人民之友工委会向全国选民提出 各州选举和全国大选的投票建议

人民之友恭祝各界在新的一年里,坚持抗拒种族霸权统治,阻止政客把国家伊斯兰化!

 yehwa1.jpg

黄业华@赵明福民主促进会2025-05-25呼吁 民主行动党5名内阁部长(即陆兆福 、哥宾星、倪可敏、沈志强和杨巧双)集体辞去部长职位,向人民谢罪。国内各大媒体竞相作出详尽报道,引起了各族人民的广泛关注,尤其是引起了民主行动党基层党员以及华印社会底层民众的巨大共鸣。

赵明福民主促进会与明福家属不满首相安华多次拒见(他们),而决定在即将来临的元宵节(即阳历2月24日)上午11时正,到行动党的半山芭总部,向陆兆福拜年和探问关于明福命案调查的进展。人民之友工委会2024年2月5日(星期一)发表《5点声明》,表达我们对赵明福冤死不能昭雪事件的严正立场和明确态度。

人民之友工委会根据本身以往对全国大选和州议会选举的论述,结合团结政府成立后的政治形势,决定对新古毛州议席补选,于2024年5月8日发表声明,供新古毛选民5月11日投票以至全国各族人民今后行动的参考。

Hindraf.png

人民之友工委会针对第15届全国大选投票提出 5项建议 和 两个选择

[人民之友20周年(2001-2021)纪念,发表对国内政治局势的看法] 坚持抗拒种族霸权统治! 阻止巫统恶霸卷土重来!

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

人民之友工委会即将在2020年9月9日发表文章,对“喜来登”政变发生后的我国政治局势,提出具体意见,供全国致力于真正民主改革的各民族、各阶层人士参考,并愿意与同道们交流、共勉!

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

Sahabat Rakyat akan mengemukakan pendapat khusus mengenai situasi politik di negara kita selepas "Rampasan kuasa Sheraton" pada 9 September 2020 untuk tatapan rakan semua bangsa dan semua strata yang komited terhadap reformasi demokratik tulen negara kita. Kami bersedia bertukar pendapat dan saling belajar dengan semua rakan-rakan sehaluan.

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

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

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

马来西亚民主改革的新阶段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

Sunday, 20 March 2016

S.A Ganapathy: From Social Reformist to Independence Fighter [Updates: Video]

S.A Ganapathy
From Social Reformist to Independence Fighter

Saminathan Munisamy (founder and author of malayaganapathy.com website)



[Editor’s note] This article is full text written by Saminathan Munisamy, the founder and author of malayaganapathy.com website, specially for "Tribute to S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong: Develop the selfless devotion spirit of these eminent leaders of the Malaya labour movement" forum co-organised by Sahabat Rakyat, Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) Johor and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Nusajaya held on 20 March 2016 at TJ Mart, Senai. The following is the original full text, Chinese rendition will be published later.


In remembering S.A Ganapathy’s selfless service for the labour class in Malaya, the Adviser of Trade Union to Malaya, John Brazier, paid tribute to Ganapathy in a key note speech at a conference of moderate trade unions in Malaya. In his tribute, to the dismay of the British authority, Brazier said; 
"I cannot but mention a word about Mr. S.A Ganapathy who has been condemned to death for breaking the laws. Though Mr. Ganapathy has wrong political conviction, his sincere services to the workers for a long time cannot be forgotten. In appreciation of these service it is, but right to express our sympathy to him in his dark days. We hope that those responsible would recognize his service to the ignorant and poor workers and appreciate the amount of sympathy that has been kindled in the minds of those who have greatly benefitted by his service." [1] 

The World Federation of Trade Union has protested to the United Nations Organization against the assassination in Malaya of Mr. A. Ganapathy, Chairman of the Pan Malaya Federation of Trade Unions and Mr.P.Veerasenan, his successor. WFTU also paid tribute to S.A Ganapathy. 
“Paying tribute to the memory of Mr.Ganapathy and Veerasenan, the WFTU officially informs the United Nation of this fresh violation of trade union liberties and of these attacks on the life and rights of man. The WFTU energetically protests also to the British Government.” [2] 

In US, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union protested in the strongest tone criticizing British government in Malaya. Condemning Ganapathy’s execution[3] to British Embassy in Washington, the President of the union, Harry R. Bridges stated: 
“The act can be called only British Imperialist murder and one of last desperate stabs of the dying imperialist system. More than 15,000 innocent Malayans have been jailed flogged tortured or killed by the British authority for the past year for no other crime but that of belonging to unions and advocating that British get out of their country and leave it to the people who truly own it”The crime of your government becomes all more shocking when we consider that in part it was carried out with weapon and money produced and furnished by the people and the trade union members of United States”

Meanwhile in India, the British owned newspaper Calcutta Statesman conceded the execution was draconian punishment and that death sentence for carrying arms should be tempered in particular by tact and leniency. The newspaper added that in the interest of Indo-British goodwill, Malayan authorities responsible for this ill-timed, unstateman-like handling of affair - which from the nature necessarily had international significance-, should be removed by Whitehall[4]. The newspaper wanted the responsible authorities in Malaya who mishandled this case to be removed.

The Indian Daily Mail also reported reactions from various Indian leaders. One of them was the General Secretary of Indian National Congress, Kala Venkatarao, who was the compared Ganapathy's prosecution with that of Cardinal Mindszenty[5].  

The Nagpur Socialist Party observed 15th May 1949 as "Saheed (Martyr) Ganapathy Day". In an appeal to Indian Government, Secretary of the party, Suresh Gangga commented that execution of Ganapathy and the shooting of P.Veerasenan by the Malaya authorities compelled realization that the life of an Indian was very cheap in the eyes of foreigners[6].

Another India’s prominent socialist and trade union leader, Asoka Metha regarded Ganapathy’s execution like a pendant in the Commonwealth chain recently forged in London[7].

So much have been reported on Ganapathy’s execution yet very little has been written about him. The British colonial masters and capitalists, in pursuing their ambition to continue their influence over Malaya, went out to extreme extents to paint many genuine trade unionists as reds. Many of the trade unionists’ records were kept from public hence for many years their personalities and the values that they stood for were not discussed in public domain. Only in recent years when the Public Office Records released some of the files on Ganapathy[8], we are able to look into Ganapathy’s personalities and derived the ideology of his struggles were based upon.

Brief History of Ganapathy

S.A Ganapathy was born in 1917 in Madras District Tamil Nadu[9]. In 1929, he came to Singapore and subsequently obtained employment[10]. He joined the Malayan Communist Party in 1939[11]. During Japanese occupation from 1943 to 1945 he was an instructor in the Indian National Army[12]. After the liberation, he resumed work for the Malayan Communist Party in organizing the Indian Section of the General Labour Union of which he was appointed Secretary in November, 1945[13]. During 1946 and 1947 he worked actively to extend the control of the General Labour Union[14]. He was reported to be a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Malayan Communist Party[15].   

Ganapathy was elected as President of Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions in February 1947[16]. The union believed to be controlling more than sixty percent of workforce in Malaya with 400,000 members[17]. From 25th March to 2nd April 1947, Ganapathy represented Malaya to Asian Relationship Conference in Delhi[18]. In 1947, under Ganapathy’s leadership, SFTU organized a massive May Day parade of 50,000 members. The following year when STFU pledged that 100,000 labourers shall be taking part in the May Day parade, Singapore government banned all procession and rallies. Cheng Lu, the General Secretary of PMFTU, appealed all labourers to abandon their plans for celebration “in view of Government’s threat to use military force to suppress them”[19]. If the rally would have been approved, this could have been the largest May Day parade in the history of labour movement in this country. 

Ganapathy disappeared from public when Emergency was announced in June 1948 before he was caught when he was in hiding in rubber estate (Waterfall Estate, Rawang Selangor) on March 1st, 1949[20]. He was arrested by the acting manager of the estate, J.W.W Simons with a group of special constables[21]. It is said that Ganapathy refused to surrender and put up a struggle and tried to draw his revolver from his belt. But he was over powered and handed to OCPD of Rawang[22]. 

On 15th March 1949, Ganapathy was tried and sentenced to death by hanging for unlawful possession of a .45 revolver and carrying six rounds of ammunition[23]. In the trial, two of the special constables and the OCPD of Rawang gave evidence against Ganapathy[24]. Ganapathy’s case was further appealed in Supreme Court but was dismissed on the 1st April, 1949[25]. On April 23rd, The Selangor State Executive confirmed Ganapathy’s sentence[26].

Was Ganapathy A Communist? Gurudevan – Ganapathy’s Mentor

Even though many debated the kind of ideologies that Ganapathy would have embraced in his struggle, T.N Harper in his work, "The End of British Empire and the Making of Malaya" stated that S.A Ganapathy was a communist. This point further strengthened by claims made by a former Special Branch Officer Ahmad Khan in an interview with Singapore National Archive[27]. Another person who confirmed the same point was former member of Indian National Army (INA) and Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), V. Sudarman[28] in an interviewed who strongly believed that Ganapathy’s communist ideology would have come from enigmatic person called Gurudevan[29]. 

In an oral history interview[30], another former Special Branch officer, Richard Corridon who was responsible to capture and interrogated Gurudevan claimed even the name “Gurudevan” could not have been the person’s actual name. “Gurudevan” which means “Teacher of the Gods” would have been given to Gurudevan in Indian Independence League and INA in view of Gurudevan’s in-depth knowledge in communism and his role in teaching and propagating communist ideology to many known leftist in Singapore including of those English-educated like John Eber. 

Ahmad Khan[31], former Special Branch officer assigned to assist Corridon to curb communist movement among Indians in Malaya regarded Gurudevan as “a very intelligent man”[32] and known for his skills in disguising. Gurudevan also said to hold a “very senior rank” in CPM and ran his operation from a small room in a telephone company while being a small office-bearer with Telephone Company Employee Union in Singapore. Ahmad Khan also revealed that Ganapathy was known to be prominent Indian communist leader even before the Second World War[33].

Relating Ganapathy’s involvement in communist activities during Japanese occupation, it has been reported that Ganapathy was detained and tortured by Japanese Kempeitai prior to arrival of Bose to Singapore. Ganapathy was detained between March and April 1942. In the custody of Japanese Kempeitai, Ganapathy was beaten with leather straps to extract confession of being a communist[34]. 

Self-Respect Movement and E.V Ramasamy (Periyar)

Self -Respect Movement (later commonly known as Dravidian movement) which was started by E.V Ramasamy influenced and brought many social changes among Indians in Malaya and Singapore. E.V Ramasamy visits to Malaya in 1929 and 1931 to preach eradication of caste practices received many supports among South Indians in Malaya. According to S. Veerapandian, an ardent follower of E.V.Ramasamy and B.R.Ambedkar, in a serious of lectures[35] made a reference to Ganapathy who had great admiration for E.V Ramasamy and his reformation in Tamil Nadu. According to Veerapandian, during the anti-Hindi protest in Tamil Nadu in 1937, Ganapathy was said to have sent three representatives[36] from Singapore to participate in the protest. In a letter to E.V Ramasamy, Ganapathy stated that he was not able participate in the protest as he was occupied with movement to eradicate caste discrimination in Malaya.    

It is interesting to know that Dravidian nationalists were first organized in the Ahampadiyar Sangam (society) of Singapore, a depressed-caste uplift society, and then the Tamil Reform Society formed in the 1930s[37]. It is been speculated that Ganapathy could have been closely associated with Ahampadiyar Sangam as Ganapathy belonged to Ahampadiyar caste. The idea of Tamil reformation was given effective expression with a spate of journalistic activity, beginning at the end of the 1920s: Munnetram (Progress or Uplift) was begun in 1929, Sreethirutham (Reform) in 1931 and Tamil Murasu in 1935. Beside extensive reports of Dravidians movement in South India, they too propagate reformist ideology of Ahampadiyar Sangam and Tamil Reform Association which includes the evils of caste system, domination of Brahmanism, the need for temperance, improved education and health, the eradication of religious rituals such as fire-walk or kavadi, support monogamous Hindu marriage and emancipation of women[38]. All these exposures would have not only shaped Ganapathy’s personality but also many South Indian youths in Malaya. The popularity of Tamil reform message is attested by the wide circulation of the Tamil Murasu which came to the main rival of the Tamil Nesan in the mid-1930s[39]. 

The Self-Respect Movement itself was very much influenced by communist ideology. Malayapuram Singaravelu Chettiar[40], a pioneer in trade union struggles in Tamil Nadu, felt that Self Respect Movement and the communist movement in Tamil Nadu should work together to save Tamil labourer from the clutches of religion and economic exploitation. Singaravelu’s contribution published in Kudiyarasu, the official mouth-piece of Self-Respect Movement.  The significance of Singaravelar's association with the Self-Respect movement is brought out by Karthigesu Sivathamby, a prominent Tamil scholar from Sri Lanka who has closely studied the social movements in Madras province;
By this time the rationalist movement, through its association with the world socialist movement, was becoming more scientific. It was not merely rationalism in the Ingersolian sense. It was becoming more and more scientific... promotion of socialism, and so on. And this is seen in the immediate tie-up of M. Singaravelu Chettiar and Periyar [41]

As most of articles and views published in Kudiyarasu constantly re-published in Tamil daily in Singapore, this may have shaped Ganapathy’s perspective in his truggle against capitalist class. 

Social Reformist: Caste Discrimination in Malaya (1936 – 1938)

It is said that the higher caste South Indians living in Singapore remanded higher caste and lower caste not to be treated equally as this would have violate the “Varnasharama Shastra”. Thus, lower caste were who generally working as municipality workers were discriminated especially in coffee shops where they were only allowed to have their coffee in tinned cans and sit down on the floor and not benches. It nearly took two years for Ganapathy to eradicate this discriminative practice and bring about social reform among Indians in Singapore.       

Indian Labourers, Indian National Army and Malaya Communist Party. 

During the Japanese occupation, the most potent political force in Malaya was Malayan Communist Party (CPM) which let by Malayan People’s Anti Japanese Army (MPAJA) and its civilian support movement, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Union (MPAJU). An estimated twenty-five or more Indians had been linked with CPM or related groups in trade unions or Anti-Imperial League joined MPAJA[42]. Many Indian estate workers supported MPAJA course against oppressive Japanese Army, even though in general Indians in Malaya were supportive of Indian National Army (INA)[43]. It is the known fact that Central Indian Association of Malaya (CIAM) and the Indian Independence League (IIL) collaborated with oppressive Japanese Army in Malaya. Usually the League led by local level English-educated “Keranis”, who has been most directly responsible for controlling and disciplining the labourers during pre-occupation[44]. The eruption among Indians of pent-up resentment against the “Black European” in the chaotic days after the departure of the European managers was intensified by the reassertion of Asian managerial authority during Japanese occupation, and by the Asian staff’s co-operation with the Japanese in the recruitment of labour for the Siam-Burma “Death” Railway. To many labourers, IIL offered no protection against Japanese atrocities. For the younger Malayan-born labourers, the ideology of IIL and INA did not seem to be realistic. In contrast, the MPAJA which aimed to over throw both European and Japanese, in its attacks on Japanese and local collaborators, including Asian estate staffs, exerted the Robin-Hood-like attraction to the Indian labourers. In urban area, MPAJA were linked with Chinese labourers who bargained in collaboration with their Indian counterparts for higher and better living conditions. In the views of Indian labourers, IIL seen as an arm working and attempted to round up Indians for Japanese and MPAJA encouraged them to demand for more rice and better pay. 

MPAJA began exerting their influence upon the INA in early stage. Ganapathy who was a known communist joined INA as an instructor. They soon gathered together sympathizers who were already interested in socialist ideas and to co-operate with Anti-Japanese movement. There was also considerable growing tension between North Indian regulars and local Tamil volunteers. [45]Instead of being sent on a glorious campaign for the liberation of India, local volunteers were allocated defensive positions in support of Japanese imperialism against Allied invasion. For many Tamils who cooped up in INA camps in frustration deserted their camps to join MPAJA as the alternative of liberating Malaya seen to be more attractive.  Connection between local recruits in INA and MPAJA grew despite Bose efforts to restore the cohesion and purpose with met with very little success. Squeezed dry by Bose’s fund collectors, the community was unable to raise significant for emergency welfare services for impoverished and starving sections of the Indians community.  Nationalistic enthusiasm brought by Bose faded away failing to raise positive response from the mass of the Indian population.               

