标签

夏后算账篇

鄞玉林

鄞玉林:

请再别让无辜的人们被起诉了!

我否定和拒绝了选举局和警方发表的联合声明。

在他们的声明中一面说,“我们观察到在2016年的武吉巴督补选过程中所出现严重违反的破坏国会选举法令是故意的。”

他们在声明的另一面又说,“警方目前正在进行调查。”

首先,选举局和警方发表的联合声明是否会产生利益冲突?这份联合声明的发表之际,就是等同于警方已经赞同选举局所指控的投诉的涉嫌犯罪罪名已经成立了。

第二,假设警方“目前还在进行他们的调查工作”,那么,为什么警方要在联合声明里说“严重破坏了(冷静日)条例”。这是不是说他们的调查工作已经确定了,并定性了我们的犯罪罪名成立?

或者是,警方在“调查工作”开始前就已经预先确定了我们就是犯人。

当在星期二进行问讯时,警方一直都在告诉我,由于是有人投诉,所以这是在对我进行调查。

警方也说,这并不意味着(我的)罪名已经成立了。

但是,这份声明的发表——而且是一份联合声明——这是不是意味着警方已经决定我的犯罪罪名已经成立!尽管他们是应该还在进行“调查”。

联合声明也说:“在他们的调查工作完毕后,他们将会向总检查署提交建议。”

假设警方在总检查署尚未决定进行诉告我们之前,发表联合声明的做法似乎已经确定了我们犯罪的罪名是成立了。警方肯定要向总检查署建议提起诉告!这是不是先斩后凑?为什么不索性让总检查署也一起加入成为联合声明其中的一方?

或许这是对的?

联合声明也说:“从2011年到2015年的过去几届的大选在冷静日期间都发生过破坏选举法令的事件,我们都采取给予警告的方式。”

那么,为什么对我和张素兰却没有给予警告的方式呢?我知道,在武吉巴督补选期间最少有一个人/群体是给予警告。假设继续发出和清晰的口头警告——这就是说,选举局过去是一直关注着破坏(冷静日)条例事件,并在发现时都及时发出警告。假设选举局没有向我和张素兰发出警告,这是不是意味着选举局不认为我们已经是触犯法律的犯人了?

或者是,他们只是在事后(指冷静日或者选举过后)才决定我们所触犯的罪行?或者是,他们事后的决定是因为有人告诉他们这是基于政治理由。那他们得就此作出澄清是不是这样的情况?

联合声明也说,“在一些案例中,一些破坏(国会选举)条例者是无意的。”

根据我所知道的,根本就没有人向警方投诉两名行动党的党员(候选人)陈佩玲和维文在冷静日破坏选举法令——这是在过去的选举中最清楚不过和最有力的证据。(为什么张素兰和我就不再此例。)

好了。假设选举局可以单方面自行决定哪些人破坏选举法令是属于“无意的”,那么,这是基于什么理由?他们是否与陈佩玲和维文谈过?

选举局是否向我和张素兰了解过,我们是否是有意在冷静日破坏选举法令的?是否向我们发出过警告信?

相反地,选举局和警方发表了联合声明。这已经说明他们经过“深思熟虑”后已经确定了我们在冷静日是“严重”的触犯了选举条例。

当行动党的候选人在冷静日非常明显地已经公然地触犯了选举法令情况下,为什么联合声明可以说行动党党员(在冷静日发表的言论)是“无意”破坏选举法令的?为什么我们在没有确凿的证据证明下,又可以如此明确的判定我们是已经触犯的“严重”罪行?

行动党是否敢于利用我们国家的机构来保护自己如此公然藐视法律的行为?或者,如此做法将对我们的国家机构和新加坡的一种藐视?

这非常明显的这就是一起政治迫害事件,它的动机就是因为我还张素兰支持民主党的人,不是行动党的人。

与此同时,法令并没有被公平的执行。选举局对行动党的候选人可以不向警方报案的情况获得赦免,而张素兰和我却在同样的情况下被剥夺我们的个人的权利和拿走了私人的物件。

在我们的国家是不是只有行动党才有这样的权利?

