痛心疾首

最近为了工人党市镇理事会和小贩中心清洗有关事件写了几篇文章，导致许多蓝营的人和支持者攻击我，甚至诅咒我全家人，我感触良深。虽然我对这些诅咒真是一笑置之，但是更使我心寒的是我们反对党的支持者几乎已走入疯狂是非不分的阶段。

以往我对行动党人的辱骂，也处之泰然，直到有网友问我为何不把他们的辱骂留言去除掉，我只笑着回应我要让世界看看我国的真正的政治生态。之后，再也没有行动党人在我部落格乱骂了。他们已经进化成长了。可是，回过头来，我们反对党阵营的人，以往最憎恨行动党任意封杀言论自由，现在竟然也步了行动党的后尘，滥用言论自由回头企图打压其他人的言论自由！这是我们民主政治发展的最大讽刺！

早报百草园刊登了一片“明盛之怒“（见下文）似乎把我写得是发怒了，其实我何止是发怒，简直是痛心疾首！


以下是我回应一些质疑我对工人党批评的反对党阵营的人的文章以及我面簿友人的评语。希望这些能够让更多人了解我的立场。

对于一些从未在政治前锋冲锋陷阵的人来质疑我的人,我是不会有任何意见的。我只对那些在没有人愿意冒险加入垂死挣扎的工人党身而出的 同僚有无限的敬意。就算是因丑闻而被逼退出的饶欣龙,他也为工人党今天的成就付出过。

前人种树后人纳凉,但后人就不应该以为这树也只属于他们的成就,可任由糟蹋。

一党的政治资本是累积出来的。

至于为何极度失望,那可是对工人党以往的期望的落差必然的反应。不身在其中是不能完全了解的。

我们这一群在2001年大选过后加入工人党的人，大多数都有一个共同点，那就是有一个危机使命，别让在国会微弱的反对党消失。我们也认真的对待那时眼前所面对的所有种种障碍，把它们一一克服。我们带着复兴反对党的心情，默默耕耘。

我们都有坚定的民主政治的信仰，为民服务，奉献。我们坚决反对行动党那高傲目中无选民，以行政优势买选票，完全没有政治责任感等等恶劣政治行为。你问我为什么极度失望？

现在的工人党议员，完全辜负了我们的期望，违背了我们为何而战的政治理念！他们稍微有点政治本钱，就有样学样，学了行动党那以行政资源来“买选票”；以幸运抽奖利诱居民投选支持组屋翻新！现在，他们以高傲的态度对待人民（小贩），更是推卸所有应有的行政责任，任由他们的承包商胡乱宰割小贩。。。对于这样的行为，试问各位，如果是行动党所为，你们会有什么反应呢？

我们将心比心，如果是行动党如此，想必各位早就群起攻击了！但是现在犯错的是工人党，你们就姑息任为？你们这样是不分是非，不止会使工人党变本加厉骄纵，甚至是会误国误民的。

对这种种的恶劣发展，我不只是愤怒而已，简直是痛心疾首哀。 

吴明盛

Dong Dong Zai:

吴老大在说什么？理解简单。--
一瓶可乐的感觉和另一瓶可乐的感觉，对另一瓶可乐的口感与往常不一样，对吴老就有很直接的回响，可乐出现大问题！..... 因为他曾参与过（可乐）整个产业链的过程。一般人对（可乐）品牌信任，味道总不会有太多质疑，但他把青春全情投入生产的那个年代，如同他在工人党熬过的日子。这里指的味道；是行政模式匮乏和政治理念的流失，乃至以民为本！.... 或更坦然的说；人民的福祉绝对不能是曾经被人利用过的一种幌子？ 聪明的你看懂了吗？

 

漏网新闻

工人党管理的阿裕尼—后港—榜鹅东市镇理事会与国家环境局过去两个多星期就勿洛北两小贩中心高处清理问题针锋相对，引起前工人党中委吴明盛频频在个人面簿和博客发帖评论。

吴明盛针对这起事件对工人党市镇会作出了不少批评，包括指工人党不愿与小贩直接沟通、对小贩大清洗缩短无故损失四天收入缺乏同理心，而且一直把批评归咎于政治目的等。

在最新一则帖子中，吴明盛虽说“希望这是他针对这起风波的最后一则帖子”，却依然对工人党和国家环境局左右开弓。他一方面批评阿裕尼—后港—榜鹅东市镇会主席林瑞莲对清洁承包商不专业又不道德的行为不负起责任，是“完全错误”的，另一方面也指国家环境局的沟通有欠理想。