At the end of the war, knowing that Japanese had surrendered, Ganapathy sent a letter through Sudarman to his comrades in INA camp at Majidee, Johor Bahru to desert the INA camp, being concerned about their safety upon the return of the British to Malaya.   

Revolt against Discrimination in Indian National Army (INA)

According to V.Sudarman, there have been a wide spread domination of North Indian regulars over locally recruited Tamil volunteers. The local Indians who joined as junior officers and recruits were discriminated in INA[46]. In the INA training camp where Ganapathy was appointed as an instructor, in an act of defiance (what Sudarman termed as “Chapati[47] Protest”) was staged[48]. Ganapathy instructed the local Tamil volunteers not to eat their regular servings of “Chapati” instead to hang the bread all around the dinner mess as a protest against INA officers who deliberately refused the local volunteers servings of rice[49]. Subsequently, Ganapathy and his comrades were court-martialed. Only with interference of Subhas Chandra Bose at the end of the trial saved Ganapathy from further punished and expulsion from INA[50]. Sudarman also informed that during the trial there were allegations that Ganapathy tried to propagate communist ideology among INA recruits[51]. 

Common Aspiration between Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong

Free Education
If finding parallel similarities in both Lim Chin Siong and Ganapathy’s struggles and visions for the working class, many to be found. For example, Lim Chin Siong who believed in providing free education and financial assistance to schools of various communities[52], Ganapathy too propagated the importance of education to the working class. Singapore Federation of Trade Union[53] (SFTU) up to the time of Emergency ran and provided free education for over 40 schools with attendance of 1700 students in Singapore[54]. These schools usually situated where government or other type of schools were not available[55]. Like Lim Chin Siong, Ganapathy has been constantly thirsty for knowledge and shared his views on labour issue in Munnani, CPM sponsored communication tool with Ganapathy as the editor.    

Struggle for Unification under PMFTU and Minimum Wage
Due lack of records of Ganapathy’s involvement in unions, it is only possible to review roles and proposition taken by Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU) under his leadership in order to get a better understanding of Ganapathy . Ganapathy was elected as President of PMFTU on 7th February 1947[56] in a conference which was held in Kuala Lumpur. Among the 22 resolutions which were passed, provision of basic salary was one of the resolutions. As Lim Chin Siong aspired to enact a “Workers’ Charter’[57] that emphasized minimum wages and 40 working hours-a-week (to name a few), the 1947 conference has approved to call for 44 working hours –a-week and forty seven Central Managing Council members and 13 substitutes were elected to look into setting minimum wage. 

As Lim Chin Siong wanted workers to be united to fight for their legitimate rights, in 1947, Ganapathy emphasized that communal and racial differences need to be overcome and pledged to work for working class to promote unification of trade union organisations. In order to widen PMFTU leaders’ knowledge and experience in union movement, the leaders were told to assist all ethnic groups to organise trade union and to take part actively in union disputes. 

Fight for a Democratic Constitution is a Fight for Better Food and Clothing
Realizing that only political will would able to resolve the suffering of the working class, PMFTU forged alliance with PUTERA-AMCJA to campaign for a democratic constitution.  An often quoted speech of S.A Ganapathy by historians was made in Ipoh on the 15th October 1947. Addressing the Executive Bureau of PMFTU, Ganapathy pointed out that a democratic constitution was most vital to the promotion of the standard of living of the workers[58]. Understanding that large masses were illiterate and still in the stage of struggling for basic needs in life, Ganapathy choose to relate basic human needs to political ideology. He said;      
“If the economic and the finance of the country is to be improved so as to place industries in a position to pay higher wages, if we are to have better social services, if there is to be equitable distribution of income and resources, these can only be secured by influencing the legislation of the country” [59] .

It is interesting how Ganapathy related food and clothing to a political ideology as he repeatedly said “A fight for democratic constitution is a fight for better food and clothing” in galvanizing the working class mass to support for PUTERA-AMCJA’s Hartal 1947[60] .   

Apart from basic needs Ganapathy also touched on inflation, balanced economy and guaranteed civil rights. 

In speaking on curtailment in civil liberties, Ganapathy condemned the usage of Societies’ Ordinance, the House to House Collections Ordinance, which requirement of 10 days’ notice to the police for calling a mass meeting, trespassing restrictions in plantations and the Banishment Ordinance.

Ganapathy also condemned the trespassing restrictions imposed by planter while the government professing trade union rights. Trespassing restriction deprives the workers his right and dignity as a human being and reduces his status to that is a serf[61] and an insult to the working class.  By lifting these restrictions would lay stable foundations to the development of democracy in Malaya.

Ganapathy also hit out on the not very modernized[62] planting methods practiced in plantation and criticized the inertness of Malayan Government to take steps to place Malayan economy on a sound basis by working out a plan of balancing economic development[63]
“If the economy of Malaya is balanced, if the civil liberties are guaranteed and if there is democratic constitution through which the will of the people could influence Legislation it would be much easier to promote the standard of living of the workers and alleviated his sufferings” [64]
In upholding the class struggle, Ganapathy hit out on Trade Union Ordinance that prohibits Government employees to join the non-government employees unions. Ganapathy said that workers belong to a single class with no radical, national or any other barriers. For the healthy democratic development of any country it is essential that the workers should be united[65]. 

In touching wage issue, Ganapathy warned the authority that it was vital to fix minimum wage to ensure rehabilitation of working class and preservation of law and order in Malaya  
“Today when real wages have shrunken to an alarmingly low level at a time when the working class is awakening in realize their rights the fixing of a minimum wage is now vital for the quick rehabilitation of the country. I stress most strongly the needs for fixing a minimum wage because it is vital for the preservation of law and order in Malaya”. 

Ganapathy also conscripted the qualities of  a “leader of the people” who empathic toward labourers’ hardship. Understanding that each ethnic group has its own traditional diet, Ganapathy went further into taking into consideration of ethnic dietary elements in fixing minimum wage for labours. 
“When the diet expenditure of the workers is calculated it should be done not on the minimum calories essential for his existence but on the minimum calories of his traditional diet that are necessary to keep him fit”.

Ganapathy made the connection between unfair wages and the rise in crime. He pointed out that the Malayan government was responsible for the rise in crime rates due to the suppressed wages of the labourers. 
‘His Excellency the Governor in his talk over Radio Malaya pointed out, “The state of crime whether serious crime or petty, is generally found to have some relation with employment.” But His Excellency went on to say there was full employment in Malaya. Then what is the economic cause for the rise in crime except the inadequate in wages. I wonder why His Excellency did not push his argument to its logical conclusion.’

In the meeting, Ganapathy ensured that PMFTU would give its whole-hearted support to the Malaya-wide campaign carried out by the Putera-AMCJA against the acceptance of Revised Constitutional Proposals[66]. 
“A democratic constitution is most vital to the struggle for the improvement of our standard of living. If the economic and financial situation of the country is to be so improved so as to place industries in a position to pay higher wages, if we are to have better social services, if there is to be equitable distribution of income these can only be secured by influencing legislation in the country. This cannot be done without a democratic constitution through which the will of the people can be expressed. Therefore the fight for a democratic constitution is a fight for better food and clothing.”  

Even though many would argue that Ganapathy did not have any political aspiration towards independence[67] as his approaches and views were only revolved around trade union movements, his efforts to agitate for workers’ right underpinned democratic principles which is vital to the forming of a nation. Ganapathy’s involvement in propelling PUTERA-AMCJA’s aspiration for an independent democratic nation revealed that Ganapathy actively supported freedom movement.     

The End of Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Union

Toward end of 1947, when all other measures to stop PMFTU advancement failed, the government and capitalist turned to legislation. Using the provision of the Trade Union Enactment 1940, the Registrar pressurized trade unions to align in line and away from PMFTU.  Further to the existing enactment that stopped union funds for political use and refused contribution of 20 percent to federation of trade union, more regulation were introduced when amendments to Trade Union Ordinance were passed in May 1948. The workers advocating for rights was proving to be very successful. Thus, John Brazier was sent into disenfranchise independent unions which were well organized and able to achieve their demands.  The laws regulating trade unions were caused union busting by the authorities. 

Even though PMFTU took very early initiative to seek official recognition in November 1946, the government did not give any indication that PMFTU and its alliance were about to be banned. Since the Government of Singapore had already registered SFTU in August 1946 and exempted it from Trade Union Ordinance, PMFTU hoped that it could be registered as well. Moreover, Brazier made PMFTU to believe that similar arrangement could have been made. But in July 1948, the Registrar of Trade Union struck off 95 unions and by end of September 1948 the membership of PMFTU had decreased from 154,434 (in April 1948) to 75,564[68]. It took more than 20 months for the government to reply on PMFTU’s application for registration. On the 12th June 1948 PMFTU was officially notified that its application for registration was rejected. Subsequently, on the 13th June 1948, PMFTU, the largest and powerful labour organization in Malaya was banned. Radical unionists were arrested and effectively eliminated from trade unions.  By 1949, the number of registered unionists was down to 41,305 or about one-fifth the level of 1947. By September 1949, a total of over 800 Indians had been detained for suspected assistance to communist[69].

Conclusion 

Even though the trajectory of trade union struggle in this country had taken many dramatic turns over the years, the core issues of the working class still remain the same. Wage issues, health care assistance and social security are some of the core issues which continue to be manipulated by employers. The influx of migrant labour to Malaysia to take up unskilled, low paid and harmful work reveals capitalism is truly entrenched in our economy. Malaysia is keen to embrace neoliberal policies in becoming party to corrosive trade agreements like the TPPA and RCEP. Thus, raising the awareness of the labouring class would be very critical to ensure that labourers are not manipulated for the benefit of the capitalists.

Being illiterate or with a little education and without financial influence, it would have taken sheer determinations and hard work for individuals like S.A Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong influence and take over the leadership of powerful trade unions such as the PMFTU like PMFTU. Constant thoughts on the social welfare and economic development of labour class are reflected in their actions, words and legacy of struggle. The aspirations of these two legends to realize solidarity of workers is yet to become a reality.
"In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end" – Karl Marx

Foot Note:
  1. Charles Gamba, The origin of trade unionism in Malaya (Singapore 1960) p. 417. Brazier’s statement was released by the Public Relation Office, Singapore Press Release MY 49/2, May 1st 1949, and immediately called for an explanation by Singapore Government from Brazier. 
  2. Indian Daily Mail (Singapore) 9th May 1949 - UN to Discuss Ganapathy’s Case: WFTU Protest to Peace Body against Assassination in Malaya
  3. Telegram dated 22nd June 1949
  4. Indian Daily Mail (Singapore) 9th May 1949 - UN to Discuss Ganapathy’s Case: WFTU Protest to Peace Body against Assassination in Malaya
  5. Ibid, On 26 December 1948, Cardinal Mindszenty was arrested and accused of treason, conspiracy, and other offences against the new People's Republic of Hungary. While he was imprisoned by the communist government, Mindszenty was repeatedly hit with rubber truncheons and subjected to other forms of torture until he agreed to confess. Cardinal Mindszenty's forced confession included orchestrating the theft of the Crown of Saint Stephen for the sole purpose of crowning Crown Prince Otto von Hapsburg as King of Hungary, scheming to overthrow the Party and reestablish Capitalism, planning a third World War and assuming supreme political power himself
  6. Indian Daily Mail (Singapore) 9th May 1949- UN to Discuss Ganapathy’s Case: WFTU Protest to Peace Body against Assassination in Malaya
  7. Indian Daily Mail (Singapore) 7th May 1949 - It is Cold Blooded Murder Of A Working Class Labourer
  8. Out of five files on S.A Ganapathy, one file CO 537/4769 Case of Mr. S A Ganapathy is still withheld by Foreign and Commonwealth Department, UK. Details of release files for public:  DO 142/405 Death sentences in Malaya on Mr. S A Ganapathy and Mr. Sambasivan, PREM 8/967 High Commissioner for India sought reprieves for Ganapathy and Samba Sivam who were found to be carrying arms and ammunition in Malaya, CO 537/4770 Case of Mr. S A Ganapathy and CO 717/179/1 Mr. S A Ganapathy: Public reactions.
  9. Telegram No.510 from High Commissioner of Malaya to the Secretary of State of Colonies dated 2nd May 1949
  10. Ibid.,
  11. Ibid.,
  12. Ibid.,
  13. Ibid.,
  14. Ibid.,
  15. Ibid.,
  16. The Singapore Free Press – 8th February 1947, Labour Want 44-hr Week
  17. Charles Gamba, The origin of trade unionism in Malaya (Singapore 1960)
  18. The Singapore Press – 12th March 1947
  19. Charles Gamba, The origin of trade unionism in Malaya (Singapore 1960) p. 330. See also The Straits Times – 29th April 1948. 
  20. The Malay Mail 4th May 1949 – “Former Trade Unions President Hanged”
  21. Ibid.,
  22. Ibid.,
  23. The Straits Times 2nd April 1949 – Lawyer K.C Chia appearing for Ganapathy said that he had gone through the records and could find nothing to urge on behalf of the appellant.
  24. The Malay Mail  4th May 1949 – “Former Trade Unions President Hanged”
  25. Ibid.,
  26. Ibid.,
  27. Ahmad Khan – Oral History Accession Number 000150, Reel/Disc 7 – National Achieve Singapore
  28. V. Sutharman authored his autobiography – A Tamil Revolutionary in the Independent Struggle in Asia (1989, in Tamil) 
  29. According to Sutharman (interview 2012), Gurudevan also headed the Intelligence Bureau of Indian Section in Malayan Communist Party would have many influences over Ganapathy. Gurudevan was arrested by R.Corrindon on a plantation estate in Negeri Sembilan in December 1949. In a telegram (17th December 1949), which Gurney wrote to Secretary of State of Colonies with reference made on the arrest of Gurudevan as the number one Indian Communist in the country 
  30. Richard Corridon - Oral History Accession Number 000044, Reel/Disc 4 - National Achieve Singapore 
  31. Ahmad Khan – Oral History Accession Number 000150, Reel/Disc 7 – National Achieve Singapore. Khan was working as Japanese Police claimed that he saved Ganapathy from being tortured and killed by Japanese Kempeitai - Oral History Accession Number 000150, Reel/Disc 6 – National Achieve Singapore.
  32. Ibid.,
  33. Ahmad Khan, Oral History Accession Number 000150, Reel/Disc 6 – National Achieve Singapore. Khan who worked for Japanese Police claimed that he saved Ganapathy from being tortured and killed by Japanese Kempeitai.
  34. The Straits Times – 9th May 1946 – Allegations against Police Officer
  35. Prof. Suba Veerapandian – ‘Ulaga Viduthalai Porigalin Varisayil Malaya  Ganapathy” (International Freedom Fighters - Malaya Ganapathy)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w64l3K2kuH8 (Nov. 2011, in Tamil) 
  36. Ibid., Three representatives identified as Letchuman, Nadarajan and Samy. After spending one and half years in prison due to their involvement in Anti-Hindi Protest they returned to Malaya.
  37. Stenson, Class, Race and Colonialism, 1980 (University of Queensland Press). See also Rajeswary Ambalavanar, Tamil Journalism and the Indian Community in Malaya, 1920-1941
  38. Stenson, Class, Race and Colonialism, 1980 (University of Queensland Press) p78
  39. Ibid.,
  40. Singaravelu founded the first trade union in India, the Madras Labor Union. On 1 May 1923 he organized the first ever celebration of May Day in the country. Singaravelar was a prominent leader of the Indian independence movement, initially under the leadership of Gandhi, but later, joining the budding communist movement. In 1925, he became one of the founding fathers of the Communist Party of India. 
  41. Frontline, Chennai (Oct.-Nov 2002) - De-ideologisation of politics is the tragedy of Tamil Nadu Interview with Karthigesu Sivathamby by R. Vijaya Sankar 
  42. Stenson, Class, Race and Colonialism, 1980 (University of Queensland Press) p 100. See also major R.J Issac – Indian Daily Mail dated 7th April 1955 
  43. Stenson, Class, Race and Colonialism, 1980 (University of Queensland Press)
  44. Ibid.,
  45. Ibid., (interview with K.Gurupatham and C.V Kuppusamy,1972)
  46. Interview with author (2012)
  47. Chapati is an unleavened flatbread from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka
  48. Interview with author (2012). The incident took place in INA camp at Rasah, Seremban where Sudarman recruited as volunteer. 
  49. Ibid.,
  50. Ibid.,
  51. Ibid.,
  52. PAP election manifesto 1955, where Lim Chin Siong contested and won Bukit Timah constituency. 
  53. An affiliation of PMFTU
  54. Charles Gamba, The origin of trade unionism in Malaya (Singapore 1960) p. 356. Once the unions were disbanded and the officials were arrested, detained and deported, these schools ceased their function.
  55. Ibid
  56. The Singapore Free Press – 8th February 1947, Labour Want 44-hr Week. Along with Ganapathy, Lam Swee and Abdullah C.D were elected as Vice Presidents, Cheng Lu as General Secretary, B. Ahmad and Krishna Murthy as Assistant Secretaries, Yap Meow Siew as Treasurer and R. Ramasamy, Chen Chong,  P.Veerasenan, Sze Tong, Fuang Soon Lai and Bahar as committee members. See Appendix B
  57. PAP election manifesto 1955, where Lim Chin Siong contested and won Bukit Timah constituency
  58. The Malayan Tribune – 16th Oct.1947, Politics Is A Struggle For Food, Clothing Argues President of PMFTU 
  59. Ibid.,
  60. Despite the success of the All Malaya Hartal, the government granted no concessions and differences began to emerge between PUTERA-AMCJA. A second Hartal was planned for 1 February 1948 but was aborted when financial support and was reduced to isolated strikes by the PMFTU
  61. Ibid.,
  62. Ibid.,
  63. Ibid.,
  64. Ibid.,
  65. The Malayan Tribune – 16th Oct.1947
  66. The Malayan Tribune – 16th Oct.1947
  67. Indian Deputy Minister for External Affairs Dr Keskar during his visit to Malaya in 1949 regarded unrest in Malayan could not be described a struggle for liberation. Keskar regarded that Ganapathy and Veerasenan as “nothing else but bandits, having no political objective.” 
  68. Charles Gamba, The origin of trade unionism in Malaya (Singapore 1960) p. 355
  69. U.Mahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya (Bombay:Vora, 1960) p.203



