Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!

maurizio13 SG

What right have the police officer the right to invoke subsection 4(3), requesting that Ms. Chee leave the area?

The pair of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan have not breached subsection 4(2).

Regulate means control, it does not mean terminate or remove.

Only if they refused the police subsection 4(2), a police search, will they have violated subsection 4(2) and cause the police to avail themselves of subsection 4(3).

But they have not violated subsection 4(2), the police did not request a search, the police only instructed them not to proceed to Shangrila Hotel, which they have not breached, because they were abducted outside the premises of Shangrila Hotel on a public road.

Are you applying the Act to issues in the case, or are you just applying the Act?

t_a_s SG

4 of them stood outside CPF building were not charged at all, they did not create trouble

googoomuck SG

The Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap 256) is a vague law, most desired by law enforcers.

The hotel is declared a protected place and at the same time opens to public for business. Sure spark controversy and lead to problems that seem to defy a satisfactory solution.

LazerLordz SG

In Singapore, the vagueness offers opportunity for politically motivated action that can be defended on pain of defamation or a lack of just cause.

foxtrout8 SG

to maurizio13:

1)do you agree that chee and her gang were within the 500m in a protected area?

2)do you agree that the police have the power vested by protected areas and protected places act at the location?

3)do you agree that the police told chee and a gang that they were 'in a protected area and advise to leave, turn around..', they did not say 'do not enter shangri-la hotel'? remember the parrot and what did he keep repeating?

4)do you agree that the police gave multiple warnings and they refused to leave?

5)since you said 'control = regulate' do you agree that the police have the right to regulate movement in a protected area to the extent of controlling your movement one way to the exit by the 4 (2) of protected area and protected places act?

6)do you agree that the gang refused to comply to the police warning?

7)do you agree that the police have the right by law to escort them out under 4(3) of the act?

thank you and we shall go one by one.

foxtrout8 SG

and it is this vagueness that some people make used to mock the police and people whom are not familar with the law thinks that the mockery make sense.

foxtrout8 SG

did i mean that ms chee was there to cause some security threat or i mean that i believe the police believe they have ground based on records to suspect she is there not so innocent as in to have lunch?

quotes from me (foxtrout8 )

:

''thus i believe the police have reasons to believe that her convenient excuse of having lunch may not be sufficient to explain her presence in the area.''

''doubtful of her presence the police turned her off''

''I believe it is because Chee has previous record of illegal activities in which the police finds that this person with such a record might be a threat to public peace in the vicinity''

and yes, i did not say security threat.

so you misread me?

LazerLordz SG

What ever happened to presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Are we America to have to resort to such pre-emptive legal intepretations of the law?

foxtrout8 SG

i am sorry but this is singapore.

i am critical of the legal system here but to the context of what is now in that act, the above presumption is im afraid legally not there.

LazerLordz SG

Well, let's just say that this sort of liberal interpretation of the law is something that America is infamous for as well.

And we're jumping on the bandwagon. Not a good instance of being Pro-USA that I'd want to see.

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by foxtrout8:
to maurizio13:

1)do you agree that chee and her gang were within the 500m in [b]a protected area?

2)do you agree that the police have the power vested by protected areas and protected places act at the location?

3)do you agree that the police told chee and a gang that they were 'in a protected area and advise to leave', they did not say 'do not enter shangri-la hotel'?

4)do you agree that the police gave multiple warnings and they refused to leave?

5)since you said 'control = regulate' do you agree that the police have the right to regulate movement in a protected area to the extent of controlling your movement one way to the exit by the 4 (2) of protected area and protected places act?

6)do you agree that the gang refused to comply to the police warning?

7)do you agree that the police have the right by law to escort them out under 4(3) of the act?

thank you and we shall go one by one.[/b]

Your questions are disjointed, it does not reflect the chronological events that took place.

You should take things in sequence as it happens, not a disjointed segmented analysis. I will entertain this just once, no further, because in the context of law, events should be taken in a chronological order not a segmented analysis.

1) agree

2) agree, limited to certain actions

3) Do not agree. The police officers accompanied Ms. Chee for 400m, during the tag along, they "advised" her that it was a protected area and that she is to leave (but they have no right to ask her to leave).

Under subsection 4(2) as it is clearly stated (2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.

Regulating does not imply removal, if I ask you to regulate the temperature of the oven. Does it mean that I asked you to turn off the oven? Regulate is to monitor and adjust accordingly. If I say regulate the oven to 90 degrees centigrade, you would have to monitor the temperature of the oven and adjust accordingly.

