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。

 photo 2017.png

人民之友恭祝各界2017新年进步、万事如意!

 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。

Sunday, 25 August 2013

美国曾经推翻的七个政府 The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown

美国曾经推翻的七个政府
The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown



一些国家领导人,无论是独裁者还是靠民选上台的人物,被夹在了美苏冷战中间——这一地位最终让他们丢掉乌纱(有些人甚至赔掉了性命),因为美国中央情报局试图把“他们的人”安置到国家元首的位置上。此后,美国政府已公开承认这些秘密行动的其中一些;事实上,中情局在1953年伊朗政变中发挥的作用本周刚刚解密。在其他事件中,中情局的参与仍然只是怀疑。
 
七个被推翻的政权在地图上所处的位置

在下面提到的七场成功的政变中,美国秘密参与遗留下来的问题使得美国的隐秘之手很容易就被说成是如今政治紧张局势中的可怕推手 (更不用说美国对敌对政权实施的系列军事干预、美国支持的叛乱武装集团以及暗杀未遂行动,其中包括用一支爆炸雪茄行刺菲德尔•卡斯特罗)。即使是现在,尽管美国在开罗的影响力减弱,但在埃及比比皆是的阴谋论仍声称,无论是穆斯林兄弟会还是军方支持的政府都是与美国同流合污的。

下面简短介绍一下已经得到证实的中情局在全球插手政变活动的案例。

 
1953年伊朗政变中下台的首相摩萨台

伊朗,1953年:虽然人们一直对中情局在1949年的那场让军政府在叙利亚上台的政变中所发挥的作用进行猜测,但是推翻伊朗首相穆罕默德•摩萨台是美国政府承认的最旱的冷战政变。1953年,当了近两年首相的摩萨台被赶下台,然后被捕,余生都遭到软禁。在就任首相期间,他挑战沙阿(伊朗国王)的权威,将以前由英国公司经营的伊朗石油业收归国有。根据刚刚解密的中情局撰写的这一行动的历史报告,“在冷战处于最高峰,美国在朝鲜卷入了一场未宣战的战争、着手对付苏联和中国支持的军队之时,伊朗可能会受到苏联侵略,迫使美国筹划和执行了TPAJAX(这次政变行动的代号)”。



 
 就任危地马拉总统时的哈科沃•阿本斯
 
危地马拉,1954年:尽筐美国最初支持危地马拉总统哈科沃•阿本斯——美国国务院认为,他利用美国训练和武装的军队而上位,这将是美国的资产——但当阿本斯尝试实施的一连串土地改革威胁到美国联合果品公司控制的非生产用地时,双方之间的关系变糟了。1954年的政变把阿本斯赶下台,接下来军政府取而代之。中情局参与推翻这位危地马拉领导人的机密细节在1999年遭披露,其中包括美国武装叛军和准军事部队,同时美国海军封锁了危地马拉海岸。




 
 刚果民主共和国首任总理帕特里斯•卢蒙巴 
 
刚果,1960年:在美国支持的比利时军队对刚果——后来的刚果(金)——进行的军事干预中,刚果首任总理帕特里斯•卢蒙巴被总统约瑟夫•卡萨武布罢黜,这一暴力干预的目的是为了在该国去殖民化运动之后维持比利时的商业利益。但 是卢蒙巴坚持武装抵抗比利时军队,在与苏联接触请求物资供应之后,他被中情局盯上了。中情局认定他对新成立的蒙博托政府构成威胁。美国在1975年成立了 一个由11名参议员组成的教会委员会,负责监督美国情报部门的秘密行动。该委员会发现,中情局“持续与那些表示想暗杀卢蒙巴的刚果人进行密切接触”,而且 “中情局官员鼓励并且向这些刚果人提供援助,帮助他们对付卢蒙巴”。在利用一条下了毒的手帕对卢蒙巴行刺未遂后,中情局把卢蒙巴的所在位置通报给刚果军队 并且指出需要封锁的道路和潜在的逃跑路线。卢蒙巴在1960年底被俘,并于次年1月被杀害。


 


前多米尼加共和国总统拉菲尔•特鲁希 

多米尼加共和国,1961年:拉菲尔•特鲁希略在多米尼加共和国实行了残暴的独裁统治,包括对生活在这个国家的 成千上万海地人进行种族清洗,以及试图对委内瑞拉总统行刺。最后,他遭到政治异见人士的伏击,一朝丧命。虽然向特鲁希略开枪的人坚持说,"没人让我去杀掉 他"但这位枪手事实上得到了中情局的支持。教会委员会发现,“形形色色的异见人士得到了物质上的支持,包括三支手枪和三支卡宾枪……美国官员知道这些异见 人士图谋推翻特鲁希略,或许是通过暗杀行动”。




 
前多米尼加共和国总统拉菲尔•特鲁希 
 
南越,1963年:美国在1963年时已经深深陷入南越的泥潭之中。随着该国领导人吴庭艳镇压佛教徒异见人士, 美国与吴的关系日益紧张。根据五角大楼的文件,在1963年8月23日,阴谋政变的南越将领们就他们的计划与美国官员接触。美国对此事忽冷忽热,又犹豫不 决了一段时间。这些将领最终在美国的支持下于当年的11月1日抓住并杀害了吴庭艳。根据一些描述,美国提供了4万美元的经费。五角大楼的文件声称“对于针 对吴庭艳的军事政变,美国必须承担其责任,从1963年8月开始,我们批准、认可和鼓励了越南将领的政变努力,并且表示全力支持一个继任政府……我们坚持 在政变的筹谋和实施阶段与他们秘密接触,谋求修改他们的行动计划,并就新政府提出建议。”



 
在军事政变中被推翻的巴西总统若昂•古拉特 
 
巴西,1964年:按美国大使林肯•戈登的话说,由于担心巴西总统若昂•古拉特的政府将会“使巴西成为20世纪60年代的中国”,美国在1964年支持了时任巴西军队参谋长的温贝托•卡斯特略•布兰科领导的政变。 在政变的前几天中情局鼓励举行反对政府的街头集会,向那些支持军方的人提供燃料和“非源自美国的武器”。根据美国国家安全档案馆获得的解密政府记录,时任 美国总统林登•约翰逊对筹划政变的顾问们说:“我认为,我们应该采取可以采取的每一个步骤,随时做好需要做的一切准备。” 巴西军方随后执掌大权直到1985年。

 

 
在政变中身亡的智利总统萨尔瓦多•阿连德 
 
智利,1973年:美国从来都不希望在1970年当选总统的社会主义者候选人萨尔瓦多•阿连德走马上任。理查德•尼克松总统对中情局说:“让(智利)经济惊声尖叫吧。”  中情局曾与三个智利集团携手合作,它们都在1970年阴谋对阿连德发动政变,但在中情局对其代理失去信心后,这些计划土崩瓦解。美国一直企图对智利经济进行 破坏,直到奥吉斯托•皮诺切特将军在1973年领导了一场针对阿连德的军事政变。中情局对1973年11月11日皮诺切特夺取大权的官方描述指出,该局 “意识到军方的政变阴谋,与一些阴谋者保持着情报收集关系,并且中情局不阻止权力接管,而且谋求在1970年煽动政变”。在皮诺切特1973年坐上头把交 椅之后,中情局还发动宣传攻势支持皮诺切特新政权,尽管他们知道他有严重的侵犯人权行径,包括杀害政治异见人士等。






 
英文原文:

The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown

Several national leaders, both dictators and democratically elected figures, were caught in the middle of the U.S.-Soviet Cold War -- a position that ultimately cost them their office (and, for some, their life) as the CIA tried to install "their man" as head of state. The U.S. government has since publicly acknowledged some of these covert actions; in fact, the CIA's role in the 1953 coup was just declassified this week. In other cases, the CIA's involvement is still only suspected.
 
The legacy of covert U.S. involvement in the seven successful coups below (not to mention a number of U.S. military interventions against hostile regimes and U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts, including a plan to kill Fidel Castro with an exploding cigar), has made the secret hand of the United States a convenient bogeyman in today's political tensions. Even now, despite waning U.S. influence in Cairo, conspiracy theories suggesting that both the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed government are in cahoots with the United States abound in Egypt.

Here's a brief history of the confirmed cases of the CIA's globe-spanning campaign of coups.
 
