Arrested and cuffed over 3/4-tank rule
-
This is why the ultimate guardian of the state has to be the people and the press, not full executive and unchecked power of the incumbent government.
-
Sounds fishy.....this is not a seizable offence so all he should get is just a ticket. In fact, he cannot be arrested without a warrant....
Perhaps he is not telling us something. If he had threatened or became violent with the the police officers then yes, that would be a seizable offence and he can be arrested. -
I agree.If that man was violent, the Police would be justified in restraining him.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Sounds fishy.....this is not a seizable offence so all he should get is just a ticket. In fact, he cannot be arrested without a warrant....
Perhaps he is not telling us something. If he had threatened or became violent with the the police officers then yes, that would be a seizable offence and he can be arrested. -
you have no idea how many people become so enraged that they have been caught red-handed, and create so much racket that the police have to be activated to remove them..
maybe it's because they feel humiliated that they have been caught?
who knows? -
If he is caught for not topping up petrol at the check point, and he disagreed with the interpretation of 3/4 tank he has a good ground not to admit the offence and resist the fine. He can be issued a summons to attend court.
Assuming that he tried to explain and the officer failed to listen and because of that he resisted with some kind of roughness, I doubt that should be immediately regarded as anything seizable. -
it is not seizable.. HOWEVER.. if he had tampered with the fuel gauge (which is common.. just go over to JB and ask the mechanics there if it can be done), the LTA and Singapore Customs may have something to say about itOriginally posted by robertteh:If he is caught for not topping up petrol at the check point, and he disagreed with the interpretation of 3/4 tank he has a good ground not to admit the offence and resist the fine. He can be issued a summons to attend court.
Assuming that he tried to explain and the officer failed to listen and because of that he resisted with some kind of roughness, I doubt that should be immediately regarded as anything seizable. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Getting physical with police officers is definitely not a good idea, whether the officer is male or female
If he is caught for not topping up petrol at the check point, and he disagreed with the interpretation of 3/4 tank he has a good ground not to admit the offence and resist the fine. He can be issued a summons to attend court.
Assuming that he tried to explain and the officer failed to listen and because of that he resisted with some kind of roughness, I doubt that should be immediately regarded as anything seizable.
-
Even if he had tampered with the gauge it still would not qualify as a seizable offence.Originally posted by the Bear:it is not seizable.. HOWEVER.. if he had tampered with the fuel gauge (which is common.. just go over to JB and ask the mechanics there if it can be done), the LTA and Singapore Customs may have something to say about it
My feeling is that he must have threatened or had physical conflict with the police. People do not realize that threatening violence is enough to constitute assault. ...if you do hit the police officer, it's battery and both are seizable offences if they are committed against a public servant to prevent him from going about his duty. -
That hopefully was the past and for the sake of our maturing civility, the police power to arrest people for emotional outburst at the scene will be used as a last resort with full justifications. An accused is human to get emotional and should be given some leeway.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Getting physical with police officers is definitely not a good idea, whether the officer is male or female -
if we arrested everyone who had an emotional outburst, the police charge office would be chock-full of irate or crying people..
Originally posted by robertteh:That hopefully was the past and for the sake of our maturing civility, the police power to arrest people for emotional outburst at the scene will be used as a last resort with full justifications. An accused is human to get emotional and should be given some leeway. -
Hihi,Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Sounds fishy.....this is not a seizable offence so all he should get is just a ticket. In fact, he cannot be arrested without a warrant....
Perhaps he is not telling us something. If he had threatened or became violent with the the police officers then yes, that would be a seizable offence and he can be arrested.
This is my 1st post. Its an interesting forum. I work in 1 of the checkpoints too.
I would like to say that under the Customs Act, we have the power to arrest somebody without any arrest warrant if he is suspected of fouling anything that is under this Act. We do not need an arrest warrant if we have sufficient evident, unlike the police.
If they have offered him a fine and he refused to pay, the next alternative is go court.
I dont think its right to give us ppl a bad name. We are just doing our job. We are out to make a living just like everyone here. If we were to let him off or offer other alternatives which is not under the Regulations or Act, do you think we would not get into trouble?
We are all human beings and most of us do have compassion. If you guys are unhappy, you should request the Legislator to amend the Act. The top ppl in customs cant change the law, not to say we small flies. We have to cover our own backside too.
The above is purely my opinion. -
You guys following the issue?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Sounds fishy.....this is not a seizable offence so all he should get is just a ticket. In fact, he cannot be arrested without a warrant....
Perhaps he is not telling us something. If he had threatened or became violent with the the police officers then yes, that would be a seizable offence and he can be arrested.
The writer has since clarified that he paid the fine upon knowing the next best alternative -- $50 vs a trip to police station plus stay in jail. Like they say, Singapore is a FINE city.
Updates from Today:
Handcuffs will leave a stigma for life
Treatment should be commensurate with severity of offence
Tuesday • November 15, 2005
Letter from Narayana Narayana
Letter from Jimmy Ho Kwok Hoong
Caught at the checkpoint with less than a three-quarter full tank of petrol, reader Lawrence Seow Kuan Yong (Nov 11) only agreed to pay the $50 composition fine for first-time offenders after he was told that if he refused, he would have to undergo the necessary procedures to be charged in court — such as being handcuffed and fingerprinted at the police station.
Readers have since weighed in on the debate as to whether minor offences warrant the handcuff treatment.
Mr Lionel de Souza pre-empts the official reply with his letter "Fear cuffs? Obey rules" (Nov 14).
With due respect to his experience in the Police Force, he voices what is probably the official view, and the law, that "regardless of the severity of the offence, an accused person should be handcuffed".
Although there have been rare cases of "an accused person who escapes", his days of freedom can be limited at best.
Mr de Souza does not seem to feel much empathy for the common people who view the "mata-mata" with a sense of dread, even if they have done no wrong or have no cause to fear the police.
Any individual's hard-built reputation can be shattered if he or she is led away by the police, even without the mandatory handcuffs. Even a subsequent verdict of innocence is unlikely to wipe away the stigma entirely.
I recall my similar experience with Singapore Customs more than 10 years ago. Then, the rule called for half a tank of petrol, which I ran short of for the first time.
A customs officer led me to the administration office where I waited for 45 minutes on a couch while my wife and children waited in my car, wondering what was happening.
Two customs officers handling my case were chit-chatting instead of working. When I finally lost my patience, I stood up and started reading some papers pinned on a notice board — but was told by one officer to sit still and "behave" myself.
I count myself lucky that I had accepted to pay the $50 fine outright.
The law seems to reflect that our system does not have the patience and time to deal with petty offences committed, deliberately or not, by ordinary Singaporeans.
It seems like anyone who is reluctant to accept a composition penalty and wants to appeal may be strongly discouraged with the prospect of being handcuffed and locked up.
Possibly, such measures exist to ensure that the police and the courts are not unnecessarily bothered.
Mr de Souza's rationale that it is safer to handcuff everyone accused of committing a minor offence "in case he is guilty of a serious crime" is absurd.
The treatment an accused person receives must be commensurate with the severity of the alleged offence.
We don't go around castrating all Singapore men just to prevent the rise in rape cases!
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/84352print.asp -
Yes, you are right and thanks for pointing that out. Obviously I was mistaken because the offence is not listed among seizable offences in Schedule A of the CPC. Sect 112 of the Customs Act certainly allows Customs officers to arrest without warrant.Originally posted by Scavenger77:Hihi,
This is my 1st post. Its an interesting forum. I work in 1 of the checkpoints too.
I would like to say that under the Customs Act, we have the power to arrest somebody without any arrest warrant if he is suspected of fouling anything that is under this Act. We do not need an arrest warrant if we have sufficient evident, unlike the police.
If they have offered him a fine and he refused to pay, the next alternative is go court.
I dont think its right to give us ppl a bad name. We are just doing our job. We are out to make a living just like everyone here. If we were to let him off or offer other alternatives which is not under the Regulations or Act, do you think we would not get into trouble?
We are all human beings and most of us do have compassion. If you guys are unhappy, you should request the Legislator to amend the Act. The top ppl in customs cant change the law, not to say we small flies. We have to cover our own backside too.
The above is purely my opinion.
In view of this, I must say it does appear an overkill to arrest someone without warrant for breaking the three-quarters tank rule. In contrast, if he had paid the fine but instead slapped a passerby, he could be charged for voluntarily causing hurt under the Penal Code but the officer cannot arrest him without a summon.
The problem is that the three-quarter tank rule is considered of the same order as someone who tries to smuggle cigarettes or alcohol. That cannot be right. -
Lets see if I get this right. Any person who brings in 2 cartons or more cigs without permit and no declaration is consider smuggling and it can be a court case.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Yes, you are right and thanks for pointing that out. Obviously I was mistaken because the offence is not listed among seizable offences in Schedule A of the CPC. Sect 112 of the Customs Act certainly allows Customs officers to arrest without warrant.
