人之將死其言也善乎？！
張泰永編輯
2010-9-13日新加坡文獻館轉載了《中時電子報》一篇題為《李光耀紐約時報專訪》的報道。李光耀這位即將步入87歲，一向頗為自負，傲慢，好勝，專權，專制，數月前還一再誓言永不退休的“亞洲最具影響力的政治強人”，在這篇報道中，居然一反常態，發出了“精力與體力逐漸走下坡，一年不如一年，但這就是人生”的感嘆，這不能不令人頗感意外，頗為吃驚，也不能不令人自然而然地聯想起《論語》中一段“曾子言曰：鳥之將死，其鳴也哀；人之將死，其言也善”的典故。
茲將李光耀這篇專訪以及新加坡文獻館2010-10-2日發表的一位讀者看了專訪后致李資政信和另一位讀者寫的有關評論轉載于下，相信廣大讀者會饒有興趣閱讀：
13/09/10
作者/來源：中時電子報 http://news.chinatimes.com
新加坡這個彈丸小國在內閣資政李光耀領導下，成了東南亞經濟的發光體，李光耀的行事風格也塑造了新加坡嚴謹與理性的形象。 《紐約時報》十日刊出對李光耀的專訪，即將步入八十七歲的他，盡管在政治上交出漂亮的成績單，也不禁感嘆歲月不饒人。
標榜經濟發展第一、嚴加管控社會與言論的「新加坡模式」讓李光耀成了亞洲最具影響力的政治強人，但強人也敵不過歲月流年，讓他感嘆：「精力與體力逐漸走下坡，一年不如一年，但這就是人生。」他在專訪中坦然道出隨老化而來的病痛，及如何透過靜坐找到平靜。
一九六五年新加坡宣布獨立，李光耀出任總理，至一九九○年才交棒。他直言，下一代可能把他辛苦打拼出來的成績視為當然，并任意揮霍。
受訪時，李光耀思緒依舊敏捷，但難掩老態，身形也略微佝僂。他說，這些年來，因為結縭六十一年的妻子柯玉芝多次中風臥病在床，讓他的生活由彩色變成黑白。 「我盡量讓自己忙碌，但是閑下來時，偶爾會憶起當年兩人幸?？鞓返臅r光?！?/p>
李光耀向來注重養生，他喜歡游泳、騎腳踏車、按摩，不過忙碌的工作或許才是他持盈保泰的重要武器。他每天行程滿檔，國內外到處開會、演講。他說：「一旦閑下來，我會老得很快?！共贿^有時難免會想，這么拼命留住青春是否失之荒謬，「我快滿八十七歲，努力維持體態與精神奕奕，值得嗎？我笑自己干嘛裝腔作勢。」
每天最難熬的，莫過于看著病榻上的妻子?？掠裰ヒ褍赡隉o法行動或說話，但李光耀對另一半不離不棄。他告訴妻子：「我會一直陪伴你?！姑刻焱砩希牭狡拮右虿⊥炊胍鳎麜o坐廿分鐘，讓心靈平靜。
李光耀對政敵毫不留情，他不惜對政敵與國際媒體大打誹謗官司，以扼殺反彈聲浪。面對越來越多年輕人要求放寬言論與政治自由，他憂心，一旦政治成了開放競爭場域，勢必變成種族政治，到時新加坡將分崩離析。
分類題材: 人物_biogphy ,
李光耀的紐約時報專訪（中英對照）
02/10/10
作者/來源：trulysingapore (28-9-2010)
http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com
新加坡文獻館譯
尊敬的李資政，
這是有關你在紐約時報的專訪，今日報于2010年9月13日報導。
那些所謂的偉大成就是由一群新加坡人而非一個人單獨完成的。所以你可以毫無遺憾的離去，新加坡人會繼續去建設更多的就象他們自1819年以來的成就。另外，也不必擔憂是否還有第二次機會。從新加坡在日本占領后可以強力恢復生機來看，如有必要的話新加坡必然會再度回彈。
你對種族政治的關注是可以理解的，不要忘記了馬紹爾，蒂凡那，惹耶勒南是少數民族候選人，他們靠多數票中選，遠遠早于建屋局施行的種族整合政策。
英語文雖然有助我們聯系世界從而得到發展，廣東話，韓語，華語也為香港，韓國與臺灣帶來發展。中國在過去20年里的發展亦沒有很強的英語文聯系。
我們今天的生活源自萊弗士在新加坡開埠的那一天。沒有他也就不會有新加坡。從約150前開埠以來新加坡各階層人士的辛勤勞作和企業家精神奠定了一個強大的基礎，現代化的新加坡就是從這個基石上成長起來。催化新加坡快速發展的成功方案來自Dr Albert Winsemius，沒有他的貢獻就不會有現代新加坡。
你應可放心，你所說的和你斗爭的共產黨和其殺手隊是在馬來亞。他們在馬來亞而你是在新加坡，你如何與他們進行決斗是件不可理解的神秘事件。新加坡人必然會尊敬你是位真正的英雄，如果當年你用你的膽量和魄力去和日本人對抗，就象林謀盛和雅南少尉一樣，而不是去替日本人工作。
