人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


2条评论

同胞们,团结起来!抛弃幻想、继续坚持争取早日实现一个真正自由、民主和社会公正的新加坡而斗争!

本文章是一群在50-70年代的左翼组织成员为支持傅树楷医生在2014年3月25日发表而共同发表的文章。全文如下:

同胞们,团结起来!抛弃幻想、继续坚持争取早日实现一个真正自由、民主和社会公正的新加坡而斗争!

李光耀在2015323日走了!他是以不光彩的手段掠夺星马人民反帝反殖斗争的果实,并以法西斯手段统治新加坡超过半个世纪的暴君!

前社阵领导人、坚定的左翼爱国者傅树介医生于2015325发表了题为:《关于2015/3/23李光耀逝世的声明》。我们在此严正的表示坚决支持傅树介医生的声明!

李光耀为了巩固自己的政治权利和地位,伙同英国殖民主义者及马来亚联合邦的东姑阿都拉曼集团在196322日把反对他们合并计划的数百名左翼政党人士、工会干部和学生等进步团体的领导人逮捕和投入牢狱。他们当中被监禁的时间从2年到32年不等!与此同时。李光耀为了彻底消灭左翼力量,动用了各种威迫利诱的手段(其中包括长期单独监禁、殴打、强迫政治拘留者上电视或在报章上发表‘声明’。)对付政治拘留者及他们的家属,进而迫使被捕的左翼进步人士放弃自己的政治立场!

他为了更好的统治新加坡,进一步削弱由新加坡三大种族用鲜血凝集而成的共同社会价值观,并进一步使其变质,不惜沿用英国人在50年代使用的《公安法令》(后来改称为《内部安全法令》),在70年代和80 年代,进一步把数以千计的爱国进步人士投入监狱!

李光耀走了。但是,李光耀所制定的超过半个世纪的法西斯统治政策并没有随着他走入坟墓!

行动党第四代领导人在李光耀死前和死后对李光耀过去半个世纪的所做所为,包括其法西斯统治手腕都公开表示肯定和赞扬!他们在颂赞李光耀的铁腕统治的同时,还念念不忘,继续对上个世纪6070、和80年代的左翼爱国进步领导人进行污蔑和人身攻击!

过去半个世纪的时间里,李光耀通过全面控制舆论、消灭民族文化、改变了民族教育的本质。他的大量引进外来移民的政策改变了新加坡的人口结构、进而导致土生土长的各族人士及他们的子女面对谋生与求学两难的局面。因为在李光耀大量引进廉价外来劳工的政策下,我们的工人必须面对被淘汰或者被迫接受低薪和低薪兼长时间工作的条件。我们的年老同胞在达到退休年龄时,完全没有信心去面对他们的退休生活。在高昂的治疗费面前,老年人在带病死亡与高昂的治疗费之间常常踌躇不前。另一方面,中小民族资本家面对着李光耀建立的新型,集官僚,买办,朋党于一身的大商业集团的围堵,经商环境日益艰难和恶劣!

在过去半个世纪,李光耀为了要把新加坡建成一个所谓世界级的大都会城邦,千方百计要引进世界各地的富商巨贾到新加坡进行投资和定居,结果把新加坡的生活费都推高到了第一世界的水平!而为了满足这些人的奢华要求与口味,新加坡到处兴建高楼大厦、高级购物中心和璀璨的娱乐场所!新加坡呈现了表面的繁华景象!但是,最具讽刺性的是李光耀并没有同时把新加坡人民的收入水平提高到与第一世界国家一样的水平!贫富之间的差距反而越拉越大!

暴君李光耀走了。但是,行动党第四代领导人还没有走。李光耀一手制定的政策所造成的众多余孽恶果,他们也无法解决!他们已经表明要继续延续李光耀所制定的方针和政策统治新加坡未来50年!难道新加坡人民还要继续面对和经受李光耀所造成的这一切痛苦吗!

各族同胞们、各阶层人民,第四代行动党人继续延续李光耀时代的政策,那是因为他们无法彻底从李光耀已经形成的法西斯模式中解脱出来!他们只能在人们的强烈反对下进行某些政策上微调。但是,李光耀无限量的引进外来移民政策是绝对不会改变的!这是行动党用以加强和巩固自己政权的唯一途径!

面对第四代行动党人的明确表态,我们唯有抛弃幻想,继续坚持为实现一个政治自由、公正和平等的社会而斗争!我们应该坚持反对行动党一党独霸,并且扩大这个反对的队伍,争取更多反对党的代表进入国会,为老百姓申诉!为人民发声!

人民力量

链接:(中英文对照)傅树楷医生:关于2015/3/23李光耀逝世的声明” https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/

Advertisements


4条评论

行动党是要唱《死爸好》?还是唱《死爸惨》?

 行动党人的折腾是要哪儿走?

  • 行动党富后代死爸好!——祭日当喜日——刷爆李光耀卡!

  • 行动党官后代死爸惨!——遗物当礼物——典当李光耀家档!

 我在FACEBOOK已经说过,行动党人死爸好!也是死爸惨!什么意思?

 死爸好,对新加坡和马来西亚的华人和土生土长的马来族和印度族同胞(除了来自中国的外来人和其他国家的种族外)来说,这是一句土俚语。这句话的意思就是:绝顶得好!马来语叫:BAGUS!

死爸惨,对新加坡和马来西亚的华人和土生土长的马来族和印度族同胞(除了来自中国的外来人和其他国家的种族外)来说,又是一句土俚语。这句话的意思就是:倒霉透顶!潮州话叫:凄凉! 

为什么说:行动党富后代死爸好?

行动党富后代之所以死爸好,就好在他们作为富后代的,在李光耀死后,他们立即炫耀他老爸在过去50年干过得事!这和中国的富二代一样,他们把老爸所拥有的一切炫耀给自己周边的朋友。现在行动党的富二代比中国的富后代更加牛逼!中国的富二代在炫耀时还会告诉朋友,‘我在爸的企业里当二把手!’。可是,行动党的富后代压根儿就没想过是否需要向老百姓说同样一句话。他们在李光耀死后直到今天,还一直在告诉老百姓,新加坡有今天的一切都是李光耀的‘伟大功勋’!(2015年4月10日,张志贤到中国出席官方举办的《中国井冈山第五届中国-新加坡领导力论坛》就是这么说的。)从上个世纪80年代开始李光耀进行所谓‘ 引进杰出的接班人’的计划下,那些跟随李光耀的富后代在李光耀死后拿出什么‘骄人的成绩单’给咱们老百姓看?他们确实就无法交出任何‘骄人的成绩单’!不信?

(一) 在李光耀尸骨未寒,或者老祖宗的风俗习惯‘三七’(即是死之日算起的21天)未过,他们就把李光耀卡来刷爆了!——

李光耀把新加坡从一个落后的渔村发展成今天的第一世界国家的生活水平!?是吗?请观赏以下的视频:

  • 把小漁村變成富國

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-PLI7h2w3A

  • 1957年,星洲 (石叻) Singapore

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOJaNmcy_Ik

  • Singapore – The Lion City, 1957》(新加坡—狮城,1957年)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7toyYrqjs

老祖宗有一句话说什么来的?吹牛不打稿。这群富后代真是死爸好!

从二次世界大战后到上个世纪50年代(也就是1959年5月30日前)新加坡是在英国殖民主义的统治下。在这之前,是日本的占领了三年八个月。在这之前是英国人‘商人’莱佛士以商人的名义进入的新加坡。咱们别把历史扯得太远了。这这段时期而言,候新加坡已经是一个东南亚地区充满商业经济活力和朝气蓬勃的小岛了。

见视频:《南洋抗日歌曲(四) 新加坡

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3q34dqoEok

在二次世界大战结束后,紧接著就是中国人民经过10年的国共两党内战、8年抗日战争和3年解放战争,到1949年中华人民共和国的成立以及朝鲜半岛的韩战爆发。这段时期,西方国家及其在亚洲地区的殖民地和附属国对中国进行全面的经济、政治封锁和军事包围下,新加坡的经济再一次成为了二次大战后在远东区英国最活跃的殖民地。——当时新加坡把大量从马来亚半岛运来的橡胶由水路运送到香港,再转口到中国大陆。

这是上个世纪50年代直至1959年5月30日行动党上台执政,新加坡成为自治邦前的经济历史的事实。

见视频:《新加坡

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcBO5xLX8p0

见视频:《柴船

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwbpOq8SUx0

上述这些视频都已经显示那个时候新加坡已经不是一个渔村了。它其主要的经济收入就是依靠新加坡河作为转口贸易港!新加坡共和国是在1965年8月9日李光耀仓促从马来西亚逃回来时才成立的!

如果行动党的富二代要炫耀说李光耀把新加坡从一个渔村发展成现在的一个世界大都会,那么,现在行动党大张旗鼓的庆祝他们的建国50周年的历史上就应该从日本入侵之前算起!?他们的所谓‘感激建国一代’是不是也一样得从那个一代算起!?

东印度公司进入新加坡的历史资料

您说,行动党富后代是不是死爸好?刷卡刷得昏了头!?李光耀卡刷爆!? 

(二)李光耀在维护华人教育、保留华族传统做出了卓越的贡献!?

在上个世纪50年代,也就是1959年5月30日新加坡还未摆脱英殖民地统治成为自治邦之前。英国殖民主义者都不敢明目张胆把新加坡华族社群主办的中小学关闭,即便是东南亚华文教育最高学府南洋大学也在几经风雨后成立了。

1965年8月9日新加坡共和国成立之前,也就是1963年2月2日,李光耀通过当时的英国人和马来亚联合邦的东姑.阿杜拉曼的手,在冷藏行动计划全面逮捕了数百名左翼、爱国民主进步人士前,新加坡的华文教育的中小学和南洋大学还存在。

李光耀为了达到其消灭左翼组织的力量,不惜一切向当时的英国人和马来亚联合邦的东姑.阿杜拉曼提供的逮捕名单里将近三分之一就是来自南洋大学的在籍和已经毕业优秀学生和来自华校中学的学生和中小学校长和教师。接着,在所谓‘培养精英人才’和‘为加强竞争力而提高新加坡华校学生的外语水准’的幌子下,有计划、有步骤的消灭华文教育。所有由华族社群主办的华校中小学都逃不过被消灭、或被变质成为以英语为主要教学课程的学校!看看今天的南洋理工学院、华侨中学、南洋女中、南桥女中、三山学校、新民学校……这些中小学校和由东南亚各阶层华人出钱出力开办的南洋大学也就是在这个时候被李光耀亲手关闭!

现在咱们的孩子和孙子在这些所谓的冠上‘华校’名称的学校就读。他们还能像咱们那一代人那样说纯正的华语吗?——不能!7句英语再加上不到3句的华语(中间还可能需要参杂方言)(请注意:我说的不是讲中国的普通话!我说的是:新加坡人惯用的华语!)

现在咱们的孩子和孙子在这些所谓的冠上‘华校’名称的学校就读。他们还能像咱们那一代人那样自在的阅读华文书报吗——不能!他们当中一些人还能准确的说出自己的中文名字发音吗?不能!他们大多数都是以带有英语口音发音说出自己的名字!

现在咱们的孩子和孙子在这些所谓的冠上‘华校’名称的学校就读。他们还能像咱们那一代人那样写上一篇几百字简单的华文作文或文章吗?不能!他们当中一些人就是自己的中文名字都无法工整的写出来!

现在咱们的孩子和孙子在这些所谓的冠上‘华校’名称的学校就读。咱的家长还得每个月花一百几十元聘请华语家教老师给他们补习华文!

历史的事实已经证明:李光耀是过去半个世纪消灭华文教育的罪魁祸首!

——就是:咱们的孩子和孙子在冠上‘华校’名称毕业的‘华校生’只能以英语作为与朋友和家人(包括自己的孩子)的沟通的语言工具!除此之外,华语对孩子和孙子们已经是一个学习语言的负担了!

——就是:咱们的孩子和孙子在冠上‘华校’名称毕业的‘华校生’被政府和公司派去中国工作和进行商业活动都无法听懂中国人在说什么?——他们到中国经商、或工作、或旅游,都得带上一个懂得华语的老新加坡人(50年代或60年代初期的华校生)去中国与中国人沟通!就是行动党的部长们到了中国都必须以英语作为官方公开场合的会谈工具!(2015年4月10日张志贤到中国出席官方举办的中国井冈山第五届中国-新加坡领导力论坛,致开幕词就是以英语发言!)

如果说李光耀‘维护华文教育和华族文化有功’!?这就是他的‘丰功伟绩’!?

您说,行动党富后代是不是死爸好?刷卡刷得昏了头!?李光耀卡刷爆!? 

这是1955年南洋大学落成后牌匾

1958年南大的校匾

这是李光耀当年开始着手拆除“南洋大学‘四个大字前在搭建的脚手架

180年代南大校匾被撤除前

这是”南洋大学“四个大字被拆除后的仅存的入口

南大校匾被撤除后

(三)行动党富后代说,李光耀为新加坡的工运现代化作出了重大的贡献!?——通过‘劳工运动现代化’和建立‘劳资政的三角铁关系’,提高的新加坡工人的生活水平和稳定与提高了生产力!?

 ‘劳动现代化’!这只不过是李光耀在当年让内部以帝凡那为首的右翼工会组成的‘全国职总’(简称‘NTUC’)与由林清祥为首的左翼职工运动领袖领导的‘沙都’(全新加坡职工会‘SATU’的简称)进行抗衡失败后,全面封闭SATU属下的工会后采取的法西斯手段的手套。

李光耀非常清楚,50年代以林清祥为首的左翼力量之所以能够组织广大的群众进行反殖民地运动、在1959年之所以能够在大选中击败以林有福为首的英国人一手扶植傀儡政权,靠的就是广大工人阶级的力量的支持!1961年左翼能够动员数以万计的支持者进行反对李光耀提出新加坡加入马来西亚的合并条件的斗争,靠的还是左翼工会组织的工人力量!

为此,李光耀在1963年的冷藏行动和1965年通过和实施‘职工会修正法令’,把左翼职工会全部封闭、左翼职工会的重要领导人全部逮捕入狱、或者吊销那些出生地在马来亚的工会领袖的公民权(前武吉知马区立法议员李思东的公民权就是在这样的情况下被吊销公民权的。他至今还未获得恢复)或者驱出到马来西亚。这就是李光耀进行的所谓‘工运现代化’。

这个所谓‘工运现代化’的实质目的就是把工人阶级出身、反对李光耀的法西斯统治和政治维护工人利益的工会基层领袖和干部全部从工厂企业里连根拔起! 

到了上个世纪70年代,NTUC派到工厂企业的基层干部都是经过新加坡政治部严格筛选,保送到行动党的领袖训练班培训出来的学生!他们最终都是成行动党的党员并在李光耀的恩赐下当上了国会议员……等。李光耀的‘工运现代化’的政策,就是外来的工人(当时主要是来自马来西亚)逐步以低廉薪金和在极端苛刻的工作条件下取代了当时由左翼工会领导土生土长的新加坡工人!

