(英文中文版)Resisting Coercion 反抗压制


1.      1987 SINGAPORE MARXIST CONSPIRACY 30 YEARS ON》是由1987年在光谱行动被捕者为纪念被捕30周年而共同撰写和出版的。这本书于2017521日正式出版发行;(中文译音为《1987新加坡的马克思阴谋30周年》

2.      经编委会同意,我站刊载了该书部分中文翻译文章。文章翻译是林康先生的


Resisting Coercion

It was this personal knowledge of Soh Lung’s character that was behind my sense of outrage and confusion when I first heard that she had been detained under the Internal Security Act. Surely, I thought, it was a bad mistake! But as the weeks passed with the government maintaining its allegation that this dear friend was part of a Marxist conspiracy to create social unrest through violent means, I felt I had to do something, however small. Together with Shelley Wright, a colleague of mine at Sydney University Law School, we produced a petition addressed to the Singapore Minister of Home Affairs, which was signed by more than 50 legal academics from the four law schools in Sydney. We also published letters in the Sydney Morning Herald informing the Australian public of what we strongly believed to be an abuse of political power contrary to the rule of law by the Singapore government at the time. Additionally, we persuaded the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists to write a similar letter of protest to the Singapore government.

I would like to think that these efforts played a small part, when combined with the groundswell of protests from around many parts of the world, to secure the eventual release of Soh Lung and others in detention without trial through Operation Spectrum.

In 1990, when Soh Lung was still in detention, I decided to dedicate my first book, Compulsion in the Criminal Law (Law Book Co) to her. The dedication


To Teo Soh Lung

Who has consistently resisted coercion so as to maintain the spirit of the rule of law in Singapore.

It still amuses me to this day that, shortly after it was published, my book managed to find its way to the shelves of law libraries in Singapore including the NUS library, and that no one thought to black-out the dedication. I was heartened when, many years later, in my first meeting over kopi and kaya toast with Soh Lung after her release, she told me that hearing of this dedication while in detention gave her strength and courage in adversity.

I returned to Singapore in 2007 to take up an appointment at NUS, and made it a priority soon after settling in to re-establish my friendship with Soh Lung. Over the past decade I have witnessed the same compassionate and gentle spirit in Soh Lung that I had observed and admired back in the 1980s. I have seen her devotion towards the sick and elderly, and the care, comfort and support she has rendered to them and others in need. Soh Lung, a Marxist conspirator seeking to create social unrest through violent means? God forbid! — She is rather, a true light of the world and and the salt of the earth. I challenge anyone to persuade me to believe otherwise.


明雄        中文翻译:林康

【作者简介】明雄(Stanley Yeo Meng Heong),曾任前新加坡大学讲师。和识时,他正在事“刑事正”(criminal justice)等课题究。他及其他几位律,在新加坡律成立了刑事法律援助计划(Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, CLAS)。逮捕事件生,他人在悉尼,是澳大利要求放被扣者运动的主要起人之一。

新加坡生代Operation Spectrum)的逮捕事件。我知道此事的反,如今印象新。当时简直不敢相信,新加坡局竟能干出这种事。感到困惑,也充满愤怒。接着,是被拘捕朋友的安全,禁不住起的忧虑与担心。

我在前新加坡大了六年讲师后,198510月移民,居到悉尼。在新加坡期,我刑事正课题实证研究(empirical research),其中一具体容是有需要的嫌犯无法得刑事法律援助。我因此和有了系。的一小群执业,和我持一点,认为新加坡刑事司法体制的上述欠缺正。我一起去游新加坡律,一起在律成立了刑事法律援助计划这过程中和该计划目前成了新加坡政府鼓慈善互助文化在法律界的主流目。当时,我晚经常在龄与人(张赖李律所)坐落在芽笼红离市中心其他律所的开会当时氛,我至今仍未淡忘。



于是,我和悉尼大院的同事雪莉·怀特(Shelley Wright)一起,向新加坡政部起了愿。征集到悉尼四所法院的50多名法学学名。我也向《悉尼先》(Sydney Morning Herald)投,向澳大利强烈表明我们认为新加坡政府当时这种背离法治的行,是在用政治力。此外,我们还催促国际员会的澳大利,向新加坡政府函抗


1990年,在素仍被,我定把交由法律籍出版社出版的《刑事法律的迫害》(Compulsion in the Criminal Law),我的第一本献给她











(英文中文版)《1987 SINGAPORE MARXIST CONSPIRACY 30 YEARS ON》 (《1987新加坡的马克思阴谋30周年》 )《引言》)


1.  《1987 SINGAPORE MARXIST CONSPIRACY 30 YEARS ON》是由1987年在“光谱行动”被捕者为纪念被捕30周年而共同撰写和出版的。这本书于2017年5月21日正式出版发行;(中文译音为《1987新加坡的马克思阴谋30周年》 )

  1. 经编委会同意,我站刊载了该书部分中文翻译文章。文章翻译是林康先生的。



The arrest of 16 people in the early hours of 21 May 1987 shocked the nation. Codenamed Operation Spectrum, the arrests were touted as a national security exercise and made under the Internal Security Act (ISA) even though not a single weapon or explosive was seized from any one of them. As if 16 arrests at dawn in one fell swoop were not sufficient to terrify the population, another six were detained a month later. These six had merely spoken out or campaigned against the first arrests.

The allegations against the detainees were bizarre. They were accused of having communist links 1 and later making use of lawful and registered organisations (both political and non-political), to further their aim of establishing a Marxist state. The government claimed that many of them had also made use of the Roman Catholic Church “to subvert the existing social and political system in Singapore, using communist united front tactics, with a view to establish a Marxist state.” Strangely, under continuous interrogations and torture, many of the detainees were ultimately forced to admit that they were unwittingly “made use of ” by friends. And even stranger was the subsequent revelation by the government that it was unhappy with the four Catholic priests and not those 16 arrested.

In the days, weeks and months following the arrests, the government was  unexpectedly kept busy rebutting statements and claims of ill treatment of prisoners from human rights organisations, Church, government and individuals outside Singapore and the international media. Friends of the prisoners had immediately set up a network around the world to rebut the government’s allegations, testify to the good character of the prisoners and claim that they were subjected to physical and mental torture. Singapore embassies and offices of the Singapore Airlines were inundated with queries and protests. Congress of the United States, the Diet of Japan and the European Union were kept informed of the arrests. Singapore ambassadors and ministers were compelled to answer questions on the government’s treatment of the prisoners and the use of detention without trial which is contrary to the rule of law in civilised countries.

The prisoners were released in stages but not before they were forced to appear on television for rehearsed interviews. By the end of December 1987, all were released except Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan.

The ISA empowers the government to arrest and imprison people indefinitely and without any trial. History has shown that innocent people — students, university lecturers, medical doctors, journalists, lawyers and trade unionists had been imprisoned for years without trial. Several were detained for periods longer than life sentences. The government’s refusal to release Vincent Cheng in December 1987 therefore caused grave unease among those who were released. This, coupled with the government’s relentless accusations of wrongdoings and denial that the detainees were ill treated, led to the issue of a joint public statement.

Joint Statement and re-arrests

On 18 April 1988, nine released prisoners issued a statement rebutting the government’s allegations against them and confirming that they had suffered ill treatment. Eight of them were immediately re-arrested the next day. The ninth, Tang Fong Har who was in England, did not return to Singapore but embarked on a campaign to free her friends. She is today living in Hong Kong as a political exile.

The re-arrests in 1988 ended the hope of release for Vincent Cheng. It also led to the arrests of Francis Seow and Patrick Seong, two prominent lawyers who were acting for many of the prisoners. It seemed incredible that Singapore, a developed country could abuse lawyers so openly.

Left with the prospect of indefinite detention, several prisoners turned to the Supreme Court for relief. The court failed them. Its half-hearted judgment in December 1988 may have given hope to future generations of Singaporeans but it dealt a hefty blow on the prisoners. They were ordered to be released on a technical ground but were promptly re-arrested. They had to commence legal proceedings all over again.

By June 1990, everyone, including Vincent Cheng was released. They were all subjected to severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, assembly, free speech and expression for many years.

