Stop%2BRestoration%2Bof%2BMahathirism.png

Bersatu padu, mempertahankan reformasi demokrasi tulen, buangkan khayalan, menghalang pemulihan Mahathirism.

Stop%2BRestoration%2Bof%2BMahathirism.png

Bersatu padu, mempertahankan reformasi demokrasi tulen, buangkan khayalan, menghalang pemulihan Mahathirism.

 photo 2019.png

人民之友恭祝各界2019新年进步、万事如意!在新的一年里,联合起来,坚持真正的民主改革! 丢掉幻想,阻止马哈迪主义复辟!

 photo 2014-03-08KajangByElectionPC.jpg

2014年加影州议席补选诉求 / Tuntutan-tuntutan Pilihan Raya Kecil Kajang 2014

 photo ForumKrisisPerkataanAllah.jpg

“阿拉风波•宪法权利•宗教自由”论坛 / Forum "Krisis perkataan Allah • Hak berperlembagaan • Kebebasan beragama"

 photo LimChinSiongampArticle.jpg

林清祥《答问》遗稿片段

 photo 513StudentMovement.jpg

新加坡“5•13学生运动” 有/没有马共领导的争论【之一】与【之二】

 photo the-new-phase-of-democratic-reform-reject-state-islamization.jpg

马来西亚民主改革的新阶段 / The New Phase of Democratic Reform in Malaysia / Fasa Baru Reformasi Demokratik di Malaysia

 photo Bannerv2blue_small.jpg

 photo Banner%2BForum.jpg

 photo Banner_WorkReport2016.jpg

人民之友为庆祝15周年(2001—2016)纪念,在2016年9月上旬发表了最近5年(2011—2016)工作报告(华、巫、英3种语文),并在9月25日在新山举办一场主题为“认清斗争敌友,埋葬巫统霸权”的论坛。

 16 Anniversary.PNG

人民之友16周年纪念,针对即将来临的全国大选发表专题文章,供给我国民间组织和民主人士参考,并接受我国各族人民民主改革实践检验。

509.png

人民之友根据2017年9月24日发表的《人民之友 对我国第14届大选意见书 》的内容与精神以及半年来国内和国外的政治形势,对5月9日投票提出具体意见,供全国选民参考。

Hindraf.png

《人民之友》2019年国际劳动节发表对2007年兴权会游行示威的重要领袖乌达雅古玛(Uthayakumar)的专访(第一部分)。这次专访的主题是:兴权会的主要斗争对象乃是马来霸权统治集团。

Friday, 28 October 2011

柯嘉逊: 对侵害人权者, 能有什么期待?

柯嘉逊: ————————————
     对侵害人权者能有什么期待?

大马人民之声董事柯嘉逊博士于20111027日针对我国前警察总长拉欣诺与前首相马哈迪关于人权浪潮威胁国家安全的言论,发表声明。华文译稿全文如下:

在此茅草行动”24周年之际,我国人民期待前独裁者马哈迪医生会宣布,放弃他在1987年为了本身的政治目的动用《内安法令》进行大逮捕而为人所诟病的做法。恰恰相反,马哈迪医生竟认同和支持(请看附件2)前警察总长日前发出的,所谓人权浪潮将危害我国的警告性言论(请看附件1)。

1998年,前警察总长拉欣诺(左图)则因几乎杀害前副首相而被判坐牢。这不仅是他(拉欣诺)自己不懂做人,同时也使我国看来像是一个香蕉共和国"(Banana Republic), 在世人面前丢脸, 因为他身居国家警察最高官员,竟作出这么不名誉的行为(译者注:“香蕉共和国”是西方人惯于称呼政府软弱、治理欠佳、依赖外国援助的国家的侮辱性用语)。在一个文明国家,警察部队是全体国民的保护者.保护人身安全是世界上每个人所应享有的最基本权利。

前警察总长拉欣诺由于殴打在拘留期间的前副首相,而被判为一个最卑劣的侵害人权者. 所以, 他最没有资格谈论人权。显而易见,他所受的两个月短暂的牢狱刑罚,不足以遏制他藐视人权。所有在警方扣留期间死亡的扣留者,同样地被剥夺了他们的人身安全  这项基本人权。

我国迫切需要的是掀起一个人权浪潮(人权运动)迫使政府认同与签署《禁止酷刑及其他各种虐待公约》和《公民权利与政治权利国际公约》,从而使到任何侵害人权者(包括警察与政治领袖在内)不仅不能逍遥法外,而且还要接受有威慑作用的最严厉刑罚。

