Woe are the Poor, and Accused.. Where's the Justice?
-
I am not sure what to make of this, but I am however sure, this isn't the only case as with most things, there will always be those un-reported ones...
So is there any 'safety net' in our system that vindicates the poor who is Wrongfully Accused?
I wonder....
===================================================
Accused of being a drug addict, jobless ex-cleaner borrows heavily for lawsuit to clear his name.
He claims: I WAS SHAMED IN PUBLIC Everyone in mall saw police take me away
By Tay Shi'an
January 28, 2007
HE was wrongly accused of taking drugs and suffered the shame of being led away by police in a shopping mall filled with people.
Mr Chan plans to take his ex-employer to court if there's a settlement. He's prepared to accept two months salary as full and final settlement. -- MOHD ISHAK, TAY SHIAN
The police apparently cleared him of any wrongdoing.
But that was not enough for former cleaner Johnny Chan, 49.
He has borrowed money from relatives and friends for a private prosecution against his alleged accusers.
His lawyer has also written to his former employer claiming compensation for wrongful dismissal.
However, the employer denies he was sacked as a result of the arrest.
Mr Chan's parents have been standing by him and it is his mother who borrowed - from her siblings and friends - most of the $3,000 he has spent so far in legal fees.
He and his parents had been living on his salary of $1,400 a month before he lost his job 1• years ago.
He has not had a steady job since then.
Mr Chan claims he was wrongfully detained by three security guards at a shopping mall in the western part of Singapore in August 2005.
The guards allegedly said Mr Chan was taking drugs and he was allegedly kept in the security room until the police arrived.
Mr Chan has taken money from his mum and dad to fight the case. They also borrowed money from their friends to help him.
His lawyer, who declined to be named, said Mr Chan was never charged with any drug offences related to the incident. It is believed his drug test following the arrest was negative.
"I took his case because his relative knows my secretary, who asked me for help," said the lawyer.
"She also asked if I could accept a lower fee because they are poor. So I've lowered the fees for him, to less than half the usual...
"To him, it's still a big sum."
The cost has already exceeded the sum that Mr Chan is seeking to claim from his former employer. But he said the cost is not important.
"It's very tough, fighting two sets of lawyers. I know the legal fees will pile up," Mr Chan said.
"But I want to prove my innocence. My friends tell me I have to by all means go after them, and my brothers and sisters agree."
He has four siblings who are married and living separately.
Mr Chan, who is single and lives with his retired parents in a three-room flat, said he was sent by his cleaning company to work at a shopping mall as a cleaning supervisor.
According to court papers, three of the mall's security guards allegedly restrained Mr Chan wrongfully around 10am on 1 Aug 2005, after accusing him of consuming drugs.
NEWS SPREAD
Mr Chan still remembers vividly the shame he felt. "When I was taken away by the police, the mall was fully functioning. Everyone saw me, it was so embarrassing," he said.
He claims that he lost his job shortly after, and has had trouble finding a job since. He said his most recent job was part-timing at a fast-food restaurant.
He claimed: "The cleaning industry is so small, the news (of the drug case) spread like cancer."
He tried going to the Legal Aid Bureau, but he was not eligible as he had earned more than $10,000 in the previous 12 months. After he found his current lawyer in September 2005, a magistrate's complaint was lodged against the three security guards.
Said his lawyer: "The judge directed for an investigation to be done by the police. But a few months later, the police decided not to prosecute the three guards.
"My client (then) instructed me to commence the private summons."
At least one of the three guards has hired a lawyer to fight the case.
Those found guilty of wrongful confinement can be fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to a year.
The lawyer also wrote to Mr Chan's ex-employer's law firm.
He said: "My client was prepared to accept two months' salary as full and final settlement. But they only offered two weeks' salary without admission of liability, which was not acceptable to my client."
The cleaning company's director denied the claim of wrongful dismissal, saying instead that it was Mr Chan who suddenly stopped coming to work.
Mr Chan, in turn, denies that.
The lawyer said Mr Chan is planning to file a lawsuit against the ex-employer if there's no settlement.
He said private summonses usually involve compoundable cases, which usually do not result in jail sentences unless in exceptional cases.
Said the lawyer: "If found guilty, the defendant is fined by the state, and the money goes to the state. The client doesn't get anything out of it."
He added that if they get convictions against the three guards, "we will pursue damages for wrongful confinement in a civil suit".
Mr Chan said that while he's determined to see the case through, he he felt bad taking money from his parents, aged 71 and 68.
Said Mr Chan: "My mum and dad went around borrowing money from friends. They went all the way out to help me get money to hire a lawyer.
"I feel so bad, I'm supposed to be the one supporting them, but I'm not even able to return the money to them."
ILL HEALTH
Both parents recently had health problems - his mother had cataract surgery on her left eye a month ago, while his father had gastric surgery about six months ago.
But his mother, Madam Kan Oh Ho, said in Mandarin: "He's my son. He used to give us money when he had a job. Now, if we don't help him, who will?" -
When you are filty rich....you can doing wonders. Accept...do not offend the govt, commit murdering and ''caught red handed with drugs traffiking'' .
-
If I were a lawyer, I'd do this guy's case pro bono.
-
Sg to set up a Project Justice? Ok too much Prison Break.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If I were a lawyer, I'd do this guy's case pro bono.
-
Singapore cops are no better than those American MPs from Abu Ghraib.
If only they could follow the example of Bruce Willis' character from 16 Blocks and take resp[onsibility for their bungles.
-
Mmmh I think all the government handouts to the poor also the same mah, if you are not freaking poor don't come to look for me... FARK OFF!!!
