Punched and hit but police won't be taking action

last SG · 2007-04-04T12:55:02+00:00

so that's what singapore shall become in the future huh ..... where thugs and young punks run wild and violent with impunity ... where heartland schools fo...

Tiggerific SG

Why do you think that the Singapore Police Force has the highest resignation rate among the entire Singapore work force? This is just one of the many reasons. Rolling Eyes

Tiggerific SG

Depends on the injuries that the other guy sustained. If it results in a fracture, emasculation, loss of sight/hearing, dismembering of any joints, permanent disfugration or any other criteria that would allow the case to be classified as voluntarily causing grevious hurt, sec 325 cap 224, then you will be placed under arrest.

If not, then it will fall under voluntarily causing hurt, sec 323 cap 224. In which, you would know by now, would require a magistrate's complaint to allow the police to have full investigative/arrest powers.

One reason why voluntarily causing hurt requires such a procedure is because it is needed to filer out the less serious cases from the ones which are more severe, but do not fall under sec 325 cap 224. As you can see, there is no in-between. Either you get injured real bad or you don't.

And technically, voluntarily causing hurt happens all the time. Even if you were to playfully hit your friend on the arm, then that would be voluntarily causing hurt too. As would be a slap to the face.

If an arrest is made everytime a call is made for cases of alleged assault, can you imagine what would happen? People will be saying cops jump the gun too early and are arrest-happy. And our lockups will overflow.

However, if it happens in view of the cops themselves, then they have full powers to effect arrest.

Tiggerific SG

If you hit an MP, you are deemed to be assaulting a public servant, and if he is working, then you would be assaulting him while he is in the discharge of his duties. An arrest will be the result.

BillyBong SG

That's funny, because i don't see how teachers or other civil servants are likewise protected in that manner, off duty or otherwise?

It's a terrific law, that somehow manages to look after their own, completely ignoring the masses it was meant to protect instead.

I still don't see how the logic of of the term 'non-seizable' is applied to someone who continuously plummets someone else with obvious contempt for the law. If the police won't take responsibility, they are simply encouraging vigilantes.

laurence82 SG

Isnt this plainly a criminal case?

if i am poor, then how? then everyone can punch me coz i got no $$ to file a case?

wtf we need police for?

Tiggerific SG

Assaulting a civil servant will only apply if the person is in the midst of carrying out his duty, sec 354 cap 224 [penal code].

Using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty.

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

So, for example, if a student hits his teacher, this law will be applied. The law can be applied to other civil servants too, but the catch is that they have to be in the midst of carrying out their duties when they were assaulted. This is the only way in which the charge can go through. If not, case cannot jalan.

And I will do my best to resist the temptation to reply to your middle stanza, which reeks of sarcasm and is totally uncalled for.

Tiggerific SG

if you are poor, then you can seek legal aid.

Alternatively, and some coppers do not know this, but all cases of voluntarily causing hurt are viewed on a case-by-case basis. Bearing in mind the merits of each case, the Head of Investigation can give his sanction and full investigation will be conducted without having to proceed with magistrate complaints.

And by law, assault is defined as a different thing altogether.

Assault.

Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

BillyBong SG

You didn't do very well in that aspect. Cool

The sarcasm was pointedly obvious: if the law is flawed, shouldn't it be tweaked to protect the people? Throwing the book may tame some, but certainly will not encourage spirit-mindedness, with the 'mind my own business' attitude being openly practiced and subtly endorsed by our own police.

And they constantly 'remind' us to stay vigilant? For their benefit or ours? Rolling Eyes

Tiggerific SG

Brother, I apologise.

But you must understand that we have to act in accordance with the law. Yes, without a doubt, there are flaws, but in this case, the only way we as common people can go about rectifying it is to make a formal request with our MPs so that they can 'debate' it out in whatever it is they do at parliament house. Or wherever it may be.

And yes, discretonary powers can be applied, but only under certain circumstances. For example, non-seizable offences that occur in view of police officers will be treated as seizable offences, ie the offender can be arrested without a warrant. For non-seizable offences, there are restrictions to which the investigative & legal powers that they have.

basically there are two types of investigation cases: Police-Initiated investigations and people-initiated investigations. Unfortunately, sec 323 cap 224 would fall under the latter.

And for what it's worth, staying vigilant is for everyone's benefit.

mrwonderful SG

the police is only to protect the governments interests, not the citizens.

and they still put up all those posters with captions like "we are the ones keeping u safe at night, etc.."

Tiggerific SG

If you really think that Singapore is a very safe place, then I can only say that ignorance is bliss.

