人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(中英文版)纪念冷藏行动——张素兰 REMEMBERING OPERATION COLDSTORE by Teo Soh Lung

纪念冷藏行动

——张素兰

转载自:https://www.facebook.com/function8ltd/posts/896835223826786

196322日发生在新加坡代号:“冷藏行动”的大逮捕事件,已经超过我一半的生命时间了。但是,我却对此事件一无所知。

当我有幸见到这次事件中的一部分受害者和幸存者,并从中了解到整个事件的历史时,我感到非常愤怒和悲伤。

一个自称“尊重法制”和为人民利益而执政的政府,怎能仅仅是为了赢得一场选举和巩固自己的政权而进行这场“冷藏行动”?

有关“冷藏行动”的信息一直到了10年前才被揭开。这起事件在过去是鲜为人知的。我想,这起事件的受害是希望让人们忘记它。但是,当超过一百名无辜者在这个致命性的日子,于当天凌晨被捕是历史事实。历史又怎能忘记这起事件?

“冷藏行动”令人感到不安的事实是,这些被捕者并不是普通老百姓。他们都是身处反对党重要政治家、专业人士、职工会领导人、著名的新闻工作者和杰出的学生领袖。他们都是我们社会的精英分子。为什么未能提供机会让他们为国家服务?

当我还是一名在籍学生的时期,在国会开会期间我有机会列席旁听。我感到惊讶,为什么在国会开会期间国会议员的座位经常都是空置着的?为什么在开会期间那些部长和国会议员坐在舒适的皮革椅子上假装在听取报告,实质上都是在瞌睡。我也无法理解,为什么一届又一届的大选结果,我们仍然是无法把反对党候选人送进国会?

1960年代和70年代,人民是无法比较反对党的候选人与行动党的候选人的。行动党说,他们的候选人比起反对党的候选人更加合格及有经验?真的吗?可以肯定地说,(工人党的)惹耶勒南和(民主党的)詹时中比起行动党当中的许多候选人的资格来得更高。但是,他们直到1981年、1984年和70年代才获选进入国会。之前他们仍然是被选民所拒绝的。

在最近的10年,我终于认识到这个事实了:

造成国会里没有反对党的真正原因是来自“冷藏行动”事件。“冷藏行动”已经彻底摧毁了反对党。

当全部的反对党领导人和职工会领袖,在不经审讯下被监禁超过数十年、或者被驱逐出境到他们的原生地(尽管他们已经把新加坡视为自己的祖国)的情况下,民主怎能生存年?

请看看以下的这份在“冷藏行动”中被捕者的名单:

林清祥——社会主义阵线秘书长
陈蒙鹤——马来学者
林福寿医生——社会主义阵线中委
詹姆士.普都查理——社会主义阵线中委
何标——新加坡海员工会受薪秘书
.查哈利——马来前锋报编辑、新加坡人民党主席
傅树介医生——社会主义阵线副组织秘书长
兀哈尔——社会主义阵线副主席
胡申.扎西丁——新闻工作者、新加坡人民的党员
A
马哈迪哇——新加坡新闻工作者协会秘书长
陈国防——南大在籍学生

这是一份冗长的被捕者名单。整个社会主义阵线和人民党中央委员会成员都被逮捕了。(您可以在2013年由傅树介、孔丽莎和陈国防共同编辑出版的《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动 59周年》的附录中查阅)。这些人都是具有非常聪慧思想的人。他们都被监禁了。他们当中有一些人是有人是被监禁超过20年的。

“冷藏行动”是行动党在(时任马来亚总理)东姑和英国殖民主义者的协助下进行的。他们是在捏造虚假罪名,但是使用具有合法手段下摧毁新加坡的民主的。他们害怕即将在19639月举行的大选中失去政权。为了阻止政治对手参与即将举行的大选,他们使用法律手段逮捕和监禁政治对手。这是懦夫和恶霸行为。

行动党在1963年的大选中取得了胜利,但是,他们付出的道德代价的是什么?

“人若赚得全世界,却赔了自己的灵魂,那还有什么益处呢?”(见:马克8:36国王杰姆斯版本)

在过三天,将是196322日冷藏行动55周年纪念日了。让我们怀念那些为了我们获得的自由而牺牲自己的勇敢与聪慧的百多名政治拘留者。

 

 

Advertisements


留下评论

(中英文版)您想知道为什么吗? Ever wonder why?

您想知道为什么吗?

作者:张素兰

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

想知道为什么谢太宝在中国声名狼藉的哪版权法令下失去了32年的自由吗?

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

我知道很多人都在思考着这个问题。请看如下的这张列表:

政治犯被长期监禁和失去自由与被捕的原因有关吗?据我所知的答案是:

“他们没有触犯任何非法的活动”。

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

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

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

他们提出了要求我做的两件事是:

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

  2. 我必须发表一份包括以下两点的公开声明:

    1. 我准备放弃从事政治活动,未来也将投身行医。

    2. 我必须表达带议会民主制度的支持……。

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

就因此导致的结果是,林福寿又继续被关押了11年。

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

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

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

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

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

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

“我们以独立候选人身份竞选,是无法当选的。必须要有一群人支持。当我被释放时。社阵已经被彻底摧毁了,只剩个空壳。我在1972年获释时,内部安全局局长张栾民对我说:“林医生,我不是警告您或者威胁您,我只是提醒您。某人,您知道是谁,给 我一道持久有效的命令(STANDING  ORDER),如果您在获释后表现桀骜不驯,我们将再把您直接灌进监牢,不必请示内阁。”。

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

我们必须对自己提出这样一个问题:

为什么我们允许行动党政府不经审讯的情况下林福寿医生及其朋友们?

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

 

 

Ever wonder why?

by Teo Soh Lung

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

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

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

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

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

“NOTHING ILLEGAL”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We cannot win the election as an independent candidate. You must have a group of people supporting you. The Barisan Sosialis was completely dismantled by the time I was released. It was only a shell without substance. At the time of my release in 1982, the Assistant Director of ISD, Tjong Yik Min said: “Dr Lim I am not warning or threatening you. I am only informing you. I have a standing order from you know who. If you show defiance after release, we will put you in prison again without reference to the cabinet.”

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

 The questions we have to ask ourselves is this:

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

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

 


留下评论

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

又一个压制下一代沉默的手腕?

(第一部方)

作者:张素兰

副总理善达曼在国大的讲话是令人感兴趣的。

他说,

新加坡今天“有着很大的不同情况。与过去相比,存在着更多的自由空间……”

去年他与大学先修班的学生也分享了同样的看法。他说:

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

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

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

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

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

                                       

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

                                 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Silencing Another Generation?

by Teo Soh Lung
Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


一条评论

(中/英文版)回首1988年4月19日在维特里路WHITLEYROAD拘留中心 BACK AT WHITLEY 26 YEARS AGO ON 19 APRIL 1988

回首1988年4月19日在维特里路WHITLEYROAD拘留中心

作者:张素兰

  

“他们在我的家门口”。这是对话的另一端黄淑仪的声音。她问:“我咋办?”是的。当他们就已经来到家门口了,我们能够做些什么?

说来也奇怪,为什么我们没有探讨过在发表联合声明后将会重新被捕?可能不会被重新逮捕吧?或者是这是失意?我不知道。当“他们”已经来到自家的门口时,我们又能做啥?假设拒绝开门不让他们进来,那么,他们将会破门而入。事情就这么简单。假设把门打开,那么,你就绝望地坐在那儿看着他们当时在翻阅搜查你的文件和物品,夺走一切被他们认为“喜欢”的东西。接下来就被他们带上在外面等候的车子。这辆车子将载你到蓝色的闸门里。

在我接到黄素枝的电话同时,“他们”也已经在我的办公室门铁外了。当然,由于他们身穿便装,门卫不让他们进来。他们在办公室乱闯。他们无法单独处理与老百姓的关系。他们之所以这样地粗暴对待老百姓,那是因为上级指示他们,他们是在处理恐怖分子。

一如既往。他们搜查了我的文件夹、书本和文件,甚至翻查了我的废纸箩。然后把这一切都扔一个准备好的黑色垃圾袋。

今天是419日,也就是26年前的今天,他们第二次把我带到维特里路拘留中心。这回他们对我比较和善了。他们不在凌晨时分把我带走。他们跟踪我到办公室,然后再逮捕我。接着,又把我从办公室带回家。他们这么做是为了进行第二轮的搜查。他们只是在浪费时间。

在拘留中心,我经过了盖手指印、拍照和更换犯人囚衣等正常的程序。接着,我光着脚板和不准穿内衣情况下被带到一间装有空调的审讯室。我是一个“死硬分子”。因为没有“吸取”以前的教训,我将面对以前更加严酷的处罚。我就在这个空调审讯室里呆了近20多个小时。接着,我被带到一间肮脏、里面充满微粒灰尘的小单元牢房。我在这个小单元牢房里的时间三到四小时是已经成为常规现象。

他们还要从我口里拿到什么信息?我已经在声明里说的很清楚了。

我的判断是错误的。他们要知道的是谁推动起草和发表这篇声明的。他们要知道,为什么我们要发表这篇声明。他们似乎不知道就是那些部长们迫使我们不得不做出反击!不就是部长们的行为导致我们被逮捕!他们要知道有关声明的内容是如何起草的,这包括哪些人说了什么?是谁负责撰写声明的?他们非常愤怒,因为他们认为我们第一次被捕时是受到“善待”的,但是,我们并没有“感恩图报”他们。在我们第一次被逮捕时,他们都受到了嘉奖。现在,我们有被逮捕了。因为我们给他们带来难以形容的尴尬他们认为,我们必须受到严惩。他们必须找出是谁造成这些局面?谁是领头羊?

