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, 17 December 2017

Experience and conclusion of the outstanding leader, Lim Chin Siong from the constitutional struggle, is the ideological wealth that he left behind for the people of Singapore, peninsula Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak

Experience and conclusion of the outstanding leader, Lim Chin Siong 
from the constitutional struggle, is the ideological wealth that he left behind 
for the people of Singapore, peninsula Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak


Written By Chng Min Oh @ Zhuang Ming Hu
Translated By Agnes Khoo



[Sahabat Rakyat Editor's note]

Author Chng Min Oh (right) was a Singaporean painter active in the labour movement of Singapore from the 1960s to the 1970s. He became a Traditional Chinese Medicine physician in his later years and he is still practising at 80 years old today.  He wrote this article in Chinese language last year to commemorate Lim Chin Siong‘s death twenty years ago. This is the English translation of his article.

This article reveals Chng’s persistence in exploring the truth of the rise and fall of the leftist movement (including the labour movement) in Malaya (including Singapore) in that era. More importantly, it expresses his recognition and reverence for the contribution of the movement’s prominent leader, Lim Chin Siong from 1950s to 1960s. He puts forward two “little hopes” in his article:

He hopes that those (especially the key figures) who had wrongly criticised Lim Chin Siong, critically reflect and evaluate themselves and what they had done. Justice for Lim must be done in the remaining years of the persons concerned.

He hopes that the complete Q&A/ Posthumous Manuscript of Lim Chin Siong, which has been kept away for at least twenty years be released/published as soon as possible since what has so far been published is only a fragment of the entire manuscript. This is to realise Lim’s long-held wish to publish his memoir and to fulfil the public’s yearning to read his complete work.

Before the publication of Chng’s article and ahead of the 20th anniversary of Lim Chin Siong’s death, Sahabat Rakyat published an article entitled, “The Best Way to Commemorate Lim Chin Siong is to Propagate His Ideology and Ideal” in the Chinese language. The English rendition was subsequently published on 22nd February of the same year.

We mentioned in this article that “Lim Chin Siong endured relentless suppression and devastation by Lee Kuan Yew and the erroneous criticism and merciless blows by the left-wing aggressive leaders after the Feb 2 Incident in 1963. He was then being exiled to London, UK by Lee Kuan Yew ruling clique in 1969.We are of the view that, the best way to commemorate Lim Chin Siong, is to propagate his ideology, ideal and lessons learnt, especially the reflection and summing-up he did at his old age (upon his return to Singapore in 1979) on those important historical incidents of anti-colonialisation struggle of the people of Malaya (including Singapore) and his own experience on leading the anti-colonialisation struggle. He died of a heart attack on 5 February 1996. The Q&A Posthumous Manuscript is the precious message he left about the national liberation and democratic revolution struggle of the people of Malaya and Singapore that he knew and he had been through.

Today, less than two years after the afore-mentioned articles were published, we received an English translation of this article from  Chng Min Oh. Chng told us that it was translated from his Chinese article by Agnes Khoo, a Singapore-born scholar (see Introduction of Translator at the end of the article). Apart from teaching in her University, Agnes Khoo has translated Chng’s article in her spare time.

Chng’s purpose of getting his article translated from Chinese into English is to ensure that his writing is accessible to the English-speaking majority in Singapore today. Under the rule of Lee Kuan Yew and his clique, Singapore has become a society with English as the dominant language used by the majority, particularly among the middle-class and the younger generation.

Lee Kuan Yew ruling clique has effectively silenced and undermined the Chinese-speaking leaders who once commanded respect and influence in the political and social movements of Malaya and Singapore. Lee and the PAP has rendered leaders and peoples whose first languages are Chinese and Chinese dialects voiceless and powerless. It is only by reaching out and educating the new generation of Singaporeans who are predominantly English-educated, that it is possible for Singapore to "change."

The publication of the English translation of Chng’s article is also timely for the people of Peninsula Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah. The people are opposing UMNO’s hegemonic rule and fighting for equality for all ethnic groups, as well as the long over-due democratic reforms of the country. This includes no less, the resistance of the people of Sabah and Sarawak against UMNO’s hegemony. People are fighting for self-determination, and their right for non-exploitative and sustainable development that does not discriminate any ethnic group. This article appears at a critical historical juncture, just as Peninsula Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, gear up for the upcoming General Elections. The people should no longer be misled and sabotaged.

The anti-colonial movement in Singapore during the 1950s-60s, brought the Lee Kuan Yew-led PAP ruling clique into power. The painful experience of detention, persecution and ultimately, destruction of the leftist movement (mainly the workers’ movements and trade unions) and its prominent leader, Lim Chin Siong has resulted in a totalitarian and autocratic society that Singapore has become today.

The suppression and disintegration of the progressive movement and the lessons learnt from our painful experience must be critically examined and evaluated. This should include Lim Chin Siong’s own critical reflection and summing up of the key historical episodes of our anti-colonial struggles and his personal experience in leading that movement. Therefore, his unpublished work is invaluable to the people of Peninsula Malaya , Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.

Today, certain democratic parties, organisations and leaders in Malaysia are cheating and deceiving the Malay majority of their votes. There are those among them who hope to take over power from the ruling UMNO by welcoming Mahathir into their ranks. He who is marginalized in UMNO and continues to uphold Malay hegemony and propagates the Malay majority as Malaysia’s “savior”, should not be trusted.

Many people in today’s Malaysia, desperately wants a “change of government” and among them, there are those who support Mahathir at all costs. The failure of the leftist movement in Malaya (including Singapore), due to the errors and “wrong judgment” of some of its leaders who thought Lee Kuan Yew was their “ally and leader of the anti-colonial struggle” should serve as stark warning for us. The Left was brutally crushed and thrown aside by Lee Kuan Yew, as soon as he seized power. Have we not learnt our lesson yet?

Below is the English rendition by Agnes Khoo and the introduction about her.




1, The significance of remembering Lim Chin Siong is to learn his experience and conclusion from the peaceful constitutional struggle

Lim Chin Siong is an extraordinary leader with a strong labour movement background who whole-heartedly dedicated himself to the national democratic movement of Malaya (including Singapore) from the 1950s to 1960s). Lim passed away on 5th February 1996. Nevertheless, he remains our leader who is larger than life. His advocacy for the mass line of peaceful constitutional struggles remains the political ideology guideline of the people’s democracy and national reform movement of our country at present phase.


5th February 2016 is the 20th Anniversary of his death, we mourn for him as we gather together for his memorial. We can learn from his total dedication to and sacrifices for the Malayan workers’ movement and the anti-colonial, nationalist democratic movements. We should emulate his spirit of self-sacrifice and learn from the lessons he left behind. Without doubt, his was an arduous, painful and difficult struggle in which many like-minded Malaysians and Singaporeans have made untold sacrifices for. It is crucial that while we look to our past, we continue to move forward in our struggle for democracy and human rights in Singapore, peninsula Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.

2, Lim led the labour movement against exploitation and oppression and graduated on the political stage of anti-colonialism

When the British colonial government imposed Emergency Regulations in Malaya (which includes Singapore) in 1948, people’s lives were heavily censured, closely monitored, and social movements were severely suppressed. Activists were brutally punished, detained and deported. Despite the rising mass discontent against the Emergency, the colonial government dragged its feet in lifting it. In 1954, the Chinese Middle School students in Singapore protested against the colonial government’s move to impose compulsory military draft of young Singaporean men. This culminated in the famous May 13th Incident that subsequently, nurtured the students’ movement in Singapore.

In 1955, workers of the Singapore Hock Lee Bus Company went on strike to demand for better pay and working conditions, but they were violently suppressed by the government. This ignited the island-wide 12th May Uprising, followed by waves of protests and demonstrations by workers. The British colonial government then rolled out parliamentary elections under Rendel Constitution in the same year, and legalised political parties, trade unions and civic organisations, to ease the discontent of the masses. This helped facilitate the emergence of progressive trade unions that fought for the rights of the workers and the masses.

Lim Chin Siong was in his third year (junior middle III) of education at Singapore Chinese High School in 1951. He participated in the students’ strike against compulsory (third year) Examination imposed by the colonial government and was arrested and jailed for a week. Consequently, he was expelled from school and could not return to formal education from then on.

From late 1953 to early 1954, he became actively involved in progressive trade union organising. He was initially employed as the paid secretary for two branches under the Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU), which were the Changi Branch Union and the Paya Lebar Branch Union respectively. Following that, he became the Secretary General of the Singapore Spinning Workers’ Union.

Subsequently, he was elected as Secretary General of the newly established the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers` Union (SFSWU) on 4th April 1954.

For Lim, he has always wanted to work for the workers and to be in solidarity with the toiling masses. He had experienced first-hand, the suffering of the workers, especially those at the grassroots who had to eke out a living despite bad working conditions with low wages. He fought for their rights and led trade union activists and leaders with complete dedication. He called for all workers to unionise, to unite and to struggle for better pay and working conditions. Under his leadership, the membership of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers` Union (SFSWU) rose from less than a thousand to more than thirty thousand within a year.  This proves without dispute, Lim’s charisma and influence over the trade union movement. His leadership and ideas quickly made him one of the most respected leaders in the workers’ movement. He was without doubt, the most important leader of the progressive trade union and workers’ movements of Singapore.

His rise to popularity quickly caught the attention of Lee Kuan Yew who was trying to form the People’s Action Party (PAP) in 1954. Lee contacted him through the Chinese Middle School students’ leaders. Lim Chin Siong finally accepted Lee Kuan Yew’s invitation to be a PAP’s candidate for the Bukit Timah Constituency in the February 1955’s Legislative Assembly Elections in Singapore. Lee and four other PAP candidates also contested in the same election. Unsurprisingly, Lim was elected with majority votes. The speeches he made during the election, his subsequent intervention in the Legislative Assembly and his unequivocal opposition to colonial rule won him praise and trust of the workers and the masses.  He soon became the undisputed spokesperson of the workers and ordinary people. All these have established Lim Chin Siong as an iconic figure in Malayan history. He was an anti-colonialist at heart and a fearless dissident.

During this period, the anti-colonial sentiment among the people of Singapore was high and the opposition movement was strong and powerful. The Singapore people were demanding independence from Britain, which really shook the status quo and compelled the British colonialists and their accomplices to finally expose their true fascist nature. There were mass arrests starting from 18th September 1956.  Many leaders from the progressive trade unions, civic and grassroots organisations, as well as political dissidents were arrested and imprisoned. The British also banned all democratic trade unions and orgnaisations.  On 26th October of the same year, progressive trade union leaders including, Yong Koh Kim, Lim Chin Siong, C.V. Devan Nair, Fong Swee Suan, Tan Kok Wee, Dominic Putucheary were detained.