Picking up the pieces

The released prisoners went about their lives quietly for two decades. Except for a few, they returned to the professions before their arrests. Vincent Cheng was the hardest hit. He lost his job as the executive secretary of the Archdiocesan Justice and Peace Commission which was shut down soon after the arrests in May 1987. Luckily his resourcefulness and intelligence led him to embark on a new career as a natural health care practitioner. Reflexolog y, a skill he acquired from books while he was in prison became handy.

Several of those released left Singapore for work or further education, at least for several years if not for good. Those who remain, made good the years they lost in prison. More importantly, they kept in touch with one another. They occasionally remember the anniversaries of 21 May 1987. They got together with friends and relatives on several of these anniversaries for meals, renewed their friendship and sang a song or two for old times’ sake. On the 10th anniversary, friends and relatives came together for lunch at The Vines in Thomson Road. A small booklet of letters from prison was distributed to those who attended. Busy with work, the 15th anniversary was forgotten. When the 20th anniversary (2007) approached, several of the former prisoners decided to discuss and reflect on what happened in 1987. They invited the alleged leader of the conspiracy, Tan Wah Piow and a few concerned friends to a weekend retreat in Johor. It was a private gathering to trash out 1987 and exchange experiences. For the first time, a soul-searching discussion and analysis took place.


In May 2009, several young Singaporeans held a protest calling for the abolition of the ISA at Hong Lim Park. It was the 22nd year of 21 May 1987. Remembering 22 Singapore Victims of ISA was attended by several former detainees. They quietly observed the protest. The young people knew who they were but did not speak to them. It was good to see them organise the event.

That protest had a great impact on the ISA survivors. They realised that Singaporeans were curious about the past and it was perhaps time for them to tell their story.

The following year, Function 8 was incorporated as a social enterprise and Teo Soh Lung’s prison memoir, Beyond the Blue Gate was published.

In 2012, Function 8 in collaboration with MARUAH, a human rights organisation, Commemorated the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum at Hong Lim Park. They put up an exhibition of various objects, artworks and constructed mock prison cells and interrogation room to give the public an idea of what it is like to be in prison. The event was called That We May Dream Again, Remembering the 1987 ‘Marxist Conspiracy’.

In March 2015, Roman Catholic Archbishop William Goh in his address to a “crowd of 5000 Catholics, including 40 priests” at a special mass for former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, referred to the arrest of 22 people in 1987 as a “dark period” in the Church’s history. He was also reported as having said:

“I think it is important for us to move on and to forgive, and most of all

to continue to build the country. There’s no point to go back to the past,

trying to lick our wounds because it will not help in nation building…

And as Christians all the more we should forgive and forget…”

The archbishop is wrong to advise that it is pointless to go back to the past. It is not helpful to add that to go back to the past is to “lick our wounds”.

To this day, the Catholic Church has not made any attempt to investigate the truth about the government’s serious allegations against her church workers, volunteers and priests. Will silence and inaction light up the “dark period” in the Church’s history? Will this “dark period” go away if the Church does nothing ? Will the ghost of the past live to haunt us?

While we do not deny that the Church was also a victim of state violence in 1987, when Archbishop Gregory Yong, not being a politician, succumbed under pressure at the Istana, she can emulate the example set by Bishop Desmond Tutu who led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa in the 1990s. As we wait for the Church to take steps to be reconciled with the Catholic victims of Operation Spectrum, we are exceedingly grateful for the essays of Fr Patrick Goh and Edgar D’Souza. Their stories shed much light on the exemplary role of the Church before Operation Spectrum, which regrettably earned the displeasure of the authorities and met the full force of their suppression.

Operation Spectrum was a clumsy but successful attack on a re-emerging civil society. It was a multi-pronged attack that wiped out student activism, destroyed or crippled several legitimate organisations and one professional body —The Law

Society of Singapore.

It is our hope that with this publication, Singaporeans will know what actually happened in 1987 and decide for themselves if there was a national security threat that necessitated the mounting of Operation Spectrum and the arrest of 22 people and two of their lawyers.

Teo Soh Lung

May 2017


  1. 1. The Straits Times , 22 May 1987

  2. 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j604lzFjFDY —Remembering 22 Singapore Victims of ISA, accessed on 21 March 2017

3.http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/archbishop-goh-mr-lee-kuan-yew-did-what-he-thought-was-best-for-the-country, accessed on 21 Mar

4 ibid




1987年凌晨逮捕16人的消息传开,举国为之震惊。以“光谱行动”(Operation Spectrum)为代号,援引内部安全法令(Internal Security Act, ISA)进行的大逮捕,宣称是一项维护国家安全的举措。尽管如此,在行动中却没有搜获任何武器与炸药。破晓时分一举拿下16人,仿佛这还不足以震慑国人,一个月后另有六人落网。这六人遭难,只不过因为公开发言反对第一次逮捕或参与营救被捕者的运动。



官方分批释放了被扣者,但释放的条件是被扣者必须同意先上电视,接受事前彩排好的所谓访问。截至1987年12月底,除了钟金全(Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan),所有其他人都获释了。



1988年4月18日,九名已获释的囚徒发表声明,驳斥政府对他们的指控,并确认他们曾经受到虐待。其中八人在隔天即被重新逮捕。第九名,邓凤霞(Tang Fong Har),因为当时人在英国所以逃脱。她没有回到新加坡来,选择留在国外从事营救友人的运动。目前她以政治流亡者的身分在香港居住。

1988年的重新逮捕,使钟金全获释的希望破灭。同时导致萧添寿(Francis Seow)与常国基两人被捕,他们是代表许多被扣者的卓越律师。一个像新加坡这样的发达国家,竟如此公开地滥权糟践律师,真是难以想象。




获释的囚徒们,在下来二十年里默默地过日子。除了少数例外,他们回返被捕前的专业。钟金全是受打击最大的一个。他原来是大主教管区正义与和平委员会(Archdiocesan Justice and Peace Commission)的行政秘书,该委员会在他被捕不久后于1987年5月关闭,他的工作于是没了。幸亏他有广泛的联系与智慧,藉此转轨成为一名天然保健护理师。他在狱中从书上自习反射疗法(reflexology),这时正好投入应用。

有些人在获释后离开新加坡,到外国去工作或进修,好或不好,如此过了数年。留在本地的,设法弥补在牢里丢失的岁月。更重要的一点也许是,他们相互保持着联系。遇到1987年5月21日的周年时,偶尔有人会记起。在某些周年来临时,他们和朋友、家人聚餐,重续友谊,唱几首歌缅怀旧时情境。十周年那天,他们和朋友、亲人一起在汤申路的攀藤餐馆(The Vines)吃午餐,并现场向出席者分发一本收集他们若干狱中家书的小册子。大家都忙于工作,十五周年被遗忘了。在二十周年(2007年)来临前,几名前被扣者决定要针对1987年发生的事进行讨论与回忆。他们邀请了被指控为阴谋领导人的陈华彪(Tan Wah Piow),以及数名关心此事的朋友,到柔佛的某一个度假屋去过周末。这是个为了厘清1987年事由及交换相关经验的私人集会。这是首次,他们就此进行了触动心灵的深入讨论与分析。


2009年5月,数名年轻的新加坡人在芳林公园举行抗议集会,要求废除内部安全法令。这恰是1987年5月21日的第二十二周年。若干名前被扣者出席了这个取名为“不忘22名新加坡内安法受害人”(Remembering 22 Singapore Victims of ISA)的集会。他们默默观察这场抗议集会。年轻人知道他们是什么人,但没有和他们交谈。看见有人组织这样的集会真好。


下来一年,“第八功能”(Function 8)以社会企业的性质注册成立,张素兰的狱中回忆录《在蓝色栅门的后面》(Beyond the Blue Gate)出版。

2012年,“第八功能”联合人权组织“尊严”(MARUAH),在芳林公园举办集会,纪念“光谱行动”25周年。他们在现场展览了一些物件与艺术品,仿造了牢房和审讯室,向公众展示牢狱生涯是怎么回事。那次集会取名为“我们有日也许重返梦想,纪念1987年所谓的‘马克思主义阴谋’”(That We May Dream Again, Remembering the 1987‘Marxist Conspiracy’)。

