人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(中英文对照)Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained林清祥被拘留是错误的!

 (附件:林清祥在当天演讲稿(中文翻译稿及英国政治部档案原件))

 作者:覃炳鑫博士  Dr. Thum Ping Tjin

Lim Chin Siong co-founded the People’s Action Party (PAP) in 1954 with Lee Kuan Yew. His intellect, leadership, and legendary oratory skills enabled him to organise the trade union movement and provide the organisational base for the PAP. He effectively championed the cause of the unemployed and the exploited workers of Singapore, and was wildly popular, winning the Bukit Timah constituency in the 1955 elections with an outright majority at the young age of 22. David Marshall recalled that Lee Kuan Yew introduced Lim Chin Siong to him as the person who would be Singapore’s next leader.

However, his promising political career was destroyed when he detained without trial by Lim Yew Hock’s government from 1956 to 1959, then again by Lee Kuan Yew’s government from 1963 to 1969.

For over five decades, the official government narrative of Singapore’s history has justified Lim Chin Siong’s detention by asserting that he was a communist who advocated violence and subversion.

One of the most concrete charges made against Lim Chin Siong was that he allegedly instigated riots on 25 and 26 October 1956. At a PAP-organised rally at Beauty World on 25 October to protest the government arrests of Chinese middle school students and civil society leaders, Lim supposedly worked up the restless crowd by urging them to “pah mata!” (beat the police). For this, he was arrested and detained without trial on 27 October. In the Legislative Assembly, then-Minister for Education Chew Swee Kee said:

 “It is significant to note that the Member for Bukit Timah (Lim Chin Siong) at that meeting said that instead of shouting ‘Merdeka’ the people should now shout, ‘Pah Mata’, which means ‘Beat the Police’. Is there any doubt whatsoever as to who sparked off the riots?”

Chew alleged that the crowd then drifted down Bukit Timah Road and clashed with police outside Chinese High School, sparking off the riot. This specific charge has since been repeated as fact.

Lim denied the charge all his life. The final occasion where he was recorded making such a denial was in the interview that he gave to Melanie Chew, published in her Leaders of Singapore (1996). Lim Chin Siong died in February of that year.

However, the question of whether Lim Chin Siong had indeed provoked the crowds to beat up the police can finally be settled conclusively. A transcript of Lim’s speech, recorded and translated into English by the Singapore Police, has been unearthed in the National Archives of the UK. Far from urging violence, Lim used humour to defuse the tension in the audience, and reminded them that the police were also employees and did not deserve their anger.

Background: State-sanctioned violence and repression in Singapore

After the Malayan Emergency was declared in 1948, Singapore was turned into a virtual police state where most forms of legitimate political activity were banned, where people could be searched, detained, and tortured for no reason, and the state routinely used repression and violence as tools of governance.

Preparing for decolonisation, in 1955 the British introduced a constitution which gave Singapore partial self-government. The new Chief Minister, David Marshall, revoked the Emergency Regulations and replaced them with the new but similar Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO). However, Marshall strove to ensure that the Ordinance was applied fairly.

When some labour activists were arrested in June 1955, the labour unions erupted in protests. Marshall pledged they would be brought to trial or released as soon as possible, and he was as good as his word. All but one was soon released. The last was tried in open court and found guilty of possessing proscribed documents.

This was a massive change from the previous eight years. Freed from fear of arbitrary violence and arrest, civil society activity took off, and Singapore politics became dynamic and vibrant. This alarmed the British. Since they had great difficulty finding evidence that the anti-colonial activities were illegal, they assumed anything which opposed them was subversive.

Marshall resigned in June 1956, when the British rejected his demand for complete internal self-government. Lim Yew Hock, who succeeded him as Chief Minister, was less principled. The British also put pressure on Lim Yew Hock, telling him that if he wanted progress on Singapore’s independence, he had to bring Singapore’s civil society under control.

The October 1956 riots

Lim Yew Hock and Special Branch formulated plans to dissolve various organisations which had been very active in anti-colonial activity. On 18 September 1956, the Chief Minister used the PPSO to dissolve several organisations and detained seven people, mostly from Chinese middle schools. This was greeted with massive public anger as a step backward from the freedoms enjoyed under Marshall, and an attack on the freedom of the people of Singapore. To the shock of Lim and the British, public anger was so strong that a Civil Rights Convention was quickly formed, bringing together not only a broad swath of organisations that transcended ideology, class, and ethnicity. Left and right-wing groups, Malay, Chinese, and Indian organisations, and white and blue collar trade unions all came together. Inadvertently, Lim Yew Hock was on the verge of creating a genuinely multiracial anti-colonial national front with himself as the common enemy.

To nip this in the bud, Lim sanctioned more and more rounds of arrests. Public anger mounted. By late October 1956, Singapore was a simmering cauldron of anger.

Meanwhile, the opposition PAP had been holding meetings to protest the detentions. At a meeting on 25 October 1956, at which Lee Kuan Yew, Toh Chin Chye and Devan Nair were present, Lim Chin Siong gave the speech as shown in the transcripts attached below. He reminded the audience that their target was Lim Yew Hock and the colonial masters of Singapore, not the police, who were only employees. The official transcript made by the police recorded:

 “With regard to police… they are all wage-earners and they are all here to attend this meeting to oppose Lim Yew Hock. (Loudest cheers of the meeting so far) We gladly welcome them, and the more of them that attend will make us even stronger. (crowd cheers wildly) A lot of people don’t want to shout Merdeka! They want to shout “pah mata”. This is wrong. We want to ask them to cooperate with us because they are also wage-earners and so that in the time of crisis they will take their guns and run away. (Laughter and cheers).”

 However, public anger was too strong. That same night, police and protestors clashed outside Chinese High School, and a riot broke out. It raged into the early morning. That morning, the police launched tear gas into Chinese High and Chung Cheng High Schools to clear out student protestors conducting a sit-in, and riots broke out again. This continued through the day.

Detention without trial

Lim Chin Siong was detained on 27 October. His speech formed a major part of the government’s explanation for the detention. In a cabinet meeting, the Council of Ministers resolved to bring Lim Chin Siong to trial if sufficient evidence could be found to convict him. However, he was never brought to trial, which suggests that Lim was innocent of the charges.

When Chew Swee Kee made his allegation in the Legislative Assembly, Lee Kuan Yew did not refute it. Subsequent accounts of the events, including John Drysdale’s Singapore: Struggle For Success; and Dennis Bloodworth’s The Tiger and the Trojan Horse, and most recently, Men in White by Sonny Yap, Richard Lim, and Leong Weng Kam (2009) all include the assertion that Lim’s speech incited the audience to violence.

The text of Lim’s speech has been unearthed from the Singapore Special Branch files recently declassified by the National Archives of the UK. We now know that the government deliberately misrepresented Lim Chin Siong’s speech. The Special Branch files show that Lim was framed. After the PAP came into power, it did not provide the opportunity for Lim to clear his name either.

