人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


2条评论

何谓历史: 一瞥《林清祥和他在美世界的演讲:细读》What is history: A glance at ‘Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look’

Dr. Hong Lysa 孔莉莎博士

说明:
1.这篇文章的作者是:Dr. Hong Lysa孔莉莎博士 。这文章发表在她的个人博客网页http://minimyna.wordpress.com/的网站上。发布的日期为:2014年6月10日。这篇文章是孔博士针对在网站上发表一篇有关评论覃鑫炳博士的文章:《林清祥是被错误的拘留! Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained给予的回应。

2.评论覃炳鑫博士的文章:《细读:林清祥和他在美世界的演讲》(《Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look》)的作者Kumar Ramakrishna博士。他以副教授和南洋理工学院拉惹勒南国际研究学院杰出国家安全的主任身份( Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University)在网上发表他的评论文章。

3.经本文作者孔莉莎博士的同意,本网站转发本篇文章的华文译稿。

4.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。

lim-chin-siong-lee-kuan-yew-photo

一位历史学家的作业
A historian’s business

假如《林清祥和他在美世界的演讲:细读(《Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look》)的作者古玛.拉玛克历斯南(Kumar Ramakrishna)只自称本身是副教授和南洋理工大学拉惹勒南国际研究学院国家安全杰出中心的主任( Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University),我将不会理会他在网站上发表的文章
If Kumar Ramakrishna, author of ‘Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look’ had only identified himself as Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University, I would not have bothered with his article at all.

尽管他也自称自己是一个经过培训的历史学家。这篇文章也算是一份历史学家的作品,那我对自己身为一位历史学家的身份深感自豪。这么一来我也免不了要评论他对历史的了解。
However, he also states that he is a historian by training. This makes it the business of historians, which I take great pride in being. As such, it is not possible to not take issue with his approach to history.

“细读”的作者有一个目的:就是否定覃炳鑫博士的论述:林有福政府扣留林清祥,是以他出席1956年10月25日在美世界举行的群众大会上发表演讲,号召群众‘打警察’(pah mata)的话为依据,乃是滥用不经审讯而扣留的《维护公共安全法令》(PPSO)。覃炳鑫博士的结论乃是基于英国国家档案馆政治部最近解密的一份文件,一份对林清祥伤害至深的演讲稿(这是新加坡警察在当场所作的记录)。这份资料揭露了与当年逮捕林清祥的罪名是恰恰相反的内容!实际上,林清祥是呼吁群众“不要”‘打警察’(NOT to ‘pah mata’)(请链在’A Closer Look’所提供的有关信息).
‘A Closer Look’ has one aim: to discredit PJ Thum’s assertion that the Lim Yew Hock government had abused the PPSO, which provided for detention without trial, when it detained Lim Chin Siong for urging the crowd that gathered to hear his address at Beauty World on 25 October 1956 to ‘pah mata’. Thum’s conclusion is based on his unearthing of what is so far the only copy of Lim’s fateful speech in recently released Special Branch files in the UK archives which reveals that contrary to the charge, Lim had in fact urged the crowd NOT to ‘pah mata’. [Link provided in ‘A Closer Look’]

这位作者认为理所当然的,当时导致林有福政府加紧逮捕林清祥与林清祥在一起被捕者的原因是因为这篇演讲证明了林清祥是一个共产党员,这个标志代表他们的行动是残酷性、暴力性、颠覆性和危险性的。因此,他们理应被逮捕和不经审讯地被拘留。接下来,不言而喻,一切行动就这样延续下去。对这位作者来说林清祥表面上是号召群众“不要”“打警察”(NOT to ‘pah mata’),实际上林清祥是在鼓动‘在情绪上即使不在文字上’他们这样做,这是共产党惯用的技俩。因此,作者断言,覃炳鑫博士在评论林清祥的演讲辞提到的“打警察”(‘pah mata’)是断章取义的!
The author takes for granted that Lim Chin Siong, and everyone else who was arrested by the Lim Yew Hock government in the days and weeks leading to the speech was a member of the communist party, and by that token was ruthless, violent, subversive and dangerous. They all deserve to be arrested and detained without trial. From that everything else flows. Hence, to the author, even though Lim Chin Siong had urged the crowd NOT to ‘pah mata’, he was in fact encouraging them to do so ‘in spirit if not in letter’, for that is what communists do. Thum was thus taking the ‘pah mata’ comment of Lim Chin Siong ‘totally out of context’, the author avers.

反殖民地主义的背景
The Anti-colonial Context

历史的核心在于社会的脉络, 在广泛的环境下设定的事件、声明或概念得以充分理解。作者空洞洞的文章内容显示他还停留在冷战思维,简单理解为反共产党与共产党之间的对抗。
History is about context: the wider circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.) The bald context the author has zeroed in is the Cold War, understood simply as the anti-communists vs the communists.

还有更加重要的历史背景 是被作者和其他历史学者所压制着:
第二次世界大战结束后,反对英国殖民地主义的运动席卷了整个新加坡,这股运动最终在1948年紧急法令下被镇压下来。然而在1954年,特别是华校中学生和工人群众紧随着华校中学生为了争取赦免服兵役而展开的1954年的5月13日和平请愿。请愿队伍在街道上被警方使用暴力驱散而酿成暴动,群众运动从新涌现。
Yet there is a more fundamental context that he and other historians have suppressed:
the anti-colonial movement that swept Singapore in the post-war years, which was put down by the Emergency in 1948, and resurfaced as a mass movement comprising in particular the Chinese middle-school students and workers following the May 13 1954 petition for the students to be exempted from national service which turned violent when the police used force in the streets to disperse them.

李光耀在电台‘12讲’叙述有关‘合并之战’(1961年出版)时已‘揭露’林清祥和其他左翼领袖是共产党员。他承认他必须投入这股从1950年中涌现的充满朝气、活力和革命气息的反殖民地主义群众运动。殖民地的统治必须离去!——因为殖民地统治并不是为了人民的利益。因此,必须通过压力迫使英国人离开。对这个允许剥削工人的社会制度人民已无法再容忍了。如雨后春荀般涌现的工会已准备好采取工业行动。人民行动党在1954年成立时就已经明确宣布要结束殖民主义的统治。
Lee Kuan Yew had stated in his radio talks ‘exposing’ Lim and other left-wing leaders as communists over the question of merger (Battle for Merger [1961]) that he recognized the vitality, dynamism and revolutionary fervour of the anti-colonial mass movement from the mid-1950s which he knew he needed to tap into. Colonial rule had to go—its business was not to rule for the benefit of the people, and the British had to be pressured to leave; dissatisfaction with the system that permitted exploitation of workers would no longer be tolerated, hence the burgeoning of labour unions which were ready to take strike action. The very first aim of the PAP as stated at its inauguration in 1954 was to end colonialism.

对作者而言, 英国殖民地主义者应当基于它自身的条件而不是基于新加坡人民的力量离开新加坡。因此,反殖民地主义的运动不被肯定是迫使英国殖民主义者离开新加坡的历史事实,而是被诬蔑为共产党的颠覆活动。首席部长林有福逮捕反殖民地主义的左派成员,目的是要讨好英国人。 而林有福被林清祥责骂为‘英殖民地主义者的走狗’, 作者反而认为林清祥是在使用“非理性的语言” 而激起群众的暴乱。他的意思是说 当时林有福的逮捕行动与暴动 一点关连也没有!
To the author however, the departure of the colonial power should be on its terms, rather than on that of the people of Singapore. Hence, the anti-colonial movement was not recognized as such, but as subversive and communist, and calling Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock who detained members of the anti-colonial left in order to impress the British ‘running dog of the British’ is using ‘dehumanising language’ and whipping up mob frenzy, while Lim Yew Hock’s action apparently had no part in it at all.

没有了风起云涌的反殖民地主义运动的背景,冷战的辞令就成为普通流行的语言,人民都必须耳熟能详,任何挑战当权者的行动,即使殖民地主义者必须被谴责。新加坡继承了殖民地主义者遗留下的法宝,国家采取暴力始终被认为是正当的,而质疑或抗议则是共产党/欧洲共产主义者/马克思急情主义者,这个主要的神话自1959年就在同一个政府、同一个政党下在新加坡延续到现在。
Without the pervasive anti-colonial context in which the Cold War rhetoric has to be understood, every action challenging the authorities, even if it is the colonial is to be condemned. And the legacy that the use of state violence is always justified, while any questioning or protests against it is communist/Euro-communist/Marxist-inspired, has remained a key myth in Singapore, where the same party has been in government since 1959.

离开了反对殖民地主义者的这个大环境,作者是不可能了解他引用了林清祥在1996年接受周美兰尼(Melanie Chew)访谈所作的声明:“这是我的错吗?或者是历史的错,当时我已经成为 一个抗英同盟的成员?”(简称‘ABL’ [Anti-British League])”
Without the pervasive anti-colonial context, the author is unable to understand the statement he quotes made by Lim Chin Siong to Melanie Chew in 1996: ‘Was it my mistake, or was it the mistake of history that I had become a member of the ABL [Anti-British League] at the time?’

莫非作者也不能评估李光耀1955年5月5日的声明内容的重要性,就是在CJ W-L Wee书里的首篇文章,其内容被作者广泛的引用:“假设我必须在殖民地主义和共产主义之间做出抉择, 我将选择共产主义。这是绝大多数的。”
Nor would he be able to appreciate the significance of Lee Kuan Yew’s 5 May 1955 statement, at the start of CJ W-L Wee’s chapter which the author cites fairly extensively: ‘If I had to choose between colonialism and communism, I would vote for communism, and so would the great majority.’

(林清祥)演说的历史场合
The occasion of the speech

作者也忽视了有关这篇在美世界‘演说’的直接背景。首先林清祥发表这篇演说并不是在工会的集会上或在林清祥个人的号召下召集的会议上。这是人民行动党的群众大会。与林清祥一起出席这个群众大会并坐在台上的人还包括了秘书长李光耀、主席杜进才和帝凡那。人民行动党主席是群众大会的组织者。他决定群众大会的时间、日期和地点以及挑选上台的演讲者。早些时候杜进才还邀请了林有福,劳工阵线的组织秘书 迪库鲁斯(Gerald de Cruz)到人民行动党的群众大会上以确认一系列的逮捕行动的正当性。但是,迪库鲁斯没有接受人民行动党的邀请(见1956 10月25日海峡时报第24版。)林清祥当时是武吉知马区的立法议员,被指定为最后一位发言者。
The author also ignores the more immediate context of the Beauty World speech. Firstly, it was not a made at a labour union event or one summoned by Lim Chin Siong. It was a People’s Action Party rally. On the stage along with Lim were party secretary Lee Kuan Yew, chairman Toh Chin Chye, and CV Devan Nair. The party chairman organized the rally, decided on the time, day and venue, and selected the speakers. He had earlier invited Gerald de Cruz organizing secretary of Lim Yew Hock’s party, the Labour Front to justify the series of detentions at the PAP rallies, but de Cruz did not accept the invitation. (Straits Times, 24, 25 October 1956). Lim Chin Siong, Legislative Assembly member for Bukit Timah, was designated the last speaker.

林有福政府已经宣布将在晚上8时派遣军队到新加坡华侨中学和中正中学驱散在那儿集中的中学生。这些中学生已经集中在这两间学校静坐了长达15天,抗议封闭新加坡华校中学生联合会(简称‘中学联’)和逮捕学生领袖及教师的行动。(根据组织者的安排,林清祥的演讲是在林有福宣布这项决定前1小时10分结束的)
The Lim Yew Hock government had announced that at 8pm that evening ( Lim ended his speech one hour and ten minutes before that, as the organisers had arranged), troops would be sent into Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High to break up the students who were camped there for the past 15 days in protest against the banning of the Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Student Union, and the arrests of student leaders and teachers.

