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。

Thursday, 22 January 2015

New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%

New Oxfam report says 
Half of global wealth held by the 1%

Source: The Guardian

Pic source: Trak.in
Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.

Ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in the ski resort of Davos, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam said it would use its high-profile role at the gathering to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

The charity’s research, published on Monday, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%.

Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016.

Winnie Byanyima (left), executive director of Oxfam International and one of the six co-chairs at this year’s WEF, said the increased concentration of wealth seen since the deep recession of 2008-09 was dangerous and needed to be reversed.

In an interview with the Guardian, Byanyima said: “We want to bring a message from the people in the poorest countries in the world to the forum of the most powerful business and political leaders.

“The message is that rising inequality is dangerous. It’s bad for growth and it’s bad for governance. We see a concentration of wealth capturing power and leaving ordinary people voiceless and their interests uncared for.”

Oxfam made headlines at Davos last year with a study showing that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion people). The charity said this year that the comparison was now even more stark, with just 80 people owning the same amount of wealth as more than 3.5 billion people, down from 388 in 2010.

Pic source: Trak.in

Byanyima said: “Do we really want to live in a world where the 1% own more than the rest of us combined? The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”

Separate research by the Equality Trust, which campaigns to reduce inequality in the UK, found that the richest 100 families in Britain in 2008 had seen their combined wealth increase by at least £15bn, a period during which average income increased by £1,233. Britain’s current richest 100 had the same wealth as 30% of UK households, it added.

Inequality has moved up the political agenda over the past half-decade amid concerns that the economic recovery since the global downturn of 2008-09 has been accompanied by a squeeze on living standards and an increase in the value of assets owned by the rich, such as property and shares.

Pope Francis and the IMF managing director Christine Lagarde have been among those warning that rising inequality will damage the world economy if left unchecked, while the theme of Thomas Piketty’s best-selling book Capital was the drift back towards late 19th century levels of wealth concentration.

Barack Obama’s penultimate State of the Union address on Tuesday is also expected to be dominated by the issue of income inequality.

He will propose a redistributive tax plan to extract more than $300bn (£200bn) in extra taxes from the 1% of rich earners in order to fund benefits specifically targeted at working families.

However, the odds of the White House having any success persuading Congress to adopt the plan, given the Republicans’ new grip on both chambers, are extremely long. But Obama’s embrace of what he calls “middle-class economics” – as opposed to the trickle-down economics of the Republicans – is likely to ensure that inequality remains a pivotal theme of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Oxfam said the wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014, and that there was an increasing tendency for wealth to be inherited and to be used as a lobbying tool by the rich to further their own interests. It noted that more than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches, while 20% have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group which saw their cash wealth increase by 11% in the 12 months to March 2014.

These sectors spent $550m lobbying policymakers in Washington and Brussels during 2013. During the 2012 US election cycle alone, the financial sector provided $571m in campaign contributions.

Byanyima said: “I was surprised to be invited to be a co-chair at Davos because we are a critical voice. We go there to challenge these powerful elites. It is an act of courage to invite me.”

Oxfam said it was calling on governments to adopt a seven point plan:

• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.

• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.

• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labour and consumption towards capital and wealth.

• Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers.

• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.

• Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum-income guarantee.

• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.

Speaking to the Guardian, Byanyima added: “Extreme inequality is not just an accident or a natural rule of economics. It is the result of policies and with different policies it can be reduced. I am optimistic that there will be change.

“A few years ago the idea that extreme poverty was harmful was on the fringes of the economic and political debate. But having made the case we are now seeing an emerging consensus among business leaders, economic leaders, political leaders and even faith leaders.”

The video released by Oxfam that gives you an overview of such an unequal world we live in!

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

明年全球最富有的1%人口的财产 将超过其余99%人口的财富总和

明年全球最富有的1%人口的财产
将超过其余99%人口的财富总和

原标题:乐施会报告:2016年全球最富1%的财产将超过其他人总和

来源:观察者网

图片来自瑞信上述报告,其中红色代表每个成年国民人均财富超过10万美元的国家地区,蓝色代表人均财富不足5000美元的国家地区。黄色地区属于人均财富在5000-2.5万美元的国家地区,中国就在此列。橙色代表人均财富在2.5万-10万美元的国家地区。

本世纪金融危机已过去六年,全球经济仍在艰难复苏,贫富差距也还在扩大。总部位于英国的国际慈善组织乐施会19日发布报告称,如果不平等的上升趋势得不到有效遏制,2016年全球最富有的1%人口所拥有的财富将超过其余99%人口的财富总和。兼任本届达沃斯年会主席的乐施会执行总干事温妮·拜厄尼马对此评论称:“我们真希望在这样的世界生活?”