李光耀把以帝凡那为首的NTUC职工会领袖全部工会领袖拴在在自己的裤腰带上。这些工贼吃香喝辣,他们的责任就是对雇主的剥削行径采取默许的态度?他们对要求合理待遇和工作条件的工人反抗采取了压制和清除出生产线立场!(2012年到2013年期间出现的外来劳工(SMRT中国籍司机的罢工和建筑行业的工人集体停工)争取要求合理工资、抗议资方拖欠工资和合理的工作条件……等等。)

从李光耀宣布新加坡共和国成立后开始,李光耀以办法工作准证和雇佣准证为控制阀门,大量过去属于左翼工会领导下的工会干部或者涉嫌与左翼工会干部关系密切的的个人都被清除工厂企业。在李光耀的‘工运现代化’的幌子下,土生土长的新加坡工人队伍在工厂企业里已经属于少数群体。取而代之的是行动党用飞机到第三世界贫穷国家(如中国、印度支那三国和南亚次大陆)和马来西亚用大巴载到新加坡的外来劳工。他们都在李光耀利用工作准证和雇佣准证需要更新的威胁下,对不合理的剥削采取的忍气吞声的态度!

李光耀确信,只要新加坡的工厂企业雇佣的工人不是以新加坡人为主,这些工人就不会参与、支持或者同情新加坡人民争取实现一个自由、民主和平等的斗争!那么,就不会对新加坡的政治产生任何潜在威胁。

这就是李光耀向全世界夸耀的新加坡的‘职工运动现代化’和‘劳资政铁三角关系’的政治目的!目前新加坡土生土长的工人还继续面对和承受的痛苦!—所以的企业工厂都以低廉的工资和愿意长时间工作为条件聘用外来劳工和行政管理人员。以林瑞生为首的全国职总工贼们为此提出了‘加薪与生产力挂钩’、‘新加坡工人必须接受循序渐进的加薪现实’、‘工人的退休年龄将从过去的55岁提高到62岁’……等等(见陈川仁在2015年4月10日的人力部的博客中贴文还念念不忘李光耀所说的:外籍人士增加 不威胁本地人饭》)

见视频:

http://www.channel8news.sg/news8/latestnews/20150411-sg-tcj/1778118.html

 您说,行动党富后代是不是死爸好?刷卡刷得昏了头!?李光耀卡刷爆!?

 

(四)光耀的‘把新加坡发展成为国际大都会’的功劳就是‘无限制和无限量的引进外来的政策’?!

行动党的富后代说,与50年前相比,新加坡到出现一片繁华气象!是的。大家看见新加坡确实是这样!

——这些到处林立的高楼大厦和商业购物中心——那是为来自世界各地的巨贾都涌到新加坡购买有地房产和高尚公寓而建造的;

——政府组屋的租赁屋契售价(不论是政府新建造或者是转售市场的二手组屋)不断攀升!——土生土长的老百姓都住进屋价高昂的政府组屋——那是李光耀的引进外来移民和外来劳工政策下,大量的外来移民和他们的家眷的涌入的结果;

——汽车在宽敞的泊油路上满街穿行!所有公共交通工具都出现拥挤不堪的现象;——这是行动党制造出来的道路交通的拥挤的结果!行动党的‘拥车证’标价和‘繁忙时段进入市中心的闸口’收费从中捞的满贯;

——为了吸引外来巨贾的孩子到新加坡就读,他们在提高和加强学生的学习与学术说平等幌子下,对中小学和大学学校的环境进行‘现代化’的改造和翻新。结果是中小学和大学学费不断的上涨!——外来移民完全不受这个措施的影响,而土生土长的老百姓却无法承担孩子的学费,必须向银行和公积金局通过借贷来支付容易高涨的学费和孩子补习费。

行动党的富后代说:这一切就是证明‘李光耀把新加坡发展成为国际大都会’的‘伟大的贡献’!您说呢?

让我们在进一步揭开行动党富后代的所谓‘李光耀把新加坡发展成为国际大都会’的‘伟大的贡献’的神话吧!

1. 谁是这些高昂价格的高楼商业大厦和私人公寓的既得利益者?—淡马锡控股集团、新加坡政府投资有限公司(GIC)以及那些附生在它周围的大、中发展商和外国投资集团!

GIC与淡马锡经营流程图

2. 新加坡高昂价格的高楼商业大厦和私人公寓是为谁所建造的?—是为了让到新加坡的外来巨贾所准备的!住在这些高楼商业大厦和私人公寓的主人非富即贾!

3.谁是新加坡政府组屋屋价不断的攀升的幕后推手?—行动党政府是政府组屋的幕后推手!更明确的说,这是李光耀无限制和无限量的引进了外来专业白领和外来廉价劳工所造成的结果!这些人群的收入与外来巨贾完全不一样!他们是在行动党的廉价劳动力和颁发永久居民或公民权的引诱下来到工作和居住的。他们和咱们土生土长的老百姓一样,绝大多数是买不起价格高昂的商业大厦或是私人公寓的!但是,他们买得起或者被迫在市场转售的购买政府组屋!

09

 4. 谁是今天土生土长的老百姓无法支付自己的子女在中小学和大学的高昂学费的幕后推手和既得利益者?—行动党政府是这一切的幕后推手和既得利益者!李光耀是这一切的始作俑者!

真如行动党的官后代所说的‘李光耀把新加坡发展成为国际大都会’作出了‘伟大的贡献’。那么,他们今天就不必设立各种机制和机构来‘援助’面对困难的土生土长老百姓!今天他们就不必在出台任何新收费(组屋屋契租赁价格、公交车车资、学生学费、看病的住院和医药费……等等)时强调是‘老百姓负担得起的’口头禅了!他们就不必在新的行政收费事实后要‘紧贴’低收入家庭了!

您说,行动党富后代是不是死爸好?刷卡刷得昏了头!?李光耀卡刷爆!? 

看来行动党富后代确实沉迷在死爸好欢乐中!他们通过自己党棍、狗腿子和既得利益者在国会内外里应外合下准备进行造神运动!

他们发挥了天马行空的想象力:

新加坡樟宜国际机场改名为“李光耀国际机场”;

国会正式颁予李光耀“国父”称号;

竖立李光耀功德碑

到处设立李光耀塑像;

街道以李光耀命名;

建筑物以李光耀命名(包括政府机构、机场、码头、广场等) ;

设立李光耀博物馆;

丹戎巴葛区改为“李光耀区”;

李光耀的遗物在各选区一一展示;

设立李光耀逝世纪念日;

设计李光耀纪念邮票;

设计李光耀纪念首日封;

设计新的李光耀人像钞票;

赠封李氏家人为新加坡特权家庭;

李光耀故居保留为永久古迹;

总统府改称李光耀办公府;

每年举办李光耀追悼会;

国会每逢开会静默三分钟;

学校每天升旗礼静默三分钟;

撰写李光耀赞歌,每天于电视与广播开始播放;

全民公投,将新加坡改为“李光耀城”;

在信约中加入“永远记着国父李光耀的教导” ; 

这场造神运动与当年在中国文革期间出现的盲目崇拜中国已故毛泽东有啥差别?

这场造神运动与目前在朝鲜进行的盲目崇拜金日成、金正一和金正恩又有啥差别吗?

您说,行动党富后代是不是死爸好?刷卡刷得昏了头!?李光耀卡刷爆!? 

我看,行动党富后代根本就不是死爸好!他们就是这张附图所说的:TALK COCK SING SONG !他们就是面对老百姓的日益不满,自己又无能,自己无法交出任何可以让老百姓看得到实实在在的好处的成绩单,只好拿李光耀卡来刷!

鸟话

行动党富后代的《死爸好》造神运动已经把李光耀唱绝了!

一旦行动党第二代头儿走时,行动党的富后代是不是也要唱《死爸好》?唱什么?唱他干得比李光耀来的‘好’?那是不可能的事?这样一来,目前这场《死爸好》就等于白唱!—他们只能唱第二代头儿衷心于李光耀的法西斯统治手腕、誓死捍卫李光耀引进外来移民的政策!至于第三代头儿,那我看就绝对没戏段可唱了!——他们就是:虎穴里走出来的羊羔子!

新加坡人民笃信新加坡一个自由、民主和平等的社会。我说的是新加坡人民,不是人民行动党!目前的鼓吹造神运动、推崇个人崇拜不是老百姓在推动的!真正的推手是行动党!他们是行动党通过人民协会以及属下的居委会和公民咨询委员会等其他国营企业、政联企业以及既得利益者在推波逐浪!

今天行动党富后代在大唱特唱《死爸好》李光耀,只能说明自己心中没底,或者说,底气不足!他们是用这样的方式来掩盖自己的内心空虚和精英们的束手无策!因此,这场《死爸好》的丑而表演最终必须由行动党的官后代自己唱《死爸惨》!

为什么说:行动党官后代最终必须唱《死爸惨》?

小子玄孙

 行动党死爸死妈已经是不可改变的历史事实了!行动党的富后代是否可以像公鸡一样天一亮就开始哭父哭母呢?可以。天要下雨娘要加。谁也阻止不了、也无法阻止、也不需要阻止!他们可以风雨不改的继续披麻戴孝的过着哭父哭母的日子。

行动党官后代既然要歌功颂德李光耀把新加坡从一个渔村发展到今天的‘辉煌成绩’、把李光耀描绘成‘丰功伟绩’的‘建国总理’,不惜把上个世纪50年代的新加坡说成是李光耀把渔村变成现在的世界级大都会。那么,他们就不可以、也不可能绕过上个世纪50、60、70和80年代新加坡的左翼和进步民主爱国力量领导人民反对李光耀的斗争历史!特别是李光耀为了消灭新加坡左翼力量而在1963年3月2日伙同英国殖民主义者和马来亚联合邦的东姑阿都拉曼集团联手进行的冷藏行动计划!

行动党的官后代为了要歌功颂德李光耀,把不惜把上个世纪50年代一个渔村发展到今天的‘辉煌成绩’,归功于李光耀的‘丰功伟绩’,并把它奉为‘建国总理’。那么,他们就不可以、也不可能绕过上个世纪60年代(也就是新加坡被迫退出马来西亚)前两个月编制加入马来西亚的神话、也不可能绕过李光耀为什么在合并后的609天退出马来西亚的政治原因!

选择或反对合并条件

前不管行动党的官后代要怎样折腾自己都无所谓。摆在老百姓眼前都是现实的问题是:

  • 家庭主妇的柴米油盐的菜篮子工程; 

  • 夫妇的房贷、车贷、孩子的教育费; 

  • 父母和自己家人的医药费; 

  • 工作繁重压力大、薪金低少,无法应付全家的日常支出开支;

    父母和自己面对退休养老……等等。

这一切是睁开眼睛就得天天面对的现实生活的问题!老百姓不会因为行动党富后代刷爆《死爸好李光耀卡》,自己的日子就会好起来!这是一个行动党富后代无法解决的问题!

行动党官后代现在马上必须解决的问题是:

  • 公积金的最低存款;

  • 退休公民全额领取退休金问题;

  • 如何压制高昂的物价;制止不断攀升的屋价;

  • 如何控制拥车证的投标价如过山车一样起伏;

  • 如何解决家长支付孩子们的高昂教育费;

  • 如何缓和外来移民与土生土长的公民之间在工作、薪金、社区生活方式的各种矛盾;

  • 年轻一代对自己的工作和生活素质不满;

  • 年轻夫妇因为沉重的生活压力无法成家立业或者不敢生育、多生育孩子;

  • 年轻人无法让自己的年迈的父母过上真正的退休生活……等等

行动党死爸死妈的日子绝对是不会好过!这是现实和无法回避的问题!他们绝对无法提出任何比李光耀时代更好的点子来解决这些问题!因为这是李光耀一手制定的政策,已经形成了一个结构性的官僚系统,行动党官后代里面的精英们谁也没有能力、也不敢去牵动它!更为重要的是:官后代的死爸死妈活着的时候已经过贯‘要钱开口’的日子了!解决目前的一切问题在过去都是由李光耀一手操办。他们已经被宠坏了!这也是目前的局面的必然结果! 

行动党的官后代现在提不提出新点子来解决目前老百姓面对的问题已经不是当务之急的工作!

他们当务之急的工作是要不要继续坚持或放弃李光耀在过去半个世纪前制定的引进外来移民政策、精英治国政策、继续巩固、维护和扩大行动党已经建立庞大的新兴官僚买办集团及其既得利益集团的朋党经济利益! 

行动党官后代是否可以继续坚定的执行李光耀在过去半个世纪前制定的引进外来移民政策、精英治国政策、继续巩固、维护和扩大行动党已经建立庞大的新兴官僚买办集团及其既得利益集团的朋党经济利益!可以!但是其结果就是:人民争取祖国实现一个真正自由、民主和平等的新加坡将会以提早到来!

各族、各阶层的同胞们,团结起来、抛弃幻想,继续坚持争取早日实现一个自由、民主和平等的新加坡而继续奋勇前进!

拼

 链接相关文章:《只要行动党不放弃李光耀的‘引进外来移民政策’和‘精英治国政策’,谁当总理都一样https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/);


3条评论

(中英文对照)傅树楷医生:关于2015/3/23李光耀逝世的声明

编者注:

1.傅树介医生是新加坡社会主义阵线前助理秘书长及1963-1973与1976-1982冷藏行动下政治被拘留者;

2.本文转载自: http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/dr-poh-soo-kai-lee-kuan-yew-political-pimp

关于2015/3/23李光耀逝世的声明

傅树介照片 党章 01

对我来说,从1959 至1990年担任新加坡总理的李光耀的最贴切描绘就是他是一个政治老鸨(音读“lao bao”,亦即拉皮条者也)。当我在1973年底从牢狱中被释放出来的时候,我称他为政治老鸨。当时,他威胁我说要收拾我。这就导致我于1976年再度被捕。

政治老鸨究为何物?简而言之,就是一个把其自身的人民,以及人民的福祉像卖淫一样出卖给其政治主子以换取利益的人。而他自己与他的家人,加上他的朋党在这个过程中捞得了好处。这难道不是此人最贴切的一个描绘吗?

