We're afraid we cannot publish letter but pl cont to write
-
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your contribution to our VOICES section, but we will not be able
to use your letter.
Please however continue to send your views to TODAY. We try to use as many
letters as possible, space permitting.
Once again, thank you for your interest in TODAY.
Best Regards,
Suriyati
MediaCorp Press Ltd,
TODAY
Subject: Police's legalistically passing duties back to citizens?
From: Robert Teh
To Editor Today
Dear Editor,
There seems to be increasingly frequent incidents where private citizens
were blatantly assaulted by another but the police merely concluded the
whole episode by saying that such incidents were of private nature and it is
up to the victims to seek his own recourse like commencing his own private
summons against the perpetrators.
Is the police aware in such an encounter, there may be more than meet the
eyes with perpetrators likely to take advantage of such a hands-off approach
to increase their aggressions everywhere?
From reported cases it is clear that the police has been able to rely on
"seizable" or "non-seizable"; categorisation of offences in order to deny
responsibilities for more in-depth investigation and prevention of crimes of
any kind against persons of more private or civil nature by telling the
victim to commence his own private civil suits.
Yet citizens need the police to use its special power to intervene where
such private trespass against persons are more serious in nature like openly
blatant assault. Without such intervention, there will be a tendency for
citizens to take laws into their own hands to settle private feuds. So will
the police understand such a intricate balance of relationship and factors
in seeking to deny responsibilities for commissions of offences against the
person.
If we allow the police to adopt this lower standard of policing then almost
every case of assault no matter how unprovoked will become private suits
just because the police may then take short cut to avoid their duties and
responsibilities.
There seems to be a tendency to rely on legalistic wrangling of laws and
regulations to pass relevant duties to citizens. For example, the police has
passed amendments to Immigration Act or regulations using the terrorisms or
illegal immigration as an excuse to make landladies and landlords liable to
be jailed for illegal harbouring of illegal when clearly such are the duties
of the police and not the citizens who at best could only exercise caution.
The police who allowed criminal like Took Leng How to escape immigration
control is not even reprimanded.
Police has also passed many duties now to the Management Corporations of
private estates by relying entirely on private security agencies to do
policing. It has been resorting to canceling licences of security agencies
for breach of standards whereas when their own policemen do not even bother
to patrol the surrounding more diligently, there is no penalty or acceptance
of responsibilities. -
I really doubt, any press holdings, will ever dare to publish your letter, the content of your letter is too crucial and harsh
-
just like the recent MRT case whereby a lady was knock down by someone on MRT station and facture her bone. request MRT for tape on the incident and MRT replied confidential and only the police may request access.
So they make police report but police say civil case and cannot follow up. So? both way there is no case at all.
-
may be not in singapore because press is controlled by gahmen. I believe the foreign press will publish such a letter.Originally posted by allentyb:I really doubt, any press holdings, will ever dare to publish your letter, the content of your letter is too crucial and harsh
SPF is not efficient and sometimes unhelpful, all they care to do is to push responsibility or give silly excuses, at least this is my encounters with them and the encounters of many others I know of too. -
Too many of these letters already. My advice if you want a published letter: write on something controversial and with majority interest to pique the public's concern.Originally posted by robertteh:Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your contribution to our VOICES section, but we will not be able
to use your letter.
Please however continue to send your views to TODAY. We try to use as many
letters as possible, space permitting.
Once again, thank you for your interest in TODAY.
Best Regards,
Suriyati
MediaCorp Press Ltd,
TODAY
Subject: Police's legalistically passing duties back to citizens?
From: Robert Teh
To Editor Today
Dear Editor,
There seems to be increasingly frequent incidents where private citizens
were blatantly assaulted by another but the police merely concluded the
whole episode by saying that such incidents were of private nature and it is
up to the victims to seek his own recourse like commencing his own private
summons against the perpetrators.
Is the police aware in such an encounter, there may be more than meet the
eyes with perpetrators likely to take advantage of such a hands-off approach
to increase their aggressions everywhere?
From reported cases it is clear that the police has been able to rely on
"seizable" or "non-seizable"; categorisation of offences in order to deny
responsibilities for more in-depth investigation and prevention of crimes of
any kind against persons of more private or civil nature by telling the
victim to commence his own private civil suits.
