Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!
-
regulating of movement includes barring entry i believe.Originally posted by Jontst78:Nothing about barring entry tho. Unless regulating of movement includes barring entry. Its does however have provisions for escorting them to coffeehouse or eating establishment, making sure they dun go near the delegates. Detainment for the purpose of searching, and no searching was done.
they detained them and escort them back to their HQ outside the protected area (i still want to know why the police prefer sending them back to their HQ, but thats another question). and yes, the law doesnt state where the detainees can be escorted or am i wrong? -
THE SAME TRICK OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
1ST IS TO FIND OPPORTUNITY
2ND IS TO PURPOSELY CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITY, TRYING HARD TO FIND GREY AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT RIGHT OR WRONG. I.E. PROTEST BY 4 PERSONS, WEAR SAME T-SHIRTS, GATHERING ETC.
3RD PURPOSELY LET THEMSELVES BE RESTRAINTED OR ARRESTED BY POLICE
4TH IS TO SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS BY ACCUSING THE POLICE OF UNREASONABLE AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS AND MAKE USE OF THE POLICE ACTIONS TO SMEAR THE GOVT.
THE ABOVE PLOT IS BEING USED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MORE OFTEN THAN MEDIACORP RERUN THE OLD OLD SHOWS.
BEFORE THEY STARTED THE SHOW, BEGGAR ALREADY KNOW THE ENDING.
THEIR MAIN AIM:
TO DISCREDIT AND SMEAR SINGAPORE IMAGE
THEIR ACTIONS BENEFIT NO SINGAPOREANS INCLUDING THEMSELVES. ONLY BENEFIT SINGAPORE HATERS.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED ? MORE PEOPLE HATE SINGAPORE.
IF GOT SINGAPORE HATERS WANT TO EMPLOY BEGGAR TO DO THE PROTESTING JOB, IF THE MONEY IS ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH.
BEGGAR MAY CONTRACT OUT THE PROTESTING JOB TO BEGGAR'S DOGS AND LET THEM GO PROTESTING, GET ARRESTED, THEN PAY THEM SOME MONEY.
OF COURSE BEGGAR WOULD ONLY DO IT IF BEGGAR'S HEART EATEN BY STRAY DOGS.
BEGGAR IS QUITE SAD THAT SOME SINGAPOREANS, ESPECIALLY THE WELL EDUCATED, STUDIED SO MANY BOOKS AND YET NOT ABLE TO SEE THRU SOME PLOT. -
my sentiments.Originally posted by beggarchief:THE SAME TRICK OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
1ST IS TO FIND OPPORTUNITY
2ND IS TO PURPOSELY CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITY, TRYING HARD TO FIND GREY AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT RIGHT OR WRONG. I.E. PROTEST BY 4 PERSONS, WEAR SAME T-SHIRTS, GATHERING ETC.
3RD PURPOSELY LET THEMSELVES BE RESTRAINTED OR ARRESTED BY POLICE
4TH IS TO SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS BY ACCUSING THE POLICE OF UNREASONABLE AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS AND MAKE USE OF THE POLICE ACTIONS TO SMEAR THE GOVT.
THE ABOVE PLOT IS BEING USED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MORE OFTEN THAN MEDIACORP RERUN THE OLD OLD SHOWS.
BEFORE THEY STARTED THE SHOW, BEGGAR ALREADY KNOW THE ENDING.
THEIR MAIN AIM:
TO DISCREDIT AND SMEAR SINGAPORE IMAGE
THEIR ACTIONS BENEFIT NO SINGAPOREANS INCLUDING THEMSELVES. ONLY BENEFIT SINGAPORE HATERS.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED ? MORE PEOPLE HATE SINGAPORE.
IF GOT SINGAPORE HATERS WANT TO EMPLOY BEGGAR TO DO THE PROTESTING JOB, IF THE MONEY IS ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH.
BEGGAR MAY CONTRACT OUT THE PROTESTING JOB TO BEGGAR'S DOGS AND LET THEM GO PROTESTING, GET ARRESTED, THEN PAY THEM SOME MONEY.
OF COURSE BEGGAR WOULD ONLY DO IT IF BEGGAR'S HEART EATEN BY STRAY DOGS.