BillyBong SG

Let's review the situation that is contributing to dissent among the people:

When Seng Han Tong gets 'assaulted', the perpertrator is arrested on the spot without a moment's hesitation. When the average man on the street is punched and beaten, he is offered a benign response. No arrests are made and no attempt to dilligently offer chase while the trail is warm, even after repeated requests from the victim.

After consulting the lawbook, yes it is proven that the police acted 'appropriately'. A civil servant performing his 'duties' was assaulted and the police duly acted according to the law. On the other hand, the guy assaulted at Geylang was not a civil servant, hence was required to lodge a complaint to the magistrate's court to pursue a 'civil case'.

Does this make sense? Both got assaulted, but the law offers secure protection to one party and rather neglects the other. Could the lopsided nature of this conundrum be more revealing? Or is it a broken reflection of a system gone very wrong in its approach?

This obvious flaw further widens the gap between equals, and adds weight to the phase: 'some are more equal than others'

As advocates of change and improvement, should we not try to constantly improve a system? I cannot fault the Police for not always being around when they are needed most, but they deserve to drop points for not responding when they should.

Some at least...

PRP SG

If one touches someone on the wrong place,he might get flogging for molestation.But punching someone (excluding public officers)is just causing hurt under the law and the police can’t arrest him.What’s wrong with the law?

LazerLordz SG

The kitten was tied tightly to a fence, that to me is grounds for an animal abuse case. Punching a woman should have already triggered at least two charges.

The man should have been in the slammer.

Tiggerific SG

Originally posted by BillyBong:

Let's review the situation that is contributing to dissent among the people:

When Seng Han Tong gets 'assaulted', the perpertrator is arrested on the spot without a moment's hesitation. When the average man on the street is punched and beaten, he is offered a benign response. No arrests are made and no attempt to dilligently offer chase while the trail is warm, even after repeated requests from the victim.

After consulting the lawbook, yes it is proven that the police acted 'appropriately'. A civil servant performing his 'duties' was assaulted and the police duly acted according to the law. On the other hand, the guy assaulted at Geylang was not a civil servant, hence was required to lodge a complaint to the magistrate's court to pursue a 'civil case'.

Does this make sense? Both got assaulted, but the law offers secure protection to one party and rather neglects the other. Could the lopsided nature of this conundrum be more revealing? Or is it a broken reflection of a system gone very wrong in its approach?

This obvious flaw further widens the gap between equals, and adds weight to the phase: [b]'some are more equal than others'

As advocates of change and improvement, should we not try to constantly improve a system? I cannot fault the Police for not always being around when they are needed most, but they deserve to drop points for not responding when they should.

Some at least...[/b]

Actually, it is not a 'civil case'. a civil case is one in which police intervention is not required, simply because there is no offence disclosed. however, in this case, there is an offence disclosed, therefore it is not a 'civil case'. the officers were wrong to claim as such. this type of offence is a 'non-seizable offence'.

the main difference being, the police cannot arrest the perpetrator without a warrant, and there are also limited powers of investigation. certain special rights [sec 120, 121, 125 and 126] of the criminal procedure code [cap 68] cannot be exercised at all. yes, the police can and will investigate, but their powers are limited to a certain extent. this is what happens when the offence is a non-seizable one. if the offence is a seizable offence, then there will be no issues because an arrest can be effected immediately, without a warrant. and the special rights as mentioned above can be exercised too.

again, as I said, the difference in the two cases that you have mentioned is that one guy is a civil servant deemed to be on duty while the other is not. but i also believe that the reason why people react strongly to this matter is because of the perceived lack of action on the Police's part. To assume that, however, is very, very wrong.

preliminary investigations will be under way. however, there is a limit to police powers in these type of cases, as I have said. so, in order for police to be able to exercise full powers of investigation, the police would require either the green light from a magistrate, or a sanction from the head investigation of the police div concerned. So all the Police can do will be to conduct preliminary & limited investigations until they receive the green light from the magistrate.

the primary purpose in requiring a magistrate's intervention in such cases is because as I have mentioned before, technically, voluntarily causing hurt happens all the time. the hurt caused can be from anything from a quick flick of the hand, to a punch. the hurt caused is starkly different, but it will still fall back into the same classification.

the magistrate will hear out each case, and depending on each case's merits, he will decide if police intervention is necessary. if it is, then the police division concerned will then be empowered with full investigation powers.

you also have to understand that the Police do not have unlimited powers, they're not above the law. they too have their hands tied sometimes. It is not really about a lack of initiative, but rather a sucky feeling knowing that they literally cannot do much, even though their help is very much needed.

and for what it's worth, i've also added a link showing how one can go about making a magistrate's complaint.

http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/criminal/page.aspx?pageid=10028

corebooster SG

in reply to PRP.