2015年3月,罗马天主教会大主教William Goh在为已故前总理李光耀举行的一场特别弥撒上,向在场的“5000名天主教徒,包括40名神父”致辞时,提及1987年22人被捕事件,称之为教会史上的“黑暗时期”。据报道他也这么说:





1987年的国家暴力,天主教会也是受害的一方,当非政治人物的大主教Gregory Yong在总统府向压力屈服时,他原可效法1990年代在南非领导“真相与和解委员会”(Truth and Reconciliation Commission)的图图主教(Bishop Desmond Tutu)的榜样。

当我们在等候教会采取行动与“光谱行动”天主教受害人达成和解时,我们对Patrick Goh和Edgar D’Souza两位神父的文章表示激赏。他们讲述的故事真实反映了天主教会在“光谱行动”前所扮演的角色与风范。遗憾的是,这样的典范惹恼了当权者,横遭当权者的粗暴镇压。

“光谱行动”是对公民社会重新崛起的一次笨拙但成功的攻击。这是个多层次的攻击,清除了我们学生运动的参与者,摧毁或削弱了若干合法团体的生气,其中包括一个专业组织——新加坡律师公会(The Law Society of Singapore)。










这是一场极其成功的纪念会与纪录片放映!座无虚席。出席者包括了在50、60和70 年代的老前辈。其他出席者绝大多数受英文教育者,以青年人居多。


















30 过去了。但是,回想起30年前他们被李光耀逮捕关进维特里路,以及在狱中进行审讯期间遭受的各种各样的威胁、迫害和虐待历历在目,至今还一直留在自己的脑海里!心灵上的创伤至今还是未能抚平!







“1987 SINGAPORE’S MARXIST CONSPIRACY 30 YEAR ON”(中文译音为《1987新加坡的马克思阴谋30周年》 )




行动党诈骗团伙“近交远邻”政策下的 “可靠、诚实、言行一致的中间人”还有卖相吗?














一带一路沿线多数是发展中国家,人口基数大,人口红利多。比如印度人口超过13亿,位居世界第二,平均年龄26岁;印尼人口约2.6亿,位居世界第四,平均年龄不到26岁。这些国家旅游设施相对落后,旅游投资空间巨大。一带一路的旅游投资方面目前已落地了两个项目,分别在法国巴黎和印度的哈里亚纳邦。其中,巴黎的大型文化旅游项目占地80万平方米,总建筑面积76万平方米,总投资超过30亿欧元,是欧洲最大的旅游投资项目。 另一个印度产业新城项目占地11平方公里,规划制造业园区、文化旅游园区和居住园区,其中制造业和文化旅游园区占地超过70%,项目建成后可创造超过10万个就业岗位,是印度目前最大的投资项目。


















“作为亚细安-中国关系协调国,新加坡将做个公正的中间人”(honest broker) ,客观和透明地对待各方,竭力强化亚细安-中国关系,令双方关系更上一层楼。”





中国和一些亚细安国家存在“历史遗留问题,新加坡作为协调国,应该扮演好桥梁的角色,促进双方的对话协商,” (见2016年6月14日《早报》的报道:《新中外长会面 我国愿做中国和亚细安的桥梁》(见网址http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20160614-628911

















“9国领导人参加了高峰论坛,当中没有新加坡总理李显龙。询及总理为何缺席,黄循财回答说,邀请之事由中方决定。有舆论猜测,这意味新加坡对一带一路倡议的配合度不高,或在倡议中没有可发挥作用的角色。”《新加坡国家发展部长黄循财: 新加坡愿与中国携手落实一带一路》(《新浪财经网》见网址:http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2017-05-17/doc-ifyfekhi8065701.shtml









《早报》在2017420日刊载了国家发展部有关黄循财代表新加坡出席北京峰会的信息已经说明了行动党诈骗团伙对中国举办一带一路北京峰会 错误判断了!




这个离婚汉子在北京经似模似样地对着电视记者面前说了几句话。明眼人一听,就知道他说这几句话就是不痛不痒 。用中国人的话来形容,就是“讲套话”、“打官腔”























new book launching 新书推荐:1987 Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy, 30 Years On《1987新加坡的马克思阴谋30周年》




  1. 这本书由当年被李光耀指控“企图使用共产党统一战线 策略推翻新加坡政府”而在“光谱行动”下被捕者为当年的被捕共同撰写的书籍。

  2. 在“光谱行动”下被捕者被捕者将于2017521日下午30分假小坡黄金戏院五楼举行纪念会,同时发行者这本新书。


当时这16名被捕者是在协助哪些外来劳工解决他们在新加坡面对的困难!——这是与目前政府的“家园”(HOME)、关怀外来劳工社会机构(TWC2,Transient Worker Count Too – a social enterprise working on Migrant worker以及一个政府代理机构所进行的工作是一样的。他们也是一样涉及为外来劳工的福利而疾呼反对制定更严厉的法律,以及让哪些面对丧失基本人权的外来劳工在银幕上说出自己的心声。





在当天,我们将推荐和正式发行一本新书。书名为:《1987新加坡的马克思阴谋30周年》。这是一本属于哪些要了解新加坡过去历史的人必读的书。这本书一共手收集了30篇文章,文章的作者都是当年涉及在“光谱行动”下被捕者。这本书目前已经在Pagesetters Services Pte LtdAGORA和城市书房等其他书局开始售卖。


《1987 Singapore’s MarxistConspiracy, 30 Years On》

21 May 2017 will mark the 30th anniversary of that shameful day when the government arrested and imprisoned 16 innocent people who were trying their best to make Singapore a better place to live in. They were labelled as communists and later as Marxists and imprisoned without trial under the Internal Security Act.

The 16 were helping migrant workers – the same kind of work that HOME, TWC2 and one government agency are doing today. They were also involved in speaking up against the enactment of more harsh laws and telling the stories of those who lacked basic human rights through the theatre.

The early 1980s in fact, marked the re-emergence of civil society after the severe clampdown in the 1970s when more than 400 people were arrested under the ISA. A month later, another 6 were arrested.

Find out more about our dark history on 21 May 2017 at The Projector.

Jason Soo’s film “1987: Untracing the Conspiracy” will be screened at 2 pm and this will be followed by a dialogue with several survivors of Operation Spectrum. Register attendance at https://www.eventbrite.sg/e/debunking-a-30-year-old-conspir

A new book, “1987 Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy, 30 Years On” will also be launched on that day. This book is a must read for all Singaporeans who are interested in our past. It contains more than 30 essays written by people who were deeply involved in the that era. This book is now on sale at Pagesetters Services Pte Ltd ,AGORA and other book shops.



(英文中文版)Questions and Answers with Dr Lim at the Changing Worlds Talk 林福寿医生于2011年10月25日在《改变中的世界》座谈会上的答问


  1. 为纪念已故前社阵杰出领导人、坚贞的人民英雄林福寿医生逝世五周年,林福寿医生生前的战友于20171月出版了《坚贞的人民英雄》;

  2. 《坚贞的人民英雄》是以中英文对照出版的;

  3. 经《坚贞的人民英雄》编辑部的同意,本网站将分期刊载《坚贞的人民英雄》的文章。

  4. 《坚贞的人民英雄》中英文对照文章已经全部是在完毕。


The People’s Hero’s article 20

Appendix VIII:Lim Hock Siew’s writings, statements, speeches and interviews

Questions and Answers with Dr Lim at the Changing Worlds Talk

 25 October 2011

Q: Many people in the Barisan were aware of the arrests in 1963, and you and your colleagues were expecting it. What went on in your mind that night? Did anyone of you consider running away before the ISD officers came?

A: I think some of the Barisan cadres decided to run away and some did. But the top cadres were all arrested because we did not know who was going to be arrested. I expected myself to be arrested because I knew I was on the three lists of the British, Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew. The option I had was to run away from Singapore. We did discuss the idea of forming a government-inexile but we dropped the idea because there was not much point at that time. We would just go in and fight it out in prison, hoping that after merger, we would be released. Then we would fight within the context of Malaysia with our comrades in Malaysia to have a socialist front throughout the length and breadth of Malaysia. We believed, at that time, with our united forces the left-wing forces we could bring about a radical change in the whole political context of Malaysia.

