Assault 'a civil case', so no police action
-
Interesting thought.Originally posted by av98m:Our police force has become the PAP's Gestapo. They're meant to rein in dissenters , and not to protect and serve the people
-
and you know it will never happen hereOriginally posted by charlize: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.
-
To err is human. Learn from it.
-
Your point?Originally posted by TooFree:To err is human. Learn from it. -
From this incident, we learn 4 things:Originally posted by TooFree:To err is human. Learn from it.
>> You can go beat others up, or others can beat you up
>> The Police is useless
>> Singapore no longer that safe
>> Police only act on issues concerning government -
Seriously police seem to be siding govt more.Originally posted by fudgester: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?
But then again it's assault of civil servant carrying out public duties.
Not that MP shouldn't be 'protected' like this. But let EVERYONE have the same treatment! What is police up to? Siding?
So we can gang assault someone in front of Police HQ and legally police can't do anything as long as no fractures and below the 'illegal gathering' number of people? -
So I believe police's been erring for the past 30, 40 years.Originally posted by TooFree:To err is human. Learn from it. -
Maybe it's part of a conspiracy to create more jobs.... don't believe me? Count the ways...
(1) Innocent dude gets beaten up - goes on MC, boss need to hire temp worker
(2) Increase attendance at A&E (which as we all know, is always empty and got no queue)
(3) Create work for private investigators, lawyers, judges, etc. (civil case mah, police and AG cannot touch)
(4) More people buy medical insurance, so insurance agent business also go up
(5) And of course, 369 gang recruitment also go up, since they now not scared to get caught.
Only person who lose business is the poor uncle selling beef kway teow, since nobody dare to eat at his stall anymore. -
The police is supposed to be safe guarding our safety and upholding the law. They already been absolved of parking tickets duties and recently even road accidents without injuries are no longer their concern. Now this too. What do their job actually consist of?
-
I'm pretty sure he got punched, but there was no fracture.Originally posted by fudgester: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? -
When that happens, a meteorite will land on you.Originally posted by charlize:And maybe the Home Affairs minister will have to come out to publicly apologize for the BS that just just occurred. -
This is 2 days old but it sheds some light on the possibility of the number of underreported cases involving this bureaucratic red tape and lack of justice:
No justice for old man because police classified assault as a 'civil' case
Aug 19, 2006
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
ST Forum
It would seem that this penal code has been around for some time and only now the dirt has surfaced from the depths. One can only imagine the number of cases which saw justice eluding the aggrieved. -
Suppose a man had a quarrel with his wife/girlfriend and in the heat of the moment he slapped her. She goes to the police to make a complaint. Should the police arrest the man and bring him back in handcuffs for investigation into the allegation of 'voluntarily causing hurt', 'cos that's what it is? Should we make the police arrest every husband who slaps his wife, mother who slaps her daughter and siblings who hit each other in domestic disputes?
That is why the law makes a distinction between serious 'seizable' offences which empower the police to arrest and investigate without a warrant versus less serious, 'non-seizable' offences, which require a magistrate's warrant to proceed. This has been enshrined in our law and is not peculiar to us. Malaysia, Britain and many commonwealth nations have similar practices. Such a distinction is also necessary to limit the powers of the police and so safeguard civil liberties to prevent overly draconian police actions.
The list of 'seizable offences' is listed in Schedule A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Causing grievous hurt is a seizable offence whilst voluntarily causing hurt is not. The difference is in the time-honoured, legal concept of wounding. A wound in law refers to a complete break of the skin (an abrasion or a bruise is not a wound) or damage to internal organs and bones, such as a fracture. If the police had arrested someone for 'voluntarily causing hurt' without wounding, the officer would have been guilty of wrongful arrest.
In this case, the police misclassified it because not being a doctor, the officer did not realize there was a fracture. However, as the victim was bleeding from the nose, he should have deduced that there was likely to be a full break in the skin somewhere. (In this case, the break was in the nasal mucosa, not the skin as we commonly understand it, but the courts may accept the mucosa as equivalent.)