乐施会发布的报告显示,全球最富有的1%人口的财富在全球财富份额中所占比例越来越高,由2009年的44%增至2014年的48%,预计2016年将超过50%。

2014年,在余下的全球52%的财富中,大部分(约46%)为其余人口中20%最富有的人所掌握。剩下的人口仅拥有约5.5%的全球财富,平均每个成年人拥有3851美元,仅是富人平均财富的七百分之一。

乐施会执行总干事温妮·拜厄尼马(左图)将担任2015年世界经济论坛达沃斯年会的联合主席(另一位世界经济论坛主席是创始人克劳斯·施瓦布——观察者网注),她表示将利用联合主席身份,呼吁尽快采取行动遏制不平等的上升趋势,打击逃税企业,推动签署全球气候变化协议。

拜厄尼马说,对于精英而言,商业如常运作并非全无代价。如果不解决不平等问题,扶贫的成果将倒退数十年。不平等令穷人贫上加贫,他们从经济这块蛋糕中分得的部分越来越小,而极端不平等阻碍经济增长,最终整个蛋糕只会越来越小。

乐施会的预计结果将给本周开幕的达沃斯年会施加压力。这次年会将不得不解释,为何不同国家和各国的不同团体经济前景分化明显。正如拜厄尼马所质疑的:“1%的人比其他所有人的合计财产还多,我们真希望在这样的世界生活?”

乐施会希望将贫穷国家人民的声音传达给出席达沃斯论坛的商界与政坛领袖。贫富差距日益增加对经济增长和政府管理都很不利。

乐施会的上述报告再次触及去年瑞信报告展示的贫富差距问题,也凸显了全球经济复苏还未能让社会各阶层受益的现实。

去年10月瑞银发布的2014全球财富报告显示,世界上有12.82万资产净值超过5000万美元的富人,人数比上年增多30%,而日收入不足1.25美元的赤贫者已超过10亿人。

瑞银报告还称:“2008年至2014年中,每个成年人的人均财富增长了26%。同期百万富翁的数量却增长了54%,财富超过1亿美元的人群数量增加了106%,亿万富翁的数量更是翻番都不止。”

IMF执行总裁拉加德上周敦促各国推进改革、提高经济增长,称全球经济衰退过去六年多了,太多的人还没有感到经济在复苏。

Monday, 19 January 2015

世界经济论坛期待中国 贡献解决全球挑战方案

世界经济论坛期待中国
贡献解决全球挑战方案

作者/来源:《中国日报》/《观察者网》

世界经济论坛年会将于下周在瑞士达沃斯举行。中国总理李克强、法国总统奥朗德、德国总理默克尔等全球40多位政要以及2,500位舆论领袖、商业精英和媒体代表与会。李克强上一次他出席冬季达沃斯已是2010年,5年后重返瑞士小镇,李克强此次出席让本届冬季达沃斯备受瞩目。这也将是自2009年经济危机后,中国政府出席达沃斯会议的最高级别领导。

近日,中国日报欧盟分社首席记者付敬对世界经济论坛主席、创始人克劳斯•施瓦布(KlausSchwab)先生进行了书面采访。在采访中,施瓦布感谢李克强总理与会,并期待他贡献解决全球挑战的中国方案。

上图:李克强和施瓦布出席天津达沃斯论坛

下图:达沃斯论坛主席、创始人施瓦布


以下是采访实录:

中国日报:李克强总理参加今年年会的意义在何?他将参加哪些会议?
施瓦布:李克强总理将在今年论坛的首日(1月21日)发表特别演讲。他将与我们分享他对中国未来发展、改革以及中国在国际舞台日趋重要的角色的解读。李总理还将会见全球商业领袖,共议中国经济发展对全球商业的影响。