The fact that we were all suppressed has led to this present state of Malaysia where the feudal and conservative elements started propagating their racist policies. These racist policies would not have been able to emerge if we had the influence in Malaysia because our fight would be on class lines, not on racial lines. We would unite the Malay peasants and the Chinese Appendices: Lim Hock Siew’s writings, statements, speeches and interviews workers to form a united front to overthrow the feudal system and the British.

At that time, the British owned the rubber and tin industries and Malaya was the mainstay of British economic strength. About 400 million sterling pounds of reserves were brought into the British economy, more than what they had in India and Pakistan. They could not afford to lose Malaya. To them, Malaysia was of strategic importance. When Selkirk was quibbling about how to arrest these people when there was no evidence of communist links or subversion and that they were fighting strictly within constitutional means, he was scolded by the Colonial Secretary, Duncan Sandys. He said, “you carry on these arrests because they are for strategic reasons for the overall interest of Britain.” It was a political decision, not a security decision. They wanted to secure British interests. They knew who were the real anti-colonial fighters. They knew if the left came to power in Malaysia they would have nationalised the tin and rubber industries. We would take over the main trade and industries in Singapore. The entrepot trade was controlled by the British, especially Sime-Darby. We were getting no benefits from all this prosperity. What is the government doing when it cannot take over all the economic interests for the benefit of the country?

I will read part of The Fajar Generation here which is very important. The basic justification for existence of Malaysia was explained by the British High Commissioner, in his speech at Eden Hall at end of May 1963. He said: “Where do our interests lie? If we approach it from the point of view of enlightened self-interest, what conclusion can we arrive at? Here in Malaya, we have something like 400 million pounds sterling permanently invested, mostly in rubber and tin, investments which we cannot withdraw. This is far greater for example, than our corresponding investment in India and Pakistan. Gold earnings from rubber and tin are, I believe, essential for the balance of our payments.” That was Britain’s economy, that’s why they were keen to suppress the left in Malaya.

The British trusted Lee Kuan Yew because there was a secret agreement that if the PAP were allowed to take over power, they would not endanger British military and vested interests. One of the military interests, is understanding that Singapore was part and parcel of the nuclear encirclement of China. This is very shocking because it means Singapore had nuclear weapons stored by the British in case they attack China. How could you allow this? If you are an independent country, you could not allow this to happen. The Barisan Sosialis would not have allowed that to happen. The British knew we meant business. We were not people who just wanted to change flags. We wanted to change substance as well. The bigger fight was between the British and us. Lee Kuan Yew was not important. He was the British’s man.

Q: When you and Lee Kuan Yew were comrades in the PAP, what was your relationship with him? Did you, at times, irritate him?

A: At that time, before we broke up, I could go to his house at anytime. Even at night time, I could knock on his door to see him. We discussed politics, we discussed the manifesto of the PAP. In one of his by-elections, I helped him with house to house campaigns. We were on very good terms. Very often, after he had given a speech in the Legislative Assembly, he would ask me what I thought about his speech. We were on very good terms. I had nothing personal against him but he had a lot of personal things against me.

It was only after we broke up, that I faced him at two public forums. There, I irritated him. At the public forum held at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, he lost face. He was telling lie after lie and all I had to do was to expose his lies. He just couldn’t take it.

(Someone from floor said: In fact, he started attacking your brother.)

A: My brother was from the Chinese school. He was a leader of the May 13, 1954 demonstration. He led the Chung Cheng School delegation and had been scheduled to hand the petition against military conscription of young men between the ages of 18 to 20 to the Acting Governor.

In 1963, I was 31. We matured very fast during the war years. We went through a lot of experiences. I was 14 or 15, we were thinking of how to free our country from colonial rule.We were living in a climate where everybody was fighting for independence. India obtained independence in 1947, Sukarno declared independence for Indonesia in 1948; Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic of China in 1949. We were inspired by all those events. Ghana and Kenya were fighting for  independence. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were brutally suppressed by the British. We knew of the British tendencies to suppress us. We fought the British with our eyes open.

In a way, we are lucky to be alive because you could expect to be killed as they were safeguarding their properties. They had no problem getting people to do the work for them. Note how they massacred the university students in Calcutta machinegunned them in the streets. Where were the so-called merciful British gentlemen? You threaten their interests, they would defend that to the hilt. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were brutally suppressed.

In Congo, Patrice Lumumba was assassinated on the orders of American President Eisenhower. This was revealed by the BBC. Eisenhower personally ordered the assassination of Lumumba after he was captured. It was a life and death struggle. You wanted to fight the British, you must be prepared to sacrifice your life. It was with that kind of spirit that we went in, and it was with that kind of spirit that we spent so many years in prison. It is all or none. You don’t go in half-heartedly. We knew where we stood, We knew what we were up against.

Q: The PAP was at its lowest ebb after the 1961 Anson by-election when Marshall won. You didn’t think about merging with Ong Eng Guan to take over the PAP Central Executive Committee?

A: We had 16. But our friend, Lim Yew Hock, would not support the overthrow of Lee Kuan Yew. And UMNO would also not overthrow Lee Kuan Yew. Every time we threatened to overthrow him, they abstained and 16 would not work. Every time we had a resolution against PAP, Ong Eng Guan abstained in the Legislative Assembly. Marshall always supported us. Marshall was the only one. Singapore People’s Alliance (SPA), Lim Yew Hock and United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) would never support us. You could never win them. Ong Eng Guan would not vote for you, SPA would not vote for you, UMNO would not vote you. So it was left with 13 plus Marshall, 14 only. We were hoping to have a by-election in Sembawang when the Minister for Health died. I was suppposed to be a candidate for Sembawang if they had a by-election, but they never held it.

The fact is, before we were arrested, we were very busy preparing for the general election, drawing out the candidates, our manifesto and everything. We were not preparing for armed revolution. We thought we would definitely win the election. We wanted to preserve our strength to win the electoral battle. We refused to hold any demonstrations. We restrained our members trade unions were preparing to go on strike but we told them not to because we didn’t want to provoke any trouble.

In 1962, the May Day rally was a huge rally. About 100,000 people attended our rally in Jalan Besar stadium whereas Devan Nair’s rally had only 2000 people and those 2000 were mainly Public Works Department (PWD) workers. They were given a day-off, food, transport plus pay. They only got 2000, whereas we got 100,000. The whole stadium was filled. It was a demonstration of our strength. In retrospect, it was not quite the right tactic. We should not have revealed our strength.

Two months later, on 3 June 1962 , we wanted to celebrate National Day. PAP came into power on 3 June 1959. We were given permission with lots of conditions. You could not speak on this or that or they would come and interfere. We knew if we held that rally, there would be provocation from the PAP and there would be trouble. Then they would use that to suppress us. So we had a last-minute cancellation of that rally.

To that extent, we were very restrained. We wanted to preserve our strength for the general election.

Q: You said you were prepared for the arrest in 1963. Did you anticipate that you would be imprisoned for 20 years?

A: No. When I said goodbye to my wife, I said: “See you in 8 years’ time.” The longest serving detainee then was Ahmad Boestamam who was imprisoned by the British for 8 years. I did not expect my imprisonment to be so long. I thought Singapore would merge with Malaysia, and I would not be detained for so long. But at the end of 10 years, I decided to make another 10-year plan. I wanted to be realistic. If you are not psychologically prepared, you would surely break down. As leaders of the movement, we could not betray our followers, we had to stay firm. Lim Chin Siong would have stayed firm if not for his mental breakdown. Poh Soo Kai, Said Zahari and many others were imprisoned for decades. It was no big deal.

Q: If you were a candidate, would you have been arrested?

A: Yes, in fact I was planning to stand in the Sembawang byelection. For general election, sure, I would be a candidate.

Q: Why do you think some were detained for a long time, while others were not?

A: You have to ask Lee Kuan Yew. The excuse they gave was that I refused to renounce violence. In 1977, I was approached by the head of the Special Branch, Lim Chye Heng, also former head of the Special Branch Wong Su Chi. Both of them came to see me. They said all you have to do is to release a statement to renounce violence. I asked: “Is there any evidence that I have been advocating violence?” I have been strictly following peaceful, legal, constitutional struggle.

Q: Was the detention to prevent you from standing in future elections?

