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)您想知道为什么吗? Ever wonder why?

您想知道为什么吗?

作者:张素兰

想知道为什么林福寿医生、何标、李思东国会议员、赛查哈利、傅树介医生(于1963年后1976年分别被捕)和谢太宝国会议员全部在内部安全法令下不经审讯被监禁超过17年吗?

想知道为什么谢太宝在中国声名狼藉的哪版权法令下失去了32年的自由吗?

想知道为什么不经审讯无限期监禁在世界其他国家,除美国管辖下的关塔纳摩监狱外(注:在古巴国土上),只在新加坡实施吗?

我知道很多人都在思考着这个问题。请看如下的这张列表:

政治犯被长期监禁和失去自由与被捕的原因有关吗?据我所知的答案是:

“他们没有触犯任何非法的活动”。

行动党政府指控林福寿医生和他的朋友们威胁我们国家的安全。行动党政府从来就没有提出任何任何文件来支持自己对政治犯的指控;或者,在他们的住所、诊所和办公室找到任何的武器。当行动党逮捕他们时,大肆制造了虚假新闻说他们对国家产生威胁。行动党通过沾污政治犯的目的,是在老百姓当中广泛制造白色恐怖与恐吓。

当林福寿医生还在被监禁期间,他从监狱里发表了什么驳斥了政府无数次的那些邪恶的、残忍的、不负责任的及未经证实的指控。林福寿医生回顾了他被关押在内部安全局丝丝街总部时,内部安全局官员告诉他的事情。他说:

“在1972年正月13日,我内转移到政治部罗敏申总部。在哪儿与我的弟弟(注:林福坤)一起被监禁了40天。两名行动党的政治犯部高级官员暗示我,假设我要获得释放,我必须签署一份公开的悔过声明……。

他们提出了要求我做的两件事是:

  1. 我们必须做一份交代我过去的政治活动的口述声明,亦即一份“安全声明”。那只是给政治部做记录用的,不会公开。

  2. 我必须发表一份包括以下两点的公开声明:

    1. 我准备放弃从事政治活动,未来也将投身行医。

    2. 我必须表达带议会民主制度的支持……。

我完全拒绝了发表任何公开声明作为我获得释放的条件。这是我的原则立场。……(见《华惹时代风云》:《马来亚大学社会主义俱乐部与战后的马来亚及新加坡》第149-154页。编辑:傅树介、陈仁贵和许佳友)。”

就因此导致的结果是,林福寿又继续被关押了11年。

鉴于林福寿医生拒绝了内部安全局的不合理要求,因此他就被监禁了20年!李光耀及其部长们有什么权利怎么做?这么明确地说明了,行动党政府监禁政治犯是与国家安全没有任何关系,而是行动党政府未来保住自己的统治权利。凭什么林福寿医生必须放弃自己的政治活动权利?

正如您看到的这张附表。李光耀是在1923年出世的,林福寿医生的年龄还要年轻8岁。李光耀也比那些在1961年与林福寿医生一起反对李光耀的朋友的年纪还要大。李光耀与第一届内阁部长的同僚,如杜进才、吴庆瑞、S拉惹勒南海EW巴克年纪相比,同时属于最年轻的,但是这些人的年纪仍然是比林福寿医生及其朋友还要大。

1954年行动党成立时,林福寿医生和傅树介医生是马来亚大学医学系学生。根据林福寿医生和傅树介医生出版的著作揭露,当时他们是一名医学系学生,是协助李光耀草拟人民行动党的党章的人。

这是似乎是让人考着年轻时期的林福寿医生和他的朋友的能力。李光耀和他的同僚经过仔细的盘算自己面对的风险后,决定把他们全部灌进监牢直到他们度过建国初期的安全期,大约是4050 年。到了那个时候,来感受医生和他的朋友们获得释放后,他们的政治事业期也已经过了。那个时期,社会主义阵线和新加坡人民当夜不复存在了。新加坡的这个政治气氛也被白色恐怖所笼罩着了。林福寿医生和他的评语吗也失去的年轻人应有的冲劲了。

在内部安全法令下进行的冷藏行动和接下来几次大规模的逮捕行动是极其残酷性和具有恐吓性的行动。它确保了行动党在新加坡没有具有强大实力的反对党情况下能够长期性维持着其统治政权。李光耀及其部长们为一己私利下,完全违背了新加坡人及新加坡的国家利益。

当林福寿医生被问到,他被长期的监禁是不是李光耀为了防止他参与未来的选国会举时,他的回答如下:

“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。社阵已经被彻底摧毁了,只剩个空壳。我在1972年获释时,内部安全局局长张栾民对我说:“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,我们将再把您直接灌进监牢,不必请示内阁。”。

李光耀和他的行动党可以继续掌权到今天,就是因为他们可以合法地把林福寿医生及其朋友监禁在牢狱里超过17年和在冷藏行动后持续不断地每年进行大规模的逮捕行动.

我们必须对自己提出这样一个问题:

为什么我们允许行动党政府不经审讯的情况下林福寿医生及其朋友们?

我们是否需要让行动党每当它们面对政治威胁时就利用和滥用内部安全法令来对付我们?

 

 

Ever wonder why?

by Teo Soh Lung

Ever wonder why Dr Lim Hock Siew, Ho Piao, MP Lee Tee Tong, Said Zahari, Dr Poh Soo Kai (who was arrested twice, in 1963 and 1976) and MP Chia Thye Poh were all imprisoned without trial under the ISA for more than 17 years?

Ever wonder why Chia Thye Poh holds the notorious world record of losing his freedom for 32 years?

Ever wonder why indefinite imprisonment without trial is practised in Singapore and not in any other first world country except Guantanamo (by the USA)?

I know many have pondered over these questions. Take a look at the table.

What did the detainees do to warrant their long incarceration and loss of freedom? From what I know,

“NOTHING ILLEGAL”.

The PAP government alleged that Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends were threats to our national security. No documents were ever produced to substantiate such claims or weapons found on any of them or in their homes, clinics or office. Fake news about the danger they posed to society and widely publicised by the government at the time of their arrests and after tarnished their good names and instilled widespread fear among the populace.

While still in prison, Dr Lim Hock Siew rebutted the wicked, cruel, irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims of the government many times. In his public statement issued in the 9th year of his unjust imprisonment, Dr Lim Hock Siew recalled what ISD officers told him at the headquarters of the Special Branch in Robinson Road. He said:

“On 13 January 1972, I was taken to the headquarters of the special branch at Robinson Road where I was detained for 40 days together with my brother, Lim Hock Koon. Two high-ranking special branch agents of the PAP regime indicated to me that if I were to issue a public statement of repentance, I would be released…

They demanded from me two things. They are as follows:

(1) That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, ‘A security statement’. This was meant for the special branch records only and not meant for publication.

(2) That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points:

(a) That I am prepared to give up politics and devote to medical practice thereafter.
(b) That I must express support for the parliamentary democratic system.” …

I completely reject in principle the issuing of any public statement as a condition of my release. This is a form of public repentance…” [See The Fajar Generation, The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore ed by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee & Koh Kay Yew pp149-154].

As a consequence, Dr Lim Hock Siew was imprisoned for another 11 long years.

Was it right for Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers to imprison Dr Lim Hock Siew for 20 years just because he refused to accede to their unjust demands, which clearly had nothing to do with national security but the preservation of their power? Why should Dr Lim give up politics?

As can be seen from the Table, Lee Kuan Yew was 8 years older than Dr Lim Hock Siew. Lee who was born in 1923, was much older than Dr Lim and his friends who openly opposed the PAP in 1961. Lee Kuan Yew was the youngest among his colleagues – Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam and EW Barker who formed the first cabinet. They were all thus older than Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends.

When the PAP was formed in the 1950s, Dr Lim and Dr Poh were medical students. The writings and speeches of Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai reveal that as medical students, they assisted Lee Kuan Yew in drafting the PAP constitution.

It is likely that reckoning the youth and ability of Dr Lim and his friends, Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues meticulously calculated their risk and decided to imprison all of them till well past their prime i.e. till their late 40s and 50s. By the time Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends were released from prison, their political careers were over. Barisan Sosialis and Partai Rakyat were no longer active. The political climate was shrouded in fear. They themselves have lost the energy of youth.

Operation Coldstore and subsequent mass arrests under the ISA were cruel and cowardly acts that ensured longevity of the PAP in power and absence of any meaningful opposition for Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers acted in their own selfish interest and against the interest of Singaporeans and Singapore.

When Dr Lim Hock Siew was asked if his long imprisonment was intended to prevent him from standing in future elections, his response was this:

“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.”

Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP were able to remain in power till today because they were able to legally imprison Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends for more than 17 years and continue with mass arrests every year following Operation Coldstore.

 The questions we have to ask ourselves is this:

“Why did we allow the PAP government to imprison Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends for decades without trial?

Do we need the ISA to enable our government to abuse us each time they feel politically threatened?”