Iran, 1953: Despite continued speculation about the CIA's role in a 1949 coup to install a military government in Syria, the ouster of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh is the earliest coup of the Cold War that the U.S. government has acknowledged. In 1953, after nearly two years of Mossadegh's premiership, during which time he challenged the authority of the Shah and nationalized an Iranian oil industry previously operated by British companies, he was forced from office and arrested, spending the rest of his life under house arrest. According to the just-declassified CIA-authored history of the operation, "It was the potential ... to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression -- at a time when the Cold War was at its height and when the United Sates was involved in an undeclared war in Korea against forces supported by the U.S.S.R. and China -- that compelled the United States [REDACTED] in planning and executing TPAJAX [the code name of the coup operation]."

Guatemala, 1954: Though the United States was initially supportive of Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz -- the State Department felt his rise through the U.S.-trained and armed military would be an asset -- the relationship soured as Árbenz attempted a series of land reforms that threatened the holdings of the U.S.-owned United Fruit Company. A coup in 1954 forced Árbenz from power, allowing a succession of juntas in his place. Classified details of the CIA's involvement in the ouster of the Guatemalan leader, which included equipping rebels and paramilitary troops while the U.S. Navy blockaded the Guatemalan coast, came to light in 1999.

Congo, 1960: Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of the Congo (later the Democratic Republic of the Congo), was pushed out of office by Congolese President Joseph Kasavubu amid the U.S.-supported Belgian military intervention in the country, a violent effort to maintain Belgian business interests after the country's decolonization. But Lumumba maintained an armed opposition to the Belgian military and, after approaching the Soviet Union for supplies, was targeted by the CIA once the agency determined he was a threat to the newly installed government of Joseph Mobutu. The Church Committee, an 11-senator commission established in 1975 to provide oversight of the clandestine actions of the U.S. intelligence community, found that the CIA "continued to maintain close contact with Congolese who expressed a desire to assassinate Lumumba," and that "CIA officers encouraged and offered to aid these Congolese in their efforts against Lumumba." After an aborted assassination attempt against Lumumba involving a poisoned handkerchief, the CIA alerted Congolese troops to Lumumba's location and noted roads to be blocked and potential escape routes. Lumumba was captured in late 1960 and killed in January of the following year.

Dominican Republic, 1961: The brutal dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo, which included the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Haitians in the Dominican Republic and the attempted assassination of the president of Venezuela, ended when he was ambushed and killed by armed political dissidents. Though the gunman who shot Trujillo maintained that "Nobody told me to go and kill Trujillo," he did in fact have the support of the CIA. The Church Committee found that "Material support, consisting of three pistols and three carbines, was supplied to various dissidents.... United States' officials knew that the dissidents intended to overthrow Trujillo, probably by assassination..."

South Vietnam, 1963: The United States was already deeply involved in South Vietnam in 1963, and its relationship with the country's leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, was growing increasingly strained amid Diem's crackdown on Buddhist dissidents. According to the Pentagon Papers, on Aug. 23, 1963, South Vietnamese generals plotting a coup contacted U.S. officials about their plan. After some fits and starts plus a period of U.S. indecision, the generals seized and killed Diem on Nov. 1, 1963 with U.S. support, which by some accounts partially came in the form of $40,000 in CIA funds.

"For the military coup d'etat against Ngo Dinh Diem, the U.S. must accept its full share of responsibility," the Pentagon Papers state. "Beginning in August of 1963 we variously authorized, sanctioned and encouraged the coup efforts of the Vietnamese generals and offered full support for a successor government.... We maintained clandestine contact with them throughout the planning and execution of the coup and sought to review their operational plans and proposed new government."

Brazil, 1964: Fearing that the government of Brazilian President Joao Goulart would, in the words of U.S. Ambassador Lincoln Gordon, "make Brazil the China of the 1960s," the United States backed a 1964 coup led by Humberto Castello Branco, then chief of staff of the Brazilian army. In the days leading up to the coup, the CIA encouraged street rallies against the government and provided fuel and "arms of non-US origin" to those backing the military. "I think we ought to take every step that we can, be prepared to do everything that we need to do," President Lyndon Johnson told his advisors planning the coup, according to declassified government records obtained by the National Security Archive. The Brazilian military went on to govern the country until 1985.
 
Chile, 1973: The United States never wanted Salvador Allende, the socialist candidate elected president of Chile in 1970, to assume office. President Richard Nixon told the CIA to "make the [Chilean] economy scream," and the agency worked with three Chilean groups, each plotting a coup against Allende in 1970. The agency went so far as to provide weapons, but the plans fell apart after the CIA lost confidence in its proxies. U.S. attempts to disrupt the Chilean economy continued until Gen. Augusto Pinochet led a military coup against Allende in 1973. The CIA's official account of the seizure of power on Sept. 11, 1973, notes that the agency "was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and -- because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970 -- probably appeared to condone it." The CIA also conducted a propaganda campaign in support of Pinochet's new regime after he took office in 1973, despite knowledge of severe human rights abuses, including the murder of political dissidents.

 

建议华团一致张挂布条: “坚决拒绝《教育发展大蓝图》”!



建议华团一致张挂布条:
“坚决拒绝《教育发展大蓝图》”!
本工委会主席朱信杰将华团一致张挂《坚决拒绝教育发展大蓝图》布条的建议
交给董总署理主席邹寿汉

人民之友工委会主席詹玉兰和朱信杰偕同4位工委既吴振宇、钟立薇、Mohd Nasir bin Prayitno Thum及洪佩珊出席2013年8月25日在新山宽柔中学杨文富讲堂举行的“反对《2013–2025 年教育大蓝图》内不利于母语教育生存与发展的政策和措施”汇报会,并在出席者交流环节,由主席朱信杰代表本工委会向大会发言建议华团一致张挂“坚决拒绝《教育发展大蓝图》”布条,受到在场媒体和出席人士热烈反应。发言后,朱信杰也现场将这项建议的副本交给董总署理主席邹寿汉以及各大华文媒体记者。朱信杰当时发言的全文如下:

        我代表柔佛州人民之友工委会向各位关心母语教育党团人士分享一项建议,供大家参
        考。
     
        至今我们华教社团领导人给予《2013-2025年教育发展大蓝图》的回应,不外乎号召组织
        个人出席汇报会、响应签名运动、呈交备忘录等等。身在国外还罔顾公意的副首相兼教
        育部长慕尤丁,于三天前8月22日在曼谷告诉媒体,《教育大蓝图》下个月势在必行。面
        对巫统主导的国阵统治集团展示推行《教育大蓝图》的坚决立场,我们必须拿出真正的
        坚决意志来应对,否则只会招致失败。我们要怎样明确地向巫统主导的国阵政府表态
        呢?

        我们建议的标语口号是:“坚决拒绝《教育发展大蓝图》”。最低限度的做法是,我
        们包括董总、教总、各华小独中董事会、校友会、各发展华小工委会、华总和各个
        华人社团在各个华小、独中以及各个社团会所张挂写上这句口号的黑底白字布条,  
        希望最好以华、巫、淡三种语文明确表达这句口号。只要政府坚持《教育大蓝图》
        的一天, 我们就继续张挂布条。

        为了避免误会,特此澄清我们过去在大马人民之声新山支会组织单位之下活动,2013年
        起我们独立运作,在"SAHABAT RAKYAT",即人民之友的名义下展开活动。

        我们的建议简单明了,我们现在将这项建议的一份副本交给大会。谢谢关注。

朱信杰发言之后,邹寿汉表示这是好的建议。但是他没有具体地说明是否接受这项建议。我们希望他将有关建议提交到董总以及有关单位进行讨论,明确给予回应。


上图为朱信杰在出席者交流环节向讲台及会众发言。讲台上(由左至右)为当天汇报会
主讲人罗荣强法学博士、当天交流环节主持人董总秘书长傅振荃以及董总署理主席邹寿汉。


Friday, 16 August 2013

埃及政府血腥对付穆兄会 民主样板国家变支离破碎

埃及政府血腥对付穆兄会
民主样板国家变支离破碎



一个月前穆尔西的下台,在西方媒体眼中是一场“民主的胜利”,而今天,同样是西方媒体,开罗则成了不折不扣的“战区”。

英国《每日邮报》称,在穆尔西支持者和安全部队冲突数个星期后,这一最新暴力事件很有可能使埃及走向全面内战。担忧暴力失控的同时,西方也在叹息埃及“披了没几天的民主斗篷”被越撕越碎。

“这是一场大屠杀!”面对军警的强力清场,埃及穆兄会14日连续发出“哀嚎”般的控诉。穆兄会单方面宣称,军警清场造成2200人丧生。法新社一名记者称,在一处临时停尸房至少看到124具遇难者尸体。而英国天空电视台称,该台一名摄影师在冲突中遭射击身亡。