According to the report of Singapore’s Chinese language Daily, Sin Chew Jit Po on 28th October 1956, 234 people were arrested on 26th October under the Internal Security Act (ISA).  The mass arrests infuriated the people and a mass protest ensued. Unfortunately, it was brutally suppressed. The government opened fire at the protestors, followed by a curfew. The violent clamp down had resulted in fifteen deaths and many injured.

However, the mass arrests between 18th September and 26th October of 1956 did not diminish the determination of the workers and the masses to continue the anti-colonial struggle. Soon after, many trade unions, such as Singapore General Employees’ Union, Singapore Bookshops Publication & Printing Press Workers’ Union, The National Union Of Building Construction Workers, Singapore Textile and General Merchants` Employees` Union etc., united together to demand the release of their leaders and members who were imprisoned. The workers’ movement did not back down in the face of repression. On the contrary, the people persisted.

3, PAP came into power on the back of the workers led by Lim Chin Siong – Lee Kuan Yew was alarmed at Lim’s immense influence

Since the formation of the PAP in 1954, it has portrayed itself as an anti-colonial and democratic political party, which subsequently led to its overwhelming victory at the 1959 Legislative Assembly Elections, garnering 43 seats out of 51. It was given the power by the people to form the first self-government of Singapore. The people of Singapore, in particular the workers, were hopeful that Lee Kuan Yew, as the first popularly-elected leader would continue to rely on the power of the masses to get rid of the British colonialists, and to liberate the country from colonial rule so that we no longer live in fear and exploitation.

Unfortunately, Lee Kuan Yew soon exposed his true self as soon as he became the Prime Minister. He wasted no time to suppress the workers’ movement because deep down, he was worried of workers’ power; he knew that workers when united, could undermine his power.  Nevertheless, he was bound by his election promise to release several political prisoners so he had no choice but to free eight trade union leaders including, Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Swan and C.V. Devan Nair. In fact, upon their release, he went on to appoint Lim and Fong as the political secretaries of the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Labour and he put Devan Nair in-charge of the National Trade Union Congress(NTUC) that the government was in preparation to establish it.

However, Lee Kuan Yew had retained and continued to carry out all the anti-labour and undemocratic laws and ignored the demands for unifying organisations of trades unions, human rights and democracy, increasing workers’ wage and so on.

The PAP under Lee’s leadership betrayed its founding principles and vision and became increasingly antagonistic against the people. It soon became clear that it has aligned itself with British interests. This eventually led to a split within the party between the faction loyal to Lee Kuan Yew and the other, led by Lim Chin Siong and Lee Siew Choh who insisted on continuing the anti-colonial struggle in Singapore. As a result, the Left in the PAP walked out of the party and formed an opposition party, the Barisan Socialis Singapura (BSS) on 17 September 1961.

Barisan Socialis Singapura as a left-wing party was to lead the masses against the British colonial design of merging Malaysia and Singapore into the Federation of Malaysia. Article 2 of the Constitution of Barisan Socialis Singapura highlighted that: the party declares its support for the formation of a democratic Malayan government that guarantees universal suffrage for all adults born in Malaya or who pledge loyalty to Malaya. Thus, Barisan Socialis Singapura has adopted the aim and struggle line of the progressive labour movement, which is to pursue constitutional struggle.

Lim Chin Siong as the Secretary General of Barisan Socialis Singapura had emphasised in his report at the party’s first General Assembly held on 11th October 1962 that, “We must do our utmost to adopt concrete steps towards uniting all the left-wing and anti-colonial forces of the Federation of Malaya to form a central government that truly represents the majority of our people, through constitutional means. Only when we succeed to do so will the lives of our farmers, workers and people of all classes be improved. We believe that a genuine merger of Malaya and Singapore that is based on equality and democracy can only take place through such means. And it is also the only way through which the democratic rights of the people of Malaya can be guaranteed. It is only so that we can build a country that is truly peaceful and prosperous”.

The people welcomed and supported Lim’s leadership because of his advocacy for the line of peaceful constitutional struggle above is in line with the aspiration and interests of the people. He was right that it is only by uniting the majority of the people through the struggle of the anti-colonial mass movement that the opposition could win and progressively undermine the rule of Lee Luan Yew and the PAP.  The political development in Singapore after mid-1962 showed that if the Legislative Assembly Election was called in 1963 as stipulated by our Constitution, the PAP was bound to lose the majority and Barisan Socialis Singapura would surely win. Hence, Lee Kuan Yew was desperate to prevent his imminent loss of power, so he quickly suppressed the anti-colonial democratic forces. In particular, he wanted to detain Lim Chin Siong but he had to find a pretext, which led to his manipulation before the 2nd February Incident. He tried all ways and means to instigate Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues to carry out radical protests and actions so that he could use that as an excuse to arrest the leaders of Barisan Socialis Singapura. He also accused Barisan Socialis Singapura for aiding the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

Thus, the 1962 snap referendum on the merger of Malaya and Singapore was a preamble to Lee Kuan Yew’s sinister plot. If Lim Chin Siong was to call for a boycott of the referendum, Lee could detain all the opposition leaders by accusing them of intending to riot and thereby, justify his mass arrests and repression. Further, Lee could then deprive the opposition of their right to run for the upcoming 1963 election, as well as their right to vote.  His intention was to abrogate the right of the anti-colonial forces in running for elections and their right to vote. In so doing, Lee and PAP wanted to prevent the democratic forces from gaining momentum and power in Singapore.

Faced with this dilemma, Lim and his colleagues tried their best to respond with reason and tact. Throughout the process, Barisan Socialis Singapura conducted mass political mobilisation through peaceful means by educating the people about how unreasonable and unjustified the referendum was. They tried to expose the insidious intention of PAP and the fake constitutional democracy propagated by the party.  In fact, Lim Chin Siong had urged the people to void their votes instead of a boycott and his strategy succeeded in neutralising Lee’s plot.

On 8th December 1962, the so-called Brunei People’s Armed Uprising gave Lee Kuan Yew another pretext to clamp down on the opposition. He so desperately needed to detain Lim Chin Siong and other opposition leaders, to ‘nib’ the anti-colonial forces ‘in the bud’. Recent historical research has revealed that the so-called armed revolution in Brunei was in fact, instigated by special agents sent by the British colonialists to suppress the emerging anti-colonial movements in Brunei and Sarawak. This move gave the ruling elite of Malaya and Singapore a pretext to suppress dissent and they had succeeded.

4, The line of struggle advocated by Lim Chin Siong was undermined by Lee Siew Choh and other leaders of Barisan Socialis Singapura

1、Lim Chin Siong’s perspective on peaceful constitutional struggle and parliamentary democracy

The results of the September 1962 Referendum saw the defeat of the opposition in Singapore. There were doubts about constitutional struggle within the anti-colonial movement, which led to pessimism and a defeatist tendency on the one hand, and adventurism and radicalism on the other.

Lim assessed the outcome of the Referendum on 12th September in his statement, which reiterated the need for peaceful constitutional struggle for as long as the conditions for it exist. He wanted to counter the extreme right-wing and the extreme left-wing tendencies within the opposition, which have both cast doubt on his political strategy.

On 21st October of the same year, Lim was interviewed by his party newspaper and he said, “in the eyes of the right-wing reactionary forces, parliamentary democracy will consolidate the ruling elite’s position and power. They will not allow the left-wing forces that advocate socialism to seize power through peaceful constitutional means”.

On his assessment of peaceful constitutional struggle, Lim had this to say, “the denial of the reactionary forces among us and the validity of peaceful constitutional rule and parliamentary democracy precisely prove that it is possible for socialists to have the support of the majority of the people, if we follow the path of peaceful constitutional reform. With this as our foundation, suppression cannot destroy or stop the progress of socialism”. 

He also said that, “The Singapore Left must seek social change through peaceful constitutional means. Only when the majority of our people wants socialism can socialism be realised. And only then will the attacks of the reactionary forces be futile. Hence, the reactionaries will increasingly rely on un-democratic and fascist means to strengthen their rule… It is obvious that because socialist forces are advancing through constitutional means that the reactionaries of the Federation had no choice but to attack democracy”.

In his 1963 New Year’s speech, he further pointed out that, “if the Federation of Malaya insists on stepping up police terror against the people, it would be this country’s political turning point. The Left must respond resolutely.”

The above was Lim’s perspective on peaceful constitutional struggle for Singapore. It is the iron proof of his understanding of the dialectical dynamism of peaceful constitutional struggle, and his realisation of its purpose and significance in the democratisation of Singapore and Malaya.  History has shown that, the distortion of Lim’s advocacy for the line of peaceful constitutional struggle as “ the line of right opportunism by certain  “left” opportunists within the Malayan Left, for their selfish and personal agendas have irrevocably undermined the national democratic struggles of Malaya (including Singapore). Even though over half a century has passed, there is a need to properly evaluate this unfortunate turn of event.

2、Lee Siew Choh and his colleagues accused Lim Chin Siong as “Right opportunist”, “Parliamentary cretinism”

Over time, various historical material that deals with the internal disagreement, divisions and debates about the political struggle line of the anti-colonial movement of the 1960s have emerged. Those who knew about these dynamics or who were part of it are not hesitant to discuss it today. One of the key leaders of Barisan Socialis Singapura, Chair of the Tampines Branch , Poh Ber Liak, has revealed much of the internal disputes, which has helped us understand the context within which the split within the Barisan Socialis Singapura had taken place. Below is a brief explanation.

(1)Lee Siew Choh advocated for the boycott of National Service (Military Draft) Registration in 1964
Before the September 1963 Singapore Legislative Assembly Election, Lee Siew Choh was very confident that he would win the election. He was extremely frustrated when he lost. That November, he attended a rally organised by the Malaya Labour Party in Johore Bahru (Malaysia) and called for a boycott against national service enforced by the Malaysian government. This was a preamble of his advocacy of the same in Barisan Socialis Singapura.

In January 1964, the Central Committee of Barisan Socialis Singapura called for a joint meeting of its members and Legislative Assembly members who were not imprisoned. It was to discuss the party’s position and policies on National Service. It was attended by ten members namely, Lee Siew Choh, Low Por Tuck, Koo Young, Chia Thye Poh, Ong Lian Teng, Tan Cheng Tong, Lim Huan Boon, Poh Ber Liak, Kow Kee Seng and Chio Cheng Thun. After much discussion, Lee had insisted on boycotting the National Service Registration Decree, but his motion was only supported by Koo Young and eight voted against it. Among those who opposed, some of them advocated for registration under protest and others opted for ‘principled registration’.

