Assault 'a civil case', so no police action
-
Cant agree with you more!!!Originally posted by ShutterBug:Bluddy hell.. MP gets a punch, the old man gets wisked away immediately to the Stattion.
If this isn't PREJUDICE, I don't know WHAT is!
TKCSS!
Biased against govt itself.
Why isn't MP asked to seek magistrate first? -
If you kiddies get beaten up by hooligans after 11pm in singapore, I dunno which is more serious. Getting beaten up, or "what were you doing outside after 11pm?"
-
Govt can be so contradictory and unfair and biased.
MP punched lightly, man gets arrested immediately. Man gets assualted by gang, asked to seek magistrate?
CNA can air and make programme on PAP's power, history and achievements all throughout Asia and a small non-promontional film about opposition leader was treated with such seriosness?
-
Another letter from a fellow doctor incensed by the 'hopeless' police:
When does an assault become a criminal case?
Aug 17, 2006
The Straits Times
I REFER to the letter, 'Assault 'a civil case', so no police action' (ST, Aug
, by Ms Liew Sok Kuan.
Singapore reputedly possesses an excellent legal system and public security. I am therefore astounded as to why the police would label the assault on the doctor at a food stall as merely a civil case, and not criminal activity.
If, indeed, a group of hooligans can approach any peace-loving citizen in a food centre and give that person a beating without infringing any criminal law, I would fear for the safety of my family and friends.
As the incident was earlier classified as a civil case, the victim would theoretically be required to garner evidence if he wanted to pursue the issue in court. On top of that, he must be able to cough up $10,000 to $20,000 to file a civil suit against the perpetrators. Therefore, if the victim is unable to gather the required witnesses, or to pay for the civil suit, the perpetrators would go scot-free.
Although the case was subsequently reclassified under Section 325 from Section 323, I agree with Ms Liew's observation that 'the attitude of the police, as demonstrated in this case, will only serve to embolden hooligans to commit even more such offences'. Hypothetically speaking, a person can beat up anyone in the street, and the police cannot carry out any arrest, investigation or prosecution because it is only a civil case.
This begs the question: Should law-abiding citizens call the police if they witness such cases of assault? Or should they fold their arms, and let the victim settle the dispute in the Magistrates' Court?
Furthermore, an assault is presumably not criminal unless there is outrage of modesty, rape or grievous injury, or death - in which case it would be manslaughter or murder.
Should we, then, avoid calling the police until the incident evolves into a more serious scenario, that is, until the perpetrator sexually abuses, maims or kills the victim?
The police should clarify what constitutes criminal assault and what constitutes a civil offence. In this way, victims in a similar case would know what is the best course of action to take.
Dr Vincent Chia Wei Meng
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE'S HANDS TIED
A person can beat up anyone but, because it is a civil case, the police cannot carry out any arrest, probe or prosecution
The above statement is plain stupid. Who invented this ridiculous law?
So the police have also outsourced local beat-ups and will just stand and watch victims get hammered before they pass the injured victim a referral form?
What a joke. -
This means to say that, after 11pm, we can all go out there and beat up people (including kids) and not be committing an offence??Originally posted by ditzy:If you kiddies get beaten up by hooligans after 11pm in singapore, I dunno which is more serious. Getting beaten up, or "what were you doing outside after 11pm?"
Beating up people is OK after 11pm?? -
let's start beating up the people we cannot tahan.
but juz be careful dont fracture them ok?
-
beating up people is OK as long as u dont fracture themOriginally posted by ShutterBug:This means to say that, after 11pm, we can all go out there and beat up people (including kids) and not be committing an offence??
Beating up people is OK after 11pm?? -
Precisely.Originally posted by redstone:Govt can be so contradictory and unfair and biased.
MP punched lightly, man gets arrested immediately. Man gets assualted by gang, asked to seek magistrate?
CNA can air and make programme on PAP's power, history and achievements all throughout Asia and a small non-promontional film about opposition leader was treated with such seriosness?
I mean, what is the point of all this wayang?