毫无疑问的,林有福的行动激怒了出席行动党群众大会的群众,群众抗议政府的暴乱已逼在眉睫。
Surely there is no doubt that the PAP rally was addressing a gathering of people angered by the actions of Lim Yew Hock, and the violence on the part of the government that was imminent.

群众大会是从傍晚5时25分开始。林清祥上台讲话是在傍晚6时25分到6时48分。在 林清祥上台演讲之前,必然会有其他行动党的人上台演讲,至少有3位人民行动党的领袖上台演讲。群众大会的准证是到晚上7点正结束。群众大会的人群是在大会结束前10分钟解散。大会宣布了下一个群众大会的日期是27日,地点在武吉班让。大会在高呼三声‘默地卡’声中结束。
The rally commenced at 5.25 pm, Lim Chin Siong spoke from 6.25 to 6.48 pm. There would have been other PAP speakers before him, possibly the three other PAP leaders on the stage. The permit for the rally expired at 7 pm. The crowd dispersed 10 minutes before the deadline. An announcement was made that next rally was at Bukit Panjang on 27th and call was made for shouts of ‘Merdeka’ three times.

现在我们已经知道,林清祥并没有要求群众‘打警察’(‘pah mata’,),而是高喊‘默地卡’。
As we now know, Lim Chin Siong had urged the crowd not to yell ‘pah mata’, but ‘Merdeka’ instead.

仔细审视这篇演讲辞
A really close look at the speech

纵观文章的上下文也能意识到,就如作者所说:‘要以演讲辞作为整体,而不是仅仅摘录其中的一小片段’。回到‘细读’,作者看到林清祥的演讲辞‘充满煽动性,目的是要挑起群众怨恨政府以达到反林有福政府的目的’。
Looking at the context also means’ taking the speech as a whole, not just a snippet’, as the author himself has put it. In taking ‘a close look’, the author sees Lim Chin Siong’s speech as ‘inflammatory and aimed to stoke anti-government resentment towards the Lim Yew Hock government.’

林清祥在1956 年10月25日在美世界的演说摘要:
Summary of Lim Chin Siong’s speech at Beauty World, 25 October 1956:

1.他点算了那些被林有福政府逮捕的人的名字、那些被封闭的团体和组织的名称。
I. roll-call of those detained by Lim Yew Hock; groups and organisations that were banned.

2.林有福是英国殖民地主义者的走狗。人民要赶走英国殖民地主义者。林有福不但没有去争取人民的帮助以及团结其他的政党来驱逐英殖民地主义者,反而寻求英国人的帮忙来对抗人民。林有福没有为人民做事,他担心在2年后举行的选举会被人们抛弃。为了换取英国殖民地主义者给予他新加坡独立,他竟然与英国殖民地主义者密谋,以逮捕那些积极反殖民地的人士作为交换条。这样一来,人民就会忘记了大逮捕的事件,还会高声赞扬他,争取到新加坡的独立,因而选他为总理。

2. Lim Yew Hock as running dog of the British. The people want the British to be driven out. Instead of enlisting the help of the people and joining up with other political parties to do this, he got the help of the British to fight against the people. Lim Yew Hock did nothing for the people, and was afraid he would be thrown out of office in the election in 2 years’ time. In return for the arrests of those who were strongly anti-colonial, the British would conspire to give his government independence so that the people would forget the arrests and laud him for obtaining independence, and elect him as prime minister.

3. 林有福的权位是依赖军队和警察以及驱逐出境法令和不经审讯而扣留的法令。这一切都不能长久的。尽管在1959年人民受尽他的恐吓不得不投票给他,但是,渴望民主的愿望还是持续存在的,迟早林有福一定会被击败的。
3. Lim Yew Hock’s position is dependent on the use of the army and the police, and banishments and detentions without trial. This cannot go on forever. Even if the people are intimidated enough to vote for him in 1959, their desire for democracy remains, and sooner or later, Lim Yew Hock will be defeated.

4.林有福依靠英国人,但是,英国人已不再强大也不再受到尊敬。他们就像一条丧家狗遭到人民的唾弃。他们正在埃及、印度、塞普路斯和非洲被赶走。
4. Lim Yew Hock relies on the British, but they are no longer mighty and respected. They are now like lowly dogs that the people spit on. They are being chased out of Egypt, India, Cyprus and Africa.

5.警察是受薪者。他们是来这里出席我们反对林有福的集会的。群众不要高喊“默地卡”。他们要喊“打警察”(‘Pah Mata’.)。这是错误的。我们要求警察和我们合作。
5 The police are wage earners. They are all here to attend the meeting to oppose Lim Yew Hock. People don’t want to shout ‘Merdeka’. They want to shout ‘Pah Mata’. This is wrong. We want to ask the police to cooperate with us.

6.林有福没有资格代表人民。他必须解散政府并举行大选,让人民决定是否支持他。我们要警告他,假设他使用暴力对付学生,我们新加坡人民不会容忍这种行动。
6. Lim Yew Hock is not worthy to represent the people; he should dissolve the government and call for an election to see if the people will support him. And we warn him that if he uses force against the students we, the people of Singapore, will not tolerate it.

7.我们必须让人民知道这个政府是多么的烂。我相信无论多残暴的政府,只要我们团结在一起,它肯定会被打倒的。我们必须采取一些行动来回敬他们的暴虐行动。
7. We must let people know how bad the government is. I believe that no matter how oppressive the government is, it will be defeated if we are united. We must take certain action to retaliate against their oppressive action.

至今没有任何记录显示所谓:‘许多属于同一个时代以及后来的观察家对(林清祥在美世界的演讲)重新叙说’林清祥的演讲内容如作者所指责的是具有煽动性的。,
There are no records of there being ‘so many contemporary and later observers who have recounted’ that the speech was inflammatory, as the author alleged.

时至今日,原始资料已经揭露了教育部长周瑞琪在1956年11月26日在立法议会上所提的欺诈性指控:他指责林请祥对群众说:“与其高呼‘默地卡’的口号,群众现在应该高呼 ‘Pah Mata’,意思就是打警察‘Beat the Police’。这还有任何的疑问是谁点燃了暴动的火花”。

The originating source, now revealed as fraudulent allegation was made in the Legislative Assembly by Minister of Education Chew Swee Kee on 26 November 1956. He stated that Lim Chin Siong had said: ‘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?’

详读了林清祥的全篇演讲稿,很明显的林清祥是在谴责林有福采取了一波又一波的逮捕反对英国殖民地主义者的工会领袖、公民组织负责人、学生和 教师的行动。林清祥呼吁人民不要失望,要团结起来,在1959年大选把林有福赶下台。人民行动党准备参加这场大选。

Taking the speech as a whole, it is evident that Lim Chin Siong was condemning Lim Yew Hock for the wave of detention of anti-colonial trade unionists, civic organisations, students and teachers. He was calling on the people not to despair, but to unite to get rid of Lim Yew Hock in the 1959 election, which the PAP would be fighting.

历史的戒律
The discipline of history

谁会赋予一名自称是历史学者、学术家、或者社会心理学的学生权威和合法性,让他理直气壮地声称:“这不重要。林清祥没有在字面上号召群众‘打警察’(‘pah mata’)?”
What gives anyone claiming to be a historian, an academic even a student of social psychology the authority or legitimacy to claim that ‘it does not matter that Lim Chin Siong did not literally tell the crowd to ‘pah mata’?

根据作者所说的,林清祥就像在印尼的一名著名极端暴力领袖,他说:‘我只是一个制刀的工匠,我怎能承担哪些购刀者使用刀的责任?’作者以一个凭空想象的例子作为比喻,不是历史学家对其作业的态度以及他们对历史脉络的意识。
According to the author, Lim Chin Siong was like ‘a well-known violent extremist leader in Indonesia who said, “I am only a craftsman making knives, so how am I responsible for how those knives are used?”’ Such a comparison, plucked out of the air by the author, cannot be the practice of historians and their consciousness of context.

《细读》作为一个整体也不符合一位诚实历史学家的作品的条件。全文充满了影射、讽刺、耍杂技、空洞的逻辑伪装为事实,混杂天真、一套塌糊。英国最高专员Lord Selkirk在他的记录里提到,当‘林(林清祥)和方(方水双)被问到他们是否是共产党员时,他们‘似乎感到尴尬‘,‘他们无法给予清楚的答案’。在这个问题上请问到底是林清祥或者是Lord Selkirk ‘虚伪’呢?
Nor can the ‘A Closer Look’ as a whole qualify as the work of a bona fide historian. It is replete with insinuation, caricature, acrobatic leaps of logic, bald assertions disguised as fact, and confounding naiveness. What is one to make of the statement that the British High Commissioner Lord Selkirk recorded that ‘Lim and Fong had “seemed embarrassed” and “failed to give a clear reply” when he asked whether they were communists. Was it Lim Chin Siong or Lord Selkirk who was being ‘disingenuous’?

难道作者就这样崇拜英殖民统治者的高智力以至轻易地相信其不经批判的信息,或者认为林清祥是个笨蛋弱智者被如此尖锐的问题给逮着了?或许作者是在诬辱他的读者的智慧。
Is the author so prone to repose uncritical belief in the superior intelligence of the British colonial rulers, or regard Lim Chin Siong as an imbecile, caught out by such a penetrating question? Or perhaps it is his readers’ intelligence that the author is insulting.

最后,一份历史作品的价值必须建立在笔者作为一位学者的诚信上。
In the end, the worth of a piece of historical writing is based on the integrity of the author as a scholar.

单是这一点,‘细读’也不能被鉴定任何人声称自己是一位历史学家的作品。
Even on this score alone, ‘A Closer Look’ does not qualify as the work of someone who claims to be a historian.

这一切是关于什么
What it’s all about

或者谁试图为其中的一个
Or who even tries to be one.

不久之前纪念1954年5月13日学生运动(以下简称‘513’)60周年纪念时,刊登在《联合早报》的一篇文章旧事重提:‘513’事件实际上是由马来亚共产党直接领导的。林清祥在美世界的演讲的事件也已露出水面,这揭露了林清祥是被诬陷的,导致他在1956 年被逮捕,赞美‘共产主义’的颂歌又重新响起。
Just as the recent commemoration of the 60th anniversary of May 13 1954 brought a renewed claim in Lianhe Zaobao that the student movement was actually directed by the Communist Party of Malaya, the surfacing of the Beauty World speech which revealed that Lim Chin Siong was clearly framed when he was arrested in 1956, has duly resurfaced the chant of ‘communism’.

林清祥当年被林有福政府逮捕让人们联想到在冷藏行动下以同样似是而非的罪名,他被指控计划提供武器支持汶莱(人民党)的武装起义再度被扣留!
Lim Chin Siong’s arrest by the Lim Yew Hock government would call to mind his subsequent detention under Operation Coldstore under an equally specious charge of planning to supply weapons for the Brunei Revolt.

尽管历史已经证明了林有福在立法议会公然叫嚣撒谎,但是,‘细读’的作者还执意为林有福辩护!对林清祥唯一明显的指控,就是指林清祥是共产主义分子,共产党是危险分子,采取任何手段来打击他们都不会被认为不公平或太残酷的。

‘A Closer Look’ has to defend Lim Yew Hock even though his government has been proven to have blatantly lied in the Legislative Assembly. The obvious resort is the charge of communism, the fight against which no measure is deemed to be unjust or too harsh.

‘冷战’背景所呈现的文字就是自由世界与共产主义之间的斗争。就算没有受麦卡蒂主义的影响,或者是被殖民地主义势力所操纵,这包括了后来的(1963年2月2日)冷藏行动、或者在1965年6月发生在印度尼西亚超过百万人被屠杀的(‘9.30’)事件都是在共产主义的幌子下执行的。
The ‘Cold War’ context is presented as literally the fight between the free world and the communists, without any sensibilities of McCarthyism, or its manipulation by colonial powers, including in Operation Coldstore, or the killings of more than a million in Indonesia in September 1965, in the name of eliminating communists.

