pinkish purple papayas
Paragraph13
I explained to him that I did not know saying the word "bomb" is
against the law, and I further explained that I did not say the
word "bomb" in a threatening context to the officer, the word
"bomb" was taken out of context as part of an answer to my
daughter's question. Despite my explanation, he said he cannot make
the decision and my case has to be escalated to higher
authorities.
Paragraph6-7
Immediately, a security officer standing at the conveyor belt
(Stephen S Naidira) who was standing in front of me said with a
very rude tone "repeat what you just said". I clarified with him
what he meant - is it for me to repeat what I had told my daughter?
He said loudly again, to repeat what I had just said.
So I did exactly what he told me. I said to him that "my daughter
asked me why I need to take off my shoes, and I told her that you
guys (the security officers) are afraid that we will keep bombs in
our shoes." He immediately asked me to stand aside and said that he
had to report it to his superior that I said the word "bomb"
twice.
Paragraph 8-9
Then an Indian lady (Sivamalar) at the customs started hurling at
me and my daughter and said that I said the word "bomb" twice and
it is against the law and I can be sent to jail and they are
calling the police. She (Sivamalar) was so loud and rude and she
shoved us to the side, and refused to listen to my explanation. In
fact, she got so aggressive that another officer Ricky Lim (I guess
it's her supervisor) had to come forward to stop her from further
attacking me and my daughter verbally, and specifically asked
Sivamalar to "shut up".
I told Ricky Lim that I would like to know the names of his staff
because their attitude and rudeness were simply beyond any
acceptable level. Immediately Sivamalar got so angry and aggressive
that she started charging at Ricky Lim and hurled "What?! What?!
What?! She (she meant me) said the word "Bomb" twice, so what is
wrong with arresting her (which is me) and we were told that if we
heard the word twice, we will arrest!!"
Paragraph 10-11
At that time, Stephen S Naidira came to me again to intimidate me
further by asking me to repeat what I said earlier to my daughter
again. I refused to repeat again then because I believe he was
deliberately asking me to repeat so that he can count the number of
times that I mentioned the word "bomb".
I also believe that that the officers were deliberately provoking
me by being rude and intimidating, in the hope that I will
retaliate in kind, thereby making their unreasonable actions
justifiable.
Eh... I feel that allentyb from the start have not
fully comprehend about the whole email. The woman actually did not
know about that speaking twice of the word "bomb" in the airport
actually is illgeal. Therefore, ignorant decisions are made by her,
and you can't blame that she is doing so. I feel that you are just
be judgmental and all your post are showing the typcial Singaporean
attitude- KIASU ( afraid to lose ) 
Secondly, from Para 6-7, it is clear that the security officer is
using his authority( I assume a He) and the woman's ignorance of
that Law- Cannot say the word "bomb" twice in Airport, to make her
committ the breaking of that Law so that she can be charged under
that Law. Apparently, I feel that He is the one that trying to
heigthen the matter in order to watch "show".
Thirdly, from para 8-9, that Indian lady, tries to use her
authority and the Law to actually unleases her anger on the woman.
And, she actually attacks the woman and the daughter verbally. This
form of action actually indicates to me that that Indian Lady is
trying to take this opportunity to pour out her anger or rather
stress onto someone, and knowing that she can get away with it.
This can be seen from para 9 when she actually argues that the
woman breaks the Law and she is just following the book.
Fourth, from para 10-11, One can actually observe that the people
at the airport are starting to make the woman do something, like
saying the wrong words, showing rude gesture etc, so as to save
themselves as they can turn all this wrongdoings into their favor.
This is further be confirmed that the officer at the airport are "
protecting each other's back" from this quoted paragraph
"Whilst waiting, Stephen S Naidira (the security officer)
gathered with a
few security officers at the side, including Sivamalar to discuss
how they
should present their statement to the police when they arrive later
to make
sure that they are adequately covered, and that they are just
following the
rule and doing what they were told to do. They said by insisting
that they
are taking actions "by-the-book" , they would be ok.
"
Lastly, the sergeant , in my opinion, is avoiding the whole
matter. This can be seen by the two paragraphs below :
At about 7.30pm, the Sergeant-in-charge, Amran Buang came. After I
explained the full context of the incident to him, he refused to
make a decision and decided to escalate it further to the Auxilary
Police and State Police. He said that the word "bomb" is very
sensitive and I should not have mentioned it twice. I explained to
him that I did not know saying the word "bomb" is against the law,
and I further explained that I did not say the word "bomb" in a
threatening context to the officer, the word "bomb" was taken out
of context as part of an answer to my daughter's question. Despite
my explanation, he said he cannot make the decision and my case has
to be escalated to higher authorities.
AND
After knowing what had happened, my husband
tried to talk to Sergeant Amran Buang, further explaining to him
that we
are just a family going on holiday and what I have said to my
daughter had
been taken out of context. Again, no one was bothered to listen.
And again,
we were told to wait for another officer with an even higher
ranking. With
time ticking away and at 7.55pm with no sign of the higher
authorities
appearing, we knew then our hope of boarding our flight had
diminished
This has shown that the sergeant is avoiding the responsibility of
taking up this matter. And he uses the phrase " refer to higher
authorities" to avoid. Why do I say so ? This is because 25minutes
had past in you all have noticed and if it is about bomb and
terrorism will the higher authorities be informed late? And the
STATE POLICE and other policemen arrives at 8.10pm, which is after
the flight, and the HIGHER AUTHORITIES came at 45minutes later
after the accused is informed of refering to higher
authorities.
Therefore, all this suggests that the officers at the airport are
trying to relive themselves of daily boring routine and stress,
thus using this opportunity to create a scene and to watch. I
understand that critics will argue that they are upholding the
safety of the people at the airport, and such a slight matgter
which threatens the safety of others needs their utmost attention.
However, from the previous points that i have made, we can see the
officers are using the Law to justify their actions in using their
authority, and they attack verbally and intimidates. Surely, there
must be respect given to the accused, or rather suspect if he or
she obeys the command of the authorities, unless the suspect do
otherwise. In this case the woman never did the otherwise.
So as to conclude, due to the ignorance of the woman, she has be
mistreated in such a way that I dont think a recognised WORLD CLASS
AIRPORT DOES. Tus, this shows that the airport still has flaws and
still needs to improve, in its way of training the staffs. I also
hope that the government will provide an satisfatory solution to
the woman's appeal for the violation of her human's rights. And
after all, be known that Humans are not perfect.
