以下是读者推荐 2022年2月7日 Function 8 的贴文（英中版）：
INDOMITABLE SPIRIT OF IRIS KOH
by Teo Soh Lung
For once, the police is on the receiving end. Iris Koh said in a video published last night or early morning that she was outside the notorious Cantonment Police Headquarters to lodge a complaint against the police for allegedly inducing a member of her team to make a false statement and frightening them. She also alleged that the police had seized electronic devices which contain privilege communications with their lawyers.
It is remarkable that Iris Koh, having been in police custody for at least 16 days, has bounced back and hit back at the police.
Last night she warned the police in her video: “I just want to say, police officers, do your job properly. Do not break the law. …”
Apparently, the electronic devices (probably mobile phones) of her assistants were seized by police officers. She claims that those devices contain privileged communication with their lawyers and should not be accessed by the police. She wants the seized items “sealed”.
This is not the first time that electronic devices have been seized by the police from people who are subjected to interrogation. But it is the first time that any member of the public has complained of “highly improper and potentially illegal conduct” on the part of the police.
There is no doubt that the defence of the police would be that the LAW permits them to seize anything and everything from people who are being investigated for “arrestable offences” (offences which allow the police to arrest without a warrant).
I can understand the fury of Iris Koh and her supporters, having myself been such a victim. But let me recall how this power was used in the past and will continue to be used so long as the PAP is in power.
It began with the case of Lynn Lee, a Singaporean filmmaker and journalist in 2013. That year, she interviewed two Chinese bus drivers who participated in the historic bus drivers' strike. I say historic because strikes in Singapore has never taken place since the 1960s or early 70s.
Singaporeans will recall that on 26 November 2012, 171 SMRT bus drivers, all Chinese nationals stopped work. They were fed up with the discriminatory practices of their employer, poor wages, long working hours and bug infested accommodation. Their complaints were not heeded by the company personnel department or ministers. As migrant workers, they were not members of any trade union. So they went on strike.
Many of the bus drivers were arrested and deported. Some received police warnings and four were charged under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which forbid workers providing essential services from going on strike without prior notice. They were jailed.
Any journalist would be attracted to know more about the strike action taken by 171 drivers. It was no surprise that Lynn Lee who worked for Al Jazeera would interview and film several bus drivers in 2013. In the course of the interviews, two bus drivers disclosed that they were beaten up by police officers in order to force confessions from them.
This disclosure was certainly newsworthy and would affect the reputation of Singapore if it was broadcast to the world. Lynn Lee did not want to do that. She sent the videos to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) hoping that they would investigate. The AGC did not respond.
Since the AGC was not interested in investigating the matter, Lynn Lee then published the videos online. The Ministry of Home Affairs woke up.
One early morning, plain clothes police officers showed up at her flat. They claimed that they were investigating the complaint of the bus drivers. They took statements and requested that she hand over her electronic devices. She refused. After some consultations between her lawyer and the AGC, she was told to bring her laptop to the police headquarters at Phoenix Park the next day. Not suspecting any foul play, she went there after lunch. There she was subjected to a very long interview. She was treated like a suspect more than a witness. They examined her electronic devices, took statements and then released her well after 10pm. They did not seize her equipment.
Lynn Lee has written about her ordeal in her blog, Lianain Films.
Three years after the Lynn Lee's incident, several people were investigated for breaching frivolous Cooling Off Day rules. It was the Bukit Batok by election of 2016. They had written or reposted articles on Cooling Off Day. Every person interviewed by the police, including me had their electronic equipment seized during or after the lim kopi sessions at the Cantonment Police Headquarters.
The police had been emboldened by the success of dissecting Lynn Lee's electronic devices. It was much easier to seize the equipment and examine them at leisure rather than in the presence of the owner. So all our equipment remained in police custody till months or years after. My brand new Samsung Galaxy 6 became outdated and my computers (which I admit were not new but functioning) had to be discarded. All the data were duplicated by the police. For what purpose, I do not know. How long they would keep such data before they are discarded, I don't know.
Following the Cooling Off Day raids, activists became aware that their equipment were at risk. But none complained about such blatant police actions. Iris Koh has made history.
