Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!

oxford mushroom SG

The government is only responding to the people like me in the majority of the population who support the existing laws. Those who choose not to respect our laws must face the penalty....period.

LazerLordz SG

Ah, what would this thread be without your hallowed perspective.

Give the ongoing legal debate a try lah. Mr. Green Sorry, but perhaps you should return to Singapore and get reacquainted with dear old mother country first.

It's hard to see from all that fog over there. How's the heating aye?

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

the third part exist to give the authorised officers the power to escort anyone whom refuse to comply with the directions of the officer out of a protected area in the second part which includes, regulating movement, searching etc.

i made a parallel of the traffic policemen on why regulating movement includes the power to ask you to move out.

[b]i never say the police have the power to remove you under the second part. asking you to exit does not equate to removing you. Removal is an physical action eg escorting out, warning you to exit is a verbal action with authority.

thus clearly under the second part, the police have the power to order you to move out. refuse to do so, they then remove you under the third part.
[/b]

You mean to tell me after you watched the video, you interpret the 12 police officers encircling the pair in extremely close proximity, with another 12 police officers in a radius of 15 meters away and forcing them into the van was "asking"???

If you say that is so, I say so be it.

Removing is a very neutral word, in this context, it means to be severed from the area.

You can say the police severed the pair from the area, or, the police separated the pair from the area.

foxtrout8 SG

So if you claim that the police asked them to leave, but they have no right to.

As agreed by you earlier.[/quote]

thank you for putting words into my mouth again and again but i did not say that the police have no right in that situation.

you gave the example of a pedestrian crossing the road. it has no relevence to the protected area and places act because as you know the pedestrain have a choice to or not to cross but in the protected area act, anyone cannot choose not to comply with the direction of a authorised officer if not will be escorted out.

foxtrout8 SG

you misread my point again.

forcing them into the van was escorting them out. asking them was over after so many talk that moved to stern warning.

maurizio13 SG

If you say that the police has right in the Protected Area and Protected Places Act to ask the pair to leave. Can you cite me a section or subsection that provides them the RIGHT???

Don't understand your second paragraph.

Else,

Neither has your example of traffic police directing traffic in an accident any relevance to the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act.

maurizio13 SG

Under what section and subsection did the act empowered the police officer, to "ask" the pair to leave?

maurizio13 SG

Your treatment of citizens inconsistently, is also a violation of the Constitution Of The Republic of Singapore. You selectively choose to handcuff some while not handcuffing others.

Equal protection
12. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

(3) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit

(a) any provision regulating personal law; or

(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.

It is unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to fair treatment.

Supremacy of Constitution
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

LazerLordz SG

Article 4 points to a potential flaw in many Parliamentary amendments thus far. But we would need a progressive Supreme Court to see that.

foxtrout8 SG

all citizens have rights to fair treatments with exceptions. have you read the exceptions?

foxtrout8 SG

in the example that i gave of the motorist insisting of moving ahead despite warning that there are evidences in front, warrents the police to take action because the motorist's action goes against the preservation of law.

your example of a predestrain crossing the road is invalid because nothing against the preservation of law is done when she chooses not to cross the road.

the preservation of the protected area and protected places act was breached when the group refuse to comply with the orders of the police vested under 4(2) to regulate their movement.

as i said, regulating the movement includes asking them to move out.

maurizio13 SG

Please state, what exceptions?

foxtrout8 SG

the protection against discriminations is limited onli to ground of religion, race, descent or place of birth.[b] thats mean, it is illegal only if say the police discriminate againsty you for your religion, race, descent and birth place.[/b]

it is totally legal say for example for an individual to proclaim that he or she only hire people with no criminal records. althought it is outright discrimination but the law on equality doesnt go so far as to protect people from being discriminated because of crime records.

so did the police treat them (chee and her group of people) discriminately based on their race, religion, descent or place or birth?

Equal protection
12. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

maurizio13 SG

So there are evidences in front of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan that their movement forward will destroy?

Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan is more of the scenario I depicted, they were taking a walk, directed by a traffic police (because the traffic lights was down) to walk at a traffic junction, but choose not to walk.

And your explanation of regulate their movement is to regulate the pair to the circumference of the boundary and push them out?

You already agreed that "to regulate" is not to make them be detached from the location.

In the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act, they have a subsection 4(2) which they can "enforce" asking a person to leave and subsection 4(3) which they can make a person leave.

Nonsensical don't you think?

Next time if I work as a security guard, my supervisor asked that I regulate the movement of a person in a boundary. I will regulate the person to the exit and ask him to leave.

If I work as a prison officer, my supervisor ask that I regulate the movement of the prisoner in an exercise area, I will regulate the prisoner to the exit.

Laughing

foxtrout8 SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

So there are evidences in front of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan that their movement forward will destroy?

Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan is more of the scenario I depicted, they were taking a walk, directed by a traffic police (because the traffic lights was down) to walk at a traffic junction, but choose not to walk.

And your explanation of regulate their movement is to regulate the pair to the circumference of the boundary and push them out?

You already agreed that "to regulate" is not to make them be detached from the location.

In the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act, they have a subsection 4(2) which they can "enforce" asking a person to leave and subsection 4(3) which they can make a person leave.

Nonsensical don't you think?

[b]Next time if I work as a security guard, my supervisor asked that I regulate the movement of a person in a boundary. I will regulate the person to the exit and ask him to leave.

If I work as a prison officer, my supervisor ask that I regulate the movement of the prisoner in an exercise area, I will regulate the prisoner to the exit.

Laughing
[/b]

i never said anything about asking them to go to the boundary then push them out. i am warning now not to add words into my mouth again and again.

i am saying regulating the movement allows the police officer to ask them to move out of the area.

if you are a prison officer, yes you can ask them to MOVE anywhere but not LEAVE because the prisioner's movement can only be confined to the prision (unless if there are other legal permissions). if unless chee and her group can only be confined to the protected area around shangrila and that they cannot be outside the protected area, the police can ask them to MOVE OUT.

the security officer can ask people to move out of a perimeter. if you live in a condo, you will understand.

maurizio13 SG

Obviously, you misunderstood my meaning, since when did I put words in your mouth?

Please read again.

Since when did I quote you?

Well, you have to understand the orders from my supposed superiors.

His instructions were that, "I regulate the prisoners in the exercise area", or, maybe you can also say I am a pet caretaker, my boss tells me, "You regulate the dogs within this area".

Can I regulate the dogs outside this area and show them the exit? Laughing

Your situation always abit bizzare, either accident or fire, where the movement or non-movement will cause distress.

foxtrout8 SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

And [b]your explanation of regulate their movement is to regulate the pair to the circumference of the boundary and push them out?

[/b]

when did i explain about regulating them to the boundary then push them out?

are you putting words into my mouth or you misread me? you are doing it again and again you know?

maurizio13 SG

Isn't that what you stated in a previous post? Laughing

Do you have selective amnesia? Laughing

You also agreed that regulating is not to cause detachment, separation from the area. If the police have no right of causing the pair detachment from that area, the only possibility is to regulate them to the boundary and nudge them out.

You are self contradicting yourself by saying that the police has no right to cause detachment from the area and that of the police being able to ask that the pair exit (cause detachment from the area).

Laughing

foxtrout8 SG

"You regulate the dogs within this area".

Can I regulate the dogs outside this area and show them the exit? :

you keep changing your scenarios again and again after i tear them apart one by one.

on the dogs you can ask them to move out, it is not illegal. but of course i wonder why you want them to lose the dogs and yes you will get a scolding.

but you can also tell your boss that he never state that the dog movement must only be in this area. he said that you can regulate the dog in the area. another words in the area, you ask the dog to move anywhere including moving out. once the dog moved out, you got no power to ask him to move it. because he is out of the area and you are not to regulate.

the security guard can ask people to move out of the perimeter, it is not illegal.

the prison officer cannot ask a prisioner to move out of the prison compound with persmission because he doesnt have the power to do so, if he does it, it is illegal.

foxtrout8 SG

i think you have problem with understanding.

one way to the exit = to asking them to go to the boundary and then push them out?

« Previous Page Next Page »