还好。我们已经学会面对这些问题的经验了。我们大家都口径一致地说:“我们都是领导人!”过后我们在经过一番回想,这是多么的天真和真诚的想法啊!

部长们一再通过没有事实根据的指责挑衅我们。他们指责我们阴谋通过共产党统一战线的策略颠覆新加坡政府。为此,我们只得发表联合声明进行反驳。难道这是不合理的吗?在法律上,我们完全有权维护自己、并以合理的方式对挑衅指责做出反应。但是,事实上,我们期盼使用文明的反应方式来回应面对着这些被激怒到脸红的部长是太天真了。

在面对压力和空调审讯室的环境下,我受到了更多的指责和听到了感到遗憾更多人被捕,我也是同样的感到遗憾的是不仅仅是自己又再一次回到监狱里,而是其他人都一样被捕了。负责审问的官员告诉我,我们当中的一些与他们合作的很好。“他们说,起草这份声明是我提议的。”我同时也必须承担造成他们被捕的责任。这是一个极其可怕的结论。它让我陷入了忧郁的境地,但是,我战胜了这一切。

回忆起26年前发生的这件事情,我唯一可以说的是,我为自己能够成为9名签署联合声明的一份子而感到骄傲。人生是一次经历经验。人生是一场大胆的冒险。我的被捕经历显然是我一身中最为精彩和敢于冒险的篇章。我想,我的家人、律师、朋友们和支持者对我的信任和支持们让我度过这个艰苦的日子。

以下这张照片是于1988年12月8日我的律师罗斯林娜.芭芭Roslina Baba给我的。她是在取得了法院判决释放令。法院判决的听令是政府逮捕我们当中一部分人是属于不符合技术要求的。我在获得释放走出维特里路拘留中心大闸门外之际,立即被他们重新逮捕,他们重新逮捕我时,现场的人群已经被清除,没有人看到我重新被捕。

 附录:

《“光谱”许多下的前被扣者发表联合声明》

1988418

前言

我们,在本声明签名的人,分别在1987521日和620日被内部安全局拘留,并于19876月、9月和12月分批在“暂予缓押批文”(SUSPENSION DIRECTIVES)/或“限制行动令”下获释。

我们私底下认为自己并未犯罪,我们对自己曾经遭受的不公平待遇,出于无奈与恐惧,一直保持沉默,并准备继续沉默下去。与此同时,政府却不断重复逮捕和拘留我们的话题,做出毫无根据和破坏我们名誉的言论。

一方面,当局通过明或者暗的恐吓,威胁我们不得谈论被逮捕后拘留的事。另一方面,政府及其发言人却对逮捕后拘留的原因,一再发表大胆与不实的言论,而且否认曾经粗暴对待我们或者对我们动刑。

我们现在发表声明,因为政府持续羞辱我们,也因为政府公开呼吁,要我们说出被逮捕后被拘留期间所受到待遇的真相。

我们以有原则者说实话的立场发表声明,说明我们的立场,立此存照,以示正听。

我们发表声明,目的不在于挑战政府;我们不要求任何官方的答复;我们没有任何籍此老去“政治资本”的企图。我们发表声明的唯一目的是,还我清白。

声明

政府指控我们参与一项所谓“马克思主义阴谋,为了建立一个马克思主义国家,利用常共产党统一战线策略,以颠覆新加坡现有社会和政治体制”。

我们断然否认政府对我们的指控。

我们不是马克思主义阴谋者,从来没有参与任何阴谋活动。

我们从来不是秘密的共产党,没有马克思主义网络。在被捕以前。我们当中许多人甚至互不认识或不知道对方的存在。

实际上。我们只是行使新加坡宪法赋予的言论自由与结社自由权利的社区与教会工作者、法律革新者、业余戏剧工作者、协助工人党工作的人专业人士和普通公民。

我们从来就没有宣扬,无论通过口头或行动,要在新加坡建立共产主义国家。与此相反,我们曾经通过公开与合法的组织,采取合法的途径主张发扬民主,抑制精英主义。保障个人自由和公民权利,促进对穷人与弱势群体的关怀,减少对公民私生活的干扰。

我们完全同意前被扣者周庆全在内部安全法咨询委员会陈情时表达的信仰。我们转转述他的话,如下:“……(我们相信)开放与民主党政治制度,以及一个开明有负责政府的可贵。(我们)强烈相信在一个名副其实的民主社会里,政治兴趣与活动,不能成为政治家的特权。在民主制度下,公民要对社会有用,参与社会的政治生活不但是一种权利,而且应该是一种责任。那种认为针对社会与政治课题发表意见故意持有不同政治观点的人,就应该去组织政党来反对政府的说法,是很危险、不利于民主的。难道公民出来每四年的投票外。除非通过职业政治家,就不能针对政治课题发言?这是比普通人凡事依赖“专家”(无论是依赖水喉匠或者寺庙庙祝),法则寸步难行更糟的处境。这将造成一个只有权威、经注册的、专业的专家才享有相关领域发言权的社会”

而我们相信,一个组织,也会个别公民一样享有同等的合法权利,可以参与我们国家的民主生活。

荒唐的是,我们似乎因为行使公民注册与组织公开团体的合法权利,而被逮捕与拘留。我们并没有渗透,而是加入这些组织成为会员、义工或全职工作人员。我们也没有利用这些组织,作为颠覆活动的掩饰。这些组织开展的所有活动,都是公开、合法和经由当选执委会批准的,这些组织的成员,每一个都是有能力、有独立意见和有才智的个人。

我们在个别活动或者群体中所做的事,也没有获得任何人或任何组织的“指示”。没有来自陈华彪、林发财或钟金全的指示,也没有来自任何政党的指示。

被拘留期间的待遇

我们被拘留期间,在受盘问时,得到任何个人都不应该得到的对待。

我们突然被捕后,就面对粗暴和密集的审讯,睡眠与休息都被剥夺,我们当中一些人甚至在酷冷的侦讯室里连续被盘问71个小时。我们所有人都被令脱去衣服、眼镜、鞋子和内衣裤,换上囚衣。

我们当中多数人,在这个盘问过程中被令站着,有些被迫站立超过20个钟头,并一直被调到低温的冷气正面吹拂。

在这样的处境下,我们当中的一个人,手盘问时甚至被持续往身上泼冷水。

在盘问开始后,我们当中多数人,在前三天都被人使劲掴耳光,一些人被掴了不下50次,其他人的前提并未被殴打。

在盘问过程中。我们面对进一步皮肉受苦的恐吓。他们威胁要逮捕、对付过殴打我们的配偶、爱人和亲友。他们威胁要在不经公开审判情况下无限期拘留我们。他们拿谢太宝作为例子。他已经被扣押了22年。如今仍在被扣押。他们说除非我们会内安局“合作”,谁也帮不了我们。

这类威胁,在我们被拘留期间各自书写声明时,一直在我们脑子里盘旋不去。

我们一直被游说,叫我们不要聘请代表律师或叫我们辞掉代表律师,不要采取法律行动(包括内部法咨询委员会陈情),以免危害我们获释的机会。

我们被迫上电视,并受警告,能否获释全看我们在电视上的表现。我们被迫书写这类声明,譬如“我倾向马克思主义……”,“我理想中的社会是个消灭了阶级的社会……”。“某某人是我的思想导师……”,“我被某某人利用……”,以此加罪与我们自己和其他被拘留者。

我们在电视上所说的,都是由剪辑和评述加以严重的歪曲和扭曲,使我们的行为和与人交往,都显得具有非常阴险的动机。

我们仅此再次绝不含糊地清楚声明,我们从来没有采取任何有害于我们国家安全的颠覆行动;我们从来不是日和旨在建立共产主义国家的马克思主义阴谋的组成部分。假如有必要,我们愿意在法庭的公开审讯中证明自己的清白。

我们自认不比最忠诚和最负责任的新加坡公民逊色。我们极为遗憾的,不是自己过去的所作所为,而是我们的政府竟然认为,有必要因为我们所做过或没有做过的事,肆意损害我们的名誉,逮捕、拘留和虐待我们。(以下9名被扣者签名)

董莉莉                       叶汉源                      

曾志成                       黄淑仪

张素兰                       凯尔文.德苏沙         

黄美玲                       (代)陈凤霞        庄瑄芝

 

BACK AT WHITLEY 26 YEARS AGO

ON 19 APRIL 1988

TEO SOH LUNG

“They are at my door”, the voice on the line was Souk Yee’s. “What should I do?” she asked. Well, what can one do when “they are at the door?”

It was funny. Didn’t we discuss the possibility that we would be rearrested after issuing the joint statement? May be not. Or was it amnesia? I don’t know. What can one do when “they” are at the door? If you refuse to open it, they break down the door. It is that simple. If you open it, then well, you sit and stare in despair while they go through all your documents and things, seize whatever they fancy and then you are led to their waiting cars which will take you to the blue gate.

Shortly after that phone call, “they” were at my office gate. And of course, it was pointless not to let them in. They came in a horde. They cannot handle civil people single-handedly. And they were rude because they had been instructed that they were dealing with terrorists.

As usual, they rummaged through my files, books and documents and dumped them in black rubbish bags. They even checked my waste paper basket.

Today, 26 years ago, they took me away to Whitley Road Centre for a second time. They were kinder this time. They didn’t take me in the early hours of the morning. They trailed me from home to office and there they arrested me. Then they took me from office to home in order to conduct another search. What a waste of time.

