The Gurkhas have a long history with Singapore. You have probably seen them on duty at major events such as the DPRK-US Singapore Summit last June and the annual Shangri-la Dialogue, and at key locations.
Gurkhas have a well-deserved reputation for toughness, alertness, mental and physical resilience. They are totally dependable, highly self-disciplined, loyal, and fearless in executing their duties.
The Gurkha Contingent (GC) in the Singapore Police Force was formed in 1949. It has been deployed many times during racial conflict and civil unrest. They were there in the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950, the Hock Lee Bus riots in 1955, and the communal clashes between Malays and Chinese in 1964. At these tense moments when communal feelings ran high, the GC’s impartiality was crucial to restoring order and confidence.
Today, the GC are an important force augmenting the Police response to new security and terrorism threats. Glad to visit the GC today to mark their 70th anniversary, to thank the officers and their families for their loyal and unwavering service, safeguarding Singapore and contributing to our peace and security. – LHL
(MCI Photo by Fyrol)
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過8萬的網紅Mẹ Nấm,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Người Việt Đồng Tâm Để tranh đấu cho công lý và hỗ trợ người dân Đồng Tâm, mỗi người dân Việt đều có thể làm nhiều việc khác nhau trong đó có phần vận...
impartiality 在 Lee Hsien Loong Facebook 八卦
The Gurkhas have a long history with Singapore. You have probably seen them on duty at major events such as the DPRK-US Singapore Summit last June and the annual Shangri-la Dialogue, and at key locations.
Gurkhas have a well-deserved reputation for toughness, alertness, mental and physical resilience. They are totally dependable, highly self-disciplined, loyal, and fearless in executing their duties.
The Gurkha Contingent (GC) in the Singapore Police Force was formed in 1949. It has been deployed many times during racial conflict and civil unrest. They were there in the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950, the Hock Lee Bus riots in 1955, and the communal clashes between Malays and Chinese in 1964. At these tense moments when communal feelings ran high, the GC’s impartiality was crucial to restoring order and confidence.
Today, the GC are an important force augmenting the Police response to new security and terrorism threats. Glad to visit the GC today to mark their 70th anniversary, to thank the officers and their families for their loyal and unwavering service, safeguarding Singapore and contributing to our peace and security. – LHL
(MCI Photo by Fyrol)
impartiality 在 譚蕙芸 Facebook 八卦
[He can’t reply]
高等法院第一庭的證人席旁,有個矮身木架,擺放了審訊相關的Bundle。 文件夾每個逾吋厚,約五六個排列在書架上,審訊談到那一份文件或證物,便需要從架上的文件夾中取閱出來。法庭很多時間就是消耗在翻查相關文件的程序上。文件夾背脊貼上了白紙告示,註明了這宗案件的編號及控辯雙方名字。
這宗案件為「HKSAR v. TONG Ying-kit」(香港政府v.唐英傑)。香港法庭文書處理,細緻非常。姓氏TONG全為大階英文字母,名字Ying-kit 中大小字母分野,讓人明瞭這組英文字需要連起來理解,但中間的「-」號又剛好分開了兩個中文字的粵語拼音。
唐英傑是誰?去年夏天之前,他不過是一個廿多歲,讀書成續欠佳,曾於台式茶飲店工作,後來到日本餐廳做侍應的香港年輕人。一夜間,他從藉藉無名的青年,變成了一個全港甚至全世界都知道的人。
只因他於港區國安法實施首日,即2020年7月1日,駕駛了一部電單車,被指衝向警方防線,車上插着「光復香港。時代革命」的旗幟,成為了港區國安法第一案的被告人。從此命運被改寫。
國安法首案開審後,連日來,歷史學者、政治學家、傳播專家,到庭上解說「光時」口號,是否有分裂國家的意思。然而學歷不高的唐英傑自己想甚麼?他想甚麼和案情有沒有關係?
