TR EMERITUS

Dear Temasek Review I refer to the article “Police report against relief cabby: Real Threat or Mere Paranoia?” published in the Temasek Review on 8 June 2010. The author was referring to the case of 52 year old relief taxi driver Mr Teo Kian Seng. Mr Teo had been charged in court for allegedly threatening the ruling People’s Action Party Member of Parliament (MP) for East Coast GRC (Group Representation Constituency) Mr Lee Yi Shyan at a MPS (meet the people session). The writer has criticized the Mr Lee for being too harsh on Mr Teo. In this article I shall elaborate on how the action taken against Mr Teo fits into the PAP Group (PAP and its allies) election strategy. East Coast GRC originated in the 1988 General Election (GE) when the single seat wards of Bedok, Tanah Merah and Kampong Chai Chee were merged to form Bedok GRC. In 1997, Bedok GRC was expanded and renamed as East Coast GRC. Over the years, one thing had remained consistent. The GRC had revolved around the leadership of Bedok Ward MP Professor S Jayakumar (born in 1939). Professor Jayakumar had been an important Cabinet Minister for 3 decades. As of 2009, he was Senior Minister (SM) and Coordinating Minister for National Security. Together with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (born in 1923) and another SM Goh Chok Tong (born in 1941), SM Jaya formed the inner elderly trio in the Prime Minister’s Office.   While the vocal critics had been very unhappy about MM Lee’s continued political presence and questioned SM Goh’s relevance, SM Jaya had largely remained unnoticed. At the constituency level, he was also needed to maintain the support of older pro-PAP Group voters. In 2009, government statistics showed that Bedok housing estate had the highest number of elderly persons in Singapore with 31 000 residents aged 65 and above.   Therefore Mr Lee Yi Shyan’s priority was to follow the footsteps of SM Jaya. In addition to those aged 65 and above, Mr Lee was likely to think of how to maintain the support of the 51-64 age category. When economic problems started to materialize in 1997, many of these people thought it would be a cyclical downturn. As of 2009, it appeared more were beginning to wonder if there was something fundamentally wrong with the PAP Group. Faced with the possibility of more older hostile residents, the PAP Group would have to figure out the right mix of hard and soft measures. Should the 51-64 age category voters drift towards a protest vote, this could be a big problem for the PAP Group. The local younger 21-35 age category already had a strong inclination to vote against or even out vote out the PAP Group.   In the 2006 GE, the PAP Group won 64% of the valid vote in East Coast GRC. Statistically it would be unlikely the PAP Group could lose this GRC. However, the PAP Group would not want to take any risks in this context. While vocal critics had mentioned GRCs where the PAP had won by a smaller margin (50% to 55%) from 1988 to 2006, Bedok GRC was forgotten. In the 1988 GE, the PAP Group won only 54.9% of the valid vote in this GRC.   