新加坡文獻(xiàn)館全文刊登林福壽醫(yī)生

    對(duì)李光耀政權(quán)的血淚控訴

                     （中英對(duì)照）

  “ 近來(lái)你們經(jīng)常聽(tīng)到有人說(shuō)當(dāng)你年青時(shí)你是個(gè)理想主義者，當(dāng)你年長(zhǎng)后你是個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者。這些都是胡說(shuō)八道的垃圾廢話，是那些要不是己經(jīng)失去理想，就是那些已經(jīng)把理想出賣(mài)了的自私自利者。……

  “一個(gè)生命如果沒(méi)有了信念，沒(méi)有了理想主義，那只是一個(gè)毫無(wú)意義的生存，而我相信你們中的許多人會(huì)同意，一個(gè)人的生命意義要遠(yuǎn)比這種情況來(lái)得更精彩。”——林福壽

    1963年2月2日的冷藏行動(dòng)中被無(wú)理逮捕和關(guān)押了近20年，獲釋后又沉默了20多年的新加坡反殖民主斗士林福壽醫(yī)生，終于在去年11月14日一個(gè)新書(shū)推介會(huì)上，對(duì)李光耀政權(quán)對(duì)他本人以及所有的反殖愛(ài)國(guó)民主斗士進(jìn)行的殘酷迫害以及非人折磨和虐待發(fā)出了有力的控訴。

    無(wú)可辯駁的事實(shí)證明，李光耀對(duì)新加坡?tīng)?zhēng)取獨(dú)立民主反殖人士和左派運(yùn)動(dòng)的鎮(zhèn)壓和迫害，比起其殖民主子要厲害得多， 殘酷得多，而且做起來(lái)是“越來(lái)越厚顏無(wú)恥”了。

    無(wú)可辯駁的事實(shí)同時(shí)也證明，所謂新加坡的左派運(yùn)動(dòng)和社陣的失敗和沒(méi)落，是1966年后受毛主義和“文革”影響造成的，所謂（李光耀的人民行動(dòng)黨）在左派退出歷史舞臺(tái)的過(guò)程中沒(méi)有欠下一筆血債，……沒(méi)有一起肉體折磨的案例，……所有案例都依法解決……等等論調(diào)，實(shí)在不堪一駁。

    很明顯，說(shuō)這些話的所謂學(xué)者，不是真的想研究新加坡的左派運(yùn)動(dòng)和社陣的歷史，也不是真的想研究新加坡的政黨活動(dòng)，以及李光耀及其人民行動(dòng)黨如何爬上臺(tái)，如何維持其統(tǒng)治地位，如何推行其政治經(jīng)濟(jì)文化和外交政策的。

    他們本是依附于西方國(guó)家，靠其基金培養(yǎng)，在美國(guó)活動(dòng)或大學(xué)任教，以誣蔑、詆毀中國(guó)人民的偉大領(lǐng)袖毛澤東和打倒共產(chǎn)黨為己任的《北京之春》反共人士。

    難怪這些所謂學(xué)者一方面企圖通過(guò)他們的學(xué)術(shù)研究來(lái)詆毀辱罵毛澤東和毛澤東思想，丑化文化大革命，另一方面，則是企圖通過(guò)他們的學(xué)術(shù)研究來(lái)為李光耀及其人民行動(dòng)黨上臺(tái)五十多年間鎮(zhèn)壓和迫害反殖愛(ài)國(guó)民主人士的累累罪行，涂脂抹粉，甚至不惜以偏概全，指鹿為馬，顛倒黑白了。

    讀者如若不信，不妨上互聯(lián)網(wǎng)站查找這些所謂學(xué)者的“學(xué)術(shù)研究成果”來(lái)看一看究竟是什么貨色，不妨對(duì)比一下林福壽醫(yī)生這篇血淚控訴，以及《烏有之鄉(xiāng)》刊載過(guò)的有關(guān)他的戰(zhàn)友賽扎哈利、傅樹(shù)介、陳蒙鶴等文章里揭露的事實(shí)真相。

    以下是刊登于2010年8月7日新加坡文獻(xiàn)館的《林福壽醫(yī)生演說(shuō)稿全文》：

          林福壽醫(yī)生演說(shuō)稿全文

07/08/10

作者/來(lái)源：林福壽醫(yī)生 http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com
新加坡文獻(xiàn)館譯