BEGGAR IS QUITE SAD THAT SOME SINGAPOREANS, ESPECIALLY THE WELL EDUCATED, STUDIED SO MANY BOOKS AND YET NOT ABLE TO SEE THRU SOME PLOT. -
WHAT IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED ? MORE PEOPLE HATE SINGAPORE.
Hate Singapore? I think actions such as these help to raise awareness amongst Singaporeans as to what sort of regime PAP is.
Any disgust is directed against the PAP regime, not Singapore. -
the police force supports the government without question as long as it is in the framework of the law.Originally posted by maurizio13:Sad to say our police force is a loyal supporter of P4P regime.
the armed forces fight for the government without question as long as it is in the framework of the law.
this is professionalism. -
WHAT SORT OF REGIME PAP IS, I THINK MANY PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW, BEGGAR ALSO KNOW.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Hate Singapore? I think actions such as these help to raise awareness amongst Singaporeans as to what sort of regime PAP is.
Any disgust is directed against the PAP regime, not Singapore.
ALL ACTIONS SHOULD TARGET AT THE PAP PARTY, NOT SINGAPORE'S REPUTATION AND IMAGE.
BEGGAR IS A SINGAPOREAN, ANYBODY SMEARS AND TARNISHES SINGAPORE, IS ALSO AFFECTING BEGGAR.
IF ONE CANT EVEN DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PAP AND SINGAPORE, THEN HE IS NOT FIT TO EVEN BE AN ACTIVIST.
THERE IS NO SO-CALLED PERFECT GOVT. ALL POLICIES BOUND TO BENEFIT SOME AND AFFECT SOME. SO LONG AS IT BENEFIT MORE PEOPLE, THEN IT IS AN ACCEPTABLE POLICY.
BEGGAR IS BEGGAR AND DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT POLITICS.
BEGGAR THINKS THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF RAISING THE AWARENESS OF SINGAPOREANS AND YET NOT SMEARING SINGAPORE IMAGE IN FRONT OF THE WORLD. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Suggest you reread Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) section 4 again and use it in context. If subsection 4(2) wasn't breached; why was subsection 4(3) invoked?
SPF Media Releases
16 Nov 2007 Area around the key event venues gazetted as a protected area/ places under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act
As part of the security measures for the ASEAN summit, Police have gazetted the premises of Shangri-la, Raffles City Convention Center (RCCC), and Asian Civilisation Museum (ACM), as well as [b]500 metres of the perimeter surrounding these places and the Istana, as Protected Areas under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act. This is similar to arrangements made at the recent APEC Australia 2007, and at the WTO in Hong Kong 2005. Such a security zone would allow police to conduct checks on persons found within the zone, and order persons found therein to leave the security zone if they pose a security threat to the ASEAN Summit.
It was stated clearly that 500m around the hotel is a protected area. I believe the group of people were within that 500ms. If so, why its wrong to enforce the protected area and protected places act?[/b]
"Regulating his movement" implies controlling his movement in the area, which does not necessary mean denying his movement in the area. The police officers orders were clear from the video, from the questions that was asked "where are you going madam?", Ms. Chee replied she was going to Shangrila to have her meals, the officer then stated that this was a protected area and she was not allowed to go there.
So...., did Ms. Chee stepped foot into Shangrila Hotel and committed a breach of that order? If Ms. Chee had clearly violated the order in the first place, why was she allowed to walk 400m in the protected area before being abducted? Shouldn't she have been arrested while breaching the 500m boundary? The intrusion into the protected area of 400m (80%) into the area, does this not imply that movement around the area was not totally disallowed. Compare this with an intrusion into an army base in Singapore, which is also considered a protected area and protected place. Do you think Ms. Chee can walk 400m into the army base without proper authorisation?
(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
My question is; are you using a press release by Singapore Police Force as law, or, are you using Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap. 256) to enforce the removal from the protected area?
If it's the former, is a press release by the Singapore Police Force considered as law now? -
On the contrary, you should be relieved that intellectual discussion should start on the premise of clarity on the matter being debated.Originally posted by foxtrout8:[Quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
500 meters around the hotel gazetted as a protected area ?
Did the Gazette make clear where does the 500 meter begin and the area clearly demarcated, or was it a simple administrative act without clear delineation ?