A hypothetical loss of East Coast GRC in a future GE is more than a just a loss of seats. The GRC contains the current PAP Headquarters (HQ) at Blk 57B New Upper Changi Rd. Furthermore in the 2006 GE, the opposition Workers’ Party team was led by Mr Chia Ti Lik, a former Young PAP activist. The prospect of losing the party HQ land to a party quitter is likely to be cause great unease to the PAP Group.   The decision by the PAP Group to refer Mr Teo’s case to a legal court may seem harsh. However Mr Lee Yi Shyan is not paranoid. He is simply taking precautions. His conclusion is that a hard measure will neutralize critics among the 51-64 age category. To him, a soft approach will embolden these critics instead and result in an anti-PAP Group vote swing.   Yours truly Mr Chua Yuankai The writer is a long-term underemployed and marginalized local-born Singapore citizen who once aimed to become successful in Singapore. Currently he is thinking how to survive.  Read More →

Recently, two foreign professionals, Swiss national Oliver Fricker and Briton Lloyd Dane Alexander broke into SMRT Changi Depot and vandalized a train with graffiti. Fricker was arrested a few days after a video of the vandalized train appeared on Youtube, while Alexander has fled the country. The Singapore government has since put in an extradition request to the British government for him to be brought back to Singapore to stand trial.  Despite the obvious breach in security, SMRT staff still allowed the vandalized train to operate, oblivious to the true nature of the so-called “work of art” on it, at least until the video appeared on Youtube. This by itself is astonishing: what is more shocking is that apparently SMRT’s security staff failed to notice the huge hole in the fence the two vandals cut in order to enter the depot. That at least was the impression that the company gave, seeing as how it took them two days to file a police report over the incident. After all, one would logically expect them to report any major security breaches such as this one to the police immediately instead of waiting for a public uproar to take place first. The vandalism itself is not really an issue. While still a criminal act, nonetheless, at worst it was nothing more than a harmless (and admittedly highly artistic) prank. Certainly, while the two miscreants responsible should be appropriately punished for it, the government has clearly missed out on the real issue here, namely what sort of security does SMRT have in place at its premises that two bored young men could make a complete fool of it publicly. In all honesty, the two men had actually done Singaporeans a monumental favor with their stunt. If they had not pulled it off, ordinary Singaporeans would have remained blissfully oblivious to