标签

陈华彪写给总检察长的信

陈华彪之致总检查署信件1

陈华彪之致总检查署信件2

陈华彪之致总检查署信件3

陈华彪之致总检查署信件4

(编者按:本文转载自《新加坡文献馆》)

日期:31/01/2016

发函人:陈华彪

地址:185 Uxbridge Road,
伦敦 W12 9RA
电话: XXXX
电邮: XXXX

收信人:VK拉惹先生,高级律师,新加坡总检察长,

必麒麟街上段一号
新加坡058288

此信函以电邮寄出: agc@agc.gov.sg

此信函以传真寄出:65 6538 9000

2016年1月28日

敬启者,

事项:有关陈华彪、方华龙及叶金凤于1975年刑事定罪的案件

我是陈华彪,是1974年12月10日开始经过47天审讯后,于1975年被定罪的三名被告之一。我们是在TS辛那杜来法官主审下的第一地方法庭被提控。

控状详细内容如下:

“陈华彪、方华龙及叶金凤被控在1974年10月30日上午大约十一时在位于新加坡第二十座企业通道一号新加坡新兴工业工友联合会,是一非法集会的成员,实行该非法集会的共同目标,即是非法侵入及骚乱而触犯了第103章刑事法章第147节的受惩罚罪行。”

控方

三名被告与其他五人在大约上午十一时从后门侵入新兴工业工友联合会 (PIEU) 办公室进行骚乱,造成工会财产被损。

辩方

骚乱是捏造出来的。是PIEU秘书长彭由国策划出来栽赃陷害。案件背后有政治因素。
判决

三名被告罪名成立。第一被告陈华彪被判处一年监禁,第二被告方华龙与第三被告叶金凤各被判监禁一个月。

在整个审讯过程中及之后,基于整场骚乱是彭由国唆使工会职员而制造出来的,被告们一直坚持他们是无辜的。我们当中的任何人并没有出现在所谓的骚乱现场。

现在写这封信给你的原因是,这42年前的案件出现了新的、有说服力的和明确的证据,动摇了判决的可靠性。

2016年,彭由国因盗用工会款项和捏造证据被判罪名成立。我在此请你注意主审法官Jennifer Marie在判处彭由国坐牢六十个月时的判词。

她这样地说彭:“事实揭露了彭,有如一个贯犯,有计划并刻意地在六年这段时间内,犯下这些罪行。他一点也不畏惧而尝试避免被察觉,而且还胆敢唆使他的职员捏造假证据“。

这些揭示打击了彭由国作为1974年审讯控方证人的可靠性。原因是主审法官,TS辛纳度莱,以某个我们目前知道他是个骗子和窃贼,并有能力对他的职员发挥犯罪影响力者所提供的证据作为判处有罪的基础。

虽然2016年的判词不直接针对1974年的案件,案发当时控方的主要证人都是彭的职员。他们为:

郭远柏,Lawrence, PIEU的助理秘书长,工会受薪职员

李木丰,PIEU工业关系官员 (IRO),受薪职员

罗柏黄,Robert, PIEU IRO, 受薪职员

艾温纳杜Edwin Anthony Netto, PIEU IRO, 受薪职员

如果TS 辛纳度莱法官知道了我们现在所知的彭由国,倾向于影响工会职员进行他的犯罪事业后,他会很难进一步将控方证据当成是真实。同样不可避免地,判决的结果也会不同。

我恳请你考虑两项建议:

首先,1974年时的法官如果知道了彭由国的犯罪行为,或他的谎言、欺骗、偷窃和诱骗他的职员参与他的犯罪事业,那么案件在被告尚未提出证据进行抗辩之前就垮了的这一说法并非不合理。

第二,彭由国在2016年被定罪是与1974年“骚乱“案件有直接的牵连,因为他的犯罪活动是追溯至1973年。

辩方抗辩所谓的“骚乱“是彭由国因对我的积怨而捏造出来。我当时是星加坡大学学生会会长,与其他大学的同学一起,我们揭发了彭由国的谎言,因而危及他当工会大头头的地位。

1974年审讯时如果法官已经知道彭由国早在1973年就私吞工会资产的事实,任何一位公正与合理的法官在审理这案件时,将会发现辩方是可信任的这说法是合乎情理的。肯定的是,我们是彭犯罪事业存在的威胁。