中国日报:与李克强总理的对话,您主持过多少次?在这些场合中,您对他的演讲的印象如何?
施瓦布:总理最近几年已经多次出席世界经济论坛。对我们而言,能欢迎他来参会是我们莫大的荣幸。5年前,他第一次参加达沃斯论坛,之后他也参加过几次在中国举办的“夏季达沃斯”。去年4月,他还参加了在尼日利亚举行的一场论坛。世界经济论坛一直与中国保持着紧密而有建设性的关系。随着近年来中国国际地位的稳固提升,我们的合作不断深化,李总理一直是我们活动的贵宾。

中国日报:这次与李总理的再次对话,您在主持时最想提问、最重要的问题是什么?
施瓦布:中国仍是世界经济增长最大的贡献者。中国的成功故事令人印象深刻。然而,伴随全球经济的缓慢增长,我们无法假设中国仍不受之影响。如何以一种平衡而可持续的方式释放中国经济发展潜能,将十分关键。

中国日报:最近几年,世界经济论坛在中国大连与天津举办了“夏季达沃斯”。这样的衍生是否有助于外界进一步了解中国?
施瓦布:自1979年以来,论坛就一直在中国、与中国一起工作。中国在之后的几十年中,经济发展取得了天翻地覆般的成效。中国经济的高速发展令全世界叹为观止。但它对全球经济的影响作用不能被夸大。通过发展与变化的道路,世界经济论坛已经成为了一个值得信赖的伙伴,大连与天津的会议为全世界政治与商业领导人提供了了解中国的第一手资料,为他们与中国建立紧密联系搭建了平台。

中国日报:您如何看待中国最高领导人习近平主席、李克强总理的治理表现?
施瓦布:对于中国自身及全球社会而言,中国经济继续保持稳定增长都是至关重要的。我为中国领导人的表现鼓掌。中国经济从粗放式大量生产向科研创新驱动的发展模式转型正在进行中。然而,中国仍面临诸多挑战。中国领导人将须更进一步致力于增强经济发展的社会包容性,缓和过快经济增长及城镇化的风险。

中国日报:您是否认为中国经济增速放缓将是中国2015年面临的主要挑战?
施瓦布:2015年年会正式在“新全球环境”这个主题下召开。自1989年后形成的经济融合、国际合作时代,很有可能因全球范围内存在的复杂、脆弱、不确定性而终结。我们正面临着意义深远的政治、经济、社会以及科技转变。这些转变正在改变着我们长久以来固有的臆断。这将也导致政策决定出现完全新的参量。正因这是个全球现象,中国也无法规避这些挑战,经济上的以及其他方面的。

中国日报:您如何看待中国领导层对反腐所作的努力?
施瓦布:抗击腐败也是世界经济论坛的一个焦点议题。我们十分欢迎习近平主席、李克强总理以及整个中国政府行政部门在这方面的决心与努力。我们的研究显示:腐败有碍经济增长,且能削弱机构组织行动力,更会造成社会中的不公平、不平衡。

中国日报:达沃斯论坛为领导人寻找应对挑战的解决途径提供平台。就您看来,全球最主要的挑战有哪些?
施瓦布:看看我们今天的世界有多复杂、多互相依赖,再看看我们眼下面对的所有变化,很难简单地罗列出一些特定的挑战。然而,日益加剧的收入差距、社会不平等,日趋恶化的地缘政治紧张局势,削弱的地区合作,气候变化及因气候变化可能带来的灾难性后果,都是我们今日面临的最紧迫问题。

中国日报:过去几十年来,哪些挑战有不断上升的趋势?就有哪些问题,您领导过国际辩论?
施瓦布:或许最严重且最顽固的挑战就是不断拉大的不平等。这种趋势显然是十分不可持续。若不能正确对待,这个问题也将威胁到资本主义的未来。政府必须通过推动一个公平而平等的体系,来领导并造福全社会。商界同样也将发挥巨大作用,通过投资创新及人才来创造更多优质工作机会,以此提高生活水平。