Likewise, recent academic work (see here) has also proven that Lim’s later arrest and detention in 1963 was politically motivated. The Singapore government has never had any evidence that Lim was part of a communist conspiracy. Nor has any evidence been produced for hundreds of other political detainees who were detained under the PPSO and its successor, the Internal Security Act. Declassified Special Branch files reveal that they were merely engaged in legitimate political activities to bring freedom and independence to Singapore. Most were arrested simply because Special Branch was unable to tell the difference between peaceful constitutional anti-colonial struggle and communist subversion. In November 1956 alone, 163 people were preventatively detained – in other words, there was no evidence against them, but they were arrested just in case they were communist.

It remains an open question if any of the detentions over the last sixty years were justified. The Internal Security Act remains in operation today. To ensure that this Act has been used appropriately and responsibly, an open Commission of Inquiry into the detentions of Singapore’s political detainees is needed to set the facts straight once and for all. Only by learning the truth of our own collective past can we learn and grow as a nation.

林清祥演讲稿001     林清祥演讲稿002

林清祥演讲稿003    林清祥演讲稿004  林清祥演讲稿005


   林清祥被拘留是错误的!

林清祥和李光耀同时是新加坡人民行动党共同的发起人。他的才智、领导能力和传奇性的演讲技术是他能够组织职工会运动和提供了组织行动党的基础。他有效的支持新加坡的失业和被剥削的工人。他在22岁参于1955年的新加坡立法议会选举,并在武吉知马选区获得了广泛的支持成为最年轻的议员。马绍尔回顾当年李光耀介绍林清祥给他认识时说,这个人将会成为新加坡的另一个领袖。

无论如何,他那闪亮的政治事业前途在1956年到1959年被林有福政府和接下来在1963年到1969年被李光耀政府拘留所摧毁了。

在过去50年来,政府在官方叙述新加坡历史始终断定林清祥是一个一直鼓吹暴力和颠覆活动的共产党员以确定扣留林清祥的正当性。

对林清祥最严重的一项指责是他在1956年10月25日和26日煽动暴动。这是指他在1956年10月25日一个由行动党主办,在美世界举行的抗议(林有福)政府逮捕华校生和公民社会领袖集会上的演讲。他被指责使用‘打警察’(福建话:”pah mata!”)的语言鼓动愤怒的群众,造成1956年10月25日和26日的暴动。他就是在这个理由在1956年10月27日不经审讯下被捕。在立法议会上,当时的教育部长周瑞琪说:

“值得注意的是武吉知马区议员(林清祥)在那个集会上本应该高呼‘默地卡’”Merdeka”,马来语,即‘独立’的意思),他却高喊‘打警察’(福建话:”pah mata!”)。难道还要质疑他不是鼓动暴动吗?”

周瑞琪指责说,

“人群从武吉知马(7英里)涌向华侨中学(即武吉知马3英里),与在华侨中学外面的警察爆发冲突。”这样的刻意指责林清祥的罪证一直被当成事实不断的被重覆提出来。

林清祥自始至终断然否认这样的指责。他与 “Leaders of Singapore”(《新加坡领袖》) 一书的作者 Melanie Chew 进行最后一次的公开场合录音访谈时,他还是否认这样的指责。”Leaders of Singapore”(1996)的作者 Melanie Chew 在她的书中记录了这次访谈的内容。林清祥于1996年2月逝世。

到底林清祥是否真的有鼓动群众去打警察呢?无论如何,这个问题最后的结论终于水落石出了。一份记录林清祥(当时)演讲的记录文件在大英国家档案馆里揭开了这桩历史事件。这份演讲记录文件是由当时新加坡警察部队翻译成英文收藏在大英国家档案馆。文件证明,林不但没有鼓动暴力,反而是用风趣的语言以缓和当时在场群众的情绪。他告诉在场的群众,警察也是受薪阶层,不要把不满迁怒在警察身上。

 背景:新加坡国家制裁暴力和镇压

 在1948年马来亚宣布实施紧急法令后,新加坡实质上已经进入了警察国家。大部分的合法政治活动已经被禁止。在没有任何理由下许多人被搜查、扣留和迫害。使用镇压和暴力作为国家的一个统治工具。

为脱离英国殖民地而独立作准备,在1955年英国引进了一套让新加坡部份自治的宪法。新的首席部长大卫‧马绍尔,废除了紧急法令并以维护公共安全法令(PPSO)取而代之。当时,马绍尔强调,保证公平执行这条法令。

在1955年6月,当工运活动分子被捕时,工会爆发了抗议行动。马绍尔保证把这些被捕者提送法院起诉或尽快的释放他们。他确实是做到了。除了一位被捕者外,其余的被捕者都被释放了。最后那位被捕者在法院被公开起诉。他被起诉拥有被禁止的文件。

在过去8年出现了巨大的变化。人民已经不再恐惧肆意的暴力和逮捕、公民社会活动已经开始活跃起来。新加坡的政治开始有活力和充满生气。这使英国人感到惊慌。由于他们穷于找到证据以证明当时反对殖民地活动是非法的,他们只得假设任何反对活动都是属于颠覆性的。

当英国人拒绝他的要求完全内部自治政府时,马绍尔在1956年6月提出辞职。接替马绍尔职位成为首席部长的林有福,更加没有原则。英国人同样的对林有福施加压力。他们告诉林有福,如果他想要在新加坡独立谈判的问题上取得进展,他必须有效地控制新加坡的公民活动。

1956年10月的暴动

林有福和政治部制定了一套计划,解散各个积极反殖民地活动的团体。在1956年9月18日,首席部长引用维护公共安全法令(PPSO)解散了数个团体,并拘留了7个人。他们大多数是来自华校的中学生。林有福的这个行动引起了人们广泛的不满与愤怒!因为这与人们在马绍尔时期享有的自由相比是一种退步,同时是在侵犯人民的自由权利。公众强烈的愤怒与不满震撼了林有福和英国人!为此,他们迅速制定了一份公民权利公约(Civil Rights Convention)。这份公约的出现让广泛有组织的团体走在一起,超越了意识形态、阶级、族群。左翼和右翼集团,马来族、华族、印度族的组织和白领与蓝领的工会全部团结起来。林有福最终成了一个真正的多元种族、反对殖民地统治的统一战线的共同敌人。

林有福为了把这场政治运动处于萌芽时期就把它镇压下来,他发动了越来越多的逮捕行动。人民不满的怒火也越来越旺。在1956年10月,新加坡已经成为充满怒气的大气压锅!

