人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

我的一些疑惑

远帆

当前,吹起一股反马共的歪风邪气,从历史文献(包括回忆录,自传等)到文学创作,都在追讨所谓的历史真相,突出反马共集团的形象为主。这股歪风邪气在颠覆马共所领导的武装斗争。

我这么说,并不针对海凡,毕竟,在大是大非的问题上,他还不至于站在对立面,对马共展开攻击,或如一些人所说的,要写马共的阴暗面,要为“历史”平反。

撇开这些不谈,回到这场因海凡引起的论争。我拜读了叶德民、海凡和求实的文章,首先声明,我并不认识他们,仅以个人的立场说几句话。海凡的作品,其实争论性不大,求实也给予一定的肯定和评价,这里略下不表,仅就海凡回答求实的4点,谈谈我的看法。

1:我也是成长在七十年代,也参加文艺团体。在我们这个团体里,我看到某些团友神神秘秘,一副韦莫如深的样子。我不是地下组织的成员,但我信仰共产主义。我能感觉到这些团友都是地下组织的人,其中有两个经常与我喝咖啡,有意无意间透露他们的身份。他们还给我看马列派的《挺进报》。后来他们要求我加入一个小组,但条件是必须写一份履历表。我拒绝了他们的要求,原因是我对马列派没有好感。不久,当局展开大逮捕。团里的一些从马来半岛来的团友失踪了,不是被逮捕,就是上队了。我们这些算是活跃分子,并没有受到对付。

海凡回答求实的第一点是自相矛盾的,他说:“当年,作为普通群众被有关当局围捕,我不会是唯一的一个,有些被抓了,发现没有地下关系,关禁一阵子便予以释放。”即然他本身没参加地下组织,为何要逃亡呢?反正被抓了,顶多关闭一阵子就会被释放。一般非组织的人,如果没有地下组织的关系,能上队吗?再说,他为何能与地下组织的人联系?如果像他这样身份(虽说是活跃分子)的人都能随意的接触地下组织,那地下组织有何严密可言?不怕组织暴露吗?他为何这么急切要上队,这倒是令人感到兴趣的地方。

2:恰巧,今天内政部长尚穆根,回答工人党秘书长刘程强询问时表示,陈六使的公民权在1964年被吊销,至今仍没恢复,原因在于他推行共产主义。这说明了什么呢?即使你答应与共产主义切断关系,他们还是会很关注。海凡在文章中写到的内政部官员,倒像是做秀。不要忘记,合艾和平协议是在1989年签署,内政部官员是何时找他们“面试”?四个人所说的话都是一样吗?“面试”时有录音吗?除非你能找“现场”的人作证,否则是很难自圆其说的。

3:第三点的辩解,说服力不够。你们是从事武装斗争的人,要解放马来亚(包括新加坡),为什么当局不是以政治问题来提控你们?这是令我百思不得其解的地方,难道新加坡政府已改变立场?

4:你个人的妥协不能与马共的策略相提并论,你不能认为马共“即便是党,在合艾和谈中,我们要求让马共公开合法,要求摧毁那个把马共踩在脚下的国家独立纪念碑,他们坚不退让。也许有人可以大声呵斥,你马共即作为谈判一方,争取不到合法地位,还谈什么?作为标志性羞辱性的纪念碑不被摧毁,部队脸面何在?但是,为了结束战争,为了开拓新局面,为了一千一百余人的将来,我方屈辱的接受了,不然和谈就谈不下去。这就是妥协。”你所说的“我方屈辱的接受,不然和谈就谈不下去。这就是妥协。”是你个人的看法还是马共的看法?这是必须区别清楚的,据我所知,马共从未说过这样“屈辱”的话,那就是阁下的认为了。不管你是人民军还是普通人,你的立场应该要很鲜明。


2条评论

(中英文版)行动党藐视我们国家的宪法与国旗的行为必须受严厉的谴责 PAP’s contempt for our constitution and our flag must be roundly condemned

新加坡民主党2017911日发表关于总统选举“不劳而获”声明:

行动党藐视我们国家的宪法与国旗的行为必须受严厉的谴责

对于总统选举不劳而获的结局我们不会感到惊讶。行动党已经修改了法律和修订了参与总统选举候选人资格的顶限,已经为哈莉玛当选为总统铺平了道路。

然而,对于新加坡来说是一个令人悲哀的日子。我们国家的法律已经遭受无情的讥笑和诋毁了。我们国家的宪法与国旗是国家民主、团结和进步的象征。行动党的所作所为是藐视的行径,必须受到严厉的谴责。

行动党的所做作为已经再一次显示,它们的目标是为了加强和紧握手中的权利。行动党的这个目标是把国家的最高利益置于第二位。这是不利益新加坡的国家利益和进步的。

如果行动党为了能够选出被自己认可的总统,而操纵这个系统来决定选举结果,那是极其糟糕的一回事。

他们玩弄种族主义的危险赌博和在人民之间进行分而治之的目的行径,新加坡人民必须提高警惕。

新加坡民主党强烈谴责这场总统选举的结局。

Singapore Democrats

EP walkover: PAP’s contempt for our constitution and our flag must be roundly condemned

Home2017 » September » 11  

The walkover of the Presidential Election comes as no surprise. The PAP had changed the rules and revised the criteria of the Elected Presidency to pave the way for Ms Halimah Yacob to assume the office.