新加坡的人民在英国殖民主义者统治下饱受压迫的日子对当今的新加坡年轻一代来说可能是不可思议的事。那种苦难的日子在实际生活中到底是怎样的一种滋味?首先,新加坡的经济被他们完全垄断了;当地的政治机关中更谈不上有人民选出的代议士。在民事服务机构中,种族歧视的现象猖阙,欧裔人士独享厚待。在英国人经营的商业机构中英裔官员虽然被禁与当地妇女结婚,但是他们却可以包养当地妇女为情妇,作为玩偶。英国人有没有为我们的孩子开办学校?政治生活里有民主可言吗?新加坡人的人权有没有受到尊重?自由发挥的报章有没有存在?诸如此类实实在在的问题在五十年代初的日子里都是普通新加坡人民在英殖民主义者统治的枷锁捆绑制约的忧患。

为数不多的人可以回忆起李光耀的源起就是在五十年代初以一个反英殖民主义者的面具作为伪装起家的,他是以最大的咆哮高喊反殖叫骂声的家伙。下面就是一个例子说明他非但善于叫嚣反殖口号,而且还变成一个反“白人”的种族主义者。1956年6月6日在一场立法议会的辩论中,他说了以下的话:

“他们(英国人)正在寻找一个傀儡集团签署一份协议书。在我们这里所有反殖的政党里面,我们的职责就是保证我们当中不会有傀儡集团成立来去签署这份协议。我认为我们是会成功的,因为当你对一个亚洲人搓查得彻底时,他会聚齐精神说:“打倒白人”。他说,数百年来要把这种意识从心脑里提拔出来确实需要很长的时间,尤其是当白人仍然还留在我们的周围时。那是一场挑战。我们必须加倍努力。我们应该发起一场运动,基本上属于非共的运动。一旦机会来临,便可以治理马来亚,永恒也好,一段时间也罢。”

然而,背着新加坡人民,李光耀正在向英国人释放出信息说他的那种言论只不过是拿来欺瞒他的人民的伎俩而已。

1956年,当行动党内的左翼领导层–林清祥等–被林有福政府逮捕,李光耀便四处周旋放话,称赞林有福有胆有勇。他这样做的目的就是要让英国的情报组织晓得英国可以在他的精心设计下,投放出好让新加坡人民欣赏的反殖斗士的形象与他的真正本质之间划开界线。到头来,此人也确实没有被英国人看错。李光耀让英国人知道在英国“去殖民化”的过程中,他是一个可以让英国“照天意”钦定的一个人物之一。

另外一次是1956年林德宪制谈判的时候。李光耀没有支持马绍尔与林清祥为争取新加坡自治而提出的要求。而当行动党主席杜进才发表声明表示马绍尔的立场实际上跟行动党原先宣告的政策吻合时,李光耀大发雷霆,对杜进才大表不满。这一点,全都看在英国人的眼里。

1957年初,更多的商谈(就“林德宪制”下步入自治政府的谈判)在新加坡举行,以便为该年下旬假伦敦举行的一场会议做好准备。按英国政府在该会议上将与新加坡的代表签署一份协议书。

当时,英国与行动党两方都不要林清祥以及同时被拘留的其他行动党党员参与1959年的大选。于是,李光耀向殖民地专署建议在即将签署的协议书里面置入一项条款禁止被拘留人士参加1959年的大选,以及禁止该大选所产生的议会。但是,李光耀告诉英国人说该建议应该显示是来自他们(英国人),说他们应该承担该不民主措施的臭名。

然而,英国国会对此举措恐怕不会高兴;因为拘留者毕竟不是犯罪份子,他们拥有政治权利。而另一方面,李光耀却借机对该项条款展开强烈攻击,而且还责备英国不该采取此项不民主的措施剥夺新加坡选民选出林清祥的机会。这事发展的结果就是林清祥被禁止参加1959年的大选。

李光耀甚至还在丹绒巴葛的补选拜票活动中说如果中选的话他会废除该项条款。他方便了自己,却轻易忘记了他完全没有兑现他的此项诺言的半点意愿。他把人民的利益出卖给了殖民地主子,并在此过程中捞得了利益。此乃李光耀的固有本质!

然而,政治老鸨的路途,夹在英国殖民主义者的利益与人民对民主与独立的诉求的夹缝间的滋味并非是令人羡慕的东西。1959年大选胜利后不久,李光耀反殖斗士的形象在新加坡人民心目中急剧蒸发消失。其原因是即便他执政了,可是他并没有寻求途径去释放所有还在牢狱中苦苦等待自由的拘留人士。此外,他还利用不民主的手段加强各种规定去限制工会的活动。因此,到了1961年,当王永元采取与行动党相同的选举纲领在芳林区补选中挑战行动党的时候,王永元轻易地把李光耀击败!那个纲领就是要反殖要民主的纲领。

政治老鸨的下一个救命稻草就是采取更多欺瞒伎俩。在安顺区补选投票该日,也就是芳林失败后一个月左右,李光耀向英殖民主义者提出一项阴谋诡计。其内容是:

他(李光耀)向英国建议释放所有政治拘留者,意图是要讨好新加坡人民以便挽回他在人民间流逝的信誉,同时又希望借此平息行动党内部党员与部长们的不满情绪。但是恰恰与此同时,他又向谢尔克(英国最高专员)强调英国应该下令取消该措施!

这项诡计最终因为没有得到英国的合作而胎死腹中。而此时,意识与决心已经强化了的英国当局觉得该是强制其政治老鸨“走出阴暗的橱柜”的时候了。要迫使他忘掉所有那些什么“为争取人民的心脑而进行的战斗”的言辞叫嚣,而跟着英国与马来亚联合邦的尾巴走,进行大规模残酷的逮捕政治对手的行动 — 1963年2月2日的冷藏行动就此一锤定音。

同样的,1963年的合并计划,实质上就是他在芳林与安顺两区补选大败后为了挽救其政治生命而使出的绝望伎俩。

不言而喻,英国人也同样被这两场行动党的惨败坐立不安;因为他们明了在充满敌意的当地人民的海洋中,他们在新加坡的军事基地也有不保的可能。哪种局面万一出现,就意味着英国在整个区域内的战略利益会丧失殆尽。对英殖民主义者而言,他们在新加坡的军事基地是触摸不得的。解决这个问题的方案,唯有将新加坡与东姑的马来亚联邦合并起来,成为一体。

合并对李光耀来说就是他的一个政治救生圈。至于要如何通过合并这个长堤两边人民都热切期盼的愿景的实现来促进两个地区人民真正融为一体这一点,他绝对没有丝毫的理念。李光耀甚至还曾告诉英国人说如果他在合并后的政治安排中不占有一席之地的话,那么合并就不会成功。

李光耀踏入合并的圈子是抱着一份无地自容的野心进去的。那就是想要取代马华公会作为巫统的华族伙伴。但这个想法东姑是绝不会接受的。这时,自觉受到凌辱的他,决定要使出一点颜色给东姑看,看人民行动党在马来亚华人族群当中的所谓势力。于是,背着原先不参选的默契,合并之后他径直决定马上参选。然而却遭遇惨败。跟着,他决定转去玩弄种族牌,以“马来西亚人的马来西亚”的口号作为幌子,冀望华人族群会给他支持。他这样做导致国内种族关系越来越紧张,危险氛围不断往上飚升。这时,东姑面临一场前所未有的抉择:要把李光耀抓起来还是让新加坡脱离大马。

李光耀跟联合邦进行的投机性合并已经在马来半岛人民与新加坡岛人民之间造成了深长的伤痕,给两地人民之间一向享受的兄弟情谊造成重创。在领导人之间,当马哈迪向李光耀要求给予一笔贷款来应急时,李光耀毫不犹疑地拒绝了。但是,当苏哈多提出相同的要求,李光耀却应允了。

李光耀玩的种族把戏在马来西亚力挺华族权利与华文教育只不过是一种幌子。随着1965年的新马分家,返回新加坡弃下所有面具时,他的原形就完全毕露了。对着南洋大学这家代表全体华人的历史文化符号的学府,他气势汹汹而来,使出严厉的压迫手段。而我们的国语的命运又好到那里去?在马来语言领域里至今仅存的就只有 Majulah Singapura 这首歌。至于英文,或者准确一点应该说“新式英文”(Singlish)却大行其道,成为新加坡的通用语。

随着国家独立以及英殖民地主子的离去,或许有人会以为政治老鸨的名堂已经不再适用于李光耀。对于有这种想法的人,或许是可以原谅的。但是,那毕竟还是不正确的,因为一朝老鸨,永远是个老鸨。把人民的利益出卖给如他所说的 — 世上手握“最重的枪把”的人(或国家)。于是,他如出一辙地在南中国海为美国利益提供服务,同时跟区域利益唱反调,不同的只是现在手段上是比较高明微妙罢了。

今天,新加坡人民在缺乏民主的政治经济生活中已经度过50多个年头。受到枷锁控制下的新加坡报章出版业在一些“自由世界”报章的帮助与怂恿下向我们一直兜售虚假意识,说什么要是新加坡实行真正的民主与尊重人权的话,就不会取得今天这么高水平的物质生活。按此说法,那么众多西方民主国家又怎么能够取得比我们还要高的生活水平呢?此矛盾又怎么解释?

李光耀唯有借助内安法令,从1963年的冷藏行动一直到1987年的光谱行动来吓唬人民,把反对他的政治力量清扫到荒芜一片,使我们的国家变成政治上的不毛之地。他的做法,就是通过给合法的政治对手贴上诸如共产党与马克思等各种各样的标签去捞得所谓的合法性。

我们要再次质问:为何西方民主国家社会能够包容社会主义政党,共产党,甚至法西斯政党,让他们参与竞选,而同时还能取得比我们更高的生活水平呢?

问题是:为什么李光耀要甘于犯下对政治对手施行大规模,同时又是系统性迫害的罪行呢?为什么他会撕破每一项民主与人权的原则来继续掌权呢?归根结底是因为哪种不名誉的举措能够给该政治老鸨与他的家属以及他的朋党带来好处,而不会让无助的人民得到丁点的利益!

行动党已经用铁腕统治了50多年。当下,它无耻地付给它的部长与法官世上最高的薪酬,并断言由于此类薪酬与GDP挂钩,该政策也就理所当然地反映了任人唯贤的宗旨。我们都知道新加坡是世上百分之一的超级富豪利用的税务避风港。这些人把钱存放在新加坡是为了可以在他们自己的国家免缴所得税。他们的钱就这样鼓胀了新加坡的GDP,使之变得庞大。我们也知道外来直接投资流入新加坡来是因为受到新加坡提供的有利条件所吸引,职工总会控制下的驯良的劳动队伍也是其中一个吸引他们到来的甜头。放到新加坡人民与他们的家属的实质生活上来说,这些家庭的经济支柱便可能受到不公平的待遇或是遭受严重的剥削。其所附带产生的结果就会影响到他们的孩子以及其他依靠者的福祉。此外,外来投资也会在GDP的总量上显现,模糊人们对实际经济表现的视线。所有这些征兆如果拿来跟素有“十巴仙夫人”称号的苏哈多夫人明目张胆的贪污相比,当然还是很精致亮丽的。在独裁的印尼苏哈多总统这个人权破坏者垮台之前,人人都知道他还是李光耀的的心腹良朋呢!

新加坡最富裕的1%人口与社会底层的99%普通新加坡人民之间存在的收入差距导致后者心生不安与被边缘化。他们担心他们的组屋的价值会不会发生问题。而更重要的是当他们退休之后,他们的公积金存款是否还可以养活他们,安度余生。因为,在新加坡,到处都可以看到建国一代的较不幸者在拾荒,不是收集人家丢弃的纸盒纸箱来转卖,就是在售卖小包纸巾,以换取可怜的微薄生活补贴!

另一方面,新加坡经济中占有较大区隔的机构,例如政府投资公司,它们的结构与经营状况,高层人员的薪金与福利等事项欠缺透明的现象对于消除或减少新加坡人民心中的恐惧—即担心他们的公积金会不会被挪用来作别的用途—并没有帮助。

新加坡商场上的透明度的问题,或者应该说是欠缺透明度的问题使人们想起邓亮洪先生与李家在酒店产业有限公司(HPL)事件上所发生的“要命性”摩擦。按该事件于1996年在新加坡触发的一场政治风暴中,新加坡股票交易所对酒店产业有限公司发出谴责告示,指该挂牌的产业发展公司在没有寻求股东的许可下便把一些公寓单位—指明是“那申美玉”公寓—以折扣价出售。邓先生后来离开了新加坡。

明了我们的历史才能够把我们从李光耀这个政治老鸨的遗产中解放出来,从而让我们把心愿朝向尚未完成的任务,即实现一个充满人间恩情的社会去努力。在那个社会里,新加坡人民会团结得更加紧密,

DR POH SOO KAI:

LEE KUAN YEW IS A POLITICAL PIMP

This statement is downloaded from:

Statement on the occasion of Lee Kuan Yew’s death on 23 March 2015By Dr Poh Soo Kai, former Assistant Secretary-General of Barisan Sosialis and political prisoner under Operation Coldstore from 1963-1973 and 1976-1982.

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/dr-poh-soo-kai-lee-kuan-yew-political-pimp

傅树介照片

封面与封面-page-001

To me, Lee Kuan Yew – prime minister of Singapore from 1959 till 1990 – is best characterized as a political pimp. In a press release when I was first freed from prison at the end of 1973, I had called him a political pimp. So I was rearrested in 1976.

What is a political pimp? Simply put: a political pimp is one who prostitutes his own people, selling out their well-being, for the interest of his political masters; in the process, he benefits himself, his family and cronies. Is that not a fitting characterization of the man?

It may be inconceivable to the young in Singapore today that the people of Singapore had lived under British colonial oppression. How is that translated in real life?

The British had a monopoly over Singapore’s economy, not to mention that there was no elected local representative in the political institutions. Racial discrimination existed in the civil service in favour of Europeans. British officials of British business houses were prohibited from marrying local women, but not from keeping them as mistresses. Did the British build schools for our children? Was there democracy and respect for the human rights of local Singaporeans? Was there a free press? etc.

Therefore, in those days of the early 1950s these were very real issues to the ordinary Singapore people, chafing under the yoke of British colonialism.Few recall the genesis of Lee Kuan Yew that he had begun in the early 1950s by masquerading as an anti British colonialist – the one shouting the loudest anti colonial diatribe.

Below is an example where not only did he mouth anti-colonial slogans but even became racist against the ‘white man’. In the Legislative Assembly Debate of 6 June 1956, Lee said the following:

“They (the British) are looking for a stooge group to sign an agreement with them. The duty here of all anti-colonial parties is to see that no stooge group is formed to sign this agreement. I think we shall succeed because when you rub an Asian down to rock bottom, he gathers together and says, “Down with the white man.”

He said that for hundreds of years and it takes a long time to get these things out of the system, particularly when the white man is still here. That is the challenge. We must redouble our efforts. We must build up a movement, non-Communist basically, with a chance, maybe for all times but anyway for some time, of running Malaya.”

Yet behind the back of the people of Singapore, Lee was signalling to the British that it was just a facade to hoodwink his people.

In 1956 when the left leadership in the PAP – Lim Chin Siong and others – was arrested by Lim Yew Hock, Lee made the cocktail rounds and praised Lim Yew Hock for his courage.

The move was calculated to let British intelligence know that Britain could draw a clear line between his rhetoric designed to project the image of himself as an anti-colonial fighter for the consumption of the people of Singapore, and his real self. This was not lost to the British. Lee was making it known to the British that he was one of those whom the British could anoint as leaders in their ‘decolonization’ process.

Another instance came during the first Rendel Constitutional Talks in 1956. Lee Kuan Yew did not support David Marshall and Lim Chin Siong in their demand for self government for Singapore. And he was angry with Toh Chin Chye, the PAP chairman, when the latter issued a statement to say that Marshall was in line with the PAP’s stated policy. This of course was again noted by the British.

In early 1957 further discussions were held in Singapore, (in the context of moving towards self government under the Rendel Constitution), to prepare for a conference in London later that year where an agreement would be signed between the British and representatives from Singapore.

Both the British and PAP did not want Lim Chin Siong and detained members of the PAP to stand in the 1959 general election. Lee proposed to the Colonial Office that a clause be inserted in the forthcoming agreement that detainees should be barred from standing in the 1959 election, as well as barred from the Parliament that issued from this election.

However, Lee told the British that the proposal should be seen to come from them; they must bear the odium of that undemocratic practice which the UK parliament might not be too happy over – as detainees, unlike criminals, do have political rights.

Lee, on the other hand, would attack the clause fiercely and blame the UK for such an undemocratic act of depriving the Singapore electorate of its right to elect Lim Chin Siong. And so it came to pass that Lim Chin Siong was barred from standing in the 1959 general election.

