人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(中英文版)尊敬的必丹星,请您阅读第12页 Dear Pritam, please see page 12…

作者:陈华彪

转载自:https://www.facebook.com/wahpiow.tan?__tn__=%2CdCH-R-R&eid=ARCEgAulBoHsplpiJSBKCun1Med9ZKgxpCdLBmtn6bZ4UAAxd2088GF0DoElnumYJJp5vz8XmOPtJ4pj&hc_ref=ARTkxqNXBFpqg0u5sB7XOI_Zy3iOlKQ9KsQxC2QzGfoCF6lmXf03McWLScH_wU-MpdQ&fref=nf

在与Pritam Singh团结一致的同时,我也邀请他阅读Michael Leigh教授的书第12页……

我对覃炳鑫博士以一名关心的公民和历史学家在”对付假新闻立法提案”的特选委员会听证会上供证时受到行动党统治集团的粗暴打击并不感到惊讶。

被行动党垄断的特选委员会将对该立法提案盖上橡皮图章而成了定局已经不在话下。

令我感到困扰的是,无疑的也是令许多其他的人倍感失望的是,工人党秘书长毕丹星和与其他特选委员会的行动党成员一起投票批准了这份报告,从而支持报告中攻击覃炳鑫博士作为个人和历史学家的诚信,这是件十分不幸的事情。

我不断在思考毕丹星的话:“尽管我同意覃炳鑫是被故意挑出来的,但在供证时他也挑行动党出来并施以特殊对待。他们 (指行动党) 不会让这事情出现在议会的记录内而不作出反驳。覃炳鑫有权针对行动党,但也要包括面对后果。”

以一般人的话来说,毕丹星几乎是在说“嘿覃炳鑫!你这是自取其咎”

要怎么样以恰当的话来反驳毕丹星却又不冒犯那些支持工人党的人呢? 若以较轻微的方式来反驳他,我会说毕丹星因欠缺政治家应有的情绪智力而无法同情覃炳鑫博士。

毕丹星选择忽略覃炳鑫博士的陈词是一件不幸的事。由于毕丹星没有接受过正规的历史教育,作为一项有建设性的建议,请他考虑最近我从Michael Leigh教授的书中发现的一些证据,Michael Leigh教授是有关砂劳越和大马来西亚课题的大约60项包括书本、章回或文章的作者。

在2018年出版的《沙劳越和汶莱与马来西亚的成立》一书中,Michael Leigh在第12页中写道:

调查马来西问题的汶莱调查委员会的实况调查报告照实报导了汶莱各皆层几乎是100%的人民都反对汶莱并入马来西亚。但这个报告书却从未曾发表过。事实上,殖民地政务秘书在电报中说,除非压制实况调查委员会报告的发表,李光耀恐吓要把新加坡路透新闻社关掉。路透社终于屈服了。”

压制这一重要新闻的发表具深长的意义,因为后来汶莱起义被作为镇压和未经审讯拘禁社阵许多政治家和社会活动家的藉口之一。

Michael Leigh的书中这一证据证实了覃炳鑫奋力反抗”对付假新闻立法提案”的原因。我们怎么能够让一个擅长压制真相和制造假新闻的政党来提出禁止假新闻的法案呢?

陈华彪

注:愿与毕丹星及其同僚团结一致。

Dear Pritam, please see page 12…

I was not surprised when Dr Ping Tjin Thum was savagely mauled by the PAP establishment for his intervention as a concerned citizen and historian at the select committee hearing on the proposed legislation against fake news.

That the PAP dominated Select Committee would rubber stamp the proposal was a foregone conclusion.

What troubled me, and no doubt disappointed many, was the unfortunate fact that the Workers’ Party Secretary-General Pritam Singh voted together with the PAP members approving the report, thereby endorsing the Report attack on the integrity of Dr Thum as a person, and a historian.

I have been pondering over the words of Pritam Singh: “As much as I agree PJ (Thum PingTjin) was singled out, he also singled out the PAP for special treatment in his representation. There was no way they were going to let that stand on the parliament record, unrebutted. Singling out the PAP was PJ’s prerogative, consequences included.”

In layman term, Pritam Singh was almost saying “Hey PJ, you asked for it”.

What should be my appropriate choice of words to rebuke Pritam Singh without offending those who support the Workers’ Party? For a mild rebuke, I would say that Pritam’s failure to empathise with Dr Thum was because he lacks the requisite emotional intelligence required of a politician.

It is unfortunate that Pritam Singh chose to ignore Dr Thum’s submission. As Pritam Singh is not well schooled in history, as a constructive suggestion, I recommend him to consider a piece of evidence I recently discovered in the latest book of Professor Michael Leigh, an author of “some 60 books, chapters and articles on Sarawak and Greater Malaysia”.

In “Sarawak and Brunei in the Making of Malaysia” published in 2018, Michael Leigh wrote at page 12:

“The fact-finding Commission [Brunei Commission of Inquiry on Malaysia] reportedly record stiff and almost 100 per cent opposition to merging Brunei into Malaysia, from all sections of the population. That report was never released. In fact, the Secretary of State for the colonies cabled that Lee Kuan Yew had threatened to close the Reuters News Agency in Singapore, unless their reports on the Brunei fact-finding Commission was suppressed. Reuters obliged.”

The suppression of this important piece of news was important, because the Brunei revolt was later used as one of the justification for the suppression, and detention without trial of many Barisan Socialist politicians and activists.

The evidence in Michael Leigh’s book corroborates with the central thrust of PJ Thum’s objection to the proposed anti-fake news law. How can a party skilled in the suppression of truth, and the manufacturer of fake news, be trusted to legislate a law against fake news.

Tan Wah Piow

note: Solidarity with Pritam Singh and his colleagues.