Man arrested for filming upskirt video of woman in Sengkang
05 December 2012
SINGAPORE: Police have arrested a 55-year-old man for taking an upskirt video of a woman at a shopping centre in Sengkang.
The incident happened on Monday at about 7.25 pm.
Police said a passer-by had noticed the suspect behaving suspiciously behind some women shoppers.
Upon closer observation, the passer-by saw the suspect holding a pen-like object and pointing it up the skirt of a female shopper.
Sensing something amiss, the passer-by called the Police.
Officers who arrived at the scene searched the suspect and found two pens with pinhole cameras in his possession.
The suspect admitted to taking upskirt videos of female victims.
If convicted, the suspect could be jailed up to one year and fined.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Police Keok Tong San, who is the Commander of Ang Mo Kio Police Division HQ, commended his officers for their promptness and excellent investigative work which resulted in the arrest of the suspect.
It is good that the pervert got arrested.
But Keok Tong San is taking all the credit for the police.
How about the member of the public who call the police in the 1st place?
He/She is the one who did all the work.
First the police is not even patrolling at the crime scene.
Second they were alerted by the member of the public regarding the pervert behaviour. He/She probably waited for the police to arrive and pointed out to them who the pervert was.
Then the police searched the joker and found the evident.
Not even a word of thanks to the member of public who did most of the work.
Instead the Deputy Ass only thanks his officer for all the “Hard” work.
Well done Tong San
Showing posts with label Police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police. Show all posts
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
Cyclist problem
Fewer people caught for illegally modifying electric bikes
11 December 2011, CNA
SINGAPORE: Fewer people were caught for illegally modifying their electric bicycles in the first four months of this year.
The number dropped by more than 10 percent to 264 compared to the same period last year.
But some like Mr William Ong were caught repeatedly.
Mr Ong has been caught three times in five months for riding an illegally modified bicycle.
He had paid some S$1,000 for an electric bicycle which had been approved by authorities.
But he was slapped with a S$500 fine for adding a button that powers up the bike automatically.
Mr Ong said he knew it was illegal to do so, but added the modification allows him to ride uphill with ease, because he has leg problems.
He was fined S$300 the first two times when he borrowed his friend's illegally modified bike to ride.
Mr Ong said the modifications were done by someone at a bicycle shop, who had warned him that it is illegal to do so.
But when Channel NewsAsia news team visited the store, the shopkeeper denied having done so.
In a reply to Channel NewsAsia, the Land Transport Authority said merchants who illegally modify electric bicycles may be fined up to S$500.
Repeat offenders may be charged in court.
Fewer people caught do not imply there are fewer offenders. It also can imply that less enforcement is being carried out by LTA or Traffic Police.
There is a increase in motorised bicycle in Pasir Ris and also I have encountered many near missed personally by cyclist riding on pedestrian walk ways.
Many of these cyclists have no proper lightings and travelled in a high speed.
Not once did I see any enforcement.
The police are busy protecting the VIP and I don’t know what LTA suppose to do.
The case above involved Mr Ong is a mockery to the law as well.
He was caught 3 times in 5 months but still no one is stopping him. Shouldn’t he be charged in courts the 3rd time?
LTA please explain why he was not charged as per your reply to Channel News Asia.
Over the years many pedestrian are injured, some fatal, by cyclists travelling on pedestrian walkway and so far the authority are not doing enough to prevent the problem from getting worst.
I am just waiting for the day when a cyclist kills a VVIP doing his walkabout. Till then nothing will be done for peasants (lesser mortals) like us.
So keep a lookout for the killer on wheels next time when you talk a stroll home.
11 December 2011, CNA
SINGAPORE: Fewer people were caught for illegally modifying their electric bicycles in the first four months of this year.
The number dropped by more than 10 percent to 264 compared to the same period last year.
But some like Mr William Ong were caught repeatedly.
Mr Ong has been caught three times in five months for riding an illegally modified bicycle.
He had paid some S$1,000 for an electric bicycle which had been approved by authorities.
But he was slapped with a S$500 fine for adding a button that powers up the bike automatically.
Mr Ong said he knew it was illegal to do so, but added the modification allows him to ride uphill with ease, because he has leg problems.
He was fined S$300 the first two times when he borrowed his friend's illegally modified bike to ride.
Mr Ong said the modifications were done by someone at a bicycle shop, who had warned him that it is illegal to do so.
But when Channel NewsAsia news team visited the store, the shopkeeper denied having done so.
In a reply to Channel NewsAsia, the Land Transport Authority said merchants who illegally modify electric bicycles may be fined up to S$500.
Repeat offenders may be charged in court.
Fewer people caught do not imply there are fewer offenders. It also can imply that less enforcement is being carried out by LTA or Traffic Police.
There is a increase in motorised bicycle in Pasir Ris and also I have encountered many near missed personally by cyclist riding on pedestrian walk ways.
