capital they wanted to use in the Third World. So we had FDI — Foreign Direct Investment.

That concept of FDI was pushed out, pushed over. So everyone in the Third World would try and grasp it. “I want you to come and start your factory here.” So Singapore was competing. But the first to do that was Kaohsiung in Taiwan. And the second place to do that was Masan in South Korea. And Jurong was the third. So we were following what other people were doing, we assembled things and then exported. We were export-orientated. That had nothing to do with the PAP as a policy. It just happened that the development of the world structure was like that. Just as the development in Taiwan was, Kaohsiung was the first, and they succeeded. So we tried Jurong.

But when you do that there were other setbacks. You had to compete against the other countries, who wanted to come in, you had to compete for FDI, you had to keep our wages low and we had to give them perks. Less taxation as far as we could. Now, the Barisan recognised that. But we said that you should be more careful and don’t give them all the perks. You should bargain harder so the workers will get better pay. So that was on the economic side.

It so happened, as Kuan Yew says… Kuan Yew, one day, was interviewed and he said, quite frankly, “The stars were in the right position.” Nothing to do with him. He said it very frankly. Yeah, it was in the right position. At that time you had… there was no computer, that time all the valves, big radio valves, became very small, you get transistors. And so it was easy to transport. And then the big national, multinationals would come here and build a factory, we assembled the goods, and shipping had changed. Before that, in my earlier days, when we travelled by boat, the first-class cabin was on top and then they had a hold, you see the hold with the cranes, lifting it up and putting it in the hold. Come up, lift it up, put it in the hold. The hold was in the bottom of the boat, but now no more. It’s all by containers. So there was a technological change which helped every country, not only Singapore. Every country. It was the stars in the right position.

But socially, we ended up without democracy, we ended up without our rights and it’s bad. And we’re taking a step backwards. And the workers, although we’re industrialised… we always felt during my time that the way for an underdeveloped country to proceed is to industrialise. Now we’re industrialising, but we are still poor. So we have to consider that.

So now you have the 1% and the 99%, I mean, it makes you think. But as far as I think the PAP is concerned, they’re not thinking. They’re quite prepared to go with what you call the New Labour way, they don’t want to spend money on the population. And they don’t want to spend money on the population because they want to keep the money strong. To keep the money strong because we are now laundering money. Financial centre. People come here and keep their money, and they want the money to be strong. And this raises the GDP and that automatically raises the ministers’ salary, which is fixed to the GDP. That’s how I look at it. The GDP doesn’t affect the hawkers, the poor man. It affects the ministers’ salary.

And we keep the money very strong. Whether we can keep the money strong forever, I don’t know. Maybe with American money getting strong, people will just up and go to America. I don’t know.

Photo: Tom White

29.What did you think of the last general election?

I came for something else, then I stayed behind to vote. I think the last GE… I’m quite encouraged by the last GE although the voting showed that the PAP had a large swing of votes. But to me it was quite different from previous GEs.

For instance, Chee Soon Juan. You look at Chee Soon Juan. Chee Soon Juan could hardly get a crowd. Even at the last election, and this election the first day you saw the crowd in Chee Soon Juan’s speech was not very much, a few thousand. But by the end of the week, it was very crowded. His speech in Raffles Place was packed. So there was a change.

But when it comes to voting I do not know. Definitely the factor of foreign workers… Chinese new immigrants. Workers are not permanent residents. Chinese workers, Indian workers, you look at them, they are not, they are under contract in China and sent down here so Singapore’s labour law doesn’t apply to them. Our labour law doesn’t apply to the workers because they are under contracts that they signed in China. So that is where the conflict comes in. The workers are unhappy. Bus workers, the Chinese bus workers. They are under contract with the contractor, the contract signed in China. And these people are not voters.

The voters are middle class Chinese, Indian, you know, who have come here to work and they are Permanent Residents and they have the right to vote. And these will all vote PAP when they first come. At least a few… I don’t know how many per cent but some people worked out it was quite a lot. The government will be there. I didn’t expect the PAP to lose. I didn’t expect them to win so much. But these foreign new immigrants do play a part.

30.What did you think of the national mourning?

I feel there are two things there. Firstly is a new generation that knows nothing of Kuan Yew, of his background, of the things he’s done.

There is a whole generation, they feel like they can go to school, where they couldn’t go to school before. But all this were fought for much earlier. Fought for by us. The Women’s Charter was fought for by us, which Kuan Yew accepted. Schooling, all this were fought for because of the left-wing, and after that no more. The government was tightening up all the time.