马哈迪(右图)完全明白,在1987年,他如何利用茅草行动”来达到他的政治目的。当时,巫统B队向法庭提出申请,要求宣判巫统党选无效(当时,马哈迪的A队在党选获得险胜)。大逮捕之后的白色恐怖时期,首席大法官被撤职,另外几个联邦法官也遭到停职。结局是尽人皆知的: 马哈迪得以继续担任首相至少15年。

马哈迪确实曾经在1987, 为了本身的政治目的,进行逮捕并无审讯拘留监禁了106名马来西亚人(包括我本人)。他绝对不能够利用美国关塔纳摩湾监狱的违反人权案例,来开脱自己的罪行。

人权捍卫者会將对这两个侵害人权者予以同声谴责。是的,马哈迪的人权纪录跟美国在关塔纳摩湾监狱的记录显示, 他们都是一丘之貉。唯一的差别是: 美国侵害的是美国非公民的人权; 而马哈迪侵害的则是马来西亚公民的人权。

正值阿拉伯之春泛起之际,所有的独裁者,不管是当前的, 还是不再有影响力的,迟早都必须为他们侵害人权的罪行,向世人作出交代!

————————————————————————————————
附件1


净选盟推动“人权浪潮”颠覆
前总警长呼马来人团结抵挡
abdul rahim noor perkasa 2nd agm前全国总警长拉欣诺(Abdul Rahim Noor)警告,一波“新人权宗教”浪潮正侵袭大马,企图削弱甚至颠覆已被人民所共同认可的政策。

他表示,“新人权宗教”的信仰者将提出自由主义的观点,质疑马来西亚的君主制度。

“他们屡屡质疑已被接受的事物,如社会契约,他们仿佛看轻已获得共识的议题。”

如共产主义那样给予抵挡


在担任警方政治部主任期间,负责与马共和平谈判,并达致”合艾共识”的拉欣诺(左图)表示,马来西亚必须应对这样的浪潮,一就如它过去抵挡马克思主义和共产主义那样。

他更点名在7月9日成功号召万人示威的净选盟就是这次“人权宗教”浪潮的其中一个推波助澜者。

马来人团结是一抵挡方式

拉欣诺指出,其中一个抵挡这波浪潮的方式,就是将马来人团结起来。

“我不是以土权成员的身份发表谈话,你可以查阅会员人数,我不是这个机构的一份子,也不是巫统党员。……对我而言,(马来人)团结才是安宁的砥柱。”

拉欣诺在1998年因为在扣留期间,动怒殴打安华导致“黑眼圈”事件而被迫辞职,并被惩罚坐牢2年及罚款2千令吉。

拉欣诺是今日罕见地受邀在土权第二届代表大会发表开幕演讲时,而发表上述令人“刮目相看”的言论。

贬低马来左翼组织为傀儡

针对回教党署理主席莫哈末沙布为1950年麻坡武吉哈逢警局遇袭事件主角末英德拉平反的炽热话题,拉欣诺则指控马来左翼组织马来民族党(PKMM)仅是大部分由华裔组成的马共之傀儡。

“马来民族党接受马共的资助,当马共最初在霹雳州设立总部时,马来民族党也在那里设立总部,当马共总部搬迁到吉隆坡时,马来民族党也被指示跟随迁移。”

他甚至指控当日本投降时,马共本身的三颗星(Tiga Bintang)抗日游击队,以及由共产党所领导的马来亚人民抗日军(MPAJA)所杀害的马来人人数,竟比513种族暴乱期间更多。

他说,这起事件及英国人所倡导的马来亚联邦(Malayan Union)导致马来人醒觉他们不能让遭华裔所主导的马共掌权。

“在这个环境之下,巫统成立了,以团结马来人”

其他出席土权大会者包括前新闻部长再努丁(Zainuddin Maidin)、前国防副部长卡立尤努斯(Khalid Yunus)、播放反对党领袖“性爱影片”拿督T之一的艾斯卡(Shazryl Eskay Abdullah)以及退出公正党的独立议员祖基菲里(Zulkifli Noordin)。祖基菲里也被委任为土权副主席。


附件2


认同拉欣诺“人权浪潮”威胁论
马哈迪批在野党捞取政治利益
即时新闻

前首相马哈迪认同前总警长拉欣诺声称一股“人权浪潮”威胁我国的说法。他更批评在野党玩弄人权课题捞取政治利益,而非用来挽救人命。

“我相信这是拉欣诺的意思。当我们尊重人权之际,我们也必须在能力范围之内落实。”

“如果我们跟随奉行激进人权的西方,那么男人就会允许和男人结婚,女人也会和女人结婚,这应该完全被否决。”

美国侵犯人权更糟糕

马哈迪表示,作为一个发展中国家,大马拥有特定的限制,与西方的国情不同。

他也指出,大马是一个多元种族和宗教国家。

“当他们受到围剿时,他们侵犯人权会比我们更糟糕,就好像关塔那摩湾一样。”

“美国没有像关塔那摩湾那样的无审讯扣留的法律,它已经存在11年。他们为何不释放被扣留者?”

