40% only managed to vote in 6 real MPs....you expect miracle?
The 60% deserved the govt they voted.....the 40% just have to suffer along.
The 60% deserved the govt they voted.....the 40% just have to suffer along.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
SPF Shocking Incompetence!!!
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
You need to understand that context is all important.
"Proofs" is only used when the term is being used to describe an object eg "press proofs" or "prepress proofs".
It is explained perfectly at http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/proof
By Andrew Loh
The Singapore Police Force (SPF) keeps Singapore safe. That is its job. But what happens if Singaporeans themselves start losing faith and trust in the force? In recent times, several cases have dented Singaporeans' confidence in the men in blue.
The most famous case was of terrorist suspect Mas Selamat Kastari who escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre in 2007. More recently, Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu was allowed to leave Singapore even as his case was being investigated by the police.
Ionescu, the highest-ranking diplomat at the Romanian embassy in Singapore at the time of the incident, was reported to have hit three men with his car in the early hours of December 2009. The incident resulted in the death of Malaysian Tong Kok Wai.
Ionescu has since been charged in Romania for the incident. The case is still ongoing.
Closer to home, the police's apparent lackadaisical attitude towards some cases have also raised questions about its competence.
The Suntec City assault incident involving three foreign men is now making the rounds on the Internet after The New Paper reported the assault in 2011, followed by online portals later on.
What frustrates and disappoints the public, particularly, are two things:
1. The police's silence, even to the victims of the assault, in providing updates on the case.
2. The police's seeming disinterest in pursuing the case so that justice is meted out swiftly, and the victims can have closure to the matter. It took more than a year before the assailants were charged in court, and it has been 22 months since the night of the assault.
The Suntec City attack was a vicious one carried out by three foreigners — New Zealander Robert Stephen Dahlberg, Australian Nathan Robert Miller and Briton Robert James Springall — in the evening of April 2010.
So far, only Miller has been brought to justice, with a three weeks sentence in jail. Dahlberg, rather inexplicably, was allowed to leave Singapore in July last year, just about a month after he was charged in court.
Springall too was apparently allowed to leave Singapore in September last year.
Both men have since absconded, leaving the victims of the attack finding the whole process incredulous.
Disbelief and anger
Online reactions too express disbelief and anger at how the two expats could be allowed to leave Singapore so easily.
This is not a case of pickpocketing or littering or something more innocuous. This is a case of a viciously violent assault on three do-gooders whose only intent that night was to come to the aid of a cab driver who was being punched, threatened and harassed by the reportedly drunk men close to midnight.
The three good Samaritans, which were really what they were, put their lives on the line, as it turned out, to help a 57-year old cabby who pleaded with them to help. A passerby who chipped in to assist that night was also threatened by the assailants that he would be killed if he did not get out of their way while they were escaping from the scene. It was a threat which had already been effectively carried out on one of those they had attacked just minutes earlier that night.
To members of the public, it is clear-cut case of assault and causing grievous hurt. One of the do-gooders had his head slammed by one of the assailants into the sharp edge of one of the pillars at the building at Suntec. Blood poured from the wound on his head. He fell to the floor — only to have the assailant then repeatedly and mercilessly kick him on the head, rendering him unconscious.
It is more than fortunate that he was not killed.
Yet, speaking to the two victims, the police seemed disinterested in lending any urgency to pursuing the matter, even though the victims had provided the police with all information to help in the case, and offered themselves in assistance.
It took more than a year before the case finally went to the courts.
And even after this, two of the three men have been allowed to escape.
The authorities cannot fault the public, and especially the victims themselves, if the charge of incompetency is levelled at the police. One might even say the police officers involved in the case are inept, lazy and a disgrace to the rest of their colleagues in the force who are doing good work.
This is a case which should evoke a personal response from the Minister for Home Affairs. This is a matter of public interest. The victims have been trying to obtain information from the police but have been met with a wall of silence.
The Minister for Home Affairs should now take a personal interest in this case and account to the public the behaviour, the performance (or lack thereof), and the apparent disinterest and incompetence of those under his charge.
