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)民主党新任主席保尔.淡巴雅教授回答海峡时报答问——公民反抗行为是组成民主党斗争历史极其重要的部分 Tambyah: Civil disobedience an important part of SDP’s history

                       

公民反抗行为是组成民主党斗争历史

极其重要的部分

相关链接:

http://yoursdp.org/news/prof_tambyah_civil_disobedience_was_a_very_important_part_of_sdp_39_s_past/2017-10-31-6203

大家应该已经阅读了海峡时报有关新加坡民主党中央委员会选举产生新的这样委员以及当未来的发展计划了。本月份较早时,卓先生(Mr Elgin Toh)发表了我的第一次访谈记录。他欣然同意通过电子邮件进行采访。可能由于受到报章版位的限制。他无法把访谈全文编入其专栏。为了让有兴趣了解访谈录的朋友知道访谈的详细内容,我仅此全文刊登如下。

一、关于您当选为民主党主席

1.您是否能够进一步提供有关民主党中央委员会改选的详情——你获选为党主席是通过党员?或者是党员干部选举产生的?当天中央委员会的改选有多少党员出席参与选举?是否有其他党员参与选举党中央主席的职位?您的任职期限是多久?

黄素枝博士和徐顺全博士是我竞选党主席候选人的共同提名人。经过党员干部投票选举产生的。我的任期是两年。

2.您是什么时候决定参与党主席职位的选举的?是在党员大会之前或者在党员大会期间?您为什么会决定参与党主席职位的选举?您在决定参与党主席职位选举前是否与任何亲密的朋友事前商量过——您的朋友对于您参与党主席选举的看法如何?您是否与徐顺全博士商量过?他给予您提供了哪些意见?

几个月前他们俩与我谈过有关担任民主党主席的可能性。他们认为,我已经具备了担任党主席的相关经验了,我如果接受这个职位将会获得全党同志的拥护。就我而言,这似乎是个人参与政治活动进程中的自然发展。当我认识到反馈意见的局限性时,它将被常规所忽视。正如我与一些在我们的医疗保健系统服务的杰出医生、护士和相关的卫生专业人员接触时,我总是对医疗保健融资体系如何感到沮丧。

正如我发表的声明里所说的那样,我期望争取更多的学者和专业人士能够参与我们的公民社会运动和政治活动。我们已经有看到多米尼.普都杰里助理教授(A/Prof Janil Puthucheary) Chia Shi Lu助理教授、默罕默德.法谢.易卜拉欣助理教授( A/Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim)和英丹.阿祖拉副教授( Asst Prof Intan Azura)都加入了行动党了。  我想,假设(在反对党里)能够找到相同的专业人士参与政治活动,那将是能够出现年一个平衡的局面。我的参与政治活动是获得家人的积极支持的。对我而言这是极其重要的。到目前为止,我们的同事、朋友的反馈是积极的,这包括了来自行动党过去的元老!当我获选为党主席的消息传开后,我鼓励了每一个人祝福我的人为创造一个美好的新加坡积极参与政治活动,。

3.不知道是否可以这么说,现阶段民主党主席职位的设立是仅次于民主党秘书长的第二号人物?(这个问题的答案我不需要做记录。假设我可以从您哪儿获得无意识感的回答,我准备怎么说,“海峡时报明白那么一回事……”)

民主党确实就是一个民主的政党。党在决定一些重大决策时,党的中委会成员是拥有同等的权利。这是我从那些过去的党内活动的“老党员”告诉我的。我数年来参与党的活动的经验也证实了这一点。

二、 关于您的工作计划

1 身为党主席,您是否有一到两个 优先考虑到的任务?您想要取得哪些成绩?

假设我们能够赢得要求马西泠友池集选区举行补选的法院诉讼,我首要的任务就是要为马西泠友池集选区的补选进行准备。同时也为下一届大选做好准备工作。特别是艰巨的家访工作。我们通过家访工作不断地进行检讨和调整我们提出的广泛建议计划(其中包括了住房、医疗系统、教育和经济发展等等的建议计划)。我们与培训和教育群体予以党的志愿工作者努力的培训。他们参与的范围包括了通讯组、基层组和社会服务组。

三、党的未来发展

1)民主党在来届大选的竞选策略是什么?民主党从2015年以及武吉巴督补选汲取了许多经验。这些建议是否可以为民主党在来届大选提供参考的价值?

第一次的选举活动对我而言教育是极其深刻的。它让我认识到,我们不仅仅是与行动党和他们的候选人进行竞争。而且还要面对来自主流媒体的强大攻势以及那些游击队似的的社交媒体网站。正如徐顺全所说的“网军”(IBS),它们在选举期间不时忽隐忽现。我们也必须面对执政党利用国家资源与我们进行竞争。我可以讲一个故事来举例说明。在选举过后,一名坐着轮椅的病人前来向祝贺我进行了一场精彩的竞选活动。我问他,你把票投给了谁?他的女儿插嘴说“傅海燕提供了轮椅给他”。我想她指出,这张轮椅是纳税人掏自己的钱买的。他坚持说,傅海燕在进行家访时,一大批的随从带着那些珍贵的轮椅来到我的组屋单位。

2)民主党曾经是新加坡一个最主要的反对党——在1991年大选过后。但是在1990年年尾。民主党经历了一场最艰苦的阶段。就选举胜利而言,那个时候,当时民主党在反对党阵营里并不是排名第二位的主要反对党。但是,我应该实事求是地说,从那个时候其它就开始往上山路攀爬了。依据IPS的调查报告,民主党在2015年仅次于第一大党工人党的反对党。从2015年开始,人们开始对工人党 开始产生疑问——由于它目前正在面对着没完没了的法律诉讼案件 ,对于它未来的前途产生疑虑。鉴于上述情况的发展,您认为,这是否意味着,在未来的日子里,或许在您的领导下,民主党将重新成为最主要的反对党?为此,民主党 将需要做哪些方面的工作?