明确地说,假设行动党是要对付反对党和把(逮捕和起诉)我们当成是一种(警戒)手段,那就直接挑明说出回来,别像儒夫一样躲在幕后。

我们本来就是独立人士!我们就是在个人的基础上发表自己的看法。假设行动党要指责我们有什么企图——就像他们在1963年的冷藏行动和1987年的光谱行动编造故事的一样!那么,他们就直接公开说明自己的立场,停止滥用法令来对付我们。行动党这样做就是儒夫行为!我们完全没有触犯任何法律!

为什么选举局和警方在联合声明里说,他们是经过“深思考虑和我们在2016年武吉巴督补选期间严重触犯国会选举法令的”?

我不得不再一次得要问,难道警方不是还在进行“调查”吗?

警方根本就不需要在这个时候再问是否触犯破坏选举法令了。

我还张素兰一直以来都一直坚持,我们是在非商业基础上发表个人的看法。这是冷静日的条例所允许的。

我们为什么要触犯法令呢?我们是发表个人的意见。互联网上的脸书和博客都是属于非商业性质的个人网页。因此,怎么能够指责我们触犯有关的法令呢?

警方在问讯时甚至问到,我是否在武吉巴督补选时(民主党的)群众大会上讲话。我听了大笑。我非常肯定的说,所有人都知道我根本就没有上台演讲,因为我根本就不是民主党的党员。

我发现警方卯足全力一直在绞尽脑汁来证明我是触犯的法令。事实上,我没有触犯任何法令。

这又是一个案例,他们蓄意应用恶意的法律文字,广泛地使用“造成”我们犯罪的事实。

非常肯定地说,在一个公平和正义的社会,相信法律条款是不可能如此松懈的解释的。这是对法律公然的践踏!

您并不需要同意我的看法。但是,可以肯定的是,您可以看到法律是多么地不公平,以及犯人是如何被定罪的。我和张素兰已经被框在这个不正义的制度里。

我在这里明确的说,自己并没有破坏选举法律的条例,没有触犯法律。事实就是这样!——除非他们向警方投诉的报告是指我和张素兰触犯的是政治条例,我在网上发表的个人意见是在没有商业基础上的。

再说,为什么在逮捕我们之前不发出警告呢?联合声明说,“(在过去)采取行动向他们(指行动党候选人陈佩玲和维文?)发出警告。”

那么,为什么我和张素兰没有被警告呢?(我不知道张素兰是否接到警告)。假设被他们关注的是很多获得警告,那么,为什么他们只针对我们两人向警方投诉的报案呢?

假设只有我们俩是被推测为“破坏”法令,我(张素兰也和我一样)坚决否认!因为我们没有破坏法令。当时 为什么选举局没有警告我们?

选举局当时是不是认为我们并没有破坏冷静日条例,所以他们认为不需要警告我们?他们向警方报案投诉是过后的事。他们向投诉警方报案是在补选过后的三个星期才进行的。

或者,反过来,举局选择沉默是他们相信我们 已经“破坏(法令)”。而一直保持沉默和等待着向警方报案投诉我们?

为什么选举局和警方的联合声明说,他们过去发出过警告(破坏条例者),而这一次却不发出警告给我们呢?反过来说,选举局和警方是不是决定不直接给我们发出警告,而是直接 确定了我们就是犯法了?

尽管警方还在进行“调查中”,但是,是不是确定了我们已经“破坏(了法令)”?假设他们还在调查中和无法确定我们是否“破坏(了法令)”的情况下,(警方)是否有权利(与选举局)共同发表联合声明?

这就类似于说,玛丽向警方报案投诉约翰。当警方在无法知道约翰是否真得干了(玛丽)所投诉的事件,并还在进行调查中时,警方就决定和玛丽一起发表联合声明说,约翰事实已经是一个罪犯了。

这样一来,警方在这起投诉案件的立场是什么?