沒有一丁點的懷疑，你和人民行動黨都沒有貪汚。你的酬勞比陳水扁在任8年期間藏匿的貪污所得來得多。如果你去問陳水扁，要他選擇新加坡式的百萬薪金或者是臺灣式的貪污，他應該是會選擇新加坡的模式。
如果一名記者根據事實報導了亞洲區內的政治朝代傳承，為何要控告他？這是否是件事實，或者是裙帶關系的誹謗，由你開始的總理職位如今是由你的兒子接替？
你怎么能夠把無辜的人關上幾十年，剝奪了他們人生中最寶貴的年華，說這樣做是正當的呢？你說過“直到1962年為止，新加坡有無數的罷工。到了1969年，沒有一宗罷工。在7年間工業關系有了全面的改變”。換言之，左翼活動到了1969年已經在大體上消滅了。那么，你為何還要繼續囚禁林福壽醫生和謝太寶，分別直到1982年和1998年呢？你是說一名受英文教育的林醫生在玩弄華人語言和文化課題？
把新加坡的左翼運動看成是一個殺手隊，說他們相信一顆子彈，一張選票，這種說法是沒有真實性的?？煞褡屛乙娮R一顆由左翼分子在新加坡射擊的子彈。如果你要告訴我說，在馬來亞射擊的一顆子彈等同在新加坡射擊的一顆子彈，那么，你倒不如也讓我見識那些在越南，中國，蘇聯與古巴使用過的子彈。
當年，你鎮壓華語文時引發了不少爭議。這個行動的目的依舊是個爭議中的課題。但從中產生了一個實質的后果。打倒了華語文也表示征服了華語文群體的勢力，這一種改變有利受英文教育者，比如你自已就從中得益，不論這是否是個預謀。
原文來源：http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/mm-lees-interview-with-the-new-york-times/
MM Lee’s interview with The New York Times
September 28, 2010 by trulysingapore
Dear MM Lee,
I refer to your interview with The New York Times as reported by Today on 13 Sept 2010.
The so-called enormous edifice we have today was built by Singaporeans, not any one man. So you can go with no regrets knowing that Singaporeans will continue to build on this edifice as they have been doing so since 1819. Also, don’t worry about second chances too. If Singapore can bounce back so strongly after the Japanese occupation, it can bounce back again if necessary.
While your concern for racial politics is understandable, do not forget that David Marshall, Devan Nair and JB Jeyaratnam were minority candidates voted in by the majority long before HDB’s racial integration rules were entrenched.
While English has given us progress by connecting us to the world, Cantonese, Korean and Mandarin have similarly given progress to Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan respectively. China’s progress for the last twenty years comes without a strong English connection.
