标签

本文导言:

大家还记得武吉巴督补选期间,警方接到总理公署的投诉有关指控张素兰和鄞玉林涉嫌破坏竞选条例的事件吗?总理公署指他们在冷静日期间发表有关补选的文章事件。为此,警方在2016年5月31日分别传唤了张素兰和鄞玉林到警署闻讯。警方在问讯结束后,又分别把他们带回家进行抄家搜索。他们的个人电子设备(电脑、手机和手提电脑等)都被警方人员充公。理由是这些设备里面可能有涉及与案情有关的资料。

张素兰刚在两个星期前,也就是2017年7月10日到章宜邻里警署取回被警方抄家时没收的电子设备,手提电脑、手机和桌机。

 以下是她发表取回这些设备的经过。

 

无限责任来自无限权限

2个星期前,也就是2017年7月10日,警方归还了他们在2016年5月31日充公了我的电子设备。他们同意的要求,在章宜邻里警署取回这些电子设备,包括了富士手提电脑、联想桌机和三星GALAXY S6手机。因为这所警署距离我居住的地点是步行的距离。这是他们友善的表现。这样我就可以把这些电子设备放在行李车推着回家。他们提出了载我回家,我回拒了他们好意。

除了富士手提电脑遭到部分损坏外,其他的两件看来是没有什么问题。

手提电脑的屏光幕和底部已经受损了。警方保证他们将支付有关修理的费用。虽然我的手提电脑使用已经超过10年了,但是,因为电脑里收藏了许多有价值的资料文件,因此我仍然是要进行修复,

这些电子设备是在警署里打开启动的。看来它们的运作仍然是正常的。在我领取这些电子设备时,警方并没有要求我签收这些电子设备是属于“运作正常条件”的回执。

我想,我将会把这些被警方充公了的电子设备在送去检修,在检修前我会把这些的电子设备送到厂家进行鉴定检视。

我的手机目前市价只值200元,在被警方充公前,我是以800元购买的。

最后,在我离开警署前,驻署警察给了我一封“严厉警告”信件,内容包括了:一、破坏了禁止在选举期间进行广告宣传条例;二、使用刑事手段阻止公职人员履行职责。

我对警方的这些指控是完全否认了。但是,既然这封所谓的“严厉警告信”是不具法律约束力的,因此。我就不费精力去研究这份“严厉警告信”了。

8名警方人员在2016年到我的私宅进行抄家和充公了我的个人电脑和手机,给我带来了极大的痛苦、不便和巨大的经济损失。没有人会因为警方接到总理公署的投诉后,警方人员就可以采取这样的办案方式。

新加坡大多的法律赋予警方人员在没有获得法律授权下,任何情况下,不论白天或者黑夜,查案时可以到被涉嫌者的住宅里进行搜索和充公个人财务。我们已经有了结霜桥环保旧货商协会主席许永坤的案例了。警方人员就是在深更半夜到他的家的。他们充公了他的手机和在其住宅进行翻箱倒柜的抄家,在几天后,警方人员发现,许先生并不是他们设定为邮寄“冥纸”给善达曼部长的嫌疑犯。但是,对于警方因接到来自有关部长的投诉后,对许先所进行的骚扰及造成的损失。许先生并没有因此获得警方的任何赔偿损失。

我仅此期盼警方人员,在未获得法律的许可下,在行使其所拥有额外的搜索权利和充公私人财产财务的权利时,必须谨慎地使用这样权利。他们仅仅牢记这句格言:“强大的力量带来巨大责任”假设新加坡是属于第一上世界。那么, 新加坡人民必须要拥有他们所应拥有的权利。

 

“With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”

Two weeks ago (10 July 2017), the police returned the properties seized from me on 31 May 2016. They agreed to my request that I collect my Fujitsu notebook, Lenovo CPU and Samsung Galaxy S6 mobile phone from the Changi NPC, which is within walking distance from my flat. That was kind of them as I was able to walk home with a trolley. They did offer to send me home but I declined.

Except for the Fujitsu LifeBook which is damaged, the other two items looked fine. The screen and bottom of my notebook are damaged. The police assured me that they will pay for the repair costs. Though my notebook is more than a decade old, I intend to repair it because it contains valuable documents.

The devices were booted up at the police station and they seem to work. There was no requirement that I acknowledge receipt of the properties in “workable condition”. That was the subject of contention earlier. The police said my former lawyers misunderstood them

I think I will send the seized items for forensic examination before repair.

My mobile phone is now worth less than $200. I had purchased the phone for $800 just a month before its seizure.

Finally, before I left the police post, I was served a stern warning for: – (a) breach of election advertising ban and (b) using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty.

I have defences to these alleged offences. But since the warning has no legal effect, there is no necessity for me to delve into them.

The raid and seizure of my personal computers and mobile phone by eight police officers have caused great distress, inconvenience and expense to me. No one deserves such treatment just because a petty complaint is received from the Prime Minister’s Office.

The majority of Singapore laws allow the police to search and seize properties without warrants at any time of the day or night. We have the case of Mr Koh Eng Khoon, Chairman of the Association for Recycling of Second Hand Goods at Sungei Road who was visited by the police one midnight. They seized his mobile phone and ransacked his flat only to realise a few days later that he was not the culprit of the “hell notes”. He did not receive any apology from the minister who lodged the complaint or compensation from the police.

I hope the police, possessed of the extensive power of search and seizure without warrant, will use this power with great care and consideration. They must bear in mind the adage that “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”. If Singapore is a first world country, the people deserve fair treatment from those possessed of power.

Advertisements