Lee even went to the extent, when he campaigned in the Tanjong Pagar by-election, to say that he would repeal the clause when voted in. He conveniently forgot this promise that he had no intention whatsoever to carry out.

He sold out the people’s interests to the colonial power and profited in the process. That is the man.

However, the path of a political pimp, wedged between British colonial interests and the people’s aspirations for democracy and independence, is not an enviable one.

Shortly after the 1959 election victory, Lee’s image as an anti-colonial fighter was fading very fast among the people of Singapore as he did not seek the release of all political prisoners still languishing in detention even after he had assumed office.

He had also un-democratically tightened regulations on trade union activities. Thus, by 1961, when Ong Eng Guan challenged Lee on a platform that was akin to the PAP’s, i.e., an anti colonial democratic platform in the Hong Lim by-election, Ong easily defeated Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP.A political pimp’s next resort to save his neck would be to use more deceptive ploys.

Before the polling day of the Anson by-election a month or so after the Hong Lim defeat, Lee Kuan Yew unfurled a scheme to the British colonialist in which he (Lee) would propose the release of all political prisoners to the people of Singapore in an attempt to recoup his standing among them as well as quell dissatisfaction in the ranks and ministers of PAP; but at the same time, he stressed to Lord Selkirk (the British High Commissioner), that the British should countermand this proposal!

This scheme failed due to British non-cooperation.

The hardened British colonial power preferred to compel its political pimp to ‘come out of the cupboard’, forget all his talk of ‘fighting for the hearts and minds of the people’ but to go along with Britain and the Malayan Federation in a brutal mass arrest of his political opponents – which so came to pass with Operation Coldstore on February 2, 1963.

And likewise with merger in 1963, it was a desperate ploy of Lee to safeguard his political fortune after the defeats in the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections. The British were equally rattled by these electoral setbacks of Lee’s PAP:

they realized that their military base in Singapore might be ineffective within a sea of hostile local population, hence endangering British strategic interests in the region. To the British colonial power, its military base in Singapore was non-negotiable. The British solution to this problem was to merge Singapore with Tunku’s Federation of Malaya.

Merger to Lee Kuan Yew was therefore a political life-buoy. He had absolutely no vision of how to foster one people from the two areas via merger – so desired by the people on both sides of the causeway. Lee even told the British that if he had no place in the political set-up after merger, then merger would not succeed.

Lee entered merger with the misplaced ambition to replace the MCA as UNMO’s Chinese partner – an idea that Tunku refused to entertain. Piqued, he wanted to show off to Tunku, the strength of the PAP among the Chinese population in Malaya.

So, despite an implicit understanding not to take part, he immediately entered the general elections after merger. He suffered a resounding defeat. Lee then turned to play the racial card, disguised as Malaysian Malaysia, hoping to get the Chinese to support him. This raised the tension in the country and Tunku was faced with the choice of arresting him or letting Singapore go.Lee’s opportunistic merger with the Federation has left lasting scars, affecting the brotherly feelings hitherto enjoyed by the people of the peninsula and the island.

Among the leaders, Lee did not hesitate to refuse Mahathir’s request for a loan to tide over a rough time.However, he saw it fit to give a similar loan to Suharto.

Lee’s communal line to champion Chinese rights and education in Malaysia was only a camouflage. All pretences dropped when he was back in Singapore after separation in 1965. Showing his true colours, he suppressed Nantah – a historical symbol among the Chinese community who had courageously defended Chinese language and culture in Singapore. All that remained of the national language of Singapore was Majulah Singapura! English or more accurately, Singlish became the lingua franca of Singapore.

With independence and the departure of the British colonial masters from Singapore, you might be forgiven to think that the title of political pimp no longer applies to Lee Kuan Yew.

In that you are mistaken as the pimp is always a pimp, selling out the interests of his people to, as he termed it, whoever wields the ‘heaviest gun’ in the world. And so in like fashion he went on to serve American interests against regional interests in the South China seas, albeit in a more subtle manner.Today the people of Singapore are chafing under the lack of democracy in political and economic life that has gone on for more than 50 long years. The controlled Singapore press, (aided and abetted by certain Free World press) has sold the false consciousness to us that Singapore could not have achieved its high standard of material life had there been genuine democracy and respect for human rights.

Would this not call into question how other Western democracies have achieved an even higher standard of living than ours?Hence the need for Lee to terrorize his people with the Internal Security Act, from Operation Coldstore of 1963 to Operation Spectrum of 1987 – to make barren the political landscape of any opposition to him. This he justified through the communist and marxist bogeys and all sorts of name-calling of legitimate political opposition.

Again, how are we to explain that Western democracies have achieved a higher standard of living and at the same time practise electoral democracies – their socialist, communist and even outright fascist parties can take part in the polls?

Therefore the question to ask is

why does Lee Kuan Yew have to resort to committing crimes against humanity in his large-scale and systematic persecution of all political opposition?

Why did he shred every democratic and human rights principle to remain in power? Precisely because in the final analysis, such a dishonorable course benefits the political pimp, his family and cronies to the destitution of the people.

The PAP has ruled with an iron fist for 50 years. Today, it unabashedly pays its ministers and judges the highest salaries in the world – justifying this policy as reflecting meritocracy since the salaries are pegged to the GDP.We all know that Singapore is a tax shelter to the 1% super rich of this world who can park their money in Singapore to avoid paying income taxes in their home countries. Their money goes to inflate Singapore’s GDP.We also know that foreign direct investments (FDI) are enticed to Singapore, for its TUC controlled and docile labour force, among other attractive attributes that Singapore offers. What this translates in real life for Singaporeans and their families, is that the bread earner may be unfairly paid or over-exploited, with the attendant consequences on the children and other dependents. This FDI also goes into the GDP’s reckoning.This is all very sophisticated in comparison to, for example, the blatant corruption of Madam Suharto, known as Indonesia’s Madam Ten Percent, before Lee’s bosom friend, the dictator and human rights violator President Suharto, fell from power!This obscene gap between the rich top 1% Singaporeans and the bottom 99% ordinary Singaporeans, results in the latter feeling insecure and marginalized: they worry about the value of their HDB flats and most importantly, if they would be able to live off their CPF when they retire, for all around Singapore, they can see the less fortunate of the pioneer generation, gathering card boxes, selling tissue packets, and offering to carry passengers’ heavy luggage with their feeble strength.The opaqueness in the operations and structure of a large sector of the Singapore economy as denoted by government investment corporations (GICs), – for example, what is the pay structure of their board and directors – have not helped to abate Singaporean’s fear that their CPF may be dipped into for other purposes.The transparency or lack thereof in the business world of Singapore summons to mind, Tan Liang Hong’s ‘fatal’ brush with the Lee family in the Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) episode that sparked off a political storm in Singapore in 1996. The Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) censured Hotel Property Ltd, a publicly listed property development company, for not seeking shareholders’ approval for the sale of some of its condominium developments, notably Nassim Jade, at a discount price. Tan subsequently fled Singapore.Knowing the truth of our history and economy will set us free from the legacies of the political pimp Lee Kuan Yew, so that we can move on to fulfill our aspiration for a HUMANE SOCIETY, where all Singaporeans can live together in dignity and solidarity.

 


留下评论

(中英文对照) 历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀(3)(完结篇)Interview with Thum Ping Tjin about Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore – Part 3

 转载自《公民在线》网-2015年4月4日

 您的浏览器的软件可能无法支持这个视频。但是,您可以下载MP3来聆听.

马来西亚独立电台BFM89.9邀请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的协调员覃炳鑫博士就李光耀的逝世进行访谈。(译者按:覃博士也是《新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年纪念》(The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore)一书的共同作者之一。他撰写的文章是:《‘骨肉团聚’:新加坡中文社群与人他们对新马合并的观点》(Flesh and bone reunite as one body”Singapore Chinese-speaking and their Perspectives on Merge)。他还撰写了一篇极其重要的文章:《Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained林清祥被拘留是错误的!》https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/lim-chin-siong-was-wrongfully-detained)

冷藏行动中文版

本网站已经在2015326日刊登了第一部分。

(见:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/

本网站已经在201545日刊登了第二部分。

(见:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/04/04 /

以下是访谈第三部分的中文翻译。(本中文翻译内容如与英文原文有不符之处,均以英文版本为最终的解释权。)

 

历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀(3)(完结篇)

Lee Chwi Lynn: 这也是一些部分是在强调理想的对吗?人民把票投给我那是因为我给他们带来了所要的结果,这是人民所要知道的。我假定这些结果是来自承诺,反过来说,这是否是让他获得了权力。因为,人们已经说,他做了。但是,他获得了这样的反馈。

 

Thum Ping Tjin: 但是,他同时也是两个不同的标准。因为,他没有承担犯下的大量巨大的错误。第一个最大的错误就是新加坡从马来西亚的分割出去。他却让自己犯下错误的焦点转移到经济上。——这就是他为自己所塑造的声誉和新加坡的成功。

  

在1970年末期,他提出所有的重大政策是破坏了新加坡的根基的。因此,他们尝试使用所谓通过‘第二次工业革命’把新加坡的经济转型。这就是尝试把新加坡推向价值的梯级,——提高薪金,推向高科技的经济。换言之,行动党尝试单方面重新尝试确定新加坡在世界经济的地位。他们知道,他们不仅可以这么做,资金会立即逃出。

 

我想,是1983年和1984年之间,新加坡的国民生产值(GDP)剧降了10%。这是一个巨大经济萎缩。在那个时候,他们就开始对公积金、建屋发展局进行胡搞了。把新加坡的选贤教育制度的基础改变为今天的精英教育政策。

 

在思考新加坡的问题时必须考虑这四大方面的问题的因素——经济方面、住房问题、公积金政策和教育政策方面。他们在1970年代末期开始在这四方面进行胡搞。您可以看到在1980年初期出现巨大的灾难,这就是导致1982年(工人党的)拉惹勒南中选为国会议员和1984年(民主党的)詹时中中选为国会议员。这是新加坡首两位反对党国会议员。人们之所以发出声音,那是李光耀没有实现的他的承诺的结果。这一切都是他自己搞砸的。

 

现在李光耀除了自己以外要求所有人承担责任。

 

这就是为什么在1980年到1984年,他把自己所有的老战友——吴庆瑞、杜进才、惹耶勒南和王邦文都被挤出(政府内阁)。在1980年或是1984 年他们都先后都离开了。同时,他又引进了有新思维的新一代领导人。但是,您看,谁没有离开(内阁)?谁还继续担任总理的职位?

 

在这段期间,为了确保新加坡人不会再要求他承担责任,在1980末期,他引进了一系列专制的措施,其中包括了通过市镇会直接把公共服务与选票挂钩;为了稀释反对党的支持票,他设立了庞大的集选区制度,民选总统制度;为了避免宗教组织群起反对他们,而制定了许多新的法律、法规和条例控制宗教组织;制止律师公会对他们制定的新法律进行评论;理所当然的,在1987年到1988年,他们又重新使用内部安全法令的手段。——在‘光谱行动’计划下,他们逮捕了一群社会活动分子。所以,当我们谈到(李光耀的)成就时——那是李光耀自己自毁诺言、自己不愿承诺责任。他们修改了法令以便防止未来的政府需要承担着一些失败的责任。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 当然,在拥有这一切权力下,他在过去数十年(对反对党人士)进行诽谤起诉、刑事犯罪起诉和不经审讯的逮捕。新加坡政府已经消灭了许多的不同意见的声音,其中可以举出的人物的名字在我的脑海里出现,那是惹耶勒南、徐顺全博士、谢太宝博士。您可以详细说明他们当中的这些杰出人物和他们为什么沉默?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: 好的。 他们都是当时的政治环境下的牺牲品。他们每一个人都有自己不同的具体情况。我想,共同的原因是:他们反对李光耀和他们寻求更大的责任。他们试图引入一个更民主的过程到新加坡。我想,这就是他们的共同点。

 

不论他们这么做是都还是错,最终(决定权)还是由我们(选民)的选票去决定,而不是由政府去决定这些人的做法是对还是错。

在内部安全法令下,谢太宝从1968年到1999年一共被监禁了31年。惹耶勒南没有被监禁,但是他面对无数次的诽谤诉讼直至破产而被禁止继续律师执业;徐顺全也是面对这样的处境。所以,基本上他们就是使用法律手段。我想,这是新加坡政府惯用和善于使用的一种手段。这是他们为了确保所有的事情都是在他们制定的法律范围里进行。不管法律是否是——不论你是否遵循法律的精神,法律只是法律。这完全是一个不一样的事。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 纸上所说‘民主’的是不是经常被错误的叙述、被误释或者是被当成是肮脏的字眼。在新加坡当谈到民主时,都被视为是‘偏执狂的言论’,或者还是有一个更精确的描述吗?

 

Thum Ping Tjin:作为一个历史学者。我想,民主在新加坡的成功道路上是曾经扮演过一个重大的角色的。因为我们不要忘记,在1959年,新加坡人民是通过投票选出了反对党。这个反对党就是人民行动党。当时的这个政党是被形容为带有‘浓厚的共产主义色彩’、‘信仰极左的社会主义政策’的政党。但是,人民看到了政治家们提出的(政见)。人民看到了他们的领导人。当时,人们说要李光耀。他当时是所有的领导人中一个非常聪明的人。他有这种能力和智慧。当时新加坡人民做出了明智的选择。在1953年到1963年期间,新加坡人民几乎每一年都进行一次投票——补选、选举和全民投票。很明显得,我们有权做出选择。因为新加坡人民在这段期间似乎做出了很好的表现。

 

与此同时,在1960年代和1970年代行动党实施了很多政策。这些政策在选举期间是具有激烈的争论性的。在1955年、1959年和1963年——这些年代的选举课题都是涉及新加坡未来前途和为新加坡的未来提出替代政策的课题。所有参与竞选的政党都把有关的课题公开的摆在选民面前,选民们有权作出正确的选择。这是当时新加坡伟大的成就。

 

在另一方面,假设您看到在行动党巩固了他们的政权后,突然间人民并没有提出任何新的想法。你不需要去证明自己的任何想法。把辩论的推动力是在选举、选举程序,或者是 国会里。这一切导致了我前面所说的(政治)环境。在1970年末期和1980年初期,政府确实在这段期间搞砸了很多事情。

 

所以,我认为,在新加坡‘民主’已经被政府贬低了。它既不需要承担责任而又可以继续掌权的含义了。但是,民主是新加坡成功的一大理由。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 左翼或者替代选择的历史已经被定义为与官方的历史有所区别了。这是官方在1997年通过国家教育进行贯彻。您是否可以这么说,国家历史在新加坡扮演的角色已经为了国家的需要通过课本不断被诠释了。

 

Thum Ping Tjin: 哦!这是绝对的。到处都在诠释历史——为了让新的一代了解过去以及理解他们未来的挑战,历史一再重新撰写。——为了帮助下一代人了解过去和了解他们在未来的挑战,每一代人都在重新撰写历史。因此,随着社会文明的发展——我们的社会化文化也同时发展了——我们告诉人们的历史是从一个大人物和非常空白的西方历史开始的。——这个历史上包括在这些官方的历史的——这些少数民族、妇女的故事等等

 

重新诠释历史是一个持续的过程的。因为我们对过去的改进的了解,是我们(对历史)了解的越多和有关我们自己及过去;当我们面对新的挑战时,我们就会寻求过去的(历史经验)来适应这些新的挑战。

 

现在,对于政府来说,他们已经把利用历史作为一种工具脸。在过去,60年代(新加坡)从马来西亚退出来,它们寻求把自己从(马来西亚)退出来的这段开来的这段历史分割开来。拉惹勒南拒绝有关新加坡人有一个自己的历史的说法。他说, ‘我们的历史上从现在开始。清白的历史,我们就从这里开始’。

 

但是事与愿反。因为他们在90年代时面对了反击了。新加坡人并没有有关行动党为他们争取到任何成就的感觉。为此,他们开始了国家教育的课程了。他们又开始重新修订历史了。假设您看他们我们自己在上个世纪50、60、70和80年代的历史时,他们已经改写了。因此,他们自己就是历史修正主义者,当然,现在他们的历史学者重新诠释他们的历史。他们估计我们是历史修正主义者(笑声),这是非常愚蠢的。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn:自我审查和审查他人在新加坡是不是一种普遍的行为?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: 哦。这是非常复杂的。它并没有非常清晰的划分。我想,我们是在自我审查。在新加坡存在着很多的恐惧惧感。我想,我们是担心自己会不会因为某些事情而惹上麻烦。我想,审查的动机是来自很多不同的事情的——担心自己的恐惧感、担心家人的恐惧感。是的。我应该说,在新加坡是时有一种自我审查和审查他人的形式。但是,我应该说,其实这全部源自一种具有恶意的意向。他们就是已经这么做的。他们在一些无伤大雅的事情上,引用了内部安全法令和进行法律诉讼(对付反对者)。他们向我们不断的灌输非常严重的心里恐惧感。但是,我想,一切正在改变中。我想,未来我们不会再有(从事于)自我审查的这样的恐惧感的心理了。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 我的最后一个问题。随着李光耀的逝世,您认为新加坡共和国的未来(走向)是如何?