在考虑上述提议时,你可能应该知道在审讯过程中,我曾尝试提出彭由国可信度的疑问,却因为当时缺乏有力证据而不成功。

事后回想起来,可惜的是我问彭由国有没有犯罪记录这个问题被TS 辛纳度莱法官判定为“完全无关” (见海峡时报1974年12月13日报导)。如果当时被允许,我会沿着这条线索追问下去。

然而,当彭由国在隔天回到法庭时,他请求辛纳度莱法官允许他答复那个问题,因为“那个问题很恶毒,况且报章已经报导了,他要答复那个问题“。

在被许可后,彭由国告诉法官他“并无任何的犯罪记录“。海峡时报(1974年12月14日)以“彭先生……无犯罪记录“的插图说明照样作了报导。我付上海峡时报的插图方便你参考。

来源:海峡时报,1974年12月14日

在考虑我认为判决不可靠的呈词中,你或许应进一步斟酌以下几点。

假如辛纳度莱法官明了这名“控方主要证人“是某个“有如一个贯犯“,与“一点也不畏惧而尝试避免被察觉,而且还胆敢唆使他的职员捏造假证据“,他会不允许我数次尝试引导有关证据以暴露彭的谎言吗?

其中一项被拒绝的证据是彭由国威胁要“整我“的会议录音带。方华龙的代表律师G 拉曼,在呈词时针对这件事这么地说道:“很不幸的,录音带不被允许作为呈堂证物,不然的话,我们将有会议中人群确切的气氛与要旨,还有彭自己的态度“。

辩方的论据是彭由国在1974年10月23日的事件后捏造假证据,一手策划出来的阴谋,以对付我和另两名被告。这段具启发性的简短报导是节录自1975年1月25日的海峡时报。

“被驱逐出境的星大绘测系最后一年的学生告诉法庭在陈被指控在10月30日会所内骚乱那天,他没见到星大学生会 (USSU) 会长陈华彪在新兴工友联合会在企业通道周围的地区。

辩方第五位证人,来自怡保的朱富荣先生在昨天的供词中说那天早上他在PlEU前面的草场,他只见到陈在PIEU不远处的小贩中心,在另一时间则在PlEU对面马路另一边。

……朱先生说他在10月23日去PlEU那里为学生会收集有关裁员的第一手资料。

法官开始时不准提涉及10月23日工人与NTUC会长彭由国(也是PlEU秘书长)会面这件事的问题,但过后又准许陈盘问证人 (指朱富荣)有关彭对陈的抗辩说彭先生要整他的反应。
朱先生证实彭先生的确说过类似的话,他会“阻止华彪并把他摆在应该摆的地方“。

朱先生说:“彭说出这样的话是因为华彪在会议上已经揭露彭由国的谎言“。

法官问他可否记起陈说了些什么而导致彭先生说出这样的话,朱先生说陈的说话是“彭作为工会领导人和国会议员应该好像父亲爱护孩子般爱护工人而不是那么傲慢与好斗“。

朱先生说陈也说,根据“新加坡劳工法律“工人的薪金只能以法定货币支付而不能像彭先生所说可以用固本取代现款。

朱先生也叙述了学生会在10月29日的非正式会议上,他和另几名学生说陈应该采取预防措施,也不该在10月30日到PIEU那里。

他们也要求陈不要去那里(指PIEU)“因为彭对人进行报复是恶名昭著的“可是陈说他要跟进美国游艇厂裁员问题后,他们得出一个折衷办法,就是要他与PIEU保持一段距离“。

那1974年的审讯深刻印在许多新加坡人,尤其是我那一代人的脑海中,这是一个严重不公正的例子。从彭被定罪后互联网部落的留言看来,很明显的2016年他的定罪和我在1974年的审讯是有关连的。

作为总检察长的你在新的证据带动与该负的职责下,应该采取一切必要步骤撤消对三位被告的罪状。只有这么做才能纠正不公正的判决。

这是重新赢取公众对刑事管理系统信心的一个简单步骤,是你在1月时2016司法年开幕的演说中刚定下要达到的一个目标。

我等待能尽快得到你答复。

由于其中提出的事项关系到公众利益,这封信将会被公开。

谢谢你。

此致,

陈华彪

Singapore exile, Tan Wah Piow writes to AGC asking for convictions in 1975 quashed

Mr VK Rajah, SC
Attorney General, Singapore
1 Upper Pickering St,
Singapore 058288 by email:
agc@agc.gov.sg
byfax: 00 65 6538 9000

28.1.2016

Dear Sir,

re: In the matter of the 1975 criminal conviction of Tan Wah Piow, Ng Wah Leng and Yap Kim Hong

I am Tan Wah Piow, one of the three defendants convicted in 1975 following a 47-day trial which started on the 10th December 1974. We were tried at the First District Court before Judge Mr T S Sinnathuray.