Yet citizens need the police to use its special power to intervene where
such private trespass against persons are more serious in nature like openly
blatant assault. Without such intervention, there will be a tendency for
citizens to take laws into their own hands to settle private feuds. So will
the police understand such a intricate balance of relationship and factors
in seeking to deny responsibilities for commissions of offences against the
person.
If we allow the police to adopt this lower standard of policing then almost
every case of assault no matter how unprovoked will become private suits
just because the police may then take short cut to avoid their duties and
responsibilities.
There seems to be a tendency to rely on legalistic wrangling of laws and
regulations to pass relevant duties to citizens. For example, the police has
passed amendments to Immigration Act or regulations using the terrorisms or
illegal immigration as an excuse to make landladies and landlords liable to
be jailed for illegal harbouring of illegal when clearly such are the duties
of the police and not the citizens who at best could only exercise caution.
The police who allowed criminal like Took Leng How to escape immigration
control is not even reprimanded.
Police has also passed many duties now to the Management Corporations of
private estates by relying entirely on private security agencies to do
policing. It has been resorting to canceling licences of security agencies
for breach of standards whereas when their own policemen do not even bother
to patrol the surrounding more diligently, there is no penalty or acceptance
of responsibilities. -
write directly to minister of home affairs.
-
this not public concern?Originally posted by BillyBong:Too many of these letters already. My advice if you want a published letter: write on something controversial and with majority interest to pique the public's concern. -
Originally posted by robertteh:Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your contribution to our VOICES section, but we will not be able
to use your letter.
Please however continue to send your views to TODAY. We try to use as many
letters as possible, space permitting.
Once again, thank you for your interest in TODAY.
Best Regards,
Suriyati
MediaCorp Press Ltd,
TODAY
Subject: Police's legalistically passing duties back to citizens?
From: Robert Teh
To Editor Today
Dear Editor,
There seems to be increasingly frequent incidents where private citizens
were blatantly assaulted by another but the police merely concluded the
whole episode by saying that such incidents were of private nature and it is
up to the victims to seek his own recourse like commencing his own private
summons against the perpetrators.
Is the police aware in such an encounter, there may be more than meet the
eyes with perpetrators likely to take advantage of such a hands-off approach
to increase their aggressions everywhere?
From reported cases it is clear that the police has been able to rely on
"seizable" or "non-seizable"; categorisation of offences in order to deny
responsibilities for more in-depth investigation and prevention of crimes of
any kind against persons of more private or civil nature by telling the
victim to commence his own private civil suits.
Yet citizens need the police to use its special power to intervene where
such private trespass against persons are more serious in nature like openly
blatant assault. Without such intervention, there will be a tendency for
citizens to take laws into their own hands to settle private feuds. So will
the police understand such a intricate balance of relationship and factors
in seeking to deny responsibilities for commissions of offences against the
person.
If we allow the police to adopt this lower standard of policing then almost
every case of assault no matter how unprovoked will become private suits
just because the police may then take short cut to avoid their duties and
responsibilities.
There seems to be a tendency to rely on legalistic wrangling of laws and
regulations to pass relevant duties to citizens. For example, the police has
passed amendments to Immigration Act or regulations using the terrorisms or
illegal immigration as an excuse to make landladies and landlords liable to
be jailed for illegal harbouring of illegal when clearly such are the duties
of the police and not the citizens who at best could only exercise caution.
The police who allowed criminal like Took Leng How to escape immigration
control is not even reprimanded.
Police has also passed many duties now to the Management Corporations of
private estates by relying entirely on private security agencies to do
policing. It has been resorting to canceling licences of security agencies
for breach of standards whereas when their own policemen do not even bother
to patrol the surrounding more diligently, there is no penalty or acceptance
of responsibilities.
-
what do you mean no case? that sob was charged in court and was jailed 1 year. however, since he was in remand for almost a year already, he got out of jail few days after the sentencing.
however, he was not charged for attempted murder but for something else, can't remember. he got off lightly because he had shashi nathan to defend him.Originally posted by Lin Yu:just like the recent MRT case whereby a lady was knock down by someone on MRT station and facture her bone. request MRT for tape on the incident and MRT replied confidential and only the police may request access.