(2) Lim Chin Siong opposed Lee Siew Choh’s advocacy and was accused by the latter as  ‘Right opportunist’, and ‘against the Party’s principle and position’

February 1964, Lim Chin Siong wrote to the Central Committee of Barisan Socialis Singapura from prison, expressing his position on the matter:
After the 2nd February 1963 Incident and the General Strike of 8th October, the mass movement in Singapore has entered a lull. Therefore, it is not the right time to adopt any high-profile struggles but to sustain low-intensity struggles instead.
We should opt for registration under protest because our relationship with the masses is like the ‘fish and water’; without water, the fish cannot survive. Without the support of the masses, we cannot carry out any form of struggles. Until the masses are ready and demand protests, it is futile to carry out high-profile struggles.
Not engaging in high-profile struggle now does not mean there is no opportunity to do so in the future. The unjust laws of our enemy are many, we have much to struggle against later.

However, Lee Siew Choh criticised Lim as pessimistic and defeatist. In his opinion, political movement should always be on the rise and never on the ‘low’. The socialist movement of many countries began only with a few people but in Singapore, there were tens and thousands of us. Does this look like a movement in its ebb? Lee questioned and labelled Lim as a right opportunist and a coward. He said Lim was fearful, was giving in to the power-that-be, it was capitulation, and henceforth, went against the party’s position and principles. When Lee’s call for the boycott was rejected by the party’s extraordinary meeting on 29th April 1964, Lee Siew Choh and seven others resigned and left the party on 4th May.

 (3) On 7th March 1965, Lee Siew Choh returned to the party as a victor and advocated for “Revolutionary Struggle Line”, targeting the so-called “right opportunists”) and openly opposed Lim Chin Siong and his line of struggle

When Singapore was ejected from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Lee Siew Choh and his colleagues’ criticism of Lim Chin Siong and his line of struggle became increasingly apparent.

On the separation of Singapore from Malaysia

On 8th March 1965, 30 leftwing trade unions gathered to celebrate the International Women’s Day, the Singapore Trade Unions Liaison Secretariat (STULS) published a policy statement entitled “Resolve Malaysia, Secede from Malaysia” in the special publication for the celebration. It discusses about the correct path that the people of Singapore should be following. On the same day, the Serangoon Gardens Branch of Barisan Socialis Singapura also published an article entitled, “Singapore – where should it go from here?”. This article held similar position on the matter with trade unions. It was rumored that Lim Chin Siong might have authored the article. However, this article is unavailable today. It is probable that the special issue of the party bulletin published by the Serangoon Gardens Branch were all destroyed. After Lee Siew Chou rejoined Barisan Socialis Singapura on 7th March, he would not tolerate such dissenting views.

On 9th August 1965, the Lee Kuan yew-led Singapore was forced to leave the Federation of Malaysia. Lee Siew Choh was attending the Anti-Atomic Bomb Peace Assembly in Japan on that day when the news broke. He telephoned Koo Young and Chia Thye Poh to instruct them to declare Singapore’s independence as phoney; that Barisan Socialis Singapura would not recognise Singapore’s independence.  On the same day, Singapore’s 30 Left-wing Trade Unions led by the Singapore Commercial House and Factory Employees` union (SCHFEU)   issued a joint statement entitled, “Singapore left ‘Malaysia’: British Imperialist Rule frustrated and forced to deploy new deception” (see SCHFEU`s Bulletin, Issue No. 15, 15th August 1965). According to the statement:

This is an advancement of the people’s struggle against the formation of Malaysia. This signifies the joint failure and defeat of the Barisan National (BN) and PAP as puppet governments of the imperialists. It is particularly, the failure of neo-colonialism, and of British imperialism.
The declaration highlighted that “Independence and Autonomy” is the common will and hope of the people. It is also the aim of the left-wing trade union movement in its persistent struggle for democracy. It also affirmed the rights of the people of Singapore, politically, economically, and militarily and so on… That the aim of our struggle is the genuine unification of Malaya and Singapore.

When the 30 left-wing trade unions took up Lim Chin Siong’s line of struggle and issued the above-mentioned statement based on their assessment of the reality, Lee Siew Chou was quick to arbitrarily pin groundless/baseless accusations on trade unions leaders led by Tan Sin @Tan Seng Hin @Chen Xin as the “agents of the enemy”, “recognising phoney independence” and so on.

Lim Chin Siong in his partially published manuscript after his death, which contained a series of “Q & A” mentioned that, “…when Singapore declared independence from Malaysia, I wrote to the Chair of Barisan Socialis Singapura, Lee Siew Choh from prison. I urged him to reconsider his stand that Singapore’s independence is phoney. I urged him to recognise Singapore’s independence because it simply proves that PAP’s brand of ‘merger’ has failed and that he should instead ask PAP to immediately release all political detainees who had opposed PAP’s brand of merger (see “How did you feel when Singapore declared independence?).
   
On “Giving up Constitutional Struggle”

After Lee Siew Choh returned from Japan, from 16th August 1965 onwards, Barisan Socialis Singapura held a few meetings to discuss its position on Constitutional Struggle in the event of Singapore’s separation from Malaysia and subsequent declaration of independence by the PAP.  Lee Sew Chou insisted that:                                       
Parliamentary Democracy has died, Barisan Socialis must boycott the Parliament
Singapore’s independence is phoney and therefore, Barisan Socialis should not attend the Parliament
Barisan Socialis must order all its Members of Parliament to resign
Crush and dispel our fixation on Parliamentary Democracy (Cretinism) and organise street struggles

His position was met with strong opposition from the rank-and-file, as well as leaders of the party.  On 17th November of the same year, an incident took place among the Twelve (12) Branches of the party, which epitomises the collective position of the party’s rank-and-file on Lee Siew Choh’s radical line of struggle.

In October 1965, Lim Chin Siong once again wrote to the Central Committee and Parliamentary members of Barisan Socialis Singapura from prison, to express his opposition to the party’s abandonment of Constitutional Struggle. The main thrust of his intervention was:

Barisan Socialis is a constitutional political party and therefore, it can only work within constitutional means and abide by the constitution. To simply choose street battles over constitutional struggle because parliamentary democracy is dead goes against the purpose and spirit of the party. Otherwise, the existence of Barisan Socialis Singapura would no longer be meaningful.

However, the incarcerated Lim Chin Siong failed to dissuade the party from taking its radical path. On 8th October 1966, five Legislative members of Barisan Socialis Singapura, (Koo Young, Chia Thye Poh, Ong Lian Teng, Tan Cheng Tong and Poh Ber Liak), walked out of the Parliament as ordered by Lee Siew Choh. They then protested outside the Parliament House by unfurling a black banner which said, “Parliamentary Democracy is Dead”.  From then on, Barisan Socialis Singapura completely abandoned Lim Chin Siong and his line of struggle. Under the radical line and adventurist leadership of Lee Siew Choh, the party quickly alienated itself from the masses and basically, self-destructed. Not only that, many leaders and cadres of the left-wing trade unions and organisations gave up their struggle, either on behest of or forced by the leadership, which made it easy for Lee Kuan Yew to destroy these organisations and quickened the eventual collapse of Singapore’s anti-colonial power.

However, the left-wing cadres in and outside of the party, as well as the masses, identified with and supported Lim Chin Siong. In his speech to the cadres of Barisan Socialis Singapura, upon the announcement of the outcome of the National Referendum on 2nd September 1962, Lim had pointed to the future direction and struggle line of the party and presented his policy and actions on 11th October of the same year, at the party’s first General Assembly( Party Congress). However, his effort was completely undermined by Lee Siew Choh. In fact, Lee was so pleased with himself that he included in his Political Report for the Second (1967) and Third (1969) Party Congress, how he had successfully overthrown Lim’s policy and struggle line.

When Lee and seven others resigned from Barisan Socialis Singapura, the then representatives of the CPM in Singapore affirmed their support for Lee’s opposition to and boycott of national service. They even insisted that the party must apologise to Lee Siew Choh, and affirm that Lee was a talented leader, that the party could not do without him, and that the party should win him back…and so on. This development revealed and facilitated Lee Siew Choh’s hidden agenda. On hindsight, this move by the CPM had dealt a devastating blow on Lim Chin Siong.

5, Lim Chin Siong is deservedly an extraordinary leader of the workers’ movements and national democratic movements of Singapore, peninsula Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak

After Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew and his cronies intensified their persecution of Lim Chin Siong

The British colonial government,Lee Kuan Yew and his cronies,Tunku Abdul Rahman and his cronies, all tried their utmost to stop and thwart anti-colonial struggles that opposed the fake merger of Malaysia and Singapore. Using the so-called armed uprising of the Brunei people as an excuse, Lee Kuan Yew conducted mass arrests codenamed, “Operation Cold Store” on 2nd February 1963 in Singapore. More than 100 anti-colonial leaders and cadres including, Lim Chin Siong were detained overnight. Their ‘crime’ was the betrayal of Constitutional rule. They were imprisoned under the Internal Security Act (ISA) which gave the government full authority to incarcerate the opposition without trial and indefinitely. Many of the political prisoners were brutally tortured.

On 9th August 1965, Singapore declared independence from Malaysia and this proves that Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues were right to oppose the ‘fake merger’ and the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. And that Lee Kuan Yew’s advocacy to merge with the Federation of Malaysia was a mistake. In the eyes of the oppressed masses, Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues who were detained and persecuted were the true patriots of Singapore.

Upon Singapore’s separation from Malaysia and its declaration of independence, the continued incarceration of its opposition, including Lim Chin Siong was a very heavy political burden for Lee Kuan Yew. He had to intensify his persecution of the political detainees to force them to capitulate and then destroy them. He was particularly harsh on Chin Siong. As a result, Chin Siong suffered from acute depression and high blood pressure in prison and was exhibiting certain unusual behaviour. The medication given by the prison doctor had only worsened his condition. By December of 1965, the newspaper reported that Chin Siong had to be transferred to the General Hospital and that he had tried to kill himself there. There were concerns about his safety and anger erupted against Lee Kuan Yew for his under-handedness. On 8th December, Singapore’s 30 left-wing trade unions issued a joint statement charging Lee Kuan Yew for plotting the destruction of the left-wing movement by attacking left-wing cadres and leaders. They cited PAP’s maltreatment and near-murder of Lim Chin Siong as an example.

On 23rd July 1969, Lim Chin Siong personally handed a letter, dated 21st July to the prison warden, addressed to Lee Siew Choh. In it, he announced his loss of confidence in the struggle and his decision to give up politics. He also wrote to Lee Kuan Yew to express the same. Subsequently, he left Singapore for London, in the company of a psychiatrist and an officer from the Internal Security/ Criminal Investigation Department (ISD/CID). This was the beginning of his decade-long exile in London. His life was very difficult there. He was only allowed to return to Singapore in 1979. It is not surprising that sending Chin Siong away was Lee Kuan Yew’s fail-safe measure, his last resort against any possible or remaining threat to his political power. By then, Chin Siong had totally collapsed mentally, having gone through immense physical and mental torture during his imprisonment.