前言：2009年11月14日，林福壽醫(yī)生在一個(gè)新書(shū)發(fā)布會(huì)上演說(shuō)，這是他在獲釋多年后的首次公開(kāi)談話。這一天，恰巧是美國(guó)總統(tǒng)奧巴馬到訪新加坡出度（席）亞太經(jīng)合組織首腦會(huì)議。

演說(shuō)稿全文：

我對(duì)這本書(shū)所作出的貢獻(xiàn)是不多的。因?yàn)槲业慕】登芳眩业捏w力局限了我的寫(xiě)作。這些主要是我在1972年期間即被囚禁9年后所發(fā)表過(guò)的聲明書(shū)。

我們都知道，我是在1963年2月2日在一場(chǎng)冷藏行動(dòng)中被逮捕，我是在近20年囚禁之后被釋放，是當(dāng)年遭逮捕眾人中的最后一名獲釋者。這些聲明主要是表白我對(duì)被囚禁事件的觀感立場(chǎng)。

在經(jīng)過(guò)了9年的囚禁后，他們要我發(fā)表一篇聲明書(shū)，首先，要表達(dá)支持所謂的新加坡民主體制，其二，要表示放棄從事政治。我告訴他們，這兩個(gè)要求是相互矛盾的，因?yàn)槿绻_實(shí)是有國(guó)會(huì)民主，我就沒(méi)有必為要放棄政治話動(dòng)。他們于是說(shuō)：‘你必須講一些悔悟的話，要不然李光耀會(huì)很沒(méi)有面子。’

對(duì)我而言，這并非是一個(gè)自尊的問(wèn)題，而是一個(gè)原則的問(wèn)題。

首先，如果一個(gè)人是為了要挽救自己的面子而去剝奪其他人的基本權(quán)力，那么，這個(gè)面子是不值得去挽救的。要知道，最主要的民主權(quán)力就是新加坡人的基本憲法權(quán)力。任何人的這一個(gè)權(quán)力都不能夠被剝奪，然后向他勒索去敲詐一份表示悔悟和懺悔的聲明書(shū)。這整個(gè)事件為的是要發(fā)表一份悔過(guò)聲明書(shū)，我斷然拒絕這個(gè)要求。

之后，聲明書(shū)事件的過(guò)后，我又被囚禁了另外的近10個(gè)年頭。因此，總共是19年又8個(gè)月，這遠(yuǎn)比一個(gè)無(wú)期徒刑來(lái)得更長(zhǎng)。無(wú)期徒刑犯獲得1/3減刑后，在囚禁13年后獲釋。但是，我是在沒(méi)有罪狀，沒(méi)有法庭審訊的情況下卻要遭受比無(wú)期徒刑犯更長(zhǎng)的囚禁。

最近有一些雜七雜八的有關(guān)政治拘留人士有權(quán)向咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)進(jìn)行上訴的言論。我要告訴你們我的一些有關(guān)這個(gè)咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

在囚禁了約1年過(guò)后，在一個(gè)下午的4點(diǎn)鐘，我被召喚到監(jiān)獄的大門(mén)，那兒有一份通告告示我會(huì)在隔天出庭會(huì)見(jiàn)咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)，他們給了我兩張全頁(yè)的所謂罪狀單。我告訴他們我要保留這些罪狀單以便我在明天出庭時(shí)使用。他們說(shuō)：‘不行，你不可以保留它，在你讀完后我們要把它收回’。

我告訴他們我要把這件事通知我的律師，他們說(shuō)，‘不可以，你有權(quán)力去通知你的律師，但是你現(xiàn)在不可以打電話給他’，我回應(yīng)說(shuō)：‘這樣的話，我要如何去通知我的律師？’他說(shuō)：‘這就是法律’。

于是第二天早上我被拷上手銬帶往最高法庭出席由三人組成咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)的開(kāi)庭聽(tīng)審。一名法官，他是Judge Winslow以及另外兩人。一人是一位叫什么Elias的，我猜想他是名律師，以及另一名華人紳士，但我忘了他的名字叫什么。

看看這些所謂的罪狀單，上面有著許多空空的留白，我問(wèn)Judge Winslow這些留白有著什么的意識(shí)（思）？他說(shuō)：‘唉呀，這些就是罪狀，由于這些都是非常敏感的內(nèi)容，所以只可以讓咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)知道，但你不可以知道’。

我說(shuō)：‘天底下豈有這樣的事，不知道自己的罪狀又如何去進(jìn)行辯護(hù)？’，我向他請(qǐng)教如何是好，他聳聳肩膀要說(shuō)話，我于是質(zhì)問(wèn)：‘這豈不是在開(kāi)司法的玩笑’。他回應(yīng)說(shuō)：‘這就是法律’。