Nevertheless, this is a sad day for Singapore. The rule of law has been mercilessly mocked and denigrated. The contempt the PAP has shown for our constitution and our flag which symbolises the ideals of democracy, unity and progress must be roundly condemned.

By doing what it has done, the PAP has shown yet again that its only goal is to strengthen its grip on power. That the goal is detrimental to the interests and progress of Singapore is of secondary concern to the party.

It is bad enough that the PAP has manipulated the system to get one if its own to become the president.

That it has dangerously played the race card and divided the people to achieve this must be of grave concern to all Singaporeans.

The SDP protests this outcome in the strongest manner possible.

 


一条评论

剖析海凡的《我是谁》 ——求实

作者:求实

自从“合艾和平协议”签署以来,有关书写马共的书越来越多,大略分成三个部分。一是历史文献的书写,二是个人或集体的回忆录,三是文学创作,而以文学创作的表现最为薄弱。一方面创作者大多非马共人员或人民军,地下组织的成员,自然无法体会马共的斗争,部队生活等,只能靠资料,采访加上想象虚构而成,与实际的战斗生活有距离;另一方面,马共本身的书写者的文学水平不高,不能较完善的表现马共的战斗精神,流于粗陋。

文献是真实的历史记载,没有文学的架构,回忆录或多或少有文学素养,主要体现在文字上的铺排和描述。但文学性越多,越失去其真实性,只能将它视为历史文献的辅助材料。文学作品也是历史的一部分,甚至比历史本身更强烈更鲜明。它植根于历史的真实,以此进行文学上的构思。当然,这其中有很多故事、人物、细节都是虚构的,或在原型的人物上进行加工,文学作品有时会比历史更“真实”。

在书写马共的作家中,除了陈剑、黄锦树、黎紫书这些反共作家,海凡是近年来比较引人瞩目的作家。由于他本身曾经是在“雨林”度过13年的岁月,写出来的作品或许比那些凭空想象,任意污蔑马共的人来得深刻真实。他的两本著作和一些散文,我大多读过,虽然印象不深,但也还可以接受。

以下是针对他那篇《我是谁》(见南大站网址:http://www.nandazhan.com/zh/xwoshishui.htm)所作的评析。

这篇反驳叶德民(见南大站网址:http://www.nandazhan.com/zd/pduhuanyang.htm)的文章,分成两个部分。

一是对叶文的反驳,一是叙述自己上队和回来新加坡的过程。

个人认为,叶文的观点是过火了,不应该用这种偏激的言论去定性海凡的属性。描写部队生活中的小情趣,不是什么弥天大罪。

红花也需绿叶陪衬,部队的战斗历程是红花,小情趣便是绿叶了。不管是伏击战、遭遇战、围剿还是反围剿,都是惊心动魄,随时都有人牺牲,这是整个战争(包括抗日、抗英、国内战争)的主轴。此外,民运队背粮上山,交通员割山涉水,建立农村根据地,挥军北上到边区,突击队南下、广播电台等等都是一系列主轴中的辐射线,组成整个马共和人民军的最真实最惨烈最壮丽的图景。当然,部队生活决非朝朝夕夕都在进行战斗,战斗之余,他们在干些什么?除了文娱表演,体育活动,操练阅兵,学习语文、医疗、藏粮、制造地雷、枪械之外,他们也在各个许可的范围内开耕种菜,种木薯等农作物,也豢养鸡鸭兔子和猪。同时,为了补充粮食,他们在河边炸鱼,在森林里打猎,与阿沙族群众探路等等,这都是部队生活的一部分。当然,人民军也是人,有人的七情六欲,因此在部队里斗嘴,摩擦和斗争并不奇怪。所以像海凡写的那些豢养小动物、飞禽,猎象等故事,如非亲身经历,是不可能写得如此真实。这些是部队生活里经常会经历到的,只是,都是些细枝末节。一个作家如果长期满足于这些“风花雪月”的情趣,是难以蔚成大气的。

海凡说他的这些文章是写给“普通公众”看,这话不十分准确。文章在公开媒体发表,看的人不只是普通公众,包括前人民军战士,地下组织人员,左派人士,文化界人士,政治人物等。除非你不要发表,普通公众从你的文章能体会到什么呢?

不外是一些知识分子的个人情怀,一些“宿命”式的独白,以及内心的躁动。即使读者了解这些,又能联想什么?是对革命的谅解、同情还是鞭挞,嗤之以鼻?海凡的这些散文,文笔比较质朴,境界不高,还停留在现象的陈述,无法跟整个革命运动有机地结合起来。也许海凡在写这些散文时,只是把它们当作一个个独立的环节来写,因而显得比较浮泛,缺少有血有肉的精神实质。

第二部分是关于他个人上队和回返新加坡的过程。这方面语焉不详,隐藏的实质性的问题太多,

1976年上队,1989年下山。在这13年中,他经历过什么战争的洗礼呢?除了他本人和他的队友,外面的人是不知道的。漫长的武装斗争,饿死、病死、战死的人何其多,有些烈士牺牲了就地埋葬,也许有名字也许没有。莽莽青山埋忠骨,幸存下来的人会去寻找这些无名烈士吗?海凡说:

“到了80年代,看着成员折损,老化,却又没有新兵上队,我们除了要战胜饥饿、伤残、死亡、动荡……还得战胜绝望!像我这样属于机动人员的普通一兵,长年出发在外,随时面对牺牲。当时的想法就是死了‘埋在阿答头’!”