一位穆兄会成员说,政府安全部队全然不顾穆尔西支持者的和平静坐,而以荷枪实弹驱散他们

穆尔西支持者们在街头奔跑逃命

埃及穆尔西支持者们四处设置障碍物


另一方面,在军方及其支持者看来,他们已经对穆兄会做出最大限度的容忍,并对普通示威者“网开一面”。埃及卫生部称,已确认95人死亡,500多人受伤,死者包括数名警察和士兵。埃及内政部否认埃及军警射杀示威者,并强调在清场活动中仅使用了催泪瓦斯。

目前,埃及停驶了进出开罗的所有火车,埃及中央银行宣布关闭是为区域的所有分支机构,埃及旅游部长宣布,关闭包括埃及金字塔、埃及国家博物馆以及亚 历山大博物馆在内的多处旅游景点。埃及尼罗河电视台报道称,穆尔西支持者周三发动报复点燃埃及中部3座教堂,还袭击了东部的警察局和监狱,纵火焚烧了警察局。

“世界不能看着无辜的男女、儿童被残酷屠杀而坐视不管。国际社会必须在局面变得太晚无可挽回之前站起来抵制军事独裁的罪行。”面对军方的镇压,穆兄会14日通过声明呼吁国际社会介入。随后,西方国家也加入谴责埃及军警滥用武力的队伍。

政府清场行动中,一位穆兄会示威者抱住一位伤者

埃及一家医院里的一个受伤少年


各国政府表态谴责

美国白宫发言人欧内斯特14日发表声明,强烈谴责埃及当局对示威者使用暴力导致大量人员伤亡,再次呼吁埃及各方避免使用暴力并和平解决争端。

声明强调,美方曾反复呼吁埃及军方和安全部队保持克制,呼吁埃及临时政府尊重其公民普遍权利,同时敦促示威者以和平方式举行示威。声明说:“暴力只会使埃及更难走上持久稳定和民主的道路,而且与临时政府寻求和解的承诺直接背道而驰。”声明同时表示“强烈”反对埃及再次实施紧急状态。

联合国秘书长潘基文罕见地以“最强烈的措词”,谴责埃及安全部队的行动。

法国外交部发表声明指出,“最重要是停止暴力,保持冷静。法国呼吁各方尽最大的努力克制,对动用武力表示谴责。这场危机只能通过政治途径解决,需要 各方进行对话,寻求共识。”德国外长韦斯特韦勒表示,“我们呼吁所有的政治力量立即恢復对话,防止暴力升级。必须避免流血事件进一步发生。”

英国外交大臣黑格在声明中说:“我对埃及暴力和骚乱升级深表关切,我谴责在清除示威过程中使用武力,呼吁安全部队保持克制。”

民主样板国家变支离破碎

“今天,一个西方本想打造为阿拉伯国家民主转型样板的进程变得支离破碎。”世界报业辛迪加网站如此感叹对埃及局面的失望。报道称,埃及现在分裂为两 个无法调和的阵营,这既凸显也在加剧埃及所面临的问题。事实上,埃及现在基本成了一个无法管理的国家,只能靠外国施舍援助生存。埃及经济受投资撤离和游客剧减影响已经奄奄一息。德国财经网14日称,尼罗河上曾经的旅游王国,正在成为一个不可预知的国家,工业荒废,外国投资者纷纷离去。

Rabaa-al-Adawija广场一片废墟


埃及军方的一系列做法让支持它的美国等西方国家也越来越“看不懂”。《纽约时报》报道称,埃及临时政府13日任命25名省长,其中19人是前军队或警方将领。这引发外界担忧,人们担心埃及会退回到穆巴拉克的独裁时代。

军方的这种做法甚至招致穆尔西对立阵营、原军方一些支持者的批评,连“4月6日运动”这样的组织也反对政府的这些任命,该组织发表声明说:“政府要及时更正错误,否则我们不会袖手旁观”。光明党总书记贾拉勒认为,这样的任命是在恢复前朝的统治。美联社14日称,埃及革命组织和伊斯兰主义者团体都对大批军官和警官被任命为地方大员表示担忧,一些批评人士担心独裁的穆巴拉克旧政权正在回归。

只有疯子才将这种动荡称为民主进程

昨日,法新社以“埃及镇压激起全球愤怒”为题称,埃及的血腥镇压引发国际社会的广泛谴责。欧洲主要国家与伊朗、卡塔尔、土耳其一道强烈谴责过渡政府使用武力。卡塔尔“强烈谴责”临时政府对待示威者的方式。土耳其则敦促国际社会就埃及“屠杀”采取行动。“国际社会,特别是联合国安理会和阿拉伯联盟,必须立即行动,制止这种屠杀。”土耳其总理办公室在声明中说。伊朗也谴责埃及“屠杀”。在埃及颇有影响的爱资哈尔大教长塔伊布14日说,他事先并未得到当局 的清场预告,同时反对任何形式的暴力,呼吁各方立即停止对抗,实现全面和解。埃及临时副总统、国际原子能机构前总干事巴拉迪宣布辞职。

穆尔西支持者们包围装甲车

穆尔西追随者将一辆军车从桥上推下


血腥冲突会将埃及带向何方?英国《每日电讯报》14日称,随着穆兄会呼吁支持者走上街头,埃及的暴力事件将进一步使这个重要的阿拉伯国家更加不稳定,建立民主政府的希望更加渺茫。自2011年结束穆巴拉克30年独裁统治之后,埃及一直面临政治和经济动荡,这一人口最多的阿拉伯国家比以往任何时候都更加分裂。开罗的消息对于埃及、中东和西方决策者们而言都是一场灾难。亚历山大和三角洲地区的其他城镇也卷入灾难,西奈半岛已成为“圣战者”的温室。如果埃及也发生阿尔及利亚式的内战,这个拥有8000万人口的国家将面临一场巨大的灾难。美国《华尔街日报》称,埃及安全部门的强力清场将使早已对立的国家陷入无法控制的暴乱当中。

俄新网14日题为“大屠杀”的报道称,针对埃及警方采取的清场行动造成大量人员伤亡,俄国家杜马国际事务委员会主席普什科夫认为,埃及正在走向“伊 拉克爆炸式民主”道路。他表示,埃及的血腥混乱局势与伊拉克十分相似。在萨达姆倒台后,由于穆斯林什叶派和逊尼派间的矛盾日益加剧,该国不断发生大规模的爆炸事件,“只有疯子才将埃及这种动荡称为是民主进程”。



Thursday, 8 August 2013

Correct Evaluation of the standard-bearer of mother tongue education Contributions by Tan Lark Sye towards the establishment of Nanyang University

Correct Evaluation of the standard-bearer of 
mother tongue education

Contributions by Tan Lark Sye towards the 
establishment of Nanyang University

- An article in commemoration of Tan Lark Sye to be published in conjunction of the memorial gathering to be held by Nanyang University (Nantah) Alumni Worldwide in Ipoh


Tan Seng Hin (from the 6th Batch, Economics Faculty)

(This text is translated by Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee Editorial Board from the original Chinese version released in July 2013)

“Since Perak Nanyang University Alumni Association is organising the memorial gathering for the late Tan Lark Sye in Ipoh on Saturday and Sunday, 7 - 8 September, I would request that a resolution “that the revocation of Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship is an unjust political act, and the Singapore government must reinstate Tan’s citizenship” or words to that effect, be adopted at the gathering.

22 September 2013 is the 50th anniversary of the deprivation of Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship. After 50 years, assuming that Lee could heed this appeal for justice, perhaps this will be the best way for the alumni to promote Nantah’s spirit. It is also the best way to commemorate the late Tan and Nanyang University. I will always be with Nanyang University alumni in this endeavour!”


1. Referring to the "Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Passing of Tan Lark Sye" seminar, Singapore (2012)

The Nanyang University, founded in 1953, commenced classes in the year 1956. It was closed down by the Lee Kuan Yew ruling clique of Singapore in 1980. It has been 41 years since the passing of its founder Tan Lark Sye in 1972. Scholars, including the Nanyang University alumni, have authored articles and books about Tan Lark Sye and Nanyang University. However, their works are not up to the mark in the eyes of those authoritative scholars much appreciated and well trusted by those in power.

The Lee Kuan Yew ruling clique deprived Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship on the very day following the announcement of Singapore 1963 election results. He was forced to give up his position in Nanyang University's Executive Committee. From 1965 to 1979, gradual changes were made to Nanyang University in every aspect, including academic aspect, curriculum, enrolment, and the medium of instruction. Eventually it became an English university.