Many of these cyclists have no proper lightings and travelled in a high speed.
Not once did I see any enforcement.
The police are busy protecting the VIP and I don’t know what LTA suppose to do.
The case above involved Mr Ong is a mockery to the law as well.
He was caught 3 times in 5 months but still no one is stopping him. Shouldn’t he be charged in courts the 3rd time?
LTA please explain why he was not charged as per your reply to Channel News Asia.
Over the years many pedestrian are injured, some fatal, by cyclists travelling on pedestrian walkway and so far the authority are not doing enough to prevent the problem from getting worst.
I am just waiting for the day when a cyclist kills a VVIP doing his walkabout. Till then nothing will be done for peasants (lesser mortals) like us.
So keep a lookout for the killer on wheels next time when you talk a stroll home.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Why SPF Commissioner should be sacked.
After 27 years on the run, the law caught up with him
TODAY Nov 29, 2011
SINGAPORE - Over the past two decades, Lee Hong Mun involved himself in charitable acts, such as providing free haircuts and spiritual advice through his dual trade as a barber and a medium.
The law, however, caught up with the 57-year-old, who had been on the run for the past 27 years over a fatal slashing incident.
In the High Court yesterday, Lee was convicted and jailed seven years for manslaughter.
The incident took place in November 1983, when Lee and his childhood friend, Chan Whye Keong, fought with stall assistant Ng Tian Soo over a mahjong debt.
Court papers showed that Mr Ng had owed money belonging to one of Chan's friends and that Lee was roped in to help to recover the debt. Lee had used a kitchen knife to slash Mr Ng, who was then 37 years old, several times, while Chan used his belt to strike the victim.
Chan was subsequently arrested and jailed for seven years but Lee fled to Hong Kong that same year.
Lee returned to Singapore from Malaysia five years later by hiding in a car boot.
However, he did not turn himself in to the authorities and continued to live his life normally - operating his King George's Avenue hair salon and raising two sons.
It was only in April last year that the police eventually arrested Lee during a routine check at a betting outlet.
In the High Court yesterday, defence lawyer Josephus Tan argued in mitigation that, although Lee was armed with a knife at that time, it was for self-defence. He also pointed out that Lee had no criminal record and "led a useful and opened life".
Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who presided over the case, acknowledged that Lee lived his life productively but agreed with prosecutors that he should be jailed not less than seven years. "A life was lost ... (and) society must exact penalty," he said.
This show how “efficient” the Singapore Police Force is.
A man committed a serous offence can hide in tiny Singapore for 22 years and live a normal live. In out custom did a good job by allowing him to enter Singapore in a car boot.
In fact this guy is just unlucky that he was being caught during a routine check which imply the police is not actively look for him, in fact I think they stop looking for him 27 years ago.
Meanwhile they probably are using their man power to do this and this.
TODAY Nov 29, 2011
SINGAPORE - Over the past two decades, Lee Hong Mun involved himself in charitable acts, such as providing free haircuts and spiritual advice through his dual trade as a barber and a medium.
The law, however, caught up with the 57-year-old, who had been on the run for the past 27 years over a fatal slashing incident.
In the High Court yesterday, Lee was convicted and jailed seven years for manslaughter.
The incident took place in November 1983, when Lee and his childhood friend, Chan Whye Keong, fought with stall assistant Ng Tian Soo over a mahjong debt.
Court papers showed that Mr Ng had owed money belonging to one of Chan's friends and that Lee was roped in to help to recover the debt. Lee had used a kitchen knife to slash Mr Ng, who was then 37 years old, several times, while Chan used his belt to strike the victim.
Chan was subsequently arrested and jailed for seven years but Lee fled to Hong Kong that same year.
Lee returned to Singapore from Malaysia five years later by hiding in a car boot.
However, he did not turn himself in to the authorities and continued to live his life normally - operating his King George's Avenue hair salon and raising two sons.
It was only in April last year that the police eventually arrested Lee during a routine check at a betting outlet.
In the High Court yesterday, defence lawyer Josephus Tan argued in mitigation that, although Lee was armed with a knife at that time, it was for self-defence. He also pointed out that Lee had no criminal record and "led a useful and opened life".
Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who presided over the case, acknowledged that Lee lived his life productively but agreed with prosecutors that he should be jailed not less than seven years. "A life was lost ... (and) society must exact penalty," he said.
This show how “efficient” the Singapore Police Force is.
A man committed a serous offence can hide in tiny Singapore for 22 years and live a normal live. In out custom did a good job by allowing him to enter Singapore in a car boot.
In fact this guy is just unlucky that he was being caught during a routine check which imply the police is not actively look for him, in fact I think they stop looking for him 27 years ago.
Meanwhile they probably are using their man power to do this and this.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
More info of the Police screw up.
More info on the case can be found here.
I also read from the newspaper that the victim has no case against the government. Three words came to my mind. WTF?!