500 meters from the hotel building, or 500 meters from the perimeter wall of the grounds around the hotel ?
500 meters measured from the footprint or the hotel building walls - will mean that the defined Gazetted Area limits will be up to the property wall where the Orange Grove Road meet the main drive way entrance to and exit from; and will actually mean the entire perimeter of the Hotel Ground.
If 500 meters begins from the perimeter wall that include the main drive way entrance and exit that connect to Orange Grove Road - it will result in the Gazetted Area limits stretching 500 meters radiating around the Hotel Grounds that will encroach into neighboring properties.
It will mean that from the drive way entrances or exits - the gazetted areas will extend 500 meters to either side of Orange Grove Road {one direction towards Orchard Hotel, and the other direction towards RELC}.
If the place has been gazetted - as in all protected areas such as MINDEF, Military installations, and all protected areas - did the Police physically demarcate the gazetted area with clear signages in the form of Public Notices that resemble the specified dimensions of red signboards issuing clear warning of trespass ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is sad to see that our intellectual discussion had been led into the arguement of where the exactly 500m mark lies.
are there signs to warn trespassers? are there vehicular check post and where they are located?
i dont know. i never been there. maybe you like to tell mi.
my point is simple, to the extent of the law, the police actions were legal.
What is the use of wasting endless hours debating on a point of law that itself is not clear where its application begin and end, when it is to be effected, and how it is to be interpreted ?
Since you are unclear of so many issues, how would you know if the police actions were legal ?
Can their acts be legal if they acted outside the defined gazetted area ? -
I think he just assumes that task performed by the police are unquestionable and wholly legal.Originally posted by Atobe:[b]
On the contrary, you should be relieved that intellectual discussion should start on the premise of clarity on the matter being debated.
What is the use of wasting endless hours debating on a point of law that itself is not clear where its application begin and end, when it is to be effected, and how it is to be interpreted ?
Since you are unclear of so many issues, how would you know if the police actions were legal ?
Can their acts be legal if they acted outside the defined gazetted area ?
If the police bangs down his door, arrest him and his family under Internal Security Act (ISA), it is legal.
Why?
It's because they are the police force and everything they do is legal.
-
i dont understand why is this so hard to comprehend.Originally posted by maurizio13:Suggest you reread Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) section 4 again and use it in context. If subsection 4(2) wasn't breached; why was subsection 4(3) invoked?
"Regulating his movement" implies controlling his movement in the area, which does not necessary mean denying his movement in the area. The police officers orders were clear from the video, from the questions that was asked "where are you going madam?", Ms. Chee replied she was going to Shangrila to have her meals, the officer then stated that this was a protected area and she was not allowed to go there.
So...., did Ms. Chee stepped foot into Shangrila Hotel and committed a breach of that order? If Ms. Chee had clearly violated the order in the first place, why was she allowed to walk 400m in the protected area before being abducted? Shouldn't she have been arrested while breaching the 500m boundary? The intrusion into the protected area of 400m (80%) into the area, does this not imply that movement around the area was not totally disallowed. Compare this with an intrusion into an army base in Singapore, which is also considered a protected area and protected place. Do you think Ms. Chee can walk 400m into the army base without proper authorisation?
(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
My question is; are you using a press release by Singapore Police Force as law, or, are you using Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap. 256) to enforce the removal from the protected area?
If it's the former, is a press release by the Singapore Police Force considered as law now?
first, please check that the 500m all round Shangri-la was gazatted as a protected area by the SPF's official press release.
Now that we understand all 500m around the area is protected and that the Chees are within the 500ms we refer to the law (protected area and protected places act).
according to the law, protected area and protected places act:
The chees gang are within the 500m radius protected area, they are subjected to:
Protected areas.....places act
2) Any person who is in any protected area (in this context 500m around and the compound of Shangrila) shall comply with such [u]directions for regulating his movement[/u] and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
The police officer which is the authorised officer have to right to deny entry of the person by regulating that she move out of the protected area(500m of the hotel). Under the law as long as you are in the area, you have to comply. The police can regulate your movement by asking you to move out until you do so if not the law warrants the police to escort you out.
And also, army bases are protected places so do not get confused with protected areas. I shall clarify here that protected places is one notch above protected areas as that the authority can arrest without warning anyone within a protected place.
