人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(中/英文版)国际人权观察组织就新加坡总理李显龙访问美国致函奥巴马总统(下) Human Right Watch Org letter to President Obama on the state visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to USA(part two)

编者注:

1.这是人权观察组织致给奥巴马总统信里提到有关问题的详细附件如下。

相关链接

2.转载自https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/08/letter-president-obama

3.https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/

国际人权观察组织就新加坡总理李显龙访问美国致函奥巴马总统(下)

人权组织人权观察华盛顿分部负责人马根(Sarah Margon)

201678日华盛顿东部时间早上8.00

附件:新加坡主要的人权问题

新加坡的宪法是正式保障表达言论、和平集会和组织的自由权利的。但是,在实践上这些权利严厉和经常性地遭受限制。法律系统的相互联系加剧了政府控制的媒体宣传渠道磨和旨在遏制那些批评意见的言论的条规都是用于所有的媒体。长久以来,当政府机构或者领导人反对这些反对者的看法时,司法部门把那些涉嫌违法者判处骚扰、诽谤和藐视法院的等罪名并处以罚款和监禁。

表达自由

媒体发展局(MDA)是新加坡新闻通讯及艺术部(MICA)属下的部门。它拥有无限的权力检查广播媒体、互联网、影片、音乐和电脑游戏软件,以及基于国家安全、公共秩序和各种表面的理而裁决媒体广播的内容。广播法令、影片法令、报章与出版法律和不良刊物法令赋予了媒体发展局(MDA)全面合法性的权利

所有要在新加坡放映的影片和录像必须事先递交给电影检查局。它基于内容模糊和过于宽泛的理由,有权命令删除、充公或者禁止有关的影片和录像。如果放映未经批准的影片可导致触犯刑事罪。那些属于政治性质的影片经常被禁止,诸如介绍同性恋的影片。

2014年。新加坡政府禁止了一部赢得纪录片的奖项的电影——“星国恋”(“To Singapore with Love,”)。这部电影是讲述了一群在60年代和70年代的政治流亡者逃出新加坡的故事。它被禁止的理由是因为它所描绘的这些个人会破坏的国家安全。影片制作者陈彬彬在决定提出上诉时说,“对于过去有不同的观点”必须给予发表。“即便是这些意见是政府所不同一定”。影片上诉委员会拒绝了她的上诉。

同样的情况,

影片制作人施忠明制作的影片——“赛查哈利的17年”(“Zahari, 17 years.这部影片是一名被监禁了17年的政治犯赛查哈利讲述自己的经历。

2011年,当局把一部获得奥斯卡奖的同性恋影片——“孩子们都很好(The Kids are Alright,)”列为R21级。所谓的R21级就是只有21岁或以上的人才可以观赏。同时它不准在新加坡复制。影片检查局在附上的说明是:“加入一个条件:只要复制一部影片被视为扩大到大众中。这样的生活方式是不被鼓励的……影片内容鼓吹和同性恋正常化的是不能够容忍的”。

在公共娱乐法令和集会法令下戏剧作品的作者必须申请演出准证。为此,他们必须把自己的剧本送交当局批复。

2016年,一部名叫:“《悲惨世界》”(Les Miserables)的作品也被迫删除了一段同性接吻的片段。

悲惨世界

对于那些制作属于“政治性”的作品经常都无法找到演出地点,或者是面对新加坡艺术理事会拒绝给予资助。

随着互联网的日益增长,政府已经进一步加强对网络内容的控制。广播法令要求任何网址在新加坡注册的新闻时事网站,以及涉及“与新加坡有关的传播、推广或讨论政治或宗教问题”的网站,如果在连续两个月内,每月读者浏览人数达到5千人次必须向它们注册。这些注册的网站必须缴交新加坡币5千元的履约保证金(performance bond)。这是要有关的网站承诺,媒发局一旦认为有不恰当内容的新闻,他们会被要求迅速从自己的网站删除。即便是那些没有获得广泛的浏览量的网站也必须满足提交繁重财务报告的要求。

当局宣布把《网络公民》(The Online Citizen)定性为属于“与政治相关联的网站”。它要求提供额外的财务报告和不允许接受来自境外的任何资金。

刑事法令也被用来对付在线的演说。

2015年,新加坡警方逮捕了《真实新加坡》网站的共同发起人。随后,以刊载具有骚扰性的文章提控他们触犯了七项罪状。当局辩称,已经“在新加坡倾向于促进不同G之间的敌意和敌意”。

20163月份,媒发局基于破坏了媒发局所规定的互联网条例而终止了 《真实新加坡》的营业准证。在20163月,《真实新加坡》的一名负责人高木爱(Ai Takagi,女,日裔)被判处触犯四项骚扰罪,坐牢十个月。在20166月,另一名网站的共同负责人杨凯兴(Yang Kaiheng,男)也被判处坐牢8个月。

防止骚扰法令(The Protection from Harassment Act ,简称“POHA”)是在2014年通过的。它是为了保护个别人士、公务员和公共服务工人避免遭受“不雅、威胁、辱骂、侮辱性的言语或行为”。这条法令也同时被用来压制人们批评政府的声音。

2015年,新闻时事网站《公民网路》刊载了陈鼎铭医生(Dr. Ting Choong Meng)的访谈视频。这部访谈的内容是有关他指控国防部窃取了他的开发产权和有关叙述这起事件的争论。总检察长代表国防部下令不准刊登有关的声明,除非说明他们是错误的。同时也必须附上国防部的声明。