If our gov DON'T allow for oppositions to voice themselves, what for they hold a GE? It's like entering into a race, and telling competitors (directly or indirectly) that they mustn't win them in the race, or else!
Who is the Bigger Bully??? -
You remember the ruling about people under a certain age being out of the house after 11pm?Originally posted by ShutterBug:This means to say that, after 11pm, we can all go out there and beat up people (including kids) and not be committing an offence??
Beating up people is OK after 11pm?? -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
This is the purest form of NONSENSE I have ever come across!
Another letter from a fellow doctor incensed by the 'hopeless' police:
When does an assault become a criminal case?
Aug 17, 2006
The Straits Times
I REFER to the letter, 'Assault 'a civil case', so no police action' (ST, Aug, by Ms Liew Sok Kuan.
Singapore reputedly possesses an excellent legal system and public security. I am therefore astounded as to why the police would label the assault on the doctor at a food stall as merely a civil case, and not criminal activity.
If, indeed, a group of hooligans can approach any peace-loving citizen in a food centre and give that person a beating without infringing any criminal law, I would fear for the safety of my family and friends.
As the incident was earlier classified as a civil case, the victim would theoretically be required to garner evidence if he wanted to pursue the issue in court. On top of that, he must be able to cough up $10,000 to $20,000 to file a civil suit against the perpetrators. Therefore, if the victim is unable to gather the required witnesses, or to pay for the civil suit, the perpetrators would go scot-free.
Although the case was subsequently reclassified under Section 325 from Section 323, I agree with Ms Liew's observation that 'the attitude of the police, as demonstrated in this case, will only serve to embolden hooligans to commit even more such offences'. Hypothetically speaking, a person can beat up anyone in the street, and the police cannot carry out any arrest, investigation or prosecution because it is only a civil case.
This begs the question: Should law-abiding citizens call the police if they witness such cases of assault? Or should they fold their arms, and let the victim settle the dispute in the Magistrates' Court?
Furthermore, an assault is presumably not criminal unless there is outrage of modesty, rape or grievous injury, or death - in which case it would be manslaughter or murder.
Should we, then, avoid calling the police until the incident evolves into a more serious scenario, that is, until the perpetrator sexually abuses, maims or kills the victim?
The police should clarify what constitutes criminal assault and what constitutes a civil offence. In this way, victims in a similar case would know what is the best course of action to take.
Dr Vincent Chia Wei Meng
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]POLICE'S HANDS TIED
A person can beat up anyone but, because it is a civil case, the police cannot carry out any arrest, probe or prosecution
The above statement is plain stupid. Who invented this ridiculous law?
So the police have also outsourced local beat-ups and will just stand and watch victims get hammered before they pass the injured victim a referral form?
What a joke.[/b]
Hey everyone, this means I can come with my friends and beat you up and you can't do anything about it!
Whos' friggin brain-dead policy is this? What kind of brain-dead red-tape is this??? -
Yah - it's also like the Subutex stupidity....Originally posted by ditzy:You remember the ruling about people under a certain age being out of the house after 11pm? -
Precisly!Originally posted by ShutterBug:This is the purest form of NONSENSE I have ever come across!
Hey everyone, this means I can come with my friends and beat you up and you can't do anything about it!
Whos' friggin brain-dead policy is this? What kind of brain-dead red-tape is this???
So I can beat up anyone I like and that person has to seek magistrate?
What if the person beaten up is not rich or is injured in such a way that he can't seek the magistrate? So the attacker can go out and beat anyone he likes, as long as he thinks the person can't afford $10, 000 to fight the case?!
oh god!
-
Me: "Hey, you have money or not?"Originally posted by redstone:Precisly!
So I can beat up anyone I like and that person has to seek magistrate?
What if the person beaten up is not rich or is injured in such a way that he can't seek the magistrate? So the attacker can go out and beat anyone he likes, as long as he thinks the person can't afford $1K to fight the case?!
oh god!
You: "No leh."
Me: "Good."
