黔驴技穷的许文远和只识弯弓射大雕的郭木财

标签

李显龙在2015年大选之后受委许炮为“交通统筹部长”。

什么叫“统筹”?

所谓“统筹”的意思是:从表层来看,就是统一筹划的意思。从深层来看,它包括了一个过程的五个步骤即:统一筹测(预测)——统一筹划(计划)——统筹安排(实施)——统一运筹(指挥)——统筹兼顾(掌控)。

许炮是不是也是这样“统筹”的呢?让我们回头看看过去两年来他说了什么?做了什么?地铁运作的结果又是什么?

1.在2015年9月11日大选结束后,李显龙于2015年9月28日宣布政府设立“三个统筹部长”的新职位。分别担任着三个统筹部长的人分别是:张志贤(60岁)将出任国家安全统筹部长;副总理尚达曼(58岁)担任经济及社会政策统筹部长;许文远(62岁),担任基础设施统筹部长。兼担任交通部长一职,代替大选前提出引退的吕德耀。(见《联合早报》:《新内阁出炉 许文远任交通部长》见网址http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20150928-531664)

  1. 他于20151010日为自己订立以下一个五年“宏伟计划”:

目前地铁系统维修方面的投资不足,维修工程能力也有欠理想,有必要加强投资及增聘和留住更多技术员工。他的当务之急是要减少严重地铁故障的发生率。……要求工程师出身、几乎把一生奉献给新加坡水务工作的公用事业局主席陈义辅,担任他的地铁改造顾问,协助提高地铁可靠性,目标是让地铁服务犹如水电供应一样可靠和安全……虽然近年来进行的多项改善工程已提高了地铁服务的可靠性,但目前的情况还不够理想。他要求两家业者SMRT和新捷运向香港看齐,让新加坡的地铁系统和香港地铁一样可靠。……今年上半年,南北与东西线列车延误超过五分钟的事故虽然减少了,平均每行驶13万7000公里发生一起事故,但与香港相比仍有一大段距离,香港是约每30万公里一起事故。延误超过30分钟的严重故障方面,去年本地共发生了10起,香港则有12起,但它的地铁网络明显比新加坡长。我国的地铁和轻轨网络总长183公里,香港则长达约220公里。……SMRT和新捷运须提高地铁服务可靠性,尽快缩小与香港的距离。……我的当务之急是要解决严重故障的问题,包括了解过去故障发生的原因、如何避免故障重演、已确认了哪些可能存在的导因,以及是否已对症下药。……对于新加坡未来的公共交通系统,他和陈义辅有共同愿景,就是打造一个方便、可靠及通畅无阻的公交服务,让人们无需拥车。”(《联合早报》:《许文远:应加强地铁维修投资与技术力量》见网址http://www.zaobao.com.sg/zpolitics/news/story20151010-535683

  1. 2015119日许炮在受以重任后在个人脸书网页上(FACE BOOK )说了以下的一段:

交通部须负责处理的课题远大于地铁系统,他在专注于提升地铁和巴士可靠性的同时,也须把焦点放在其他领域特别是航空和海事业,它们是我国经济增长的重要领域,关乎着许多新加坡人的就业机会,但前方有强烈的逆风和气流。……例如航空业直接占了国内生产总值约6%,提供超过16万份就业机会,但过去两年来,樟宜机场的乘客量增长已有所放缓,而一些竞争对手的乘客量则持续取得增长。(《联合早报》:《许文远:交通部的责任远大于地铁系统》见网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20151109-547036)

4.许炮制定的具体计划目标:

  1. 在任内让新加坡地铁营运水平赶上香港的地铁;

  2. 进行地铁故障演习;

  3. 在地铁站外设立故障停驶橙色信号灯;

  4. 故障发生时提供免费公交;

  5. 18个月内在所有轻轨列车安装安全屏障;

  6. 地铁站扩建月台;

  7. 地铁故障可能与气球有关;

  8. 发生故障时周边的商户要发扬甘榜精神;

  9. 必须要有一支技术过硬的技术团队;

  10. 地铁的故障就像猫抓老鼠一样

针对许炮的上述计划,当时地铁公司的总裁郭木财于20151112日是这说滴:

“1. 地铁的维修保养成本:目前每一元的收入中的0.42元是用在维修保养项目上;  2. 地铁公司在过去三年半在原有的工程师的队伍上增加(或者增聘)了72%的工程  师!  3.地铁只能力尽所能把穿行的延误控制在0.3%靠近达到香港的地铁水平!”(《人民论坛》:《当鸟枪干上大炮——SMRT 的CEO干上交通部的部长……?!—胳膊拗得过大腿吗?》见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/

大家可以看看当时许炮与郭木财过招的比较图:

当时,许炮在上任后对郭木财采取了咄咄逼人的手腕以及郭木财以委婉语言回应许炮,说明了什么?说明了:

许炮为了确保自己的10大计划能够顺利实现,他以高度赞扬公用事业局主席陈义辅来委婉的暗示郭木财及其团队管理地铁的无能!他委任陈义辅担任地铁改造顾问,协助提高地铁可靠性,就是为最终逼走吕德耀的前朝老臣子郭木财的制造舆论!

然而,天不遂许炮的欲望!为什么?

因为许炮完全忽视了郭木财在地铁里养了自己的“子弟兵”!

在这段期间,许炮到各个地铁站巡视工作,尽管都一直绕过身为地铁站总裁郭木财,带着自己心意中的“维修团队工程师”。就是要向郭木财表明:

没有你,地铁列车还是会照旧在全岛“奔驰”!

对于郭木财而言,他在许炮公布他的10大“发展宏图”时,也把自己从2013年以来所“取得的成绩”亮给许炮看!就是要告诉许炮:

你要干的活,我已经从2014年开始就干了!

从2015年9月荣任“交通统筹部长”到现在,地铁运作过程中所发生的一切故障与严重事故也证明了郭木财的“前瞻性”看法是正确的!在许炮上任后,地铁运行故障率的频繁和受影响的严重性比起吕德耀时期有过之而不及!以下发生的几宗重大的事件都是在许炮“统筹”下发生的。这些事件已经不仅仅是故障(包括延误)问题了!

1.  于2016年3月23日,介于丹那美拉站和巴西立站之间的地铁轨道发生重大致命意外,导致两名SMRT维修人员死亡事件: 当时行动党诈骗团伙及SMRT是怎么说的:

李显龙说,

无论意外、个人疏忽或系统问题,都必须确保事故不再重演;

许炮说,

当局将探讨如何加强安全程序;

陈振声说,

我们要知道发生了什么事?这样发生的。不过最重要的是。我们怎么做以避免类似事件再次发生;

郭木财说,

这是标准程序和在获得批准的前提下,当立车在行驶时,例常情况下是允许技术人员在地铁轨道上进行检查故障工作的。

事实又是什么?事实是:

两名地铁员工八个多月前遭地铁列车撞死事故,地铁公司SMRT昨早被控抵触工作场所安全与卫生法令(Workplace Safety and Health Act)后,料将认罪,面对最高50万元的罚款。SMRT监控运营总监张伟杰(40岁)也被控同个罪状,另一遭解雇的前助理工程师林世兴(47岁)则被控疏忽,导致莫哈默艾斯耶夫(24岁)和纳斯鲁胡丁(25岁)的死亡。(见《早报》:《地铁撞死员工 SMRT及两人被控》网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/znews/singapore/story20161202-697085

2.   于2017年10月7日许炮就有关一场倾盆大雨,负责承担地铁维修保养重任的璧山地铁车厂出现时抽水泵无法启动运作造成淹水,致使地铁运行系统停摆超过近10个小时事件,许文远于11月7日在国会发表的部长声明是这么说的,

地铁隧道的设计完全能够防止淹水发生。其中,碧山地铁站的蓄水量超过5000立方米,相等于两个奥林匹克游泳池。就算所有三个水泵无法操作,当天的雨水也只应该占蓄水池的13%。但事实是,蓄水池因为缺乏清理和维修,在雨开始下之前就已经装满了污泥和土,因此那天傍晚的雨直接流进了隧道。

事实真相是什么?是:

2017116针对维修碧山地铁站排水系统的内部调查已完成,六名来自建筑与设施部门的员工被发现在去年12月至今年6月间,在维修记录上做手脚。除了将对这六人采取纪律处分,另七名管理层职员也已被停职,调查正在进行中。根据SMRT企业的文告,上述六名来自建筑与设施部门的员工包括,一名经理、一名工程主管和四名员工。他们上一次为碧山水泵是在今年7月13日。(见《联合早报》:《SMRT六人将面对纪律处分 七管理层职员停职》网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20171106-808832

3. 于2017年11月15日,裕群与大士之间发生了一列在行使的列车准备进站的列车撞上了一列停靠在站点的列车,造成28名地铁乘客受伤事件;在更换过程结束时。需怕是怎么说的:

两年前开始在南北线与东西线展开的供电轨更换工程已完工,这有助于减少地铁电力故障的发生,进一步提高地铁系统的可靠性。基础建设统筹部长兼交通部长许文远昨早为供电轨更换工程主持竣工仪式时说,随着南北线与东西线的核心系统逐步更换,到2019年乘客便能体验到列车可靠性明显提高。陆路交通管理局和SMRT企业昨天宣布,已为两条地铁线更换全长约180公里的供电轨,最后一段靠近宏茂桥站的供电轨于上月15日更换。(见《早报》:《南北与东西线供电轨已全部更换 许文远:地铁可靠性两年后将明显提高》网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20170913-794770

屈指一算,今年是许炮担任交通统筹部长刚刚好两年了。

上述三起主要突出的事件说明了什么?它们的共同点是什么?

在丹娜美拉行驶中列车撞死在进行维修检查工作的技工事件、璧山地铁站水泵淹水维修报告造假事件和大士—裕群地铁站一列地铁列车行驶入站的列车撞向停靠站点的列车事件的问题的发生,说明了一个事实,就是:

1. 行动党诈骗岸团伙为了全面控制新加坡 公共经济领域以及赚取巨额利润,不惜指派了自己的“心腹团队”替代原本应该有技术专业团队负责管理的国家交通运输企业——结果是:外行管内行、官官相护!

2. 在许炮“统筹”领导下的地铁公司就是一群无所作为的骗子!基层职工蒙骗他的下属部门管理负责人;他的下属管理部门负责人 欺骗郭木财;郭木财又和许炮一起蒙骗全星加坡地铁乘客!——欺上瞒下、层层相瞒——给国家的经济利益带来无法顾及到损失和老百姓的切身利益于脑后!(许炮是否有欺骗行动党诈骗团伙,特别是李显龙本人?不知道。那是许炮和李显龙及行动党诈骗团伙之间的事,咱们不管、也不操那个心!)

许炮“统筹”地铁已经两年了。他终于承认了:

他没招了,必须接纳郭木财要推展的“企业文化”和“赞扬”郭木财是“自告奋勇”加入地铁公司的!

因此,可以给许炮两年来的工作表现成绩总结就是四个字:

“黔驴技穷!”!

(见8频道:《许文远:郭木财自告奋勇》 视频网址:http://www.channel8news.sg/news8/videos/8news-1510070232-khaw-ceo-desmond-new-1/3877340.html)

什么叫:“黔驴技穷”(qián lǘ jì qióng):就是虚张声势。他说话嗓门杜比别人声音洪亮,好像有本事。但是在具体事件发生时,他显示的“本事”就大家所见。现在老百姓把许炮当成是网络社交媒体奚落行动党诈骗团伙的如此下场,这是它们的可悲!(请大家看看,地铁公司就裕群—大士一列行驶入站地铁车厢撞上了一列已经停靠站点的地铁车厢举行记者会时,身为今天统筹部长的许炮是坐在哪儿?)

郭木财在璧山地铁车厂淹水事件发生后扯谈“企业管理文化”说明什么?