历史资料已经提供了铁一般的事实证明了冷藏行动就是一个属于政治性质的历史事件,而不是所谓的安全的性质!对于这个历史性的结论至今尚未收到任何历史学家有力反驳和挑战这个已经揭晓的证据。
Archive-based historical studies which have presented documentary evidence that Operation Coldstore was about political rather than security concerns so far have not received substantive critiques from historians which challenge the findings.

再一次,只高喊一声‘这是冷战,笨蛋!’
Once again, there are only loud blares of ‘It’s the Cold War, stupid!’

这些自称自己是专业历史培训出身的历史学者,把他人列为‘修正主义者’并指他们撰写的‘可选择性的历史’,暗示他们写的是有偏见不客观的历史。而这些人实际上是来自设立在南洋理工大学里的拉惹勒南国际研究所属下的国家杰出安全中心的。
These come from those who state that they are trained as historians, or throw terms like ‘revisionist historians’ and ‘alternative histories’ around, are in fact with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University.

再一次,我要说:“我的上帝啊!”
Once again I have to say, OMG!!!

http://minimyna.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/a-tale-outrageously-told-days-of-rage-on-the-hock-lee-riots/

附:
《深入解析:林清祥和他在美世界的讲话》(《Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look》)原文。此篇文章的作者:Kumar Ramakrishna。此篇文章是刊载在《THE ONLINECITIZEN 》(公民在线)网站。
http://www.ipscommons.sg/index.php/categories/featured/177-lim-chin-siong-and-that-beauty-world-speech-a-closer-look
全文如下:
Few historical figures in Singapore’s post-war history excite as much controversy as does Lim Chin Siong (1933-96). Emerging from a humble background, Lim quickly rose in the 1950s to become an exceptional trade union leader and organiser. He joined the People’s Action Party (PAP) as a founder member in 1954, and won a seat in the Legislative Assembly the following year as a PAP candidate. He proved himself an absolutely first-rate Chinese-language orator, able to move large crowds with his folksy anti-colonial speeches.
Was he a Communist? Lim never admitted that he was. When Lim was at his political zenith in the 1950s, the British colonies of Singapore and Malaya were embroiled in confrontation with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). This was not a geopolitically isolated contest. It was very much part of the wider Cold War that pitted Western democratic capitalist forces against the politically and economically centralised Communist bloc led by the Soviet Union and China. While the CPM was engaged with British and Malayan forces in a low-intensity shooting war up north in the Malayan jungles, its campaign in relatively more urbanised Singapore took the form of clandestine subversion and the fomenting of industrial unrest.
In the period 1954-56, for instance, Singapore was beset by Communist-instigated work stoppages and paralysis of public transport. Daily life was punctuated by running battles between workers, Chinese middle school students and the police. Cars were burnt, property was destroyed, people were injured, and some lost their lives. In 1955 alone, there were 275 strikes and 946,000 man-days lost compared to a total of 12 strikes and 182,000 man-days lost in 1953 and 1954.
Against this backdrop, the Labour Front leader Lim Yew Hock, who became Chief Minister in June 1956, following the resignation of Chief Minister David Marshall – deemed by the worried British as too soft on the Communists – sought to assure London that his government could restore public order and calm. Lim Yew Hock recognised that the British required assurance that a decolonised Singapore would remain politically stable and anti-Communist, before they could consider any serious constitutional advance toward self-government and eventual independence.
His government hence took a series of tough actions in September and October 1956. Communist agitators were arrested and banished while several Communist-subverted organisations were deregistered. It was in this context that Lim Chin Siong led mass protests against these actions. Amidst the growing tension with student demonstrations and camp-ins in two schools involving 4,000 students, meetings were held in nearby sites where Lim and others were said to have delivered inflammatory speeches.
The standard account records that on the evening of 25 October 1956, Lim apparently made an inflammatory speech at a protest meeting at Beauty World, not far from Chinese High School, accusing the Government of oppressing workers and victimising students. After his speech, a number of those who attended the meeting went down to the school to join the crowds that had already gathered there. Riots broke out not long after. As a result of the violence, 13 people died, 123 were injured, 70 cars were burnt or damaged, two schools were razed and two police stations attacked. Speaking in the Legislative Assembly later, Labour Front Education Minister Chew Swee Kee alleged that Lim had urged the crowd to “pah mata” or “beat the police” and had thus “sparked off the riots”. Lim was subsequently arrested under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO) on 27 October.
The “Pah Mata” Incident: A New Finding?
The “pah mata” episode at Beauty World has now become the subject of a new controversy concerning Lim., In a recent post on The Online Citizen1 website the revisionist historian Thum Ping Tjin, citing recently declassified British Special Branch records, argues that the Labor Front government’s arrest of Lim Chin Siong for allegedly inciting the Beauty World crowd to mob violence was unjust. Thum attaches a copy of the actual Special Branch report of Lim’s Beauty World speech on 25 October, and highlights that Lim did not tell the crowd to “pah mata”. What Lim actually said was as follows:
“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).”
In short, Thum argues that “the government deliberately misrepresented Lim Chin Siong’s speech”, and that the “Special Branch files show that Lim was framed”. Thum adds that after Lim’s English-speaking colleagues in the PAP won power in 1959, they did not allow “Lim to clear his name either”.
The Basic Problem with Thum’s Analysis: “Cherry-Picking”
Thum’s case however is compromised by his “cherry-picking” approach to the historical record. He appears to selectively emphasise certain facts while ignoring others in order to promote his preferred narrative. This results in four major gaps in his analysis.
Gap One: The Communists were not regular folks
Thum never provides an adequate sense of the Communist threat to Singapore and Malaya. The novice reader can be forgiven for coming away after reading Thum thinking that the CPM represented merely another political option for the people of Singapore and Malaya. It was not. The Communists were utterly ruthless in the quest for power, and their doctrine granted their leaders the flexibility to toggle between “peaceful constitutional struggle” and “armed struggle” depending on their assessment of the evolving political situation.
In Eastern Europe after the Second World War, “United Front” tactics were employed in which Communist agents would form coalitions with civil society associations, unions and political parties, lie and manipulate their way to the top, subvert them from within and take over eventually. The CPM followed suit in Malaya and Singapore as well. Moreover, the Malayan Communists were not beyond using extreme, shocking violence to attain their ends. Bombings, assassinations, hackings, sadistic acts of mutilation, torture and murder of individuals and entire families were not unknown and have been fully documented.
Gap Two: Lim Chin Siong did have Communist links and sympathies
In 1955, Lim Chin Siong declared publicly that he was “not anti-Communist” and “should not support the colonial officials in spreading negative hysteria of anti-Communism”. There is no doubt that Lim did at the very least have strong associations with known Communist United Front (CUF) organisations. For instance, he was a member of the underground Singapore Students’ Anti-British League (ABL), which he joined when he was still a student at Chinese High School. While Lim later claimed he did not know that the ABL was a CUF entity, the Special Branch unearthed documents that flatly contradicted this notion. One was a note Lim made of a talk he gave in commemoration of Soviet Communist leader Joseph Stalin’s death to his ABL subordinates. Another contained guidance notes by Lim to his ABL charges on the CPM’s secret journal Study. Moreover, even CPM leaders such as Fang Chuang Pi, better known as the Plenipotentiary or “The Plen”, admitted later that he had been in clandestine contact with Lim, asserting in his memoirs that they had a “special relationship”.
Meanwhile, Philip Moore, the deputy high commissioner in Singapore, who was noticeably less hardline in his attitude toward Lim than some other British officials at that time, nevertheless conceded in confidential correspondence in September 1961 that Lim Chin Siong “was a really clever United Front Communist operator”. Interestingly, during the famous 18 July 1961 “tea party” meeting between Moore’s boss Lord Selkirk, Lim and his fellow extreme left PAP members Fong Swee Suan, S. Woodhull and James Puthucheary at Eden Hall, the official residence of the High Commissioner, Lim and Fong had “seemed embarrassed” when Selkirk asked whether they were Communists. The official record notes that both men “failed to give a clear reply”. Such behaviour on the part of Lim even prompted relatively sympathetic observers such as C.J. WL Wee to admit in 1999 that “Lim might be accused of being disingenuous in not directly stating his own position vis-a-vis communism”.
Gap Three: Lim did have a direct role in fomenting unrest
Further exacerbating matters is the evidence that Lim had a direct role in key violent episodes in the 1950s. The first was the 13 May 1954 riots in which Lim and Ng Meng Chiang alias Comrade D – the CPM directing figure in Singapore then – took advantage of the controversial issue of national service to stoke the anger of Chinese middle school students. Lim instructed his subordinates to participate in the demonstrations and told his students to hold their ground if the police resorted to force. 27 students and policemen were injured. A year later, during the infamous Hock Lee Bus dispute in April and May 1955, Lim and Fong Swee Suan exploited their strong union links to escalate tensions by inciting numerous strikes and making rousing speeches, leading the Government to accuse them of instigating the use of violence.
Significantly, Singapore’s future President Devan Nair – then belonging to the PAP extreme left faction – recalled that, although the Hock Lee bus dispute could have been quickly settled, Lim opted to stoke the fires, arguing that “the anger of the workers must first be allowed to explode”. It did, and the violence of May 1955 resulted in four deaths and 31 injured. In the aftermath, an angry Acting Governor William Goode accused Lim of having deliberately organised as many strikes as he could in the lead-up to the riots, while even Chief Minister David Marshall – whom Thum incidentally praises in his article – chastised Lim and his extreme leftist compatriots, noting that the “pattern of developments” closely conformed “to the Communist technique in seeking to foment industrial unrest on any excuse and to obstruct peaceful solutions” (Straits Times 13 May 1955). Marshall actually demanded in the Legislative Assembly “that Lim Chin Siong declare publicly whether he spoke in the Chamber as a communist or communist sympathiser” (Singapore, A Biography, p. 363).
Gap Four: The Beauty World Speech encouraged the crowd to “pah mata” in spirit if not in letter
Finally, Thum takes the “pah mata” comment of Lim Chin Siong totally out of context. One has to view the episode in wider context and read the whole speech – not just the snippet Thum reproduces – to get a clearer sense of what Lim was trying to achieve that evening. What does a fuller reading of the entire speech reveal? Only that the speech was indeed – as so many contemporary and later observers have recounted – inflammatory and aimed to stoke anti-government resentment towards the Lim Yew Hock government. The basic message was that Lim Yew Hock was a stooge of the British, utterly reliant on them to maintain power. Lim Yew Hock did nothing for the people, and was more interested in buying a new car for himself. He was never going to change. Lim Chin Siong moreover warned that “tonight” Lim Yew Hock “may beat the students’, and ‘use force to oppress the innocent students”. Tellingly, Lim Chin Siong added that “we warn him if he uses force against the students, we the people of Singapore will not tolerate it”; that “tonight there is the possibility that something big will happen” and that “we must take certain action to retaliate against their oppressive action” (emphasis mine).
Any student of social psychology would recognize a skilled demagogue’s classic construction of a victimised, morally superior in-group – the workers and students – and a morally evil, materially more powerful out-group – Lim Yew Hock and the British. In addition, by the use of dehumanising language – “Lim Yew Hock has clearly shown today he has become a running dog of the British (ang moh lang)”; “the British in Malaya today are like dogs”; “look at the British and spit, filthy spit” – Lim not only succeeded in whipping the crowd up to a wild frenzy (as the Special Branch note-taker clearly records) he consigned the out-group members to a state of what Orlando Patterson calls a state of social death. When that happens, out-group violence is not too far off. As we know, following Lim’s speech, violence did ensue.
It does not matter that Lim Chin Siong did not literally tell the crowd to “pah mata”. Perhaps he was trying to drive a wedge between the police and the government they were representing. Or more likely, he was being sarcastic, and the crowd knew it and lapped it up, as the record hints at. The bottom line is Lim Chin Siong’s October 1956 Beauty World speech as a whole, would today be regarded as a good example of non-violent extremism. Non-violent extremist leaders do not actually tell their followers to go out and attack specific targets. They merely focus on creating a psychological climate in which out-group violence in general is fully legitimised – which prompts some of their followers to go out and take action of their own volition. As Lim said in his speech: “We must take certain action to retaliate against oppressive action” – and he adroitly left it to his followers to figure out what that “certain action” meant. Hence the ensuing violence was not – as Thum suggests – because “public anger was too strong”. Violence broke out because Lim had skillfully fostered an emotionally combustible climate in which any small skirmish with police was bound to spark a full-fledged riot.
If all this sounds familiar, there are good reasons for it: “I am only a craftsman making knives”, a well-known violent Islamist extremist leader in Indonesia asserted famously not so long ago, “so how am I responsible for how those knives are used?” Notwithstanding the differences in ideology, time and space, such words might as well been uttered by Lim Chin Siong on the evening of 25 October 1956. In this light, Thum’s assertion that Lim Chin Siong’s detention was unjustified because he did not literally tell the crowd to “pah mata” misses the point completely. A case could arguably be made that up to and as a result of that speech, Lim had done little to suggest why the full force of the law should not have been applied against him.
Conclusion
Lim Chin Siong remains a morally complex historical figure. On the one hand, as Lee Kuan Yew, Devan Nair and other members of the founding generation of Singapore’s political leadership have said publicly, Lim deserves much admiration and respect for his dedication, austere lifestyle and unflinching commitment to his cause. Nevertheless Lim did embrace the Communist world view. He seemed to interpret the world through the lens of “dialectical materialism”, in which impersonal world historical forces appeared more important than – and decisive in shaping – individual life trajectories.
As he once put it rhetorically, “was it my mistake or was it the mistake of history that I had become a member of the ABL at that time?” Such intellectual commitment proved costly, because Communism suffered from a basic internal contradiction. Its founder Karl Marx envisaged it as a scientific, historically inevitable system for overcoming the dehumanising impact of industrial capitalism in separating the working class from enjoyment of the fruits of its labour. Ironically, however, once in power Communist regimes were even more dehumanising, emphasising class interests over individual happiness. “In spite of its glowing talk about the welfare of the masses”, the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. observed, “Communism’s methods and philosophy strip man of his dignity and worth, leaving him little more than a depersonalised cog in the ever-turning wheel of the state”. Such logic ultimately legitimated violence against putative class enemies. Lim appeared to sincerely believe that the ends of global Communism, with its promise of material plenty for the hitherto oppressed working classes, justified practically any means – including prevarication and violence – to attain it.
Lim’s personal moral paradox – like other like-minded intellectuals of the time – was thus intertwined with that afflicting Communism itself. C.J. WL Wee rightly asks: How could “a doctrine of liberation” lead “to the atrocities that it did?” This is a good question: Communist regimes only brought decades of misery to their populations. Little wonder that they were subsequently overthrown in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union by 1989. Furthermore, massive reforms have been required in China and Vietnam, whose governments are now trying to restructure in a more capitalist direction. Remaining communist regimes like North Korea and Cuba meanwhile remain pariah states in the international community.
Singaporeans should therefore take care to avoid uncritically embracing revisionist historical representations like Thum’s. Despite all his personal qualities, Lim Chin Siong ultimately erred. It is moreover important to acknowledge the crucial contributions of all those who fought in the struggle against Communist violence and oppression. In the end this is perhaps the real story to be told, of how such unsung heroes suffered threats and abuse from the Communists and some even gave their lives in the process. It was these courageous souls who ultimately helped to build modern Singapore, free from the yoke of Communism – what the former British Labour politician Richard H.S. Crossman called – the “god that failed”.