在新加坡根本就不存在着任何有关第一大反对党和第二大反对党的问题。目前所有的反对党都在努力为实现一个更加民主的新加坡而工作。最重要的问题是:我们继续保持不懈地鞭策着行动党,要求他们更加地透明和负责任。特别是目前,总理的弟妹指责他滥用权力这方面。我们的地铁公司管理水平的恶劣性,给我们国家带来的经济挑战,看来行动党政府对如何管理地铁已经黔驴技穷了。

 3)对于民主党,人民都在谈论着许多它过去的问题,当时,我只集中在一个方面——“公民反抗行为”(Civil disobedience,下同)。我为什么要提出“公民反抗行为”这个问题?因为它具有的模糊性较低。民主党在前一段历史时期,曾经通过以突破法律框框限制的斗争形势来达到改革。目前这种情况已经较小了。我的问题是:

3.1)对于过去民主党采取的“公民的反抗行为”您有何看法?您同意?还是不同意?

我想,对民主党来说,过去的“公民反抗行为”是一个极其重要的组成部分,人民都忘记了在互联网时代到来前,行动党严控的主流媒体根本无法让人民获得任何的信息。人们必须感激民主党为此所展开的“公民反抗行为”。现在我们已经有了芳林公园的集会场所。它已经成为一个独立主流媒体传播信息的场所。让所有的社运活动者,包括前行动党国会议员、后来成为总统选举候选人(指陈清木医生)到场出席集会。(尽管他没有在集会上发言,但是仍然还是出席的集会。)即便是李光耀本人也把1954513日华校中学生反对服兵役的学生抗议行动视为是一种必要的“公民反抗行为”。任何事情的决定都必须依据当时的历史具体时间与地点,不可以一概而论。

3.2)今天民主党对于“公民反抗行为”的看法如何?她会为了更好的斗争而放弃这样的斗争策略吗?

是的。由于我们许多意见观点已经能够广泛的传播到群众中了。它比起个人的单独行为来的更加有效率了,所以并不需要在继续使用“公民反抗行为”这样的斗争形式了。

 3.3.)假设在您担任党主席期间公民反抗行为”的问题又再一次被提到议程上时,您是否会反对?

民主党长期以来就坚信,在我们国家的宪法约定下人民拥有言论自由权。正如我在当选为党主席时发表的第一篇声明所说的,“在我们的国家里,宪法是高于一切法律之上的。它确保我们的公民拥有言论与结社的自由权。这样的言论与结社的自由权力只要不危害及任何个别人士或者社群。只有人民能够进行充分的辩论和积极参与有关的影响到全面福祉的问题,这个国家才有可能进步。”

 四、关于您未来的长远计划

1)假设有一天,党员要求您竞选当地秘书长职位,您是否有意问鼎这个职位?

呵呵——这是完全不可能的事。徐顺全博士在推动党务工作方面至今仍然有目共睹的,在2015年的大选,新加坡人民终于改变了他们一直拽在心中自己的看法——真正的徐顺全是……一个为人正直、坚忍不拔、性格坚强的人!正如我在演讲里所说,另外,令我感到惊讶的改变的是,他在莱佛士坊售卖书籍时,人民都有意识绕道而行回避他。但是在民主党举行的群大大会开始前数小时,群众却排着冗长的队伍等待着让他在自己购买的书籍上签名。互联网和竞选运动最终给了徐顺全一个公平、客观和真正的评价。就我个人而言,我很乐意与他共事。

Tambyah: Civil disobedience an important part of SDP’s history

Paul Ananth Tambyah

Related link:

http://yoursdp.org/news/prof_tambyah_civil_disobedience_was_a_very_important_part_of_sdp_39_s_past/2017-10-31-6203

Many of you would have read the Straits Times articles on the new SDP Central Executive Committee and our plans for the future. Earlier this month, Mr Elgin Toh interviewed me for the first article. He very graciously agreed to an email interview. Probably because of space constraints, he was limited in what he could put in his column. For the benefit of those who want to read more, this is the full interview.

(1) Regarding your election as Chairman

Can you give us a bit more details on the election – Were you elected by members or cadre members? How many of these members were there at the election? Did anyone else stand for the post of Chairman? How long is your term as Chairman?

I was nominated by Dr Wong Souk Yee and Dr Chee Soon Juan, and was elected as Chairman unopposed by the cadre members of the party for a two-year term.

(b)When did you decide to stand as Chairman? Before the party conference or during? Why did you want to stand? Did you discuss it with anyone close to you before you went ahead – what did that person say? Did you discuss it with Dr Chee – what did he say?
Dr Wong Souk Yee and Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke with me a couple of months ago about the possibility of becoming SDP chair. They felt that I had the relevant experience and that I would be well accepted by the rank and file of the party.

For me, this seemed like the natural progression of my involvement in politics. As I have mentioned many times before, I got involved with politics when I realised the limitations of providing feedback that was going to be routinely ignored. As someone working in our healthcare system with excellent doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, I was constantly frustrated at how the healthcare financing system was structured.

As I said in my statement, I hoped that more academics and professionals will get more involved in civil society and politics. We already have A/Prof Janil Puthucheary, A/Prof Chia Shi Lu, A/Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, and Asst Prof Intan Azura.  I thought it would be good to add some balance to the picture.  My family has been supportive and that is very important to me. So far, the feedback from colleagues, friends and peers has been overwhelmingly positive, including a former PAP senior leader! I have encouraged everyone who has congratulated me to get involved in their own way in making a better Singapore.

(c) Is it fair to say that the Chairman in the current SDP set-up is de facto number two to Sec-Gen? (I don’t need an on-the-record answer to this question. If I can get an off-the-record sense from you, I’m prepared to say, “The Straits Times understands that…”)
The SDP really is a democratic party and the office bearers are more or less equal when it comes to major decisions. That is what I heard from the “old-timers” and it has been my experience of the last few years.