你看，整個(gè)事件就是一場(chǎng)司法鬧劇。我的意識(shí)（思）是，這真是令人難以置信的，竟然會(huì)有人見(jiàn)證了這般的對(duì)所謂的司法進(jìn)行嘲弄。在現(xiàn)實(shí)上，把一名高等法院的法官擺上咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)的主席位置，會(huì)給于公眾一種印象，以為這是一種判決，里頭有著公平正義。我于是告訴他，如果我是名高院法官，我是不會(huì)為了讓人信服這種嘲弄場(chǎng)合而出席。

然后，這名Elias警告我說(shuō)這是蔑視法庭的尊嚴(yán)。我對(duì)蔑視法庭的說(shuō)法感到高興，因?yàn)槲乙呀?jīng)被囚禁在牢房里，這種告誡對(duì)我而言是沒(méi)有什么分別的。

順便一提，在我的20年囚禁生活里，我曾被關(guān)押在新加坡各處的全部牢房里，除了歸女監(jiān)獄之外。

結(jié)果，那位法官說(shuō)，‘不必，不必，讓這位醫(yī)生說(shuō)他想要說(shuō)的話，這里頭并沒(méi)有蔑視法庭的一回事’。于是我用了3個(gè)小時(shí)的時(shí)間逐一的對(duì)全部的所謂罪狀提出反駁。其中一條罪狀是虛構(gòu)的，我被指控為8名華惹誹謗事件的學(xué)生之一，我說(shuō)：‘真實(shí)的情況是，我并沒(méi)有身為這8位學(xué)生之一的殊榮，事實(shí)上，我覺(jué)得能夠被看成是當(dāng)中一員就是件值得榮幸之事，但是，我并非8人中的一人。當(dāng)時(shí)這8名學(xué)生在無(wú)答辯情況下獲得無(wú)罪釋放，而其辯護(hù)律師就是李光耀本人，他不就是如今囚禁我的那一個(gè)人？’

他說(shuō)：‘這就是法律。’

所有的一切都是法律。

你們最近常聽(tīng)到所謂的依法執(zhí)法。看看現(xiàn)時(shí)的內(nèi)部安全法令，這條法令是在嘲諷依法執(zhí)法的概念。這條法令是在依法執(zhí)法的范疇之外。一旦你在內(nèi)部安全法令下被拘捕，你就完全無(wú)法尋求任何法律上的庇護(hù)。

我曾兩次嘗試尋求人身保護(hù)令的庇護(hù)。其中一回是由于政府的錯(cuò)誤讓我從技術(shù)上取得了勝利 – 他們并沒(méi)有簽署我的拘捕令。這文件原本應(yīng)該是由部長(zhǎng)簽署，但卻讓一名公務(wù)員去代簽。因此，在這一回里頭法庭因?yàn)榧夹g(shù)性錯(cuò)誤而釋放我。當(dāng)我獲釋時(shí)，內(nèi)政部在女皇鎮(zhèn)的監(jiān)獄門(mén)口等候著我。我在獲釋后的一分鐘又再遭到逮捕。這是一個(gè)開(kāi)玩笑的釋放。為了這件人身保護(hù)令的事，我遭受到懲罰，把我關(guān)進(jìn)所有囚禁中心里最聲名狼藉的囚禁所，中央警署的總部。

這個(gè)地方根本不適合即便是用來(lái)關(guān)畜生，更何況是人類(lèi)。這個(gè)地方很陰深，臭氣熏天，嚴(yán)重缺乏空氣流通，人在里頭很難呆過(guò)24個(gè)小時(shí)，但是，我卻每天24個(gè)小時(shí)的被關(guān)押在里邊。這個(gè)地方到處是爬蟲(chóng)，我有許許多多的爬蟲(chóng)相伴，沒(méi)有閱讀的書(shū)籍，其光線陰暗到我無(wú)法看見(jiàn)我手上的紋理。于是我們5個(gè)人進(jìn)行絕食，我因潰瘍出血而被轉(zhuǎn)送醫(yī)院。那里是有著所謂的人身保護(hù)令，可以冒險(xiǎn)的去嘗試使用它，你會(huì)遭受?chē)?yán)峻的懲罰。