在法院进行上诉时,法院提出释义,国防部不是“个人”的行为,因此国防部没有权力介入这起事件。这起政府的上诉被暂缓执行。

新加坡仍然维持古代“诽谤的司法”。这个司法可以强加于那些对司法机关的批评或具体的裁决的批评。

2014年10月,当局通过法院判处了著名博客欧如鹏(Alex Au)因为在网上发表了涉及诽谤司法机关的文章而触犯了这条法令。欧如鹏(Alex Au)也是争取同性恋权利与外来劳工权益的活跃分子。他是在其中的一篇文章里批评了一起案件。

这起案件是有关法院判决因为当事人的性取向遭受歧视而怒骂这家商场的歧视案件。欧如鹏对这起判决做了评语说,“司法的信心就像一面无风的吹拂的日子。”其他两份文章是提到是时候挑战发电337A的时候了。那就是有关男性之间的性行为和推测这两起案案件背后原因。欧如鹏在法庭争辩说,他撰写的文章是与言论自由和表达权利相一致,法院指出,他个人的评语对司法缺乏信心并不构成藐视宪法。他对法院审理的评论在时间上是对“司法的反感”。法院最终判处他8千元新币(合折成美金5千9百28元)。欧如鹏的获得上诉。

总理李显龙追随他的父亲李光耀的衣钵,使用民事诽谤诉讼的方式起诉他的反对者。

2014年,他起诉鄞玉林因为在网上发表一篇文章批评他在管理和投资政府的公积金的策略。接着,卫生部指责任职于陈笃生医院鄞玉林出现在公开场合的“行为与雇主的价值观和立场不一致” 。鄞玉林被法院判处诽谤罪名成立。在201512月,法院下令他支付李显龙新币15万元(合折成美金111166元)名誉损失,同时支付对方的律师费29千元新币(合折成美金21492元)。

组织社团的自由

社团注册法令要求最少需要10名会员才可以注册。但是,政府可以基于“对于哪些对公共安全、利益和良好秩序有害于的目的”予以拒绝。或者,哪些注册成为社团可能会与“国家利益相抵触的”。

社团注册局已经拒绝任何同性恋组织注册成为社团。他们拒绝的理由是是“这是违背的公众利益的,允许其注册就等于给予合法的推动同性恋活动或观点。无法注册成为社团就等于同性恋组织难于筹款和无合法的场所从事与与政府争取自身权利的斗争。”

同性恋社群的权利

新加坡的同性恋社群的权利受到严格的限制。同性恋者之间的男性的行为仍然是被视为犯罪行为。个别的同性恋者在受到歧视时并没有获得法律的保护。媒发局成功地禁止电视台的电台正面讲述有关同性恋者的传播。例如,电台自由广播条例申明:

任何有关信息、主题和情节的生活内容涉及同性恋、易装癖、恋童癖和乱伦都应为视为非常谨慎的事。他们的生活行为不应以任何方式被推广,确认或美化。属于上述内容的信息或者对话内容不准进行广播。

在2015年,电视台和电台禁止播放蔡依林(Jolin Tsia)创作的的歌曲《不一樣又怎樣 》(We’re All Different, Yet the Same)(网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7hHofDW2ts)。理由是:

歌曲在宣传同性恋结婚。

当第一集的电视剧《绝望的主妇》(Desperate Housewives)在新加坡播放时,由于涉及描述一个同性恋角色的积极写照而一段完整的情节被删除。

在2011年,《孩子们都很好》(The Kids are Alright)在新加坡上映时。当局把影片列入R21级。电影检查局附加说明,“附加条件的复制一部副本公开放映,等于是在鼓励不同的生活方式……那种鼓励或者使同性恋的生活方式正常化是不能容忍的。”

2014年,国家图书馆从书架上移走了三本儿童书籍。他们的理由是:

涉及同性恋内容的主题。这本《谁在我们家里》(Who’s in Our Family)被打浆了!在公民社群的极力争取下。资讯部长丫谷.易卜拉欣(Yaacob Ibrahim)绕过了国家图书馆鼓励当局的决定,联同其他的两本书,《探戈的三口之家》(And Tango Makes Three)《白天鹅快递》(The White Swan Express):故事是叙述有关收养内容的,都一起移到图书馆成人部。同一个月,媒发局确认第三本属于漫画的书:《阿奇:婚姻生活》(Archie: The Married Life)必须从书店移走。因为它的内容包含了“通过描绘两个角色的同性婚姻,违反了指引。”

20166月在芳林公园举行的常年支持同性恋权利的纪念活动已经进入了第8个年头了

这个活动是获得了包括谷歌、巴克利银行、JB摩根银行、高盛集团、BP石油公司、彭博社、推特、苹果和脸书等国际企业所支持和赞助的。

几天前,在活动举行过后,内政部决定要限制这些企业的赞助这项活动。他们的理由是:

跨国是涉及到“外国干预”本地事务的问题。内政部声明说,它将“采取实际行动确保外国企业不可以在新加坡赞助、支持或者影响在芳林公园举行类似这样的活动”……有关同性恋的问题,这样的赞助粉红点(Pink Dot)活动将等同于鼓励同性恋,以及事件的目的是反对同性恋的原因。

事件专属:区域/国家

亚洲/新加坡

 

Human Right Watch Org letter to President Obama on the state visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to USApart  two

 

The  detail on these topics in the appendix to this letter.

