标签

林俊辉家人

编者按:
1.本翻译文稿是网友 Guo Xiongwei在《人民呼声论坛》的回馈,后来又在《议论政策论坛》网站发表的文章。 (https://www.facebook.com/guo.xiongwei/posts/10153881662382978)

作者提出, “我再次抱歉。我对那位14岁男孩的自杀死亡有一些问题。我希望大家可以阅读这篇文章,翻译它成华文,分享它给更多人阅读 ,也许会有什么答案。”
应这位网友提出要求,我们翻译了本文。如果译文与作者所表达的意见有不符之处,请根据原文版本作为最后的释义。

2. 这是Guo Xiongwei于2月18日在《人民呼声论坛》发表的文章《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/)

这是在这篇文章发表的回馈:

18 Feb2016www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/728322977

I referenced both newspapers’ reports and the father’s letter to come up with (what I felt) the emotions 14-yr old boy would have undergone. I will appreciate if people can help me translate/share it out.
Too many of us have forgotten what it is/may be like when we r 14-yr olds & getting hauled up to principal office with policemen staring at you.

We may even have forgotten what it feels like when the whole world seems to come crashing down on us.

全文如下:

本篇文章的题目看来是似乎是一个愚蠢的命题,事实却不然。
因为有一部分人提出了,14岁青少年林俊辉跳楼自杀身亡是受到应有的惩罚,因为他骚扰一名(11岁)的小女孩子。但是,请大家看看以下4个事实:

1. 他并没有被判处任何的罪名;

2.一个视频录像或者一张照片并不能说明或者证明时间的结论;

3.青少年已经跳楼自杀身亡,他无法讲述事件的真实情况;在这样的情况下对孩子所做的任何指责都是在死无对证的,或者也没有人可以委托进行辩护的;

4.性骚扰罪并不是触犯了死刑罪,特别是对青少年而言更是如此;

有人说,在2008年行动党政府已经获悉有关的事件并开始进行调查了。

让咱们回到近6年前,也就是现任律政部长(他拥有崇高的高级律师衔头)是负责和担任询问有关刑事程序(Criminal Procedure Code on 18 & 19 May 2010)。

请您注意:我只是引用2名执政党(行动党)的声明;大家随时可以到Hansard记录查阅这2名国会议员提出的令人极其感兴趣/不安的问题。

国会议员哈里.古玛.奈尔(Hri Kumar Nair)在下午5点58分时说:

“一个被嫌疑者有权咨询团队律师有关他的选择,但是,这个权利并没有获得确认。特别是,他是没有获得直接的渠道。我们已经能够就此情况进行了辩论。警方关心的是如果(让被涉嫌者)那个能够咨询律师可能会造成妨碍他们的调查工作。因此,我们必须以客观看待和接受这样的现实:律师出现在(被涉嫌者)盘问现场有时可能造成妨碍司法公正的执行。”

假设这样的辩论时能够被接受的,那么,它是否同样的接受在没有律师出席在盘问现场下,警方可以在一个相当长的时间里单独盘问被涉嫌者。这是不是也会被视为妨碍司法公正?
就是一位律师要求为被涉嫌者寻求无罪释放或者获得释放,警方就要设法确保被涉嫌者的罪名成立。

(请您注意这段文字)进一步说,一旦被警方人员逮捕了这是一个极其令人恐怖的经验。这个当事人被关在一个单一的环境下将会成为孤独的‘外星人’。我们不可能天真的想象一个无辜者不会在长达几小时或者几天的审问过程中犯下错误。

正如老话常说的,真理只有在一个观点和正直的人面前才不会改变他们自己的历史事实。

但是,又有一个口号说被人扭曲成了一个说法。

他们可能说了一些最终是不愉快的经历后把被涉嫌者送还给他们的家属,或者把事情经过混淆起来。

其实我与一位受过高深教育者交谈过。他告诉我,

在他们被警方叫去问话过程中,即便是在短短的几小时的被警方审问后,这种情况也发生……他们忘记了自己对警方说了些什么话,或者签署过什么声明。

我们所需要做的事是,被涉嫌者必须知道自己已经签署哪些文件以及之后将面对哪些后果。假设被涉嫌者在没有自己律师在场的情况下,那么,我们必须要求有一个经过法律专业培顺的独立第三者见证被涉嫌者进行签署有关文件的整个过程。

有资格在场见证被涉嫌者进行签署有关文件的人诸如合法的公证人或者官方的公证机关(a Commissioner for Oaths or Notary Public)。这些人一般上是在法院授权下,确保他们的独立性和有关的声明的签署是在他们面前签署的完整性。这些人与起诉方或者被告之间都没有存在着任何的利益关系。他们没有理由偏向起诉方或者被告中的任何一方的利益。这就是说,警方所顾虑的在审讯过程中律师或者第三方的在场会干扰司法公正是不存在的。这对于被涉嫌者的权利来说是会受到更好的保护的。

