标签

夏后算账篇

jeannette-chong-aruldoss               13332960_774039332732467_419715080810113827_n

转载自:

http://international.thenewslens.com/article/40935

视频录像网址:警方人员在搜查张素兰家

https://www.facebook.com/jeannette.aruldoss/videos/10201742041470598/

秉公处理

在“破坏”选举条例下,警方骚扰新加坡的社会活动积极分子

 

这是一个令人感到忧虑的国家事务

当您在特定的日子在脸书(Facebook)上表达自己的政治意见时,警方可以在未持有搜查令或者法院的庭令情况下进入个人电子设备里获取您个人的资料

上个星期五,选举局的助理选举官宣布向警方投案,投诉社会时事网站《新加坡独立网站》(The Independent Singapore)和两名人士鄞玉林和张素兰在武吉巴督补选的冷静日期间破坏选举条例

依据冷静日条例的有关规定,在国会选举法令下,在投票前一天的冷静日和投票日当天是禁止进行选举宣传活动的。但是,个人之间使用电话或者电子传播工具谈论自己的政治观点,只要不是属于以商业性质为基础的”是豁免于本条例外的

鄞玉林和张素兰两人都是属于社会活动分子,他们俩与当局都交手过。鄞玉林因被总理李显龙起诉名誉诽谤而扬名;张素兰于1980年时,在内部安全法令下,不经审讯被监禁了近2年

鄞玉林和张素兰俩在今早(2016年5月31日)在警察总部接受问讯(或者是使用警方所惯用的字眼“面谈”)。在这个漫长问讯过程中,他们俩被问到在他们的脸书各个帖子上被按“赞”的次数是多少。他们是否认为,这会不会将导致反对党候选人徐顺全“促成选举胜利”的效应。他们的脸书户头是不是曾经还有其他人参与管理

这场冗长的问讯并没有结束,接着,警方随着提出了有意搜查他们的住家。鄞玉林告诉The New Lens International警方告诉他,他们将到他的家进行抄家。尽管他要与自己的律师说话,但是不被允许。这位律师当时陪同张素兰到警察总部了

在不同场合里的张素兰也被要求交出自己的手机。这是警方要带她回家前提出的要求。他们是要到她家进行搜查和拿走她的电脑。张素兰一开始拒绝了警方的要求,或者,警方出示搜查令。

警方告诉张素兰,警方并不需要申请搜查令,搜查她的家或者拿走她家的财物。因为,这些手续的已经在案件调查过程中办理了。他们恐吓她,假设她不服从命令的话将逮捕她。张素兰面对着这种别无选择局面:要嘛,主动交出了手机,或者,要嘛,被他们逮捕并把手机充公。最终,警方拿走了她的电脑桌机、手提电脑和手机。他们也拿走了鄞玉林的2台手提电脑、2个硬盘、手机和一些纪念卡

张素兰在电话里告诉The New Lens International

“这已经完全没有什么隐私权了!”

在张素兰经历他们充公了她的电子设备最终被充公的同时,鄞玉林又被带回警察局进行进一步的“协助”调查。他们向他提出了要进入脸书FACEBOOK户头的密码。这样他们就可以下载他们在网上活动的日志和资料。他们也尝试要进入鄞玉林的WordPress户头。但是,他们无法进入

鄞玉林说,“他们经过多次的努力后终于打开了我的手机。我无法肯定,他们要打开我的手机的目的是什么?”

