pinkish purple papayas
Paragraph13
I explained to him that I did not know saying the word "bomb" is against the law, and I further explained that I did not say the word "bomb" in a threatening context to the officer, the word "bomb" was taken out of context as part of an answer to my daughter's question. Despite my explanation, he said he cannot make the decision and my case has to be escalated to higher authorities.
Paragraph6-7
Immediately, a security officer standing at the conveyor belt (Stephen S Naidira) who was standing in front of me said with a very rude tone "repeat what you just said". I clarified with him what he meant - is it for me to repeat what I had told my daughter? He said loudly again, to repeat what I had just said.
So I did exactly what he told me. I said to him that "my daughter asked me why I need to take off my shoes, and I told her that you guys (the security officers) are afraid that we will keep bombs in our shoes." He immediately asked me to stand aside and said that he had to report it to his superior that I said the word "bomb" twice.
Paragraph 8-9
Then an Indian lady (Sivamalar) at the customs started hurling at me and my daughter and said that I said the word "bomb" twice and it is against the law and I can be sent to jail and they are calling the police. She (Sivamalar) was so loud and rude and she shoved us to the side, and refused to listen to my explanation. In fact, she got so aggressive that another officer Ricky Lim (I guess it's her supervisor) had to come forward to stop her from further attacking me and my daughter verbally, and specifically asked Sivamalar to "shut up".
I told Ricky Lim that I would like to know the names of his staff because their attitude and rudeness were simply beyond any acceptable level. Immediately Sivamalar got so angry and aggressive that she started charging at Ricky Lim and hurled "What?! What?! What?! She (she meant me) said the word "Bomb" twice, so what is wrong with arresting her (which is me) and we were told that if we heard the word twice, we will arrest!!"
Paragraph 10-11
At that time, Stephen S Naidira came to me again to intimidate me further by asking me to repeat what I said earlier to my daughter again. I refused to repeat again then because I believe he was deliberately asking me to repeat so that he can count the number of times that I mentioned the word "bomb".
I also believe that that the officers were deliberately provoking me by being rude and intimidating, in the hope that I will retaliate in kind, thereby making their unreasonable actions justifiable.
Eh... I feel that allentyb from the start have not fully comprehend about the whole email. The woman actually did not know about that speaking twice of the word "bomb" in the airport actually is illgeal. Therefore, ignorant decisions are made by her, and you can't blame that she is doing so. I feel that you are just be judgmental and all your post are showing the typcial Singaporean attitude- KIASU ( afraid to lose ) 
Secondly, from Para 6-7, it is clear that the security officer is using his authority( I assume a He) and the woman's ignorance of that Law- Cannot say the word "bomb" twice in Airport, to make her committ the breaking of that Law so that she can be charged under that Law. Apparently, I feel that He is the one that trying to heigthen the matter in order to watch "show".
Thirdly, from para 8-9, that Indian lady, tries to use her authority and the Law to actually unleases her anger on the woman. And, she actually attacks the woman and the daughter verbally. This form of action actually indicates to me that that Indian Lady is trying to take this opportunity to pour out her anger or rather stress onto someone, and knowing that she can get away with it. This can be seen from para 9 when she actually argues that the woman breaks the Law and she is just following the book.
Fourth, from para 10-11, One can actually observe that the people at the airport are starting to make the woman do something, like saying the wrong words, showing rude gesture etc, so as to save themselves as they can turn all this wrongdoings into their favor. This is further be confirmed that the officer at the airport are " protecting each other's back" from this quoted paragraph
"Whilst waiting, Stephen S Naidira (the security officer) gathered with a
few security officers at the side, including Sivamalar to discuss how they
should present their statement to the police when they arrive later to make
sure that they are adequately covered, and that they are just following the
rule and doing what they were told to do. They said by insisting that they
are taking actions "by-the-book" , they would be ok. "
Lastly, the sergeant , in my opinion, is avoiding the whole matter. This can be seen by the two paragraphs below :
At about 7.30pm, the Sergeant-in-charge, Amran Buang came. After I explained the full context of the incident to him, he refused to make a decision and decided to escalate it further to the Auxilary Police and State Police. He said that the word "bomb" is very sensitive and I should not have mentioned it twice. I explained to him that I did not know saying the word "bomb" is against the law, and I further explained that I did not say the word "bomb" in a threatening context to the officer, the word "bomb" was taken out of context as part of an answer to my daughter's question. Despite my explanation, he said he cannot make the decision and my case has to be escalated to higher authorities.
ANDAfter knowing what had happened, my husband
tried to talk to Sergeant Amran Buang, further explaining to him that we
are just a family going on holiday and what I have said to my daughter had
been taken out of context. Again, no one was bothered to listen. And again,
we were told to wait for another officer with an even higher ranking. With
time ticking away and at 7.55pm with no sign of the higher authorities
appearing, we knew then our hope of boarding our flight had diminished
This has shown that the sergeant is avoiding the responsibility of taking up this matter. And he uses the phrase " refer to higher authorities" to avoid. Why do I say so ? This is because 25minutes had past in you all have noticed and if it is about bomb and terrorism will the higher authorities be informed late? And the STATE POLICE and other policemen arrives at 8.10pm, which is after the flight, and the HIGHER AUTHORITIES came at 45minutes later after the accused is informed of refering to higher authorities.
Therefore, all this suggests that the officers at the airport are trying to relive themselves of daily boring routine and stress, thus using this opportunity to create a scene and to watch. I understand that critics will argue that they are upholding the safety of the people at the airport, and such a slight matgter which threatens the safety of others needs their utmost attention. However, from the previous points that i have made, we can see the officers are using the Law to justify their actions in using their authority, and they attack verbally and intimidates. Surely, there must be respect given to the accused, or rather suspect if he or she obeys the command of the authorities, unless the suspect do otherwise. In this case the woman never did the otherwise.
So as to conclude, due to the ignorance of the woman, she has be mistreated in such a way that I dont think a recognised WORLD CLASS AIRPORT DOES. Tus, this shows that the airport still has flaws and still needs to improve, in its way of training the staffs. I also hope that the government will provide an satisfatory solution to the woman's appeal for the violation of her human's rights. And after all, be known that Humans are not perfect.