Link of the video: https://youtu.be/b9V5uvSHZg4

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Joint statement by Hindraf Johor and Parti Sosialis Malaysia Nusajaya About co-organising 'Tribute to Lim Chin Siong and SA Ganapathy' forum / 柔州兴权会与社会主义党努沙再也支部 关于联办“纪念甘纳巴迪与林清祥”专题论坛联合声明

Joint statement by Hindraf Johor and Parti Sosialis Malaysia Nusajaya
About co-organising 'Tribute to Lim Chin Siong and SA Ganapathy' forum

20 March 2016


We, Hindraf and Parti Sosialis Malaysia Cawangan Nusajaya jointly organizing this ‘Tribute to Lim Chin Siong and SA Ganapathy’ forum with Sahabat Rakyat as below :-

Date    :- 20 March 2016 (Sunday)
Time    :- 2pm – 6pm
Venue  :- TJ Mart , Senai

Our intention to organize this forum is to commemorate and to pay tribute to these two heroes, who are increasingly forgotten by the community, especially the young generations.

As we all know, the history we learned in school never told us about the sacrifices of the warriors who were disagree with the government’s policies which were only for the well being of the capitalist. So, they have been concealed from the history and this causes our young generation does not know them and appreciate their struggles for the welfare of the oppressed people.

SA Ganapathy was the first president of the 300,000-strong, Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU). This young trade union leader was hung on May 4th, 1949 , in Pudu Prison. His only crime was to defend the interests of the workers of Malaya in 1940s. He also has been arrested and tortured by Japanese Special Branch in Singapore for being a communist. However, the extent to which it is a true - SA Ganapathy is a communist - has not yet been confirmed by any party.

So, through this forum we would like to introduce them and try to promote the truth in their struggle. At the same time, we also would like to educate the people dared to oppose the injustice. In 1940’s, trade unions were very strong and has broad influence in all sectors especially in plantations, agriculture and the harbor. Their struggle was not only to acquire the rights of workers but, more than that. They joined the militant groups and demanded for independence from the colonials. This means that the workers of those days had more awareness of the political situation than today’s workers.

The facilities we enjoy and the rights we have today was the ongoing struggle by those trade unionist. This history must be brought to our youth as they do not know the history, struggle and the contributions of the workers of our country.   Therefore, we provide this forum as a platform to discuss and to celebrate these unsung heroes.  We hope that our purposes and objectives will be achieved.

Thank you.

Joint statement by – Hindraf Johor and PSM Nusajaya




以下是联合声明的中译文。若译文与原文内容不尽相符或有所抵触,以英文原文为准——


柔州兴权会与社会主义党努沙再也支部
关于联办“纪念甘纳巴迪与林清祥”专题论坛联合声明

2016年3月12日

我们,柔州兴权会和社会主义党奴沙再也支部,跟人民之友联合起来,在2016年3月20日,下午2时至6时在士乃佳市场(TJ Mart Senai),举办主题为“向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬,发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神”论坛。

日期:2016年3月20日(星期日)
时间:下午2时正至6时
地点:柔佛州士乃TJ Mart会议厅

我们举办此论坛的目的是为了纪念上述两名逐渐被社会,尤其是年轻之辈遗忘的英雄人物,并向他们致敬。

众所周知,我们在学校里所学的历史,从来没有提到那些为反抗资产阶级压迫政策而作出牺牲的英雄人物的事迹。这些英雄人物在历史中遭到抹煞,因而造成我们年轻之辈无从了解他们并感激他们为被压迫人民的福利而进行的斗争。

甘纳巴迪 (S.A. Ganapathy)是拥有30万会员的“泛马职工会联合会”(Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions ,PMFTC)的第一任主席。这名年轻的工会领袖于1949年5月4日在半山芭监狱被處绞刑。他的唯一罪名就是捍卫1940年代马来亚劳动人民的利益。他曾遭受在新加坡的日本政治部逮捕和折磨,理由是他是一名共产党员。无论如何,甘纳巴迪的共产党员的身份却没有得到任何证实。

因此,我们想通过此论坛,向大家介绍他们,并尽力宣扬他们的斗争的真理。与此同时,我们还要教育人民要敢于反抗不公平。在1940年代,职工会非常强大,在各行业拥有广泛的影响力,特别是在种植园、农业和海港。他们的斗争不止于争取工人的权利,他们还加入武装组织向殖民主义者要求独立。这意味着,那个年代的工人群众比当今年代的工人群众有更高的政治觉悟。

我们今日所享有的设施和权利,是那些工会工作者(指工会组织的领袖和干部)不断奋斗所获得的成果。我们的年轻人并不知道我国工人的贡献、斗争和历史,因此,我们有必要让他们对这些工会领袖的奋斗事迹有所了解。因此,我们决定举办这次论坛,作为探讨和纪念这两名遭受官方历史抹杀的英雄人物的平台。希望这次论坛的宗旨和目标得以实现。谢谢。


柔州兴权会与社会主义党努沙再也支部
2016年3月12日
联合发布


Tuesday, 15 March 2016

林清祥是新马宪制斗争的杰出领袖,其斗争总结是留给人民的思想财富 【2017-12-16 更新编者按语】

林清祥是新马宪制斗争的杰出领袖
其斗争总结是留给人民的思想财富

——为纪念林清祥逝世20周年而作
庄明湖(新加坡)



[《人民之友》编者按语] 
(2017-12-16 更新)

作者庄明湖(右图),新加坡公民,油漆工人出身,早年曾参与工人运动,晚年为执业中医师,今已80高龄依然行医。本文是庄氏去年特地为纪念林清祥逝世20周年(1996年2月5日—2016年2月5日),以华文撰写的文章。他在这篇文章中表露了他对探索他所经历的那个年代新马左派运动(包括工运)由兴而衰的历史真相的执着,更重要的是表达了他对在那个阶段(上世纪50至60年代)的杰出领袖林清祥作为的肯定和敬仰。他在文中提出了两个“小小的希望”:

(1)希望当年参与错误批判林清祥的人物(特别是关键人物),趁人生有限时刻,应该进行反思检讨,尽早还林清祥公道;
(2)希望已被“珍藏”至少20年的《林清祥<答问>遗稿》全文迅速发表(已发表的只是其中片段),以实现林清祥生前出版全文的夙愿,也满足众人阅读全文的渴望。

在庄氏此文之前,人民之友工委会就在林清祥逝世20周年纪念日之前几天(即2016年1月26日),发表了一篇用华文撰写的题为《纪念林清祥的最好办法 就是宣扬他的思想理念》的文章,英文译稿也随后在2月22日贴出。我们在这篇文章中这么表示:“纪念林清祥的最好办法,就是宣扬林清祥的思想理念和经验总结,尤其是他遭遇李光耀和人民行动党统治集团的残酷迫害和摧残以及遭遇1963年“2.2事件”之后左派冒进领导的错误批斗和无情打击,在1969年又遭受李光耀统治集团流放到英国伦敦,在1979年回返新加坡之后的晚年时期对马来亚(包括新加坡)人民的反殖民主义斗争的重大历史事件和他本身领导反殖民主义斗争的亲身经历进行反思和总结。他因心脏病不治而在1996年2月5日逝世。洋洋数万言的林清祥《答问》遗稿就是他对他所认识、所经历的新马人民的民族民主革命斗争的珍贵留言。” 

在上述两篇文章发表不到两年的今天,我们收到庄明湖传送来了他的这篇文章的英文译稿。庄氏告知我们:这篇译稿是由一名在新加坡出生而漂泊海外的一名中年女学者(参阅英文版文译者简介)在授课之余拨冗为他的这篇文章认真热情进行翻译为英文的;他(庄氏)之所以这样做,是考虑到:今天的新加坡社会已经变成了一个“英语社会”,几乎被人民行动党统治集团塑造成了一个大部分人尤其是中产阶级和年青一代似乎把英语当成自己的母语的社会。今天用华文发表的思想言论,是很难对新加坡人发生其影响和作用的,李光耀统治集团已经成功收拾了讲华语的领袖人物,那些原来惯用华语或方言、过去风骚一时的一群人物,如今大都挺不起腰、发不出声了。只有看到了占主导地位的新一代受英文教育者的觉醒,新加坡才会有“改变”的希望。

庄氏的这篇文章的英文译稿的发表,对于马来亚半岛、砂拉越和沙巴地区人民来说,也正合时宜。此时此刻,正是马来亚半岛人民反对巫统霸权统治和争取民族平等、民主改革斗争面临被误导、被破坏,以及砂沙两地人民反对巫统霸权统治和争取民族自决权和发展权的斗争也面临被误导、被破坏的严重关头。

新加坡反殖运动扶持了以李光耀为首的人民行动党集团上台执政,而其杰出领袖林清祥被拘留、被摧残以及左派力量(主要是工会组织)被镇压、被瓦解的惨痛遭遇以及林清祥对马来亚(包括新加坡)人民的反殖民主义斗争的重大历史事件和他本身领导反殖民主义斗争的亲身经历的反思和总结,或许可以让马来亚半岛、砂拉越和沙巴地区人民从中获得一些启示——当前有一些民主党团领袖人物为了骗取马来选票而掌权当官,把已被排挤出巫统却从来奉行马来霸权主义的马哈迪,迎来吹捧为“拯救马来西亚”的“救世主”,也有许许多多渴望“改朝换代”人士不顾一切盲目支持,回想当年马来亚(包括新加坡)左派运动因为某些领导人的“错误判断”,把李光耀当做“反殖斗争同盟和领袖”而在他上台执政之后却遭遇他的全面打击破坏,从此一蹶不振。这难道不是前车之鉴吗?



一、悼念林清祥的现实意义,主要是学习他的和平宪制斗争经验

林清祥是一个在1950—1960年代真心诚意献身于马来亚(包括新加坡)民族民主运动,具有很强的工人运动背景的杰出领袖。他已在1996年2月5日去世。可是,直到今天他依然活在人们的心中。他主张的和平宪制斗争群众路线,依然是当前我国民族民主改革运动的政治思想指导。

今年2月5日是林清祥去世20周年纪念日,我们悼念他,追思他的意义,是学习他全心全意为马来亚工人运动和反殖民族民主运动的献身精神。我们不但要学习他的献身精神,而且更要从他在宪制斗争的艰苦经历和经验总结中吸取教训,更好地推动新加坡、马来亚和砂沙人民当前阶段的民主人权斗争。

二、林清祥从反剥削反压迫的工人运动走上反殖斗争的政治舞台

英国殖民政府在1948年马来亚(包括新加坡)实施紧急法令后,人民普遍遭受紧密钳制和残酷迫害,对紧急法令迟迟不取消的不满情绪不断高涨;1954年新加坡华校中学生奋起反对英国殖民政府推行的”国民服役”而爆发了“5•13事件”和孕育了随后的学生运动;1955年新加坡福利巴士工友为改善生活待遇而进行的罢工遭受政府的暴力镇压而引发全岛暴动的“5•12事件”和引发了此起彼落的工人反迫害斗争。英殖民政府为了缓和人民的不满情绪于1955年推出林德宪制下的议会选举,并在法律上允许政党、工会或其他民间组织出现。这个局面为工人大众争取权益的进步工会的出现与发展提供了有利条件。

1951年底林清祥就读新加坡华侨中学初三,参与了罢考事件,遭遇逮捕拘留一周,被教育部开除出学校,从此被剥夺了应有的读书权力。1953年底或1954年初,他投入进步工会的活动。起初,他同时担任新加坡巴士车工友联合会(简称“巴联”)属下两间分会(樟宜分会、巴耶礼峇分会)的受薪秘书。随后,他兼任马来亚纺织厂工友联合会秘书。过后,他又担任于1954年4月4日取得注册新成立的各业工厂工友联合会(以下简称“各业工联”)的总务。

对于当时的林清祥来说,与劳苦大众打成一片、同甘共苦,是他梦寐以求的事。他亲身体察最底层的劳动工人求生存、求温饱的疾苦; 他认真细心为劳动工人提出提高工资、改善待遇等合理诉求;他热情带领工会积极份子,号召各业工人团结起来参加工会,向资方展开提高工资、改善待遇的斗争。当年,林清祥刚担任各业工联的总务时,会员仅近千名,不到一年,却增加到三万多名,可见其影响力之大。林清祥在各业工联等工会的领导能力和表现以及他当时所发表的言论和主张,也就使他很快地成为当时新加坡进步工会和工人群众之中最有威望的一名工运领袖。

林清祥的杰出表现也引起了在1954当年筹组人民行动党的李光耀的关注,通过当时的学生领袖的安排,两人开始有了接触。他在1955年2月的新加坡议会选举中,接受李光耀的委派,作为人民行动党竞选武吉知马区议席的候选人(还有包括李光耀本身在内的4名候选人竞选其他议席),结果高票中选。他在競选期间群众大会上的演讲,以及中选之后在立法议会中的发言,他反对殖民主义统治的特出表现,赢得工人群众与广大人民的赞赏和信任,成为真正代表工人群众与广大人民利益的代议士。林清祥从此成为在马来亚(包括新加坡)反殖斗争的政治舞台上的一个著名人物。

值得一提的是,当时新加坡反殖力量的壮大和人民要求自治独立呼声的高涨,吓坏了英殖民统治者及其代理人,而迫使它们再次露出法西斯面目,在1956年9月18日开始大镇压,逮捕大批进步工会和民间团体领袖及民主人士,进而封闭“各业工联”和进步民间组织。到10月26日再逮捕进步工会领袖:楊高錦、林清祥、蒂凡那、方水双、陳国偉、普都查理等人。据《星洲日报》1956年10月28日报道,单26日这天遭“公众安全法令”逮捕拘留的就有234人。10月26日的镇压事件,引起民众极度愤怒,现场爆发自发性游行示威抗议,却遭受当权者的暴力镇压,甚至开枪射杀,并施行戒严宵禁。造成15人死亡,伤者众多。

1956年从9月18日至10月26日的大镇压,并没有动摇工人大众反殖斗争的信心。不久之后,众多工会诸如:泛星各业职工联合会、新加坡书报印务业职工联合会、全星建筑工友联合会、新加坡商店职工联合会等涌现出来,团结失去工会组织的工友,继续进行争取更大民主权利的反殖斗争。