吴明盛曾在2006年大选代表工人党竞选阿裕尼集选区，但大选后退出工人党，加入国民团结党，并迅速窜起成为该党秘书长。在2011年5月大选失利后，吴明盛以“新加坡需要政治教育和建设一个理智的公民社会”为由，卸下国民团结党职务，当起无党派政治观察家。

吴明盛在网上一向言辞犀利，近来的连番批评，甚至引起了不少工人党支持者的不满。吴明盛昨天就把网上一些强烈抨击他的帖子以截屏（screen capture）方式放上个人面簿，还注明“我从蓝色阵营那里得到的咒骂”。

对于自己的口不留情，吴明盛曾对媒体说：“我们把一个反对党扶持起来之后，不应该溺爱它，应该更严格地督促它。”（婷）

Beyond the Smokescreen II

I hope that this will be my last article on this little storm in the teacup because it is getting very sickening and stale.

More information has been revealed by both sides as well as supporters from both sides since my last article. The latest "politicking" information revealed is the "grassroot" identity of the Chairman of the Hawkers Association. The following photo is put up by netter:

It is not surprising that we will find out who is PAP member or supporter or grassroot members etc. Similarly, it is not difficult for us to find out who belongs to opposition supporters or members, even when they use anonymous nicks in internet. So most WP people (members, BSBS Brigade, supporters etc) would immediately put on their full gear and attack, putting up conspiracy theories and such. However, Mr. Ng is not the only one who signed the petition against WP AHPeTC. Almost all hawkers signed that petition.

Besides, do we make noise when someone who criticises PAP government is found to be WP member or supporter? If not, why are people so happy to find out that Mr Ng from hawker association is someone with PBM? If we take criticisms from PAP members or supporters as invalid or with agenda that we should ignore totally, then it would mean that any criticisms on PAP by opposition member or supporters should also put on the same rule as well.

The truth is, we should take each criticism and incident as it is, analyze it with its merits and not politicize it. That is why Justice can only be found with eyes blind folded on the individuals' background and looks... just look at the facts.

Both PAP and WP MPs are voted into parliament to SERVE ALL constituents in their wards, not just their supporters. They should also be serving their opponent's supporters as well, without prejudice.

The more interesting information revealed is on why the NEA officer mistaken the scaffolding mentioned by WP AHPeTC. According to NEA website on structures needed to be put up for the market cleaning is a metal scaffolding for putting on the canvas to cover the stalls. This is something similar to those tentage we saw on the street market (Pasar Malam).

Yes, it is called "Scaffolding" in the NEA document here. Thus, if we were to piece these information together, it would make more sense now.

If there is a basic understanding that it is the responsibility of the Town Council to pay for all the cleaning including the ceiling, the NEA officer would naturally assume that the scaffolding the TC staff talked about in his email refers to the hawkers' tentage structure. Thus, it is only right for the NEA officer to reply that the hawkers will take care of their own scaffolding with their contractors.

The strange part is this, what seems to be an misunderstanding on scaffolding ended up with a quotation of the WHOLE HIGH RISE CLEANING by the WP's contractor to the hawkers. The following document is provided by NEA.

How this come about, is still a mystery. But I suspect that what the hawkers have asked for is the pricing for the scaffolding and the canvas cover for their stalls but in the end, ATL has given them the whole cost of High Rise Cleaning.

No matter what, it is totally dishonest for WP's contractor ATL to put up quotation of HIGH RISE CLEANING to the hawkers when they know pretty well that it is their contractual obligations to provide such cleaning. (This is what WP AHPeTC has claimed.)