不应采纳西方价值观

马哈迪表示,虽然大马有允许无审讯扣留的内安法令,而美国没有,但美国却可以扣留和虐待扣留者长达11年。

“他们的政府允许虐待被扣留者。不要只是专注在我们的人权纪录。如果你要批评,就针对这些侵犯人权案批评奥巴马。”

他强调,大马应该专注在和大马有关的课题,而不是采纳西方价值观。

在马哈迪出任首相期间担任总警长的拉欣诺,因为1998年在扣留所殴打前副首相安华而被迫辞职,并被判入狱2个月。拉欣诺昨日罕见地出席土权大会发表演讲,警告一波“人权浪潮”正侵袭大马,企图削弱甚至颠覆已达致共识的政策如社会契约。

他更点名在7月9日成功号召万人示威的净选盟,就是这股“人权浪潮”的其中一个推波助澜者。

拉欣诺疾呼马来人团结一致,以抵挡这波犹如共产主义的浪潮。

马哈迪也是土权的顾问,唯他并未出席昨日举行的大会。

在安华被殴至“黑眼圈”出庭而引起举国轰动后,马哈迪及拉欣诺仍一度狡辩安华是“自我致伤”,稍后拉欣诺才改口向皇委会承认以暴力致伤安华。


What Do We Except of Condemned Human Rights Violators?


WHAT DO WE EXPECT OF CONDEMNED
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS?

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM, 27 October 2011

On this 24th anniversary of Operation Lalang, we would have expected the former autocrat Dr Mahathir (Left)  to recant his cynical use of the ISA for his political purpose in 1987. Instead he supports (Please find at attachment 2) the former IGP’s warning about how human rights will harm the country (Please find at attachment 1).

Rahim Noor (left), the former IGP has already served his sentence for nearly killing the former Deputy Prime Minister in 1998. This was not only his failure as a human being but he also brought dishonour to the nation’s highest police post by making us look like a banana republic. The police force in a civilised state is meant to be the protector of all citizens and the right to security of the person is the most fundamental human right to be enjoyed by every person in this world.

He should therefore be the last person in this country to talk about human rights because he was condemned as a most despicable human rights violator for beating up the former Deputy Minister who was in his custody. Obviously, his short sentence (two months?) has not served as a deterrent to his scorn for human rights. All the detainees who have died under police custody have likewise been deprived of their fundamental human right to safety of the person.

What this country desperately needs is a human rights wave to make our country ratify the Convention against torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the International Covenant on Civil and political rights so that human rights violators including the police and political leaders do not get away with impunity but are given the most severe deterrent sentence.

Dr Mahathir (right)  knows full well how he used Operation Lalang for his political purpose in 1987 when Team B of UMNO had applied to the courts to declare the UMNO elections (the one in which Mahathir’s Team A had won by the skin of their teeth) null and void. During the white terror following the mass arrests, the Lord President was sacked and other Supreme Court judges suspended. The rest is history and it allowed him to continue as Prime Minister for at least 15 more years!

Yes, Dr Mahathir violated fundamental human rights of at least 106 Malaysians (including myself) in 1987 by detaining us without trial for his political purpose. He cannot wash his hands of this gross violation by pointing to the US violations in Guantanamo Bay. Human rights defenders condemn both these violators. Yes, Mahathir’s record of human rights violations belongs to the same league as the US record in Guantanamo Bay. The only difference is of course, while the US violates the human rights of non-US citizens, Dr Mahathir has violated the human rights of Malaysian citizens.

In the light of the Arab Spring, all autocrats – current as well as spent ones – should be prepared to answer for their human rights violations sooner or later!

______________________________________________________________

Attachment 1:

Ex-IGP Rahim Noor warns of 'human rights wave'
Former inspector-general of police Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor today said the coming of a "human rights wave" would threaten the principles on which the country was founded.

Describing the wave as a new religion, he said it would threaten and erode the agreements among the different various races which were stitched at independence.
abdul rahim noor perkasa 2nd agm
"If I subscribe to this religion, then I would question why I cannot be a royalty, what more if it concerns the status of the bumiputera?"

Rahim made the comments at a rare public appearance since serving a two-month prison sentence 10 years ago for beating up former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is now opposition leader.

The former police chief gave a keynote speech at the 2nd Perkasa Annual General Assembly in Kuala Lumpur this morning where he called on the Malays to be united against this ‘human rights wave’.

"I say this not as a Perkasa member - you can check the members’ numbers, I'm not part of the organisation, nor am I an Umno member."