Related link

1.https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/08/letter-president-obama

2.https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/

Letter to President Obama

Re: State Visit by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

Sarah Margon
Washington Director
July 8, 2016 8:00AM EDT

Appendix: Key Human Rights Issues in Singapore

Singapore’s constitution formally guarantees the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, but these rights are severely and routinely restricted in practice. Government domination of media outlets is exacerbated by an interlocking system of laws and regulations designed to curb the speech of those with critical views in all media, and a judiciary that has long fined and imprisoned alleged violators for sedition, defamation, and “scandalizing the judiciary” when government institutions or leaders are the objects of criticism.

Freedom of Expression

The Media Development Authority (MDA) under the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) has broad authority to censor broadcast media, the Internet, films, music, and computer games, and to sanction broadcasters for content, on broad national security, public order and decency grounds. Provisions in the Broadcasting Act, Films Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and the Undesirable Publications Act elaborate on the comprehensive reach of the MDA.

All films and videos to be shown in Singapore must be submitted to a Board of Film Censors, which can order deletions, or seize or ban films, on vague and overly broad grounds. Screening a film that has not been approved can result in criminal penalties. Films on political issues are routinely banned, as are films featuring LGBT storylines. In 2014, the Singapore authorities banned the award-winning documentary film “To Singapore with Love,” featuring political exiles who fled Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s, on grounds that it undermined national security by depicting these individuals sympathetically. Film director Tan Pin Pin appealed the decision, saying that “differing views about our past” should be aired, “even views that the government disapproves.” The Films Appeal Committee denied her appeal. Similarly, the authorities banned filmmaker Martyn See’s movie Zahari, 17 years, about Said Zahari, who was a political prisoner for 17 years.

In 2011, the authorities gave an R21 rating to the film The Kids are Alright, an Oscar-nominated film with LGBT characters, meaning no one under 21 could view it, and allowed only one print of the film into the country. The Board of Censors noted that “imposing a condition of one-print serves as a signal to the public at large that such alternative lifestyles should not be encouraged… Films that promote or normalize a homosexual lifestyle cannot be tolerated.”

Theater productions must also obtain a license under the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, and to do so must submit their scripts for approval. In 2013, the MDA insisted that the entire first act of a play dealing with the subject of migrant workers be removed, along with newspaper cuttings originally intended to be projected on the backdrop. In June 2016, a production of Les Miserables was forced to delete a same-sex kiss. Those who produce “political” work often find it difficult to access venues, or face loss of funding from Singapore’s Arts Council.

As the Internet has grown, the government has moved to increase its control over online content. The Broadcasting Act requires the registration of any online news website that receives, over a two-month period, an average of at least 50,000 unique visits per month from Singapore Internet addresses and is involved in “the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues related to Singapore.” Registering websites must provide a 50,000 Singapore dollar (US$37,055) performance bond to guarantee that they will promptly take down content that the MDA designates as inappropriate. Even sites that do not have such a broad reach can be required to meet onerous financial reporting requirements. The authorities declared the website The Online Citizen to be a “political association,” a designation that carries additional financial reporting requirements and precludes the site from accepting any funds from foreign sources.

Criminal laws are also used against online speech. In February 2015, Singaporean police arrested the co-founders of the news portal The Real Singapore, and subsequently charged them with seven counts of sedition for publishing articles that authorities claimed had a “tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different groups of people in Singapore.” In May, the MDA suspended the operating license of The Real Singapore, ruling it had violated the MDA’s Internet Code of Practice. In March 2016, Ai Takagi pled guilty to four counts of sedition and was sentenced to 10 months in prison. Yang Kaiheng, who co-founded with website with Takagi, pled guilty in June 2016 and was sentenced to 8 months in prison.

The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), passed in 2014 to protect individuals, public servants and public service workers from “indecent, threatening, abusive, insulting words or behavior,” has also been used to silence criticism of the government. In January 2015, the news portal The Online Citizen posted a video interview with Dr. Ting Choong Meng about his allegation that the Ministry of Defense had stolen his patent, together with a story about the dispute. The attorney general, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Defense, sued all five editors of The Online Citizen, seeking an order under article 15 of POHA restricting publication of several of Dr. Ting’s statements. The District Court ordered that the statements at issue not be published unless accompanied by a statement that they were false, and a link to a statement on the issue by the Ministry of Defense. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Ministry of Defense was not a “person” within the meaning of the act and thus did not have the right to invoke it. The government’s appeal of that decision is pending.

Singapore maintains the archaic offense of “scandalizing the judiciary,” which can be imposed for criticism of the judiciary or a specific judge. In October 2014, the authorities called on the court to convict Alex Au, a popular blogger and activist for LGBT rights and migrant worker empowerment, for scandalizing the judiciary in connection with two posts on his online blog. In one post, commenting on a case in which a man lost a discrimination case against a department store that he believed fired him because of his sexual orientation, Au commented that “confidence in the judiciary is as limp as a flag on a windless day.” The other post referenced the respective timing of two constitutional challenges to section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes sex between male persons, and speculated about the reasons behind the scheduling of the two cases. Au argued in court that his writings constituted fair criticism consistent with the right to freedom of speech and expression. The court found that the comments on his personal lack of confidence in the judiciary did not constitute contempt, but that his comments on the timing of the court hearing “scandalized the judiciary.” The court imposed a fine of S$8,000 (US$5,928). Au’s conviction was upheld on appeal.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, following the example of his late father, Lee Kwan Yew, uses civil defamation suits to bankrupt his critics. In 2014, he sued Roy Ngerng Yi Ling for a blog post that criticized the management and investment strategies of the government’s Central Provident Fund. Soon thereafter, Tan Tock Seng Hospital fired Ngerng for “conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees” in a move that was publicly applauded by the minister of health. Ngerng was found guilty of defamation in a summary decision and, in December 2015, ordered to pay Lee S$150,000 (US$111,166) in damages.  He was also assessed S$29,000 (US$21,492) in legal costs.