在这段期间,反对党人民行动党举行了许多抗议逮捕行动的集会。在1956年10月25日举行的集会,李光耀、杜进才和帝凡那都出席了这个集会。林清祥在大会上发表了演说。这份演说讲稿就附在本文章里。他提醒了参与集会的群众,大家的目标是林有福以及殖民主义者,不是警察。警察只是受薪阶层。当时在场警方人员记录了这段讲话。

关于警方人员……他们都是受薪者。他们都是来这儿出席会议反对林有福的。(这是会议进行以来最长时间的欢呼声)我们热烈欢迎他们!他们越多人出席这个集会将会展现我们更加强大。(群众笑声四起)很多人不要高呼‘默的卡’!他们要高喊‘打警察’!这是错误的。我们需要他们与我们合作,因为他们也是受薪者。这样,在冲突发生时,他们会拿着枪跑掉。(欢笑鼓掌声)

无论如何。群众的愤怒情绪已经达到极点。在同一天晚上,警方与抗议群众在华侨中学校门外爆发冲突,接着在清晨演变成暴动。在那天早晨,警方向在华侨中学和中正中学发射了催泪弹以驱散在学校集中静坐抗议的学生!暴动又再一次爆发,并持续了一整天。

 不经审讯的扣留

 林清祥在当年的10月27日被捕了。他在26日的演讲成了当局逮捕他的理由的一部分。在内阁部长会议上,部长会议决定,假设可以找到充足的证据足于证明林清祥有罪,那就把林清祥提送法院起诉。无论如何,林清祥是无辜的,因为他始终没有被公开起诉。

当(教育部长)周瑞琪在立法议会提出对林清祥的指控时,李光耀并没有提出反驳。就是在这样的情况下,这事件(指林清祥说;‘打警察’)的结论就一直流传下来。这包括了后来的 John Drysdale 的 “Singapore: Struggle For Success”(《新加坡:为成功而斗争》);和 Dennis Bloodworth 的 “The Tiger and the Trojan Horse”(《老虎和木马》),和最近由叶添博、林耀辉和梁荣锦撰写的:《白衣人》(2009),都给林清祥在当时的讲话定了调!——鼓动集会群众采取暴力。

新加坡政治部的这份有关林清祥的演讲稿的资料最近已经被英国档案馆列为解密文件。我们现在知道了新加坡政府故意歪曲林清祥的讲话。新加坡政治部的档案说明了林清祥是被陷害的。在人民行动党取得政权后,他们并没有让林清祥在这件事件上获得平反。

同样的。最近学术研究者(请看这)也已经证明在1963年逮捕林清祥纯粹是一项政治动机。新加坡政府根本就没有任何证据证明林清祥与共产党有任何的同谋。同样的,也没有任何证据证明那数百名在维护公共安全法令和内部安全法令下被捕的政治拘留者及其后继者与共产党阴谋有关。

政治部的解密资料已经揭露了他们就是纯粹从事于合法与争取新加坡的自由和独立的政治活动。由于政治部无法区分和平宪法反对殖民主义的斗争与共产党的颠覆活动之间的差别。在1956年11月有163人在防止法令下被捕。这就是说,这些被捕者都是没有确凿证据的。他们的被捕只是以防万一他们是共产党。

时至今日,这仍然是一个公开的问题。60年前被逮捕的政治拘留者是否是正当的。内部安全法令至今还在执行着。为了确保这条法令是被适当和负责任的被引用,设立一个调查新加坡政治拘留者公开的听证会是必需的。这可以一劳永逸的说明事实。我们只有从学习到过去这个历史真相,我们才有可能共同成长为一个国家。

附件:

1954年10月25日新加坡人民行动党在新加坡武吉知马7英里美世界举办的一个集会上林清祥以福建话发言的演讲稿。(林清祥演讲实况录音来自英国档案馆大揭秘资料处.)(本文为中文翻译件。如本文与英文原件之间的文字或词句表达有不同之处,均以英文原件作为最终解释权。特此说明。)

现场记录全文如下:

(当大会司仪宣布林清祥是接下来的演讲者时,现场发出了热烈的掌声)

  1. 亲爱的叔叔们、阿姨们、兄弟姐妹们,从9月18日到今天超过20人已经在新加坡被捕和7个团体已经被解散。在9月18日有6个人被逮捕,其中一个被捕者是林振国。他是农民协会主席,各业工友联合会主席和马来亚黄梨工友联合会主席。另一个被捕者是陈玉兴。她是妇女联合会执委。还有一个被捕者是陈蒙鹤,她是妇女联合会主席。中正中学2位教师也同时被捕。另一个被捕者是陈广风,他在裕廊教书,也是教师联谊会主席。被捕人数一共是7个人,包括了上述6位被捕者和一位学生。前6位是在‘驱逐法令’下被捕等待被驱逐出境。中学生是在‘公安法令’下被捕。

在当天晚上有2个团体被解散,一个是妇女联合会、另一个是铜锣音乐会。这是什么理由?一个月已经过去了,林有福政府没有告诉我们。被解散的团体是触犯了那些条例?没有提出任何确凿的证据。逮捕行动后人民举行抗议集会,派了代表团去会见他并要求他解释这些人被捕的原因。他无法提供任何理由,只是说这是为了人民的利益。但是,大家都要知道林振国犯了什么罪!他在4岁时就离开中国到马来亚,今年41岁。在8岁时他就在黄梨厂工作。他在黄梨厂当了30年的工人。我相信很多兄弟姐妹们都认识他。他所做的一切就是在农民协会 为工会和工人服务。他并没有受过教育,他是文盲。他说话也不流利。他犯什么法?他并没有偷窃任何的鸡只!他也没有触犯任何抢劫行为。他也没持有任何枪械去伤害任何人!但是政府在没有任何理由下逮捕他并要把他驱逐出境!

  1. 另外一位被捕者是陈玉兴。她也将被驱逐出境。她是妇女联合会执委。她是在中国出世的。她出世后8个月还不会说话时,她母亲就把她从中国带到马来亚并住在新加坡至今。她现在是24岁。她妈妈是一位勤劳的小贩。她辛苦的赚取生计抚养她成长。她努力读书取得了文凭,并在20岁时成为一位教师。她也在妇女联合会工作过一段时间。就因为这个原因他们要驱逐她出境。现在她的母亲没有人照顾了。她到底犯了什么罪?政府无法说出来!

陈广风,大家都知道他只是对教书有兴趣吧了。他做了些什么事?他所作的事就是告诉政府不要压制华文教育。他就是在这个理由下被捕的。

妇女联合会主席到底做错了什么?她只是告诉政府今天新加坡有许多脱衣舞女郎,造成了许多年轻人每天都去观看脱衣舞表演。她告诉政府必须取缔禁止这些表演,否则将对青年人产生不良的影响。就是这个原因她被捕了。除此之外,没别的原因。妇女联合会也被政府禁掉了。这个组织到底触犯了什么条例?没有证据。

  1. 政府发动了逮捕和驱逐行动后,在9月18日说,‘政府是非常民主的’!他们所做的一切都是为了新加坡人民的利益!这些被捕者如果愿意的话,他们可以提出上诉。但是,大家都知道上诉是否能够取得成功?不会成功的。因为当我们提出上诉时,他们说这是不被允许的。什么理由?没有理由。我们反对驱逐,他们说不可以。9月18日的事件尚未解决时,在9月19日局势又发生变化。在9月24日,政府解散新加坡华校中学生联合会.学生会的负者人到底是在干什么?他们告诉学生们,学生来学校上课的目的就是读书——就是‘学习’!这样他们长大后就可以成为父母的财富。这样政府也不允许。就将他们给逮捕了。他们说读书和‘学习’是共产主义。因为在中国,共产党员的实践就是‘学习’。这是不是说,假如共产党吃米饭咱们就不可以吃米饭?这是不合理的。——这一切就是压迫!但是,当我们反对时,政府却不理会。