三、林清祥领导工人力量支持行动党上台,却令李光耀担心害怕

人民行动党从1954年成立后一直打着反殖民主义的大旗,终于在1959年新加坡大选,赢得了51个议席中的43个,准备上台组织第一届自治政府。新加坡广大人民特别工人大众都期待上台执政的李光耀继续依靠人民群众的力量,彻底赶走英殖民主义者,继续带领人民摆脱殖民统治者的枷锁,改变被奴役被迫害的命运。可是,李光耀骗取政权后很快就暴露其反工人的真面目。他害怕工人团结力量对他的权位有所威胁,但因在大选前已经作出“释放政治扣留者”的承诺而不得不释放了林清祥、方水双、蒂凡那等8名工会领袖,并把林清祥和方水双分别安插在“财政部政治秘书”和“劳工部政治秘书”的职位上,把蒂凡那安插在政府筹组的职工总会(NTUC)的领导位子上,而对统一工人运动、开放民主自由、改善人民生活等诉求却装聋作哑,所有恶法照旧实行。

当李光耀为首的行动党领导层已经脱离了原来的建党原则与斗争目标而在反工人、反人民的亲英道路上滑下去的时候,以林清祥、李绍祖为首的坚持反殖斗争的领袖和干部,在1961年9月17日成立了社会主义阵线,继续领导广大人民进行反对假合并和反对马来西亚计划的斗争。社阵党章,第二章党的目标第二条,标明:“基於出生於或效忠於马来亚的成人的普遍选举权,建立一个民主的马来亚政府。”这清楚说明了马来亚紧急状态结束后的进步工人运动所实践的宪制斗争路线和目标,已被列为社阵全党上下遵循的政治斗争路线和目标。

林清祥以秘书长身份在1962年10月11日召开的第一届社阵代表大会作报告时,这么强调“我们必须竭尽所能,采取具体的步骤取得跟联合邦的所有左翼力量和反殖力量的团结和合作,以便通过宪制途径建立一个真正代表大多数人民的中央政府。我们认为,唯有在取得了这个目标实现后,马来亚的农民、工人以及其他阶层的人民的生活水平才能得到改善。唯有通过这样的途径,才能实现一个基于平等民主原则真正的新马合并。也唯有通过这样的途径,马来亚人民的民主权利才能得到保障,国家的和平和繁荣才能建立起来。”

正是上述和平宪制斗争路线和目标符合人民的愿望和利益而广受人民的欢迎和支持,在反殖群众运动斗争中才能团结最大多数人发挥强大威力,取得节节胜利,对李光耀和行动党的统治地位造成越来越大的威胁。从1962年中期以后的新加坡政治形势发展看来,若按照宪制安排在1963年举行大选,行动党集团必败而社会主义阵线必胜无疑。李光耀集团为了挽救它们即将失去权力的厄运,多么想要对反殖民主势力进行大镇压,特别是把林清祥囚禁起来,但又苦于找不到下手的“借口”。因此,李光耀集团在“2•2事件”以前,使尽手段图谋刺激和诱导林清祥等人采取“过激”行动对抗,以便套用“马共制造暴乱”罪名加以镇压。

1962年关于新马合并的“全民投票”的抛出,其实就是暗藏上述大阴谋。若林清祥在当时号召抵制“全民投票”,李光耀一方面可以利用林清祥等人意图制造暴乱为借口进行大逮捕、大镇压,另一方面又可以宣布那些抵制全民投票者除非能说明“合理”的理由,否则就丧失下次大选投票权,从而取消一些反殖民主人士的选举权和投票权,进一步把反殖民主力量排除在1963年大选之外。

面对极端不公平的全民投票,林清祥等人理智应对,在全民投票前与过程中以温和方式发动全民性政治运动,深入宣传教育,说明全民投票的不合理内容,揭穿宪制民主的欺骗性实质,号召投空白票,化解了李光耀集团的阴谋诡计。

1962年12月8日发生的“汶萊人民武装起义事件”,为李光耀集团逮捕林清祥等政治领袖和干部以及镇压新加坡反殖力量,及时提供了他们(李光耀集团)梦寐以求的“借口”。已有一些历史学者揭露,“汶萊人民武装起义事件”其实是由英殖民统治者派遣的特务所主导的,其阴谋是英殖民政府藉此事件扑灭汶萊和砂朥越的反殖民主势力,也让新马的统治集团藉此镇压新加坡和马来半岛的反殖民主势力。结果这个阴谋得逞了。

四、林清祥倡导的斗争路线被李绍祖等社阵领导所破坏和糟蹋

1、林清祥在上世纪60年代如何看待“和平宪制斗争”和“国会民主”

1962年9月全民投票结果,新加坡反殖势力受挫折,那时反殖运动中有些人对宪制斗争的作用产生怀疑,从而浮现悲观消极的思想倾向,或者是冒险激进的思想倾向。

林清祥,在全民投票后9月12日,对投票结果作检讨总结所发表的“只要和平宪制斗争的条件还存在,我们就必需坚持和平宪制的斗争。”相信是为克服当时对宪制斗争的作用产生怀疑的“右倾”与“左倾”的错误思想倾向而提出的。

同年10月21日林清祥接受《阵线报》记者访问时又说:“在右派反动势力的眼里,‘国会民主’就是他们永远保持执政的地位,如果信奉社会主义的左翼力量有可能依循和平宪制的方法取得执政,右翼反动派也是不允许的。“

关于和平宪制斗争的估计,林清祥这样说:“反动派的否定和平宪制与国会民主,正好证明社会主义者遵循和平宪制途径取得大多数人民支持的可能性。在这种基础上,军事镇压是不能够消滅或阻碍人民社会主义力量的前进。”

他又说:“我国的左翼是要通过和平宪制方式实现社会变革,只有大多数人民需要社会主义,社会主义才会到来。反动派向升涨的社会主义浪潮进攻是白费气力的。因此反动派将越加依赖反民主和法西斯手段来维持他们的统治……显然的,正是由于社会主义势力通过宪制方式取得进步,所以联合邦反动集团就采取反民主的行动。

林清祥在发表1963 年新年献词时,进一步指出:“如果联合邦极力主张增强警察恐怖的势力如愿以賞,那么这个国家的政治发展就将达到一个转捩点。左翼势力到时就必须对这种局面作出必要的判断。”

以上林清祥对和平宪制斗争的论断,是他辩证地对待和平宪制斗争的作用与意义的铁证。实践证明,把林清祥所倡导的和平宪制斗争路线歪曲为“右倾机会主义路线”,无疑是马来亚左翼运动中的某些具有“左倾”机会主义思想的领导者为了自私目的和个人议程而作出的严重损害马来亚(包括新加坡)人民的民族民主斗争的不幸事件。对这个事件至今已历半个世纪尚未见到应有的检讨。

2、李绍祖等人指林清祥是“右倾机会主义者”、是“议会迷”

不少涉及上世纪60 年代反殖运动内部的政治斗争路线分歧论争资料已先后出现,当年对有关事件的知情者不再避忌谈论往事,当年关键人物之一的前社阵淡边尼支部主席傅孙力,透露了不少鲜为人知的内情,为我们梳理事件的脉络提供了方便条件。我尝试简述於下。

⑴李绍祖1964年初在社阵党内其“粉碎国民服役法令,杯葛登记”的主张。

1963年9月新加坡大选前,李绍祖本人对胜选滿怀信心,受挫后浮躁情绪冒起。同年11月间,李绍祖受邀出席马来亚劳工党在柔佛新山举行的一个集会发表讲话时开始提出杯葛国民服役法令的主张,他说:马来西亚将施行国民服役法令,我们必须进行杯葛——这是李绍祖在新加坡社阵党内提出杯葛国民服役法令主张的先兆。

1964年1月间,社阵中央开始召开现存的中央委员与立法议会委员联席会议,就反国民服役法令的对策进行讨论。出席共有10人,即李绍祖、刘坡得、顾泱、谢太宝、王连丁、陈清动、林焕文、傅孙力、高棋生、蒋清谭。经过多次讨论,李绍祖始终坚持主张“粉碎国民服役法令,杯葛登记”,只得顾泱1人支持,其他8人都反对。反对者,有的主张“在抗议之下去登记”,有的主张“有原则去登记”。

⑵林清祥对反国民服役法令斗争的表态,被李绍祖指为“右倾机会主义思想”、“违背党的原则和立场”。

1964年2月间,林清祥从监牢传出一封致社阵中委与立委的信件,表达对反国民服役法令斗争的态度。信中的要点大意是:
  • 经过1963年“二•二事件”和10月8日总罢工事件,新加坡的群众运动已处于低潮状态,不适合进行高形式的斗争,只能够进行低形式的斗争。
  • 我们应采取在抗议之下去登记。我们与群众关系,如鱼和水。如果没有了水,鱼是无法生存的。如果没有得到群众支持,我们是无法进行任何斗争的。当群众还没有普遍起来要求斗争的时候,暂时不可进行高形式的斗争。
  • 现在不进行高形式的斗争,不等于今后就没有机会开展高形式的斗争。敌人的不合理法令是很多的,今后还等待着我们去开展斗争。
李绍祖批评说:这是悲观消极的思想态度;政治运动是永远高潮,也永远没有低潮的。许多国家的社会主义运动开始只有几个人而已,今天我们已有成千上万的人,还说是低潮吗?这是右倾机会主义思想,不敢斗争、屈服投降,违背党的原则和立场。李绍祖提出的公开号召抵制国民服役登记的主张,在1964年4月29日举行的党特别代表大会被推翻。李绍祖等8人因此在1964年5月4日辞去党职和退党。

⑶1965年3月7日李绍祖以征服者的姿态重回社阵后,大力鼓吹“革命路线”,掀起“反对右倾机会主义”的斗争,由不点名发展到公然地批判林清祥和他所倡导的斗争路线。

自1965年新加坡退出大马起,李绍祖等人在以下两个方面批判林清祥及其斗争路线日益露骨。试述於下——

关于“新加坡退出大马”

1965年3月8日全星工团联络秘书处,在30工团联合庆祝三八妇女节特辑上发表了一篇题为《解散大马 退出大马》论述星洲人民应走的正确道路的政策性文章。同日,社阵实笼岗花园支部出版的庆祝三八妇女节特辑里也刊出了一篇题为《新加坡往那里走?》的文章,此文对“新加坡退出大马”的论述,与工团联络秘书处所持的观点雷同。当时就流传着此文是林清祥所写,有心人四处寻找皆无缘阅读此文。李绍祖3月7日回归社阵,他岂能容许党内出现异议?相信社阵实笼岗花园支部出版的特辑已全被销毁。

1965年8月9日新加坡退出大马宣布独立那天,李绍祖在日本出席反原子弹和平大会,他从日本用电话指示顾泱、谢太宝宣布“这(新加坡独立)是假独立,(社阵)不承认新加坡独立。”也在同一天,以新加坡厂商工友联合会(简称“厂商工联”)为主导的全星30左派工团,发表了题为《星退出“马来西亚”:英帝统治受挫折被迫采取新欺骗》的联合声明(见1965年8月15日《厂商工联会讯》第15期)。声明指出:(1)”这是人民反马来西亚斗争的进展,这是联盟和行动党两个傀儡政权“连手”的失败,这更是英帝国主义在本地区的新殖民统治的挫折。”声明还指出“‘独立自主’是人民的共同意志和愿望,也是左派职工运动一路来所坚持奋斗的目标。”声明更提出了“新加坡‘独立自主‘在政治、经济与军事等方面应有的权利和地位”以及“争取星马真正复归统一”的斗争目标。当30左派工团遵循林清祥所倡导的斗争路线,根据当时的具体情况发表了上述声明,李绍祖很快就把“承认假独立”、“敌人代理人”等莫须有罪名硬套在当时以陈辛为首的工运领导的头上。

林清祥在已发表的《林清祥<答问>遗稿片段》里有这么一段话:“…….当新加坡宣布脱离马来西亚而独立时,我从牢里写信给社阵主席李绍祖,反对其指独立是假的,要求他承认独立,并指出这是行动党所推行“合并”主张的破产,应该要求马上释放全体因反对行动党(推行)‘合并’而被逮捕的人士。” (见于该文中的“新加坡宣布独立时,你感受如何”的段落)

关于“放弃议会斗争”

李绍祖从日本回来后,从1965年8月16日起,社阵中央召开过几次会议,讨论新加坡退出大马宣布独立之后如何对待议会斗争问题。李绍祖强烈主张:
  • 国会民主已死亡,社阵必须杯葛国会;
  • 新加坡是“假独立”,不能继续出席国会;
  • 社阵必须指令全体立法议员集体辞职;
  • 粉碎“议会迷”思想,开展街头斗争。
他的主张,引起党内基层干部的强烈反弹,同年11月17日“社阵十二支部事件”的发生,就是社阵基层干部普遍抗拒李绍祖激进路线的集中体现。

1965年10月间,林清祥从监牢再次传信给社阵中委与立委,表达他反对“放弃议会斗争”。其要点大意是:社阵是一个宪制的政党,只能够从事宪制斗争;如果认为国会民主已死亡,就轻率放弃议会斗争,开展街头斗争,这是不符合社阵的宗旨,社阵也就没有存在的价值了。

身陷囹圄的林清祥试图影响当时的社阵领导避免采取激进路线的努力,终归失败。1966年10月8日,社阵五议员(顾泱、谢太宝、王连丁、陈清动、傅孙力),在李绍祖的指令下,联袂到国会向议长提交议员集体辞职信,并在议会外展示“国会民主已死亡〞标语的黑色横幅。自此之后,完全脱离了林清祥及其路线的社阵组织,在李绍祖推行疯狂冒进路线的支配下,迅速走到了脱离群众、自取灭亡的结局。不仅如此,许多左派工会和团体的领袖和干部,也在李绍祖的疯狂冒进的思想的支配下,自动或被动地放弃他们的组织,让当权者轻易地先后消灭了这些组织,加速了反殖民主力量的崩溃。

林清祥在1962年9月2日全民投票结果公布之后向社阵全党干部分析今后斗争方向的讲话以及在1962年10月11日向社阵第1届代表大会提呈工作报告所提出斗争路线和方针,已深受社阵党内外左派干部和群众的认同和支持,却在李绍祖以征服者的姿态重返社阵之后全面破坏了。李绍祖还非常得意地把他和他的同伙全面破坏林清祥所提出的斗争路线和方针的活动,都写在第2届(1967年)党代表大会和第3届(1969年)党代表大会的政治报告书中。

当年李绍祖宣布他及其他7人退出社阵之后, 在新加坡的马共代表人物对社阵领导传达指令,说什么“李绍祖的抵制国民服役登记的主张是正确的,必须向他承认错误”、“李绍祖是个人才,社阵没有他不行,必须争取他回来领导社阵……”这对李绍祖轻易实现其“隐议程”起了“临门一脚”的效应。历史事实证明,马共的这项决策对林清祥来说,无疑也是一项重大的打击。

五、林清祥不愧是新马工人运动和民族民主运动的杰出领袖

1,新加坡退出马来西亚后,李光耀集团加强迫害林清祥

英殖民政府、李光耀统治集团和阿都拉曼统治集团为了阻遏反殖、反假合倂、反马来西亚计划的和平宪制斗争,利用“汶萊人民武装起义事件”, 1963年2月2日在新加坡进行了一场代号为“冷藏行动” 的大逮捕、大镇压,林清祥等100多名反殖领袖和干部就是在涉嫌“准备背弃宪制斗争”的指控下而没有经过审讯就被长期监禁、虐待和摧残。1965年8月9日新加坡退出马来西亚宣布独立,正好证明:林清祥等反殖民主人士反假合倂、反马来西亚的行动是正确的,而李光耀推行假合并、加入马来西亚是错误的。对广大的被压迫的各族人民来说,被逮捕、被监禁和被迫害的林清祥等领袖和干部才是真正的反殖爱国人士。

新加坡退出马来西亚宣布独立,李光耀自然会想到,继续囚禁因反对行动党(推行)‘合并’而被逮捕的反殖爱国人士特别是林清祥,就是背负极其沉重的政治压力。李光耀集团为解除压力,就必须变本加厉逼迫那些政治扣留者屈服就范或变节投降,从而摧毁他们的政治生命,对其劲敌林清祥更是如此。林清祥在这期间,患上严重的忧郁和高血压等症状而表现出一些反常怪异行为,监狱医生配药医治反而使病情更加恶化。到1965年12月初,报章报道“林清祥被调去中央医院,他在那儿企图自杀”的消息,引起人民群众密切关注,而对李光耀集团愤怒之声四起。12月8日,新加坡30个左派工会发表联合声明指出:行动党政权加强对林清祥的人身迫害,甚至图谋杀害,是挫折整个左派运动和打击左派干部信心的一个阴谋。

1969年7月23日林清祥在监牢办公室亲手交一封誌明7月21日的信给社阵主席李绍祖,宣布对斗争失去信心而退出政坛。同时他也致函给李光耀表示他“放弃政治”。随后,在一位精神病医生和一位政治部警官陪同下离开新加坡,飞去伦敦。他被迫在伦敦艰苦度过10年流放生活,而在1979年才被允许回返新加坡——一般能够正常思考的人都会理解,这是李光耀还在担心已经因受残酷身心迫害而患上精神分裂症的林清祥或许对他的权位还会有些威胁所采取的最后一项安全措施。

2,李绍祖为首的社阵领导也致力消除林清祥的政治影响力

很不幸的是,在李光耀集团加强迫害,想要摧毁林清祥的政治生命的关键时期,李绍祖为首的社阵领导,为了推行其自以为是“革命路线”,也通过各种各样的管道和途径,大肆批判林清祥和以林清祥为代表的政治斗争路线和主张是“右倾机会主义路线”、“议会迷思想”。李绍祖及其同伙这么做的主要目的,也是想要消除林清祥的政治影响力,破坏林清祥在反殖运动中的领导权威。不难想象,这种来自反殖运动内部的打击,对林清祥来说,在精神上所受的冲击和痛苦,绝对不会轻过来自外部敌人的迫害和摧残。

林清祥所代表的政治斗争路线,是从马来亚(包括新加坡)紧急状态结束以后的新加坡地区的工人运动和民族民主运动中发展起来的。这条政治斗争路线,是在现代宪制环境下的斗争路线;它是维护人民切身利益的斗争路线;它是依靠群众、相信群众的斗争路线。因此,新加坡的工人运动和民族民主运动在上世纪50年代至60年代蓬勃发展起来,并且取得一定的斗争成果。但是,这条行之有效的斗争路线,从1966年开始就几乎被李绍祖等人疯狂鼓吹的“革命路线”全面取代。到了1969年底,由林清祥等反殖运动领袖艰辛建立起来的强大群众基础,已濒临消失。这一个亲痛仇快的局面,使到追随林清祥的政治斗争路线的广大干部与群众悲愤不已,但又深感无奈。这个时期的林清祥本已因饱受残酷折磨,处于精神沮丧、忧郁症深重状态,再经受“敌人从内部来攻破堡垒和阵地”这种沉重打击,其病情岂有不加剧恶化之理?

3,盖棺定论:林清祥是从工人运动和民族民主运动涌现出来的杰出领袖

林清祥在1953年(20岁)开始投入工人运动,随即在翌年现身于政治舞台。1955年代表人民行动党出战武吉知马区议席,高票中选。1956年遭林有福政权逮捕入狱。1963年又被李光耀政权囚禁。人在牢狱,他依然非常操心牢外的政治发展动态。当社阵党内自1964年起数度出现“左倾冒进”倾向,他都想方设法劝阻。可以说,他劝阻李绍祖为首的社阵领导避免走上脱离群众自我毁灭的道路,已经做到力尽心碎的地步。在辞世前,他撰写了关于新马早期的一些历史问题的理解和评断以及对他亲身经历的重大的斗争事件的反思和总结的回忆录,供人参考研究。这就说明,当他还有一口气时,他依然对新马民族民主运动表示他的关心和期望。在回忆录中,他揭露敌人在各斗争阶段所耍弄的阴谋诡计,也指出人民内部在某些事件上所犯的错误。这是敢于面对历史并勇于向人民负责的严肃态度的体现。在20多年前,林清祥早已为我们树立了勇于反思过去的对与错的榜样,值得我们认真学习、仿效。

综观林清祥一生对新马民族民主运动的努力和贡献,当年他让自己流放到伦敦去,就算是“自愿”,也只是他人生中的一点瑕癖,依然不会削弱他作为新马工人运动和民族民主运动杰出领袖,甚至是马来亚(包括新加坡)建国一代的英雄人物的崇高形象。林清祥的一生献给了马来亚(包括新加坡)的工人运动和民族民主运动事业已不容置疑。

六、我个人在纪念林清祥逝世20周年斗胆提出两个小小的希望

实践证明:李绍祖为首的社阵领导所主张的政治斗争路线,已彻底失败。从当年批判林清祥所代表的政治斗争路线为“右倾机会主义路线”、“议会迷”,迄今已有50年了,林清祥含冤作古,迄今也有20年了。当年参予错误批判林清祥的人物,有的已先后过世,但在世的还为数极多,不少已是古稀之年,在纪念林清祥逝世20周年之际,我希望那些还在世的当年的批判闯将(特别是关键人物),趁人生有限时刻,尽早还林清祥公道,以慰藉他在天之灵。

林清祥是马来亚(包括新加坡)工人运动和民族民主运动的杰出领袖,他的回忆录是他留给人民关于改革斗争的思想财富,我有理由相信,各民族各阶层人士都愿意分享他的光辉思想,那些跟林清祥一起参与斗争的亲历者,更加急于分享他的经验总结。2013年初新加坡左派人士之间已有传说,林清祥在世时,已将他所写的回忆录全文交给他的一个朋友打字排版,并准备出版。之后为何没有出版,众说纷纭。2014年7月林清如(林清祥之弟)出版他的回忆录《我的黑白青春》一书,附录了林清祥回忆录中的片段——一篇题为《林清祥<答问>遗稿片段》的文章。众多读了这已发表的片段的人都认为,林清祥写下他的回忆录,就是有心留下他的重要的奋斗事迹和珍贵的经验总结。换句话说,林清祥的遗稿,是一份珍贵的历史文献,是他有心留给人民的思想财富。

相信《林清祥<答问>遗稿》未出版的部分,还有诸多鲜为人知,甚至属敏感性事物的情节。那些跟林清祥一起参与斗争的战友们以及林清祥的路线的追随者,都期望有生之年有机会阅读全文。在悼念林清祥逝世20周年之际,希望已被“珍藏“多年(应该是至少20年)的《林清祥<答问>遗稿》(全文)迅速发表,以实现林清祥生前出版全文的夙愿,也满足众人阅读全文的渴望。

写于2016年1月
修于2016年2月

作者相关文章链接:
1、廿世纪六十年代 新加坡左派工运遭遇 问题探索 ——纪念“二•二事件”五十周年
2、《廿世纪六十年代新加坡 左派工运遭遇问题探索》 续篇 ——纪念“五一”国际劳动节

Sunday, 13 March 2016

方壮璧叙述新加坡马共历史

方壮璧叙述新加坡马共历史

作者/来源:新加坡文献馆
插图和小标题为《人民之友》编者所加



“方壮璧的这些记述,描绘出马共在组织遭遇彻底破坏之后的现实困境,也表达了个人作为散兵游勇的孤立无援,因而在工作上无所作为的无奈。

回顾历史,应该就是因为马共有了这些客观上的困难,所以方壮璧才会在反殖统一阵线的虚假承诺下,让李光耀占尽了便宜。”



《方壮璧回忆录》记述的历史资料,有助进一步认识当年该一时段的政治发展历程,其中也部分的解答了两个关键性问题:反英殖民运动是不是共产党革命?马共威胁论有没有现实基础?”

李光耀刻意无限放大“马共威胁论”有其目的

首先,以李光耀之历史论述为核心思想的新加坡主流历史观,是通过共产党威胁论来无限放大,共产党颠覆社会秩序的危害性,来抹黑与扭曲,左翼政治在反英殖民运动的努力与贡献。一个典型例子是李光耀的电台广播,把左翼政治的反英殖民运动,污蔑为:他们都想推动马来亚共产主义的革命。

那么,事情的本来真面目为何?

确实,马共的政治信仰是共产主义,但是,为此而硬是要把反英殖民运动等同推动共产主义的革命,却是一个不诚实的,居心叵测的说法。因此,历史有必要明确分辨,马共在推动共产主义,与在反英殖民运动的工作上,是持着一种什么样的心态?

根据方壮璧所说:入左不是南侨日报的影响,而是殖民统治的使然。追随共产党并不是为了什么共产主义,追随共产党,仅仅是对殖民地黑暗社会,对殖民地统治的一种挑战,追随共产党是争取国家独立,民族解放与和平,民主的唯一生路。

意思是说,方壮璧之所以加入马共是为了要参与反殖民运动,以结束英国人的殖民统治。在此,马共是一个政治平台,其目的与实际活动,是推翻英国人的殖民统治。

马共的实际活动与‘共产主义革命’远远挂不上钩

另外,方壮璧也针对李光耀所言,提出了进一步的解释:我还需要说明一下:李先生所说:‘…帮助推动马来亚的共产主义革命。’这类话,绝不是我说的。李先生应该承认,与他对话的人绝对不是白痴。为什么我要说那类蠢话?而事实上,当时的整个斗争,还远远的与‘共产主义革命’挂不上钩。…在那个时候,那种场合,我肯定不会说类似‘推动马来亚的共产主义革命’的话。不会在非共的头面人物面前…自讨没趣。…‘项庄舞剑’…有不少无辜的爱国者被咬定是在搞共产主义…。

方壮璧更是明确指出:有些人喜欢把事件和共产主义拉扯在一起,我合法,你非法。

在此,方壮璧除了批评李光耀凭空捏造的嫁祸陷害之外,更强调了反殖民运动的斗争,与共产主义革命挂不上钩。明显的,把反英殖民运动,捏造成是共产党革命的罪名,完全是李光耀用来打击竞争对手的政治工具。

诚然,方壮璧笔下的马共,无论是在武装与宪制内斗争,其主要的政治目的都是力图结束英国人对马来亚的殖民统治。因此,通过迷惑视听以误导马共的斗争目标,进而把整个左翼政治,描绘为推动马来亚的共产主义革命,是不符合历史事实的谎言;带有含血喷人的恶意。

马共在新加坡的实况是一番什么样的光景?

其次,在新加坡主流历史论述里,左翼政治被定性为,是受到共产党支配与控制之反政府的非法颠覆活动。这一种具有预设立场的未审先判,并不考虑到历史事实上的凭据。这一类来自凭空想象的说法,很不适当的夸张了马共对左翼政治的影响力。

实际上,要了解马共威胁论有没有现实基础,是可以从方壮璧对马共在新加坡的实际处境记述中一探究竟。从史料看看当时的马共在新加坡的实况,究竟是一番什么样的光景?方壮璧作为在新加坡的唯一马共干部,他到底干了些什么革命活动?

根据方壮璧的回忆:1950年初,进入南侨日报,两三个月后,余柱业也进入报社,两人由此相识。通过中介表白加入马共意愿,之后,余成为方的组织上司。任务是为马共英文战讯翻译华文资讯为英文稿件、稍后,又负责战讯华文版的编辑工作。

1950年9月某夜,警方进入南侨日报拘捕了好些职员,方是新兵所以不在情报的逮捕名单上。余与方从此转入地下活动。不久之后,被安排负责自由报的出版事宜。但是,随即自由报的工作室也被偵破。

在`50年代新加坡的马共组织已根本瓦解

1950年代初,地下市委被彻底破坏,书记变节投降成为对付共产党的政府特务,其他成员或被逮捕,驱逐出境,或叛变投降。当时新加坡的党组织已经根本瓦解,不复存在。其他各个区的组织单位,也遭到摧残而崩溃

在新加坡的主要活动是由学委会干部领导,不过其成员要不是被捕就已经逃亡。学生委员在余离星后联系方。方是原市委的唯一干部;我的这个组织关系,是一个人对一个人的单线关系,断线之后,是离队的散兵游勇。

1952年起,由地下学委遗留下来的单位协助。一人负责自由报的出版。到这个时候为止,我从没有参加过正式的组织会议,我主持或参加的都是部门的工作会议。我不属于任何组织集体小组。我实际上是组织单独的个人。自由报社的其他三人是同事。我对马共地下组织的活动没多大了解,所谓马共地下组织只是各组分散独立活动的学生委员会属下的单位。

这些年来的公开群众运动,主要是由学方面的基层干部同志们领导和发动起来的。而其实,学生委员会本身的成员,也近乎损失殆尽,个别幸存的学委也已流亡国外。

马来亚的武装斗争在`50年代也已失败

1957年在印尼被任命为工作三人组一员,负责领导新加坡。这时的马共组织己被打散。马来亚的武装夺权斗争也已失败。从形式来说,党的组织巳经被破坏瓦解。直至工作组成立为止。传统的党组织形式,包括党章所规定的党组织活动,都已经停止了。我自已是从未参加过党组织生活的干部。

在这之前,虽然我被通缉,被追捕,接着有全面主持市党组织的宣传机关,但我从未参加过集体活动,没有参加过党和其他地下组织的会议。我对新加坡党或地下组织的情况一无所知,我并不了解新加坡党组织内干部人才配备的具体情况,但我能够清楚意识到,这项工作是由于没有别人负责,才由我硬顶起来的。

出席印尼会议者对新加坡的现场认识不多,大多不是参与现场斗争的干部或领导。我是现场唯一干部,但实际上我与具体斗争几乎绝缘,也无从了解斗争的内部情况。而与第一线工作有联系的干部,得到的也仅仅是久不久来一封信,或者,偶尔有人过来,反映个别单位的一些内部状况。

马共领导工作出现“先天不足”现象

由于对具体情况了解不足,又由于参加者社会接触面不广以及知识水平和斗争经验的局限,会议对局势就不可能有全面,深刻的认识和剖析。这是非法地下党领导工作上的先天不足现象。

另外,方壮璧也记述了当时的客观环境之恶劣:地方小人口少,藏匿的地方有限,招收新人的机会更少,人力资源不足,可以回旋余地极为局限。时间越长困难越大。战斗力无法补充,恢复,只能日益衰竭。经验断层,联系困难,人员局限,资源短缺。绝对弱势。

方壮璧的这些记述,描绘出马共在组织遭遇彻底破坏之后的现实困境,也表达了个人作为散兵游勇的孤立无援,因而在工作上无所作为的无奈。回顾历史,应该就是因为马共有了这些客观上的困难,所以方壮璧才会在反殖统一阵线的虚假承诺下,让李光耀占尽了便宜。

李光耀是借“马共威胁”以对付政治敌手

浅而易见,一个已经频临崩溃边缘的弱势马共,岂能会有必要的庞大资源:金钱,物力,人力,去从事推动马来亚共产主义的革命,并且造成足以颠覆社会的威胁?

毋庸置疑,李光耀提出之左翼政治是共产主义革命说,是脱离现实的谎言,同样的,马共威胁论,或者说,共产党阴谋论,也完全是没有现实基础的政治标签。

李光耀之所以会无中生有的编造虚构理论,纯粹是为了要以涉嫌共产党活动的罪名,来动用内部安全法令下的无需提供证据,不经法庭审讯的情况下,随时与任意的拘捕与囚禁,政党政治上的竞争对手。

Saturday, 12 March 2016

Forum in commemoration of S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong: Expert scholars to deliver speeches All are welcomed to attend and raise questions

Second media statement on the co-organisation of forum dated 12 March 2016

Forum in commemoration of S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong
Expert scholars to deliver speeches
All are welcomed to attend and raise questions



Sahabat Rakyat, Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) Johor and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Nusajaya will jointly organise a forum entitled “Tribute to S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong: Develop the selfless devotion spirit of these eminent leaders of the Malaya labour movement”. Particulars of the forum are as follows:

Date: 20 March 2016 (Sunday)
Time: 2pm-6pm
Venue: Meeting hall at TJ Mart Kulai, Johor (Lot 5035, Lebuhraya Senai, 81400 Senai, Johor) (Coordinates: 1.633029, 103.632711)

2 scholars who have made much research on S.A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong respectively accepted our invitation to become panel speakers. They promised to attend and express their views as well as provide papers for the forum. They are:

(1) Saminathan Munisamy – An active social activist from Johor. As the founder and author of malayaganapathy.com website, he has done lots of researches about S. A. Ganapathy of which led him to be a popular resource person about the hero from the Indian community in our country. The title of the paper that he submitted for this forum is “S.A. Ganapathy: From a Social Reformist to Independence Fighter”.