 

Advertisements


留下评论

(中英文版)民主党新任主席保尔.淡巴雅教授回答海峡时报答问——公民反抗行为是组成民主党斗争历史极其重要的部分 Tambyah: Civil disobedience an important part of SDP’s history

                       

公民反抗行为是组成民主党斗争历史

极其重要的部分

相关链接:

http://yoursdp.org/news/prof_tambyah_civil_disobedience_was_a_very_important_part_of_sdp_39_s_past/2017-10-31-6203

大家应该已经阅读了海峡时报有关新加坡民主党中央委员会选举产生新的这样委员以及当未来的发展计划了。本月份较早时,卓先生(Mr Elgin Toh)发表了我的第一次访谈记录。他欣然同意通过电子邮件进行采访。可能由于受到报章版位的限制。他无法把访谈全文编入其专栏。为了让有兴趣了解访谈录的朋友知道访谈的详细内容,我仅此全文刊登如下。

一、关于您当选为民主党主席

1.您是否能够进一步提供有关民主党中央委员会改选的详情——你获选为党主席是通过党员?或者是党员干部选举产生的?当天中央委员会的改选有多少党员出席参与选举?是否有其他党员参与选举党中央主席的职位?您的任职期限是多久?

黄素枝博士和徐顺全博士是我竞选党主席候选人的共同提名人。经过党员干部投票选举产生的。我的任期是两年。

2.您是什么时候决定参与党主席职位的选举的?是在党员大会之前或者在党员大会期间?您为什么会决定参与党主席职位的选举?您在决定参与党主席职位选举前是否与任何亲密的朋友事前商量过——您的朋友对于您参与党主席选举的看法如何?您是否与徐顺全博士商量过?他给予您提供了哪些意见?

几个月前他们俩与我谈过有关担任民主党主席的可能性。他们认为,我已经具备了担任党主席的相关经验了,我如果接受这个职位将会获得全党同志的拥护。就我而言,这似乎是个人参与政治活动进程中的自然发展。当我认识到反馈意见的局限性时,它将被常规所忽视。正如我与一些在我们的医疗保健系统服务的杰出医生、护士和相关的卫生专业人员接触时,我总是对医疗保健融资体系如何感到沮丧。

正如我发表的声明里所说的那样,我期望争取更多的学者和专业人士能够参与我们的公民社会运动和政治活动。我们已经有看到多米尼.普都杰里助理教授(A/Prof Janil Puthucheary) Chia Shi Lu助理教授、默罕默德.法谢.易卜拉欣助理教授( A/Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim)和英丹.阿祖拉副教授( Asst Prof Intan Azura)都加入了行动党了。  我想,假设(在反对党里)能够找到相同的专业人士参与政治活动,那将是能够出现年一个平衡的局面。我的参与政治活动是获得家人的积极支持的。对我而言这是极其重要的。到目前为止,我们的同事、朋友的反馈是积极的,这包括了来自行动党过去的元老!当我获选为党主席的消息传开后,我鼓励了每一个人祝福我的人为创造一个美好的新加坡积极参与政治活动,。

3.不知道是否可以这么说,现阶段民主党主席职位的设立是仅次于民主党秘书长的第二号人物?(这个问题的答案我不需要做记录。假设我可以从您哪儿获得无意识感的回答,我准备怎么说,“海峡时报明白那么一回事……”)

民主党确实就是一个民主的政党。党在决定一些重大决策时,党的中委会成员是拥有同等的权利。这是我从那些过去的党内活动的“老党员”告诉我的。我数年来参与党的活动的经验也证实了这一点。

二、 关于您的工作计划

1 身为党主席,您是否有一到两个 优先考虑到的任务?您想要取得哪些成绩?

假设我们能够赢得要求马西泠友池集选区举行补选的法院诉讼,我首要的任务就是要为马西泠友池集选区的补选进行准备。同时也为下一届大选做好准备工作。特别是艰巨的家访工作。我们通过家访工作不断地进行检讨和调整我们提出的广泛建议计划(其中包括了住房、医疗系统、教育和经济发展等等的建议计划)。我们与培训和教育群体予以党的志愿工作者努力的培训。他们参与的范围包括了通讯组、基层组和社会服务组。

三、党的未来发展

1)民主党在来届大选的竞选策略是什么?民主党从2015年以及武吉巴督补选汲取了许多经验。这些建议是否可以为民主党在来届大选提供参考的价值?

第一次的选举活动对我而言教育是极其深刻的。它让我认识到,我们不仅仅是与行动党和他们的候选人进行竞争。而且还要面对来自主流媒体的强大攻势以及那些游击队似的的社交媒体网站。正如徐顺全所说的“网军”(IBS),它们在选举期间不时忽隐忽现。我们也必须面对执政党利用国家资源与我们进行竞争。我可以讲一个故事来举例说明。在选举过后,一名坐着轮椅的病人前来向祝贺我进行了一场精彩的竞选活动。我问他,你把票投给了谁?他的女儿插嘴说“傅海燕提供了轮椅给他”。我想她指出,这张轮椅是纳税人掏自己的钱买的。他坚持说,傅海燕在进行家访时,一大批的随从带着那些珍贵的轮椅来到我的组屋单位。

2)民主党曾经是新加坡一个最主要的反对党——在1991年大选过后。但是在1990年年尾。民主党经历了一场最艰苦的阶段。就选举胜利而言,那个时候,当时民主党在反对党阵营里并不是排名第二位的主要反对党。但是,我应该实事求是地说,从那个时候其它就开始往上山路攀爬了。依据IPS的调查报告,民主党在2015年仅次于第一大党工人党的反对党。从2015年开始,人们开始对工人党 开始产生疑问——由于它目前正在面对着没完没了的法律诉讼案件 ,对于它未来的前途产生疑虑。鉴于上述情况的发展,您认为,这是否意味着,在未来的日子里,或许在您的领导下,民主党将重新成为最主要的反对党?为此,民主党 将需要做哪些方面的工作?

在新加坡根本就不存在着任何有关第一大反对党和第二大反对党的问题。目前所有的反对党都在努力为实现一个更加民主的新加坡而工作。最重要的问题是:我们继续保持不懈地鞭策着行动党,要求他们更加地透明和负责任。特别是目前,总理的弟妹指责他滥用权力这方面。我们的地铁公司管理水平的恶劣性,给我们国家带来的经济挑战,看来行动党政府对如何管理地铁已经黔驴技穷了。

 3)对于民主党,人民都在谈论着许多它过去的问题,当时,我只集中在一个方面——“公民反抗行为”(Civil disobedience,下同)。我为什么要提出“公民反抗行为”这个问题?因为它具有的模糊性较低。民主党在前一段历史时期,曾经通过以突破法律框框限制的斗争形势来达到改革。目前这种情况已经较小了。我的问题是:

3.1)对于过去民主党采取的“公民的反抗行为”您有何看法?您同意?还是不同意?

我想,对民主党来说,过去的“公民反抗行为”是一个极其重要的组成部分,人民都忘记了在互联网时代到来前,行动党严控的主流媒体根本无法让人民获得任何的信息。人们必须感激民主党为此所展开的“公民反抗行为”。现在我们已经有了芳林公园的集会场所。它已经成为一个独立主流媒体传播信息的场所。让所有的社运活动者,包括前行动党国会议员、后来成为总统选举候选人(指陈清木医生)到场出席集会。(尽管他没有在集会上发言,但是仍然还是出席的集会。)即便是李光耀本人也把1954513日华校中学生反对服兵役的学生抗议行动视为是一种必要的“公民反抗行为”。任何事情的决定都必须依据当时的历史具体时间与地点,不可以一概而论。

3.2)今天民主党对于“公民反抗行为”的看法如何?她会为了更好的斗争而放弃这样的斗争策略吗?

是的。由于我们许多意见观点已经能够广泛的传播到群众中了。它比起个人的单独行为来的更加有效率了,所以并不需要在继续使用“公民反抗行为”这样的斗争形式了。

 3.3.)假设在您担任党主席期间公民反抗行为”的问题又再一次被提到议程上时,您是否会反对?

民主党长期以来就坚信,在我们国家的宪法约定下人民拥有言论自由权。正如我在当选为党主席时发表的第一篇声明所说的,“在我们的国家里,宪法是高于一切法律之上的。它确保我们的公民拥有言论与结社的自由权。这样的言论与结社的自由权力只要不危害及任何个别人士或者社群。只有人民能够进行充分的辩论和积极参与有关的影响到全面福祉的问题,这个国家才有可能进步。”

 四、关于您未来的长远计划

1)假设有一天,党员要求您竞选当地秘书长职位,您是否有意问鼎这个职位?

呵呵——这是完全不可能的事。徐顺全博士在推动党务工作方面至今仍然有目共睹的,在2015年的大选,新加坡人民终于改变了他们一直拽在心中自己的看法——真正的徐顺全是……一个为人正直、坚忍不拔、性格坚强的人!正如我在演讲里所说,另外,令我感到惊讶的改变的是,他在莱佛士坊售卖书籍时,人民都有意识绕道而行回避他。但是在民主党举行的群大大会开始前数小时,群众却排着冗长的队伍等待着让他在自己购买的书籍上签名。互联网和竞选运动最终给了徐顺全一个公平、客观和真正的评价。就我个人而言,我很乐意与他共事。

Tambyah: Civil disobedience an important part of SDP’s history

Paul Ananth Tambyah

Related link:

http://yoursdp.org/news/prof_tambyah_civil_disobedience_was_a_very_important_part_of_sdp_39_s_past/2017-10-31-6203

Many of you would have read the Straits Times articles on the new SDP Central Executive Committee and our plans for the future. Earlier this month, Mr Elgin Toh interviewed me for the first article. He very graciously agreed to an email interview. Probably because of space constraints, he was limited in what he could put in his column. For the benefit of those who want to read more, this is the full interview.