他扯谈“企业管理文化”是虚假的!真正的实质问题是:他用军官管士兵的那套,完全无法带好 SMRT这支队伍!——没人听他的瞎指挥!套用毛泽东一首诗里的一句话:他就是一个:

只识弯弓射大雕!(毛泽东:《沁园春·雪》北国风光千里冰封,万里雪飘。望长城内外,惟余莽莽;大河上下,顿失滔滔。山舞银蛇,原驰蜡象,好像白象奔跑,欲与天公试比高 须晴日,看红装素裹,分外妖娆。如此多娇,引无数英雄竞折腰。惜秦皇汉武,略输文采,稍逊风骚。一代天骄,成吉思汗,只识弯弓射大雕。弯弓射大雕,俱往矣,数风流人物,还看今朝。)

因此,对于许炮与郭木财自告奋勇管理下的SMRT,我们给予的评价就是:

黔驴技穷的许文远和只识弯弓射大雕的郭木财

Advertisements

(中英文版)又一个压制下一代沉默的手腕?(第二部分) Silencing Another Generation?——Part 2

标签

又一个压制下一代沉默的手腕?(第二部分)

作者:张素兰

编者按:

  1. 本本章的第一部分已于21071022日刊登在本论坛。(见网址:https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2017/10/22/

  2. 第二部分全文如下:

我相信大部分新加坡人经历过创伤过“应激障碍症”(post-traumatic stress disorder ‘PTSD’)。新加坡人患上这种症状并不是经历了争战浩劫而患上的,(指在经历第二次世界大战后,新加坡和本区域的国家)而是经历了英国殖民主义者和李光耀政权实施的“白色恐怖”。我们经常都被他们提醒,由于我们的国家面对着随时被灭亡的危险,对于那些不愿意苟同这这样的观点的人,他们都在内部安全法令被监禁和受到干扰。请阅读通讯记者韩莉颖小姐(Kirsten Han)在她的个人网页( insightful)撰写的文章:“剪影的压迫”(Silhoutte of Oppression” at https://spuddings.net/the-silhouette-of-oppression-1ad887bb… 

我们一代又一代的年轻人一直受到家长们的警告“不要涉及政治活动”。例如:参与反对党的活动。他妈的父母见证了逮捕普通老百姓以及在成千上万的反对派人士受到了迫害。我们一直面对着政府持续不断散播论的舆论宣传。当他们要逮捕反对者时就动用内部安全法令。我们都被告知,如果不逮捕这些反对者,必将已经造成了对国家产生潜在的威胁。就是他们所说的必须“防患于未然”(或者说,“消灭在萌芽阶段”)。但是,我们从来就无法从被捕者那里听到任何申诉的辩护。

大约在十年前,那些在内部安全法令下的被捕者开始叙述自己在牢狱里被虐待的经历。当年的左翼领导人开始出版发行书籍。第一本出版的书籍名为:《星空的彗星——历史上的林清祥》(Comet in Our Sky, Lim Chin Siong in History”)(编辑者:陈仁贵和Jomo K S edited by Tan Jing Quee and Jomo K S),这本书是于2001年在马来西亚印刷出版的,在新加坡秘密出售。

于2009年,一本无害的诗集和散文集书名叫:《我们的想法是无害的——被捕者与流亡者的诗与散文集》(“Our Thoughts Are Free, Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile”),由陈仁张素兰和许佳友负责。第一次在新加坡出版这本书的发布会地点在国家图书馆官方的反对下最终被迫取消举行(见网址:http://arteri.search-art.asia/2009/05/15/1804/)。

对于新加坡人的性格感到一点点惊讶!我们同时拥有“怕输”(“kiasu”)和“怕死”(“kiasi”)的心态。我担心失去一切的同时又不避免冒险。我们一直与政治保持一个相对的“安全距离”的生活环境。我们宁可忽视其他的受到迫害的处境,以防万一,一面因为知道(接触到)这些人会导致对自己产生不利的影响。我们正如谚语三只猴子所说的那样——啥都看不到、听不到和啥事都不敢。即便是那些被捕者的家庭成员和朋友也不愿意为受害者发出声音。因此无形中就助长了政府在我们当中制造的恐惧和无知。

这样的结局是:新加坡宁大道理一个极其荒谬的国家。为什么人们都害怕政府,而无法找出其他的出路?

尽管政府对那些不愿意遵守政府所规定条条框框的约束的人采取了严厉的行动,但是,在过去十年里一群勇敢的年轻人已经出现了。他们不惧任何的恐吓。他们为了自己的理想做出了承诺——农户我们的环境、动物、和基本人权。在这三方面,最后的一个办法是脆弱的。他们在国会里没有部长或者国会议员的支持。事实上,这些政客们对于这个问题是采取视而无睹的态度。在国会里,我们根本就没有听到任何有关侵犯人权的辩论。

随着公共安全秩序法律付诸实施后,许多社运活跃分子和著名的新闻工作者和作家开始面对麻烦了。

76岁英国作家亚伦·沙德瑞克(Alan Shadrak)在他所下榻的旅馆被逮捕。在被捕前的一天,他成功地出版发行了一本书名为:《快乐的刽子手——新加坡是死刑的功臣》(, “Once A Jolly Hangman : Singapore Justice in the Dock)。这本书的主要内容是涉及到新加坡的死刑法律。可怜的亚伦·沙德瑞克接着就政府起诉藐视法院言论,他法院判处六个月监禁和罚款2万元。(见网址:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/British-author-Alan-Shadrake-j….)即使那些在私人场合举行的新书发布会上也被警方带走到警署闻讯。

紧接着在几年后,也就是2015年,政府采取行动党对付著名的博客区如鹏(Alex Au)。他是被指控在自己的博客网站发表一篇藐视法院庭令的文章。在同一年,总理对著名的社运工作者鄞玉林进行了起诉诽谤的法律诉讼行动。区如鹏法院判决罚款8千元和法院的诉讼费。(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/…/blogger-alex-au-fined-8000-fo…)。

鄞玉林背叛赔偿总理15万元和所造成的累计损失,他同时也为此失去了自己在医院的健康护理职业。(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/…/blogger-roy-ngerng-ordered-to…

青少年因为未能幸免。16岁少年余彭杉被控侮辱宗教和在2015年及2016年,即李光耀逝世几天后,制作一个有关两个月的的视频造成触犯其他法令。他两次被判处入狱,甚至包括在精神病院度过刑期。(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/…/teen-blogger-amos-yee-gets-si….)他已经获得了美国政府的政治庇护,理由是:不断面对新加坡政府的法律诉讼。

亚伦·沙德瑞克(Alan Shadrak)并不是唯一一个面对法律诉讼的老人。另一个面对法律诉讼的老人是许荣坤(Mr Koh Eng Khoon),他是环保旧货商协会的主席( Chairman of the Association of Recycling of Second Hand Goods)。他也是76岁。他遭遇了进警方人员在午夜突袭的屈辱和恐惧。警方指控以他涉及邮寄冥纸给部长的莫须有嫌疑到他家进行搜查(见网址:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/sungei-road-market-chai…/.)。我本人也是面对同样的遭遇。

2015年武吉巴督区补选期间,警方指责我破坏“冷静日”,而到位家进行抄家搜查,并在当时即拿走了我个人使用的电子设备(见网址:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/teo-soh-lung-visibly-sh…/)。

对于过去所发生的一切对待老年人的事件,总检察长黄鲁胜在谈及保护了老年人时, 他所说的“高度弱势群体“指的是什么?”(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/…/prosecution-to-keep-apace-wit….)他是不是只关心老年人被欺诈钱财吧了?关于老年人拥有的基本自由权权利有如何呢》(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/…/prosecution-to-keep-apace-wit….

20177月,一名中年人起诉控告一个人站在莱佛士坊地铁站外进行抗议。他被判处四项非法集会罪名成立,而坐牢3个星期和罚款2万元(见网址:http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/3-weeks-in-jail-20k-fine-for-raffles-place-protester)。

2017101日,艺术工作者西兰.巴莱在国会大厦栅门外单独一个人进行进行艺术表演被捕(见网址:https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/?fref=mentions&pnref=story.

尽管政府采取了这一系列神经过敏似的对付以和平方式表达自己意见的社运工作者和人民行使自己表达言论与集会自由的权利情况,我们看到了他们是如何地扭曲的社运工作者采取了这种让他们保持沉默的手段。这些年轻人都是在小范围进行着自己的活动。但是,他们一而再、再而三的被警察署传召问讯。警方对他们进行的文化内容都是集中在一些诶琐碎的问题上,例如,在芳林公园展示过期抗议遣返马来西亚籍外来工人。这些抗议着是在滨海城鱼尾狮附近为一个外国人的个人事件。人们手持着一本书名叫:《1987年,新加坡马克思主义阴谋》在地铁车厢里事件(见网址:http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/police-looking-into-allege…)、在章宜监狱外举行烛光悼念会(见网址:https://www.hrw.org/…/singapore-end-harassment-peaceful-act….)以及一些人必须完成警方录取口供前被禁止离开新加坡。

每一次,警方都是通过亲手递交新建的形式传召这些社运活跃分子到警署进行问讯。佳能官方的这些行为已经让他们大家人感到惊讶和害怕。家人担心这些年轻人的个人安全、继续求学和失去工作的事实存在的。他们当中的两名社运年轻人已经失去了工作。遭受牵连的存在的事实。因为许多雇主都会认为政府,如果他们继续雇佣这些年轻的社运活跃分子,政府将会面对政府的刁难。新加坡无可避免的是乔治.奥威尔1984年出版的《豆瓣》世界。

1987年出现的社会运动在超过了20年后的今天有重新复苏了。我所让认识的那些年轻社运分子大多数都被警方传召问讯。他们当中一些人最少被警方传召了 四次的问讯。一些人已经离开被迫新加坡了。

假设警方人员这么忙碌于骚扰和平集会分子的活动,他们哪有宽裕的时间确保我们的国家面对恐怖主义的威胁。这就难怪内政部长发出警告说:“新加坡面对恐怖袭击不是‘假设’,而是什么‘时候’出现的问题”。(见网址:http://www.todayonline.com/…/unless-we-turn-city-prison-not….

社会运动今天面对着严重威胁下被镇压下来。

一个真正的民主新加坡我是无法看得到的。我所期望的是:

必须允许目前的年轻人最求他们的梦想和让他们成为一个富有责任感的社会一分子。让他们参与有意义的活动。他们并不需要政府高压和无理的指导。必须允许他们寻找自己的生活道路。这就像早期活跃的在英国和世界其他地方的行动党第一代领导人一样。行动党政府必须抛弃过去的统治手腕。他们必须放弃通过威胁以逮捕、司法诉讼和株连九族的方式来统治新加坡。假设行动党政府继续以这样的统治手腕来上海我们,新加坡将不可能成为一个优雅的社会。行动党的“应激障碍症”统治手腕(post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD )将会伴随着直到我们死去!

假设年轻的社运分子被镇压而沉默下来,我们知道谁应该承担这个责任。

 

Silencing Another Generation?——Part 2

 by Teo Soh Lung

 

N.B. Part one related link : https://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2017/10/22/

 

I believe the majority of Singaporeans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), not through the experiences of wars (for there was peace in Singapore and the region after the Second World War) but through “white terror” practised throughout colonial times and under the PAP government. We are constantly reminded that our country is under threat of being blown up anytime, of imprisonment without trial under the ISA and victimisation of those who do not fall in line. Read Kirsten Han’s insightful essay “Silhoutte of Oppression” at https://spuddings.net/the-silhouette-of-oppression-1ad887bb… 

Generation after generation of young people are warned by their parents “not to be involved in politics” i.e. opposition politics because they (the parents) have witnessed arrests of ordinary people and damages in the thousands meted out to opposition politicians. We are bombarded with continuous government propaganda. When arrests under the ISA take place, we are told of the potential harm those arrested would have caused if they were not “nipped in the bud”. We hear nothing from the victims.

It was only in the past decade that survivors of those imprisoned under the ISA began to speak of their traumatic experiences. Publications about leaders of the left started to appear. The first book “Comet in Our Sky, Lim Chin Siong in History” (edited by Tan Jing Quee and Jomo K S) was printed in Malaysia in 2001 and secretly sold in Singapore. In 2009, a harmless anthology of poems and prose called “Our Thoughts Are Free, Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile” (edited by Tan Jing Quee, Teo Soh Lung and Koh Kay Yew) was nervously published in Singapore for the first time. The venue for the launch was changed at the last minute because of objection from officials of the National Library. See http://arteri.search-art.asia/2009/05/15/1804/

It is little wonder that Singaporeans are possessed of two strange characteristics called “kiasu” and “kiasi”. We are afraid to lose and we are adverse to risk. Staying clear of politics is the safest way to live. We prefer to be ignorant of other people’s traumatised lives, just in case knowing about them will adversely affect us. We are the proverbial three monkeys – see nothing, hear nothing, do nothing. Even family members and friends of those arrested do not speak about them. The government thus thrive on our fear and ignorance.

And so we reach a rather absurd state. Why are people afraid of the government and not the other way round?

But despite the government’s harsh actions against those who do not conform, a small group of brave young people have emerged in the past decade. They refuse to be intimidated. They are committed to causes – protection of our environment, animals and human rights. Of the three causes, the last is fragile. It has no ally in ministers or members of parliament. Indeed, politicians pretend that human rights issues do not exist. We don’t hear about abuse of human rights debated in parliament.