24歲的唐英傑,身型壯碩,已還押逾一年。在三位穿墨綠色制服的懲教署職員押解下,進入犯人欄。連日審訊,他都穿同一套衣服。深藍色的西裝外套,黑色恤衫,配襯黑色領呔。同色系的領呔和恤衫融為一體,無聊時,他會用手指把玩領呔。
這天是審訊最後階段,控辯雙方律師「結案陳詞」的日子。唐英傑進入犯人欄後,三位法官未出來之前,律師團隊走到犯人欄旁,跟唐英傑商討甚麼。
律師們透過金屬欄柵送了文件給唐,而唐又俯身聆聽意見,多達九人的律師團隊有老有嫰有男有女,圍着犯人欄談笑。有些時候,律師們和唐談得輕鬆,抑壓着的「嘻嘻」聲在寧靜的法庭後方傳出來。
此案關於唐英傑的資料,有時是控方披露,有時是辯方提供,但唐自己沒有選擇出庭作供,只有他一名前僱主出庭作證。這位旺角台式飲品店老闆娘,指唐在社會運動期間擔任急救員,在案發當天約了唐到銅鑼灣吃午飯。
警方則從唐手機裡截取了社交媒體紀錄,對話裡,唐與友人於案發當天,收發過海隧道有設置了路障的資訊,而唐亦提時間「沒有遲,銅鑼灣未聚夠人」的說話。但辯方律師解釋,唐是社運的急救員,當天預備替傷者急救,而也約了友人在銅鑼灣區吃飯。
辯方今天翻出了唐英傑的中學成績表。辯方大狀Clive Grossman(郭兆銘)已達八旬,他手震震,口震震地拿着唐的成績表說:「中三那年,他的中史分數,一百分滿分,他只拿了五十分;全班130人,他考第124。」顯然,郭資深大狀想說明,唐英傑沒可能理解深奧的學術知識。
唐的爛成績,在辯方口中是說明他不知道口號的歷史意義;但對於控方來說,唐英傑在香港接受教育,有讀過中史課,而當日是七一香港回歸日,國安法生效第一天,加上關於國安法的報導已沸沸揚揚,控方周天行專員指,唐不可能不知道這支旗的意思。
周天行請法官翻看一個港島彩色地圖,周天行指出,唐英傑當天開着電單車,從東區海底隧道到港島,卻沒有直接去銅鑼灣,而是先到中環、金鐘、再繞回灣仔,先後經過(周指是衝過)四個警方防線。而從社交媒體截圖可見,唐知道自己在幹甚麼。
周續形容,唐四次被警方防線要求截停,但繼續駕駛,其中一次被射胡椒球也沒停下。控方指,唐非但沒停車,甚至加速,最後令三個警員身體「受嚴重傷害」。而現場圍觀人士拍掌歡呼,可見唐的行為嚴重危害警方及道路使用者安全。
相反,代表唐的辯護大狀郭兆銘則指,唐經過首三條警察防線,沒有直接衝向警察,而是繞開了,而第四次發生意外時,煞車燈一度閃亮。
郭資深大狀認為,「這不是恐怖分子的行為。恐怖分子不會按煞車掣,他也不會在社交媒體約人去吃飯,或帶急救用品出去。恐怖分子自毁之前不會說,我要約人去吃飯。」然而法官們卻指出,證據指當時煞車燈有亮起,但有交通意外專家卻指,其後車速是減慢還是加速沒法知道。
郭資深大狀又指,控方形容三個警員嚴重受傷是誇大了。「電單車不是致命武器,它不是機關槍。他在車上掛着那支旗,可以說是在showoff (炫耀)。但控罪說『嚴重危害社會安全』實在說不上。現場的圍觀人士,在拍掌喝采,那不是感到危險的人會做的事。怎能說公眾安全受威脅呢?」
郭更說,其他道路使用者的安全,也不見得受影響。法官杜麗冰此時指出,有證據指當時附近有一對年紀老邁的男女長者,正想過馬路。但郭堅持,沒有人感到危險。
郭資深大狀續指:「那是示威的時候,很多人在街上,街上很多人不滿政府,不滿警察。但說他這個行為嚴重危害社會,達至恐怖活動?說不上。控方引述的警方調查只證明,有人舉『光時』旗,有其他人喊港獨口號,但不能說所有人都同意其港獨訴求。」
控方周天行專員,今天帶出了要理解口號除了參考專家,也要考慮口號的 “ordinary meaning”, “ordinary understanding” 。周專員並引述案例指,常人理解口號意思如何,已可達至煽動入罪理據。
至於爭拗多天的專家意見,控方的周專員認為,包括辯方專家也同意劉智鵬教授對光時的理解(帶有分裂國家意思)是其中一個可行的理解。
周專員指控,辯方雙李專家指「光時」意義抽象又多樣的報告,不可靠又不可信。周專員指,辯方雙李專家(Eliza及 Francis)並非歷史學者,辯方報告裡的研究,也不是特意為此案進行,又指焦點小組的調查員在調查時發問了「引導性問題」。
但辯方的郭大狀則多次強調,法庭要小心不要隨便否定兩位辯方專家意見。「Eliza及 Francis是其領域上具權威的學者,兩人做的研究、著書、教學,均通過嚴謹的學術標準。控方劉智鵬或許是稱職的歷史學家,但劉智鵬教授不是政治學者,也不是政治傳播學者。Eliza及 Francis是真正的專家 (They are experts in real sense) 。」