Outraging of the modesty of a women and voluntarily causing hurt/volutarily causing grevious hurt although both of the above offences involves physical contact. Its the action taken and intention of the person which will be taken into consideration to decide what offence he/she has committed.

When u are in bed with a women, u wun go punching her vital sexual organs i guess. n if u are going 2 fight a women u wun go n fondle wif her sexual organs i guess.

so please make the right analogy. thanks.

BillyBong SG

In all aspects, the probable reason why these are happening is because the law has not been further compartmentalized to cover obvious bases. With regards to 'non-seizable' offence, where police officers without a warrent cannot arrest a person who is deemed to have committed an offence, it has to be made clear what precise catagory this falls under.

In cases where evidence of injury and eyewitness allows an IO to draw a reasonable assessment of the situation, they should be given powers to make discretionary arrests, if only to conduct their interrogations earlier while the case is still warm. This should not be seen as officers acting above the law or abusing their powers.

In the case of the Mazda rookie who took an MX-5 for a spin and ended up causing the death of the sales executive, surely there was sufficient evidence to at least suspend his license pending the outcome of investigation? How he could continue to visit show rooms and check out new cars is really beyond me.

At the end of the day, it is too convenient to hide behind procedure in the performance of official duties. If it impedes an officer, then it should be reviewed and revised.

MamaRos SG

The above is Ms. Kong's interpretation of what happened to her. Anyone reading her article will feel incensed at the police for not doing more. However, none of us really know what happened, do we? Ms. Kong stated that ' Suddenly, a man shouted at me, claiming I was trying to steal his kitten. Before I could utter a word, he punched me in the face.'

Now if we are to visualize the scene, we have to conclude that two things could have happened to cause Ms. Kong getting punched.

1) The man is mentally unstable, lurking around the area looking for
someone to hit and Ms. Kong happened to be his target;
2) The man HAD words with Ms. Kong and she used insulting words that
provoked and incited the man to punch her

My first train of thought is, if I was in Ms. Kong's shoes, I would have called the police to complain about the kitten being tied up to the fence. That is, if there is a guy hovering near the fence.

My second thought is, what is that guy doing near her? Assuming what Ms. Kong said about the guy accusing her of stealing his kitten is true, can anyone here say, she kept quiet all the time even as she attempted to free the kitten? And if Ms. Kong is just a guai guai girl/woman, she would have retreated when she heard the guy's accusation, wouldn't she? I mean, if faced with a possible nasty man, the natural instinct for a meek person is flight not fight, am I right? After all, her sole intention was to free a kitten not to engage in verbal warfare with anyone, correct?

Whatever it is, it is wrong for the man to hit her, of course. Ms. Kong claimed she was punched on her face. In that case, based on a normal man's strength, that punch would have caused some form of bleeding, especially if the nose got it. Why did the man targeted her face and not shoved her away? I suspect it was to shut her up, possible?

All in all, as a woman myself, I would not engage in aggravation with any stranger in public because I feel there are other recourses I can take if I am to be in a similar case scenario as Ms. Kong. Other than calling the police or the SPCA, I would also call the hotline of New Paper.

IF, what Ms. Kong said is the truth and the whole truth, then she should get a lawyer and fight for her rights. However, if the man turns out to be a IMH outpatient, then she'll have to consider it her bad luck lor.

BillyBong SG

Originally posted by MamaRos:
The above is Ms. Kong's interpretation of what happened to her. Anyone reading her article will feel incensed at the police for not doing more. However, none of us really know what happened, do we? Ms. Kong stated that ' Suddenly, a man shouted at me, claiming I was trying to steal his kitten. Before I could utter a word, he punched me in the face.'

Now if we are to visualize the scene, we have to conclude that two things could have happened to cause Ms. Kong getting punched.

1) The man is mentally unstable, lurking around the area looking for
someone to hit and Ms. Kong happened to be his target;
2) The man HAD words with Ms. Kong and she used insulting words that
provoked and incited the man to punch her

My first train of thought is, if I was in Ms. Kong's shoes, I would have called the police to complain about the kitten being tied up to the fence. That is, if there is a guy hovering near the fence.