当时我告诉警方说,新加坡的执政党,人民行动党有时是在利用他们时,警方告诉我,他们说中立的。

或者是,他们无意隐瞒所有这些伪善面目?

我们非常惊讶的看到,我们的(国家)机构是如何被行动党如此明目张胆的操纵和指使的。

我们毫不隐瞒地说,我和张素兰的被指控完全就是属于具有政治性质的。

在冷静日当天,数以千计的人发表了自己的政治见解。

但是,选举局——是总理公署管辖下的部门——他们只决定针对我们俩。为什么?我不知道?或者是,我们是最容易对付的目标;或者是,我们是突出者?

不管是哪一种情况,我和张素兰是无辜的。

假设他们决定起诉我,即便是我们知道这么做错误的,我又能够做些什么。因为他们坚信没有人会站出来声援我们。

您可能会证明我们是错的。事实上,Jolovan Wham正在发起一项联署声明声援我和张素兰。人们将会提出抗议的。

在这次的事件上,非常明显的,我和张素兰是无辜的。我们是遭受不公正的起诉的。这是有史以来记忆中,没有过如此嚣张的不公正的法律和起诉。

您可以不必同意我们所写的东西。但是,我们是生活在一个我们相信应该是民主的社会。

您可能不同意我们说法。但是,但是,您应该同意的是,我们是不可以让非正义横行霸道。这是极其严重的问题。假设我们不捍卫我们的自由,让它们肆无忌惮的糟蹋,那么,我们还扯谈什么法律呢?

假设下一次他们不高兴时,他们可以制定法令任意地把我们抓进监狱。

我们把自己当成旁观者,啥事都不愿意做,下一回不公平的法律将会轮到我们的。

犹有甚者,有那么的一天,他们决定根本就不需要任何在法律依据下这么做,对吗?请记住,他们在19601980年代是如何使用内部安全法令,在不经审讯的情况下逮捕数以百计的新加坡人的。

回顾过去,造成新加坡今天的腐朽,人们告诉我,这是新加坡越来越专制的结果。

新加坡人民是否要回到让他们再次使用内部安全法令来逮捕无辜的新加坡人的年代?或者更加严重的是,为了他们的政治原因,让他们自己决定扩大现有的法律权力,制造莫须有的罪名把无辜的新加坡人监禁起来。

我和张素兰是无辜的。他们对付我们的行动是错误的和应该受到谴责。

假设您要维护法律的尊严和我们国家的尊严,那么,请您贡献一点力量吧!请不要再让无辜的人民遭受起诉。

 秉公处理

Roy Ngerng Yi Ling 

 Do not let innocent people be persecuted again

I am perplexed and put off by the joint statement from the election department and the police.

On the one hand, the statement said: “we observed what appeared to be deliberate and serious breaches of the rules under the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) during the 2016 Bukit Batok By-Election.”

On the other, the statement also said: “The Police are currently conducting their investigations.”

First of all, is there not a conflict of interest that the election department and the police is releasing a joint statement? By releasing a joint statement, is the police already agreeing with the election department that a crime has been committed?

Second, if the police is still “currently conducting their investigations”, then why did the joint statement say that there are “serious breaches of the rules” as if they have concluded their investigations and decided we are criminals?

Or has the police predetermined we are criminals even before the “investigations” are concluded?

When I was interrogated by the police on Tuesday, the police kept telling me that they are only investigating me because a report was made

The police also said that it does not mean that a crime has been committed.

But by releasing this statement – and a joint one at that – does it mean that the police has already decided I am guilty of a crime even though they are supposed to be still “investigating”?

The statement also said: “Upon the completion of their investigations, the Police will address the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) with their recommendations。

If the police has to go to the AGC to recommend the charges before the AGC decides whether to charge us or not, by releasing such a statement and seemingly determining guilt, isn’t the police jumping the gun? Why not ask the AGC to be part of the joint statement?