The life that we are enjoying today started with Sir Stamford Raffles. Without him there would have been no Singapore. For nearly 150 years since the time of our founding, the hard work and enterprise of Singaporeans from all walks of life helped lay the strong foundation upon which modern Singapore would eventually rise. But the catalyst that would propel Singapore forward came from a winning formula by Dr Albert Winsemius without whom there would have been no modern Singapore.
It might relieve you to know that the communists and killer squads you supposedly fought were in Malaya. How you fought them when they were in Malaya while you were in Singapore is a mystery. Singaporeans would have had a true hero had you used your guts and gumption to fight the Japanese like Lim Bo Seng and Lt Adnan instead of just working for them.
There is not an ounce of doubt that you and the PAP are absolutely incorruptible. You are paid more than what Chen Shui Bian could stash away over eight years. If you asked Chen Shui Bian to choose between million dollar salaries in Singapore versus million dollar corruption in Taiwan, he would probably have chosen Singapore.
If a journalist makes a factual report of political dynasties across Asia, why should he get sued? Is it a statement of fact or an allegation of nepotism that the prime ministership which you started is now passed on to your son?
How can you say that locking innocent people up for decades and robbing them of the most fruitful years of their lives is honourable? You once said: “Until 1962, Singapore had endless strikes. By 1969, there were none. In seven years, industrial relations had been transformed profoundly”. In other words, the leftist movement had been largely extinguished by 1969. Why then did you continue to lock up Dr Lim Hock Siew and Chia Thye Poh until 1982 and 1998 respectively? Can you say that Dr Lim was playing on Chinese language and culture when he is essentially English educated?
There is no truth to the saying that the leftist movement in Singapore were killer squads who believed in one bullet, one vote. Show me one single bullet fired by the leftists in Singapore. If you are telling me that a bullet fired in Malaya means a bullet fired in Singapore, then you might as well show me all the bullets fired in Vietnam, China, Russia and Cuba.
There was at that time a lot of controversy with your keeping down the Chinese language. There is no end to debate on the purpose that it served. But there is one tangible outcome that came out of it. The breaking of the Chinese language also meant the breaking of the power of the Chinese speaking masses, a turn of event that would benefit English speaking leaders like yourself immensely whether or not it was intended to be that way.
分類題材: 政治_politics ,
《新加坡文獻館》
評議李光耀的紐約時報訪談
02/10/10
作者/來源：Siew Wah Yoong (18-9-2010) http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com
新加坡文獻館譯
有所謂的人之將死，其言也善。
李光耀的紐約時報訪談是在他的87歲生日前夕舉行，這意味了什么？他的那些東拉西扯漫談是否就是一種預兆？在他向那位精明的訪問者敘述他的人生經歷與人生哲理時，他的那些談話中少了他那慣有的自高自大與夸大言辭的作風。
正如預期的，公眾的反應不一。這當中有些人用懷舊的心態回顧李光耀帶來的那些他所謂的進步與繁榮。這群人只看到他那天使般的一面，并愿意忽視他的罪孽。這群人數相當的可觀，但是並不包含網民。
另外，有些人持相反的說法，一些更是用了尖銳的言詞。有一名嚴厲的批評者，通過來自海外的電郵發表了一封廣為流傳的公開信，對李光耀的紐約時報談話進行猛烈的攻擊。是巧合吧，他從李光耀談話中預測了他將不久于人世。李顯龍這名由他父親一手安排的朝代承襲者，也逃不過這名批評者的詛咒。他預測，當扶持他的父親一旦歸西，李顯龍會變得惶惶不可終日。
李資政的動機何在，他為何要告知天下他是如何深情的關懷他那位處于植物人狀態的妻子？他是否在利用他所謂太太的困境來搏取大眾的同情？從各個層面來看，柯玉芝女士已經無法對任何人工刺激有所反應，他說他每晚都會向她深情款款耳語的作法確是挑戰了想象力。李資政也許要讓人記得他是一名恩深愛重的丈夫和一名紳士。他不知是否曉得有人在置疑他為何要延長那無望復元的植物人太太的痛苦。這不是更為殘酷嗎，為何不讓她的靈魂獲得解放？可是，李光耀不覺得有何不妥的把她留下，獨自去周游列國，比如去了巴黎，表面上是為了國家公干，包括以他的智慧光耀去迷惑一些容易受騙的全球聽眾。
有那么一個片刻的內疚展現，當李資政承認他的所作所為并非是每一項都是正確無誤的，不過他卻又要爭辯的說他的所作所為都有著正當的意圖，雖然他并沒有解釋這是些什么意圖。這種正當性的說法是很主觀的。他否定了西方記者對他的批評，指出那都是些垃圾，并指出他的訃告與最后功過定論亦非由他們撰寫。他在訪問結束前引用了中國人的一句話：不要在蓋上棺材蓋之前就對他下定論（蓋棺定論）。