(1) Regarding your election as Chairman

Can you give us a bit more details on the election – Were you elected by members or cadre members? How many of these members were there at the election? Did anyone else stand for the post of Chairman? How long is your term as Chairman?

I was nominated by Dr Wong Souk Yee and Dr Chee Soon Juan, and was elected as Chairman unopposed by the cadre members of the party for a two-year term.

(b)When did you decide to stand as Chairman? Before the party conference or during? Why did you want to stand? Did you discuss it with anyone close to you before you went ahead – what did that person say? Did you discuss it with Dr Chee – what did he say?
Dr Wong Souk Yee and Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke with me a couple of months ago about the possibility of becoming SDP chair. They felt that I had the relevant experience and that I would be well accepted by the rank and file of the party.

For me, this seemed like the natural progression of my involvement in politics. As I have mentioned many times before, I got involved with politics when I realised the limitations of providing feedback that was going to be routinely ignored. As someone working in our healthcare system with excellent doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, I was constantly frustrated at how the healthcare financing system was structured.

As I said in my statement, I hoped that more academics and professionals will get more involved in civil society and politics. We already have A/Prof Janil Puthucheary, A/Prof Chia Shi Lu, A/Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, and Asst Prof Intan Azura.  I thought it would be good to add some balance to the picture.  My family has been supportive and that is very important to me. So far, the feedback from colleagues, friends and peers has been overwhelmingly positive, including a former PAP senior leader! I have encouraged everyone who has congratulated me to get involved in their own way in making a better Singapore.

(c) Is it fair to say that the Chairman in the current SDP set-up is de facto number two to Sec-Gen? (I don’t need an on-the-record answer to this question. If I can get an off-the-record sense from you, I’m prepared to say, “The Straits Times understands that…”)
The SDP really is a democratic party and the office bearers are more or less equal when it comes to major decisions. That is what I heard from the “old-timers” and it has been my experience of the last few years.

(2) Regarding your plans

(a) What are one or two priorities you have as Chairman? What do you hope to achieve?

The priorities would obviously be preparing for the Marsiling-Yew Tee by-election if we win the case and the next general election. Specifically, they would including ramping up our home visits, reviewing and revising if necessary our various policy proposals (housing, healthcare, education, the economy etc), working with our training and education groups to train volunteers especially those involved in the communications team, ground operations and community service arms.

(3) Regarding the party’s future

(a) How will SDP fight the next general election? Were there any lessons that the party took from 2015 and from Bukit Batok that would inform the way you approach the next campaign?
My first electoral experience was very educational. I learned that we were competing not just against the PAP and its candidates but also the full force of the mainstream media and guerrilla websites which appeared and disappeared just in time for the elections (as described elegantly by Dr Carol Soon from IPS). We also had to contend with the state resources deployed by the ruling party. A story I have told illustrates this well. After the elections, a patient came up to me on his motorized wheelchair and congratulated me on a well-run campaign. I asked him who he had voted for and his daughter chipped in that “Grace Fu had provided the wheelchair for him”. When I pointed out that it was his own taxpayer dollars which paid for the wheelchair, he insisted that she had showed up at his flat with a large entourage bearing the prized wheelchair.

 (b) There was a time when SDP was the most important opposition party in Singapore – after the 1991 GE. But by the late 1990s, the party went through a more difficult period, in terms of electoral success, and there were times when SDP wasn’t even the second most important opposition party. But I think it’s fair to say that the party has since climbed its way back up. The IPS surveys show that in 2015, it was the second most credible opposition party after WP. And since 2015, there have been questions about WP’s position – the party is now faced with lawsuits that throw its future under a cloud. In light of all the developments above, do you see SDP one day regaining its position as the most important opposition party in the future – perhaps even under your chairmanship? What does the party need to do to get there?

It is not relevant which opposition party is number 2 or number 3 in Singapore. All the current opposition parties are working for a more democratic Singapore. What is more important is that we continue to keep the PAP on their toes and demand more transparency and accountability from the government. This is particularly acute right now with the accusations of abuse of power raised against the Prime Minister by his siblings. There is also the poor management of our MRT together with the economic challenges facing our nation for which there seem to be few new ideas from the PAP.

(c) There are many things that have been said about the party’s past, but I want to just focus on one aspect – civil disobedience. The reason I am choosing civil disobedience is that there is relatively less fuzziness about it. SDP was at one time in its not-so-distant history prepared to break the law in order to advocate for change. There seem to be less of it today. My questions are:

 (i) What is your own view on what SDP did in the past in connection to civil disobedience? Do you agree with it? Disagree with it?

I think that civil disobedience was a very important part of our past. Many people forget that in the pre-internet era, there was no way for anyone to be heard apart from the tightly controlled mainstream media. Thanks to civil disobedience efforts by the SDP, we now have Hong Lim Park where all manner of activists including former PAP MPs turned Presidential candidates can turn up (maybe not speak but at least turn up) to make a point independent of the mainstream media. Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew felt the need to be involved in the May 13, 1954 student protests as an act of civil disobedience. There is a time and a place for everything.

(ii) What is the party’s position today on civil disobedience? Has it abandoned the strategy for good?

Right now, there is no pressing need for civil disobedience activities as many of our posts go viral and reach a far wider audience than a single individual protest

(iii) If civil disobedience comes up again for discussion during the time you are Chairman, are you likely to oppose it?

SDP has always believed in our constitutional rights of freedom of speech. As I said in the first statement issued after I became chairman of the party, “Our constitution is the highest law of our land and it guarantees our citizens freedom of speech and assembly as long as it is peaceful and does not harm any individual or community. A country can only progress when its citizens are engaged in debating fully and actively participating in matters that affect the lives and well-being of our people.”

(4) Regarding your long-term future

(a) If party members one day want you to stand as Sec-Gen, are you prepared to contemplate it?

Ha, ha – that is very unlikely, Dr Chee has been doing a great job thus far. In GE 2015, Singaporeans finally had the chance to see for themselves who Dr Chee really is….A man of integrity, perseverance and character. As I mentioned in one of my speeches, I was amazed by the transformation in Raffles Place from people crossing the road to avoid him before the campaign to people lining up for hours to get him to sign his books at the rallies. The internet and the campaign finally allowed an unbiased look at Dr Chee. I am happy to be working with him.


留下评论

(中英文版)The interview of Ex political detainees Oh Teng Ail 前政治拘留者胡丁海访谈录

编者按语: 

我们刊载这篇访谈录的目的是:

  1.  希望能够通过访谈的形式收藏与丰富从50年代至80年代,为争取祖国和人民伟大的事业而被英国殖民主义者和李光耀法西斯政权在“公安法令”和“内部安全法令”下被逮捕入狱的前政治拘留者的具体历史文献。我们也希望让前政治拘留者能够把半个世纪前自身遭受的政治迫害留给后人和世人。根据可以收集到的前政治拘留者名单约为2千人。具体名单请参阅由前社阵领导人、前政治拘留者傅树介医生、历史学家孔丽莎博士和前南大生陈国防硕士于2013年共同编辑出版的中英文书籍《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动》附录政治拘留者名单。负责收集与整理这份政治拘留者名单的是前社阵勿洛区国会议员卢妙平女士

  2. 两代的前辈们,在反对英国殖民主义者和李光耀法西斯政权统治、争取祖国独立和争取自由、民主平等的斗争时期遭受了非人道的虐待。对他们当中的一些人在接到正式拘留令前,面对着法西斯统治者为了套取他们口中的情报,不惜使用一切手腕、采取了不同程度和使用不同的形式对他们进行审讯、虐待与折磨(包括长时间的单独监禁)。最后,他们在内部安全法令下不经审讯被长期被监禁。

  3. 李光耀法西斯政权比英国殖民主义者及其傀儡林有福时期更加残酷和不人道!李光耀为了从心理上彻底摧毁这些当年抱负为祖国和人民的伟大事业、意气风发、斗志昂扬的年轻人政治理想,不惜采用各种卑鄙手段迫使他们接受各种违反其意愿的释放条件(其中包括上电视接受采访、发表“政治悔过书”、签署“政治自白书”、接受不再参与政治活动、以及禁止他们与自己过去的同志及战友来往……)。

  4. 以下是转载自Function 8的一个不前政治局拘留者胡丁海的访谈录。受访者名字为胡丁海,前工艺学院学生。其录像视频访谈录网址为:https://www.facebook.com/function8ltd/videos/835244086652567/

我的华文名字是胡丁海。以前学生时代叫做定爱。那么英文名字就是Oh Teng Aik

My name in Chinese is Hu Geng Hai; I used ‘Ding Ai’ when I was a student.  My official name in English is Oh Teng Aik.

1969年华校的中四甲等文凭。那么1975年我是在建屋局任职。那么1976年年终我进入新加坡理工学院土木科,土木工程科,成为夜校的正规学生。

I obtained a grade one for my Chinese secondary four certificate in 1969. I worked at the HDB in 1975. In 1976 I enrolled as a student in the evening class at the Singapore Polytechnic, doing the civil engineering course. 