这是海凡自己说的,当时的心态是这样吗?

根据1992年9月12日《联合晚报》的报道,他被控上法庭时(因触犯国民服役法令),他的辩护律师说:

“……两名前马共分子何志雄及洪添发(即海凡),两被告其实早就想脱离马共,走出森林,但马共干部十分严厉无情,凡要脱离组织的人都会遭到处决的下场。”

海凡要“埋在阿答头”的壮举,是真情实意还是违心之言,大家各自解读吧。

促使海凡回新的意念是:

“没有想到合艾和谈给我们生命带来新的转折,脱下军装,竟然还有下半生。在那个特定的时期,特定的情境下,盘桓心头的就是,既然付出青春岁月,投身改造国家图景的社会运动基本告一段落,因为新加坡籍,我既无法回马参与所谓的‘改变斗争形式’,而留在泰国只能在和平村里开芭耕作,我是不是还有其他的选择?忠孝两全真的不容易,为了国家的前景,忠于信仰理想,13年前我顾不上‘孝’,如今武装斗争落幕了,军队解散了,我能回头尽我作为人子的‘孝’吗?干革命说到底也是为了改善人民的生活。”

当然,当年挥别双亲,是一种刻骨铭心的痛。人有两个抉择,要嘛,为革命理想献身,要嘛,留在父母身边,做个对社会有“贡献”的人,安安稳稳的过一生。

海凡选择了前者,他的心情我们可以理解,毕竟,忠孝难全。古来多少英雄豪杰,都在这关键时刻作出一生中最难以取舍的决定。对于海凡当年的选择,我表示敬佩。整个马来亚的革命,正有无数无数像海凡这样的年轻学子,义无反顾,投身到轰轰烈烈的革命洪流里。

武装斗争结束了,武器销毁了,部队解散了,接下来便是面对严峻的现实生活的挑战。一些人留在泰国,一些人回马,一些人回新。但问题来了,新加坡政府并非菩萨大德,可以无条件接受这些上队的新加坡人。他们会提出一些苛刻条件,包括写悔过书,上电视,切断与马共的关系,交代过去的活动及出卖战友,这是众所周知的事。黄信芳、陈新嵘和其他新加坡人之所以不能回来,因为他们不愿意接受这些等同叛党的行为。

海凡不是一个特殊人物,他自己不也说是个“机动人员的普通一兵”,或背后有什么强大的靠山。他要回来新加坡,也必须接受这些“条件”。他的“罪名”比较复杂,一方面是前人民军,一方面是触犯国民服役法令,当局该以政治问题还是以军事问题提控他?

海凡说:

“我们表示了回归的意愿,内政部官员到合艾与我们会面,提出条件:必须签署协议,公开宣布放弃共产主义,公开断绝与马来亚共产党的关系,还要交待过去所有的活动,接受限制性条件,并由内安局发表文告等等!就是我们必须作出妥协。我们面对抉择,可以接受这些条件吗?”

海凡清楚明白当局开出来的条件,他妥协了吗?接受了吗?

海凡说:

“既然与内政部官员会面,我也提出了要求:不能接受坐牢囚禁,内政部答应。”

这真的是很奇怪,海凡究竟有什么“法宝”,能让内政部官员“答应”他的要求?

从来没有一个马共分子能获得这样的“恩赐”,除非是叛变者。内政部什么时候变得这么仁慈大方!他们又不是法官,怎么能轻率的答应他不必坐牢囚禁。如果这是事实,我就更加敬佩海凡了。

海凡说:

“不接受上电视台发表自白或悔过书,内政部官员笑了,他说什么时代了,没人要看的,电视节目时间很宝贵的。”,

这又是最新版的天方夜谭了。

大家都知道新加坡内政部是滴水不漏的,有这么好的机会怎不会大作文章?胡扯什么“电视节目时间很宝贵的”。即使多宝贵,也比不上一个上电视悔过的前人民军的自白,那将是轰动全国的壮举。

下面这段话可圈可点,海凡说:

“至于交代过去所有活动,由于我上队前并不是地下组织成员,没有过地下组织生活。只是作为公开文团活动的积极分子被追捕,被迫辗转上队。在我这里没有任何地下组织机密可言。我也不可能涉及任何出卖组织或个人的情节。”

有参加公开文团活动的人都知道,如果你只是一个普通的成员,内政部懒得理你,如果海凡的“供证”可以成立,多建两个樟宜监狱也容不下那么多人。如果你不是参加某种秘密组织,内政部会对付你吗?至于他为何“被迫”辗转上队,倒是肺腑之言。他上队的真正原因并非对革命的向往,准备牺牲自己,而是“被迫辗转”,这跟他所说的死也要“埋在阿答头”是两码子事。