他们变本加厉,他们不仅解散了学生会,还逮捕了学生。当学生们手臂缠着黑布条时他们又不允许。他们一方面说自己是民主的,假设学生不同意的话可以抗议。当我们抗议时他们却不允许。当学生们手臂缠着黑布条时,他们也不同意并要逮捕学生。学生们要举行集会进行抗议时,他们说不可以。在9月30日,他们逮捕了中学联主席孙罗文。同时,他们也逮捕了我们的一位中央委员谢弈田。这些逮捕行动都是没有任何理由和证据的。

整个局势并没有改变,问题也没有解决。

在10月8日发生了突变事件。在8日晚上学生们举行集会。在10月9日,他们召见各校董事部委员,强迫董事部开除142名学生。他们说假设董事部委员会不按照他们的要求开除学生,他们将开始行动。

就在那天晚上,4位学生被捕。在这样的情况下,中正中学和华侨中学的学生们别无选择,只好进行集中。他们至今已经集中了15天。在这段期间,人民举行各种抗议行动。这一切抗议行动都是和平和合理的。他们并没有采取压制性的形式。我们没有拿起武器、石块。我们仅仅要求的就是要政府告诉我们逮捕学生们的理由,提出学生们犯罪的证据。他们并没有犯偷窃、他们并没有偷窃鸡只。假设政府有证据,那我们无话可说。但是,政府并没有提出任何证据。他们的回应就是继续迫害。

今天他们继续迫害我们。

昨晚,政府又逮捕了4位人士。其中一位是裕廊洛阳学校的校长。他也是小学教师联谊会的副主席。另外一位是铜锣音乐会的执委。还有一位是“时代报”的编辑。还有其他许多人被捕,我无法记住他们的名字。

  1. 他们也解散了4个团体——其中一个是‘家长联谊会’。其他的团体是:艺术团体,小学教师联谊会和中正中学校友会。与此同时,昨天晚上他们颁布了一道命令,要在中正中学和华侨中学集中的学生必须在晚间8时前解散,否则,他们将开始使用武力驱散。你们大家都知道,在昨天晚上警方已经在中正中学和华侨中学门口外驻扎。

在当前的局势下,已经有许多警察到了那里、水喉管柱也已经送到哪儿。他们将使用强力水管柱对付学生们。假设学生们不在晚上8点前解散,他们将使用武力。

使用武力去迫害学生们!学生们到底犯了什么罪?政府完全无法提供任何理由来说明他们采取的行动。为什么林有福政府要采取这样的行动?大家知道,这是最无理的和最暴虐的迫害。林有福今天的这种行为已经说明他是英国人(红毛人ANG MOH LANG)的走狗。

他说,他要独立、自由和民主!他是否理解人民所要的真正独立?人民要求的是赶走英国人!但是,林有福并没有研究如何赶走英国人!他没有找出人民真正的要求!在没有人民的支持下他如何赶走英国人?他不是在人民的支持下与其他政党一道反对英国殖民者,他却去寻求英国人的支持!

几个月前。他说,各政党联席会议,其实这全是虚假的。在他从伦敦回来后他并没有急着和所有政党商讨如何与英国殖民者进行斗争!他也没有询问人民如何一道与英国殖民者进行斗争!反过来,他去寻求英国殖民者的援助来对付人民!

9月18日到现在,已经超过一个月了!他所做的就是逮捕人民、解散团体,镇压再镇压。这一切已经清楚说明了他已经被英国殖民者所收买了!他为什么不要协助人民呢?那是因为他并没有把人民的利益放在心坎里。

林有福早期的历史是什么?

林有福早期是在劳工部。他鼓励工人罢工,但是在背后却接受雇主的金钱。他镇压工人!他逮捕工人!现在他已经成为首席部长了!他仍然使用同一伎俩!他清楚知道,即使他是首席部长,他也不会得到人民的支持!自从他当上首席部长他啥事都没干!他所做的就是给自己买了一部新。对于人民,他啥事都没做!所以,现在他恐惧未来人民不会为他效劳。他知道,再过两年将再举行另一次的普选,他将不可能再成为首席部长,所以他现在只能求助于英国殖民者,并使用英国殖民者赋予的权力去镇压进步团体!这样,当普选来临时他将没有竞争对手!没有人将会出来参与普选反对他!因为他认为这是他唯一的目标——他个人的利益!——那就是想着那区区的一个月几千元的薪金!——他已经和英国殖民者联手镇压人民了!他已经完全忘记了人民!

亲爱的朋友们,我们必须坚定不移!我们不必对高压水柱感到恐惧!这是毫无意义的!林有福现在只是在为自己着想!由于他一心想要当上首席部长他必然要寻求英国殖民者的支持。我们已经知道,因为在他寻求英国殖民者的支持下,英国殖民者已经和他达致协议。

  1. 英国殖民者一定告诉他,马绍尔已经失败了!如果他想要成功那就一定要解散所有进步团体和逮捕所有的华人!如果他这么做,他们将会给予他一点小好处。

在一个月内,他发动了逮捕行动后就去英国。英国人与他密谋给予他获得独立或者确定在明年或后年独立的日期。因此,大家都在谈论有关独立的问题而忘记了那些被捕者。大家将会认为他是一个非常能干的人。这样人们就会认为他的逮捕行动不是一个错误的行动。这样一来,人民都会同意他将会从英国殖民者哪儿取得独立。这样大家都会同意,当普选到来时他不但可以担任首席部长。而且可以把他当成是勇士。或者,他的薪金将从4000元提升到6000元。

这就是为什么林有福现在遵照英国殖民者的指示去执行任务。

我们今天可以清楚的看到他利用英国殖民者赋予的权力去镇压人民!我们可以看到整个问题将不会有任何改变了!他将不会改变他的政策!他将继续采取镇压手段。他已经忘记了人民。他所做的就是要满足英国殖民者的要求。

人民将会如何想?人民将会这么想:现在进行抗议有用吗?——答案是:没用!尽管我们继续抗议,但是,他将继续镇压。他继续发动逮捕和解散行动。自从昨晚,他已经逮捕了4个人和解散了4个团体。今晚他将殴打学生。所以,我们举行抗议有用吗?

但是,各位,今天我们不应想象林有福是非常强大的!是的。他拥有权力,但是,这种权力不会是永久的。他是依靠警察、军队、机关枪、飞机和监牢。这一切都不要紧!——他能够依赖这些东西多久?他能够维持多久?让他现在继续逮捕行动!让他继续驱逐!让他继续解散工会!他这样又能够持续多久?

这是不是第一次发生在马来亚的事?不是!在10年前英国殖民者已经做过这样的事了!在1948年,英国殖民者已经做过同样的事情!实际上是比这还要严重!

在1948年6月20日天亮前,英国人解散了所有的工会!在全马逮捕了超过1万人。但是,从1948年到1954年,近8年的时间,人民发动了一次又一次的反抗,最终英国殖民者静悄悄的让我们享有民选政府选举权力。

假设英国人是无能的,林有福又能够帮忙英国人做什么?现在他有警察可以依靠、他有军队可以依靠、他有监牢可以依靠——但是,在新加坡有多少监牢?他们可以逮捕多少人?障宜监牢最多只能关500多人;中央警察局或‘四排坡’——500人;圣约翰岛(ST。ISLAND)——500人。将会有超过1万人,他还可以关进去的地方。他还可以再逮捕多少人?(鼓掌)因此,他是无法镇压我们人民的。假设他逮捕1个人,将会有100人代替他。假设他逮捕100人,将会有1000人代替他们!他不可能逮捕全部的人。他的政权能够维持多久?我们就说是10年吧!但是,他不可能占据在这个权力位置上10年!我们根本就不知道他是否可能住在这儿。(鼓掌)

在当前的环境下,没有民主,所以,人民高喊要民主。为此,需要一场普选,不管发生什么情况,到了1959年必须举行大选。为此,让他在1959年的大选时取得胜利,——让他再担任首席部长4年或6年。在这6年过后,他还有机会继续留在首席部长的职位上吗?没有机会了!所以,最终是把他打倒!这是非常清楚的。

让他继续掌权多6年,让每个人都关进监牢!但是,他们将会继续‘学习’!他们将会更加有力量的反对他!(鼓掌)因此,逮捕是没有作用的!驱逐——他可以驱逐多少人?大多数人是本地出生的。他如何驱逐他们?他能做的是:把他们从大坡驱逐到小坡。(笑声)不管他如何驱逐这些人,他们最终还是被驱逐在新加坡。(更多的笑声)这是没用的!

他依靠警察,依靠英国人,但是他能够依靠英国人多久?

在第二次世界大战前,英国人是强大的!大家看到英国人,‘敬礼 先生’然后鞠躬.但是,现在当他们看到英国人,他们就不断的吐口水(鼓掌——欢呼)(群众情绪高昂)今天,英国人在马来亚是一条狗。但是,这不只是在马来亚——在其他国家也是一样!例如在埃及,他们被埃及人民打得夹着尾巴下台。(群众继续欢呼)在印度,英国人被印度人民赶走。在塞普鲁斯,赛普鲁斯人民反对他们,他们什么也做不了!在非洲,非洲人民起来反对他们,他们也是什么是都做不了!在英国国内,英国工人也起来反对他们!所以,林有福可以依靠英国人多久?

那些依靠英国人和美国人的人最终将会沉入大海!

蒋介石在中国的时候拥有千万的军队。他拥有美国人的机关枪和大炮。他获得美国人的支持去镇压中国人民。现在他不得不静悄悄的跑到台湾去。

林有福现在与英国人和美国人在一块儿又能够做些什么?林有福和蒋介石根本就无法相比!林有福根本就比不上蒋介石的一根毛!(群众欢呼)所以,林有福可以依靠英国人多久?当英国人跑了,林有福要去哪儿?

在新加坡可没有一个台湾岛——他唯一能够逃离躲避的地方就是大海!(群众欢呼)

关于警方人员。他们是警察兄弟、警探兄弟(暗探)和警长。他们都是受薪者。他们都是来这儿出席会议反对林有福的。(这是会议进以来最长时间的欢呼声)我们热烈欢迎他们!他们越多人出席这个集会将会是我们展现更加强大的力量。(群众笑声四起)

很多人不要高呼‘默的卡’!他们要高喊‘打警察’!这是错误的。我们需要他们与我们合作,因为他们也是受薪者。这样,在冲突发生时,他们会拿着枪跑掉。(欢笑鼓掌声)

所以,林有福不依靠群众反而要依靠立法议会里的人。但是,出席立法议会的人不超过10个人。他们都是部长。他们可以集合在一块儿,但是,一旦他们无法取得部长职位时他们就会内部起哄!他们是在偷窃、逮捕和敛财, 如果他们不把这些钱拿出来平分,可以肯定将出现内斗!

例如马绍尔的事件。

他们现在要强迫马绍尔支持政府,但是,马绍尔说他需要考虑。现在,他们在一起集会可以合作,但是,一旦吵架他们的集会就失败了!现在,金钱是背后最大的力量!每个人都感到害怕!

我们不需要害怕林有福。他不会太久了。让他来对付我们、逮捕我们、驱逐我们!这已经不是第一次了!同样的事情已经在马来亚发生了!那是在1948年发生的。日本人侵略时情况更加恶劣!很多兄弟姐妹被日本人屠杀!但是,现在日本人去哪儿了?日本人已经静悄悄的溜回他们自己的国家了!

所以,压迫人民的人是不会长久的!所以,我们不应该因为他们的行动而感到害怕!假设你感到害怕。你将会是错误的!我们必须团结在一起!我们要告诉林有福政府,我们要独立!独立并不意味着对付人民!独立就是要你去和英国人进行斗争并把他们赶出这里!(群众高声欢呼)假如林有福要继续镇压人民,我们会告诉他,人民会把它和英国人一块儿赶走!(群众大声欢呼)

在此,我们警告林有福政府,今天他已经成为英国人的走狗了!尽管他承诺要取消紧急法令等等,但是,这些都是空话,他没有兑现承诺!所以,他已经没有资格代表人民了!这就是说,这个政府已经完蛋了!这个政府已经死亡了!我们要他立即解散政府!假设他说,自己不是英国人的走狗,那么,他就重新举行选举,看看人民支持他吗?(群众欢呼)我们要警告他,假设他使用武力对付学生,我们新加坡人民将不会袖手旁观!

  1. 在此,我呼吁兄弟姐妹们,我们必须尽快团结起来!

在今晚将可能发生一些事情!

兄弟姐妹们,假如我们的孩子被袭击,我们将不会袖手旁观!所以我们必须团结起来,密切监视政府的行动!

兄弟姐妹们,叔叔阿姨们,不要悲痛!我们必须去告诉我们的邻居,林有福政府是一个坏政府,所以我们必须一直反对林有福政府!

这是一个什么样的政府?

我们必须想方设法把这个镇压人民的政府赶下台直到实现我们的目标!

只要我们大家能够团结在一起,我相信,不论这个政府如何暴虐,它都会被打倒!

所以我希望你们不要太过失望,尽快团结起来!

工人团结起来!

农民团结起来!

我们必须采取一些行动回击政府的行动!

我的讲话就到此结束!

(注:到了晚上7点,群众大会结束。在大会结束前林清祥告诉大家在9月27日在武吉班让村将举行同样性质的集会,希望大家都出席这个集会。最后,林清祥要求大家一起高呼:三声:‘默的卡’)

林清祥演讲稿001    林清祥演讲稿002

林清祥演讲稿003  林清祥演讲稿004

林清祥演讲稿005

 

Advertisements


留下评论

回归正题:撰写新国历史的责任Back to the basics: The responsibilities of history

【http://sahabatrakyatmy.blogspot.sg/编者按:应作者要求先行贴出英文文稿;作者征求自愿工作者翻译成为华文,有意协助者,请联系mminimyna@gmail.com。】(9月26日更新:华文译文已经于9月26日贴出)

原文作者:Hong Lysa孔莉莎 / 中文译者:伍德南

我欢迎《人民之友》主动以专题形式贴出最近发表的有关新加坡“五一三学生运动”的系列文章,让读者们得以进一步评审各作者所言。

不过,凡事应当适可而止。

陈剑(以下以“该作者”代称)在其题为《五一三学运的历史不容歪曲》文章中称我为“自我任命为左翼学术发言人”,同时也是否认马共在这一场学生运动中扮演的角色的某一帮人的喉舌。

