famiLEE LEEgime (rather) quietly repealed Cap68 Criminal Procedure Code etc

[uncleyap]

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers... PROCEDURE CODE &date=latest&method=part&sl=1

<center>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

</center><center>(CHAPTER 68)

</center><center> <table> <tbody><tr valign="TOP"> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table></center>
<center>The document was repealed on 02/01/2011.

</center>

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...EDURE CODE 2010 &date=latest&method=part&sl=1



<table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">
</td> <td align="right" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <center>[SIZE=+1]REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+3]GOVERNMENT GAZETTE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]ACTS SUPPLEMENT[/SIZE]Published by Authority
<hr> <table border="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" width="20%"> NO. 13 </td> <td align="center" width="60%"> ] FRIDAY, JUNE 25 [ </td> <td align="center" width="20%"> 2010 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <hr></center>The following Act was passed by Parliament on 19th May 2010 and assented to by the President on 10th June 2010:—
<center>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 2010

</center><center>(No. 15 of 2010)

</center><center><hr width="30%"></center>I assent.
S R NATHAN
President.
10th June 2010.
Date of coming into operation: 2nd January 2011
<center> <table> <tbody><tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </center> An Act to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other written laws.
Be it enacted by the President with the advice and consent of the Parliament of Singapore, as follows:

 

[uncleyap]

It is very old law, in force for long time, familiar by most matas and lawyers.

But this is now ALL gone!

That means Retraining is necessary.

I have proven in court that very very senior mata @ even commissionaire and superintendents are all blur fuck of SG Laws.

Now they are even more blur fucked.


<center>(CHAPTER 68)

</center><center> <table> <tbody><tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">2 of 1980

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">1 of 1969

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">Reprints

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">13 of 1955

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">Ordinance

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">1970 Ed. Cap. 113

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">REVISED EDITION 1985

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">37 of 1956

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">29 of 1957

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">10 of 1958

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">38 of 1959

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">18 of 1960

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">2 of 1962

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">M 6 of 1965

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">M 25 of 1965

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">12 of 1966

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">10 of 1967

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">18 of 1967

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">14 of 1969

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">17 of 1969

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">19 of 1970

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">20 of 1970

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">12 of 1972

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">21 of 1973

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">10 of 1976

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">10 of 1983

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">9 of 1984

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">24 of 1984

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">5 of 1986

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S 223/59

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S(NS) 67/59

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S(NS) 177/59

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S(NS) 178/59

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S(NS) 179/59

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">Sp. S 68/64

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S 341/80

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">LNs

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">234/63

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">107/64

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">214/65

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">228/65

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S 267/85

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S 337/89

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">S 22/89

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">Act 13/92

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">Act 16/93

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">Act 2/94

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">39 of 1995

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">31 of 1996

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">7 of 1997

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">8 of 1998

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">46 of 1998

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">38 of 2000

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">4 of 2001

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">20 of 2001

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">25 of 2002

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">6 of 2004

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr valign="TOP"> <td> <table height="74" border="1"> <tbody><tr align="CENTER" valign="TOP"> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">20 of 2004

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">42 of 2005

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">2 of 2007

</td> <td align="CENTER" valign="CENTER">

</td> <td width="85">51 of 2007

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </center> An Act relating to criminal procedure.

 

[Forvendet]

I assent.
S R NATHAN
President.

This is all it takes to collect $4m per year.

 

[uncleyap]

If you searched for Criminal Law Temp Provision Section 55 is no longer there.

I can assure LEEgime that the more the play with these the deeper they had fucked themselves.

e.g. now under new law you & I can arrest mata under section 66 of Act 15 of 2010:

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=2010-ACT-15-N&doctitle=CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20CODE%202010%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...l=1&segid=1272609582-001575#1272609582-001652

Arrest by private person
66. —(1) Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view or presence, commits an arrestable non-bailable offence, or who has been proclaimed as an offender under section 88. (2) The private person must, without unnecessary delay, hand over the arrested person to a police officer or take him to a police station. (3) If there is reason to believe that the arrested person is a person referred to in section 64(1), a police officer must re-arrest him. (4) If there is reason to believe that the arrested person has committed a non-arrestable offence and he refuses to give his name and residential address when required by a police officer, or gives a residential address outside Singapore, or a name or residential address that the police officer has reason to believe is false, he may be dealt with under section 65. (5) If there is no reason to believe that the arrested person has committed any offence, he must be released at once. (6) A person who commits an offence against any other person (referred to in this subsection as the victim) or that other person’s property may, if —

<dl>(a) his name and residential address are unknown;</dl><dl>(b) he gives a residential address outside Singapore; or</dl><dl>(c) he gives a name or residential address which the victim or any person who is using the victim’s property in relation to which the offence is committed, or which the employee of either of those persons, or which any person authorised by or acting in aid of either of those persons, has reason to believe is false,</dl> be apprehended by the victim, employee or such person referred to in paragraph (c). (7) The person apprehended under subsection (6) may be detained until he can be delivered into the custody of a police officer, and subsections (3), (4) and (5) shall thereafter apply. (8) If any person being lawfully apprehended under subsection (6) assaults or forcibly resists the person by whom he is so apprehended, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

As long as the mata :
in your view or presence, commits an arrestable non-bailable offence, you may arrest a mata.

How sweet!

<dl></dl> <dl></dl>

 

[uncleyap]

This is all it takes to collect $4m per year.