 

Thum Ping Tjin:实事求是的说。我不认为两天后事情会比昨天改变的很多。让我们实事求是的说,假设您想一想,现在的政府基本上并没有取得太多的成就。

 

在法理上——李显龙政府的选举成功是依靠他们过去的前辈的成就,当然,更确切的说,李显龙是(李光耀的)儿子,他无法拒绝他(李光耀)。所以,他们只能沿着李光耀的老路继续走下去。他们只能继续高举李光耀所的一切作为幌子,要求人民必须投票给行动党。他们将沿续李光耀的政策。所以,李光耀的逝世不会是一个分水岭。我想,当李显龙离开的权力中心,那就是他不再总理的职位上时,即是他离开政坛——那新加坡将会可能会是一个分水岭。那时候,我们将会第一次在没有李光耀(影响下)向前迈进。因此,我不认为,(目前不会有任何)巨大的政治改变。

 

但是 ,我所期待的是,在没有李光耀存在的情况下,我们将开始思考很多有关我们自己的事情。我们将会停止思考有关这个在过去20和30年那个人的言论。我们会开始自问,今天什么(事情)是对新加坡最有利的?在不需要那些权力至高无上的人告诉我们每一个人那些(事情)是对的?那些(事情)是错的?我想。我们可以通过各种辩论的形式,产生自己的解决方案。我们将会对持不同意见的人采取更加宽容度态度,因为对于辩论和民主来说是这是极其重要。

Interview with Thum Ping Tjin about Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore – Part 3

新书:1963年冷藏箱的50周年

Lee Chwi Lynn: There was also a certain emphasis on the idea of results, right? That people vote for me because I get them results and they know that.  And I suppose with the results that come from promises, did that in turn come to inform his power, because you have people saying, well, he does this, but he gets results.

 

Thum Ping Tjin: But he also had a double standard, because he never took responsibility for his massive, massive failures. The first obvious massive failure is the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. But let’s focus on economics. That’s what made his reputation and made Singapore such a success.

 

In the late 1970s, his policies undermined all of the great policies which underpinned Singapore. So they tried to transform Singapore’s economy using what they called the second industrial revolution, which tried to push Singapore up the value ladder, increase Singapore’s salaries, move Singapore to a much high-tech economy. In other words, the PAP tried to unilaterally renegotiate Singapore’s position in the world economy. And they found that not only could they not do that, but capital immediately fled.

 

Between, I think it was ’83 and ’84, Singapore’s GDP shrank by 10%. There was a massive recession. And at the same time, they meddled with the CPF, with the HDB, the fundamentally transformed Singapore’s meritocratic education system into the very elitist one today.

 

So these are the four big things you’d think about when you think about Singapore – the economy, the housing, the CPF, the education. And they meddled with all of them in the late 1970s, and you see huge disasters happening in the early 1980s, which leads to, in 1982, the election of JBJ, and in 1984, the election of Chiam See Tong, Singapore’s first two opposition MPs. The people spoke because Lee Kuan Yew was not delivering. There were no results. He had screwed up big time.

 

Now Lee Kuan Yew demanded accountability from everyone except himself.

 

Which is why, from 1980 to 1984, he pushed out all of his Old Guard colleagues – Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam, Ong Pang Boon, they all left, either 1980 or ’84, and brought in a new generation of leaders with new ideas. But who did not leave? Who remained Prime Minister?

 

And in the meantime, to ensure that Singaporeans could no longer hold him accountable, he introduced a whole raft of extremely authoritarian measures in the mid to late 1980s, including directly tying provision of public services to your vote, through the town councils; creating mega-constituencies called the Group Representation Constituencies, to dilute opposition votes; the elected Presidency; and introduced all these new laws to control religious organisations to prevent them organizing against him; to stop the Law Society from commenting on laws; and of course he brought back the use of the ISA in ’87-’88 with Operation Spectrum, where he arrested a lot of activists. So we talk about results – but he himself failed to deliver, but failed to be accountable for it, and then changed the laws to prevent the government being accountable in the future.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: And of course having the power to do that means that you also have decades of defamation lawsuits, criminal prosecution, detention without trial. The Singapore government has extinguished many dissenting voices and some names that pop to mind are JB Jeyaretnam, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Chia Thye Poh. Could you elaborate on some of these figures and how they were silenced and perhaps why?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, they were all victims of various political circumstances of the time, and each of them has very different circumstances, I think, but the unifying factor is that they opposed Lee Kuan Yew and they sought greater accountability and they sought to introduce a more democratic process to Singapore. I think that’s why unifies all of them.

 

Whether or not they are right or wrong is a different thing, but it’s for us the voters to decide, not the government. Chia Thye Poh was locked up under the ISA for over – 1968 to 1999 – 31 years. JBJ was not locked up but he was sued multiple times and bankrupted and barred from running from office, and so was Chee Soon Juan. So it is basically the use of the law, and I think that’s one thing the Singapore government has been very good at, to ensure that everything they do is within confines of the law as it is written. Whether the law is – whether you follow the spirit of the law, whether the law is a just law, is an entirely different thing.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: It’s been written that democracy is often misrepresented, misunderstood, or otherwise treated as a dirty word. When it comes to politics in Singapore, is that just paranoia speaking or would that be an accurate depiction of events?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: As a historian, I think democracy has played a huge role in Singapore’s success. Because let’s not forget Singapore voted for an opposition party in 1959 called the People’s Action Party, which the-then government of the day said was rife with communism, which espoused some very left-wing socialist policies, but people looked at the politicians on offer, they looked at the leaders, and they said we want Lee Kuan Yew. He is the smartest, he is the best leader out there, he has the capabilities, he has the intellect. Singaporeans made a very wise choice. And in between 1955 and 1963, Singaporeans went to the polls an average of once a year – for by-elections, elections, and a National Referendum. And clearly we must have made the right choices, because Singapore seems to have done pretty well out of that period.

 

And in addition, many of the policies that the PAP implemented in the 1960s and early 70s, were fiercely debated at the polls, between. 1955, 1959, 1963 – those elections were about the future of Singapore and alternative policies for Singapore, and the parties put out those policy platforms in front of the voters, and we chose the right ones. So Singapore was a great success.

 

On the other hand, if you look at what happened after the PAP solidified its hold on power, suddenly there aren’t any new ideas bubbling up from the people, and you don’t have to justify your ideas in the cut and thrust of debate at the polls, electoral hustings, or in parliament. And that leads then to the situations that I was describing earlier, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, where the government really screwed up big time.

 

 

So democracy, I think, has been vilified in Singapore by a government which does not want to be accountable but wants to stay in power. But democracy is fundamentally a big reason for Singapore’s success.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: Leftist or alternative history has been defined as history differentiated from official history which came in the form of National Education implemented by the government in 1997. Would you say the role of national history in Singapore has been constantly reinterpreted to fit the country’s needs through the course of time?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Oh, absolutely. Interpretations of history everywhere – history is rewritten by every new generation to help understand their past and to understand the challenges of their future. So as humanity has evolved – as our society and culture has evolved – we have gone from the history of big men and a very white, western history to telling the story of people who were excluded by these official histories – the stories of minorities, of women, and so on and so forth

 

History is a constant process of reinterpretation because our understanding of the past constantly improves as we learn more and more about ourselves and our past; and as we face new challenges we seek to draw on the past to meet those new challenges.

 

Now, for the government, it has used history as a tool. In the post ‘60s, in order to divorce itself from Malaysia, it sought to divorce itself from history. Rajaratnam rejected the idea of Singaporeans as having a history and said, “Our history starts now. Clean slate. We start from here.”

 

But then in the ‘90s, as that backfired because Singaporeans had no consciousness of what the PAP had achieved for them, so then you start this National Education programme. So the government revises its history, and if you look at how its written its history between the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, that has changed. So they themselves are revisionists, but of course now that there are historians reinterpreting their history, they attack us as revisionists (laughter), which is quite silly.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: Is there a common practice of self-censorship and censorship of others in Singapore?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Hmmm. I think it’s very complex. It’s not clear cut at all. I think we do censor ourselves. There is a lot of fear in Singapore. I think we do worry about whether we’ll get in trouble for certain things. I think that the motivations for that censorship comes from a lot of different things – fear for yourself, fear for your families, but yes, I would say there is a pattern of censorship in Singapore and censorship of others, but I wouldn’t say it’s all ill-intentioned. We need to think about the consequences of our words and the consequences of our actions. But I think we go way too far with the self-censorship. And of course the government very much encourages it. And they have, with the use of ISA and lawsuits, for some very innocuous things, they have instilled very serious fear in all of us. But I think things are changing and I don’t think we should have so much fear [that we engage in] self-censorship in the future.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: And finally, with the passing of Lee Kuan Yew, what do you think the future holds for the Republic?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Honestly, I don’t think things will be much different tomorrow than they were two days ago. I think that fundamentally, if you think about it, the current government, let’s be honest, has not achieved much.

 

The legitimacy – the electoral success of the Lee Hsien Loong government rests on the achievements of their predecessors. And of course what is more, Lee Hsien Loong is his father’s son, and cannot repudiate him. So they will cling to what Lee Kuan Yew did, they will continue to hold Lee Kuan Yew up as an example of why people should vote PAP, and they will continue to cling to the policies of Lee Kuan Yew. So Lee Kuan Yew’s passing is not the watershed. I think it’s when Lee Hsien Loong steps down from power, when he leaves the office of Prime Minister, when he leaves politics – that would be a bigger watershed for Singapore because then that would be first time we would have moved on from Lee Kuan Yew.  So I don’t think things would be very different politically.

 

But what I do hope is that without Lee Kuan Yew around, we will start thinking a lot more for ourselves, we will stop thinking about the words of a man whose heyday was two, three decades ago, and start asking ourselves, what is best for Singapore today? Without this all powerful hegemon to tell everyone what is right and wrong, I hope that we can work out our own solutions through vigorous debate and that we will be far more permissive of dissent, because that is hugely important to debate and democracy.


2条评论

(中英文对照) Interview with Thum Ping Tjin about Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore – Part 2 历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀(2)

您的浏览器的软件可能无法支持这个视频。但是,您可以下载MP3来聆听.

马来西亚独立电台BFM89.9邀请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的协调员覃炳鑫博士就李光耀的逝世进行访谈。(译者按:覃博士也是《新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年纪念》(The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore)一书的共同作者之一。他撰写的文章是:《‘骨肉团聚’:新加坡中文社群与人他们对新马合并的观点》(Flesh and bone reunite as one body”Singapore Chinese-speaking and their Perspectives on Merge)。他还撰写了一篇极其重要的文章:《Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained林清祥被拘留是错误的!》

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/lim-chin-siong-was-wrongfully-detained)

 

本网站已经在2015326日刊登了第一部分。(见:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/

 

以下是访谈第二部分的中文翻译。(本中文翻译内容如与英文原文有不符之处,均以英文版本为最终的解释权。)

冷藏行动中文版

Lee Chwi Lynn: 我们已经建立了有关为什么新加坡选择自己的前途的说法。您已经就有关早期新加坡经济和他(李光耀)被描述为是创造经济转型计划,是为了减少新加坡受到攻击经济条件的影响所带来的损失,和改进新加坡本身的经济前景以便继续增长。这是极其重要的。您怎样看待有一个国家的规模以及它缺乏天然资源。那些它是实行了哪些政策来确保经济增长的。

Thum Ping Tjin: 好的。Lynn小姐,您是知道的。我必须把问题摊开来说,因为李光耀并不是主导(新加坡)经济的主脑人物。在行动党的内阁成员有李光耀、杜进才、吴庆瑞、拉惹勒南和王邦文,经济的主脑人物是吴庆瑞。王邦文是目前仅存的一个内阁成员。

但是,他们是一个很好的合作团队,大家都各自对行动党做出了贡献。李光耀是不可争议的领导人。他是一个政治家。他是一个能够把计划落实的人,但是,他不是一个经济主脑人物。吴庆瑞才是一个经济主脑人物。我个人认为,这是非常不公平地把(新加坡)经济成就的功劳归功于李光耀,即便是一般上大家在谈到新加坡的经济成就时都说这是李光耀的功劳。

Lee Chwi Lynn: 我想,在今天的卜告都包含着有关这方面的讨论——他在某方面是负责,或者说,如您所知的,他在经济上成就是有很大方面的功绩。

Thum Ping Tjin: 假设,就经济上的稳定成就而而言,我想这是主要的组成部分。假设您从官僚权限,有效性——这些情况(指经济成就)就不是李光耀个人所带来的了。杜进才是行动党的中枢人物。他是一位有效力的党领袖。王邦文是党的组织秘书,同时,这也和受华文教育者有关。拉惹勒南是这个群体的理论家,回过头来说,吴庆瑞的一个经济学家。您是知道的,在我们谈论新加坡的经济成就时,首先我们必须记住一点就是在李光耀之前新加坡已经能够是一个非常富裕的国家了

 

在1930年(新加坡)人均收入的数据上,新加坡已经是亚洲国家中最富裕的了。在二战结束后,进入1950年新加坡已经在经济上复苏过来了。所以,尽管在亚洲唯一可以声称富裕的是东京。但是,它是一个大都会,不是一个国家。

所以新加坡是一个非常富裕的国家。但是,当时新加坡存在着的一个大问题是:它是一个剥削性的殖民地经济。工人在新加坡是没有基本权利的。他们无情的剥削工人阶级,所以当时的新加坡(社会)是谁难以置信的不平等。

在1950年,新加坡人的人均收入是约1200元马来亚币(不是马来西亚令吉)。但是,它的收入中间值仍是处于贫穷线下一样。这就说是100马来亚币。因此,您可以想象,在当时的新加坡 富人是那么的富裕。他们可以累积平均12倍于中间值的贫穷线。

这就是当时的新加坡情况。当时李光耀最大的成功点就在于:他认识到这一点而与工会共同进行工作——那就是为实现一个更加平等、社会主义和民主的新加坡而努力。在当时,整个工作在新加坡蔓延开来——在这个地方,第一次不论你的出生地是来自哪儿,大家都拥有共同的机会:你实际上,即便是你不会说英语,例如——歧视不懂说英语的也排除在外。

所以,我想,他们的卜告里所提的是缺少了一大部分事实。新加坡的富裕不是在李光耀领导下的行动党所取得的。

李光耀,(我所说的)李光耀是在1960年代和1970 年代的李光耀和1960年代和1970年代的人民行动党是一个社会主义政党。它当时的目标是要把新加坡建设成为一个平等对待自己的公民的国家。这是它们真正的(宝贵)遗产。

Lee Chwi Lynn: 关于这一点,回到1999年刊登在《时代》杂志的一篇文章提到了在亚洲其他国家缔造者他除外,这是个复杂而他所未曾做过的事。——他未曾涉及贪污。他未曾掌权在位很久。您同意这个看法吗?