Freedom of Assembly

In Singapore, strict censorship regulations overlap with and reinforce curbs on the right to peaceful assembly. Authorities use two laws, the 2009 Public Order Act and the Public Entertainment and Meeting Act (PEMA), to control and limit any public rallies or demonstrations, public discussions, and unauthorized political meetings. The Public Order Act requires a permit for any public assembly or public procession. The law defines “assembly” very broadly to include any cause-related gathering or meeting, including a demonstration by a single person, and deems an assembly public if it is in any location, indoors or out, to which the public can have access. Permits are routinely denied for anything remotely political. For example, in October 2013, the police denied a permit for a “March for a Minimum Wage” that was planned for International Human Rights Day. The police cited the “risk of public disorder” in denying the permit. Similarly, in April 2012, an application by migrant workers’ rights group HOME for a permit to march on Labor Day wearing t-shirts bearing the words “Walk with Workers: Upholding the Dignity of Labour” was denied.

Hong Lim Park, known as “Speaker’s Corner,” is the only place in Singapore where an assembly can be held without a police permit, but even at Hong Lim Park there are many restrictions on exercise of this right. Only citizens may speak in Hong Lim Park, and only citizens or permanent residents may participate in assemblies there. Any speech must be in an official language of Singapore, and it is forbidden to speak about religion or religious belief, or about anything “that may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore.” Violation of any of these restrictions is a criminal offense. In addition, persons seeking to protest in Hong Lim Park must fill out an online registration form with the Parks Department, and the Parks Commissioner has the authority to cancel any approval or disallow any event where the commissioner feels the event may “cause discomfort or inconvenience to other parks users and/or the general public.”

Jolovan Wham, executive director of HOME, an NGO that works to protect workers’ rights, organized an event in Hong Lim Park in November 2014 to show solidarity with the Occupy Hong Kong movement. Although he made clear, both in announcements about the event and at the event itself, that non-citizens were not allowed to participate, two Hong Kong citizens came to the rally. Authorities then investigated Wham for violating the rules on assemblies, and police ultimately issued him a “stern warning.” Seeking to clear his name, Wham moved to quash the warning in court but the judge rejected his application in December 2015, holding that the warning was merely the police officer’s “expression of opinion” and had no legal effect. In February 2016, Wham was ordered to pay the attorney general S$6,063 (US$4,493) of court costs for his failed bid to quash the warning.

For four months beginning in June 2014, blogger Roy Ngerng Yi Ling publicly spoke in the designated “Speaker’s Corner” at Hong Lim Park about his concerns on the government’s management of the Central Provident Fund. At one of the rallies he organized in September 2014, authorities asked his group to move to a different area of the park because there was a conflicting event. After some in the group “marched” through the competing event on their way to the designated area of the park, Ngerng and fellow blogger Han Hui Hui were charged with conducting an unauthorized “demonstration,” because they had checked the box for “speeches” rather than the box for “demonstrations” in their online registration with the Parks Department. They were also charged, along with five others, with being a public nuisance. Ngerng pled guilty and paid a fine of S$1,900 (US$1,408), while the trial of others is ongoing.

Freedom of Association

The Societies Act requires that organizations with at least 10 members register, but permits the government to deny applications on grounds that the organization’s “purposes [are] prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order” or that registration would be “contrary to the national interest.” The Registrar of Societies has refused to allow any LGBT organization to register as a society on the ground that “it is contrary to the public interest to grant legitimacy to the promotion of homosexual activities or viewpoints.” The inability to register means LGBT organizations struggle to raise funds and have no standing to advocate with the government for LGBT rights.

Rights of LGBT People

The rights of Singapore’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community are severely restricted. Sexual relations between two male persons remain a criminal offense, and LGBT individuals have no legal protection against discrimination on grounds of sexuality. The Media Development Authority effectively prohibits all positive depictions of LGBT lives on television or radio. For example, the Free to Air Radio Program Code states that:

information, themes or subplots on lifestyles such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, transvestism, paedophilia and incest should be treated with utmost caution. Their treatment should not in any way promote, justify or glamorize such lifestyles. Explicit dialogue or information concerning the above topics should not be broadcast.

In May 2015, the song We’re All Different, Yet the Same, by Jolin Tsia, was banned from TV and radio stations due to its promotion of gay marriage. When the first season of the television series Desperate Housewives was broadcast in Singapore, an entire subplot was excised because it involved a positive portrayal of a gay character. In 2011, the authorities gave an R21 rating to the film The Kids are Alright, meaning no one under 21 could view it, and allowed only one print of the film into the country. The Board of Censors noted that “imposing a condition of one-print serves as a signal to the public at large that such alternative lifestyles should not be encouraged… Films that promote or normalize a homosexual lifestyle cannot be tolerated.”