我第二次嘗試人身保護(hù)令是當(dāng)他們要強(qiáng)迫我去從事手工粗活。那時(shí)是1972年。他們說(shuō)所有拘留者都必須去干體力勞工，這是改過(guò)自新的訓(xùn)練計(jì)劃之一。我被指派從事木工，那位警監(jiān)告訴我說(shuō)，這樣做會(huì)對(duì)身位（為）醫(yī)生的你有益，你的手會(huì)變得更為敏捷。于是，我回應(yīng)：‘你沒(méi)有進(jìn)入一所醫(yī)學(xué)院的資格，而你現(xiàn)在卻是在告訴一名醫(yī)生，什么樣的畢業(yè)后專(zhuān)業(yè)訓(xùn)練會(huì)對(duì)他有益。你是否太過(guò)高估了你自己的能耐？他說(shuō)：‘這就是法律，你每天必須獲得8分錢(qián)的酬勞。’于是我們進(jìn)行了絕食，我們?nèi)褐械囊恍┤诉M(jìn)行了3個(gè)月的絕食，為的是要挫折他們把我們當(dāng)成刑事罪犯去進(jìn)行勞改。我在進(jìn)行了3個(gè)星期的絕食行動(dòng)后，他們進(jìn)來(lái)對(duì)我說(shuō)，‘那好吧，我們免除你的勞改。’

那一群囚禁在明月彎的女性拘留者進(jìn)行了130天的絕食，她們?cè)馐軓?qiáng)迫喂食。她們當(dāng)中有些人被用吸管抽入食道喂奶后引發(fā)嘔吐。警監(jiān)下令獄警把一位嘔吐后女拘留者抬走，并用她的褲子去拖地。就是用這樣的方法去對(duì)待拘留者。當(dāng)然的，這些都遭到報(bào)章的隱瞞掩蓋，但是這些就是我們的遭遇和經(jīng)歷。

我們都經(jīng)歷過(guò)單獨(dú)囚禁。根據(jù)李光耀本人的說(shuō)法，單獨(dú)囚禁是一種最?lèi)毫拥目嵝獭Ｗ屛蚁蚰銈冏x出李光耀所說(shuō)的有關(guān)單獨(dú)囚禁‘給予一個(gè)人的最大懲罰是完全隔絕在地牢里，陰暗，完全沒(méi)有任何的生命激勵(lì)因素。這是一個(gè)真實(shí)的酷刑。’李光耀，2008年1月。

雖然他知道這是一種真實(shí)的酷刑，他毫不感到負(fù)疚的對(duì)所有的拘留者使用這種真實(shí)的酷刑，無(wú)一幸免。我們都要經(jīng)歷這種真實(shí)的酷刑，并非只是一天，兩天，而是6個(gè)月。要知道，在法令下，是有一定的保護(hù)即使是對(duì)刑事罪犯行使這種酷刑。一個(gè)刑事犯一旦違反了監(jiān)獄的條例會(huì)遭受到單獨(dú)囚禁，但為期不可長(zhǎng)于2個(gè)星期，因?yàn)檫@將會(huì)帶來(lái)嚴(yán)重的精神健康上的損傷。然而，對(duì)政治拘留者而言，他們並不受到保護(hù)。

那位李有成，南洋商報(bào)的總經(jīng)理，被單獨(dú)囚禁，不是一次而是兩次，他堅(jiān)強(qiáng)的挨過(guò)了這些真實(shí)的酷刑。T T 拉惹，一名律師，他被囚禁兩年半，其中兩次單獨(dú)囚禁6個(gè)月。賽、扎哈利的17年囚禁里共經(jīng)歷4次的單獨(dú)囚禁。我們都引以為榮，我們雖然面對(duì)千辛萬(wàn)苦的艱難，我們沒(méi)有退縮。我們站穩(wěn)我們的立場(chǎng)，我們保住了自已的尊嚴(yán)。

今天，他們呼吁我們要有雅量。寬宏大量是什么意思？只有那些經(jīng)歷過(guò)苦難折磨，才可享有道德的權(quán)利，道德的地位去展現(xiàn)雅量風(fēng)范，不是那群犯錯(cuò)者。做錯(cuò)事的人要尋求寬恕，如果他們承認(rèn)犯錯(cuò)，就要道歉。並不是由酷刑下的受害者去乞求寬恕。我們是那群具有雅量風(fēng)范的人，我們可以寬宏大量，如果犯錯(cuò)者承認(rèn)錯(cuò)失，并且尋求寬恕。