Sylvia Lim is totally wrong to disclaim any responsibility over the unprofessional and unethical conduct of AHPeTC's contractor. Especially so when it failed to get the hawkers to pay for High Rise Cleaning, which is effectively double charging for this service when it has already been paid by AHPeTC under contract, it refused to do the cleaning. That is a technical breach of contractual obligations which WP AHPeTC cannot just ignore and brush away.

To draw a parallel, if you have engaged a contractor to provide service to your clients with every services paid for by you, would you tolerate your contractor attempting to charge your clients again by providing additional quotation to them? Obviously the only right thing to do is to take your contractor to task because it is basically destroying your business credibility and relationship!

WP AHPeTC has repeatedly claimed that it has not asked hawkers to pay extra for services but the fact that it has closed both eyes for its contractor to attempt to charge for services already paid for is totally acceptable. At another incident, hawkers at another hawker centre has also made direct accusation to their WP MP that AHPeTC's employee, the property manager Mr Tai, has told them that the contractor will not clean anything above 2.5m. Thus, this is not just an isolated incident and it is unlikely that two or three hawker centres would conspired and make up lies to accuse WP AHPeTC of such acts.

Since WP MPs and AHPeTC were informed of this fact, it would only be helpful if WP clarifies whether it has carried out any investigations on this matter after these complaints have been made. It is obviously contradictory for WP to claim that its AHPeTC has not asked hawkers to pay for high rise cleaning (this happens to be "consistence" with its contractor's quotation to hawkers) while its property manager was accused of going around to tell hawkers another story altogether.

Consistency in statements on events are important for us to understand who is probably telling the truth and who is not. Unfortunately, NEA's public communication skills is just too bad to give a clearer picture right from the start, even though they might have more complete information at hand. It tries to side step accusation of its staff's reply to AHPeTC instead of explaining it fully with illustrations. It gives people an impression that you have some sinister conspiracy to hide although this may not be the case.

Similarly, WP's AHPeTC has even worst public communication skills. It has completely confused the public whether it is going to pay for all cleaning, including the high rise cleaning TWICE a year. It has been inconsistent in its reasoning and even contradicts itself within the same press statement. Worst of all, it has taken a totally irresponsible stance that whatever its contractor does, even if it attempted to double charge the hawkers, it has nothing to do with it. That is the worst kind of stance a political party should take. Where is the Accountability when we need one?

PAP and WP have raised this issue to political bickering with Minister Vivian Balakrishnan coming in to defend his ministry's NEA division after Sylvia Lim accused NEA of "playing politics".

In my opinion, NEA isn't even competent in putting up effective press statements to put a strong punch, I don't think NEA is capable of "playing politics" in any sense. All evidence point to the dishonest attempt of WP's contractor trying to extract extra charges on hawkers and WP's irresponsible disassociation from such act. Although NEA has all the necessary evidence, it failed to provide a coherent picture and illustration on what went wrong.

The Minister is right to state that the hawkers have been giving a consistent account of what happened but it was NEA which failed to put these accounts in clear and simple terms with proper illustrations. Documented proofs should have been put up right from the start instead of trying to play it like a lawyer which they failed very miserably.

I too believe that the hawkers are telling the truth that they were told to pay extra for high rise cleaning. It is NOT just the scaffolding, but the whole high rise cleaning. The quotation from WP's contractor is one powerful evidence, the subsequent confirmation of other hawker centre's statement that AHPeTC has been going around to tell them contractor will not clean anything above 2.5m is another glaring evidence.

Ironically, WP cannot just try to play politics in the bid to try to defend its own image while ignoring all these happenings. It is obvious that something is very wrong with its own backyard and it should apologize for the failure of delivery of service to the hawkers and the attempt of its contractor to extract extra/double charges from them. Of course, it will have to clean the ceilings as soon as possible, in the interests of public hygiene.

To sum up, let me put up two comments or remarks by two different people on the internet.