接着,这样讨论在第二天继续进行。另一位行动党的国会议员林谋泉(Lim Biow Chuan)接着发言:

让我想起来一起案件,我的当事人指示我,他没有触犯任何刑罚。我花了很多时间准备和精力这起案件。在法院开庭审讯这起案件当天,起诉官披露说,事实上,我的当事人在案件审讯时已经在自己签署的冗长的声明里承认和同意了他触犯有关刑罚。或者如律师们所说的122(5)部声明(Section 122(5) statement)。当我问当事人时,他说已经不可能记得自己是否已经签署了认罪书。这份认罪书上用英文书写的。他投诉说,警方并没有告诉他,自己所签署的文件内容是什么?

正如哈里.古玛昨天所说的,当审问过程面对着警方的压力下,许多人是无法回忆起(审问过程中)向警方说了些什么。……

事实上,议长先生,我要求警方在最短的时间里给我被涉嫌者签署的每一份声明。”

现在,这两位国会议员在讨论有关成年人被审问事情。他们:

1. 如何发现(警方)的审问是一个“极其恐怖的经验”(国会议员并没有提及在被涉嫌者在审问过程中有关受到恐吓、欺瞒和其他手段。请阅读Hansard的记录);

2. 在(警方审问过程中)无法记得自己告诉警方哪些话。让咱们想象一个14岁的青少年在饥寒情况下又如何应对警方?(请阅读我第一部分)。

请大家设想一下吧!

这是近6年前,那些具备法律专业和法律经验的国会议员已经向具有高级律师资质的律政部长提出他们关切的问题。他应该必须具有前瞻性的改进或者细化有关刑事法的审讯程序(Criminal Procedure Code)。这是对公民和司法都有利的。经过这一切经历,大家是否认为具有高级律师资质的律政部长在探索或者研究过这6年来国议员所关心这个问题吗?

令人感到欣慰的是,警方在他们发表的声明里允诺将重新检讨有关是否允许有关让成年人在场的情况下,进行审讯青少年的程序。这是在这个孩子(14岁青少年林俊辉跳楼自杀身亡)的悲剧发生后的。

严肃地说,在行动党自己的国会议员已经在近6年前向律政部长提出有关(警方)审讯程序后,人民还需要付出一个孩子死亡悲剧的代价,律政部长才要就进行检讨呢?~~~~那些行动党的国会议员(特别是具有法律专业资质的国会议员),请你们去问一问那位具有高级律师资质的律政部长吧!

律政部长在过去近6年不可能是一直在忙碌着而无法督促他的部门检讨有关的法律吧!