最重要的一段在于

“我们作为个人是很无力的,即便是党,在合艾和谈中,我们要求让马共公开合法,要求摧毁那个把马共踩在脚下的国家独立纪念碑,他们坚不退让。也许有人可以大声呵斥,你马共即作为谈判一方,争取不到合法地位,还谈什么?作为标志性羞辱性的纪念碑不被摧毁,部队脸面何在?但是,为了结束战争,为了开拓新局面,为了一千一百余人的将来,我方屈辱的接受了,不然和谈就谈不下去。这就是妥协。”

真是这样吗?什么是“屈辱的接受”?什么是“妥协”?海凡究竟是站在哪方的立场说话?难道这就是海凡所谓的一个铁骨铮铮的革命者对党军应有的态度吗?

海凡的辩护律师向法官求情说:

“……因参加马共活动,在外逗留了 1 年,而森林中的生活,并不如他们理想中的安逸,而是颠沛流离,吃不饱睡不稳。他们经常为了躲避马泰保安部队的追剿,需要搬营寨,东藏西躲,十几年的森林生活是极度困苦与不安的。”

律师怎么能理解被告的森林生活,这些话该是被告的话,目的在于以此洗脱自己的罪名。

内政部官员不是答应他无须坐牢囚禁,为什么上的是民事法庭而不是军事法庭?原本被判坐牢18个月,最后却只是罚款了事,法官真是“宽宏大量”啊。

不管怎么样,海凡作为前人民军一员,他的书写马共的文章,还是有一定的可读性;毕竟他是个文人,如果能正面对待革命和部队,那还是值得赏识的,但不应停留在这些花花草草,小动物小飞禽,应把眼光放得更远,把真正的马共的革命历史和精神写出来。

 


留下评论

(中英文版)非法的抄捷径 Illegal Shortcuts

作者:张素兰

非法的抄捷径

最近几天,有数名反对死刑刑法的活跃分子,其中包括了通讯记者、影片制作者和死刑犯Mr S Prabagaran的家属亲友被勿洛警署传召问讯。(见网址:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/)传召问讯的目的是要录取有关涉及在章宜监狱外为再来两个月前被处死刑的死刑犯Mr S Prabagaran举行的烛光追悼会。(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/kixes/posts/504285807243?pnref=story

各个在线社交媒体在报道这起事件时都说是一起和平集会。无论如何警方仍然把这起事件视为己任要进行干预。警方在现场充公了一台摄像机和蜡烛。明显地。警方当时还是具有“浓厚的人情味”。他们并没有驱散这场集会,而是允许死刑犯Mr S Prabagaran的家属亲友为他祈祷到破晓前。

警方到底是要调查什么?难道死刑犯Mr S Prabagaran的家属亲友在章宜监狱外为即将被执行死刑的亲人进行祈祷有错吗?当可怕的谋杀发生在监狱的围墙内进行时,死刑犯Mr S Prabagaran的挚友和活跃分子给予死刑犯Mr S Prabagaran的家属亲友在精神上的支持难道有错吗?

今天,在我们周围的道路和行人道上,到处都可以见到人民在烧冥纸蜡烛祭拜已故先人在天之灵。这就是华人农历七月的习俗。人们相信那些已故者都会在农历七月前来人间寻找亲人给予的食物和经济上的援助。政府组屋和居住小区的管理公司都会在这个月为人们提供用于燃烧冥纸蜡烛灯的金属焚化炉。华族道教徒和孔教徒都会在晚上通过焚烧冥纸蜡烛的方式给予阴间。他们护在走到上插满蜡烛和摆放食物给那些幽灵。他们都会花时间进行祭拜。在祭拜期间大家互相交谈。他们有时会通过诵经、香蜡烛和香蜡烛灰烬为邻居祈福。

您们可以从以下的视频看到所有的住宅区都置放了工焚烧冥纸的金属焚烧炉。人们祭拜过后的垃圾都有环保工人打扫清洁。

警方人员是否有进行干预这些集体集聚的祭拜活动和传召这些信徒到警署问话?

假设有人被传召到警署问话,肯定是那些人在祭拜过后把香烛、冥纸和食物丢弃在走道和路边,甚至烧毁了草皮的人。这些人可能会被控告涉嫌乱抛垃圾和造成污染环境城市绿化。但是,我们至今是否听说过警方对这些情况进行调查?与此相反地,市镇理事会和物业管理公司很“乐意”认可这种“犯罪行为”。他们在农历七月全面提供金属焚烧炉给予这祭拜者。

我确实不明白警方,特别是勿洛警署采取了双重标准来处理同样性质的事件。

更令人可悲的是警方滥用司法权力处理这起事件的态度。

社交网站TOCTerry Xu先生于201796日要通过兀兰关闸越过长堤离开新加坡到马来西亚被警方禁止出境。(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155814358483919&set=a.36126863918.44848.661438918&type=3.