But the younger generation just don’t see that. They were not told of what has happened, and everything was Lee Kuan Yew, so they feel that somebody has given them a house, a building, an HDB flat. That is something.

But then if you look at the history of HDB flat… before, SIT, and then SIT was only a few flats, but it was HDB. When the PAP came in the HDB flat was pushed by Ong Eng Guan, number one, it was pushed by us. Ong Eng Guan was a key guy who pushed it. I don’t support him, but he was a key guy who pushed it.

And when the Bukit Merah fire took place, he said, “Build!” But because of intra-party rivalry, Kuan Yew didn’t want Ong Eng Guan to be above him, he wanted to kick him out, Goh Keng Swee refused to release the loans. Goh Keng Swee refused to release loans for that. They were using the CPF loans for the house.

So Ong Eng Guan said, “Why not?”

They said, “No money.”

So Ong Eng Guan said, “We build one block, we sell it, then we use the money to build the second block.” He’s an accountant, so he has a point. Not that I support him, but the policy was not PAP.

In fact, one day Kuan Yew saw me, and he said, “Soo Kai, what do you think we should do?” This was before he came into power.

I said, “Number one, you must build houses, HDB flats.”

And you know what he said? I was totally shocked. He said, “Soo Kai, you are

right. And if they vote against me, all their barang barang will be on the streets!”

I was very shocked. He was using it as a political tool. I was not thinking like that. For me, at that time, I was thinking, you build because people need the flats. You don’t think, if you don’t vote for me, I kick you out. He told me quite frankly. I was taken aback, completely taken aback. And that was one of the reasons why I kept on moving away from him.

We were idealistic, young and a bit idealistic. And we thought the government should not be doing things like that. I was taken aback because I thought, “I’m in your party, I’m supporting you and this is not what we should do.” I was a bit naive.

31.What was it like to be young and active at that time?

To be in that time… You see, everybody was quite quiet. But then the May 13 student issue, and then the Fajar issue… So everybody was talking politics. And the students were talking politics, we were active. It was quite different from today.

But a few years later, after our arrests, the last 20 years, because the university

students were pushed down… There were still activities among the trade unions but then they were pushed down… But you can’t keep on pushing it down. And today I think they want to know. So I am talking to younger people, they show interest. I thought they should not.

At that period they looked at Indonesia. The Malays were influenced by Indonesia, the Malays were influenced by events in Indonesia, they were very active.

Photo: Tom White

32.What was the difference between the English- and the Chinese-educated?

There wasn’t a real split because some families sent their children to English

schools, some to Chinese schools. Some people sent their children to English schools but they still insisted on studying Chinese at home.

But it was a split in the sense that if you studied in an English school you could go up… Senior Cambridge, then you get a job as a clerk, you get a job in a firm. You get a job with the government and you can go to university.

But for the Chinese, there was no outlet because at that time there was no university. The Nantah University was started a bit later. So there was no outlet. You couldn’t go to Nantah University, because there was no Nantah University, you couldn’t go to Taiwan, you couldn’t go to China. You definitely couldn’t go to China at that time, and you didn’t go to Taiwan at that time because in ’49 it was very uncertain.

Their only option was to follow their fathers’ profession and do business, and that they found it difficult because there were so many of them coming into the market. So they were feeling the future was stuck. Whereas the English-speaking felt that “I go to the uni, I study, and if I behave myself I can join the establishment.”

Number one, they wanted to join the establishment. Number two, if they failed to join the establishment they wanted to be teachers. And for those who had money they would go abroad and be a lawyer, and something like that.

 


留下评论

同志们、朋友们,请出席纪念捍卫新闻自由先驱和争取实现祖国实现独立、统一和民主的伟大战士赛查哈利同志追思会!

Said Zahari_memorial invite_final 3.5.16 Black

赛查哈利先生生前接受施忠明先生专访视频网址:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtYrBagI0zg

朋友们,

我FUNTION 8 的成员在赛.查哈利老先生生前都与他见过面。我们了解他生前的事迹。他为争取获得新闻自由而进行了不懈的斗争!

在他抱着团结新加坡和马来亚各族人民,不分种族、语言、或者宗教的伟大理想要成为一名政治家时他被被捕了。

他于1963年2月2日,在《防止公共安全法令》(现改为《内部安全法令》)下不经审讯的情况下被监禁了17年。

为了纪念赛.查哈利为祖国和人民所做出的伟大贡献,我们仅此热情地欢迎您们和我们一起出席这个追思会,与我们共同分享怀念赛.查哈利老先生的生前事迹。

Dear Friends 

Many of us at Function 8 have met and know  Pak Said Zahari during his lifetime. He fought for freedom of our press and was about to become a politician with the sole aim of uniting the people of Singapore and Malaya, regardless of race, language or religion when he was arrested and imprisoned for 17 long years without trial under the  Preservation of Public Security Ordinance now known as the Internal Security Act on 2 Feb 1963.