1975年年终,我的同校同学陈桂莲主动和我来往。我们共同寻求改革不合理社会的方法。彼此认为应该通过马来亚共产党的武装斗争,才能实现没有人剥削人的社会制度。那么,1976年的6月,桂莲通知我填写个人的真实姓名、地址,以及我的政治思想、成长的个人履历书 我是很乐意的。准备参加马来亚共产党的外围组织新青盟。

Towards the end of 1975, my school mate Tan Kwee Liang initiated moves to befriend me. We explored ways to change an unjust society. We came to the view that the attainment of a society without exploitation should be through the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya. Then in June 1976 Kwee Liang got me to write down my actual name, address, my political thinking and my background and history. I was willing to do so. I was prepared to join the Alliance of New Youth, a front organization of the CPM.

197685号,我被逮捕。一直到1221号,新加坡大选前,我不签任何条件,被强制的释放。

I was detained on 5 August 1976 and released on 21 December the same year, before the general election.  I did not sign any conditions, and was forcibly released.

197685号凌晨的时候,我是在汤申路,海南山。那时是3点多,凌晨3点多。那么我在家里,被他们逮捕。那么我逮捕的时候,他们推我上车。两个人夹在中两个人在我旁边夹住。把我的眼睛蒙上。那么,就送到一个我不知道的地方。当然后来我知道这个就是惠德里拘留中心。第一天,85号,我是没有被提审。86号的时候,那么我就被提审。那么这些过程,我是在被释放之后,1977年的时候,我就断断续续把它写成我的一个个人的回忆录。所以您问的问题,如果不介意的话,我就可以参考以前的回忆纪录。

It was on 5 Aug 1976, the hours before dawn. I was at Hai Lam Sua, Thomson Rd.  It was about 3am. I was at home when I was arrested. They pushed me into a car, sandwiched between two persons.  I was blind-folded.  I was then sent to a place I did not know.  Of course I subsequently learnt that it was Whitley Detention Centre.  The first day, 5 August, there was no interrogation.  I was interrogated on 6 August.  After I was released, I wrote down on and off my recollection of what I went through. So as to the questions you posed, if you don’t mind, I will refer to what I have written.

86日早上9点多,我到C6接受问话 。同时也准备面对拷打,带着镇定、警惕和战斗的心情,踏入了拷问室。里面是一张长约6尺宽有4尺的桌子。中间坐着主审官,侧边是一个助手。我先站立着,他们请我坐在,他们请我坐下来。于是我就坐下来。你叫胡定爱,是吗?  我应是。

At around 9am on 6 August I was taken to room C6 for interrogation.  I was mentally prepared to be beaten up, so I was calm, alert and in a fighting mood when I entered the interrogation room.  There was a table 6 ft long and 4 ft wide.  The chief interrogation officer sat in the middle, at the side was an assistant.  I was standing; they asked me to sit down.  I did so.  ‘You are Oh Teng Aik, right?’  I replied, ‘Yes’.

接着又问,你应该懂为什么你会被捕。 我回答:不知道! 他们就说你是和地下组织活动有关而被捕。我说:不知道! 我只承认是一个进步的青年。不懂的什么叫做地下组织。  这样的对答,最先是温和的,渐渐的他们采取暴燥和恐吓的手段。周旋了一段时间,他们再提出另外一个问题 你认识陈桂莲吗? 我回答:不认识! 于是他们凶狠的问:你再说认识不认识陈桂莲? 我坚决说:不认识! 于是他们就暴燥的动手打人了!  但是我还是坚持的不说。

Then they asked, ‘You should know why you are being detained?’ I replied, ‘I don’t!’ I only admitted that I was a progressive youth, and did not know what an underground organization was.  Initially the exchange was cordial, but gradually they became ill-tempered and threatening. After a round of sparring, they brought up another subject. ‘Do you know Tan Kwee Liang?’ I replied, ‘No!’ They asked fiercely, ‘Tell me again, do you know Tan Kwee Liang?’  I said firmly, ‘No!’ They then started to hit me brutally. But I adamantly refused to tell them anything. 

一段时间后,政治部的审讯官,不时有增有减,进出这间拷问室,有的打了几拳就出去了。跟有两个女性出现,有带可怜的,有带讥笑的,有带恐吓的要我承认与地下组织的关系。后来我才知道  主审官就是蔡忠龙(又名,蔡忠隆。退休后改名为:蔡裕林。下同。)。他很技巧的说: “人家女孩子的脸皮很薄。但是陈桂莲却敢在我们的面前承认你就是她的恋人,而你是一个男子汉,却不敢承认她就是你的恋人。我沉住气而不动于中,各方面的殴打 还是继续落在我的身上。同时他们也不时的自己说对我掌握的情况。  你曾经是学生领导者之一,你曾经是因为和人家争权夺利被踢出去。你曾经与四人在炮台党开会,这些等等。于是相当强硬的说:好,现在我退一步,而你们也必须退一步! 这时蔡忠龙迅速的打断说:xxx(骂粗话)!  这是内政部,是东南亚办事能力最强的机构,为什么要退后一步呢?

Sometime following that, new interrogating officers would come in, while others would leave. Some would land a few punches, and then make an exit.  Then two female officers appeared. They in turn pitied me, mocked me and threatened me, insisting that I had underground connections.   I later learnt that the chief interrogating officer was Chai Cheong Loong.  He cleverly said, “Usually girls are more easily embarrassed.  But Tan Kwee Liang was bold enough to admit to us that you are her lover.  You as a man, dare not admit she is your lover!”  I took a deep breath and remained calm.  The blows continue to land on me from different directions.  At the same time, they said things to show that they already had inside information.  ‘You were one of the student leaders, you were kicked out in a power struggle with others. You and four fellows had meetings at Pao Tai Dang, etc, etc.  I said decisively, “Ok, I will give a little, but you must also give a little!”  Chai Cheong Loong immediately intervened, “xxx (swear words)!  This is the Internal Security Department, one of the most powerful organisations in Southeast Asia!  Why should we give a little?”

这就是:蔡忠龙近年照片

于是他和我做了一些争执  ,那个助手就调解的说:好,谈你所退的那一步? 我接着说:我承认认识陈桂莲。好了,你们所要的,你们所退的一步就是让我考虑一天,才来回答你的问题。 但是,他们不满足,得寸进尺的继续问:怎样认识陈桂莲? 对于这个问题当时就闭口不谈了。于是我就继续的被拳打脚踢。

We got into an argument. His assistant then said in a more accommodating fashion, “Ok, what do you mean by ‘you’ll give a little?’”  I said, ‘I admit that I know Tan Kwee Liang. That is what you want. You give a little, give me a day to think over, then I’ll answer your questions.’  But they were not satisfied. Having been given an inch, they went for a mile.  “How did you get to know Tan Kwee Liang?”  I refused to get into this.  So I received continuous blows, punches and kicks.

当晚,就是86号,我没有吃饭了。晚上我就在牢房里面高喊:  “为了抗议反动派无理的殴打,和改善牢房环境, 我胡定爱决定明天正式展开绝食,直到胜利为止。

That night, on the 6 August, I refused to have any food.  I shouted from my cell, ‘To protest against the reactionary group’s unreasonable beatings, and to demand improvement in the condition of the cells, I, Oh Teng Aik have decided to go on hunger strike from tomorrow, until victory prevails!’

叶: 这是第一天的事情?

Yap:  That was happening on the first day?

是,86号的事。为了不使自己的斗争处于孤军作战,我表现出在牢里的迫害和反迫害事件。我以为这是完全必要的。

Yes, on 6 August.  As I did not wish my fight to be a solitary battle, I had to make known the persecution in prison and to fight against it.  I thought this was absolutely necessary.

…………

独眼龙就是蔡忠龙,听说他是马来亚民族解放阵线发起人之一。那么后来74年,他本身也被抓。大概是出卖自己的同志。后来也做了一个审讯官,这是我所听说的。你们的高层分子被捕之后,只要踏进这里,他们就知道什么都完了!于是在不动情的情况之下 ,自己招供一切。倒是你们这些低级的成员,不知天高地厚,不肯招认。那实在不醒目! 于是他们恼怒的叫我站起来,脱光衣服, 把我的双手反扣起来。使我不能够有自卫的能力。

Chai Cheong Loong’s nickname was One Eyed Dragon. Apparently he was one of the founders of the Malayan National Liberation Front.  He was captured in 1974.  He became a turncoat and betrayed his comrades.  Later he became an interrogation officer.  That’s what I heard.  ‘When your leaders are detained, they know it’s all over the minute they step into prison. They would reveal everything without much effort from us.  It’s people like you of low rank who have no sense of reality, who refuse to confess.  That’s really idiotic!’ They barked at me to stand up and strip off my clothes. My hands were handcuffed at the back.  I was totally defenceless.

在拷打之前 ,我对蔡忠龙说:告诉你们  我已经没有吃饭了,接下去吃不吃看你们的表现如何! 蔡忠龙不把我这个警告放在心上,他说:你这个人看得出是不能挨打的,再打几次你就乖乖的讲了!