A: We cannot win the election as an independent candidate. You must have a group of people supporting you. The Barisan Sosialis was completely dismantled by the time I was released. It was only a shell without substance. At the time of my release in 1982, the Assistant Director of ISD, Tjong Yik Min said: “Dr Lim I am not warning or threatening you. I am only informing you. I have a standing order from you know who. If you show defiance after release, we will put you in prison again without reference to the cabinet.”

Q: You were a high-profile case.

A: I was adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. Lee Kuan Yew wanted me to leave the country. In fact when Gough Whitlam, prime minister of Australia came to Singapore, he told Whitlam: “These two doctors are good doctors and you can take them. So they approached me twice to leave the country. I said if I wanted to leave, it would have to be my own decision.”

Q: How was life on Pulau Tekong?

A: Very interesting. I was at Whitley Road Centre. One day, the officer told me to pack up. They drove me to a road off Changi Prison. I called him: “Hey, you are missing the road. Changi prison is here, not there.” He said, “No, no. We are taking you to another place.” I said, “Where got prison on the beach?” So we went to the beach and there was a big boat. He said, “We are taking you to Pulau Tekong.” It was a police boat. He said: “This is police boat number 1, the same boat Lee Kuan Yew used to travel around the Southern Islands.”

They took me to Tekong, gave me a house and said: “Now you are a free man.” I said: “Now I can go home is it?” They told me to accept all the conditions for my stay on Tekong. I said: “This is a sham release to show the public, to pacify the international community.” Prior to that, Lee Kuan Yew went to the United States. Jimmy Carter was then the president. Carter gave him just two minutes. Congress then demanded human rights. Lee Kuan Yew lost face. He had to do something. He sent me and Said Zahari to the islands to give the impression that we were released.

Life on the island was better than prison. There were 200 people, all friendly to me. I was the only doctor on the island. All emergencies came to me. For the first month, they gave me $300, then $200 then $100 a month subsequently. After that they told me you have to survive on your own. Then they offered me a job at the dispensary, three times a week for two hours each. They would pay me $300 a month. I said in principle, I could not accept the job. I was still detained by the government and I could not accept a job from the government. They had the obligation to support me.

At first I did not charge my patients. After some time, I had to charge for medicine and for my survival. I lived as though I was in prison. I had my own television and was allowed to write. At the end of the four years, they still asked me to write a statement.

Q: How is it that your Rakyat Clinic is still around today when you were imprisoned for 20 years?

A: When Poh Soo Kai and I were arrested (Soo Kai and I were founders of the clinic), another doctor, Ahmad Bakar took over. When Soo Kai was released, he went back to the clinic. Then he was re-arrested. After his second release, he opened his own clinic. Then I came out and returned to my clinic.

Q: How did you keep your sanity during those long years in prison?

A: It’s a question of conviction. You know what you are doing is right. I am a socialist. I believe everything in socialism in a society where man does not exploit man. It is something akin to a Christian who believes that all men are brothers. And we should all live like brothers and sisters. The turmoil in the capitalist world all the financial troubles today, convince me even more that socialism is the answer to mankind’s struggle. You are witnessing now, the end of capitalism. This  is what Karl Marx said in the last century, that this is the self-destructive phase of capitalism. The contradiction cannot be settled. The accumulation of wealth is so concentrated in such a small section of the population that the majority cannot turn around, unless they turn the system around. That is why there is the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. I believe in another year or so, there will be an intense struggle in the western world. Hopefully not in violence. Hopefully they can do it without violence.

Q: Can you let us know which prison you went to?

A: I survived many prisons. I went to Outram. It has been demolished. Then Changi, also demolished. After that Queenstown. Also demolished. I was in Central Police Station. Again that was demolished. That was the most horrible prison. Then I went to Moon Crescent, Changi. Then to Whitley Road.

I was in Queenstown for four years. We were locked up most of the time. Inside the cell was a tin can for your toiletries which we washed the next morning. At night we had chamber pots and a small bowl of water to drink The food was practically the same as that supplied to common prisoners.

For over a year, they put me in a very luxurious place. The home of two top special branch men. One at Mount Rosie and another at Jervois Road. There I was allowed to live with the families as though I was a free man. They encouraged me to take walks outside, which I refused. If you did that, they would ask you to sign a statement. I knew they were trying to bribe me into doing that.

Q: Are you optimistic for democracy in Singapore?

A: I am afraid not. I do not see how this place can develop. Now it’s dependent upon casino industries with all these immoral practices. Trade is dependent upon American markets. Chinese don’t need Singaporean goods, they have all they want.

In fact they would want to export here. The only way to survive is with Malaysia. But the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore is so bad that I cannot think of a reunion. The ultimate goal of socialists in this country is to have merger with Malaysia. Of course many people will be reluctant. Merger?

Malaysia that kind of country? So much racism? But that is the consequence of the lack of left-wing influence. If we had been in parliament in the past 40 years, it would have been very different. They have arrested thousands, not hundreds. They had to close down the Labour Party and Partai Rakyat all the top leaders were arrested. Dr MK Rajakumar, Syed Husin Ali so it is a free for all for those conservative groups. Now the Malays are awakened, that privilege must not only be for one Unless these groups of people wake up, there will be no change.

We are optimistic in the sense that historically, we have to be optimistic. There will be change. How it comes about, whether peacefully or by violent process, we may never know. But change is inevitable. We cannot go on like this.

Q: What was the reaction from people when Operation Cold Store took place?

A: When we were arrested, the main organisation was destroyed. All the cadres were put in prison. The rest ran away or kept quiet. Unless you got people to mobilise, you cannot have any reaction. In 1956, there was spontaneous reaction when Lim Yew Hock was suppressing the Chinese school students and the trade unions. The riots were very spontaneous and the Chinese newspaper played up the repression. It was the Chinese population that rose up. People hated the government so much that everything symbolic of it was fair game for them to destroy. Lamps, postal boxes, anything.

Q: What was your relationship with other PAP leaders?

A: Toh Chin Chye was my lecturer in the university. We did meet to talk about politics. He was then chairman of the PAP. He knew I was a former member of the PAP. With Goh Keng Swee, there was hardly any talk. He was an aloof man. We did talk with Kenny Byrne and S Rajaratnam but not profoundly. We communicated mainly with Lee Kuan Yew.

Q: You were a member of the PAP before the cadre system was implemented. Were you a member after the cadre system was started?

A: Anyone who was pro-left was not made a cadre. I was expelled in 1959. I was not even a cadre even though I was a founding member. At that time there were three people in charge of reviewing membership. Lee Kuan Yew, Ong Pang Boon and Lim Shee Ping. When my membership came up, Lee Kuan Yew took it up, threw it into the waste paper basket and looked at the other two. They kept quiet. Shee Ping was subsequently arrested.

Q: Najib recently announced that the ISA would be abolished. What are your views on why the Singapore government is so reluctant to abolish it, especially in view of the fact that the younger leaders will not have the stomach to use it?

A: My assessment is that they are going to use the ISA as a reserve weapon to safeguard the PAP’s interests. I believe they would have the stomach to use it if they are faced with the grim reality of losing the elections. After all, Lee Hsien Loong is groomed by Lee Kuan Yew. Monitored and mentored. When faced with reality he will use it. He might provoke you. And then use it as an excuse to arrest. I hope it will not be used but I think it will be their reserve weapon.






问: 在社会主义阵线内,有许多人,包括您和您的同僚,都预知1963年将会有逮捕行动。当天晚上您是怎么想的?你们当中是否有人打算在内部安全局人员到来之前逃走?

答: 我想,在社阵干部当中,有部分人决定逃走,有人确实走避了。但是,我们的最高级干部全部都被捕,因为不知道谁会被捕。我确信,在英国人、东姑和李光耀三方的逮捕名单中,都有我的名字;可作的选择是逃离新加坡。我们曾经讨论过成立一个流亡政府,但是,后来放弃了这个想法,因为在当时没有太大意义。我们决定去坐牢,在监狱里进行斗争,希望在合并后会获得释放。



当时,英国人拥有橡胶园和锡矿业,马来亚是英国经济实力的主要依靠。约4亿英镑的国库储备金来自马来亚,多过从印度和巴基斯坦取得的金额。他们是不可以失去马来亚的。对他们而言,马来西亚具有重要的战略价值。在没有证据证明我们与共产党有联系或者从事颠覆活动,而是严格遵循宪制手段进行斗争,薛尔克在无谓地纠缠于要用什么理由逮捕我们时,遭到殖民部大臣桑迪斯(Duncan Sandys)的责骂。





问: 当您还在行动党、跟李光耀是同志时,两人关系如何?您曾激怒过他吗?