In memory of Pak Said Zahari’s enormous contribution to the people,  we invite you to share his life with us.


留下评论

(中/英文版)傅树介医生:《生活在欺瞒时代》新书伦敦发布会讲话 Living in a Time of Deception

傅树介医生:《生活在欺瞒时代》新书伦敦发布会讲话

                                 生活在欺瞒的年代(中文版封面)

编者按:

1.本文是傅树介医生在2016 5月10日在英国伦敦举行的新书发布会《生活在期满的年代》的讲话。

2.本文转载自:fn8org

 

主席、主席小姐、女士们、先生们和来自新柔长堤两岸的同胞们,您们好!

首先请允许我向东方与非洲学院(the School of Oriental and African Studies,简称“SOAS”)和Monsoons读书会(Monsoons Book Club,简称“MBC”)为我的个人历史回忆录《生活在欺瞒时代》组织这次新书午餐发布会所做的努力致以谢意。

这本书在开始撰写时是以个人回忆录为主要内容的,但是很快就成目前的内容。我发现当时设定的这个框架不足够。谢谢黄素芝博士和孔丽莎博士的参与和协助把这本书编辑成与新加坡1954年-1965年期间的政治相联系在一起,而成为一本历史回忆录。我们与其他人一块儿见证了在1963年双方合并一段极其重要历史事件,以及后来在1965年从马来西亚激烈分开的历史。就是这样的情况下,《生活在欺瞒的年代》就转变为我本人在这历史回忆所扮演的角色和我对那段政治历史时期的看法。

我们,居住在新柔长堤两岸的新加坡人和马来西亚人今天就是生活在马来西亚计划失败的结果。

×××××××××

在1961年,薛尔克勋爵成为新加坡自高专员和东南亚最高专员时,他不遗余力的推动整个合并——他最终的目的是要有效的保护英国在新加坡的军事基地。

在这里,请大家允许我复述薛尔克爵士和殖民地办公室之间在以下几段的术语和短语。这些术语和短语是后来描绘事件。它是在英国档案馆找到的。

薛尔克爵士的马来西亚计划是在二次世界大战后从旧纸箱里拿出来的。他把这个封尘的计划经过粉饰后交给了李光耀,作为他在1961年的芳林补选救命圈。这是很明显的,当时英国人已经确定李光耀不再是一股在1959年大选受到左翼支持取得压倒性胜利的政治势力了。正如薛尔克勋爵的预测,就摘入英国人描述李光耀在芳林补选的失败就像是“一個居民的怒海”(“a sea of hostile local population”),需要英国人扔一个救生圈的拯救李光耀,进而这个“救生圈”可以确保英国在新加坡的军事是基地的安全。

于是薛尔克勋爵的主要目标是提供一份旧的马来西亚合并计划。这是一个有效地和重新拟定保护英国的军事基地利益的计划。它是建立在“一個居民怒海”基础上——那就是在1961年行动党和李光耀在芳林补选遭受巨大的挫折情况下。

在那个时候,英国干预在亚洲的主权国。要执行这个政策被,就需要一个有效的军事基地去推动的。让我们回顾到1946年,二战之后,英国人派兵到西贡(即现在的胡志明市)镇压越南的民族主义运动,以及到印尼的泗水镇压苏卡诺的民族主义力量。

基于这样的支持,英国利用了马歇尔条约新加坡从马来亚半岛分割开来。海峡殖民地的方案是包括了槟城和马六甲并入马来亚联合邦,但是,英国要牢固的控制着海峡殖民地新加坡,这是为了为它的干预政策提供军事基地的后援。

新加坡和马来亚人民在马来亚民主同盟的推动下,一个名叫马来人民联合阵线(PUTERA)和马来亚人民联合行动委员会(AMCJA组成的马来亚和非马来人组织PUTERA-AMCJA的领导下, 反对新加坡从马来亚联合邦分割出去。

马来亚民主同盟的成员约翰.依伯(John Eber)和郭鹤龄(William Kuok)起草了《人民宪章》.它号召一个新加坡的海峡协议必须如槟城和马六甲一样划入马来亚半岛。《人民宪章》设想中的马来亚法定地位仿照了加拿大的模式。