Kumar Ramakrishna is Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University. A historian by training, he has published extensively on the struggle against post-war Malayan Communism. He is working on a longer scholarly analysis of Operation Coldstore.
1Accessed 8 May 2014, available at (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/05/lim-chin-siong-was-wrongfully-detained)

Advertisements


留下评论

历史学家就Kumar Ramakrishna先生评论覃柄鑫博士关于《林清祥是被错误逮捕》的文章做出的回应

注:1.本文的题目为:What is history: A glance at ‘Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look’June 10, 2014 Hong Lysa
2.本文章的网址:http://minimyna.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/what-is-history-a-glance-at-lim-chin-siong-and-that-beauty-world-speech-a-closer-look/


全文如下:

A historian’s business

If Kumar Ramakrishna, author of ‘Lim Chin Siong and that Beauty World speech: A Closer Look’ had only identified himself as Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University, I would not have bothered with his article at all .http://www.ipscommons.sg/index.php/categories/featured/177-lim-chin-siong-and-that-beauty-world-speech-a-closer-look

However, he also states that he is a historian by training. This makes it the business of historians, which I take great pride in being. As such, it is not possible to not take issue with his approach to history.

‘A Closer Look’ has one aim: to discredit PJ Thum’s assertion that the Lim Yew Hock government had abused the PPSO, which provided for detention without trial, when it detained Lim Chin Siong for urging the crowd that gathered to hear his address at Beauty World on 25 October 1956 to ‘pah mata’. Thum’s conclusion is based on his unearthing of what is so far the only copy of Lim’s fateful speech in recently released Special Branch files in the UK archives which reveals that contrary to the charge, Lim had in fact urged the crowd NOT to ‘pah mata’. [Link provided in ‘A Closer Look’]

The author takes for granted that Lim Chin Siong, and everyone else who was arrested by the Lim Yew Hock government in the days and weeks leading to the speech was a member of the communist party, and by that token was ruthless, violent, subversive and dangerous. They all deserve to be arrested and detained without trial. From that everything else flows. Hence, to the author, even though Lim Chin Siong had urged the crowd NOT to ‘pah mata’, he was in fact encouraging them to do so ‘in spirit if not in letter’, for that is what communists do. Thum was thus taking the ‘pah mata’ comment of Lim Chin Siong ‘totally out of context’, the author avers.

The Anti-colonial Context

History is about context: the wider circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood. The bald context the author has zeroed in is the Cold War, understood simply as the anti-communists vs the communists.

Yet there is a more fundamental context that he and other historians have suppressed: the anti-colonial movement that swept Singapore in the post-war years, which was put down by the Emergency in 1948, and resurfaced as a mass movement comprising in particular the Chinese middle-school students and workers following the May 13 1954 petition for the students to be exempted from national service which turned violent when the police used force in the streets to disperse them.

Lee Kuan Yew had stated in his radio talks ‘exposing’ Lim and other left-wing leaders as communists over the question of merger (Battle for Merger [1961]) that he recognized the vitality, dynamism and revolutionary fervour of the anti-colonial mass movement from the mid-1950s which he knew he needed to tap into. Colonial rule had to go—its business was not to rule for the benefit of the people, and the British had to be pressured to leave; dissatisfaction with the system that permitted exploitation of workers would no longer be tolerated, hence the burgeoning of labour unions which were ready to take strike action. The very first aim of the PAP as stated at its inauguration in 1954 was to end colonialism.

To the author however, the departure of the colonial power should be on its terms, rather than on that of the people of Singapore. Hence, the anti-colonial movement was not recognized as such, but as subversive and communist, and calling Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock who detained members of the anti-colonial left in order to impress the British ‘running dog of the British’ is using ‘dehumanising language’ and whipping up mob frenzy, while Lim Yew Hock’s action apparently had no part in it at all.

Without the pervasive anti-colonial context in which the Cold War rhetoric has to be understood, every action challenging the authorities, even if it is the colonial is to be condemned. And the legacy that the use of state violence is always justified, while any questioning or protests against it is communist/Euro-communist/Marxist-inspired, has remained a key myth in Singapore, where the same party has been in government since 1959.

Without the pervasive anti-colonial context, the author is unable to understand the statement he quotes made by Lim Chin Siong to Melanie Chew in 1996: ‘Was it my mistake, or was it the mistake of history that I had become a member of the ABL [Anti-British League] at the time?’

Nor would he be able to appreciate the significance of Lee Kuan Yew’s 5 May 1955 statement, at the start of CJ W-L Wee’s chapter which the author cites fairly extensively: ‘If I had to choose between colonialism and communism, I would vote for communism, and so would the great majority.’

The occasion of the speech

The author also ignores the more immediate context of the Beauty World speech. Firstly, it was not a made at a labour union event or one summoned by Lim Chin Siong. It was a People’s Action Party rally. On the stage along with Lim were party secretary Lee Kuan Yew, chairman Toh Chin Chye, and CV Devan Nair. The party chairman organized the rally, decided on the time, day and venue, and selected the speakers. He had earlier invited Gerald de Cruz organizing secretary of Lim Yew Hock’s party, the Labour Front to justify the series of detentions at the PAP rallies, but de Cruz did not accept the invitation. (Straits Times, 24, 25 October 1956). Lim Chin Siong, Legislative Assembly member for Bukit Timah, was designated the last speaker.

The Lim Yew Hock government had announced that at 8pm that evening ( Lim ended his speech one hour and ten minutes before that, as the organisers had arranged), troops would be sent into Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High to break up the students who were camped there for the past 15 days in protest against the banning of the Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Student Union, and the arrests of student leaders and teachers.

Surely there is no doubt that the PAP rally was addressing a gathering of people angered by the actions of Lim Yew Hock, and the violence on the part of the government that was imminent.

The rally commenced at 5.25 pm, Lim Chin Siong spoke from 6.25 to 6.48 pm. There would have been other PAP speakers before him, possibly the three other PAP leaders on the stage. The permit for the rally expired at 7 pm. The crowd dispersed 10 minutes before the deadline. An announcement was made that next rally was at Bukit Panjang on 27th and call was made for shouts of ‘Merdeka’ three times.

As we now know, Lim Chin Siong had urged the crowd not to yell ‘pah mata’, but ‘Merdeka’ instead.

A really close look at the speech

Looking at the context also means’ taking the speech as a whole, not just a snippet’, as the author himself has put it. In taking ‘a close look’, the author sees Lim Chin Siong’s speech as ‘inflammatory and aimed to stoke anti-government resentment towards the Lim Yew Hock government.’

Summary of Lim Chin Siong’s speech at Beauty World, 25 October 1956:

I. roll-call of those detained by Lim Yew Hock; groups and organisations that were banned.

2. Lim Yew Hock as running dog of the British. The people want the British to be driven out. Instead of enlisting the help of the people and joining up with other political parties to do this, he got the help of the British to fight against the people. Lim Yew Hock did nothing for the people, and was afraid he would be thrown out of office in the election in 2 years’ time. In return for the arrests of those who were strongly anti-colonial, the British would conspire to give his government independence so that the people would forget the arrests and laud him for obtaining independence, and elect him as prime minister.

3. Lim Yew Hock’s position is dependent on the use of the army and the police, and banishments and detentions without trial. This cannot go on forever. Even if the people are intimidated enough to vote for him in 1959, their desire for democracy remains, and sooner or later, Lim Yew Hock will be defeated.

4. Lim Yew Hock relies on the British, but they are no longer mighty and respected. They are now like lowly dogs that the people spit on. They are being chased out of Egypt, India, Cyprus and Africa.

5 The police are wage earners. They are all here to attend the meeting to oppose Lim Yew Hock. People don’t want to shout ‘Merdeka’. They want to shout ‘Pah Mata’. This is wrong. We want to ask the police to cooperate with us.

6. Lim Yew Hock is not worthy to represent the people; he should dissolve the government and call for an election to see if the people will support him. And we warn him that if he uses force against the students we, the people of Singapore, will not tolerate it.

7. We must let people know how bad the government is. I believe that no matter how oppressive the government is, it will be defeated if we are united. We must take certain action to retaliate against their oppressive action.

There are no records of there being ‘so many contemporary and later observers who have recounted’ that the speech was inflammatory, as the author alleged. The originating source, now revealed as fraudulent allegation was made in the Legislative Assembly by Minister of Education Chew Swee Kee on 26 November 1956. He stated that Lim Chin Siong had said: ‘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?’