Thum Ping Tjin: 很好,这并不是真实的……您可以在我的学术论文找到的答案是‘不是真实的’,而不是‘是’或者‘不是’(笑声)。

他没有贪污。是的,这是绝对的。但是,你问一问自己——新加坡是一个没有天然资源的国家。而其财富是依靠外国投资。外国资本流入是经济的基础上。如果你在新加坡贪污,你是不可能侵吞新加坡的天然资源的。你必须创造一个可以让外国资本进入新加坡的环境。然后,你把外国资本减少。这就是你为什么不会在新加坡成为贪污犯。假设,你现在看回过去20年行动党的领导人所做的一切,总理的薪金已经是朝向2百万元(新币)目标上。那您就问一问自己,这是不是贪污(行为)?当新加坡人在选举投票时,可以问一问自己;这是不是可以简单的预言和透明化的腐败情况。这是不是贪污?

 

对于您另一部分的问题,你就是:他并不在位很久。好的。他昨天还继续是一个国会议员啊!您说对吗?他只是在2011年离开内阁。他离开的原因不是他自己选择离开——而是因为行动党自独立以来赢得的支持票是最低的。事实上,假设他在1991年离开内阁的那个时候。他是可以退休了。我想,他的卜告内容应该更坦白和仁慈一些。这样人民将会记住他的贡献。但是,他选择要成为资政和继续长期深入介入新加坡的政治(事务)。当然,他的儿子是总理,所以他的影响力仍然是存在的。所以, 如果您问我(这个问题),我个人认为,他掌权太久了。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 在李光耀的整个漫长的事业里,行动党要如何调整他们的政策?因为在这些政策上,他们是保证新加坡在某些程度上的成功的同时也面对抨击的。

Thum Ping Tjin: 是的。我想,我现在最大的顾虑是李光耀逝世后,我们是不是把李光耀制定这些政策视为是某些信条。李光耀很喜欢使用‘实用主义’这个字眼。这也是就他成为政治家的一个座右铭。这包括了他在的政治事业一身中戏剧性的改变他的政策。

 

在1955年到1959年之间,他是热衷于民主、透明化和自由(运动)的群众偶像——这一切(运动)在他取得了掌权之后都进入了橱窗里了。因为他不要让人家对他的政策产生质疑。接着,在1959 年到1963年,甚至是到了1965年,他热衷于认同与一个马来亚。他热衷于实现一个更大的马来西亚;在1965年后,他热衷于新加坡的独立。当然,这一切并没有经过投票的。他仍然还是一个社会主义者。因为他还在谈论着平等和公平和英才教育。

 

但是,从1980年或者接下来,在新加坡的反对党已经被他镇压下来后,他就把自己转为一个更加公开的独裁主义者。在制定自己的政策时采取了具有实用主义和效益性的政策。当然,后来他把这个政策明确的阐述成了‘亚洲价值观’——假设一个容纳30到40亿人口的区域,把它说成是‘亚洲价值观’。这一切不就是当时他要证明自己的政策吧了。(待续……)

Interview with Thum Ping Tjin about Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore – Part 2

新书:1963年冷藏箱的50周年

Lee Chwi Lynn: We’ve established, possibly, the motivating factors for why Singapore was the way it was, why we had to part ways. You mentioned the economy earlier and he (Lee Kuan Yew) is described as having instituted an economic diversification plan which limited Singapore’s vulnerability to international economic conditions and improved its prospects for continued growth, which is very important when you’re looking at a country of that size and with its lack of natural resources. So what policies did he implement and used to ensure this?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Well you know Lynn, again, I think we need to unpack the question a bit because Lee was not the economic mastermind, Goh Keng Swee was the economic mastermind. Of the big five in the PAP Cabinet – Lee Kuan Yew, Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam and Ong Pang Boon – only one is left, Ong Pang Boon.

 

But each of them contributed very different things to the PAP and they worked incredibly well together as a team. Lee was the unquestioned leader, he was the master politician, he was the one who could get things done but he wasn’t the economic mastermind. That was Goh Keng Swee. And I feel it is very unfair to credit economic success to Lee Kuan Yew even though it’s become so popular to talk about Singapore’s economic success being the result of Lee Kuan Yew.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: I think almost every obituary today has kind of included that in the discussion – he was responsible in some way or, you know, in a big way for the economic success.

 

Thum Ping Tjin: If you think of stability as a key ingredient for economic success, yes.

 

If you think of bureaucratic competence, efficiency – those are the things that Lee Kuan Yew brought although he wasn’t the only one. Toh Chin Chye was the steel spine of the PAP, he was a very effective party leader. Ong Pang Boon was the party’s organising secretary and also the link to the Chinese educated. Rajaratnam was the philosopher of the group but Goh Keng Swee was the economist and again, you know we talk first about Singapore’s economic success. It is important to remember that Singapore was a very very rich country before Lee Kuan Yew.

 

By 1930, Singapore was the richest country in Asia in terms of per capita income. And after the war, by 1950, Singapore had recovered already. So the only place in Asia which could claim to be richer was metropolitan Tokyo which of course is a city not a whole country.

 

So Singapore was fabulously rich, but Singapore’s big problem was that it was an exploitative colonial economy and it had no workers rights. It ruthlessly exploited the population, the working class. So Singapore was incredibly unequal.

 

The mean income in Singapore in 1950 was around 1,200 Malayan dollars, but the median and modal of income was the same as the poverty line, which was about 100 Malayan dollars. So if you imagine, the rich in Singapore was so rich that they pulled up the average, the mean to 12 times the modal and the median income which was the poverty line.

 

That was Singapore’s problem and Lee Kuan Yew’s great success was recognising that, working with the trade unions, helping to make Singapore a much more egalitarian and much more socialist, much more democratic place. It was a place where for the first time, regardless of your birth, you actually had opportunities; you actually, even if you didn’t speak English, for example, – that discrimination against non-English speaking – work was rampant in Singapore; the introduction of the women’s charter.

 

So the PAP’s great achievement under Lee Kuan Yew was not to make Singapore rich, it was to make Singapore fair and I think that is missing in a lot of obituaries.

 

Lee Kuan Yew – the early Lee Kuan Yew, the 1960s and 70s Lee Kuan Yew – and the 1960s and 70s PAP was a socialist party that aimed to make Singapore a fair place that treated all its citizens fairly, and that is their real legacy.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: On that note, an article in Time Magazine back in 1999 claimed that what really sets this complex man apart from Asia’s other nation-builders is what he didn’t do. He did not become corrupt and he did not stay in power too long. Would you agree with this?

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, not really…. You’ll find that as an academic my answers tend to be “not really” rather than “yes” and “no” (laughter).

 

He did not become corrupt. Yes, absolutely. But ask yourself – Singapore is a country with no natural resources. Instead, its wealth lies upon foreign investment, foreign capital flowing in. If you become corrupt in Singapore, you can’t plunder your country’s natural resources. You have to create an environment where foreign capital keeps flowing in. Then you take your cut of that foreign capital. That’s how you would become corrupt in Singapore. Now if you look at what the PAP’s leaders have done in the last two decades, where salaries – the Prime Minister’s salary is now upwards of $2 million. And ask yourself, is that corruption, or is that simply having predictability and transparency in your corruption. That is a question that Singaporeans need to ask ourselves when we are faced with the vote at the ballot box.

 

As to the other half of your question, [whether] he did not stay in power too long. Well, he’s still an MP as of yesterday, right? And he only left the cabinet in 2011, and as a direct result – not because he chose to leave, but as a direct result of the PAP’s lowest vote share since independence. He could have retired – if he had left the cabinet in 1991, I think his obituaries would be far more generous and far kinder, and I think people would remember him with greater fondness. But he chose to stay on as Minister Mentor and continued to intervene heavily in Singapore politics for a long time. And of course, his son is Prime Minister, so he still has influence there. So I think he stayed on in power too long, if you ask me.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: And throughout the course of his very long career, how were the policies of the People’s Action Party justified? Because, of course, these are policies which, while they guaranteed Singapore some measure of success, also came under fire.

 

Thum Ping Tjin: Yes. I think that, again, my big fear now that Lee Kuan Yew has passed on, is that we take his justifications for those policies as some sort of gospel. Lee Kuan Yew loved to use the word “pragmatic”, and that’s what he was as a politician as well. Whatever worked at the time, he would use. And that included his justifications for his policies, which changed dramatically over the course of his political career.

 

Between 1955 – 1959, he was a massive champion for democracy, transparency, freedom – and all these things went out the window once he got into power, because he didn’t want his own policies to be questioned. Then from 1959 until 1963, and even 1965, he championed a Malayan identity, he championed the idea of a greater Malaysia; after ’65 he championed an independent Singapore, and of course, not having electoral certainty, he still was a very socialist and talked about equality and fairness and meritocracy.

 

But from 1980 or so, once the last vestiges of Singapore’s opposition were shut down, then he switched started becoming far more openly authoritarian, and justified his policies in terms of pragmatism, efficiency, and of course later on he articulated this “Asian values” – as if one can generalize about a region of 3-4 billion people and say that there’s such a thing as “Asian values” – but these are all things to use to justify his policies at the time.

 (to be continue….)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


12条评论

(中英文对照)FEAR is DEAD 恐惧已经死亡!

By Teo Soh Lung 张素兰

张素兰 1

四天前,我和曾志成(Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng)与香港的《苹果日报》记者问见面。记者问道我们是否准备去吊唁李光耀。肯尼.惹耶惹南回答说。他将不会去。当记者追问什么原因时,他嘀咕的说了好像是没有必要的意思。

这位年轻的记者接着追问为什么?接着他们转来问我。我也一样回答说,我不会去。他们还是继续追问这个问题。我给他们一个很勉强的理由,那就是排队吊唁的人龙太长了。我对自己这样的回答感到惊愕。

过去一个星期的“全国哀悼”。我的邻居问我,谁是李光耀的狂热的粉丝?我会要去吊唁吗?我简单的回答说:“不”。我没有进一步的说明为什么。他们也不再追问了。假设现在要我说明这个问题,我想,这是我对死者尊重的方式。我不要伤害向我提问的人。因为这个死者在他担任总理期间是伤害到我和我的家人及朋友。

在吊唁期间,群组的人在聊天时就谈起了在烈日下排队的人龙、吊唁的策划和葬礼的安排,包括了公交车及地铁的延长川行服务时间、以及不可思议的死者所取得的成就等。在第六天,我不再忍受这样的讯息,我离开了群组。我并没有告诉他们什么原因。当然或许就是对死者的尊敬的问题。

那些了解我的朋友问我是否需要撰写一些有关李光耀的文章。我在20多天前是有想过这么着的。但是我的脑袋一片空白。我无法找到感觉。那是由于我的内心告诉我要继续保持沉默,不要干扰目前全国的悲痛。让这些人在平和中发泄悲痛。在李光耀逝世后的隔天,我只是在324日写了一段有关自己的妈妈的短文。我并没有刻意的去写这篇短文的。但是,它确实自然的产生。这大概是我的妈妈唆使我去写这篇短文吧。我到妈妈的坟前吊唁。这是妈妈逝世三周年了。突然间,我的妹妹开始谈起妈妈的过去。她回忆起与妈妈唠叨的往事。她所说的事我知道得不多,以及妈妈对我的被捕的感受。她憎恨这个死者以及她拒绝观看这个死者在电视机荧幕上出现的镜头。在回家的路上。我从她的想法里找到了灵感。我是不会理会李光耀的。比起死者和全国的吊唁,我的妈妈更加悲痛。在我撰写完这篇短文并把它上载到脸书(FACEBOOL)时我哭了。这个时候是她三年前逝世的日子。

 

好了,让重新回到记者的问题。我思考了几个小时。我为什么不可以给她一个真实和直接的答案呢?为什么我不可以说我不去参与吊唁是因为李光耀不经审讯把我关在监牢2年半呢?这样理由不是更好吗?当我回想起来,我越觉得自己是愚蠢的。这是某些下意识造成了我避免给予记者真实的答案。我对自己感到生气。这确实是荒唐的。

在思考了几个小时后,我终于醒悟过来了!——真正的原因是:因为恐惧感造成的!

——我恐惧,人们在进行沉痛吊唁和极端悲伤的这段时间谈起我的这段遭遇会让人们有不好的想法。

——我恐惧,他们会达到的结论是我由于个人的遭遇感到生气和痛苦。正如大主教所说的,成了一个不肯原谅他人继续往前看的人。

这就像是一个被人强奸的受害者的感受。他们的反应是拒绝向警方举报。因为他们害怕调查官不会相信他的说法,或者反指受害者自己的穿着或者行为不捡所致的。他们害怕自己的名义和个人安全将会因为举报而受到侵害。社会上的人们将会怎样看待她们?社会上的人们将会有什么反应?这是确实非常复杂的、危险和让人惊吓的。因此最好的方法就是保持沉默,忘记那些肮脏的事件和‘继续前进’。让强奸者逃避应受到的惩罚和继续犯下更多的罪行。让更多的妇女遭受痛苦。

在认识到让我不想向记者说出真正的原因是因为恐惧感造成的后,我终于解脱了。这正如一个超重的包袱从我的身上卸了下来一样。我立即解决了另一个问我要不要去国会大厦吊唁的人提出的问题了。我直接告诉他, 我不会去向一个不经审讯把自己的公民关进监牢,造成了这么多痛苦的人、他们的家人和朋友致敬!

