Assault 'a civil case', so no police action

last SG · 2006-08-08T21:54:46+00:00

Actually, the initial charge is brought forward by the investigator in charge of the case. The final verdict, however, is a result of the numerous court hear...

redstone SG

So having a gathering of people wearing same coloured clothing.
Placing paper cut outs
Having extremely peaceful mini demonstration
Posting racist remarks on internet

These are more serious than gang assault or road rage? Then i do not know the logic of operations.

av98m SG

Our police force has become the PAP's Gestapo. They're meant to rein in dissenters , and not to protect and serve the people

dragg SG

extracted from straits times forum.

I refer to the letter "Assault 'a civil case', so no police action" by Ms Liew Sok Kuan (ST, Aug Cool .
The attack reminds me of an elderly man who was assaulted by a volunteer at an old age centre in Bukit Merah two years ago. The victim was repeatedly pounded on his face and right temple until his head swelled with concussion.

As his caregiver, I reported the assault to a nearby police post but was told that a magistrate court's order was required for the police to act. The reason was that the police would not investigate unless there was bleeding and/or bone fracture.

Despite being puzzled by the bureaucracy, I complied and obtained the magistrate's order for the old man. Unfortunately, the police merely followed up with some questioning of related parties and told me later that they would not pursue the case further. The police classified it as a "civil" case.

How do the authorities expect a feeble and handicapped old man surviving on social welfare money to have the means to take up legal recourse on the matter? In the end, he dropped the case.

I can vividly remember the smile of satisfaction on the assailant's face the instant we told the Subordinate Court's mediator to close the file.

From what I gathered, the volunteer who carried out the assault still continued his service at the centre and a staff who stood up as a witness to the assault had been sacked. Where's justice?

The role of our police has been significantly altered over the past ten years to include security, such as the threat of terrorism. However, a rethink of police duties must be done but not at the expense of public safety.

Jimmy Ho Kwok Hoong

fudgester SG

MP gets whacked - police shows up immediately, big hoo-ha in the papers.

Old man gets whacked - nothing happens.

So much for showing care and concern for our old folk, eh?

charlize SG

I believe in other countries, if this were to happen, public outcry will be so huge that it would force the head of the police force to step down.

And maybe the Home Affairs minister will have to come out to publicly apologize for the BS that just just occurred. Laughing

charlize SG

Interesting thought. Laughing

Sagara SG

and you know it will never happen here Cool

TooFree SG

To err is human. Learn from it. Cool

fudgester SG

Your point?

ShutterBug SG

From this incident, we learn 4 things:

>> You can go beat others up, or others can beat you up
>> The Police is useless
>> Singapore no longer that safe
>> Police only act on issues concerning government

redstone SG

Seriously police seem to be siding govt more.
But then again it's assault of civil servant carrying out public duties.

Not that MP shouldn't be 'protected' like this. But let EVERYONE have the same treatment! What is police up to? Siding?

So we can gang assault someone in front of Police HQ and legally police can't do anything as long as no fractures and below the 'illegal gathering' number of people?

redstone SG

So I believe police's been erring for the past 30, 40 years.

gerald_tan SG

Maybe it's part of a conspiracy to create more jobs.... don't believe me? Count the ways...

(1) Innocent dude gets beaten up - goes on MC, boss need to hire temp worker
(2) Increase attendance at A&E (which as we all know, is always empty and got no queue)
(3) Create work for private investigators, lawyers, judges, etc. (civil case mah, police and AG cannot touch)
(4) More people buy medical insurance, so insurance agent business also go up
(5) And of course, 369 gang recruitment also go up, since they now not scared to get caught.

Only person who lose business is the poor uncle selling beef kway teow, since nobody dare to eat at his stall anymore.

Anycall SG

The police is supposed to be safe guarding our safety and upholding the law. They already been absolved of parking tickets duties and recently even road accidents without injuries are no longer their concern. Now this too. What do their job actually consist of?

ditzy SG

I'm pretty sure he got punched, but there was no fracture. Laughing

ditzy SG

When that happens, a meteorite will land on you. Laughing

BillyBong SG

This is 2 days old but it sheds some light on the possibility of the number of underreported cases involving this bureaucratic red tape and lack of justice:

No justice for old man because police classified assault as a 'civil' case
Aug 19, 2006

I refer to the letter "Assault 'a civil case', so no police action" by Ms Liew Sok Kuan (ST, Aug Cool .
The attack reminds me of an elderly man who was assaulted by a volunteer at an old age centre in Bukit Merah two years ago. The victim was repeatedly pounded on his face and right temple until his head swelled with concussion.