1972年我通過(guò)妻子Beatrice Chen發(fā)表了一份聲明書(shū)，當(dāng)然的，報(bào)章都?jí)阂至诉@件事，但學(xué)生組織卻廣泛傳閱 – 我說(shuō)正確的解決方法是在沒(méi)有條件要求的情況下釋放我們。無(wú)條件釋放。此外，你要對(duì)我們的長(zhǎng)期囚禁作出賠償并進(jìn)行道歉。我說(shuō)我愿意放棄這最后的兩項(xiàng)條件，既賠償和道歉，因?yàn)槲也幌嘈畔窭罟庖@樣自大傲慢的人會(huì)輕易的讓步。對(duì)于無(wú)條件釋放的一項(xiàng) – 我們的立場(chǎng)是堅(jiān)定的。我堅(jiān)持了立場(chǎng)，為此而遭受了20年的苦難。這就是我為了我們的尊嚴(yán)而付出的代價(jià)。

在新加坡，我們有一個(gè)現(xiàn)象，那就是政府領(lǐng)袖自認(rèn)有廉正，這廉正是用全世界最高的薪金去支撐，然而，對(duì)政治上的異議者和拘留者而言，政府領(lǐng)袖的廉正卻是以全世界最長(zhǎng)的監(jiān)獄囚禁去維持。這兩種廉正是不同的，就好象天和地的比較。有什么理由需要?jiǎng)e人作出如此的犧牲去維護(hù)他的廉正與信仰？政府為什么要以如此的高薪去酬勞自已。這是當(dāng)今新加坡政治現(xiàn)實(shí)里的一個(gè)不道德層面。

看吧，無(wú)審訊的囚禁是反和平的行為，這是一祌暴力行為。他們并非在白天的時(shí)候禮貌的投帖拜訪。他們?cè)诹璩繒r(shí)分的4點(diǎn)鐘。這個(gè)時(shí)段里一般正常的人都在睡眠，但卻是政治恐怖分子與獨(dú)裁者進(jìn)行勾當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)機(jī)。一旦你被逮捕，你就面對(duì)各種名樣的精神以至于身體上的酷刑。這並非單獨(dú)發(fā)生者（在）1963年的那一批拘留者，這也發(fā)生在其他不同時(shí)期的拘留者：如1972年，甚至于遲至1987年。當(dāng)張素蘭和她的那一批所謂的馬克思主義拘留者也同樣面對(duì)精神與內(nèi)體上的刑罰。當(dāng)這幾位女律師在獲釋后發(fā)表了她們?cè)馐芘按穆暶鲿?shū)之后，它（他）們又再遭逮捕並被迫收回他們的指責(zé)。

那門(mén)子的依法執(zhí)法會(huì)允許起訴的原告者受到被指控的被告政府的懲罰，還被迫收回他們的指控？這不就是一個(gè)上下顛倒的司法體系嗎？看啊，對(duì)著這樣的一種情況，律師公會(huì)卻連一句話也不敢說(shuō)。之所以變得如此無(wú)能是因?yàn)槁蓭煿珪?huì)在1987年遭到了他們的修理。

現(xiàn)在，傅樹(shù)介寫(xiě)了一篇有關(guān)冷藏行動(dòng)的好文章，里邊，他揭露了好些從英國(guó)檔案局解密的文件，展示了英國(guó)當(dāng)局如何與李光耀密謀的共同合作在1963年大選之前摧毀反對(duì)黨陣營(yíng)。合并的整個(gè)目的就是在1963年大選之前毀滅反對(duì)黨。

到了今天，那個(gè)人民行動(dòng)黨要站立在道德的據(jù)（制）高點(diǎn)，要求其他國(guó)家講求人權(quán)，甚至于向緬甸要求釋放他們的政治拘留者。但是，他們究競(jìng)有什么可以站立的道德?lián)ㄖ疲└唿c(diǎn)去提出這種要求？翻開(kāi)他們的過(guò)往記錄來(lái)看，他們所站立著的座墩里頭充滿(mǎn)了蠕蟲(chóng)和害蟲(chóng)。讓他們先去懺悔自已的不光彩人權(quán)記錄，之后，你或許才會(huì)有道德上的權(quán)力去坪（抨）擊別人缺乏人權(quán)。