(2) C.C.Chin @ Chen Jian – Graduated from Nanyang University, is a historian of the Singapore and Malaysia left-wing movement. He has done a lot of research on the left-wing movement of Malaya and Singapore. He has also involved in the editing and publishing work of a number of books about left-wing movement, among those are Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party (与陈平对话 - 马来亚共产党新解), Oral History of Eu Chooi Yip, a Singaporean Political Activist, on Political Development in Singapore from 1945 to 1965 (浪尖逐梦–余柱业口述历史档案), Historical Dialogue of Communism Movement in Sarawak (砂拉越共产主义运动历史对话), Pursuing Dream in Roaring Flames - A Journey of Revolution in Sarawak (烈焰中追梦–砂拉越革命的一段历程), Anti-Japanese Movement of the Chinese in Malaya (马来亚华人抗日运动), etc. The title of the paper that he submitted for this forum is “The significance of inheriting and persisting Lim Chin Siong’s struggle line today” (继承与坚持林清祥路线的当前意义) [Note: The English title is temporary translated by Sahabat Rakyat from the Chinese language].

Another invited speaker, S. Arutchelvan, Secretariat of Left Coalition of Malaysia and former Secretary General of PSM is unable to make it to the forum as the date clashes with a pre-scheduled program in Kuala Lumpur. However, the organising committee is still trying our best to convince him to provide a paper for this forum and squeeze a little time to attend the forum. Besides, the organising committee deeply regrets that due to an unanticipated emergency, P. Waytha Moorthy, Chairman of HINDRAF, one of the co-organisers of this forum has to travel abroad and unable to attend the forum. We are also trying our best to convince him to provide a paper for the forum.

Poh Soo Kai and Dominic Puthucheary had declined our invitation via email on 10 March separately.

Panel speakers of this forum are given the choice to deliver their speeches in English or Chinese (moderator of the forum will convey key points in Chinese language). We will allow ample time for panel speakers to answer questions from the audience in Q&A session. Will the views to be put forward by panel speakers in the forum render some help to the democrats in our country to: ponder over the changing situation of political power that is currently in the phase of fragmentation and reorganization; seek for a democratic reformation programme that serves the interest and aspiration of the people in large? It will be something which many democrats in the country will eagerly want to know more about and sincerely anticipate for. This will be a forum of great significance which has drawn a lot of attention. So do not miss it. The organising committee particularly opted a suitable and comfortable venue for the forum that is convenient to NGO leaders and activists in Singapore and Johore who are keen in democratic movement to participate in the sharing face-to-face.

As usual practice, we have requested panel speakers to submit their papers (no limit on numbers of words). We will compile their papers into booklet, which will be made available to all participants. We will also forward the papers to democratic parties, organisations and media, and upload them to organisers’ blog/websites.

The working committee cordially invite people of Malaysia and Singapore of different ethnic communities, different religions and different classes who are concerned of and working on democratic and human rights movement to be with us at this forum. Admission is free. For more information, feel free to contact:

1. Y. Mohan (019-7102895), HINDRAF Johor
2. Choo Shinn Chei (017-7721511), Sahabat Rakyat
3. Silvarajah Erusam (016-7334469), PSM Nusajaya

Above is the picture of representatives from Sahabat Rakyat, Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) Johor and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Nusajaya taken at the press conference held at South Johore Chinese Press Club. From left: Yong Siew Lee, Nyam Kee Han, S. Balakhrishnan, M. Kumaradevan、Silvarajah Erusam, Y. Mohan, Choo Shinn Chei, Cheng Lee Whee and Ang Pei Shan.

Links:
1. First media statement "Tribute to S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong: Develop the selfless devotion spirit of these eminent leaders of the Malaya labour movement"

“发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神”论坛 专人学者专题演讲 欢迎各界聆听提问

“发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神”论坛
  专人学者专题演讲   欢迎各界聆听提问



人民之友工委会、柔佛州兴权会与社会主义党(努沙再也支部)联合主办的“向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬 ,发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神”论坛,铁定于3月20日(星期日)举行,论坛时间是:下午2时正开始,6时正结束,地点是在柔佛士乃TJ Mart会议厅(Lot 5035, Jalan Air Hitam, 81400 Senai, Johor)。

两名分别对甘纳巴迪、林清祥的奋斗事迹素有研究的学者欣然接受邀请,答应提供论文、亲临演讲。他们是——

(1)沙米纳登(Saminathan Munisamy)——沙米纳登是柔佛州内一名年轻活跃的社会工作者。作为创立和支撑《马来亚甘纳巴迪网》(malayaganapathy.com)的作者,他进行了很多关于甘纳巴迪(S.A. Ganapathy)的研究,使他成为一个关于这名来自我国印裔社会的英雄人物的资料和讯息、众所周知的资源人物。他为这次论坛提供其论文,题目是《从社会改革人士到独立斗士——甘纳巴迪》(S.A. Ganapathy : From a social reformist to independence fighter)【注:中文题目为人民之友暂译】

(2)陈剑(Chen Jian@ C.C.Chin)——陈剑,毕业于南洋大学,是新马左翼运动的历史学家,他对新马两地的左翼运动有相当深入的研究,他曾经参与编辑以及撰写了不少关于新马左翼运动的书籍,主要的有:《浪尖逐梦–余柱业口述历史档案》、《与陈平对话 - 马来亚共产党新解》、《砂拉越共产主义运动历史对话》、《烈焰中追梦–砂拉越革命的一段历程》及《马来亚华人抗日运动》等书。他为这次论坛提供其论文,题目是《继承与坚持林清祥路线的当前意义》

筹委会邀请的左翼联盟秘书处/社会主义党前秘书长阿鲁哲文因早有安排当天在吉隆坡的另一项活动而难以分身,但是,本筹委会仍然努力争取他尽其可能为此次论坛提供其论文并挤出一些时间莅临演讲。此外,兴权会主席瓦达慕迪于本月4日通过电邮向筹委会表示他因无法预计的急事发生必须出国而无法在当天亲临现场发表演说。筹委会对此深感遗憾。因柔州兴权会是主办论坛的单位之一,筹委会仍然努力争取他尽其可能提供其论文。

傅树介与多米尼·普都遮理(Dominic Puthucheary)两人分别于本月10日通过电邮,谢绝了论坛筹委会的邀请。

此论坛的主讲人将各自选择以英语或华语演讲(论坛主持人将以华语作重点介绍),筹委会也将在主讲人演讲环节之后,提供充分时间让主讲人回答与会者的提问。各主讲人针对这次论坛主题发表的见解,是否能为我国民主人士思考我国当前阶段的政治力量的分化改组的形势变化和寻求一个符合广大人民利益和愿望的民主改革方案提供一些帮助,这是国内许多民主人士想要了解并殷切期待的。这无疑是一场令人关注、意义重大的论坛,错过可惜。我们因此特别选择了一个适当地点和舒适场所,方便居住在新加坡与柔佛州内外的热衷于推动民主运动的民间组织领袖和活跃分子,到场进行面对面的交流。

我们将按照过去举办论坛的惯例,请求主讲人事先提交其论文(不限篇幅),由我们印制成论坛文件,现场分发给与会者,也在论坛举行当天上午发送给国内党团和媒体,并贴上主办单位的部落格及网页让网民浏览。

论坛筹委会敬邀新马两地关心与推动我国民主人权运动的各族群、各宗教、各阶层人士踊跃出席。入场免费。若有疑惑,请拨打电话询问 ——

1、Y. 莫汉(019-7102895)/ 柔佛州兴权会;
2、朱信杰(017-7721511)/ 人民之友工委会;
3、西尔瓦(016-7334469)/ 社会主义党(努沙再也支部)

以上是人民之友、柔佛州兴权会与社会主义党(努沙再也支部)在2016年3月12日于柔南中文报业从业员俱乐部举行新闻发布会在现场的合影。左起:杨秀丽、严居汉、S. Balakhrishnan、M. Kumaradevan、Silvarajah Erusam 、Y. Mohan、朱信杰、钟立薇、洪佩珊

相关链接:
1. 专题论坛第一篇声明《向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬 发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神》

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

KENYATAAN AKHBAR SEMPENA HARI WANITA SEDUNIA

KENYATAAN AKHBAR SEMPENA HARI WANITA SEDUNIA

Kenyataan bersama bertarikh 8hb Mac 2016


Sempena sambutan hari Wanita Sedunia 2016, kami para aktivis masyarakat ingin mengutarakan kebimbangan kami terhadap pelbagai kekurangan dalam program Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat (KPWKM) untuk menangani masalah warga ibu tunggal miskin di Negara kita.

Berikutan dengan mesyuarat dengan Timbalan Menteri KPWKM YB Senator Chew Mei Fun pada 14hb. Julai 2015 yang lalu, kami telah menerima maklumbalas kepada isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh kami melalui surat bertarikh 3hb Februari 2016 dari Jabatan Pembangunan Wanita KPWKM.

Diantara kekurangan daripada respon KPWKM yang kami ingin ungkitkan di sini adalah seperti berikut ;

1. Isu Pengukuran Pendapatan Garis Kemiskinan (PGK)

Kami amat terkilan dengan justifikasi KPWKM yang masih memegang kepada PGK RM720 sebulan, memandangkan amaun ini tidak lagi relevan pada pendapat kami. KPWKM menerangkan justifikasi PGK sebagai
adalah asas pengukuran tahap pendapatan bagi memenuhi keperluan minimum makanan dan bukan makanan untuk memastikan setiap ahli isi rumah kekal sihat dan aktif berfungsi  dalam masyarakat. Pengiraan PGK ini adalah berasakan konsep pemakanan seimbang World Health Organisation (WHO)…

Kami mempertikaikan perkara tersebut. Mengikut anggaran kami, pendapatan garis kemiskinan pada masa kini yang berasaskan keperluan sebuah keluarga 5 anggota, 4 orang anak (2 sekolah rendah/ satu di tadika / satu dirumah asuhan) dan seorang ibu tunggal sepatutnya seperti berikut:


Justeru itu, kita mengatakan PGK RM720.00 adalah tidak relevan lagi dan perlu diselaraskan setimpal dengan kos hidup. Maka sebab itulah, kami mencadangkan PGK diselaraskan kepada RM1,500 (keluarga) setimpal dengan kos hidup kini.

1.  Khidmat Pegawai Psikologi dan Pegawai Kebajikan, Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat
Kami mengalu-alukan perkhidmatan yang disediakan oleh JKM, tetapi  kami syorkan pihak Kementerianmemberi publisiti mengenai perkhidmatan kaunselor supaya ibu-tunggal tahu ke mana perlu tuju bila ada masalah. Oleh kerana kekurangan pegawai dan makluman ini, ramai ibu tunggal, wanita mangsa keganasan rumah tangga dan pelbagai mangsa masalah sosial terbiar tanpa panduan.

2.    Kemudahan pengasuhan untuk kanak
 Kami mencadangkan bahawa pihak KPWKM membeli dan memperuntukkan beberapa unit rumah kos rendah untuk dijadikan rumah asuhan dikendalikan oleh JKM itu sendiri. Kini isu ini ditangani melalui penyediaan Pusat Aktiviti Kanak-kanak (PAKK). KPWKM memaklumkan bahawa  hanya terdapat  149 PAKK diseluruh Negara. Jumlah ini tidak mencukupi. Maka dicadangkan, setiap kawasan perumahan rumah kos rendah mempunyai unit PAKK.

3.    Pengangkutan Awam untuk golongan miskin kota.
KPWKM memberikan kepastian bahawa suatu mekanisme diwujudkan dengan Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) untuk menyediakan pass pengangkutan percuma kepada para pelajar dan juga wargaibu tunggal.

4.  Masalah apabila penyumbang tunggal keluarga menjalani hukuman penjara atau di Pusat Pemulihan Dadah
Apakah yang akan terjadi dengan keluarga apabila ahli keluarga tunggal yang bekerja  menyara keluarga itu, ditahan, dijatuhkan hukuman penjara ataupun terpaksa berada di Pusat Pemulihan Dadah?  Keluarga tersebut secara tidak langsung juga menjadi mangsa hukuman tersebut, tanpa sumber mata pencarian.  Setakat manakah golongan ini dipelihara melalui program-program  JKM,  program 1Azam dan sebagainya. Adakah golongan ibu dan keluarga ini diberikan perhatian khusus?

5.    Kuota membeli rumah kos rendah kepada Ibu Tunggal
Kami mencadangkan golongan Ibu Tunggal miskin kota diberikan sokongan dan keutamaan untuk membeli rumah kos rendah pada harga istimewa dan bukannya terbuka kepada harga pasaran terbuka. Sebilangan unit dalam setiap projek rumah kos rendah juga boleh diperuntukkan sebagai skim sewa beli kepada IbuTunggal dengan bayaran ansuran mudah.

6.    Adakah bantuan sampai sepenuhnya kepada kumpulan sasaran?
Kami difahamkan bahawa, hanya 61,600 ibu tunggal di beri bantuan dengan jumlah RM151juta. Merujuk kepada statistik, terdapat seramai 830,000 (dari jawapan Parlimen) ibu tunggal diseluruh Negara.  Adakah ini bermakna yang lain tidak mempunyai masalah menyara hidup?

Jika diandaikan 40% dari ibu tunggal tersebut berada dalam golongan miskin /berpendapatan rendah, iaitu 332,000 ibu tunggal berada dalam kumpulan pendapatan rendah dan patut terima bantuan JKM.

Jelas disini bahawa, bantuan JKM kepada ibu tunggal tidak sampai kepada keseluruhan kumpulan sasarannya dan masih 80% ibu tunggal yang layak tidak menerima apajua bantuan!

Kami ingin tahu siapakah yang menjadi kumpulan sasaran ibu tunggal dalam Pelan Tindakkan PemerkasaanIbu Tunggal yang telah di lancarkan pada bulan Oktober 2015?

Justeru itu, kami daripada organisasi yang bertandatangan dibawah ini menyeru kepada pihak KPWKM menilai semula perancangan bantuan yang sedia ada dan mengolah langkah-langkah baru untuk menangani masalah ibu tunggal dengan serius. Jelas diatas, ada ramai lagi kaum ibu tunggal yang menghadapi kesukaran hidup tanpa apajua bantuan daripada Kerajaan. Tindakan segera perlu untuk menyelesaikan beban mereka.

Sekian, terima kasih .