Remark 1:


我是一名退休人员。我一直关注自己的生意。多年来几乎每个周末，我都会去看望在勿落的姐姐。位 于BLK 511的小贩中心是我们日常的市场。上周，我和姐姐去市场，亲眼看到小贩中心的天花板很脏乱。实在不太体面 。如果这样的问题不得已解决，将会成为公众卫生问题。我用自己的手机拍了照片，虽然不是很清晰，我想也能准 确表达我的意图和我所关心的问题。Sylvia Lim 和WP议员Pritam Singh负责市议会。他们的工作就是确保各个地方的清洁。因此当地小贩才会支付他们费用。承包商已认同合 同内容却是如此。因此，市议会没有强迫他们根据合同履行义务。并非拥护当地中心小贩，反而为何这两位议员却 尽量保护和掩饰承包商，承包商不仅没有完成合同中付款的工作，还试图从较为贫穷的小贩那里抽取额外的费用。 我对这些小商贩的了解已有些时日。他们不想招惹麻烦。他们只想谋生。如果他们解释的太多，他们会很害怕。市 议会令他们的生活雪上加霜。事实上，小贩们很团结，他们发出了寻求帮助的请愿，只是为了表达这一切有些太过 分了，以至于他们无法再容忍下去。正如我所说的，如大多数人一样，我通常只介意我自己的生意，但是这实在是 太过分了。如小贩们一样，我也无法接受Sylvia Lim和 Pritam Singh所给的任何推辞和指责。他们应停止玩弄政治，做好他们份内之事。

Remark 2:

This is exactly the reason why the PAP is never really afraid of WP. PAP's biggest enemy is themselves. The reason why PAP is losing support is because it is increasingly successful in pissing off the citizens rather than the opposition is getting better in quality. People are voting for the opposition to tell PAP to wake up their idea and not that our opposition is quality. I shudder to think of the day i hear LTK or Sylvia Lim giving a National Day Rally speech.

I am not a political science student and so i do not follow politics very closely. But from the stuff that i have read so far, it seems to me the only thing our opposition is good at is getting involved in petty quarrels and trying to discredit PAP at every possible opportunity.

My point is do we have to make others look bad in order for us to look good? If you have to make others look bad in order for you to look good, then i guess you don't have much substance either.

If AHPETC had handled the issue in a less than satisfactory way, then apologize, right the wrong and move on. It will reflect well on their maturity and give them a valuable edge over PAP which often than not does not apologize for mistakes.

So if the best our opposition party can do is focus on 5 cents 10 cents issues, then i have doubts over their ability to handle politics in the international arena.




 Goh Meng Seng

Beyond the Smokescreen: NEA-Hawkers-WP AHPeTC Saga

The peculiar timing of this NEA-Hawkers-WP AHPeTC saga right after the AIM-FMSS issue has definitely given rise to suspicion that it is politically motivated attack on WP's core competency in Town Council management.

But this is politics and PAP has no qualms in making it known that Town Council management IS POLITICAL! This has been done right from the start when the Town Council system has been enacted way back in the late 1980s.

Singaporeans, especially those who are too young to understand how Town Council system comes about, should do some research and not bear any delusions about it. Thus for all opposition parties from then till now, are always very careful in managing the Town Councils because it is potentially where PAP's fixing will come.

But past history has shown that if opposition parties run their Town Councils properly, even PAP can't fix you that easily.  The only thing they could do is to deprive your town all those upgrading.

The latest saga is slightly different here. PAP has used a different technique here. Hawkers are on the frontline while NEA is the support fire base. It started with an "innocent looking" report on a dispute between hawkers and AHPeTC, the Town Council run by Workers Party. Information reported on Straits Time is incomplete and sketchy. I suspect that information has been kept minimum for strategic purpose.

Sure enough we have prompt response from AHPeTC staff and the various statements start to shoot from all sides: NEA, Hawkers and WP MPs.

Many people are pretty confused what the whole saga is about. Worse, some people, in their eagerness to defend their political party, has dealt into misinformation and even WP MP Pritam was totally confused in NEA's accusation when he tried to reply.

The following are some simple facts gathered from press statements and news reports so far:

1) Hawkers claim they were asked to pay for the scaffolding during the March cleaning.

2) When they refused to pay, the contractor just did general cleaning without cleaning the ceiling. Instead of cleaning for the scheduled 5 days, they only cleaned for 1 day.

3) NEA stepped in and reminded that it is the responsibility of TC to clean the ceiling AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR without additional cost to hawkers.