As to the issue of why the police arrested the cab driver who struck the MP during his MP surgery (or 'Meet-the-people' session), that's because 'voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty' is a seizable offence in para 332 of the said Schedule A. -
Why don't you try slapping a Police Officer?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Suppose a man had a quarrel with his wife/girlfriend and in the heat of the moment he slapped her. She goes to the police to make a complaint. Should the police arrest the man and bring him back in handcuffs for investigation into the allegation of 'voluntarily causing hurt', 'cos that's what it is? Should we make the police arrest every husband who slaps his wife, mother who slaps her daughter and siblings who hit each other in domestic disputes?
That is why the law makes a distinction between serious 'seizable' offences which empower the police to arrest and investigate without a warrant versus less serious, 'non-seizable' offences, which require a magistrate's warrant to proceed. This has been enshrined in our law and is not peculiar to us. Malaysia, Britain and many commonwealth nations have similar practices. Such a distinction is also necessary to limit the powers of the police and so safeguard civil liberties to prevent overly draconian police actions.
The list of 'seizable offences' is listed in Schedule A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Causing grievous hurt is a seizable offence whilst voluntarily causing hurt is not. The difference is in the time-honoured, legal concept of wounding. A wound in law refers to a complete break of the skin (an abrasion or a bruise is not a wound) or damage to internal organs and bones, such as a fracture. If the police had arrested someone for 'voluntarily causing hurt' without wounding, the officer would have been guilty of wrongful arrest.
In this case, the police misclassified it because not being a doctor, the officer did not realize there was a fracture. However, as the victim was bleeding from the nose, he should have deduced that there was likely to be a full break in the skin somewhere. (In this case, the break was in the nasal mucosa, not the skin as we commonly understand it, but the courts may accept the mucosa as equivalent.)
As to the issue of why the police arrested the cab driver who struck the MP during his MP surgery (or 'Meet-the-people' session), that's because 'voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty' is a seizable offence in para 332 of the said Schedule A.
-
It's very clear that there are specific codes and there are specfic actions so defined in the rulebook.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Suppose a man had a quarrel with his wife/girlfriend and in the heat of the moment he slapped her. She goes to the police to make a complaint. Should the police arrest the man and bring him back in handcuffs for investigation into the allegation of 'voluntarily causing hurt', 'cos that's what it is? Should we make the police arrest every husband who slaps his wife, mother who slaps her daughter and siblings who hit each other in domestic disputes?
That is why the law makes a distinction between serious 'seizable' offences which empower the police to arrest and investigate without a warrant versus less serious, 'non-seizable' offences, which require a magistrate's warrant to proceed. This has been enshrined in our law and is not peculiar to us. Malaysia, Britain and many commonwealth nations have similar practices. Such a distinction is also necessary to limit the powers of the police and so safeguard civil liberties to prevent overly draconian police actions.
The list of 'seizable offences' is listed in Schedule A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Causing grievous hurt is a seizable offence whilst voluntarily causing hurt is not. The difference is in the time-honoured, legal concept of wounding. A wound in law refers to a complete break of the skin (an abrasion or a bruise is not a wound) or damage to internal organs and bones, such as a fracture. If the police had arrested someone for 'voluntarily causing hurt' without wounding, the officer would have been guilty of wrongful arrest.
In this case, the police misclassified it because not being a doctor, the officer did not realize there was a fracture. However, as the victim was bleeding from the nose, he should have deduced that there was likely to be a full break in the skin somewhere. (In this case, the break was in the nasal mucosa, not the skin as we commonly understand it, but the courts may accept the mucosa as equivalent.)
As to the issue of why the police arrested the cab driver who struck the MP during his MP surgery (or 'Meet-the-people' session), that's because 'voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty' is a seizable offence in para 332 of the said Schedule A.
The main question of course is how our boys in blue are trained to exercise their discretionary powers.
In your example of the wife 'slapping' the poor husband, both parties clearly know each other. The incident very likely occured in their home. So unless domestic disturbance extends to disturbance of one's neighbours, it is perfectly within their right not to 'arrest' anyone.
When some stranger like the volunteer so described in my earlier post, assaults an elderly man in a home, or when a gang of thugs beat up on single individual, i don't see how the police can claim protocol 'prevented' them rendering immediate assistance in catching the culprits.
However laws are written, it is always up to the individual to interpret them. Laws are meant to protect people and serve justice wherever possible. The person entrusted with that sacred task has to perform with a degree of intelligence and flexibility where applicable. If the law or its enforcers cannot even perform the most basic of functions, why bother to respect them?