Taking the speech as a whole, it is evident that Lim Chin Siong was condemning Lim Yew Hock for the wave of detention of anti-colonial trade unionists, civic organisations, students and teachers. He was calling on the people not to despair, but to unite to get rid of Lim Yew Hock in the 1959 election, which the PAP would be fighting.

The discipline of history

What gives anyone claiming to be a historian, an academic even a student of social psychology the authority or legitimacy to claim that ‘it does not matter that Lim Chin Siong did not literally tell the crowd to ‘pah mata’?

According to the author, Lim Chin Siong was like ‘a well-known violent extremist leader in Indonesia who said, “I am only a craftsman making knives, so how am I responsible for how those knives are used?”’ Such a comparison, plucked out of the air by the author, cannot be the practice of historians and their consciousness of context.

Nor can the ‘A Closer Look’ as a whole qualify as the work of a bona fide historian. It is replete with insinuation, caricature, acrobatic leaps of logic, bald assertions disguised as fact, and confounding naiveness. What is one to make of the statement that the British High Commissioner Lord Selkirk recorded that ‘Lim and Fong had “seemed embarrassed” and “failed to give a clear reply” when he asked whether they were communists. Was it Lim Chin Siong or Lord Selkirk who was being ‘disingenuous’? Is the author so prone to repose uncritical belief in the superior intelligence of the British colonial rulers, or regard Lim Chin Siong as an imbecile, caught out by such a penetrating question? Or perhaps it is his readers’ intelligence that the author is insulting.

In the end, the worth of a piece of historical writing is based on the integrity of the author as a scholar.

Even on this score alone, ‘A Closer Look’ does not qualify as the work of someone who claims to be a historian.

What it’s all about

Or who even tries to be one.

Just as the recent commemoration of the 60th anniversary of May 13 1954 brought a renewed claim in Lianhe Zaobao that the student movement was actually directed by the Communist Party of Malaya, the surfacing of the Beauty World speech which revealed that Lim Chin Siong was clearly framed when he was arrested in 1956,has duly resurfaced the chant of ‘communism’. Lim Chin Siong’s arrest by the Lim Yew Hock government would call to mind his subsequent detention under Operation Coldstore under an equally specious charge of planning to supply weapons for the Brunei Revolt.

‘A Closer Look’ has to defend Lim Yew Hock even though his government has been proven to have blatantly lied in the Legislative Assembly. The obvious resort is the charge of communism, the fight against which no measure is deemed to be unjust or too harsh. The ‘Cold War’ context is presented as literally the fight between the free world and the communists, without any sensibilities of McCarthyism, or its manipulation by colonial powers, including in Operation Coldstore, or the killings of more than a million in Indonesia in September 1965, in the name of eliminating communists.

Archive-based historical studies which have presented documentary evidence that Operation Coldstore was about political rather than security concerns so far have not received substantive critiques from historians which challenge the findings.

Once again, there are only loud blares of ‘It’s the Cold War, stupid!’

These come from those who state that they are trained as historians, or throw terms like ‘revisionist historians’ and ‘alaternative histories’ around, who are in fact with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Nanyang Technological University.

Once again I have to say, OMG!!!


留下评论

Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained林清祥是被错误的拘留!

特此说明:

1.经本文章作者覃炳鑫博士的同意转发本文章。本文章以英文撰写并翻译成中文。中文文章字句等与英文文章之间有不同之处,均以英文文章作为最终的解释权。

2.附:《林清祥在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》中文翻译件。

3.林清祥演讲实况录音并经整理的原件扫描本是来自英国档案馆大揭秘资料处。

特此说明。

作者:覃炳鑫博士By Dr. Thum Ping Tjin是新加坡国立大学亚洲研究所的研究员,也是牛津大学全球历史中心的客座研究员和牛津大学东南亚项目的协调员。他的工作重点是东南亚的非殖民化及其对东南亚政府、政治及国际关系持续影响。

林清祥是被错误的拘留!
Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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.

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:

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:

“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?”

“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?”

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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.

背景:新加坡国家制裁暴力和镇压

Background: State-sanctioned violence and repression in Singapore

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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.

1956年10月的暴动

The October 1956 riots

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。

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.

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!

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.

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。

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:

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)

“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).”

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。

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.

不经审讯的扣留

Detention without trial

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。

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.

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’s Singapore: Struggle For Success;(新加坡:为成功而斗争)和 Dennis Bloodworth’s 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。

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.

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。

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.

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哪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。

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.

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。

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.

附件:当年新加坡警方现场录音并记录成文字的英文讲稿扫描件原件以及中文翻译

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。)

(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!

2. 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。

3. 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。

4. 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。

5. 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!

6. 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’)

(注:本翻译文章如与原文由出入之处,均以原文作为最后的解释权为主。)


留下评论

Sixty Years on….Commemorating the May 13 1954 Student Movement 60年了….. 纪念1954年《五一三》学生运动60周年(中英文翻译)

may 13 banner

说明:
1. 经本文作者孔莉莎博士的同意,本网站翻译并转发本篇文章。

2. 孔莉莎博士曾在国立大学历史系任职。现独立进行研究工作。她是2008年出版的《编写国家历史:新加坡的现在还过去》(《The Scripting of a National History:Singapore and its Pasts 》)的作者之一。她是《情系五一三:1950年代新加坡华文中学生运动与政治变革》编辑者之一。她同时是《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动》的共同出版者之一。她曾参与创办《s/pores:新加坡永久的新方向》【www.s-pores.com】电子版学术杂志。他是作家贺巾于2004年出版的《巨浪》的翻译人之一。

3. 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。

In memory of Tan Jing Quee怀念陈仁贵

第一部分
Part 1

2014年5月13日:一份超乎想象的篇章
May 13 2014: The fantastical version

还要持续沉默60年吗?Continuing silence 60 years on?

‘60年了……纪念1954年5月13日学生运动’举办的聚餐会,是一个引起广泛群众关注的盛会,吸引了超过700人出席。早至60年代初甚至包括50年代的华校中学生,他们在过去的年代都会把这一天定为在学校举行展览和讲解会的日子。
The ’60 years on…Commemorating the May 13 1954 Student Movement’ lunch gathering was a widely-publicised event, drawing an attendance of over 700. Up to the early 1960s the Chinese middle school students used to mark the day with exhibitions and speeches in schools.

在1954年5月13日,中学生集合在当时的总督府外面的人行道上,等待着他们的代表向新加坡殖民地总督请愿要求赦免服兵役,结果这场请愿在警方动用暴力驱散下结束。群众不满警方不断的使用暴力对付学生,激发了新加坡的反对殖民地运动的发展。
On May 13 1954 the middle school students’ assembling on the footpaths outside Government House to await the outcome of their petition to the colonial authorities for exemption from conscription ended in state violence inflicted on them. The public display of brutality by the police stimulated the anti-colonial movement in Singapore.

尽管纪念‘513’事件60周年聚餐会反应热烈,可是,还是有一些人对这个纪念聚餐会持保留态度。官方文告始终把矛头指向马来亚共产党是5.13事件的幕后主使者。这令人担心这个纪念聚餐会是否将导致今后作为藉口指责这是与共产党活动有关联。
Despite the overwhelming response to the 60th anniversary gathering, there would have been some who had reservations about the commemoration. The state narrative of the May 13 events targeted the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) as the mastermind. There would be concerns that the celebration will cause the state to retaliate by bringing the charge of communist party involvement to the fore again.

当人们打开2014年5月13日刊登在《联合早报》的一篇文章《‘513’学生运动事件的历史意义》时,说明了这些持有这种顾虑的人的想法是有依据的。
Those who hold this view could well feel that their fears were justified when they opened their copy of Lianhe Zaobao on May 13 and read ‘The historical significance of the May student movement’.

马来亚共产党强大势力的神话
The myth of the mighty Communist Party of Malaya

这篇文章假设马来亚共产党是‘513’事件的幕后推手。陈剑,一个自称自己是‘独立学者研究新加坡和马来西亚左翼运动的历史’。他自己在(http://s-pores.com/2008/01/ccchin/)网站上声称自己是前左翼分子,并支持左翼运动。他希望把毕生精力致力于建立一个马来西亚共产党历史档案库,并专门撰写有关马来西亚共产党的历史。
The article posits the CPM as the force directing the May 13 events. CC Chin introduced himself as ‘an independent scholar working on the history of the left in Singapore and Malaysia’. He is on record (http://s-pores.com/2008/01/ccchin/) as stating that he was from the left, and supported the left-wing movement. His life’s work is to build an archive of the CPM, and write its history.

陈剑是一位资深学者,对出版有关马来西亚共产党的书籍来说算是经验丰富的一位。
CC Chin is a veteran when it comes to publishing on the communist parties in Malaysia.

陈剑的文章在《联合早报》出现令人感到惊讶。在他脑袋里改写了Rudyard Kipling‘东是东,西是西,道不同不相为谋’ 的词句(Turning Rudyard Kipling’s phrase ‘never the twain shall meet’ on its head’), 它是在融入,还是更准确的说是混淆了反对者和对抗者的角色。
Chin’s Zaobao essay does an amazing feat. Turning Rudyard Kipling’s phrase ‘never the twain shall meet’ on its head, it manages to fuse or rather, confuse what are opposites, and antagonists.

他先入为主的是把‘513’事件定调为马来亚共产党是整个事件的主谋和推动者。为此,他断定当时英殖民地主义者要从新加坡征召兵役是要派去镇压马来亚共产党。在这个逻辑上,马来亚共产党理所当然的就是站在反对征召兵役的最前方。这篇文章也把学生们展现的令人印象深刻的组织能力与严明纪律描述成是在马来亚共产党指导下的。
His key proposition is that May 13 was masterminded and directed by the CPM. To this end he asserts that the conscripted troops from Singapore were to be sent to suppress the communists. The logic thus is that the CPM would be at the forefront of opposing conscription. The essay also attributed the impressive discipline and organizational capability displayed by the students to CPM direction.

*英国殖民地主义者是不是真的要武装华校中学生后把他们送去森林镇压马共? 这有可能……吗?—更可能的是武装了的学生将会和马共并肩对抗殖民地统治者。
* Would it be plausible that the colonial authorities would train and arm Chinese middle school youths among others, and send them into the jungle?

*是不是只有华校中学生抗议他们将会被送去镇压叛乱,难道英校学生和家长一点也不担心?
* Would it be plausible that only Chinese middle school students protested against the possibility of being sent to fight the insurgency, while those in the English-medium schools, and their parents were not the least concerned?

*准备一项征兵任务,训练只是部分时间,每个月不超过20小时,这可能吗?
* Would it be plausible that in preparing for such a mission, conscription entailed only part-time training totaling not more than 20 hours in a month?

为了说明马来亚共产党是一个充满活力和动力的组织,作者罗列了马来亚共产党一连串的指挥联系网,并指定党的“学委”小组的领导同志,小组的成员负责‘513’事件。这个小组的学生领袖则在秘密指挥这桩事件。
In claiming that the CPM was a vibrant and dynamic outfit, the author lists its chain of command, identifying by name the leader of the party’s student committee, its committee member in charge of the May 13 events, and its student leader on the ground.

非常明显的是这个组织系统图并没有提到实际的力量和行动的效力。
It is obvious too that the organization chart say nothing about actual strength and operational effectiveness.

无论如何,虽然人们可以和作者辩论有关他的资料来源,或者他如何应用这些资料作他的结论,但是,这些都是属于次要的问题。
However, while one can debate with the author on his sources, or how he uses them, and his conclusions, these are actually only secondary issues.

最重要的问题是文章的结局。
More significant is how the essay ends.