He should also explain to the public and the victims what his ministry now plans to do with regards to the two assailants who have fled our country.
(Read an account of what the victims have to say about the case here.)
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011.
- http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/sing...dling-suntec-city-assault-case-092142868.html
The Singapore Police Force (SPF) keeps Singapore safe. That is its job. But what happens if Singaporeans themselves start losing faith and trust in the force? In recent times, several cases have dented Singaporeans' confidence in the men in blue.
The most famous case was of terrorist suspect Mas Selamat Kastari who escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre in 2007. More recently, Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu was allowed to leave Singapore even as his case was being investigated by the police.
Ionescu, the highest-ranking diplomat at the Romanian embassy in Singapore at the time of the incident, was reported to have hit three men with his car in the early hours of December 2009. The incident resulted in the death of Malaysian Tong Kok Wai.
Ionescu has since been charged in Romania for the incident. The case is still ongoing.
Closer to home, the police's apparent lackadaisical attitude towards some cases have also raised questions about its competence.
The Suntec City assault incident involving three foreign men is now making the rounds on the Internet after The New Paper reported the assault in 2011, followed by online portals later on.
What frustrates and disappoints the public, particularly, are two things:
1. The police's silence, even to the victims of the assault, in providing updates on the case.
2. The police's seeming disinterest in pursuing the case so that justice is meted out swiftly, and the victims can have closure to the matter. It took more than a year before the assailants were charged in court, and it has been 22 months since the night of the assault.
The Suntec City attack was a vicious one carried out by three foreigners — New Zealander Robert Stephen Dahlberg, Australian Nathan Robert Miller and Briton Robert James Springall — in the evening of April 2010.
So far, only Miller has been brought to justice, with a three weeks sentence in jail. Dahlberg, rather inexplicably, was allowed to leave Singapore in July last year, just about a month after he was charged in court.
Springall too was apparently allowed to leave Singapore in September last year.
Both men have since absconded, leaving the victims of the attack finding the whole process incredulous.
Disbelief and anger
Online reactions too express disbelief and anger at how the two expats could be allowed to leave Singapore so easily.
This is not a case of pickpocketing or littering or something more innocuous. This is a case of a viciously violent assault on three do-gooders whose only intent that night was to come to the aid of a cab driver who was being punched, threatened and harassed by the reportedly drunk men close to midnight.
The three good Samaritans, which were really what they were, put their lives on the line, as it turned out, to help a 57-year old cabby who pleaded with them to help. A passerby who chipped in to assist that night was also threatened by the assailants that he would be killed if he did not get out of their way while they were escaping from the scene. It was a threat which had already been effectively carried out on one of those they had attacked just minutes earlier that night.
To members of the public, it is clear-cut case of assault and causing grievous hurt. One of the do-gooders had his head slammed by one of the assailants into the sharp edge of one of the pillars at the building at Suntec. Blood poured from the wound on his head. He fell to the floor — only to have the assailant then repeatedly and mercilessly kick him on the head, rendering him unconscious.
It is more than fortunate that he was not killed.
Yet, speaking to the two victims, the police seemed disinterested in lending any urgency to pursuing the matter, even though the victims had provided the police with all information to help in the case, and offered themselves in assistance.
It took more than a year before the case finally went to the courts.
And even after this, two of the three men have been allowed to escape.
The authorities cannot fault the public, and especially the victims themselves, if the charge of incompetency is levelled at the police. One might even say the police officers involved in the case are inept, lazy and a disgrace to the rest of their colleagues in the force who are doing good work.
This is a case which should evoke a personal response from the Minister for Home Affairs. This is a matter of public interest. The victims have been trying to obtain information from the police but have been met with a wall of silence.
The Minister for Home Affairs should now take a personal interest in this case and account to the public the behaviour, the performance (or lack thereof), and the apparent disinterest and incompetence of those under his charge.
He should also explain to the public and the victims what his ministry now plans to do with regards to the two assailants who have fled our country.
(Read an account of what the victims have to say about the case here.)
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011.
- http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/sing...dling-suntec-city-assault-case-092142868.html
The PAP Government needs forfeited bail money to cover the $26 billion loss. By the way, when was the last time you checked your Singpower bill?