4) AHPeTC claimed that they did not ask for extra cost and it was NEA which sent them an email to state that hawkers would arrange for the erection and dismantle of scaffolding

5) Hawkers disputed and said that Mr Tai, the property manager from AHPeTC has approached them to pay extra for the scaffolding.

6) NEA put up a statement to say that the hawkers have actually sent a letter to their WP MP to complain about the extra charges on 8 May.

7) WP Pritam put up statements to reiterate that they have followed the regulation and had cleaned the ceiling back in 2012. However, he made an error because what NEA said was that the AHPeTC did not pay for the scaffolding in its cleaning in 2012, not that they did not clean the ceiling.

8) It was further revealed that the contractor ATL has put up a quotation for scaffolding to the hawkers which they rejected and referred it to AHPeTC.

9) AHPeTC rebutted that it was the hawkers who ask for the quotation for the scaffoldng from ATL.

10) NEA further claimed that the quotation to WP AHPeTC by ATL include all equipment and scaffolding for the cleaning.

 11) WP AHPeTC has insisted that it will only meet up with NEA officials instead with hawkers and that is why NEA didn't want to attend the first meeting. 

There are reasons to believe that there are lies being told here, the question is who lied? There are contradictions all over the place.

When I first read about this news, my first thought is, how come the contractor did not provide the necessary equipment like scaffolding to do the cleaning? Why would they expect hawkers to pay and provide the scaffolding?

I guess this is basically why NEA has reiterated that it is the Town Council's responsibility to provide the scaffolding. The Town Council has acknowledged that responsibility and they keep saying they didn't ask the hawkers for extra charges. However, the puzzling thing is that since the hawkers have already sent their complain letter to their WP MP, why didn't the Town Council act on that? If Mr. Tai is not the "authorized personnel" from Town Council, why did he attend the 6 June meeting?

Even though Mr Tai was said to have communicated about this extra charges on scaffolding, AHPeTC still insisted that it did not know about the dealings between its contractor and ATL and the hawkers. It becomes the words of hawkers against ATL.

What I am interested to know are the following:

1) Does the contract given to AHPeTC contractor include the clause on providing the necessary equipment and scaffolding?

2) If the Contract contains that clause, why would AHPeTC expect the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding when NEA emailed them to say hawkers will make necessary arrangement to erect and dismantle the scaffolding?

3) Can AHPeTC list out on which cleaning session in the past years did AHPeTC or its contractor had paid for the scaffolding?

4) AHPeTC apparently knew or expected that the Hawkers were to pay for the scaffolding. Did they stop them from paying as this was already included in its contract to its contractor ATL?

5) When ATL only did the general cleaning without cleaning the ceiling, why didn't AHPeTC take its contractor to task as its contract included the scaffolding?

6) Did AHPeTC take the guideline of "cleaning AT LEAST ONCE" as "cleaning only once"? This is apparently the attitude or position that Pritam has demonstrated in his two statements.

7) If that is so, has AHPeTC communicated such arrangement to the hawkers officially?

8) Did AHPeTC expect the hawkers to pay for scaffolding for all but one cleaning session in the whole year?

Although AHPeTC keeps saying that they have not asked hawkers to pay extra for cleaning the ceiling but so far, AHPeTC has not put up any example or cleaning sessions that they have paid for the scaffolding, instead of hawkers paying for that.

The only "plausible defence" WP AHPeTC has put up is that NEA has emailed them to say hawkers will arrange for erection and dismantling of scaffolding. It may seem to be a good point but upon closer inspection, it doesn't make sense at all. If there is a basic understanding that hawkers are not required to pay for anything extra, including the scaffolding, why should WP AHPeTC assumed that the hawkers will pay for it? A parallel can be drawn for an employee who agrees to make arrangement for food catering for company function, would anyone assumes that he will be paying for the food? Of course not! The Company would be expected to pay for it as the employee is just helping to coordinate with the arrangement! Thus, it is a total mystery why WP AHPeTC would come to that conclusion. 


Another mystery points to what really happen to the letter of complaint sent to WP MP with regards to Mr Tai asking hawkers to pay for scaffolding. Has it been ignored totally?