Barisan Socilais Singapura under the leadership of Lee Siew Choh also tried to exterminate the political influence of Lim Chin Siong

Unfortunately, Lee Kuan Yew’s persecution of Lim Chin Siong to totally destroy his political life was aggravated by Lee Siew Chou’s attempt to promote his ‘revolutionary struggle line’ as the leader of Barisan Socialis Singapura. The latter criticised and discredited Chin Siong and his line of struggle. Lee Siew Choh labelled his opponents’ struggle as  right opportunism line of struggle) and Parliamentary cretinism. His aim was to eliminate Chin Siong’s political influence and his authority as the leader of the anti-colonial movement. It is not difficult to fathom that for Chin Siong, such attacks from within the movement was no less devastating and painful than the blows dealt by his enemies from outside the movement.

The line of struggle that Lim Chin Siong represented was developed by the workers’ and the national democratic movement of Singapore when The Malayan Emergency ended. It is a political struggle line within the context of modern constitution, a struggle line that defends people’s rights and interests. It relies on the masses and believes in the masses. That is why the Singapore labour movement and national democratic movement were so vibrant and successful from 1950s to 1960s. Unfortunately, this effective line of struggle was undermined and later, eliminated by the revolutionary route led by Lee Siew Chou and his colleagues from 1966 onwards.

By the end of 1969, the foundation of Singapore’s powerful mass organisations led by Lim Chin Siong and his contemporaries had almost completely disappeared. Such a scenario that pained the supporters of Lim’s political struggle line but welcomed by its enemies, did aggrieve, pain and frustrate all those who had followed Chin Siong. They also felt utterly powerless and helpless. Lim Chin Siong by this time, had already descended into serious depression. He was so utterly demoralised, not only as a result of the psychological and physical torture he had endured during his detention but also from the devastating blows dealt by his party comrades. It is of no surprise that his health deteriorated.

Conclusion: Lim Chin Siong was an extraordinary leader that emerged from the labour movement and the national democratic movement

He became involved in the workers’ movement at the age of twenty in 1953 and was active in the political scene from the following year onwards. He was overwhelmingly voted in as a PAP candidate for the Bukit Timah Constituency in the 1955 Legislative Assembly Election. He was detained the following year by the Lim Yew Hock government and once more in 1963 by Lee Kuan Yew. Even though he was in prison, he continued to monitor, and involve himself in the political developments of Singapore. When Barisan Socialis Singapura began to veer towards left adventurism from 1964 onwards, he had tried his best to stop it. In other words, he tried to prevent the leadership of Barsan Socialis Singapura from alienating itself from the masses and towards its self-destruction. His persisted until his eventual melt-down. Before he passed away, he wrote about his understanding and assessment of the historical problems faced by Malaysia and Singapore in the early years of independence, as well as his reflection and conclusion of the various important struggles and incidents that he had experienced. It was meant to be his memoir which he could leave behind for those who came after him. This proves that even until his last breath, he was still concerned and hopeful about the national democratic movement of Malaysia and Singapore.

In his memoir, he revealed all the intrigues, plots, machinations and manipulations of the enemy at various stages of the democratic struggle. He was also critical of the mass organisations. All these demonstrate his serious and sincere attitude, his courage to face the judgment of our history and to personally take responsibility for his actions and decisions. More than twenty years ago, Chin Siong has already set an example for us by critically reflecting on the past, and to assess what we had done right and wrong. We should learn from him.

Looking at Lim Chin Siong’s life-long contribution and sacrifice for the national democratic struggles of Malaysia and Singapore, even if his decision to go to Britain was ‘voluntary’, it was only a tiny flaw in the grand scheme of things. His exile did not diminish his stature and credibility; he is still the undisputable leader of the labour and national democratic movements of Malaya (including Singapore) until today. He is our hero; a true pioneer of our nation-building. He had sacrificed his entire life to the labour movement and the national democratic movement of Malaya (including Singapore).

6,  My wish on the 20th Anniversary of Lim Chin Siong’s passing

Reality has proven that the revolutionary struggle line undertaken by Barisan Socialis Singapura as propagated by Lee Siew Choh had utterly failed. Half a century has passed since the attack against Chin Siong’s advocacy for constitutional struggle line as right opportunism. Unfortunately, he has left us before he could be vindicated. Two decades have passed and the injustice he has endured is yet to be put right. Among those who had misjudged him, some had already passed away, but some of them are still alive. Most of them are now in their 70s. In commemorating Chin Siong, I implore those who were at the forefront (especially the leaders) of those attacks, to apologise to Chin Siong and give him the justice he so deserves.

As our leader, his memoir is the ideological wealth he has left behind for the people. People of all walks of life and across all classes want to learn from him, especially those who had personally worked with him in the struggle, we are anxious to learn more about his assessment and summation of his experiences.

In early 2013, we learnt that Chin Siong had completed his memoir and had already got his friend to help prepare for its printing before he died. However, it is yet to be published. In July 2014, Lim Chin Joo (Lim Chin Siong’s younger brother) published his memoir (in Chinese) entitled, “My Youth in Black and White”(我的黑白青春). He has included in his appendix, sections of Chin Siong’s memoir entitled, “Lim Chin Siong Q & A”.

Many of us who have read it believe that Chin Siong’s intention of writing his memoir was to conclude his invaluable experiences and the lessons learnt from the many struggles he had led. In other words, his memoir is a priceless historical account that he wished to leave behind for his people. Many people are waiting to read the rest of his unpublished manuscript, which will shed light on the many issues that confronted us and the movements he led at that time. Some of what he said may even be very sensitive, hardly known or understood. Those of us who have worked with Chin Siong and have followed his line of struggle do hope to read his entire manuscript before we die. Thus, in commemorating him, we also hope to read his entire manuscript soon.

Written in January and edited in February 2016
Published on 15th March 2016 by SAHABAT RAKYAT
   Translated in October 2017 by Agnes Khoo


[Related articles]

1. The Best Way to Commemorate Lim Chin Siong Is To Propagate His Ideology and Ideal - In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of Lim Chin Siong's Departure (5 February 2016) (Updated on 22 Feb)

2. Part of Lim Chin Siong’s Q&A Posthumous Manuscript



Note on the translator

Agnes Khoo was born in 1965’s Singapore and completed her Bachelor Degree in Social Work and Sociology at the National University of Singapore in 1987, the year the Singapore government arrested 21 Church and Social Workers under the Internal Security Act (ISA), on the pretext of a ‘Marxist Conspiracy’, the government had made-up. Agnes’ father, Khoo Suan Wan was detained under the same law in 1965, as a paid secretary of the Singapore Marine Products Workers` Unions. He was arrested together with twelves others, at the eve of the Commemoration of May 1st, International Labour Day, organized by the left wing trade unions .

According to Agnes, her father suffered severe psychological torture during his detention and eventually, had a total breakdown after his release from prison. Her father’ s experience and that of several of her friends who were arrested in 1987 convinced her that to remain in Singapore’s rat-race and be part of the elite in Singapore’s society is not a solution. She subsequently left for further studies in the Netherlands and did her Master’s degree at the International Institute of Social Studies. Her thesis compared Asia’s Four Dragons: South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, in terms of their economic development vis-à-vis democratisation. She then went on to work in various NGOs in Europe and Asia before embarking upon her PhD. Studies at the University of Manchester, U.K. Her doctoral thesis was about the role of women’s movements in the democratisation of South Korea and Taiwan after 1987.

While pursuing her PhD., Agnes published in both English and Chinese, “Life as the River Flows – Women in the Malayan anti-colonial struggle” (2004), an oral history book by former women guerillas led by the Communist Party of Malaya. This was followed by a Taiwanese edition in 2006, a Malay language edition in 2009, and an Indonesian edition in 2011.

Agnes now lives in Ghana, West Africa; teaching International Relations at Webster University and running a chicken farm with her Ghanaian husband in his home village, as a community-based, social enterprise to provide education, training and employment for women and youth.


Monday, 11 December 2017

美国实施“颜色革命”的小伎俩

美国实施“颜色革命”的小伎俩

作者 / 来源:朱长生 / 中国《察网》


美国在柬埔寨进行“颜色革命”的伎俩已被识破!

颠覆行动大致可以分为三步:
  • 一是控制大学和媒体,推行普世价值等新自由主义理论,动摇目标国家政权的合法性。 
  • 二是在目标国家的上层建筑中寻找、扶植代理人。这些代理人具有较强号召力,接受境外资金资助,为境外垄断资本利益服务。
  • 三是在时机成熟时,以追求“民主、自由”的名义,出资支持代理人,发动街头政治运动,推翻、颠覆原有国家政权。
前两步是量变的积累,是酝酿阶段。第三步是量变积累后必然的质变结果,是爆发阶段。
.............................................................. 
美国凭借强大的军事实力,在国际事务中动辄诉诸武力,搞强权政治那是出了名的狠。不仅如此,搞阴谋,通过阴险政治手段,颠覆一国合法政权,那也是臭名昭著。冷战期间叫和平演变,冷战后,衍生蜕变成颜色革命。

独联体、中东、北非国家都有中招的,最近又瞄上了东南亚,意欲故技重施,颜色革命柬埔寨。好在洪森政权不吃那一套,果断重击吃里扒外、里通外国、美国豢养的反对派。兔死狐悲,柬埔寨当局自然遭到美国、欧盟甚至英国的一顿炮轰,接连发飙威胁,取消援助、不会承认即将到来的柬大选,美国又在耍起小手腕。那些年,美国颜色革命用过的,并仍在用在柬埔寨身上的颜色革命小伎俩还真不少。



一、颠覆有依托

从发生过颜色革命的国家来看,国内的反对派是颜色革命的中坚与骨干力量,并且无一例外,都是经过西方洗脑或收买的,明里或暗里亲美英等西方国家。这就决定了一旦其成了当权派,必定会不惜牺牲国家利益迎合美英西方国家的要求。基本依靠力量有国内反对派的信徒、不满国内形势要求改变的人群两类。两者有很大区别,一种是自觉,一种是盲从或被裹挟。前者由于长期受到反对派宣扬的价值观的洗脑,笃信西式的“民主”“自由”等价值观理念,因此,他们自愿而且积极地加入到颜色革命当中。后者自身并没有分辨能力,一般都悲剧地沦为反对派要挟政府的炮灰。

发生颜色革命的国家,大多政治黑暗、腐败横行,他们寄希望于更换执政者而“换换运气”。其行为大多是出于对本国政府的失望,而不是信奉西式所谓的“民主”价值观,所以,这些人在那些颜色革命成功的国家成了最失望的人群,因为到最后他们发现——赶走了一只狼,却来了一只虎,他们会感觉受到了彻头彻尾的欺骗和伤害。