接着,影片制作人Jason Soo先生已经被通知,他不可以离开新加坡直到有关的调查工作结束为止。(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1583563665039369&set=a.910822255646850.1073741826.100001572524005&type=3

当Terry Xu 先生和 Jason Soo先生要求警方人员说明是基于哪部法律法规赋予警方这样的权力对付他们时。警方人员告知,他们是引用防止刑事犯罪法典第112部分(section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code)。

我非常肯定,警方人员是注意到引用有关的法律条款是涉及到涉嫌者交出旅行证件,而不是防止有关调查中的案件相关证人或者被告的出国旅行。警方人员也必然注意到,他们在没有充足的理由下,是无权要求案件的相关证人或者被告交出护照的。因为司法机关才拥有这样权力,而不是警方人员。警方人员可以要求交出护照,但是,如果案件的相关证人或者被告拒绝警方的要求的话,他们必须向法院听出理由并申请庭令才可以要求案件的相关证人或者被告交出护照。旅行自由是明确写在我们 国家的宪法里的。

为什么警方阻止这些活跃分子离开新加坡出国呢?

就我而言,他们只是在碰碰运气吧了。事实上,驻扎在兀兰或者机场移民厅离境处的警方人员拒绝让他们离境,他们又能怎样?他们要把警方提供上法院并支付法律诉讼费?如果除非他们像我们的部长一样,不论在任何时候都不会缺钱,才可以对警方采取这样的司法诉讼。

以下是防止刑法犯罪法典第114款(section 114 of the CPC)的约定:

1)当法院在听取和满意公诉人有关被要求任何人在进行中调查的案件不得离开新加坡时,法院可以下达庭令要求相关人士逗留在新加坡一段时间。逗留一段时间由法院考虑调查工作所需的合理时间。((1) Where a court is satisfied that any person who is acquainted with the subject matter of any investigation carried out under this Code intends to leave Singapore, the court may, having due regard to the circumstances of the person and on the application of the Public Prosecutor, by order require the person to remain in Singapore for such period as the court considers reasonable to facilitate the investigation.

2)法院可能会在适当条款下命令予以当事人因失去的时间予以补偿。((2) The court may order due provision to be made for the maintenance of such person and for compensating him for his loss of time.

这样一来Terry Xu 先生和 Jason Soo先生能够做些什么?

我的建议是:他们可以写信给总检察署。要求总检察署给予解释其管辖下的警方人员滥用权力和寻求赔偿。在我们国家的宪法约定下,权力分治是有获得保障的。警方人员禁止他们出国是遞夺了司法权力的。

 

Illegal Shortcuts

by Teo Soh Lung

In recent days, several anti-death penalty activists, journalists, filmmakers and friends of the family of the late Mr S Prabagaran were summoned to the Bedok Police Division for the purpose of recording statements relating to a candle light vigil outside Changi Prison. Mr Prabagaran was executed two months ago and the vigil was reported to have taken place at the dawn of his execution. See https://www.facebook.com/kixes/posts/504285807243?pnref=story

From the various online reports, it would appear that the gathering was peaceful. However, the police deemed it their duty to interfere. One photograph and several candles were seized. Apparently, they were “humane enough” to let the family pray for Mr S Prabagaran before day-break and did not order the gathering to disperse.

What is there to investigate? Is it wrong for the family of the person to be hanged to pray outside the prison gate? Is it wrong for friends and activists to be with them, supporting them while the gruesome murder took place within the prison walls?

Everywhere along our roads and pavements today, we see people burning joss paper and lighting candles for the spirits of the dead. This is the seventh month of the lunar calendar and the dead are looking for food and financial assistance from their relatives. The management of housing estates provide metal containers for the burning of joss paper. Taoists and Confucionists burn offerings for the underworld late into the night. They line the pavements with candles and food for the spirits. They spend time praying and chatting, sometimes disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood with their voices, smoke and ashes.

Below is a video clip of the bins that can be seen all over the housing estate. The litter has been picked up by the hardworking cleaners.

Did the police bother to stop such gatherings and summon the devotees to the police station?

If anyone deserves investigation, it should be the people who leave candles, joss sticks and food offerings on the pavements and roads. Sometimes they burn the grass patches too. They could be charged for littering our clean and green city. But did we hear of any such investigations? On the contrary, the town councils and management of estates willingly abet the “crime” by providing ugly metal bins for a whole month!

I don’t understand the double standards practised by the police, especially the police from the Bedok Police Division.

What is even more deplorable is the manner in which the police abuse their power.

Terry Xu of the Online Citizen was prevented from crossing the causeway on 6 September 2017 see https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155814358483919&set=a.36126863918.44848.661438918&type=3.

Now Jason Soo, a filmmaker has been informed that he will not be able to leave Singapore for work pending completion of investigation. See https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1583563665039369&set=a.910822255646850.1073741826.100001572524005&type=3

When Terry Xu and Jason Soo asked for the provision of the law which gives the police such great power, they were referred to section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

I am sure the police are aware that this section refers to the surrender of travel documents rather than the prevention of potential witnesses or defendants from travelling. And they must also be aware that they have no power to seek the surrender of such travel documents without good reasons and that such power vests with the judiciary not the police. They can request for the travel document but if the owner refuses to give it to them, they have to apply to the courts for an order and be subjected to conditions. Freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution.