這里要引述一名李光耀的狂熱支持者的話：他的名字將會刻在神圣的萬神殿堂的墻壁上，又或者是一名在反狂妄偶像思維下被打倒的失敗者。
原文來源：http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com/2010/09/critique-of-mm-lee-kuan-yews-interview.html
A critique of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s interview
Saturday, September 18, 2010
There is a Chinese saying:When a person is about to die, his/her words are kind (人之將死，其言也善)。
What does one make of the MM Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with The New York Times’ Seth Mydans coming just before his 87th birthday? Was it the ramble of a man on whom the above Chinese saying is a prophetic indicator? There was an absence of his usual pompous and bombastic style as he narrated his life experiences and philosophy to his astute interviewer.
As expected the public reactions are mixed. There are some who are nostalgic of the so-called progress and prosperity Lee Kuan Yew was supposed to have brought to Singapore. These are the ones who see only the angel in him and are prepared to overlook his iniquities. The number could be quite considerable but not the netizens.
Then there are those who hold contrary views, some very vitriolic. There was an acrimonious critic who sent a very caustic open letter via his email from overseas which is believed to be widely distributed and pulled no punches in his ferocious assailment of Lee Kuan Yew arising out of his New York Times interview. Quite co-incidentally, he also predicted that Lee Kuan Yew was nearing his death judging by the interview he gave. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was not spared the critic’s venom who described his appointment as Prime Minister as a design by his father to perpetuate a dynasty. He predicted that PM Lee would find himself rudderless once his father, who acts as his eminence grise, was gone.
What is MM Lee’s motive in telling the public about his so-called attentive care of his wife when she is already in a vegetative state? Is he trying to gain public sympathy for his so-called spousal plight? Madam Kwa Geok Choo, to all intents and purposes, is no longer in a position to respond to any human stimulation in any form and his so-called affectionate consolatory whispers to her every night stretch the imagination. MM Lee probably wants people to remember him as a deeply affectionate husband and gentleman. Does he realise that there are people who wonder why he is prolonging the sufferings of a wife in her present vegetative state with no hope of resuscitation? Would not that be more cruel than to allow her soul to be released? Somehow it does not seem compos mentis for MM Lee to leave his wife in her vegetative state and go jetting around to places, like Paris for example, ostensibly to conduct business of the State, including mesmerising gullible world audienses with his pearls of wisdom.
There was a momentary display of compunction when MM Lee admitted that he was not saying that everything he did was right but then he qualified it by saying that everything he did was for an honourable purpose without elaborating. The word honourable here is very subjective. He dismissed criticisms by Western reporters as rubbish and added that they were not the ones who may write the obituaries offering the final verdict on his actions. He concluded by quoting a Chinese proverb:Do not judge a man until his coffin is closed (蓋棺定論).
It is appropriate here to reproduce a quote by a Lee Kuan Yew aficionado: Will his name be etched in the hallowed halls of pantheons or a fallen sufferer of hubristic iconoclasm.
分類題材: 政治_politics , 人物_biogphy
相關文章
「 支持烏有之鄉！」
烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM
您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！
歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號