我很荣幸,有缘曾经跟几位在上世纪50年代和60年代初活跃于政坛的人士合作、编辑,迄今出版了两本书,这不是什么秘密。我无比尊敬这几位男士和女士的廉直、坚韧不拔精神和智慧。他们根本不需要别人替他们说话。他们能够坚定而明确地表达自己的意见。

我并不自认是左翼的学术代言人。我的目的是,以一名历史学者的身份来检视官方历史,或已称谓的“新加坡的故事”, 或更准确地说,是“人民行动党故事“。这部故事具有无上权威,它蒙蔽了我国民众对新加坡的过去和现在的了解。历史课本教导的是,人民行动党击垮了共产党破坏势力,挽救了新加坡。它断言共产党人不断颠覆宪政体制、破坏社会,以便建立一个在其领导人独裁统治下的压迫性制度。因此,为了国家安全,必须援引公安法令拘留马共份子。共产党控制的工会发动罢工,不是为了改善工人的待遇,而是向资方提出过分要求,借以破坏经济;华校中学生被洗脑、操控,深信不疑地服从一切,正如他们在”五一三事件“以及福利巴士工潮引发的暴动中的所作所为。他们不会自己思考。Dennis Bloodworth在其《老虎与特洛伊木马》(The Tiger and the Trojan Horse, 1986)一书中,最最拙劣地阐述这一段历史。据我所知,新加坡人有二十多年的时间都无从普遍涉猎另类叙述的资讯。

所以,当该作者的文章于2014年5月13日在《联合早报》上一出现,说什么1954年5月13日事件(“五一三事件“)是由马共策划和领导的,并简介该党的组织结构、各级小组负责人的名字,我就认为应当作出回应。该文要是发表于其他地方,我才懒得理呢。

2014年5月13日,在过了大半个世纪后的第一次大规模纪念活动当天,在《联合早报》著文论述有关马共在“五一三事件“和反殖运动中的领导地位,日子或场合皆不适宜。一般读者对马共是什么,对有关华文教育的华校课题、华校中学生的世界观等,都一无所知。他们得出的结论必然是,《联合早报》刊载的这篇亲共文章承认马共在背后操控学生;而在福利巴士罢工事件中,他们是暴行和暴动的幕后鼓动者。

我认为,《联合早报》刊载的该文,在帮助新加坡人了解我国历史方面,存在负面影响。我也认为,该报是刻意在当天发表这样一篇文章。我没说该作者是代言人。我并不知道一个人要被认定为代言人,需要具备什么素质;同时,我也没格外的兴趣对此追根究底。在标志性日子当天,报章发表的一篇亲共文章跟人民行动党对同一事情有同样说法,两个针锋相对的立场 ——马共历史和行动党历史 ,竟然出奇的不谋而合。如果我说该作者是没有觉察到这一“巧合“,他是否会更乐意听到这样的说法?

该作者声称,今天的新加坡已经改变了、更加开放了,因而《联合早报》便能够刊载正当评价马共在反殖运动中的作用的文章。这种开放是否也意谓该报也可以刊登批评人民行动党版历史的文章,批评该党惯用的伎俩,给学生贴上无知之辈的标签,把他们描绘成不懂思考的、危险的闹事者,完全被马共控制?尽管英国情报局的文件披露,没有掌握证据可证明骚乱和暴乱发展的每一步骤,都是马共策划和鼓动的(见覃炳鑫博士引述文件:编号CSO.DSF.00516/54, 9 June 1954, CO 1030/360),然而,殖民地当局从来没有停止发布公开声明,指控共产党人在“五一三事件“和福利巴士工潮暴动事件背后,鼓动暴乱,破坏经济和社会。当今的新加坡政府的行为到底有没有超越此界?

要让新加坡人从更多方面、以开明的史观了解马共及其成员,须让他们取得关于该党的更多方面和开明的史志。对各级组织关系图表及其英雄和烈士的牺牲事迹作刻板的偶像化的传记式叙述,把英雄和烈士制作成个个雷同的纸板式人物,这不足以激发《早联合报》读者的兴趣,促使他们了解战后新加坡殖民地中学生的生活领域。

当该作者告诉《联合早报》读者,马共对新加坡的一大成就或贡献是,该党为人民行动党政府培养了一位部长,若是,肯定在某方面是大有问题的。该作者在其后续一篇文章详述这一点:前马共党员易润堂于1963年出任劳工部长,续任行动党部长直至1980年。而最“荣耀的”莫过于前马共党员蒂凡那,他当过新加坡总统。三声欢呼马来亚共产党!或应当是三声欢呼人民行动党?肯定不可能一起欢呼这两个党。

易润堂已向李光耀坦承自己是马共党员,已经背弃共产主义。他身为劳工部长的任务是“改造已被共产党人接管的工会”;这是读者搜索国家图书馆局关于“新加坡历史、社会与文化“网站《Infopedia》时,点击“Jek Yuen Thong“(易润堂)词条能读到的。

至于蒂凡那,他对人民行动党历史的最大贡献,可以这么说:凭借着他的前共产党员身份而对共产党如何运作,了如指掌。因此,他便告诉世人,他和朋友们号召罢工,仅仅是为了坚持政治鼓动。左翼工会领袖利用工人,他们在跟资方谈判时,故意蛮不讲理,每当谈判将近达致协议时,又提出更多利益要求。工人们在他们领导下,展开经常性和持久性的罢工,结果丧失了薪资和工作。

今年新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院院长、兼任通讯与新闻部属下政府通讯组主任詹纳达斯•蒂凡(Janadas Devan)在谈论“动荡的日子”(Days of Rage)的系列电视纪录片,一再重复这一宣传资讯;詹纳达斯•蒂凡是蒂凡那的儿子。

易润堂和蒂凡那都是前马共党员,他们作为人民行动党政府的成员,其任务是为了要摧毁马来亚共产党和左翼运动 特别是社会主义阵线,公然引以为傲地一路为此工作,并登上高官位。

研究马共的历史学者应当会给马共更好的评价,而不是因培养像他们这两位的一样人而受褒奖和尊崇。

我谨敦促那些有意向年轻一代讲述马共事迹的人(我本人无意也无能为力)要明白,他们务必要重新确定方向;对把马共和左翼视为敌人、认为誓必将之消灭的人士和组织,必须纠正对他们的看法。必须深刻反省,要用何种具体的词语来解说马来亚共产党所担当的历史任务,远非仅是以“反对殖民主义“一词带过。人民行动党的李光耀派系如何利用“反对殖民主义“?为什么马共要全力以赴,让李光耀认定他已得到他们的全力支持,直到1961年中期?当时,李光耀已在着手对付左翼,于1957年在伦敦举行第二次宪制谈判时,情况尤其明显。每当我们在这些事例中提到”马共“,我们意谓什么?谁做的决定?如何达致决定?两位负责新加坡事务的马共最高领导,已经写下回忆录,但情况依旧没有彻底搞清楚。