Might as well right?

The statement also said: “In the various elections since GE2011 right up to GE2015, there have been some breaches of the Cooling-Off Day rules. The approach that has been taken has been to give warnings in respect of these breaches.”

So, why were warnings not given to Soh Lung and I? I understand that at least one person/entity was given a warning during this Bukit Batok by-election. If warnings were still given and clearly in vogue – which means the election department was looking out for breaches and sending out warnings, and if no warnings were sent to Soh Lung and I, doesn’t that mean the election department did not think that we committed a crime?

Or did they only decide that we committed a crime on hindsight? If so, then it is their fault, not ours, right? Or if their hindsight is because someone told them to report on us for political reasons, then clearly it is not right, isn’t it?

The joint statement also said: “In some of the cases, the breaches were found to be unintentional.”

As I understand, there were not even police reports that were made against Tin Pei Lin and Vivian Balakrishnan – both PAP politicians – when they had breached the rules – more clearly and evidently – in past elections (where Soh Lung and I had clearly not).

So if the election department can unilaterally decide that the breaches were “unintentional”, how did it do so? Did it speak to Ms Tin and Mr Balakrishnan?

But did the election department speak to Soh Lung and I to find out if whatever they falsely accuse of us doing is intentional or not, or give us a warning?

But instead, the election department – and the police presumably since this is a joint statement – decided that “deliberate and serious breaches” were made.

Why would the joint statement help give excuses to the PAP politicians to say that they made “unintentional” breaches but was so determined to impinge on us as having made “serious” breaches when it is clear and sundry to all that the PAP politicians have committed blatant crimes and we have not?

Has the PAP dared to protect itself by using our institutions with such blatant disregard or the disrepute that it will do to our institutions, and to Singapore?

It is so clearly political persecution, just simply because Soh Lung and I support the SDP and do not support the PAP.。

And the rules are clearly not applied fairly. The PAP politicians get off without even a police report. Soh Lung and I had our rights invaded and our belongings seized.

Does only the PAP have rights in this country?

If the PAP wants to attack the opposition and want to use us as proxies, then just say so. Stop hiding behind smokescreens and behave like wimps. Be honorable.

We are clearly individuals who made personal views and have operated on our own individual basis. If the PAP wants to accuse us of any conspiracy – as they had fabricated the charges in 1963 and 1987 – then learn to stand their own two feet and stop making use of others. Only cowards do that. We have nothing to hide and we did nothing wrong.

So why did the joint statement say that there are “deliberate and serious breaches of the rules under the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) during the 2016 Bukit Batok By-Election”? – and a joint statement with the police as well.

Again, I ask, isn’t the police supposed to still be “investigating”?

At no point in time did the police question me to ask if I had deliberately breached the PEA.

Soh Lung and I have always maintained that we were making personal views on a non-commercial basis. And this is allowed for, as an exception to the rules for Cooling-Off Day.

Why would we want to deliberate break a law? We are individuals making personal views, and our Facebook and my blog are non-commercial. So how did we break the law?

The police even went as far as to ask me whether I spoke at the rallies at the Bukit Batok by-election. I laughed when I heard that question. Surely everyone has the eyes to see that I did not speak and that I was not even part of the SDP?

It feels that the police was so desperate to find some way to incriminate me for a crime I never did.

Is this yet another case of an intentionally-badly worded law to be used to incriminate us in wide-ranging ways?

Surely a fair and just country which believes in the rule of law cannot certainly define a law so loosely as to blatantly abuse it?

You do not have to agree with me. But surely, you can see how unfair the law is and how a crime was not committed, and that Soh Lung and I have been framed by an unjust system?

I say on record here that there was no deliberate breach on my part, and I did not break the law. I was expressing personal views on a non-commercial basis, which is clearly allowed for under the law, unless the report against Soh Lung and I are political – which clearly is the case.