中国日报:如何评价中国对全球挑战的回应?
施瓦布:中国领导层为自己制定了一个非常雄心壮志的工作日程。因中国经济的重要性以及政治影响力,中国必须在预防冲突、气候变化、环境保护、创造更强劲全球经济发展方面扮演重要角色。这些任务中国必须完成,事实上,这些使命也只有通过合作才能完成。尽管国际社会存在诸多挑战,这些问题仍有可能解决。我的领悟是:这些看衰中国经济发展前景的往往被证明是错误的。

中国日报:自习近平主席倡议“一路一带”计划以来,目前已有50个国家相继响应。欧洲该如何回应?
施瓦布:我们的论坛非常鼓励推动地区合作,并通过自由贸易推动全球发展、安全、繁荣。自由贸易制度不该止步于地区性倡议的边境。我们鼓励中国解开经济发展的全部潜力,作为经济强人,为国际贸易无限制而努力。

中国日报:瑞士与中国已签署《自由贸易协定》,您对潜在影响有何见解?
施瓦布:我非常欢迎这样迈向经济融合、促进自由贸易的步伐。瑞士市场虽规模尚有限,但瑞士可以成为一个好伙伴,帮助中国企业完成经济模式转型,通过强调科研创新以及发展,由大规模货物出口向生产高端产品、创造更高产品价值转变。而另一方面,对瑞士而言,也将获得更多市场准入,受益于中国不断壮大的中产阶级所拉动的消费需求。

中国日报:中国也在尝试与欧盟建立这样的自贸协议。您认为中欧达成自贸共识的可能性有多少?
施瓦布:这个问题太恰逢其时了。事实上,我们的年会将是增强中欧贸易关系、探索更多发展契机的完美平台。我们将召集由多国贸易部长出席的圆桌会议,讨论影响自由贸易的现存障碍,并尽力为克服这些阻碍建立共识。除此以外,我们也邀请了世界贸易组织向我们的与会者出示他们的最新研究发现。


Wednesday, 14 January 2015

Does it matter if Lim Chin Siong was a communist? / 即使林清祥是共产党人,那又如何?

Does it matter if Lim Chin Siong was a communist?
Author / Source: Teo Soh Lung / The Real Singapore

Teo Soh Lung introduced the book Youth On Trial to an old-left who attended the 60th (1954 - 2014) Anniversary of Singapore's “May 13 Incident” Commemoration.

[Sahabat Rakyat Editor's Note] Teo Soh Lung, the author graduated from the University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB Hons) in 1973. While she was practising as a lawyer, she set up her own law firm. She is also an activist who has been pro-actively involved in the democratic and human rights movement in Singapore. She was arrested and detained without trial under the ISA together with the others for purported involvement in a “Marxism conspiracy” in May 1987. She was arrested under the “Operation Spectrum” and released after 4 months. However, she was arrested and detained without trial again in 1988 for upholding her positions. She was finally released in 1990.

Teo Soh Lung published her memoir Beyond the Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner in 2010 and was one of the editors of Our Thoughts Are Free: Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile in 2009.

Teo Soh Lung is also one of the founding members and leaders of a non-government organization (NGO) called “Function 8” (https://fn8org.wordpress.com) in Singapore. She is more enthusiastic in promoting democracy and human rights movement in Singapore after her retirement. She said she never read about Marxist theory, nor participated in any of the activities related to Marxism or communist party. Her dedication in pursuing democracy and her emphasis on unity work made her one of the important driving forces in the 60th Anniversary of Singapore's “May 13 Incident” commemoration and the publication of the book entitled Youth On Trial.

Many of those who have been showered in the glory of left-wing movement but now busy expressing positions and views of “no relevance to Malayan Communist Party (MCP)" might feel ashamed after reading Teo's stance and opinions on the corresponding problems expressed in this article.

This is the English translation of Sahabat Rakyat Editor's Note released in Chinese on 10 Jan 2015.


PM Lee Hsien Loong’s observation of the Battle for Merger exhibition (https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong) is just an attempt to defend his father’s wrong doing.

For more than half a century, Singaporeans have been told that communists were dangerous people and that they indulged in violence. The government conveniently omit to tell us that it was the communists who fought and died for Malaya (which included Singapore) during World War II and that Chin Peng was honoured by our colonial master soon after the war.