You: "Why leh?"
Me: *HANTAM YOU*
You: "Why you hantam me?"
Me: "I happy what, anyway you no money to seek the magistrate."
You: "Hmm, you got a point there."
Me: "Of course. neh nee neh nee boo boo" -
let's organize an outing to whack passerby with stuckup look.
all participants are to wear boxing gloves to ensure that the target suffer no fracture. -
Put a scenario to you guys.
A gang beats up this guy. Guy asked to seek magistrate. Guy apparently no injury. Suddenly guy dies cos of (let's say internal bleeding). By then the gang would had scattered.
Some system and stupid f red tape!!! -
Implications on public security troubling
I REFER to Ms Audrey Ang's reply, 'Police explain actions taken in assault case' (ST, Aug 16). While Ms Ang may have clarified Dr Liew's case, I find some statements relating to general public security more appalling than appeasing.
I always look up to our men in blue as our first line of defence when things go wrong. I shudder to think that our law enforcers can become, or seem to be, powerless, as in the case of violence involving Dr Liew, who suffered a bloodied nose.
If I have read it correctly, the police stand is this: if you have been attacked by someone, first go for a medical check-up. The police can only 'exercise full powers of investigation' if you have serious injuries.
If all policemen were to follow this 'standard operating procedure', are we not allowing the culprits more time to escape, thus enabling and emboldening them to repeat their crime somewhere else?
Daniel Chan Wai Piew
ST Forum -
Not only is this bluddy UNBECOMING, it is God Damned STUPID!
The whole friggin point is, it is WRONGFUL to physically ATTACK another person!
What the FXXK with medical examinations?
So what, I can bluddy whack or happy-slap a person and smile and walk away??? What if idiots out there take to Happy Slapping and those who can fight will fight back and we have a friggin' battle ground outside!!
This kind of legalities will only breed MORE VIOLENCE!
Wake up you government people!!! -
I think this latest reply was the sharpest of all.
Revise the penal code to give police more powers to fight crime
Aug 18, 2006
It is disconcerting to read the explanation of Ms Audrey Ang, Assistant Director (Media Relations), Singapore Police Force (ST Aug 16) on police inaction regarding Dr Liew's report of assault (Ms Liew Sok Kuan's letter "Assault a civil case, so no police action", ST, Aug.
The police force is and should be seen as an effective guardian of public order and security.
Ms Ang's reply that the police requires a magistrate's authorisation to commence investigations into a simple report of assault is sadly incongruous with the lofty and noble work that policemen are expected to do by ordinary citizens.
Does the police have to operate within the shadow of a magistrate, a junior court officer, in investigation work, notwithstanding its public standing and organisational structure?
Can the police inspire public confidence when its investigations are hindered and the victim of an offence is made to suffer pain and injustice as a result, or when some bad hats escape and go scot-free due to the delay?
Clearly, the penal code needs to be revised for our police force to be more responsive and competent in tackling crime.
Above all, Dr Liew's case demonstrates that the devil is in the law as contained in Section 323 of the penal code, which has made chickens of the police officers at the scene, albeit they "should have treated the incident more seriously based on the circumstances that led to the assault on Dr Liew."
It behooves the Singapore Police Force to scrutinise and update its enabling legislation from time to time in order that its work is not compromised in any way. The police should strive for no less than excellence in this respect.
Yap Swee Hoo
ST Forum
The paragraph about chickens was really a hit... -
Oh boy, I wonder what response they'll give...
-
i rather kana beaten up.Originally posted by ditzy:If you kiddies get beaten up by hooligans after 11pm in singapore, I dunno which is more serious. Getting beaten up, or "what were you doing outside after 11pm?"
at least i get symphatise. kana arrested, gt one big black mark in my records forever. i met some guai lan police before.
i think they won't issue a response. bullseye lor. -
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. -
Our police force has become the PAP's Gestapo. They're meant to rein in dissenters , and not to protect and serve the peopleOriginally posted by redstone: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. -
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.
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 -
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? -
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.