In July 2014, the National Library Board removed three children’s books with alleged LGBT themes from library shelves. The book “Who’s in Our Family?” was pulped, but after pushback from civil society groups, the information minister, Yaacob Ibrahim, overruled the board’s decision to destroy “And Tango Makes Three” and “The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption,” and the books were shifted to the library’s adult section. The same month, the MDA confirmed that the third installment of the comic, “Archie: The Married Life” had been withdrawn from bookstores because its content “breached guidelines by depicting same-sex marriage of two characters.”

The annual Pink Dot Festival in support of LGBT rights celebrated its eighth year in Hong Lim Park in June 2016, supported by the sponsorship of corporations such as Google, Barclays, J. P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BP, Bloomberg, Twitter, Apple, and Facebook. A few days after the event, the Ministry of Home Affairs moved to restrict such funding for the event on the grounds that sponsorship by multinational corporations constitutes “foreign interference” with domestic affairs. The MHA announced that it will “take steps to make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence such events held at the Speakers’ Corner… In the context of LGBT issues, this will apply both to events that advocate the LGBT cause such as the Pink Dot, as well as events whose purpose is to oppose the LGBT cause.”

Region / Country

 

Advertisements


一条评论

(中/英文版)国际人权观察组织就新加坡总理李显龙访问美国致函奥巴马总统(上) Human Right Watch Org letter to President Obama on the state visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to USA(part one)

国际人权观察组织就新加坡总理李显龙访问美国致函奥巴马总统(上)

人权观察组织

转载自https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/08/letter-president-obama

相关链接:

《国际人权观察组织就新加坡总理李显龙访问美国致函奥巴马总统》(下)

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/

您将在201682日迎接新加坡总理进行国事访问。

我们在此致函提醒您有关人权的主要的问题。我们希望您能在公开和私下的场合向他提出有关言论自由、集会结社和组织自由权利和同性念社群等方面的问题。我们在这封信里向您提供有关这些问题的详细附件。(注:见下篇)

新加坡的政治环境是令人高度窒息的。它们的公民在表达自己的意见、组织与和平集会等基本权利面对着一些限制条例。新加坡政府有效的控制了印刷媒体和在线媒体的渠道,政府强制他们必须接受注册和提交一笔相当数额的保证金。政府使用模糊和过于广泛涉及道德行为、(国家)安全条规和种族与宗教的法律约定的,有针对性的起诉哪些在社交网上发表评论有关政治课题的博客。例如博客欧如鹏(Alex Au)是一名活跃的博客和推动同性恋社区的活跃分子。由于他于2015年正月份在网上发布了一份评论有关挑战法院处理两宗涉及反鸡奸的法律案件,而被控告触犯了“诽谤司法”的古老犯罪。

敢于发言的活跃分子被控于骚扰罪。在2016年刻意盘问了政治活跃分子和博客鄞玉林和长期从事社会活动分子张素兰。警方指控他们在补选投票日前破坏了选举法令有关在冷静日期间限制政治宣传活动的规定。当他们在脸书(FACEBOOK)发表了自己的帖子时,警方对他们迅速采取执法行动。

既然选举法令已经特别说明允许,“个人之间传播到其他个人的政治观点,在不是属于非商业性质的基础上,可以使用互联网”。警方人员对付个别人士的行动是前所未有的。警方采取高压手段搜查张素兰和鄞玉林的住宅,并拿走了属于他们个人的手机和电脑。很明显的,这是一种对社会活动者进行活动的一种直截了当的恐吓。

在过去年代里,新加坡政府不断地使用具有政治动机的名誉诽谤诉讼,通过起诉破产以压制反对者和反对党发出声音。在不久之前,总理李显龙起诉如上所叙述的鄞玉林诽谤案件。他向鄞玉林提出了数十万元的名誉赔偿的要求。他指控鄞玉林在网上发布了一份批评政府管理公积金的帖子。在2015年,法院裁决鄞玉林支付他15万元新币(合折美金111,166元)名誉损失和29千元(合折美金21,492元)。

公共游行示威和其他的集会仍然是受到一些条件的限制。任何人要在芳林公园,即“演说者角落”所在处以外的地区举行示威和其他的集会就必须申请。即便是在芳林公园范围内举行的活动都可能会被起诉或受到当局的骚扰。社会活动分子Jolovan Wham在芳林公园里组织的“与占领者团结在一起”时,由于有两名香港公民的参与,他在过后接到了警方“严厉的警告信”。尽管在举行时集会时,他事先已经明确地说明,并在集会当天展示了说明了有关在新加坡的法令下,非新加坡公民是不准参与有关的活动的。其他活动份子被控举行非法/不被批准的游行”,被控理由是因为他们在芳林公园网上申请表格上是在”演说”项目而不是在”游行”项目之前打勾。使用芳林公园的在线注册表格的一栏是“演说”,另一栏是“游行示威”。即使是要积极响应上个月发生在奥兰多枪击事件举行一场烛光追思会,他们也加诸限制的条件,如限制演讲者在芳林公园的演说,以便造成这场集会不可能实现在同一天举行的计划。

在新加坡的大法典377A下同性之间发生性关系仍然是被视为是违法的。虽然政府声称它不执行该法规,但是,这条法律仍然存在作为随时可以被引用。政府不时对积极参与同性恋活动者进行个别的突击检查。他们甚至说同性恋活动是一个问题。法律条文本身已经贬低了同性恋者。

