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。这本书与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》 ）
1987年5月21日，那是个深深印刻在我脑子里的日子。因为那天，电话在异常的时间响了。当时，我和龙秀金（Jane Leong），我亲密的好友及女儿的教母，一起在澳大利亚的墨尔本度假。我们原订那天回家，下午的班机。前一晚我们刚去看了汤姆•克鲁斯的电影《七月四日诞生》（Born on the Fourth of July），脑海里仍满是他的影子和影片中残酷的战争，电话却一大早，在早上五点钟扰人清梦地响了。是一个基督教学生运动的年轻成员打来的电话。电话筒传来他混乱的话语、忧虑的声音，断断续续地诉说着逮捕的事，让龙秀金先别回国。因为来电的时间，我们难免怀疑他是不是喝醉了，或误信了什么谣言。我们将信将疑地等着看白纸黑字印刷的新闻（那是互联网还不普及的日子），来印证他说的那些。
下来几天我们忙疯了，尝试从远方搜集能找到的任何相关信息，并设法联系关心此事的朋友。我们接到许多匿名电话，那是基督教学生运动的年轻成员设法给我们传消息；他们固然害怕，但还是勇敢地尽力做他们认为该做的事。《海峡时报》仍是我们不得不依赖的消息来源，但不久后，纽西兰的一些朋友整理并公开了相关的替代性新闻。逮捕的范围大得出奇。从关心社会正义的宗教团体，到评议“报章与印刷品（修正）法案”（Newspaper and Printing Presses Amendment Bill）的律师组织，到探讨客工权利（或欠缺权利）课题的剧场工作者。内部安全局在设法把“阴谋”集团一锅端的努力中，甚至凭空想象地将一名七十年代已流亡国外的学生，也可笑地牵扯了进来。
我们在澳大利亚的联系管道之一，“印度洋与太平洋”（Indian Pacific），撰写了关于这次逮捕的报道。国际特赦组织的国会之友群体（Parliamentary Amnesty International group），以及若干其他团体，听闻新加坡政府及其内部安全局这种对付异己的行为，都表示了反对与抗议。
a good friend of the detainees, was a member of the Student Christian Movement of Singapore (1979-1984).She migrated to Australia in 1984.
There is commotion everywhere as the Prime Minister has called an impromptu press conference. All the cameras are on him as he begins. “I am here today to belatedly give some justice to those who were arrested under the Internal Security Act, especially the group of 22 detained in May and June of 1987.” He continues, “This was an act perpetrated by my father, I regret to say, one of his many evil deeds during his reign, and I deeply regret and apologise for the misconstruction of reality at that time. The 22 detainees were do-gooders from a number of different organisations and didn’t even know what it meant to be a Marxist…” The alarm clock rang precisely at that moment and it meant I was not to hear any further, the good minister’s explanations.
May 21, 1987 is etched in my brain as it wasn’t at any normal time of day that the telephone rang. My very good friend and daughter’s godmother, Jane Leong, had been on holiday with us in Melbourne, Australia, and was due to fly home that afternoon, but at 5am that morning after we had been to see Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July the night before and were still having dreams about him and the cruelties of war, our home telephone rang jarringly. One of the younger Student Christian Movement (SCM) members was on the line speaking in a garbled, worried, incoherent way about arrests and telling Jane not to return home. The time of the call was sufficient for us to question if the caller was high or misinformed. We waited to be able to see some hard news print (those being days when the internet was still something relatively new), to make sense of what had happened.
Of course we were shocked and worried. It wasn’t clear how many had been arrested, just that it had been done in the dead of night, and when we later saw the mug shots of the 16 arrested it was clearly designed to shock and stun and to make them appear like common criminals.
Jane (being Jane) wanted to get on the first plane home but succumbed to reason when she realised that once in prison she would be powerless as it was not a fight against a few individuals but the machinery of State. We were convinced that this would be her fate as when we studied the ‘conspiracy’ chart it was only the Student Christian Movement leadership that was missing. Both she as well as the next possible leader, Juliet Tan (who was then a student in the United Kingdom), were away.
The next few days were frantic as we tried to glean from afar whatever information we could get and to bring together a little network of concerned friends. There were clandestine phone calls from Singapore as younger SCM members tried to get word to us; they were fearful but brave in all they did. The Straits Times was still something we had to rely on but it wasn’t long before New Zealand friends put out a public news sheet with alternative news. What was surprising was how wide-sweeping the arrests were, from religious groups concerned about social justice issues to legal organisations perturbed over the Newspaper and Printing Presses Amendment Bill to drama groups exposing migrant worker rights (or lack of it). In one fell swoop the Internal Security Department had concocted a ludicrous figment of imagination which even included a student exile from the 70s.
The days following were filled with The Straits Times nausea, namely the constant spewing out of the same propaganda… Marxists, overthrow, violence, Catholic Church, Vincent Cheng… we knew that as part of its strateg y to brainwash Singaporeans, if they heard it long enough fiction would become fact and all the senses would be so numbed as not to be able to differentiate truth from lies.
What could we do where we were? These were friends; Jane knew what they had been up to in their different organisations — trying to do some good for those socially-disadvantaged, reading, writing, thinking and questioning the government’s and society’s values and trying to promote different ones (yes, you can call some of them Christian), speaking against injustice to the rule of law or being creative in presenting some social realities. Things that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in the so-called Free World but which were tantamount to treason in this tiny city state.
The days that followed were filled with reaching out to anyone we knew who cared and would render some form of help to these people behind prison bars. Word of torture emerged, the number of slaps one detainee received or the mental rape another endured when they read aloud her personal letters to her.
Of course the Catholic Church in Australia was approached, then-Bishop George Pell (who even then had the reputation of being extremely difficult to convince) was only one of 200 international organisations that sent in letters of protest to the Singapore government over this situation. Indian Pacific , one of our Australian channels, did a report on the arrests, the Parliamentary Amnesty International group and a range of other organisations heard about the vindictiveness of the Singapore government and the Internal Security Department and acted accordingly.
There were no highlights at our end, or maybe I have just forgotten them; it was just consistent, constant networking — juggling organising work and raising the little god-daughter who kept us alive and happy — and worrying about the next stage of what would happen to those who had been arrested. When would they be released? What contact were they being allowed with their families? With 16 disparate people, it was not easy to keep tabs on what was developing, who were suffering. We heard what the Catholic Church was doing — organizing masses, prayer support, we heard how Vincent Cheng’s family was responding, how they were banding together for their brother; the New Zealand ‘press’ cranked up their work, we heard what friends in Europe were doing and we kept meeting and talking with a range of organisations and people in Australia to ask them to protest, protest and protest. If the eye of the world wasn’t on Singapore, we were convinced that the government would inflict even more harm on these innocent people.
Like all political actions of this kind, new friends were made, people we wouldn’t have met otherwise; we learnt of different organisations that were on the side of justice. Jane went to Sydney and Tasmania then, to meet Singaporean and Malaysian friends, and to campaign for the release of the 22 detainees. When she finally returned to Singapore she spent a year supporting the families and those released.
It remains a period of history and organising not easily forgotten. My dream of the government acknowledging wrong and rendering justice remains a dream, but if even the Berlin Wall could come down, not that long after 1987, who is to say what will not happen in one’s lifetime?