Arrested and cuffed over 3/4-tank rule
-
Friday • November 11, 2005
Letter from Lawrence Seow Kuan Yong
Did you know that if you run afoul of the three-quarter tank petrol rule when crossing the causeway into Johor, and refuse to pay the $50 composition fine offered to first-time offenders because you want to appeal your case in court, you may be treated like a criminal?
The officers make you wait a long while before they explain the charge. Photographs of your car and fuel tank gauge are taken. You are handcuffed and escorted to Clementi Police Station, where your DNA sample, photograph and fingerprints are taken.
If the $5,000 bail is made, you are permitted to go home; otherwise, you will spend the night in jail. Either way, you will appear in court the following day. All this, for not filling up your fuel tank to the three-quarter mark.
This happened to me last month. I am a first-time offender and I do not deny my mistake. The authorities could have simply asked the first-time offender to appear in court the following day, without the indignity of going through all the above. They already had all my details. There was no way for a person in my situation to run.
I wrote to Singapore Customs, and was informed that under the law, if an offender chooses not to accept the offer of a composition (an out of court settlement), then procedurally, he must be charged in court. This would involve arrest, statements, handcuffs, a visit to the police station, etc.
But my question is: Why treat a citizen like a criminal for such a minor offence?
Source:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/83645print.asp -
Can't the Customs people issue a writ of summon there and then? Why make the offender appear like a common crook? It is not like he killed somebody or anything serious.
One more thing, will this go down on record? -
because singapore's society as a whole is twatish. no compassion, and utterly ridiculous. people are mindless robots who can't use their brains independently anymore due to the education system.
-
Bleddy fellows want to act seh.Play big and act as if it will scare people.Overkill is the in thing these days.
-
My Dear Lawrence Seow,
What you have done is no minor offence lah. Everyday, so many Singapore vehicles go to Malaysia – if all don’t obey the law you know how many millions the petrol companies in Singapore are going to lose? Wait until they reveal you the Sadistic of how many millions will be lost – you see, fare cheats deprive Singapore bus companies of $9 million a year.
Since the majority of Singapore citizens donÂ’t earn the salary of our incorruptible ministers, it is therefore highly possible that 99% of Singapore citizens are morally corrupted. As such, they must be treated like criminal mah, especially since you have been found to break the law -- you are already a criminal, no longer just a suspect, understand bo?
Singapore legal system is world class one lah. For example, Ah How, convicted killer of Huang Na, can get across to Malaysia because that time he is only a murder suspect, not convicted yet. Mr Lawrence, you are confirmed to have broken the law what, so how to compare with him? That is why you must be handcuffed. If Ah How escaped, at most one life lost without explanation only what – no money lost. Skali you escaped, who will compensate for the lost of revenue? This is Singapore you know -- must get your priorities right before you complain lah.
Regards,
ObviousMan -
i think only lawyers can issue a writ of summon.
-
Madness
Suspected terrorists can, but minor offences?
-
very good piece! should send to ST!Originally posted by ObviousMan:My Dear Lawrence Seow,
What you have done is no minor offence lah. Everyday, so many Singapore vehicles go to Malaysia – if all don’t obey the law you know how many millions the petrol companies in Singapore are going to lose? Wait until they reveal you the Sadistic of how many millions will be lost – you see, fare cheats deprive Singapore bus companies of $9 million a year.
Since the majority of Singapore citizens donÂ’t earn the salary of our incorruptible ministers, it is therefore highly possible that 99% of Singapore citizens are morally corrupted. As such, they must be treated like criminal mah, especially since you have been found to break the law -- you are already a criminal, no longer just a suspect, understand bo?
Singapore legal system is world class one lah. For example, Ah How, convicted killer of Huang Na, can get across to Malaysia because that time he is only a murder suspect, not convicted yet. Mr Lawrence, you are confirmed to have broken the law what, so how to compare with him? That is why you must be handcuffed. If Ah How escaped, at most one life lost without explanation only what – no money lost. Skali you escaped, who will compensate for the lost of revenue? This is Singapore you know -- must get your priorities right before you complain lah.
Regards,
ObviousMan
-
Dripping with sarcasm.Originally posted by HENG@:very good piece! should send to ST! 
-
this is singapore what.... police all too busy wayanging with minor things.. then big big things they act blur never see....standard SOP they taught in PA (both PA) i think....
-
i wonder if they will shoot someone for smuggling ciggys?
-
A good example why civil society has a part to play in ensuring legislation is not abused.Originally posted by dragg:i wonder if they will shoot someone for smuggling ciggys? -
Such an act only serves to increase the chances of covering up any mistaken accusation made by the C&E people.
-
Well said!!Originally posted by ObviousMan:My Dear Lawrence Seow,
What you have done is no minor offence lah. Everyday, so many Singapore vehicles go to Malaysia – if all don’t obey the law you know how many millions the petrol companies in Singapore are going to lose? Wait until they reveal you the Sadistic of how many millions will be lost – you see, fare cheats deprive Singapore bus companies of $9 million a year.
Since the majority of Singapore citizens donÂ’t earn the salary of our incorruptible ministers, it is therefore highly possible that 99% of Singapore citizens are morally corrupted. As such, they must be treated like criminal mah, especially since you have been found to break the law -- you are already a criminal, no longer just a suspect, understand bo?