令人瞩目的是,《人民宪章》在各方的同意下,提出了一个叫着“马来由公民权”的建议。它解释说,这是一个非殖民地条件下的马来亚公民权。其中一名领袖陈帧陆同意有关公民权的这个阐述,这样我们可以称呼为马来人马来由、华人马来由、印度人马来由等等。

但是,英国政府拒绝接受《人民宪章》提出包括这个建议的请愿。为此,陈帧陆号召全国人民(马来亚半岛和新加坡)进行一天总罢工和罢市。“Hartal‘是印度文,陈祯禄二次世界大战在印度时学习到的。

“Hartal”第一个全国性的由马来人和非马来人联合的政治行动成功的举行了。在1947年10月20日,马来由半岛和新加坡的各个领域的经济活动全部停止活动.英国人忽视了人民以和平方式这次展现自己的力量,而继续坚持要把新加坡从马来由半岛分割出去——仅仅就是为了一个理由:有效的控制它们在新加坡的军事基地,以便为它们今后干预本地区邻国的主权事务。

在二次世界后,英帝国在经济上已经濒临破产。它削减了在世界上的军事基地,但是,由于亚洲民族主义运动的增长和力量日益强大,迫使它决定保留新加坡的军事基地。英国的档案资料显示,英国人其中的一个战略目标是在远东区“保留一只对准中国的独立贡献的核导弹”。这也是英国人需要某些均衡力量以取得美国人对它的认可,以说明英国人还可以扮演支持美国人保护其在区域的利益。

在1960年代,(英国人)把核子武器存放在新加坡的军事基地 和由重型轰炸机可以携带它们,驻扎在新加坡在未来可能出现的冲突时,随时准备飞往中国。英国人的核子导弹是独立于美国人对付的核子导弹。

而与中国之间的纠纷是不可能排除的。

例如1949年,温斯顿丘吉尔爵士忽视的地理因素,他把中国的长江视为是英国海军如泰晤士河一样可以毫无阻扰的操纵。当英国军队停止操纵泰晤士河时,他把中国的长江当成了泰晤士河,温斯顿丘吉尔爵士恫言轰炸中国人民解放军。

这个军事基地对英国人实施对付苏卡诺也是极其重要的。一旦无法对付苏卡诺,那么,这个军事基地就是一个强有力的军事作用。从那个时候开始,英国人就一直干预印度尼西亚的内部事务,导致了马来西亚与印度尼西亚的对抗和印度尼西亚的“930”政变。苏卡诺无法生存到他的“生活很危险的一年”。

在同样的背景下,回顾着——“一個居民的怒海”——在1963年2月2日的冷藏行动下都被逮捕了。进行冷藏行动唯一重要的理由就是要有效的保留英国在新加坡的军事基地。

档案资料已经显示,当时东姑要逮捕就是为了新加坡与马来亚合并的先决条件。这是毫无疑问的。同样的,我也毫无疑问的认为,李光耀在这个历史关头时刻也希望我们被逮捕。他们三方的每一方在进行冷藏行动时都有自己的盘算。但是,对于英国人来说,感到吃惊的是,他们认为这个重要的想法被“一個居民的怒海”反对他们在新加坡的军事基地所冲走了。

×××××

制定马来西亚联邦这个计划的三个阴谋者当中李光耀是最吃亏的。他并没有在马来西亚里找到自己所要扮演的角色。他向英国驻新加坡最高专员公署副专员菲利普莫里很清楚的表明,假设他本身在马来西亚没有任何的职位,那么,马来西亚的成功是渺茫的。

面对着这个新情况。李光耀的左翼反对者已经摧毁了英国人和东姑的帮助对他帮助。李光耀现在唯有渴望取代马华公会成为巫统的伙伴联盟。李光耀清楚知道和完全接受巫统的族群或者是种族主义的政策。

当东姑拒绝接受他时,他反过来参加了1964年举行的马来西亚大选反对马华公会。他的目的就是要向东姑显示,行动党并不是马华公会。行动党在马来西亚半岛有华人支持。李光耀曾向东姑承诺在参与1964年马来西亚大选时不会在马来亚半岛提出族群敏感问题。他食言了。

在1964年举行的马来西亚大选,行动党派了5名候选人参与,只有一个人获选。李光耀在马来西亚的政治前途已经黯淡了。

根据尔克勋爵的预言,现在李光耀将会转向采取沙文主义的路线。他确实是这么做了。他组织了一个马来西亚人的马来西亚集会。他说,把学习马来语为国语就是倒退回森林。正如所预见的一样,马来种族主义分子进行报复:种族紧张关系被挑起,结果导致在新加坡出现的种族暴动。