经过警方超过8小时的问讯后,鄞玉林从警察局释放出来了。看来这是已经开始显得超现实和无耻的。对于一些社会媒体在报道这个信息时,把整个事件的发生视为是无关紧要的。这显示出了新加坡当局为了获取他们所需要的数据可以为所欲为

事实上,张素兰和鄞玉林并不是唯一发现自己的电子设备被警方充公的人

2013年,新闻记者李成琳(Lynn Lee) 也接受同样的调查 similarly investigated)。她的手提电脑、手机和硬盘也是被他们拿走及进行检查,这是在她发表了一篇采访两名巴士车司机的文章后发生的。这两名巴士车司机是指控警方在对他们因此参与当年的罢工事件(按:2013 SMRT中国司机进行罢工,抗议同工不同酬及要求改善宿舍居住环境而展开罢工行动事件。见:http://sginsight.com/xjp/index.php?id=9601)被传召进行问讯时,警方对他们采取了粗暴态度

青少年余彭衫在李光耀死后发表粗俗的反对李光耀和基督教的视频(YouTube)。他的电子设备也是被充公。在今年,他被指控再度发表伤害宗教情感和未及时向警方报到接受问讯时,他的电子设备又再一次被充公。他是在上个星期被控上法院的

这是一个令人感到担忧的国家事务。当您要在特定的日子里在脸书网站表达自己的政治看法时,将会出现警方可以在没有搜查令,或者法院的庭令下有“足够的理由”可以获取您的个人数据。这一切显示了,是在缺乏监督和平衡制度下新加坡政府拥有广泛的权力

公民社会不应该是在警察的骚扰和在没有受到监督下面对困扰的。在类似的事件被投诉涉及执政党时,执政党却轻易的解释为是“失误”和“意外的错误”。但是,他们对其他人却采取长时间的问讯和进入住家进行抄家。诸如类似的情况,能够赢得人民的信任吗?这是在损害法治社会!最终,每一个公民都会失去信心

在 新加坡,我们在开放和负责任方面还有许多工作要做的。当新加坡的政治已经朝向一党在表演独角戏的舞台的情况下,这个社会并不需要实施冷静日条例了。警方不 应该在没有搜查令下进行搜查和充公私人的物件。在问讯过程中必须允许律师在场,以便在调查过程中律师可以告知当事人应有的权力

只有负责任的情况得到实现,否则,那些奢谈开放性管治、包容性、商讨性和改革性等就是一句空

 

Singaporean Activists Harassed by Police for ‘Breaching’ Election Rules

http://international.thenewslens.com/article/40935

It’s a worrying state of affairs when expressing your political opinions on Facebook on a particular day is all it takes for police to gain access to all your data without a warrant or court order.

Last Friday Singapore’s Elections Department announced that its Assistant Returning Officer had lodged police reports against news website The Independent Singapore and two individuals, Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung, for breaching election rules relating to Cooling-Off Day during the Bukit Batok by-election held earlier this month.

According to the Cooling-Off Day rules under the Parliamentary Elections Action, election advertising is banned on the day before Polling Day, as well as on Polling Day itself. However, “the telephonic or electronic transmission by an individual to another individual of the first-mentioned individual’s own political views, on a non-commercial basis” is exempted from these rules.“

Both Ngerng and Teo are social activists who have crossed paths with the powerful: Ngerng was famously sued for defamation by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, while Teo had, in the late 1980s, been detained without trial for about two years under the Internal Security Act.

Ngerng and Teo reported to the police headquarters this morning for interrogation (or, as the police would prefer to put it, “interviews”). What followed were long sessions in which they were asked questions about the number of Facebook “likes” they had received on various posts, whether they felt their posts would “promote the electoral success” of the opposition candidate Dr Chee Soon Juan, whether anyone else has ever managed their Facebook pages for them.

The interrogations weren’t the end of it, either: the police then indicated their intention to search their homes. Ngerng told The New Lens International that police had told him they were going to “raid” his home. Although he wanted to speak with a lawyer who showed up in support of Teo, he says he was not allowed to do so.

Separately, Teo was asked to hand over her mobile phone before the police took her back to her home so they could search it and seize her computer. She refused to comply at first, saying they did not have a warrant. She was informed that the police did not need a search warrant, or a warrant to seize her property, as these things were being done in the course of the investigation. She was threatened with arrest if she did not comply, leaving her with the Hobson’s choice of handing over her phone voluntarily, or being arrested and having her phone confiscated anyway.