Organisasi yang menyokong kenyataan diatas adalah seperti berikut ;
1.    Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
2.    Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM)
3.    Inter-Research And Studies (IRAS)
4.    Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
5.    Projek Dialog
6.    Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
7.    MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
8.    Pusat KOMAS
9.    Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
10. People Service Organization
11. Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
12. Sisters in Islam (SIS)
13. All Women’s Action Society
14. HAKAM
15. Sahabat Rakyat
16. Pertubuhan Angkatan Bahaman, Temerloh, Pahang
17. Sahabat Wanita
18. Tenaganita
19. Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Women Section
20. Parti Sosialis Malaysia
21. Pemuda Sosialis
22. Pusat Pembangunan Masyarakat CDC, Kajang

Monday, 7 March 2016

马来西亚迎来“中国投资热”

马来西亚迎来“中国投资热”

作者 / 来源俞懿春(赴马来西亚特派记者 )/《人民日报》



《 人民日报 》 2016年03月02日 第3 版刊出以下报道——

马来西亚投资发展局2月29日公布的《2015年马来西亚投资表现报告》显示,去年全年中国大陆对马投资项目17个,是马来西亚第四大外资来源地。

马来西亚是中国在东盟的最大贸易伙伴,双边贸易额2014年已超过1000亿美元。在共建“一带一路”框架下,近年来中国对马来西亚投资持续升温。据中国商务部统计,2015年全年中国对马来西亚非金融类直接投资达4.08亿美元,同比增加237%。“中国投资”成为马来西亚经济界2015年度的热词。

中国与马来西亚经济发展战略对接

马来西亚首都吉隆坡地标双子塔位于这座城市的核心地带。从这里往南约4公里,就是马来西亚皇家空军租用的一座军用机场及其配套设施。今年8月租约到期后,这里将拆迁,建设成为吉隆坡最重要的交通枢纽和集金融、商业、文化、旅游、高级住宅于一体的国际经济中心。

作为吉隆坡市中心最大面积的待开发地块,该机场及其配套设施总占地约200万平方米,位于吉隆坡南下新加坡的交通要道上。该项目有一个更广为人知的名称 —— “大马城”项目,此前为马来西亚国家投资基金一马发展公司所有,受债务危机、油价下跌等影响,马来西亚政府去年5月决定出售该项目60%的股份。经过与多位国内外买家的多轮角逐,中国中铁马来西亚分公司与马来西亚依海控股有限公司组成的联营体最终胜出,并于去年12月31日与一马公司正式签署协议。

“大马城”将成为两国交流的重要支点

“大马城”项目是中国投资与马来西亚经济发展战略的一次完美结合。据了解,规划中的马来西亚至新加坡高铁马来西亚终点站、多条城市轨道、城际铁路和机场 快线未来都将交汇于“大马城”,该项目将成为大吉隆坡国际都市发展的催化剂。中国中铁马来西亚分公司总经理蔡泽民告诉本报记者,项目计划明年启动招商,到 2020年完成建设。“这个项目是马来西亚经济转型的战略性项目,因为马来西亚希望让吉隆坡引领经济建设,把吉隆坡打造成为世界标志性都市。”

“这个项目对吉隆坡和马来西亚政府十分重要。我们首先向中国中铁伸出橄榄枝,表达了与他们合作竞标的意愿。”依海控股有限公司副主席林刚河在接受本报记者采访时说:“我们选择与中国中铁合作,是因为他们在综合交通枢纽和大型项目开发方面有着丰富的经验和成熟的技术。”

蔡泽民认为,“大马城”是一个非常立体的项目,中马两国可以在文化、管理、技术、商业等多个层面实现充分交流, “交流的平台一旦搭好,就能够长久地发展下去,成为中马经济社会交流的重要支点”。

以产业园区为平台的合作潜力大

说到中国对马来西亚的投资,一定绕不开马中关丹产业园。2013年2月5日,马中关丹产业园在马来西亚彭亨州开园。彭亨州属于马来西亚东海岸经济区,处于整个东盟的心脏位置。由于开发力度不够等原因,彭亨州的经济发展落后于马来西亚全国平均水平。

马来西亚东海岸经济特区发展理事会投资管理部高级经理徐嘉仁在接受本报记者采访时说,中国对彭亨州的投资占外国投资总量的约10%,相信马中关丹产业园现代化钢铁厂项目建成后,中国的投资会越来越多。

徐嘉仁所指的现代化钢铁厂项目,是关丹产业园的第一个入园项目——联合钢铁(大马)有限公司,由广西北部湾国际港务集团与广西盛隆冶金有限公司共同出资,2014年12月正式开工建设。

北部湾国际港务集团有限公司董事长兼党委书记周小溪告诉本报记者,该项目计划2017年建成投产,年产量350万吨。钢铁项目将直接创造就业岗位约4000个,间接带动上万人就业,还可以带动众多下游产业发展,形成钢铁产业集群,为中马两国以产业园区为平台、推动深化国际产能合作起到积极的示范作用。

马来西亚直接生产钢材的企业有6家,采用的设备相当于中国上世纪90年代的水平。周小溪坦言,他们刚到马来西亚的时候,当地曾经有过误解,认为他们是拿落后的产能和陈旧的设备来竞争。“后来马方考察了盛隆,又到北部湾港务集团参观,见到了钢铁项目的总体设计规划,现在当地从官员到企业都没有了反对声音。”

广西盛隆冶金有限公司总经理柯雪利向本报记者介绍,马来西亚年钢铁需求量为1000万吨,而该国的产能在500万—600万吨。“我们当时把产能目标定在350万吨,就是想既弥补当地市场的供应不足,又不会对当地企业的市场造成影响。”

“项目建设后将成为马来西亚最大的钢铁厂,同时也是东盟首家采取全流程工艺生产H型钢的钢铁厂,不仅可以填补当地市场的空白,带动马来西亚相关产业升级,也将充分利用中国钢铁生产的技术和经验优势以及马来西亚的资源和区位优势,辐射东盟市场乃至其他海外市场。”柯雪利说。

国际产能合作新名片带来新机遇

“随着中国与马来西亚双边经贸关系的加强,以及中国对马中关丹产业园的投资加大等,再加上两国地方层面的频繁互动,例如去年广东省和马六甲州缔结为友好省州,中国投资一定会越来越多。马来西亚对此肯定是欢迎的。”马来西亚马来人工商业者协会副主席纳伊姆告诉本报记者。

依海控股集团有着与多家中国企业的合作经验。林刚河认为,马来西亚是一个开放的经济体,一直以来非常欢迎外国投资,尤其是中国与马来西亚经贸往来历史悠久,奠定了良好的民间基础。

2014年11月,中国信义集团与马六甲州政府签署协议,拟投资12亿令吉(1令吉约合1.57元人民币)在当地建造一座玻璃厂。“目前项目建设已经完成30%,预计将在今年9月完工,年底投产。” 马六甲州首席部长依德利斯在接受本报记者采访时说,这是马六甲州十几年来最大的一笔外资,将为马六甲带来800个就业机会,并带动该州玻璃原料市场及相关玻璃行业发展。

马来西亚投资发展局在报告中列出了2015年五大最具质量的外国投资项目,居于首位的就是中国信义集团在马六甲州投资的玻璃厂。报告称,该项目可以“引领国际高质量浮法玻璃生产,其研发中心将研制下一代玻璃”。

“中国政府继推动企业‘走出去’、提出包括‘一带一路’在内的重大倡议之后,又亮出了国际产能合作的新名片,这对马来西亚而言是一个非常好的机遇。”徐嘉仁告诉记者。

从2013年至今,依德利斯已经接待了14个来自中国的投资考察代表团。他认为,早在16世纪,中国的商人就来到马六甲从事商贸活动。“600年来,两国交流丰富多彩,中国传统文化和历史在马六甲留下印记。现在每年有约30万艘船从马六甲经过,马六甲也是21世纪海上丝绸之路沿途的重点地区。中国对马来西亚的投资正在增加,我想这样的势头会继续下去。”

Sunday, 6 March 2016

Save Malaysia from UMNO BN rule

PSM `s Press Statement  dated 5th March,2016
Save Malaysia from UMNO BN rule
Original Title: Save Malaysia OR Save UMNO BN rule?

Picture above was taken when A.Sivarajan, Secretary General of PSM released this statement.
(source of the picture: Malaysiakini.com)

Since yesterday’s press conference with Mahathir announcing the grand coalition to oust Najib Tun Razak, both Pakatan Harapan and civil society leaders have been dodging brickbats and criticism from the rakyat.

PSM is shocked and surprised how quickly the opposition and civil society have agreed to Tun M’s grand declaration. Even though the respective leaders were called on a personal capacity, but it would be preposterous to draw the line between personal opinion and the organization/political party that they represent in this case.

Did they ever consult their members on their decision? Did their insist that the declaration must be amended with their inputs before they inked it?

The historical press conference only proves how weak in strength and in ideas the opposition and civil society really are. Unable to settle squabbling amongst themselves and basically running out of ideas to unseat Najib Tun Razak, they have decided to ally with any ex-dictator that made the same call.

This is the symptom of targeting the individual and not understanding the political economy this nation has been moulded into by UMNO BN. Any short term plan to remove only the cancerous leader but maintain rule of the same dominant party spells disaster for future Malaysian politics. The rakyat will continue to suffer under the same anti people neoliberal economic policies.

Taxes on the rakyat will continue, more subsidies on necessary items will be withdrawn, income disparity will continue to widen, minimum wage will remain unrealistic, cheap labour policy will continue etc.,.

Najib’s administration is a continuation of Mahathir’s authoritarian, neoliberal legacy. Both leaders and the rest of the pack in UMNO BN share the same economic principles that will further impoverish the rakyat. Thus what is the Pakatan Rakyat and civil society hoping for? Short term gain, long term misery!

On what basis will Pakatan Harapan campaign for them as an alternative pro people political coalition, when they just signed on a declaration which indirectly affirms UMNO BN rule with supposedly some structural change?

Even on an optimistic note, does the Pakatan Harapan and civil society really believe that;
1.      Mahathir and the coalition of the willing will be allowed to do significant structural changes within the MACC, PDRM, SPR and judiciary while UMNO BN is still in power?

2.     Do they expect the DPM Zahid Hamidi and the rest standby quietly as these so called reforms are made, even when they are fully aware that their political future will be jeopardized?

3.      After the declaration what next?  How will it be executed? What executive power does the coalition of the willing have?

4.      Who is calling the shots in this coalition? Is it a democratic coalition or is it dominated by Mahathirism?

PSM seeks to remind the Pakatan Harapan and civil society that there have been many declarations before this, but do not really make significant change. The downfall of Marcos and Suharto were not achieved by declarations of political elites alone.

PSM strongly believes that true change can only happen when a political system is replaced by another clearly alternative system, We believe that the UMNO BN legacy has to be ended immediately for the entire judiciary, executive, legislative to be overhauled not reformed.

Thus, we should not mislead the rakyat by proclaiming such initiatives will truly bring changes to their lives. Only a political alternative movement that crushes neoliberalism and builds a truly pro people economy will be able to sustain humanity and the environment.


Save Malaysia from UMNO BN! True Change Not Reform !
                               

​Sivarajan
Secretary General PSM
5/3/2016

终止巫统国阵政权,从而拯救马来西亚!

 终止巫统国阵政权,
 从而拯救马来西亚!

原题:拯救马来西亚?抑或拯救巫统国阵统治?

——马来西亚社会主义党2016年3月5日声明全文
华文译者:陈华明

马来西亚社会主义党秘书长西华拉占(Sivarajan)发表声明之影 
——图片取自《当今大马》相关新闻报道

自昨天跟马哈迪举行新闻发布会宣布组成逼迫纳吉下台的大联盟开始,新组成的希望联盟和国内公民团体领袖一直逃避人民群众的责备和批评。

马来西亚社会主义党对反对党和公民团体迫不及待认同马哈迪的大联盟宣言,是震惊和诧异的。虽然有关的领袖是以个人名义参加,但是在这种情况下,想要划清属于个人意见和行动或代表他们的政党和团体,是荒谬反常的。

这些反对党和公民团体领袖,是否征询过他们的党员和会员对他们的决定的意见?他们在签署之前,是否曾坚持有关宣言必须纳入他们所提出的意见?

这个历史性的新闻发布会只能证明,这些反对党和公民团体实际上的组织力量和思想理念是多么的虚弱易毁。他们无法解决他们之间的纠纷,也对逼迫纳吉下台束手无策,只能决定跟喊出同样口号的任何前独裁者结成同盟。

这些反对党和公民团体的上述行动,反映了他们只是把矛头对准个别领袖,而不去了解由巫统国阵造成的国家政治经济状况。任何短期的仅仅撤除腐败领袖而不去推翻霸权政党的统治,只能带给马来西亚政治越来越严重的灾难。人民会在同样反人民的新自由主义经济政策下继续受苦。

人民的税务负担继续加重,更多必需品的津贴将被取消,收入差距将会更加扩大,最低薪金制度成为脱离现实,廉价劳工政策将持续下去等等。

纳吉政府实际上是继承马哈迪的独裁主义者和新自由主义的衣钵。纳吉和马哈迪这两个领袖和其他在巫统国阵的同伙推行同样的经济原理,这将使人民的贫困更加恶化。因此,社会主义党要问,这些反对党和公民团体领袖期望什么呢?是短期的得利,却是长期的痛苦!

在这些反对党和公民团体领袖签署了那份间接确认(即同意)巫统国阵的统治只须做些看上去像结构改革的宣言之后,希望联盟有何基础宣传他们(本身)就是一个可供选择的亲人民的政治联盟?

即使从乐观方面看,希望联盟和公民团体真的相信或如何考虑以下情况的发生?
1、当巫统国阵还是掌握政权时,会按照马哈迪及其联盟的意愿,对反贪会、警方、选委会和司法体制作出具有意义的结构改革?
2、当改革议程开始后,副首相阿末扎希及其同伙明知其政治前途将会受到损害,还会静观其变、坐视不理?
3、在宣言发表之后,下一步是什么行动?如何执行?驱逐纳吉下台,联盟有什么执行权力?
4、谁将是这个联盟的盟主?它是一个民主的联盟?抑或是以马哈迪主义支配的联盟?

马来西亚社会主义党提醒希望联盟和公民团体,在此之前,已经有过许多这类宣言,但都不能落实具有意义的改革。马可斯(前菲律宾总统)和苏哈多(前印尼总统)的下台,都不是单靠政治精英发表宣言所能够达成的。

马来西亚社会主义党坚信,只有当一个政治制度被另一个不同的政治制度所替代之时,才会发生真正的改革,我们认为,巫统国阵政权必须立即终止,司法、行政、立法机构必须整改(overhaul),不是改良(reform)。

因此,我们不应误导人民,说什么“宣布这些倡议将会真正带给他们生活的改善”。只有一个粉碎新自由主义以建立真正亲人民的经济体制的政治改革运动,才有可能长期维护人性化的制度和自然环境。

终止巫统国阵政权,从而拯救马来西亚!人民要真正改革,不是改良或改善。


马来西亚社会主义党秘书长
西华拉占(Sivarajan)
2016年3月5日

Saturday, 5 March 2016

李光耀与马共秘密交易的盘算

李光耀与马共秘密交易的盘算

作者/来源:新加坡文献馆

上图:左为李光耀、右为方壮璧(取自网络)
文内小标题为《人民之友》部落格编者所加。

1958年3月间李光耀与方壮璧的会晤,是一个双方代表人的面谈;双方是指,李光耀是以英国代理人的身份替英国人提出条件,而方壮璧是以马共代表身份进行谈判。

按这一解读,李方会晤是华玲会议的新加坡版本。实际上,佘柱业的记述中就提到在1955年华玲会议之后,马共曾经有过和李光耀进行类似商谈的设想。

根据史料,英国人是在1957年3月,于伦敦举行的第二次自治宪制谈判会议之际,十分满意李光耀的贡献:建议禁止林清祥等人参与1959年的大选,于是决定放弃对林有福的原有支持,正式定调由已经精心培训多年的李光耀,接手英国人统治新加坡的政治权力。

另一方面,1957年方壮璧的领导余柱业,到中国向马共中央代表团汇报工作。按佘柱业的叙述:党中央对马共的政策仅给予了原则上的指导,具体运行方案则由在前线工作的方壮璧当机立断的去执行。这一种先斩后奏情况也就是为何佘柱业一再重复的说:方壮璧独断独行,好些决策是在事后才知情;这一事实之所以然。

李光耀把方壮璧定位为“全权代表”的用意

为此,李光耀刻意的把马共代表定位为全权代表,用意是告诉马共,在英国人的心目中,方壮璧给予的承诺就是马共中央不可否认的全盘承诺。从同一道理的反面来看,李光耀也是在说,既然自己不是英国人的的全权代表,则李光耀给予方壮璧的保证,就不是李光耀或者是英国人的承诺,意思是,李光耀可以随时以英国人反对为借口,推翻自己先前给予的任何承诺。或许,这就是方壮璧之所以会成为马共全权代表的真正原因?这一种约束他人放纵自己的奸诈狡猾,正是此场合作的特色。

从会谈动机来看,马共在林德修宪背景下,寻求的是一个宪制内的合法政治地位,而面对困境的马共,合法活动即是最佳选择,更是唯一可行的出路。更重要的是,马共期待可以通过双方合作,要求李光耀劝说英国人废除内部安全委员会与内部安全法令。

英国人要让潜伏的马共活动全数浮出水面

英国人的如意盘算却是,要让潜伏的马共活动全数浮出水面,必要时,可以毫不费劲把马共一网打尽。当然,李光耀的根本目的是要满足个人的政治野心:通过华人选票上台执政。

对英国人而言,让马共动员华人选票推举李光耀上台执政,是一个符合自身利益的理想结果,因为让李光耀名正言顺的成为自治邦总理,就可以合法合情合理的让英国人的政策思维和利益,得以在李光耀政权的手上继续维持。毫无疑问,英国人与李光耀有着命运共同体的现实,这也是李光耀做为一名议会议员,之所以在政治上有待无恐,可以在英国人的全力支持下为所欲为的根本原因。

从史料知道,马共于1957年宣布不再从事非法活动,先后解散抗英同盟,和停止出版自由报,改而寄望公开群众活动。这一个决定满足了政治部的要求,此后,可以事半功倍的把人力资源,更有效的放到监视浮出台面的马共人员身上。

马共的支持让李光耀气势如虹,如虎添翼

此外,按李光耀的明确要求,方壮璧放弃马共对马诏尔与劳工党的原有支持,于1958年让郑越东辞去工人党副主席,以及在1957年市议会选举中争取到的议席,并且退出工人党。腾出的加冷区议员席位是由行动党的布旺当选。郑越东的下场是,被逮捕后惨遭残暴虐待,最终被驱逐出境。