In 1980, the Nanyang University merged with the University of Singapore to form the National University of Singapore. The merger also ended the century-old Chinese education system in Singapore. (It was replaced by the new program known as "Special Assistance Plan" (SAP) in not more than 10 secondary schools. To suit the political need of the ruling party, the "Nanyang University" (also known as the Yunnan Garden) was changed to "Nanyang Technological Institute" (NTI) in 1982. Later, the NTI was upgraded to "Nanyang Technological University" (NTU). Thereafter, the change in the character and status of the Nanyang University was complete.

While the ruling clique succeeded in upgrading "NTI" to "NTU", it seemed to recognise "the Nantah Spirit" but with ulterior motives. Apart from seeking assistance from the Nantah alumni in the development of the new university, it proposed to add the Nantah Alumni into the list of the NTU. Their intention is clear: to achieve the desired "result of merging the past history of the “original” Nanyang University into the new university." Their attempt to rewrite the Nantah history ultimately met with failure. However, Lee Kuan Yew himself has never loosened up his grip on the issues relating to Tan Lark Sye and Nantah.

The Centre for Chinese Language and Culture (CCLC) of NTU began the "Nanyang University Historical Research" in 2001 from four aspects, namely, the founder of Nantah, the Nantah Students’ Union, Nantah relations with the government, and the leftist ideology in Nantah. An international conference on “National Boundaries & Cultural Configurations" was held by CCLC in 2004 where researchers presented their respective research findings. Then in 2006, CCLC published a book entitled "Ideals and Reality - A Study of Nanyang University (Nantah) Students Union (1956 - 1964)", written by Khe Su Lin. CCLC further published “Images of Nanyang University - from the Historical Perspective” edited by Lee Guan Kin in 2007. It was a compilation of papers written by several scholars. Last year (2012), CCLC published two important books at the same time, namely “The Relationship between Nanyang University and Singapore Government (1953-1968)” by Zhou Zhao Cheng, and “Tan Lark Sye and Nanyang University” by Lee Leong Sze.



The book "Tan Lark Sye and Nanyang University" was praised sky high as "groundbreaking academic works, and self-contained research system." The relevant authorities and authoritative scholars also held a special seminar entitled "Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Passing of Tan Lark Sye". In fact, it was a piece of political propaganda to "launch another attack against Tan Lark Sye and Nanyang University". The political overtone and motive of the above mentioned academic books and remarks are laid bare when they are examined together with the revelations made by Lee Kuan Yew in Chapter 3. Nanyang University 1956 - 1980 of his new book, "My Lifelong Challenge: Singapore's Bilingual Journey”, published less than a year before the seminar.

2. Tan Lark Sye is not only the founder of Nanyang University, but also the great standard-bearer of the movement struggling for the right to higher education using mother tongue of the Chinese community in South East Asia (mainly Singapore and Malayan Peninsula) from the 1950s to 1970s

Even though Tan Lark Sye being the founder of Nanyang University, is an indisputable historical fact, it is still being denied by some with ulterior motives. On the other hand, the world renowned historian, Yen Ching Hwang, a Nantah graduate, now living in Australia, categorically stated that, "The magnificent achievement of Tan Lark Sye establishing Nanyang University can be positioned in the history as such: 'there would be no Nanyang University without Tan Lark Sye; there would be no contribution to the nation building and development from more than ten thousand Nanyang University graduates to Singapore and Malaya (Malaysia), as well as their substantial contributions to the international academic community if not for Nanyang University" (page XV, "Preface by Yen Ching Hwang" “Tan Lark Sye and Nanyang University” by in Lee Leong Sze)

I personally feel that it is insufficient to merely acknowledge Tan Lark Sye as the founder of Nanyang University. He was also a great standard-bearer fighting for the right to higher education, using mother tongue during the period from 1950s to 1970s. My main arguments are as follows:

(1) Without Nanyang University, there would be no New Era College and Southern College [the former will be upgraded to university level, and the latter was upgraded this year (2013)]. They were established subsequently by the Chinese community in Peninsular Malaysia in line with the Nantah Spirit. Before the separation of Singapore and Malaysia, Nanyang University was originally the institute of higher learning of the Chinese education in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak;

(2) The New Era College and Southern University College can now be regarded as institutes of higher learning established as a result of the resistance of the Chinese community in Peninsular Malaysia against the mono-culturalism and ethnic assimilation. In other words, the two institutions of higher learning form an important component part of the mother tongue education in Peninsular Malaysia, comprising primary, secondary schools and institutes of higher learning;

(3) The establishment of Nanyang University by Tan Lark Sye with his unswerving faith and fighting spirit, was the shining model for the subsequent establishment of New Era College and Southern College. It was the model of Chinese community fighting for the right of survival and development of mother tongue education. From the historical perspective, Tan Lark Sye was indeed the great leader who fought for the use of mother tongue in the institute of higher learning as the main medium of instruction in South East Asia. He is on a par with Lim Lian Geok in stature. Lim Lian Geok was the most outstanding leader who was opposed to the "conversion of Chinese secondary schools to national-type secondary schools". Lim also "fought for the right to mother tongue education" in Peninsular Malaysia. Both figures were the great standard-bearers of the Chinese education movement of the last century in Singapore and Malaya. Their only difference is: Lim Lian Geok was just a commoner whereas Tan Lark Sye a multi-millionaire.

3. Tan Lark Sye was not merely a “prudent capitalist”, but also an icon of national capitalist class who courageously fought against the colonial government and suzerain state for the political, economic, language and cultural rights of the oppressed ethnic community.

Tan Lark Sye’s Biography Chronology, an article written by Tan Yam Seng (a Nanyang University graduate), indicated that Tan Lark Sye was born in 1987, in Jimei, Tong An Country, Fujian Province, China. Tan Kah Kee came from the same village. Tan Lark Sye was born into a poor family which earned its living by fishing and farming. In 1916, at the age of 20, he left his village and made his way to Singapore for a living. Tan Lark Sye started work in Tan Kah Kee’s rubber estate in Malaya. His capability soon impressed Tan Kah Kee, and he was promoted to assist in the operation of rubber trading business.

In 1923, Tan Lark Sye, together with his brother jointly started a firm “Lian Hoe (Lianhe) Rubber” enterprise. Two years later, he formed a company “Aik Hoe & Co Pte Ltd (Yihe Gongsi)” and embarked on his career in the business world from then onwards. He managed to become one of the top ten rubber industrialists in Singapore and Malaya within 10 years. Tan Lark Sye had been the chairman of Rubber Trade Association of Singapore since 1937. At the same time, he was also the chairman of Singapore Rubber Millers Association and then became the leader of rubber industry associations in Singapore and Malaya.

In 1950, Tan Lark Sye was elected chairman of the Chinese Chambers of Commerce Singapore, and also chairman of Hokkien Association. He remained as chairman of Hokkien Association until he passed away in 1972. Tan’s career as an industrialist peaked in 1950s when his rubber company reaped huge profits from the skyrocketed rubber price due to the Korean War. Tan diversified his business into financing, newspaper and insurance industries. He had also been appointed as the board chairman of Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC Bank), Chiyu Banking Corporation Limited Hong Kong and Nanyang Siang Pao. He, in turn his brother, served as board chairman of Asia Insurance Corporation Limited and the Asia Life Assurance Society Limited. [See Selected Papers in Commemoration of Tan Lark Sye's Birthday of Hundred Years (Chinese edition), 1997, pp. 143 – 174)]

The British colonial office made the following comment about Tan Lark Sye at that point of time: Tan Lark Sye was a prudent capitalist who was more interested in business than politics. This successful entrepreneur, who managed the international rubber trading business, started his business from scratch. However, in the eyes of the author of Tan Lark Sye and Nanyang University, he did not deserve admiration or respect. The author described Tan as “just a millionaire who was not highly educated and without any experience in founding universities.”

The author wanted others to believe that “because of Tan Lark Sye’s lack of experience in education, he neglected many relevant aspects. For example, Tan registered Nanyang University as a “Private Limited Company”. Hence, the government’s reluctance in recognising its degree”. “These problems, arising from the lack of overall planning and careful considerations, were raised in 2 reports, when the Nanyang University degree applied for recognition by the government”. (See the conclusion of chapter 7 in the same book, pages 202 and 207). Many scholars and Nanyang University alumni rebutted these nonsensical statements in their articles. [See History of Nanyang University column in Singapore Insight website (www.sginsight.com).]