(2) Regarding your plans

(a) What are one or two priorities you have as Chairman? What do you hope to achieve?

The priorities would obviously be preparing for the Marsiling-Yew Tee by-election if we win the case and the next general election. Specifically, they would including ramping up our home visits, reviewing and revising if necessary our various policy proposals (housing, healthcare, education, the economy etc), working with our training and education groups to train volunteers especially those involved in the communications team, ground operations and community service arms.

(3) Regarding the party’s future

(a) How will SDP fight the next general election? Were there any lessons that the party took from 2015 and from Bukit Batok that would inform the way you approach the next campaign?
My first electoral experience was very educational. I learned that we were competing not just against the PAP and its candidates but also the full force of the mainstream media and guerrilla websites which appeared and disappeared just in time for the elections (as described elegantly by Dr Carol Soon from IPS). We also had to contend with the state resources deployed by the ruling party. A story I have told illustrates this well. After the elections, a patient came up to me on his motorized wheelchair and congratulated me on a well-run campaign. I asked him who he had voted for and his daughter chipped in that “Grace Fu had provided the wheelchair for him”. When I pointed out that it was his own taxpayer dollars which paid for the wheelchair, he insisted that she had showed up at his flat with a large entourage bearing the prized wheelchair.

 (b) There was a time when SDP was the most important opposition party in Singapore – after the 1991 GE. But by the late 1990s, the party went through a more difficult period, in terms of electoral success, and there were times when SDP wasn’t even the second most important opposition party. But I think it’s fair to say that the party has since climbed its way back up. The IPS surveys show that in 2015, it was the second most credible opposition party after WP. And since 2015, there have been questions about WP’s position – the party is now faced with lawsuits that throw its future under a cloud. In light of all the developments above, do you see SDP one day regaining its position as the most important opposition party in the future – perhaps even under your chairmanship? What does the party need to do to get there?

It is not relevant which opposition party is number 2 or number 3 in Singapore. All the current opposition parties are working for a more democratic Singapore. What is more important is that we continue to keep the PAP on their toes and demand more transparency and accountability from the government. This is particularly acute right now with the accusations of abuse of power raised against the Prime Minister by his siblings. There is also the poor management of our MRT together with the economic challenges facing our nation for which there seem to be few new ideas from the PAP.

(c) There are many things that have been said about the party’s past, but I want to just focus on one aspect – civil disobedience. The reason I am choosing civil disobedience is that there is relatively less fuzziness about it. SDP was at one time in its not-so-distant history prepared to break the law in order to advocate for change. There seem to be less of it today. My questions are:

 (i) What is your own view on what SDP did in the past in connection to civil disobedience? Do you agree with it? Disagree with it?

I think that civil disobedience was a very important part of our past. Many people forget that in the pre-internet era, there was no way for anyone to be heard apart from the tightly controlled mainstream media. Thanks to civil disobedience efforts by the SDP, we now have Hong Lim Park where all manner of activists including former PAP MPs turned Presidential candidates can turn up (maybe not speak but at least turn up) to make a point independent of the mainstream media. Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew felt the need to be involved in the May 13, 1954 student protests as an act of civil disobedience. There is a time and a place for everything.

(ii) What is the party’s position today on civil disobedience? Has it abandoned the strategy for good?

Right now, there is no pressing need for civil disobedience activities as many of our posts go viral and reach a far wider audience than a single individual protest

(iii) If civil disobedience comes up again for discussion during the time you are Chairman, are you likely to oppose it?

SDP has always believed in our constitutional rights of freedom of speech. As I said in the first statement issued after I became chairman of the party, “Our constitution is the highest law of our land and it guarantees our citizens freedom of speech and assembly as long as it is peaceful and does not harm any individual or community. A country can only progress when its citizens are engaged in debating fully and actively participating in matters that affect the lives and well-being of our people.”

(4) Regarding your long-term future

(a) If party members one day want you to stand as Sec-Gen, are you prepared to contemplate it?

Ha, ha – that is very unlikely, Dr Chee has been doing a great job thus far. In GE 2015, Singaporeans finally had the chance to see for themselves who Dr Chee really is….A man of integrity, perseverance and character. As I mentioned in one of my speeches, I was amazed by the transformation in Raffles Place from people crossing the road to avoid him before the campaign to people lining up for hours to get him to sign his books at the rallies. The internet and the campaign finally allowed an unbiased look at Dr Chee. I am happy to be working with him.

Advertisements


留下评论

南大人,为争取恢复陈六使公民权继续努力!

2017年8月19日,南大同学发表联合签名公开信,要求区如柏就她在2003的一篇报道有关南大创办人陈六使老先生的公民权于1964年9月22日被李光耀吊销,但是在稍后的时间已经恢复了的历史事件予以确认是否确实?但是自公开联名信发表以来,始终没有见到区如柏给予积极的回应!(见网址:《南大同学致给前《早报》记者区如柏学长的联名公开信》(见网址:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2017/08/19/

公开信明确指出,

“因为这件事白纸黑字地出现在报章上,将来的历史学家如果从报上查到此事,就会因为误会而把这当成历史事实来写,这对已故陈老先生来说是件非常不公平的事。2013年怡保南大同学举办陈六使纪念会时,据说有人当场根据此事询问区学长,学长却唯唯诺诺、不置可否。于是,此事迄今仍是无头公案。”

公开信的要求:

究竟内政部当年有没有恢复陈六使的公民权?如果确有此事就请将证据公布出来(当年剥夺陈六使公民权时,据说有在新加坡宪报公布,所以若有恢复公民权的如此大事,相信有办法在新加坡宪报或政府公文档案中找到证据)。

如果只是道听途说而无法证明的路边社新闻,希望学长能在报上做个澄清,也顺便向陈六使老先生的家族和天下南大人道个歉。我们的这个简单要求,对一向尊重事实、以资深老报人的名义自重的区学长来说应该不算过分吧?

