Thanks for your comments, although I would like to point out
that being defensive is not our ethos here. Let me just summarise
the above again from the perspective of an officer, which prompted
our responces:
First, while there has been sighting of "policemen" parking their
cars "illegally" in order to buy food, which is of coz worthy for
complains if proven true, the fact remains that this accusation is
pretty groundless right now. One, we cannot ascertain if the person
who sighted the offending officers are actually members of the
regular SPF. That the complainant has already mistaken immigration
officers as regular SPF officers already casts doubts in his
abilities to differentiate between the various services and their
uniforms. Two, bus interchanges, as far as I know, have a sign
which states that "No entry except authorised vehicles" or
something like that. In theory, it does not specify that
"non-official" uses of the bus interchange is "illegal." Buying
food from public places, btw, is not exactly considered
"non-official."
We agree, that basic professionalism of police officers involve not
showing undue emotions, nor "giving more problems" to the general
public. However, that our responses above are seen as "grumbling"
or "unprofessional" is a debatable conclusion. Pointing out the
fact that officers need to eat, is perhaps seen as "grumbling" to
non-Singaporeans, but an understanding of the Singaporean general
public perceptions of the police force invariably shows, that the
expectations of policemen are so high, that any form of "bodily
maintenance" are expected to be done outside public view. Our
internal rules, quite expectedly, forbid us from sleeping and
resting in public, including being in any pose that appears sloppy.
But in addition to this, the Singaporean public expectations adds a
whole range of "rules,"ranging from not having officers seen to be
eating in public view (including the act of purchasing) as
mentioned above, to perhaps even the usage of public toilets
(especially urinals)?!
Yes, there will indeed be officers who may take advantage of their
"priviledges" in certain cicumstances, but it remains a debatable
notion to argue that officers parking in the bus interchange are
indeed consciously exploitative. Its not like they need to pay for
parking. And its not like they cant walk longer. As I have pointed
out, if they chose to avoid jostling with the general public in
finding a parking lot (and potentially getting even MORE complaints
from disgruntled folks!), is that neccesarily expolitative?
Each localitity have highly different social circumstances, and
hence, it is usually not a good idea to compare our relations with
the general public with that of other societies. For example, the
turnover rate of police officers in Singapore is relatively high.
Officers are promoted relatively quickly, shuffled around either by
post (which can affect their job scopes) or geographically to other
locations, and young Singaporeans are notoriously mobile when it
comes to their career choices. In addition, consider how much the
SPf relies on volatile manpower souces like NS police and the VSCs.
The former, in particular, do not stay for more then 2 years now.
Which other police force in the world relies so much on national
service officers and volunteers, all of which wears the same
uniform completely indistinguisable from each other?
If some of you still do not know, I myself is a member of the VSC.
In order words, I am a reservist with the SAF (on holding list now
thou. 
), is a student (and hence a
civilian), and yet, also a volunteer policeman vested with policing
powers. By my personal experiences of having a hand or leg in all
three perspectives concurrently, I have had to see the same events
from multiple perspectives at once, and this, I hope, allows me to
contribute subtaintiatlly and objectively to this discussion here,
without u guys classifying me as "an officer" or "a civilian," and
making presumptions on my bias and so on, if any of you did so.