The details of the charge are as follows:

‘Tan Wah Piow, Ng Wah Leng and Yap Kim Hong are accused that you on or about 30 October 1974 at about 11 am at the office of the Singapore Pioneer Industrie s Employees’ Union at Block 20, No.1, Corporation Drive, Singapore were a member of an unlawful assembly, and in persecution of the common object of such assembly, viz, in committing criminal trespass committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Penal Code, CAP.103.’

The Prosecution case

The three accused, together with five others invaded the office of the Pioneer Industries Employees’ Union through the rear door at around 11 am and rioted, causing damage to union property.

The Defence case

The riot was a fabrication. It was a frame-up stage d by Phey Yew Kok, the General Secretary of PIEU. The background of the case was political.

The verdict:

The three accused were guilty. First accused Tan Wah Piow was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, second accused Ng Wah Leng, and third accused Ms Yap Kim Hong were both sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. The defendants had, throughout the trial, and there after, maintained their innocence on the basis that the entire riot was staged by trade union officialsat the instigation of Phey Yew Kok. None of us were present at the so-called riot.
The reason for writing to you now on this matter which happened 42 years ago is that new, compelling and unequivocal evidence has emerged which makes the conviction unsafe.

In 2016 Phey Yew Kok was convicted of embezzlement of trade union funds and fabrication of evidence. I wish to draw your attention to the remark made by Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie when she sentenced Phey Yew Kok to 60 months.
She said of Phey: “

The facts reveal that Phey, like a serial criminal,systematically and with deliberation over a period of six years, perpetrated these offences. He had no qualms in trying to evade detection and had the temerity to instigate his staff to fabricate false evidence.”

This revelation impinges on the credibility of Phey Yew Kok as a prosecution witness in the 1974 trial. This is because the trial judge, TS Sinnathu ray, arrived at a guilty verdict based on the evide nce of someone we now know to be a crook and a thief, and who had the capacity to exert his criminal influence over his staff. Although the 2016 remarks were not directed at those in the 1974 case, the main key prosecution witnesses were Phey’s staff at the material time. They were:
Lawrence Kwek Juan Bok, Asst. General Secretary of the Pioneer Industries Employees Union (PIEU), paid staff of the union
Lee Bak Hong, PIEU Industrial Relations Officer (IRO), paid staff
Robert Ng, PIEU IRO, paid staff
Edwin Anthony Netto, PIEU IRO, paid staff

If Judge TS Sinnathuray was aware of what we now know that Phey Yew Kok had the propensity to influence trade union staff to pursue his criminal enterprise, the weight he would put on the veracity of the prosecution evidence must be very different. Likewise the outcome of the verdict would have inevitably been different.
May I invite you to consider two propositions.

Firstly, if the criminality of Phey Yew Kok, or his propensity to lie, cheat, steal and cajole his staff to join his criminal enterprise were known to the judge in 1974, is it not unreasonable to suggest that the prosecution case would have collapsed even before the defence gave their evidence.

Secondly, Phey Yew Kok’s 2016 conviction is of direct relevance to the 1974 ‘Riot’ case because his criminality dated back to 1973. It was the defence’s case that the “riot” was fabricated by Phey Yew Kok as part of his vendetta against me. I was then the President of the University of Singapore Students’ Union, and together with my colleagues from the University, we had exposed the lies of Phey Yew Kok and had threatened his position as a trade union boss.

If the fact that Phey Yew Kok was plundering the trade union coffers since 1973 was known to the judge at the time of the trial in 1974, it would be reasonable to suggest that any judge looking at the matter fairly and reasonably would have found the defence credible. Certainly, we were an existential threat to Phey’s criminal enterprise.

When considering the above propositions, you may wish to note that in the course of the trial, I did attempt to raise the issue of Phey Yew Kok’s credibility, but without much success due to the absence of concrete evidence at the time.
On hindsight, it is ironic that Judge TS Sinnathuray ruled as ”wholly irrelevant” my question to Phey Yew Kok as to whether he had any criminal record.