博（傅）樹(shù)介也撰寫(xiě)了本書(shū)的最后一章[華惹一代]，有關(guān)社會(huì)主義的未來(lái)。你們之中必然有人會(huì)置疑，在俱樂(lè)部成立50年后，社會(huì)主義到了現(xiàn)今的年代，還會(huì)有什么作為。社會(huì)主義運(yùn)動(dòng)在世界各地遭受到許多的挫折，甚至于失敗，所以有人懷疑這些理論是否還有效用。近期的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，近日的金融風(fēng)暴都再次的暴露了資本主義的貪腐與不道德行為，人類(lèi)應(yīng)該享受一個(gè)比由貪婪與腐蝕支撐著的體系，來(lái)得更好的體系。

近來(lái)你們經(jīng)常聽(tīng)到有人說(shuō)當(dāng)你年青時(shí)你是個(gè)理想主義者，當(dāng)你年長(zhǎng)后你是個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者。這些都是胡說(shuō)八道的垃圾廢話，是那些要不是己經(jīng)失去理想，就是那些已經(jīng)把理想出賣(mài)了的自私自利者。一個(gè)人不應(yīng)該讓他自已的理想與信仰消失掉。不論何種情況，他應(yīng)該更堅(jiān)持的去鞏固自已的信念。如果這和年齡有關(guān)，這只是在表達(dá)方式上，對(duì)這些理想和信仰有了更多的演繹方式，畢竟他們有經(jīng)歷過(guò)青春年少時(shí)的種種體會(huì)。一個(gè)生命如果沒(méi)有了信念，沒(méi)有了理想主義，那只是一個(gè)毫無(wú)意義的生存，而我相信你們中的許多人會(huì)同意，一個(gè)人的生命意義要遠(yuǎn)比這種情況來(lái)得更精彩。

謝謝。

原文來(lái)源：http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com/2010/07/transcript-of-dr-lim-hock-siews-speech.html

Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore

Posted on Youtube, 15 November, 2009.
By Singapore Rebel (Martyn See).

Video description: Dr Lim Hock Siew is Singapore’s second longest-held political prisoner.

From the video:

[A founding member of the ruling People’s Action Party, Lim was accused of being a communist and was arrested without trial in 1963, and had his detention prolonged by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew until his release in 1982.]

[On 14th of Nov 2009, Lim made his first post-detention speech in Singapore during a book launch.]

[The day coincided with the arrival of US President Barack Obama in Singapore for the APEC Summit.]

My contribution to this book is very modest. Because of my ill-health, I’ve not been able to write too much. It comprises mainly of a statement which I made when I was in prison in 1972, after 9 years of incarceration.

As you know, I was detained in Coldstore Operation in February the 2nd 1963, and I was the last one to come out from the batch of detainees almost 20 years later. Now this statement mainly stated my stand on my detention.

After 9 years of incarceration, they wanted me to issue a statement to firstly support the so-called democratic system of Singapore, and secondly to renounce politics. I told them that these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is parliamentary democracy, then I don’t have to give up politics. So they said, “You must say something to show repentance other wise Lee Kuan Yew will lose face.”

For me this not a question of pride, it’s a question of principle.

In the first place, if a person has to save his face by depriving somebody else of his fundamental rights, then that’s not a face that’s worth saving. So the, the main democratic right is a fundamental constitutional right of the people of Singapore. And no one should be deprived of their right, and held ransom to extort statements of repentance and contrition. So the whole thing bogged down to having to issue a statement of repentance, which I refused.

Subsequently, I was detained for another almost 10 years, after that statement was issued. So a total of 19 years and eight months, longer than a life sentence. Life sentences will be released after 13 years, after the initial one-third remission, but for no charge, no trial, I was detained for longer than life sentences.

A lot of hullabaloo have been said recently on the right of political detainees to appeal to an Advisory Board. I want to tell you about my experience in this Advisory Board.

After about one year of detention, I was asked to the prison main gate at about 4pm, and a statement of notice to say that I had to appear before the Advisory Board the next day, and I was given a two fool-scap paper of so-called charge sheets. I said I wanted to keep these sheets of paper so I could prepare for my next morning’s appearance. They said, “No, you cannot keep it. Just read it and we’ll take it back.”

I said I want to inform my lawyer about this. They said, “No, you have the right to inform your lawyer, but you cannot telephone him now.” I said, “In that case, how do I contact my lawyer?” He said, “That’s the law.”

So the next morning I was called to the High Court in handcuffs and all that to appear before an Advisory Board comprising three persons. A judge called Judge Winslow and two other persons. One is a certain Elias, I think he’s a lawyer, and the other one a Chinese gentleman whose name I cannot remember.

So, on these so-called charge sheets, there were a lot of blank spaces. I asked Judge Winslow what do these blank spaces mean? He said, “Oh, these are charges which are so sensitive that they can be shown only to the Advisory Board but not to you.”