华校中学生、左翼工会和乡村协会负责人惨遭不经审讯的拘禁和驱逐出境,人民行动党的宣传机器仍在不断诬蔑他们为盲从者、颠覆份子和邪恶者。那些居住在新加坡、被贴上“共产党“标签的人,遭遇国家对他们的压迫,选择埋没自己的过往,是可以理解的;另一些人则选择跟自己的过去一刀两断,过完全的新生活。

五一三事件60周年纪念庆祝会之所以得以举办, 并非单纯因为政府当今的开放和宽容。能够汇聚傲然自认是前左翼人士和前学生活跃分子的数百人到会,能够安排林福坤到场致词,这实际上是个标志性时刻,是经历多年坚定而谨慎的迈步才得以实现的。记得在2006年,内政部明白表示和语带恐吓地宣布,前政治被扣者不得撰写历史。

左翼在争权的政治斗争中,已告失败。但是,争取赢得历史之战的斗争,才刚刚开始,尽管在时间上颇为晚了些。

此非其时,不应让公众目睹宗派斗争、深仇大恨的争执、怀恨报复性的谩骂,这显然是荒谬可笑的、扭曲事实的和不负责任的举止,看来仅仅是为了赢得一场辩论。

现在是那个历史时代的参与者有机会倾诉他们的生活经历的时候了,把他们的事迹留下来,供新加坡人看看,将他们描绘成无知之辈的形象,是多么的虚假。

我还是认为,这就是贺巾在其文学著作中所表达者。读者们欣赏他的著作,并不在于要知道他属于马共的哪一个派系,或是书中的某个角色在现实生活中是谁,而在于深入了解他所叙述一个中学生在那个充满政治激情年代的生活。

有一位精通双语的新加坡青年博士研究生正在研究贺巾的著作,作为撰写新、马文学博士论文的部分题材。贺巾的小说,并非贵在呈现历史或关于马共的“真相”,而是贵在“为人生而艺术”引人入胜的叙述。贺巾在1950年代学生时期撰写的短篇小说,就是遵循这种马华文学形式展开的。他描写同为森林中同志的普通士兵生活的短篇小说,极好地让人深入了解那些男女所经历的深厚友情、失望、日常战斗和精神上的小胜利等。这些小说内容,都是真实生活的写照。贺巾的短篇小说集和《巨浪》都是1989 “合艾和平协议“放下武器的十年后出版的。

跟易润堂和蒂凡那不同,贺巾对自己的马共党员身份,依然感到自豪。

要写出具有意义的新加坡战后历史,必须了解当今历史著作对政治实况的现实意义。仅有现居新加坡的少数几位遭遇“冷藏行动“以及1960年代和1970年代的其他逮捕行动的前政治被扣者,愿意书写自己的经历;而在这少数几位当中,没有一位是共产党员。这并非意谓否认共产党员在1960年代初的事件中所扮演的角色。而是说,只有那些不是共产党成员的人,或不愿表露党员身份者或不愿表露跟党有任何关系的人,才愿意书写。

人们或许会对此感到失望,但是今天任何人都无权谴责他们,或是“揭示“他人的马共党员身份,无论是还活着的或是已逝世的。

这样做是低估或无视人民行动党依旧是在新加坡执政的唯一政党的现实。就在几天前,新加坡政府基于安全理由,宣布禁止在新加坡公映一部由新加坡人摄制的得奖纪录片,内容是有关新加坡的政治流亡者,其中有马共党员。

没有牢固地建立起正当的历史本来事迹的做法,只能是替人民行动党版的故事涂脂抹粉。

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

这是我的最后评论文章,除非出现需要进行建设性辩论的实质事项。对其他性质的课题,我让读者们从阅读《人民之友》博客网站集结的文章中,自行总结。

I welcome Sahabat Rakyat’s initiative in grouping the set of recent essays on the May 13 movement in Singapore. It allows readers to assess further what the authors are saying.

But enough is enough.

CC Chin (hereafter, the author) in his essay ‘ The history of the May 13 student movement cannot allowed to be distorted’ has called me the ‘self-appointed academic spokesperson for the left’, and also a mouthpiece for a certain group who deny the role of the MCP in the student movement.

It is no secret that I have had the privilege of working with some members of the left who were politically active in the 1950s and early 1960s to produce two edited books so far. They are men and women whom I respect tremendously for their integrity, steadfastness and intelligence. They have no need of people to speak for them. They speak firmly and clearly for themselves.

I do not see myself as an academic spokesperson for the left. My aim as a historian is to examine the establishment history, or what has come to be called ‘The Singapore Story’ or more accurately, ‘PAP Story’. This history has enormous power over the way our citizenry understands Singapore’s past and present. The history textbooks teach that the PAP saved Singapore from the destructive forces of the communist party. It asserts that the communists were subverting the constitutional system, and destroying society to achieve a backward system of oppressive dictatorship by its leaders. MCP members thus had to be detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for the security of the country. The communist-controlled unions launched strikes not to get better terms for the workers, but to destroy the economy by making excessive demands from the employers, and Chinese middle school students are brainwashed and programmed to obey the party without question, as they did in the May 13 event, and the Hock Lee riots. They do not have a mind of their own. The book that expounds this version of history most crudely is Dennis Bloodworth, Tiger and the Trojan Horse (1986). As far as I know, there was no widely available alternative to it available to Singaporeans for more than twenty years.

Therefore, when the author’s essay was published in Lianhe Zaobao on May 13 2014 stating that the May 13 1954 event was planned and led by the MCP, and outlining the structure of the party’s organization chart with the names of the leaders at the various committee levels, I felt that there had to be a response to it. If the essay was published anywhere else, I would really not have bothered.

May 13 2014, the day of its first large-scale commemoration in almost half a century, and Lianhe Zaobao is not the occasion or place to present an argument about the leadership of the MCP in the May 13 event and anti-colonial movement. The general reader does not have the exposure to what the MCP was, to the issues relating to Chinese education and schools, to the world view of the middle school students. All they will conclude is that the pro-MCP article in Zaobao admits that the MCP is in the background manipulating the students, and in the case of the Hock Lee labour strike, behind the violence and the riots.

I maintain that the newspaper article has a negative impact on helping Singaporeans to understand our history. I also maintain that Lianhe Zaobao was meant to publish such an essay on that day. I did not suggest that the author is an agent. I do not know what qualities one needs to be accepted as an agent, and have no particular interest to pursue such a line of inquiry. I am not sure if the author would really prefer if I had suggested that he was not aware of the ‘co-incidence’ of a pro-MCP newspaper article saying the same thing as a PAP one published on that landmark day—an amazing confluence of what has to be opposing positions—MCP and PAP history.

The author claims that Singapore today has changed; there is greater openness, and Zaobao would publish an article giving due credit to the MCP in the anti-colonial movement as a matter of course. Would the openness also mean the newspaper would have published an essay criticizing PAP history for putting one-dimensional labels on the students, and portraying them as mindless, dangerous rabble completely controlled by the MCP, as they have consistently done? Even when British intelligence documents reveal that that they could not find evidence that the disturbance and violence was planned and instigated every step of the way by the MCP, (as in the document CSO.DSF.00516/54, 9 June 1954, CO 1030/360, cited by historian Thum Ping Tjin) it did not stop the colonial authorities from making public statements that the communists were behind May 13, and the Hock Lee riots, of using mob violence to undermine the economy and society. Has the Singapore government moved beyond that at all?