两者不谋而合
The meeting of the twain

陈剑宣称,‘513’事件争取到那些小资产阶级者和从海外回来费边社会主义的学生。这些人包括了李光耀和吴庆瑞。人民行动党最终成了费边社会主义者和马来亚共产党的统一战线组织。
CC Chin asserts that the May 13 event won over the petty bourgeoisie and the Fabian Socialist students on their return from overseas, like Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee. The PAP was the result of the united front between the Fabian socialists, and the MCP.

由马来亚共产党发动的‘5.13’事件以及与 PAP建立联合统一战线发展到顶点,最终使人民行动党赢得1959年的大选
The PAP wins the 1959 general election, the culmination of the dynamism set by May 13 which the CPM initiated, and with the CPM in a united front.

更加重要的是说,‘513’的积极分子后来都成为新加坡在工运、农运、学生和妇女运动的领袖。他还宣称,一部分早期还当上了部长和国家领导人的内阁成员。
Highlight is placed on the May 13 activists becoming leaders in Singapore’s politics, its labour, farmers, students, and women’s movement, and it is alleged, their ranks included some ministers, and ministers of state in the early cabinet.

这是最精彩和最绝妙的凭空臆想
This is fantastical, and at best delusional.

首先令人感到疑惑的是那些部长被提到了。最可能的是在1963年(不是1959年)被委任为劳工部长的易润堂,其实他自称已经向李光耀坦诚自己是马来亚共产党员,不过他早已经背向马共了。
In the first place, one wonders who were the ministers alluded to. The only possibility appears to be Jek Yeun Thong, appointed minister of labour in 1963 (not 1959) who had come clean with Lee about his CPM membership, and his turning away from the party.

在结束叙述关于1959年时期的事件时,作者避开了解释这个强大政党成员被逼流亡当人民行动党在1961年中旬驱逐党内的左翼分子和1963年的冷藏行动,行动党大规模的逮捕共产党人,把左翼分子和非左翼分子时,一律都归类为共产党分子。
Ending the narrative in 1959 saves the author having to explain how the mighty party was put on the run after the PAP expelled its left-wing in mid 1961, and Operation Coldstore, where the PAP arrested en masse communists, leftists and non-leftists—by deeming all of them to be communists.

人民行动党政府一再强调共产主义是新加坡最大的敌人。在马来亚共产党的眼中的主要敌人还是日本侵略者和英国殖民主义者。
The PAP government has relentlessly called communists Singapore’s greatest enemy. Yet in CPM lore, the party’s chief enemies continue to be the Japanese invaders and the British colonialists.

对于人民行动党而言,把马来亚共产党描述成一股神奇力量是恰当的。这也是《联合早报》为什么在‘51.3’事件 60周年纪念日时,要刊载一篇歌颂马来亚共产党在‘513’事件取得胜利的文章,其用意所在!

The CPM’s myth of its strength suits the PAP just fine, and explains why Zaobao would publish an ostensible glorification of the CPM on the 60th anniversary of May 13.

如果我们以为作者不了解早报刊登他的文章的目的,那我们就低估了他。
To contemplate the possibility that the author is unaware of this is to underestimate him.

第二部分
Part 2

50周年纪念:这股巨浪被压制:
50th anniversary: The Mighty Wave contained

不受欢迎的纪实小说
Roman á clef non grata

ju lang cover

在‘513’事件50周年时出版了一本纪念这桩历史事件的小说。小说名为:《巨浪》。
The fiftieth anniversary of May 13 was marked by the publication of Ju Lang, a historical novel.

但是这本书的出版在当时是使人扫兴的事,因为马来亚共产党不希望这本书出版流传。
But it was a non-event at the time. The CPM did not want the book to be circulated.

这本纪实小说的作者是林金泉,当他69岁时,他使用的笔名是贺巾。林金泉是当时被同学推选为与中华总商会谈判的9人小组成员之一。他成为真正马来亚共产党员是在‘513’事件之后。
The a roman á clef, was written by Lim Kim Chuan, using his pen name He Jin when he was 69 years old. Lim was elected by fellow-students as one of 9 committee members to negotiate with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. He became a full-fledged CPM member following the May 13 events.

贺巾解释说,他决定不以历史记录文件的形式而是以小说的形式书写,因为后者涉及参与者的名字。他还没准备好直接与公开探讨有关‘513’事件的历史问题。在学生时代,他是短篇小说的领先者。他的小说以当时与马来亚意识和文艺运动有关的内容。
He Jin has explained that he chose to write a novel rather than a documentary account for the latter would have involved naming names, and discussing matters directly and openly, which he was not ready to do. In any case, he was a leading short-story writer in his student days, recording the sense of belonging to Malaya, and promoting the art for life literary movement.

这本小说里面所描述的2位主角是在‘513’事件后被马来亚共产党提升为正式党员。无论如何,他们并没有在每一次的事件中执行党的指示。首先是学生们对突发事件反应而采取行动,学生领袖的决定必须是能够被全体学生所接受,否则,学生们不可能团结在一起的。
The protagonists in the novel are two student leaders of the May 13 events who were promoted to full-fledged CPM members after the event. However, they were not carrying out the directives of the party at every turn. In the first place, the students were reacting to events as they unfolded, and the leaders’ decisions had to be acceptable to the student body if the movement were to stay united.

在小说里的那2位主角的领导最后是腐化变质。他唯一的兴趣是过着舒适的生活、窃取党的基金、和玩弄他属下参与学生运动的女性同学。这2位主角无法与他取得联系并获得工作上的指示。他没有出席这2位主角宣誓成为党员的入党仪式。因为那时刚好有一个同志成功越狱,警察发动了大批人员追捕,他担心自己也会落入警方的法网。
In the novel, the cell leader of the two protagonists had in any case turned rotten, interested only in a life of comfort, siphoning party funds and exploiting a female student subordinate. He could not be contacted when the protagonists sought guidance, and failed to turn up to conduct the ceremony confirming the two as full members for a comrade had escaped from jail and he was afraid of being caught in the dragnet.

这本小说描述的这位小组领袖是最具争议性的。马来亚共产党,依据传统的纪律是不会公开做出任何评论,以及讨论它在‘513’事件扮演的角色的份量。
The portrayal of this cell leader is the most controversial aspect of the novel. The Party, used to hagiographies, was not open to any criticisms, and its role in the May 13 events cut down to size.

随着这本小说在2011年被翻译成英文版本后引起了注意。一个马来亚共产党的派系的成员发出传单文件要为詹忠谦死后平反,詹忠谦是马来亚共产党负责学运和指挥‘513’事件的负责人。(在陈剑的文章里也提到他的职位)这篇文件也详细的叙述了共产党内部的争论并把詹忠谦驱逐出领导层。
Following the attention which the book received when it was translated into English in 2011, a faction of CPM members circulated essays stating that it wanted to render the posthumous justice due to Zhan Zhong Qian, the CPM leader in charge of students, and in command of the May 13 events (also named in CC Chin’s piece). The essay also detailed subsequent infighting among the leadership which saw him ousted.

与此同时,一部分前华校中学生始终坚持‘513’事件纯粹是一场学生事件,断然否定了马来亚共产党与这起事件的关系。
At the same time, some former Chinese middle school students insisted on portraying May 13 as a completely student affair, flatly denying even the merest whiff of CPM presence.

一名前学生领袖在2012年公开谈论那个时候他在左翼活动时就明确表示与马来亚共产党无关。当一位听众提出这个尖锐的问题时,他坚决的回答马来亚共产党与‘513’事件没有关系。
A former student leader speaking publicly in 2012 on that period of his life left the CPM out of his account. He stuck to his guns that it had no relevance when a member of the audience raised the inevitable question.

《巨浪》的出版是双方的禁忌。在2011年翻译成英文版本时造成了他们两方面的不愉快。因为它最终是触及事件的敏感神经。
Ju Lang was thus taboo to both sides, and the translation of the novel into English in 2011 was cause for unhappiness on their part. It evidently touched raw nerves.

一个不能妥协的妥协
The uncompromising compromise

就如陈剑的叙述一样,《巨浪》以一个高潮作为结局:人民行动党赢得了1959年的胜利。
Like CC Chin’s account, Ju Lang ends on an ostensibly high note: the PAP’s victory in the 1959 election:

‘新加坡的政治气氛出现了一个新局面。人们都期望一个新的社会的降临。几位年轻男女也正期待他们新的工作任务的到来!
‘Singapore politics entered into a new phase. The people looked forward to a new social order. These young men and women too waited expectantly to assume their new tasks!’

当贺巾在《巨浪》里以人民行动党的胜利作为小说的结局。他在编后记里的说明可以看出他是做了妥协的。
While He Jin ends Ju Lang with the PAP victory, his Afterword spell out the reasons for what can be seen as the compromises he had made.

贺巾解释他为什么要等到自己退休后才写这本小说。因为他不希望触及这个‘政治地雷区’。这部小说早期的版本被出版社拒绝了——‘这个版本赤裸裸地触及历史事实’。第二版本的评语是小说应该是‘更加积极’。
He Jin explains that he waited till he was in retirement before writing the novel as he did not want to trigger off a ‘political minefield’. An early draft was rejected by the publisher –‘it stuck too rigidly to historical facts’. The second draft elicited the comment that the novel should be ‘more positive’.

这本小说的后记直接面对这个问题。
The Afterword confronts the issues head-on:

1950年代新加坡华文中学生的斗争,受到地下组织的影响,那是众所周知的事。因此,写学生运动,又不得不涉及地下组织问题。但有些人或许还不知道地下组织的复杂性。其实,这是总的敌强我弱的形势下必然存在的现象。马来亚(包括新加坡)人民,与英国殖民主义者之间的斗争,力量对比极为悬殊。
It is well known the Chinese middle school movement in the 1950 was influenced by the underground. Hence it is not possible to write about the students’ movement without dealing with the underground organization. However, many do not know of the complexities of the underground organization. This is an inevitable outcome of a situation where the enemy is overwhelmingly stronger. There was a wide disparity between the strength of the British colonialists and the people of Malaya (including Singapore)….

就以新加坡的地下组织为例子。当年遭到摧残极为严重。有一段时期,新加坡市委的组织只剩下一个学委单位,由此可见一斑。即便如此,在全国武装斗争处于低潮的时候,新加坡群众运动奇迹般地以雄健之势,如巨浪掀天。这除了我国的青少年继承并发扬了先辈们在抗日战争中的斗争精神以外,客观上也得力于亚非拉民族解放运动的高涨。

Taking the Singapore underground as an example, it suffered serious damage. At one stage, the Town Committee had only one surviving student committee. Despite this, and in the low tide of the armed struggle, the mass movement in Singapore miraculously developed into a mighty wave. The young people in our country had inherited the fighting spirit of their forefathers in the anti-Japanese struggle and in addition they were inspired by the objective conditions created by the high tide of the national liberation movements in the Afro-Asian countries.

当年投身运动的青少年,最初他(她)们思想上过于单纯。他们把那些参与革命运动的人都视为好人。殊不知有些素质不高的人,掌握了一定权力之后,不进行自我改造,就在复杂的情况下逐渐蜕化变质。
The young people who threw themselves into the movement initially thought naively that those who participated in the revolution were all good men and women. They did not realize that there were unsavoury characters who failed to undergo self-criticism when they held power….These people degenerated in the complex political situation.

贺巾的贡献却被他所属的党以及前‘513’学生运动参与者同志所诋毁。
He Jin’s contribution has been vilified by both the Party of which he remains a member, and by former May 13 student comrades.

然而,就是贺巾的这部小说已经为整个历史事件提供了一个反映了错综复杂的历史事实。这历史事实是被马来亚共产党以及 前学生领袖自我否定。
Yet it is this novel that has given the most complex and reflective historical account of the event, challenging the self-denial by the Party and the ostrich approach of some former student leaders.

与其压制《巨浪》的论据,这些人应该做的是对《巨浪》叙述‘513’的历史事件多进行叙述、收集、回忆和回馈的资料工作,并对历史进行补充、增加、查询、确认、挑战、毁灭…..巨浪。
Instead of being suppressed, there needs to be many more narratives, recollections and reflections that supplement, complement, interrogate, qualify, challenge or demolish Ju Lang.