就在那天傍晚,一个在排队对轮候了数个小时在黎明后才得以进去吊唁的人问我是否会去吊唁时,我的回答是:‘不会。他曾经对我做了什么?他把我关进监了2年半。您说,我还会去向他致敬吗?’在我向他说出了这段经历后,他惊讶的问我为什么被关进监牢里?我告诉了他有关内部安全法令的问题。假设他要知道我的遭遇,我请他到谷歌搜索我名字。他说,他并不知道那个伟人的另一面。事实上,他并不知道这一切,同时我给他的答案可能让他感到惊讶。那天傍晚,他向其他2位朋友询问是否知道我的被捕情况。其中一位说他知道。另一位推说她不知道。

1987年和1988年,李光耀和他的部长们在内部安全法令下,不经审讯的逮捕和监禁了24人。他们的名字如下:

1 Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan, Church worker

钟金全教会工作者

2 Teo Soh Lung, Lawyer

张素兰律师

3 Kevin de Souza, Lawyer and Church worker

凯尔文.德苏沙工艺学院学生会

4 Wong Souk Yee, Researcher and journalist

黄淑仪高级研究员

5 Tang Lay Lee, Lawyer and Church worker

董丽莉律师

6 Ng Bee Leng, Church worker

黄美玲社会志工

7 Jenny Chin Lai Ching, Journalist

陈丽清新闻工作者

8 Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng, Advertising executive

曾志成广告执行员

9 Chung Lai Mei

钟丽薇工人

10 Mah Lee Lin, Polytechnic graduate and Church worker

马丽玲工艺学院学生

11 Low Yit Leng, Project manager

刘月玲规划经理

12 Tan Tee Seng, Sales executive

   陈智成销售执行员

13 Teresa Lim Li Kok, Publisher

   林丽国出版商

14 Chia Boon Tai, Engineer and businessman

   谢文泰商人

15 Tay Hong Seng, Translator and subtitling editor

   郑方升编辑

16 William Yap Hon Ngian, Translator and subtitling editor

   叶汉源副编辑

17 Tang Fong Har, Lawyer

   陈凤霞律师

18 Chew Kheng Chuan, Harvard University graduate and Businessman

   周庆全商人

19 Chng Suan Tze, Polytechnic Lecturer

   庄碹芝工艺学院讲师

20 Ronnie Ng Soon Hiang, Polytechnic student

   黄顺贤工艺学院学生会秘书

21 Fan Wan Peng, Polytechnic student and president of the students’ union

   范运冰工艺学院学生会会长

22 Nur Effendi Sahid, National serviceman

   诺挨芬德国民服役人员

1988年在上述被逮捕的拘留者中的8位因为发表了联合声明后与他们的律师一起重新被逮捕的还包括前总检察长和新加坡律师公会主席萧天寿(Seow Tiang Siew)和律师以及新加坡律师公会执委常国基(Patrick Seong Kwok Kei)。在2年内,2位在欧洲的朋友的新加坡公民权被遞夺了。他们是英国牛津大学毕业生的陈华标(Tan Wah Piow)和在比利时的博士生Paul Lim Huat Chye

他们与陈凤霞(Tang Fong Har)都成了政治流亡者了。Tang Fong Har8位给他发表联合声明的签署人之一,但是,她成功的逃脱了被重新逮捕的命运。她最终流亡到伦敦。在接下来的几年,Francis Seow(萧天寿)也成为了政治流亡者。萧天寿是在几乎赢得1988年大选的席位下被追捕的。他是一个政治被迫害者。

当李光耀在弥留前的最后几天他的孩子和孙子可以陪伴在他的身边时,那些政治流亡者,包括了那些在60年代和70年代却不准与自己的至亲见面会和无法出席在新加坡逝世的自己双亲和伴侣的葬礼。

我们经常都会听到一些人说,他们的逮捕行动是为了国家的利益。这事实就是要牺牲一部分自己的公民。我无法理解这样的声明。假设他们和他们的至亲在不经审讯下被逮捕并监禁起来,他们是否也持有相同的看法?

李光耀是一个狡猾的政客。他知道哪些他需要逮捕的人的本性和性格。他知道林清祥是能干的人,是一个比他还要能干可以担任总理职位的人。他知道林福寿医生和傅树介医生的智慧与他的智慧是一样,但是不比他还高。他知道赛.查哈利老先生在马来人社群里具有崇高的地位。赛老可以与他挑战管理新加坡。假设这些人都能够允许参与1963年的大选的话,他们将会中选。为此,他们在冷藏行动下被逮捕并被监禁超过数十年。这些人当时如果能够中选进入国会将会为我们的国家取得比现在更高的成就。他们将会为我们的国家的政治和法律事项,在国会里与那个人以及他的那群温顺的内阁进行辩论。

那个“两个就够”的家庭计划和限制新加坡公民与外国人结婚的政策可能就不会被通过实施了。新加坡也就不需要为人口增长率的下降和劳动力短缺而烦恼。语言和方言将会更加活跃,将让新加坡成为一个更加具有特性性的文化和多元种族具有刺激性的社会!滨海湾的赌场就不会成为推动新加坡经济的主要动力,新加坡的社会就不会成为一个赌徒的国家。

即便是在1987年和1988年的拘留者当中,有很多当时都是在社会的底层工作的。他们知道引进外来劳工的危险性。在促进我们国家的经济时将不会照顾到外来劳工的福利和为他们提供最低的生活工资收入。他们知道,政府采取引进外来劳工政策的结果是外来劳工最终将对我们的公民产生影响。这样对咱们国家有好处的劝告的人会被逮捕呢?假设当时政府是聆听这些拘留者的话并和他们一起改进有关的政策实施,今天新加坡可能会成为一个更好的国家。您可能会不同意,但是,请您不要告诉我说,逮捕这些一小部分国家未来潜在的人是为了国家的利益的。不要告诉我,当你不知道过去发生了什么?以及李光耀对我们的公民做了什么事又要我们继续前进!

恐惧已经死亡!

废除内部安全法令!

justice now

FEAR is DEAD

By Teo Soh Lung

Four days ago, and I were asked by journalists from Hong Kong (http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150328/19093087) if we were going to pay our respect to Lee Kuan Yew. Kenneth replied that he would not. When pressed for an answer as to why, he muttered something like it was not necessary.

The young journalists were persistent in finding an answer and they turned to me. I too replied that I was not going. They pressed for an answer and I gave them the lame excuse that the queue was too long. I was dismayed at my own answer but didn’t know why.

For days during the week of “national mourning”, I have been asked by neighbours who were ardent fans of Lee Kuan Yew, if I was going to pay my respect. My answer was simply “no”. I did not elaborate and they never probe further. If I could interpret such an answer now, I think it was my way of respecting the dead, that I didn’t want to hurt the questioner that the dead had harmed me and my family and friends during his term of office as prime minister.

For days before the funeral, group chats had been flooded with reports of the long queue in the sun, the plans and funeral arrangements, the longer bus and train schedules, the unbelievable achievements of the dead and so on and so forth. On the sixth day, I could no longer tolerate such messages and left the groups. I did not give a reason, again perhaps out of respect for the dead.

Friends who knew my past had asked incessantly if I was going to write about Lee Kuan Yew. I did intend to write but for 20 days or more, my mind was a blank. I just could not put anything sensible on paper. It was as if an inner voice was telling me to remain silent and not disrupt the nation’s grief. Let them grieve in peace. I did however write a short piece about my mother’s thoughts on 24th March, a day after Lee died.I had no intention of doing so but the piece came naturally, as if my mother was instigating me to write for her. That morning, I had visited my mother’s niche, it being the third anniversary of her death. Suddenly, my sister started to talk about the past. She was having a conversation with my mother. I didn’t know much about what she went through and how she felt about my arrest, how she detested the dead and how she refused to watch the television whenever his image appeared. On the long journey home, I penned her thoughts. I didn’t care about Lee Kuan Yew. My mother’s grief was larger than that of the dead and the national mourning. I cried when I finished writing and posted it on my facebook. It was about the time of her death at home three years ago.

And so coming back to the journalists. I thought for many hours. Why was I not able to give an honest, direct answer? Why didn’t I say that I was not going because Lee Kuan Yew had imprisoned me up for two and a half years without trial and for no good reason? The more I pondered, the more ridiculous and stupid I felt. It was something in the sub conscience that prevented me from giving an honest answer. I was angry. It was truly absurd.

After thinking for a few hours, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason was Fear – fear that people will think badly of me especially at a time when they were in deep mourning and hysteria, fear that they would conclude that I was angry and bitter, unforgiving, a person who refused to “move on” as the archbishop said. It was like the reaction of rape victims. They decline to report the crime because they were afraid that the investigator would not believe them or even accuse them that they had asked for the rape to happen because of the way they behaved or dressed. They were afraid that their own reputation and safety would be damaged with the report. How would the public view them? What would their reaction be? It was all just too complex, risky and intimidating and it was best to remain silent, forget about the nasty incident and “move on”. Let the rapists escape punishment and commit more crimes. Let more women suffer.

Realising that fear was the reason which prevented me from giving an honest answer to the journalists, I suddenly felt liberated. It was as if a heavy load was lifted. I immediately resolved that the next person who asked me if I was going to Parliament House to pay my respect, I would let it be known that I do not respect a leader who imprisoned citizens without trial, who caused so much suffering to those imprisoned, their families and their friends.

That evening, someone who had just paid his respect to the dear leader after waiting for several hours before day break, asked if I was going. I replied: “No, after what he did to me, imprisoning me for two and a half years, how can I go and pay respect to him?” Taken aback, he asked why I was imprisoned. I told him about the ISA and asked him to google my name if he wanted to know more. He said he didn’t know the other side of the great leader. Indeed, he didn’t know and was probably shocked at my answer. He asked two friends that evening if they knew about my imprisonment. One said he did and the other pretended she didn’t know.

In 1987 and 1988, Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers arrested and imprisoned 24 people without trial under the ISA. They were:

1 Vincent Cheng Kim Chuan, Church worker

2 Teo Soh Lung, Lawyer

3 Kevin de Souza, Lawyer and Church worker

4 Wong Souk Yee, Researcher and journalist

5 Tang Lay Lee, Lawyer and Church worker

6 Ng Bee Leng, Church worker

7 Jenny Chin Lai Ching, Journalist

8 Kenneth Tsang Chi Seng, Advertising executive

9 Chung Lai Mei

10 Mah Lee Lin, Polytechnic graduate and Church worker

11 Low Yit Leng, Project manager

12 Tan Tee Seng, Sales executive

13 Teresa Lim Li Kok, Publisher

14 Chia Boon Tai, Engineer and businessman

15 Tay Hong Seng, Translator and subtitling editor

16 William Yap Hon Ngian, Translator and subtitling editor

17 Tang Fong Har, Lawyer

18 Chew Kheng Chuan, Harvard University graduate and Businessman

19 Chng Suan Tze, Polytechnic Lecturer

20 Ronnie Ng Soon Hiang, Polytechnic student

21 Fan Wan Peng, Polytechnic student and president of the students’ union

22 Nur Effendi Sahid, National serviceman

In 1988, eight of the above were rearrested after issuing a press release together with their lawyers, Francis Seow Tiang Siew, former Solicitor General and President of the Law Society of Singapore and Patrick Seong Kwok Kei, Lawyer and member of Council of the Law Society of Singapore. In the two years, two friends who were then in Europe had their Singapore citizenship revoked. They were Tan Wah Piow, an Oxford University undergraduate and Paul Lim Huat Chye, a PhD student in Belgium.

They became political exiles together with Tang Fong Har, a signatory to the press release but escaped rearrest as she was then in the United Kingdom. In subsequent years, Francis Seow too became a political exile after nearly winning the general election in 1988. It was political persecution.

While Lee Kuan Yew’s children and grandchildren were able to be by his side during the last days of his illness and funeral, the political exiles, including those who left Singapore in the 1960s and 70s were not able to see their loved ones or attend the funerals of their parents and spouse who died in Singapore.

It is common to hear people say that for the good of the nation, it is perfectly in order to sacrifice some of its citizens. I never understand such a statement. Would they have the same opinion if they and their loved ones were arrested and imprisoned without trial? Lee Kuan Yew as an astute politician knew the nature and character of who he demanded arrest. He knew Lim Chin Siong was as capable if not more capable than he as the prime minister. He knew that Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai were intellectually his equal if not superior to him. He knew that Pak Said Zahari commanded the respect of the Malay community and was capable of challenging his way of managing Singapore. If they had been permitted to contest in the 1963 general election instead of being arrested in Operation Coldstore and imprisoned for decades, their presence in the legislative assembly may have helped our nation to achieve even greater heights. There would have been genuine debates on policies and laws in parliament for the good of our country instead of bad policies and laws being rammed down our throats by one man and his docile cabinet.

The “Stop at two” and restrictive marriage policies of Singaporeans and foreigners may not have been implemented and Singapore would not need to fret about its dwindling population and labour shortage. Languages and dialects may have flourished, making Singapore a unique and exciting multicultural and multi racial society. Casinos may not be necessary to propel the economy resulting in Singapore becoming a nation of gamblers.

Even among the 1987 and 1988 detainees, many were working on the ground and knew the precarious nature of importing foreign labour to boost our economy while not looking after their well being and providing them with a minimum living wage. They knew that the way the government managed the foreign workers would ultimately have an adverse effect on our citizens. What good can such arrests bring to our nation? If the government had listened to the detainees and worked with them to improve policies, Singapore may be a better country today. You may disagree but please don’t tell me that arresting a small number of people who were or have the potential of being future leaders is for the good of our country. Don’t tell me to move on when you don’t even know what happened in the past and what Lee Kuan Yew had done to his own citizens.

Fear is dead.

Abolish ISA.

   


留下评论

(中英文本对照)历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀——第一部分

 March 26, 2015

share from http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/TOC)

《公民在线》网-2015325

Your browser does not support native audio, but you can download this MP3 to listen on your device. 

Malaysia’s independent radio station, BFM 89.9 interviewed Thum Ping Tjin, Research Associate at the Centre for Global History at the University of Oxford and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, on Lee Kuan Yew’s

新书:1963年冷藏箱的50周年

Lee Chwi Lynn: So just for the uninitiated, because I think colonisation is a phrase that most of us will be more than familiar with, but decolonisation – I suppose that is the process of removing said colonisers?

Thum Ping Tjin: Yes, it kind of spans several levels, because on one level you have the very obvious transfer of power which is the term that the British like to use, because it’s very clear-cut. You lower one flag, then you raised the other flag and that’s it.

But at a deeper level you have to ask yourself, when you have a whole generation of political leaders in a colony who have been raised in the schools of the coloniser to think like the colonial power, and then you hand power to them, how much do they then defer from the interests of the colonial power?

So decolonisation is not just transfer (of) political power but it’s a process of social cultural change where we learn to adapt, in that we find our own identity, find our own past through the world.

And when we look at decolonisation in the context of Malaysia and Singapore, I think one figure that we had to talk about is of course Lee Kuan Yew, who was an important figure in shaping of Singapore and post separation from Malaysia. And its relatively safe to say that his legacy is Singapore.

Lee Chwi Lynn: So going back in time in 1965 when he was faced with the challenge of forming this nation state where one hadn’t existed before – how would you described his reaction to Malaysia’s expulsion of Singapore?

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, it is very interesting how you phrase that question because there are so many assumptions within that question that directly come from the way the Malaysia and Singapore governments have shaped (and) kind of portrayed the narratives of our history.

So the fact that they use 1965 as a significant date, the fact where you say that he was faced with a challenge of forming a nation-state, the one that never existed, and the fact that you say Malaysia’s expulsion of Singapore – of course, we see it differently in Singapore. The PAP says they voluntarily chose to leave but I think you really need to understand separation in the context of Malaysia in order to understand Lee Kuan Yew and how he saw things.