南大同学的联名信要求的条件并不苛刻或者很多!他们仅仅就是要求区如柏就陈六使老先生的公民权是否已经恢复所做的报道予以确认其真实性吧了!并没有要求她为报道这个信息可能产生的误导性给予任何形式的道歉!

但是,区如柏却始终不站出来对此进行澄清或者说明新闻的来源出处!她是不是抱住侥幸的心态——“因为南大同学联名发表的公开信过了一段时间就不会有人在提起了呢?老娘就是不回应,你们拿我没辙”(!?)不知道。

我想,她是过高估计自己的“能耐”了!

我于2017年8月20日在《人民论坛》发表的:《南大人,发扬南大精神,把被颠倒的历史颠倒回来!》(见网址:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2017/08/20/)已经说了:

“当事人必须主动的去寻找历史的事实真相!为自己无意忽略查找确定这段历史事实,进行更正或者补白!我们并不需要她为此做出任何的道歉!区如柏是否愿意主动去查找和确认这段历史事实,是决定了我们是否愿不愿指责或者质疑欧如柏的人格或者动机!”

我们确实不需要区如柏做任何的道歉!她不主动去查找和确认这段历史事实!但是,不等于我们会像过去半个世纪那样坐着等待!我们自己找出陈六使老先生的公民权是否已经恢复的真相!

工人党秘书长、也是南大毕业生刘程强先生为陈六使老先生的公民权是否获得恢复找出来历史的真相!他为此做了极其重要的贡献!我们必须高度赞赏刘程强先生!

2017912日,内政部长三木根在国会正式答复工人党秘书长刘程强先生提出有关陈六使老先生在1964922日被李光耀吊销的公民权是否已经恢复。三木根明确的回答是:还没有。理由是:

“陈六使从事危害马来西亚和新加坡安全与公共秩序的相关活动特别爽推进共产主义,因此他的新加坡国籍身份才会取消。”

紧接着,2017年9月21 日,海峡时报记者卓名扬先生(ELGIN TOH MING YANG) 发表了一篇关于陈六使公民权的文章。(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/remembering-tan-lark-sye)。卓名扬先生2008年在美国大学毕业。2010年在北京大学考取了政治学硕士学位。他曾任职于总理公署属下国家安全统筹部秘书处。

前南大校友江学文先生把卓名扬先生的文章重点摘译如下;

陈六使的公民权在1963年之后被当局取消,这是众所皆知的事实。

但是公民权后来有被恢复吗?

你以为这应该是个直截了当的问题。奇怪的是,这事在网上被热烈的争论,导致刘程强(工人党秘书长)在国会询问此事,使到这事得到澄清。江注:我们在脸书群组的给区如柏学长的联名公开信受到众人的支持而流传,才受到刘程强学长的注意。我并没有看到什么争论。〗

事缘早报资深记者区如柏2003年在报纸上写道:内政部恢复陈六使的公民权,他的侄儿陈永裕到内政部领回他的公民权证书。对这项报导当时华校生为之哗然,但不知如何理解此事。

人们一方面存疑因为这是当时是唯一所知的个案,另一方面没人出面反驳。

2003年,网上不是那么活跃。多年来人们只在暗地里嘀咕这事,直到一个月前有些南大校友公开呼吁区女士出面澄清时,这事才炽热化而成为大事。

这促使刘先生(国会里唯一的南大生)呈案询问此事时才从当局得到肯定的答案。

已经退休的区女士告诉海峡时报她在和中华总商会名誉会长陈永裕做访谈时得到这项消息。江注:在这里区学长并没有直接说是陈永裕告诉她,她只说在做访谈时得到这项消息。即使是陈永裕告诉她,我真不明白身为资深记者,这么重要的大事,怎么可以凭一面之词、不进一步调查就写成新闻?即使不在宪报公布,起码也有一份内政部的公函呀?〗

区女士在电话上这样跟记者说:她认为对陈六使最公道的做法是为他身后恢复公民权。从他迄今被控的罪名来看,这似乎不可能(虽然也不是绝对不可能、这样做会被华社所接受)。 (Remembering Tan Lark Sye——Elgin Toh Insight Editor Published Sep 21, 2017, 5:00 am SGT。——“An important historical fact for the Chinese community was finally settled last week – bringing back to view a longstanding discussion over how to remember a past leader of the community. This leader is the late Tan Lark Sye, founder of the former Nanyang University – also known as Nantah – and a prominent leader of the Chinese community from the 1940s until his death in 1972.Tan’s citizenship had been cancelled by the authorities after the 1963 General Election, a well-known fact.But was it ever reinstated? That ought to be a fairly straightforward issue, one would think. Strangely enough, it was a hotly debated matter on the Internet, which led Workers’ Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang to file a parliamentary question at this month’s sitting, to shed light on the issue.The Government’s answer was short and straight to the point: “The late Mr Tan Lark Sye was deprived of his Singapore citizenship in 1964. He had engaged in activities prejudicial to the security and public order of Malaya and Singapore, in particular, in advancing the Communist cause. “There has been no change in his Singapore citizenship status since then.” The discussion stems from an article published in 2003. Veteran Lianhe Zaobao journalist Au Yue Pak wrote in the Chinese daily that Mr Tan Eng Joo, nephew of Tan Lark Sye, had once gone to the Home Affairs Ministry to collect the elder Tan’s restored citizenship. It created a buzz among the Chinese-educated, but people did not quite know what to make of it.)

就是说,

全体热爱南大的南大校友和华社关注的有关公民权被吊销的历史事件终于获得了行动党具有权威性和明确的答复了。这是一个具有法律约束力的回答。

就是说,海峡时报记者的文章已经确认了:

欧如柏所说的“听说陈六使的公民权已经恢复”的“报道”都是扯鸡巴蛋!她自己没有勇气站出来承认2003年写得那篇报道是“以讹传讹”?还是“奉命”发出这篇报道的?

我们可以理直气壮地说:

被区如柏捏造和颠倒的历史终于被颠倒回来了!

南大人,行动党已经在法律上正式确认了陈六使老先生的公民权还没有获得恢复!

据说,明年是全球南大同学联欢会是轮到新加坡的南大校友负责主办。咱们可以甭管负责主办的那些人的政治立场倾向哪一边(事实上,这些人在当年是支持李光耀强行关闭南大和遞夺陈六使老先生的公民权问题!)

因为“南大全球同学联欢会”除了吃喝玩乐,为了证明南大的水和“南大精神”的伟大,几乎每一次都找一些稍有脸有面的学者校友出来亮相。到目前为止,除了槟城和怡保的南大同学负责主办的“全球南大同学联欢会”外,有哪一次“全球南大同学联欢会”的主办方敢于把陈六使老先生的公民权以及那些为保护南大而牺牲的英勇校友推上舞台?

如果主办方还要继续“高唱热爱南大、怀念陈六使老先生对南大做出的丰功伟绩”!那么,就必须把争取恢复陈六使老先生的公民权作为明年“全球南大同学联欢会”的主轴!

当然,我必须在此明确地说,对于明年负责主办“全球南大同学联欢会”的新加坡主办者不抱任何的期待和幻想!

因为他们在李光耀关闭南大和遞夺陈六使公民权的时候,是完全赞成和支持李光耀的法西斯行径的!他们后来都获得了李光耀给予的“施官”作为犒赏!

我在2013729日在《人民论坛》发表的一篇文章:《现在的行动党政府有义务和责任就李光耀时代政治迫害陈六使老先生的历史进行平反并恢复他的公民权!!》(见网址:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/)已经说了:

“今天在我们缅怀和纪念陈六使老先生的时刻,我们呼吁全体华族同胞和华文教育的后代,我们必须要求行动党政府:正确和实事求是的恢复对陈六使老先生在推动新加坡的华文教育和华族文化所作出的不可磨灭的伟大功勋记载!

今天在我们缅怀和纪念陈六使老先生的时刻,我们呼吁全体华族同胞和华文教育的后代,我们必须要求行动党政府:必须对当年关闭南洋大学以及改制新加坡的华校中小学的决定是错误的作出公开道歉!

在李光耀威权统治时期所犯下的华文教育和摧毁华族优良的文化传统给新加坡的华族造成的历史事实已经是不可挽回了!这是李光耀一手造成的!

现在的行动党政府与过去这段历史没有直接的关系!但是,作为一个声称要面对现实的行动党现有领导完全有义务和责任,就李光耀迫害政治陈六使老先生的历史问题作出平反!完全有义务和责任恢复陈六使老先生的公民权!”

河水清澈自古在、冤案终有昭雪日!——

南大人,为争取恢复陈六使公民权继续努力!


留下评论

(中英文版)新加坡民主党入禀发言提告行动党政府拒绝举行马西泠-油池集选区补选 SDP files lawsuit against PAP govt for refusing to call by-election

新加坡民主党入禀发言提告行动党政府拒绝举行马西泠油池集选区补选

2017913

新加坡民主党基于行动党马西泠油池集选区前国会议员哈莉玛已经辞去国会议员职位,并退出人民行动党,向新加坡共和国高等法院提起诉讼。诉讼是要求行动党政府有责任因哈莉玛辞职所造成的马西泠油池集选区国会议席的席位悬空举行补选以填补空缺。

行动党政府长期以来以及在许多情况下,再修改宪法以及法律法规的决定都是属于无端而且存有令人怀疑的决定。他们的目的是为了巩固自己的政权。无论如何,但是行动党政府在做出了修改宪法及法律法规的决定都很少受到挑战。

一个最为明显的例子就是,当一个集选区席位出现空缺时,他们可以决定不进行补选以填补空缺。这是错误的。依据宪法第49条(1)的约定:“不论在任何情况下,除了国会解散情况下,一旦国会议员,指不是非选区议员的议席空缺时,必须举行补选,或者在任何与国会选举相关的法律条款下强制执行。”(“Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.”

这是行动党本身通过制定的法律规定,每一个集选区必须要有一位预定的少数种族参与竞选。但是同样的情况发生,行动党本身却武断地决定,一位少数种族辞去国会议员不需要进行补选以填补他/她的空缺席位。

目前是新加坡发展的关键时刻。统治集团并没有放弃他们在未来操纵政治制度企图。他们继续坚持一党独大的非民主统治方式,对新加坡人民的愿望和愿景根本就不感兴趣。他们这样的做法只能加速我们国家走向的衰弱。

新加坡并不是属于行动党的。它是一个主权国家。这就是说,行动党只是一个在新加坡许多政党之中的一个政治组织。和其他的政党一样,它必须在尊重民主的情况下为整个国家服务——特别是在精神上——体现在国家的宪法上。

基于这个理由,新加坡民主党决定入禀法院挑战行动党不在马西泠油池集选区举行补选的决定。尽管行动党是赢得了本届的全国大选。我们绝对不可以允许他们在没有反对党的监督下任凭他们为所欲为的。

我们已经委托Peter Low & Choo LLC为我们入禀法院起诉行动党的代表律师。真相入禀法院的起诉审前会有已经定于2017109日。

我们在此号召同胞们,请予以我们经济上的支持,以支付起法律诉讼案件上所需的法律经费。我们将在较后的时间告诉大家如何筹集法律基金。

SDP files lawsuit against PAP govt for refusing to call by-election

Home2017 » September » 13  

The SDP has filed a lawsuit in the High Court to declare that it is incumbent upon the Government to call for a by-election in the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC due to Ms Halimah Yacob’s resignation from her seat.

For too long and on too many occasions, the PAP has made arbitrary and dubious decisions to amend the Constitution and statutes to preserve its own power. These decisions, however questionable, are rarely challenged.