Today, our mobile phones contain our life history. Silly chats and serious discussions are in the devices. Emails and messages replace snail mails and documents. Appointments are in the diary. Our bank accounts are there too. We make online payment easily.
Our government has encouraged us to be a SMART NATION. But is being so smart advisable when our police have so much power to invade our privacy? Little wonder that my old friend Ivy Singh refused to have a smart phone!
Iris Koh is concerned about privilege communication with lawyers. Indeed, if the police have free access to mobile phones and computers, how can the law guarantee solicitor and client privilege?
Singapore laws grant too much power to the police and nothing to protect the ordinary citizen. Every minor offence is classified "Arrestable". Even the 24 hour rule for the production of a suspect in court has been extended to 48 hours and more if requested by the police. The powers the police have today far exceed colonial days. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty has disappeared. We live in a police state but we refuse to admit this. We may be the proverbial frogs which get boiled to death simply because we don't feel the heat till it is too late!
I wish Iris Koh success. She is unbroken even after 16 tough and torturous days in police custody.
反疫苗群组“弥合分歧”创办人
许淑慈不屈不饶的精神
张素兰 （“人民论坛”译）
“弥合分歧”(Healing the Divide) 创办人许淑慈昨天夜里（2022年2月7日），或许是今早凌晨发布的视频里说，这一次，警方成了最终的接收人。这是她今早在臭名昭著的广东民路警察总部向警方投诉备案后发布的声明。她指控警方发表虚假声明指控并恐吓她及她的团队成员。同时，她指控警方没收了她的个人电子设备。她的个人电子设备里储存了自己与律师之间的通讯往来信息资料。
值得让人注意的是，她被关押在警署最少是16天。她在被关押期间已经在警署里反驳了警方的指控。昨天晚上，她警告警方：“我要说的是，警方人员必须依法办事，不要滥用司法……”
非常明显的，她的助手的个人电子设备（大概是手机）也被警方人员没收了。她投诉说，这些个人电子设备里储存了个人与律师之间的私人通讯信息。警方不应该进入索取有关的信息。她要求被警方没收的个人电子设备“被封锁（即不得被人打开阅读）”。
许淑慈的个人电子设备被警方没收并不是头一遭！过去那些被警方传召闻讯的人的个人电子设备都被警方没收。但是，许淑慈是首位正式投诉警方的行为是“极其不恰当和存在着潜在违法的行为”。
不容置疑，警方将会狡辩说，法令赋予警方权利在对任何被涉嫌“（可能）被逮捕者”进行闻讯时有权没收当事人的一切物件。（逮捕涉嫌犯罪者是不需要持有逮捕令状的）。对于许淑慈和她的支持者为此感到的愤慨，我完全可以理解。因为我本身就是一名受害者。让我回顾过去当局是如何滥用这种权力。只要行动党继续掌权，这种情况将继续存在。