I extra some key point from the report.
The judge was Justice Woo Bih Li.
SSI Zainal also breached rules governing the conduct of police officers when he recorded the first statement on a slip of paper and transferred it to his field diary much later in the day - a move Justice Rajah said was 'clearly unacceptable'…..
Justice Rajah said the prosecution had not been able to give any plausible reason for why SSI Zainal, a seasoned investigator with 28 years of experience, failed to comply with the rules. He said Mr Ismil was in a vulnerable state when his first statement was taken as he was under the influence of drugs. He was 'prone to be vulnerable to suggestions and manipulations when... under stress or threat'…..
What exactly happened when the statement was taken? Any other witness beside SSI Zainal?
Why his conviction was overturned
•Mr Ismil's first two police statements confessing to attacking Madam Tham should have been found inadmissible.
After they were recorded in a police car and the police station, they were not read back to Mr Ismil. He was also not given the chance to make corrections, and neither statement was signed by him. This is a breach of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Very scary. This imply anyone can confess a crime for you.
Mr Ismil's first statement was not recorded in the investigator's pocket book or field diary but on a slip of paper, and the entry was transferred to his field diary much later in the day. His second statement was also not immediately recorded in the pocket book or field diary.
Police not following procedure.
Mr Ismil, a drug abuser, was under the influence of drugs when he was first questioned. The trial judge preferred the evidence of the prosecution psychiatrist and found that his withdrawal symptoms had lessened by the time he was questioned.
I thought a judge should be unbias and take need to take all evidence into account why hey preferred the prosection psychiatrist report? IF in doubt should a 3rd party psychiatrist be consulted?
But the appeal court said the trial judge was wrong to determine that Mr Ismil 'miraculously recovered' just before giving his statement.
Defence psychiatrists said that Mr Ismil, who has an IQ of only 73, was vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, so it was likely the confession was false. But the prosecution psychiatrist disagreed.
The appeal court said the trial judge erred in preferring the evidence of the psychiatrist, who did the interview without a Malay interpreter. The appeal court noted that there was no objective evidence linking Mr Ismil to the crime.
If you asked me the police and the Judge really screwed up man.
6 years gone... thank you very much.
Man accused of murder freed after 6 years in jail
By Selina Lum
IN A dramatic twist yesterday, an odd-job labourer was released from prison after he was cleared of murdering an elderly housewife six years ago.
Mr Ismil Kadar - who spent six years in prison including two years on death row - was acquitted by the Court of Appeal, which issued a strongly worded judgment highlighting 'serious lapses' by police and prosecutors.
Describing the case as 'extraordinary', Justice V. K. Rajah said the 42-year-old's confessions were obtained 'in troubling circumstances' which appeared to be deliberate breaches in procedures rather than mere carelessness.
He added that investigators had been 'less than thorough' and said there was a 'startling lack of any objective evidence' that tied Mr Ismil to the crime.
Mr Ismil - who has an IQ of only 73 - had been in jail since May 2005, when he 'confessed' to murdering Madam Tham Weng Kuen, 69, in her Boon Lay flat. The IQ level of a normal person is between 90 and 110.
The housewife was stabbed and slashed 110 times in the brutal attack while her husband, who was bedridden from a stroke, was in the bedroom. He heard what was happening but could not do anything about it. Madam Tham's body was discovered a few hours later when their only child - a daughter - checked on them.
The screw up by police and the prosecutors wasted 6 years of a man life and nearly cause the death of an innocent man.
Note that Mr Ismail Kadar was force to confess 'in troubling circumstances' probably being abused physically and psychologically.
This could very well happen to you and me.
I believe the police and the state own Mr Ismail Kadar an apology and are going to offer him some compensation.
More importantly it should also investigate and make public what when wrong and how to prevent in the future. And also please find out is there any similar cases now.
Question I can come up with:
Why did the police force a confession out of Mr Kadar who is low in IQ? What method did they used that can cause a man who confessed in a crime that has the death penalty?
Was there a KPI to be met then? Were they trying to take the easy way out by closing the case when they can’t find the real culprit?
Who was responsible for this lapse and is anyone being held responsible for it?
What is being done to prevent it from happening again?
Was Wong Kang Seng the Home affair Minister then? (OK a cheap shot)
It is sad that this sort of thing is happening in Singapore where the police and State prosecutor pride themselves for fair and efficient.
I personally had heard other stories similar to this case regarding the Men In Blue so I am really sceptical about the efficiency of the Police.
By Selina Lum
IN A dramatic twist yesterday, an odd-job labourer was released from prison after he was cleared of murdering an elderly housewife six years ago.
Mr Ismil Kadar - who spent six years in prison including two years on death row - was acquitted by the Court of Appeal, which issued a strongly worded judgment highlighting 'serious lapses' by police and prosecutors.