国外势力。在乌克兰颜色革命过程中,我们可以清楚地看到英美等西方国家的身影,他们为反对派提供大量资金,并积极呼应反对派,用“人权”等对该国的执政者施加压力。国内、国外的非政府组织(NGO)。由于这些组织大多接受英美等西方国家资助,它们在颜色革命期间也会用各种形式积极配合反对派。

二、颠覆有手段

主要采取以下7个典型手段:



一是利用非政府组织实施长期政治渗透。西方国家把非政府组织作为推行西方价值观、颠覆他国政权的工具、西方政府喉舌和代理人,对目标国进行长期政治渗透。

二是利用“第五纵队”作为利益代言人。“第五纵队”指的是西方国家在演变目标国内培植的内奸、叛徒或颠覆分子。美国中情局设有秘密行动组(CAS),专门负责在目标国建立“第五纵队”,企图通过宣传、政治和经济操纵、军事行动和半军事行动推翻目标国政府。

三是利用青年学生、激进势力作为运动骨干。西方国家十分重视培植激进的青年学生组织作为发动颜色革命和“街头政治”的先锋队。他们通过开办培训班,精心挑选代理人,培养运动领袖和骨干力量。

四是利用弱势群体作为运动基础。2014年2月乌克兰政权更迭中,广大的低收入阶层,如青年学生、市民、退伍军人、失业者与无业游民等成为运动的基础,受“雇佣”的“志愿者”也多来自这部分人群,倍受寡头欺压、苦不堪言的中小工商业主等意见群体也成为运动的重要支持力量。

五是利用媒体为运动造势。美国实施媒体项目,制作电视和专题广播节目,培训大批从事反当局活动的媒体人,资助反对派媒体,使亲西方的媒体尽可能覆盖目标国所有地区,成为反动派煽动、动员示威、甚至是募捐赞助的宣传工具。开动各种媒体机器,对执政当局进行“不民主”“专制”等妖魔化宣传。

六是利用双重标准混淆是非。赞成符合自己利益的价值判断或行动,反对或限制不符合自己利益的价值判断或行动,并把符合自己利益的价值判断或行动强加于人。

七是利用暴恐掀起运动高潮。随着时代和技术的发展,为达到演变“异类”国家的目的,西方国家还将不遗余力、绞尽脑汁、千方百计地推出新的手段来,这是由其本性所决定的。

三、颠覆有步骤

颠覆行动大致可以分为三步:一是控制大学和媒体,推行普世价值等新自由主义理论,动摇目标国家政权的合法性。二是在目标国家的上层建筑中寻找、扶植代理人。这些代理人具有较强号召力,接受境外资金资助,为境外垄断资本利益服务。三是在时机成熟时,以追求“民主、自由”的名义,出资支持代理人,发动街头政治运动,推翻、颠覆原有国家政权。前两步是量变的积累,是酝酿阶段。第三步是量变积累后必然的质变结果,是爆发阶段。

此外,在识别颜色革命问题上,也是有特征可寻的。

一是以西方政治制度为理想目标。西方国家常把颜色革命与“第三波民主化浪潮”联系在一起,看作是全球民主化运动的一种表现形式。根据这个标准,只有发生以西方政治制度为理想目标的街头抗争运动才被称为颜色革命。

二是以非暴力为主要形式。颜色革命通常采取大规模的街头游行或广场集会抗争给现政权施加巨大压力,并最终促使现政权崩溃。这种街头政治形式与过去以军事斗争方式推翻政权不同,所以,颜色革命也被称为“非暴力革命”。但这种所谓的“非暴力革命”已经带有明显的“暴力犯罪”色彩,如暴力强占、破坏公共设施,冲击权力机关。

三是以颠覆政权为行动诉求。虽然自称为“非暴力革命”,但颜色革命并非和平变革,而是通过“非暴力”手段颠覆国家政权和根本制度。所以,即使是最温和的颜色革命也不同于最激进的社会改革。颜色革命颠覆的是一个国家的政权和根本制度,而改革则是在既有政权的领导下修正和完善国家的基本制度。

【本文原载于微信公众号“华语智库”, 作者: 朱长生,中国华语智库高级研究员、中国国务院发展研究中心欧亚所研究员】


Friday, 8 December 2017

中共与世界政党高层对话展现软实力

中共与世界政党高层对话展现软实力

作者/来源:宋鲁郑 (复旦大学中国研究院研究员) /BBC


是中国共产党首次与全球各类政党中共中央对外联络部于11月30日至12月3日在北京举办“中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会”,120多个国家、近300个政党和政党组织的领导人参与了这次前所未有的交流会。

(图片来源:BBC,图片说明与文内小标题为<人民之友>编者所加。BBC中文网注明:本文不代表BBC观点和立场)



首届中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会经过三天的讨论和充分交流之后闭幕。作为十九大之后举办的首场主场大型多边外交活动,中国极为重视,除了国家主席习近平出席开幕式并发表主旨演讲外,还有常委王沪宁主持的欢迎晚宴、中央政治局委员杨洁篪致闭幕辞。其他参与的政治局委员还有丁薛祥、杨晓渡、陈希、黄坤明、蔡奇等。如此规格可谓十分罕见。

哪么,中国为何如此重视政党高层对话这一创新机制呢?

中国主导打造高端政治交流平台

首要的,这是中国主导打造的高端政治交流平台。中国做为东道主,有议题设置权,有大会主导权。能够有效的向世界传播自已的理念,建立国际性的统一战线。

众所周知,中国参加的国际机构和签署的国际条件不计其数。但基本可以划分为四类。一是中国只是普通的参与者,不是规则的制订者。比如WTO、世界银行等。二是中国和其他国家一道是发起者,享有平等的地位。比如G20和亚太经合组织。三是中国和其他非西方国家一起发起成立的国际组织。比如金砖国家峰会、上海合作组织。四是中国自己发起成立的国际组织和平台。比如"一带一路"高峰会谈、"亚投行"以及刚刚结束的"中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会"。

尽管中国已是全球第二大经济体、第一大贸易国,但这种实力并没有在西方主导的国际组织中得到反应。要想发达国家退出自己的利益难度太高。美国占全球GDP的比重从二战后的50%下降到24%,但它在国际货币基金组织的份额仍然不变,继续维持一票否决、一言九鼎的地位。中国要想拥有和自己实力相称的国际地位,唯一的办法是效仿西方打造自己的平台。事实上,就在中国提出建立"亚投行"后,美国国会才批准已经拖延了五年的提高中国份额的法案,同时还附加了条件:美国国会对IMF拥有更大的监督权。

目前经济上中国已经有"亚投行",政治上则有了"中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会"。随着中国国力继续提升,还会有更多的类似机构创办。

中国开展政党外交以发挥特殊作用

其次,政党对话是中国独有的外交手段和方式。从政党的角度扩展中国的影响力与全球政党建立密切关系是中国的独特之处。西方一般只有政府和民间两轨外交渠道,但中国却有政党第三轨。政党外交作用之所以独特和不可替代,一是由于当今世界都是政党政治,政党对一个国家的发展和国际事务的处理具有主导性作用。政党交流和对话不仅有助于提升对本国的治理,也有助于改善全球治理。对国与国之间的关系拓展和改善都有立竿见影的效果。二是和代表国家利益的政府外交不同,政党外交相对超脱,各方更容易做到坦率以对,全方位、深入的交换意见和看法。三是当发生突发事件时,多一种沟通渠道显然更有利于问题的解决。而且有的国家政治生态比较特殊,单纯的政府和民间外交手段无法满足需要,而政党外交则可发挥特殊的作用。比如正处于转型期的缅甸,虽然真正的最高领导人是资政昂山素季,但她却没有最高领导人的职务。如果以政府的名义外访显然不太合适。这个时候,以政党对话的形式就解决了这个问题。

对话会展现中国在国际社会的重要性

第三,对话会邀请全球120多个国家、近300个政党,就代表性来讲接近联合国。虽然西方在实力、价值观上仍然在世界具有支配性作用,但在这种规模、国家不分大小都一律平等的论坛上,西方的这种作用就被高度稀释了。甚至以我个人参会的经验,完全被边缘化了。相反中国之重要和受欢迎的程度被凸显。我们会认知到世界多数国家是和中国站在一起的。应该说这才是今天中国在国际社会上真正的地位、作用和影响,但这种国际社会的人心向背只有借助政党对话会才能展现出来。

这样的例子太多了。许多国家上去发言,先向中国表示感谢——不是感谢中国举办这样的对话会,而是感谢中国对他们的帮助。比如阿尔及利亚民族解放阵线党领导人、副议长凯特莫洛夫就感谢中国对他们反殖民独立解放运动的支持,中国也是最早承认他们临时政府的国家。

许多非洲国家代表都谈到:"是中国令非洲从一个失落之地变成希望之处"。习近平主席在开幕式上也指出:"中国累计派出3.6万余人次维和人员,成为联合国维和行动的主要出兵国和出资国。此时此刻,2500多名中国官兵正在8个维和任务区不畏艰苦和危险,维护着当地和平安宁。"

在几天的大会中,全球才意识到中国竟然在世界上做了这么多正义的事情,对世界的贡献竟然如此之大。我在法国已经生活十七年,早就习惯了西方对中国的挑剔和苛责,这一场大会发出的对中国的肯定之声超过西方十七年的总和!显然这种鲜明的对比,只能说明出问题的是西方。

中国借助对话会了解全球民心民意

第四则是有助于中国了解全球的民心民意。中国很强调没有调查就没有发言权。但全球这么多国家,逐一进行实地调查缺乏可行性。但通过举办论坛把大家邀请到一起却高效而且是低成本的解决了这个问题。

根据我在大会的观察,与会者最关注的话题首要的是发展。其次是消除贫穷。第三位的则是贫富差距。再往下就是环境保护和气候变化。至于西方最关心的所谓民主化,根本无人提及。美国人最关心的朝鲜核问题竟无一个国家和代表关注,就是韩国代表发言,也只提了一句支持"半岛无核化"。

我身在欧洲,经常看到西方媒体对"一带一路"的质疑和担忧。但对发展中国家则是另一种景象。巴勒斯坦发言时指出他们的国家是"一带一路"上的重要国家,但它的国家长期陷入动荡之中。他希望"一带一路"能为自己的国家带来和平与繁荣。其发言时之激动,之热切颇具感染力。也说明了发展中国家期待"一带一路"造福于自己的国家。

显然,中国的"一带一路"和"人类命运共同体"主张是契合全球主流民意的,中国以促进各国发展为导向的经济合作政策也是符合实际的。而西方的主张一是显示了它的霸道,二是显示西方多么的主观和脱离实际。


