Two
involved in a brawl at Suntec City have reportedly jumped bail.
(AFP file photo)
By Andrew Loh
The Singapore Police Force (SPF) keeps Singapore safe. That is
its job. But what happens if Singaporeans themselves start losing
faith and trust in the force? In recent times, several cases have
dented Singaporeans' confidence in the men in blue.
The most famous case was of terrorist suspect Mas Selamat
Kastari who escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre in 2007.
More recently, Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu was allowed to
leave Singapore even as his case was being investigated by the
police.
Ionescu, the highest-ranking diplomat at the Romanian embassy in
Singapore at the time of the incident, was reported to have hit
three men with his car in the early hours of December 2009. The
incident resulted in the death of Malaysian Tong Kok Wai.
Ionescu has since been charged in Romania for the incident. The
case is still ongoing.
Closer to home, the police's apparent lackadaisical attitude
towards some cases have also raised questions about its
competence.
The Suntec City assault incident involving three foreign men is
now making the rounds on the Internet after The New Paper reported
the assault in 2011, followed by online portals later on.
What frustrates and disappoints the public, particularly, are
two things:
1. The police's silence, even to the victims
of the assault, in providing updates on the case.
2. The police's seeming disinterest in
pursuing the case so that justice is meted out swiftly, and the
victims can have closure to the matter. It took more than a year
before the assailants were charged in court, and it has been 22
months since the night of the assault.
The Suntec City attack was a vicious one carried out by three
foreigners — New Zealander Robert Stephen Dahlberg, Australian
Nathan Robert Miller and Briton Robert James Springall — in the
evening of April 2010.
So far, only Miller has been brought to justice, with a three
weeks sentence in jail. Dahlberg, rather inexplicably, was allowed
to leave Singapore in July last year, just about a month after he
was charged in court.
Springall too was apparently allowed to leave Singapore in
September last year.
Both men have since absconded, leaving the victims of the attack
finding the whole process incredulous.
Disbelief and anger
Online reactions too express disbelief and anger at how the two
expats could be allowed to leave Singapore so easily.
This is not a case of pickpocketing or littering or something
more innocuous. This is a case of a viciously violent assault on
three do-gooders whose only intent that night was to come to the
aid of a cab driver who was being punched, threatened and harassed
by the reportedly drunk men close to midnight.
The three good Samaritans, which were really what they were, put
their lives on the line, as it turned out, to help a
57-year old cabby who pleaded with them to help. A passerby who
chipped in to assist that night was also threatened by the
assailants that he would be killed if he did not get out of their
way while they were escaping from the scene. It was a threat which
had already been effectively carried out on one of those they had
attacked just minutes earlier that night.
To members of the public, it is clear-cut case of assault and
causing grievous hurt. One of the do-gooders had his head slammed
by one of the assailants into the sharp edge of one of the pillars
at the building at Suntec. Blood poured from the wound on his head.
He fell to the floor — only to have the assailant then repeatedly
and mercilessly kick him on the head, rendering him
unconscious.
It is more than fortunate that he was not killed.
Yet, speaking to the two victims, the police seemed
disinterested in lending any urgency to pursuing the matter, even
though the victims had provided the police with all information to
help in the case, and offered themselves in assistance.
It took more than a year before the case finally went to the
courts.
And even after this, two of the three men have been allowed to
escape.
The authorities cannot fault the public, and especially the
victims themselves, if the charge of incompetency is levelled at
the police. One might even say the police officers involved in the
case are inept, lazy and a disgrace to the rest of their colleagues
in the force who are doing good work.
This is a case which should evoke a personal response from the
Minister for Home Affairs. This is a matter of public interest. The
victims have been trying to obtain information from the police but
have been met with a wall of silence.
The Minister for Home Affairs should now take a personal
interest in this case and account to the public the behaviour, the
performance (or lack thereof), and the apparent disinterest and
incompetence of those under his charge.
He should also explain to the public and the victims what his
ministry now plans to do with regards to the two assailants who
have fled our country.
(Read an account of what the victims have to say about the case
here.)
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His
writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the
Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo!
Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in
2011.