The biggest mystery is why WP AHPeTC refused to have direct communication with the hawkers after the issue has been reported. If this issue is just a matter of "miscommunication" as reported, then what it needs is to improve its communications with the hawkers! It is counter-intuitive for WP AHPeTC to leave out its DIRECT CLIENTS out of the meeting or communication system!

What WP and its AHPeTC have done so far was beating around the bushes without giving any concrete facts to prove that AHPeTC has indeed paid for scaffolding in past cleaning sessions. WP may keep insisting that it has not asked hawkers to pay extra but it is not clear whether it has closed both eyes for its contractor to ask the hawkers to pay extra for the scaffolding. It should know that the contractor has contractual obligations to supply the scaffolding. It is thus a mystery why it didn't stop the hawkers to pay for something which has already been contractually included for its own contractor.

While WP has issued a defensive press statement about NEA playing politics that may have certain merits but playing victim to the whole saga will only score some brownie points which may not woo the middle ground voters. Such political rhetoric is unhelpful for voters to understand what has really happened. 

WP Sylvia Lim has stated in her Press Statement that her party will work towards the benefits and welfare of residents and stallholders. I do not see how leaving its clients, i.e. hawkers out of communication would be beneficial to anybody. I also cannot understand how it could be beneficial to the hawkers when WP just closed its eyes, shut its mouth and making assumptions when it is apparent that the hawkers did not need to pay for the scaffolding as it was included in the contract to ATL Maintenance.

What is more telling is that although ATL Maintenance knows about its contractual obligations in providing the scaffolding, it has kept quiet about it and happily quoted the hawkers the price of putting up the scaffolding!

All finer details have pointed to some bigger problem if we look beyond those smokescreen and political rhetoric from both sides. Unfortunately I would say that integrity is somehow lacking somewhere but I am not a bit surprised at all.

What appears to be a storm in a cup has blown out of proportions. This issue would not have developed to this stage if proper media management and common sense have been put in place. If WP really believed in its rhetoric about not asking hawkers to pay extra for cleaning, then if there is such complaint being made, the first response should apologize for the non-delivery of service (wasted 4 days of income plus cost) and promise to investigate. It should send representatives to communicate directly with hawkers and find out more of the problems. That may be the end of the problem instead allowing the issue to snowball.

For whatever reasons that the hawker centre has not been thoroughly clean, the hawkers will naturally be angry. Apparently WP AHPeTC lacks the empathy to understand such frustration of hawkers in losing income plus cost for nothing. It has unwittingly to take every criticism or attack at its service as "politically motivated" and thus put up defensive postures since day one. Even if this is a politically motivated incident, one should not loose his sense of balance and reasoning when managing such issues which involve public interests. Such "SMART ALEC" mentality will and has done more harm than good to its overall image.


Goh Meng Seng

一种信念 一份坚持- 悼六四

就在今年六四前的几天，我在香港接待了从中国大陆到访的宾客。这一些宾客当中有一些是大陆官员。他们年纪比我稍微大一些。正巧时逢六四悼念晚会将近，话题便无意间转到六四事件去了。

他们都说在那89年，他们还是大学生，所以也参与了学运，示威游行去了。班上几乎所有学生都有参与。虽然不是在北京念书，但是记忆和影响也是非常巨大的。学运被镇压了以后，他们还需要写报告，说明为何上街游行。但是如今，那时的“动乱精英”，有许多都当上了高官被重用。这是中共无可奈何的事，因为这些能成为学运的学生领袖，必定有其过人之处，是人才，国家的栋梁，怎么能因领导学运就不重用呢？就算有一些被列入黑名单的学生领袖，也被重用了。而中共也重新把“六四动乱”巧妙的改成“六四事件”了；总不能把在中共政府身居高位的人称为“前六四动乱精英”吧？！

对于这些来自中国大陆的客人来讲，这是一种“平反”的形式了。我当然不以为然，但是这毕竟是环境所造成的观念差异，也无须与他们争论。他们倒是好奇为什么我这个新加坡人对六四悼念这么重视。我当时没回答。