我鼓励大家阅读2天的有关记录;看看律政部长一直在讨论着国会议员所关注的。

我可能没有经过法律的专业训练,但是,我可以肯定,假设这些国会议员能够细心的关注有关改进允许(第三方、或者独立或者律师……)在场情况下进行审问,14岁青少年林俊辉跳楼自杀身亡的悲剧或许不会发生。

~~~让咱们回到本文章的主题吧!——

14岁青少年林俊辉是不是应受到惩罚?

当近6年前行动党的国会议员已经向律政部长提出了有关警方进行审问的程序!?归根结底,身为国会议员的律政部长是对宪法是一个死亡。

我恳切希望在行动党控制下国会的国会议员将会就此问题质问律政部长。归根结底

Did Benjamin Lim deserve to die?

(related link:

(https://www.facebook.com/guo.xiongwei/posts/10153881662382978))

This sounds like a stupid question, but it isn’t. There is a certain group of people who claimed this 14-year old kid deserved to die because he allegedly molested a girl, but note 4 facts:

i. he was NOT convicted of any crime,

ii. a photograph or even a video recording does NOT conclusively prove anything (there’s some material online that can prove my case),

iii. dead boys tell no tales and it is so easy to plant all the blame on him since nobody can ask him or even help him with any defense now, and lastly

iv. molest isn’t even a capital crime especially for minors.

There are people saying the PAP Government was informed of issues surrounding police interviews as far back as 2008, but let’s just go back about SIX YEARS ago when the current Law Minister (with his impressive Senior Counsel accreditation) was in charge and fielded questions about the Criminal Procedure Code on 18 & 19 May 2010.

Note I only cite extracts from statements by 2 ruling party (PAP) MPs; people can always go back to the Hansard records of very disturbing/interesting points raised out by both parties’ MPs:

5.58 pm Mr Hri Kumar Nair:

“An accused person has right to Counsel of his choice but this right is not unqualified. In particular, he will not have immediate access. We have been through the arguments before. The Police are concerned that access to Counsel may prejudice their investigations, and that we have to be realistic and acknowledge that the presence of Counsel may sometimes hinder the administration of justice.

If that is accepted as a valid argument, then it must equally be accepted that leaving the accused alone with the Police without Counsel over a lengthy period of time may likewise hinder justice.

Just as Defence Counsel wants to get a discharge or an acquittal, the police want to secure a conviction.

(Note this paragraph!!!) Further, being hauled up by the Police is a harrowing experience. The individual is subject to an alien, hostile environment. It would be naïve to assume that innocent people will not make mistakes after hours or days of questioning.

It is often said that the truth has only one version and honest men will not change their story.

But that is yet another slogan. People are made up differently. There are those who may say anything to make the unpleasant experience end, and to return to their families, or may simply be confused.

Indeed, I have spoken to highly educated people who tell me that that they cannot remember what they told the Police, or what is in the statement they signed, even within hours of being released……

All we need is to ensure that the accused understands what he is signing, and its consequences. If he cannot have his own Counsel present, then we should at least allow for an independent third-party who is legally trained to be involved in the statement taking process or

at least in the signing process.

Such a person already exists, for example, a Commissioner for Oaths or Notary Public. These are officers of the Court who are under duty to ensure their independence and the integrity of statements signed before them. They have no reason to favour either the prosecution or the defence, so the Police’s concern about interference does not apply. The rights of the accused will be better protected….”

Then the discussion went into the next day when another PAP MP spoke:

3.10 pm Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade):

“I recall one case, where my client instructed me that he did not commit the offence. After spending lots of time and effort to prepare the case, on the day of the trial, the prosecution revealed to me that my client had actually, during the course of investigation, admitted to committing the offence in his long statement, or what lawyers call the Section 122(5) statement.
When I confronted my client, he was unable to recall whether he indeed signed the confession as he could not read English. He claimed that he was not told what he had signed.

As Mr Hri Kumar said yesterday, many people are unable to recall what they have said to the Police, whilst they are under stress of investigation…….
…………In fact, Sir, I would urge the Police to give a copy of every statement signed by an accused person immediately after he has signed the statement.”

Now if both MPs were talking about ADULTS being interviewed and how they:

a. found the interviews to be “harrowing experience” (the MPs did mention about threats, deceptions and other things that may be part of the interview process, please read the Hansard records), and

b. couldn’t even remember what they told the police officers while under stress,
just think how a 14-year old boy, cold and hungry, would have felt (do read my Part 1).

(18 Feb2016www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/728322977

I referenced both newspapers’ reports and the father’s letter to come up with (what I felt) the emotions 14-yr old boy would have undergone. I will appreciate if people can help me translate/share it out.
Too many of us have forgotten what it is/may be like when we r 14-yr olds & getting hauled up to principal office with policemen staring at you.
We may even have forgotten what it feels like when the whole world seems to come crashing down on us.)

Please think about it.

Almost SIX YEARS AGO, MPs with their professional lawyer/legal experience put up valid concerns to the Law Minister aka Senior Counsel, who should/may have explored further on how to improve/refine the Criminal Procedure Code for the benefits for citizenry and justice.

Going by what has happened, does anyone think the Law Minister aka Senior Counsel did explore/study the MPs’ concerns through the SIX YEARS?

It is gratifying that Singapore Police Force issued a statement they will review the procedure whether to allow an appropriate adult to be present when a young person is interviewed AFTER the tragic death of this boy.

But seriously, does it really take a child’s death for our Law Minister to get things done when his own party MPs have highlighted issues to him almost SIX YEARS BEFORE?

*****Will PAP MPs (particularly those with legal expertise) ask their fellow PAP MP aka Law Minister that?

The Law Minister can’t be too busy (for almost SIX YEARS) to review issues that pertain to his own ministry, right?

I encourage people to read the 2 days’ record of that exchange; read what the Law Minister kept saying about the MPs’ concerns.

I may not be legally trained but I am sure if those MPs’ concerns were carefully considered with improvements made (a 3rd person, either an independent party or a lawyer, to be present during interview etc etc), perhaps Benjamin may not have taken his life.

*****So back to the original question: did this 14-year old boy (Benjamin Lim) deserve to die……. when the police interview issue was highlighted almost SIX YEARS AGO to the Law Minister?

I hope the PAP MPs in control of Parliament will ask their Law Minister colleague that question.
After all, the Law Minister is MP for the deceased’s constituency.

Advertisements