In view of this, I must say it does appear an overkill to arrest someone without warrant for breaking the three-quarters tank rule. In contrast, if he had paid the fine but instead slapped a passerby, he could be charged for voluntarily causing hurt under the Penal Code but the officer cannot arrest him without a summon.
The problem is that the three-quarter tank rule is considered of the same order as someone who tries to smuggle cigarettes or alcohol. That cannot be right.
For common folks like us, if we bring in 2 packets of cigs without declaring, it can be considered hiding. Customs will offer a fine for this instance. If the offender refuse to pay the fine, it can be a court case. It is similar to the 3/4 tank rule. The person is trying to evade duty, regardless of cigs or petrol. -
THe 1/2 tank rule, IMO was good enough. Why did they have to change it?
-
because they need more money to pay half million to million dollar ministers. There is no capped. Next year will be more, because they benchmark with the top earners here. How can they compared their pay with the CEO of big companies here whom mostly are the founders or inheritance or related? or the big MNCs. Most big companies doing very well especially oil and shipping and banking related.Originally posted by iveco:THe 1/2 tank rule, IMO was good enough. Why did they have to change it?
same as the benefits of share options or profit sharing. Share rally, give share options, share down, give profit sharing. These big bosses, will alternate between the two to maximise their rewards.
Our gov operates the same way, money first, and cut tax of high paying executives, and Impose 5% GST to all, including those income too low or no income to pay tax.
Anyway half tank really cannot save much, maybe $25 per trip, with 3/4 maybe $20 per trip for avearge person who take the trouble to save. unless very big cc cars. Anyway its only those stay close to north or west will benefit. -
tempering with off peak coupons or fuel gauge is damn serious. I think its classified as cheating the gov.
-
maybe next time you will be sent to jail for short paying NTUC fairprice.
-
Yes, first they start to protect their own transport companies from fare cheat the next move will probably be to protect NTUC from shopping cheats.Originally posted by edenboy:maybe next time you will be sent to jail for short paying NTUC fairprice.
When GLCs lose monies from earlier liberalising of mobile phone market, they will also be protected from business loss. -
Originally posted by robertteh:Yes, first they start to protect transport companies from fare cheat the next move will probably be to protect NTUC from shopping cheats.
When GLCs lose monies from earlier liberalising of mobile phone market, they will also be protected from business loss. -
-
NTUC has very strict procedures for delivery and accepting of supplies. They are on the assumption that when supplies delivered and accept by them its 100% correct. If any shortfall, they will penalise the supplier or make police report. They don;t even do 10% check for quantities. Its expected to be 100% and in good order.Originally posted by edenboy:maybe next time you will be sent to jail for short paying NTUC fairprice. -
Going against the trend of liberalisation.Instead we see their fingers in all the pies.Now who's gonna eat a pie that has been touched?Originally posted by robertteh:Yes, first they start to protect their own transport companies from fare cheat the next move will probably be to protect NTUC from shopping cheats.
When GLCs lose monies from earlier liberalising of mobile phone market, they will also be protected from business loss.
-
The day the government decided to corporatise government services in areas like housing, transportation, utiltiies, medical and media services and charge full costs of provision of services to avoid welfarism or charge back costs at full values or market prices to make profits that was the day that pre-determined the kind of economy of future Singapore.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Going against the trend of liberalisation.Instead we see their fingers in all the pies.Now who's gonna eat a pie that has been touched?
The Singapore's economy today is one where the private sector economy cannot grow any more because it is overwhelmed by government taking over all the business opportunities while unable to sustain the displaced private entrepreneurship. If such public sector economy which took over the private sector keep paying for costs of employments of CEOs and highly paid staff without producing any practical entrepreneurship in them, we are risking killing off the private sector economy in Singapore.
Many years down the road we will only keep paying high salaries to sustain public employees without creating entrepreneurship or vibrancy as these public employees will be sitting on opportunities without corresponding competitiveness that thrive in private sector competitions.
I have serious doubts that any of our civil servants could replace or outperform private enterprises. They are only at most able to create higher costs which at the end have to be subsidized by government or charge citizens higher and higher fees to sustain their high costs and loss of competitiveness. -
The last time the bubble was pricked, it was horrendous.IF this bubble is not checked, I see worst.