Soon after the Public Order Act was enacted, many activists and even an established journalist and author got into trouble.

Seventy-six year old British author, Alan Shadrake was arrested at his hotel room at dawn. The night before, he had successfully launched his book, “Once A Jolly Hangman” which dealt with the death penalty in Singapore. Poor Shadrake was subsequently charged for contempt of court, jailed for six weeks and ordered to pay a fine of S$20,000. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/British-author-Alan-Shadrake-j…. Even those who sold his book at a private event were hauled up for interrogation at the police station.

A few years later,  in 2015.  the government brought action against prominent blogger, Alex Au for contempt of court over an article he wrote on his blog. In the same year, the prime minister brought a defamation suit against social worker and blogger, Roy Ngerng (2015). Alex Au was sentenced to pay $8,000 in fine and costs. See http://www.straitstimes.com/…/blogger-alex-au-fined-8000-fo… while Roy Ngerng was ordered to pay $150,000 general and aggravated damages and costs. Roy also lost his job with the health care authority. See http://www.straitstimes.com/…/blogger-roy-ngerng-ordered-to… 

Teenagers too were not spared. Amos Yee, then 16, was convicted for insulting religion and other offences (2015 and 2016) in a video published a few days after the death of Lee Kuan Yew. He was twice sentenced to terms of imprisonment and even spent time in the mental hospital. See .http://www.straitstimes.com/…/teen-blogger-amos-yee-gets-si…. He has been granted political asylum in the United States on the grounds that he had suffered persecution under the Singapore government.  

Alan Shadrake was not the only elderly person who suffered persecution. Another elderly gentleman, Mr Koh Eng Khoon, Chairman of the Association of Recycling of Second Hand Goods who is also 76, suffered the indignity and horror of a midnight raid by police officers over an alleged offence he did not commit. His mobile phone was seized. No apology was tendered or compensation given even when the police discovered their error. See https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/sungei-road-market-chai…/. And I too, had my flat raided and electronic devices seized by the police for alleged Cooling Off Day offences. See https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/teo-soh-lung-visibly-sh…/ . So what was the Attorney General Lucien Wong’s talk about protecting seniors who he classified as a “highly vulnerable group” all about? See http://www.straitstimes.com/…/prosecution-to-keep-apace-wit…. Is he only concerned about seniors being cheated of their money? What about their personal liberty?

In July 2017, one man was charged for staging a solo protest in Raffles Place and sentenced to 3 weeks’ jail and fined $20,000 for four counts of taking part in an unlawful assembly. See http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/3-weeks-in-jail-20k-fine-for-raffles-place-protester.

On 1 October 2017, artist Seelan Palay was arrested for his solo art performance outside Parliament House. See https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/?fref=mentions&pnref=story. Investigation is ongoing.

Despite all these nerve wrecking actions taken by the government against peaceful activists and people exercising freedom of speech, expression and assembly, we see the resilience of young activists. They carry on their work in small ways. Time and again, they are summoned to the police station and interrogated over petty matters such as displaying national flags in Hong Lim Park, protesting against repatriation of Malaysian workers who gathered near the Merlion, skyping a foreigner in a private event, holding a book entitled “1987 Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy” in trains, see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/police-looking-into-allege… and and holding a vigil at dawn outside Changi Prison. See https://www.hrw.org/…/singapore-end-harassment-peaceful-act…. Several were also prevented from leaving Singapore before their statements were recorded.

Each time activists are called up to the police station via letters hand delivered to their residence, their parents are shocked and worried. Fear for their safety, education and employment are real. At least two activists have lost their jobs. Victimisation is real because many employers think that the government will victimise them if they retain activists in their workforce. Singapore is inescapably George Orwell’s 1984 world.

It took more than 20 years after the destruction of civil society in 1987 to re-emerge. Almost all young activists I know of today have been summoned to the police station. Some have been summoned more than four times. Some have left the country.

If police officers are so busy harassing peaceful activists, how can they find time to ensure that our country is safe from real terrorism? No wonder our minister for home affairs issued the warning that a terror attack on Singapore is a matter of “when” and not “if”. See http://www.todayonline.com/…/unless-we-turn-city-prison-not….

Civil society today is under severe threat of being quashed.

I will not live to see a truly democratic Singapore. All I hope for is that the present generation be allowed to pursue their dreams and live as responsible members of society, involved in meaningful activities. They do not need the heavy and unreasonably hand of government for guidance. They should be left alone to find their paths in life, just as the earliest generation of PAP leaders once did in England and elsewhere. The PAP should unlearn past practices and govern Singapore without using threats of arrests, law suits and victimisation. We will never be a gracious society if the government continues to traumatise us by purging civil society. PTSD will be with us till we die.

If the present generation of activists is silenced, we know who we have to blame.

 

当胳膊扭不过大腿时老鸨就成了婊子

标签

李显龙到美国访问传来了在他的“智慧”下了140亿美金的波音飞机订单。社交媒体的网民已经为此调侃:他是新加坡的“鸡王”!?

咱们就甭管他是用“智慧”买飞机?还是“鸡王”……?

咱们先来说说李显龙的访美外交级别吧。

李显龙于2017919日至21日到中国的访问是属于哪一种性质的“访问”?中国与新加坡同时把访华的定为是属于“正式访问”。

李显龙于2017 1022日至26日到美国访问是属于哪一种性质的“访问”?美国与新加坡同时把访华的定为是属于“工作访问”。

什么叫“国事访问”?

“国事访问”指国家元首应他国元首邀请进行的访问。接待规格非常正式,完全按外交礼仪安排。一般有红地毯、检阅仪仗队、鸣礼炮21响等。

什么叫“工作访问”?

“工作访问”的规格低于国事访问。不需要繁琐的仪式,领导人为磋商重大问题举行的会晤往往采用这种形式。就内容而言,与国事访问区别不大。

什么叫“正式访问”?

“正式访问”指一国领导人应他国领导人正式邀请,对其进行的访问。有时称友好访问或正式友好访问。

什么叫“非正式访问”?

“非正式访问”指访问礼仪活动一般从简。其中领导人以私人身份进行的访问称为私人访问,由于某种原因不便公开的访问称为秘密访问。工作访问也属非正式访问。其与正式访问的区别在于,正式访问的国家礼仪象征性更强, 非正式访问则根据客人的愿望安排活动。

李显龙在2017926日结束了他访问中国后对记者说:

“他已经见到要见人了……”(?)

我们已经看到了李显龙访华的“成果”是:

他无法改变、或者恢复了在新加坡于2015年南海事件前在亚细安国家与中国之间扮演的“友好、中立“的角色了!他也无法改变、或者恢复了在2016年九架装甲车后中国/新加坡之间的“亲密关系”?

请大家别忘记李显龙于20151121日说过:

作为亚细安-中国关系协调国,新加坡将做个公正的中间人”(honest broker) ,客观和透明地对待各方,竭力强化亚细安-中国关系,令双方关系更上一层楼。(《联合早报》《李总理:新加坡将做亚细安-中国公正的中间人》:见网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20151121-551430

在李显龙访华前维文会见中国外交部长王毅。双方外交部长说了以下这段话为李显龙访华定调!

中国外长王毅说:

“新加坡明年又是东盟(亚细安)的主席国,同时兼任中国东盟协调国,我们相信也祝愿新加坡可以把这两个担子挑起来,在中国东盟关系的进一步发展过程当中,发挥好新加坡独特、积极的作

新加坡外长维文说:

“频密的交流显示我们的关系处于良好运作状态。我们可能有分歧,但我们没允许分歧影响双边关系的整体基调。更重要的是,经商状况和交易,以及未来的机会都不受影响(《联合早报》:《王毅赞赏新加坡推动中国亚细安关系作用》见网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20170807-785059

在李显龙前往中国进行“正式访问”前,行动党的头儿们与外交官员马凯硕(新加坡资深外交官、国立大学李光耀公共政策学院院长)比哈利(新加坡巡回大使)、叶光荣(新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院顾问)李显龙、维文、陈振声、三木根、分别就新加坡与中美两国的外交关系说了以下的话:

1.     2017年7月1日,马凯硕日说,

“新加坡应以中东国家与卡塔尔断交为前车之鉴,牢记“小国应有小国的作为”。他认为,随着新加坡进入后李光耀时代,外交行为也应改变……新加坡外交团队在南海课题上的言论不够克制,事都有正确的时机。大国争得面红耳赤之际,并不一定是强调自己原则的最佳时间点……新加坡在回应南海仲裁案时应“考虑更周全……”(见网址:http://news.china.com.cn/live/2017-07/04/content_38462099.htm

2.  2017年7月1日,比拉哈里回应马凯硕的讲话说:

“即便是得罪老朋友也必须强烈反驳”……马凯硕说这是现实主义考虑,但现实主义并不意味低声下气,冀望获得大国的认可和垂青……对马凯硕‘主张附属关系作为国家关系常态’感到失望和惭愧……” (《中国网新闻中心》见网址:http://news.china.com.cn/live/2017-07/04/content_38462099.htm

3.     2017年7月1日,三木根说

“新加坡这个弹丸之地之所以能在国际舞台上赢得尊重,就是因为从不以“小国”思维自认卑微。自己任内从没有忘记新加坡是小国,“但我同样知道,一旦你允许别人欺负你,你就会一直受欺负。有些其他国家的外长在我们不答允他们的要求时用不同方式威胁我们,或语气严厉。但我直视他们,告诉他们我们的立场不动摇。他们的态度过后就改变了。” (中国网新闻中心》见网址:http://news.china.com.cn/live/2017-07/04/content_38462099.htm

4.     2017年7月3日,叶光荣3日在《海峡时报》撰文说:

“作为一个新加坡人,“我不想自己的国家陷入耗时耗力的大规模争斗,因为我们是小国,承担不起。这是常识” (中国网新闻中心》见网址:http://news.china.com.cn/live/2017-07/04/content_38462099.htm

5.     2017年7月6日,陈振声说:

“作为小国,新加坡在外交上必须按原则行事,不能偏袒任何一国,也不能轻易屈服于外国压力。”(《联合早报》:《陈振声:新加坡外交上不偏袒也不轻易屈服于任何一国》见网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20160706-637979

6.     2017年7月10日,李显龙说:

“新加坡不存在任何幻想,……这是个危机四伏的世界,有大国也有小国。新加坡是小国,我们须接受这个现实。与此同时,我们必须保障我们的利益。这两者听起来有矛盾,但我认为它们是相辅相成的。我们必须清楚知道现实,但这并不代表要向命运低头。……新加坡有责任对关系到自身利益的议题表达立场并加以应对,不能指望保持低调并希望不受别人关注”。(注:2015年,李显龙在阐述新加坡外交政策时曾说,新加坡不愿接受“小国无外交”的命运。”《中国网》:《李显龙谈“小国外交”:认清现实捍卫自身利益》见网址:http://military.china.com/important/gundong/11065468/20170713/30961807.html

7.     2017年7月17日,说维文:

“新加坡尽力建立一个广大的关系网络,但这些关系都必须建立在对彼此主权、平等相互尊重的基础上,无论国家是大还是小。……新加坡虽然力求广结善缘,但外交不仅仅是不惜代价的‘友好关系’。……在外交上致力广交朋友,不树立敌人,但不会为了要维持友好关系而牺牲国家重大利益。”(《新浪新闻中心》:《“小国外交”论战声中新加坡外长表态:广交友但不会不惜代价》网址:http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2017-07-18/doc-ifyiaewh9605651.shtml

以上是李显龙访华前行动党的头儿以及外交官们的说辞。

所以,新加坡媒体人在报道李显龙访华后告诉新加坡人民说:

“这一次访华李显龙“一口气见了4位政治局常委,就是‘想见的都见到了”。

简单地说,李显龙访华的“成果”就是:

  1. 亲自到北京登门向中国的领导人一一负荆请罪;他的跟班陈振声、维文、黄循才、杨莉明、孙雪玲……等行动党诈骗团伙到北京就是“畅游神州”……

2.中国“责令”新加坡不要再搞三搞四,充当美国人在亚洲的反华走卒急先锋、把自己定为在亚洲;

3.中国人安排要李显龙到厦门走走看看,就是要给他长点“智慧”,不要以为中国在发展资讯新科技比新加坡落后;

看到了李显龙访华的“成果”,您就不难想象到李显龙访美的“成果”!——

  1. 新加坡航空签140亿美元波音订单——那是帮忙特朗普兑现其竞选宣言!——解决美国人民的失业问题——7万个美国工人可以上岗了!他没有李光耀的能耐,连哄带骗让美国人到新加坡来投资,解决新加坡目前人民失业、外来投资萎缩、出口与内需萎靡不振的经济情况!(见网址:http://www.sginsight.com/xjp/index.php?id=19554

  2. 新加坡“坚决支持”美国对付北韩的立场!——呵呵!行动党诈骗团伙拿什么来支持美国对付朝鲜?要学南韩一样,让美国人设立萨德导弹系统?那就是找死!现实版的南韩可以在新加坡翻版!