the wholesale complacency and slipshod security within SMRT. If nothing else, it shows just how stupid if not outright dangerous the “deaf frog” mentality espoused by high-ranking government officials such as NTUC chief Lim Swee Say can really be. The fact of the matter is that problems don’t go away simply because top officials choose to ignore them or any criticisms of their policies. Instead, they simply fester on and grow in scale until events such as these expose them publicly. And sometimes these events can have humiliating or even catastrophic consequences such as the stalling of the Singapore Flyer or the collapse of Nicoll Highway. Predictably, SMRT does not view it this way. Miffed at being publicly humiliated, the company has engaged in a major damage control exercise. There’s just one slight problem: unable or unwilling to admit its errors, the company’s attempts at damage control has only succeeded in raising heckles even more, even bordering on farcical. In fact, the excuses it has come up with to explain the debacle away can easily be summed up in three words: dumb and dumber.   Dumb: Allowing the vandalized train to be put into service instead of being taken out for a thorough inspection. After all, given the elaborate nature of the graffiti, it must have taken some time for it to be sprayed on. If the culprits had meant to carry out something worse than a mere prank, they would have had ample time to sabotage the train. Putting it back into service without a thorough inspection shows blatant complacency on the company’s part at the very least.   Dumber: The company’s explanation that its staff thought that the graffiti was an officially-commissioned “work of art”. So what was SMRT really trying to say here, that its own personnel don’t know what was actually happening in the company? If this really was a public relations campaign of some sort, one would expect that at the very least, staff from the Corporate Communications, Rolling Stock and Traffic departments would be kept informed of it. After all, the Rolling Stock Section is responsible for carrying out maintenance of the trains, the Traffic Department operates them and the Corporate Communications Department would orchestrate such a campaign. Surely they must know then that this was no such artwork.   Dumb: The shoddy security at the depot that allowed the two perpetrators to pull off their stunt. Are close-circuit television systems installed at the depot? If so, then why weren’t they reviewed daily? This at least would have exposed the breach in security immediately. And how exactly do the security guards carry out their patrols that they could miss out on a gaping hole in the fence? Or did they in fact notice it and simply ignored it or dismissed it as nothing? If this is the case, then this beggars the question of what sort of training the guards received, and what sort of drills if any the company puts them through. And it definitely raises the question of how the company selected the security service in the first place and how it reviews the security service’s performance.   