Because Lee Kuan Yew’s goal was to reunify Singapore with the rest of Malaya before the partition of Malaya in 1946, the people of Singapore and the people of the rest of Malaya – Malaya in the geographical sense being the whole peninsular – did not perceive Singapore as a separate entity, and the partition of Malaya into Singapore and the Federation was a very traumatic and destructive act and it was the avowed goal of politicians on both sides of the Causeway to reunify Malaya.

I mean, why should some white people from the other side of the world come and tell us on what should be one country, what shouldn’t be another country? And the fact is most Singaporeans had family or were even born north of the Causeway. So when the PAP was elected in 1959 the central plank of his campaign was reunification. In fact, every single political party that ran in 1959 campaign explicitly on a platform of merger with the Federation to the reunification of Malaya.

So in order for any political party to be successful – in 1957, a survey found 90% of Singaporeans in favour of merger – this was not just an ideal; it was, for a politician, something that you have to campaign openly for.

The problem is after Merdeka in 1957, Tunku Abdul Raman and the leaders of UMNO were less and less keen on merger and the fundamental fact was that if you have political parties based on race and you had reunification, there would be more Chinese than Malays in Malaya, I think 43.3 versus 43.1%. And that would then undermine UMNO’s political dominance.

So leaving aside any question about race and who is the rightful owners of the country – this is not a racial issue. Let us think of it as an electoral issue – you don’t want to dilute your own electoral base, so Tunku Abdul Raman and the other leaders said, why should we bring Singapore back in if it means that our hold on power will be loosened? They are politicians, they are pragmatic people, they know that they need to win elections so that’s why they became very unenthusiastic – increasingly unenthusiastic – about reunification.

Lee Kuan Yew, in order to reunify Malaysia had to play the race card very very strongly. He had to play the Communist card very strongly and he had to say Singapore was an existential threat to the Federation if it was outside of the Federation.

So that is the background, so after playing this card very strongly, you have merger but on terms in which Singapore is basically excluded from the rest of Malaysia. Sabah, Sarawak in the Federation – their citizens have certain rights. They can move around and vote wherever and they are equal. But Singapore, Singaporeans can only vote in Singapore. Singapore politicians can only run in Singapore.

Now put yourself in Lee Kuan Yew’s shoes. He has achieved merger and on the back of merger, let us  not forget he won the 1963 elections in Singapore as a consequence of all the events of merger, the deals and compromises. He was able to win an election which people had thought the PAP would lose. It was his big triumph, he has nothing else to turn to the electorate with, nothing else to campaign on in 1963 except merger, but there was such a massive success that they squeaked home.

Now, what is his next ambition? If you know Lee Kuan Yew, he is not going be satisfied with being in Singapore, he is a man of great ambition, he is a man with great towering intellect, he thinks he can do better than anyone else in Malaysia for Malaysia.

So he wants to go north, he wants to become Prime minister of Malaysia and therein you have the fundamental problem, because in order to now overturn the limitation of Singapore’s politicians being limited to Singapore, he now has to turn around and ignore everything he said between 1960 and 1963 or so, about Singapore being Chinese and dangerous and communist and now turn around and say, “No, we are all Malaysian and we should have a Malaysian Malaysia, we should all be equal.” And this of course, you know, (means) he has reneged on all his promises to Tunku Abdul Raman and after provoking in the worsening of the racial situation, now he’s trying to make an about face.

Lee Chwi Lynn: This is a massive reversal.

Thum Ping Tjin: Yes, massive reversal, and of course this then eventually leads to the conclusion on both sides. Basically by 1965, you have one of two options. Either Singapore leaves Malaysia or Kuan Yew leaves Malaysia, you know, leaves power.

And Lee Kuan Yew had a choice – do I keep myself in power by taking Singapore out, or do I ensure the future of Malaysia by taking myself out? And he made his choice: He chose to take Singapore out of Malaysia against the majority of his Cabinet, half of whom were Malaysia born, against the advice of his closest advisers. You know, Toh Chin Chye and Goh Keng Swee were both born in Malaysia and very passionately committed to the Malaysian ideal. Malaysia still could have worked but Lee Kuan Yew would never have been Prime Minister and that was the choice he made.

So faced with this choice in the challenge of forming a nation-state, to go back to your question: I think that he would have been incredibly, sorely disappointed; but he would have been very very relieved because now he was unchallenged once again as the leader of Singapore and he could do things his way as he saw best.

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: So with all that you know with that background, with all the challenges that came with trying to put things together and having to take them apart again – how did that informed the first few years of Singapore’s growth, in the first years of Singapore’s creation as a nation-state?

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, he has to very much distinguish Singapore from the rest of Malaysia, and here again you see something very interesting, because from the moment he was elected in 1959 he had been seeking to create a Malayan identity.

 

They set up a na tional language Institute which sought to develop and teach Malay. Until 1957 or so, Singapore was the artistic intellectual capital of Malaya and it produced a lot of innovative Malay language literature and they wanted to develop that. But the moment we separated, suddenly you have to assert a separate identity for Singapore and because of all the racial issues and because of the majority, it became very natural to emphasise the Chinese identity, the English language identity to distinguish yourself from Malaysia and to now assert a whole new trajectory and identity for Singapore that is not Malayan but Singaporean.

So that really inform the first few years; and of course, you know you have to seek a new economic path, but again this was a huge tension with the central government. Because even though the merger agreement gave Singapore a lot of autonomy in terms of its economic policies, industrialisation, labour policies, they still face huge problems struggling with Kuala Lumpur, which had a far more protectionist attitude (compared) to Singapore, which is fundamentally a free-trade port. Cannot escape from that. So they were free of that for the first time in two years, so that also enabled them to quickly move in that direction.

历史学家覃炳鑫博士谈李光耀

 

您的浏览器的软件可能无法支持这个视频。但是,您可以下载MP3来聆听.

马来西亚独立电台BFM89.9邀请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的协调员覃炳鑫博士就李光耀的逝世进行访谈。(译者按:覃博士也是《新加坡1963年冷藏行动50周年纪念》(The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore)一书的共同作者之一。他撰写的文章是:《‘骨肉团聚’:新加坡中文社群与人他们对新马合并的观点》(Flesh and bone reunite as one body”Singapore Chinese-speaking and their Perspectives on Merge)。他还撰写了一篇极其重要的文章:《Lim Chin Siong was wrongfully detained林清祥被拘留是错误的!》https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/lim-chin-siong-was-wrongfully-detained)

冷藏行动中文版以下是访谈的全文中文翻译。(本中文翻译内容如与英文原文有不符之处,均以英文版本为最终的解释权。)

Lee Chwi Lynn: 由于缺乏有关这方面的知识,因此我想,殖民地化是一个术语。这是大家所熟知的。但是,非殖民化——我假设这是去殖民主义者的过程。

覃炳鑫博士:是的。这是跨越几个层次的。因为因在某种程度上它有非常明显的权力移。这是英国人喜欢使用的词句。因为这是非常明显的区分的。您降下一面旗帜,你又升起另一面旗帜。

但是,再深一层思考下去。你的问自己,在殖民地时代当一代人的政治领袖,他们在学校升起殖民的旗帜时是具有殖民地权利的想法的。接着,把权力移交给他们时,他们从殖民地哪儿可以获得多少利益?

所以,非殖民地化就不是一个纯粹政治权利的转移的问题了。这是一个社会文化进程的改变。我们必须尝试去接受它。为此,我们要通过是这个世界去寻找自己的过去。

当我们在看马来西亚和新加坡的非殖民化的情况时,我想,其中一个主要的任务我们必须谈及的当然就是李光耀了。他在塑造新加坡和新加坡从马来西亚分离后是一个极其重要的人物。相对安全的说,他的遗产就是新加坡。

 

Lee Chwi Lynn: 这样,让我们回到1965年,当他面对这个国家诞生时的挑战。这是前所未有的——您怎样看待新加坡被马来西亚驱出出去?

覃炳鑫博士:好的。您提出的这个问题是让人感到非常有兴趣的。因为,在这个问题上是有许多不同的假设的。马来西亚政府和新加坡政府对这个问题有着不同版本描述我们的历史。

所以,事实上他们把1965年视为是一个具有意义的日子。事实就如您所说的,他(指李光耀)面对着建立一个国家的挑战,这是前所未有的。正如您所说的,新加坡被驱出出马来西亚——当然,我们才能够方面来看这个问题是有不同的。人民行动说,他们是自己选择脱离。当时, 我想,您必须确实要真正的了解到(新加坡)从马来西亚分割出去的情况。这样,您才可能了解李光耀和他是如何看待这些事情的。

1946年前,马来亚与新加坡分割开来。因此,李光耀的目标是要新加坡与马来亚其他州重归统一。让新加坡人民和马来亚人民重新团聚在一起。马来亚在地理上的认知是整个马来半岛——这个马来半岛并没有把新加坡视为分割开来的一部分。把马来亚(半岛)和新加坡(岛)分割开来是一个极其沉重的创伤和具有破坏性。这就成了长堤两岸的政治家公开提出的政治目标(指新加坡岛与马来亚半岛的重新统一)。

我的意思是说, 为什么在地球的另一边的白人为什么要到这儿来告诉我们要成为一个统一的国家?或者不要成为一个统一的国家?事实上,许多新加坡人的家庭成员甚至是出生在长堤的北段。因此,1959年当行动党上台执政的运动核心任务就是重归统一。事实上,在1959年参与竞选运动的每一个政党在竞选纲领上都明确的的提出要新加坡与马来亚重归统一。

这就是说,如果任何一个政党想要取得选举的胜利——1957年的满意调查发现90%的新加坡赞成合并——这不仅仅是一个理想!而是每一个政治家在开展运动时必须公开声明的目标。

问题是在1957年的独立。东姑.阿杜拉曼和巫统的领袖对合并感不兴趣。问题实质的根本在于:假设一个政党的组成是建立在种族基础上,那一旦重归统一,那么马来亚将出现华人躲过马来人的情况。我想,这个比例大约是在43.3%43.1%之间,这样将会破坏巫统的政治优势。

让我们暂且把有关种族的问题搁置一边。问题是:我们的国家的真正主人是谁?——这可不是一个种族问题。让我们看一看选举的课题——稀释自己的选票。因此,东姑.阿杜拉曼和他的领袖说,为什么我们要把新加坡拉回来。这不是意味着我们会失去手中的权利吗?他们都是政客,他们是实用主义者,他们自己知道必须赢得选举。这样就是为什么他们这样的不乐观——在重归统一的课题上是极其不乐观的。

李光耀为了要马来西亚的重归统一必须热衷于操弄种族注意的牌,他必须热衷于弄共产主义的牌。他必须说,新加坡如果被排除在马来西亚之外将会存在极大的威胁。

就是这个历史背景。好了。(李光耀)在热衷于操弄了这些牌后,新加坡与马来西亚合并了。但是,新加坡与马来西亚合并的基本条件是建立在不属于不包括在马来西亚联邦的一个州。沙巴和沙捞越是属于马来西亚联邦的一个州——他们拥有和马来西亚其他州的公民一样的权利。他们可以在马来西亚联邦自由行动和拥有投票权,他们的地位和马来西亚人民一样是平等的。但是,新加坡人只能在新加坡内部旅行自己的投票权。新加坡的政治家只能在新加坡进行政治活动。

您为李光耀设身处地想想吧。他已经取得了合并和背靠合并。让我们不要忘记,他在新加坡赢得了1963年的大选是在一连串有关合并的事件上——这是包括了交易和妥协。当人们以为行动党会输掉(这次选举)时,他确实赢得了这场选举。这对他而言无疑是说一个极大的胜利。在1963的选举运动中,他除了有关合并的课题外,并没有任何(有利的条件)足以改变选民的支持。他就这样凯旋而归。

好了。现在他的另一个野心是什么?假设您了解李光耀。您就知道,他并不满足于自己留在新加坡。他是一个具有野心的人。他是一个属于高智商的人。他认为一旦加入马来西亚,自己可以比任何人做的更好。

因此,他北上了。他想要成为马来西亚的总理。其中一个根本的问题是,因为,与其现在推翻新加坡的政治家被限制在新加坡进行政治活动。他现在推翻和忘记了自己在1960年和1963年以及后来所说的有关新加坡的华人以及威胁和共产党的论调。他现在反过来说,“现在我们都是马来西亚人。我们必须要有一个马来西亚人的马来西亚。我们必须平等。”理所当然,您可以想象得到,这是他对东姑.阿杜拉曼所做的一切承诺的食言。在挑起和激化种族关系之后,现在他开始苦楚自己的真面目。

Lee Chwi Lynn: 是一个极大的倒退啊!

覃炳鑫博士:是的。这是一个极大的倒退。理所当然的接着就导致双方的结局。基本上在1965年,您可以有一到两个选择。要吗新加坡离开马来西亚,或者李光耀离开马来西亚。这就意味着李光耀失去了权力。

对李光耀而言, 他只有两个选择——是把新加坡从马来西亚开出来让自己继续保有权利。或者,我确保未来的马来西亚将把自己除掉?李光耀做出了决定:他决定把新加坡从马来西亚分割出来,这是与他的内阁向背的,因为超过一半的内阁成员是是在马来西亚出世的,特别是与他最亲近的顾问,杜进才和吴庆瑞。他们对马来西亚是有的理想是充满感情的。马来西亚可以继续存在,但是,李光耀却绝对不会成为马来西亚的总理,这就是李光耀做出的选择。

好了,现在回到您的问题。他面对着这个选择建立一个国家的选择。我想,同时非常失望的。但是,他得到了极大的解脱。现在,他已经再一次成为新加坡不可挑战的领袖了。他可以根据自己的设想做要做到事,这就是您所看到的。

Lee Chwi Lynn: 好了。依据您所知道的这些历史背景。那就是把所有的事情尝试放在一块儿和尝试把它们分开。——如何看待新加坡开始的几年的增长?在第一年新加坡被视为是一个非真正的国家。

覃炳鑫博士:是的。李光耀与马来西亚其他州有着很大的区别。在这点上,您可以看到一个有趣的问题。因为,当他在1959 年当选后。他就开始以一个马来亚人的身份出现。

他们设立了一个国家语文学院,目的在于推广和教导马来语。直到1957 或者之后,新加坡是马来艺术文化中心。它产生了许多现代化马来语文学。他们要推广开来,但是、当时(新加坡和马来亚)被分割开来了。突然间,由于种族问题和属于少数种族的关系,必须维护分割开来的新加坡身份。他就很自然的强调华人的身份了。英语本身就与马来西亚区分开的。而现在新加坡要维护新的轨道和身份不是马来西亚而是新加坡人本身。

因此,刚开始的几年是真正的不正常的。当然,您是知道,你必须寻找新的经济出路,但是,与中央政府还是存在着极其紧张的关系的。尽管合并的协议给予新加坡在经济上、工业上和劳工政策上拥有的很大自主权。他们还是面对做与吉隆坡直接按的巨大的问题。(与新加坡相比)这包括了更多的保护主义的态度,那就是自由贸易的港口的基本问题。这是无法避免的问题。在开始的两年是免费的。因此这就让它们可以迅速的朝着这个方向前进。(待续…………)