Whatever it is, it is wrong for the man to hit her, of course. Ms. Kong claimed she was punched on her face. In that case, based on a normal man's strength, that punch would have caused some form of bleeding, especially if the nose got it. Why did the man targeted her face and not shoved her away? I suspect it was to shut her up, possible?

All in all, as a woman myself, I would not engage in aggravation with any stranger in public because I feel there are other recourses I can take if I am to be in a similar case scenario as Ms. Kong. Other than calling the police or the SPCA, I would also call the hotline of New Paper.

IF, what Ms. Kong said is the truth and the whole truth, then she should get a lawyer and fight for her rights. However, if the man turns out to be a IMH outpatient, then she'll have to consider it her bad luck lor.

Your public display of apathy is precisely why singaporeans will look the other way instead of stepping forward to help.

It doesn't matter whether the aggressor owned the kitten; it doesn't matter what excuse the man had.

In the first place, restraining a kitten is animal abuse. Any compassionate human being would have responded with the same instinct - free the kitten regardless.

Your preference of 'calling the cops' is simply passing the buck, when at that point of time, it seemed a straight-forward matter any decent person could accomplish, certainly something that did not require police assistance.

When set upon by a deranged stranger making false accusations, why assume him to be a mental case? Why draw this conclusion as an excuse when he is more likely a typical street thug and bully? His brazen claim that he is 'not afraid of the authorities' clearly demonstrates contempt and utter disregard for the law, and certain displays no psychotic behaviour.

My second thought is, what is that guy doing near her? Assuming what Ms. Kong said about the guy accusing her of stealing his kitten is true, can anyone here say, she kept quiet all the time even as she attempted to free the kitten? And if Ms. Kong is just a guai guai girl/woman, she would have retreated when she heard the guy's accusation, wouldn't she? I mean, if faced with a possible nasty man, the natural instinct for a meek person is flight not fight, am I right? After all, her sole intention was to free a kitten not to engage in verbal warfare with anyone, correct?

Why think at all if you continue to postulate and draw speculation out of thin air? By making so many assumptions about the writer, have you fallen into your own trap of making presumptions? How a person responds to any situation is surely up to what experience or how level-headed the person is.

There is nothing to conclude whether Ms Kong handled herself well in the situation, if at all. The facts simply are: an attempt was made to free a trapped animal. During the process, the would-be rescuer was assaulted, and verbally abused, sufficient enough to involve the police, a shopkeeper and outpatient treatment at a local hospital.

Your entire 'mind my own business' approach bellies the apathetic reflection of Singaporeans content to 'stay out of trouble' rather than step forward to right a simple wrong.

Tiggerific SG

For a full list of offences which are seizable, and those which are non-seizable, you can check it out under the criminal procedure code. all offences under the different acts, different laws in singapore are listed there.

In cases where evidence of injury and eyewitness allows an IO to draw a reasonable assessment of the situation, they should be given powers to make discretionary arrests, if only to conduct their interrogations earlier while the case is still warm. This should not be seen as officers acting above the law or abusing their powers.

I agree with you on this one. However, it is not possible for discretionary powers to be exercised all the time. I'll quote you an example:

let's say you were a victim of road rage, and you call for the police. upon police arrival, both you and your assailant are still there. you are obviously still very much distressed. and upon being interviewed by the police, your assailant makes a scene and is behaving in a very disorderly manner. in this instance, he could be arrested. however, he will not be placed under arrest for hitting you. rather, he would have been arrested for behaving in a disorderly manner, thereby disrupting the peace of the place. this is just one example of exercising discretion. If the alleged assailant is of unsound mind, then he will be arrested for being of unsound mind. It's another example of discretion.

It's about analysing the situation, and if an arrest needs to be effected, using the appropriate laws to do it. Interrogations will definitely take place, but you have to understand that the Police do not have the right to detain anyone to do it. Unless of course, the offence is a seizable one, eg theft, robbery, causing hurt by dangerous mean, causing grevious hurt, etc.

In the case of the Mazda rookie who took an MX-5 for a spin and ended up causing the death of the sales executive, surely there was sufficient evidence to at least suspend his license pending the outcome of investigation? How he could continue to visit show rooms and check out new cars is really beyond me.

At the end of the day, it is too convenient to hide behind procedure in the performance of official duties. If it impedes an officer, then it should be reviewed and revised.

A whole lot of factors come into play. It could be the evidence attained, medical reports, coroner's inquiry verdict/findings, etc. It could also be due to other unforeseen circumstances that we do not know of.

And if the laws are what rile you the most, then it really is no point at all lashing out at the frontliners who have to work around/with them, is there?

« Previous Page Next Page »