Dumber: SMRT President Mdm Saw Phaik Hua’s comment that the security breach showed why it was vital that the public should maintain vigilance at all times. In case she didn’t realize it, the train wasn’t vandalized while it was in service; it was vandalized while parked in Changi Depot, which is scarcely a public place. Does she actually believe it would be possible for members of the public to spot troublemakers in action in a facility that they have no access to when her own security service failed to do so? For that matter, according to the company’s spokespersons, the train was allowed to be put into service because the staff thought that the graffiti was a work of art similar to that commissioned by SingPost on its post boxes to promote the Youth Olympic Games. If this is really the case as they claim, then how on Earth does Mdm Saw expect members of the public to recognize an act of vandalism on the trains when the company’s own staff cannot? And for that matter, doesn’t this prove that she should shoulder a far greater share of the blame than ordinary commuters? After all, unlike members of the public, she has access to Changi Depot where the crime was committed, and she definitely would know if the graffiti was supposed to be there or not.   Dumb: The ludicrous excuses the company came up with to explain the debacle as listed above. Dumber: That anyone in the company would actually believe that ordinary Singaporeans are stupid enough to believe the ridiculous nonsense that they tried to pass off as explanations for this debacle. SMRT should realize that the public’s confidence in it has been badly shaken by this incident. One can hardly fault any member of the public for this, for one would shudder to think about what sort of dire consequences there could had been had the two pranksters been terrorists out to sabotage the trains instead. This is especially so since JI mastermind Mas Selamat Kestari had actually targeted Yishun Station for a terrorist bombing attack, so it is not simple paranoia on the part of the public. It is of paramount importance now for SMRT to act swiftly and prudently to restore the public’s confidence in itself; unfortunately, the company appears bent on insulting the public’s intelligence in its overzealous attempts to divert blame from itself instead. And the company’s response to this whole fiasco can be summed up in three words: dumb and dumber.   Tan Keng Leng       Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