My personal opinion is, Tan Lark Sye was not merely “a prudent capitalist”, but he was also an icon of national capitalists who fought dauntlessly against the British colonial government and suzerain state for the political, economic, language and cultural rights of the oppressed ethnic community. My main arguments in favour of this view are:

1) Tan Lark Sye, because of his personal experience and the misfortune of the Chinese community, realised that the people under colonial rule must have the right to political participation, in order to change their destiny. He urged the Chinese community to fight for the right to citizenship and the right to political participation. In February 1951, Tan, as chairman of the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, represented the Chinese in submitting a memorandum to the colonial government. The memorandum demanded the relaxing of the citizenship’s terms and conditions for non-English speaking Chinese. He persisted in his struggle and re-submitted the memorandum in February 1952.

When the British colonial government published the “Report of the Rendel Commission” in 1953, Tan Lark Sye led the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, and organised 200 thousand voters to participate actively in the election activities and exercise their sacred rights. The Chinese Chambers of Commerce with the support of the masses finally forced the Parliament of Singapore to pass the Citizenship Act in July 1957. As a result, 220 thousand people who had been residing in Singapore for more than 8 years were granted citizenship that was long overdue to them.

Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that Lee Kuan Yew returned from Britain to Singapore and became a lawyer in 1950 – 1959. He then became the legal adviser of several unions. He entered the political arena only when he was elected Secretary General of the People’s Action Party (PAP). The party was only officially formed in November 1954.

2) Soon after World War II, Singapore and Malaya were under military rule by the British. Rubber became a controlled item, and rubber trade was monopolized by the British. All rubber traders were forced to sell rubber at a low price to some organisations from London. The traders were not allowed to trade rubber freely in the market. Tan Lark Sye once again urged the government to lift the control. He managed to force the British colonial government to lift the control on the New Year day in 1947. The price of rubber rose gradually after free trading was allowed to resume.

In 25 June 1950, the Korean War broke out. America and China were involved in the war until the war ended on 27 July 1953. Rubber was an important strategic material. European countries and the former Soviet Union were competing against each other to procure rubber for hoarding purposes. This caused the price of rubber soared, and rubber traders made handsome profit out of it. In the whole decade of 1950’s after the War, “Aik Hoe” (owned by Tan Lark Sye) and “Lee Rubber” (owned by Lee Kong Chian) were regarded as “The Two Giants of Nanyang Rubber”.

Tan Lark Sye and Lee Kong Chian resisted and even broke the control and monopoly of rubber industry in Singapore and Malaya. They fought to shift the international rubber trading centre from the consumer nations [London and New York] to Malaya (the producer) and Singapore (the exporter). They acted in the interests of national capitalists that they represented, and also in the interests of the broad masses of the Colony. These are the great efforts and invaluable contributions made by Tan Lark Sye and Lee Kong Chian as national capitalists towards the development of economy in Singapore and Malaya.

3) In 1954, only English language was allowed to be used in the Singapore Legislative Assembly. Tan Chin Tuan, the assemblyman as well as a representative of the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, raised a motion to remove the language restriction in the Legislative Assembly. In January 1951, Tan Lark Sye led the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, and mobilised all organisations and the masses to launch a signature campaign, to demand for the Chinese and other languages of various ethnic groups to be accepted for use in the Assembly. They managed to obtain more than 100 thousand signatures in the campaign.

When the British Colonial Secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd came to Singapore from London on 15 August 1955, the Chinese Chambers of Commerce together with the commercial bodies under its wing led a group of 1,600 people to present a petition to Lennox-Boyd at the Kallang Airport. They carried banners. Lennox-Boyd advised that the local government had the authority to resolve the problem. On 9 February 1954, the Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to allow the use of English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil in the Assembly. Tan Lark Sye was resolute in the strife for the use of languages of various ethnic communities in the Assembly. Though no longer chairman of the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, he was still an important driving force in the struggle for multi-lingualism in the Assembly.

Tan Lark Sye’s struggle for multi-lingualism in the Assembly is very much in line with his actions and stand taken in handling the problems relating to the founding of Nanyang University, where he upheld Chinese language as the medium of instruction while resisting the attempts to turn Nanyang University into an English university. He also insisted the participation of society in university's affairs and refused to give in to any government control.

Tan Lark Sye’s position and action towards the British colonial government in striving for using multi-languages in the Assembly is very much in line with his actions and stands in dealing with the problems of founding Nanyang University. Among others are his persistency in peoples’ participation, safe-guarding Chinese as the teaching and learning medium, objecting the government’s control and domination, and objecting Nanyang University from becoming an English-medium university.

4. Tan Lark Sye was merely a national capitalist who dared to fight for democratic rights by legal means. But Lee Kuan Yew regarded him as “a Chinese chauvinist millionaire who supported communists”, and deprived him of his citizenship by accusing him of “being used by the Communist Party to carry out anti-national activities”. This is only a form of political repression of national capitalists, long-premeditated by Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee Kuan Yew’s ruling clique deprived Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship the day immediately after the 1963 Singapore General Election result was released (on 22 September). The reason given by the government was that “Tan Lark Sye had actively and persistently collaborated with an active anti-national group of communists. They were the agitators of Singapore Chinese Middle Schools Students’ Union which came under the control of the Communist Party. He had openly and blatantly intervened in these elections by signing statements drafted by these communists standing as Barisan Sosialis candidates denouncing the government.”

In the past 50 years, none of the pro-establishment scholars could justify the legitimacy of Lee Kuan Yew’s arbitrary action in revoking Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship. Lee Leong Shi, the author of the book “Tan Lark Sze and Nanyang University”, came to the conclusion that, “from the information that I have gathered so far, Tan Lark Sye did not have close relationship with the Communist Party. In the eyes of the colonial government, Tan was simply a capitalist who was more interested in business than politics. A year after Tan lost his citizenship, a statement entitled ‘Communism in the Nanyang University’ released by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Malaysia did not name Tan as the fellow traveller of the Communist Party either.” (P.209).

Lee Leong Shi remarked that “Tan Lark Sye took the risk, as he was so desperate about saving the Chinese education. He really hoped that by his influence, and by Nanyang University students’ power, he could reverse the entire political situation, in the hope of saving Nanyang University and even the Chinese education. However, PAP won the election and Tan paid the price of losing his citizenship and being forced to relinquish his control over Nanyang University. This was the price he had to pay for his adventurous behaviour." I am of the view that such comment is far from being academic, sheer superficial rhetoric, to please the ruling clique.

In The Singapore Story – Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew published in 1998, Lee stated that “The 1963 Election was a watershed for the communists. Soon after the results, two Barisan candidates who won – Chan Sun Wing, my former parliamentary secretary, and Wong Soon Fong, who had subverted the Works Brigade – dived underground. They must have expected to be picked up the moment the Barisan lost. But for the moment our sights were elsewhere. We had decided to make an example of prominent figures who had acted as front men for the communists, believing that their wealth and standing in the Chinese-speaking community gave them immunity. Number one on the list was Tan Lark Sye, then honorary president of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the founder of Nanyang University. I had made a mental note to deal with him when the government had the political strength. Now we no longer needed to tolerate his spouting the communist line in the press, using his position in the business world as a shield.”(P. 511)

The abovementioned self-admission made by Lee Kuan Yew and the relevant historical facts have verified the following:

(1) In 1959, Singapore anti-colonial movement brought PAP to power, and Lee Kuan Yew became the prime minister. Soon after that, PAP turned anti-people and anti-democracy. The trade union leaders headed by Lim Chin Siong decided to part company with Lee Kuan Yew. They left PAP in 1961 to form Barisan Sosialis Singapore (BSS). In 1962, Singapore labour-dominated forces saw unprecedented development. The labour movement under the leadership of Lim Chin Siong was seen as a thorn in Lee Kuan Yew's flesh, as Barisan Sosialis had become the 'rival' of PAP in a bid to take over the political power from the British colonial government.

Late 1980: Lee Kuan Yew instructed to remove the characters
"南洋大学" (Nanyang University) from the arch.
(Image source: sginsight website)
(2) In 1963, more than a hundred leaders and cadres of left-wing organisations were arrested in the Operation Cold Store. In fact, that was a massive crackdown on Singapore left-wing forces (mainly trade union leaders and trade unions headed by Lim Chin Siong) by the Singapore ruling clique in collaboration with the British colonial government and the ruling clique from Malaya. The operation was to ensure that the ruling clique headed by Lee Kuan Yew would continue to be in power by way of winning the Singapore General Election in September that year. Obviously Lee wanted those he suspected to be "communists" and dissidents to disappear from the Singapore political arena altogether. For half a century, Lee has been arrogant and complacent about his achieving his ideal.