Exactly

 

[busdriver111]

UY, please don't display your ignorance here....

1. The CPC was re-enacted to fit in amendments to its provisions. Everyone knew about it long ago.

2. There is no such thing, and there was never was such a thing as, section 55. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act is "nicknamed" 55, because it started life as an ordinance in 1955.

 

[GoldenDragon]

This is all it takes to collect $4m per year.

Nope. You forgot the rest? Shake hands, nod head, wave, attend functions, smile, act intellectual etc. In a nutshell, what PrataMan does, an ordinary human being is also capable.

 

[scroobal]

1) The arrest by a private person has been there from day one
2) No such thing as Sec 55. It refers to the year CLTP was enacted.
3) Usual spring cleaning as they remove outdated and introduce new stuff for changing society.

The political sensitive legislation that was introduced in recent times refers to restrictions by Private Investigators looking into politically important people and that includes spouses engaging PI to monitor wayward partners. Done to stop the wife of second son probing about a new offspring that she did not conceive.

As usual, shoot everywhere but in the right direction. You are the best thing that ever happened to the PAP. With Gopalan Nair, both of you should do a vaudeville act at the PAP Cadres Biennial Gathering.

If you searched for Criminal Law Temp Provision Section 55 is no longer there.

I can assure LEEgime that the more the play with these the deeper they had fucked themselves.

e.g. now under new law you & I can arrest mata under section 66 of Act 15 of 2010:

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=2010-ACT-15-N&doctitle=CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE%20CODE%202010%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...l=1&segid=1272609582-001575#1272609582-001652




As long as the mata :
in your view or presence, commits an arrestable non-bailable offence, you may arrest a mata.

How sweet!

<dl></dl> <dl></dl>

 

[GoldenDragon]

1) The political sensitive legislation that was introduced in recent times refers to restrictions by Private Investigators looking into politically important people and that includes spouses engaging PI to monitor wayward partners.

It was OKM's ECA that caused this change. PIs must now forward all their surveillance targets to SIRD for their clearance. Am sure SIRD would have a list of 'sensitive' people, similar to white horses in the SAF.

 

[scroobal]

OKM came in later. LBH was earlier but they did not bother. Even AM's gay boyfriend did not seem to bother them. SIRD must be wondering what the hell they are doing.

The cheek of OKM and his wife giving a press interview about family life after the episode.

 

[GoldenDragon]

OKM came in later. LBH was earlier but they did not bother. Even AM's gay boyfriend did not seem to bother them. SIRD must be wondering what the hell they are doing.

The cheek of OKM and his wife giving a press interview about family life after the episode.

LBH's took place many years ago - sometime in 05 or 06 but definitely before the 06 GE.

 

[uncleyap]

I had for many years using LEEgime's so called laws to handle their judges and matas and prosecutors, and put them at the right places, and in order to win by cheating they had been forced to ignore their own so called law ON PUBLIC RECORDS. Or in other cases put them at the right places. This is not something that most opposition fighters do. The most law qualified opposition is late JBJ, and he got bullied by LEEgime in court, instead of putting them at the right places. I did what I did, and the records there are so thick already, that they will pile up a stack taller than 2 men, over these years. LEEgime is unable to deal with me by abusing their so call laws, until such that they had to amend their so called laws or created new so called laws - such as no filming mata this and that.

The fact here is they are deeper into their own graves, shooting their own throat, the so called law is no longer effective as their political weapons, but burdens and pains, and this scenario can not be changed until they fall.

I have no need to argue here, nor need to be at this sort of platform.

The case in my recent video was originally handled by JBJ, and he pass away before getting his hands on the case, so Ng Teck Siong past the case to Chia Ti Lik, but the LAWFUL SYSTEM UNLAWFULLY CHEATED JUSTICE. So I did a series of video to expose them.

<iframe width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Hh2K79SJRho" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[uncleyap]

关于新加坡李光耀老狗贼李家王朝的所谓【法制】问题，世人必需如下地透彻了解：

李家王朝自从立国【新马分家】以来，就是李家操纵立法国会，一手遮天。

它们自己立自己的所谓【法】，自己盖章通过，总统核准也是自己【制造】的。然后，【强加】在我们人民身上的。

特别是对付反对党的方面(Fix Opposition)，都是滥用它们自己编造；核批；盖章；颁布的所谓【法律】！

那么呢，到目前自己都已经知道是【不管用啦】！

我们现在就已经证明了，就单把李家王朝的所谓【法律】，加在它自己身上，它就自己犯法非常多。已经足够判罪入狱，下台，无资格当政了。

这样浅显易见。

李家王朝的猪狗们，有机会可以自己一手摸着脑袋，一手捂着良心，照照镜子，问问自己：

到那风水轮流转，（很快哟！）那时候，让自己今天的对手来用类似的方式，弄所谓的法律来强加在它们身上，那它们全都会面对什么结局和命运呢？我不提供任何暗示，照我讲的方式按脑扪心照镜问自己就好了！




pasted to blog :
http://uncleyap-kh.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post.html

这里包含了【能耐】的问题；【形势】的问题；【战略】的问题。

 

[da dick]

wa lao. too many mata accept bribe, must change law liao.

 

[emeritus CB]

wa lao. too many mata accept bribe, must change law liao.

Times are bad , money no enough , what to do ?