In the end, the police took her desktop computer, her laptop and her mobile phone. They also took two laptops, two hard drives, his mobile phone and some memory cards from Ngerng’s home.

“The individual’s rights are all gone,” Teo told The New Lens International by telephone. “There is no right to privacy at all.”

While Teo’s ordeal ended after the confiscation of her electronic devices, Ngerng was brought back to the police station to further “aid” in the investigations. He was asked to access his Facebook account so that his activity log and archive could be downloaded. Attempts were made to do the same with his WordPress account, but they were unable to log in.

“They pretty much have complete access to my phone,” he said. “I’m not sure what they’re going to do with the access to my phone.”

By the time Ngerng was released from police custody, over eight hours after he first presented himself in the morning, it was already beginning to seem surreal – and outrageous – that this whole episode had been triggered by something as inconsequential as some social media posts. Yet it would appear that this is all it takes for Singaporean authorities to get their hands on all your data.

Teo and Ngerng aren’t the only ones to find their electronics confiscated by the police for investigation. In 2013, journalist Lynn Lee was similarly investigated – and her laptop, mobile phone and hard drives seized and/or examined – after she published interviews with two bus drivers who had alleged police brutality while being interrogated for their participation in a strike. Last year, teenage blogger Amos Yee had his electronics confiscated after he published a rant against Lee Kuan Yew and Christianity on YouTube after the elder statesman’s death. His electronics were confiscated again this year after he was arrested on charges of wounding religious feelings (again) and failing to report for police questioning. He was charged in court last week.

It’s a worrying state of affairs when expressing your political opinions on Facebook on a particular day is all it takes for the police to have “sufficient cause” to gain access to all your data without the need for warrants or court orders. It’s a sign of the wide-ranging powers the authorities have in Singapore, with a troubling lack of checks and balances.

And it shouldn’t just be civil society that is troubled by police harassment and unchecked power. In a context where similar complaints against ruling party politicians are easily explained away as mistakes and “bugs” while others are subjected to long interrogations and home raids, such episodes can erode public trust, thus hurting the legitimacy of the state. Ultimately, everyone loses.

So much more needs to be done to ensure openness and accountability in Singapore. Cooling-Off Day rules have no place in a society where the political playing field is already so skewed towards one party. The police shouldn’t be able to search and seize property without warrants. Lawyers should be allowed to accompany clients into interrogations, and to advise people under investigation of their rights.

Until such accountability is achieved, all talk of open governance, inclusivity, consultation and innovation is little more than hot air.

相关链接网址:

1.张素兰:《咱们的警察部队是干啥的? What is happening to our Police Force?》

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/

2.TOC:《鄞玉林和张素兰现在面对警方广泛的调查 Roy Ngerng Yiling and Teo Soh Lung are now being extensively investigated

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/

3. Function 8严厉谴责政府滥用权力对付个别公民及公民社会组织 Function 8 condemns use of gov’t powers against individual citizens and civil society groups

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/

  1. 朱正熙律师:我对警方的许多感到失望

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/

 

5.工人党就“冷静日调查事件”发表声明

 https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/

 

  1. 民主党发表声明:要求平等对待冷静日

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/

7.鄞玉林:《民主就是集体强奸》

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/

8. 武吉巴督补选冷静日违例事件 警方充公涉案电子器材进行调查

http://www.channel8news.sg/news8/singapore/20160601-sg-cooling-off/2837302.html

9.新加坡社区行动网络发起联署声明;停止所有对张素兰和鄞玉林的调查行动

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/

  1. 视频录像网址:警方人员在搜查张素兰家

https://www.facebook.com/jeannette.aruldoss/videos/10201742041470598/

11.陈华彪:心字头上一把刃

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/

12.张素兰:我是否能够期盼获得一个公平和独立的调查?

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements