~by: Jewel Philemon~

“All of these things are common sense. What really makes me sad is how incompetent our system is.” – Mr Laurence Wong

Timeline

 

11 April 2010:

Assault (Mr Liew hospitalised)

end April 2011:

assailants arrested, but only after extensive online chatter and investigative work of Mr Wong

June 2011:

assailants charged, bail granted

July 2011:

One assailant fled 

Dec 2011:

2nd assailant fled

Feb 2012:

3rd man sentenced to three weeks jail

Dahlberg fled Singapore sometime in July 2011, approximately 14 months after the violent brawl, and Springall escaped the country while out on bail in December 2011, approximately 5 months after that. Miller, the only expat in the group who did not jump bail, was prosecuted and sentenced to three weeks of jail.

However, the victims of the ordeal were kept entirely in the dark about these developments and were only notified of Dahlberg and Springall’s fleeing of the country by the media.

In fact, Mr Liew claims that the police, when confronted, were not even aware that the assailants had jumped bail! The police then told Mr Wong and Mr Liew that they are working on the case and when probed further, almost defensively exclaimed that, “You cannot say that the fault lies with the learned justice. The system is done this way."

Mr Liew adds that the officer also told them that the police does not owe victims the duty of information. Mr Wong cuts in to mention that the police have not even disclosed the list of exact charges against the assailants.

“What really makes me sad is not how incompetent our police or legal system is. It’s that people with authority and power to protect are not protecting us. They are not protecting us efficiently enough. I feel really sad for fellow Singaporeans…Those with the power that is invested in them to protect us are not doing their job well enough, in my perspective, because what will fellow Singaporeans do, what will your mother do, what will your brother do, your friends, when you see things like this happening? It has instilled fear in every Singaporean.”

“We’re being treated so unfairly now just because we want to save a fellow Singaporean who (is also) somebody’s father. Until now, I still do not know how to digest (this).”

Communication is weak, says Mr Liew, “Even weak is an overrated word for them!”

“It's been two months since the second guy ran away, that is such a long time!” exclaims Mr Liew logically, “You can kill someone, hide the body and let it rot away in that amount of time!”

“I have given up on our system.”

The absence of swift, effective law enforcement and legal actions are, understandably, tiring and vexing points for the victims, as well. The victims cannot understand why the passports of the assailants were not impounded after they were granted bail, especially since the flight risk was so high in their cases.

This, coupled with the perception of appalling lack of effort, direction, sensitivity, professionalism, and efficiency from the police force, reflects rather badly on our government as a whole, especially in light of the recent fiascos like public transport and flooding problems, the victims feel.

Mr Liew insinuates that these are holes in the fabric of our governmental system, which have intensified “since the last General Election”, which saw the ruling party take a vast majority of parliamentary positions with 81 out of 87 seats.

“To let a convict jump bail so easily is a big loophole. We have so many extradition treaties but none are effective enough to deal with such escaped convicts. Even simple state laws (in other countries) prevent such things!”, Mr Liew laments.

It would certainly be logical to question why conclusive action hasn’t been taken, despite Singapore’s extradition treaties with Commonwealth countries. Is it because it would be a diplomatic nightmare? Or perhaps there are political implications at play? Were the assailants who took flight 'untouchable' top fliers?

“They (the government) need to do what they should do. We should not be telling them what to do”, Mr Liew comments.

Mr Wong admits that he has given up on our system, as a result of this harrowing experience, “We’re in so much trouble because we tried to help a fellow Singaporean who could have been my dad. I feel jaded. From now on, I will protect my interests first as a father and a husband.”

He continues, “A lot of these things are common sense! What really makes me sad is how incompetent our system is. I feel really sad for our fellow Singaporeans. It has instilled fear in every Singaporean.”

“This case has come to a dead end”, voices Mr Liew, “Perhaps the system is good but the people managing it are not good. I have to tell myself to relax every night. If a person is not dead, nothing swift will be done.”

“I don’t want them dead, I just want justice.”

Coming back to their assailants, Mr Liew feels that enough is enough, “I just want justice to be served. I want them to be charged because it does justice to those hurt. It doesn’t matter whether it is three days, three weeks, three months or three years. I believe in law and justice. I don’t want them dead, I just want justice.”

He also affirms that he would like to meet Miller, the only assailant among the trio who faced the music, saying, “I want to see Miller. I am not a vindictive person. He also must have had his own drama. Maybe I can understand where he is coming from. It is time to close and move on. It is better to be friends than adversaries.”

“Because of my bloodshed, perhaps more bloodshed can be prevented.”

So what will bring closure?

“Justice and conviction of our assailants will bring partial closure. I want a step forward for more closure.”

A full closure for Mr Liew will come only when the loopholes in our law enforcement and legal systems are plugged.

As for now, Mr Liew and Mr Wong are still chasing after the authorities for updates on the proceedings of their case. They plan to contact parliamentarians, such as Minister for Home Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Teo Chee Hean, and Law Minister, Mr K. Shanmugam, soon for support.

When asked about their realistic expectations, a fatigued Mr Wong replied that he is “not expecting much”, while a more optimistic Mr Liew remarks that, “Because of my bloodshed, perhaps more bloodshed can be prevented.”

Mr Liew, “I could have died that night. But I survived, fortunately.” But both decided not to keep quiet for the sake of other assault victims like Ionescu's, who is now dead. 


This is Part 3 of a 3 part article. Part 1 is HERE and Part 2 is HERE.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

疫情当前 黄永宏:政府将与企业、工会合作 确保裁员在最低水平

明日(2月15日)是全面防卫日(Total Defence),纪念新加坡1942年在第二次世界大战中沦陷,遭日军占领。我国国防部长黄永宏医生发表演说,称有信心国民将再次团结一致,克服当前挑战。 由于当前全球各地和新加坡都面对严峻2019新型冠状病毒疫情,致词中也谈及疫情的影响。他相信我国能和2003年应对SARS疫情一样,透过全面防御来遏制疫情传播,让新加坡继续迈进。 他说当年疫情导致各地人民都怕被感染、待在家不出国,旅客人数减少,经济陷入瘫痪。也因为如此,一些人失去工作,裁员人数上升。 “在一些国家,上述恐惧造成不信任和分裂人民。但在新加坡,我们透过全面防卫保持团结,克服SARS而更为凝聚和壮大。” 他也对那些受疫情影响的受害者和家属致哀;对前线医护人员致敬。 他表示疫情当前仍需确保经济运转保障国民就业和生活,政府讲与企业和工会合作,确保裁员在低水平。包括内政团队、我国武装部队都在确保边境安全和国防不松懈。 他说我国去年把数码防卫加入全面防卫的六大支柱中,他认为这对于对抗虚假或煽动消息是“及时、必要的”。 黄永宏表示全面防御将再次针对疫情展开行动,在社会防卫方面,他呼吁每个人都应保持良好卫生习惯,若生病应与他人保持距离。如出现咳嗽或其他流感症状应避免传播给他人。 “与此同时大家应保持同理心,帮助那些被感染或隔离者。”他说我们也需加强心理防御能力,采取明智预防措施,也如常生活。这包括勤洗手并避免洗手前触碰脸部。

自选举后首次回应族群言论事件 辣玉莎感谢亲友、群众的支持

工人党盛港集选区议员辣玉莎因两年前的网络言论,在本届大选竞选期间被举报。警方调查后在今日(17日)表示,予辣玉莎严厉警告。 辣玉莎早前此事协助警方调查,包括在7月27日当天也受警方传召,录供长达三小时。自选举后她首次回应上述事件,感谢期间给予她支持的亲友们。 她也重申本身无意造成分裂,而她从青少时期即积极参与组织、为少数群体发声,包括那些因亲属被囚禁而支离破碎的家庭、残障人士或性侵害的女性受害者等。 但她坦言,她的言论可能造成特定群体伤害,并为此道歉,也表示会从中学习,希望能为国家带来正面的改变。 辣玉莎分享在当上国会议员后,与团队积极与盛港居民联系,协助有需要的居民,与居民的对话也让她谦恭地了解,每个人对于建立平等、富同理心的新加坡发挥的角色。 “从互动中我也了解到,领导者有能力发起艰难议题的对话,以周到和问责的态度来组织这些讨论,至关重要。” 一些支持者也在辣玉莎的脸书留言予以支持,认可她对于少数群体服务的热诚,也提醒辣玉莎身为议员的责任艰巨,应从错误中学习、前进。

毕丹星:法庭也有能力对网络假消息迅速反应

工人党秘书长毕丹星强调,比起在《防止网络假消息与网络操纵法》下赋予部长的权力裁定网络假消息,司法机关才更为合适成为最初、也是最终的仲裁者。 在本周三于国会三读《防假消息法》,虽然工人党只有九票反对无法阻止该法以72票高票赞成通过,不过工人党议员们皆阐明了对该法的反对立场,特别是毕丹星认为,即便是法庭也有能力尽速裁定网络假消息个案,不必然非得把权力交予部长。 人民行动党议员符致镜在本月8日的国会辩论质疑,有鉴于网络假消息需要在数小时内尽速处理,交由法庭审核裁定是否合适。 毕丹星对此表示不认同,并以《防止骚扰法令》(POHA)为例,处理针对个人或企业组织的网络假消息也可以很迅速。 国会也在本月7日三读通过《防止骚扰法》修正,也拟议增设针对网络和非网络的骚扰案件的法庭,在48-72小时内加速处理保护令审讯;同时,受害者可单方面申请临时通知命令(interim order)。 “所以我并不认同符议员观点,除非是我误解了,在《防止骚扰法》下人们在面对假消息时,无法预期迅速有效的处理方案?” 毕丹星坚信法庭其实是能够以最快速度完成程序。 符致镜:各专业领域公务员对付假消息 符致镜则反问,网络假消息无所不在,何以要舍弃在治安、卫生、经济等各领域有专业经验的16名部长和13万5000名公务员不用,即便增强司法机关,后者又需要用多久时间尽速对付假消息? 他也区分,《防止骚扰法》旨在解决针对个人隐私权遭侵犯等私人问题;而《防假消息法》是针对社会公众利益、暴乱以及种族不和谐而设立。 符致镜认为虽然《防止骚扰法》与《防假消息法》所处理都是非同小可的案件,但《防假消息法》案攸关社会公众利益的问题,需要尽速处理,相较之下,《免受骚扰法》所处理的案件并不如《防假消息法》紧急。…

Minister Khaw awarded NTUC’s Medal of Honour by 4G Minister Ng

It was reported that Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan has been given…