This new wave, he said, was similar to the “communist wave” that hit our shores in 1930s and 1940s which was dominated by the Chinese.

Rahim said the communists had attempted to form an "enterprise" with Malay leftists to form a People's Republic of Malaya.


‘Malay leftists were communist stooges’

Taking PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu to task for suggesting that nationalist Mohamed Indera was a freedom fighter, he said the Malay left such as the Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) was a puppet of the Chinese-dominated Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

"The PKMM was funded by CPM... When the CPM first set up its headquarters in Ipoh, PKMM also set its headquarters there and when the CPM moved to Kuala Lumpur, PKMM was also ordered to set its office here."

He added that during the Japanese surrender, the Bintang Tiga and All-Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) had murdered Malays on a scale greater than the May 13 riots.

This and the Malayan Union, he said, made Malays realised that they could not allow the Chinese-dominated CPM to come to power.

"It is under such an environment that Umno was formed to unite the Malays," he said.

Rahim, who oversaw the communist surrender as Special Branch chief, urged Malays to be cohesive in face of this "human rights wave" as they were during the “communist” wave.

Attachment 2:


'Opposition using human rights for their benefit'
"...While we respect human rights as a universal value, it should be implemented within our capabilities," said Mahathir today.
NONEOpposition politicians are using human rights issues for their political benefit, warned former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In saying this, Mahathir said he agrees with concerns raised that certain quarters were using the 'human rights wave' for political purposes instead of to save people.

"If we follow the West, which adopts extreme human rights that allows men to get married with (other) men and women getting married with (other) women, (that) should be rejected outright," he added.

Mahathir said as a developing, multiracial and multireligious country Malaysia is not like countries in the West.

"When they are trapped in, they impose much more worse human rights violations compared to us, as what is done in Guantanamo Bay."

"They (United States) don't have laws to detain people without trial, as in Guantanamo (Bay detention camp), and now it is already 11 years. Why don't they release (those detainees)?"

He said while Malaysia has laws to arrest people like the Internal Security Act, the US do not have such laws, but they still arrest and torture detainees for 11 years.

"Their government allows the torture of the detainees. Do not focus on our human rights record, lah. If you want to criticise, criticise (Barack) Obama, lah, for the human rights violations."

He stressed that Malaysia should focus on issues relevant to Malaysia and not adopt all the values in the West.

Yesterday, former inspector-general of police Abdul Rahim Noor, when addressing the second Perkasa annual general meeting, warned of people using human rights issues to harm the country.

Mahathir backs Felda listing

Mahathir also said he supports the proposed listing of the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) and for a certain percentage of its shares to be set aside for non-Malays to purchase.

He noted that the Malays’ purchasing power is limited and by allotting a percentage (of shares) for non-Malays they are able to participate in the development of the scheme directly.

“We should not listen to the opposition in criticising the listing exercise as the Felda settlers had received a lot of benefits. I have heard many regretting at not being able to participate in the scheme, regretting as they cannot receive a lot of benefits.

azlan“Now the price of palm oil has increased to more than RM3,000 a tonne compared to RM600 previously. Felda has successful businesses. Hence, the settlers should not heed what is said by the opposition as they have nothing good to say,” he said.

He also supported plans for the present government to conduct studies in extending the New Economic Policy (NEP), despite moves by the government to liberalise the economy.

Mahathir however, admitted that the results of the NEP policy and its administration were far from those desired.

“When we came up with the policy in 1971, it was for a period of 20 years. Now it’s already 40 years and the Malays’ achivements should have by now surpassed what we had then targetted. However, we cannot achieve the target until now.

“Possibly the government should review the shortcomings in the policy and improve on them. I am glad I am not in the government. However, I have seen some successful bumiputera entrepreneurs and that if they work hard and adopt good practises they will be successful,” he said.

Earlier in his keynote address during the launching of an Entrepreneurial Symposium, Mahathir said Malays should get rid of the attitude of wanting to see immediate returns on their investments as what they have to do is work hard.

“Using the approved permits (APs) for vehicles as an example, there are those given APs who chose to sell it to others immediately to get returns. However, there are those who got it like Naza, they have kept the APs and used the profits to build their business to what it is today.”

“So do not expect quick returns on your investments. Even when I entered this bread business (The Loaf) with six outlets, I have yet to receive any profits yet. But we must continue to persevere,” he advised the entrepreneurs.

Also present was Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nor Mohamed Yakcop.