总统先生,即便是您本身对同性恋的评语也不例外。例如,2016年2月份的“艾伦秀”(注:艾伦秀是美国CBS电视台的一档热门脱口秀,而主持人Ellen DeGeneres以其轻松诙谐的主持风格备受青睐脱口秀节目)。您称赞了埃伦·德詹妮斯Ellen DeGeneres)并支持她的活动。当这个节目在新加坡播放时,新加坡政府把您在声明里的这段讲话删除了。

我们要求您在与(李显龙总理)进行讨论有关新加坡与美国双边的经济和战略合作问题之外,要坚决提出有关新加坡严重侵犯人权的记录。我们期望您能够明确清晰地向新加坡总理李显龙表达,美国政府希望它的合作伙伴要创造一个以公民政治权利为基础的环境,以保护社会活动者及非政府性质的监察组织。同时,制定的法律是用来保护人民,而不是用镇压自己国家的人民的。

我们特别要求您向李显龙总理施加压力落实以下事项:

  • 与其他英联邦国家一样,废除触犯“诽谤罪刑罚”

  • 终止在法律上和行动上影片检查制度;

  • 重新修订公共次序法律和公共娱乐与集会法律的条款,以便符合保护集会自由的国际标准;

  • 终止对鄞玉林和张素兰进行调查有关指控他们涉嫌在政治活动期间破坏“冷静日”的指控;

  • 废除大法典377中有关贬低同行恋性行为的条款;

  • 重新修订有关禁止传播媒体和其他媒体法令对同性恋者生活的正面描述;以及

  • 指示社团注册局批准同性恋社群(LGBT)在社团法令下注册团体。

谢谢阁下考虑我们上述的要求。我们盼望着与您的官员继续讨论有关的问题。

您诚挚的

布莱德.亚当斯 (Brad Adams)

人权观察组织亚洲区域负责人

(待续……)

Human Right Watch Org letter to President Obama on the state visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to USA(part one)

Related link:

1.https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/08/letter-president-obama

2.Human Right Watch Org letter to President Obama on the state visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to USA(part two)

https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/%

 

人权观察组织

Dear President Obama,

As you prepare for the state visit of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on August 2, 2016, we write to highlight key human rights concerns that we hope you will raise in both public and private with Prime Minister Lee. These include issues of freedom of speech, assembly, and association, and the rights of LGBT people. We provide further detail on these topics in the appendix to this letter.

Singapore’s political environment is highly stifling, and citizens face severe restrictions on their basic rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The government of Singapore effectively controls the print media, and online media outlets are forced to register with the government and post a significant bond. Bloggers who comment on political issues are targeted for prosecution using vague and overly broad legal provisions on public order, morality, security, and racial and religious harmony. For example, Alex Au, a popular blogger and LGBT activist, was convicted in January 2015 of violating the archaic offense of “scandalizing the judiciary” because he posted a critical comment about case management in the court’s handling of two constitutional challenges to Singapore’s anti-sodomy law.

Outspoken activists are subject to government harassment. In May 2016, the police intensively interrogated political activist and blogger Roy Ngerng Yi Ling and long-time activist Teo Soh Lung on grounds of allegedly violating election laws restricting political campaigning during a “cooling-off period” before the recent by-election. The enforcement action was prompted by posts they put on their personal Facebook pages. The authorities’ use of the law against private individuals was unprecedented since the election law specifically permits “the transmission of personal political views by individuals to other individuals, on a non-commercial basis, using the Internet.” The heavy-handed action by the police, who searched the homes of both Teo and Ngerng, seizing phones and computers, appeared to be an effort to intimidate the outspoken activists.

Over the years, the government of Singapore has regularly used politically motivated defamation suits to bankrupt and silence critics and political opponents. More recently, Prime Minister Lee sued the activist noted above, Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, for defamation, seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars for damages allegedly caused by a single blog post criticizing the management of the government’s Central Provident Fund. In December 2015, the court ordered Ngerng to pay 150,000 Singapore dollars (US$111,166) in damages and S$29,000 (US$21,492) in legal costs.

Public demonstrations and other assemblies remain severely limited, with a permit required for any assembly outside of Hong Lim Park, where the so-called “Speaker’s Corner” is situated. Even events held within Hong Lim Park can result in prosecution or harassment by the authorities. Activist Jolovan Wham was given a “stern warning” by the police after two Hong Kong citizens attended a protest he organized in solidarity with the Occupy Hong Kong movement, even though he made clear, in promotional materials and at the event itself, that participation by non-citizens was not permitted under Singapore’s laws. Other activists have been charged for holding an “unauthorized demonstration” on the grounds that they checked the box, in the online registration form for use of Hong Lim Park, for “speeches” rather than the one for a “demonstration.” Even efforts to hold a candlelight vigil in response to last month’s Orlando shootings were hampered by restrictions that make it impossible to plan and hold an event on the same day, and include restrictions on speakers at assemblies in Hong Lim Park.

Consensual sexual relations between men remain a criminal offense under article 377A of the Penal Code in Singapore. While the government claims it does not enforce that statute, the reality is the law remains on the books ready to be used, and the government routinely censors positive portrayals of LGBT individuals, and even mention of LGBT issues. The law itself is demeaning to individuals who experience same-sex attraction. Even your own comments, Mr. President, are not exempt. For example, Singapore deleted the statement you made during an appearance on The Ellen Show in February 2016, praising Ellen DeGeneres for her LGBT activism, when the episode was broadcast in Singapore.