Things are different when you vandalise a car or buy drugs from the son of a Judicial Commisioner. That's the way it is.
His article in his own blog is where the issues are. Its shows clear negligence, incompetence and wholesale disregard to the incident.
This article in Yahoo unfortunately does not contain it. The bail condition for the 2 are actually in common with accepted practice.
Bail quantum is offered based on severity of case. Though this incident is unfortunate, in the eyes of the law, its a broken nose and drunken behaviour. Commandeering the taxi is another. The passports were impounded but you cannot deny travel and in this case, the bail quantum was increased. Only in capital cases and where large sums of money is involved will bail or permission to leave the country will be denied.
Everyday there will be some Singapore and most are Singaporeans who will be jumping bail. Its common all around the world. But most turn up in court to face the music and some are acquitted. Because of a few, you cannot deny bail for offences that are not major.
What Andrew should have done is write about the police failures which were numerous and the extent the victims had to conduct their own investigation to allow some level of justice to occur. He covered this well in his own blog.
This article in Yahoo unfortunately does not contain it. The bail condition for the 2 are actually in common with accepted practice.
Bail quantum is offered based on severity of case. Though this incident is unfortunate, in the eyes of the law, its a broken nose and drunken behaviour. Commandeering the taxi is another. The passports were impounded but you cannot deny travel and in this case, the bail quantum was increased. Only in capital cases and where large sums of money is involved will bail or permission to leave the country will be denied.
Everyday there will be some Singapore and most are Singaporeans who will be jumping bail. Its common all around the world. But most turn up in court to face the music and some are acquitted. Because of a few, you cannot deny bail for offences that are not major.
What Andrew should have done is write about the police failures which were numerous and the extent the victims had to conduct their own investigation to allow some level of justice to occur. He covered this well in his own blog.
Last edited:
It's plain silly. Andrew should have consulted me before writing something as silly as that. It's just a fight. Singaporeans lost the fight and foreigners won. Still have the face to complain no police protection? Go hire personal bodyguards, please, if you don't know how to fight. All the foreigners are guilty of is exceeding the limit of causing common hurt into grievous hurt. Get a lawyer to seek compensation or pay a gang to seek revenge. But no, they want free police service.
Then free police it shall be and law by law through the legal process of course. Medical checkups, medical reports, scene of crime reports, interviews and statements of victims and witnesses, interrogation statements of accuseds, station bail pending further investigation, all these take 14 days to 2 months. What do you think legal process is? You say he's guilty, police just send him to court and the judge hammer on his desk to declare him guilty and you win?
The accused is entitled to his side of the story and legal defense too. Unless the accused plead guilty at outset or offer settlement out of court, that right to legal defense will drag the case for months from mention to trial. And the trial may be be completed in one session. Cross examination and challenging of evidence and witnesses from both sides, scheduled witnesses not showing up etc., leading to adjournment after adjournment over years is very common.
This is not only the legal process in Singapore, it's the same all over first world countries. Only in third world countries will there be summary sentencing and summary execution of sentence without due rights to defense. Is that what we all want for Singapore? The one who call police first wins? The judge just glances through two sheets of statements and pronounces his verdict? If you're on the receiving end the one being charged, how would you feel? Bet you'd forum, blog, facebook and tweet your grievances about incompetency, injustice, no right to proper and throrough process of legal defense etc.
Back to the case in point, yes, they jumped bail. It was the court that granted them bail without impounding their passports. Nothing to do with the police. The judiciary and the police are two separate entities. Even with passports impounded, they could easily jump bail and skip the country if they're resourceful and determined enough. And in such a case, practically all laws in all first world countries allow bail. It's not rape or murder or kidnapping.
Then free police it shall be and law by law through the legal process of course. Medical checkups, medical reports, scene of crime reports, interviews and statements of victims and witnesses, interrogation statements of accuseds, station bail pending further investigation, all these take 14 days to 2 months. What do you think legal process is? You say he's guilty, police just send him to court and the judge hammer on his desk to declare him guilty and you win?