For Singaporeans to have a more complex and open-minded historical understanding of the MCP and its members, they would need to have more complex and open-minded historical writings on the Party. A static, structural hagiographic account of organization charts, of the sacrifices of its heroes and martyrs who have been all made to be identical cardboard figures is not enough to stimulate the interest and understanding of the Zaobao reader on the world of the middle school students in postwar colonial Singapore.

And when the author tells Zaobao readers that it is a great MCP achievement or contribution to Singapore that it has produced a minister in the PAP government, then definitely something is very wrong. This point was elaborated in the follow-up essay: Ex-MCP member Jek Yuen Thong became the minister of labour in 1963 and was a PAP minister till 1980. And the most ‘glorious’ of all is ex-MCP member Devan Nair, who was president of the Singapore. Three cheers, MCP! Or should it be three cheers, PAP? It cannot be both, surely.

Jek Yuen Thong had confessed to Lee Kuan Yew that he was a MCP member, and that he had rejected communism. He was appointed minister of labour in 1963. His job was ‘to reform the labour unions that had been taken over by the communists’ , This is what readers who google ‘Jek Yuen Thong’ will find in Infopedia, the National Library Board’s information site on Singapore history, society and culture.

As for Devan Nair, his greatest contribution to PAP history is to say that he knew the communists, as he had been one of them. And so he could tell the world that he and his friends called strikes just to keep up the political agitation. The left-wing union leaders made use of the workers. They were intentionally unreasonable in negotiations with employers, demanding more each time an agreement was about to be reached. The workers were led into holding frequent and prolonged strikes, and they suffered from the loss of salary and employment.

This propaganda was repeated this year in the television documentary series Days of Rage by Janadas Devan, the director of the Institute of Policy Studies which is part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, and Chief of Government Communications at the Ministry of Communication and Information. Janadas is the son of Devan Nair.

Jek Yuen Thong and Devan Nair were former MCP members who had openly and proudly worked to destroy the MCP and the left-wing movement as part of the PAP government, and gained high office.

The MCP deserves much better from its historians than to be credited for producing men like them.

I would urge that those concerned with presenting the MCP for the younger generation to understand (I myself have no interest or ability to do this) that it is imperative that they re-set the compass. There is the need to re-look what they are saying of the people and the organization that treated the MCP and the left wing as the enemy that needed to be eliminated. There is the need to reflect deeply on how to explain the historical role of the MCP in concrete terms, beyond just one word: ‘anti-colonialism’. How was ‘anti-colonialism’ made use of by the Lee Kuan Yew faction of the PAP? Why did the MCP go out of its way to convince him that he had their complete support, right up to mid-1961? Lee was already making moves against the left especially clearly in the second constitutional talks in London, in 1957. And what do we mean when we say ‘MCP’ in these instances? Who made the decisions? How were the decisions arrived at? The two highest-ranking MCP leaders in charge of Singapore have written their memoirs, but the issues have not been thoroughly addressed.

The Chinese middle school students and the leftwing labour union and rural association leaders have suffered from detention without trial and banishment, and continue to be vilified in PAP propaganda as mindless, subversive and evil. For the most part of their lives those in Singapore who were labeled ‘communist’ have understandably chosen to bury their past, given the state oppression against the; others have chosen to cut off their past, and lead a completely new life.

The 60th anniversary celebrations did not happen simply because the government is now open and tolerant. To have hundreds turn up to be proudly identified as former leftists and student activists, to have Lim Hock Koon deliver the speech is indeed a landmark moment. It took years of determined but cautious steps to bring about. In 2006 that the ministry of home affairs had said plainly and menacingly announced that ex- political detainees will not be permitted to write history.

The narrow political struggle for power has been lost by the left, and it is over. But the struggle to win the history war is only beginning, even though it may be rather late in the day.

This is not the time for the public to witness factional fighting, vendettas, vindictiveness no matter how ludicrous, twisted and irresponsible, just to appear to win an argument.

It is the opportunity for those involved in the historical era to reflect on their life and times, and to leave their accounts so that Singaporeans can see just how false the picture of them as one-dimensional people is.

I maintain that this is what He Jin has done in his literary writings. Readers will appreciate his works not for revealing which faction of the MCP he belonged to, or who a particular character is in real life, but for the insights he gives into the life of a particular middle-school student in those politically-defining times.

A young and effectively bilingual Singaporean is studying his works as part of his doctoral thesis on Singapore/Malayan literature. His stories are valued not as ‘the truth’ about History or about the MCP, but as compelling ‘art for life’ narratives. He Jin’s short stories written in the 1950s when he was a student was pioneering as this form of Malayan literature in Chinese. His short stories written about the lives of the ordinary foot-soldiers who were his comrades in the jungle gives an unrivalled insight into the deep friendships, the disappointments, the daily struggles, the little triumphs of the spirit that the men and women lived through. The stories are about life. Like Ju Lang they were published only after the laying down of arms with the Hadyai Peace Agreement.

Unlike Jek Yuen Thong and Devan Nair, He Jin remains proud of being an MCP member.

The understanding of the MCP’s role in the Singapore anti-colonial movement would be enhanced by participants leaving their testimonies. They should not remain strangers to posterity—with only their names and their high position in the party committees on record. We would benefit greatly from analyses of the course their life took, the decisions they made, the trials and tribulations they faced. There is need for as many accounts as possible, including thoughtful individual narratives which help us understand the narrator, even if that is only how they wish to be seen. The point is not to judge him or her, but to break out of the uniform and lifeless picture that they are imprisoned in by accounts written by the MCP and by the PAP frameworks.

It is not possible to write on the history of postwar Singapore meaningfully without understanding the political context and implications that the writings would have today. Only a handful of former political detainees from Operation Coldstore and other operations in the 1960s and 1970s who live in Singapore are willing to write, and of this handful, none of them who are members of the communist party have said so openly. This does not mean that there is a denial of the role of communist members in the events of the early 1960s. It means that only those who are not members of the communist party, or who do not touch on their party membership or links are ready to write.

One can perhaps be disappointed, but no one today has the right to condemn them, or to ‘expose’ others, living or deceased as CPM members. To do so is only to underestimate or ignore the fact that the PAP has been the only party in power in Singapore. It was only a few days ago that the government has prohibited the public screening of a documentary by an award-winning Singaporean film-maker on political exiles in Singapore on grounds of national security. To do so without the proper context being firmly established is to embellish the PAP story.

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

This is my final comment, unless there are substantive matters to be debated constructively. I leave all other types of issues to readers to come to their conclusions from reading the essays compiled in the Sahabat Rakyat blogsite.


一条评论

纪念1954年5月13日新加坡华校中学生反对英殖民主义者强征兵役在皇家山脚下举行和平请愿60周年

代柬:

002

001

有意参加这个纪念会的网友请按请柬与主办单位联系。谢谢

历史书籍:《情系五一三》:
005

五一三学生和平请愿图片视频;
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=n7Skv6vLKyQ

歌曲:《同学们的队伍无比坚强》

歌曲:《团结紧》

歌曲:《五一三进行曲》

歌曲:《自由之歌》