译者：新加坡文献馆 亲爱的新加坡公民和朋友们， 我的名字是何元泰。我是土生土长的新加坡公民，我在好多年前就已经完成了我的全职国民服役。为了某些缘由我是以新加坡难民的身伤在伦敦生活了32年，但这并非我的选择。 如果你认为新加坡是属于某些部长的，他们拥有至高无上的神权可以决定那位新加坡人可以或不可以享有新加坡公民权并且持有新加坡护照，那么，我劝请你现在就停止阅读这封信，因为让你持续沉迷于你的精英活动应该是件更有意义的事情。 如果你认为新加坡是属于你的，新加坡是属于我的，以及新加坡是属于每一位新加坡人的，我们在国家宪法下都享有属于我们的平等公民权力和持有新加坡护照权力，那么，我希望你能抽出时间来阅读这封信，并且看看你可以做些什么。 1976 年12月新加坡大选后的一个星期左右，一组穿便衣的武装内安部（内部安全局）警务人员来到我在裕廊的家要逮捕我。我成功的突破封锁线逃走。在追捕的过程中 一名内安部人员追掏出手枪，指着我，并以福建方言高呼“不要跑，你再跑我就会开枪”。当我消失在我家后面的茅草丛里，几名持枪的内安部人员去到我的邻居家 中搜查。我受劝告为了我的人身安全有必要逃到其他地方寻求庇护。 在当时的工人党秘书长惹耶勒南和他的已故太太玛格列，以及其他人 士的协助下，我在1977年7月前往伦敦，那时我已在新加坡和马来西亚躲藏了6个月。当我抵达伦敦我立即寻求政治庇护。英国政府按国际法规接见我，并展开 调查以证实我的要求。在完成了一个很完整的彻底调查后，英国政府于次年正式批准了我的政治庇 护。我获得一份按联合国1951难民公约颁发的蓝色旅行证件，确实了我的难民身份。从1978年的11月起始我正式成为来自新加坡的难民。 虽然我做作为一名难民已远离了新加坡政府的视察范围，但这不表示他们不再关注我。他们的疑虑病态导致了1985年的宪法修正。这项宪法修正让政府有权力禠夺在国外生活超过10年并且在这期间不曾回国一次的任何一名公民的公民权。 就在修宪后的不久，我是仅两名新加坡人中的其中一人，收到了禠夺公民权通知书。政府企盼通过这种过程去消灭所有的政治挑战，包括我这名无杀伤性与薄弱的1976年大选候选人。 和惹耶勒南一道，我们决定上诉挑战公民权褫夺通知书，以作为取得国际社会关注这起有关新加坡违反基本人权事件的第一步行动。在这上诉的过程中，惹耶勒南因为其他的原因而被无理的剥夺了其执行法律事务的资格。称为查询委员会的上诉庭基于另觅新法律代表的理由将此上诉事件悬置。当惹耶勒南在最终上诉庭取得他自已的上诉胜利并恢复律师资格之后，他继续作为我的代表律师。在未知缘由的情况下，延迟了2年多的时间之后，内政部突然通知我们，他们已经决定撤回原有的公民 权禠夺通知书。为此，我保住了我的新加坡公民权，也依旧是居住在伦敦的一名新加坡难民。 从那时候开始，我不时的写信向有关当局查 询，看看他们可否发给我一份新加坡护照。所得到的回答一向来都是不行。他们的惯用理由是因为新加坡警察在通缉我，所以我不可以获得新加坡护照。他们从来没 有告诉我警察是为了什么事情要向我问话。由于新加坡不允许双重国藉，我只能继续难民身份以保住我是新加坡忠实之子的资格。 当我们的李总理在2007年尝试呼吁尊重人权以促进亚细安人权章程时，新加坡的主流传播媒体持续的以显著版位报导此事件。我想这应该是力图改变的讯息。我写信给 在英国的最高专员Mr. Michael Teo，向他询问我是否可以申请一份新加坡护照。出乎我的意料之外，此次的要求并没有被拒绝，反且寄了一份申请表格给我。我填写了表格也到最高专员办公室 办理打手印等等。最初，新加坡移民厅并不满意我所呈交的文件。在经过了2年的努力和获得我在伦敦的本地国会议员的书信解释，移民厅才接受了我所呈交的那些 他们索求的文件证明。 当移民厅对我呈交的文件证明感到满意后，我想我即将以一名普通新加坡人的身份使用新加坡护照去旅行，我于是 开始想到结婚就象其他的新加坡公民一样。我对这个新现象的激情，是由我们的李总理所推进的亚细安人权章程所引发，但这只是个假象。由于移民厅再也不能以我 的申请文件不妥当为理由拒绝签发护照，他们于是改口，认为他们所能做的只是‘如果你去向伦敦的新加坡最高专员申请，你可以获得一张身份证明书’。 我写信给移民厅询问为何不可以签发护照给我这名没有犯罪记录者？他们的单程身份证明书建议是一种歧视。在宪法下任何人都不可以受到歧视。任何有尊严的新加坡人都不会接受歧视。作为一名自豪的新加坡人，我是永远都不会接受任何具歧视意味的对待。 为了避免受到有歧视行为的指责，移民厅现在改变了回信内的说法。他们现在表示怀疑我那已经过期的原新加坡护照曾经在我离开新加坡时被非法的纂改。在这种情况下，如果我去申请他们或许会（不是必定会）签发一份身份证明书让我回返新加坡以便做进一步的调查。 我 对移民厅在2009年12月8日的单程通行证的建议提出询问，要求移民厅指出是根据宪法里的那些条款的规定，不能向我这般的人士签发新加坡护照。我也询问他们为何要不断的变动龙门？至今为止，移民厅还未做出回应。在伦敦的最高专员也证实那些经他们转交的书信并未丢失，而他们也同样未获得任何回应。新加坡最 高专员答应会为我继续跟进这件事。如今已经过了4个月的时间，移民办还未给予任何回复。 目前的状况已经有所不同。移民厅的无所回 应和不签发新加坡护照，已经不仅仅让我呆在新加坡境外成为一名难民。我现在有了一个儿子，他是于2009年12月在伦敦诞生。在新加坡宪法下基于新加坡人 后裔条款，他可认享受所有作为新加坡公民的一切权力。然而，根据移民厅寄给我的规则，移民厅是不会处理我儿子的公民权申请，除非我能够出示新加坡护照。实 际上，这表示我儿子要成为新加坡公民的权力已遭受无理的拒绝。我那在伦敦诞生的新加坡孩子，在技术上而言，此时此刻的他是无国藉人士。在伦敦的新加坡最高 专员亦对我证实了，他们也同样没有得到我在3个月前就我儿子的公民权而向移民厅提出进一步询问的任何回应。 我的妻子给了我一个最 后通牒，要求我在近日解决有关我们的孩子的新加坡公民权问题，要不然她会要求泰国或者英国的有关当局去解决这问题。我妻子的绝望是可以理解的，因为她想预 订机票回去探访她的国家但却因为我们的儿子没有公民身份和没有婴儿护照而被拖延。面对着我那伦敦诞生的新加坡孩子和我妻子的焦虑，使我更加感受到从未有过 的压力去尽快解决我的难民身份。 在处理为我儿子以新加坡人后裔注册为新加坡公民和为我自已申请新加坡护照的事件上我已用尽所有可行的方案，和官僚在公事的交涉已走到尽头。我现在唯一的有效方法是吁请你们这群新加坡人替我想方设法看看还有些什么其他途径。 我所期待的是： 1、在公开的法庭审讯 最 公正的解决有关我的护照申请事件是对我的所有指控进行法庭审讯，除了擅离职守的逃兵罪名之外（我在稍后时间再解释此事）。如果我确实在法律下犯了罪，我是 不应该拿到新加坡护照，那么，我会很乐意的结束整件事，我只能怪罪我自已。如果我没有犯法，那我不明白为何我不可以同其他任何一位新加坡人一样，享有同等 的权力去要求一份新加坡护照。 好多年前有几位好心肠的新加坡人在海峡时报为我争取这请求，但事情过后却不了了之。这回我希望有更多的新加坡人通过新科技为我发出更多的声音。当更多的人知道这件事情之后，我不相信政府可以长久虚伪的假装若无其事。 2、去收集更多其他不公正事件的资料 我 相信我所遭受到的不公正待遇并非是宗例外而是常见现象，虽然，所受到的不公正未必是同等程度，和都是涉及移民厅。如果你本身或者你知道有任何人有遭遇过象 我一般的不公正待遇，不论是涉及护照或者其他事项，我希望你能让我知道个中情况。我希望曾经遭遇过不公正对待的人可以集合一起做出更有力的集体上诉。我们 集中力量就可以看到改善。