The CPM was the first anti-colonial organisation and not the PAP. If Lim Chin Siong and his friends were communists, they were also the founding members of the PAP. They fought alongside the PAP and helped it win the general election in 1959. Without them, where will the PAP be today?

Lee Kuan Yew had worked with Lim Chin Siong and other alleged communists who he later expelled from the PAP. Lee should know and not just allege that Lim Chin Siong and his friends were communists who advocated violence and instigated riots. He should have charged them in open court and produce evidence to secure their convictions. The PAP should not be cowards by simply claiming immunity from prosecution by using the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and later, the Internal Security Act.

In my conversations with the late Dr Lim Hock Siew, Dr Lim repeatedly said that his party, the Barisan Sosialis believed and took the constitutional path in challenging the PAP. They were confident of winning the 1963 general election and had taken steps to avoid giving any opportunity for the PAP to accuse them of creating trouble. They even cancelled a National Day rally in 1962. Dr Lim in answering a question from the audience in 2011 said:

“… on 3 June 1962, we wanted to celebrate National Day, PAP came into power on 3 June 1959. We were given permission with lots of conditions. You could not speak on this or that or they would come and interfere. We knew if we held that rally, there would be provocation from the PAP and there would be trouble. Then they would use that to suppress us. So we had a last-minute cancellation of that rally.

To that extent, we were very restrained. We wanted to preserve our strength for the general election.”

Such restraint was deliberately not appreciated by the PAP and the British because they knew the Barisan would win the election if the leaders were not put behind bars. Operation Coldstore took place on 2 Feb 1963. One hundred and thirty three law abiding members of opposition parties, including Lim Chin Siong who were looking forward to the general election that year, were arrested and imprisoned without trial, many for decades. This surely is the most shameful part of the PAP history. That operation wiped out a credible opposition for which Singapore is still suffering today. Incidentally, Operation Coldstore is not listed in the “Timeline of Events” at the Battle for Merger exhibition.

The general election was held on 21 Sept 1963, seven months after Operation Coldstore. The PAP need not brag about its victory for we all know what they did.

“What we need to know is whether Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues committed any acts of violence and acted against the interest of Singapore.”

But honestly, I don’t care if Lim Chin Siong was a communist or a CPM member. After all, the PAP does lots of business with communist Russia and China. What we need to know is whether Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues committed any acts of violence and acted against the interest of Singapore. The PAP government has never disclosed any evidence proving that Lim Chin Siong instigated any violence. The PAP repeatedly blamed the communists for causing riots, even for those racial riots that took place during the time when Singapore was part of Malaysia and after separation, when all the opposition leaders were still in prison. Why does the PAP refuse to admit that the riots had nothing to do with the so called communists? Their intention is clear, to cast blame on the communists and instil fear on the people of Singapore.

Lim Chin Siong was incarcerated without trial both by the British and the Lim Yew Hock government (26 Oct 1956 – 4 Jun 1959) and the PAP government (2 Feb 1963 – 1969). I understand he suffered severe depression in prison and was exiled to Britain in 1969. His career as a promising political leader (many think that he was better than Lee Kuan Yew) was terminated by the ruthless and violent acts of the British and the PAP. And Lim Chin Siong was not the only victim of the PAP. Many others – Dr Chia Thye Poh, Dr Lim Hock Siew, Ho Piao, Lee Tee Tong, Said Zahari, Dr Poh Soo Kai and many more were imprisoned without trial for decades by the PAP.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong should follow the example of President Obama who investigated the CIA and made public the report of unlawful imprisonment and torture committed on captured prisoners at Guantanamo. Open up the archives of the ISD and search for the truth instead of simply believing what the ISD and his father tell him.

Convene an independent Commission of Inquiry while his father is alive, produce all documents justifying the imprisonment without trial of thousands of Singaporeans and exiles and let his father’s victims tell their side of history. We do not have much time, for the number of victims of Operation Coldstore is fast dwindling. Dr Poh Soo Kai is already in his 80s. I strongly urge the prime minister to act speedily and fairly, and not simply rely on the ISD to tell the history of Singapore.

Saturday, 10 January 2015

即使林清祥是共产党人,那又如何?/ Does it matter if Lim Chin Siong was a communist?

即使林清祥是共产党人,那又如何?