At the detention centre, I went through the usual routine. Finger printed and photographed, I was made to strip and change into prison clothes. Then I was sent to the cold interrogation room sans shoes and underwear. I was a “die hard” and deserved to be punished more than before because I didn’t learn my lesson. Spending 20 hours or more in the cold room and then thrown into a dirty, dusty cob-webbed tiny cell for three or four hours became the routine.

What was there to extract from me? The statement had said it all.

I was wrong. They wanted to know who instigated the drafting and issue of the statement. They wanted to know why we issued it – as if they didn’t know that the ministers were the ones who compelled us to react and they not us should have been arrested! They wanted the details of how the statement came about, who said what and who wrote what. They were in earnest anger because they felt that all the “good treatment” they gave us when we were first arrested had not been reciprocated. They were rewarded with awards after our first arrests and now we were back again. The culprits must be punished for bringing them indescribable embarrassment. They must know who caused the mess. Who was the leader!

Well, we were smart enough to anticipate that last question. It was all agreed that “All of us were leaders!” Hilarious on hindsight but naive and sincere at the time of deliberations. The ministers provoked us by their repeated groundless allegations that we were conspiring to destabilise Singapore using communist united front tactics and we reacted with a written statement. Wasn’t that reasonable? In law, we would have a complete defence if we reacted to provocation in a reasonable manner. But in fact, it was naïve to expect civilised reaction from red face ministers.

Under pressure and cold room treatment, I heard that there was much recriminations and regrets among those arrested. I too regretted for landing up in prison again, not just me alone but so many others! I was told by my interrogators that some of my friends were cooperating fully. “They all said the idea of issuing the statement came from me.” And so I was the one who was responsible for their rearrests. It was a monstrous conclusion which nearly drove me into a state of depression. But I survived.

Reflecting on what happened 26 years ago, I can say that I am proud to be one of the nine signatories of the joint statement. Life is a journey of experiences. Life is a daring adventure or nothing. That episode has certainly been one of the most exciting and daring adventure in my life. I thank my family, my lawyers, my friends and supporters for believing in me and supporting me through those tumultuous days.

Below is a photograph taken on 8 December 1988 showing my lawyer, Roslina Baba with the Order of the court of appeal which ordered the release of some of us on a technical point. We were immediately rearrested outside the detention centre on the opposite side of the gate. They have cleared that side of the road so that no one could witness the rearrests.

Attachment :

STATEMENT OF EX-DETAINEES OF OPERATION “SPECTRUM” Embargoed until 10 a.m. 18th April 1988

PREAMBLE

We, the undersigned, were detained by the Internal Security Department (ISD) on 21 May and 20 June 1987 and released in stages under Suspension Directives and/or Restriction Orders in June, September and December 1987.

While we had privately always maintained our innocence and kept a rueful and fearful silence on the unjust treatment we were subjected to, and would have been inclined to keep our ‘silence’, the government has since repeatedly raised the issue of our arrests and detention and made false and damaging statements about us.

On the one hand we had been intimidated by implicit and explicit threats against our safety should we speak up on our arrests and detention. On the other hand the government and its spokesmen have continued to make bold and untruthful statements regarding the reasons for our arrests and detention and have denied that any of us had been subjected to ill-treatment or torture.

We make this statement now because of this constant barrage of government taunts and its public invitation to speak the truth on the conditions we were subjected to under arrest and detention.

We make this statement as principled men and women who will speak the truth and state our position for the record.

In making this statement, we do not intend to challenge the government; we do not seek any official response; neither is there any desire to make “political capital” of this. Our sole purpose in making this statement is to clear our names.

STATEMENT

We are accused of being involved in an alleged “Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing social and political system in Singapore, using communist united front tactics, with a view to establishing a Marxist state”.

We categorically DENY the government’s accusation against us.

We have never been Marxist conspirators involved in any conspiracy.

We were never a clandestine communist or Marxist network and many of us did not even know or know of one another before the arrests.

We were rather community and Church workers, legal reformers, amateur dramatists, helpers of the Workers’ Party, professionals and ordinary citizens exercising our constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association in Singapore.

We have never propagated, in words or in action, a communist state for Singapore. Rather, we had, through open and legitimate organisations and legitimate means, advocated more democracy, less elitism, protection of individual freedoms and civil rights, greater concern for the poor and the less privileged, and less interference in the private lives of citizens.

We hold completely the beliefs expressed by fellow ex-detainee Chew Kheng Chuan in his representation to the ISA Advisory Board, where he stated and we paraphrase : “… (we are believers) in an open and democratic polity and in the virtues of an open and accountable government. (We) strongly believe that for a society to be meaningfully called democratic, interest and action in politics cannot be the sole prerogative of the professional politician. A citizen of a democracy, to be worthy of that society, has not just the right, but indeed the duty to participate in the political life of his or her society. It is a grave danger to democracy to suggest that for one to comment on political and social issues or to hold differing political opinions, one should go and form a political party to take on the government! Has the citizen no political voice, other than a vote once in every four years, that cannot be articulated freely and responsibly, but only through the medium of a professional politician? Such is a situation even worse than that of the common man’s crippling dependency on “experts” – whether plumber or temple medium. It will lead to a society where only the authorised, registered, professionally-affiliated expert can comment on the subject under his or her purview”.

We believe that as with the case of the individual citizen, so too has an organisation this same legitimate role to play in the democratic life of our country.

Absurdly, it seemed to us that we were arrested and detained for the legitimate exercise of our rights as citizens through registered and open organisations. We did not infiltrate these organisations but joined them as members, volunteers and full-time workers.

Neither did we use these organisations as fronts to propagate subversive activities. All activities carried out by these organisations are legitimate, open and approved by elected executive committees, whose members clearly stand in their own right as capable, autonomous and intelligent individuals. Neither were we “instructed” by any person or organisation, not Tan Wah Piow, Paul Lim nor Vincent Cheng, nor any political party to do what we did in our respective activities or groups.

TREATMENT DURING DETENTION

During our detention, we were subjected to treatment which should never be meted out to any person under interrogation.

Following our sudden arrests, we were subjected to harsh and intensive interrogation, deprived of sleep and rest, some of us for as long as 70 hours inside freezing cold rooms. All of us were stripped of our personal clothing, including spectacles, footwear and underwear and made to change into prisoners’ uniforms.

Most of us were made to stand continually during interrogation, some of us for over 20 hours and under the full blast of airconditioning turned to a very low temperature. Under these conditions, one of us was repeatedly doused with cold water during interrogation. Most of us were hit hard in the face, some of us for not less than 50 times, while others were assaulted on other parts of the body, during the first three days of interrogation.

We were threatened with more physical abuse during interrogation. We were threatened with the arrests, assault and battery of our spouses, loved ones and friends. We were threatened with INDEFINITE detention without trial. Chia Thye Poh, who is still in detention after twenty two years, was cited as an example. We were told that no one could help us unless we “co-operated” with the ISD.

These threats were constantly on our minds during the time we wrote our respective “statements” in detention.

We were actively discouraged from engaging legal counsel and advised to discharge our lawyers and against taking legal action (including making representations to the ISA Advisory Board) so as not to jeopardise our chances of release.

We were compelled to appear on television and warned that our release would depend on our performances on television. We were coerced to make statements such as “I am Marxist-inclined ..”; “My ideal society is a classless society ..”; “soand-so is my mentor ..”; “I was made use of by so-and-so..” in order to incriminate ourselves and other detainees.

What we said on television were grossly distorted and misrepresented by editing and commentaries which attributed highly sinister motives to our actions and associations.

We state once more clearly and unequivocally, we never acted in any way to subvert the security of our country; we were never a part of any Marxist conspiracy to bring about a communist state. If necessary, we would be willing to prove our innocence in an open trial.

We consider ourselves nothing less than some of the most loyal and responsible citizens of Singapore. We greatly regret not our past actions but the fact that our government felt it necessary to malign our good names and arrest, detain and abuse us for what we did or did not do.

Signed

——————- TANG LAY LEE

Signed

——————- YAP HON NGIAN

Signed

——————- KENNETH TSANG

Signed

——————- WONG SOUK YEE

Signed

——————- TEO SOH LUNG

Signed

——————- KEVIN DE SOUZA

Signed

——————- NG BEE LENG

Signed

——————- f. TANG FONG HAR

Signed

——————- CHNG SUAN TZE

 


留下评论

(中英文对照)Universal Periodic Review 2016 for Singapore 2016年新加坡人权普遍定期审查报告

编者按:这份报告书由人权组织FUNCTION 8 递交给了日内瓦国际组织有关新加坡的人权状况的。报告以英文书写。

新加坡人权纪录将于2016年1月27联合国进行审核。这是第二次审核新加坡的人权纪录。第一次是在2011年。

本网站将此翻译成中文,让受华文教育读者阅读。如中英文版本之间的文字或字句有不同之,均以引文版本作为最终解释权。特此说明。全文如下:

2016年新加坡普遍定期审查报告

function 8

任意监禁,对于诸如国际特赦组织(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/)和国际法律委员会(http://www.icj.org/)即将召开的UPR对话会来说,它是一种过时的形式了。它似乎受到新加坡的繁荣和秩序的影响,不再关注在新加坡实施不经审讯的无辜与任意拘留的行为。今天的刑事犯罪法律(CLTPA Criminal Law (Temporaries Provisions) 和滥用毒品法令( Misuse of Drugs Act)在过去数以百计的犯人在内部安全法令下被监禁。

国际特赦与律师组织

有关新加坡的国家报告在任意监禁叙述的很少,甚至它根本就没有提到有非政府组织在监督人权遭受侵害的存在。幸运的是,新加坡自己的非政府组织定期的递交了有关的报告。

FUNCTION 8递交的报告可以在如下网址浏览。
http://www.upr-info.org/…/se…/function8_upr24_sgp_e_main.pdf