They refuse to comply and then under this section:
3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
Direction in the form of asking them to leave the area, they refuse, they were removed from the area by an authorised officer. -
I do not assume. I debate with reference and facts thats why we have the quotes and the references here for.Originally posted by maurizio13:I think he just assumes that task performed by the police are unquestionable and wholly legal.
If the police bangs down his door, arrest him and his family under Internal Security Act (ISA), it is legal.
Why?
It's because they are the police force and everything they do is legal.
go to spf.gov.sg and http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-224&doctitle=PENAL+CODE%0A&date=latest&method=part to double check my content -
I am as unclear of their position in the area as much as any of the forumners here as i doubt any of us can assume the exact position. If no one can confirm their exact location then we shall say that they are within the protected area by the video showing that they walk past a sentry post and also on top of that, the video claims that they were 100ms away from Shangrila.Originally posted by Atobe:[b]
On the contrary, you should be relieved that intellectual discussion should start on the premise of clarity on the matter being debated.
What is the use of wasting endless hours debating on a point of law that itself is not clear where its application begin and end, when it is to be effected, and how it is to be interpreted ?
Since you are unclear of so many issues, how would you know if the police actions were legal ?
Can their acts be legal if they acted outside the defined gazetted area ?
Very clearly, they are in a protected area and they have to comply to the act. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
No it is not for us to be clear about ''their'' positions in the area'' - it is for the Police to be clear as to what area falls within the gazetter area that require their services to protect.
I am as unclear of their position in the area as much as any of the forumners here as i doubt any of us can assume the exact position. If no one can confirm their exact location then we shall assume that they are within the protected area by the video showing that they past a sentry post.
It is wrong to assume that ''they'' are guilty when no one is sure if they are inside or outside of the 500m gazetted protected area.
From the video, it is also not clear if the sentry post within the gazetted area, and knowing the kiasu mentality of the Singapore Police, there is the very possibility of them putting the sentry post beyond the gazetted area so as to nip any problem out-of-sight from the V.V.I.P area ? -
Thats your assumption on the sentry post outside the protected area. On the contary, i believe the post is within the area, one of the many layers of defence.Originally posted by Atobe:No it is not for us to be clear about ''their'' positions in the area'' - it is for the Police to be clear as to what area falls within the gazetter area that require their services to protect.
It is wrong to assume that ''they'' are guilty when no one is sure if they are inside or outside of the 500m gazetted protected area.
From the video, it is also not clear if the sentry post within the gazetted area, and [u]knowing the kiasu mentality of the Singapore Police, there is the very possibility of them putting the sentry post beyond the gazetted area so as to nip any problem out-of-sight from the V.V.I.P area [/u]?
any way, The video itself said that they are within 100ms from Shangrila.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfnyayx_7u8&feature=related -
The gazetted perimeter ends at the pub outside Orchard Hotel.
That's where all the other protesters stood. -
I think you are the one having problems understanding the issues.Originally posted by foxtrout8:it is a lawful detention (as in detaining is lawful) because the officers have the power to regulate the movement of people within the protected area (one notch above protected places) under the protected area act. failure to comply with the officer under that act is an offence.
I have raised alot of issues rebutting your points, but you have not replied them, instead you chose to give your own reasons.
I would prefer if you not beat around the bush and answer those questions I have posed.
If you intend to beat around the bush, then it's only a one sided view.
You do understand the use of question marks (?). Don't you?
I will cut and paste here for your kind attention.
They only have the right to remove person(s) from the protected area, provided the person(s) breached subsection 4(2) as clearly stated in subsection 4(3).
Protected areas.
4. —(1) If as respects any area it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special measures should be taken to control the movements and conduct of persons therein he may by order declare that area to be a protected area for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
The Police Officer in charge Mr. Michael Tan committed an offence of wrongful restraint and abduction.
Either you didn't understand the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (Chapter 256), or, you intentionally mislead us.
The subsection 4(3) [removal from area] is supposed to be used only when the person has violated subsection 4(2).
But has Ms. Chee or Mr. John Tan violated subsection 4(2)?
Regulating his/her movement in which area?
Was there proper boundaries to demarcate the areas, so that her movement could be regulated?
Regulate: means to control her movement in the area
Even if police officer had erroneously requested that she not go into Shangrila Hotel; did she violate that request by stepping into Shangrila Hotel. From the video, it was shown that she was still outside the walls of Shangrila Hotel, she hasn't even stepped into the hotel. So.....what breach has she committed that resulted the use of subsection (3) that force her removal or abduction?
Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 1
Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 2
Did she denied a search by the police officers, if the police officers had even requested a search? All they wanted was to victimize her because of her political affiliations.
If there were no proper boundaries to differentiate between the different zones, it's not possible to control her movements.
As the video showed, Ms. Chee wasn't even inside Shangrila Hotel.
If subsection 4(2) was not breached, the use of subsection (3) was not justified.
I think the officer in question had himself violated the Kidnapping Act (Chapter 151), section 3.
Abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom
3. Whoever, with intent to hold any person for ransom, abducts or wrongfully restrains or wrongfully confines that person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punished on conviction with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, also be liable to caning.
I might be wrong, but I think you have a vested interest in this issue regarding the wrongful restraint by the police officers. I don't think you have a political cause, but your defence of the police strictly based on legality makes it so.
Thank you. -
Suggest you reread Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) section 4 again and use it in context. If subsection 4(2) wasn't breached; why was subsection 4(3) invoked?Originally posted by foxtrout8:i dont understand why is this so hard to comprehend.
first, please check that the 500m all round Shangri-la was gazatted as a protected area by the SPF's official press release.
Now that we understand all 500m around the area is protected and that the Chees are within the 500ms we refer to the law (protected area and protected places act).
according to the law, protected area and protected places act:
The chees gang are within the 500m radius protected area, they are subjected to:
Protected areas.....places act
2) Any person who is in any protected area (in this context 500m around and the compound of Shangrila) shall comply with such [u]directions for regulating his movement[/u] and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
The police officer which is the authorised officer have to right to deny entry of the person by regulating that she move out of the protected area(500m of the hotel). Under the law as long as you are in the area, you have to comply. I can regulate your movement by asking you to move out until you do so if not the law warrants me to escort you out.
And also, army bases are protected places so do not get confused with protected areas. I shall clarify here that protected places is one notch above protected areas as that the authority can arrest without warning anyone within a protected place.
They refuse to comply and then under this section:
3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
Direction in the form of asking them to leave the area, they refuse, they were removed from the area by an authorised officer.
"Regulating his movement" implies controlling his movement in the area, which does not necessary mean denying his movement in the area. The police officers orders were clear from the video, from the questions that was asked "where are you going madam?", Ms. Chee replied she was going to Shangrila to have her meals, the officer then stated that this was a protected area and she was not allowed to go there.
So...., did Ms. Chee stepped foot into Shangrila Hotel and committed a breach of that order? If Ms. Chee had clearly violated the order in the first place, why was she allowed to walk 400m in the protected area before being abducted? Shouldn't she have been arrested while breaching the 500m boundary? The intrusion into the protected area of 400m (80%) into the area, does this not imply that movement around the area was not totally disallowed. Compare this with an intrusion into an army base in Singapore, which is also considered a protected area and protected place. Do you think Ms. Chee can walk 400m into the army base without proper authorisation?
(2) Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
(3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
My question is; are you using a press release by Singapore Police Force as law, or, are you using Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap. 256) to enforce the removal from the protected area?
If it's the former, is a press release by the Singapore Police Force considered as law now? -
I am sorry, but my legal knowledge is limited.Originally posted by foxtrout8:The wording on their T-shirts coupled with their presence in a public area in both videos very much shows that they are demostrating.
Is outdoor demostration legal in Singapore?
on the first video, Ms chee wasnt speaking but her presence and motive there with the t-shirt on very much shows that she was part of the assembly.
my friend can you be more objective? are they just standing outside shenton way or are they demostrating outside shenton way as you can see in the second video? yes you do need a permit for an assembly outside shenton way.
Please do not make a mockery out of this. Im not trying to quote the protected area act for every situation when the chees got into trouble. Furthermore, we havent finish with the Shangri-la incident yet.
But,
Which Act does it say that outdoor demonstration is illegal?
I am already very objective, reasoning based on facts of the case. On the other hand, you have been very subjective and bias by claiming that Ms. Chee was there in Shangrila Hotel to cause some kind of security threat. What proof have you that she was there to pose a security threat?