原文作者:张素兰
华文译者:陈华明

张素兰向出席新加坡“5•13”事件60周年(1954年—2014年)纪念活动的老左推介 “5.13”纪念文集。

【《人民之友》按语】本文作者张素兰,1973年毕业于新加坡国立大学法学硕士,执业期间曾开设自己的律师事务所,是一名活跃于新加坡民主人权运动的工作者。她在1987年5月,与其他几个人,被指控涉及“马克思主义的阴谋活动”,在“光谱行动”下被逮捕监禁,4个月后获得释放。由于她坚持自己的立场,在1988年再次被逮捕,又是不经审讯就扣留监禁。在1990年被释放。

张素兰在2010年出版了她的(英文本)回忆录:《跨越蓝色大门:一名政治被拘留者的回忆》(The Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner)。她也是以英文出版的《我们的思想是自由的:2009年在监牢和被放逐的诗歌和散文》(Our Thoughts Are Free: Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile in 2009.)的编辑之一。

张素兰是新加坡的一个称为“功能8”[Function 8 (fn8org.wordpress.com)]的非政府组织的发起人和领导人之一。她在退休后,更加热衷于推动新加坡民主人权运动的发展。张素兰说,她没有读马克思主义理论,也从来没有参加过跟马克思主义或共产党有关的任何活动。她对追求民主的执着,他对团结工作的重视,驱使她成为去年(2014年)新加坡“5•13”学生运动60周年纪念活动和文集出版的一个重要推手。

她在本文对有关问题所表达立场和见解,或许会令许多过去身带左翼光环而今却忙于发表“与马共无关”的主张和言论的人士感到汗颜。

以下是张素兰在The Real Singapore网站发表的全文内容的华文译稿————

新加坡总理李显龙参观争取合并的斗争的展览会只是企图为他的父亲的错误言行进行辩护。(见:https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong)。

在过去的超过半个世纪里,新加坡政府不断告诉新加坡人,共产党人或信仰共产主义者是危险的人群,他们热衷于暴力。但是,新加坡政府却故意不告诉我们这样的历史事实:在第二次世界大战,正是共产党人或信仰共产主义者为马来亚(包括新加坡)而战斗和牺牲;在战争结束后,马来亚共产党总书记陈平随即获得了殖民地主子的嘉奖。

最先反对英国殖民统治的组织是马来亚共产党,不是人民行动党。如果林清祥和他的战友都是共产党人,那么,他们也是人民行动党的创党人。他们和人民行动党一起战斗,并协助人民行动党赢得了1959年的大选。总之,没有林清祥和他的战友,就没有今天的人民行动党。

李光耀曾经跟林清祥以及其他被指控为“共产党人”随后又被清除出人民行动党的人一起工作。李显龙必须知道,不该一味指控林清祥和他的战友是鼓吹暴力和煽动暴乱的“共产党人”,理应依法将他们提控于公开法庭,拿出证据来证明他们有罪,并让他们有辩护的机会。人民行动党不应该成为胆小的懦夫,只会利用《防止公共安全法令》和后来的《内部安全法令》来简单行事,以避免进行公开的起诉。

在我和已故林福寿医生的交谈中,林医生重复地说,新加坡社会主义阵线(简称社阵)坚信并采取宪制途径挑战人民行动党。他们对赢得1963年的大选是充满信心的,并且采取了许多步骤以避免让人民行动党有机会控告他们(社阵)制造麻烦。他们甚至取消了1962年国庆群众大会。林医生在2011年回答听众的一个问题说:

“……人民行动党在1959年上台执政。在1962年6月3日,我们要庆祝国庆,我们获得了集会准证,但是附带许多条件,包括不准谈论某些内容,否则他们将会加以干预。我们知道,如果我们举行该次群众大会,将会惹怒人民行动党在那里制造麻烦。这么一来,他们必将利用这个事端的发生来镇压我们。因此,我们在最后一分钟取消了该次群众大会。我们克制容忍到了这样的程度,我们要保存自己的力量以应付大选。
这样的克制容忍是经过深思熟虑的,但是,英国人和人民行动党并不激赏,而且他们知道,如果不把社阵领袖监禁起来,社阵势必赢得大选。”