I said, “How the hell can anybody defend himself against a charge that’s not even revealed to him?” I asked him for advice, he just said [shrugs shoulder]. I said, “Is this a mockery of justice or what?” He said, “This is the law.”

You see, the whole thing is a judicial farce. I mean, it’s incredible that anyone has to face this kind of mockery, this kind of so-called justice, and the fact that a High court judge is being put as the chairman of this Advisory Board gives the public an illusion that there is judgement, there is justice. And I told him that if I were a High court judge, I would not lend credence to this mockery by my presence.

Then this Elias threatened me with contempt of court. I was very happy when he with contempt of court, because after all I was already in prison, so threatening me with contempt of court and al that makes no difference to me.

By the way, in my 20 years in prison, I was detained in practically all the prisons in Singapore, except of course the female prison.

In the end, the judge said, “No, no, let the doctor have his say, there’s no question of contempt of court.” So I gave a three-hour statement to debunk all the so-called charges. One of the charges was in fact a false charge: I was charged for being one of the right Fajar students who were charged for sedition. I said, “ As a matter of fact, I didn’t have the privilege to be one of the eight. In fact, I would be flattered to be one of the eight, and that I was not one of the eight. So why should I be imprisoned for allegedly being one of the eight, when these eight were acquitted without being called, and acquitted and defended by Lee Kuan Yew himself, who is now detaining me?”

He said, “This is the law.”

Everything is the law.

So recently you have heard all this so-called rule of law. Now there is detention without trial by ISA [Internal Security Act], a law which makes a mockery of the concept of rule of law. It is a law that is outside the rule of law. Once you are detained under the ISA, you have no legal defence whatsoever.

I tried the habeas corpus twice. On one occasion I succeeded on the technical error on the side of the government—they did not sign my detention order. It was supposed to be signed by a minister, but it was delegated to a civil servant. So on that account the court has to release me on a technical point. So when I was released, there was the Special Branch waiting for me outside Queenstown Prison. I was re-arrested one minute later. It was a mock release. And for that habeas corpus, I was punished and sent to the most hideous of all detention centres, the Central Police Station head office.

That was a place that is not fit to keep animals let alone human beings. The place was so dark, so stinky and so ill-ventilated that you cannot stand inside for more than 24 hours, but I was locked in there for 24 hours a day. And the whole place was infested with bugs. I had a lot of bugs for company. No reading material and the light was so dim that I could hardly see the crease of my hand. So immediately the five of us went on hunger strike, and my ulcer bled and I had to be transferred to hospital. That was the so-called habeas corpus right there you have. Try it at your risk, or be severely punished.

The second time I went for habeas corpus case was when they tried to force me to do manual labour. That was in 1972. They said all detainees should do manual labour as a programme of rehabilitation. I was supposed to do carpentry. So this superintendent told me that it was good for you as a doctor, you try to become more dexterous with your hand. So I said, “You do not have the qualifications to enter a medical college, and here you are telling a doctor what is good for post-graduate education. Are you over-reaching yourself?” He said, “This is the law. You have to be paid 8 cents a day.” So we all went on hunger strike, and some of us went on hunger strike for three months in order to frustrate their attempt to make us labourers like criminals. I went on hunger strike for three weeks before they came in and said, “Okay, we exempt you from that.”

And the women detainees in Moon Crescent Centre went on hunger strike for 130 days, and they were forced-fed. Some of them vomited after being fed milk by the tube inserted forcefully into their oesophagus. One girl vomited and the superintendent forced for wardens to carry her and wiped the floor with her pants. This is the kind of treatment meted to detainees. All these of course suppressed by the press, but this is the thing we all had to go through.

Now all of us had to go through detention in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement according to Lee Kuan Yew himself is a very bad form of torture. I will read to you what Lee Kuan Yew said of solitary confinement: “The biggest punishment a man can receive is total isolation in a dungeon, black and complete withdrawal of all stimuli. That is real torture.” Lee Kuan Yew, January 2008.

Although he knows it is real torture, he had no compunction in meting out this real torture to all detainees without exception. Some of us had to undergo this real torture, not for one day, two days, but for six months. Now under the law, there is a protection for even criminal prisoners from this kind of torture. A criminal prisoner when found guilty of infringing prison rules will be sentenced to solitary confinement for not more than two weeks, because of the obvious mental health effects. But for political detainees, there is no protection.