At time 6:15 of this video, Superintendant Michael Tan asked Ms. Chee what was her intention of going to Shangrila Hotel area. Later on Ms. Chee went on to explain that she was going there for a meal.

The police asked for their cooperation to leave the protected area. The police advised them to leave the protected area. If the police has a right in this respect of the law, they would have "ORDERED" them to leave the protected area and not asked them to cooperate or advise them to leave.

Have you seen the police apprehending thieves, robbers or murderers? They have the right, they would normally handcuff these criminals. Fancy the police officer telling a thief, robber or murderer suspect "you are advised to follow me back to the police station for questioning", "please cooperate with us to go back to the police station for questioning", "please cooperate with us while we lock you up in a jail cell".

Isn't this a joke? Laughing

Did Ms. Chee or Mr. John Tan violated subsection 4(2)?

Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 1

Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 2

I also draw your attention to the Act used by you, under section 8 of the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act:

Offences seizable and non-bailable.
8. Every offence under the provisions of this Act shall be sezable and non-bailable for the purposes of the law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure.

A spelling mistake in our legal documents which has been vetted and read out numerous times in the parliamentary sessions. A product of our excellent controls and procedures which our government are renowned for, they are always right and never ever wrong. Perhaps the typo was the work of the same clerk that metted out the extra caning for the prisoner.

Do you understand the meaning of seizable offence and non-bailable? It means they can handcuff the pair if they really violated any section in the Act.

So if they had violated subsection 4(2), wouldn't they have been handcuffed and led away to jail?

4) Did the police give warnings or asked for Ms. Chee's and Mr. John Tan's cooperation? Did the police give warnings or advised Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan to leave the area?

You tell me after looking through the whole video. Laughing

In a recent case with similar circumstances (I can't remember what it was), the police did not arrest this person but asked that he go back station. Later on, it was discovered that this person need not follow the police officer's advise or cooperate with them if he chooses not to. Can anyone refresh me on this case? Many thanks.

Advice, asking for cooperation are very different from warnings. An advice and a request for cooperation can be rejected, whereas warnings are more authoritative and cannot be rejected.

5) Your definition of regulate is with purpose, it was not specifically stated in subsection 4(2), so don't specifically veer towards that direction.

6) There was no police warning given, only advice and request of cooperation, so how could the pair have refused the police warning.

Your use of the word "gang" indicates that you are subjective towards them and you told me to remain objective. I have been objective from the beginning, I am not a fan of the Chee's and don't particularly approve of them or their actions at times.

7) I agree they have a right to escort the pair out of the area ONLY AND ONLY if they had violated subsection 4(2), which they have NOT. Subsection 4(3) states:

(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 09:35 AM

SPF Media Releases
16 Nov 2007 Area around the key event venues gazetted as a protected area/ places under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act
As part of the security measures for the ASEAN summit, Police have gazetted the premises of Shangri-la, Raffles City Convention Center (RCCC), and Asian Civilisation Museum (ACM), as well as 500 metres of the perimeter surrounding these places and the Istana, as Protected Areas under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act. This is similar to arrangements made at the recent APEC Australia 2007, and at the WTO in Hong Kong 2005. Such a security zone would allow police to conduct checks on persons found within the zone, and order persons found therein to leave the security zone if they pose a security threat to the ASEAN Summit.

Previous illegal activities? Do you have evidence? Or are you just speculating?

Was there ever any threat to public peace (rioting), whenever Ms. Chee took part in demonstration. It was all peaceful protest.

What kind of security threat are you talking about here? Threat that she will attract a crowd and be an embarassment to the P4P government?

foxtrout8 SG

3) Do not agree. The police officers accompanied Ms. Chee for 400m, during the tag along, they "advised" her that it was a protected area and that she is to leave (but they have no right to ask her to leave).

Thank you for taking interest in answering those questions so late at night.

The police said ' i advise you...' they also very clearly in the video said that ' i have given you more than 3 warnings....and actions will be taken...'

it is very obvious and clear that those words are warnings and there were no way the any body didnt know that those were warnings. the police stated that very clearly.

Regulating does not imply removal, if I ask you to regulate the temperature of the oven. Does it mean that I asked you to turn off the oven? Regulate is to monitor and adjust accordingly. If I say regulate the oven to 90 degrees centigrade, you would have to monitor the temperature of the oven and adjust accordingly.

you use the word removal.

i agree regulating does not imply removal. removal is the taking away of something from a location but regulation of people movement does means in my opinion the control and the direction (as in directing) of the movement of people.

the police directed them out of the protected area by asking them to leave.

i draw a parallel here. A traffic police regulates the traffic (say in an accident scene) by directing where you can drive your car to (he is givng you a direction to go).

say there is an accident ahead. the traffic police regulates the traffic by directing you to U turn and head out of the street because there are evidence ahead which he didnt want you to disturb. he didnt ask to remove your car, he regulate your movement by giving you one way and that is to U turne.

the police did not remove chee (not until she breached second part of the act ) but what they did was to regulate their movement by directing them (one direction) out of the area because it is a protected area. they refused to be directed to leave thus here comes the removal which is in 4(3) in the form of escorting them out.

drawing the parallel, after the traffic police ask you to U turn from the scene of accident ahead, you refused but instead you go ahead. Perhaps, the traffic police will get a tow truck to tow you out.

The police asked for their cooperation to leave the protected area. The police advised them to leave the protected area. If the police has a right in this respect of the law, they would have "ORDERED" them to leave the protected area and not asked them to cooperate or advise them to leave.

the police ordered them to leave by very clearly stated that it is a warning and actions will be taken. they perhaps used word like 'advise' to make it sound more polite.

you can order people and still be polite you know?

maurizio13 SG

What illegal activities was Ms. Chee guilty of that would lead the police to think that she posed a security threat? Was it convicted crimes or non-convicted? Violent or non-violent? Please list them ALL.

This earlier post where you said "police has the responsibility to pre-empt crimes, seems to suggest that you have watched too many re-runs of "Minority Report". I don't remember seeing Tom Cruise amongst the police officers. Laughing

foxtrout8 SG

i do understand my friend.

"seizable offence" means an offence for which and seizable case means a case in which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant according to the third column of Schedule A;

the police officer may ...arrest without warrant, the law didnt say must

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html

i believe with reasons that they did not arrest but they escort them out using the protected areas and protected places act.

foxtrout8 SG

in MW dictionary

Main Entry: 2gang
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, walking, journey, from Old English; akin to Old English gangan
Date: 15th century
1 a (1): a set of articles : outfit (2): a combination of similar implements or devices arranged for convenience to act together b: group : as (1): a group of persons working together (2): a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents
2: a group of persons having informal and usually close social relations

of the number of neutral meanings which imply a group of people, one of those meanings has a bad connotation.

point taken, the word shall be cheerfully withdrawn with regret. pardon me, i hope it explains that i didnt mean at all to be subjective.

thank you.

GPSg SG

The two clowns deserve to be arrested and thrown in jail. Morons hijacking Burmese people's real grievances. SDP like to hijack and manipulate others for their own political agenda.

Shameless bastards.

foxtrout8 SG

out of this topic but to let you know alittle bit more,

No unnecessary restraint.
28. (1) The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

so..

the police can choose not to hand cuff anyone arrested if they believe that no additional restraint is necessary (say the person is cooperative).

foxtrout8 SG

and you mock me?

Police to prevent offences.
111. Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing and shall to the best of his ability using all lawful means prevent the commission of any offence.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=1963-REVED-258&date=20071115&method=whole&doctitle=

foxtrout8 SG

I didnt say security threat, did i? i said a threat to public peace.

I didnt say that Ms chee is guilty is any form of charges, i said she has records.

i cant list them all. but here are 6 counts that i believe.

I believe is the IMF issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-jAhNr-eN8

empowering singapore march:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XG1k-1XaaE

freedom walk singapore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJoi7TZ3mY0

shenton way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa3m4hsl3M&feature=related

outside istana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlENeTb56E&feature=related

outside burma embassy against junta brutalities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r9W5AXza9I&feature=related

The last count, her voice can be heard clearly speaking into the mic many times in the video. Correct me if i am wrong. Thank you.

All the counts above have at least an offence of unlawful assembly in my opinion.

why unlawful assembly in the above 6 counts?

141. An assembly of 5 or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is

(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Legislative or Executive Government, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;

(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process;

(c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence;

(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

the other offence quoted above is :

MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES (PUBLIC ORDER AND NUISANCE) ACT
(CHAPTER 184)

Assemblies and processions

5. (1) The Minister may make rules

(a) regulating assemblies and processions in public roads, public places and places of public resort;

(b) providing for the grant of permits for holding assemblies and processions in public roads, public places and places of public resort, and the fees to be charged therefor;

(c) for keeping order and preventing obstruction or inconvenience in public roads, bridges, landing places, and all public places and places of public resort; and

(d) prescribing the punishment by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both for any act or omission in contravention of the provisions of any such rules.

I believe they do not have a permit and thus for that reason, the above assemblies that are 5 men and above (very debatable for the shenton way issue) are unlawful.

« Previous Page Next Page »