What is your definition of an assembly?
All I see are 4 people wearing different worded t-shirts standing outside a building in Shenton Way.
So, if 3 of my friends and me decide to wear t-shirts such as, "Long Live The P4P Monarchy!", "LKY wan shui wan shui", "I Love LSL Because He Raised GST To Help The Poor", etc.
Will I be arrested for demonstration?
If 3 of us wear t-shirt saying, "Sexual Liberation", "No Racial Discrimination", "Human Rights Suck!", etc.
If we stand outside Shenton Way, will we be arrested?
Isn't it similar to what the Chees have done, but it's apolitical as it does not involve issues directly relating to government.
May I know which Act of parliament specifically provides for such actions?
Please cite an Act. -
I think you have problems understanding the definition of "regulating", if I say "Can you help me regulate the temperature of this oven......?". Does it specifically mean to turn off the oven? To regulate is to control.Originally posted by foxtrout8:i dont understand why is this so hard to comprehend.
first, please check that the 500m all round Shangri-la was gazatted as a protected area by the SPF's official press release.
Now that we understand all 500m around the area is protected and that the Chees are within the 500ms we refer to the law (protected area and protected places act).
according to the law, protected area and protected places act:
The chees gang are within the 500m radius protected area, they are subjected to:
Protected areas.....places act
2) Any person who is in any protected area (in this context 500m around and the compound of Shangrila) shall comply with such [u]directions for regulating his movement[/u] and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
The police officer which is the authorised officer have to right to deny entry of the person by regulating that she move out of the protected area(500m of the hotel). Under the law as long as you are in the area, you have to comply. The police can regulate your movement by asking you to move out until you do so if not the law warrants the police to escort you out.
And also, army bases are protected places so do not get confused with protected areas. I shall clarify here that protected places is one notch above protected areas as that the authority can arrest without warning anyone within a protected place.
They refuse to comply and then under this section:
3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
Direction in the form of asking them to leave the area, they refuse, they were removed from the area by an authorised officer.
From the video, when Ms. Chee breached the 500m boundary, no action was taken to stop her immediately. All the police officer asked was, "Where are you going madam?"
Which means that if you have a purpose to be there official or otherwise, you could be there in Shangrila Hotel. Else the police officer would have just stopped EVERYBODY breaching the 500m boundary.
Subsection 4(2) of the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act states that, the officer has the right to search the person in the protected area. But the police officer fail to avail himself to that possibility.
Ms. Chee replied the police officer that she was going to Shangrila Hotel to have her meals. The police officer said, she can't go there, to which she continue.
Ms. Chee was abducted outside the Shangrila Hotel, at what point did she violated the police officer's directions? She has not breached the directions by walking into Shangrila Hotel as ordered by the police officer.
So, Ms. Chee has not violated subsection 4(2) of the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (Chap. 256). What right has the police officer to forcibly removed her from the area by using subsection 4(3).
It was clearly stated that subsection 4(3) will only be used if the person(s) are in violation of subsection 4(2).
Can you understand the logic of this objective point of view?
Do you choose to be subjective and still insist that, so long as police officers are authorised, they can go about doing anything they want.
An objective person would not say, since Ms. Chee has done some demonstration in the past, she is likely to demonstrate today. Has Ms. Chee been convicted in a court of law for protesting in public? Maybe you can cite some cases?
A convicted murderer (culpable homicide), serving his time in prison, after his release. Does it mean he is still a potential murderer? If so, then he should be killed or locked up permanently. And the government should just trash the yellow ribbon project, which is just plainly controversial.
I cannot deny that Ms. Chee might have some political objectives, but she definitely does not pose a security threat. The only threat that I can forsee is her being an embarassment to our P4P government.
Looking blankly at the law and citing it is of no use, if you didn't apply it to the context of the case.
It's a disjunction between text based law and physical reality.
When you look at the law, also look at the issue in the case in context. -
the chees have a track record of making troubles and nuisance. it is enough arrest the chee and the gang to prevent them from breaking the law as it can easily be established that they have the intention to create troubles again at shangri la hotel. -
What right have the police officer the right to invoke subsection 4(3), requesting that Ms. Chee leave the area?Originally posted by foxtrout8:i dont understand why is this so hard to comprehend.
first, please check that the 500m all round Shangri-la was gazatted as a protected area by the SPF's official press release.