So why did the police stop the activists from travelling abroad?

In my opinion, they are just trying their luck. After all, if the immigration police at the causeway or airport refuse to let them through, what can they do? Take the police to court and incur legal costs? You can do that when you have loads of money like our ministers who in any event will never face such problems.

The law as it stands today does not allow the police to stop anyone from travelling abroad while they are being investigated. Unless and until the police apply to the court for such an order and the court grants the order, the person cannot be restrained. It is clear from section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code that in granting such orders, the police can be subjected to conditions with some financial inconvenience such as compensating the person for loss of job opportunities. That explains why the police have taken the illegal shortcut of stopping the person at immigration checkpoints.

Here is section 114 of the CPC:

So what can Terry Xu and Jason Soo do?

I suggest that they write to the attorney general to complain about the abuse of power by his subordinates and seek compensation. Under our Constitution, separation of powers is guaranteed. The police in preventing them from travelling abroad usurps the power of the judiciary.

 


留下评论

(中英文版)行动党又再践踏人民的旅行与结社自由了!

Jason Soo Teck Chong的经历

(《1987年光谱行动受害者》记录影片制作人)

亲爱的朋友们,

我已经离开了脸书(FACEBOOK)了,但是,显示的环境迫使我又回来。

73日。我在一个为死囚Prabagaran Srivijayan举行的烛光守夜上集会。在我们举行的烛光守夜的前一天晚上他在章宜监狱被执行了死刑了。将近两个月后,在一个星期天的早上,也就是201793日,我收到了一封以亲手递交的警方通知到警署问话的通知书。通知的内容是有关“参与了一项为获得批准在公共场所的集会。”(详见警方给我的附件。)

昨天我致电警方没有求更改原定约定到警署问话的日期到星期五下午(也即是隔天)。 接我的电话的警长Jason Tan问我是否是要到海外。我回答说,我将在915日到澳大利亚的柏斯公干,并与917日回国。Jason Tan警长告诉我,有关我涉嫌涉及的案件正在进行点差期间,警方将不允许我出国。我感到极其惊讶。警方的回答不仅仅是让我觉得不合理的问题吧了,而是,这是否是合法的问题!既然我并没有进入司法程序被控上法院或者在拘捕下,警方怎能在没有庭令的情况下,剥夺我的旅行自由。

无论如何,我要求警方对这个问题进行澄清给个说法。Jason Tan警长那我的电话转给了负责调查办案的警官Justin Ong。他强调,只要有关的案件仍然在进行调查中,我将不允许离开新加坡。我回应他说,假设有关的案件需要一年的时间进行调查,那么,这段时间我将会被禁止出国旅行。这不是非常极其不可思议吗? Justin Ong警官接着补充说, 第一阶段的调查工作将会进行到预定的讯问计划完成。在完成了第一阶段讯问后才评估我是否能够允许离开新加坡。我问他,警方是依据那一条法律或者程序禁止我的旅行自由的。Justin Ong警官告诉我说, 警方是依据刑法程序第68章第112部分(Section 112 of CPC(见:http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/…/view.w3p;query=DocId%3A3b4efef….

您可以阅读Justin Ong警官所说的刑法程序第68章第112部分(Section 112 of CPC所阐述的约定是,被扣押人的旅行证件是涉嫌者涉嫌触犯任何法律情况下。但是,我并没有别命令交上的我旅行护照啊!警方咋能单方面终止我的旅行权利?

对于警方剥夺我的旅行权利看来似乎是一起微不足道的事件。事实上,它是涉及一个极其重要的程序问题!同时也是涉及到公民的基本权利以及警方的权限问题!这也是在一次反映了,直到今天,这个国家的公民基本权利已经和正在逐渐地一点点地被剥夺了。到了有一天,我们才会发现到我们所拥有的基本权利仅剩下的就是服从罢了。

 

From Jason Soo Teck Chong

Dear friends,

I’ve been staying off FB but circumstances has now forced me back on.

On 13 July, I was at a candlelight vigil for Prabagaran Srivijayan, on the night before he was executed by hanging at Changi prison. Almost 2 months after, on the Sunday morning of 3rd September, I received a hand-delivered notice for a police interview, in relation to the “offence of Taking Part in a Public Assembly without a Permit” (See letter below).

Yesterday, when I called to reschedule the interview to Friday 2 pm (tomorrow), Insp Jason Tan asked if I would be traveling overseas. I said I would be going to Perth on 15 Sept for work before returning to Singapore on 17 Sept. Insp Tan told me that I would not be allowed to travel overseas since the investigation was ongoing. I was appalled. This sounded not only extremely unreasonable, but was it even legal? Since I have not been charged or put under arrest, can the police take away my right to travel without any court order?

So anyway, I asked to clarify the matter and was transferred to Justin Ong, the Chief Investigating Officer. He reiterated that travel would not be allowed as long as investigation is ongoing. I told him that if the investigation took one year, then it would be most extreme if my right to travel was suspended for that whole period. Chief IO Justin then added that the first period of investigation would be taken as until the scheduled interview. After that, an assessment would be made as to whether I was allowed to travel. I then asked what law or what procedure allowed the police to take such a course of action. Chief IO Justin told me it was the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 68, Section 112: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/…/view.w3p;query=DocId%3A3b4efef….