八九年六四学运发生时，我还是年青人。但是这事件对我往后的政治路程起了很大的影响。那种震撼力，颠覆了以往的信念，对政治独裁或一党专制的政治体系，起了根本的顾虑，甚至痛恨。虽然经过时间的淡化，痛恨虽然已经消失了，但是对自由民主的信念是坚定不移的。

这事件也使我意识到我们不能把民主、法治、清廉、正义等等的价值观，当成理所当然的，或托付给一党专制的制度。仔细想想，如果没有六四所流的鲜血和学生的牺牲，就没有造就我这坚固的自由民主的信念了。是他们的鲜血，无形中变成了我的民主信仰的养分，塑造了我这一生的政治方向。这是我对六四罹难者的“亏欠”，也是为什么我对六四悼念这么重视的原因了。我是带着感恩的心来悼念他们的亡魂的。当然，也为他们的死，追讨公议。

我们这一代的新加坡人，由于只经历过白色恐怖的70年代，没有像我们的前辈一样接受民主抗争的洗礼，所以大多数都是政治冷感。 这也造成了反对党或公民社会在2006年前形成了严重的断层，青黄不接。六四事件虽然发生在远在中国的北京，但对我来说就好像身历其境一样。当时读到屠城的新闻时，眼泪不禁的涌现。如今，每次六四悼念唱起那几首歌时，也一样泪满流。这悲痛的震撼，使我仿佛经历了真正的政治洗礼。

反观处于隔邻的香港，想必它的人民所受的冲击会更大了。六四的不义屠杀也为香港造就了许许多多的政治精英。如今许多的民主派人士，都是受当年六四事件的影响而愤然加入了民主斗争的行列。每年举办六四悼念晚会的支联会，也成为了香港民主政治的摇篮，为香港培育了许许多多的民主斗士。当中有著名的“长毛”梁国雄。许多新加坡人以为这长毛是个像流氓的粗人，其实不然。他的政治文采不是普通新加坡政治人物能比得上的。他为今年六四所写的文章就是很好的例子。

我们这一代受过六四屠杀间接或直接洗礼的人，尤其政治人物，不管在何方，都培养了一套对自由、民主、法治、人权和公义坚定不移的核心价值观、信念和理想，而且对追求这民主理想都会有那份坚持和盼望。通常被大家归类为“超现实”的香港人，也会对这理想有所坚持和执着的。

今晚的悼念晚会就是很好的例子。原本晴天就在众人唱着《自由花》的那一段“无论雨怎么打，自由仍是会开花”时竟然下起大雨来。这好像是冥冥中所安排的考验。接着大会的音响系统便失灵了。就在这一遍人海茫茫的孤寂里，99% 的人都坚持耐心的等着，整整等了超过30分钟。当雨越下越大时，年青人便不时以喊“平反六四，永不放弃”的口号来鼓励众人坚持到底。闷时，还会一起唱起那几首大会的歌来了。

原本一片烛光的场地，全换成了一片雨伞，但人群丝毫没减退。一有少数人离开，便有人走入会场补上。在那过半小时的时间里，没有喧哗埋怨，只有感受到那一丝丝可贵的民主战士的精神。

当雨转小而音响系统逐渐恢复后，每个人都欢呼，似乎为着印证了“无论雨怎么打，自由仍是会开花”那般对自由民主战斗的坚定和决心，通过了大自然的考验而欢呼。雨伞收起，烛光重现。这就是香港人对追求民主坚定不移的毅力的展现。

也就是这种信念致使二十四年来，香港人都风雨不改的以烛光悼念六四冤魂。纵然悼念的方式是一成不变，唱的歌也是年年这几首主打歌，但是出席的人数都上千上万。最可贵的是，香港的民主理念，能薪火相传，近几年来出席的年青人是越来越多，就算是90后的年青人在89年六四事件发生时都还没出世，但学校老师的传承，让这些学生们实实在在的领悟到香港自由民主的可贵是建立在六四学生的牺牲上的。

几万人，就凭着这么简单的一种民主信念和一份坚持，克服了倾盆大雨的考验，完成了悼念六四亡魂的烛光晚会。

今天，六四亡魂并不孤独。


祭六四亡魂。

吴明盛