今天代表辯方發言的郭兆銘資深大律師,年屆八十,眉毛稀疏,胖得有雙下巴,鼻子尖尖,耳朵卻特大。他在英國出生,曾於南非讀書,他嗓子陰柔,以英語提醒法庭:「正正是因為Eliza及 Francis的研究,不是特別為此案而做,而是他們老早以學者身份進行,更顯得他們是獨立而且不偏不倚 (independence and impartiality)。學界一直是這樣做研究,他們的方法受國際學術圈子認可。」
郭資深大狀,不時調整頭頂的假髮,或扯一扯身上的大狀袍,或在說英語的時候伸伸舌頭,舐舐自己乾涸的唇:「希望法庭不會說,這些專家的意見,我不用去理會,指控這些專家們是錯的,甚至說專家們一直不知道自己在做甚麼。兩位學者告訴我們,社會運動的口號是抽象的,供人各自解釋,因為口號不只要帶出實質政治訴求,還要表達情感,團結群眾。」法官杜麗冰深思着,嘴唇緊合,神情嚴肅。
郭大狀也提及,控方證人劉智鵬教授,自己曾陪伴嶺大校長現身2019年7月「光復元朗」活動:「劉教授自己出現在『光復』活動,卻說自己不知道活動主題,也堅持自己不是參與者,只是去關心學生,這種說法很令人懷疑(suspicious)。」
控方還指辯方專家一個「關鍵性缺失」在「時間脈絡」不足,即「雙李」的相關研究主要集中在2019年,非案發的2020年。郭資深大狀在自己的總結中幽了對方一默:「吓,時間脈絡的欠缺,好像控方專家犯這個錯誤更嚴重,劉教授指口號意思幾千年不變,他好意思去挑戰辯方專家幾年或幾個月的差距?」
郭資深大狀,肚腩大大,說話帶有老派英式紳士的幽默感。對於控方的指控,例如舉起「光時」旗有煽動成分,是恐怖活動,郭資深大狀攤開他的老人手掌,不住反問: “What? How? Why?”
控方指梁天琦本人支持港獨,故「光時」八字有港獨意思;控方指此八字在中聯辦外被叫喊,故「光時」有分裂國家意思。郭資深大狀連續用英語輕輕而高音地反問,說話時縮起他那佝僂的肩膀,攤開滿佈手筋的手掌: 「“So What?” 梁天琦怎樣想,被告人怎知道?“So What?”中聯辦外的活動,被告人連去都沒有去,他怎知道?」
郭大狀重申了Eliza及 Francis的意思:「口號意思是多元的,抽象的。」他舉起了右手拳頭,舉向天:「正如我喊:『Let’s go out and fight for our rights!』(我們出去爭取權利。英語fight有『打鬥』和『爭取』雙義),你可以理解為我要去寫信給報紙投稿,或參選議會,或者出去打人。一字歧義,是常見之事。」
「Eliza及 Francis提過,發訊者若想表達清晰的意思,會挑選一個意思更清楚的詞,不會選一個抽象的字去表達。『光時』這口號意思不明白,並不像『我們要去打林鄭月娥 (let’s go and beat up Carrie Lam)』那麼明確。」郭大狀語氣在說笑,但法庭裡卻沒有甚麼笑聲。
國安法首審,條文意思如何詮釋,萬眾觸目。這天,法官也曾和控辯雙方討論條文的法律觀點。
代表政府的周天行專員,提到「恐怖活動」罪行時,指出「光時」旗幟是一支帶有「政治議題(political agenda)」的旗幟,會向附近的人宣揚其包含的分裂國家意思,嚴重危害社會。
此時,唯一男性法官陳嘉信提出,根據國安法「恐怖活動罪」相關條文(24條),「造成嚴重社會危害的恐怖活動…..即屬犯罪。」陳官指,這條文是談活動(activity)而不是政治議題(political agenda)。陳官強調「的」這個字。而24條的細項指出,活動包括暴力、爆炸、縱火、破壞交通、干擾水電通訊等。
陳官解釋時,杜麗冰點頭。
周專員呢喃回應:「對,字面是這樣。」
彭寶琴插話:「不只是字面,是條例這樣寫,恐怖_的_活動,不是關於政治議題。(Activities intended to cause grave harm to society, not about political agenda)」杜官再點頭。
周堅持自己在提供事件的背景。彭官再重申。「我恐怕這一條法例不是談口號或談追求政治議題,而是關於破壞社會的活動。周先生,你是否接納這樣的解釋?」
周再說,因為唐的行為是針對警察。
彭官及杜官再重申條文是談「活動」。
周最後同意,恐怖活動罪的焦點是在「活動」一字上。