The government is smart, say 7% for help poor. I say STOP LYING TO US!!!!!!!!!
Do you think hell is full of gahment people? I think can form UN down there... -
Being arrest then loss job.
He very ke lian leh. -
yuan wang hao ren.
-
I think they will most probably end up settling out of court la, save the company's reputation..
-
so sad, that is the system SGrean facing....
-
Care to state how the cops bungled on this one? They were informed that he was suspected of having taken drugs, and brought him back to test if indeed he had taken drugs.Originally posted by iveco:Singapore cops are no better than those American MPs from Abu Ghraib.
If only they could follow the example of Bruce Willis' character from 16 Blocks and take resp[onsibility for their bungles.
He was found to be innocent, and therefore not charged at all. Which means that, if prior to this incident he had a clean record, he would still have a clean record because no charges were filed against him.
The police apparently cleared him of any wrongdoing.
His lawyer, who declined to be named, said Mr Chan was never charged with any drug offences related to the incident. It is believed his drug test following the arrest was negative.
[/b]
Don't make sweeping statements like that please, especially if you don't have your facts right.
If there's anyone to be blamed it would be the security guards, as well as his previous company.
There could also be many different reasons as to why he is still unemployed, the poor man.
But again, he was not charged with anything at all, so he could not have been turned down employment solely because of this incident. In all likelihood, the companies at which he sought employment would not even know of this incident having taken place. Because no offence was committed. -
No matter what, we can't deny that the poor guy's reputation is in tatters. Wonder who tipped off the security officers that he was doing drugs?
-
Which shopping mall is that? Anyone can identify? Bloody hell unfair siah, can he sue them for wrongful dismissal? I remember most contracts only state that the company can dismiss him when he is FOUND GUILTY of a criminal offence...
Where are you Mr Oxford Mushroom. We need your legal advice man... -
Hmm... this case is definitely ™l‰ . A civil case is going to be costly and the average or poor normally can't afford it. Furthermore, better check the financial background of the potential defendants. if the defendants are going to become bankrupts, be prepared to pay for the court fees as well as the legal fees!
-
That why I said,we hve 2 work untill yr c stands also cant make it!!!
But our ministers r the highest paid one in the wrd!!!!
Looking at these ppls n ourselves dam 2 l p!!!! -
There is always a SPF rep hanging around here. lately he's MIA leh.
Amazing he didn't come out to defend his Home Team woh.
Best part is that, our tax dollar pays for these police salary to arrest innocent people and put them out of a job. And this year they are taking back bonus woh.. when so many people don't have bonus and some no increment. -
The police acted correctly from what I have read. In all common law jurisdictions, the police can be sued only if they had acted out of negligence or with malicious intent.Originally posted by iveco:No matter what, we can't deny that the poor guy's reputation is in tatters. Wonder who tipped off the security officers that he was doing drugs?
In general, not all the tips given to the police will prove to be accurate. If the police had not acted and a crime results, Singaporeans will rightly blame the police for not doing anything. The innocent will be released after investigation, as this case illustrates. The the employer sacked him because of this incident, they can be sued. His employer will have to show valid cause for the dismissal.
But we do not have the full picture. Perhaps his employer can show that he was a poor worker and was unsatisfactory in his job. If they could not do that, they would have to pay compensation. -
Singapore is 1 big fugging mess.......really wish I can leave
-
Singapore. Guilty until proven innocent
-
This is precisely, the problem here...Originally posted by spinsugar:Singapore. Guilty until proven innocent -
You know, in light of this incident, I wonder what "safety measures" are there in place, that will save a person from being hung if someone was to be so unlucky as to have drugs, maliciously placed into his luggage at our airport? -
enough with the 'I pay tax, so my tax pays your salary' claims already. they are the most over-used, incorrect sentences anyone could ever use. and they hardly hold water.Originally posted by mistyblue:Best part is that, our tax dollar pays for these police salary to arrest innocent people and put them out of a job. And this year they are taking back bonus woh.. when so many people don't have bonus and some no increment.
EVERYONE pays taxes. yes, policemen too. so you mean to say that policemen, soldiers, firefighters, teachers, and other public servants work for free then?
and for your information, NOT ALL your taxes goes to the salaries of the aforementioned groups of people. Most of the taxes go back to the government, who then decide how to spend it (e.g on HDB upgrading, etc)
for the love of God, get your facts straight before you post. because if this were a plotted graph, instead of achieving an intended straight line, you'd end up with a convex curve instead. -
the person would have to prove that:Originally posted by ShutterBug:You know, in light of this incident, I wonder what "safety measures" are there in place, that will save a person from being hung if someone was to be so unlucky as to have drugs, maliciously placed into his luggage at our airport?
a) he is not a drug abuser ( if truly innocent confirm will clear the urine test, clean records, etc)
b) that his bag had been opened without his realising, and that he distinctly remembered securing his bag
basically these two lah i believe.
Don't worry, have faith in our investigators. If a person is truly innocent, one can tell. Our investigators aren't called investigators for nothing. -
In the justice system, what actually is, is not the truth, but what that can be proven.
That is when an assertion is proven, it is considered the truth, even when it is actually not. -
Can honesty say that u have faith in SAF in defending the country??? If you answer is no. Then would you believe SPF would be any different??Originally posted by Tiggerific:the person would have to prove that:
a) he is not a drug abuser ( if truly innocent confirm will clear the urine test, clean records, etc)
b) that his bag had been opened without his realising, and that he distinctly remembered securing his bag
basically these two lah i believe.
Don't worry, have faith in our investigators. If a person is truly innocent, one can tell. Our investigators aren't called investigators for nothing.