Saturday, 1 October 2011

TRANSFORMING THE ISA : Old Poison in New Bottle

TRANSFORMING THE ISA:
Old Poison in New Bottle

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM, 29 Sept 2011

[Note: This article is prepared and presented by Dr. Kua Kia Soong in the "THE REPEAL of ISA-EO! Implications and Justifications" forum organised by PSM , SUARAM, Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) and KLSCAH: Civil Rights Committee on 28 September 2011]

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s recent announcement to repeal the much loathed Internal Security Act (ISA) does not give us cause for celebration when he simultaneously says that it will be replaced by two anti-terrorism laws. There is no doubt that these new anti-terrorism laws will again allow the government-of-the-day to detain people without charge. The entire function of the ISA since 1960 has been for the Alliance and then the Barisan Nasional government to deal with the Opposition and other dissidents through detention without charge.

Before we look at the way in which other countries deal with terrorism, it may be worth our while to ask if an emergency situation exists in Malaysia to warrant such legislation. The US, UK and other western countries are the objects of terrorism mainly because of their support for Israel and their aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. September 11th 2001 of course provided President Bush and Prime Minister Blair with the perfect excuse to launch their offensive against Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya and to pass anti-terrorism laws in their own countries.

Articles 149 & 150 which enabled the legislation of the Internal Security Act (which is inconsistent with Articles 5, 9 & 10 guaranteeing liberty of the person, freedom of movement and freedom of speech, assembly & association respectively) were included in the 1957 Federal Constitution because the Emergency of 1948-60 was on-going.

The BN government’s pledge to annul the three states of emergency in force since 1964 shows their recognition of the fact that there is no justification for any state of emergency in Malaysia. So why is there a justification for new anti-terrorism laws when our existing laws can cope with any eventuality?

If an emergency situation should arise in the future, the government still has Articles 149 and 150 to fall back on and to legislate appropriate laws to cope with the situation as they have done in the past. Alas, as with other lapses in their governance, they have been most tardy in annulling the states of emergency once the emergency had blown over. And their tardiness has been most costly for many victims of their draconian laws.

Based on its record, the government cannot be trusted to use detention-without-trial laws responsibly. Apart from the detention of peace-loving citizens like me under the ISA, it is worth pointing out that out of the more than 10,000 ISA detainees since 1960, few if any have been charged in court for terrorist crimes. It is also an indication of the warped priorities of the government and its security forces that the alleged terrorist in the Bali bombing killed by the Indonesian police, Mat Top had never been detained under the ISA!

The Importance of Due Process

Many people are not aware of the fact that throughout the repugnant career of the ISA since 1960 when the Emergency had been declared over, the ISA was more draconian than similar laws in South Africa under apartheid or even Northern Ireland during the IRA campaigns.

In 1962, a black South African was picked up after returning from training in bomb-making and guerrilla warfare in Ethiopia. He then spent 27 years in jail but he was given access to lawyers and his prosecutor had to follow rules of due process. That man later became the president of South Africa.

Terrorism laws must be clearly worded, passed by parliament, and the powers of the executive must be balanced by wider review, new checks and balances.

The government will try to justify long period of detention without charge by claiming that the police need time to scrutinize mountains of documents, computer data, etc. However, this excuse does not carry water because major fraud and pornography trials face similar challenges. The government must bear in mind that suspects are not terrorists.

Existing anti-terrorism laws

Britain already has 200 pieces of anti-terrorism legislation, while Malaysia also has terrorism-related offences in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of 2006. There is also an Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001. Moreover, the police can detain people on less serious charges and still question them on the more serious ones as they sometimes do.

In the UK, terrorism is defined as:

“Any politically motivated violence against people, property or electronic systems designed to influence the government or intimidate the public for a political, religious or ideological cause…”

This raises the question of whether people have the right to take up arms against tyranny, injustice or foreign occupation. And what about the assault on civilian targets by states as we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere?

The definition of terrorism is also intended to proscribe organisations whose activities “glorify, exalt or celebrate terrorism.” What happens is that in the process, peaceful organisations can be banned and support for mainstream Muslim causes criminalized. Consequently, this will drive more to go underground.

It is instructive to treat “terrorists” as criminals (as in the UK) based on justice and due process and not as combatants in war based on fear and suspicion (as is the case in the US).

The Executive’s Extraordinary Powers

The US president possesses extraordinary powers compared with the executive in the UK. Even so, it is instructive that in the Special Registration Program soon after September 11th 2001, 80,000 men from Arab and Muslim countries were “ethnically profiled” but it resulted in not a single terrorist conviction.

With the US resolution of 18 Sept 2001, the US Congress authorised the President to use force against any person or entity he might determine to be responsible for Sept 11, providing for indefinite detention of suspected terrorists anywhere in the world without any guarantee of charge or trial. Then by a secret order, President Bush authorised the National Security Agency to intercept communications (wire tapping) without judicial warrant.