Before they started to hit me, I told Chai Cheong Loong, ‘I am letting you know, I have stopped taking food. Whether I will eat again would depend on what you do!’  Chai Cheong Loong did not bother with my warning.  He said, ‘You don’t  look like you can endure pain.  A few more beatings and we’ll get you talking obediently!”

他们首先是两个人夹我在中间。同时用力踢我的两边大腿, 有时用拳头打我的胸部和腹部。这样使我不能支持而倒在地上。他们不会因为这样而满足,继续用脚踢和残踏我的身体。也用拳头打和捶打我的身体。这样使我更处于无力之状态中。但是我的头脑始终保持着清醒。他们说:我们给你看陈桂莲,你就说要不要。 我接着回答说:现在什么都不要了! 你们就把我打死算了! 之后又弄出新花招,用冷冰冰的水倾倒在我的头上和全身。最可恨的是蔡忠龙用木头敲打我全身的关节,使之红肿。然后又不断的倒冷水上去。

The two men on either side of me kicked me hard on each thigh at the same time. They also punched my chest and abdomen. I lost my balance and fell.  They did not stop there, but punched and kicked me.  I was totally defenceless and powerless.  But my mind remained clear.  They said, ‘We’ll let you meet Tan Kwee Liang. Tell us if you want that.’  I replied, ‘Now I don’t want anything, beat me to death if you wish!’  They came out with another trick, pouring icy cold water over my head and body.  What was worst — Chai Cheong Loong beat the joints of my body with a wooden stick till they were swollen. The others then kept pouring icy cold water over the joints.

他说:这就是使风湿进入你的身体。 肉体上的折磨不能使我屈服。于是用脚板踏在我的私部。玩弄和带着侮辱的言语说:我们要折磨到你失去享受人生最大的乐趣。即使以后让陈桂莲脱光衣服的躺在你前面,你的阴茎也站不起来! 我当时是很生气、很生气!无耻,真是无耻! 对于这一切根本就不能使我屈服,只有增加我的仇恨而已!

He said, ‘This will give you rheumatism.’  Physical torture would not make me give in.  He stepped on my private part with his feet.  He said in a teasing and insulting tone,  “We are going to torture you until  your greatest pleasure in life is ruined.  So even when Tan Kwee Liang is naked lying next to you, your penis will not become erect!”  I was very angry, extremely angry!  ‘Shameless, you are shameless!’ None of what they did could make me surrender, only increase my hatred of them!

由于双手反扣,身体倒在地上压着了双手,因此除了疼痛之外,血液不流畅而感到麻痹,我的身体因为两个钟头在相当冷的房间,又加上冰水的侵蚀,所以感到非常的寒冷! 那种冷已经参透入我的体内! 我不时呻吟着:冷!冷!很冷! 这样反而引起他们的幸灾乐祸!

With my hands handcuffed behind me and my body on the floor with its weight on my hands I was in pain; my blood circulation was constricted. I had been in very cold room for two hours, drenched in icy water. I was absolutely freezing to the bones. From time to time I moaned, ‘Cold, cold, very cold!’ This only made them enjoy my plight.

我还记得心中愤怒的说:你们残冷!你们残冷!你们没有人性!等等。蔡忠龙回答说:如果我们给你一把枪,有一天你也会杀死我们的!所以你们也是残冷!看样子,他是太心虚了!

I can recall what I uttered in my rage, “You are cruel!  You are cruel!  You are not humans!” and so on.  Chai Cheong Loong answered, “If we give you a gun, you will also kill us one day!  So you are inhuman too!”  It looked like he had a guilty conscience.

197686日被主审官蔡忠龙提审,因不录任何口供而残暴虐待。当天我就开始绝食了!最初的三天,蔡忠龙提审及虐待从不手软!就是说蔡忠龙打我到第三天之后,他就基本上已经知道我在绝食了!后来,牢房也派了医生来看我。那么,医生也一直在很规劝我说要进食,但是我还是不答应。

I was interrogated by chief investigating officer Chai Cheong Loong on 6 August 1976 as I refused to make any statements, and was given brutal violent treatment.  That particular day I started on a hunger strike!  For the first 3 days, the treatment was harsh.  Chai Cheong Loong continuously beat me for 3 days, he then realized that I was on hunger strike.  Later, a prison doctor was sent. He kept advising me to take some food, but I was undeterred.

 

那么一直到了811号,政治部的老首,老关,很多人都叫他老关。我不知道他真正是谁。和我进行谈判,好言劝我停止绝食。  那么我的感触是8天的绝食,令他们之后不敢再轻易的对我动刑了。比较温顺的对待我。

On 11th August, the head of ISD, Lao Kuan– that was how many addressed him;  I did not know who he really was–  he had a discussion with me, encouraging me to stop the hunger strike.  I felt that after 8 days of hunger strike, they would  no longer dare to subject me to torture easily, and were treating me more gently.

1976816日我被另外一位主审官提审。我采用以静观动的策略。所入口供约20%是真实的,80%是虚构的。在对方讨价还价笑话中,就把故事讲完了!我也在口供书签了名。

 On 16 August 1976 I was interrogated by another chief interrogation officer.  I used the strategy of inaction to counter action.  The statement I recorded was 20% truth mixed with 80% fake information.  In a process of bargaining and jokes, I completed my stories!  I also signed on my statement.

 19761221日,新加坡大选前,我不签任何条件,被他们强制释放。

 On 21 December 1976, just before the general election, I was forcibly released without accept any conditions in writing.

 叶:你在监狱里的经历、经验主要是集中在前几

 Yap: Your detention experience, the main bulk of it were at the initial few…

最主要是8678,那么蔡忠龙是拿我没办法的时候,说89号国庆日要到了。那么就让你休息几天。是他拿我没办法的一个退步。

The main events took place on 6,7 and 8 August. Chai Cheong Loong did not know how to handle me after that, and said that since 9 August was National Day, he would let me rest for a few days. It was a retreat for him, as he did not know what to do with me.

叶:那么你的家庭成员呢?

Yap: How about your family members?

当然这是之后,在录口供的时候,他们有恐吓我。说要抓我妹妹。我妹妹是一个护士来的。她也是很支持哥哥,当时的所作所为。他们有恐吓要抓我妹妹。但是我不管他们。当然因为我绝食的时候,他们是不允许我看家人。那时黑青,我的战友陈崇明,就说我的眼睛被打到黑青。什么会让你见家人呢?一直等到 816号后,从85号到816号之后,我也忘记了,可能是82020多,才允许我见家人。也就是我那些黑青已经减退了,那么他们才允许我见家人。

My family came to visit later. When I was recording my statement they threatened to arrest my sister, a nurse. She supported my activities. I ignored their threat. Of course they did not allow family visits when I was on hunger strike. I had bruises all over. My comrade Tan Chung Bin, told me that my eyes were swollen from the beating.  No way would they allow a family visit!  It was only after 16 August– I cannot quite recall, maybe it was Aug 20 or after, that my family could visit.  That was when the bruises had subsided.

叶:桂莲,她是你的女朋友吗?

Yap: Was Kwee Liang your girl friend?

当时是我的恋人,当然后来成为我的妻子。她是因为是在工地里面,认识一些她的工友。后来我也才知道,是叫做xx(inaudible),她是有参加马共的部队。那么大概是,这些是后来才知道的。

She was then my lover; later on she became my wife.  She came to know some fellow workers at the work-site.  I knew only later on.  Known as xx (inaudible) Youth.  She was involved in a unit under the CPM.  That was roughly it, I got to know these facts much later on.

叶:那么你家里成员各方面,在你被监禁的时候有没有给你讲什么话?

Yap: How about your family members. What did they say to you when you were detained?

当时我们会见的时候,都是有用玻璃隔离着,那么电话。那么你提这个,我很愿意回答。第一次见面的时候,我就很婉转的告诉我的家人。我说进来了,吃了几餐。我的意思说我要暗示给他们我绝食8天,但是他们电话马上割掉。那这个是第一次,我印象很深刻。就是说我漏掉了8天就有24餐。我就说我进来,我漏掉这个,他们就马上给我割掉。印象中,

When family members visited, there was always glass partition.  Use of the telephone– since you mentioned this, I will talk about it.  At the first meeting, I tried to hint to my family.  I said that since detention, I have had a few meals.  I intended to imply that I had been on hunger strike for 8 days.  But the phone was immediately cut off.  That was the first time this happened, I have a deep impression of it.  I did not eat for 8 days—that would be missing 24 meals.  I said ‘The day I was detained’, and didn’t give figures, but they immediately cut off the line.

我的印象中19768月那段,是抓了我估计最少一、两百个。整个牢房是爆满。那么我住的房间是E5。本来是一个单人房,但是睡着我们两个,所以我们那时,一个睡木床,一个就铺那个报纸在地上。那么就用我们的拖鞋就当着枕头来睡觉。

My impression of August 1976 is that at least one to two hundred people were taken in.  The whole prison was full to bursting point.  My cell was E5, meant for one person, but two of us occupied it.  One of us slept on the wooden bed, the other on newspapers spread on the floor. We used our slippers as pillows.

叶:有没有单独监禁?

Yap:  Did you experience solitary confinement?