As you can see, Section 112 relates to the surrender of travel documents for persons suspected of any offence. But since I have not been ordered to surrender my passport, how can the police unilaterally suspend my right to travel?

It may seem a trivial thing, this suspension of the right to travel. But there’s a bigger issue about proper procedure, and about the rights of citizens and the boundaries of police power. It’s also an example of how civil rights in this country are being gradually stripped away, inch by inch, little by little, until one day, we realize that the only rights we have left is the right to obey. You have been warned.

 

Terry Xu 的经历

(社交媒体网站TOC负责人)

今天我是要跨过长堤到马来西亚的。到了兀兰关闸边境检查站,我第一次发现自己持有的护照不允许通关。关闸官员领我到移民关闸大楼六楼办公室。

在关闸办公室, 我见到了海关人员Jason Tan警长。他是一名警长。他是负责发信给所有参与713日在章宜监狱外为死刑犯Prabagaran Srivijayan举行烛光守夜的警官。Prabagaran Srivijayan是于714日凌晨被执行死刑的死刑犯。Jason Tan警长在 通过电话问我是否是离开新加坡。

请浏览视频网址:https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155744438306383/

我回答:“是的。就是要离开数小时吧了。”他告诉我,我不允许离开新加坡。我还没有完成警方讯问工作。

我在两个月前收到警方的一封信。来信的内容说明了警方正在进行调查一项触犯涉及公共秩序法16(2)(a)第第257A68章第112部分(Section 112 of CPC的条款,即涉嫌参与未经获准的集会。来信说,警方可能会传讯我讯问有关事件的事实和当时的情况的案件。

有关集会的现场情况详见视频网址:https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155744438306383/

警方对来信也说明了,有关负责调查官员在刑事诉讼法典第21部分,赋予行使权利强制性要求我必须到相关警署进行传讯问话。我详细的阅读了有关的这项条款。

授权传召证人。第211)条款。在此条款下进行一项调查部分,警方人员可能需要发出一份书写的命令。要求任何人在限定于新加坡国内,出席有关的问讯。受传召问讯者在问讯时,须提供涉及有关事件的任何事实和情况。受传讯者必须出席有关的传讯。”来信中所引用公共秩序法令并没有在任何地方说明,我不允许离开新加坡。何况我已经计划在当天(星期四)早上11点到马来西亚长堤彼岸与有关公司的负责人见面。

当我向有关的官员询问, 他是依据那一法律或者法规禁止我离开新加坡时,他说,只有在我完成向警方录取口供声明后才允许离开新加坡。他说,他可以在今天就录取我的口供。过后我就可以立刻开新加坡。

只有在我坚持要求警方人员解释为什么不允许离开新加坡数小时的理由情况下,他才披露我是被调查涉及参与一项非法集会——“非法集会”是为一名在国有关的法令下被判死刑的人举行的追悼会。这名被死刑的人见此自己是无辜的直到他被推向绞刑架上。在这个所谓的“非法集会”期间有警方人员到场。他们说,只要没有在现场点燃蜡烛,集会是允许的。见网址:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/the-case-against-prabga…/

在与有关警官进行对话沟通后,我接受他的要求。我要求警官来兀兰关闸大厦录取我的口供。围困任何,他在与某些人查询后,他要求我到勿洛警署接受问话。当时我是在兀兰关闸出入境。

我接着又问Jason Tan警长,他是否确定,在我录取了口供后可以离开新加坡。结果他说, 在录取口供,仍然要由警方确认我是否可以离开新加坡。

问题症结就在此。即便是他们当时说,在录取了有关我“涉及一项公共场所非法集会”的口供可以离开的说辞也被推翻了。警方在为具体说明依据哪条法律法规情况下,拥有什么权利限制我的旅行自由权利?假设警方是要限制外地的旅行自由权利的,为什么他们不再来信中提起呢?

与此同时。今天警方在向一名被传讯者追问有关(事件)答案时,陈姓警方的上司Jason Tan警长恫言说,警方可以逮捕在现场参与者和没收我们的护照。但是,警方并没有这么做。他说,有关调查工作直到我们第一次的问讯。过后,警方将进行评估。当警方被问及是依据哪条法律法规或者程序授予警方采取如此行动是,Justin Ong警官说,引据了行使程序法典第68 部分112(Section 112 of CPC

Justin Ong警官确认是引据112部分条款是自找麻烦的。因为当警方拥有权利强制被传召

接受调查的问讯者交出旅行证件时,在司法程序进行时,警方是选择不要个别人士交出。他们选择法律赋予他们对有关的涉嫌者实施限制了出国旅行的。

警方的这种不正当程序说明了,假设警方在刑法第112(Section 112 of CPC)项下赋予行使的权利,受害者可以在同样的刑法第113部分和第114部分(Section 113 and Section 114)项下寻求赔偿。他们可以通过阐述正当的理由向地方法院申请要求警方归还旅行证件。假设个别人士被要求在居留新加坡一段时间不准离开。假设法院认为,这是为了警方进行调查工作的便利,法院是可能对有关的涉及者做出适当规定的裁决,并给予被调查者补偿其在受调查期间在时间上受影响的损失。

但是,为什么警方选择在未通过正常程序情况下行使在刑法112部分(Section 112 of CPC)项下赋予他们的权利,致使受害者根本没有法律途径寻求赔偿、或者,因为旅行受到限制造成的损失寻求提出赔偿的权利。

在这样的情况下,是不是警方在未经法院判决,可以替代法院作为裁决是否允许谁可以或者不可以离开这个国家?