Period of detention without charge in the West

With the war in Northern Ireland, Britain has had detention without charge although there is judicial review unlike the case of Malaysia’s ISA. In 1997, there was an upper limit of four days’ detention without charge and in 2000, it became seven days. After 2001, it became 14 days. In 2005, the Terrorism Bill was proposed for 90 days of detention without charge but this was defeated in the House of Commons. The new Terrorism Act then allowed 28 days of detention without charge. In 2008, the House of Lords defeated another Bill asking for 42 days’ detention without charge.

In the other European countries, the period of detention without charge is as follows:

• France…………………. 4 days
• Greece…………………. 5 days
• Spain..………………… 13 days
• Australia………………   7 days
• Canada………………… 1 day

In France & Spain, an independent judge decides if there is a case to answer while in Australia, detention is under ordinary remand provisions.

The US PATRIOT Act 2001

This Act stands for “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The first thing about this Act is that it can only be used against foreigners. This begs the question: Why is the same act not “terrorist” if committed by US citizens?

Secondly, the US government is required to press charges within 7 days. Since the passing of the Act, US have detained more than 80,000 people, nearly 800 of them at Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay prisoners are not given Prisoner Of War status nor charged nor given lawyers. The US government uses “enemy combatant” designation to detain indefinitely, allowing no access to lawyers.

There is a repeated pattern of extraordinary powers first used only against non-citizens, but then extended to include citizens.

Judicial Checks on the Executive

President Bush has got away with a lot since September 11th 2001 and detainees have suffered for it. But the US judiciary has also stood up to the US Commander-in-Chief. Thus in Rasul v Bush in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that a non-citizen had the right to challenge detention:

“Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since King John at Runnymede pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled save by the judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.”

After each defeat in the Supreme Court, the US government amended the law but once again in Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2006, Supreme Court ruled:

“The (new) legislation did not prevent federal courts hearing habeas corpus petitions; detainees are entitled to protection of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (which prohibits cruel treatment and torture) and that detainees were entitled to trial before a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples.”

After further legislative change, the US Supreme Court ruled in Boumedienne v Bush 2008 that detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus and legislation was unconstitutional:

“The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the law.”

In 2006, the federal judge in Michigan ruled that President Bush’s secret order authorising the National Security Agency to intercept communications without any judicial warrant was a violation of federal criminal law and added:

“There are no hereditary Kings in America.”

Supranational Views on Terrorism Laws

The Council of Europe pronounced in 2002:

“While the state has the right to employ to the full its arsenal of legal weapons to repress and prevent terrorist activities, it may not use indiscriminate measures which would only undermine the fundamental values they seek to protect.”

In 2004, the International Commission of Jurists in its Berlin Declaration proclaimed that:

“In adopting measures aimed at suppressing acts of terrorism, states must adhere strictly to the rule of law, including the core principles of criminal and international law and the specific standards and obligations of international human rights law, refugee law and, where applicable, humanitarian law.”

Finally, Cicero’s old adage is the wisest caution against terrorism laws from the Wild West: “Salus populi suprema est lex” (The safety of the people is the supreme law).

Malaysians would do well to demand that there is no return to detention without charge and that we do not accept the old ISA poison in a new bottle!

新加坡内安法令的政治清算历史

新加坡内安法令的政治清算历史

2011年10月1日


[编按:新加坡文献馆今日贴出一篇题为“内安法令的政治清算历史”的文章。这篇文章引用了著名专家和学者的历史判断来论证李光耀是用内安法令来巩固人民行动党的政权,以及说明无审讯囚禁才是人民行动党赖以生存的硬道理,很有针对性和说服力。这篇文章可以作为读者理解新加坡人民行动党政府为何一直不敢面对而回避16名前新加坡政扣者在声明中所提出的“无审讯扣留监禁”的核心问题的一份珍贵参考材料。]

9月23日,新加坡内政部逐点反驳16名前内安法令扣留者日前发表的联合声明;文告指出,新加坡前政治扣留者不是因为政治理念被扣,而是因为他们参与危害国家安全的颠覆活动。文告强调,内安法令作为不得已的最后举措,有助于新加坡抗衡重大安保威胁、保护国民、同时维持种族和谐以及社会团结。

这种‘不是因为政治理念被扣,而是因为他们参与危害国家安全的颠覆活动’所以被ISA无审讯囚禁的官方说法,和好些学者,包括来自新加坡学院派的主流学者,之历史判断完全不同。

内安法令的最大约束力是无审讯囚禁。为何不经,也无需法庭判决就执行囚禁?主要是因为政府没有办法在法庭上提供证据去证实对拘留者的指控。说白了,政府可以全凭自己的主观判断,去执行逮捕和囚禁人民的权力。ISA之所以备受争议,是因为执政党可以通过政府滥用行政权力进行政治清算。

根据一些学者的论述,新加坡的内安法令数次被政府用来清算执政党的政治竞争对手。为此,新加坡民众不妨先看看学者们有些什么观点,再去琢磨内安法令的使用是为了国家利益?还是为了保护当权者自己的政治利益?