Describing the case as 'extraordinary', Justice V. K. Rajah said the 42-year-old's confessions were obtained 'in troubling circumstances' which appeared to be deliberate breaches in procedures rather than mere carelessness.
He added that investigators had been 'less than thorough' and said there was a 'startling lack of any objective evidence' that tied Mr Ismil to the crime.
Mr Ismil - who has an IQ of only 73 - had been in jail since May 2005, when he 'confessed' to murdering Madam Tham Weng Kuen, 69, in her Boon Lay flat. The IQ level of a normal person is between 90 and 110.
The housewife was stabbed and slashed 110 times in the brutal attack while her husband, who was bedridden from a stroke, was in the bedroom. He heard what was happening but could not do anything about it. Madam Tham's body was discovered a few hours later when their only child - a daughter - checked on them.
Firtly Kudo to the lawyer Mr R. Thrumurgan.
The screw up by police and the prosecutors wasted 6 years of a man life and nearly cause the death of an innocent man.
Note that Mr Ismail Kadar was force to confess 'in troubling circumstances' probably being abused physically and psychologically.
This could very well happen to you and me.
I believe the police and the state own Mr Ismail Kadar an apology and are going to offer him some compensation.
More importantly it should also investigate and make public what when wrong and how to prevent in the future. And also please find out is there any similar cases now.
Question I can come up with:
Why did the police force a confession out of Mr Kadar who is low in IQ? What method did they used that can cause a man who confessed in a crime that has the death penalty?
Was there a KPI to be met then? Were they trying to take the easy way out by closing the case when they can’t find the real culprit?
Who was responsible for this lapse and is anyone being held responsible for it?
What is being done to prevent it from happening again?
Was Wong Kang Seng the Home affair Minister then? (OK a cheap shot)
It is sad that this sort of thing is happening in Singapore where the police and State prosecutor pride themselves for fair and efficient.
I personally had heard other stories similar to this case regarding the Men In Blue so I am really sceptical about the efficiency of the Police.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The never learn.
30 cops, dogs in 6-hour hunt for... parking offender
Mon, Jun 27, 2011
The offences he committed were only parking ones.
But when he failed to pay the fines and didn't turn up in court after several summonses were sent to him, a warrant of arrest was issued against him.
Lawyer Luke Lee said a court can issue an arrest warrant if the person fails to answer a summons and does not turn up in court.
When two Aetos auxiliary police officers went to his flat to arrest him on Thursday, the offender, known only as Nic, fled while being handcuffed.
That sparked off a six-hour manhunt around Hougang Street 51. Surrendered
More than 30 police officers, several sniffer dogs, five police cars and four red Special Operations Command riot vehicles were activated to search for the man, according to Shin Min Daily News.
He surrendered to the police that evening.
At 2.20pm on Thursday, two Aetos officers turned up at Nic's four-room flat.
As they were handcuffing him, Nic, 28, struggled violently, broke free and ran down the stairs, with the handcuffs dangling from one arm, reported Lianhe Wanbao.
The police were called in and they mounted an extensive search of the area lasting almost six hours.
Besides Hougang Street 51, the housing estates in Hougang Street 52, Avenue 5 and Avenue 8 were also searched.
The hunt covered carparks and a construction site, Shin Min Daily News reported.
Pictures of Nic were put up in public places, such as staircase landings and coffee shops.
Around 8pm the same day, Nic turned himself in at the Ang Mo Kio North Neighbourhood Police Centre.
Yesterday, The New Paper visited the neighbourhood. Madam Jessica Toh, a 45-year-old housewife who lives with her family two doors away from Nic, described his parents as "very friendly".
She said they would exchange greetings when they met each other. According to Madam Toh, the couple looked to be in their 50s. They have two other adult children - a son and a daughter.
She added: "They look educated. They also dress tidily and are well groomed."
Two floors down, a resident, who has been living at the block for more than 20 years, thought that a "murder case" was under investigation.
The resident, who declined to be named, said: "There were two or three police cars and a big group of both uniformed and plainclothes police officers. I knew something was not right."
He added: "They kept a low profile. I observed them for one to two hours but no body was carried out."
When The New Paper visited what is believed to be Nic's flat, the door and windows were shut and remained so despite repeated knocks.
There were potted plants and a rack full of shoes outside the flat. There were also poles with clothes hung out to dry.
Police said investigations are on.
For escaping from legal custody, the suspect faces up to two years in prison, or a fine, or both.
30 police officers, several sniffer dogs, five police cars and four red Special Operations Command riot vehicles cannot find a handcuffed man for 6 hours.
In the end he surrendered himself.
Think SPF did not learn much from Mas Selamat case.
Mon, Jun 27, 2011
The offences he committed were only parking ones.
But when he failed to pay the fines and didn't turn up in court after several summonses were sent to him, a warrant of arrest was issued against him.
Lawyer Luke Lee said a court can issue an arrest warrant if the person fails to answer a summons and does not turn up in court.
When two Aetos auxiliary police officers went to his flat to arrest him on Thursday, the offender, known only as Nic, fled while being handcuffed.
That sparked off a six-hour manhunt around Hougang Street 51. Surrendered
More than 30 police officers, several sniffer dogs, five police cars and four red Special Operations Command riot vehicles were activated to search for the man, according to Shin Min Daily News.
He surrendered to the police that evening.
At 2.20pm on Thursday, two Aetos officers turned up at Nic's four-room flat.
As they were handcuffing him, Nic, 28, struggled violently, broke free and ran down the stairs, with the handcuffs dangling from one arm, reported Lianhe Wanbao.
The police were called in and they mounted an extensive search of the area lasting almost six hours.
Besides Hougang Street 51, the housing estates in Hougang Street 52, Avenue 5 and Avenue 8 were also searched.
The hunt covered carparks and a construction site, Shin Min Daily News reported.
Pictures of Nic were put up in public places, such as staircase landings and coffee shops.
Around 8pm the same day, Nic turned himself in at the Ang Mo Kio North Neighbourhood Police Centre.
Yesterday, The New Paper visited the neighbourhood. Madam Jessica Toh, a 45-year-old housewife who lives with her family two doors away from Nic, described his parents as "very friendly".
She said they would exchange greetings when they met each other. According to Madam Toh, the couple looked to be in their 50s. They have two other adult children - a son and a daughter.
She added: "They look educated. They also dress tidily and are well groomed."
Two floors down, a resident, who has been living at the block for more than 20 years, thought that a "murder case" was under investigation.
The resident, who declined to be named, said: "There were two or three police cars and a big group of both uniformed and plainclothes police officers. I knew something was not right."
He added: "They kept a low profile. I observed them for one to two hours but no body was carried out."
When The New Paper visited what is believed to be Nic's flat, the door and windows were shut and remained so despite repeated knocks.
There were potted plants and a rack full of shoes outside the flat. There were also poles with clothes hung out to dry.
Police said investigations are on.
For escaping from legal custody, the suspect faces up to two years in prison, or a fine, or both.
30 police officers, several sniffer dogs, five police cars and four red Special Operations Command riot vehicles cannot find a handcuffed man for 6 hours.
In the end he surrendered himself.
Think SPF did not learn much from Mas Selamat case.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Screwed up.
I was reading through the ST forum and someone pointed out our dear Singapore Police had gazetted the wrong area during the YOG.
They gazetted National Technological University (Where the Hell is this?) instead of Nanyang Technological University.
Gosh I think someone in the SPF is going to get it this time.
They gazetted National Technological University (Where the Hell is this?) instead of Nanyang Technological University.
Gosh I think someone in the SPF is going to get it this time.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Now thats what I call efficiency
Singapore chickens out on protest
2010-06-10 10:04
Singapore - A US animal rights activist said he was prevented by police on Thursday from staging a one-man protest in a chicken suit at a KFC outlet in Singapore.
Basse, a Manila-based campaigner for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), said he was whisked away in a police car after he arrived by taxi outside the restaurant in a working-class district.
"I am now in my hotel room. I am under functional house arrest. I will stay in my hotel room under police surveillance until I leave tomorrow (Friday)," 24-year-old Edward Basse told AFP.
Police in Singapore, which has some of the world's toughest restrictions on protests, had no immediate comment.
"It took a long time, the questioning, perhaps a couple of hours. I was scared, but that is what I have to do for the chickens," Basse said.
"They confiscated my bags and the chicken costume, as well as the poster," he added, saying he did not expect to be charged and would leave Singapore voluntarily.
‘KFC’s cruel practices’
In Singapore, protests are only allowed at a designated public park located on the fringe of the business district. Otherwise, any public demonstration or march needs a police permit.
"I was scared but they treated me fairly okay," Basse said of his stay with the police.
"I am here now (safe) in my room, but what I went through is nothing compared to (the treatment of) the chickens."
Jason Baker, Peta's regional director based in Hong Kong, said Basse was a vegetarian outraged by KFC's allegedly cruel practices against chickens.
"He made a decision that a voice needs to be given to the animals that KFC abuses," said Baker.
Its amazing how efficient the SPF can be especially for protester and people from the opposition parties.
Note Edward Basse was “whisked away in a police car after he arrived by taxi”.
Either someone tip off the police about Edward checking in the hotel with a chicken suit so he was being trailed by the police or KFC called the police when the spotted a human size chicken. No matter I got to say the police appeared faster the superman in this case.
I called the police regarding some illegal teen gathering in the middle of the night making hell lots of noise and it took them 40min and 3 calls later for a police car to appear.
Wonder if I told them there is some opposition parties member in the group will they appear within 10 secs?
2010-06-10 10:04
Singapore - A US animal rights activist said he was prevented by police on Thursday from staging a one-man protest in a chicken suit at a KFC outlet in Singapore.
Basse, a Manila-based campaigner for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), said he was whisked away in a police car after he arrived by taxi outside the restaurant in a working-class district.
"I am now in my hotel room. I am under functional house arrest. I will stay in my hotel room under police surveillance until I leave tomorrow (Friday)," 24-year-old Edward Basse told AFP.
Police in Singapore, which has some of the world's toughest restrictions on protests, had no immediate comment.
"It took a long time, the questioning, perhaps a couple of hours. I was scared, but that is what I have to do for the chickens," Basse said.
"They confiscated my bags and the chicken costume, as well as the poster," he added, saying he did not expect to be charged and would leave Singapore voluntarily.
‘KFC’s cruel practices’
In Singapore, protests are only allowed at a designated public park located on the fringe of the business district. Otherwise, any public demonstration or march needs a police permit.
"I was scared but they treated me fairly okay," Basse said of his stay with the police.
"I am here now (safe) in my room, but what I went through is nothing compared to (the treatment of) the chickens."
Jason Baker, Peta's regional director based in Hong Kong, said Basse was a vegetarian outraged by KFC's allegedly cruel practices against chickens.
"He made a decision that a voice needs to be given to the animals that KFC abuses," said Baker.
Its amazing how efficient the SPF can be especially for protester and people from the opposition parties.
Note Edward Basse was “whisked away in a police car after he arrived by taxi”.
Either someone tip off the police about Edward checking in the hotel with a chicken suit so he was being trailed by the police or KFC called the police when the spotted a human size chicken. No matter I got to say the police appeared faster the superman in this case.
I called the police regarding some illegal teen gathering in the middle of the night making hell lots of noise and it took them 40min and 3 calls later for a police car to appear.
Wonder if I told them there is some opposition parties member in the group will they appear within 10 secs?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
How dumb our law is.
ST March 19, 2009
Phone threats a non-seizable offence
WE REFER to Madam Tan Lian Gim's letter, 'No action on phone threat' (March 11). Under the law, verbal threat is a non-seizable offence where the police have limited powers of investigation and arrests.
Nonetheless, when a report is made, the police will look into the facts and if no aggravating factor is found, the police will advise the complainant to lodge a complaint before a magistrate, who has the power to direct further action as provided under the law.
The magistrate can direct the police to lawfully investigate the case and take further action where appropriate.
In Madam Tan's case, the police had found no aggravating factor and Madam Tan's husband was thus advised to lodge a magistrate's complaint accordingly.
DSP Paul Tay,
Assistant Director, Media Relations,
Singapore Police Force
This is another case of how stupid Singapore Law is.
The police simply try not to do anything at all.
The question is will the Police still give this kind of attitude if the person being threatened is a MP, Minister or the 3 wise men themselves?
So theoretically I can call someone in the middle of the night, verbally threatened them in a polite and none aggravating tone and then apologized.
The police cannot do anything to me. (But to make sure, you call someone who is poor so he cannot hired a lawyer to sue you, see the law protect the rich)
Else you will end up in court like him.
Geez….. Think the police do a better job in harassing opposition parties then to protect innocent taxpayer from gangsters and speeding cyclists.
Phone threats a non-seizable offence
WE REFER to Madam Tan Lian Gim's letter, 'No action on phone threat' (March 11). Under the law, verbal threat is a non-seizable offence where the police have limited powers of investigation and arrests.
Nonetheless, when a report is made, the police will look into the facts and if no aggravating factor is found, the police will advise the complainant to lodge a complaint before a magistrate, who has the power to direct further action as provided under the law.
The magistrate can direct the police to lawfully investigate the case and take further action where appropriate.
In Madam Tan's case, the police had found no aggravating factor and Madam Tan's husband was thus advised to lodge a magistrate's complaint accordingly.
DSP Paul Tay,
Assistant Director, Media Relations,
Singapore Police Force
This is another case of how stupid Singapore Law is.
The police simply try not to do anything at all.
The question is will the Police still give this kind of attitude if the person being threatened is a MP, Minister or the 3 wise men themselves?
So theoretically I can call someone in the middle of the night, verbally threatened them in a polite and none aggravating tone and then apologized.
The police cannot do anything to me. (But to make sure, you call someone who is poor so he cannot hired a lawyer to sue you, see the law protect the rich)
Else you will end up in court like him.
Geez….. Think the police do a better job in harassing opposition parties then to protect innocent taxpayer from gangsters and speeding cyclists.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Following the book
ST FORUM, Jan 15, 2009
Police responses no slower than before
I REFER to the letter, 'Are responses slower now?' by Mr Yong Sing Wee (Dec 27).
Police patrol officers arrived at the scene 30 minutes after receiving Mr Yong's call as all nearby officers were engaged in other ongoing incidents.
The officers conducted a thorough search of the area and made inquiries in the vicinity, but there was no sign of any person in distress. The search was called off after 11/2 hours.
We assure Mr Yong that the closure of neighbourhood police posts (NPPs) has not affected police response times. NPP officers are now redeployed on active patrols instead. (Like guarding the minister car for up to 4 hours)
While we take all calls seriously and strive to respond to urgent cases within 15 minutes and non-urgent cases within 30 minutes, there will be unavoidable instances where we are unable to meet our target response times due to abnormally high incident loads.
This reflects the uncertainties and realities in the nature of policing.
DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director, Media Relations Singapore Police Force
This is quite funny.
From the headline the first thought that come to my mind is that the police is admitting their responses are slow and they are happy with it as long as is it within their service level and they are not trying to improve on it.
I think 15min response time for urgent cases is way too slow. The robber or rapist could be half way to JB by then. Remember certain politician in Singapore said it only take 20min for you to get from one point to another in Singapore. Hehehe…..
Also note how it takes 19days for the police to response to this ST Forum letter. Needless to say how long they take to response to other normally letters send to them.
I have written to the Police for a couple of time and needless to say they never did reply.
Note from SPC website:
"Service Pledge: To respond to letters from the public within 5 working days
Our aim is to reply to your correspondence, including letters, facsimiles and emails, within 5 working days upon receipt of the correspondence. We expect to meet that standard 90% of the time. At the very least we will let you know if we need more time to give you a full reply. "
Police responses no slower than before
I REFER to the letter, 'Are responses slower now?' by Mr Yong Sing Wee (Dec 27).
Police patrol officers arrived at the scene 30 minutes after receiving Mr Yong's call as all nearby officers were engaged in other ongoing incidents.
The officers conducted a thorough search of the area and made inquiries in the vicinity, but there was no sign of any person in distress. The search was called off after 11/2 hours.
We assure Mr Yong that the closure of neighbourhood police posts (NPPs) has not affected police response times. NPP officers are now redeployed on active patrols instead. (Like guarding the minister car for up to 4 hours)
While we take all calls seriously and strive to respond to urgent cases within 15 minutes and non-urgent cases within 30 minutes, there will be unavoidable instances where we are unable to meet our target response times due to abnormally high incident loads.
This reflects the uncertainties and realities in the nature of policing.
DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director, Media Relations Singapore Police Force
This is quite funny.
From the headline the first thought that come to my mind is that the police is admitting their responses are slow and they are happy with it as long as is it within their service level and they are not trying to improve on it.
I think 15min response time for urgent cases is way too slow. The robber or rapist could be half way to JB by then. Remember certain politician in Singapore said it only take 20min for you to get from one point to another in Singapore. Hehehe…..
Also note how it takes 19days for the police to response to this ST Forum letter. Needless to say how long they take to response to other normally letters send to them.
I have written to the Police for a couple of time and needless to say they never did reply.
Note from SPC website:
"Service Pledge: To respond to letters from the public within 5 working days
Our aim is to reply to your correspondence, including letters, facsimiles and emails, within 5 working days upon receipt of the correspondence. We expect to meet that standard 90% of the time. At the very least we will let you know if we need more time to give you a full reply. "
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
SPF at it again
SDP pair again contest charges Accuse police of 'selective enforcement'
Today Online
Wednesday • November 28, 2007
ANSWERING charges of speaking in public without a permit for the third time, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and party supporter Yap Keng Ho yesterday accused the police of "selective enforcement".
The duo, who represented themselves in court, claimed that they and about nine other SDP members, did not flout the rules by promoting their party newspaper in front of Causeway Point on April 8 last year.
Comparing themselves to hawkers who peddle their wares in public without permits but are not prosecuted, they questioned if the action against them was "politically motivated".
Cross-examining the first witness, Mr Loh Zhen Hong, a former police officer who had reported the incident, Yap tried to show there was "unfairness in enforcing the law between the ruling party and the opposition".
He used examples of banks holding roadshows to promote their credit cards and people who sell their products with loudhailers to argue that the party's activities on that day were "nothing out of the ordinary".
Yap also grilled Mr Loh, who was off-duty when he spotted the SDP's activities, on whether he would have gone to the police if he had seen members of the People's Action Party or Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew making speeches.
Mr Loh said that he would have done the same thing in those instances.
District Judge Jasvender Kaur cut off Yap several times to remind him that his cross-examination should focus on proving that Mr Loh "had ill motivations to report to the police".
After the court was shown the video clip of the SDP's activities that day, Yap contended that the police, by filming the proceedings, had already assumed the party had committed an offence.
The court also allowed the footage to be released to the duo to help them prepare their defence. The hearing continues today and is scheduled to last till next Monday. If convicted, the pair face a maximum fine of $10,000 each.