It does not appear that our officers are trained 'to protect and to serve".
That itself is alarming. -
If individuals can pick and choose which laws to follow or interprete them as they see fit, there will be chaos in society. The only way citizens can change a law we think no longer serve our interests is through law reform via the Parliament. We cannot allow individual police officers to interprete the law as they see fit. That's the function of the courts to rule.Originally posted by BillyBong:However laws are written, it is always up to the individual to interpret them. Laws are meant to protect people and serve justice wherever possible. The person entrusted with that sacred task has to perform with a degree of intelligence and flexibility where applicable. If the law or its enforcers cannot even perform the most basic of functions, why bother to respect them?
It does not appear that our officers are trained 'to protect and to serve".
That itself is alarming.
The police must uphold the law as it stands. It is not for them to change it or re-interpret it as they see fit. -
Why don't you read properly before commenting?Originally posted by Lowclassman:Why don't you try slapping a Police Officer?
'voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty' is a seizable offence in para 332 of the said Schedule A. -
It seemed this cases of maid abuse such as slapping the maid or kicking the maid
he police is keen on taking cases whereas assault cases involving both
Sporean seemed to be categorized as civil case. -
In that case, you have merely a law without morals. Suppose you were set upon by a gang of misfits who hammered you senseless over a childish staring incident. Having called the police, your first express request after being bloodied and beaten is that they chase after and arrest the assailants.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If individuals can pick and choose which laws to follow or interprete them as they see fit, there will be chaos in society. The only way citizens can change a law we think no longer serve our interests is through law reform via the Parliament. We cannot allow individual police officers to interprete the law as they see fit. That's the function of the courts to rule.
The police must uphold the law as it stands. It is not for them to change it or re-interpret it as they see fit.
Instead, they hand you a referral form and ask you to check with the magistrate's court. This scene has been replayed many times and it still makes no human sense.
Not even cow sense.
I do not require the police to 'misinterpret' nor 'reinterpret' the law, but there are situations such as this where it screams of action instead of inaction, and they are well within their boundaries to act accordingly based on circumstances. Terms such as justifiable homicide exists precisely because law enforcement officers have killed people in the line of duty when they made judgement calls. -
When a gang of thugs(5 or more) beat up on 1 guy, it is a seizable case of Rioting. The newspaper article in question stated only 2 guys wacked the victim.Originally posted by BillyBong:or when a gang of thugs beat up on single individual, i don't see how the police can claim protocol 'prevented' them rendering immediate assistance in catching the culprits.
Of course, if the assault occurs in the P.O's presence, they can arrest the aggressor. -
The Book of Great Learning 'Daxue' (one of the 'Four Books' in classical Confucian texts), puts it this way: "Objects have a root and an end, matters have a commencement and a conclusion. Knowing the proper order of things is the key to the right path."
For order in society the citizenry must follow the established order, which in our case, is the set of laws set out in the Statutes. No law is perfect and it is not possible to anticipate every situation in complex day-to-day interpersonal interactions. There is a mechanism for law reform to improve our laws, which must consider the bigger picture as to what is good for society in general than an individual case in point.
It would be easy to make 'voluntarily causing hurt' a seizable offence but that would have the effect of making Singapore much closer to a police state, when domestic conflicts and sibling rivalry become the subject of a criminal investigation.
Allowing the police to decide which case to investigate which to ignore is a disaster in the making. It gives too much arbitrary power to the police, encourages corruption, and leads to non-uniformity in law enforcement. -
Uh-huh. 2 guys whacking someone is far more serious than 4 people shouting slogans in front of the CPF building.Originally posted by Sagara:When a gang of thugs(5 or more) beat up on 1 guy, it is a seizable case of Rioting. The newspaper article in question stated only 2 guys wacked the victim.
Of course, if the assault occurs in the P.O's presence, they can arrest the aggressor.
And if the police are not around to see it, they won't bother coming down to investigate.
Okay. -
i'll say it again...Originally posted by fudgester:Uh-huh. 2 guys whacking someone is far more serious than 4 people shouting slogans in front of the CPF building.
And if the police are not around to see it, they won't bother coming down to investigate.
Okay.