Again, why were we not warned beforehand? The joint statement said that the “approach (in the past) has been taken has been to give warnings”.

Then why were Soh Lung and I not warned (I am not aware that she was). If the concern is that

there were too many people to warn, then why were police reports made only against the two of us?

If it was only the two of us who supposedly “breach” the rules, which I (and I believe Soh Lung too) strenuously dispute because we did not break the law, then why did the election department not warn us?

Did the election department not think that we broke the law on Cooling-Off Day and therefore did not see the need to warn us?

Is making a police report against us only an afterthought, and therefore the report was made only 3 weeks after the by-election?

Or did the election department choose to keep quiet about what they ownself believe is a “breach” and were keeping quiet and waiting to make a police report against us instead?

Why did the election department and police release a joint statement to say that warnings were given in the past but not this time round? Did the election department and police both decide not to give warnings and go straight to determining a person is a criminal instead?

Did the police decide we have “breached” the rule even though they are still “investigating”? If they are still investigating and cannot ascertain yet if we have breached the law, is it right to release a joint statement?

This is akin to saying that Mary made a police report against John. And the police decided to release a statement with Mary to say that John did indeed commit a crime, when the police is still investigating if John did and do not actually know yet.

Then where does the police exactly stand on this?

What happened to the impartiality that the police told me when I told them the PAP (the ruling party in Singapore) makes use of them sometimes.

Or is there no intention to hide all this hypocrisy at all?

I am flabbergasted by how our institutions are so blatantly operating on the beck and call of the PAP.

The charge against Soh Lung and I is political. Let’s not pretend it is not.

There were thousands of people making political views on Cooling-Off Day.

But the election department – which is under the prime minister’s office – only decided to target the both of us. Why, I don’t know. Maybe we are easy targets. Maybe we are prominent.

Whatever it is, Soh Lung and I know we are innocent.

If they decide to charge me, there is nothing I can do because even as we know it is wrong for them to do that, they are so emboldened to think that no one else will stand up for us.

Maybe you will prove us wrong. Jolovan Wham is collecting signatures to sign a statement in support of Soh Lung and I. Maybe people will protest.

This time round, it is clear that Soh Lung and I are innocent and we are being unfairly persecuted. The unfairness in the law and persecutions have never been so blatant before in recent memory.

You do not have to agree with what we write. But we live in a country which supposedly believes in democratic society, based on justice and equality.

You might not agree with us, but you have to agree that such injustice cannot be allowed to pass. If we stand by and watch on the side and do nothing about it, the next time the law decides to be unfair, it will be our turn.

So this is serious. If we do not protect our liberties and allow it to be so flagrantly abused, then what law is there for us to talk about?

If the powers may be is not happy next time, they can just find a law to anyhow imprison us.

On worse still, they can one day decide they do not even need a law to do that. But it isn’t new, is it? Remember how they used the Internal Security Act to arrest hundreds of Singaporeans from the 1960s to 1980s and detained them without trial?

Soh Lung was part of that. She was detained on fabricated charges in 1987. In fact, she was detained for the longest time among those detained – for 2 1/2 years.

With the regression that is causing the rot in Singapore, I have been told by people that Singapore is becoming more oppressive.

Does Singapore want to go back to using the Internal Security Act to detain innocent Singaporeans for political reasons again? Or worse still, have they decided to widen the scope of existing laws to persecute innocent Singaporeans on fabricated charges to imprison them for political reasons?

The actions against Soh Lung and I are reprehensible and wrong. We are innocent.

If you want to protect the sanctity of the law and the sanity of our country, then do something about it. Do not let innocent people be persecuted again.

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/

  1. 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:我对警方的行动感到失望

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/

  1. 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/

13.张缓蓉:在“破坏”选举条例下,警方骚扰新加坡的社会活动积极分子

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/

  1. 克莉丝叮.韩莉颖:如何诠释冷静日条例?

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements