人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

李光耀在1987年逮捕天主教会工作者的《光谱行动》欠下的一笔血债!

justice now

 生为篡权灭异己、死为颜面捂粪坑。

平身不具侠义风、功罪已定棺未盖。

毁誉天下传世代、春秋是非后人评。

编者注:这篇文章的作者是张素兰小姐。她的这篇文章的主角陈月皓是她的战友。她怀念自己为祖国的自由民族进步而斗争失去了自己的战友而撰写了这篇文章。文章全文翻译如下:

    (请查阅网址:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205253954882259&set=a.3745872999227.2156085.1048331169&type=1&fref=nf

我昨天到圣特麗莎教堂想去我的好友朱麗葉.陳月皓的墓地憑吊。 她是在1987831日飛机墜落時慘烈犧牲的。她之所以死于這場飛机墜落慘劇是因為在那場(在李光耀命令下所發動的)“光譜行動中,她眼看著自己的朋友一個個被捕﹔又有傳言說:她若回到新加坡就會被捕﹐因為她是李光耀所指控的那個教會組織的活動成員之一﹔ 所以朱麗葉.陳月皓在新山和父母、家庭成員以及朋友們見面後就乘搭飛机前往泰國 的普吉島。這架載有83位乘客及机組人員的飛机在飛往普吉島途中失事墜落海中。

朱麗葉.陳月皓是一位會關心他人和開朗的年輕人。記得1987年在她出國深造時我去 机場送行。她為自己能夠出國深造而充滿激動喜悅。她去英國的蘇克賽斯大學攻讀 研究生學位。

我到朱麗葉.陳月皓墓前憑吊已經是數十年前的事了﹐所以忘記墓地的具体位置。令人吃惊的是,這回我卻輕易地找到了她的墓地位置,這大概是她的英靈引導我的緣 故。

最近网上有人为李光耀的死活进行了各种的方式表达对李光耀的不满。这些并不是一定在李光耀法西斯统治时代遭受过他的残酷镇压!这些人是在知道了历史的真相后,为当年的受迫害者表达了自己的良知。那些把自己视为是李光耀的孝子玄孙们为此打抱不平。

在李光耀的法西斯统治时代遭受迫害的爱国进步民主人士成千上万。这一笔笔的历史冤案和血债不管李光耀说长命百岁、还是高山仰止,都已经一笔笔的记载祖国和人民反对李光耀法西斯政权的史册上了!现在再为治本史册添加一页。

以下是朱丽叶.陈月皓的好友为她撰写的一首诗。

月光月儿正在独自战斗

锯齿状的云 残酷地吞噬她苍弱的火焰

她终于坠落 从高高的天空 像流星的碎片

在单调灰色的海面上飘浮

然而她生命的辉光

如一盏聚光灯 照射在暗流汹涌的舞台上

探寻一些东西和一些脸孔

它说月亮可以让人疯狂 或者让人变成野兽

像图腾一样刻在岩壁 月光照在她脸上,

影子消失 我的心欢唱灵魂的飞升

 

 

这首诗歌是为了纪念已故朱丽叶.陈月皓而作。

她的名字‘月皓’意即‘明月’

Remembering

Juliet Tan Guek How

Soh Lung Teo      (2.5.1963 – 31.8.1987)

Yesterday, I was at the Church of St Teresa and thought I would visit the niche of my young friend, Juliet Tan Guek How who died tragically in a plane crash on 31 Aug 1987. She died because of Operation Spectrum which saw the arrests of many of her friends. It was whispered that if she returned to Singapore, she would also be arrested for she was a member of an organisation accused by the government of meddling in politics. And so Juliet met her parents, family members and friends in Johor. After that, she boarded the plane for Phuket. The plane crashed into the sea and all 83 passengers and crew died.

Juliet was a caring, bright young person. I remember sending her off at the airport when she left for her studies. She was full of excitement at having the opportunity to study abroad. In 1987, she was pursuing her postgraduate studies in the University of Sussex.

It had been many years since I visited Juliet’s niche. I had forgotten its location. Amazingly, I found her without difficulty. It must be her spirit guiding me.

Below is a poem written by her friend.

MOONLIGHT

The moon fights a lonely struggle

With jagged clouds that mass to stifle her pale fire

And now, breaking through, she casts

A silver pool on the drab grey sea.

It moves imperceptibly

Like a spotlight on some gigantic stage

Searching for something or someone.

It’s said the moon can make men mad

Or change men into beasts.

How can this be?

This moon shone to make men sane

And change beasts into men.

With her light on my face, shadows melted

And, for a while, my heart sang.

This poem is dedicated to the memory of Juliet Tan (Tan Guek How)

Whose Chinese name means ‘bright shining moon’

人民力量


一条评论

(中英文对照)The Judiciary and Us 司法与我们的关系

 

 

编者按语:

您觉得司法不公吗?为什么?问题的症结在哪儿?

请您阅读这篇文章,谈谈您 看法。

作者: Teo Soh Lung  张素兰。

 

她是一名退休律师,是《跨越蓝色的大门:一个政治犯的回忆》(BEYOND THE BLUE GATE : RECOLLECTION OF A POLITICAL PRISONE)本书的作者身为退休人士,在闲暇时与友人聚谈、阅读,偶尔也在博客上点评时事,此外,也负责“功能8”(FUNCTION 8)的事务;“功能8”(FUNCTION 8)是个非营利组织,其宗旨事实促进社会经验、政治经验和经济经验的传播和共享。

                      张素兰 1        张素兰 2

On 8 Dec 1988, four ISA prisoners namely Kevin de Souza, Chng Suan Tze, Wong Souk Yee and I were jubilant for we had finally won our appeal. The Court of Appeal comprising Wee Chong Jin CJ, Chan Sek Keong and L P Thean JJ had ruled that we should be freed from detention. We thought we were going home, freed by our courts!

 

 

 

That freedom however turned out to be short lived. Like the 1960s, when Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends were released on a similar technical error by Wee Chong Jin CJ and promptly rearrested and thrown into deplorable filthy prison cells in Queenstown, we too were rearrested outside the gate of Whitley Prison. The government’s justification for our rearrests was that the Court of Appeal did not rule on the merits of our case but merely on a technical irregularity found in the detention orders. That of course was true even though I felt much aggrieved because my lawyers did not raise any technical issues and I was prepared to fail in the appeal and proceed to the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal at that time. Since 1988, I have not cease wondering why the Court of Appeal had, to put it bluntly, “done me in” with that Dec 8 judgement. It prevented me from proceeding to the Privy Council and compelled me to start my litigation all over again. It gave the opportunity to parliament to pass new laws and amend the Constitution, which abolished judicial review for ISA cases and appeals to the Privy Council.

 

 

 

Recently, I attended a seminar on “The Role of the Judiciary in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.” It was organised by the European Union. The opening address of H.E. Dr Michael Pulch, EU Ambassador to Singapore who spoke about the judiciary’s role set me thinking about the Dec 8 judgement. Dr Pulch touched briefly on the independence of the judiciary and the institutions that support its independence.

 

 

 

In the speeches and discussions that followed, judgements of our Supreme Court were touched upon. Our judges tend to take a legalistic approach. Strictly, they administer the laws, something I learnt from law school.

Professor Dr Thio Li-ann of the National University spoke of how our judges interpreted the law leaving the necessity to make any amendments or repeal laws to the legislature. No activism for judges! Dr Jack Tsen-Ta of the Singapore Management University commented that our judges tend to give deference to the executive in their judgements.

Before 8 Dec 1988, I was aware that in autocratic countries, the judiciary often tend to take the side of the government. Judges are practical and fully aware of the consequences should they rule against the government.

 

Cases where governments in such countries pass laws hurriedly in order remedy a loophole in the law were well known. But in December 1988, I didn’t expect the Singapore government to join this group of autocratic governments. It did. Indeed, the Singapore government went one step further.

