标签

夏后算账篇

社区行动网络组织致函警方要求澄清问题

CAN

上个星期五,社区行动网络致函新加坡警察部队。我们至今尚未收到警察部队的回函。我们相信,在信中所提出的问题是涉及公众的利益的。新加坡警察部队最近处理有关指控破坏冷静日条例的事件,已经引起社会的广泛讨论和揣测有关警方的工作程序及特权。在此情况之上,很多人还感到惊讶,在有关的案件还在进行调查中,为什么警察部队可以选择与投诉方发表联合声明。

×××××

敬启者,

事项:有关2016年6月1日选举局与警方发表联合声明

假设警察能够就以下的问题给予答复,我们为此将会感到高兴。

1.警方与投诉者发表联合声明的情况是否属于正常的?

2.假设答案是正常的,请列出类似于这样发表联合声明的例子的清单?警方是在怎样的情况下,决定发表或者不发表联合声明?

3.假设答案是否定的,那么,警方为什么要和选举局发表联合声明呢?

4.这份联合声明的发表是否意味着警方已经同意投诉者(选举局)提出的全部指控?

5.假设答案是这样的,这是不是说明了拿走鄞玉林和张素兰个人的电子设备是在调查工作的结论之前或之后做出的决定。

6.假设情况不是这样,警方是否会考虑到,在联合声明发表后公众的感受是什么?

7.警方是否关注到在联合声明发表后,围绕着其本身所产生的(处理这起案件)的公正性?

假设警方能够就以下相关的问题,我们将会感到更加的高兴。

  1. 情况显示,至少有两名警方人员在没有表明自己的身份情况下进入张素兰小姐。这是不是属于正常的标准程序?

  2. 新加坡的警方人员是不是没有经过培顺过不需要持有身份证件的情况下执行任务?

  3. 有关警方人员是否被质问如何解释其行为过失?假设是有的话,警方是否会将其解释让观众知道?

  4. 在鄞玉林没有否认自己就是在网上发表那些被指控触犯条例的文章的作者情况下,为什么警方还需要拿走他的电脑、手机和其他的电子设备呢?

  5. 类似破坏冷静日条例事件的其他人被投诉后,警方为什么没有采取同样的行动呢?

最后,针对警方在接到有关选举局的投诉后采取如此迅速的调查行动,我们提出了如下三个问题:

  1. 警方是在处理案件如何鉴定和承诺的轻重缓急?

  2. 在处理和调查案件时,涉及调查工作的警方有多少人?

  3. 警方在这样的情况下,如何考虑分配调查案件的警方人手的?

对于阁下给予关注上述事项,仅此表示谢意。请阁下注意,我们会把这封信件公诸于公众,包括您们的来函回复。

承蒙速复,感激不己。

 

您诚挚的:

CAN成员:

Lynn Lee,

Jennifer Teo,

Shelley Thio,

Jolovan Wham,

Woon Tien Wei,

Rachel Zeng

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/

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/

  1. 鄞玉林:请再别让无辜的人们被起诉了!

https://renminglishiziliaoaku.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/

CAN

CAN sent  email to the Singapore Police Force

Last Friday, CAN sent the following email to the Singapore Police Force. We have yet to receive a reply. CAN believes that questions raised in our letter are a matter of public interest. The SPF’s recent handling of complaints into alleged breaches of Cooling-Off Day rules has triggered widespread discussion and speculation about police procedure and priorities. Above all, many people are puzzled as to why the SPF chose to issue a joint statement with a complainant when an investigation was – and is still – ongoing.

*

Dear Sir,

We refer to the joint statement issued by the Elections Department (ELD) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) on June 1, 2016.

We would be grateful if the SPF could answer the following questions:

  1. Is it normal for the police to issue joint statements with complainants who have submitted police reports?

  2. If yes, could you list other instances in which similar joint statements have been released? What factors does the SPF take into consideration when deciding whether or not to release joint statements with complainants?

  3. If no, why did the SPF decide to release a joint statement with the ELD in this instance?

  4. Does the joint statement indicate that the SPF agrees with allegations raised by the complainant?

  5. If yes, was the conclusion reached before or after the seizure of electronic devices belonging to Mr Roy Ngerng and Ms Teo Soh Lung?

  6. If no, is the SPF in any way concerned about how it is being perceived by the public following the issuance of the joint statement?

  7. Is the SPF concerned about questions surrounding its impartiality following the release of the joint statement?

We would also be most grateful if the SPF could answer questions on a related point:

  1. It appears that at least two members of the SPF entered Ms Teo Soh Lung’s apartment without their identification cards. Is this standard procedure?

2.Are police in Singapore not trained to carry relevant identification with them while on duty?

  1. Have the officers in question been asked to explain their lapse? If so, will the explanations be made public?

  2. Given that both Mr Ngerng and Ms Teo did not deny that they were authors of the allegedly offending posts, why was it even necessary to seize computers, mobiles phones and other electronics devices?

  3. Why was similar action not taken against other people who were also reported for allegedly breaching Cooling Off Day rules?

Finally, we note the speed with which the SPF has reacted to the ELD’s complaint, and have three questions on this issue:

  1. How does the SPF prioritise which cases to handle first, and which ones are less urgent?

  2. How many officers were/are involved in the handling of the case in question?

  3. How does the SPF decide how much manpower to devote to each case?

Thank you for your kind attention. Please note that we will be making public this letter, as well as any replies from the SPF.

We look forward to hearing back soon.

Sincerely,

Lynn Lee,

Jennifer Teo,

Shelley Thio,

Jolovan Wham,

Woon Tien Wei,

Rachel Zeng

Community Action Network

秉公处理

Advertisements