面对这样形势,东姑决定和李光耀进行摊排解决问题。但是,在那个时候并没有进行谈判分家的事。

×××××

但是。两件事件让英国人放弃了它们在新加坡的军事基地。第一件事上,中国在1964年10月16日试爆了他们的第一颗原子弹。为此英国人要利用新加坡的军事是基地恐吓中国的最终已经化为泡影了。

第二件事是关于苏卡诺。在1965年6月苏卡诺处境处于极其危险。1965年早些时候,苏卡诺已经知道和暗示自己是“生活在一个极其危险的一年”。他预计外国势力已经在准备推翻他的计划。。他无法生存到1965年底。在当年6-7月份,英国人涉及了“930”政变的行动。它们知道苏卡诺即将倒台。因此,英国人同意新加坡和马来西亚进行谈判分家的事情。信使的文件指出,李光耀热衷于分家。

这两件事发生后,对于英国人来说继续保留在新加坡的军事基地已经没有意义了。也就是这样,在1965年8月9日李光耀在电视机前含泪宣布新加坡退出马来西亚!

×××××

今天我们就是在马来西亚合并计划失败的生活中。英国人在1963年下令进行大规模的逮捕行动已维持他们在新加坡的军事基地,但是,当军事基地对他们已经没有可利用之后,他们却推卸了应负责释放我们的责任。

今天,英国人把自己扮演成是维护民主和人权者,但是,他们对于自己当年在新加坡和马来亚所作所为却保持缄默。我们在冷藏行动中被他们亲手逮捕,但是, 他们在通过合并计划把新加坡交给了马来西亚后却不释放我们。

因此英国人必须承担我们的继续在不经审讯下长期监禁、长达数个月非人道待遇的单独监禁、以及接下来一波又一波的逮捕行动的痛苦。

今天马来西亚与新加坡的关系并不和谐。新加坡通过加强自己的经济地位的方式,来干预马来西亚的内部政治事务。一个例子是在东姑拉扎里与马哈蒂尔进行争夺领导巫统领导权时期。

今天,和我在学生时代相比,在新加坡和马来西亚的族群关系更加紧张。很不幸的,在马来西亚合并和新加坡退出马来西亚过程中,李光耀和行动党在玩弄族群的牌子发挥了积极的作用。它们通过马来西亚人团结会议和马来西亚人的马来西亚挑起了马来人和华人的沙文主义。

英国人在本区域已经达到了自己的目的。在发现军事基地已经不再对自己有用和必须支付高昂的维持费用,已经在很久以前收拾包袱走人了。给留下来的就是我们站在柔佛长堤彼岸彼此瞭望。

 (编者附注)

网址1:《行委会(AMCJA)及马联(PUTERA)制定马来亚人民旗帜》http://www.of21.com/v1/historyCollection/communistHistory/topics/2015-01-28/349.html

网址2. 《马来亚新宪法草案》http://www.of21.com/v1/historyCollection/communistHistory/topics/2015-01-28/362.html

网址3.《马来亚新宪法草案中的公民的权利与义务》

http://www.of21.com/v1/historyCollection/communistHistory/topics/2015-01-28/360.html

网址4. 《罢工、罢市,镇压、逮捕,1948年的紧张时刻》

http://www.of21.com/v1/historyCollection/communistHistory/topics/2015-01-28/259.html

相关链接Related link:

1.     《人民论坛》:(中/英文对照)《Speech of Dr Poh Soo Kai at the launch of his historical memoir “Living in a Time of Deception” at Holiday Inn Singapore Atrium on 13 February 2016 作者傅树介医生的讲话 2016年2月13日历史回忆录《生活在欺瞒的年代》发布会》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/ -atrium-on-13-f/

2.  《人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)傅树介医生于2016年4月2日在马来西亚八打灵再也举行新书《生活在期满的年代》发布会讲话 DR. Poh’s speech in book launch in Petaling Jaya on 2 April 2016》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/

3.     《人民论坛》:《本书作者傅树介医生讲话》视频网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRImxixTb4

4.     《人民论坛》:《马来亚大学社会主义 俱乐部秘书长R. Joety律师讲话》视频网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lJiUV89NAU

5.     《人民论坛》:《历史学家孔丽莎博士讲话》视频网址:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FhkdJOsQgo

6.     《人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)孔丽莎博士在傅树介医生新书《生活在欺瞒的年代》发布会上的致词 Speech at launch of PohSoo Kai, Living in a Time of Deception》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/

7.     《人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)陈国防先生在傅树介医生回忆录推介会上的讲话》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/

8.  《人民论坛》:《(中/英文版)真理与激情代替了与谎言欺瞒 Truth and inspiration replacing deceit and deception》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/

9.  《人民论坛》:《李万千:另一版本的新加坡故事》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/

10.  《人民论坛》:《Show Ying Xin开场白: 李光耀的故事同时就是“新加坡的故事” Show Ying Xin:Lee Kuan Yew’s story is also ‘The Singapore Story’》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/

 

 

Living in a Time of Deception

 

傅树介医生新书发布会封面

Posted on May 16, 2016 by fn8org

Speech at SOAS on May 10, 2016, by Poh Soo Kai

 

Greetings – Mr Chairman / Madam Chairwoman, ladies and gentleman, friends and compatriots from both sides of the Johor causeway:

Firstly, a word of thanks to SOAS (the School of Oriental and African Studies) and to MBC (Monsoons Book Club) for organizing this launch of my historical memoir, “Living In A Time Of Deception.” Thank you for your hard work.

This book began as a personal memoir but pretty soon, I found this framework rather inadequate. Thankfully, Wong Souk Yee and Lysa Hong came into the picture and helped to fashion this book into a historical memoir dealing with the politics of Singapore in the period 1954 to 1965 – where we witnessed, among others, the very important events in our bilateral history of merger in 1963 and the subsequent acrimonious separation from Malaysia in 1965. So “Living In A Time Of Deception” turned out to be a historical memoir focusing on my role in and my understanding of the politics of that epoch.

What we – Singaporeans and Malaysians on either side of the Johor causeway – are living with today is the fallout of the failed Malaysian Merger plan.

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

In 1961, after Lord Selkirk became UK High Commissioner for Singapore and Commissioner General for South-East Asia , he assiduously pushed for merger – the cardinal aim of which was to safeguard the efficiency of the British military base in Singapore.

At this juncture, I ask my audience to forgive me for paraphrasing sentences and literally lifting out terminologies and phrases from the correspondences between Lord Selkirk and the colonial office, as found in the British archives, to paint the picture then.

Lord Selkirk took the Malaysia Merger plan – first mooted in the aftermath of the Second World War – from the cupboard, dusted it and offered it to Lee Kuan Yew as a lifeline during the Hong Lim by-elections of 1961. It was obvious to the British then that Lee Kuan Yew was no longer the political force that he was in 1959 when he had swept into electoral victory on the back of left-wing support. As predicted by Selkirk, the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew lost the Hong Lim by-elections to what the British described as “a sea of hostile local population” necessitating the British to throw out a “lifeline” to Lee Kuan Yew and by extension, a “lifeline” to ensure the security of the British military base in Singapore.

Thus, Lord Selkirk’s main aim in giving an old Malaysian Merger plan, a serious and renewed interest was to safeguard the efficiency of the British naval base in “a sea of hostile local population” that had overwhelmingly rejected the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew in the 1961 Hong Lim by-election.

***********
It was British policy at that time to intervene in the sovereign affairs of the countries in Asia. For such a policy to be executed, an efficient naval base was imperative. If we go back to 1946, after the Second World War, the British had sent their troops to Saigon to fight the Vietnamese nationalist movement, as well as to Surabaya to fight Sukarno’s nationalist forces.

Because of this policy, the British decided to separate Singapore from mainland Malaya with the MacMichael Treaty. The Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca could be incorporated into the Malayan Union but the British must retain firm control of the Straits Settlement of Singapore which contained the military base that would provide back up for its policy of intervention.

The people of Singapore and Malaya, headed by PUTERA-AMCJA – a unity of Malay and non-Malay organisations – promoted by the MDU (Malayan Democratic Union), opposed the separation of Singapore from Malaya.

The People’s Constitution written by MDU members John Eber and Willy Kuok had called for the unity of the Straits Settlement of Singapore just like Penang and Melaka with the mainland. The People’s Constitution envisaged dominion status for Malaya, following the Canadian model.

Most strikingly, the People’s Constitution proposed, with agreement from all factions, a citizenship called Melayu citizenship. It explained that it is a non-colonial term for Malayan citizenship. Tan Cheng Lock, one of the leaders, agreed with this definition for our citizenship; and we were to have Malay Melayu, Chinese Melayu, Indian Melayu and so forth.

However, the British governor refused to accept the petition embodying the People’s Constitution. And so Tan Cheng Lock had to call for a one-day Hartal which was a general strike of all people in the country – mainland Malaya and Singapore. He had learned this Hindustani word when he was in India during the Second World War.

The Hartal – the first nationwide joint Malay and non-Malay political action was successful – all economic activities in mainland Malaya and Singapore shut down on October 20, 1947. The British ignored this peaceful show of strength from the people and went ahead to separate Singapore from Malaya – for the sole reason of maintaining effective control of the military base in Singapore to further the British policy of intervention in the sovereign affairs of neighbouring countries in the region.

After the Second World War, the British Empire was economically broke. It ran down its military bases around the world but it was determined to hold onto Singapore because of the growth and strength of the nationalist movements in Asia. The British archive revealed that one of UK strategic aims in the Far East was to “maintain an independent contribution to the nuclear deterrent against China.” It was also necessary for the British to obtain some semblance of recognition from the United States that the weakened British still could play a supportive role in this region to advance the interests of the United States globally.

By 1960, tactical nuclear weapons were stored in the Singapore naval base and heavy bombers capable of carrying them, were stationed in Singapore and ready to fly out to China in case of disputes with the latter. This British nuclear deterrent was independent of the United States’ nuclear deterrent against China.

And disputes with mainland China could not be ruled out.

For example, in 1949, Sir Winston Churchill ignorant of geography, thought the Yangtze River was the Thames where the British Royal Navy could ply up and down with impunity. When the British Royal Navy was stopped from plying up and down, what it thought was the Thames, Sir Winston Churchill threatened to bomb the Chinese Liberation Army.

The base was also important to execute British policy of putting Sukarno’s feet to the fire. One could not put Sukarno’s feet to the fire without the muscles provided by the Singapore military base. Ever since then, the British had been interfering in the affairs of Indonesia, resulting in Confrontasi with Malaysia and the Gestapo or G30S in 1965. Sukarno did not last out his “year of living dangerously.”

Against this background, we – referred to as the “sea of hostile local population” – were arrested on February 2, 1963 under Operation Coldstore. The main reason for it was to preserve the effectiveness of the British military base in Singapore.

There is documentation in the archive that shows that the Tunku had wanted our arrest as a pre-condition for merger with Singapore. There is no doubt on that. Likewise, I have no doubt that Lee Kuan Yew desired our arrest at that juncture in history. Each had his own reason for our arrest. But it was the British who called the shot as it was imperative upon them to drain away that sea of local hostility against their base in Singapore.

********
Of the three conspirators in this scheme, it was Lee Kuan Yew who stood most to lose should he not find a role within Malaysia. He stated quite clearly to Philip Moore, UK deputy high commissioner to Singapore, that if he had no place in Malaysia, then the chance of Malaysia succeeding would be nil.

In this new scenario where his left-wing opponents had been decimated with the help of the British and the Tunku, Lee Kuan Yew now aspired to replace the MCA as UMNO’s partner in the Alliance. He was fully aware of and completely accept UMNO’s communal or racial policy.

But when the Tunku refused to accommodate him, he then turned around and contested the general elections of 1964 against the MCA with the aim of showing the Tunku, that the PAP not the MCA, had the support of the Chinese in mainland Malaya. Lee Kuan Yew reneged on his promise to the Tunku that he would not raise the communal tension in Malaya by contesting in the general elections of 1964.

In the 1964 general elections, the PAP put up 5 candidates but only one won. Lee Kuan Yew’s political horizon in Malaysia was dim indeed.

The archive quotes Lord Selkirk as predicting that Lee Kuan Yew would now switch to adopt a chauvinistic line. That was precisely what he did. He convened the Malaysian Solidarity Convention. He said that learning Malay as a national language was a way back to the jungle. As expected, Malay radicals retaliated; communal tension was raised which resulted in racial riots in Singapore.

Faced with that situation, the Tunku decided to talk to Lee on ways to solve the problem. But there was no talk of separation at that time.

********
However two intervening events took place to obliterate the need for a British military base in Singapore. The first concerned the Chinese, who, on October 16, 1964, had exploded their first atomic bomb and with it, a cardinal aim of the British military base in Singapore, which was to blackmail China, evaporated into smoke.

The second deals with Sukarno, who by June 1965, was in a very precarious position. Early that year, Sukarno had alluded to “the year of living dangerously” for he knew and expected that foreign powers were on the verge of toppling him. He did not last out 1965. By June – July, the British who were involved in the Gestapo operations, were aware of Sukarno’s impending downfall and therefore, allowed Singapore and Malaysia to negotiate for a separation. The Albatross files indicated that Lee Kuan Yew was in favour of separation.