One glaring example is the decision not to call for a by-election when a seat is vacated in a GRC. This is wrong given that Section Article 49 (1) of the Constitution states that “Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.”

It was the PAP that mandated that each GRC include at least one candidate from a predetermined minority race. But the same party is also the one who has arbitrarily decided that if that minority member resigns, there is no need to replace him or her in a by-election.

It is crucial at this time of Singapore’s development that the ruling clique does not run away with further manipulating the political system. Continued undemocratic one-party rule is not responsive to the aspirations and wishes of the Singaporean people and will only hasten the decline of this country.

Singapore is not the PAP; it is a sovereign nation. The PAP, on the other hand, is just a political party – like any other political party in Singapore. And like any other political party, it must serve the nation by respecting democracy – especially in spirit – enshrined in the Constitution.

This is the reason why the SDP is challenging the ruling party’s decision not to hold a by-election in Marsiling-Yew Tee in court. Even though it won the last elections and forms the government, it cannot and must not be allowed to do as it pleases without any check from the opposition.

We have engaged Peter Low & Choo LLC as counsel. The pre-trial conference has been set for 9 October 2017.

We also call on our fellow Singaporeans to support us in this matter by contributing financially to the expenses in the legal process. We will provide information on how to do this shortly.

 


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.

 


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.)

 


留下评论

李显龙比李光耀更加肆无忌弹地蹂躏和破坏宪法与法制精神!

网友们说,今天是国庆日。我们暂时不谈行动党编造哈利玛当总统的闹剧!

行!

那就谈国庆日吧。

我说,今天是国庆日,也是国殇日。

为什么?

因为目前新加坡正在实施的宪法,就是李光耀当年自行宣布新加坡退出马来西亚时自己拟定颁布实施的宪法。

当年李光耀要把新加坡并入马来西亚前,举行了一场全民投票。签名图是强制性的。新加坡人民只能在李光耀设置好全民投票卡上的三个选项公选民选择!这三个选项是:

  1. 接受新马合并白皮书;
  2. 让新加坡成为如槟城或马六甲一样属于马来西亚的一州;
  3. 接受不低于北婆三邦(指汶莱、沙巴和沙捞越)的条件

       (当时李光耀没有披露有关BC选项的具体内容与条件。)

当时以社阵为首的政党反对李光耀提出的全民投票三个选项,号召老百姓投空白票。社会之所以提出号召老百姓头废票那是因为李光耀说,“投废票也是视为赞成票”!最终,这场全民投票是在李光耀提出“反对新加坡加入马来西亚可能造成种族骚乱”的威迫下,以大多数票接受新加坡加入马来西亚了。

李光耀在新加坡加入马来西亚之前,也就是在196322日,在英国人和时任马来亚联合邦总理东姑.阿杜拉曼的配合下,展开了一场名为“冷藏行动”的大逮捕行动。后来的英国档案解密资料已经证明了,李光耀当年是利用英国人急于要组成马来西亚,继续控制着它在远东地区的殖民地(新加坡、马来亚、沙巴、沙捞越和汶莱)的心态,把自己的政敌——新加坡左翼政党组织最杰出的领导人在这一次的逮捕行动全部入狱。

 

尽管李光耀不惜一切代价把新加坡推进入了马来西亚,但是,他的黄粱美梦在196589日中午12点整宣告破灭!

他在全世界的通讯记者目前一把鼻涕一把泪地宣布:新加坡退出马来西亚、成立新加坡共和国。同时,宣布了新加坡共和国的宪法、国歌、国旗和法律法规等具体法律法治地位!

为什么李光耀要一把鼻涕一把泪地宣布:新加坡退出马来西亚、成立新加坡共和国?

那是由于他不甘心于自己无法斗赢马来西亚巫统中央的马来极端主义者。这场狗咬狗斗争之间的内讧结果是“李光耀被迫自行匆忙退出马来西亚、成立新加坡共和国!

为什么李光耀如此匆忙地宣布退出马来西亚、成立新加坡共和国!

那是因为他担心马来西亚巫统中央的极端马来种族主义者随时可以派出军队接管新加坡和逮捕李光耀、吴庆瑞等行动党领导人!因此在新加坡共和国成立后,马来西亚巫统中央的极端种族主义者就无法强行进入新加坡了!否则马来西亚将遭受联合国的谴责和制裁!这段历史咱们不管了。

咱们要说的是:

李光耀在新加坡加入马来西亚前似模式样地进行全民投票,以寻找法理来支持和实现自己的政治意图!但是,在新加坡退出马来西亚前,李光耀却不经过当时的新加坡自治邦议会辩论通过就迫不及待地自行宣布退出马来西亚、成立新加坡共和国!李光耀就是这么践踏和蹂躏新加坡自治邦的宪法和法律程序!

我说这些,不是要炒冷饭!而是要告诉大家一个事实:

李光耀身为出名的律师,在新加坡共和国成立时,他是践踏和蹂躏新加坡共和国宪法和司法制度的第一个人!

在李光耀的领导下,一直到他逝世,李光耀都没有一天停止践踏和蹂躏宪法和法制制度!这种行为已经成为了行动党第二、三代领导人统治新加坡的传家宝和座右铭了!特别是以李显龙为首的第三代行动党领导人更是有过之而不及!

我于200638日在《人民论坛》:《严孟达,行动党就是抡着大棒破坏法治精神的毒枭!》说过以下这段话:(见网址https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/

“是谁第一个破坏的新加坡法治精神!这个人就是李光耀他把新加坡宪法约定下的一个自由、民主和平等的新加坡变成了他个人为所欲为独霸新加坡的大棒子是谁任意修改国家的法律法规来为支撑自己的法西斯独裁统治就是李光耀他就是破坏新加坡法治精神的楷模!他是破坏新加坡法治精神的排头兵!……每当政治环境对行动党政府不利时,他们就第一时间抡起大棒,把所有敢于反抗的政治异议分子打死(长期监禁或者驱逐出境、甚至流亡在世界各国)!他们绝不手下留情!他们从来就不知道什么叫后悔他们在无法控制强大社交网络媒体的环境下,就采取了要新加坡人民笃信他们的‘法治精神’?……”

尽管李光耀已经死去了两年,我一样不会改变这句话!我这句话唯一改变的地方是:

以李显龙为首的第三代行动党团伙比李光耀国家肆无忌弹地践踏和蹂躏新加坡宪法和法制统治!

我不是胡扯!咱们远的事情甭提。就谈谈自今年614日李显龙与李显扬姐弟为38号李光耀故居事件开始、直到今天吧!

这期间发生的事件有:

一、615日到76日,李显龙与李显扬姐弟的38号故居处置问题

李显龙及其团伙在38号故居事件上的反复胡扯,引起其弟妹的极端不满。为了压服弟妹的不满,他竟然动用了整个国家机器(国会、政府特别委员会、行动党国会议员、国家主流媒体等)来为自己解套和硬掰!李显扬姐弟为此提出“私了”。李显龙在找不到任何说辞下,被迫有条件接受了李显扬姐弟的“私了”。这件事的下文如何?咱们不知道。

但是,老百姓已经从这件事的发展过程中看到了李显龙滥用国家权力与司法的霸道嘴脸与行径!

二、715日到84日,总检察长指控李绳武

藐视新加坡司法制度入禀法院事件

李显龙圈养在总检察署的爪牙不顾国家法律,竟然把李显扬的儿子,李绳武在其面簿(facbook)私聊栏的帖子内容,视为李绳武藐视新加坡的司法制度的罪证。李绳武就此发表了一封回复总检察署的来信(见《人民呼声论坛》:《李绳武给总检察长的回复》)https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/。事实证明,总检察署所拿到的帖子,是有人在未征得李绳武的允许和同意下,以快拍形式上载到网上的。主流媒体把这帖子交给了部长徐芳达。他以为捡到“宝”,对此大肆攻击李绳武。与此同时,总检察署也将这过“快拍形式的证据”作为入禀法院进行公诉的法令证据。

老百姓又再一次看到:李显龙滥用国家权力与司法的霸道嘴脸与行径!

三、731日,最高法院上诉庭审理 陈清木医生

对修改民选总统制度提出上诉

法院对陈青木医生的上诉采取的“拖”字诀!由于总检察署对他提出的上诉无法确实引据宪法来说明行动党政府修改民选总统制度是符合宪法的约定,而是以“既然国会已经通过了有关修改民选总统条款了,总检察署无权过问与干预”而驳回来他的申请。他在谘询了专家律师(包括英国女皇律师)的专业意见后,再一次向高院提出上诉!

老百姓又再一次看到:李显龙滥用国家权力与司法的霸道嘴脸与行径!

四、8月3日,陈振声在国会发出警告

须对企图干预我国政治的外来势力保持警惕

他是在“答复”行动党议员有关我国选举是否可能遭外来势力干预的“提问”时,阐明了政府所采取的防范措施。他开诚布公地说,

“下个月将迎来总统选举,必须对任何企图干预我国政治和削弱民主进程的外来势力,保持警惕。,包括通过法令禁止外籍人士参与竞选活动,以及禁止候选人和参选政党收受海外的政治献金。我们应该从外国的一些例子吸取教训,不过涉及外交和外来势力干政的课题往往非常敏感。”

事实上,陈振声是在表演项庄舞剑、旨在沛公!

五、84日内政部指控黄靖从事不符合新加坡政府利益、

吊销永久居留权事件

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院特聘讲座教授、亚洲与全球化研究所所长黄靖,84日因“为外国政府工作,影响新加坡外交政策和公众舆论”理由,遭永久取消当地居留权。新加坡内政部公布,本身为美国公民的黄靖与太太杨杨秀萍,将终身禁止踏足新加坡

这就是陈振声表演项庄舞剑、旨在沛公!谁是沛公?——“沛公”就是黄靖!

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院是李光耀时期开始设立的。它所聘请的专家学者面向全世界。它的主要宗旨是要所有被聘请的专家学者为政府在制定外交、经济等涉及新加坡本国利益时提供必要的第三方意见,这些专家学者所提供的意见不一定是要与行动党的政治观点立场相一直至的。要不要接受专家学者的意见,权利在行动党政府手上。黄靖就是在这样的前提下被行动党政府重金聘请来为行动党政府提供有关涉及国家的外交政策的顾问之一。

正如黄靖接受《南华早报》访问时否认了所有指责所说,

指他是试图影响舆论的外国代理完全是无稽之谈,并质疑当局为何不明确说出所指是哪个国家,究竟是美国还是中国?他已在新加坡落户,家人都在这里,他也在本地有房地产,当局不应如此对待他。如果他们有证据,就应该把我告上法庭。他已经,会向他的律师和美国驻新加坡大使馆寻求协助。(见网址http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20170804-784617

我们甭管黄靖的身份来历,是原籍来自中国、或者目前是美国公民。根本的问题是:

他是以专家学者身份受聘于行动党政府的。他向行动党政府提供任何有关外交和经济等方面的意见,是出于自己履行聘用协议的职责。那是经过双方共同签署协议后履行协议约定的责任和义务吧了!至于他的意见是否正确?行动党接不接受他的意见,那都是行动党自己问题!谁也左右不了!行动党若认为养狗反咬主人,那最简单的处理方式:不就是提前终止合约,或者合约期满不再续约。行动党为什么需要这么大动作来处理这起事件?

行动党政府既然指责他在为某一大国提供情报等,那就把这个大国名字公开告诉国人!这也是黄靖向行动党政府提出的挑战!

这一事件就不止老百姓看到李显龙滥用国家权力与司法的霸道嘴脸与行径!而是全世界,特别爽那些被行动党政府聘请到新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院的各国专家学者国家看清的行动党政府真面目!

614日到84日,前后一共是51天。

以李显龙为首的第三代行动党领导人在短短51天肆无忌惮地践踏和蹂躏了国家的宪法与司法制度!

为什么第三代行动党领导人要不顾一切赤裸裸的践踏和蹂躏国家的宪法和司法制度?

事实上他们就是环绕着一个核心问题!这个问题的答案就在基金将举行的总统选举!

他们为了确保即将到来的总统选举能够为自己“推荐的总统”哈莉玛“保驾护航”!

确实,行动党为了让哈莉玛当上总统已经走火入魔了!

在哈莉玛未公开宣布“退出”行动党和辞去辞去马西岭-友池集选区国会议员并参加总统前,网民已经不断地揭发她的血缘问题——她不是纯种的马来人!对此,她始终保持缄默没有直接回应。但是,她在维基解密网站的个人履历却偷偷再三修!在网民的强大压力下,最终她又不得不承认自己的父亲是印度人、母亲是哪一个种族她倒没直说!?但是,她坚持自己是马来人。她只说,让马来人族群委员会鉴定她的参选资格!和自己曾有四次受认可为马来人!(意思是:经过参加四次大选!?)

行动党和哈莉玛之所以走到今天,都是李显龙以及第三代行动党领导人一手造成的!

第三代行动党领导人为了防止陈清木参加总统选举,匆忙地在国会强行通过了只有马来人才有资格提名参加来届总统选举所导致的!但是,第三代行动党领导人完全没有预料到是网民通过社交媒体仔细地查阅哈莉玛的今生往事!

李显龙为首的行动党第三代领导人不但是践踏环蹂躏了李光耀时代制定的宪法和司法制度!现在就是自己今年6月份强行通过对修改民选总统制度法律法规墨迹未干,他们也照样践踏和蹂躏了!

哈莉玛的父亲是印度族、母亲是马来族,依据世俗惯例,他应属印度族。但是,行动党和哈莉玛完全不理会自己制定的新法律规定——只有马来族才有资格参与本届总统选举的规定!

前行动党宏茂桥机选国会议员英吉星就这个问题说了以下这段话:

在我们进行2017的总统选举前,以下的事项是必须提出来的:一、为了举行保留总统选举,确定谁是我们国家的第一任总统是非常重要的。有部分人认为新加坡的第一任总统是王鼎昌先生。他是第一个通过正式选举当选为总统的人,虽然他之前的黄金辉先生在任内行使过民选总统的权力。当时是为了让新加坡拥有民选总统而修改宪法。法庭很快将对这个问题做出裁决。但是,我个人认为政策制定者本来可以避开这个问题——宪法可以说第五届总统选举是保留选举,而不是第六届。无论如何,法庭一旦做出了裁决,我们就要以它为准,不再争论。二、马来人的定义也成了争论的另一个问题。回教社会发展理事会(Mendaki)和印度人发展协会(Sinda)如何鉴定谁是马来人,谁是印度人同大选或总统选举时马来人和印度人的定义有所不同。眼下马来社群领袖与政府应该出来厘清定义,这是至关重要的。希望这个定义能够适用于新加坡各个生活领域。我希望这个问题可以在2017年总统选举正式开始前获得解决。三、这是第一次保留总统选举,许多人因此希望看到合格的马来人站出来参与选举,使得新加坡人民可以选出自己的总统。让新加坡人民和世界各国看到,我们有足够有资格的马来人符合宪法极其严格的要求是非常重要的。假设我们在第一届保留总统选举中缺少符合资格的候选人,会是可惜的。基于此,我希望所有符合条件的人站出来参与这一届的总统选举。四、虽然宪法允许现任政府的政治人物参与总统选举,但是,有些新加坡人对现任国会议员辞职后随即参与总统选举表示关注。民选总统这个职位要有独立精神,这是李光耀先生提出民选总统的初衷。虽然我相信,每一个人在获选为总统后会履行他的职责,但是,公众的感知也是很重要的。王鼎昌先生在1993年时也是辞职后不久参选,我感觉到人民对这样的做法感到不自在。做为国家首脑,新加坡总统是个至高无上的职位,必须得到全体新加坡人民的尊重。我希望上述所说的问题可以在2017年总统选举正式开始前获得解决。新加坡人民对保留总统选举的问题进行辩论是好事。我的期望是,在2017年总统选举开始前,我们大体上可以对上述四个问题取得共识。总统一旦选出来,我们全体人民就要对获选的总统予以尊重,并以新加坡人的身份团结一致。

这说明了什么?这说明:

以李显龙为首的第四代行动党领导人为了实现自己的政治图谋,已经到了不顾一切后果了!——他们不但赤裸裸的践踏和蹂躏李光耀时代实施国家的宪法和司法制度,就自己刚刚颁布修改的宪法和法律也践踏和蹂躏!

尽为了让哈莉玛当上总统,行动党不惜把她推到风头浪尖上!但是,总统选举的问题却没有就此平息!哈莉玛的辞职却给行动党政府带来的另一个践踏和蹂躏宪法的问题!那就:

哈莉玛的辞职,行动党政府必须按照有关宪法第49部分(1)(Section 49(1) of the Constitution)和国会选举法令第24部分(2A)(Section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). 的约定,行动党政府必须宣布马西岭友池集选区行补选!可是,李显龙却在8月8日,通过行动党的御用组织人民协会宣布扎吉哈接替哈莉玛担任马西岭油池集选区基层组织顾问。这也就是说,行动党政府不会按照法律规定,在哈莉玛辞职后进行补选了!

这又再一次说明了:

以李显龙为首的第三代行动党领导人为了实现自己的政治图谋,不但不顾一切赤裸裸的践踏和蹂躏李光耀时代实施国家的宪法和司法制度,就连自己刚刚颁布的修改的宪法和法律也可以不遵守!

这就是今年国庆感言,它的题目就是:

李显龙比李光耀更加肆无忌弹地蹂躏和破坏宪法与法制精神!