人之将死其言也善乎？！

                       张泰永编辑

     2010-9-13日新加坡文献馆转载了《中时电子报》一篇题为《李光耀纽约时报专访》的报道。李光耀这位即将步入87岁，一向颇为自负，傲慢，好胜，专权，专制，数月前还一再誓言永不退休的“亚洲最具影响力的政治强人”，在这篇报道中，居然一反常态，发出了“精力与体力逐渐走下坡，一年不如一年，但这就是人生”的感叹，这不能不令人颇感意外，颇为吃惊，也不能不令人自然而然地联想起《论语》中一段“曾子言曰：鸟之将死，其鸣也哀；人之将死，其言也善”的典故。

     兹将李光耀这篇专访以及新加坡文献馆2010-10-2日发表的一位读者看了专访后致李资政信和另一位读者写的有关评论转载于下，相信广大读者会饶有兴趣阅读：

李光耀纽约时报专访

13/09/10

作者/来源：中時電子報 http://news.chinatimes.com

新加坡这个弹丸小国在内阁资政李光耀领导下，成了东南亚经济的发光体，李光耀的行事风格也塑造了新加坡严谨与理性的形象。 《纽约时报》十日刊出对李光耀的专访，即将步入八十七岁的他，尽管在政治上交出漂亮的成绩单，也不禁感叹岁月不饶人。

标榜经济发展第一、严加管控社会与言论的「新加坡模式」让李光耀成了亚洲最具影响力的政治强人，但强人也敌不过岁月流年，让他感叹：「精力与体力逐渐走下坡，一年不如一年，但这就是人生。」他在专访中坦然道出随老化而来的病痛，及如何透过静坐找到平静。

一九六五年新加坡宣布独立，李光耀出任总理，至一九九○年才交棒。他直言，下一代可能把他辛苦打拼出来的成绩视为当然，并任意挥霍。

受访时，李光耀思绪依旧敏捷，但难掩老态，身形也略微佝偻。他说，这些年来，因为结缡六十一年的妻子柯玉芝多次中风卧病在床，让他的生活由彩色变成黑白。 「我尽量让自己忙碌，但是闲下来时，偶尔会忆起当年两人幸福快乐的时光。」

李光耀向来注重养生，他喜欢游泳、骑脚踏车、按摩，不过忙碌的工作或许才是他持盈保泰的重要武器。他每天行程满档，国内外到处开会、演讲。他说：「一旦闲下来，我会老得很快。」不过有时难免会想，这么拼命留住青春是否失之荒谬，「我快满八十七岁，努力维持体态与精神奕奕，值得吗？我笑自己干嘛装腔作势。」

每天最难熬的，莫过于看着病榻上的妻子。柯玉芝已两年无法行动或说话，但李光耀对另一半不离不弃。他告诉妻子：「我会一直陪伴你。」每天晚上，听到妻子因病痛而呻吟，他会静坐廿分钟，让心灵平静。

李光耀对政敌毫不留情，他不惜对政敌与国际媒体大打诽谤官司，以扼杀反弹声浪。面对越来越多年轻人要求放宽言论与政治自由，他忧心，一旦政治成了开放竞争场域，势必变成种族政治，到时新加坡将分崩离析。

分类题材: 人物_biogphy ,

《新加坡文献馆》

李光耀的纽约时报专访（中英对照）

02/10/10

作者/来源：trulysingapore (28-9-2010)
http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com
新加坡文献馆译

尊敬的李资政，

这是有关你在纽约时报的专访，今日报于2010年9月13日报导。

那些所谓的偉大成就是由一群新加坡人而非一个人单独完成的。所以你可以毫无遗憾的离去，新加坡人会继续去建设更多的就象他们自1819年以来的成就。另外，也不必担忧是否还有第二次机会。从新加坡在日本占领后可以强力恢复生机来看，如有必要的话新加坡必然会再度回弹。

你对种族政治的关注是可以理解的，不要忘记了马绍尔，蒂凡那，惹耶勒南是少数民族候选人，他们靠多数票中选，远远早于建屋局施行的种族整合政策。

英语文虽然有助我们联系世界从而得到发展，广东话，韩语，华语也为香港，韩国与台湾带来发展。中国在过去20年里的发展亦没有很强的英语文联系。

我们今天的生活源自莱弗士在新加坡开埠的那一天。没有他也就不会有新加坡。从约150前开埠以来新加坡各阶层人士的辛勤劳作和企业家精神奠定了一个强大的基础，现代化的新加坡就是从这个基石上成长起来。催化新加坡快速发展的成功方案来自Dr Albert Winsemius，没有他的贡献就不会有现代新加坡。