(3) After the detention of Lim Chin Siong and other left-wing trade union leaders, and the deployment of political repression of left-wing unions, Lee could not wait to revoke Tan Lark Sye's citizenship. By doing so, Lee compelled Tan Lark Sye to quit Nanyang University Executive Committee [so that the government could gain full control of Nanyang University and turn it into a government-run English university], but it was more out of political consideration. This drastic action served as a warning to the other national capitalists. Clearly, it was designed to see that the capitalists would be subservient to the ruling clique, so that the political elites could carry out their big plans for amassing wealth for themselves.

Does the drastic action taken by Lee against the capitalist class as represented by Tan Lark Sye reflect the anti-people and anti-democratic nature of the ruling clique? Has Lee realised his ideal country that matches his concept in the political, economic, linguistic, cultural and other fields? I believe the vast majority of Nanyang University alumni and the Chinese community have already got the answer, and history of the people will give him a fair judgment in due course.

5. The revocation of Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship is an unjust political act, and the Singapore government must reinstate his citizenship for the purpose of doing justice to Tan Lark Sye, his family and the Chinese community!

In conclusion, the revocation of Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship is an unjust political act, and the Singapore government must reinstate his citizenship for the purpose of doing justice to Tan Lark Sye, his family and the Chinese community!

Some members of Nanyang University Alumni have individually published articles calling for reinstating Tan’s citizenship. However, we have yet to come across any one out of the 11 Nanyang University Alumni Associations the world over, that will release an official statement on this issue. Worse still, the bi-annual global reunion functions organised by the Nanyang University Alumni Associations all over the world have yet to make a fair and just appeal for reinstating Tan’s citizenship, even though 13 reunion functions have already been conducted so far. This is highly regrettable.

Since Perak Nanyang University Alumni Association is mobilizing the alumni worldwide to join the memorial gathering for the late Tan Lark Sye in Ipoh on Saturday and Sunday, 7 - 8 September this year, I would request that a resolution “that the revocation of Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship is an unjust political act, and the Singapore government must reinstate Tan’s citizenship” or words to that effect, be adopted at the gathering.

22 September 2013 is the 50th anniversary of the deprivation of Tan Lark Sye’s citizenship. After 50 years, assuming that Lee could heed this appeal for justice, perhaps this will be the best way for the alumni to promote Nantah’s spirit. It is also the best way to commemorate the late Tan and Nanyang University. I will always be with Nanyang University alumni in this endeavour!

(June 2013, Johore Bahru, Malaysia)


Note: The author is also known as Tan Sin or Chen Xin. He is also the present Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee Member.

中国官员在新加坡学不到未来

中国官员在新加坡学不到未来

作者/来源: 魏峰 / 观察者网 (中国)

新加坡
新加坡是中国以外唯一华裔占多数的国家,再加上陈嘉庚先生等老一代南洋华侨遗泽,大多数中国人或多或少,都对它有过特殊关注。自独立以来,新加坡经济高速发展,成为了继日本之后第二个进入发达国家行列的亚洲国家,去年人均GDP达5万美元,高居世界前十,确实成绩斐然。再加上新加坡自独立以来,一直由人民行动党一党执政,政局相当稳定,被称为威权与市场的完美结合范例。于是,无论海内海外,许多舆论都声称,新加坡与中国的体制接近且更为完美,最适合中国参照模仿。众多中国官员纷纷赴新加坡留学,学习执政经验。据不完全统计,已有3万名中高层官员去过新加坡。但是,他们能学到什么呢?

不必羡慕新加坡的经济发展

新加坡模式最拿得出手的就是其经济成就。这一点当然不可否认。但是,新加坡是个地地道道的小国,面积仅700平方公里,人口不过300万,还不到中国一个较小的地级市。它的地理位置得天独厚,早在独立前就是整个东南亚经济的中心枢纽,拥有当时亚洲最好的基础设础,甚至超过欧洲的平均水准。李光耀之流一再暗示新加坡过去是一个既落后又孤立的破败城市,纯粹是为了树立家族独裁的神话。独立后新加坡摆脱了英国对于殖民地的榨取和压制,人民习性勤劳,又没有偏远地区需要扶助,不出现经济腾飞恐怕才是奇闻。

这些条件对于绝大多数国家来说,根本就无法学习和模仿,而且如果以单纯的城市来比较,深圳在三十年前还是一个默默无闻的小渔村,现在已是现代化的特大城市,发展速度比新加坡更快数倍。无论比哪方面,深圳经验都远比新加坡经验更加辉煌,中国官员又何必舍近而求远呢?


1900年的新加坡
如果说这种理论争论还比较空泛,眼前还有更实实在在的案例。

1994年,正因为仰慕所谓新加坡经验,中国决定与新加坡共同合作开发苏州工业园区,并将园区的大多数股权,和负实际运营管理权全部交给了新加坡方面。但新加坡人很快就让中国失望了,园区年年亏损不说,建设和招商成果也始终诸多不利。亏到1999年,两国政府经过长期谈判签订了新的备忘录,从2001年起将多数股权和运营管理权转交给中方,结果从2001年当年开始,园区即扭亏为盈,发展更是一日千里,成为了全国著名的工业开发区之一。现在这个开发区的人均GDP是4万美元。

如果实践确实是检验真理的标准,那么苏州工业园区的经验就不否质疑的证明了,所谓的新加坡经验,即使在其最擅长的经济领域,在中国也不见得能比得上“土经验”。

新加坡的社会政策学不了,也不能学

新加坡公认最好的施政是其以组屋——即(中国的)经济适用房和廉租房——为核心的住房政策,这也是人民行动党能够长期执政,在经济和社会因素上的最关键原因。

但这套政策别人也很难直接套用。

1966年新加坡制定了强制征用土地的法律,开始时新加坡只有44%的土地为国家所有,到1985年,仅建屋发展局就已经拥有新加坡近75%的土地资源,而新加坡政府直到1995年才开始按市场价格向原主人提供补偿(这里的“市场价格”仍是只指征用前的原值,土地使用状况变化导致的升值不予考虑)。低廉的土地成本是新加坡能有财力大规模建设组屋的关键,而只要看看我们国内主流媒体对于“钉子户”们的无条件支持,就能想见,中国政府也如此效法的话,会有多快就被唾沫所淹没。

如果说住房政策还只是很难学,新加坡的社保政策就是根本不能学,也不应学。

李光耀是一个完完全全的社会达尔文主义者,他和人民行动党一直挂在嘴上的原则就是,绝不允许新加坡变成一个高福利国家,绝不能让人民偷懒。如果仅仅是反对欧洲式的高福利,这话当然不能说就是错的。但实际上,新加坡的社保原则是政府不为基本的养老、医疗、失业及救贫保障花一分钱。以世界人均第十的经济高度发达国家水准,新加坡却存在大量70甚至更高龄以上的老人要工作糊口,而且往往是从事体力劳动才能养活自己。2012年一位80岁的老人在做清洁工作的菜场里猝死,震惊全国,但新加坡政府却依旧毫无反应——累死老人本来就是新加坡财政得以维持的前提。


辛勤工作的新加坡老人
新加坡唯一覆盖大多数国民的社保制度就是中央公积金,相当于他国住房、养老、医疗、失业等所有社保项目的总和,但与其它国家都不同的是,新加坡公积金要由个人缴纳大头,一般占工资的20%,而雇主缴纳的比例大多只在13%-15%间。以上海作为对比,同样的住房、养老、医疗、失业等社会保险,个人缴纳比例为18%,而雇主为44%。而新加坡政府本身,对公民是没有救济帮扶责任的。

这些难道也是大多数中国人希望的未来方向吗?