假设这样的情况不是属于骚扰行为,我实在是不知道如何判断这件事情的性质了。

我在阅读了有关的资料后才了解到,新加坡至今尚未批准“公民权利和政治权利公约”,这个公约是确保运动的基本权利。事实上,在评定人权遭受践踏的国家名单里,新加坡是世界上其中的国家一个。它与缅甸是列属于同一等级,比起中国的情况还更加严重。

以下是为死刑犯举行烛光追悼会当晚,警方人员到场的照片。

 

From Terry Xu

So today as I was going across the Woodlands Checkpoint, my passport for the first time in my life, failed to be processed and the immigration officer had to bring me to the office at the sixth floor.

At the office, I spoke with Jason Tan — the inspector who had sent letters to all those who were present at the 13 July vigil for Prabagaran Srivijayan who was to be executed on the morning of 14 July — via phone and he asked if I wanted to leave the country.

See video of the event here –

https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155744438306383/

I said, “Yes, just for a few hours.” He then said sorry and stated that I cannot leave the country because I have yet complete my interview with the police.

So in the letter that was sent two months after the event has taken place, it stated that an investigation is being conducted into an offence of Taking Part in a Public Assembly without a Permit under Section 16(2)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A and that I “may be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case”.

The letter also states that the officer had invoked the powers bestowed upon him via the virtue of Section 21(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to compel me to turn up at the station and I read the section in full,

“Power to require attendance of witnesses. 21(1) In conducting an investigation under this Part, a police officer may issue a written order requiring anyone within the limits of Singapore, who appears to be acquainted with any of the facts and circumstances of the case, to attend before him, and that person must attend as required.” the Public Order Act Nowhere in the letter did it state that I was not allowed to leave the country and I have already scheduled an interview with the officer at 11am on Thursday.

When the officer was asked what law or regulation am I being prevented from leaving the country, he said that I will only be allowed to leave after I have taken my statement. And he can take my statement today and then I can travel.

It is only after insisting that he explain the reason why I am prevented from leaving even for a few hours, that he revealed I am being investigated for taking part in an illegal public assembly — An “illegal public assembly” to grieve over an individual who was put to death under the state law, and insisted that he is innocent till the point he was hanged at the gallows. It was also an “illegal public assembly” where the Police officers turned up at the scene and said it was ok to gather so long there is no candles placed. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/the-case-against-prabga…/

So I took up the offer and asked him to come over to the immigration checkpoint for my statement to be taken. However, after checking with someone, he requested me to go over to Bedok Police Station to be interviewed when I am at Woodlands Checkpoint.

I then asked if it is certain that I can travel once I have my statement taken, it was then where he said that it will still be up to the Police to decide whether or not I can travel after the statement has been taken.

So the thing is here, even if I am being investigated for an “illegal public assembly” which the Police said it was ok at the time they turned up, what powers does the Police possess to restrict my travel without any specific mention in the law? If travel restriction is being imposed, why is it not indicated anywhere in the letter to me?

Also today, after being chased for an answer by one of the individuals being investigated, Officer Tan’s superior Jason Tan said that the Police could have arrested those present at the scene and confiscated our passports but choose not to do so. He stated that the period of investigation is till our first interview and after that, they will make another assessment. When asked which procedure or law gives the Police the right to do this, Ong referred to Criminal Procedure Code Chapter 68, Section 112.

Ong’s justification by the use of Section 112 is troubling. Because while the Police possesses the power to compel those investigated to surrender their travel documents, the Police choose not ask the individuals to surrender the documents under the legal procedure but choose to exercise the powers granted to them under the law to impose the travel restriction.

The implication with this undue process is that if the Police had exercised their right under Section 112 of CPC, the affected could seek redress under Section 113 and Section 114 of the same act by applying to a District Judge for the return of the travel document, stating the reasons for the application. And if the individual is required to remain in Singapore for such period as the court considers reasonable to facilitate the investigation, the court may order due provision to be made for the maintenance of such person and for compensating the person for his or her loss of time.

But in this case where the Police choose to exercise the powers granted to them under Section 112 without going through the due process, there is simply no legal avenues for the person to seek redress or to seek compensation due to the travel restriction.

 

So in this instance, are the Police acting as judge to decide whether or not one can leave the country without putting the matter to court?

If this is not harassment, I don’t know what else can be considered as one.

And it is only upon reading that I realised Singapore did not ratify the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” which guarantees the right of movement. In fact, Singapore is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to the number of UN human rights treaties ratified, putting the country the same level of Myanmar and worse than China. http://indicators.ohchr.org/

 (Photo of the Police officers who turned up at the candlelight vigil.)