答: 那个时期,在我们分裂前,我随时可到他家去。即是晚上,我也可敲他家的门见他。我们讨论政治课题,讨论行动党的创党宣言。在他的其中一次补选时,我帮忙他进行沿户访问,我们的关系非常好。他在立法议院发表演讲后,往往会征求我对他演说的意见。两人关系非常好。我对他没有个人成见,但他存有许多个人恩怨。在我们分裂后,我只在两次公开座谈会上跟他碰面,在会上激怒了他;在吉隆坡马来亚大学举行的那次公开座谈会上,让他下不了台。因为他一直在说谎,一个谎接一个谎,我必须揭露他的谎言,令他无法接受。


我弟弟来自华校, 是1954513日示威运动( 译注:“5•13事件”)的学生领袖。他是中正中学的学生代表,准备向代总督呈递请愿书,反对征召18岁到20岁的学生服兵役。



在刚果,卢蒙巴(Patrice Lumumba)是美国总统艾森豪威尔下令加以杀害的,英国广播电台(BBC)揭露了内情。卢蒙巴被捕后,艾森豪威亲自下令杀害他,这是一场生死斗争。要和英国人斗争,就必须准备牺牲性命。


问: 1961年马绍尔赢得了安顺区补选是行动党陷入最低潮的时候。您没想过联合王永元一起推翻行动党中央委员会吗?  

答: 我们有16人。但是,我们的朋友林有福将不会支持我们推翻李光耀,巫统也不会支持推翻李光耀。每当我们恫言要推翻李光耀,他们就弃权,16人起不了作用。每当我们提出反对行动党动议,王永元在立法议院都弃权,马绍尔一直在支持我们;只有马绍尔一人支持我们。








问: 您说您已准备好面对1963年的逮捕行动。您曾否想过会被监禁20年?

答: 没有。当跟太太说再见时,我说:“8年后再见”。当时, 被监禁最久的政治犯是波斯达曼(Ahmad Boestamam),他被英国人关了8年。我确实没想到我的监禁期会这么长,我以为在新加坡加入马来西亚后,不会被关太久。但是,在监禁满10年后,我决定准备再坐牢多10年,我必须从现实情况考虑问题。如果没有做好心理准备,你肯定会崩垮。作为运动的领导人,我们是不可以背叛我们的追随者的,我们必须站稳立场。林清祥要不是精神崩溃,他必然会坚持下去。傅树介、赛查哈利和其他许多人都被监禁了十几二十年。这没什么大不了。

问: 如果您是个候选人,您是否会被逮捕?

答: 会的。事实上我正打算参加三巴旺的补选。举行大选,我肯定会是候选人。

问: 有些人被监禁的时间那么长,另一部分则不长,您认为原因何在?

答: 这个您得去问李光耀。我被监禁这么长久,他们的藉口是,我拒绝谴责暴力。1977年,内部安全局局长林再兴(Lim Chye Heng)和前局长王旭之来见我,他们对我说,我只要发表声明谴责暴力,就可以获得释放了。我问他们:“有什么证据证明我一直在鼓吹暴力?”我一向严格遵循和平、合法和宪制途径的斗争。

问: 您被监禁是要防止您参加未来的大选吗?

答: 我们以独立候选人身份竞选,是无法当选的,必须要有一群人支持。当我被释放时,社阵已经被彻底被摧毁,只剩个空壳。我在1982年获释时,内部安全局局长张奕民对我说:“林医生,我不是警告您或者威胁您,我只是提醒您。某人,您知道是谁,给我发一道持久有效的命令(standing order),如果您在获释后表现桀骜不驯,我们将再把您直接关进监牢,不必请示内阁。”

问: 您的个案是个高度引人关注的案件。

答: 国际特赦组织把我列为良知犯(prisoner of conscience)。李光耀要我离开这个国家。其实,当澳大利亚总理惠特兰(Gough Whitlam)到访新加坡时,李光耀告诉他:“这两位医生都是好医生,您可接收他们。”因此他们找我谈过两次,要求我离开新加坡。我说,如果我要离开的话,必须是由我自己做的决定。

问: 您在德光岛的生活如何?

答: 非常有趣。那是我被监禁在惠特里路拘留所的时候,一天,一个官员叫我收拾个人物件。他们的车子把我载到偏离樟宜监狱的路上。我喊道,“嘿,走错路了!樟宜监狱就在这里,不是在那边。”他说,“不!不!我们要把你带去另一个地方。”我说,“在海边哪有监狱啊?”接着,我们去了海边,那里停靠着一艘大船。他说,“我们要送你到德光岛。”那是一艘警察船艇。他说,“这是编号1的警察船艇,是李光耀巡视南部岛屿巡视时常乘坐的同一艘。”





问: 您被监禁了20年,您的人民药房怎么还存在?

答: 当我和傅树介(我们俩是人民药房的创办人)都被捕时,另外一位医生是巴卡(M A Bakar)医生接替我们;傅树介获释后,他回去药房恢复行医;后来,他又再被捕。在他第二次获释后,傅树介医生开设自己的药房。我获释后,就回去人民药房工作。

问: 遭长期监禁,您是如何保持神志正常的?

答: 是信念,因为你知道自己所做的事情是正确的。我是个社会主义者,相信社会主义主张的一切――在社会主义社会,不存在人剥削人;打个比方,就像一个基督教徒相信“四海之内皆兄弟”一样。我们必须像兄弟姐妹一样,和睦相处。今天,在资本主义社会出现的动荡和发生的金融乱象,让我更坚信社会主义是人类奋斗的最后目标。你正在见证资本主义的没落,这就是马克思在上世纪所说的,这就是资本主义自我毁灭的阶段。资本主义存在的矛盾是无法解决的。财富的积累高度集中在一小撮人手中,大部分人都无法翻身,除非他们把这个制度推翻。这就出现占领华尔街的示威行动。我认为,在一两年内,在西方世界将会出现更激烈的斗争,但愿不是暴力性的斗争,但愿可以通过非暴力手段。

问: 您能够告诉我们您住过哪些监狱吗?

答: 我住过的许多监狱都消失了。我住过欧南园监狱,拆掉了。接下来是樟宜监狱,也拆掉了。后来去了女皇镇监狱,也拆掉了。我也住过中央警署,还是一样拆掉了;


曾经有一年多的时期,他们把我安置在很舒适的地方,分别是2名政治部高级人员的住所,一处在露茜山(Mount Rosi),另一处在泽维士路(Jervois Road)。在那里,我可以和他们家人住在一块,像是个自由人。他们鼓励我到住所外面走走,但是我拒绝。如果你照做,他们将会要求你签署声明,我知道他们试图笼络我就范。

问: 您对新加坡的民主抱乐观态度吗?

答: 恐怕不乐观。我看不到民主发展的环境。目前的状况是,他们以赌博产业为支柱,容忍这许多不道德的行为。贸易是依赖美国市场,中国人拥有自己所要的一切,他们并不需要新加坡的产品;实际上,他们要往这里出口。新加坡生存的唯一出路是跟马来西亚合作。但是,新加坡与马来西亚之间的关系恶劣,我是不认为两国可望重归统一。我国社会主义者的终极目标是跟马来西亚合并。当然,很多人是很不情愿的。合并?跟马来西亚那样的国家合并?那里存在许多种族主义!但是,这是因为缺少了左翼的影响的结果。在过去40年,如果我们在国会有代表,情况会是很大不同的。他们逮捕的人,不是数以百计,而是数以千计。他们不得不封闭劳工党和人民党,逮捕他们所有的高级领导人,包括拉惹古玛医生、赛胡申阿里……。这样一来,那些保守集团就可以无拘无束、为所欲为。现在,马来人已经觉醒,认识到特权不能只属于一部份人。除非这些群体的人都觉醒起来,否则,一切照旧不变



问: 当冷藏行动发生时,人们的反应是什么?