至于在劳资关系和财富分配上,新加坡更是从来赤裸裸的完全倾向于雇主和富人,它的人均GDP已经超过了欧美大多数国家,但普通工薪阶层的收入要差很大一截。如果不是住房问题解决的比较好,如果不是新加坡实在太小,抬抬脚就能到物价较低的马来西亚、印度尼西亚消费娱乐,甚至看病、养老,对于大多数身处中下层的新加坡人来说,这个“第一世界”实在没有什么意义。

新加坡的“廉洁牌”很虚假

对于“新加坡模式”来说,新加坡的廉洁度一直是最大的王牌。李光耀、李显龙和人民行动党也一直以此夸赞自己的操守和能力举世罕见。应该承认,新加坡的吏治,尤其是对中下层公务员的管理,有着相当出色的一面。严格的职权划分,清晰的办事流程、详细的法律规章,加上超级优厚的薪水及福利(注1),让这些老百姓最经常接触的政府人员,既难以贪腐索贿,也没有多少必要贪腐索贿。这方面的经验确实值得学习和借鉴。


但是,对于在政治和经济事务上真正拥有自由裁量权的新加坡高官,也就是人民行动党高层来说,所谓的制约制衡几乎完全就是装装门面。他们和他们的家族、亲朋,早就完全占据了新加坡政治、经济乃至社会关键职位,几乎整个国家实际都已经是他们的,个个可以完全合法的大发其财。用拙劣的手段贪污一点小钱,非不能也,只是不屑罢了。

就以吴作栋为例,他任总理时的年薪是一百多万新元(600万人民币),还自称因为只有这份收入,所以自己实际是世界上最穷的总理之一,但他太太陈子玲的一次无心之语却把他家的实际财力水准捅破了。

2005年新加坡最大的慈善机构全国肾脏基金会NKF,爆发主席杜莱(Durai)滥用善款丑闻,此案堪称新加坡的郭美美事件(注2),只不过杜莱被抓到的是直接用善款给自己发高薪和各种奢侈享受。陈子玲是NKF当时的三位名誉赞助人之一,但她在亲自听审后却公开表示杜莱行事除了不太透明外,并无其它不妥,还向记者发表了一句著名的话,大意是象杜莱这样掌管机构千万财产的人来说,年薪60万新元(超过300万人民币)只是“一粒花生”(a peanut)。将相当于普通新加坡人15年的收入,丈夫半年的“唯一收入”,随口比喻为一粒花生,可以想见对于人民行动党高层人士的家族来说,正式的 “养廉”高薪到底是个什么地位了。

而新加坡著名的反贪局,看似威风凛凛、权限无边,其实没有得到高层允许,对于与人民行动党关系密切的重要人士根本不敢过问。1995年新加坡房地产大热,许多人半夜排队买楼,而李光耀父子向一家HPL公司(Hotel Property Limited)购楼时,不但直接优先购买,还获得了HPL公司超过百万元的回扣。1996年此事被意外曝光,引起新加坡人的广泛非议,但号称只要知道公务员收到一元好处也要调查的反贪局却丝毫没有动作,而任由李光耀的直接属下组织了一个小组草草调查即告了事。后来有人发现,接受HPL公司购房回扣的高官及亲属还远不止李家父子,而且都是在同一天。调查小组接受的HPL所谓“回扣是感谢李家父子的广告作用”说,对此根本无法解释,但新加坡从反贪局到媒体,上上下下完全对此不发一词。

新加坡贪污调查局大门
事实上,由于新加坡严苛到极点的反诽谤法律,和更可怕的内安法,一般人即使在私下交谈中,也不敢轻易语涉高层人士有不良行为,而媒体对这种问题也几乎不会加以任何报道。不准问,不准谈,更不准查,自然个个高官和他们的亲朋好友们都是两袖清风、一芥不取的完美君子。

又比如那位NHF的前主席杜莱,直到丑闻爆发后,新加坡精英层还坚持他行事虽有不当,但绝无违法行径。可由于他名声已经太臭,公愤迟迟难以平息,最后终于失去了高层保护,结果略一调查,马上被查出了原来早就利用职权,在工程发包中接受多家公司贿赂。新加坡几十年来所谓著名反腐大案,几乎无不是这样的模板——原来被吹嘘为操行楷模的精英,一失去了高层的庇荫,立即就被发现原来是隐藏极深的大腐败分子。成为媒体吹嘘不论任何显要,在新加坡都有不得一点腐败的新证据。

当然,对于一般的中下层公务员们涉嫌腐败,反贪局和其它机构的调查积极性和力度确实可观,这种贪腐等于是家奴在偷窃和破坏新加坡统治者们的私产,当然要从重从快的严惩不贷。

新加坡的政治没有任何借鉴价值

对于新加坡的政治体制,一般被认为是在西式选举民主制下实质威权化。偶有学术争论,也无非是探讨民主多一些,还是威权多一些。

在笔者看来,这若非人云亦云,就是不敢得罪新加坡的欺人之谈。新加坡的政治实质,是李光耀家族和人民行动党,利用各种手段造成人民疑惑甚至恐惧,来维持自己的绝对统治地位。人民行动党不仅利用自己的执政优势,在规则制定上最大限度削弱反对派的获胜可能。而且更使用大量为人不齿的手段来打击反对派,甚至将其重要人物直接从新加坡的政治舞台上消除出去。这些准恐怖手段包括但不限于:

1、设置集选区,不断变动选区范围,分化反对派的支持群体;

2、只设置极短的竞选时间,划定极小的范围和方式,让反对派没有时间和渠道,与选民接触交流;

3、严格控制媒体,只传递对人民行动党有利,于反对派不利的信息;

4、强制在本区投票,在选票上设置号码,与选民对应,向选民施加心理压力;

5、以房屋翻修先后次序等政府资源,威胁利诱选民;

6、利用警察、税务等强力机构,整治反对派人士,威胁潜在反对者;

7、控制法院,滥告“诽谤”,判罚巨款,将反对派领袖和骨干整垮,威慑其他人不敢提出批评;

8、动用内安法等殖民时代留下的严苛法令,直接摧残对手的身心。

这些,哪一项都与中国现行体制和法律格格不入,更与共和国几代领导集体遵循人民的共同意愿,建立和完善社会主义民主和法制的理想、努力完全背道而驰,哪里有半分值得参考、借鉴的价值。除非中国的官员想建立一个为统治而统治的极权国家。否则完全没必要去进口这些二手的殖民地镇压经验。

李光耀和人民行动党为了确保政权,其很多所作所为,即使放在文革里比较,都会让人觉得触目惊心,难以置信。西方把他们的体制说成与中国现在相似,甚至引诱、鼓励向其学习,用心用意其实是非常恶毒的,一旦中国入套,承认确与新加坡类似,还认真的去学习借鉴。他们只要把新加坡的政治真相全部抖在光天化日之下,中国体制的名声和信誉,也就会不可挽回的全盘崩溃,受到大多数人长久的厌恶和恐惧。甚至等不到外人说话,中国人民自己就会丧失对体制的一切信心。


政治、经济、社会、人口、地理,新加坡的方方面面,都与中国有着天壤之别,所谓经验,不是难以仿效,就是令人厌恶,这种的“模板”还是敬谢不敏的好。而自建国以来,中国凡是把某个或几个外国当成模板,结果都是东施效颦,学苏联,学西方还是如此,今天去学什么新加坡必定还是如此。无论是建国,还是改革开放,实践都证明,只有按着中国自己的条件,开辟自己的道路,才是实现民族伟大复兴,实现中国梦的唯一正途。抄捷径的思想万万再要不得了。
_______________________________________

注1:新加坡的公务员分为超级和1~4级五大级别,《2011年新加坡薪资指南》报告显示,2011年,处于顶级,即部长,副部长级别的领导月薪范围分别为14.6万新元至16.5万新元,及10.6万新元至14.6万新元。而处于最低级别的管理执行岗位给予应届生的月薪达2800新元。同期,15至24岁,拥有本科学历以上的新加坡国民的平均月薪仅为2600新元。而且新加坡公务员的收入,还包括年终奖金,业绩花红(经济不景气年份会停发)。另外,还有一项很重要的隐性补贴,如上文中曾提到,新加坡雇主缴纳的公积金一般在13-15%之间,但政府为公务员缴纳的比例却是20%。


注2:NHF丑闻,2004年《海峡时报》在报道中提到NHF主席杜莱购买金水龙头装修自己的办法室,杜莱声称受到诽谤而控告海峡时报的母公司新加坡报业控股集团。但2005年开庭时,报业控股聘用的新加坡著名大律师文达星以攻为守,当庭迫使杜莱承认了他的实际薪水高达60万新元,用公款供养私车,虚报NHF数据等行为,引发新加坡社会的震怒。
________________________________________

Thursday, 1 August 2013

现在的人民行动党政府理应 平反陈六使并恢复其公民权

现在的人民行动党政府理应
平反陈六使并恢复其公民权

作者 / 来源:wangruirong (王瑞荣)/ 人民论坛(新加坡)