1963年2月2日,“冷藏行动”发生了。包括林清祥在内的133名遵守法律的反对党领袖和群众组织的干部,他们正在期待在当年快要来临的大选中,跟人民行动党一决高低,却被逮捕和不经审讯关进了牢房几十年。这的确是人民行动党最为羞耻的一段历史。这次的“冷藏行动”把一个具有威信的反对党彻底消灭了,但是新加坡至今还是患得患失、日子难过。顺便告诉你,这项对人民行动党具有重大意义的“冷藏行动”,并没有列在争取合并的斗争的展览会上的“历史事件列表”里。

大选是在“冷藏行动”7个月后的1963年9月举行的。人民行动党无须吹嘘它们这次的胜利,我们都知道,这是他们耍弄肮脏伎俩所制导致的结果。

“我们所要知道的是,林清祥和他的战友是否作出了任何的暴力行为和危害新加坡利益的行动?”

老实地说,我不在乎林清祥即使是一个共产主义主义信仰者或者是马来亚共产党党员。这是因为我看到了人民行动党到头来还是跟苏联共产党和中国共产党进行了很多的商业往来。

我们所要知道的是:林清祥和他的战友是否作出了任何的暴力行为和危害新加坡利益的行动?人民行动党政府至今还未公布任何证据来证明林清祥煽动任何暴力。人民行动党一再指责“共产党人”造成暴乱,即使对那些发生在所有的左翼领袖还被监禁在牢里,新加坡并入马来西亚和退出马来西亚时期所引起的种族暴乱,也作出同样的指责。为什么人民行动党至今还拒绝承认这些种族暴乱跟那些所谓的“共产党人”无关呢?他们的意图是非常明显的,就是把所有罪过都推到他们所谓的“共产党人”身上,用来恐吓新加坡人民必须永远支持人民行动党。

林清祥两次在不经审讯的情况下被监禁,先是被英国殖民主义者和林有福政府监禁(从1956年10月到1959年6月4日),后是被人民行动党政府监禁(从1963年2月2日到1969年9月)。据我所知,他在牢内患上了忧抑症,在1969年被放逐到英国。他是一个大有作为的政治领袖(许多人都认为他比李光耀更为优秀),他是被英国殖民主义者和人民行动党的残酷无情和暴力行为所摧毁的。事实上,林清祥并不是人民行动党统治下的唯一受害者;还有其他人,如谢太保博士、林福寿医生、何标、李思东、赛查哈利、傅树楷医生以及许许多多在不经审讯下就被人民行动党关在牢内数十年的政治拘留者。

李显龙总理必须以美国总统奥巴马为榜样。奥巴马调查美国中央情报局如何对待被关禁在关答那摩监牢的被扣者,并公布监牢里的非法行为和被扣者受残酷虐待的报告。李显龙必须做到的是:公开内部安全局的档案和找出个案的真相,而不是简单的相信内部安全局的报告和他父亲所告诉他的一切。

我们希望看到,趁他的父亲还在世,设立一个独立调查庭。在调查庭上提交有关文件确认所有不经审讯的数千名新加坡被扣留和流亡国外者的报告。让他的父亲一手造成的受害者说出自己的历史事实。对于那些在冷藏行动下的受害者来说,我们已经没有多少时间可以拖延了。傅树楷医生已经80岁了。我强烈要求,李显龙总理迅速和公正地采取行动,不要简单依靠内部安全局来告诉我们新加坡的历史。

Monday, 5 January 2015

Do away with Bumiputera agenda, prominent economist tells Putrajaya

Do away with Bumiputera agenda, prominent economist tells Putrajaya

Source / Author: The Malaysian Insider / Anisah Shukry

Economist Tan Sri Kamal Salih says ethnicity is no longer the basis of inequality. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Seth Akmal, January 2, 2015

The Bumiputera agenda has been the backbone of the Barisan Nasional (BN)-led government’s economic plans since 1969, its pro-Malay policies justified for decades by the economic backwardness of the Malays as a result of the British colonial policy of divide and rule.

“Putrajaya must go for the national agenda and create a national policy that is more inclusive. And if it does that properly, and avoid the pitfalls of the past, then I think it can achieve its economic goals, without having this red flag of being a ‘Bumiputera agenda’.