答: 当我们被捕时,主要的组织已经被摧毁。所有干部都被投入监牢。其他的人,有的潜逃,有的沉寂下来。除非有人出面动员,否则,不会有任何的反应。1956年,当林有福镇压华校学生和工会时,出现了自发性的反对行动。暴动是自发性的,华文报章对镇压行动大肆渲染,华人社会挺身而出。人民非常痛恨政府,以至于对任何象征性的东西,如电灯杆、邮筒等等,肆意进行破坏。

: 你和行动党其他领导人的关系如何?

答: 杜进才是我在大学时期的讲师,我们曾经在一起谈论政治课题,他当时是行动党的主席,他知道我曾是行动党党员和发起人。跟吴庆瑞少有交谈,他是个冷漠的人。


问: 您在干部党员制实行前是行动党党员。在这个制度实行后,您还是党员吗?

答: 任何左倾分子都不会成为干部党员。我是在1959年被开除出党的。尽管我是党的发起人之一,也没有入选干部党员。当时,由三个人负责审查党员资格,他们是李光耀、王邦文和林使宾。当我的党员证出现时,李光耀把它拿过来,扔进字纸篓里,并看看其他两人的反应,两人沉默不语。后来,林使宾也被捕。

问: 最近,马来西亚总理纳吉宣布将要废除内部安全法令。您认为新加坡政府为什么不情愿废除内部安全法令,特别是鉴于较年轻的领袖没有那么强烈的意愿动用这条法令?

答: 我估计他们会把内部安全法令作为捍卫行动党利益的后备武器。我相信,如果他们在面对可能会败选的严酷现实,他们是会有意愿使用这个法令的。李显龙毕竟是李光耀亲自监督和指导,一手培养起来的。在面临严酷状况时,他是会动用的。他可能先挑衅你,然后制造藉口,利用这个法令进行逮捕。我当然希望他们不会用上内部安全法令,但是,我相信他们会把该法令当后备武器。



(英文/中文版)Abolish Singapore’s Internal Security Act 废除新加坡内部安全法令


  1. 为纪念已故前社阵杰出领导人、坚贞的人民英雄林福寿医生逝世五周年,林福寿医生生前的战友于20171月出版了《坚贞的人民英雄》;

  2. 《坚贞的人民英雄》是以中英文对照出版的;

  3. 经《坚贞的人民英雄》编辑部的同意,本网站将分期刊载《坚贞的人民英雄》的文章。


The People’s Hero’s article 19

Appendix VII:Lim Hock Siew’s writings, statements, speeches and interviews

 Abolish Singapore’s Internal Security Act

We welcome Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s announcement that his government would repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinance. He said the changes are aimed at “having a modern, mature and functioning democracy which will continue to preserve public order, ensure greater civil liberties and maintain racial harmony.” We look forward to the Malaysian Prime Minister fulfilling his promise to his people.

Singapore inherited the ISA from Malaysia. This law has been in existence for more than half a century and its impact on society is both crippling and pernicious. Its life began soon after the Second World War as the Emergency Regulations in 1948 when the British used it to put down strong anti-colonial movements. In 1955, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance incorporating the Emergency Regulations was passed. When Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963, the Federation of Malaya’s Internal Security Act 1960 became part of our law.

The Ministry of Home Affairs claims that:

“… A person arrested under the ISA in Singapore may be held in custody for 30 days after which an Order of Detention or Restriction Order must be issued or else the up to person must be released unconditionally.

In Malaysia, the period of custody is up to 60 days…” (ST 17.9.2011). This comparison is irrelevant because political detainees in Singapore have been imprisoned for periods which far exceed those in Malaysia. Dr Chia Thye Poh was imprisoned for 26 years. Dr Lim Hock Siew was imprisoned for 20 years. Mr Lee Tee Tong was imprisoned for 18 years and Dr Poh Soo Kai and Inche Said Zahari for 17 years.

The Ministry further claims that the Advisory Board is a safeguard against abuse under the ISA. The protection accorded by the Advisory Board is spurious, if not a farce. Several of us have appeared before such a board and can confirm that the board did not examine witnesses and evidence against the detainee. In 1987, appearances before the board lasted not more than a few minutes each. Furthermore, detainees were discouraged from appearing before the board by ISD officers. Many were advised that appearing before the board would jeopardise their chances of early release.

Singapore has many existing laws that will deal with acts of terrorism. We have the Penal Code, the Sedition Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, Vandalism Act and after 9/11, the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. These laws provide severe punishments which include death, life imprisonment and caning.

In 1991, then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “Singapore will seriously consider abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do so”. He made this response to seven Malaysian journalists in his office when asked why the ISA was still needed in Singapore even though the Communist Party of Malaya no longer posed a threat. (ST 3.2.1991.) Now that Malaysia is repealing the ISA, we call upon PM Lee Hsien Loong to translate his 1991 statement into reality and keep in step with the aspirations of our people for a mature and functioning democracy. Indefinite detention without trial is an affront to the human rights of citizens and an assault on our justice system.

Dated this 19th day of September 2011.

  1. Dr Lim Hock Siew

  2. Dr Poh Soo Kai

  3. Said Zahari

  4. Lee Tee Tong

  5. Loh Miaw Gong

  6. Chng Min Oh @ Chuang Men-Hu

  7. Tan Sin alias Tan Seng Hin

  8. Toh Ching Kee

  9. Koh Kay Yew

  10. Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan

  11. Teo Soh Lung

  12. Yap Hon Ngian

  13. Tan Tee Seng

  14. Low Yit Leng

  15. Wong Souk Yee

  16. Tang Fong Har








“在新加坡,一个在内部安全法令下被逮捕的人士,可被拘留最多30天,过后 必须发出拘留令或限制令,否则,必须予以无条件释放。在马来西亚,拘留期是可长达60天的。”(见2011917日《海峡时报》)










  1. 林福寿医生

  2. 傅树介医生

  3. 赛扎哈里

  4. 李思东

  5. 卢妙萍

  6. 莊明湖

  7. 陈辛

  8. 卓清枝

  9. 许赓猷

  10. 钟金全

  11. 張素兰

  12. 叶汉源

  13. 陈智成

  14. 刘月玲

  15. 黄淑仪

  16. 陈凤霞


(中/英文版)回首1988年4月19日在维特里路WHITLEYROAD拘留中心 BACK AT WHITLEY 26 YEARS AGO ON 19 APRIL 1988
















以下这张照片是于1988年12月8日我的律师罗斯林娜.芭芭Roslina Baba给我的。她是在取得了法院判决释放令。法院判决的听令是政府逮捕我们当中一部分人是属于不符合技术要求的。我在获得释放走出维特里路拘留中心大闸门外之际,立即被他们重新逮捕,他们重新逮捕我时,现场的人群已经被清除,没有人看到我重新被捕。





我们,在本声明签名的人,分别在1987521日和620日被内部安全局拘留,并于19876月、9月和12月分批在“暂予缓押批文”(SUSPENSION DIRECTIVES)/或“限制行动令”下获释。






























董莉莉                       叶汉源                      

曾志成                       黄淑仪

张素兰                       凯尔文.德苏沙         

黄美玲                       (代)陈凤霞        庄瑄芝



ON 19 APRIL 1988


“They are at my door”, the voice on the line was Souk Yee’s. “What should I do?” she asked. Well, what can one do when “they are at the door?”

It was funny. Didn’t we discuss the possibility that we would be rearrested after issuing the joint statement? May be not. Or was it amnesia? I don’t know. What can one do when “they” are at the door? If you refuse to open it, they break down the door. It is that simple. If you open it, then well, you sit and stare in despair while they go through all your documents and things, seize whatever they fancy and then you are led to their waiting cars which will take you to the blue gate.

Shortly after that phone call, “they” were at my office gate. And of course, it was pointless not to let them in. They came in a horde. They cannot handle civil people single-handedly. And they were rude because they had been instructed that they were dealing with terrorists.

As usual, they rummaged through my files, books and documents and dumped them in black rubbish bags. They even checked my waste paper basket.