你应可放心，你所说的和你斗争的共产党和其杀手队是在马来亚。他们在马来亚而你是在新加坡，你如何与他们进行决斗是件不可理解的神秘事件。新加坡人必然会尊敬你是位真正的英雄，如果当年你用你的胆量和魄力去和日本人对抗，就象林谋盛和雅南少尉一样，而不是去替日本人工作。

没有一丁点的怀疑，你和人民行动党都没有贪汚。你的酬劳比陈水扁在任8年期间藏匿的贪污所得来得多。如果你去问陈水扁，要他选择新加坡式的百万薪金或者是台湾式的贪污，他应该是会选择新加坡的模式。

如果一名记者根据事实报导了亚洲区内的政治朝代传承，为何要控告他？这是否是件事实，或者是裙带关系的诽谤，由你开始的总理职位如今是由你的儿子接替？

你怎么能够把无辜的人关上几十年，剥夺了他们人生中最宝贵的年华，说这样做是正当的呢？你说过“直到1962年为止，新加坡有无数的罢工。到了1969年，没有一宗罢工。在7年间工业关系有了全面的改变”。换言之，左翼活动到了1969年已经在大体上消灭了。那么，你为何还要继续囚禁林福寿医生和谢太宝，分别直到1982年和1998年呢？你是说一名受英文教育的林医生在玩弄华人语言和文化课题？

把新加坡的左翼运动看成是一个杀手队，说他们相信一颗子弹，一张选票，这种说法是没有真实性的。可否让我见识一颗由左翼分子在新加坡射击的子弹。如果你要告诉我说，在马来亚射击的一颗子弹等同在新加坡射击的一颗子弹，那么，你倒不如也让我见识那些在越南，中国，苏联与古巴使用过的子弹。

当年，你镇压华语文时引发了不少争议。这个行动的目的依旧是个争议中的课题。但从中产生了一个实质的后果。打倒了华语文也表示征服了华语文群体的势力，这一种改变有利受英文教育者，比如你自已就从中得益，不论这是否是个预谋。

原文来源：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.

分类题材: 政治_politics ,

《新加坡文献馆》

评议李光耀的纽约时报访谈

02/10/10

作者/来源：Siew Wah Yoong (18-9-2010) http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com
新加坡文献馆译

有所谓的人之将死，其言也善。

李光耀的纽约时报访谈是在他的87岁生日前夕举行，这意味了什么？他的那些东拉西扯漫谈是否就是一种预兆？在他向那位精明的访问者叙述他的人生经历与人生哲理时，他的那些谈话中少了他那惯有的自高自大与夸大言辞的作风。

正如预期的，公众的反应不一。这当中有些人用怀旧的心态回顾李光耀带来的那些他所谓的进步与繁荣。这群人只看到他那天使般的一面，并愿意忽视他的罪孽。这群人数相当的可观，但是並不包含网民。

另外，有些人持相反的说法，一些更是用了尖锐的言词。有一名严厉的批评者，通过来自海外的电邮发表了一封广为流传的公开信，对李光耀的纽约时报谈话进行猛烈的攻击。是巧合吧，他从李光耀谈话中预测了他将不久于人世。李显龙这名由他父亲一手安排的朝代承袭者，也逃不过这名批评者的诅咒。他预测，当扶持他的父亲一旦归西，李显龙会变得惶惶不可终日。

李资政的动机何在，他为何要告知天下他是如何深情的关怀他那位处于植物人状态的妻子？他是否在利用他所谓太太的困境来搏取大众的同情？从各个层面来看，柯玉芝女士已经无法对任何人工刺激有所反应，他说他每晚都会向她深情款款耳语的作法确是挑战了想象力。李资政也许要让人记得他是一名恩深爱重的丈夫和一名绅士。他不知是否晓得有人在置疑他为何要延长那无望复元的植物人太太的痛苦。这不是更为残酷吗，为何不让她的灵魂获得解放？可是，李光耀不觉得有何不妥的把她留下，独自去周游列国，比如去了巴黎，表面上是为了国家公干，包括以他的智慧光耀去迷惑一些容易受骗的全球听众。

有那么一个片刻的内疚展现，当李资政承认他的所作所为并非是每一项都是正确无误的，不过他却又要争辩的说他的所作所为都有着正当的意图，虽然他并没有解释这是些什么意图。这种正当性的说法是很主观的。他否定了西方记者对他的批评，指出那都是些垃圾，并指出他的讣告与最后功过定论亦非由他们撰写。他在访问结束前引用了中国人的一句话：不要在盖上棺材盖之前就对他下定论（盖棺定论）。

这里要引述一名李光耀的狂热支持者的话：他的名字将会刻在神圣的万神殿堂的墙壁上，又或者是一名在反狂妄偶像思维下被打倒的失败者。

原文来源：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 (人之将死，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 (盖棺定论).

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.