 

It amended the laws to ensure that no ISA prisoner would ever be freed by our courts! It took away the power of our judges by removing judicial review in ISA cases. The laws were to have retrospective effect.

 

 

 

 A constitution may not ensure the independence of the judiciary. A strong legal profession and parliament which respect and treasure the independence of judges are equally important. And lastly, the citizens too have an important role to play if we want to ensure an independent judiciary. Was there any protest by the Law Society against the new laws in 1988? Did the public object to the new laws? Was there any sensible debate in parliament over the new laws?

 

 

 

While the PAP government went about its business of amending the laws and criticising the judgement of the Court of Appeal in unkind terms, no one uttered a word in protest. The Law Society kept a stony silence. In the absence of support from the Law Society, parliament and the people, is it reasonable for us to expect judges to promote and protect human rights? Are we demanding too much from the judiciary? I don’t know.

 

 

Today, many people still live in fear. Parliament remains overwhelmingly one party. The Law Society has since 1986 never commented on legislation which are not referred to it. It has remained ineffective though I am told, has been working hard in many areas of pro bono work and working closely with the government. It may be another symbiotic venture in progress like our trade union.

 

 

I am not optimistic and I doubt we will see any change in the administration of justice. Judgements may be very well written containing brilliant arguments and research. But that is about all, I think. Until the attitude of people and the composition of parliament change, I doubt there will be any change. Prove me wrong.

 

 justice now   人民力量

 

司法与我们的关系

 

作者:张素兰。 她是一名退休律师,是《跨越蓝色的大门:一个政治犯的回忆》本书的作者身为退休人士,在闲暇时与友人聚谈、阅读,偶尔也在博客上点评时事,此外,也负责“功能8”(FUNCTION 8)的事务;“功能8”(FUNCTION 8)是个非营利组织,其宗旨事实促进社会经验、政治经验和经济经验的传播和共享。

 张素兰 1    张素兰 2

 1988年12月8日,四位在内部安全法令下被拘留的政治犯, 凯尔文·德苏沙, 庄瑄芝, 黄淑绍和我,为自己赢得了上诉而欢呼。上诉庭是由黄宗仁, 陈锡强和邓立平的三位高等法院法官组成。他们裁决,我们应该获得释放。我们以为在法院的判决下,我们可以回家了!

 

 

吊诡的是, 这样的自由之身是曇花一现 的。就像1960年林福寿医生(已故)和他的朋友一样,由于大法官 黄宗仁 在技术上犯了类似的错误而获得释放,紧接着迅速的被再次逮捕,他们再次回到那凄惨和肮脏的女皇镇监牢里。我们也是一样。我们在卫特里路拘留所的铁门外被捕。再次被逮捕的理由是上诉庭并没有根据我们的案件特点做出裁决,只是在技术上发现一些不符合拘留令的规定吧了。我感到非常的委屈,因为我的律师并没有提出任何属于技术性的问题,但是那是事实。心理上我已经准备失败,然后准备到枢密院进行上诉。在当时,枢密院是新加坡最高的上诉法院。自1988年起,我没有停止过疑惑,上诉庭会在12月8日的判决采取这么直接了当的陷进(“done me in”)。它阻止我向枢密院上诉,同时,迫使我从头开始进行诉讼。这是要让国会有机会通过新的法令和修改宪法。那就是,废除内部安全法令的司法审核后到枢密院进行上诉。

 

 

最近,我出席了 “司法制度在保障及主张人权方面所扮演的角色”的研讨会。这个研讨会是由欧盟主办的。由 欧洲共同体驻新加坡大使, Dr Michael Pulch, 致开幕词。 当他谈到有关司法扮演的角色时让我想起了1988年12月8日的判决。 Dr Pulch 简明 的谈及有关司法独立性和支持司法独立的机构、组织。

 

 

在接下来的演讲会讨论中,提到我们的高等法院的判决。我们的法官向来奉公守法的采取法律途径。他们严格执行法律条规,这我在修法律课时已知悉。

 