反过来,咱们看看行动党诈骗团伙列为要全国人关心的大事:

  1. 他们在国内天天撕破喉咙高喊“反恐”的“重要课题”,到了美国,我们却没听到他们向美国人提起!这就是说,美国人根本就没有把行动党诈骗团伙的“反恐”当一回事!

  2. 他们到了美国,压根儿就没有再向美国总统特朗普提起重新启动TPP协议的事了!美国人已经表明准备考虑加入中国发起组织的亚洲基础建设基金和一带一路计划。李显龙自己在访华时也是这么说滴!

 

3. 在李光耀年代,他总是喜欢吹嘘新加坡是联系中国与西方国家的桥梁!李光耀当年费尽心机与中国合同进行投资几百个亿美金的“新加坡中国苏州工业园项目”,就是为围绕这个构思的。李光耀就是想利用手中的资金,利用中国的脸颊劳动力和土地,吸引西方国家到新加坡后,以外资企业的身份,一起到苏州设厂投资。最后,再把“新加坡中国苏州工业园项目”拿到新加坡骨片教育所上市,把自己的钱一口气捞回来……(后来这个梦想随着中国的改革开放深入发展,从大股东变成小股东,那是后话。这里不谈。)现在中国的一带一路的发展,已经说明中国与美国之间已经有了通畅的投资管道!李显龙根本就无法把自己扮演成中美之间的传话筒或者中间人拉线;(《新加坡文献馆》:《李显龙不愿在中美之间选边站》见网址:http://www.sginsight.com/xjp/index.php?id=19559

事实上,在南海事件发生后,中国已经彻底抛弃对新加坡的幻想了。

中国直接与菲律宾解决南海纠纷、和马来西亚签署东海岸吉兰丹州链接西海岸巴生港口的500多亿人民币的投资项目已经明确告诉行动党——中国“不缺钱”!中国“不需要新加坡扮演起在亚细安国家与中国之间的‘中立与友好的中间人’角色“!

李光耀时代一手创建的“国际老鸨外交”业务从2015年11月开始已经萎靡不振的!——就是栽在南海纠纷事件和9架武装军车事件正式结业!不是吗?事实就是这样!

2017年10月26日,《联合早报》做了如下报道:

在出发之前李显龙有机会和特朗普交换意见,并和他的官员讨论亚洲的情况、亚洲所需要的发展、亚洲所希望美国扮演的角色。他们聆听了意见,李显龙希望也有理由相信美国人会考虑他的看法。……两国的经济关系是互利共赢的。新加坡是亚细安国家当中,美国商品的最大买家。美国在新加坡的投资以及从新加坡的进口,也制造了就业机会。有好几千个美国跨国公司、各种金融公司在新加坡投资,在新加坡创造了成千上万的就业机会。所以我们必须不断地维持双边的合作。不断地保持密切的联系和交流。让我们了解他们的看法,他们也可以知道亚洲的情况、新加坡的机会。”(《联合早报》:《李显龙总理结束美国正式工作访问 总理:有价值的访问》见网址:http://www.channel8news.sg/news8/latestnews/20171026-sg-pmlee/3865202.html?cid=ch8news-fb

李显龙就是爱“自拍”!

特朗普将在2017年11月3日访问亚洲。众所周知,特朗普亚洲之行访问的国家在日本、韩国、中国、越南和菲律宾等5国,同时,出席亚太经合组织领导人会议。行程就是并没有包括新加坡!

美国人要到新加坡的邻国访问,李显龙却扰乱半地球到美国,去告诉美国人要来亚洲必须注意哪些情况?但是,他却不敢告诉美国人;“我们家的窑子和姑娘服务是多么的好”

现在摆在李显龙面前的局面就是:——嫖客不上门、老鸨坐冷板凳!

  1. 今年29个国家领导人(包括大部分亚细安国家在内)出席北京峰会,新加坡则被排除在北京峰会之外!

  2. 特朗普亚洲之行路过走过杜比进来新加坡“歇歇脚、喝杯啤酒”,直奔亚太经合组织领导人会议会场!

这一切就已经足够说明了:

由李显龙继承李光耀经营的“国际老鸨子”业务已经没有嫖客上门来!窑子没有了嫖客,老鸨子也就只能当干!老鸨子当干?那老鸨子就名副其实地成了婊子!所以,李显龙不得不到美国找嫖客揽活!

导致李显龙的窑子没有嫖客上门的原因是什么?就是:

  1. 它们口口声声说,新加坡在国际外交关系上将坚持“中立、诚实和友好”立场!北京和华盛顿谁都不要行动党这个“国际老鸨”!

  2. 他们在北京高唱“没有共产党就没有新中国”、到了华盛顿赞颂“伟大的美利坚共和国”!结果不仅会华盛顿都不知道这个老鸨子到底那句话是具有真实性和可靠性?

所以,结果就是两个超级大国不理他。也就是老话所说的:

胳膊扭不过大腿的现实!(英文翻译是:“The earthen pot must keep clear of the brass kettle.”)。

胳膊拗不过大腿后。老鸨子的窑子也就理所当然要冷清。没有嫖客的窑子,就没有妓女。窑子没有了妓女,那么老鸨子就只好自己抛头露面出来捞了!出来捞的老鸨子,老祖宗都管叫它是:婊子!

所以本文的标题就是:

当胳膊扭不过大腿时老鸨就成了婊子

(中/英文版)林俊辉亲属寻求捐助起诉新加坡教育部和警察部队的法律基金 family of Benjamin Lim seeking donations in their legal action against MOE and SPF

标签

编者按:本网站是转载自社交媒体网站TOC。网站的林俊辉小弟弟的亲属发表的公开信。本中文版本与英文版本内容如有不符之处,均以英文版为最终的解释权。特此说明。

林俊辉亲属寻求捐助起诉新加坡教育部和警察部队的法律基金

 

TOC网站 20171012

 

我们是已故14去年少年林俊辉的亲属。我们写这封信是为了呼吁社会人士支持与捐助我们进行一项起诉新加坡教育部和警察部队的法律基金。

林俊辉是在2016年正月26日被宏茂桥警区的警方人员从当时就读的德贤中学(North View Secondary School)带走的。 当时他正在学校上课。林俊辉是在没有成人陪同下被警方人员带走的。警方人员带走林俊辉的理由是要他协助调查一起涉嫌犯罪的有关指控。林俊辉在警署被警方盘问。在警方盘问了超过三小时后,他在母亲及姐姐陪同下当天离警署一起回家。他的母亲在当天下午接到了学校辅导老师的电话后,自己从家里的睡房窗口跳楼自杀身亡

我们在听取了法律咨询后,认为这起事件牵涉了许多有关公共利益尤其是家长对学校当局及警方人员照顾孩子的期望。基于此,我们呼吁关注这起事件的市民协助我们进行这起法律诉讼行动。

 诉讼费预算

 林俊辉亲属为了要为他寻求正义公道,亲属已经筹措了15千元法律费用并委任了律师进行这场法律诉讼。可以预见的,这场法律诉讼费时相当昂贵的,必然将超过15千元这个数额,可能需要超过数十万元。 

我们被告知,类似于这样性质的法律诉讼案件的法律费有可能达到20万元。

未来的挑战

虽然在新加坡的诉讼非常昂贵,但对于我们的下一代而言,这是有带来真正改变的可能。身为林俊辉的家长,我们认为,我们的孩子的死亡的情况是涉及到当局采取不正当的手段或者处理不当而导致的。当局这样的行为对于我们下一代孩子的未来而言,是无法获得保证的。我们希望通过这样的法律诉讼行为可以让我们改变保护所有孩子的未来。

我们的家庭并不富裕。在寻求法律谘询时,我们已经要耗费数千元了。这笔款项是我们经过两年的储蓄所筹集来的。我们现在准备进行法律诉讼和社会各界的支持。我们这么做是为了确保林俊辉不是平白无故的逝世的。尽管我们已无力挽回俊辉的逝世。但是,我们有能力我们新加坡其他的孩子们在未来获得更好的保护。

我们的孩子林俊辉逝世时的年龄是14岁。到了今年他是16岁。每一年的生日当天和华人农历新年期间,家人的团聚都因为他的缺席而感到忧伤。我们可以预见一个事实就是:这样的悲剧将会发生在其他的家长身上。由于基于政府选择不从林俊辉的死亡吸取教训。他们必须从林俊辉的死亡惨痛事件学到改进这个制度和保护新加坡应有的及其可贵的孩子,否则将会有家庭为此失去他们的孩子这样惨痛的悲剧再产生。

在此,我们就此呼吁所有关注这起事件的社会人士支持我们筹措法律基金的呼吁。

那些有意通过银行信用卡或者预付卡支持我们的这场法律诉讼的捐助者,请浏览如下网址:

https://pozible.com/project/legal-suit-of-benjamins-family

 

对于那些有意通过银行转账形式捐助者,任何数额都可以转入我们设立的以下银行户头:

POSB saving account 421-54167-1

这个银行户头是亲属为筹措法律基金而设立的专用银行户头。

我们再次感激您的支持。您如果有任何的问题或者需要我们澄清任何问题,请发电邮到以下邮箱地址给我们。

benjamin26012016@gmail.com 

附注:

这个法律基金筹措运动由TERRY  XU所发起的。因为这是林俊辉亲属第一次处理这样的事件,他们不知道如何向社会人士进行筹措法律基金。筹措法律基金户头的受益人是林俊辉的亲属。所有筹措到的全部捐献法律基金将直接转到其亲属。法律基金运动发起人将不会处理任何的捐助款项。

相关链接:

  1. 14岁跳楼身亡青少年林俊辉家人致给社会各界的公开信——人民行动党政府必须就14岁青少年跳楼身亡发表正式声明!》(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/

  2. 新闻及时事节目》:《【14岁少年坠楼案】陈川仁:警方和教育部都需要检讨》
    (见网址:http://www.channel8news.sg/news8/singapore/20160205-sg-14yo-dead/2491434.html

3.     《公民在线》(TOC)编辑部回应内政部长的国会讲话 Editorial: Response to speech on TOC by Home Affairs and Law Minister(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/

4.     新加坡民主党:在林俊辉死亡事件上,律政部长别责怪他人,只怨自个儿行动迟缓 SDP: Law Minister should not blame others for his own tardy actions in Benjamin’s case(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/%ef%bc%8c/

5.     三木根拽着真相在唱“老黄歌”!(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/

6.     假设没有社交媒体支持,林俊辉跳楼自杀身亡事件就不了了之!(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/

7.     内政部长三木根和警方拒绝回应TOC有关14岁跳楼自杀身亡林俊辉事件 Questions about Benjamin Lim’s case, Home Affairs Minister and SPF cannot answer(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/

8.     新加坡民主党秘书长徐顺全:林俊辉事件已经闹得沸沸扬扬,三木根部长仍然保持沉默! Chee Soon Juan: Minister Shanmugam’s silence in Benjamin Lim’s case is disturbing(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/%97%e4%bf%8a/

9.  教育部声明(见网址:http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/02/moe-schools-obligated-to-cooperate-with-police-and-not-stand-in-the-way-of-law/

10.         警方声明(见网址:https://www.change.org/p/ensure-protection-of-minors-during-police-investigations

11.         有关14岁青少年林俊辉跳楼自杀的事件经过简述视频
(网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnIegXItDXU

12.         哪个政府部门应该为这起人神共愤的事件承担全部、不可推卸的法律责任!?》
(见网址https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/

13.         网民们,深挖掘、广搜证!迫使行动党政府必须就林俊辉的跳楼身亡发表政府正式声明!(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/

14.         行动党爷们和娘们都患上后期喉癌!学校与警方成了无主鬼魂!(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/

15.         黄志明与王乙康,老百姓不是要你们当高级政务甩手管家!(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/

16.         警察是学校的常客还是稀客?(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/

17.            本年度最佳傻屄奖得主——小黄狗! ——学校成了培养和蜗居犯罪幼苗的温床! ——警察叔叔成了学校的常客!(见网址:https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/

We, the immediate family of Benjamin Lim Jun Hui are w family of Benjamin Lim seeking donations in their legal action against MOE and SPF

 

Published on 2017-10-12 by The Online Citizen

 

Writing this letter to members of the public to seek financial donation to support legal action against the Ministry of Education and the Singapore Police Force.