这种情况始于2013年，一名新加坡影片制作人兼通讯员李琳（Lynn Lee）。她当时采访了2名参与当年进行新加坡 SMRT 中国籍巴士司机罢工的历史性事件。我之所说，这场中国籍司机进行罢工是历史性的事件，是因为从1960年代，或者是1970年代初期之间再也没有发生过类似巴士工友罢工的事件了。
新加坡人民将会回忆起2012年11月26日 SMRT 巴士司机工友罢工事件。参与罢工的司机工友全部来自中国，他们采取了停工形式罢工。他们投诉资方的非法行为，其中包括了低工资、长时间的工作，以及恶劣的居住环境（充满臭虫等）。这些投诉不被公司人事部或者部长所关注。作为外来劳工，在法律上他们并不隶属于任何职工会的会员的。基于此，他们被迫采取罢工行动提出诉求。
参与罢工行动的工友大多数在过后被驱逐出境遣返回中国。他们当中一些人收到了警方的警告信，有4名罢工工友在刑事法令（临时条款）下被提起刑事公诉。在这部法令下严禁任何属于国家基础服务设施的主要行业，在未事先向当局通知的情况下是不准罢工的。触犯者将被判处坐牢。
任何一名通讯员对171名巴士司机进行罢工的事件都会注意并希望了解更多的详情。因此，半岛电视台记者李琳于2013年对罢工工人进行采访及制作成视频并不会感到惊讶。在她进行采访过程中，2名罢工的工友披露，警方扣留期间，警方为了迫使他们承认自己的行为而遭受殴打。
参与罢工的中国籍巴士司机的披露是具有一定的新闻价值的。假设这项采访向全世界广播，新加坡在国际的声誉将受到一定程度的影响。李琳并没有这么做。她把采访视频送到总检察署。她希望当局能够就此进行调查。但是，总检察署并没有回应。
为此，李琳在网上播放了这个采访视频。内政部长终于被唤醒了。
在一个清晨，便衣警方人员出现在她居住的公寓。他们声称是要调查有关参与罢工的中国籍巴士司机的投诉。他们向李琳录取的口供，同时要求她交出个人电子设备。她拒绝了。在她的律师与总检察署进行协商后，她被告知隔天带着自己的手提电脑到凤凰岭警察总部。她自认自己未触犯任何法律。因此在当天午餐后按约定到凤凰岭警察总部。她被进行了冗长的问讯。她被当成是一名涉嫌者而不是证人对待。他们阅读了她的电子设备资料。接着录取口供。一直持续到晚上10点才被释放。
李琳事件发生后的3年后，于2016年武吉巴督补选时，有数人因为被涉嫌破坏选举日的冷静日而被传召闻讯。他们在补选日撰写或者是分享他人的帖子。结果，包括我在内每个人都被警方传召闻讯。我们被警方传召闻讯时，或者过后，个人的电子设备都在警察总部被警方没收了。
李琳的个人电子设备被警方成功地没收并入侵阅读资料后的结果是怂恿了警方。没收了个人的电子设备并侵入搜索设备里的资料是比起在当事人面前打开其电子设备阅读设备里的资料来得轻松的多了。因此，我们所有的个人电子设备被警方扣留长达几个月，或者一年。我个人一部新的三星 Galaxy 6型号被归还时已经过时了。我的电脑（我承认这台电脑不是新的型号，但是它的功能是可以操作的）也被迫丢弃。我在电脑储存的资料全部被他们复制了。他们这么做的目的是什么？我不知道。他们要收藏这些资料多旧后才丢弃。我也不知道。随着武吉巴督补选冷静日事件的发生，社运活跃分子开始意识到，他们个人拥有的电子设备都存在着被没收的潜在风险。但是，他们当中没有人投诉警方这种公然的行为。许淑慈为此创下了历史先例。
今天，手机是我们生活中不可或缺的一部分了。无聊的聊天或者是严肃谈论的课题都在手机里进行着。电子邮件和短信息替代料龟速的邮件和文件的传递。所有约会的日程表都储存在手机里。我们的银行户头也是储存在手机里。我们轻易地可以进行在线付款。
我们的政府一直在鼓励把国家建设成为一个智慧国。但是，当面对警察拥有这么大的权限侵犯个人隐私下，这是智慧明智吗？怪不得我的一位朋友 Ivy Singh 拒绝使用智能手机。
许淑慈极其关注自己与律师们之间的私人互通信息。事实上，假设警方拥有权力自由进入个人手机和电脑搜索资料，那么，如何在法律上确保律师与当事人之间的隐私沟通。
新加坡的法律赋予警方太多的权限，而不是保护普通公民。即便是触犯‘轻微’的法律也被定性为‘可被逮捕’。即便是赋予拘留嫌疑犯24小时以便闻讯的时限，也被延长到48小时。警方也可以申请延长拘留时间。今天警方所拥有的权限已经超越当年殖民地时代。在被证明有罪之前的无罪推定已经消失。我们是生活在一个警察国，但是，我们却否认这个事实。我们就像躺在温水里被煮的青蛙一样，我们没有意识到，当一觉醒来时已经被煮熟为止。
我祝愿许淑慈成功。尽管她被关押在警察局拘留所传达16天艰苦与被虐待，但是她并没有因此而崩溃。