单独监禁,我这整个过程是没有,没有。因为在我的感觉那时牢房爆满。

Solitary confinement, I did not go through that.  I think it was because the prison was absolutely full.

叶:那你是在无条件的情况下被放?

Yap: Was your release unconditional?

因为我那时是血气方刚。我不认为我做的事情是错的。所以我是准备给他们继续被关的。他们认为我的条件还不够。因为我牵涉到地下组织的事认真讲是皮毛。我当时是准备参加新青盟,也捐了一些钱,大概有千多块。就是以这样,他们就把我抓进去啰!

 I was then a youth bold and full of vigour, I did not think that I was doing anything wrong.  I was mentally prepared to be in prison for the long haul.  They figured that my involvement was not significant enough to warrant prolonged detention.  I was about to join the Alliance of New Youth, and also made donations, roughly over a thousand dollars.  That was about it, that was why they took me in.


留下评论

(中英文版)又一个压制下一代沉默的手腕? Silencing Another Generation?

又一个压制下一代沉默的手腕?

(第一部方)

作者:张素兰

副总理善达曼在国大的讲话是令人感兴趣的。

他说,

新加坡今天“有着很大的不同情况。与过去相比,存在着更多的自由空间……”

去年他与大学先修班的学生也分享了同样的看法。他说:

“与过去年代相比,现在拥有更大的自由了,更不用说我的那个年代……我是一个批评政府的异议分子。现在的情况与那个时候相比完全是两码事……”(见《今天报》2016531日)

我希望副总理善达曼的说辞是正确的。不幸的是,他是远离了这个目标了。他的行动党政府即将消灭另一代人的光明希望。年轻的一代人和社运活跃分子除非继续坚持反抗的斗争,以及有能力继续承受警方的不断 骚扰和准备面对类似于西兰.巴兰在国会大厦外站立而被捕的情况。(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/?fref=mentions&pnref=story.

新加坡的年轻人是否能够追随60年代的美国黑人一样?(见网址:http://www.history.com/to…/black-history/march-on-washington)或者想1988年印度尼西亚学生推翻前印尼总统苏哈多一样?(见网址:https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/…/indonesians-overthrow-p….

副总理善达曼自己亲眼见证了社运活动在1970年代遭受灭顶之灾。那些数以百计,不是千计反对或者批评行动党的人在内部安全法令下被关押和遭受虐待。请大家聆听职工会领袖庄明湖进行的访谈录(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/function8ltd/videos/814969605346682/)和一名工艺学院学生胡丁海的访谈录(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/function8ltd/videos/835244086652567/)。他们告诉了有关自己在被监禁期间遭受被虐待以及他和家人在70年代经历的痛苦的经历。

1970年代那个时期,几乎每年都进行着逮捕行动。活跃主义分子几乎全都灭亡了。反对党已经灭亡了。那些成功地逃出新加坡成为真正流亡者已经无法回到自己的祖国了。他们当中的一些著名政治流亡者如:邱甲祥、洪瑞钗、陈华彪和何元泰……请大家浏览电影制作人陈彬彬小姐制作的历史纪录片《星国恋》。(见网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-yKgvOQII4

                                       

1963年冷藏行动大逮捕和接下来比较小规模但仍然的恐惧的逮捕行动持续不断的发生。一代具有崇高理想人的年轻人就这样被摧毁了。在行动党的内部安全法令下被捕者所遭受的痛苦情况和虐待情况,比起过去在英国殖民主义统治时期有过之而不及。这些具有崇高理想的青年人为了不愿面对不经审讯而长期被监禁在牢狱里,不得不选择政治流亡生涯。他们当中包括了陈新嵘和黄信芳。他们都无法回到自己的祖国,黄信芳最终是安眠于在泰国。

                                 

到了1980 年代,新的一代的社运分子诞生了。他们是受到在1981年赢得了安顺选举的反对党惹耶惹南的鼓舞下诞生的。他们见证了惹耶惹南为了正义而被行动党起诉到法院。他们尝试争取实现一个公平和维护受到压迫的外来劳工。但是,他们的这一切斗争在1987 年都被行动党在“光谱行动”幌子下,以“安全行动”为理由迅速地被镇压下去了。接下来的20年,整整一代人完全失去了发出自己的心声。

长期以来,行动党就是依靠残酷的内部安全法令来维持其统治。它们追随着英国实施的紧急法令(也就是内部安全法令的前身)来控制老百姓抗斗争。一些组织的领导人和潜在的领导人就在这部法令下次被捕入狱的。

在英殖民统治时期,如律师约翰.依柏(John Eber (lawyer)),马格烈医生( Maggie Lim (doctor))、教师陈蒙鹤女士等一群大学生和中学生就是在紧急法令下被捕的。(具体的被捕者名单可以在傅树介医生、陈国防和孔丽莎博士合作编著的《1963年新加坡冷藏行动50周年纪念》书的附录中查阅)。英国人在新加坡的统治被称为“白色统治”。

假设新加坡人在那个是期望在新加坡内部自治个后来的新加坡共和国独立后白色恐怖会消失,那么,他们是错误和失望是的。擅自的逮捕行动和布景审讯的长期监禁的存在,致使了新加坡的独立没有给予新加坡人民从白色恐怖中解脱出来。行动党不仅是保存和延续了内部安全法令,而且是更加变本加厉用来对付人民。事实上,行动党认识到,英国人通过紧急法令来对付当时的抗英爱国民主人士,以维持其殖民统治是一个极其有效的手腕!因此它们使用了内部安全法令来扑灭刚刚兴起的社运和出现的反对党领袖。行动党对付人民反抗斗争的座右铭就是“防患于未然”。

1950年代至今,两代的社运分子已经随着岁月而年长了。行动党是不是要继续清楚另一代的社运分子。

在过去89年期间,社运有重现在新加坡了。那些1987年和早期的被捕者已经开始撰写历史档案资料和发出的声音了。年前一代的新加坡要知道在他们年轻时期发生在1987年的“光谱行动”的历史真相。他妈的父辈并没有告诉他们这些历史事实。他们在芳林公园举行了抗议集会。(见网址:http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3088.

政府为此做出的迅速的反应。他们可能没有胆量使用内部安全法令对付年轻的一代。但是他们知道自己在国会里拥有至高无上的权利,可以随意修改或者指定任何法令法规。国会可以把他们的非法行为变成合法的行为,同时,可以随意诠释法令法规条文。2009年的公共秩序法令就是在这样的情况下产生的。这条法令紧缩了有关权诠释非法集会的人数从5人缩减至1人。这条法令的修改意味着行动党政府是不会容忍即便是1名新加坡人敢于站出来反对政府的行为。(待续……)

 

Silencing Another Generation?

by Teo Soh Lung
Part 1

DPM Tharman’s speech in the recent Majulah lecture at NTU is interesting.

Why did he say that Singapore today “is a vastly different and more liberal place compared to what it used to be?….”

Last year, he shared the same view with pre-university students. He said:

“There is more freedom now compared to a decade ago, “let alone when I was your age”. … I was a dissident, a government critic. It was completely different then, compared to where it is now….” (TODAY 31 May 2016).

I wish DPM Tharman was right. Unfortunately, he was wide off the mark. His PAP government is about to wipe out another generation of bright, young and committed activists today unless the young continue to resist and are able to withstand constant police harassment and be jailed as had happened to Seelan Palay outside Parliament House. See https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/?fref=mentions&pnref=story.

Will young Singaporeans follow the example of the blacks in America in the 1960s http://www.history.com/to…/black-history/march-on-washington or the students who toppled General Suharto in Indonesia in 1998? https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/…/indonesians-overthrow-p….

DPM Tharman had personally witnessed how civil society died in the 1970s. Hundreds if not thousands who opposed or criticised the PAP were incarcerated and tortured under the ISA. Just listen to Chng Min Oh, a trade unionist at https://www.facebook.com/function8ltd/videos/814969605346682/ and Oh Teng Aik, a Polytechnic student at https://www.facebook.com/function8ltd/videos/835244086652567/ tell the torture and hardship they and their families endured in the 1970s.

Throughout the 1970s, there were arrests every year. Activism died. Opposition parties also died. Those who managed to escape arrest became political exiles, never to return to their country of birth. We have several well known exiles – the late Mr Francis Khoo Kah Siang, Dr Ang Swee Chai, Tan Wah Piow and Ho Juan Thai. See Tan Pin Pin’s documentary “To Singapore With Love”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-yKgvOQII4

When Operation Coldstore (1963) and subsequent smaller (though no less horrendous) operations took place, one generation of idealistic young people was destroyed. Arrest under the ISA was relentless and treatment under the PAP was even worse than the days under British rule. Those who did not want to face long term imprisonment without trial escaped. Chan Sun Wing and the late Wong Soon Fong escaped. They could not return to Singapore and Wong died in Thailand.

In the 1980s, a new generation of activists appeared on the scene. They were largely inspired by Mr JB Jeyaretnam who won the Anson by election in 1981. They witnessed the injustice done to Jeyaretnam when he was sued and charged in court. They attempted to create a fairer society and protect oppressed migrant workers. But they were swiftly put down in 1987 in the so called “security operation” codenamed Operation Spectrum. That generation lost their voice for the next 20 years

The PAP’s longevity seems to be dependent on the ruthless use of the ISA. It followed closely the practice of the British which used the Emergency Regulations (the forerunner of the ISA) to control the population. Leaders and potential leaders were arrested and imprisoned under the regulations.

Under the British, John Eber (lawyer), Maggie Lim (doctor), teachers like Linda Chen and a large number of university and school students were arrested. (For a fuller list, refer to The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang and Hong Lysa). The reign of the British was called the reign of “White Terror”.

If the people of Singapore had expected white terror to disappear after partial and later full independence, they were sadly mistaken. Independence did not give them the freedom from fear of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial. The ISA was not only retained but made worse for the people. Indeed, the PAP must have realised that what the British practised was extremely effective in securing and maintaining power! And so began the practice of snuffing out civil society and opposition leaders as soon as they appear. “Nipped in the bud” was the PAP’s motto.

From the 1950s till today, two generations of activists have been lost. Is the PAP government about to wipe out another generation of activists?

In the last eight or nine years, civil society re-emerged. Those arrested in 1987 and earlier started to document and speak up. The young wanted to know what happened in 1987 when they were teenagers. Their parents did not talk about the arrests with them. They held a protest in Hong Lim Park. See http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3088.

The government was quick to react. It may not have the stomach to use the ISA on this new generation of activists but they know that it is supreme in parliament and could enact any law they wish. Parliament could legalise illegal acts and define terms any way it likes. The Public Order Act was thus born in that same year – 2009. It stretches the definition of illegal assembly to one lone protester. This law signifies to Singaporeans that the PAP will not tolerate even one person standing out of line.to be continue……

 


留下评论

浅谈关于陈六使公民权问题的报导

转载自新加坡文献馆30/09/17 作者/来源:江学文 (Sept 22, 2017)

海峡时报虽然也是官媒,但我发觉它有时比华文官媒(特别是近几年的联合早报)显得稍有个性,所以这回报导陈六使公民权问题,并不令人奇怪。这篇由卓名扬(Elgin Toh, Ming Yang,2008年在美国大学毕业,2010年在北京大学拿政治学硕士学位,曾任总理公署国家安全统筹秘书处助理主任) 所写的报导,对南大和陈六使所持的态度可算公正,只是对网上事件导致刘程强在国会问讯的报导未免过于片面。比如报导说,陈六使公民权问题在网上引起“热烈争论”,(我只听到支持的声音,哪里有什么争论?)而且也根本不提起那封在网上广泛流传而引起刘程强注意的《给区如柏学长的联名公开信》。

区如柏告诉海峡时报记者卓先生说:“对陈六使最公道的做法是为他身后恢复公民权”,这是她间接隐约地承认她的2003年报导的确是“假新闻”。

区如柏也告诉记者她是在和中华总商会名誉会长陈永裕做访谈时得到这项消息。诸位请注意:在这里她并没有直接说是陈永裕告诉她,而只说在“做访谈时得到这项消息”,如果不是陈永裕,究竟是谁告诉她这“假新闻”呢?

即使假设是陈永裕告诉她的,可是大家都知道,李光耀在世的时后,所有关于陈六使的官方动作、特别是要恢复陈六使的公民权,肯定是一件必须李光耀本人首肯的大事。

疑点是:

身为“资深记者”的区如柏不可能不明白这点。既然如此,怎么可以凭一面之词、不进一步调查就写成新闻?这样的大事,即使没有官方文告、没有公布在宪报,起码也会有一份内政部发出来的公函通知陈六使家属呀(总不致于会打电话叫陈永裕什么时候有空来内政部走一趟把陈六使的公民权证书拿走吧)?

这疑点只有当事人区如柏才有能力破解。如果疑点无法破解,就很难把这乌龙解释为区如柏的无心之错,而很容易让人怀疑这是一场骗局的有意安排,目的是方便于说服南大人接受徐冠林关于南大复名/盗名交易的推销。

也有人怀疑海峡时报报导这事的动机,特别是由于记者在总理公署的身份。鉴于区如柏本身和女儿沈泽玮在媒体的人脉(她是早报多年的北京特派员,而卓名扬也在海峡时报做过三年多的外放——可能是北京——通讯员,两者之间的挂钩并非不可能)所以不能排除者报导是有人在背后造局的可能性。我只能猜测,如果是造局,也许就是区如柏间接回应公开信的一种方式,然后逼使联合早报随后跟进(没有有什么理由不跟进)、到时只刊登海峡时报报导的译文,这样就可以避免直接答复、也以可避免认错道歉。

〖附录一〗:
Remembering Tan Lark Sye
Elgin Toh
Insight Editor
Published
Sep 21, 2017, 5:00 am SGT

An important historical fact for the Chinese community was finally settled last week – bringing back to view a longstanding discussion over how to remember a past leader of the community.

This leader is the late Tan Lark Sye, founder of the former Nanyang University – also known as Nantah – and a prominent leader of the Chinese community from the 1940s until his death in 1972.

Tan’s citizenship had been cancelled by the authorities after the 1963 General Election, a well-known fact.

But was it ever reinstated?

That ought to be a fairly straightforward issue, one would think. Strangely enough, it was a hotly debated matter on the Internet, which led Workers’ Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang to file a parliamentary question at this month’s sitting, to shed light on the issue.

The Government’s answer was short and straight to the point: “The late Mr Tan Lark Sye was deprived of his Singapore citizenship in 1964. He had engaged in activities prejudicial to the security and public order of Malaya and Singapore, in particular, in advancing the Communist cause.

“There has been no change in his Singapore citizenship status since then.”

The discussion stems from an article published in 2003. Veteran Lianhe Zaobao journalist Au Yue Pak wrote in the Chinese daily that Mr Tan Eng Joo, nephew of Tan Lark Sye, had once gone to the Home Affairs Ministry to collect the elder Tan’s restored citizenship.

It created a buzz among the Chinese-educated, but people did not quite know what to make of it.

Nanyang University Council chairman Tan Lark Sye addressing students at the university’s convocation ceremony in 1963.

On the one hand, there was scepticism as it was the only known instance of such a claim being made. On the other hand, nobody refuted it.

Online forums were also far less active in 2003. The issue hummed in the background for years until a month ago, when it went viral, with Nantah alumni calling on Madam Au to clarify the issue.

This prompted Mr Low, the only Nantah alumnus in Parliament, to file his question, which in turn drew the definitive answer from the authorities.

Madam Au, who has retired, told The Straits Times she got the information from interviewing Mr Tan Eng Joo, a prominent businessman who was at the time honorary president of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

It will remain unclear what Mr Tan Eng Joo was referring to – on collecting Tan Lark Sye’s restored citizenship – as he died in 2011.

But one thing is clear: Tan Lark Sye remains an important figure to some Chinese-educated Singaporeans. His place in history and how he is remembered is still of significance to them.

Tan was born in 1897 in Fujian province, China, in Jimei town, which was also the birthplace of philanthropist Tan Kah Kee.

Tan Lark Sye left China in 1916 to seek a better life and, shortly after arriving in Singapore, he began working for Tan Kah Kee, who was 23 years his senior and already an established rubber tycoon.

A few years later, the entrepreneurial Tan Lark Sye left Tan Kah Kee’s employ to start his own firm with his brothers, trading rubber. Before long, he became a millionaire rubber merchant himself. The two men were close, with the younger Tan looking up to his kinsman as a mentor and fatherly figure.

After the Communists took power in China in 1949, Tan Kah Kee decided to return to help develop a “New China”.

He anointed Tan Lark Sye his successor as chairman of the powerful Hokkien Huay Kuan – the association of the largest Chinese dialect group in Singapore.

In the same year, Tan Lark Sye was also elected president of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, making him “the undisputed leader of the Chinese in Singapore”, wrote one historian.

In the 1950s, he was among those leading the fight for citizenship for Chinese who, like himself, were born in China but had lived in Singapore for many years.

He also represented Chinese businesses in negotiating with the British for more equal trading rights vis-a-vis British firms.

He is, however, best remembered among the Chinese-educated for founding Nanyang University.
He rallied the community around Nantah’s cause and made a personal donation of $5 million to its building fund. The Hokkien Huay Kuan, led by him, donated 212ha of land in Jurong as the university’s campus.

He famously said during the Nantah campaign: “When the tide rises, channel it for irrigation to nourish the farmland, and it will reward you with rich gains. But hurry, because it will soon recede. Similarly, why not help poor students study while you are still capable of doing so?”

As Nantah’s chairman, he steered it in its early years and did what he could to support Nantah graduates when they started working.

Madam Au, 76, who graduated from Nantah in 1963, said that thousands of Chinese-educated students like herself would never have gone to university if not for Tan Lark Sye.

At the fateful 1963 General Election, he supported several Nantah alumni running as candidates under the banner of Barisan Sosialis, the main opposition party to the People’s Action Party (PAP). The PAP won that election.

The Government said Tan had taken part in activities that “jeopardise the peace and prosperity of Singapore” and issued a statement accusing him of playing “stooge to the Communists”. By 1964, it had cancelled his citizenship – which, as we now know, remains cancelled. He continued to live in Singapore, and remained leader of the Hokkien Huay Kuan until he died of a heart attack in 1972.

In many interviews with Chinese-educated Singaporeans over the years, I have found in the community a deep gratitude towards Tan. This is especially true among those who are older and remember the 1950s, when the campaign to build Nantah succeeded against all odds. It was Tan’s “finest hour”, as one historian wrote.

It is unlikely that last week’s revelation about his cancelled citizenship will end calls from the Chinese-educated for the man to be further rehabilitated.

Madam Au said to me over the phone that, in her view, the best way to do right by Tan is to posthumously restore his citizenship. This seems unlikely, given what he has been accused of (although it is also not impossible, and would likely go down well with the Chinese ground).

But there are other ways to honour his memory. In 1998, a professorship in Chinese language and culture at Nanyang Technological University was named after him. It was established through donations from Chinese groups and Nantah alumni.

Those wishing to eulogise him can also set up scholarships or bursaries in his memory, or donate to name other institutions after him.

But the strongest tribute that can be paid to any person is for people today to identify his positive contributions and to try to do the same in this generation.

This surely outweighs putting his name on more labels.

Singaporeans who wish to pay homage to Tan can, and should, emulate the values he held dear: entrepreneurship, philanthropy and a devotion to education.

(Source:http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/remembering-tan-lark-sye)

〖附录二〗:

海峡时报关于陈六使公民权文章的重点摘译(新版)

陈六使的公民权在1963年之后被当局取消,这是众所皆知的事实。

但是公民权后来有被恢复吗?

你以为这应该是个直截了当的问题。奇怪的是,这事在网上被热烈的争论,导致刘程强(工人党秘书长)在国会询问此事,使到这事得到澄清。〖江注:我们在脸书群组的“给区如柏学长的联名公开信”受到众人的支持而流传,才受到刘程强学长的注意。我并没有看到什么争论。〗

事缘早报资深记者区如柏2003年在报纸上写道:

“内政部恢复陈六使的公民权,他的侄儿陈永裕到内政部领回他的公民权证书“。对这项报导当时华校生为之哗然,但不知如何理解此事。

人们一方面存疑因为这是当时是唯一所知的个案,另一方面没人出面反驳。

在2003年,网上不是那么活跃。多年来人们只在暗地里嘀咕这事,直到一个月前有些南大校友公开呼吁区女士出面澄清时,这事才炽热化而成为大事。

这促使刘先生(国会里唯一的南大生)呈案询问此事时才从当局得到肯定的答案。

已经退休的区女士告诉海峡时报她在和中华总商会名誉会长陈永裕做访谈时得到这项消息。〖江注:在这里区学长并没有直接说是陈永裕告诉她,她只说在“做访谈时得到这项消息”。即使是陈永裕告诉她,我真不明白身为“资深记者”,这么重要的大事,怎么可以凭一面之词、不进一步调查就写成新闻?即使不在宪报公布,起码也有一份内政部的公函呀?〗

区女士在电话上这样跟记者说:

她认为对陈六使最公道的做法是为他身后恢复公民权。从他迄今被控的罪名来看,这似乎不可能(虽然也不是绝对不可能、这样做会被华社所接受)。

 


留下评论

关于海凡摘录的文句

南大站  2017-09-28

http://www.nandazhan.com/zh/xganxiang2.htm

海凡的《豢养 温暖与惆怅》,摘录雷阳编著《走过硝烟的岁月》里的文字:

……“刘武说:戴维斯——他抗日时代和陈老总(陈平)就很密切的嘛——这次在华玲谈判破裂了回来,就在仁丹矿场山顶那边过夜,他跟陈平聊天,他说,你(陈平)呀,要打到只剩一枪一弹啊,不容易。他说:为什么你知道吗?(做神秘状),你们的队员全部是年轻人。没有女人呀,会走光。’”

这段文字有三重引号,内中漏植两个,读来很费解。如果脱除最外层的引号,可以作成:

刘武说:“……戴维斯——他抗日时代和陈老总(陈平)就很密切的嘛——这次在华玲谈判破裂了回来,就在仁丹矿场山顶那边过夜,他跟陈平聊天,他说,你(陈平)呀,要打到只剩一枪一弹啊,不容易。他说:为什么你知道吗?(做神秘状),你们的队员全部是年轻人。没有女人呀,会走光。’”

以下摘录同书第24页的访谈故事,访谈者(即下文的笔者)记述:

部队不收女战士 娶妻感谢戴维斯

刘武接过话茬道:哦,那个时候基本上全部是男的。不过,战争开始的时候,华玲部队有两、三个女的,后来都认为她们拖累,打发她回家去。曾有一个分队指挥员的妻子被打发回家去,回去不久就被捕了。五二年的时候,才有几个女同志从槟城上到部队,做领导同志的抄写员,大家称呼她们槟城小姐,正式部队则没有女同志。一直到五五年,才吸收大批女战士上队。

刘武说:五五年,为什么会有大批女同志上队呢?有一个故事。就是我们华玲谈判的时候啊,戴维斯——他抗日时代和陈老总(陈平)就很密切的嘛——这次在华玲谈判破裂了回来,就在仁丹矿场山顶那边过夜,他跟陈平聊天,他说,你(陈平)呀,要打到只剩一枪一弹啊,不容易。他说:为什么你知道吗?(做神秘状),你们的队员全部是年轻人。没有女人呀,会走光。’”

笔者听了哈哈大笑起来,但同时对戴维斯此话的真实性也半信半疑:是事实吗?这个事情?”(华玲谈判破裂时,陈平的确有说过我们宁可打到最后一个人,打到最后一枪一弹也绝不投降的话)

刘武认真地说:是。后来呢,一回来以后,我就懂得这个事情了。所以这个事情以后呢,各个队伍吸收女兵很多了。从勿洞边区,一直到昔罗那一带都吸收很多。还有一些在马来亚大山脚一带,一批在三甲渔村,也吸收了一批女战士上队。

笔者打趣地说:那你们找到老婆要感谢戴维斯。

刘武笑着说:讲起来都是好笑。

笔者说:其实也是啦,这是长期战争长期打算,不像抗日战争三年八个月。

刘武的话题藉此深入下去,他说,战争初期打得轰轰烈烈,战士与战土之间,或者是干部之间,还打赌,几多年解放马来亚,三年、五年,不会想到打几十年,更不会想到四十一年。敌人的厉害就是他大赶搬家和粮食控制,对我们来说是至命的。布里格斯计划,赶集中营和断绝我们的粮食,实行饿毙政策,接下来转是大赦政策,叫你们出去投降。我们走下坡路就是这个时候。

英帝的作法如同釜底抽薪,断绝了部队和群众的联系,就等于让鱼离开了水。而人们印象中的热带森林有常年采摘不尽的山果野菜,此一说法并不符合实际,只是人们主观的想象而已。

像回忆录,访谈述说的是故事,可当作历史资料,却不一定是历史记载。两者之间,有个探索和证实的过程。述说的故事,可能漏缺历史,可能述说者无意中忽略了事实,也可能述说者特意隐蔽事实。更重要的是,述者、写者都在有意或无意的包装着故事。述者和写者的立场、动机、社会环境、风气,时机……都在模塑着故事的面目。

任何作者引述访谈报导,都是透过联想,摘录片断,融入作者的作品。作者可能无意间误解原述者的观点,也可能有意另解原述者的意思,目的都是要传达作者的观点和感想。

读者阅读作者引述的文句,通常是作字面解。有的读者会深入思索,结合作者的背景和其他作品,得出不同的感想。这些感想,可能正确,可能错误。最常见的是,正确的有,错误的也有,混杂成一块。

几个星期来,多谢读者和作者从各个角度,提供许多不同观点,拓广大家的眼界。相信大家都有经验:时间会验证各种事实和论点。因此,这一回的论争也该告个段落。除了澄请各自的观点(本站会摘要附后),不必再评论任何一方了。

关于论争用词:直接指责叛徒和腐败,需要慎重。杀人要见血,显然是形容和比喻,读来声势压倒一切。可是,它字面上有教唆催促的意思。挑唆杀人不可取,要见血很可怕,本站完全不认同这一类言辞。为了畅所欲言,争论中出现这种言辞,只得照登。谨向读者表示万分谦意。

相关文章

1 2017830 叶德民: 《读〈豢养 温暖与惆怅〉》
2 201792 海凡: 《一点感想与意见》(包含编者说明)
3 201792 陈庆阳: 《无限上纲·证实·证伪——听 叶德民评海凡》
4 201794 海凡: 《我是谁?——对叶德民文章的回应》
5 201795 陈庆阳: 《小松鼠、苍蝇、战士》
6 201797 军武: 《我所知道的海凡》
7 201797 芝晴: 《似曾相识——读叶德民文章感想》
8 201798 李国樑: 《〈豢养 温暖与惆怅〉的文字竟然如此深奥?》
9 2017910 求实: 《剖析海凡的〈我是谁〉》
10 2017913 海凡: “为了求实——回应求实《剖析海凡的〈我是谁〉》”
11

2017913

远帆: 《我的一些疑惑》
12 2017914 勇民: 《“问心无愧”?》
13 2017917 王瑞荣: 《当不当一介平民随君意》
14 2017919 叶德民: 《回应 海凡及其同伙》
15 2017919 红梅: 《也谈海凡究竟是不是“叛徒”?》