请写信给我[email protected]（我没有博客或者脸书） 3、写信给尚穆甘先生，法律部长与第2内政部长 尚 穆甘先生是直接负责移民厅事务的。他可以若无其事的完全对我不断写去的书信不理不睬，要求他重新审核移民厅的行政手法。他连基本的礼貌上知会复函亦没有发 过。但是，如果你们当中的许多人都给他写封信，他就有必要公开的解释为何移民厅在我的护照申请事件上要不断的变动龙门，和是谁在最后一刻出面干预以阻止给 我签发护照等等。这位新崛起的政治明星所要干的事涉及公众利益的问题。 4、写信给吴作栋资政 吴先生讲过一句名言，新加坡需要打死不跑的人（即便面临危机这些人的效忠永不动摇）。我有必要指出在这一骨节眼上我完全认同他的观点，那就是我们是一个什么样的国家取决于我们有什么样的人民。 吴先生知道新加坡需要什么样的人去组成我们的国家，我怀疑吴先生是否在这一类事务上享有最终的决定权？ 你个人认识吴先生吗？我们在思索是否要向他或其他人提出上诉？不知道提出更高层次的上诉是否有用？如果你知道政治高层是如何的运作，请告诉我们。 5、向新加坡武装部队上诉 我来自一个相信新加坡必须要有强大武装力量来保卫我们的自由和财产的家庭。我的大哥是军人，他在新加坡武装部队成立之前就已经参军，那时的武装部队是属于英殖民政府的，是用来阻止共产党占有马来亚（新加坡和东马来西亚）。我们全家上下都祝福与在道义上支持大哥从军。 当 我的三哥毕业时，他已超过了人伍国民服役的年限。他决定支持新加坡武装部队于是加入军队成为职业军人。他把毕生的工作精力贡献干新加坡武装部队。同样的， 我们一家人都为他的事业感到骄傲。我的全部侄子，当他们应招入伍时都以热忱与骄傲的心态去服役。对我而言，亦无例外。当我在中学时我加入新加坡警察部分时 间国民服役，过后，在我进入南洋大学之前，又加入全职的新加坡武装部队。我是以骄傲以热忱的心情服役新加坡武装部队。讽刺的是，如今在新加坡武装部队的记 录中我是一名擅离职守的逃兵。 我之成为擅离职守的逃兵，并非因为我从新加坡武装部队落跑以躲避上前线守卫国家。这事情发生在政府 撤回其禠夺公民权通知书的不久之后，这时我已离开了新加坡大约13年。为何突然之间宪兵被派到我父母的家向我母亲查询我的下落，并在公文册上记载我没有应 召回到新加坡武装部队后勤人员册上报到？新加坡武装部队在我离开新加坡13年之后对我还有真实的需要？为何政府在撤回禠夺公民权通知书后还有必要派遣新加 坡武装部队的宪兵到我父母的家？ 根据加坡法律，任何曾被罚款2000元，或者被囚禁12个月或更长时间的公民，会自动的被禁止参 加国会选举，为期5年。如果我回返新加坡，而政府无法罚我高额罚款或者不能把我长期囚禁，他们就可以利用擅离职守的逃兵记录来取消我参加国会选举的资格， 从而达成他们的目的。我相信这就是为什么我会有擅离职守的逃兵记录，但我希望我的这一想法是错误的。 我坚信新加坡应该做两件事来取得和平与稳定。一个是把新加坡建设为和平中心，作为谈论和平以及促进人类和平的中心。也许我们需要做的比瑞士更多，不仅仅是联合国文明的基地，亦提供各种方便以协助和平谈判的进行和安置不同的从事和平话动的非政府组织。 我 们需要开放我们的军事基地和设施让联合国领导的干预部队进行活动，不论那是为了维持和平或支援人道主义的目的。联合国需要一个有效的中立基地以便迅速的做 出在亚洲和中东地区的各种紧急情况的应对。如果这一想法能够被联合国接受，我们的国土上将会有多国部队的驻守。这些部队将会间接的给于我们一些保护。 在 帮助其他人实现和平的同时亦增强我们自己的安全，那无疑是一个值得探索的战略。但是，我们不能抱有幻想，认为一旦成为和平促进者，以及有了以联合国为首的 国际警察部队的常驻，那么，我们就会有一个安全与稳定的保证，这是因为国际政治的动向是很想象到的。我们只可以从我们自已的新加坡武装部队本身的坚强力量 取得安全保障。 要保有一个强而有效的战斗力，新加坡武装部队必须在政治上中立。新加坡武装部队绝对不可以让任何政党利用以达到个 人的自私目的。政党可以来来去去，那只是时间上的问题。新加坡武装部队必须永久的强盛，这有赖于来自在国内与在国外的新加坡人的支持。服完兵役后在没有出 国准证情况下离开了新加坡的人，他们是在情非得已下才会出此下策。 在以新加坡人后裔申请新加坡公民权时要求孩子的父亲持有出国准 证是一种自残行为。这将会减少新兵来源和他们的支持，况且这也有违公平。新加坡武装部队有必要检讨这一政策，因为这孤立了那些父母有意让他们的儿子在长大 后回国服兵役的一群人。我希望我的儿子长大后能帮助推广和平与人道主义，也要他继承我们家的传统，那就是不论现在或者将来都支持新加坡的强大武装力量。倘 若有一个不受欢迎的外来势力要侵犯我们，我会以我的儿子是新加坡武装部队中保家卫国的一名成员而感到自豪。 我在此诚恳的呼吁新加坡武装部队重新研讨其出国准证政策，和在政治上采取中立立场。 结论 谢谢你持续的阅读这封信。我不肯定你能够从此一事件中看出些什么状况？对我而言，此事件在其表面上来看是有关我和我要取得新加坡护照，同时也涉及我儿子在宪法下能够以新加坡人后裔的身份取得新加坡公民权，这一权力让位居高层的人士无理的阻挠。 然而，如果你回顾这33年来所发生过的种种事情的经历，你必定会了解这是有关他们与他们那怯懦的想方设法去阻挡一名以前的国会竞争者再次参与一个开放的国会政治。 我并非三头六臂，只是和你一样关心并爱护我们的新加坡的普通老百姓。为何要如此的对付我？ 我 是来自一个一贫如洗的家庭，在大巴窑的甘榜长大，那时那里没有公共交通，没有电和煤气供应。我们的家庭从新加坡发展中取得正面的利益。和其他新加坡人一样 我赞赏老一代的领导所取得的经济好处和生话环境的提升。我们感激这些成就。我愿意接受所有过去所受到的种种不公正待遇为必要的代价，这是以前的事，既往不 咎，让我们都忘记这些过去，为了更好的一面从新出发。 然而，令我们都忧心的是老一辈在消失中，其中的好多人已过世。但是新一代的 领导人，尤其是其中的新崛起明星，不理会世界已经完全改观，他们仍旧死守那些陈腐的教条规约，以过时的方法冶国，这使到他们失去支持与尊敬。他们完全没有 新鲜的思维和勇气去面对新生代的期许，这令人焦虑。 新生代认为国家建设与成就不单纯是经济方面的发展，这一想法是正确的。他们期 待的文化是更开放，信任，人道，社会正义，自由和公平；这些长期以来出现在替代媒体上的观点从来就没有得到尊重。基于新生代的期许，我在此呼吁你们给予协 助和去改变现状。我也认同大家的看法，那就是，群策群力必定成功。 何元泰 [email protected] 19 Claremont Road London NW2 1BP United Kingdom 2010年6月3日 何元泰在1976年以工人党身份竞选武吉班让国会议席，在大选后遭政府通缉，罪名是发表煽动性言语。 来源：https://www.tremeritus.net/2010/06/06/an-open-appeal-from-a-singaporean-refugee/  Read More →