至於關於「光時」口號的控罪,則是國安法20條「煽動他人分裂國家罪」。
彭寶琴問辯方,光時口號多義,為何郭大狀說「應當無罪」,兩者關係如何?彭官指出,「煽動」於口號有兩部分,第一部分,是指口號在這個考慮了歷史及處境,合理地造成一個事實,是口號有可能去煽動 (capable to incite)。第二部分,是指被告人當時的理解,有沒有犯罪意圖 (Mens Rea刑事意圖)。
而根據控方劉教授的報告,劉也承認,被告人車上插旗時腦海想甚麼他也不知道。於是大家在爭拗第一部分,即「光時」八個字,可不可能在不考慮唐英傑想甚麼的情況下,造成煽動。
郭資深大狀澄清,辯方認為,尤其考慮要對被告人公允,若有其他可能性,根本不應入罪。郭的話是指,這口號太抽象,根本不可能煽動 (the slogan is too vague to incite)。
最後,代表辯方的郭大狀,呈上了唐英傑之前的刑事紀錄,唐曾收過超速和受限制時間駕駛的告票罰款罪行。彭官指,現時唐被告三項罪,兩項和國安法有關,這些駕駛案底不相關,可以理解唐沒有「犯罪傾向」;然而第三項交替控罪,是和駕駛安全相關,則這些案底則要考慮了。
控辯雙方結案陳詞延續了一整天。下午四時許,大家也不知道,結案陳詞是否可以這天完成。
郭資深大律師未完成發言,他望了望時鐘,顯得有點擔心。結案陳詞的流程是,控方先說,到辯方再說,由於控方先說,辯方可以回應控方的話。
郭大狀不好意思的說,「我擔心之後要讓控方回應我,不夠時間。」此時杜麗冰法官微笑回答:「他 (控方周天行專員) 不可以回應,被告人擁有最後的回應權利。(He can’t reply. The accused has the last word.)」
戴了長方型眼鏡,年紀比郭大狀年輕,黑色短髮以Gel鞏固得竪起來的周天行,望了一眼他身旁的郭大狀,沒說甚麼,低頭做筆記。
這天所有程序完畢,三名法官宣佈,一星期後的7月27日下午三時,將會宣佈判決。
周專員向法官表示,當天他有事缺席,由另一位同事頂上。
而國安法案件,亦會排着隊開庭。
專家證人會不會再次在法庭就示威口號的意思交鋒,還看一周後,第一審結果如何。
(圖為今天替辯方結案陳詞的資深大律師郭兆銘 Clive Grossman)
impartiality 在 Mẹ Nấm Youtube 的評價
Người Việt Đồng Tâm
Để tranh đấu cho công lý và hỗ trợ người dân Đồng Tâm, mỗi người dân Việt đều có thể làm nhiều việc khác nhau trong đó có phần vận động sự quan tâm và can thiệp của quốc tế. Do đó, chúng tôi kêu gọi đồng bào Việt Nam trong và ngoài nước cùng gửi điện thư (email) đến tất cả các tòa đại sứ và lãnh sự quán có mặt tại VN, Liên Hiệp Quốc, các Tổ chức quốc tế nhằm kêu gọi họ yêu cầu chính phủ Việt Nam:
- Đồng ý cho đại diện các đại sứ quán, các tổ chức trong nước và quốc tế đến thăm hỏi, tìm hiểu, giúp đỡ dân làng và các nạn nhân.
- Cho phép các tổ chức quốc tế, phóng viên quốc tế như của AP, NY Times, Reuters, RFI, CNN, Aljazeera đến Đồng Tâm để tác nghiệp và cung cấp thông tin trung thực nhất.
- Yêu cầu nhà cầm quyền Hà Nội ngừng sử dụng bạo lực, hay tiếp tục đe doạ sử dụng bạo lực cũng như chấm dứt hành vi vu cáo khủng bố đối với mọi dân làng Đồng Tâm.
