标签

CAN

编者按:

1.本中文版本与英文版本有出入之处,均以引文版本作为最终解释权。特此说明。

2.CAN的全名COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK;中文名称翻译为:社区行动网络。它是一个以新加坡为基础的非政府组织。作为表达自由和平民和政治权利的组织。

CAN: 就律政部长发表有关林俊辉死亡事(在国会的)讲话发表声明

网址:http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/03/can-statement-on-the-law-ministers-speech-about-the-death-of-benjamin-lim/

以下是社区行动网络(CAN,下同)就律政与内政部长三木根在本星期二(2016年3月1日)在国会发表书面声明的声明全文:

律政与内政部长三木根在昨天国会发表有关14岁青少年林俊辉死亡事件。在他的讲话里,三木根不断重覆指责社交媒体网站。

公民在线(TOC)被指责刊载不确实报道这起事件。他指责公民在线(TOC)组织了一场‘使用虚假的报道进行有组织的合唱团运动’。三木根同时表示对律师公会主席张正义先生发表了“虚假”的声明。

围绕着林俊辉的死亡明显是属于自杀的事件所产生的许多疑问,新加坡人理所当然是要表示关心的。我们需要知道,假设警方是否遵循正确的程序处理一名青少年。我们要找出具有意义的问题是,是不是处理这件事方面有不同的处理方式,以及目前的(审问)程序是否可以改进。

林俊辉的事件是涉及到大众强烈要求迅速获得答案——他的家属更加是急切要知道事实真相。新加坡人民需要获得再次保证,当孩子被警方调去问话时会被获得适当的处理。这是涉及大众利益的事。

部长把焦点放在 《公民在线》和张正义的目的是理所当然是为了分散注意力和毫无必要的。

《公民在线》为此澄清说,他们已经曾经与警方和几位部门联系过要求为此评论。但是,据所知在未来也是不会回应。

三木根先生在讲话过程中指责《公民在线》使用“策略”的征求警方的意见。这是一个极其荒谬的说辞。《公民在线》是不是需要自我克制的尝试去查明这些事实?

三木根先生也很谨慎地评论正在进行中调查这起事件的调查庭。无论如何,我们坚信,调查庭最终的结果必定会制定出司法审问程序。这是寻求诚意和讨论的目的是在于调查庭调查的结果。无论如何,我们了解到调查庭是由具有高素质、有能力的专业人士组成,他们肩负起这项任务是不受任何影响所而动摇的。

最后,我们注意到三木根先生在评估有关对林俊辉的犯罪指控。我们领会到其细心的看法,大众在电视荧光幕的说明字幕里获得了有关信息。三木根先生的意见是林俊辉可能会被警告后获得释放。这是显示未审先判。这是孩子已经是死亡了。他已经能够无法在法院的审讯为自己进行辩护了。从原则上而言,任何一个涉嫌者必须在原则上赋予无罪审讯的基础,直到法院证明和判决其有罪。我们要求部长未来重申这一点。

此声明的签署者如下:

[Endorsees: Shelley Thio, Roy Ngerng, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Lynn Lee, and Jolovan Wham from Community Action Network]

CAN

Statement on the Law Minister’s speech about the death of Benjamin Lim

Related link:http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/03/can-statement-on-the-law-ministers-speech-about-the-death-of-benjamin-lim/

 

The below is a statement written by the Community Action Network (CAN) in regards to the speech made by the Minister of Law and Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam in Parliament on Tuesday.

In Parliament yesterday, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam spoke at length about the untimely death of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim. During his speech, Mr Shanmugam made repeated allegations that sociopolitical website, The Online Citizen was deliberately inaccurate in its reporting on the case. He accused TOC of organising “a planned, orchestrated campaign using falsehoods”. Mr Shanmugam also expressed surprise at “false” statements made by Law Society President, Mr Thio Shen Yi.

Given the many questions surrounding Benjamin’s apparent suicide, Singaporeans are naturally concerned. We want to know if police followed proper procedure in the handling of a minor. We find it worthwhile to question if things could have been done differently, and if current procedures can be improved.

Benjamin’s case involves pressing questions demanding urgent answers – his parents deserve closure, and Singaporeans need to be reassured that children who are called to assist police in investigations are properly treated. It is a matter of public interest.

The Minister’s focus on TOC and Mr Thio are therefore distracting and unnecessary. TOC has since clarified that it had reached out to the police, and various other ministries for comment. It is understood that no replies were forthcoming. During his speech, Mr Shanmugam accused TOC of using “tactics” to solicit comments from the police. This is a bizarre claim. Should TOC have refrained from trying to ascertain facts?

Mr Shanmugam also cautioned against commenting on the case as a Coroner’s Inquiry is underway. However, we believe a distinction should be drawn between legitimate questions asked in good faith, and discussion aimed at influencing the outcome of the Coroner’s findings. Moreover, we understand the Coroner to be a highly qualified professional, fully capable of carrying out his work without being swayed

Finally, we note the Minister’s assessment of Benjamin’s alleged offense. We appreciate the careful thought that went into the decision to make public information obtained from CCTV footage. Mr Shanmugam opined that Benjamin would have been let off with a warning. This indicates a presumption of guilt. Given that the boy is dead and will not be able to defend himself in a trial, and in view of the principle that all suspects should be granted the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, we urge the Minister to refrain from making such pronouncements in the future.

[Endorsees:

Shelley Thio, Roy Ngerng, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Lynn Lee, and Jolovan Wham from Community Action Network]

The Community Action Network is a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) based in Singapore concerned about freedom of expression, and civil and political rights.。

Advertisements