Benjamin passed away on 26 January 2016, the same day he was taken to Ang Mo Kio Police Division from North View Secondary School ( unaccompanied by any adult from his family or school ) during school hours for questioning in relation to an alleged offence . He was brought back home on the same day by his mother and Sister after spending more than three hours in the police station where he underwent interrogation, and jumped from height to his death after a call was made by the School Counselor to his Mother later that  afternoon.

The family has been advised that the case raises many troubling issues regarding the duty of care expected of our schools towards school children and also the care owed by our police force to members of the public. We therefore appeal to concerned citizens to help us in our cause .

Budget Overview

The family of Benjamin wishes to seek justice for him. The family has engaged a lawyer and raised about S$15K to fight the case. However, legal action of this nature is financially very challenging and will cost a lot more than $15K.  We therefore appeal to concerned members of the public for support to fund the legal challenge, which may run to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Potential Challenges

We have been advised that this type of  lawsuit will cost upwards of $200k.  Litigation in Singapore is very expensive but has the potential to bring about real change for our future generations. However. we feel as parents that the circumstances of the death of our son were not adequately handled or settled by the authorities involved.  The outcome we received in no way protects the children of Singapore and we hope that legal action can create the changes needed to protect all our young people in the future.

Our son Benjamin was 14 years old when he died, today he would be 16.  Every birthday, every CNY, every family gathering we grieve his absence which is accompanied by a prescient fact that this could happen again today to another set of parents; another family could feel the tragic loss of their child due to our authorities choosing not to learn from Benjamin’s death, and use the lessons learned to progress their systems and protect vulnerable children of Singapore.

We are not a wealthy family.  To get the legal advice needed to get us to this stage has cost thousands already, a sum that we have had to save and amass over the past year or so.  We are now ready with the legal and community support to continue in our effort to make sure that Benjamin’s death was not in vain and that although we are powerless now to help Benjamin, we do have the power to make sure that other Singaporean children are better protected.

For those who wish to contribute through credit/debit cards for the campaign, please visit

https://give.asia/story/legal_suit_against_moe_and_spf_for_death_of_benjamin_lim.

For anyone who wish to contribute via direct banking, you may transfer any amount to

POSB saving account 421-54167-1.

This account was recently set up by the family to gather funds for the purpose above stated.

Note: This campaign is created by Terry because the family has no idea how to raise money from the public and it is their first time dealing with this. The beneficial account is set to the family so all money will be sent to the family and will not be handled by the creator of this campaign.

We thank you for your support and do feel free to write to us at 

benjamin26012016@gmail.com 

if you have any questions or if you need further clarification.

(中英文版)警方逮捕站立在国会大厦外手持画板的艺术工作者 西兰.巴莱 Activist arrested by Police outside of Parliament House after standing alone with artpiece

标签

转载自The Online Citizen 2017-10-01

网址:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/10/01/activist-arrested-by-police-outside-of-parliament-house-after-standing-alone-with-artpiece/

编者按:本中文翻译如与英文原文原意有不符之处,均以英文原文作为最终解释权。

 

警方逮捕站立在国会大厦外手持画板的艺术工作者西兰.巴莱

 

艺术工作者/社会运动活跃分子西兰.巴莱(以下同称Seelan Palay)于2017101日星期日下午在芳林公园呈现了表演:“32年:镜子的审讯”。这是他为了纪念前国会议员谢太保经历了不经审讯32年的长期监禁所扮演的节目。

西兰.巴莱是通过自己创建的脸书网页公布这个表演节目的具体时间和地点的。表演是在当天下午约2点左右开始。大约有20名观众出席了这场表演。在近10分钟的表演过程中,今年满32岁的西兰.巴莱说,他无法理解一个人怎么能在同样的时间里不经审讯就被关押起来?

他在芳林公园的表演是获得准证的。在他离开芳林公园表演场地继续另一部分未对外宣布的表演时,对着自己的作品说,假设我面对着谢太保时,我会提出两个问题问他:

一个具有自由思想的人会被国家所认可的空间所束缚的吗?在这个问题上,同样地,一个具有自由思想的艺术作品是否也会局限国家认可的空间里?您想要知道这两个问题的答案吗?让我表演给你们看。

他前往国家艺术画廊和国会大厦继续完成他的艺术表演,他的艺术表演道具以一面镜子。他站立在国会大厦前,举着这面镜子。在国会大厦,执勤的警方人员经过数次的劝告他离开国会大厦的范围,他仍然没有离开的情况下,终于在下午3.20分左右被警方逮捕。我们确实无法知道警方是援引哪一条法令逮捕西兰.巴莱的。在现有的法令下,一个人的行为可以视为是非法集会。

根据海峡时报的报道,警方说在下午2.53分获得在外执勤警察的要求予以支援的。他们获知“一个人手执着一个非法的抗议物件,站在国会大厦外面”。这个要求予以支援的呼叫应该是来自在国会大厦外执勤的警方人员。因为在西兰.巴莱站立在国会大厦保安警戒的栅栏外数分钟后。驻守在国会大厦的警方人员就从里面走出来了。

他接着就被国会大厦内的警车带走,直到星期天晚上(101日)他仍然在警署的扣留所里。他尝试表明自己的身份别警方人员所阻止。

谢太保博士是世界上被监禁时间最为长久的政治犯。

谢太保博士是在前社阵(已经解散了)的旗帜下参加竞选获选为国会议员的。他在内部安全法令下不经审讯被监禁和软禁。政府指控他涉及亲共反政府活动而监禁他。他被监禁了23年,接着被软禁在圣淘沙岛和被限制住在自己的住家、工作、旅行和行使自己的政治权利9年。谢太保博士长达32年的监禁期是比前南非总统尼尔申.曼德拉(Mandela)被(英国人)监禁的27年还要长久。

他被捕前是一名前新加坡南洋大学物理学讲师,他是社会主义者信仰者以及新加坡国会议员。随后,他成为一名博士和翻译者。

谢太保博士在获得释放后说,

“内部安全法令是一部对人的尊严的践踏和打击的恐惧在人们心目中的法令

“在行动党统治下。没有真正的议会民主……通常一个单独政党的统治陷入成为了个人的统治是极其危险的。而尤其更加恶劣的是成为了皇朝(世袭)统治。行动党政府并不喜欢哪些反对它们的报章和出版刊物。它们无法容忍接受尖锐的批评。他们似乎是那么的精英和傲慢,把自己视为是最适合和最佳统治新加坡的人选。他们是通过铁腕手腕统治着新加坡。尽管超过了30年的监禁,我的理想并没有被削弱。事实上,监狱的生涯只能使一个更加地坚决反对压迫和争取一个公平、正义和民主的社会。”

“一个人的非法集会”

回顾2009年,工人党主席林瑞莲小姐在反对秩序法律(2009年)修正法令(见网址:stood and oppose the Public Order Bill in 2009)时已经看到了其中有关涉及公共集会的法律出现的极大的变更。她提出了询问,

政府还需要使用多少权力来限制公民的自由运动会表达他们自己的信仰、或者被迫使用武力的程度,甚至致命性的力量来表达自己的不满。

她说:

“在新加坡,写在宪法第14条所约定的有关个人表达自由与集会的权利就像一个神龛。在这条约下的第二部分约定下,阐明人民拥有基本自由权利。无论如何,这条法令也同时授权国会基于安全与公共秩序的理由制定一些限制条例。尽管如此,法令起码的设定是公民拥有这些基本的自由权利。这条法令的修改是否已超越了基本准线,要求新加坡人民在面对着国家是放弃了更多的自由基本权利。”

林瑞莲接着重点指出了这条法令有几处是令人不安的。这几处令人不安主要改变如下:

  • 公共集会与游行;

  • 行使权力;

  • 禁止执法过程中的视频拍摄

她注意到,

“更加令人感到不安的是,正如法令所阐述的那样,这些字眼已经不再存在限制五人或者五人以上的集会了。因此法令赋予了政府完全控制个别公民的基本自由权利了。”

首先,把一个人可以定义为:组成“集会“的定义的滥用;

其次,政府之所以修改这条法律上,是因为曾经“意外“地遇上少于5个人的集会造成了对公共生活的干扰?

政府要扩大集会与游行的定义,除非他们拥有令人信服的充分证据证明其必要性。

律政部长山穆根在回应林瑞莲提出的有关修改允许警方人员确认一个人的非法集会的问题,做了如下的说明:

第四点,在杂项刑法法令下的集会人数已经被利用。法令的集会人数已经可能被利用来进行破坏活动的作用了。但是,更加合理的解释是,法令就是纯粹在专注于活动本身是更合乎逻辑的。而不是在于集会的任意规定的人数。例如,一个四人组成的群组有意识的进行骚扰,可能造成巨大的威胁比起20个有意通过和平方式进行的实现自己的愿望,危害性来的更大。所以,我们必须把焦点放在决定参与者和他们所造成影响,而不是参与者的人数。

我以如下两起事件为例。

  • 在马来西亚发生的“兴都人组织”事件。本地一名活跃分子就一个人在马来西亚最高专员公署外面进行五天的抗议活动。他吸引了大批人群,包括许多马来西亚人在内集聚在马来西亚最高专员公署外面。可以理解的。这样的集会必然会造成马来西亚最高专员公署的关注。在这样的形势下,最理想的办法是让警方人员拥有权力告诉相关的人士停止抗议行为,并让他离开马来西亚最高专员公署。假设警方人员相信这个人的行为可能会造成触犯公共法令或者骚扰公众的利益。

  • 2007年亚细安峰会在新加坡举行期间,四个人绕过了法令要求超过五人或以上的集会需要申请集会准证的要求而举行了集会。

设置了一个人为定下的数据的门槛,将可以导致他们与警方进行猫抓老鼠的游戏。这将分散了警方人员在活动方面所应肩负起确保安全和保安的责任。我们在国会进行辩论时经常是假定人们的行为是合理性的。但是,不幸是事实是:经常有一小部分人在活动以外的范围出现许多滑稽的动作。假设把集会的人数定在最低,那么,应该选择哪一个集会的人的数字是适合的呢?5人?4人?3人?

允许在室外场所进行活动,不同的国家是有不同的法令规定的。有一些国家的政府是与我们相同的。他们定下来不超过3个人,就我们而言,我们仅仅是着重于有关的活动的影响情况。

被捕现场视频网址:https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/

 

Activist arrested by Police outside of Parliament House after standing alone with artpiece

 

Published on 2017-10-01 by The Online Citizen

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/10/01/activist-arrested-by-police-outside-of-parliament-house-after-standing-alone-with-artpiece/

Artist/Activist, Seelan Palay presented a performance on Sunday afternoon at Hong Lim Park, “32 Years: The Interrogation of a Mirror” in commemoration of the 32 years of detention without trial that former Elected Member of Parliament, Chia Thye Poh went through.

The event was published through a Facebook event page created by Seelan and held at 2pm with about twenty members of public in attendance. During the ten minute performance, Seelan who turns 32 this year, said he couldn’t fathom how a person could be locked up without trial for the same number of years that he has lived.

Prior to matching off out of Hong Lim Park where he obtained a permit to perform, to carry out the unannounced part of his art performance, he said to his artwork as if speaking to Chia himself, “I hope to ask you two questions. Can the liberated human mind be constrained by a state sanctioned space, and in that regard, can a liberated work of art be contained within a state sanctioned space? Do you know the answers to both of these questions? I will show you.

After making his way to the Art Gallery and to the Parliament House to complete his artwork on a mirror, he stood in front of the Parliament House, holding onto his art piece.  After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm. It is unsure what offence did the Police arrest him under, however, under Singapore law, one person can be considered as illegal assembly.

According to Straits Times, the police said it received a call for assistance at 2.53 pm regarding “a man who was allegedly holding an unlawful protest outside the Parliament House”. The call should have come from the police officers stationed at the Parliament House as officers came out of the security gantry just minutes after Seelan stood in front of the gates of Parliament House.

He was subsequently taken away in a police vehicle from the Parliament House and have not been released from custody by Sunday night. Attempts to clarify his status have been stonewalled by the Police.

Dr Chia Thye Poh, political prisoner with the longest detention in the world.

Dr Chia Thye Poh was elected as a Member of Parliament as a candidate from defunct political party, Barisan Sosialis and was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act and placed under house arrest for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the government. He was imprisoned for 23 years and house arrest for another nine years – in which he was first confined to the island of Sentosa and then subject to restrictions on his place of abode, employment, travel, and exercise of political rights. In total with 32 years of detention, Dr Chia was subjected to a longer period of detention than what former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela went through in his 27 years of prison.