那些拒绝接受对‘513’事件的历史事实评价的前学生继续感到恐惧是因为他们担心引起当局再挑起有关马来亚共产党在‘513’所扮演的角色。
The former students who reject historical assessment find themselves continuously fearing that the state would be provoked to raise the issue of the CPM’s presence in May 13.

陈剑在《联合早报》的文章证实了这一点。
The CC Chin essay in Zaobao proves their point.

与其让这种论述‘513’事件继续威胁这些人,不如打破官方一贯的论述:谈论新加坡在1950年到1960年之间的这段历史期间,只限制关于争论谁是共产党员、谁不是共产党员和这桩或哪桩事件是马来亚共产党在幕后参与。
But only if they continue to allow such writings to intimidate them, rather than to break away from the constricting state discourse that Singapore history of the 1950s and 60s is a matter of arguing who is a communist and who is not, or whether the CPM is behind this or that.

第三部分
Part 3
60年了。。。纪念1954年5月13日学生运动
60 Years on….Commemorating the May 13 1954 Student Movement

《巨浪》后的10年
10 years on from Ju Lang

这次举办的‘60年了…..纪念1954年5月13日学生运动60周年’聚会最具深刻意义的是邀请了林福坤在聚会上发表演讲。
The most significant aspect of ‘60 years on…. Commemorating the May 13 1954 Student Movement’ was that Lim Hock Koon was invited to give a speech at the event.

林福坤有条理的叙述了‘513’事件大家都熟悉的每一天和每一个星期的进展情况。
He gave a familiar, dutiful account of the day-to day, week-to-week development of the May 13 events.

最具意义的不是他应该说出的历史事实,而实际上林福坤就是《巨浪》里的主要角色。
The significance lay not in what he had to say, but the fact that Lim Hock Koon is no other than the main protagonist in Ju Lang

这个根生蒂固的禁忌终已 被打破了。
The entrenched taboo has been broken.

林福坤也是《Dennis Bloodworth, The Tiger and the Trojan Horse.》这本书的的主要坏蛋角色。
Lim is also one of the main villains in that fiction posing as history, Dennis Bloodworth, The Tiger and the Trojan Horse.

如《巨浪》的作者贺巾一样,他也是在‘513’事件后成为共产党员。林福坤后来逃脱了当局的逮捕。不过他在1970年-1979年被当局扣留。
Like He Jin, he became a full CPM member following the May 13 events. He was on the run from the authorities, and was detained from 1970-1979.

林福坤并不是简单的叙述过往的事件。在结束演讲时,他最后的评论不是1959年的胜利而是背叛。他最后引用了他的兄长林福寿医生的讲话;
Lim Hock Koon did not simply recount past events. His final note was not about the triumph of 1959 but the betrayal. He ended with the words of his brother Dr Lim Hock Siew:

就如一股惊涛骇浪,这些参与‘513’事件的极积分子在1959年把人民行动党送上了执政的地位。他们期盼着新诞生的政党能够给人民带来了在政治上的自由和社会的正义。但是,事与愿违。接着下来的是,人民行动党取得政权后采取了一系列的镇压行动,其手段比殖民地统治者更加残酷与无情。让我们看透了在新加坡历史上一场大规模的政治大叛变。
Like a gigantic tidal wave, these (May 13) activists swept the PAP into power in 1959, hoping that the newly formed political party would bring about political freedom and social justice to our people. But it was not to be. Subsequent repressions conducted by the PAP after it came to power proved to be more ruthless and relentless than those carried out by the colonial rulers and they have to be seen through and through as a massive political betrayal in Singapore history.

林福坤最后一句话留给了自己,他感慨地向年轻人说:‘命运掌握在我们自己手里,要争取,不怕牺牲,才能实现我们的梦想! ’
But Lim Hock Koon saved the last lines for himself, exhorting in particular the younger people present: ‘Destiny is in our own hands, we must struggle and be prepared to sacrifice if we want to realize our dreams’.

历史档案馆说了啥?
What the archives have to say

傅树介医生在演讲中进一步谈到那个时期马来亚大学社会主义俱乐部的会员和《华惹》(注:社会主义俱乐部的会讯)审判案,职工会的迅速成长。他特别提到了工运领袖詹密星(Jamit Singh)和福利巴士暴动事件。他引用了覃炳鑫博士已经确认了英国殖民者政治部的报告关于1954-1955年的资料,他已经证实马来亚共产党并没有唆使1954年5月13日学生和平请愿事件和福利巴士罢工和暴动。傅医生也揭露他在大英国档案馆阅读到殖民地档案有关福利巴士暴动似乎是英国殖民者那两个代理人从中挑起的。
Dr Poh Soo Kai’s speech extended the time-frame to bring in the conjoined University Socialist Club members and the Fajar trial, the burgeoning the trade unions, mentioning in particular Jamit Singh, and the Hock Lee Riots, and citing Dr PJ Thum’s confirmation that the Special Branch reports in the UK for 1954-55 state that the MCP did not instigate May 13, nor the Hock Lee Bus strike and riot. Dr Poh also revealed that two individuals whose cases he read in the Colonial Office files were likely to be agents provocateurs in the Hock Lee riots.

傅树介医生保留他的最后观点,有关劝说李光耀向林清祥道歉将永远不能为林清祥洗清这个‘污点’!李光耀清楚知道在1956年10月25日的群众大会上,林清祥面对群众的高昂情绪时不是号召群众去‘打警察’而是相反!(译者注:根据英国殖民者的现场警方人员的录音记录是:林清祥是告诉群众,警察也是受薪阶层的人。)
Dr Poh reserved his final point for advising Lee Kuan Yew to apologise to Lim Chin Siong for never ever clearing Lim’s name when he knew full well that Lim had told the highly worked up people attending the rally on 25 October 1956 NOT to ‘pah mata’ (beat the police) rather than the opposite.

林有福政府故意扭曲了林清祥的话作为逮捕林清祥的依据。覃炳鑫博士最近在(伦敦大英国挡案馆的)政治部档案资料里找到了林清祥的讲话记录原稿。(译者注:这份林清祥讲话记录原件是当时英殖民者的警方人员在林清祥在群众大会讲话现场录音后整理的报告。)
The Lim Yew Hock government deliberately twisted Lim’s words to justify detaining him. Dr Thum has recently found the transcript of Lim’s speech in the Special Branch files.

举办这个纪念聚餐会是一个社交集会。在台上演讲者在演讲,与会者在大会进行期间不断的进行私下的交谈(演讲者的讲稿转载在五一三事件60 周年纪念书内)
The commemoration lunch was a social event, and constant chatter went on while the speeches (which are in the commemoration publication) were made.

尽管与会者忙着与自己的老朋友交谈,但是,他们都关注着台上的演讲者。当林福坤和傅树介医生在他们的讲话中谈及当前的形势时,大家都报予热烈掌声。
However, even those busily catching up in conversation with their friends were paying sufficient attention to the speeches and broke into applause when Lim Hock Koon and Dr Poh brought their talks to the present situation.

但是出现目前的从5. 13延续到眼前的这种形势不是由‘老左’促成的。
But the link to the present was delivered most vitally not by the ‘old left’.

年轻左翼青年
The younger left

这次纪念‘513’60周年的聚餐会是由尊严(Maruah) 和第八功能(Function 8)共同主办的。林福坤举手代表‘513’那个时代的参与者向主办单位表示敬意。
The gathering was organized by Maruah and Function 8, and Lim Hock Koon expressed appreciation on behalf of the May 13 Generation for the gesture of respect shown to them.

年轻的导演苏德祥(Jason Soo)制作了一部短片。这是一部叙述一个由学生领导的学习小组在学校集中期间上课的情况。学生们在朗读伊索寓言的英语课程。
In a moving short film re-enacting a student-led study session during the camp-in at Chinese High, young director Jason Soo had the students reading a fable from Aesop in their English language lesson.

在《老鹰与箭》的传说中,老鹰最终被系着一根自己身上羽毛的箭给射死了。
In ‘The Eagle and the Arrow’ an eagle was fatally shot by an arrow whose shaft included a feather from its own plume.

这次的纪念聚餐会上是在与会者合唱激昂与活泼的‘513’歌曲的歌声中落幕。这些歌曲是老同学和社区朋友聚集在一块儿时经常唱的歌曲。‘513’的精神回响着整个会场。
The proceedings of the day ended with a rousing choir and mass singing session of the repertoire of 5-13 songs, which are regular fare for the many alumni and community choir groups that meet regularly. The energy of 5-13 reverberated through the vast hall.

old left singing

照片来自:何俊雄 Photo credit: Ho Choon Hiong

另一组人本来也准备上台演唱,但是由于时间的关系,他们无法如愿以偿。
Another group was scheduled to sing, but their item was cancelled as there wasn’t enough time.

但是,这首歌曲在后来也唱了
But the song was sung after all.

第八功能的3个成员兴致高昂的以福建歌曲欢送客人离开会场。
As people were moving out of the restaurant, they were greeted by a Hokkien song, sung with much gusto and good cheer by three Function 8 members.

f8 singing

照片来自:何俊雄 Photo credit: Ho Choon Hiong

一首耳熟能详的‘我爱我的马来亚’的歌曲被改名为:‘学生之歌’的第一段歌曲是:无良心的政府人, 害死了读书人
It was in the familiar tune of“I love Malaya”. Re-titled ‘Song of the Students’ the first line goes:

无良心的政府人, 害死了读书人
Bo liong sim aye zeng hu lang Hai see liao tak chay lang
Our heartless government Destroy the lives of students

第八功能的成员从在1976年被捕的前工艺学院学生那里学到了这些歌曲。
Function 8 members had learnt it from former Singapore Polytechnic students who were arrested and detained in 1976.

我们或许将能够看到这些当年的歌曲的内容被修改来反映我们这个年代。
Perhaps we will now be seeing updated lyrics to that tune, which reflect our times.

也许我们将会在未来的岁月里听到大家再唱这些歌曲。
And we will be hearing songs sung to this tune for decades to come.