More from Singabloodypore on Coporal Loh's performance in court:
http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/11/27/witness-might-not-have-called-police-if-sdp-event-had-a-roof.html
Asked if he had come across other people promoting and selling products (such as credit cards) along Singapore streets (such as Orchard Road), the witness replied in the affirmative.
Question: Did you think they had a permit?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Why?Answer: Because they have a booth. SDP's did not have a booth, no roof.
Question: So if there's a roof, you think that it's legal?
Answer: Yes.
Mr Loh added that he might not have called his police colleagues if the SDP had a roof at their event.
Dr Chee, who is also acting-in-person, then asked the witness that if he saw other people talking and selling products without a roof, would he call the police?
Mr Loh said yes. (Joke of the Day!)
Dr Chee then asked the witness if he had seen hawkers and street vendors selling and verbally promoting their ware "without roofs", to which Mr Loh said no.
I bet my last dollar Mr Loh WILL DO NOTHING if he saw the ruling party making a speech in public.
Also police corporal Loh claims that’s if he saw other people talking and selling product without roof he would have call the police. The reason he did not do so yet is because he had not seen one yet.
Corporal Loh not only telling us he is a liar but also blind since he claim he had never in his life see people selling product without roof.
Also if indeed calls are made whenever from a police, no matter whether was he on or off duty, when he see anyone selling stuff without a roof. Then our police are really busy man!!
Anyway can’t the police just admit that it was a selective discrimination? I am sure we all can accept this fact in Singapore.
Today Online
Wednesday • November 28, 2007
ANSWERING charges of speaking in public without a permit for the third time, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and party supporter Yap Keng Ho yesterday accused the police of "selective enforcement".
The duo, who represented themselves in court, claimed that they and about nine other SDP members, did not flout the rules by promoting their party newspaper in front of Causeway Point on April 8 last year.
Comparing themselves to hawkers who peddle their wares in public without permits but are not prosecuted, they questioned if the action against them was "politically motivated".
Cross-examining the first witness, Mr Loh Zhen Hong, a former police officer who had reported the incident, Yap tried to show there was "unfairness in enforcing the law between the ruling party and the opposition".
He used examples of banks holding roadshows to promote their credit cards and people who sell their products with loudhailers to argue that the party's activities on that day were "nothing out of the ordinary".
Yap also grilled Mr Loh, who was off-duty when he spotted the SDP's activities, on whether he would have gone to the police if he had seen members of the People's Action Party or Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew making speeches.
Mr Loh said that he would have done the same thing in those instances.
District Judge Jasvender Kaur cut off Yap several times to remind him that his cross-examination should focus on proving that Mr Loh "had ill motivations to report to the police".
After the court was shown the video clip of the SDP's activities that day, Yap contended that the police, by filming the proceedings, had already assumed the party had committed an offence.
The court also allowed the footage to be released to the duo to help them prepare their defence. The hearing continues today and is scheduled to last till next Monday. If convicted, the pair face a maximum fine of $10,000 each.
More from Singabloodypore on Coporal Loh's performance in court:
http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/11/27/witness-might-not-have-called-police-if-sdp-event-had-a-roof.html
Asked if he had come across other people promoting and selling products (such as credit cards) along Singapore streets (such as Orchard Road), the witness replied in the affirmative.
Question: Did you think they had a permit?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Why?Answer: Because they have a booth. SDP's did not have a booth, no roof.
Question: So if there's a roof, you think that it's legal?
Answer: Yes.
Mr Loh added that he might not have called his police colleagues if the SDP had a roof at their event.
Dr Chee, who is also acting-in-person, then asked the witness that if he saw other people talking and selling products without a roof, would he call the police?
Mr Loh said yes. (Joke of the Day!)
Dr Chee then asked the witness if he had seen hawkers and street vendors selling and verbally promoting their ware "without roofs", to which Mr Loh said no.
I bet my last dollar Mr Loh WILL DO NOTHING if he saw the ruling party making a speech in public.
Also police corporal Loh claims that’s if he saw other people talking and selling product without roof he would have call the police. The reason he did not do so yet is because he had not seen one yet.
Corporal Loh not only telling us he is a liar but also blind since he claim he had never in his life see people selling product without roof.
Also if indeed calls are made whenever from a police, no matter whether was he on or off duty, when he see anyone selling stuff without a roof. Then our police are really busy man!!
Anyway can’t the police just admit that it was a selective discrimination? I am sure we all can accept this fact in Singapore.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Singapore Police At Work
Check out this clip showing the Singapore Police Force Filiming people outside Burma Embassy.
Look carefully at the police with the video cam.
I was trying very hard to see but the at the polo T he is wearing seem to have a Singapore airlines logo and word at the back just bellow his collar.
Wah SPF so poor have to wear a company T-Shirt.
Look carefully at the police with the video cam.
I was trying very hard to see but the at the polo T he is wearing seem to have a Singapore airlines logo and word at the back just bellow his collar.
Wah SPF so poor have to wear a company T-Shirt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)