 

国立大学的张黎衍教授在研讨会上提到我们的法官如何詮釋法律,他们有意撇开需要修改或废除的法律,让国会去处理。我们的法官不属于知识的活跃分子。新加坡管理大学的李振达 (Dr Jack Tsen-Ta Lee) 教授在评论时说,我们的法官往往持着恭敬不如从命的心态去执行他们的判决。

 

 

1988年12月8日之前,我注意到在专制的国家里,司法都是倾向于为政府立场辩护的。法官是务实的。他们充分认识到反对政府所涉及的严重后果。

 

 类似这样匆忙的通过修改法律来弥补法律漏洞的例子是司空见惯的。但是在1988年12月8日,我并没有预见到新加坡政府也加入了这些专制的政府的行列。新加坡政府确实是这么做了。实质上,新加坡政府做得比那些专制的政府更上一层楼,显现青出于蓝的表现。

  

修改法律是确保在内部安全法令下不让任何政治犯有机会在法院的判决下获得自由!它废除在内安部个案中法官的复审权力。 有关修订并有追溯效力。

 

 宪法并不等于保证独立的司法。强有力的法律专业组织和国会是尊重和珍惜司法的独立性方面,是扮演同等重要的角色。最后,如果我们要求一个独立性的司法,那么,公民是扮演着一个极其重要的角色。在1988年,律师公会有对任何新法律(或法令)提出抗议吗?公众有对任何新法律(或法令)提出反对吗?国会又有提出任何理性的辩论吗?

 

 

当行动党政府为了自身的利益进行修改法律条款,他们恶言批评上诉法院的判决,却没有人提出任何的抗议。律师公会像石块般的沉默。在没有得到律师公会、国会和人民的支持下,我们是否能够期盼合理的判决得到发扬和人权得到保护?我们是否对司法提出过分苛求? 我没有答案。

 

 

今天还有很多人是生活在恐惧中。国会还是在一党掌控下。律师公会自1986年以来并没有对国会的法律问题提出任何评论。我获知,它为公益计与政府多方面紧密协作;但是据说,它在法律领域里是持续处于没有公正效力的状况。它可能与全国职总一样与政府的操作是属于一体关系。

 

 

我无法乐观。我质疑我们将会看到公正法律行政上的司法改变。判决可能写得非常通畅,包括了精湛的争论和研究。但是,充其量就那么多。除非人们的态度和国会的组成发生变化,我怀疑这一切将会改变。您可以指证我的看法是错误的吗?

 

 

justice now       人民力量

 


2条评论

这是怎么回事,新加坡媒体发展管理局?——作者:张素兰(中英文对照)

星国恋

这是怎么回事,新加坡媒体发展管理局?

张素兰

陈彬彬导演的纪录片《星国恋》,是一部关于家园,更准确些说是一部关于乡愁的作品。这不是一部关于马来亚共产党,或者号召人们参加已经不存在的马来亚共产党的影片。这部影片也没有为马共歌功颂德。因此,新加坡媒体发展管理局宣布将该纪录片定为“任何分级均不允许”级别,简单地说也就是将该纪录片列为“禁片”,既让人失望,也显得毫无道理。

新加坡媒体发展管理局在其文告的倒数第二段中这么说:“这部影片访问的个别人,试图制造他们回返新加坡的权利被不公平剥夺的印象。实际上,没有人逼他们离开新加坡,也没有人阻止他们回来。政府曾经清楚表明,将允许前马来亚共产党的党员回来新加坡,只要他们同意接受有关当局盘问他们过去的活动,解决他们的悬案。其中若(有人)涉及刑事犯罪,则须依法面对制裁。”

这么说,意味着如果官员们不喜欢(影片中)接受访谈者说的话,就可以对一部影片颁发禁令。本来,一个明显的事实是,政府只要发表文告详细说明,就足以反驳接受访谈者的言论了。更何况政府掌控着媒体,它大可以泡制出更多像《动荡年代》(The Days of Rage)那样的片子,来批驳这些目前已八十多岁的受访者的论述。

1963年9月大选过后,政府援引内部安全法令采取大规模逮捕行动,把许多人(包括三名社会主义阵线的当选议员)投入牢狱。为什么须要这么做,政府时至今日仍未解释清楚。黄信芳和陈新嵘,在这部影片中出现的两名当选议员,连同数百名其他人,就是由于当年内安法下的那场大逮捕,才成为政治流亡者的。他们全心全意协助李光耀赢得1959年的大选。他们参与1963年9月的大选并在选举中获胜,可是无从履行他们在立法议会中的合法职务。他们和其他人,包括作品丰盛的作家贺巾,以平和的、非控诉性的态度,在影片中述说他们的故事。他们对新加坡的爱,从他们今天的言辞和行为中充分体现出来。他们密切关注新加坡的动向,每日阅读报章,观看电视新闻。

《星国恋》说的,不只是冷藏行动和1963年9月大选过后逃离新加坡的政治人物与马共成员的故事。它的覆盖面要大得多。实际上,片中的“明星”和谈得最深入的受访者是洪瑞钗医生。她讲述亡夫的个人故事,这些满带着勇气与牺牲的经历,深深触动了我们的心。她的亡夫邱甲祥,一位在1977年2月当众多朋友被捕后从新加坡出逃的年轻律师。他们这些人被指责为“欧洲共产主义者”。瑞钗和甲祥是在发生那场逮捕的两个星期前结的婚。洪医生自己先被拘捕,获释后离开新加坡去和她的丈夫一起生活。根据法律,她不犯任何罪,应该可以无条件回返新加坡,也不必受辱地为她过去的活动发表什么自白式的声明。但她却就是无法拿到新加坡护照。在访谈中,她反映了她娘家人和夫家人面对的困境。甲祥的母亲想念儿子,希望儿子能够回家。甲祥给母亲写了封信,向母亲解释因为自己不想出卖朋友,所以只得打消回去的念头。母亲接信后认命了,知道自己再也见不到儿子了。和许多其他的流亡者一样,甲祥和瑞钗在父母亲病重和去世时,都无法回家探病和守丧。

新加坡媒体发展管理局关于流亡者触犯罪行的评论很有趣,特别是关于陈华彪以虚假的“暴动”罪入狱一年后潜逃,没有完成国民服役的一段。新加坡没有完成国民服役的男性,所在多有。面对的刑罚,却肯定不是四十年的被迫流亡,以及根据1985年主要为了剥夺他公民权而通过的一项立法让一个人失去公民权。

最后,这部影片说到了对何元泰,一位南大毕业生和前南洋大学学生会会长的疯狂追捕。他是1976年大选时的工人党候选人。秘密警察宣称他在竞选群众大会上说了某些话要抓他,他只好仓促逃离新加坡。为了逃亡,他用尽了父母亲毕生的积蓄。他和邱甲祥一样,初到伦敦时只好从事卑下的工作糊口。他和两个年幼的孩子,以及他的妻子都在这部影片中出现。他述说了自己的生活,迟婚,希望大儿子可以回到新加坡履行国民服役的公民义务。

明年就是新加坡建国五十周年了。新加坡人民已经成熟,这部述说年轻时积极参与塑造新加坡面貌的人的故事的影片,理应允许人民观看。若有人提出申诉,希望新加坡媒体发展管理局会重新考虑其决定。

您可以到如下网址浏览;

http://www.mda.gov.sg/AboutMDA/NewsReleasesSpeechesAndAnnouncements/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?news=639
12 September 2014


Why MDA? by Teo Soh Lung

To Singapore With Love, directed by Ms Tan Pin Pin is about Home, the longing for home to be more precise. The film is not about the MCP or a call to join the MCP which no longer exists. Neither does the film glorifies the deeds of the MCP. For the MDA to issue a “Not allowed for all ratings” or “Banned” in short, is disappointing and irrational.

MDA claims: “The individuals in the film have given distorted and untruthful accounts of how they came to leave Singapore and remain outside Singapore. A number of these self-professed “exiles” were members of, or had provided support to, the proscribed Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) … two of the individuals in the film conveniently omitted mentioning the criminal offences which they remain liable for, like tampering with their Singapore passports or absconding from National Service.” See http://www.mda.gov.sg/AboutMDA/NewsReleasesSpeechesAndAnnouncements/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?news=639.

In the penultimate paragraph of its press release, MDA said: “The individuals featured in the film gave the impression that they are being unfairly denied their right to return to Singapore. They were not forced to leave Singa¬pore, nor are they being prevented from returning. The Government has made it clear that it would allow former CPM members to return to Singapore if they agree to be interviewed by the authorities on their past activities to resolve their cases. Criminal offences will have to be accounted for in accordance with the law.”

It is sad that a film is banned just because the officials dislike what the interviewees said. Surely, a detailed press statement from the government is sufficient to rebut the claims of the interviewees. Further, the government controls the media and it is capable of churning out more films like “The Days of Rage” to counter the narratives of the interviewees who are now in their 80s.

The government have till today, failed to explain why after the September 1963 election, it had deemed it necessary to arrest so many people including three elected MPs of the Barisan Sosialis and imprisoned them for years under the ISA. It was because of the arrests together with hundreds of others under the ISA that year, that elected MPs Wong Soon Fong and Chan Sun Wing who appeared in the film became political exiles. They had put their heart and soul helping Lee Kuan Yew win the 1959 election. They had stood for election and won in September 1963 but had been denied their rightful seats in the legislative assembly. They and others, including He Jin, a prolific writer, told their stories in a calm and uncomplaining manner. Their love for the Singapore is evident from what they say and do today. They follow Singapore’s progress closely, reading newspapers daily and watching news on television.

“To Singapore With Love” is not just about the politicians and members of the CPM who left Singapore soon after Operation Cold Store and the general election in September 1963. It is much more. Indeed, the “star” in the film and the most reflective interviewee is Dr Ang Swee Chai who touches our hearts with personal stories of courage and sacrifice of her late husband, Francis Khoo, a young lawyer who fled Singapore when his friends were arrested in February 1977. They were accused of being “Euro-Communists.” Dr Ang and Francis were married just two weeks before the arrests. Dr Ang herself was imprisoned and left Singapore to join her husband after her release. Legally, she has not committed any crime and should be able to return to Singapore without conditions or being subjected to the humiliation of giving statements of her past. But she has not been able to obtain a Singapore passport. In the interview, Dr Ang reflected on the hardship that befell her family and that of Francis. Francis’ mother missed her son and wished that he could return. But upon receiving a letter from Francis explaining why he had rejected the thought of returning because he didn’t want to “squeal” on his friends, she accepted the fate that she would not be able to see him. Like many other exiles, both Francis and Swee Chai were unable to return home to visit their parents when they became seriously ill and died.

MDA’s comment on the crimes of the exiles, in particular, the reference to Tan Wah Piow’s escape from enlistment after serving a one year prison sentence on a false charge for “rioting” is interesting. Many Singaporean males have failed to enlist. Surely the penalty cannot be 40 years of forced exile and the loss of one’s citizenship by the use of a law enacted chiefly to deprive him of citizenship in 1985.

Finally, the film touches on the lunatic chase of Ho Juan Thai, a Nantah graduate and former president of the Nanyang University Students’ Union. He was a candidate for the Workers’ Party in the 1976 general election. He left Singapore suddenly when the secret police went after him for something he allegedly said during the election rallies. He had to use up his parents’ life savings in order to escape. Like Francis, he too had to do menial work in London. The film shows him with his two young children and wife. He spoke of his life, marrying late and wishing his elder son could return to Singapore to do national service!

Singapore will be 50 next year. Singaporeans have matured and deserve to see this film depicting people who were active in attempting to shape Singapore during their youth. Let’s hope the MDA will reconsider its decision should an appeal be lodged