Chan Heng Chee (1976: 202,203) 分析了李光耀如何系统化的把人民行动党建立为一党独大的政治格局。这一个政治目的是通过两个方向来完成,‘一是,利用政府的行政体系涵盖整个社会层面以建立新社会秩序,这中间尽量的排挤了敌对势力的活动空间。另一方面,使用实质性的措施来遏止敌对势力的发展;也即是动用维护公众安全法规PPSO (Preservation of Public Security Ordinance) 的权力。. ’

‘PPSO是源自1948年的紧急法令;是当年英国殖民政府用来对付反政府的政治活动。1955年,法规正式成为法令,允许殖民总督为了社会安全的理由无审讯的囚禁扣留者。1963年,新加坡加入马来西亚后,马来亚的内安法令取代PPSO。’

‘由于政府可以自由界定什么是危害国家安全的政治行为,所以内安法令成为对付左派政治势力的工具。…社阵和它的附属二线组织是这一项法令的主要清算对象。1963年到1968年间共有72名社阵党员被拘留,他们是来自党总部和支部以及其他相关组织的主要负责人和干部。’

‘内安法令也允许部长以同样的理由,阻止印刷,出版,销售,流通,或者拥有政治内容不良的文件和刊物等等印刷品。’

‘人民行动党政府通过了这两项权力,完全遏止了左派政治势力在新加坡发展的所有空间。…从这可以轻易的得出一个结论,那就是,当权者发出了一个非常强烈的讯号,用来打消任何人企图和人民行动党争夺政权的念头。政治从此成为一个零和游戏。’

Bello & Rosenfeld(1990)有两段叙述。其一(pp303,304):‘李光耀上台后,调转枪头对付他的合作伙伴。他使用两件工具,一是撤销职工会的社团注册,一是动用内安法令。…左派职工会和政府的冲突高潮是1963年2月那一件恶名昭著的冷藏行动,有超过100多名的职工会领导和其他反对人士被逮捕。…彻底的歼灭了左派职工会,亲人民行动党的NTUC成为唯一的工人声音。’

其二,(pp326,327):‘人民行动党会毫不犹豫的使用打压手段,去消灭妨碍政府政策的阻力。…人民行动党之所以取得绝对的政治权力,是得力于内安法令的使用。…历史上,三次使用内安法令逮捕反对者…1963年的冷藏行动逮捕了职工会领导,另外,分别在1970年代末和1987年的所谓马克思阴谋论罪名下,逮捕了22名天主教会的社会义工.。自独立以来,当局使用逮捕行动来压抑和遏阻,合法与非暴力性的反对党政治…ISA并非唯一的暴力手段…政府也使用税务和商业法去对付异议者…。’

T N Harper (2001)从林清祥的政治历程,仔细的回顾了当年的时代背景和政治角力,重新梳理和解读了一些历史事件的来龙去脉。Harper是使用原始档案资料进行论证,去还原一些历史真相。这篇论文的贡献是有力的驳斥了官方版本的新加坡政治历史观。

通过论文的零星节录片段,不但可以重温当年的历史事迹,更可以利用和官方说辞的一一对比,清楚的分辨出真实和杜撰的历史。

‘ ”共产党统一阵线”是一个不符合实情的虚晃不当名称;这群人并不是共产党,也没有组织什么统一阵线,他们都只不过是各别的个体活动。这一个历史判断的证据来自英国人的内部档案:迟至1948年初,英国人还不承认马来亚半岛的动乱是由于共产党策动所导致。’这说明了,共产党统一阵线纯粹是一个杜撰的组织,也是用来逮捕人民的莫须有罪名。

‘华校学生的反殖民运动不是共产党活动,学生政治是因为华文教育者被排挤在殖民社会的利益分配之外,在就业和其他机会方面只有受英文教育者得到好处。此外,华校生也担心自己的民族文化会在一个英化的社会中被消灭。1954年,殖民总督从情报总结出:华校学生运动和共产党活动类似,但是,那并非因为共产党的影响所导致。’这段文字是说,华校学生政治是维护民族文化的合法社会运动。新加坡政治文化里头的:华校生要不是共产党,就是共产党同情分子,再不然就是华文沙文主义者的政治标签,无非是为了要把所有歧视华教知识分子,和消灭华文传统教育的政府政策合理化。显然的,这不仅仅是政治清算,更是民族文化的摧毁。