以上四点是从中国的角度来看的,从其他国家与会者的角度看,这场大会同样非常重要。习主席在开幕上提出要对话会机制化,引发热烈掌声。闭幕式上中共常委、主管外交的杨洁篪作出同样宣示时,也是引发热烈掌声。在几天的会议上,许多代表也一再表示希望对话会机制化。由此可见这个对话会对参与者是多么的重要。

代表们希望对话会机制化有三原因

我想原因一是有太多成功的经验能够和他们分享。比如经济发展、党建、如何应对民粹主义和资本的渗透与控制。大会第一天参观中央党校,展现了中国共产党在人才培养方面的成功做法。包括美国在内的学者都认为这是提高政党执政能力的最佳方法。甚至一位和我交流的美国代表非常赞同如果美国也有这样的制度,就不会产生特朗普这样毫无政治经济的领导人。

二是这样强调平等、以对话和交流为目的平台还是太少。许多国家感觉总算有了发出自己声音的机会。在会议上,有个国家的代表发言时先强调他来自一个小国,并希望代表小国提出一个问题。这种表述方式就把他们的心理展现无遗。

三是每个国家都面临着不同的挑战,都希望通过大会建立的平台寻找解决问题的办法和思路。同时大家也都意识到一国内部的问题大都有外部性,确实需要各国携手合作,共同应对。

此次对话会是十九大后、中国进入新时代以来举办的首场主场多边外交活动,是中国共产党首次与全球各类政党举行高层对话。它所引发的高度关注、产生的强大吸引力和取得的丰硕成果也是这个新时代的反映。这场对话会必以共赢的方式、展现出新时代中国强大软实力而载入史册。


中共初与世界政党高层对话: 被忽视的中联部正走向前台

中共初与世界政党高层对话:
被忽视的中联部正走向前台

作者 / 来源:吴时飞 / 《多维新闻》“观察台”专栏


上图:中国中央对外联络部(简称:中联部)于11月30日至12月3日举办“中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会”,邀请120多个国家、200多个政党和政党组织的领导人参与。

下图:中国中联部部长宋涛(左)于2017年10月31日至11月2日赴越南会见越共中央总书记阮富仲,通报中共十九大情况。

(图源:新华社)


北京时间11月30日至12月3日,中共在北京举办一场全球政党大会,全名为“中国共产党与世界政党高层对话会”,邀请120多个国家、200多个政党和政党组织的领导人参与。这场规模空前的大会的组织者——中联部,从一直被忽视的状态忽而成为外界关注的焦点。

中南海低调神秘机构走向前台

针对这次政党大会,中共方面将其视为中国政党外交的一部分,旨在对外介绍中国经验。但是亦有海外媒体用固有意识形态的观点,将其视作中共重归“革命输出”道路,但这显然是一种错误、片面的看法。这次政党大会无论召开的成功与否,作为具体执行部门,曾经低调神秘的中联部正在走向前台。

成立于1951年的中联部是一个总管中共对外交流的机关,但与外交部负责处理国际关系不同,中联部处理的是党际关系。按照中共官方表述,其政治责任包括“执行中共中央对外工作的方针、政策;跟踪研究国际形势和重大国际问题的发展变化,并向中共中央提供有关情况和对策性建议;受中共中央委托,负责处理中国共产党同外国政党、政治组织的交往和联络工作”。

曾经:存在感最低的“四部”之一

在中共政坛,有4个以“部”冠名的中共中央直属机构,分别是中组部、中宣部、统战部和中联部。

在过去三四十年间,无论是从在中外的知名度,发挥作用,还是官员级别上来看,中联部都是存在感最低的一个。甚至不少政情分析人士都习惯性地称“中共三大部”,几乎忽略了中联部。在维基百科的介绍里,关于中联部只有寥寥数语,仅给出机构设置和历任部长名单,与另外“三大部”的长篇幅描述形成鲜明对比。 分析原因,主要有两方面因素。

  • 其一,中共外交系统有中共中央外事工作领导小组办公室(简称中央外办)、中联部、外交部三驾马车。三驾马车虽然职能不同,但仍有相当部分轨道重叠,中联部的外交作用在一定程度上被外交部“替代”,因此其地位相对“弱化”。 
  • 其二,中联部不仅仅是外交部门,其工作重点是直接与世界政党高层打交道,与中国国家安全委员会有部分重合。如2003年1月10日,朝鲜公开宣布退出《不扩散核武器条约》,当年5月,时任中联部部长的戴秉国就被紧急调往外交部,挂帅斡旋“朝鲜核危机”,在任职期间,戴秉国一直扮演着类似“国家安全顾问”的角色。工作性质涉密也是中联部刻意保持低调的一个原因。

如今:动作接二连三 迎来重大契机

中联部第一次引起外界关注是在中共十九大闭幕之后,中联部部长宋涛先后赴越南、老挝、朝鲜通报十九大情况。有媒体注意到,中共在十七大之后派出的是时任中宣部部长刘云山,在十八大之后派出的是时任中国人大常委会副委员长李建国。 在全国代表大会之后派出特使向同类政党通报有关情况一直是社会主义国家的政治传统,但此类党际交流的任务本应该是中联部的份内职责,因此这次宋涛出使算是一种职责的回归,也意味着中联部开始重新受到中共高层领导人的重视。此外,刘云山和李建国在当时都是政治局委员,而宋涛只是中央委员。分析人士认为,中共没有理由给通报十九大情况的特使“降档”,因此这种安排不排除是在给中联部“升级”的可能。 如果说宋涛出访只是中联部角色吃重的一个“迹象”,此番举办全球政党大会则预示着中联部将迎来重大契机,今后或许会发挥更重大的作用,成为名副其实的中共中央“四大部”之一。

未来:或成为中国外交的一大补充

此前,中联部一直是中国对朝外交的一个特殊而关键渠道,因为是总管中共对外交流的机关,中联部与许多国家的政党缔结了广泛的合作交流关系,且因为中联部重在政党交流,致使其在外交活动中比外交部更加灵活。曾有媒体报道,在中朝关系中,朝鲜前领导人金正日甚至只信中联部,不认中国外交部。

未来,中联部如果能与朝鲜、越南、老挝等政治制度相近国家之外的其他大多数国家执政党、在野党及民间建立起直接、顺畅、稳定和灵活的相互关系,将作为一大补充弥补原有外交体系偏重于国家层面的不足,配合中国参与和引领全球化的国家战略。

分析人士认为,重新重用中联部和加强党际交流也透露出中共在尝试着用一种新的方式与世界对话。


Monday, 4 December 2017

新加坡勾结印度的目的 是为了继续对付中国

新加坡勾结印度的目的
是为了继续对付中国

作者 / 来源:商丘羊 / 南洋大学校友业余网站
(插图说明与小标题为《人民之友》编者所加)


上图:新加坡国防部长黄永宏11月底对印度进行访问,据印度媒体报道,新印两国国防部29日会谈,就海军合作达致协议。

下图:新加坡防长黄永宏(左2)与印度防长西塔拉曼(右2)见证两国海军代表签署海军合作协议。


..............................................................

特朗普提出太平洋—印度洋战略,取代奥巴马的重返亚洲政策。这一战略,涵盖了太平洋和印度洋,特朗普如此扩大的调整,是为了应对亚洲局势的变化。在冷战时代,美国即以日本、韩国、琉球、台湾、菲律宾、泰国、马来西亚、新加坡组成所谓第一岛链和第二岛链封锁中国。在这战略部署下,这些国家背靠美国,对中国敢于挑衅,成为美国的打手。随着中国的改革开放,中国与周边的一些国家进行了互相沟通,舒解了对立情势,如泰国、马来西亚、文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸。

美国为了围堵中国崛起,唆使第一岛链的国家与中国对抗,例如日本,有意在东海油气田、钓鱼台岛制造事端。又如菲律宾,假借南海仲裁案挑起事端,而新加坡后来居上,更以冲锋姿态挑衅中国。中国国力增强,军事力量也随之上升,就在美、日等国在东海和南海生事之际,中国军舰和战机以磅礴气势穿越宫古海峡和对马海峡,打破了第一岛链封锁。另一方面,中国在南海填海造岛气势如虹,把自家的核心利益诠释得淋漓尽致,任谁也不敢干预。当美、日、韩三国还在朝鲜的核武器震慑中发愣,中国已经粉碎了美国人数十年的围堵美梦。此时新加坡跳了出来,虚张声势地以自由航行和自由飞行为借口,伙同美、日、菲阻止第一岛链被打破的噩梦。



特朗普要部署对中国的更大包围圈

美国的第二岛链是从日本小笠原群岛开始,经马里亚纳群岛、关岛、加罗林群岛,以及澳洲、新西兰,美国心目中也想包括印度尼西亚在内。特朗普眼见第一岛链被中国打破,于是其团队中有人主张退守以关岛为中心的第二岛链,

中国在钓鱼岛的强硬立场,挫败了日本替美国人打先锋的阴谋。在南海的坚决行动,迫使美国狼狈而退。第二岛链距离中国较远,可是中国并不将之放在心上,不断举行越过第一岛链的更远的军事演练,美国不得不重新考虑它的亚洲政策。于是特朗普提出了太平洋—印度洋战略,将原有的岛链利用马六甲海峡与印度洋连接起来,形成更大的对中国的包围圈。

美国无法在南海得利,于是改变方式,极力拉拢印度以对付中国,而对中国充满敌意与妒意的印度正想要称霸一方,对美国提出的战略表示赞同,做起亚洲强国的美梦。美国国务卿蒂勒森于10月24至26日访问印度,大肆渲染中国崛起给世界带来不稳定性,对印度产生挑战,同时吹捧印度将超越中国,成为“世界第一”。美国积极拉拢印度,目的是形成美国、日本、澳洲、印度围堵中国的新岛链。

新加坡主动跳出来配合特朗普的部署

11月29日,在此情况下,新加坡主动跳出来,将脸颊贴在印度的屁股上,并且招引印度前去利用新加坡军港与设施,把它引到亚细安内部。新加坡此举,是为了配合美国的亚洲战略,同时也向中国展示它不肯因南海问题而屈服的立场。为何新加坡敢于未征求亚细安各国同意,私自将印度引进本地区?这与新加坡明年是亚细安轮值主席国有关,它以为可以就轮值主席的身份,自作主张而不需征求大会同意,此举严重践踏亚细安精神,势必引起与会国的不满与抗议。新加坡此举使得印度媒体一片叫好,他们为印度取得马六甲东面港口停泊权而欢呼不已。特朗普此前曾诱导印度出兵干预阿富汗政局,虽然被印度拒绝,特朗普不会因此罢休,因为他看到印度野心四溢,同时在地理上又与阿富汗接壤。

当特朗普提出新战略不久,新加坡外交部长维文已经到印度进行数次交流,而最为明显的动作,是新加坡国防部长黄永宏对印度的访问。11月29日,新加坡与印度达成海军合作协议,内容包括海洋安全、联合演习、海军设施临时使用、双方后勤支援等。

新加坡此举,使印度获得马六甲海峡交通要道的后勤基地,让印度达到“东进政策”的目的。协议签署后,黄永宏在记者会说:“我们都认识到马六甲海峡与印度洋都是关键的海上通道。我想新加坡与印度两国都希望看到两国在马六甲海峡与安达曼海有更多的参与和活动。”他把新加坡主动敞开大门让印度进去说得清清楚楚。

找来印度帮忙掐住中国经济生命线

新印两国在29日发表联合声明,黄永宏还印度媒体说:“合作不仅是要建立海上安全,还要维护航行自由,我们知道,这是经济生命线。”马六甲海峡不是印度的生命线,却是中国80%石油和11%天然气的通道,是中国的生命线。黄永宏对着印度说“我们知道,这是经济生命线。”很明显的是指中国的经济生命线。新加坡掐不住中国经过马六甲海峡通道,却找来印度帮忙,究竟是何居心?