We urge you to ensure that discussions during this visit go beyond economic and strategic cooperation with the United States, and firmly address Singapore’s seriously problematic human rights record. We hope you will make it clear to Prime Minister Lee that the United States expects its partners to create an environment in which basic civil and political rights are protected, activists and nongovernmental monitoring organizations can thrive, and where the law is used to protect – rather than repress – the country’s people.

Specifically, we urge you to press Prime Minister Lee to act to:

  • Eliminate the offense of “scandalizing the judiciary,” as many other commonwealth countries have done;

  • End film censorship, in both law and practice;

  • Revise the Public Order Act and the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act to bring them into line with international standards for the protection of freedom of assembly;

  • Drop the investigations of Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung for allegedly violating restrictions on political campaigning during the “cooling-off” period;

  • Repeal section 377A of the Penal Code to decriminalize consensual sexual activity between men;

  • Revise the Free to Air Radio Code and other media regulations to eliminate the prohibitions on positive depictions of LGBT lives; and

  • Instruct the Registrar of Societies to permit the registration of LGBT organizations under the Societies Act.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to discussing these matters further with your staff.

Sincerely,

Brad Adams

Asia Director

to be continued…..  


留下评论

(中/英文版)新加坡伊拉克政策如泥浆般的清澈 SINGAPORE’s IRAQ POLICY WAS CLEAR AS MAD

新加坡伊拉克政策如泥浆般的清澈

陈华彪

作者:陈华彪  翻译:万章2016年7月10日

随着齐尔克 (Chilcot) 报告书在星期三发布,英国前副总理约翰彭仕国 (John Prescott)现在相信参与伊拉克战争是不合法的。他过去曾投票赞成参与战争。另一位英国前内阁成员也指控东尼布莱尔 (Tony Blair) “歪曲事实”。英国星期日周报(2016年7月10日) 也同时揭露东尼布莱尔目前为开启伊拉克北部供应天然气的石油与天然气新输送管的受薪顾问。

齐尔考特报告

正当齐尔克报告继续在英国成为头条新闻,亚细安中大力吹嘘参与伊拉克战争的新加坡政治当权者却出奇的一声不发。

在2003年,以伊拉克拥有大规模毁灭性武器(WMD)为根据以及萨旦胡先 (Saddam Hussein) 即将部署这些武器,小布什 (George W Bush)呼吁入侵伊拉克,新加坡政府很快的的加入支持他的行列。

作为总理的吴作栋,副总理兼国防部长陈庆炎及外交部长贾古玛教授集体的唱着来自小布什和布莱尔准备好的歌纸里的调子。

2013年3月14日, 美国入侵伊拉克前六天,贾古玛在国会宣布新加坡乐意削弱联合国安理会的权威,支持在没有联合国授权下入侵伊拉克。

贾古玛

“在9/11之后,伊拉克拥有不合法的WMD是个不能被接受的风险。倘若没有被解除武装的伊拉克能够逃脱,这将对全世界的极端组织发出个不良的讯号。安理会无法对第二项决议达致共识不能作为不采取行动的藉口。”

贾古玛曾是位法学教授,并且想必是内阁中的法律智囊。可是他并非武器专家。他应当知道联合国武器稽查员Hans Blix 和七百名职员并不支持伊拉克囤积WDM的任何说法。

新加坡支持美国侵略伊拉克达到歇斯底里高潮时正是总理吴作栋在2003年作出那臭名昭著的声明

“对每个人是很明显的,除非那个人带着眼罩,这是一场消除萨 旦胡先的大规模毁灭性武器的战争。”

在声明发表的那一刻,美国在国际上是被孤立的,并且有两百万人在伦敦游行抗议这场战争。

吴作栋

同样的,现任总统陈庆炎,在2003年是副总理兼国防部长,捉紧他在2003年4月对美国亚利桑那州进行官式访问这一时机誓言对美国的拥护。陈庆炎在他的演讲中说:

“开发与扩散大规模毁灭性武器对国际次序造成巨大风险,不能坐视不理。新加坡认识到美国为首的联军在伊拉克所做的重要性,也支持联军尽力解除伊拉克武装的。”

陈庆元

齐尔克报告发表后,现在我们都知道总理吴作栋对萨旦胡先拥有WDM的观点是如泥浆般的清澈,而且是在没有作好应对战后余波下就发动战争。

新加坡的外交和国防政策似乎只是根据亲山姆大叔这一幅有色的眼镜。他们是东尼布莱尔在发动战争之前写的一张私人备忘录给小布什说”无论如何,我会和你站在一起”的翻版。这是齐尔克报告中揭露的许多真相之一。

小布什和东尼布莱尔给吴作栋和行动党部长提供的”真实”证据都是错误的。

齐尔克报告的另一项对真象的揭露应该让作为美国和英国啦啦队长的新加坡政客更为尴 尬,报告提到萨旦胡先将化学剂装在玻璃容器捏造出来的说法是由1966年的电影《绝地任务》(The Rock) 得到灵感。

齐尔克报告中叙述道:

“有人指出玻璃容器在化学武器的使用并不典型,有一部受欢迎的电影《绝地任务》错误的将神经化学剂描写成装在玻璃珠或球型容器内。

秘密情报局 (SIS) 承认有关使用玻璃容器来装化学剂的问题和《绝地任务》中描绘的情节有相似之处。”

当吴作栋将新加坡扯入支持伊拉克战争时,只在国会中解释说这是为了国家的利益。在齐尔克的报告之下,他有责任对新加坡人民解释为什么削弱联合国安理会的权威来支持没有联合国授权下的战争是为了新加坡国家的利益?