These two intervening events made the aims of retaining a British military base in Singapore unnecessary. And so, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was announced on August 9, 1965 with Lee shedding tears on television!

********
Today we are living in the fallout of this failed Malaysia merger scheme. The British had ordered our mass arrest in order to maintain their Singapore military base in 1963 and abdicated their responsibility to free us when the base was no longer useful.

Today they present themselves as advocates of democracy and human rights but are silent on their past role in Malaya and Singapore. They arrested us under Operation Coldstore, and failed to release us when they handed Singapore over to Malaysia via the Merger plan.

Hence the British must share in the odium of our continued detention without trial over many long years, in the inhuman treatment of solitary confinement for months and in the subsequent waves upon waves of arrests that followed.

Today, the relations between Malaysia and Singapore are not friendly. Singapore is known to have interfered in the political affairs of Malaysia to enhance its own economic position. An example of such interference occurred during Tengku Razaleigh’s fight against Mahathir for the leadership of UNMO.

Today, the communal tension within the country in both Malaysia and Singapore is heightened compared to the days when I was a student. Very unfortunately, in the process of the Malaysia merger and separation, Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP had played the communal card to the hilt, whipping up both Malay and Chinese chauvinism with the Malaysian Solidarity Conference and Malaysian Malaysia slogan.

The British, having achieved their aim in the region, and finding the base no longer necessary and costly to maintain, had long packed up and gone, leaving us with this fallout today as we stare at each other divided by the Johor causeway.

 


留下评论

赛扎哈利追思会

策略资讯研究中心、人民历史中心、Monsoons Malaysia、隆雪华堂民权委员会及乌斯曼阿旺基金会诚邀公众出席定于2016年5月22日星期日上午10时于隆雪华堂首都剧场举行的赛扎哈利(Said Zahari)追思会。

追思会节目包括播放短片、诗歌朗诵、演绎歌曲及演讲等等。演讲者包括赛扎哈利家属、前马来西亚人民党主席赛胡先阿里博士、前联合国经济与社会事务副秘书长佐摩博士、国家文学奖沙末赛益、国民大学阿都拉曼恩蓬教授、传播学者庄迪澎、年轻社运领袖阿当阿里等。 此活动是为了纪念赛扎哈利对马来西亚与新加坡两国的新闻自由运动与民主政治的贡献。赛扎哈利于1928年生于新加坡,2016年4月12日逝世于吉隆坡家中,他最为人津津乐道的是担任马来前锋报总编辑期间抗议巫统收购前锋报,毅然与前锋报职员于1961年发起罢工行动,展开轰轰烈烈捍卫新闻自由与反抗政治干预的斗争。直至今日,他敢于斗争追求真理的风范依然长存于人民心中,也在新马新闻自由史上写下不朽的一页。

马来前锋报罢工之后,赛扎哈利回到新加坡,准备领导新加坡人民党。就在他刚刚被选为人民党主席时,李光耀政府马上逮捕他,并用无审讯恶法将他囚禁17年之久。80年代获释后,他搬到马来西亚与孩子同住。 我们永远缅怀新闻自由伟人赛扎哈利,希望通过举办追思会,让年轻一代更了解这位伟人。逝者已逝,但是他的光辉精神却能继续孕育下一代,延续民主自由的理想!

入场免费,查询请联络012-2658448或03-79578342。谢谢!


留下评论

同志们、朋友们,请踊跃出席2016年6月4日下午2点——4点伟大新闻工作者赛扎哈利同志的追悼会

Said Zahari_memorial invite_final 3.5.16 Black

同志们、朋友们!

新加坡人民的好儿女、伟大反殖爱国志士、坚定不移捍卫新闻自由的战士赛.查哈利同志于2016年4月12日中午在马来西亚浦种安南逝世了。

赛.查哈利同志:1928年5月18日-2016年4月12日,享年88岁

为了悼念我们伟大战士、发挥他的敢于斗争的革命乐观主义,我们将于2016年6月4日举行追悼会。

我们邀请与赛查哈利同志同在一个战壕里战斗的同志们、战友们,以及所有追求争取祖国实现自由、民主和平等的朋友们,踊跃出席这场追悼会。谢谢。

婉辞

电影制作者施忠明先生在赛查哈利同志进行了访谈,并制作了访谈影片。但是,这里两部视频影片不准在新加坡公开上映。以下影片网址(1)和(2)

13012600_998346776922716_3484738542918895984_n