黄永宏为了证明新加坡是真正的支持印度,11月28日特意登上印度自制的轻型战斗机 LCA,印称 tejas(光辉),黄永宏乘坐后称赞该机“飞行稳定”,性质良好,并说自己是冒着生命危险登机。他以性命担保印度制造的战斗机性质良好,是彻底投向印度的表现。

目前,印度已经进入美国战略之中,澳洲是另一个叫嚣要参与南海航行自由和飞行自由的国家。而新加坡,2016年与美日在南海表演的闹剧刚歇,又匆忙赶往印度给它打气,新加坡扮演的是跳梁小丑角色,但它觉得自己是小国大外交,是一个大国。

新加坡还妄想遏制中国是自取灭亡!

新加坡为了对抗中国,与美国、日本、菲律宾进行过合作,2016年在南海制造风波,现在又与印度抱团做伙,还是为了与中国对抗,李显龙对中国的怨恨一丝没变,而且把“马六甲困局”提升至更大的国际化。这样一来,必然刺激中国开凿克拉运河的决心,让美国、印度、新加坡的马六甲轴心成为断碎的岛链。

明年新加坡是亚细安轮值主席国,新加坡以为自己是主席国,可以随心所欲把印度引进亚细安而无需征求同意。明年也是亚细安各国商定《南海各国行为准则》的具体内容,新加坡绝不会放弃这个机会引诱声索国给中国制造麻烦。同时,新加坡已邀请莫迪出席明年的香格里拉对话会,莫迪会趁此机会发表称霸的野心,并借此机会抨击中国。

我们等着观看新加坡如何再次表演与中国对抗的闹剧,看它在舞台上跑龙套,看它如何替大国穿针引线,看它怎样不肯听从马凯硕的劝告,做出与自己身份不相称的动作。小国仍是无外交,想要称大国,那是小岛妄想症,无异是以鸡蛋碰石头,自取灭亡!



Friday, 24 November 2017

中国的两面三刀指责 和新加坡的处境

中国的两面三刀指责
和新加坡的处境

作者 /来源: 商丘羊 /南洋大学校友业余网站

本文插图与文内小标题为《人民之友》编者所加

打从2016年李显龙力挺美国、日本、菲律宾在南海生事以来,中国的媒体至少三次指责新加坡向中国耍弄两面三刀手段。在华人的观念中,两面三刀是极其严重的指责,它比起阳奉阴违还要严重。阳奉阴违是人前奉承,背后违抗,而两面三刀是人前一套,背后又一套,对人使刀子,制造伤害。一个两面三刀的人,是难以改变内心对别人的伤害企图。 

李显龙在那段日子利令智昏,忘记了两面得利的风光日子。当2013年一带一路提出后,他出于对 TPP 和重返亚洲的焦急求成,以至于做出伤害中国核心利益的蠢事。新加坡原本奉行的是“军事美国,经济中国”政策,这个李光耀定下的政策,在中国还没有提出一带一路计划之前,给新加坡带来两面讨好的利益,但是在一带一路进入实践阶段,尤其是几个新港口的出现和建设,如瓜达尔港、马德港、皇京港、关丹港、汉班托塔港……,新加坡感觉在经济上的优势受到威胁,因此对一带一路极为反感,态度冷淡,这就是李显龙为何不出席北京一带一路高峰论坛的缘故。

李显龙原想完成其父心愿却判断错误陷入窘境

李显龙秉承李光耀遗志,想要在“军事美国,经济中国”的基础上促成美国的重返亚洲和 TPP,以抑制中国崛起,完成李光耀的心愿。然而他却因为判断错误而使自己陷入窘境,重返亚洲和 TPP 是李光耀向民主党政府的献议,从克灵顿执政时期已经进行,奥巴马上台,依旧是民主党执政,这让李显龙产生错误的幻觉,认为奥巴马必定坚决执行。在李光耀死后,恰好出现南海仲裁案,李显龙如获至宝,于是与美国、日本、菲律宾大演三簧,他汲汲于奔赴美国与日本,表示大力支持以强硬态度对付中国。在美期间,因受奥巴马邀请在白宫进餐,得意之余忘乎所以,两人互相吹捧,此时他彻底忘了还有一个“经济中国”。李显龙的另一个严重的幻觉是认定来届美国总统大选将又是民主党所得,所以他公然支持民主党候选人希拉里,为她站台。

特朗普突然间杀出,令李显龙十分震惊,这个尚未上台就声称取消 TPP 以及奥巴马的各种政策的总统,实属罕见。李显龙乱了阵脚,毫无把握抛出邀请,慌乱之中把他看成奥巴马。

特朗普终于否定了 TPP,对重返亚洲只字不提,叫李显龙不解的是美国军舰仍在南中国海出进,那么保护航行自由和飞行自由不是还在进行吗?李显龙不明白,美国舰队此刻仍在执行奥巴马时代拟定的海上计划,并非特朗普下达的命令。这几天,美国三艘航母已经散开,驶离西太平洋,东亚地区又显现出平静,特朗普的新亚洲政策仍然不见踪影。

看来特朗普似乎对亚洲不感兴趣,奥巴马拍胸捶膛要把60%军力投放到西太平洋的远景无法实现。然而特朗普是一个狡谲的家伙,一副商人本色,唯利是图,善于扮猪吃老虎。他在越南声称要当南海争端的调停人,企图以不费吹灰之力控制全局,暗地里却和越南勾三搭四。此前还鼓励印度介入阿富汗战争,想拖人下水。这样的总统,虽然嘴上挂着“美国优先”、“让美国再次伟大”,其本质还是脱离不了帝国主义。

新加坡地理优势不再,李显龙于是改变态度

瓜达尔港和马德港运作,使得向来停泊新加坡80%的中国货轮和油轮大为减少,新加坡港务局因此裁退数千名员工。正在兴建的马六甲皇京港一旦落成,将彻底抢走新加坡的中国货运生意,而关丹港竣工之后,连接巴生港的东西铁路完成,其效果犹如瓜达尔港建设直通铁路到达新疆喀什。

新加坡海港正在搬去大士,突遭此挫折,不得不叫李显龙害怕。地理位置的优势慢慢地被剥夺掉,岛国赖以生存的基础受到动摇,于是他改变态度,对中国的一带一路表示支持,尽管那是十分无奈的支持!

李显龙终于领会了一带一路的巨大威力,他硬着头皮去访问中国。中国人的和颜悦色松弛了他紧绷的心,于是好话连篇,不过没有丝毫忏悔的言语,说明他内心深处恨意未消。

由于新加坡作为扼制马六甲海峡的作用开始瓦解,中国轮船不久都不需要在新加坡停泊,皇京港将取代新加坡成为中国轮船的中途站。新加坡感到从来未有的威胁,刚启动的大士港可能成为废港,因此匆忙与中国商量,将中新重庆互联互通项目扩大,企望借南向通道物流运作,弥补各海港造成的损失。

跟中国签署了南向物流合作协议有得救吗?

南向物流通道是以新加坡在重庆投资的工业园为中心,将生产的物质向南进运入广西,由北部湾港出海,运往新加坡,再分散到东南亚、中东各地。货运相反亦是如此运作。新加坡担心单靠重庆物质难以维持货运势头,于是要求中国给予除了重庆,还包括广西、贵州、甘肃四个区域的物流合作,签署了框架协议。

如此一来,是否可以高枕无忧呢?错了,新加坡对于中国向来态度傲慢,自视甚高,就是李克强所说的居高临下。因此造成李显龙团队里的成员产生集体盲思,不把中国放在眼里,也就对中国无法正确判断。重庆和义乌一样,是中国中欧班列的起点,中国向欧洲发出的物质,已经不需要经过马六甲海峡,中国不会不利用可以节省十八日行程的中欧班列,而将物质往新加坡运载。而运往新加坡分散到东南亚和中东的物质又能够有多少?

更骇人听闻的是,马来西亚与中国在北部湾附近的钦州设有马中钦州产业园,在关丹设有中马关丹产业园,关丹港建设就快完竣,这个距离中国又近且又是深水港的码头,与北部湾早已达成对接协调,两港货运往来必定水到渠成。新加坡向来轻视马来西亚,它却没有看到马来西亚政府当中,有一批杰出的华族官员在默默奉献,这些人与同为马来西亚人的苏碧华、许文远之流不可同日而语。钦州产业园和关丹产业园对接下的两地港口配合运行,把新加坡远远地甩在后头。看来新加坡的南向物流计划也是行不通。

新加坡仍然为美日在南海遏制中国的意图而忧心

美国退出 TPP,剩下11个群龙无首的国家,明确的宣布 TPP 死亡。各国的经济利益不同,想法各异,因此迟迟不能达成协议,其中最为焦急的是日本和新加坡,这两个国家都带着反对中国崛起的私愿,而新加坡更是要达到李光耀以美制中的遗志。越南 APEC 会议期间,11国磋商后达成协议,如何落实还不见踪影。首先是自居领导的日本并非一个胸怀宽广的国家,自闭保护是它一路来的特点,过去与美国为了牛肉与农产品纠缠了数十年,它绝对不会让别国得到利益。新加坡处于李光耀的政治和战略考虑,与日本有着共同利益,想要借此联手对付中国的一带一路、亚投行等计划,所以与日本仍为 TPP 呐喊。

明年新加坡是亚细安轮值主席国,李显龙发出声音说要“公正”执行自己的工作,但是所谓“公正”指的是什么?当然不只是协调亚细安之间的关系,我们可以预见,《南海各国行为准则》的具体磋商将是重点。在李显龙内心,一直有一个想法,就是把《联合国海洋法公约》置于《南海各国行为准则》之上,以遂其与美、日两国共同操纵所谓航行自由和飞行自由的目的。这个企图在李显龙不断提及航行自由和飞行自由的演说中可以证明。