Today, 26 years ago, they took me away to Whitley Road Centre for a second time. They were kinder this time. They didn’t take me in the early hours of the morning. They trailed me from home to office and there they arrested me. Then they took me from office to home in order to conduct another search. What a waste of time.

At the detention centre, I went through the usual routine. Finger printed and photographed, I was made to strip and change into prison clothes. Then I was sent to the cold interrogation room sans shoes and underwear. I was a “die hard” and deserved to be punished more than before because I didn’t learn my lesson. Spending 20 hours or more in the cold room and then thrown into a dirty, dusty cob-webbed tiny cell for three or four hours became the routine.

What was there to extract from me? The statement had said it all.

I was wrong. They wanted to know who instigated the drafting and issue of the statement. They wanted to know why we issued it – as if they didn’t know that the ministers were the ones who compelled us to react and they not us should have been arrested! They wanted the details of how the statement came about, who said what and who wrote what. They were in earnest anger because they felt that all the “good treatment” they gave us when we were first arrested had not been reciprocated. They were rewarded with awards after our first arrests and now we were back again. The culprits must be punished for bringing them indescribable embarrassment. They must know who caused the mess. Who was the leader!

Well, we were smart enough to anticipate that last question. It was all agreed that “All of us were leaders!” Hilarious on hindsight but naive and sincere at the time of deliberations. The ministers provoked us by their repeated groundless allegations that we were conspiring to destabilise Singapore using communist united front tactics and we reacted with a written statement. Wasn’t that reasonable? In law, we would have a complete defence if we reacted to provocation in a reasonable manner. But in fact, it was naïve to expect civilised reaction from red face ministers.

Under pressure and cold room treatment, I heard that there was much recriminations and regrets among those arrested. I too regretted for landing up in prison again, not just me alone but so many others! I was told by my interrogators that some of my friends were cooperating fully. “They all said the idea of issuing the statement came from me.” And so I was the one who was responsible for their rearrests. It was a monstrous conclusion which nearly drove me into a state of depression. But I survived.

Reflecting on what happened 26 years ago, I can say that I am proud to be one of the nine signatories of the joint statement. Life is a journey of experiences. Life is a daring adventure or nothing. That episode has certainly been one of the most exciting and daring adventure in my life. I thank my family, my lawyers, my friends and supporters for believing in me and supporting me through those tumultuous days.

Below is a photograph taken on 8 December 1988 showing my lawyer, Roslina Baba with the Order of the court of appeal which ordered the release of some of us on a technical point. We were immediately rearrested outside the detention centre on the opposite side of the gate. They have cleared that side of the road so that no one could witness the rearrests.

Attachment :

STATEMENT OF EX-DETAINEES OF OPERATION “SPECTRUM” Embargoed until 10 a.m. 18th April 1988


We, the undersigned, were detained by the Internal Security Department (ISD) on 21 May and 20 June 1987 and released in stages under Suspension Directives and/or Restriction Orders in June, September and December 1987.

While we had privately always maintained our innocence and kept a rueful and fearful silence on the unjust treatment we were subjected to, and would have been inclined to keep our ‘silence’, the government has since repeatedly raised the issue of our arrests and detention and made false and damaging statements about us.

On the one hand we had been intimidated by implicit and explicit threats against our safety should we speak up on our arrests and detention. On the other hand the government and its spokesmen have continued to make bold and untruthful statements regarding the reasons for our arrests and detention and have denied that any of us had been subjected to ill-treatment or torture.

We make this statement now because of this constant barrage of government taunts and its public invitation to speak the truth on the conditions we were subjected to under arrest and detention.

We make this statement as principled men and women who will speak the truth and state our position for the record.

In making this statement, we do not intend to challenge the government; we do not seek any official response; neither is there any desire to make “political capital” of this. Our sole purpose in making this statement is to clear our names.


We are accused of being involved in an alleged “Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing social and political system in Singapore, using communist united front tactics, with a view to establishing a Marxist state”.

We categorically DENY the government’s accusation against us.

We have never been Marxist conspirators involved in any conspiracy.

We were never a clandestine communist or Marxist network and many of us did not even know or know of one another before the arrests.

We were rather community and Church workers, legal reformers, amateur dramatists, helpers of the Workers’ Party, professionals and ordinary citizens exercising our constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association in Singapore.

We have never propagated, in words or in action, a communist state for Singapore. Rather, we had, through open and legitimate organisations and legitimate means, advocated more democracy, less elitism, protection of individual freedoms and civil rights, greater concern for the poor and the less privileged, and less interference in the private lives of citizens.

We hold completely the beliefs expressed by fellow ex-detainee Chew Kheng Chuan in his representation to the ISA Advisory Board, where he stated and we paraphrase : “… (we are believers) in an open and democratic polity and in the virtues of an open and accountable government. (We) strongly believe that for a society to be meaningfully called democratic, interest and action in politics cannot be the sole prerogative of the professional politician. A citizen of a democracy, to be worthy of that society, has not just the right, but indeed the duty to participate in the political life of his or her society. It is a grave danger to democracy to suggest that for one to comment on political and social issues or to hold differing political opinions, one should go and form a political party to take on the government! Has the citizen no political voice, other than a vote once in every four years, that cannot be articulated freely and responsibly, but only through the medium of a professional politician? Such is a situation even worse than that of the common man’s crippling dependency on “experts” – whether plumber or temple medium. It will lead to a society where only the authorised, registered, professionally-affiliated expert can comment on the subject under his or her purview”.

We believe that as with the case of the individual citizen, so too has an organisation this same legitimate role to play in the democratic life of our country.

Absurdly, it seemed to us that we were arrested and detained for the legitimate exercise of our rights as citizens through registered and open organisations. We did not infiltrate these organisations but joined them as members, volunteers and full-time workers.

Neither did we use these organisations as fronts to propagate subversive activities. All activities carried out by these organisations are legitimate, open and approved by elected executive committees, whose members clearly stand in their own right as capable, autonomous and intelligent individuals. Neither were we “instructed” by any person or organisation, not Tan Wah Piow, Paul Lim nor Vincent Cheng, nor any political party to do what we did in our respective activities or groups.


During our detention, we were subjected to treatment which should never be meted out to any person under interrogation.

Following our sudden arrests, we were subjected to harsh and intensive interrogation, deprived of sleep and rest, some of us for as long as 70 hours inside freezing cold rooms. All of us were stripped of our personal clothing, including spectacles, footwear and underwear and made to change into prisoners’ uniforms.

Most of us were made to stand continually during interrogation, some of us for over 20 hours and under the full blast of airconditioning turned to a very low temperature. Under these conditions, one of us was repeatedly doused with cold water during interrogation. Most of us were hit hard in the face, some of us for not less than 50 times, while others were assaulted on other parts of the body, during the first three days of interrogation.

We were threatened with more physical abuse during interrogation. We were threatened with the arrests, assault and battery of our spouses, loved ones and friends. We were threatened with INDEFINITE detention without trial. Chia Thye Poh, who is still in detention after twenty two years, was cited as an example. We were told that no one could help us unless we “co-operated” with the ISD.

These threats were constantly on our minds during the time we wrote our respective “statements” in detention.

We were actively discouraged from engaging legal counsel and advised to discharge our lawyers and against taking legal action (including making representations to the ISA Advisory Board) so as not to jeopardise our chances of release.

We were compelled to appear on television and warned that our release would depend on our performances on television. We were coerced to make statements such as “I am Marxist-inclined ..”; “My ideal society is a classless society ..”; “soand-so is my mentor ..”; “I was made use of by so-and-so..” in order to incriminate ourselves and other detainees.

What we said on television were grossly distorted and misrepresented by editing and commentaries which attributed highly sinister motives to our actions and associations.

We state once more clearly and unequivocally, we never acted in any way to subvert the security of our country; we were never a part of any Marxist conspiracy to bring about a communist state. If necessary, we would be willing to prove our innocence in an open trial.

We consider ourselves nothing less than some of the most loyal and responsible citizens of Singapore. We greatly regret not our past actions but the fact that our government felt it necessary to malign our good names and arrest, detain and abuse us for what we did or did not do.


——————- TANG LAY LEE








——————- TEO SOH LUNG




——————- NG BEE LENG


——————- f. TANG FONG HAR