他也应该解释,

支持并唆使一场造成二十万伊拉克人丧命及毁掉他们国家的战争怎么会是符合新加坡国家的利益与合乎道德?

陈庆炎作为总统,

应该解释2003年支持战争怎么会是为了新加坡国家的利益,当按照齐尔克报告书,那时可以预见到这将造成英国面临恐怖主义的风险更为增加。

总理李显龙也应该解释

目前ISIS风险的加剧是否与新加坡支持伊拉克战争有关系?

除非新加坡能为这一目光狭隘的亲美伊拉克战争政策洗脱干净,它将来有关舒缓因涉及中美的南中国海域紧张局势的政策将会被人以怀疑的态度来看待。

Singapore’s Iraq policy was clear as mud

陈华彪Tan Wah Piow   10th July 2016

Following the Chilcot Report last Wednesday, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Britain John Prescott now believes that the Iraq War was illegal. He had previously voted in favour of the war. Another former UK Cabinet Minister also accused Tony Blair of “twisting the facts”. Meanwhile, the Sunday Times (7.10.2016) reveals that Tony Blair is now acting as “paid adviser on a new oil and gas pipeline that could help unlock natural gas supplies in northern Iraq.”

齐尔考特报告

While the Chilcot Report continues to make news headlines in the UK, the Singapore political establishment which was the Iraq War’s loudest advocate in Asean is strangely muted.
In 2003, the Singapore government was quick to rally around George W Bush'[s call for the invasion of Iraq based on the claim that the country was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein was about to deploy those weapons.
Goh Chok Tong as Prime Minister, Tony Tan his Deputy PM and Defence Minister, and Prof S Jayakumar the Foreign Minister collectively sang from the same hymn sheet prepared by the George W Bush and Tony Blair.

On the 14.3.2003, six days before the United States invasion of Iraq, S Jayakumar announced in Parliament Singapore’s willingness to undermine the authority of the UN Security Council by supporting an invasion of a country without a UN Mandate.

“ Iraq’s possession of illegal WMD is, post 9/11, an unacceptable threat. If Iraq gets away without disarming, it will send a very bad signal to extremist groups across the world. The fact that the Security Council cannot reach consensus on a second resolution cannot be taken as an excuse for inaction.”

贾古玛S Jayakumar was a Professor of Law, and presumably the legal brain in the cabinet. But he was not a weapon expert. He ought to know that the UN weapon inspector Hans Blix and his 700 staff were not supportive of any claim that there was an arsenal of WDM in Iraq.

Singapore’s support for the American’s invasion of Iraq reach such hysterical height in 2003 that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made the now infamous remark that

“It is clear to everyone, unless that person wears blinkers, that this is a war to remove the weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein.”

吴作栋

At the time when the remark was made, United States was internationally isolated, and 2 million people had marched in London protesting against the War.
Likewise, Tony Tan, now the President of Singapore, but in 2003 was Deputy PM and Minister for Defence took the opportunity during his official visit to Arizona, USA in April 2003 to pledge allegiance to United States. Tony Tan said in his speech:

“The development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to international order that cannot be ignored. Singapore recognises the importance of what the US-led coalition is doing in Iraq, and supports the coalition’s efforts for the immediate disarmament of Iraq.”

陈庆元

After the Chilcot Report, we now know that Premier Goh Chok Tong’s view on Saddam Hussein’s possession of WDM was as clear as mud, and the war was waged without any preparation to cope with the aftermath.

Foreign and defence policies of Singapore appear to be based on a blinkered pro-Uncle Sam doctrine. They mirrored the position of Tony Blair who, before the launch of the war, wrote a private memo to George W Bush stating “I will be with you, whatever.” This is one of the many revelations in the Chilcot Report.

Whatever “factual” evidence George W Bush and Tony Blair fed to Goh Chok Tong and the PAP ministers, they were flawed. Those Singapore politicians who were the cheerleaders for United States and Britain should now be even more embarrassed by another revelation in the Chilcot Report which stated that a faked claim about Saddam Hussein holding chemical agents in glass containers was inspired by a 1996 action movie, The Rock.

The Chilcot report states:

“It was pointed out that glass containers were not typically used in chemical munitions, and that a popular movie (The Rock) had inaccurately depicted nerve agents being carried in glass beads or spheres.

“The questions about the use of glass containers for chemical agent and the similarity of the description to those portrayed in The Rock had been recognised by SIS.”

When Goh Chok Tong committed Singapore to support the Iraq War, it was explained in Parliament as done in the interests of nation. In the light of the Chilcot report, it is incumbent upon him to explain to the Singapore people why it was in Singapore’s national interest to undermine the authority of the UN Security Council by supporting a war without a UN mandate.
He should also explain how it was to Singapore’s national interest, and ethical, to aid and abet a war that resulted in the death of 200,000 Iraqis, and the destruction of the country?
Tony Tan as the President, should explain how it was to Singapore’s national interests in 2003 to support a war when, according to the Chilcot report, it was foreseeable at the time that it would result in the increase of the terrorists threat to Britain?

The Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong should also explain whether Singapore’s support for the Iraq War is linked to the current heightened ISIS threat?

Unless Singapore comes clean on its blinkered pro-American Iraq War policies, its future policies over the unfolding tensions in the South China Seas involving the United States and China could be viewed scepticism.