The accused is entitled to his side of the story and legal defense too. Unless the accused plead guilty at outset or offer settlement out of court, that right to legal defense will drag the case for months from mention to trial. And the trial may be be completed in one session. Cross examination and challenging of evidence and witnesses from both sides, scheduled witnesses not showing up etc., leading to adjournment after adjournment over years is very common.
This is not only the legal process in Singapore, it's the same all over first world countries. Only in third world countries will there be summary sentencing and summary execution of sentence without due rights to defense. Is that what we all want for Singapore? The one who call police first wins? The judge just glances through two sheets of statements and pronounces his verdict? If you're on the receiving end the one being charged, how would you feel? Bet you'd forum, blog, facebook and tweet your grievances about incompetency, injustice, no right to proper and throrough process of legal defense etc.
Back to the case in point, yes, they jumped bail. It was the court that granted them bail without impounding their passports. Nothing to do with the police. The judiciary and the police are two separate entities. Even with passports impounded, they could easily jump bail and skip the country if they're resourceful and determined enough. And in such a case, practically all laws in all first world countries allow bail. It's not rape or murder or kidnapping.
Last edited:
Bail is not the fucking issue. Passports and flight risks are! Ptuiiii!
I believe that the judiciary makes the decision regarding bail conditions too. The police don't call the shots in this area.
Thanks for pointing out where the shit was pouring out from.
Police or the courts can set bail and seize passports. As they are charged in court only the courts have jurisdiction. During bail hearing DPP can oppose or seek a quantum or seek conditions. It can be a full blown bail hearing where DPP can offer case law, precedents, highlight police concerns etc. Defence counsel can also put his case across. The courts must give due consideration to these arguments. If DPP is not instructed by the Police, nothing will happen. I got the impression that no objection from Police.
Yes, victims updated. But there will be some cases where lapses take place. Depends on your luck or lack of. If the complt doesn't come forward, all's well. If they do and you are unable to account for the delay, good luck.
In the case highlighted, no genius can explain for the glaring errors. IO will be taken to task. His immediate supervisor too - failure to supervise.
Most likely the angmor fuckers consult Ramseth and Ramseth advise them to jump bail LOL
"No one is above the law says Law Minister K. Shanmugam" - Why then, Mr. Minister, are ang mos almost always let off lightly when they commit a crime in Singapore? Remember this in 2016.
Anti-foreigner sentiment is conflated with this bail jumping and local bashing, so reason is left in the backseat where most armchair policemen are concerned. The police are going to have a hard time explaining and best they just don't explain as nobody wants to hear an explanation anyway.
Reply from Shanmugoh The Kachang Puteh Seller
[I]"Aiyoyo, Thambi, Come on dah, mairu pundek, you must know that these ang-mors are yeverything to me. They were our masters for hundred of years. They gave us the law called the Penal Code and made us respect our women with the Women Charter. They taught us yow to read Yeh Bee Chee and write. Without them, I won't be wearing this beautiful coat and tie but a loin cloth with vermillion on my forehead, just like my dear comrade, Chami Bayloo of Maraysia.
Certainly I don't want any of that. I can feel how Mahatma Gandhi felt when the British press called him a "half-naked fakir". Don't forget I am a Senior Kachang Puteh Seller. Don't be funny with me wokay.
The World respects me including top-guns of the Most Free Countries like Yamarica and Yayrope. When I visit them with the kachang puteh on my head, they have high respect for me because they know I kow-tow to them till today.
So please yunderstand my position as to why these ang-mors can get away scot-free".
What you want to do in 2016, I don't care wokay.[/I]
Last edited:
Fuck. Ang moh come to our country and bully us (so many cases involving taxi drivers, even got one case involving trishaw man). Nothing we can do. We are small sized Asians, physically we cannot beat the ang moh. That's why ang moh can do what they want. In a lawless place we will get killed by ang moh, but i thought singapore had some law and is a civilised place. I thought wrong.
In the 70s, ang mo sailors got beaten up badly by us at Orchard Rd carpark and Tivoli coffeehouse. Size matters. But courage more important. If need be, use weapons. Always strike first.