And Lee Eu Seng, the general manager of Nanyang Zhao Pao, was put into solitary confinement not once but twice, and it is to his credit he withstood that kind of real torture. TT Rajah, a lawyer who was detained for two and half years, was put under solitary confinement for six months. Twice. Said Zahari was put into solitary confinement four times in his long 17 years of detention. It is to our credit that we did not back down despite our difficult ordeal. We stood our ground and held on to our integrity.

Today, they are asking us to be magnanimous. What does magnanimity mean? Only those who have suffered have the moral right, the moral standing to be magnanimous, not the culprit. The culprit can seek forgiveness, if they admit their mistakes and apologise for it. Not for the victims of this torture to seek forgiveness. We are the ones who have to be magnanimous, and we are prepared to be magnanimous provided the culprits admit their mistakes and seek our forgiveness.

In my statement which I released to the press in 1972, through my wife Beatrice Chen, and which was of course suppressed by the newspapers, but was distributed a lot to all student organisations—I said the proper way to settle our case is that you must release us without conditions. Unconditional release. Moreover, you must compensate us for our long detention and also apologise. I said I’m prepared to forgo these two last conditions of having to compensate us and also having to apologise to us because I don’t believe an arrogant man like Lee Kuan Yew would concede easily. On that question of release unconditionally—that we stand firm, I stood firm and had to suffer for two decades. That is the price that we had to pay for our integrity.

In Singapore, we have a situation where the government leaders said they have integrity that has to be sustained by the highest pay in the world, but yet they demand from political opponents and detainees an integrity that has to be sustained by the longest imprisonment in the world. This kind of two types of integrity, to compare them is to compare heaven and earth. Why should anybody has to sacrifice so much just to sustain his integrity and his beliefs? And the government have to reward themselves with so much high pay. This is the immorality of the political situation in Singapore today.

Now, detention without trial is not a peaceful action. It is an act of violence. They come to see you not in the daylight with an invitation card. They come in the morning, 4am. That is the time when decent people sleep, and when political terrorists and tyrants strike. And when you are detained, you are subjected to all kinds of mental and even physical torture. This is not only unique for the 1963 batch, it was also practised in many other batches of detention: 1972, and as late as 1987. When Teo Soh Lung and her group of so-called marxist detainees were subjected to mental and physical torture. … And women lawyers can be subjected to torture. But when these women lawyers came out and issued a statement to describe how they have been tortured, they were again detained and compelled to withdraw their accusation.

What type of rule of law is that when the accuser can be punished by the accused against the government, and compelled to withdraw their accusation? Is it not a rule of law justice turned upside down? Now this is a situation where even the Law Society dare not utter a word of protest. They are so impotent after what they had done to the Law Society in 1987.

Now, Poo Soo Kai has written a very good article on Operation Coldstore. In it, he has revealed a lot of declassified British archive documents, showing how the British and Lee Kuan Yew conspired and collaborated to crush the opposition before the 1963 General Elections. The whole aim of this merger was to crush the opposition before the 1963 elections.

And today, the PAP is standing on high moral ground, demanding human rights in other countries, even demanding the realise of political detainees in Myanmar. But precisely on what moral ground are they standing to have this demand? In examining their past records, they are standing on a pedestal that is leaking with worms and vermin, Let them repent first their own dismal record of human rights and then you may have the moral right to cast aspersions on other people’s lack of human rights.

Poh Soo Kai has also written the last chapter of this book [The Fajar Generation], about the future of Socialism. Many of you may ponder what is the relevance of Socialism in this era. after 50 years when the club was formed, Socialist movements all over the world has suffered a lot of setbacks and even defeats, and some wonder whether we are still relevant. The recent economic crisis, the recent financial crisis, has once again exploded the corruption and immorality of the capitalist system, and feel that human beings should deserve something better than a system that is generated by green and by corruption.

Now some of you may have heard that when you are young you are idealistic, when you’re old you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals or have sold their ideals for self-interests. Each should not wither one’s ideals or convictions. If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of expression and application of these ideals and convictions having the benefit of a youthful experience. And a life without convictions, without idealism, is a mere meaningless existence, and I’m sure most of you will agree that as human beings, we are worthy of a life much more meaningful than just that.

Thank you.

[Dr Lim Hock Siew is currently 78 years and is a retired physician.

[He remains a staunch socialist.]

[Lee Kuan Yew remains in political office, and now holds the title of Minister Mentor.]

分類(lèi)題材: 政治_politics , 歷史_history

《新加坡文獻(xiàn)館》

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)