<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - SPF: Phone threat not seizable offence?</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">limtuakang <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">8:49 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 3) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>9619.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>The contrasting differences in the police handling of the Ng Kim Ngweng’s case and another similiar one involving a Madam Tan Lian Gim were too glaring to be missed.
Rag-and-bone man Ng was alleged to have committed criminal intimidation by threatening to beat an unknown MP over the phone. He was arrested immediately the very next day. (read article here)
Madam Tan Lian Gim’s husband received a verbal threat on his mobile phone threatening to inflict bodily harm on him. A report was lodged at Bedok North Police station on the same day, but no action was taken. (read letter here)
Let’s compare the two cases:
1. Mr Ng Kim Ngweng did not call Ms Denise Phua directly on her phone to threaten her. On the other hand, Madam Tan’s husband was called directly on his phone by a mysterious person threatening to inflict bodily harm on him.
2. Mr Ng Kim Ngweng called the REACH hotline to complain about his MP’s attitude. He got agitated in the process and said the following words “How can you don’t hit her? I get angry when I see her so how can I don’t hit her?” - Notice that Mr Ng did not mention any names explicitly while in the case of Madam Tan’s husband, he received a verbal threat to beat him up directly.
Which case deserve more attention from the police?
According to my limited understanding of the law, for the charge of criminal intimidation to be qualified, three of the following criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The threat must be made to the victim directly in his or her presence.
2. There must be sufficient grounds to believe that the accused will carry out the threat.
3. The victim was frightened, intimidated and traumatized by the threat.
The speed at which the police arrested Ng almost immediately and their apparent unwillingness to investigate the claims of Madam Tan reflects an incongruity in the handling of cases involving PAP leaders and ordinary citizens.
Interestedingly, DSP Paul Tay of the Singapore Police Force wrote a letter to the Straits Time Forum today defending the ineptitude of the police to act on the behest of Madam Tan:
“Under the law, verbal threat is a non-seizable offence where the police have limited powers of investigation and arrests. Nonetheless, when a report is made, the police will look into the facts and if no aggravating factor is found, the police will advise the complainant to lodge a complaint before a magistrate, who has the power to direct further action as provided under the law. ” (read full letter here)
May I ask DSP Paul Tay the following questions:
1. Since verbal threat is a “non-seizable” offence, why was Mr Ng arrested by the police the next day after allegedly making verbal threats on the phone against Ms Denise Phua?
2. Did the police exceed its powers of investigations and arrests in this instance?
3. Did the police look into facts of Mr Ng’s case and what are its findings? What was the likelihood of Mr Ng acting on his threat?
4. Why wasn’t Ms Denise Phua advised to lodge a complaint before a magistrate as is the standard operating procedure for all such cases?
Read rest of article here:
http://wayangparty.com/?p=6623
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Rag-and-bone man Ng was alleged to have committed criminal intimidation by threatening to beat an unknown MP over the phone. He was arrested immediately the very next day. (read article here)
Madam Tan Lian Gim’s husband received a verbal threat on his mobile phone threatening to inflict bodily harm on him. A report was lodged at Bedok North Police station on the same day, but no action was taken. (read letter here)
Let’s compare the two cases:
1. Mr Ng Kim Ngweng did not call Ms Denise Phua directly on her phone to threaten her. On the other hand, Madam Tan’s husband was called directly on his phone by a mysterious person threatening to inflict bodily harm on him.
2. Mr Ng Kim Ngweng called the REACH hotline to complain about his MP’s attitude. He got agitated in the process and said the following words “How can you don’t hit her? I get angry when I see her so how can I don’t hit her?” - Notice that Mr Ng did not mention any names explicitly while in the case of Madam Tan’s husband, he received a verbal threat to beat him up directly.
Which case deserve more attention from the police?
According to my limited understanding of the law, for the charge of criminal intimidation to be qualified, three of the following criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The threat must be made to the victim directly in his or her presence.
2. There must be sufficient grounds to believe that the accused will carry out the threat.
3. The victim was frightened, intimidated and traumatized by the threat.
The speed at which the police arrested Ng almost immediately and their apparent unwillingness to investigate the claims of Madam Tan reflects an incongruity in the handling of cases involving PAP leaders and ordinary citizens.
Interestedingly, DSP Paul Tay of the Singapore Police Force wrote a letter to the Straits Time Forum today defending the ineptitude of the police to act on the behest of Madam Tan:
“Under the law, verbal threat is a non-seizable offence where the police have limited powers of investigation and arrests. Nonetheless, when a report is made, the police will look into the facts and if no aggravating factor is found, the police will advise the complainant to lodge a complaint before a magistrate, who has the power to direct further action as provided under the law. ” (read full letter here)
May I ask DSP Paul Tay the following questions:
1. Since verbal threat is a “non-seizable” offence, why was Mr Ng arrested by the police the next day after allegedly making verbal threats on the phone against Ms Denise Phua?
2. Did the police exceed its powers of investigations and arrests in this instance?
3. Did the police look into facts of Mr Ng’s case and what are its findings? What was the likelihood of Mr Ng acting on his threat?
4. Why wasn’t Ms Denise Phua advised to lodge a complaint before a magistrate as is the standard operating procedure for all such cases?
Read rest of article here:
http://wayangparty.com/?p=6623
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