还有,1959年的大选之际,马共临阵变卦,彻底撤回对人民党候选人的原有支持,改而全力支持行动党候选人。人民党的大选结果是全军覆没,黯然收场。

英国人的目的是要把马共的势力全部集中到由李光耀全权控制的人民行动党。如此一来,除了有利李光耀的就近密切监督之外,比如,把陈新嵘放置在身边,也同时的全面杜绝了马共在其他政党组织上的影响力。明显的,让马共把政治投资全盘放在一个篮子,是可以让马共在一夜之间消失的无影无踪,坦然无存。另外,集中华人选票让李光耀政权高票当选,可以大幅度的增加李光耀的政治资本和社会形象。

马共的支持让李光耀气势如虹,如虎添翼,此消彼长的结果,导致了与李光耀竞争的左翼政治进一步的被削弱,整个反英殖民运动,从此开始步入衰竭,不复回头的转折点。

马共在所谓反殖统一阵线旗帜下遭遇不幸

在李光耀的所谓反殖统一阵线旗帜下,英国人让马共人员开展公开的政治活动。

《黃信芳回忆录》:一度被政治部追捕的曾福华,积极主动帮助农民劳动,筹备开办夜学班和幼儿班。为开办幼儿班,写了一篇文章发表在新加坡人民行动党的党报《行动报》上,引起了很大反响,许多行动党的支部陆续开办了幼儿班。1959年,新加坡大选期间,曾福华积极参与和指导行动党一些支部的选举工作。这次大选,行动党获得压倒性胜利。

行动党上台后,地下组织停止活动,只有单线接触。一些地下非法身份的同志,参加公开团体活动,張春生,原本是被追缉者,到人民协会当联络所所長。其他左派地下人员也进入人协和建国队。安插在行动党的马共,黃信芳与陈新嵘也成为行动党的议会议员。黄信芳当建国队指挥官。陈新嶸出任总理署政务次长。

行动党分裂后,马共成员在内安法令下几乎被一网打尽。逃过逮捕行动的都撤离到印尼。这是马共遭遇李光耀出尔反尔,过桥抽板,背信弃义的不幸结局。


这一段扑朔迷离的政治过程的可能场景

这是一段扑朔迷离的政治过程,在尝试理解其中不为外人道的可能场景时,有必要知道的是,在李方会晤之前,马共与英国人已经有所接触,也就是说,会晤之前的过程不为方壮璧所知,但是,方壮璧却是会晤之后,所有事件的主导者。这一点的关键性了解,应该有助厘清过程中的前因后果,进而清楚的认知其中的来龙去脉。

Thursday, 3 March 2016

Tribute to S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong: Develop the selfless devotion spirit of these eminent leaders of the Malaya labour movement

First media statement on the co-organisation of forum dated 3 March 2016

Tribute to S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong:
Develop the selfless devotion spirit of these eminent leaders of the Malaya labour movement



5 February this year is the 20th anniversary of the departure of Lim Chin Siong, the eminent leader of national liberation and democratic struggle in Malaya. On 23 January, Sahabat Rakyat released an article entitled The Best Way to Commemorate Lim Chin Siong Is To Propagate His Ideology and Ideal (《纪念林清祥的最好办法就是宣扬他的思想理念》) in Chinese language. We hope that this article will arouse the reflection of those who were actively involved in the national liberation and democratic struggle of the people of Malaya (including Singapore). We also hope that the new generation who are currently actively involved in the democratic revolution struggle of Malaysia and Singapore will gain a better understanding on the practice of the struggle of anti-colonialisation for independence and democracy jointly carried out by the people of Malaya and Singapore before 1950s and 1960s.

On 5 February this year, Sahabat Rakyat published the English rendition of Part of Lim Chin Siong's Q&A Posthumous Manuscript (《林清祥<答问>遗稿片段》) and the Editor’s Notes specially written for publishing this manuscript done by the secretariat to the best of their ability on Sahabat Rakyat blog. Subsequently, on 22 February, the English rendition of The Best Way to Commemorate Lim Chin Siong Is to Propagate His Ideology and Ideal mentioned above was published. This is to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Lim Chin Siong’s departure by providing an opportunity to the ethnic communities (such as Indian and Malay communities and minority groups) who do not understand Chinese language and the non-Chinese-educated communities to correctly understand Lim Chin Siong’s view on the national liberation and democratic struggle of the people of Malaya and Singapore and the summing-up of his experience on the anti-colonialisation struggle.

In the light of (i) The Indian working class in Malaysia is an especially important hard core of the national liberation and democratic movement in our country, and (ii) Sahabat Rakyat has been maintaining a close partnership with HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) in recent years, Sahabat Rakyat contacted HINDRAF Johor in late 2015. In a few discussions with HINDRAF Johor, Sahabat Rakyat expressed its aspiration to jointly organise a forum entitled “Propagate Lim Chin Siong‘s ideology and ideal in commemoration of this labour movement leader” with them. After that, HINDRAF Johor suggested to invite Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) Nusajaya branch to co-organise along. Upon detailed discussion among the three parties, a working committee was jointly established on 22 February 2016. The resolutions made are:

(i) HINDRAF to provide an article to commemorate S.A. Ganapathy, an Indian labour movement leader and the spirit of his struggle to serve as an “supplementary content” for the theme of the forum
(ii) To jointly organise a forum with the theme “Tribute to S. A. Ganapathy and Lim Chin Siong: Develop the selfless devotion spirit of these eminent leaders of the Malaya labour movement”.

S.A. Ganapathy is an eminent Indian leader emerged in the anti-colonialisation and labour movement of Malaya (including Singapore) in 1930s and 1940s. He was the first President of Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU), which had more than 300 thousands members.

Lim Chin Siong is an eminent Chinese leader emerged in the anti-colonialisation and labour movement of Malaya (including Singapore) in 1950s and 1960s. He was a political leader with strong grassroots support whom had made Lee Kuan Yew worried waking or sleeping and had to devastate him after seizing ruling power.

The selfless devotion spirit of these two figures towards the national liberation and democratic struggle of Malaya should be highly respected and carried forward. For this, we have invited the following six persons to become panel speakers of our forum. We hope that they could share their views, from their own perspectives, about these 2 historical figures including their spirit, with the democrats of all ethnic communities from Malaysia and Singapore.

1. Poh Soo Kai, Former Assistant Secretary General of Barisan Sosialis of Singapore
2. Dominic Puthucheary, one of the founding members of People’s Action Party (PAP) Singapore and former trade union leader
3. P. Waytha Moorthy, Chairman of HINDRAF
4. S. Arutchelvan, Secretariat of Left Coalition of Malaysia
5. Saminathan Munisamy, author of www.malayaganapathy.com website
6. Chin Chong Cham (Chen Jian), historian of the Singapore and Malaysia left-wing movement

Even if any of the invited panel speakers is unable to make it to the forum, we very much hope that they will still provide a paper for this forum.

Particulars of the forum are as follows:

Date:20 March 2016 (Sunday)
Time:2:00pm to 6:00pm
Venue:Meeting hall at TJ Mart Kulai, Johor (Lot 5035, Lebuhraya Senai, 81400 Senai, Johor) (Coordinates: 1.633029, 103.632711)
We cordially invite people of different ethnic communities, religions and strata who are concerned of or working on the democratic human rights movement in Malaysia or Singapore to join our forum. Admission is free. Please contact the following people for further details:

1. Y. Mohan (019-7102895), HINDRAF Johor
2. Choo Shinn Chei (017-7721511), Sahabat Rakyat
3. Silvarajah Erusam (016-7334469), PSM Nusajaya

向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬 发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神

向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬
发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神



今年2月5日,是马来亚民族民主斗争杰出领袖林清祥逝世20周年的纪念日。人民之友先在1月23日用华文发表一篇《纪念林清祥的最好办法 就是宣扬他的思想理念》文章,想要借此引起那些曾经积极参与马来亚(包括新加坡)人民的民族民主斗争的过来人的反思,也让当前积极参与马新两国人民的民主改革斗争的新生代认识两国人民在上个世纪50年代和60年代以前共同反对殖民统治、争取独立民主的斗争实践。

2月5日当天,《人民之友》部落格上载了秘书处尽心尽力完成的《林清祥<答问>遗稿片段》一文和《人民之友》为张贴林清祥的这份遗稿片段而作的“编者按语”的英文译稿,接着在2月22日上载了上述纪念文章的英文译稿(The Best Way to Commemorate Lim Chin Siong Is To Propagate His Ideology and Ideal),让新马两地那些不谙华文的族裔群体(如印、巫裔或其他少数民族)或非华文教育的社会群体有机会正确理解林清祥对新马人民的民族民主斗争历史的见解以及对他亲身经历的反殖斗争的经验总结,来纪念林清祥逝世20周年。

考虑到(i)我国的印裔劳动阶级是我国民族民主运动的一股尤为重要的中坚力量,以及(ii)兴权会已是人民之友近几年来维持着紧密关系的合作伙伴,人民之友于2015年末联络了柔佛州兴权会(Hindraf Johor),与他们进行数次交流,向他们表达人民之友想要与他们联办“纪念工运领袖林清祥,宣扬他的思想理念”专题论坛的期望。接着,柔佛州兴权会提出邀请社会主义党(努沙再也支部)参与其盛。三方面经过详谈,最终于2016年2月22日共同成立筹备委员会,议决:(i)由兴权会在近期内提供一篇介绍印裔工运领袖甘纳巴迪及其斗争精神的纪念文章,作为论坛主题的“补充内容”;(ii)在3月20日联合举办一场主题为“向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬 ,发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神”的专题论坛。

甘纳巴迪是上世纪30至40年代从马来亚(包括新加坡)的反殖斗争和工人运动中涌现出来的印裔杰出领袖,他是拥有超过30万会员的泛马职工会联合总会(Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions,简称PMFTU)的第一任主席。林清祥是上世纪50至60年代从马来亚(包括新加坡)的反殖斗争和工人运动中涌现出来的华裔杰出领袖,他是一名曾令李光耀上台后寝食难安而务必加以摧残的具有巨大群众基础的政治领袖。这两人对马来亚民族民主斗争的无私奉献精神,是值得敬仰和发扬的。

为此,我们邀请了以下6人作为这次论坛的主讲人,就“向马来亚工人运动的杰出领袖致敬 ,发扬甘纳巴迪与林清祥的献身精神”这个主题,分别从本身的视角,发表他们对这两位历史人物与其精神的见解,与新马两地各民族民主人士共享。他们是:

1、傅树介(Poh Soo Kai)——前新加坡社会主义阵线副秘书长
2、多米尼克 · 普都遮理(Dominic Puthucheary)——新加坡人民行动党创办人之一、前新加坡工会领袖
3、瓦达慕迪(P. Waytha Moorthy)——马来西亚兴权会主席
4、阿鲁哲文(S. Arutchelvan)——马来西亚左翼联盟秘书 
5、沙米纳登(Saminathan Munisamy) ——malayaganapathy.com网站主编
6、陈剑(Chen Jian@ C.C.Chin)——新马左翼运动历史学家

即使受邀主讲人未克出席,我们也希望他们为此次论坛发表论文。

论坛详情如下:
日期:2016年3月20日(星期日)
时间:下午2时至6时正
地点:柔佛州士乃TJ Mart会议厅(Lot 5035, Jalan Air Hitam, 81400 Senai, Johor)(经纬度:1.633029, 103.632711)

我们敬邀关心与推动新马两地民主人权运动的各族群、各宗教、各阶层人士踊跃参与。入场免费。欲知详情,请联络以下人士/组织——

1、Y. 莫汉(019-7102895)/ 柔佛州兴权会;
2、朱信杰(017-7721511)/人民之友工委会;
3、西尔瓦(016-7334469)/ 社会主义党(努沙再也支部)

通告 Notification




工委会议决:将徐袖珉除名

人民之友工委会2020年9月27日常月会议针对徐袖珉(英文名: See Siew Min)半年多以来胡闹的问题,议决如下:

鉴于徐袖珉长期以来顽固推行她的“颜色革命”理念和“舔美仇华”思想,蓄意扰乱人民之友一贯以来的“反对霸权主义,反对种族主义”政治立场,阴谋分化甚至瓦解人民之友推动真正民主改革的思想阵地,人民之友工委会经过长时间的考察和验证,在2020年9月27日会议议决;为了明确人民之友创立以来的政治立场以及贯彻人民之友现阶段以及今后的政治主张,必须将徐袖珉从工委会名单上除名,并在人民之友部落格发出通告,以绝后患。

2020年9月27日发布



[ 漫画新解 ]
新冠病毒疫情下的马来西亚
舔美精神患者的状态

年轻一辈人民之友有感而作


注:这“漫画新解”是反映一名自诩“智慧高人一等”而且“精于民主理论”的老姐又再突发奇想地运用她所学会的一丁点“颜色革命”理论和伎俩来征服人民之友队伍里的学弟学妹们的心理状态——她在10多年前曾在队伍里因时时表现自己是超群精英,事事都要别人服从她的意愿而人人“惊而远之”,她因此而被挤出队伍近10年之久。

她在三年前被一名年长工委推介,重新加入人民之友队伍。可是,就在今年年初她又再故态复萌,尤其是在3月以来,不断利用部落格的贴文,任意扭曲而胡说八道。起初,还以“不同意见者”的姿态出现,以博取一些不明就里的队友对她的同情和支持,后来,她发现了她的欺骗伎俩无法得逞之后,索性撤下了假面具,对人民之友一贯的“反对霸权主义、反对种族主义”的政治立场,发出歇斯底里的叫嚣,而暴露她设想人民之友“改旗易帜”的真面目!

尤其是在新冠病毒疫情(COVID-19)课题上,她公然猖狂跟人民之友的政治立场对着干,指责人民之友服务于中国文宣或大中华,是 “中国海外统治部”、“中华小红卫兵”等等等等。她甚至通过强硬粗暴手段擅自把我们的WhatsApp群组名称“Sahabat Rakyat Malaysia”改为“吐槽美国样衰俱乐部”这样的无耻行动也做得出来。她的这种种露骨的表现足以说明了她是一名赤裸裸的“反中仇华”份子。

其实,在我们年轻队友看来,这名嘲讽我们“浪费了20年青春”[人民之友成立至今近20年(2001-9-9迄今)]并想要“拯救我们年轻工委”的这位“徐大姐”,她的思想依然停留在20年前的上个世纪。她初始或许是不自觉接受了“西方民主”和“颜色革命”思想的培养,而如今却是自觉地为维护美国的全球霸权统治而与反对美国霸权支配全球的中国人民和全世界各国(包括马来西亚)人民为敌。她是那么狂妄自大,却是多么幼稚可笑啊!

她所说的“你们浪费了20年青春”正好送回给她和她的跟班,让他们把她的这句话吞到自己的肚子里去!


[ 漫画新解 ]
新冠病毒疫情下的马来西亚
"公知"及其跟班的精神面貌

注:这“漫画新解”是与<人民之友>4月24日转贴的美国政客叫嚣“围剿中国”煽动颠覆各国民间和组织 >(原标题为<当心!爱国队伍里混进了这些奸细……>)这篇文章有关联的。这篇文章作者沈逸所说的“已被欧美政治认同洗脑的‘精神欧美人’”正是马来西亚“公知”及其跟班的精神面貌的另一种写照!




[ 漫画新解 ]
新冠病毒疫情下的马来西亚
"舔美"狗狗的角色

编辑 / 来源:人民之友 / 网络图库

注:这“漫画新解”是与《察网》4月22日刊林爱玥专栏文章<公知与鲁迅之间 隔着整整一个中国 >这篇文章有关联的,这是由于这篇文章所述说的中国公知,很明显是跟这组漫画所描绘的马来西亚的“舔美”狗狗,有着孪生兄弟姐妹的亲密关系。

欲知其中详情,敬请点击、阅读上述文章内容,再理解、品味以下漫画的含义。这篇文章和漫画贴出后,引起激烈反响,有人竟然对号入座,暴跳如雷且发出恐吓,众多读者纷纷叫好且鼓励加油。编辑部特此接受一名网友建议:在显著的布告栏内贴出,方便网友搜索、浏览,以扩大宣传教育效果。谢谢关注!谢谢鼓励!












Malaysia Time (GMT+8)

面书分享 FB SHARE