So they make police report but police say civil case and cannot follow up. So? both way there is no case at all. -
He too is part of the problem. In order to show that he is doing something, he has last year passed anti-terrorism control duties to the security guards by making it an offence for any security agencies to engage any security guards without passing an examination.Originally posted by FireIce:write directly to minister of home affairs.
As a result of this shoving of anti-terrorism duty to security guards, many security firms are being fined heavily or having their licences suspended or cancelled because they find it difficult to employ accredited guards who of course are asking for higher salaries.
The security agencies passed the costs increases by increasing their fees by more than 10% pushing up costs of doing business again.
Just an example to show how our talented ministers legalistically passed their duties back to the people instead of creatively solving them with greater efficiency and productivity. -
As I've said, you are always shooting the wrong person. Who makes the laws and who enforces them?
This is a top-down system, not bottom-up. Aim your gun/rifle at the right spot. -
I think it is necessary and reasonable for the government to demand accreditation for security guards. Many office buildings, shopping malls and other public places employ security guards these days, and in an emergency or terrorist threat, I'd rather have security guards who have been properly trained to deal with them, instead of those who do not know what to do.Originally posted by robertteh:He too is part of the problem. In order to show that he is doing something, he has last year passed anti-terrorism control duties to the security guards by making it an offence for any security agencies to engage any security guards without passing an examination.
As a result of this shoving of anti-terrorism duty to security guards, many security firms are being fined heavily or having their licences suspended or cancelled because they find it difficult to employ accredited guards who of course are asking for higher salaries.
The security agencies passed the costs increases by increasing their fees by more than 10% pushing up costs of doing business again.
Just an example to show how our talented ministers legalistically passed their duties back to the people instead of creatively solving them with greater efficiency and productivity.
However, the shortage of accredited security guards is a real problem, and perhaps the government should address this by establishing more centrally-run courses to which security firms can send their employees for accreditation. -
do you seriously believe these security guards are go enough against terrorist threats?
-
I don't mean that, but in a real emergency or terrorist activity, they are the ones already there on the spot. The government forces would only arrive later. Hence the security guards would have to be prepared to handle the situation for at least the few minutes between the occurrence of the problem and the arrival of the real experts.Originally posted by dragg:do you seriously believe these security guards are go enough against terrorist threats? -
The Straits Times receives an average of 70 letters a day.
And therefore due to pressure on space cannot publish my letter, blah, blah, blah.
Thats the reply I always get for my letters to the ST.
I stopped writing to them.
And it gall me to see letters complaining about season parking tickets being round and difficult to tear, being published. -
they can increase the space if they want to....Originally posted by mancha:The Straits Times receives an average of 70 letters a day.
And therefore due to pressure on space cannot publish my letter, blah, blah, blah.
Thats the reply I always get for my letters to the ST.
I stopped writing to them.
And it gall me to see letters complaining about season parking tickets being round and difficult to tear, being published. -
or the online forum in ST if they want toOriginally posted by dragg:they can increase the space if they want to.... -
they have guidelines to comply to as to what letters they want to publish as we all know they are working for the ruling gahmen. letters which are of no benefit to the pay and pay will not be entertained.
-
maybe not ... but they can be a deterrent against other crime like molest or pickpokecting.Originally posted by dragg:do you seriously believe these security guards are go enough against terrorist threats?
-
Deterrent?!?! You must be kidding.Originally posted by crazy monkey:maybe not ... but they can be a deterrent against other crime like molest or pickpokecting.
The impression formed of our local security guards are fat senior citizens moonlighting for extra pocket money...
The average crook will laugh all the way if he sees a security guard.... -
not security guard but the armed police patrol at mrt station.Originally posted by BillyBong:Deterrent?!?! You must be kidding.
The impression formed of our local security guards are fat senior citizens moonlighting for extra pocket money...
The average crook will laugh all the way if he sees a security guard.... -
he forgot to include corruption.
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:As I've said, you are always shooting the wrong person. Who makes the laws and who enforces them?
This is a top-down system, not bottom-up. Aim your gun/rifle at the right spot.