[see Straits Times Report 13.12.74]

I would have had developed that line of inquiry if allowed to do so.

However, when Phey Yew Kok returned to court the following day, he asked Judge Sinnathuray’s permission to answer the question because “the question was quite malicious and that since the press had reported it, he wanted to answer the question.”Permission was granted. Phey Yew Kok informed the judge that he had “no criminal record whatsoever”. It was was accordingly reported in the Straits Times [14.12.74] with the caption ‘Mr Phey … no criminal record ’. For your convenience, I hereby attach the illustration in the Straits Times.

When considering my submission that the conviction was unsafe, you may wish to further take into account the following points.

If Judge Sinnathuray was aware that this ‘star prosecution witness’ was someone who was “like a serial criminal ”, and “had no qualms in trying to evade detection and had the temerity to instigate his staff to fabricate false evidence ”, would he have disallowed my various attempts to introduce evidence which would be relevant in exposing Phey’s lies?

One such evidence which was disallowed was a tape recording of a meeting when Phey Yew Kok made a threat to “fix” me. Commenting on this matter, G Raman acting for Ng Wah Leng said in his submission: “It is quite unfortunate that the tape recording was not allowed in as an exhibit as otherwise we would have had the exact mood and the tenor of the crowd at the meeting. Also Phey’s own attitude.”

It was the Defence case that the plot to fabricate the evidence against me and the other two defendants was hatched by Phey Yew Kok following an encounter on the 23 October 1974. This short extract from the Straits Times report of the trial dated 25.1.1975 is instructive.

“A deported final year architecture student of the University of Singapore told the court that he did not see USSU President Tan Wah Piow, anywhere within the precincts of the Pioneer Industries Employees Union in Corporation Drive on October 30 when Tan was alleged to have rioted within.

Mr Choo Foo Yoong of Ipoh, the fifth witness for the defence, said in his evidence yesterday that he was in the field in front of the PIEU that morning and that he only saw Tan at the hawkers’ centre near the PIEU and on another occasion across the road opposite the PIEU.

… Mr Choo said he went to the PIEU premises on the morning of Oct 23 to collect first-hand information n on the retrenchment problem for the students’ union. The judge also at first disallowed further questions on the October 23 meeting when the workers met NTUC president Phey Yew Kok (also PIEU general secretary), but later allowed Tan to question witness on Mr Phey’s response to Tan’s remarks in relation to Tan’s defence that Mr Phey wanted to “fix” him up.

Mr Choo testified that Mr Phey had said words to the effect that he would “check on Wah Piow and put him in the right place.” Mr Choo said: “Phey made such a remark because Wah Piow had exposed lies made by Phey Yew Kok during the meeting”.

Asked by the Judge if he could recall what was it that Tan had said that prompted Mr Phey to make the remark, Mr Choo said the gist of Tan’s remarks was that “Phey as a trade union leader and as an MP should love the workers as a father loves his children and not be so arrogant and aggressive. Mr Choo said Tan had also remarked that according to “the Singapore labour law” the salary of workerswas payable only by legal tender and not as Mr Phey had said that it was alright to issue coupons in place of cash.

Mr Choo also gave an account of an alleged informa l meeting in the students’ union on October 29 when he and a few students said that Tan should take precaution s and not be at the PIEU site on Oct 30.

They had also urged Tan not to go “as Phey was not orious for taking revenge on people” but when Tan said that he wanted to follow up on the American Marine lay-off problem, they came to a compromise that he should keep a distance from PIEU.”

The 1974 trial is one which is imprinted in the mindset of many Singaporeans, especially those of my generation as an example of gross injustice. From the commentaries in internet blogs following Phey’s conviction, it is obvious that there is a nexus between his 2016 conviction and my trial in 1974.

In the light of the new evidence, it is incumbent upon you as the Attorney General, to take all necessary steps to quash the convictions against each of the three defendants. Only this can put right the injustice.

This is one simple step towards winning public confidence in the criminal administration system, a goal which you had recently set out to achieve in your January speech at the opening of the 2016 LegalYear.

I look forward to hear from you.

This letter will be made public as the matters raised herein are of public interests.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Tan Wah Piow,

Advertisements