Now that we understand all 500m around the area is protected and that the Chees are within the 500ms we refer to the law (protected area and protected places act).
according to the law, protected area and protected places act:
The chees gang are within the 500m radius protected area, they are subjected to:
Protected areas.....places act
2) Any person who is in any protected area (in this context 500m around and the compound of Shangrila) shall comply with such [u]directions for regulating his movement[/u] and conduct as may be given by an authorised officer, and an authorised officer may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected area, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.
The police officer which is the authorised officer have to right to deny entry of the person by regulating that she move out of the protected area(500m of the hotel). Under the law as long as you are in the area, you have to comply. The police can regulate your movement by asking you to move out until you do so if not the law warrants the police to escort you out.
And also, army bases are protected places so do not get confused with protected areas. I shall clarify here that protected places is one notch above protected areas as that the authority can arrest without warning anyone within a protected place.
They refuse to comply and then under this section:
3) If any person while in a protected area fails to comply with any direction given under subsection (2), then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the area by an authorised officer.
Direction in the form of asking them to leave the area, they refuse, they were removed from the area by an authorised officer.
The pair of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan have not breached subsection 4(2).
Regulate means control, it does not mean terminate or remove.
Only if they refused the police subsection 4(2), a police search, will they have violated subsection 4(2) and cause the police to avail themselves of subsection 4(3).
But they have not violated subsection 4(2), the police did not request a search, the police only instructed them not to proceed to Shangrila Hotel, which they have not breached, because they were abducted outside the premises of Shangrila Hotel on a public road.
Are you applying the Act to issues in the case, or are you just applying the Act? -
4 of them stood outside CPF building were not charged at all, they did not create troubleOriginally posted by maurizio13:I am sorry, but my legal knowledge is limited.
But,
Which Act does it say that outdoor demonstration is illegal?
I am already very objective, reasoning based on facts of the case. On the other hand, you have been very subjective and bias by claiming that Ms. Chee was there in Shangrila Hotel to cause some kind of security threat. What proof have you that she was there to pose a security threat?
What is your definition of an assembly?
All I see are 4 people wearing different worded t-shirts standing outside a building in Shenton Way.
So, if 3 of my friends and me decide to wear t-shirts such as, "Long Live The P4P Monarchy!", "LKY wan shui wan shui", "I Love LSL Because He Raised GST To Help The Poor", etc.
Will I be arrested for demonstration?
If 3 of us wear t-shirt saying, "Sexual Liberation", "No Racial Discrimination", "Human Rights Suck!", etc.
If we stand outside Shenton Way, will we be arrested?
Isn't it similar to what the Chees have done, but it's apolitical as it does not involve issues directly relating to government.
May I know which Act of parliament specifically provides for such actions?
Please cite an Act. -
The Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap 256) is a vague law, most desired by law enforcers.
The hotel is declared a protected place and at the same time opens to public for business. Sure spark controversy and lead to problems that seem to defy a satisfactory solution. -
In Singapore, the vagueness offers opportunity for politically motivated action that can be defended on pain of defamation or a lack of just cause.Originally posted by googoomuck:The Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chap 256) is a vague law, most desired by law enforcers.
The hotel is declared a protected place and at the same time opens to public for business. Sure spark controversy and lead to problems that seem to defy a satisfactory solution. -
to maurizio13:
1)do you agree that chee and her gang were within the 500m in a protected area?
2)do you agree that the police have the power vested by protected areas and protected places act at the location?
3)do you agree that the police told chee and a gang that they were 'in a protected area and advise to leave, turn around..', they did not say 'do not enter shangri-la hotel'? remember the parrot and what did he keep repeating?
4)do you agree that the police gave multiple warnings and they refused to leave?
5)since you said 'control = regulate' do you agree that the police have the right to regulate movement in a protected area to the extent of controlling your movement one way to the exit by the 4 (2) of protected area and protected places act?
6)do you agree that the gang refused to comply to the police warning?
7)do you agree that the police have the right by law to escort them out under 4(3) of the act?
thank you and we shall go one by one.