新加坡普遍定期报告(第二周期)
24次对话会,2016年正月——二月份
新加坡FUNCTION 8
2015年6月15日。

Function 8递交有关“预防性监禁”,或者更加准确的释义是“不经审讯的无辜犯人”。这是以下三种形式下在新加坡实施:
a. 内部安全法令;
b. 刑事犯罪临时法令;
c. 滥用毒品法律;

上述法律与法令授权(政府)允许不经审讯就武断的逮捕和监禁人民。这是否定了国际人权宣言第9和10条款的约定。人民行动党政府从1959年开始就毫无约束的引用这种任意逮捕的权力名,在不经审讯的情况下以监禁对付新加坡人。这种情况已经被世界其他国家在不知情的情况下企图模仿新加坡的做法。

2. 内部安全法令

2.1 今天在监牢里的穆斯林教徒的情况

2.1
在2011年7月11日,新加坡政府在交换式的对话会上就有关预防性监禁问题的回应。

2.1.1
是不是“它(预防性逮捕)是在别无选择的情况下和适当的程序下唯一最后可以使用的资源”(见WGUPR 81)”。斯诺维尼亚和加拿大提出的建议是,新加坡检查预防性拘留为了不违反公平审判的权利和法律顾问的权利没有得到新加坡的支持。(见WGUPR97.10和97.11)

2.1.2
新加坡的国家报告书说:“从2001年开始,超过50人在预防性法律下被监禁。他们是涉及与恐怖主义活动有关的。”

在上述国家报告出台后,我们的资料文件显示,从2001年8月起有81名穆斯林教徒(包括3名重新被捕)被逮捕。与其在口头上说“超过50人”,政府应该说68人,或者接近70名被监禁在牢里。新加坡政府不把确实被捕监禁的人数提交给联合国的态度说明了,他们是采取了不愿意坦诚提供完整报告的态度。

2.1.3
政府并没有提供确凿的证据有关监禁81名被捕者;同时,他们当中没有一个人被控上法院。在这些人当中的3个人仍然在监禁中。他们每一个已经在牢里不经审讯被监禁超13年。这比起被美国政府在关塔纳摩监狱的犯人时间还要长。

2.1.4
在2015年4月和5月份,两名年纪17岁和19岁的穆斯林青年被逮捕并在内部安全法令下不经审讯情况下被监禁。政府指控这两名未透露姓名的年轻人是自我激进化和具有企图进行暴力袭击行为。同样的,这些指控并没有提出任何有力的证据。他们并没有透露任何武器或者文件的证据,以显示这两名青年要进行暴力袭击。新加坡是一个没有发生任何意外事件的国家。这个案件明显说明了政府是在引用内部安全法令时并不是采纳了“它(预防性逮捕)是在别无选择的情况下和适当的程序下唯一最后可以使用的资源”(见WGUPR 81)。”他们仅仅就是基于政治性质的原因。诸如叙利亚和世界其他国家而言,那些年轻人的行为可能是受到当地的冲突的影响,引用内部安全法令来制止这样性质的冲突的发展那是需要的。
(相关链接网址:
http://www.mha.gov.sg/Newsroom/press-releases/Pages/Arrest%20and%20Detention%20of%20Self-Radicalised%20Singaporeans%20under%20the%20Internal%20Security%20Act.aspx

2.1.5
至今还有11名穆斯林教徒在内部安全法令下继续被监禁。他们名字如下:
1. Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin (被捕时间:2001年12月);
2. Alahuddeen bin Abdullah (被捕时间:2001年10月);
3. Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan (被捕时间:2002年12月);
4. Mas Selamat bin Kastari (被捕时间:2010年9月);
5. Abdul Rahimbin Abdul Rahman (被捕时间;2012年2月);
6. Husaini bin Ismail (被捕时间:2012年5月);
7. Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader (被捕时间:2012年9月);
8. Asyrani bin Hussaini (被捕时间:2013年3月);
9. Masyhadi bin Mas Selamat (被捕时间:2013年10月);
10. M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’i (被捕时间:2015年4月);
11. 17岁青年(姓名未祥) (被捕时间:2015年5月)。

2.2. 使用不正当的“预防性监禁”

2.2.1
“预防性监禁”的是被人为的错误引用了。它的初衷目的是针对个别人士的行为而制定的。目的是防止某些危险行为可能危害及国家的安全而必须采取监禁的措施。但是,实际情况是,在1959年行动党取得政权后,使用了这部法令在不经审讯的情况下对付数以百计的人。这绝对不是巧合。因为这些被捕者都是行动党主要的政治对手。这种广泛使用这种在没有确定罪名下不经审讯滥用权力逮捕行为是在于延续行动党的统治。这样的监禁行为应该称为:“不经审讯的执行监禁”。因为这种行为是在被命令下或者未经审讯的监禁。严酷刑法掌握在行动党手中的情况下,执政的行动党可以随意压制任何起来的反抗组织和维持着几乎完全绝大多数的统治。

2.3 使用内部安全法律的背景及其产生的后果

2.3.1
在1960和1970年代,内部安全法令被是用来对付挑战行动党的统治权力政治对手,诸如工运者、新闻作者、专业人士、社会活跃分子和学生。在1980年代,一批专业人士和社会活动分子在内部安全法令下被监禁在监牢里。从1990年到2000年就没有人被逮捕了。从2001年到今天有81名穆斯林教徒被逮捕。

2.3.2
在内部安全法令监禁下的期限是不确定的。除了被监禁者的精神状况不适合、或者接受永远放弃政治活动、或者离开新加坡直到度过自己的峥嵘岁月的条件外,否则,没有任何政治异己分子会在内部安全法令下被释放。新加坡社会主义阵线当年的国会议员谢太宝先生在监狱里度过了32年。当年他被被捕时是20多岁,他被释放时已经50多岁。他的峥嵘岁月都在监牢度过了。他自己的政党也已经与他没有任何相关了。许多在内部安全法令下被捕的政治犯在牢里度过了10-20年之久。行动党这样做的目的就是要阻止主要的政治反对者无法进入国会。这就是为什么行动党可以从1959年继续执政至今的真正原因。

2.3.3
在1963年2月2日,行动党政府伙同当时的马来亚政府和英国殖民主义者使用防止公共安全法令1955(这是内部安全法令的前身)逮捕了超过133名反对党领袖。在同年9月举行的大选后,更加多的反对党领袖被捕。这些被捕者包括了三名获选的立法议会议员。有两名立法议会议员,陈新荣和黄信芳成功逃脱了被捕,而自我流放到国外。他们目前还过着流亡政治生涯。

相关链接视频网址:李思东、S.T.巴尼和卢妙萍
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UR_xHJ9Ac

2.3.4 附录:
1. 这份名单所提供是包括了在内部安全法令下被捕的前政治犯。您可以从这份名单里查阅从1963到1988年期间被捕日期,几乎每一年都进行逮捕行动。在1987和1989 年期间,24位专业人士、教会工作者、社会活跃分子和学生被捕。这些频繁被捕者和被监禁者当中的一些人可能会成为社会活动的领袖或者在国会里的反对党成员。恐惧的心理仍然在一般的民众心中。这种恐惧的心态是自1959年行动党执政以来就一直存在。在这长达56年的日子,其中的15年(从1966年到1980年)期间,在新加坡的国会里没有一名反对党的成员。在这些年代期间,几乎或者接近几乎让行动党在完全没有辩论的情况下,可以制定任何的法律法令。这个基础是确保了行动党可以剥夺了宪法赋予的程序。死刑法律和体罚被用来引用在刑事犯罪。这些法令法律在过去是未曾有过的。国会甚至扩大到修改废除上诉到枢密院和司法复核有关内部法令案件的溯及力的影响。仓促的国会干预妨碍了犯人尝试把自己案件上诉到枢密院。

2. 张素兰:《在蓝色栅门的后面——一个政治犯的回忆纪实》(Beyond the Blue Gate Recollections of a Political Prisoner)。第8B和第8C:1989年正月30日内部安全法令。出版社:Function 8 Limited。2011年修订本。

3. 《我的经历—边缘人的回忆录》( a memoir from the margins)作者:康斯坦斯.辛甘(Constance Singam)。2013年精选本。

4. 《情系五一三 1950年代新加坡华文中学学生运动与政治变革》(The May 13 Generation, The Chinese Middle Schools Student Movement and Singapore Politics in the 1950s) 作者:陈仁贵(Tan Jing Quee),陈国相(Tan Kok Chiang)、孔丽莎(Hong Lysa)。出版社:策略资讯研究中心( Strategic Information and Research Development Centre) 2011年

5. 《逃出狮爪——新加坡政治流亡者的回想》(Escape from the Lion’s Paw, Reflections of Singapore’s Political Exiles)作者:张素兰( Teo Soh Lung)、刘玉玲(Low Yit Leng)出版社: Function 8 Limited 2012年

6. 《烟幕与镜子 马克思主义阴谋的追溯》(Smokescreens & Mirrors, Tracing the ‘Marxist Conspiracy’)作者:陈华彪。出版社: Function 8 Limited, 2012年

7. 《新加坡1963年的冷藏行动50周年纪念》(The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years), 编辑:傅树介(Poh Soo Kai)、陈国防(Tan Kok Fang)和孔丽莎(Hong Lysa)。出版社:策略资讯研究中心(Strategic Information and Research Development Centre)。2013年;

8. 《年轻人在审讯中》(Youth on Trial),编辑:陈慧娴(Chan Wai Han)。出版社: Function 8 Ltd, 2014年;

9. 《传教士在牙笼 牙笼天主教中心鲜为人知的故事》(Priest in Geylang, The Untold Story of the Geylang Catholic Centre)作者:Fr Guillaume Arotcarena。出版社:Ethos Books。 2015年.

政治犯历史书籍

相关链接网址:http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00076651-WA&currentPubID=00076180-WA&topicKey=00076180-WA.00076651-WA_7%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B

2.3.5
生活在恐惧中已经深根地固的埋在新加坡人的心灵上了。恐惧的心理已经把新加坡人变得沉默与驯服了。在过去数十年,新加坡人恐惧参加反对党的活动,或者就是参与非行动党支持的非政府组织的活动。他们在反对行动党的政策时只敢低声细语的谈论着。

2.3.6
直到6年前,前政治犯大部分仍然还是采取沉默的态度。在最近才有一本由前政治犯撰写的文章出现在新加坡。那些历史学家在检视了历史档案资料后,开始对有关的历史事件真相进行与(新加坡政府)官方不同阐述后,恐惧心理稍微减少。当时,恐惧的心理还是深藏在一部分新加坡人的心灵上。新加坡人在主观上已经被恐惧心理笼罩了超过56年了。他们经过一个相当长的时间去治疗这样的创伤。

2.3.7
对于未被定罪不经审讯的犯人另一个严峻致命性的冲击,就是其家属为此付出极其高昂代价的影响。这些被捕者是家里的经济主要支柱。在他们被捕后,他们的家属只能依靠自力更生。由此产生的结果是,他们的孩子的教育必然受到牵连。这些被捕者的家属在经济上和情绪上面对极大的打击时,政府完全没有负责任的采取协助这些被捕者家属面对的高昂的经济负担。

2.3.8
政府现在和历史上使用内部安全法令是逾越了公共安全的利益的。因为缺乏自由的合法资讯和法院对任何有关政府基于国家安全作为背景的投诉采取了勉强的立场。新加坡内政部长在2011年11月21日回答非选区国会议员詹时中夫人(Mrs Lina Chiam)在国会询问,提出有关从1959年到1990年之间在内部安全法令下被捕的犯人人数时揭露说是2460人。我们不知道这个数据是否准确。诸如我们在上述所看到的情况,政府是可以轻而易举的粉饰这些数据的。在我们的附录:(1)所提供的被捕者名单的数字是1315人。这是从1959年到2015年5月31日之间被捕的人数。这个1315被捕者名单里还包括了一名未具名的17岁穆斯林少年。

2.3.9
不经审讯被监禁是一个极其残酷、非人道的。使用这种行为在新加坡本身就是就被视为是一种违反人道主义的虐待和犯罪行为。因为它是一种毫无根据和实现预设好挫折政治者意愿的牺牲品。许多被关在牢里的犯人是逾越了行动党的政治需要的。这是一种虐待和破坏了国际人权宣言第9章和第10章的约定的。新加坡人民行动党的发起人和立法议会议员、已故林清祥先生是在内部安全法令下被捕的。他告诉历史学家美德妮.周小姐(Melanie Chew):

事实是,我们都是在未经审讯下长期被监禁的。我们不知道未来将会如何。就我而言,只一种虐待。通过这样的虐待,你可以长期监禁直到某些时候你愿意羞辱自己的正直为止。政治自我羞辱是一种公开的形式的。当走出监牢时,你是无法抬头与你过去的朋友见面。只有在这种情况下,他们才会释放你。这就是一种极其残酷的虐待。
这比起日本占领时期还要来得恶劣。当一把刀子架在的你的脖子上时,他们就是把你杀了,或者开一枪把你毙了。但这种羞辱的阴影却是一生伴随着你的。这是极其残酷的。
见《新加坡的领袖》第119页。作者:美德妮.周小姐(Leaders of Singapore by Melanie Chew)出版社:资源出版社 1996年。

《在蓝色栅门的后面——一个政治犯的回忆纪实》出处同上。(Beyond the Blue Gate Recollections of a Political Prisoner)作者:张素兰,出版社:Function 8 Limited,2011年。

2.3.10
不经审讯而未确定罪行的犯人可以让行动党关押那些对它们造成威胁的人。尽管这样的监禁与宪法确保人民的生存权力和个人自由产生了冲突。但是,法院却不愿意采取一种坚定的措施制止它的执行。这个可以从在1987年和1989年“光谱行动”下被捕的政治犯申请司法复核的案件清楚看到。这导致新加坡人民在宪法上获得保证的基本自由的权力遭受剥夺了!

2.4.1 缺乏监督和平衡

2.4.1
没有一个安全监督机制监管内部安全法令。咨询委员会的听证会上是在闭门的情况下进行的。高等法院的一位法官可能是其中一名咨询委员,但是他的起不了作用的。犯人在出席咨询委员会听证时是不允许看到那些指控他的证据或者盘问那些指控他的人的。听证会是秘密和在极短的几分钟时间。在1987年,内部安全局负责官员劝告政治犯说,那些向(政府)提出司法挑战的政治犯最终只能会给自己带来更加长期的监禁。这些事实例子就发生几个政治犯身上。诸如萧添寿先生。他就是在监牢会见自己的当事人被捕的。这是具有讽刺性的笑话。

2.5 新加坡的作为已经能够为世界做出的不良榜样。

2.5.1
新加坡政府在他的国家报告里自夸说,“世界各国政府越来越认识到必须采取预防权力全面制度化的法律框架内有效应对恐怖主义和各种形式的暴力极端主义。”

2.5.2
任意逮捕和在不经审讯确定罪行下的监禁,只不过是让一种不民主的政权在不受监督下继续统治这个国家。行动党政府使用内部安全法令是已经成年累月和无情与此为目的。它们并没有使用刀子或者子弹去屠杀政治异己分子。但是,使用这种方式就如已故林清祥先生所说的,

这比使用刀子和子弹还要来得残酷。行动党的目标是要以奶油似的社会,但是,他们并不要把这些政治犯从肉体消灭他们。

3.刑事法律(临时条款)—刑事犯罪临时法令与滥用毒品法律(CLPTA)

3.1
这部法律授权政府可以不经审讯未确定罪行下监禁犯人。这部法律是在1955年制定的。当时制定这部法律的目的是要用来对付私会党临时和特别法令。现在这部法律却用对付那些贩卖毒品、非法放借高利贷者和国际足球比赛的仆基。通过使用这部法律的权力,不经审讯的监禁那些与各种刑事罪行。政府已经暗地里破坏法律的基本宗旨——每一个人首先是在无辜的,直到获得证据证明他有罪。这个法令宗旨在民主社会里永远是至高无上的。政府并在其报告里透露在这部法令下有多少人不监禁在监牢里。
Tan Seet Eng与总检察署(Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 18).

4. 滥用毒品法令

4.1
在这不法令的第四部分约定,任何一个人被涉嫌是瘾君子是可以被监禁在拘留所三年。这部法律并没有一个安全监督系统确保假设这个瘾君子需要在拘留所里进行改造和或者在拘留所进行改造是一个最好途径。这并不是解决普遍滥用毒品的途径。同样的情况, 政府并没有在它的报告里透露在这部法令下有多少被监禁。

5. 结论与建议

5.1
自由是人类与生俱来的权利。那些被怀疑触犯法律(在法律已经被确定触犯法律)的人是有权力获得公平和公开的审讯的。内部安全法令、刑事法律(临时条款)—刑事犯罪临时法令与滥用毒品法律(CLPTA)在民主的社会制度里是不允许存在的。新加坡有广泛资源训练自己的警察队伍,进行侦查和搜集证据的技术以应对刑事和恐怖主义的活动。所以的犯罪者可以被戴上法院进行审讯,并给予他们公平的审讯。假设案件需要在秘密情况下保护证人,这样审讯可以使用视频进行审讯。这些法律滋生自满情绪,破坏了警方的功效。政府必须尊重新加坡宪法赋予的确保全体公民拥有基本的自由的至高无上准则。没有人可以在执行过程中超越这个至高无上的准则。

5.2
为此,我们呼吁新加坡政府

5.2.1
废除内部安全法令和临时扣留条款和滥用毒品法令

5.2.2
废除滥用毒品法律第4部分

5.2.3
释放全部在内部安全法令和临时扣留条款和滥用毒品法令下犯人或者都他们进行公开审讯。

5.2.4
签署与确认国际公约有关平民与政治权利条款和国际公约有关虐待和其他残酷、非人道或者有傉人格或者惩罚的条款。

function 8本报告书由Function 8 董事:

张素兰(Teo Soh Lung), 叶汉源(Yap Hon Ngian)、陈慧娴(Chan Wai Han)

附录;1315名政治犯名单:
http://www.upr-info.org/…/session_24_-_january_2016/functio…

 

Universal Periodic Review 2016 for Singapore

Noted :Singapore’s human rights record comes up for review at the UN on 27 Jan 2016. This is the second review, the first was in 2011.

function 8

Arbitrary detention is out of fashion with international organisations such as Amnesty International (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/)and the International Commission of Jurists (http://www.icj.org/)in the upcoming UPR session. It is likely that they are influenced by the prosperity and orderliness of Singapore and are not aware that indefinite and arbitrary detention without trial is still being practised in Singapore and that there are hundreds of prisoners imprisoned under the ISA, the CLTPA and the MDA today.

国际特赦与律师组织

Singapore’s National Report speaks little about arbitrary detention. Indeed, it does not even mention the existence of NGOs which check on human rights abuses. Fortunately, on their own, these NGOs submitted timely reports.

Function 8 too submitted its report and it can be read here:
SINGAPORE
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
(Second Cycle)
24th Session, January – February 2016
Submission by Function 8
15 June 2015

1. Function 8 submits on “Preventive Detention” or more accurately “indefinite imprisonment without trial” that is permitted by three Singapore statutes: the Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. This power to arbitrarily arrest and imprison people without trial negates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The People’s Action Party (PAP) government has since 1959 freely exercised this arbitrary power. Imprisonment without trial has severe and detrimental consequences for Singaporeans and the world as other countries, not knowing fully how this power is used, attempt to emulate Singapore.

2. Internal Security Act (ISA)

2.1
Position of Muslim prisoners today

2.1.1
Singapore’s response to questions on preventive detention at the interactive dialogue on 11 July

2.1.A
1 was that “it [preventive detention] was used only as a last resort in very exceptional circumstances, and with appropriate procedural safeguards.” (WGUPR 81). The recommendations by Slovenia and Canada that Singapore review preventive detention so as not to violate the right to fair trial and right to counsel did not enjoy Singapore’s support. (WGUPR 97.10 and 97.11)

2.1.2
Singapore’s National Report states: “Since December 2001, over 50 persons have been held in preventive detention for involvement in terrorism-related activities.” From our documentation,81 Muslims (including 3 who were re-arrested) have been imprisoned since August 2001, 13 of whom were arrested after the date of the National Report. Instead of using the vague phrase of “over 50 people”, the government should have stated that 68 people or nearly 70 people were imprisoned. The manner in which the number of prisoners is officially reported to an august body, the UN, shows the government’s reluctance to give full and frank disclosure.

2.3 Background on the use of the ISA and its consequences

2.1.3
No evidence has been produced against any of the 81 imprisoned and none has been charged or tried in open court. Three of these prisoners are still in prison and each of them has now spent more than 13 years in jail without trial, a record equivalent or even worse than the Guantanamo prisoners.

2.1.4
In April and May 2015, two young Muslims, aged 19 and 17, were arrested and imprisoned without trial under the ISA. The government alleged that these unarmed young people were self-radicalised and harboured the intention to carry out violent attacks. Again, these allegations were not substantiated by any evidence. No weapons or documents showing plans to carry out violent attacks were disclosed. Singapore is peaceful and incident-free. These are clear cases of the government using the ISA, not “as a last resort in very exceptional circumstances” but for political reasons. In view of the crisis in Syria and elsewhere, its intent is to show that young people may be influenced by such conflicts and the ISA is necessary to suppress such developments.

http://www.mha.gov.sg/Newsroom/press-releases/Pages/Arrest%20and%20Detention%20of%20Self-Radicalised%20Singaporeans%20under%20the%20Internal%20Security%20Act.aspx

2.1.5
Today, there are 11 people, all Muslims, being imprisoned under this law. Their names and dates of arrests are:

1. Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Maidin (Dec 2001);
2. Alahuddeen bin Abdullah (Oct 2002);
3. Mohd Aslam bin Yar Ali Khan (Dec 2002);
4. Mas Selamat bin Kastari (Sept 2010);
5. Abdul Rahimbin Abdul Rahman (Feb 2012);
6. Husaini bin Ismail (May 2012);
7. Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader (Sept 2012);
8. Asyrani bin Hussaini (Mar 2013);
9. Masyhadi bin Mas Selamat (Oct 2013);
10. M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’i (Apr 2015);
11. a 17-year-old unnamed youth (May 2015).

2.2 “Preventive Detention” a misnomer

2.2.1
The term “preventive detention” is misleading. It presupposes that certain individuals ought to be incarcerated as a pre-emptive move to prevent the committing of offences which might endanger national security. In reality, since the PAP came into power in 1959, thousands had been imprisoned without any charge being brought against them. It was not coincidental that those individuals were key political opponents of the PAP. It is this extensive use of such arbitrary power of arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial that helped perpetuate the rule of the PAP. Such detentions should be called “Executive imprisonment without trial” since it is ordered by the executive or simply “imprisonment without trial”. With this draconian power in their hands, the ruling PAP is effective in curbing the growth of organised dissent and maintaining near-absolute majority rule.

2.3.1
In the 1960s and 70s, the ISA was used against political opponents, trade unionists, journalists, professionals, activists and students in order to prevent them from challenging the PAP’s hold on power. By the 1980s, only professionals and activists remained to be imprisoned under the ISA. From 1990 to 2000, there were no arrests. From 2001 till today, 81 Muslims were arrested.

2.3.2
The length of imprisonment under the ISA is indefinite. No opposition political leader is released unless he is mentally unfit, or agrees to eschew politics, leave Singapore or until he is past his prime and will never return to the political scene. Singapore’s political prisoner, Mr Chia Thye Poh, a Barisan Sosialis member of parliament, spent 32 years in prison. He was in his 20s when arrested. By the time he was freed, he had passed the prime of his life and his party had been made totally irrelevant. Many other ISA prisoners were made to spend 10 to 20 years in jail. The PAP thus prevented key political opponents from entering parliament. This is how the PAP retains power since 1959.

2.3.3
In February 1963, the PAP together with the government of Malaya and Britain used the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance 1955 (the forerunner of the ISA) to arrest more than 133 opposition leaders. After the general election in September that year, more opposition leaders were arrested. The arrests included three elected members of the legislative assembly. Two other elected members, Wong Soon Fong and Chan Sun Wing, escaped and went into exile. They are still in political exile today.
Lee Tee Tong, S T Bani and Loh Miaw Gong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UR_xHJ9Ac

2.3.4.Appendix

1 this is a list of ISA prisoners compiled by former ISA prisoners. As can be seen from this list, from 1963 to 1981, there were arrests every year. In 1987 and 1988, 24 professionals, church workers, activists and students were arrested. The frequent arrests and imprisonment of people who could have become community leaders and opposition members of parliament, instilled fear in the general population. It is this fear that enables the PAP to stay in power since 1959. Within these 56 years, there was a period of 15 years (from 1966 to 1980) when there was not a single opposition member in parliament. These years of absolute and near-absolute PAP rule have enabled parliament to enact laws without debate. Fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution had been curtailed. Death penalty and corporal punishment were introduced for crimes that did not carry such penalties previously. Parliament even went to the extent of amending laws to abolish appeals to the Privy Council and judicial review for ISA cases with retrospective effect. Hurried parliamentary intervention sabotaged a prisoner’s attempt to take her appeal to the Privy Council.

2. Beyond the Blue Gate Recollections of a Political Prisoner by Teo Soh Lung, Function 8 Limited, Revised Edn 2011; Sections 8B and 8C of the Internal Security Act as at 30 Jan 1989.

3.Where I was, a memoir from the margins by Constance Singam, Select Publishing, 2013.

4.The May 13 Generation, The Chinese Middle Schools Student Movement and Singapore Politics in the 1950s, Edited by Tan Jing Quee, Tan Kok Chiang and Hong Lysa, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2011;

5.Escape from the Lion’s Paw, Reflections of Singapore’s Political Exiles Edited by Teo Soh Lung and Low Yit Leng, Function 8 Limited, 2012;

6.Smokescreens & Mirrors, Tracing the ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ by Tan Wah Piow, Function 8Limited, 2012;

7.The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, Commemorating 50 Years, Edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Kok Fang and Hong Lysa, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2013;

8.Youth on Trial, Edited by Chan Wai Han, Function 8 Ltd, 2014;

9.Priest in Geylang, The Untold Story of the Geylang Catholic Centre by Fr Guillaume Arotcarena , Ethos Books, 2015.

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00076651-WA&currentPubID=00076180-WA&topicKey=00076180-WA.00076651-WA_7%2BhansardContent43a675dd-5000-42da-9fd5-40978d79310f%2B

政治犯历史书籍

2.3.5
Living in fear is deeplyin grained in the psyche of Singaporeans. Fear has silenced and
tamed Singaporeans. For decades, Singaporeans fear joining opposition parties, or even participating in non-PAP endorsed NGO activities, and would only speak in whispers when they oppose PAP policies.

2.3.6
Until the last six years, former ISA prisoners had largely remained silent. It is only recently, that books and articles written by former ISA prisoners have appeared in Singapore. Historians who have inspected archival documents have also begun to interpret events differently from the official narrative. But fear is still part of the Singaporean psyche. Singaporeans have internalised fear for 56 years and it will take a long time to undo this damage.

2.3.7
Another severe detrimental effect of indefinite imprisonment without trial is the exceedingly high cost to the families of those arrested. They are left to fend for themselves while the breadwinners are in prison. The education of young children is adversely affected. The families undergo tremendous financial and emotional hardship. The government has never taken responsibility for this heavy cost to families of those imprisoned.

2.3.8
The government’s current and historical use of the ISA is beyond public scrutiny because of the absence of Freedom of Information legislation and the courts’ reluctance to challenge any government’s claim based on national security grounds. In answer to a parliamentary question posed by Mrs Lina Chiam, a Non-constituency Member of Parliament on 21 November 2011, the Minister of Home Affairs revealed that 2,460 people were imprisoned under the ISA from 1959 to 1990. We do not know if this number is accurate. As can be seen from above, the government is capable of glossing over numbers. Appendix 1 is a list of 1314 names of people arrested from 1959 to 31 May 2015 under the ISA. The 1315th prisoner is an unnamed 17-year-old Muslim youth.

2.3.9
Imprisonment without trial is cruel, inhuman and the manner it is used in Singapore should per se be deemed as torture and a crime against humanity because it is unwarranted and designed to sap the political will of its victims. Many were imprisoned beyond the PAP’s political needs. It is torture and a breach of Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The late Mr Lim Chin Siong, who was a founding member of the PAP and a legislative assemblyman, was arrested and imprisoned thrice under the ISA. He said in an interview with historian Melanie Chew:

“The fact is that all of us were detained without trial, for ages. Not knowing when we would be coming out. That I would say is a torture. A torture. You are detained for years until such a time that you are willing to humiliate your own integrity. Until you are humiliated publicly. So much so, when you come out, you cannot put your head up, you cannot see your friends. Alright, then they may release you. It is a very cruel torture.

It is worse than in the Japanese time, when with a knife, they just slaughter you. One shot, you die. But this humiliation will carry on for life. It is very cruel.”

Leaders of Singapore by Melanie Chew, Resource Press Pte Ltd, 1996 p. 119.

Beyond the Blue Gate, Recollections of a Political Prisoner by Teo Soh Lung, Function 8 Limited, 2011. 10 Ibid.

2.3.10
Indefinite imprisonment without trial has enabled the PAP to imprison people who pose a challenge to them. Although such imprisonment is also contrary to constitutional guarantees of the right to life and personal liberty, the Singapore courts appear unwilling to take a robust approach to rein in the executive. This was clearly seen in the application for judicial review of several political prisoners in “Operation Spectrum” in 1987.9 It has resulted in the citizens of Singapore being deprived of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Singapore.

2.4 Lack of checks and balances

2.4.1
There are no safeguards in the ISA. The Advisory Board conducts hearings behind closed doors. A High Court judge may be a member of the Board but he is ineffective. No prisoner appearing before the Board is permitted to see the evidence against him or to question the person who made allegations against him. Hearing is private and may take just a few minutes. Prisoners in 1987 were specifically advised by their ISD handlers that launching any legal challenge against their imprisonment would result in prolonged incarceration. The fact that the lawyer for several of the prisoners, Mr Francis Seow, was himself arrested when he went to interview his clients in prison, makes a mockery of any claim of safeguards.

2.5 Singapore a bad model for the World

2.5.1
The Singapore government boasts in its National Report that “Governments around the world increasingly recognise the need for preventive powers within a comprehensive institutionalised legal framework to deal effectively with terrorism and all forms of violent extremism.”

2.5.2
Arbitrary arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial merely enable an undemocratic regime to carry on governing a country unchecked. The PAP’s use of the ISA is targeted, sophisticated and ruthless. It does not use the sword or the bullet to kill off political opponents. But its method as opined by the late Mr Lim Chin Siong,

is worse than the bullet and the sword. The PAP targets the cream of society but does not kill them physically.

3. Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLPTA)

3.1
This law also authorises indefinite imprisonment without trial. When it was enacted in 1955, it was meant to be temporary and specifically to deal with gangsterism. It now applies to cases of alleged drug trafficking, illegal moneylending and international soccer match fixing. By using the power of indefinite imprisonment without trial to deal with various crimes, the government has undermined the basic tenets of the rule of law. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This tenet should at all times be upheld in any democratic society. The government does not report on the number of people imprisoned under this law.

Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 18.

4. Misuse of Drugs Act

4.1
Any person who is suspected of being a drug addict can be detained in an institution for three years under Part IV of this law. There is no safeguard to ensure if the person needs rehabilitation in such an institution and whether institutionalising him is the best way to treat drug addiction. This is not the way to resolve a universal drug abuse problem. Again, the government does not report on the number of people detained under this law.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations:

5.1
All human beings are born free and those suspected of committing offences (as defined by the law of the land) have the right to a fair and public trial. The Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and Part IV of the Misuse of Drugs Act have no place in a democratic country. Singapore has ample resources to train its police force to improve detection and evidence gathering techniques to combat crimes and terrorism. Offenders can be brought to court and given a fair trial. If there is a need to maintain confidentiality of witnesses, the trial can be held in camera. These laws breed complacency and undermine the efficacy of the police force. The government should respect the supremacy of the Constitution of Singapore which guarantees fundamental liberties to all citizens. No one is above the law, least of all, the executive.

5.2
Therefore we urge the Singapore government to:

5.2.1
Repeal the ISA and the CLTPA

5.2.2
Repeal Part IV of the Misuse of Drugs Act

5.2.3
Release all prisoners detained under the ISA, CLTPA and Misuse of Drugs Act or charge them in open court

5.2.4
Sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Submitted by: function 8

Teo Soh Lung, Yap Hon Ngian and Chan Wai Han
Directors, Function 8

The annexure containing a list of 1315 ISA political prisoners can be found here:
http://www.upr-info.org/…/session_24_-_january_2016/functio…


留下评论

张素兰:回忆冷藏行动50周年 Reflection on the 50th Anniversary of Operation Coldstore By Teo Soh Lung

张素兰:

回忆2013年纪念冷藏行动50周年

为纪念冷藏行动50周年,原定于2013年2月2日在中华总商会举行的。纪念会的组织者感到喜悦的是这一天刚巧适逢星期六,将会方便更多的人出席这场纪念会。他们预计出席者将会有至少400人。受邀在纪念会上的发言者及为纪念会出版的刊物已经准备就绪;安排会场进行摄制工作和茶水的事宜也已经安排就绪。总之,一切都有条不紊的进行着。骤然间,会场租借方告知组织者,他们所租用的纪念会会场已经被征用,无法出租给他们举行纪念会了。组织者为此感到极其失望以及为此次纪念会所进行的筹备工作将全部付之东流。

冷藏行动50周年纪念会的组织者是一群当年被扣留与监禁的幸存政治拘留者。他们当中很多在70年代被捕的。对他们来说,这是极其重大的打击的。就他们而言,在中华总商会举办这场纪念会是具有重大意义的。为什么不能在中华总商会举行?
众所周知的中华总商会成立的历史,它是在上个世纪由新加坡的华族社群领袖以及著名的华文教育者、商人和活跃分子所使用的场所。在上个世纪50年代,华校中学生对中华总商会的华社领袖是极其尊重与尊敬的。华校中学生会聆听他们的意见。

中华总商会

冷藏行动事件是在1963年2月2日凌晨开始的。这次事件的幸存者称它为“2.2事件”。(当局)通过这次的行动彻底地消灭了所有的反对党,包括林清祥先生、林福寿医生和傅树介医生的新加坡社会主义阵线的领导人在内部安全法令下,不经审讯几乎全部被关进了监牢。

超过130名反对党的领袖和工运领导人被关押在监牢里。他们当中一些人由于拒绝接受签署任何声明而被监禁超过数十年。

这场集体的逮捕监禁行动是由新加坡、马来亚和英国人共同滥用了内部安全法令进行的。这场集体逮捕行动的结果是促成了今天新加坡成为一个只有微弱力量存在的反对党的荒谬民主国家。

纪念会的组织者感到沮丧。为此他们向年轻的活跃分子寻求如何解决场地的意见!——实际上一个最简单的解决方案就是利用芳林公园作为举行纪念活动的场地。

组织者感到担心。因为他们没有在公开场合举行过任何这样性质的纪念活动。他们顾虑到自己会不会被内部安全局人员和警方人员跟踪和盯梢?他们的家属的工作会不会受到牵连?这一切对于年轻的活动分子而言,这是上天施以他们让这场纪念活动在公开场合进行的良机!但是,就那些经历了数十年痛苦与蒙受莫须有罪名而被监禁的老前辈而言,这显然不是那么简单的事儿。

经过深思熟虑过,组织者终于同意在芳林公园举行这场纪念会。组组织者确实也别无选择了。

芳林公园是一个具有历史意义的公园。这是许多政治领导人在此发表重要演说而成为历史性重要事件的场所。纪念冷藏行动50周年终于在这个具有历史性的重要场所举行了。

在纪念会举行的当天,活跃分子一早就开始为纪念会场所进行了布置工作。会场的舞台和音响系统已经搭建起来了。舞台上悬挂了要求废除内部安全法令和让全体流亡者回返新加坡的布条!一张张用纸板打印在内部安全法令下被扣留与监禁的政治拘留者的名单已经张贴在布告栏上了。

名单

查看名单

会场搭建起来的帐篷悬挂了“我们牢记”的布条,作为展示售卖纪念有关冷藏行动书籍。

售卖书籍

会场也提供了一张轮椅。轮椅上放置了急救救护箱,以便参与纪念会的年长者以便发生摔倒意外时备用。

50th anniversay of Operation Coldstore

最后,几百张椅子也抹干净并整齐的排列好了。同时,现场也为年轻的与会者提供了两张大席布,可以席地而坐。

会场椅子

纪念会场的所有布置工作早在下午3点45分全部完成就绪,但是,却还没有看到出席者。组织者开始感到忧虑了。当时主持人宣布纪念会即将开始并邀请与会者入座时,骤然间,在公园四周出现的人数突然增加、椅子也完全坐满人了!

恐惧心理就在顷刻间消失了。在过去数十年因被强加莫须有罪名而在内部安全法令下遭受非正义监禁的恐惧心理已经一去不复返了!

秘密警察滚一边去吧!

让他们注意到这些冷藏行动的幸存者还活着!他们不会忘记在1963年以直到2013年被行动党政府剥夺了他们在中华总商会室内举行纪念会的权利。他们是胜利者不是牺牲者!尽管他们把自己的青春峥嵘岁月耗费在监牢里,但是,他们的思想意识是极其清晰的。

正如傅树介医生在纪念会当天所说的:

“他们证明了自己的年轻时代的理想.”

50th anniversay of Operation Coldstore

他们证明了自己在反对马来西亚问题上的立场。他们并没有犯上任何的错误。他们与英殖民主义者进行了斗争。他们在行动党的统治下进行了反对非正义与痛苦的斗争。
为此,在冷藏行动下被捕的幸存者克服了恐惧的心理。超过了700人参与了纪念冷藏行动50周年的纪念会。

Reflection on the 50th Anniversary of Operation Coldstore
By Teo Soh Lung

The 50th Anniversary of Operation Coldstore was to have been commemorated at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry on Saturday, 2 February 2013. The organisers were exceedingly pleased that that day fell on a weekend. More people would be able to attend and they were expecting a crowd of perhaps 400. Speakers were invited and a commemorative publication was prepared; photographs and refreshments were arranged for and everything was in place. Suddenly they were informed that the auditorium was not available to them. They were exceedingly disappointed and at a loss as to what they should do.

The organisers were a group of Operation Coldstore survivors, the majority in their late 70s. It was a great blow to them. They could not understand why such an event which meant so much to them could not be held at the auditorium. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce as it was earlier known, used to be the leader of the Chinese community and was always at the forefront of Chinese education, business and activism in its early days. Chinese school students held the leaders of the Chinese Chamber in high esteem and listened to their advice in the 1950s.

中华总商会

Operation Coldstore which took place in the wee hours of 2 February 1963 or as the survivors call it “2.2” wiped out the cream of the opposition parties. Almost the entire leadership of the Barisan Sosialis led by Mr Lim Chin Siong ,Dr. Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai were imprisoned without trial under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance or PPSO, the forerunner of the Internal Security Act (ISA). More than 130 leaders of the opposition parties and trade unions were incarcerated, many for decades because they refused to sign any statement. That massive abuse of power by the Internal Security Council comprising the government of Singapore, Malaya and Britain have resulted in Singapore’s ridiculous state of democracy with miniscule presence of the opposition in parliament today.

The organisers of the event were despondent and sought the views of younger activists. There was an easy solution – use Hong Lim Park.

The organisers were worried for they have never held any commemoration in public. What if they were trailed and “marked” by personnel from the Internal Security Department and the police? What if their families suffer in their workplace? To the younger activists, it was heaven sent opportunity to publicise an important event! But to the older generation who have gone through decades of imprisonment, hardship and stigmatisation, it was not that simple.

After much deliberation, the organisers agreed. They had no choice. Hong Lim Park, the historic park where many political leaders have given important speeches became the venue for the most important historic event, the 50th anniversary of Operation Coldstore.

Activists started work from the early hours of the morning. A stage and sound system were set up, banners calling for the abolition of the ISA and the return of the exiles were strung, boards on which long lists of names of ISA detainees were mounted.

查看名单

名单

Tents were pitched for the display of the commemoration book “We Remember”.

售卖书籍

A wheelchair complete with first aid kit was also made ready, just in case any of the elderly participants fall ill.

50th anniversay of Operation Coldstore

Finally hundreds of chairs were wiped clean and neatly arranged in rows.

Two huge mats were placed on the ground for younger participants.
All was set at about 3.45 pm but there was no audience! The activists were worried. What was happening? Then at about 4 pm the MC invited the people to sit as the event was about to begin. Suddenly, from all corners of the park, people descended on to the field and the chairs were quickly occupied.

会场椅子

Fear has disappeared in that very instant. The stigma of having been imprisoned under the unjust ISA decades ago was gone.

To hell with the secret police. Let them take note that survivors of Operation Coldstore are alive and have not forgotten what the PAP government had done to them in 1963 and continue to do to them in 2013 by depriving them of an indoor venue at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry. They are the victors not the victims. They have spent their youth in prison but their conscience is clear.

As Dr Poh Soo Kai said in his speech,

“They have been vindicated for their youthful idealism.” They are vindicated for their stand on Malaysia. They have not committed any wrong. They fought against the colonial master, the British. They fought against injustice and suffered under the PAP.
And so the survivors of Operation Coldstore conquered FEAR. More than 700 people attended the 50th Anniversary of Operation Coldstore.

50th anniversay of Operation Coldstore

RELATED LINK相关链接:

1. 纪念冷藏行动50周年芳林公园集会视频
The 50th anniversary of Operation Coldstore at Hong Lim Park on 2 Feb 2013:

傅树介医生在纪念会上讲话网址:

2.张素兰:《改变的时代与(1963年2月2日)“冷藏行动”》( Changing Times and Operation Coldstore )

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/


留下评论

改变的时代与(1963年2月2日)《冷藏行动》 张素兰 Changing Times and Operation Coldstore By Teo Soh Lung

改变的时代与(1963年2月2日)《冷藏行动》
张素兰

2012年春茗聚餐会

我正在整理自己的书架时,我发现了一张在2012年华人传统农历初三的午餐聚会的照片。为此,让我感到这个节日的意义性和重要性是多么的有意义的。这个日子存在的意义性和重要性在于它揭示了具有保留的价值和一个时代的转变。

这个农历初三的春茗聚餐会是由已故林清祥先生所发起的。依据陈国防先生的回顾,已故林清祥先生希望那些能够让那些在冷藏行动下遭受痛苦的战友聚集在一块儿。
当时这个春茗聚餐会只局限于那些在内部安全下被捕幸存的受华文教育的被捕者。到了2011年在内部安全法令下被捕幸存的受英文教育者以及积极分子才第一次受邀参加。

为与会嘉宾拍照是极其乏味的差事。聚餐会开始时我们是坐在一位朋友傍边。这是简易的事。在接下来安排几张桌子的嘉宾是相当困难的。安排工作进行的相当缓慢。因为我们不大肯定他们是否会忌讳我们进行拍摄工作。对我们而言是非常幸运的。庄明湖迅速走过来为我们安排了有关的座位。庄明湖是一位很好的领导者。
遗憾的是张凯雄错过了这次春茗聚餐会的大部分美好时光。

这几张照片是拍摄了在2012年2月1日的春茗聚餐会上。这或许是我的历史敏锐感觉让我请了一位参与此聚餐会的朋友张凯雄为我拍摄一张照片留念。我并不知道自己的这个举动给与会者当时的反应如何?

我并没有看到任何过去几年举行过的春茗聚餐会的任何照片。我也不知道与会者是不是会因为我这样的举动而在过后感到不安或者不满。因为这是他们自己举办的聚餐会,我们只是受邀的嘉宾吧了。 我告诉张凯雄,假设有任何与会者不认可我拍的照片,他必须把照片删除,以免造成不必要的麻烦。

我为张凯雄拍摄了这些照片而感到骄傲。这些照片包括了已故尊敬的林福寿医生。遗憾的是,尊敬的林福寿医生在2012年6月4日诀别了。我庆幸能够拥有这些珍贵的照片。

时代已经不同了。冷藏行动的幸存者已经不再忌讳在任何的聚会场所被人拍摄照片了。2013年2月2日在芳林公园举行的纪念1963年2月2日冷藏行动50周年纪念聚会是,我们甚至把聚会的现场的盛况拍摄成录像并上载到社交媒体网站上。

2016年2月2日是冷藏行动53周年纪念日。今年也是已故林清祥先生逝世20周年纪念。林清祥先生是在1996年2月5日往生的。今年将举行的春茗聚餐会,对于已故林清祥先生的战友来说将会显得更加有意义。

 

Changing Times and Operation Coldstore
By Teo Soh Lung

Clearing my bookshelves, I chance upon an album of photographs taken at the customary Day 3 Lunar New Year lunch in 2012. I was suddenly struck by the importance and significance of the photos. They were a valuable record of time and change.

The tradition of having lunch on the third day of the lunar new year was started by the late Mr Lim Chin Siong. According to Mr Tan Kok Fang, Mr Lim wanted to gather together all those who have suffered under Operation Coldstore. The lunch was restricted to Chinese educated survivors of the ISA until 2011 when for the first time, the English educated ISA survivors and activists were invited.

The album contains photos taken at the lunch on 1 Feb 2012. It was perhaps my sense of history that made me ask a friend, Kai Xiong to take photographs at the lunch. I was not sure of the reaction of the guests. I didn’t see any photography in the previous year. I wasn’t sure if the guests would be upset or angry for after all, it was their lunch party and we were merely guests. I recall telling Kai Xiong that if any guest should object, he should just move away to avoid trouble!

Photographing the guests was tedious. We started off with the table where a friend was seated. That was easy. The guests at the subsequent tables were difficult to organise. It was very slow because we were unsure if they would mind us taking photos. Luckily for us, Zhuang Minh Oh stepped forward and he organised the tables quite quickly. He was indeed a good leader. Still, Kai Xiong missed the major part of his lunch!

I am very grateful to Kai Xiong for taking these photographs. There were some lovely shots of the Late Dr Lim Hock Siew. Sadly, Dr Lim passed away on 4th June that year. We were fortunate to have these photos.

Times have changed. Survivors of Operation Coldstore today do not mind being photographed on any occasion. At the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Operation Coldstore at Hong Lim Park on 2 Feb 2013, we were even able to make videos of the event and have them posted online.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the death of Mr Lim Chin Siong. He passed away on 5 Feb 1996. The lunar new year lunch will be of special significance to his friends. 2 Feb 2016 will be the 53rd anniversary of Operation Coldstore.

RELATED LINK相关链接:

1. 纪念冷藏行动50周年芳林公园集会视频
The 50th anniversary of Operation Coldstore at Hong Lim Park on 2 Feb 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2tQZgP2CI&feature=youtu.be

2. 相见欢、叙旧情、话当年、歌声回荡!-记2015年记2015年2月21日农历羊年《老友春茗》聚餐会 (补充版- 《老友春茗》聚餐录像)The customary Day 3 Lunar New Year lunch in 2015
https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/

3.张素兰:《改变的时代与(1963年2月2日)“冷藏行动”)  Changing Times and Operation Coldstore

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/