特朗普最近提出印度洋—太平洋概念,看准了印度一直在跳大国草裙舞的自恋状态,而此前特朗普已经要求印度介入阿富汗局势,虽然被印度拒绝,可是印度想要称霸的野心很可能掉入美国的陷阱。对于印度,新加坡也是想要与之促进来往,以制衡中国崛起,其外交部长维文数次访问印度,而对于印度的阅兵日、共和日邀请,新加坡不假思索,欣然同意参加。

明年美国、英国、澳洲、日本、印度等国将在西太平洋(主要在南海)举行海上演习,看似重温炮舰政策时代的美梦,届时新加坡也插上一杠,扮演重要角色,负起后勤与停泊中心的任务。李显龙急于赴美拜会特朗普,而特朗普答应明年访问新加坡,相信与此事有关。

在李显龙脑海中,也许他以为特朗普的印度洋—太平洋概念是“重返亚洲”的再版,让他又看到了制衡中国的希望,从他急于拥抱印度的举动,是否把阿公和舅公都邀请到家里来作客。

新加坡出路:撇清与美国关系,融入“一带一路”

毛泽东说过:“捣乱,失败,再捣乱,再失败,直至灭亡——这就是帝国主义和世界上一切反动派对待人民事业的逻辑。”新加坡是否掉进这个逻辑,这需要具有高度的政治智慧才能理解。衡量这种政治智慧,首先是撇清与美国的关系,重新调整“军事美国,经济中国”策略,利用创新型的思路塑造迎合新时代。近日李显龙声称要增加税务,形势如此严峻,不是“军事美国”可以帮助解决问题。中国人一而再,再而三地提起两面三刀,是对新加坡充满防范之心,说白了就是不再信任。一带一路对新加坡产生了冲击,怎样融入其中而获得好处,这是今后长久时间内的急切工作。#

特朗普想要削减对外民主援助,美国颜色革命小动作依然不断

 特朗普想要削减对外民主援助,
美国颜色革命小动作依然不断

 作者 / 来源:朱长生 (中国) / 微信公众号“华语智库”

特朗普上台伊始宣布,将大幅减少美国国务院和国际开发署的预算资金,从而使一直以来外界纷纷猜测的美国对外民主援助项目正式曝光于天下。尽管特朗普总统有着如此明确的表示,但从近一个时期以来,独联体一些国家及东南亚个别国家国内形势的波动来看,美国政府并没有停止搞颜色革命的小动作。

特朗普削减对外援助预算遇阻力

美国国务院建议折衷执行。美国国务卿雷克斯•蒂勒森原则同意白宫削减国务院和国际开发署37%对外援助和外交经费的提议,但希望预算削减不搞“一刀切”,而是在3年内逐步完成。第一步就是在下一预算年将经费削减20%。

美国参议院反对削减计划。9月12日,特朗普政府提出将2018年对斯里兰卡援助削减92%的建议(从4300万美元降至340万美元),美国参议院拨款委员会认为,斯里兰卡地缘和战略位置重要,对此表示反对。

2017财年依然维持庞大对外援助资金。据路透社披露,目前美国国务院和国际开发署每年预算略高于500亿美元。而另据美国一家政府网站统计,在2017财政年度,20家美国政府机构在全球100多个国家和地区开展365亿美元的对外援助项目。

媒体强烈批评。美国《纽约时报》网站9月7日发表皮帕•诺里斯题为《特朗普从全球民主事业中撤退》的文章,批评当局抛弃美国最根本的价值观,放弃对国际人权事业的承诺,让仇者快亲者痛,这种转变将是一个历史错误。

多国政局波动与各种基金会活动有关

俄罗斯反对派两度滋事。今年3月26日,当局最大反对派纳瓦利内领导的“反腐基金会”组织支持者打着“反腐”的旗号,在俄罗斯多个主要城市举行反政府示威游行,反对派号称有6万人参加。10月7日,普京生日的当天,该组织再度在全国数十座城市发起抗议集会,高呼“俄罗斯必会自由”“没有普京的俄罗斯”等口号,声援反对派领袖纳瓦利内。

这两起事件背后都有西方影子,西方给予了高度配合。3月26日游行发生后,当日美国、欧盟官方就作出强硬姿态,要求俄政府迅速放人,美国国务院发言人批评俄政府抓人“侮辱民主价值”。10月7日示威发生后,美英等国媒体也是迅速声援,批评俄罗斯拘留示威者“不民主”。俄政治学家马尔特诺夫对此称,纳瓦利内及其支持者的活动都与西方各种基金会在俄境内积极活动相呼应。

柬美矛盾升级。9月初,美国在柬埔寨搞颜色革命计划被曝光。美国暗地里给柬埔寨反对党提供大量援助,支持其搞颜色革命,并指令柬埔寨反对党救国党主席根索卡推翻柬埔寨政权。关键时刻,洪森果断出手,公布其叛国证据,并以涉嫌叛国罪抓捕根索卡。9月15日,柬埔寨首相洪森要求美国撤回在柬的“和平队”志愿者,并宣布中止与美国合作寻找在越南战争时期,在柬失踪的美国军人遗体。

乌克兰反对派也在搞事。10月17日开始,刚刚在乌克兰“橙色革命”发起者、前总理尤利娅•季莫申科等乌克兰议员和政界人士陪同下、从美国经波兰强行闯关入境的独联体颜色革命“急先锋”萨卡什维利,率领“新力量运动党”等10个乌克兰政党在基辅宪法广场最高拉达大楼附近组织大规模抗议活动,要求取消议员的不可侵犯权利,建立反腐败法院并修改选举法。乌克兰内务部长顾问、最高拉达议员安东•格拉先科认为,萨卡什维利此举是企图在乌克兰制造政变。

颜色革命是一种兵不血刃的战争方式

颜色革命是美西方和平演变政策的延伸,是冷战后美西方按其价值观、民主模式主动改造世界的手段,是一种兵不血刃的战争方式。它是造成当前地区形势动荡、恐怖主义猖獗、欧洲难民危机的重要根源。

颜色革命起源。颜色革命(Colour Revolution),又称“花朵革命”,因参与者通常采用一种特别的颜色或者花朵来作为他们的标志而得名,是21世纪初期发生在中亚、东欧独联体国家和中东北非地区的一系列以颜色命名、以和平和非暴力方式进行的政权变更运动。它有着明确政治诉求,背后一般都有外部势力插手,经过社会动员,往往导致持久的社会对立和动荡,给执政者形成强大压力。

它是美国对不听话国家进行“和平演变”策略

颜色革命是冷战后西方推行新一轮“和平演变”政策的产物。冷战后,美国通过一段时间的调整和一系列的适应性动作,已经逐步消化吸收了胜利果实。为长久保持冷战红利,美国积极谋求一超独霸的地位,加快推行单边主义的步伐。为此,美国文武两手双管齐下:“武”的方面,以自身超强的军事实力发动科索沃战争、阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争,直接建立亲美政权;“文”的方面,强化意识形态色彩,在独联体范围内、中东及蒙古推动颜色革命,借推行“民主”之机,利用某些国家内部的困难和矛盾,以“自由、民主”为口号,以经济或人道主义援助为诱饵,以美元开道,以某些不大听美国招呼的国家为重点,继续进行“和平演变”,以推动认同西方民主价值观的反对派上台执政的方式为美国的国家利益服务。

颜色革命的理论指导与行动指南

美国政治理论家吉恩•夏普(Gene Sharp,上图)被称为“颜色革命教父”、“阿拉伯之春”的“精神导师”。他生于1928年,早年接受圣雄甘地“非暴力不合作”思想,视其为偶像。1983年,吉恩•夏普开始在哈佛大学主持非暴力抗争研究工作,并建立爱因斯坦研究所,在全球宣传采用非暴力的方式进行政治抗争。

其著述集中讲述如何通过非暴力手段颠覆一个政权。其理论曾对波罗的海三国(爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、立陶宛)脱离苏联发挥至关重要(“比核武器还重要”)的作用。

1993年所著《从独裁到民主》(上图左下角)一书中,列举了198种非暴力推翻政权的具体方法,比如,如何对待普通居民,如何对付官员、分化瓦解执政党,如何操控媒体,如何组织非暴力集会和罢工等等。 “非暴力抗争就像白蚁蚕食树木,可以把政权的支柱力量蚕食掉。这种力量并不亚于一枚炸弹或是一杆枪。最终,整个支柱会轰然倒塌。”

这本最初为当时的缅甸反对派而写的书,很快通过各种渠道从缅甸流向前南斯拉夫,又流向乌克兰、格鲁吉亚,最后来到了突尼斯、埃及和叙利亚,不仅成为宣传鼓动的武器,更成为反对派的行为指南。美国政府以夏普的理论为指导,有计划地培训熟练掌握街头非暴力斗争方式的骨干,这些人走上街头,开启推翻原政权的活动。

颜色革命在各国的实践及其结果

1989年东欧剧变时,捷克斯洛伐克没有经过大规模的暴力冲突就实现了政权更迭,如天鹅绒般平和柔滑,故得名“天鹅绒革命”。它尽管不属于颜色革命,但成为通过非暴力的和平方式更迭政权的代名词,后来发生的颜色革命基本上都属于“天鹅绒革命”的类型。2003年格鲁吉亚首发“玫瑰革命”,紧接着2004年乌克兰发生“橙色革命”(又称“栗子花革命”)、伊拉克的“紫色革命”、黎巴嫩的“雪松革命”、吉尔吉斯斯坦的“郁金香革命”(又称“柠檬革命”)、缅甸的反军政府运动(“番红花革命”“袈裟红革命”)、伊朗的“绿色革命”,以及2010年底以后的“阿拉伯之春”(以突尼斯为起点的***革命”、埃及革命、利比亚内战和也门起义),以及没有成功的白俄罗斯“牛仔布色革命”与哈萨克斯坦的“黄色革命”,等等。

颜色革命有成功,也有失败。颜色革命在格鲁吉亚、乌克兰和吉尔吉斯斯坦等国取得成功,推翻了原政权,建立了新政权。而部分中东国家新政府建立之后,因世俗派与伊斯兰主义派的争斗,未能建立有效的政权,导致政治争端不断,如埃及。即便在一度成功的国家中也有反复,如乌克兰和吉尔吉斯。从结果来看,颜色革命并没有改善国家与人民的命运,更多地带来的是社会持续动荡、人民生活愈加贫困,绝大多数国家情况变得更加糟糕。

面对颜色革命浊流,我国也难以置身事外、独善其身。妥善应对颜色革命已成为坚持中国特色社会主义道路、巩固党的执政地位的重大而艰巨的政治任务。

(作者:朱长生,中国国务院发展研究中心欧亚社会发展研究所研究员、华语智库高级研究员。)


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)