Originally posted by Boy Stratus:
There is no logic into confiscating ez-link cards at all.
In the first place, when the student ez link card expire, the card
will automaticaly change & turn into adult fare. It's not like
the card fare remains students price forever & we can get away
with it.
Next, there's a pic of the person on it, [b]WITH your name
& IC no.. What makes the SBS to have a right
to take the card away? Hello, im not gonna give away my IC no.
freely away to some random uncles who drive the bus. 
Anyway even if the card is a stolen 1, who is that stupid to tap it
without hiding it from the drivers? 
[/b]
The last point is moot. When you tap it, it's going to have a
loud error sound.
So you can't even cheat with it.
Thus, we can conclude that if the student ID is part of the EZ-Link
card, it is a legitimate form of identification, and more
importantly, if the child is under the age of 12, and has no NRIC,
it is the sole "official" form of ID that he or she has.
The bus driver is not a legal entity for law enforcement, and how
can one monpolistic transport company's regulations regarding
retention of ID supersede the Constitution of Singapore?
Let's see, under the NATIONAL REGISTRATION ACT
(CHAPTER 201), 13 (1E) 1) Any person who unlawfully deprives any
person of an identity card, is committing an offence under this
act.
With regards to a case below
----
Excerpt of a letter by LEE Boon
Hwee, Deputy Head (Public Relations) for Director Singapore
Immigration & Registration, to The Forum, The Straits Times of
2 Mar 2002
NOT ILLEGAL FOR SECURITY GUARDS TO HOLD NRIC
"...The National Registration Act authorises certain officials, for
instance the police and immigration officers, to retain a person's
identity card (NRIC) for the purpose of investigation.
"Security guards at buildings, condominiums and other premises are
not authorised by the Act to retain a visitor's NRIC.
"However, it is not illegal for them to do so if the visitor
authorises them - by the act of surrendering the NRIC - to hold his
NRIC as a condition for entry, or in exchange for a visitor's pass.
This is a private arrangement between the two parties
concerned.
----
Now we are back to the issue of a child below the age of 15, who
legally does not need a NRIC, and those below 12, who generally DO
NOT have an NRIC by practise.
The above case mentions that private parties may engage in
NRIC-exchange for an entry pass to a premise. However, the case of
public transport is different, because there is no such exchange
between the commuters and the company.
Therefore, how legal is it for a representative of a commercial
entity to RETAIN a legitimate form of ID for children below the age
of 15 based on the fact that there is no reciprocated pass of
travel or entry in return for this "private" transaction, given
that the Student ID issued by MOE on the EZ-Link system is the only
form of national ID for these individuals.
I rest my case.