Dear Sir/Madam:
It is with grave concerns that I draw your attention to the following:
•On January 9, 2020 a violent clash over a land dispute in Dong Tam commune, Vietnam where excessive military and police force was deployed that killed an 84-year-old civilian and injured several others. The elderly who had been a vocal leader in the struggle against land confiscation was shot twice in the head and once in the chest while sleeping in his bed. Several other elderly and farmers of the same commune were arrested or assaulted and badly injured. Reportedly there were some 3000 police heavily armed with tear gas, explosives and live ammunition that launched the attack at approximately 3 a.m. on that day targeting the house of the local elderly leader. His sons were also arrested and his daughter in law and grandchildren were also hunted down while running away by police sniffer dogs.
•This is the latest bloody conflict of land seizures in Dong Tam commune where tension has been simmering for some three years. Farmers claim that the government seizes 59 hectares (116 acres) of their farmland for the military-run Viettel Group, which is Vietnam’s largest mobile phone company, without consultation, consent and adequate compensation for the rightful owners.
•While violent land confiscations are not uncommon in Vietnam, this is the first time the authorities claimed there had been 3 policemen killed during the attack against the rightful owners of the lands. Human Rights Watch and other international human rights organizations have urged the authorities to investigate the killings fairly and to hold accountable those who used violence and whether excessive police force was justified so as not to wrongly accuse and further victimize the victims.
•Similarly, last year, just days before the Vietnamese traditional new year, “Tet”, on January 4 and January 8, the authorities in Ho Chi Minh city also launched an attack against the Loc Hung Vegetable Garden, a settlement area claimed by the Catholic Church and registered for agricultural use in 1991, 1995, and 2005, and ever since the land had been used by residents for growing vegetables.
•During the two-day operation, some thousand uniformed police and plain clothes forces wearing masks equipped with about 8 bulldozers and earth movers to demolish all the houses in Loc Hung Vegetable Garden, Tan Binh district, without prior warning, proper notice, or adequate compensation for the residents.
•This forced hundreds of displaced victims who are mostly defectors and people who had escaped the Communist regime in the North in 1954, and former prisoners of conscience, political dissidents and veterans of the former army of South Vietnam out of their homes.
•Lawyers in the country protested against the local authorities’ abuse of power claiming the state should have issued an order for land appropriation first before any issuance of an eviction order to residents of Loc Hung Vegetable Garden.
Therefore, we earnestly ask [your embassy] [U.N. organization]…. to exert diplomatic pressure and
1. Urge the Vietnamese government to end military and police repression and abuse of powers against civilians;
2. Urge the Vietnamese government to recognize the importance of engaging in respectful dialogues and fair negotiations to solve land disputes peacefully rather than resorting to violence.
3. Urge the Vietnamese authorities to investigate with impartiality and transparency and punish all those who are responsible for the human rights violations and the violence in Loc Hung Vegetable Garden and Dong Tam commune so that there is no impunity for crimes committed by state officials.
4. Urge the Vietnamese authorities to permit access to Dong Tam and Loc Hung survivors by local and foreign journalists, diplomats, UN agency officials and other impartial observers to assess what evolved there and monitor the government’s investigation of these incidents.
5. Urge the Vietnamese government to recognize unfair and arbitrary land confiscation for economic projects displacing local people is the source of social unrest, publi
impartiality 在 Japanese Calligrapher Takumi Youtube 的評價
書き初め(書道習字)用のお手本として、「燃ゆる思い/江山景物新/羽ばたく夢/公平無私/自主独立/輝け未来/不言実行/友だち/お正月/生きる力」を書初用紙・東京版(1013mm×273mm)に書いています。
1. 0:16 燃ゆる思い(Moyuru omoi);Hot feelings
2. 4:01 江山景物新(Kōzan keibutsu aratanari);I am pleased with the arrival of spring
3. 9:49 羽ばたく夢(Habataku yume);Flapping dream
4. 13:48 公平無私(Kōhei mushi);impartiality
5. 17:24 自主独立(Jisyu dokuritsu);Independence
6. 21:05 輝け未来(Kagayake mirai);Glorious Future
7. 25:36 不言実行(Fugen jikkō);action before words
8. 28:58 友だち(Tomodachi);friend
9. 32:10 お正月(Oshōgatsu);New Year
10. 35:26 生きる力(Ikiruchikara);Power to live
#書き初め #手本 #見本
impartiality 在 Impartiality 101: The Importance of Being Fair as a Juror 的八卦
Wondering how to be a good juror? This video explains why it's important to remain unbiased and impartial ... ... <看更多>