‘1959年7月,成为自治邦总理的李光耀进入内安委员会(ISC)。新加坡内政部的一份调查报告显示:馬共的势力微弱…是一些没有什么特别意义的零星活动,不至于构成严重的威胁…林清祥和其他的一些人都没有从事什么不良的违法活动。’这内容可以解读为:馬共要推翻新加坡政府之说,纯是子虚乌有的杜撰;以此类推,马克思阴谋论也是天方夜谭。

‘在接下来的两个年头,内安委员会成为新加坡,马来亚和英国的角力场所。人民行动党政府把ISA平台当作管理政治的工具,利用ISC的机密性做伪装来隐藏个人的政治动机。这可以从1959年10月一起事件中看出,当时李光耀写信告诉顾得总督,他要使用ISC的权力执行逮捕行动。英国政府拒绝认同,回信指责这种做法有违原则,并指明日常行政是新加坡政府的本分工作。虽然如此,李光耀还是数次使用ISC的权力进行逮捕行动。’可见,内安法令的公器私用是昭然若揭。

‘有两位英国历史学者从档案文献中发现,英国曾试图阻止李光耀的一些逮捕行动,因为当局要保护自己在后殖民时代的政治超然地位,不愿意被看成在本土政治斗争上有不公正的立场。英国政府认为左派政治既是符合宪法也得到广泛的民众支持。总督副手对林清祥的评估是:“我们接受他是共产主义者的说法,但是,没有证据证明他接受来自馬共,北京或者莫斯科的领导。我们认为他是自己一个人在行动,他的根本意图不是建立共产世界,而是要争取新加坡的合法统治权。没有确实迹象显示他在上台后会成为北京或者莫斯科的工具。” ’由此看来,官方说辞的共产党威胁论亦是人为的虚构,没有真实性。

末了,Harper指出,‘1959年的时候,李光耀原本以为可以通过公开的民主政治,以及试图逼使对手使用非法政治手段,来打倒左派势力,但是,左派组织始终在宪法规范内进行斗争。因此,到了1962年中,李光耀终于意识到只有使用民主程序之外的特别权力,才能够解决这一场对抗。事实上,就象英国人所判断的那样,这一场政治危机是来自一场政治斗争,这和社会内部治安问题无关。’

T N Harper的历史论述,通过对一些历史概念和事迹的重新认识,为新加坡提供了官方历史评述之外的,另一个完全相反,和全新的历史版本。

综合这些学者的历史演绎来看,毋庸置疑,李光耀是用内安法令来巩固人民行动党的政权,因此,无审讯囚禁才是李光耀政权赖以生存的硬道理。

如果这些学者的历史判断正确无误,那么,好些新加坡政府认为是合理,合法以及正当的政策决定,在事实上,是一些不合理,不合法,以及不正当的政党政治。

历史是一个持续演化的动态,所以当代人往往只能凭个人的智慧去发掘事情的真相,至于这两个全然对立的新加坡政治历史观点,会有什么样的最终审判,那是未来历史学者的工作。

通告 Notification

《人民之友》发表对国内政局看法
马来文版已于9月23日刊出
英文版已于10月26日贴出


人民之友成立于2001年9月9日,2018年9月9日是人民之友成立17周年纪念的日子。我们在这一天发表了一篇题为< 联合起来,坚持真正的民主改革! 丢掉幻想,阻止马哈迪主义复辟!>的文章作为纪念。

我们一如既往选择在这一个对我们来说,具有里程碑意义的日子,对我国当前阶段(大选后新政府上台)的政治局势发表一些意见,与为推动我国和世界民主人权运动而奋斗的同道们,互相交流。

为了面向国内不谙华文的广大非华裔群体,也为了让我们对当前阶段的政治局势的意见能够更广泛地传播开去,工委会决定尽快把这篇纪念文章先后翻译成马来文和英文。马来文版已于9月23日刊出。英文版也已于10月26日贴出。点击以下链接即可阅读——



此外,现居新加坡的庄明湖已将他在《人民之友》发表的《20世纪60年代新加坡左派工运问题探索》(正篇)一文的英文译稿传送到编辑部,因原文中所述人物的姓名或者是党团工会组织的全称或简称,在译文中尚未解决或有待查证,需要一些时日来完成——人民之友工委都是自愿挤出时间来进行工作的,因而无法很快完成。经过一番努力,我们终于在9月30日刊出,为我们的17周年纪念增添光彩!

值得在此一提的是,庄文所述的20世纪60年代新加坡工运遭遇问题(除了遭受来自外部的镇压,还要遭遇来自内部的破坏)的见解,或许能为一些读者(特别是不谙华文和不懂新马历史的读者)思考马来西亚民主改革运动在当前阶段面临马哈迪主义复辟的问题,提供一个历史殷鉴,或者是一个新的启示。

Malaysia Time (GMT+8)