Nobody can mess with the MIWs.. Nobody.
"And if the police are not around to see it, they won't bother coming down to investigate." --> you're wrong on this though...
-
Anyone read the long and rambling reply by the police in the forum today?
She basically listed out the law without explaining or justifying how incidents like what happened to that poor fella can happen.
Neither did she try to explain if steps are being taken to improve either the implementation or the letter of the law.
sigh.... -
It has been made very clear what happened. As I pointed out, the police officer at the scene was not a doctor and failed to recognize a fracture. The law in this matter is very clear as I have also mentioned previously:Originally posted by sourketchup:Anyone read the long and rambling reply by the police in the forum today?
She basically listed out the law without explaining or justifying how incidents like what happened to that poor fella can happen.
Neither did she try to explain if steps are being taken to improve either the implementation or the letter of the law.
sigh....
"I REFER to the letters by Dr Vincent Chia Wei Meng ('When does an assault become a criminal case?') and Mr Daniel Chan Wai Piew ('Implications on public security troubling') in The Straits Times on Aug 17.
The offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code is a non-seizable offence.
The key difference between a seizable and a non-seizable offence is that for seizable offences (such as murder, rape, voluntarily causing grievous hurt or causing hurt with weapons), police officers are legally empowered to arrest without a warrant. For non-seizable offences (such as misappropriation of property and mischief), police require a warrant of arrest or an order from a magistrate to make an arrest.
Section 323 cases can range from a parent disciplining his child by slapping him, to family disputes, to scuffles between quarrelling persons, to bullying cases arising from road rage or a staring incident.
Many of the cases reported under Section 323 arose between adults in situations of dispute which get out of hand and the parties get into a fight. Most family-related cases are resolved amicably without police intervention. These parties often do not necessarily want to seek redress through the legal system.
Dr Chia expressed concern over the safety of his family and friends following the assault on Dr Liew. He also asked if members of the public should call the police if they witnessed assaults.
Police investigation showed that Dr Liew was assaulted by two persons at a deserted back lane near a coffee shop. When he returned to the coffee shop and members of the public noticed he was injured, they called the police, not realising that he had already done so. Police investigators pursued the information given by Dr Liew but he was not able to identify the alleged assailants.
The public should continue to report such incidents. When alerted, police will respond and step in to prevent an incident from escalating in the public place, and ensure that public peace is restored.
When a report of voluntarily causing hurt that has occurred and stopped is received, police officers respond and go down to the scene to establish the preliminary facts of the case by gathering evidence or speaking to witnesses, if any.
If any party is injured, police will advise them to seek medical treatment. The medical report can then serve as useful evidence in any subsequent court proceedings.
If the alleged perpetrators are still at the scene, police will ascertain their identities. If police assess that the circumstances of the case exceed Section 323 and is a seizable offence, such as voluntarily causing grievous hurt or where a weapon was used (as defined under Section 325 or 324 of the Penal Code), they will arrest the suspects in question.
Even if the offence remains only one of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 but police assess that the circumstances of the case make it one of clear public concern, the investigating officer would apply for an order to fully investigate the matter on behalf of the aggrieved party.
These would include cases where the assailant is a bully taking undue physical advantage of the vulnerable, especially young children, infirm persons, senior citizens, the disabled or intellectually-challenged persons.
For other situations of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323, police will advise the aggrieved party to lay a Magistrate's Complaint if he would like to take the other party to court. The magistrate, after considering the facts presented, may then empower police to investigate the case.
This process enables the magistrate to decide on the veracity of the complaint. This is important as the indiscriminate use of process may encourage mischievous or even malicious complaints, resulting in harassment to the defendant of a dispute and a waste of public time and resources.
Police actions need to be properly calibrated after careful assessment of the circumstances of each case. Police would like to assure the public that in cases where there is clear harm to public interests and vulnerable victims, even where the offence may turn out to be a non-seizable one, police will seek powers to lawfully investigate and prosecute the offender.
Audrey Ang (Ms)
Assistant Director
(Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE'S ASSURANCE TO PUBLIC
Police would like to assure the public that in cases where there is clear harm to public interests and vulnerable victims, even where the offence may turn out to be a non-seizable one, police will seek powers to lawfully investigate and prosecute the offender."
(Straits Times, 23 Aug)