As his caregiver, I reported the assault to a nearby police post but was told that a magistrate court's order was required for the police to act. The reason was that the police would not investigate unless there was bleeding and/or bone fracture.

Despite being puzzled by the bureaucracy, I complied and obtained the magistrate's order for the old man. Unfortunately, the police merely followed up with some questioning of related parties and told me later that they would not pursue the case further. The police classified it as a "civil" case.

How do the authorities expect a feeble and handicapped old man surviving on social welfare money to have the means to take up legal recourse on the matter? In the end, he dropped the case.

I can vividly remember the smile of satisfaction on the assailant's face the instant we told the Subordinate Court's mediator to close the file.

From what I gathered, the volunteer who carried out the assault still continued his service at the centre and a staff who stood up as a witness to the assault had been sacked. Where's justice?

The role of our police has been significantly altered over the past ten years to include security, such as the threat of terrorism. However, a rethink of police duties must be done but not at the expense of public safety.

Jimmy Ho Kwok Hoong

ST Forum

It would seem that this penal code has been around for some time and only now the dirt has surfaced from the depths. One can only imagine the number of cases which saw justice eluding the aggrieved.

oxford mushroom SG

Suppose a man had a quarrel with his wife/girlfriend and in the heat of the moment he slapped her. She goes to the police to make a complaint. Should the police arrest the man and bring him back in handcuffs for investigation into the allegation of 'voluntarily causing hurt', 'cos that's what it is? Should we make the police arrest every husband who slaps his wife, mother who slaps her daughter and siblings who hit each other in domestic disputes?

That is why the law makes a distinction between serious 'seizable' offences which empower the police to arrest and investigate without a warrant versus less serious, 'non-seizable' offences, which require a magistrate's warrant to proceed. This has been enshrined in our law and is not peculiar to us. Malaysia, Britain and many commonwealth nations have similar practices. Such a distinction is also necessary to limit the powers of the police and so safeguard civil liberties to prevent overly draconian police actions.

The list of 'seizable offences' is listed in Schedule A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Causing grievous hurt is a seizable offence whilst voluntarily causing hurt is not. The difference is in the time-honoured, legal concept of wounding. A wound in law refers to a complete break of the skin (an abrasion or a bruise is not a wound) or damage to internal organs and bones, such as a fracture. If the police had arrested someone for 'voluntarily causing hurt' without wounding, the officer would have been guilty of wrongful arrest.

In this case, the police misclassified it because not being a doctor, the officer did not realize there was a fracture. However, as the victim was bleeding from the nose, he should have deduced that there was likely to be a full break in the skin somewhere. (In this case, the break was in the nasal mucosa, not the skin as we commonly understand it, but the courts may accept the mucosa as equivalent.)

As to the issue of why the police arrested the cab driver who struck the MP during his MP surgery (or 'Meet-the-people' session), that's because 'voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty' is a seizable offence in para 332 of the said Schedule A.

Lowclassman SG

Why don't you try slapping a Police Officer? Mr. Green

BillyBong SG

It's very clear that there are specific codes and there are specfic actions so defined in the rulebook.

The main question of course is how our boys in blue are trained to exercise their discretionary powers.

In your example of the wife 'slapping' the poor husband, both parties clearly know each other. The incident very likely occured in their home. So unless domestic disturbance extends to disturbance of one's neighbours, it is perfectly within their right not to 'arrest' anyone.

When some stranger like the volunteer so described in my earlier post, assaults an elderly man in a home, or when a gang of thugs beat up on single individual, i don't see how the police can claim protocol 'prevented' them rendering immediate assistance in catching the culprits.

However laws are written, it is always up to the individual to interpret them. Laws are meant to protect people and serve justice wherever possible. The person entrusted with that sacred task has to perform with a degree of intelligence and flexibility where applicable. If the law or its enforcers cannot even perform the most basic of functions, why bother to respect them?

It does not appear that our officers are trained 'to protect and to serve".

That itself is alarming.

« Previous Page Next Page »