“If you are trying to reduce inequality and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, the beneficiaries will be largely Bumiputeras anyway.

“So why go through the pain of being accused of being racist, when you can achieve the same goals without being racist?” Kamal, an adjunct professor of Economics and Development Studies at Universiti Malaya, told The Malaysian Insider in a recent interview in Kuala Lumpur.

Last November, the New Straits Times had reported that the government had spent RM46.5 billion to boost the Bumiputera economy through 23 programmes since September last year.

Bumiputera Agenda Steering Unit (Teraju) chief executive Husni Salleh, who is also Bumiputera Economic Council (MEB) secretary, said that all 23 ministers, secretaries-general and GLCs now have key performance indicators on Bumiputera economic programmes, monitored by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

At last year’s Umno general assembly, the party’s deputy president, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had proposed that a “new” National Economic Policy (NEP) be created to turn the Bumiputera economic agenda into a national agenda.

However, Kamal, who has dedicated his career to policy research, noted that inequality was more prominent within ethnic groups, rather than between them, and poverty could no longer be defined along racial lines.

“Ethnicity is no longer the basis for inequality. It has now become (defined) by income and the disparity between the rich and the poor, the gap between the CEO and the ordinary worker. So the whole thinking must change.”

This was evident in the recently launched Human Development Report 2013, which Kamal had authored with Dr Muhammad Abdul Khalid and Dr Lee Hwok Aun.

Among the report’s findings was that since 1970, inequality between ethnic groups has decreased and contributes only about 4% to Malaysia’s overall inequality in 2009.

In terms of relative poverty, it noted that the rate among the Malays was at 19.1%, followed closely by the Chinese at 17.9% in 2012.

However, race aside, the average Malaysian wage earner has to work 98 years to obtain the same earnings of an average CEO in 2011, according to the report, which was commissioned and published by the United Nations Development Programme.

Roughly one out of two Malays, non-Malay Bumiputera, Chinese and Indians also have no immediate liquid financial assets, making them vulnerable in the event of an employment or income shock.

In the meantime, the government’s pro-Bumiputera New Economic Policy (NEP) had stirred up resentment among the non-Malays against the Malays, and had not reached its 30% Bumiputera economic participation target, Kamal said.

“When the Malays keep getting these benefits in the NEP, or the policies are created in the name of the Malays, the non-Malays in the long run begin to resent it even though they had initially agreed to it. And the problem is not solved.

“The Malays, too, are envious that all the money only goes to a small group of people. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays are happy,” he said.

Kamal said that affirmative action policies should stay, but they should be targeted based on the groups that needed it, rather than the entire Malay race as a whole.

“Some affirmative action policies should be state-oriented; some policies have to be more focused on rural areas than urban. The policies could be (targeted at) certain populations, social groups, or a territory.”

He cited as an example the Bumiputera poor of Sabah and Sarawak, or the entire state of Kelantan.

The Malaysia Human Development Report stated that households in the richest state, Kuala Lumpur, earn about 2.7 times more income than Kelantan, which is the poorest, with the gap between the two amounting to RM5,418.

Malaysians living in urban areas earned about 55% more than the average wealth per capita of the rural Malaysian, it said.

“The government of the day must not be discriminating against rural or opposition-led states,” he said.

“We need to review this allocation mechanism, otherwise the lesser developed states will never catch up.”

He added that the government must also balance affirmative action with merit-based action, otherwise it would discourage Malaysians from working hard and becoming independent.

“That kind of method of improving people’s lives through direct allocation sometimes creates not only a dependency but the opportunity for corrupt practices where those who are more connected and powerful get the advantage,” he said.

Kamal’s statement may not go down well with right-wing Malay groups, many of whom believe that the government should continue providing preferential treatment to the Bumiputeras, citing Article 153 the Federal Constitution.

In their calls for pro-Bumiputera policies to be enhanced, the right-wing groups have often maintained that Malays are under threat in their own country and must be protected by the government.

“‘Malays under threat’ is a negative statement,” said Kamal.

“You can’t feel threatened in a place where you are the largest community, and have all the institutions and even the constitution to protect your interest.” 

通告 Notification




Malaysia Time (GMT+8)