附:

陈剑:《五一三学运的历史意义》

联合早报言论版 陈剑 2014年05月13日

1954年5月13日,新加坡发生了具有历史意义的学生运动。今天,五一三学运已经进入60周年,从历史的角度,我们重新对这一学运的历史进行评估和反思,是一件刻不容缓的要事。

60年前的今天,全星(当时称为星加坡)约千名来自各华校的中学生聚集一起,前往俗称皇家山(福康宁山)旁的总督府(现在的总统府)向英殖民政府任命的星加坡总督作和平请愿,向他提呈“要求学生免役请愿书”。原由是因殖民政府在星颁布了服役法令,要立即进行征召适龄(17岁及以上)青年入伍,接受军事培训,然后派往服役地点,为英殖民政府服役三年。

时值紧急法令已经生效近六年,英军在马来半岛正抄剿马共游击队,并逐步加大征召当地青年入役,实行以当地人对付当地人的离间政治策略,不仅制造和扩大种族间(特别是华巫之间)的矛盾,更进一步试图制造和扩大华人之间的矛盾。其时,华人社会因意识形态的割裂,有亲共产党与亲国民党华人的分裂,英殖民政府也培植了右翼的马华公会,以强化右翼华人的力量。

服役法令的目的十分清晰,就是以培训后的华人青年,作为剿共的工具,以减少英军的兵源损失。1952年,槟城人民抗英同盟会便发表声明,严厉谴责这一法令的提出和执行。

在星加坡,五一三和平请愿最终遭遇全面镇压,殖民当局以镇暴队殴打、驱赶请愿队伍、造成数十名学生被打伤致头破血流、48名学生当场被捕。对英殖民政府的打压学生,社会一片哗然,各方纷表关注并进行斡旋。历经五二二中正总校大集中、六二华中大集中等斗争及各方努力斡旋后,反服役学运终于取得成功,极大程度地粉碎了英殖民政府的分而治之、种族离间、族群离间的目的和举措。

首先,这学运的成功组织、营运和达至斗争的目标,离不开一个高效和严密的组织;其二是这个组织的领导者具有崇高的理想和顽强的斗志;再者是整个进程在不断变化的情势中能够把持住斗争的方向、采取灵活的应变斗争策略和方法,完成斗争的目标。这个组织便是马共在紧急法令颁布后,为星加坡的持续斗争而组织的星洲人民抗英同盟会(简称抗盟)。

具体领导学运进行斗争的是马共地下学运委员会(简称学委),学委主要负责人为黄明强,五一三学运具体负责人则是外号叫高佬林的詹忠谦,在校的主要负责人则以华中的谢姓同学为中心,组成一个称为“行动委员会”的七人领导小组。这七人小组成员来自华中、中正、南洋女中、中华女中与南侨女中,基本上都是抗盟的活跃分子,有的已经是积极党员,其中数名后来都转入地下,最终分别在不同时期辗转上队,参加到武装前线的战斗中去。

这七人小组是真正五一三行动的领导小组,有别于后来五一三请愿后的华中、中正分别秘密成立的八人缓役小组,以及由中华总商会斡旋后成立的由全星八间中学选出55人组成的“全星华文中学生请求学生免役代表团”(简称“免役代表团”)。这些后来成立的各委员会都是因势利导因应于形势而分别成立的。

对于五一三学运,不论是左的、还是右的,都必须承认它是新马人民反帝反殖斗争历史上的一件大事,具有历史意义,只是对它的性质定位、历史作用和历史意义有不同的解读和评估。笔者简略地就五一三学运对新加坡反殖建国所起的作用提出以下的解读和评估,从而肯定它的历史定位和特殊意义:

一、五一三学运不仅是一个马共主导、由学生抗英同盟执行的学生运动,它实际上是新加坡人民抗英反殖运动的重要环节。五一三学运是自紧急法令颁布以来,第一次人民抗争的重大政治突破。它不仅鼓舞了人民的反殖士气,也引导、激发和拓展了此后一系列新加坡争取民族民主独立的抗争。

二、在五人相聚便触犯紧急法令聚会条例下,抗盟的秘密运作突破了这个紧箍咒,不顾且敢于面对可能遭遇的严酷镇压,完善组织起全星华校学生进行请愿行动以及后来的大集中。这不仅是组织者具有极高的胆识和智慧的表现,也是同学们敢于斗争、敢于胜利、坚定和勇敢的表现。这是在一个理想的指引下,甘冒轻则被开除学籍、或被驱逐出境,失去学习的机会;重则遭遇殴打、坐牢、甚或被枪击、牺牲生命的危险,奋不顾身、勇于牺牲的行为。

三、五一三学运不仅影响全马(其时新马仍然是一家,全称马来亚)学生的反帝反殖运动,继后的中学联的成立、以及一系列的学运,直接引导了1957年起北自槟城钟灵中学、南至宽柔中学的全马反改制、维护华教大罢课行动,同时它成为此后新马学运学习与实践的楷模。

四、五一三学运的成功引导了当时的左翼力量以及当时的反殖小资产阶级参与到整个反殖斗争中来。五一三学运促成了左翼与留学归来的一批费边社会主义者包括李光耀、吴庆瑞等人的合作。可以说,五一三学运造就了费边社会主义者的政治资本和群众基础。特别是李光耀当时敢于为学生请命、为学生的正义行动辩护,为他打开了参与左翼运动的大门,他因而成为众多左翼团体的法律代言人、法律顾问,不仅为他创造了群众基础,还顺利地达成与左翼的统一战线,成立了人民行动党,开展了汹涌澎湃的群众运动,继而动摇了英殖民政权的根基。这是五一三学运取得的最大政治效益。

五、五一三学运的积极分子后来几乎都成为新加坡政治运动的中坚分子,五一三造就了大批的左翼干部,后来大都成为新加坡政运、工运、农运、学运、妇运、文运等的领导人和活跃积极分子,这包括人民行动党政府早期执政时的一些部长、政务部长及次长和许多积极干部。他们为新加坡的反殖建国作出了牺牲、付出了青春和幸福的代价,他们是真正建国的一代。

作者为新马左翼历史独立研究员

mini myna

may 13 banner
Photo credit: Ho Choon Hiong

>In memory of Tan Jing Quee

Part 1
May 13 2014: The fantastical version

Continuing silence 60 years on?

The ’60 years on…Commemorating the May 13 1954 Student Movement’ lunch gathering was a widely-publicised event, drawing an attendance of over 700. Up to the early 1960s the Chinese middle school students used to mark the day with exhibitions and speeches in schools.

On May 13 1954 the middle school students’ assembling on the footpaths outside Government House to await the outcome of their petition to the colonial authorities for exemption from conscription ended in state violence inflicted on them. The public display of brutality by the police stimulated the anti-colonial movement in Singapore.

Despite the overwhelming response to the 60th anniversary gathering, there would have been some who had reservations about the commemoration. The state narrative of the May 13 events targeted the Communist Party…

View original post 2,608 more words


留下评论

《集结》号角长鸣不止!《团结就是力量》歌声永不停息!争取祖国早日实现真正自由、民主与平等的薪火后续有人!

——纪念1954年5月13日新加坡华校中学反对英国殖民主义者强行实施征兵斗争胜利60周年午餐聚会。

2014年5月13日是新加坡华校中学生反对英国殖民主义者强行实施征召男性服兵役进行和平请愿的斗争60周年!

新加坡人权组织FUNCTION 8和非政府组织MURAH联合主办了一场午宴聚会纪念这一具有历史意义的日子!

出席这次纪念午宴聚餐会的人数达到800人。出席这次午宴聚会的年龄从80岁的老年人到20-30的青年人!他们当中很多是当年参与这场运动的组织者、参与者和支持者!青年人是目前推动新加坡早日实现自由、、民主和平等的主力军!

大会邀请了当年参与这场运动的林福坤老前辈讲述了华校中学生、华人社会各阶层在整个历史事件的来龙去脉!邀请了傅树楷医生讲述了‘513事件’对马来亚(包括新加坡在内)各族人民争取自由、民主、平等和独立斗争所产生的具有深远的历史意义!大会邀请了非政府组织的 Ananth Tambyah教授讲述当年马来亚大学学生受这场华校中学生的学生运动影响的深渊意义!大会也邀请了来自马来西亚前左翼组织的领导人和马来西亚的政党和社团出席这个盛会!

这是一场成功的纪念聚会!

这是一场缅怀过去、继承前辈们的斗争精神的盛会!

这是一场展望未来、继续高举争取祖国早日实现自由、民主、平等大旗的盛会!

2014年5月13日举办的午餐聚会图片YOUTUBE网址:

纪念‘513事件’盛会的意义在于:

它是继续2013年2月2日以傅树楷医生为首的前左翼政党和组织的领导人及其成员在芳林公园举行‘纪念1963年新加坡《冷藏行动》计划大逮捕’50周年集会、2013年12月16日在牙龙沈氏大道举行的《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动50周年纪念》新书发表与推介会后,新加坡的前左翼组织成员又一次聚集在一起展示当年与以李光耀为首的法西斯统治者进行不懈的斗争精神依然焕发的一次盛大集会!

我在2013年2月2日纪念新加坡左翼组织领导人及其成员在2013年2月2日在芳林公园举行《1963年‘冷藏行动’下大逮捕行动50周年》集会时发表了一篇文章,题目是:《给50年前与李光耀进行不懈斗争的老战友们、老同志们、老大哥们和老大姐们的信》》(见https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/%e7%bb%9950%e5%b9%b4%e5%89%8d%e4%b8%8e%e6%9d%8e%e5%85%89%e8%80%80%e8%bf%9b%e8%a1%8c%e4%b8%8d%e6%87%88%e6%96%97%e4%ba%89%e7%9a%84%e8%80%81%e6%88%98%e5%8f%8b%e4%bb%ac%e3%80%81%e8%80%81%e5%90%8c%e5%bf%97/)

我在文章指出了:

“50年过去了。

我们祖国人民反对李光耀政权的斗争运动并没有被李光耀从此扑灭!在国内和国外的新的历史条件下。我们的后辈今天以新的斗争形式继续与李光耀及行动党进行着艰苦不懈的斗争!他们的斗争已经取得了卓越的成绩! 他们已经成功的把李光耀政权笼罩在新加坡上空的白色恐怖驱走!咱们的同胞在后辈的呼唤下已经觉悟起来!”

以傅树楷医生为首的新加坡前左翼领导人及其成员的再一次聚集已经向新加坡人民发出了极其明确的讯息:我们将与年轻一代的新加坡一道继续参与反对李光耀法西斯政权、行动党的霸道统治!为祖国早日实现和平、民主化自由而斗争!

我在2012年9月25日在wangruirong@wordpress.com 发表了一篇文章,题目是:

《‘2016’——这是一组令人关心、期待和着急的数字、一组进行斗智、斗勇与耐力!》(见https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/2016-%e8%bf%99%e6%98%af%e4%b8%80%e7%bb%84%e4%bb%a4%e4%ba%ba%e5%85%b3%e5%bf%83%e3%80%81%e6%9c%9f%e5%be%85%e5%92%8c%e7%9d%80%e6%80%a5%e7%9a%84%e6%95%b0%e5%ad%97/)。

我写了如下一段话:

“这个群体是包括了前左翼政党和组织的支持者、华文教育背景的中老年土生土长的新加坡公民、非政府组织机构和教会组织等。这些群体的人民都不属于任何反对党组织,但是由于他们长期以来遭受PAP不同程度、不同原因的压制或迫害,因此希望在2016年能够看到PAP受到再一次的打击。

可以这么说:这一群体是所有反对党坚定不移的长期支持者!

为什么被长期、非法和不经公开审讯的前政治拘留者以及目前流亡在国外的所有新加坡爱国者关心和期待这组的数字?

2011年5月的全国大选、2012年的后港区补选和2013年的榜鹅东区补选的结果,带来了目前新加坡的政治气氛,深深鼓舞着遭受行动党封杀与迫害长期、非法和不经公开审讯的前政治拘留者以及流亡在国外的爱国者。

就他们而言,他们已经看到自己过去几十年来所作出的努力和牺牲,在50年后的今天已经产生积极的效果!

他们为自己祖国的自由、民主和平等而与李光耀进行斗争的历史事迹和斗争意志,已经并正在吸引和鼓舞着着年轻一代土生土长的新加坡选民及其后代的关注与同情;

他们希望:反对党在2016年能够进一步取得胜利,为早日他们早日回到祖国和人民的怀抱、为他们过去50年与李光耀之间进行的斗争给予历史性的平反;”

纪念1954年5月13日华校中学反对英国殖民主义者强行实施征兵服役的午宴聚会在《团结就是力量 》的激昂歌声中圆满结束!

2013年2月2日的芳林公园纪念《1963年2月2日新加坡冷藏行动50周年》纪念集会是以傅树楷医生为首的前左翼政党和组织的领导人吹响了《集结》号角的话,那么,这次的午餐聚会就是咱们《集结》号长鸣不止的说明!

2013年12月16日在牙龙沈氏大道举行的《新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年纪念》一书的发布会暨推荐会是咱们的队伍已经集结的话,那么,这次的午餐聚会就是咱们展示当年《团结就是力量》的精神永垂不朽的说明!

2014年5月13日举行的纪念1953年5月13日的午餐聚会的出席人数的众多、老中青三代共济一趟、在《团结就是力量》的激昂歌声中结束,就是以傅树楷医生为首的左翼领导人及其成员在长期的反对行动党的霸道统治、争取祖国早日实现真正自由、民主与平等的斗争薪火已经后续有人的说明!

(2014/05/16)