【注】上述标题是人民之友部落格编者根据原意加以改写的。原标题是《现在的行动党政府有义务和责任就李光耀时代政治迫害陈六使老先生的历史进行平凡并恢复他的公民权!!》

陈六使老先生是东南亚为维护和延续5千年中华文化、为新加坡华文教育和华族文化的生存个人做出巨大牺牲的老一辈华人的典范!
陈六使老先生是领导新加坡华族同胞捍卫新加坡华文、华文教育和华族语言的核心领导者!
陈六使老先生的伟大精神在于他在面对李光耀政权的专横迫害面前不向李光耀拱手妥协!
这是作为新加坡华族的后代、华文教育的后代子孙必须永远铭记在心中的!
任何人今天在谈论维护华文教育、延续华族文化传统的时候,不需要因为李光耀还活着而恐惧颂扬陈六使老先生为新加坡和东南亚华族和华族文化做出不可磨灭的伟大功勋!
任何人在谈论陈六使老先生对南洋大学作出伟大贡献时,不需要因为李光耀还活着而恐惧说出当年李光耀为了个人的政治野心,迫害陈六使老先生的历史真相!
李光耀当年对陈六使老先生的一切指责,包括陈六使老先生为维护华文教育的生存、为维护南洋大学、为保护南洋大学的莘莘学子的安全,个人付出了巨大的牺牲的历史必须获得平反!
这是鉴别谁是真正热爱新加坡的华文教育、挽救日益没落的华族文化的一块试金石!
任何人在推动新加坡的华文教育和华族文化时,大肆颂扬李光耀对新加坡的华族文化和华族优良传统是做的任何‘贡献’,哪怕是‘微不足道’的贡献!这些人不是李光耀圈养的华族败类,就是李光耀消灭华文教育和华族文化的帮凶!他们现在在为即将入殓的李光耀进行涂脂抹粉的目的只有一个:就是要让后人相信,李光耀不是为了个人的政治目的消灭南洋大学、就是要让后人相信,当年李光耀指责陈六使老先生是‘共产党的同情者’、因此,剥夺了陈六使老先生的公民权是正确的!
在李光耀的维权统治时代对新加坡的华文教育和华族文化的摧残和消灭已经是一个不可争辩的历史罪行!
我们不需要李光耀圈养的那些披着所谓‘研究新加坡华文、华文教育发展的历史学者和御用文人’为南洋大学的历史问题进行任何的论证!
我们也不需要李光耀圈养的那些披着所谓‘推动华族文化、弘扬华族传统’的主流媒体的人民行动党党棍、文棍和御用文人拿着李光耀施啥的‘推动华族文化和弘扬华族传统的捐款基金’为李光耀进行歌功颂德!
今天在我们缅怀和纪念陈六使老先生的时刻,我们呼吁全体华族同胞和自己的父辈是华文教育的后代,我们必须要求现有人民行动党政府:立即无条件为陈六使老先生进行历史的平反!——恢复陈六使老先生的公民权!
今天在我们缅怀和纪念陈六使老先生的时刻,我们呼吁全体华族同胞和华文教育的后代,我们必须要求人民行动党政府:正确和实事求是的恢复对陈六使老先生在推动新加坡的华文教育和华族文化所作出的不可磨灭的伟大功勋记载!
今天在我们缅怀和纪念陈六使老先生的时刻,我们呼吁全体华族同胞和华文教育的后代,我们必须要求人民行动党政府:必须对当年关闭南洋大学以及改制新加坡的华校中小学的决定是错误的作出公开道歉!
在李光耀威权统治时期所犯下的华文教育和摧毁华族优良的文化传统给新加坡的华族造成的历史事实已经是不可挽回了!这是李光耀一手造成的!
现在的人民行动党政府与过去这段历史没有直接的关系!但是,作为一个声称要面对现实的人民行动党现有领导完全有义务和责任,就李光耀迫害陈六使老先生的历史问题作出平反!完全有义务和责任恢复陈六使老先生的公民权!

相关链接:
1、正确评价民族教育旗手 陈六使创办南大的功劳
2、800南大校友匯集追思‧陳六使紀念會9月舉行

通告 Notification

人民之友 对我国下届大选意见书
(华 巫 英)3种语文已先后贴出

作为坚守“独立自主”和“与民同在”的立场的一个民间组织,人民之友在今年9月24日对即将来临的第14届全国大选投票,发表了一篇以华文书写的“意见书”,题为:投票支持"反对国家伊斯兰化的候选人": 反对巫统霸权统治!莫让马哈迪帮派"复辟"!

这篇意见书的英文译稿(标题是:Vote for “candidates who are against State Islamisation”: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent “the return to power of Mahathir’s faction”!)已于10月22日张贴在本部落格。马来文译稿(标题是:Undilah "calon yang membantah pengislaman negara": Menentang pemerintahan hegemoni UMNO! Mencegah puak Mahathir kembali kepada kuasa!)也已接着在11月13日在此贴出。

此外,人民之友也将通过电子邮件、微信、WhatsApp等方式,尽可能向全国各民族、各阶层、各行业、各宗教的团体和个人,传送我们的这份“意见书”供参考。我们欢迎跟我们对下届大选的立场和见解一致的团体和个人,将这份“意见书”传送到更多的人手中去!

我们希望,我们在意见书内所表达的对下届大选的立场和观点,能够准确而又广泛地传播到我国各民族、各阶层的人民群众中接受考验,并接受各党派在这次全国大选斗争和今后实践的检验。


Pandangan Sahabat Rakyat terhadap PRU akan datang telah diterbitkan dalam tiga bahasa (Melayu, Cina dan Inggeris)

Sebagai sebuah pertubuhan masyarakat yang berpendirian teguh tentang prinsip "bebas dan berautonomi" dan “sentiasa berdampingan dengan rakyat jelata”, Sahabat Rakyat telah menerbitkan kenyataan tentang pandangan kami terhadap Pilihan Raya Umum ke-14 yang bertajuk "Undilah calon yang menentang Pengislaman Negera: Menentang pemerintahan hegemoni UMNO! Jangan benarkan puak Mahathir kembali memerintah! " (投票支持"反对国家伊斯兰化的候选人": 反对巫统霸权统治!莫让马哈迪帮派"复辟"!)dalam Bahasa Cina pada 24hb September 2017.

Penterjemahan Bahasa Inggeris kenyataan tersebut yang bertajuk Vote for “candidates who are against State Islamisation”: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent “the return to power of Mahathir’s faction”! telah diterbitkan dalam blog kita pada 22hb Oktober 2017 manakala penterjemahan Bahasa Melayu telah diterbitkan pada 13hb November 2017.

Selain daripada itu, Sahabat Rakyat juga akan menyebarkan kenyataan ini seluas mungkin kepada pertubuhan dan individu semua bangsa, strata, profesyen dan agama seluruh Negara melalui email, wechat, whatsApp dan pelbagai saluran lain. Kami amat mengalu-alukan pertubuhan dan individu yang berpendirian dan pandangan sama dengan kami untuk turut menyebarkan kenyataan ini kepada lebih ramai orang!

Kami berharap pendirian dan pandangan kami berkenaan pilihan raya kali ini yang dinyatakan dalam kenyataan tersebut dapat disebarkan dengan tepat dan meluas untuk diuji dalam kalangan rakyat semua bangsa semua strata sosial melalui penglibatan mereka dalam amalan pelbagai parti politik dalam pertempuran pilihan raya umum kali ini mahupun amalan masa depan.


The Chinese, English and Malay renditions of Sahabat Rakyat’s opinions about next election have been published consecutively

As an NGO which upholds “independent and autonomous” position and "always be with the people" principle, on 24 September 2017, Sahabat Rakyat had released a Chinese-written statement of views with regard to the voting in the upcoming 14th General Election, entitled “Vote for candidates who are against State Islamisation: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent the return to power of Mahathir’s faction!” (投票支持"反对国家伊斯兰化的候选人": 反对巫统霸权统治!莫让马哈迪帮派"复辟"!)

The English rendition of this statement entitled "Vote for “candidates who are against State Islamisation”: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent “the return to power of Mahathir’s faction”!" and the Malay rendition entitled "Undilah "calon yang membantah pengislaman negara": Menentang pemerintahan hegemoni UMNO! Mencegah puak Mahathir kembali kepada kuasa!" had been released on 22 October and 13 November respectively.

Apart from that, Sahabat Rakyat will also make every effort to disseminate this statement as widely as possible to organizations and individuals of all ethnic groups, religions and all walks of life throughout the country via email, WeChat, WhatsApp and other channels. We welcome organizations and individuals with the same position and views to spread this statement to more people!

We hope that our position and views pertaining to the next General Election expressed in the statement will be accurately and widely disseminated and also examined by the popular masses of various ethnicity and social strata through their involvement in the struggle of the next General Election carried out by various political parties and their practices in all fields in future.

Malaysia Time (GMT+8)