Singapore legal system is world class one lah. For example, Ah How, convicted killer of Huang Na, can get across to Malaysia because that time he is only a murder suspect, not convicted yet. Mr Lawrence, you are confirmed to have broken the law what, so how to compare with him? That is why you must be handcuffed. If Ah How escaped, at most one life lost without explanation only what – no money lost. Skali you escaped, who will compensate for the lost of revenue? This is Singapore you know -- must get your priorities right before you complain lah.
Regards,
ObviousMan
Thanks for helping everyone to wake the stoopid idea of Lawrence Seow!
A country can only keep things under control by starting with the small cases. If you can't even take enforcement against such a simple law breaker, how to deal with ppl who commit more serious crimes? -
his offence does not justify handcuffing him.
-
exactly. should be in the Straits Times. I like it!Originally posted by iveco:Dripping with sarcasm. -
I find it rather hard to justify and present my argument on this matter by a letter which in fact is not even a personal incident but a mere speculation.
Naturally, when asked for the procedure dealing with such offender, the relevant authority will relay the standard procedure to the public as they are afterall law enforcer. -
OMG, you get a criminal record and have to give a DNA sample for failing to top up your petrol tank.
-
In such a case, it is impossible to determine what is meant by serious or minor offence.
How can one gauge the severity of a serious crime vs one that is relatively minor? What classifies as minor in the first place?
I am aware of the occasional high-handed position of our beloved man in blue; just take a look at the 40 riot police to subdue 4 silent protesters (5 if you include CSJ) at the CFP building earlier this year.
Their actions on such occasion make SG police the laughing stock of the world.
On the other hand, failure to comply with the 3/4 tank rule constitutes an offence. Failure to provide a deterent response means many will flout the rule and abuse the system. This offence could be compared to a minor speeding violation of >10-15km/h.
In much the same way, drink driving cannot simply be outlawed, it must be enforced. Else drivers will conveniently ignore their road safety obligations and be a danger to themselves and others.
Handcuffing a first-time offender is unfortunately, an unnecessary action. The customs and police officers should have offered the benefit of doubt and hit Mr Seow with a heavy fine and stern warning. After all, he could have simply forgotten to top up (despite all the reminder notices along the way).
It just goes to show that our police do not apply the appropriate discretionary action needed for such circumstances. -
This is just so silly!
Even caught for using handphone while driving gets handphone and SIM card confiscated, fine $1000 and ban driving for 8 months.
The govt is great but I will vote opposition just on this matter alone. Otherwise the govt don't know when to stop milking money from citizens over minor offences. -
Officers on the ground have the discretionary power to "hit a heavy fine and stern warning"?Originally posted by BillyBong:Handcuffing a first-time offender is unfortunately, an unnecessary action. The customs and police officers should have offered the benefit of doubt and hit Mr Seow with a heavy fine and stern warning. After all, he could have simply forgotten to top up (despite all the reminder notices along the way).
It just goes to show that our police do not apply the appropriate discretionary action needed for such circumstances.
I'm not an expert on this but I thot only the public prosecutor or the courts have such dsicretionary powers to vary the penalty imposed. -
There are a number of laws in Singapore that currently, do not seem to need judicial interpretation to carry out apparently.The death penalty is one of them..Originally posted by yoongf:Officers on the ground have the discretionary power to "hit a heavy fine and stern warning"?
I'm not an expert on this but I thot only the public prosecutor or the courts have such dsicretionary powers to vary the penalty imposed.
It's called mandatory sentencing. -
My reference is towards whether police officers found it necessary to handcuff the victim in the first place.Originally posted by yoongf:Officers on the ground have the discretionary power to "hit a heavy fine and stern warning"?
I'm not an expert on this but I thot only the public prosecutor or the courts have such dsicretionary powers to vary the penalty imposed.
As to addressing the charge, they can easily remand the person and seek commeasurable penalties instead of jailing and subjecting the offender just to make a point. -
Ok. perhaps I misunderstood.Originally posted by BillyBong:My reference is towards whether police officers found it necessary to handcuff the victim in the first place.
As to addressing the charge, they can easily remand the person and seek commeasurable penalties instead of jailing and subjecting the offender just to make a point.
Anyway.. I think the writer was trying to make a point, without understanding current practices.
Even for a minor traffic ticket, u pay first, appeal later/concurrently. If appeal successful, fine is refunded.
BTW, he was not jailed, simply remanded, and he was offerred bail. He was to be presented to the courts the next day, which I think is relatively fast for "seeking commeasurable penalties". -
The question then would be: why was there a need to post bail?Originally posted by yoongf:Ok. perhaps I misunderstood.
Anyway.. I think the writer was trying to make a point, without understanding current practices.
Even for a minor traffic ticket, u pay first, appeal later/concurrently. If appeal successful, fine is refunded.
BTW, he was not jailed, simply remanded, and he was offerred bail. He was to be presented to the courts the next day, which I think is relatively fast for "seeking commeasurable penalties".
Was he deemed a flight risk? Was his crime so serious that it warrents the need for bail?