Prior to his detention, he had been a teacher, a physics lecturer, a socialist political activist and a member of the Parliament of Singapore. Subsequent to it, he has been a doctoral student and an interpreter.

After being released in November 1998, Dr Chia said, “The ISA is a law that tramples on human dignity and strikes fear into the mind of the people.”

In 1989, he said, “Under the PAP rule, there is no genuine parliamentary democracy… there is always the danger of one-party rule slipping into one-man rule, and worse still, into dynastic rule. The PAP government does not like critical newspapers or publications, and is intolerant towards sharp criticisms. They seem elitist and arrogant, regarding themselves as the best and the most suitable to rule Singapore. And they rule it with iron-handed policies.” and added, “My ideal has not been dampened after [more than thirty] years under detention. In fact, prison life can only make a person more determined to fight against oppression and for a fair, just and democratic society.”

One person illegal assembly

Back in 2009, Ms Sylvia stood and oppose the Public Order Bill in 2009 which saw major changes in the legislation on public assembly, asking how far should State power be used to restrict citizens from free movement and expressing their beliefs or grievances to the point of using force, even lethal force.

She said, “In Singapore, an individual’s right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV, entitled “Fundamental Liberties”.  However, that Article also allows Parliament to place some restrictions on these for the sake of security and public order.  Nevertheless, the primary assumption is that such freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens.  Has this Bill crossed the line asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-a-vis the State?”

Ms Lim further highlighted there are several disturbing aspects of the Bill.  The three aspects most glaring are the changes relating to:

  • Public assemblies and processions;

  • Move-on powers; and

  • Prohibition of filming of law enforcement operations.

She noted, “The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing.  As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of five persons or more.  This means even one person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

First, to say that one person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. 

Secondly, is the Government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than five persons which had disrupted public life? 

Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession.”

In response to the point of the change of wordings to allow the Police to classify one person as an illegal assembly, Minister of Law, K Shanmugam said,

Fourth, the number of persons, which is five in the Miscellaneous Offences Act, has been used as a proxy for a possible disruptive effect of the activity. But it is more logical to simply focus on the activity rather than choosing an arbitrary number, for example, a group of four intend in causing disruption could pose a far greater threat than a group of 20 who wish to promote a peaceful cause.  Thus, we have decided to focus on the activities and their effects, rather than the number.

I will give two illustrations.  During the Hindraf incident in Malaysia, a local activist protested alone outside the Malaysian Embassy for five days.  Large groups gathered, including many Malaysians who came over.  Understandably, such actions would cause concern for the Embassy officials.  In such situations, it is better that the Police have the power to tell the person to stop protesting and move on, if they believed that his actions could be disruptive to public order or public interest.  Second illustration.  During the ASEAN Summit in Singapore in 2007, groups of four persons gathered to evade the permit requirements.

Having a threshold creates an artificial numerical criterion which can lead to a cat-and-mouse game with the Police.  This distracts the Police from their responsibility to secure the safety and security of the event.  We debate in this House with the often implicit assumption that people behave reasonably.  But the unfortunate truth is that there is always a small minority which get up to endless farcical antics outside there and the law has to deal with that.  If one is too low a number, what number should be chosen?  Five?  Four?  Three?  Different countries have different regulatory regimes for outdoor activities.  There are countries which have regimes similar to ours and with a threshold of three persons but it is better for us simply to focus on the effect of the activities.

 

(中英文版)西兰.巴莱是谁? Who is Seelan Palay?

标签

西兰.巴莱是谁?

作者:施忠明

2006年国际货币基金组织会议(IMF-World Bank Meetings)在新加坡举行期间:21岁的艺术工作者西兰.巴莱被警方逮捕。他是计划在国际货币基金组织开会期间分发传单被捕的。在之前,他在网上发起了捕抓“400个邹眉头(”400 Frowns”)”镜头的运动以示抗议政府的政策。

2008年正月。艺术工作者西兰.巴莱在马来西亚驻新加坡最高专员公署外面进行了五天的绝食行动。他是在抗议马来西亚政府在当年逮捕拘留了马来西亚一个名叫“兴都会(Hindraf)”组织的5名兴都籍领导人。他当时是在自己的颈部挂上了一张写着:“给予他们公平的审讯”的标语。当时在场的警方人员警告他,这样的行为是藐视法律的。警方并没有逮捕他或者提控他上法院。

20085月,包括他在内的5名新加坡人为纪念“世界新闻自由日”(World Press Freedom Day)高举着布条,上面写着诸如“受检查的新闻不是新闻” (”Censored News Is No News”)和新闻与印刷法令等于压制( “Newspapers and Printing Presses Act = Repression”)。他们站在新加坡报业控股集团的报业大厦外。没有人在这次的行动中被捕。

20085月,电影检察局的官员在警方人员的协助下,进入了新加坡怡和酒店(Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel),取走了在私人场所站在放映的影片。电影检查局的行动是在出席观赏影片的近百名贵宾,包括外交使节在内面前进行的。影片放映的组织者把DVD影片交给了电影检查局官员。这部记录影片的名字为:“李氏统治下的国家”(”One Nation Under Lee”)。这部影片的制作者是西兰.巴莱。放映影片的组织者是新加坡民主党。西兰.巴莱目前正在接受调查放映一部没有经过审查批准的影片。

2009年正月。西兰.巴莱穿着一件红色的圆领T衬衫。并举着一张写着“停止虐待缅甸活跃分子”(’Stop ill-treatment of Burmese activists’)的标语。两名抗议者站在人力部约一小时后被警方人员扣上手铐带上警车。他们两人是在抗议政府没有更新一些缅甸人的签证没有获得更新。这两名抗议者是:西兰.巴莱和Chong Kai Xiong。他们俩受调查涉嫌触犯侵入政府禁地。

201710月。艺术工作者西兰.巴莱是32岁。他举着一面镜子站在国会大厦前面,突出了在1966年到1998年在内部安全法令下被长期监禁的谢太宝博士,作为纪念自己的庆祝32岁生日的活动。

见视频网址:http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/…/1994-2011-chronology-of…

录像:

Video: “新加坡仍然在殖民统治着我们,过去是白人统治,现在是白衣人统治””We are still colonised in Singapore, previously by white man, and now by men in white.”

脸书网址:https://m.facebook.com/story.php…

西兰。巴莱在接受警方的问讯(Seelan Palay on police interrogations

照片提供者:TOC

 

Who is Seelan Palay?

Martyn See‘s post.

Sept 2006 (IMF-World Bank Meetings): 21-year-old artist Seelan Palay is arrested by police over a plan to distribute flyers ahead of the IMF-World Bank meetings. Palay had earlier initiated an online campaign to capture photos of “400 Frowns” in protest against government policies.

Jan 2008: Artist Seelan Palay completes a solo five-day hunger strike outside the Malaysian High Commission in protest against the Malaysian Government’s detention of five leaders of ethnic Indian group Hindraf. Wearing a placard around his neck that said, “Give them fair trial,” Palay was briefly warned by police that he would be flouting the law. No arrest or charges are filed.

May 2008: Five Singaporeans, holding aloft a series of banners with messages such as “Censored News Is No News” and “Newspapers and Printing Presses Act = Repression”, stand outside the Singapore Press Holdings building to mark World Press Freedom Day. There are no reported arrests.

May 2008: Officers from the Board of Film Censors, assisted by the police, enter the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel to seize a film which was undergoing its private premiere. Witnessed by about a hundred guests including foreign diplomats, organisers hand the DVD copy of the film to officials. Entitled “One Nation Under Lee”, the documentary was made by artist Seelan Palay and its premiere hosted by the SDP. Palay is currently under investigation for exhibition of a film without licence.

Jan 2009: Wearing red t-shirts and holding a banner that read ‘Stop ill-treatment of Burmese activists’, two protesters stood for an hour outside the Ministry of Manpower before being handcuffed and escorted into police vehicles. The two were protesting against the non-renewal of visas to some Myanmar expatriates, whom the Government says are “not welcomed in Singapore”. The two Singaporeans, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong, are being investigated for the offence of criminal trespass.

“We are still colonised in Singapore, previously by white man, and now by men in white.”

https://m.facebook.com/story.php…

Oct 2017 : Artist and activist Seelan Palay marks his 32 years of age by holding a mirror in front of Parliament House to highlight the long-term detention of Dr Chia Thye Poh from 1966 to 1998. He is arrested and released 24 hours later.

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/…/1994-2011-chronology-of…

Seelan Palay on police interrogations

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/…/activists-speak-about-…

(中英文版)第八功能组织与社区行动网络发表联合声明 Function 8 and Community Action Network JOINT STATEMENT

标签

第八功能组织与社区行动网络发表联合声明

2017104

 

Photo: by courtesy of TOC

第八功能组织(F8)与社区行动网络组织(CAN)对于艺术工作者西兰.巴莱于2017101日星期天在国会大厦外被逮捕感到极其沉重的遗憾与忧虑。他于2017102日在警方的担保条件下获得释放。他的担保释放题哦阿健包括了不准离开新加坡等的一些限制条件。

作为一名艺术工作者西兰.巴莱只是纯粹在实践自己的表演艺术吧了。当他在进行表演时,他的艺术构思受到了芳林公园的场地局限。请浏览当天他在芳林公园进行表演的视频网址:https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/。、是如何阐述自己的自由意志的。他在房龄公园湿漉漉的草地上开始表演后,他开始沿着桥南路(South Bridge Road)走去,到达市政厅大厦City Hall (先改为国家艺术馆now National Gallery),接着走到国会大厦,也就是他被捕的地点。

在他步行的沿途上没有发生任何愤怒或者暴力的群众跟随着。西兰.巴莱在整个表演过程中的态度是一个眼色的艺术实践着。他除了简单地解释他的艺术和回答警方人员的问题外,并没有沉迷于语言动作。

依据国家宪法第14章的约定,确保我们的人民拥有言论、表达、集会和组织的自由权利。我们无法看到西兰.巴莱的表演艺术会给新加坡造成任何的伤害或者损失。事实上,西兰.巴莱的艺术表演是在为创造新加坡成为一个艺术与文化的城市做出贡献的。态度艺术表演时觉得不应该导致他的被捕。

与此同时,那些在场观看西兰.巴莱扮演和后来被逮捕的旁观者还遭受警方人员的骚扰。

警方人员向那些在场观看的观众索取个人身份证的资料。警方的要求完全是非法的。因为新加坡目前并不是出于战争状态或者宣布为国家进入紧急状态。

我们呼吁新加坡警方停止骚扰和恐吓艺术工作者西兰.巴莱。同时立即释放并解除施加在身上的限制条件。

Function 8 and Community Action Network JOINT STATEMENT

4 Oct 2017

Function 8 and Community Action Network (CAN) are deeply troubled and saddened by the arrest of artist Seelan Palay outside Parliament House on Sunday, 1 Oct 2017. He has been released on police bail since yesterday and is subjected to severe restrictions including restrictions on travels.

Seelan Palay was merely practising his profession as an artist when he demonstrated how a free mind cannot be constrained by space such as Hong Lim Park. The video at https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/videos/10155815921176383/ illustrates his free spiritedness when he started his performance in the muddy park of Hong Lim and walked along South Bridge Road to his destinations at City Hall (now National Gallery) and Parliament House where he was arrested.

All along the way, there was no agitated crowd or violence. Artist Seelan Palay’s demeanour throughout his journey was that of a serious art practitioner. He did not indulge in words except to briefly explain his art and answer questions posed to him by police officers.

Article 14 of our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association. We do not see any harm or damage that can be caused to Singapore by artist Seelan Palay’s performance. Indeed his artistic performance contributes to the making of Singapore as a city of art and culture. His performance definitely does not warrant his arrest.

Further, bystanders watching artist Seelan Palay’s performance and ultimate arrest were intimidated and harassed by police officers who demanded their personal identity card particulars. This is totally illegal and should cease immediately as Singapore is not at war or under a state of emergency.

We call upon the Singapore police to cease harassment and intimidation of activists and release artist Seelan Palay from all restrictions.

(中英文版)人释放了,案件尚未完结! OUT BUT NOT OVER

标签

人释放了,案件尚未完结!

作者:陈智成

西兰.巴莱在签保后离开警署的拘留所。

他的担保条件是:

“依照办案警官的要求出席中央警署的问讯直至另行通知为止。”

这是一个有效和限制性的警方命令。它限制了西兰.巴莱的行动。这让我联想到一些社运活跃分子面对着冗长的“调查”时间——有些案件拖延了数年之久!西兰.巴莱是在一个区域性组织任职的。警方向他发出的这个命令将等于大大地影响了他的职业。最近的一些案件记录显示一些社运活跃分子被禁止离开新加坡。

关于今天尝试办理西兰.巴莱签保手续也是令人感到惊讶的。

他是被关禁的楼层是一座庞大的建筑物。这座建筑物的许多地方是属于被限制进入到禁区。首先,我们必须尝试确认他到底被关在哪个楼层。尽管在这座建筑物里有数以千计的警方人员在工作。但是,确实不容易确定他被监禁在建筑物的哪个地方。

在我获知负责他的案件的调查警官的名字之前,我得从一楼、三层和底层的开始时询问那些工作中的警方人员,最后才获知调查警官的名字。同样的情况,这栋大厦似乎已经把西兰.巴莱吞噬掉了。

尽管我知道西兰 .巴莱的名字,但是,我并没有机会和他说话(因为我没有告诉他们西兰.巴莱的性别),更甭说对着他说话。理所当然地,我不会期望警方人员会协助需要帮助的公民。在与担保室相连接是报案室。报案室里面有许多人。他们都带着愁眉苦脸地等待着签保自己的亲人。看来整座大厦的“胃口”似乎很大。

在经过冗长的询问后,我得到的回应是——等待警方人员“协助”我联系有关的调查警官、等待着有关的调查警官来见我和等待办理担保的相关手续。

我在这里等候的时间比病患在诊所的后代时间还要长。即便病患是在诊所等候,等候的号码也是一直在更新着,让病患知道自己等的候号码会什么时候轮到。值勤的警方人员并没有在礼貌上告诉我,负责西兰.巴莱案件的警官已经出外用餐了。他必须在一个小时后才会回到警署。

就我个人观察,我预计这起案件的性质是:

属于一起简单的性质案件——一个艺术表演者通过表演形式,要引起他人关注有关一段令人感到羞耻的历史。这 就与那些快闪表演者一样。西兰.巴莱的表演一共分成三场——第一场的演出场所是在芳林公园。当时在场观看的人群是大约30-40人左右;第二场的演出场所是在国家艺术画廊;第三场的演出场所是在国会大厦大门外。包括五名过路人在内,大约有15人观看他的演出。(注:这两个场所都是属于公共场所。)

在演出者的演出结束后他就被捕了——他被扣上的手铐,并被推进来警察车里。一些在旁观看者被警方人员告知,他们是属于这起事件被定性为“犯法”行为的现场“目击证人”。警方人员本身无法确定 这是不是一起触犯刑法的“案件”。

这名表演者被警方扣留了24小时,他可能面将对被公诉。那些被警方认定为“现场目击证人”的旁观者最终可能会被列为协助警方“调查工作”的证人。——这一切归咎于没有获得警方的准证和我们国家的宪法赋予人们的言论、集会和表达自由的权利。

最近,一位副总理说,比起7080年代,现在政府更加宽容了。

记得在70年代,我参与了学生会组织的数次游行示威是没有事先获得警方的准证的——您如何把 这一切说圆呢?

 

OUT BUT NOT OVER

TAN TEE SENG


Seelan was released from custody of the police on bail. The bail would require him “to attend at Central Division HQ until otherwise directed by the investigating officer”… this is effectively an restriction order on his movement. What come to mind is that some of “investigations” on activists have taken a long time without conclusion – in some cases years! Seelan works for a regional organisation and this restriction is a great impediment to his job. In a recent case, some activists were prevented from leaving Singapore at the immigration check point.

The experience of trying to bail him out today was also harrowing. First it was trying find out where he was in the huge cold building with many place restricted to access. Despite the thousands of police officers working in the building, it was difficult to determine Seelan where about in the building.

I had to enquire at the ground floor, third floor then basement before i got a name, the so-called investigation officer. At some point, the building seemed to have swallowed up Seelan. Although I got a name but throughout I did not have the chance to speak to it (since, i was not told the gender) not to mention putting a face to the name. Certainly didn’t have the impression police is helpful to concerned citizen. At the Reporting Room which adjoined the Bail Room, there were many distressed and distraught faces awaiting for their concerned one. Look like this building have huge appetite.

All enquiries ended with waiting – waiting to “help” you contact the investigating officer, waiting for the officer to come and see you and waiting for some administrative procedures. The waiting period seemed longer than any of the polyclinics i had visited – as least at the polyclinic the numbers move and you know your turn is coming. They don’t even had the courtesy to tell us that the investigation officer had went out for lunch and won’t be back at least an hour later.

From my perspective, the case is simple – an artist used a performance art to draw attention to a shameful chapter in our historical past, much like a one-man flash mob performance. There were 3 scenes – the first at Hong Lim Park was attended by about 30 – 40 people. Part 2 was in front of the National Gallery and Part 3 was outside the Parliament House (both are public spaces). About 15 odd people saw the performance with a few passers by.

After the performance, the artist was arrested – handcuffed and bundled into a police car, some of the audience were told they were “witnesses” to a commission of an offence which the police could not ascertain.

Artist was kept 24 hours for his part and may be charged. The “witnesses” may be rounded up later to assist in the “investigation” – all because there was no permission given and yet our constitutional rights provide us the freedom of expression, assembly and speech.

And recently, a DPM said we are now more tolerant than in the 70s and 80s. I remember participating in a couple of demonstrations in the 70s organised by the student union without asking for permission – how do you square all this?

(中英文版)警察凭啥要索取个人身份证资料? ! Why must we give you our identity card particulars?

标签

凭啥!警察要索取个人身份证资料?

张素兰

本文章转载自:https://www.facebook.com/sohlung.teo/posts/10213015314231392?notif_id=1506876949141445&notif_t=close_friend_activity

这起事件是发生于2017101日下午在国会大厦外。

来自广东民路警署的最少12名警方人员,包括了便衣人员和制服警察在逮捕了西兰.巴莱后,第8功能组织的三名成员受到警方人员的骚扰。

西兰.巴莱站在国会大厦外举着一面镜子。镜子上面写着:

32年:审讯的镜子”。

这是一部充满勇气、哲理和诗意的有力表演。

当两名制服警方人员接近他时,他告诉到警方人员,

自己站在这里是因为谢太宝博士一名国会议员时被捕的。谢太宝博士在不经审讯情况下被监禁了32年。

年轻的警方人员根本就不知道谁是谢太宝博士。

西兰.巴莱客气地告诉警方人员可以到维基泄密网站查阅谁是谢太宝博士。

接着,警方人员接着问西兰.巴莱,是否与谢太宝博士有关系吗?西兰.巴莱回答说:假设个人从高楼跌下来是,在协助这个人之前,你会不会问这个人与自己有关系吗?

西兰.巴莱接着说,一名国会议员,如谢太宝博士一样可以被逮捕并监禁了32年,那么,谁应该被控告?正因为谢太宝博士是一名前国会议员,所以,他选择在国会大厦前进行艺术表演的最恰当地点,这也是他寻找为什么谢太宝博士被监禁了32年的答案的地方。非常巧合的是,西兰.巴莱今年32岁,也是谢太宝博士被监禁了32年。谢太宝博士被捕的当年,西兰.巴莱是10岁。

西兰.巴莱并没有和警方人员进行任何的争论。他就举着自己的那面镜子,静静地站在国会大厦前面,警方人员询问问题时他就回答。路人经过时并不注意到他当时的情况。

经过了一段长时间,预估在场的警方人员与上级进行了无数次的谈话后。一辆警车抵达现场,停放在国会大厦的场地内。西兰.巴莱被警方扣上了手铐,并带往警车后座。

接着又来了一辆警车和三名便衣警方人员出现。大约经过45分钟,大约又有12名警方人员出现在现场。西兰.巴莱被警方载走了。

我们带着忧郁的心情离开现场。我们沉思着新加坡到底成了什么样?当一个人在星期天下着雨自己站立在国会大厦前,12名警方人员也可以被逮捕!我们的国家还有未来吗?

当我们正在进行着思考这个问题时,突然间我们的思路被几名跑过来的警方人员打乱了。他们要索取我们的身份证。我们拒绝交出。因为我们并没有触犯任何的刑法。

我们向警方人员提出,哪一条法令要求我们交出身份证?他们说,我们是事件发生的现场目击者,我们可能会被传召到法院当证人。

我们反问他,我们是触犯了哪一条法令。其中一名警方人员说,这是公共秩序法令。在这部法令下,警方人员有权要求任何人提供个人资料。

他们举出了有关法令第16部分(1)(b)( Section 16(1))的公民身份证法令条款。

一看这条法令. Section 16(1)就是等于授权警方人员骚扰每一个奉公守法的公民。法令阐明:

  • 不论如何人在哪个场合——

    1. 被身份证登记部门官员或者警方人员合理怀疑触犯这条法令,或者任何条例造成如下的;或者

    2. 在被身份证登记部门官员或者警方人员的要求下:——

      1. 拒绝提供他/她名字和住址;

      2. 有关官员认为他/她所提供名字和住址的虚假的;

        有关官员认为他/她所提供的住址是在新加坡以外的地方的;

在这样的情况下,身份证登记处官员或者警方人员在没有获得授权令下有权逮捕他/她。

((1) Where any person —

(a) is reasonably suspected by a registration officer or police officer of the commission of any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder; or

(b) on demand by a registration officer or a police officer —
(i) does not give his name and address;
(ii) gives a name or address which the officer has reason to believe is false; or
(iii) gives as his address a place outside Singapore,

that person may be arrested without warrant by the registration officer or police officer.

警方人员恐吓我们。假设我们不予以配合他们的要求将立即逮捕我们。与其和他们进行争论,以及像西兰.巴莱一样全部被带上警察车,我们口头上告诉了身份证号码和名字。

警方人员把我们的个人身份证号码和名字输入了随身携带电子仪器,确认了我们提供的资料是准确的。

他们携带的这个电子仪器里收集了全星加坡人民的个人登记资料数据。

在我们即将离开前,其中一名警官问我们,是要在现场、或者另外约定日期到警署录取我们的口供。

我们获得警方人员的保证,录取口供的时间不会超过15分钟。警方人员提出要求是诱人,但是,我们无法确定,他们是否会在15分钟内完成录取口供的工作。我们还有其它事情要做,而不是站在路边被警方录取口供到半夜。因此我们离开了现场。

面对我们拒绝警方要求必须提供个人资料情况下,警方恐吓将立即逮捕我们的恫言!警方人员是滥用了法律赋予他们的职权。当警方人员认定我们为可能是有关潜在性刑事案件的证人时,公民登记法令并没有允许他们要求任何人向警方透露有关的个人资料。

就如这条法令所提示的一样,它仅仅就是局限于触犯了关于“身份证号相关的目的”(请参阅本法令条款序言)。所有在这条公共秩序法令下被指控的犯罪行为是与“身份证号相关的目的”毫无关联的。而我们被警方人员视为潜在性的证人理所当然是完全与有关身份证问题有关联的。

警方人员也在没有举出具体相关法令的情况下,同时,他们暗示将引用刑事法典。可能在他们的脑海里是有关法典第65部分所阐述的事项。在这部分的法典授权警方人员可以要求那些涉嫌已经犯罪或者正在犯罪者提供个人资料。

我们当中的任何一个人都没有触犯任何法律行为。作为一个负责人的公众人士,我们要确保12名警方人员不会虐待西兰.巴里先生。我们站在一个相当的距离位置上看着眼前所发生的一切。我们并没有干预警方人员的执法行为。我们甚至没有踏入国会大厦的范围。

我们在昨天(101日)所见证一切和现场经验确认了,新加坡就是一个警察国家的看法是事实存在的。政府所承诺的予以人民拥有结社、言论和表达的自由就是一句空话。

当警方人员恫言要逮捕一切人时,他们是自信自己拥有法律上赋予的权利。这就是我们的政府向全世界宣称的法制制度吗?

要改变警方人员滥用职权的这种情况,除非是直到我们人民要求归还已经失去的基本权利!否则,我们将会看到那些为了要保护我们而自己被警方人员逮捕和受到骚扰。

本照片和视频的提供者为:TOC

1. 视频网址:

https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/?hc_ref=ARRfaU0OYJ_9Ow9KJmb1JfM8vVizHzqUFAuQzbqizuCk48XOZqjDpP4pC1GYrcF3AnU&pnref=story.unseen-section

.  

SELLAN PALAY 在10月1日在国会带下潜被捕-2

附注:西兰.巴莱已于隔天,即102日在缴交5千元保释金条件下离开了警署等待候审。

 

 

Why must we give you our identity card particulars?

 

by Teo Soh Lung

007

Three members of Function 8 were harassed by several plain clothes and uniformed police personnel from Cantonment Police Division soon after witnessing the arrest of Mr Seelan Palay by at least 12 police officers. The incident took place outside Parliament House yesterday afternoon (Sunday 1 Oct 2017).

Standing outside Parliament House, Mr Seelan Palay holding a mirror, performed “32 Years: The Interrogation of a Mirror”. It was a powerful performance, daring, philosophical and poetic.

When two uniformed police officers approached him, he was overheard explaining to them that he was standing there because Dr Chia Thye Poh who was a parliamentarian was arrested and imprisoned without trial for 32 years. The young officer was not aware of who Dr Chia is and Mr Seelan Palay politely advised him to look up Wikipedia.

He was next asked if he was related to Dr Chia. Mr Seelan Palay replied that if a person falls to the ground, do you ask if he is related to you before you help him up?

Mr Seelan Palay went on to say that if a parliamentarian like Dr Chia could be arrested and imprisoned for 32 years, then who should be charged? And because Dr Chia was a parliamentarian, Parliament House was the right place for him to present his performance art and demand an answer as to why Dr Chia was imprisoned for 32 years. Incidentally, Mr Seelan Palay is 32 years old and the fact that Dr Chia was imprisoned for this length of time bothered him since he was ten years old.

Mr Seelan Palay did not argue with the police officers. He stood silently outside Parliament House holding his mirror and answering questions of the police officers when asked. Passers-by walked past him without taking any notice of him.

After a long time and presumably many telephone calls to higher ranking officers, one police vehicle arrived and parked in the compound of Parliament House. Mr Seelan Palay was then handcuffed and led to the police vehicle. He was seen entering the back seat.

Later, another police vehicle arrived and three plain clothes officers alighted. After something like 45 minutes and about 12 officers in attendance, Mr Seelan Palay was driven away.

We walked away gloomily, pondering what Singapore has become. When one person standing in front of Parliament House on a rainy Sunday afternoon can be arrested by 12 police officers, what and where is our future? Our thoughts were abruptly interrupted by several police officers who ran after us. They wanted our identity cards. We refused to oblige because we didn’t commit any crime.

We asked which law permitted them to demand production of our identity cards. They said we witnessed the commission of an offence and we may be called as witnesses. What offence we asked. One of them said it was the Public Order Act. As to which law authorised them to demand our personal particulars, they cited section 16(1)(b) of the National Registration Act.

At first glance, the section seemed to authorise police officers to harass every law abiding person in Singapore. Section 16(1) states:

(1) Where any person —

(a) is reasonably suspected by a registration officer or police officer of the commission of any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder; or

(b) on demand by a registration officer or a police officer —
(i) does not give his name and address;
(ii) gives a name or address which the officer has reason to believe is false; or
(iii) gives as his address a place outside Singapore,

that person may be arrested without warrant by the registration officer or police officer.

The police officers threatened us with immediate arrests if we did not comply with their requests. Rather than argue with them and being bundled into police vehicles like Mr Seelan Palay, we gave our names and identity card numbers. Keying our particulars into an electronic device which probably contain the registration particulars of all Singaporeans, they were satisfied that we did not lie.

As we were about to leave, one of the officers offered us the option of giving a statement there and then or be invited to the police station at a subsequent date. We were assured that it would not take more than 15 minutes. The offer was tempting but we were not sure that we would be let off in 15 minutes. We have better things to do than to stand by the road-side giving a statement till midnight. And so we left.

The police have abused their power with their threats of immediate arrests should we refuse to give our personal particulars. The National Registration Act does not permit them to demand disclosure of personal particulars when we could just be potential witnesses to an alleged crime.

The Act, as the title implies, is restricted to offences that concern “the issue of identity cards and purposes connected therewith”. (see also preamble to the Act). An alleged offence under the Public Order Act has nothing to do with the “issue of identity cards or purposes connected therewith”. And our being potential witnesses certainly does not qualify as an identity card issue.

The police officers also cited the Criminal Procedure Code without mentioning the particular section. They probably had in mind section 65 of the Code which authorise them to demand the personal particulars of a person who has committed or is committing an offence.

None of us had committed any offence. As responsible members of the public, we wanted to ensure that Mr Seelan Palay was not ill treated by 12 police officers. We watched the arrest from a distance. We did not interfere in any way. We did not even step into the compound of Parliament House.

What we witnessed and experienced yesterday confirm beyond a doubt that Singapore is a police state and state terrorism is rampant. Freedom of assembly, speech and expression are merely empty promises of the government. When police officers threaten arrests for everything and believe that they have such power, where is the rule of law that our government and judges keep boasting to the world?

Unless and until citizens demand the return of rights that we have lost, we will see more arrests and harassment by the very people who are supposed to protect us.

Photo credit: TOC

团结起来争取实现民主权利

 

传授给哈莉玛三个“拨乱反正”的烂招

标签

2017110日陈振声在国会提出总统选举(修正)法案到913日提名日哈莉玛“递交‘总统候选人提名表格之日的9个月时间,人民从怒骂和抗议行动党独断独行的声浪中,哈莉玛也无可幸免地被推到风头浪尖上!(2011年总统候选人陈清木医生也在这段期间大最高法院进行了提诉挑战行动党有关已故王鼎昌总统是否是民选总统的宪法问题。)

人民强烈指责行动党为了一党之私,不惜践踏国家宪法和蹂躏法律,在国会强行通过保留总统选举制法令。接着行动党指令马西泠友池集选区属于少数种族代表的国会议员、国会议长哈莉玛提出辞职。

从哈莉玛从辞职之日、到马来族群委员会批准“认可”她为“马来人”、总统选举委员会“接受并颁发”她参加总统选举的“合格候选人”、“准予参加总统选举提名”。前后约为一个多月。

在总统提名日前夕,行动党的总理公署部长陈振声在总统委员会正式发出“总统选举候选人合格证书”前说了以下两段话:

1.“ 保留总统选举未必受到认可 有政治代价也须促进多元种族主义”( 见《早报网》:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20170909-793749

2.“ Ministers: Indian Muslims are Malays, Christian Malays are not Malays”(陈振声:印度穆斯林是马来人、基督教马来人不是马来人)https://statestimesreview.com/2017/09/09/ministers-indian-muslims-are-malays-christian-malays-are-not-malays/)

不管怎样,行动党还是在全国人民的怒骂声中,于2017913日把哈莉玛拉进了总统府。

为此新加坡人民在916日在芳林公园举行了一场近2千人参与的和平静坐抗议集会。以下是和平静坐抗议集会组织者吴家和先生和网民陈有领先生在当天分别制作的和平静坐抗议集会视频网址:

  1. 2017916日芳林公园网友陈有领先生摄制的和平静坐抗议现场情况视频网址:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=491948531162508&id=100010420951669

2.2017916日芳林公园和平静坐抗议集会组织者Gilbert Goh先生摄制的现场情况视频网址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2gT6yP28Vg&feature=share

在哈莉玛被拉进总统府前四天陈振声说,李显龙知道行动党将付出政治代价!

事实确实就是如此。

哈莉玛也确实是“顺利”的进入了总统府。但是,不论是行动党还是哈莉玛本身一点也高兴不起来(不论公开或者私底下都一样)!他们心知肚明其中的原因。

在李显龙和大法官的见证下,新加坡第一位女总统的“诞生”终于“法定宣誓”了。在“法理上”她已经是新加坡共和国的第八届总统了。但是,者行动党或者是她都高兴不起来。为此。行动党和她都做了以下的努力:

1.  哈莉玛重申:新加坡首位女总统 哈莉玛反击「我不是后备总统(见网址:http://www.chinatimes.com/cn/realtimenews/20170917000870-260408

2.  行动党的“建国一代”吴作栋说:“哈莉玛没有梦想过当总统,但她现在既已是总统就会全心全意地服务。大家至今都聚焦过程,但她的职务不应受任何不满的情绪影响。”(见《早报》:《吴作栋敦促国人不聚焦哈莉玛当选过程》网址:http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20170914-795319

行动党和哈莉玛的这一切表态努力仍然无法扭转和安抚人民对行动党强行把哈莉玛拉进总统府的霸道行径的不满!

行动党不得不退出自己控制的主流媒体播放一段哈莉玛上/下班,她所居住义顺组屋邻居追拍她的“风采”的视频。(见网址:视频网址:https://www.facebook.com/everydaysg/videos/1474487522637228/

这是行动党在哈莉玛当选后唯一可以上载到网上体现哈莉玛“受到人们欢迎”的信息。行动党为什么要怎么煞费苦心?

因为自从在哈莉玛宣布在上任后将继续住在义顺政府组屋后。警方就不断地把保安级别级别(包括停车场、电梯等)提升到最高,以保护哈莉玛的个人和出行的安全。警方派出大批保安人员的驻守、大队的警员护送往返义顺组屋与总统府之间,给居民造成的出行和起居造成的不便已经引起了人们的关注。

这就是说,行动党和哈莉玛为了尽“自己力所能及的努力了”做到“全民总统”的工作已经做过了头。显然这是适得其反的效果。

行动党知道这个情况,它们不得不又让报业控股属下的《红蚂蚁网站》来进行一些小骂大帮忙的工作。它在2017919日发表了一篇专题报道《哈莉玛义顺总统府安保情况,和你想象的不一》的文章。(见网址:见网址:http://www.redants.sg/overview/story20170919-432)。

《红蚂蚁》网站不惜把过去历届总统的私邸地点(除陈庆炎外。事实上,大家都知道陈庆炎是住在武吉知马富人区)都罗列出来,证明哈莉玛“成为总统”后继续住在义顺政府组屋,并没有不妥之处,以作为说服人们的依据。

《红蚂蚁》网址就是行动党的朝廷鹰犬。它根本就不突出一个极其关键的问题:

哈莉玛是住在义顺政府组屋区。行动党为她提供的最高级别的保安措施和安排她的出行已经造成和引起附近的居民在出行和生活的不便。

从它在罗列历届总统的官邸地点时,我们可以知道这几个已故总统和一个尚未已故总统的官邸都是在私人住宅区。甭管政府为他们的出行以及保安措施提供的级别是多高,首先都不会影响其周围的居民的出行与生活起居!

反正,这是行动党自己的事,行动党豢养的走狗要为行动党在保留总统选举问题上和哈莉玛被拉进总统问题上,目前要付出的“政治代价”如何进“排忧解困”也与我们无关。但是,我们已经看到行动党目前的这一切情况说明了:

行动党无法展现自己一贯的“强悍的枭雄作风”、哈莉玛无法展现自己已经是“法定总统”的底气!

行动党要如何“重振”“强悍的枭雄作风”咱们不管!也不需要管!

哈莉玛说自己不是“后备总统”,那得拿出“正统总统”的架势给人们看!

为此,我们为哈莉玛目前所处的“困境”提供“排忧解困”的方案,我们提出了以下三项,供她参考:

  1. 向总统委员会提出:废除保留总统选举制度、重新举行总统提名举行总统选举;
  2. 通过总统委员会向行动党提出:解散国会、举行大选;
  3. 向最高法院大法官提出:辞职;

第一项:

行动党强势通过了总统选举(修正)法案(当时她还是行动党的国会议长)已经引起人民的强烈不满她是知道的。她已经在李显龙和大法官的见证下宣誓成为了“总统”了。她也强调自己是“全民总统”,不是“后备总统”!

那好,现在她就行使自己总统的权利:

按照总统选举(修正)法案的约定,她有权向总统委员会提出废除总统选举(修正)法案项下的保留总统选举制度,重新提名举行总统选举。这是可以展现她行使总统形象和权利的最有效和最有力的表现。

第二项:

如果总统委员会接受了她的建议,但是行动党不接受她提出的建议,那么,身为总统,她就提出解散国会,举行全国大选。这是可以展现她行使总统形象和权利的最有效和最有力的表现。同时,也是兑现她不是在行动党“保驾护航”下的“总统”庄严宣誓

第三项:

如果总统委员会和行动党都不接受他的建议,她应该依法向高等法院法官提出辞职。因为既然总统连这点基本权利都无法行使,她这个总统就当得非常窝囊了。

如果哈莉玛怀疑我们传授给的这三招是烂招,那么,她可以坚持不要辞职,与行动党共进退!

当然,这样的结果就证明:

她本来就是在行动党“保宝航护驾”下的傀儡总统!

这是我们给哈莉玛的是祖传秘笈。

我们有信心肯定:

只要哈莉玛敢于在以上三项中任选一项,或者按照这三项逐步推进,它应该是有助于为哈莉玛“拨乱反正”!