Singapore Police Force - The most intelligent force in the world!

[choochoo87]

Tfnyayx_7u8

MdXH5llsQ5c

What a display of human rights; just metres outside the ASEAN Summit where leaders are signing human rights charter. LOL!!!!

[Desmond_]

haha.... joker :o

[wakui00]

Hmm is that the wife of Chee soon juan??

[crayon_shinchan]

sister lah
eat too much nothing to do

[Kain999]

sister lah
eat too much nothing to do

but one of the police inspector got the ** face.
(looks like the ODEX sing leh)

[keywin]

10/10 effort. 1/10 execution.

i dont see how ms chee's antics and these vids will win her any fans... a case of trying too hard? wrong method lar

[xiaobai1]

She's just a troublemaker lah. She obviously had an agenda to be there 1 lor. Hmmmm anyway pity those policeman there kanna bully by her lor and can't do anything.

[nanren]

Entertainment rating : really nothing better to do ....!!

[qwerty88]

Really troublemaker... already mentioned is protected area liao still want to argue.... mata got rights to remove anyone...

[playfool]

the voice of e commentator is hilarious! he doesn't even sound Singaporean! So qiao ASEAN summit wana go Shangri-la and eat mei? Publicity stunt. Knowing there is ASEAN summit she guarantee chop kena face in blacklist. If she really wanted go in and put forward her bro's case, she should have just taken a direct transport in with some sort of disguise. Ya ya walk in.. looking to just kena detained only. for wat? a dumb video clip.

[fox1]

Heh.. this is the reason why 'opposition' is so incredible (not credible).
they are out there to create problems. this has got nothing to do with human rights.
they are known to create problems for the government. if they feel human rights are being suppressed, champion it but don't wash dirty linen in public. they are bringing shame to singapore, instead of championing human rights.

citing the protected places act, the police officers have the right to remove anyone they deem possible to cause problems in the area. with so many foreign dignitaries, that place certainly needs to be protected. :)

i say the police did the right thing in removing them.

[The_Republic]

Heh.. this is the reason why 'opposition' is so incredible (not credible).
they are out there to create problems. this has got nothing to do with human rights.
they are known to create problems for the government. if they feel human rights are being suppressed, champion it but don't wash dirty linen in public. they are bringing shame to singapore, instead of championing human rights.

citing the protected places act, the police officers have the right to remove anyone they deem possible to cause problems in the area. with so many foreign dignitaries, that place certainly needs to be protected. :)

i say the police did the right thing in removing them.Since when did a new science formula appear ??

Opposition = Not Credible = Troublemakers.

Public Show of Human Rights = Wash Dirty Linen in Public = Bringing Shame to Singapore.

Then we expose NKF, Ren Ci etc for what ?? Arent they "Wash Dirty Linen in Public = Bringing Shame to Singapore"

2 Singaporeans walking normally can cause problems and harm to the area and people ??

Osama Bin Laden and Navy Seals should race to recruit them.

Makes me wonder why I serve NS since we are so fragile.

[tak]

dr cheeebye and his party ... sad to say wont win any seats as long as they continued these type of aggressive and clown policy...

[ckjo23]

So sad... We have such a couple of bullies in our life claiming to be bullied where they jolly well know what is the hidden agenda of their motive there... Simple instructions cannot follow, how to expect our children to follow us??? Just my two cents and non sense...

[Kiwi8]

I provide some background first. Later I'll post my views.

Short title.
1. This Act may be cited as the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act.

Interpretation.
2. In this Act —

"authorised officer" means —

(a) any police officer;

(b) any person holding a commission in the Singapore Armed Forces or in any visiting forces lawfully present in Singapore;

(c) any member of the Singapore Armed Forces or of any visiting forces lawfully present in Singapore performing the duties of a guard or sentry in any protected area or protected place in accordance with orders issued by a person holding a commission in the Singapore Armed Forces or of any visiting forces lawfully present in Singapore; or

(d) any person performing the duties of a guard or watchman in a protected area or a protected place and specially authorised in that behalf under section 3;

"divisional police officer" means the police officer in charge of a police division;

"protected area" means any area declared to be a protected area by virtue of section 4;

"protected place" means any premises declared to be a protected place by virtue of section 5.

Authorisation of guards and watchmen.
3. The Commissioner of Police, any divisional police officer and any police officer of or above the rank of assistant superintendent empowered in that behalf by the Commissioner of Police or a divisional police officer, may authorise any person performing the duties of a guard or watchman in a protected area or a protected place to exercise the powers of an authorised officer under this Act.

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.

Protected places.
5. —(1) If as respects any premises it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special precautions should be taken to prevent the entry therein of unauthorised persons, he may by order declare the premises to be a protected place for the purposes of this Act; and so long as the order is in force no person shall be in those premises unless he is in possession of a pass-card or permit issued by such authority or person as may be specified in the order, or has received the permission of an authorised officer on duty at those premises to enter those premises.

(2) Where, in pursuance of this section, any person is granted permission to be in a protected place, that person shall, while acting under such permission, comply with such directions for regulating his conduct as may be given by the authority or person granting the permission; and an authorised officer, or any person authorised in that behalf by the occupier of the premises, may search any person entering, or seeking to enter, or being in, a protected place, and may detain any such person for the purpose of searching him.

(3) If any person is in a protected place in contravention of this section, or while in such a place fails to comply with any direction given under this section, then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the place by an authorised officer or any person authorised in that behalf by the occupier of the premises.

(4) Pass-cards or permits issued under subsection (1) shall be in such form as may be specified in the order made under that subsection, or in such form as the authority or other person specified in the order may determine.

Notice of orders under sections 4 and 5.
6. When any order is made under section 4 (1) or 5 (1), the Minister shall cause notice of the effect of the order to be given in such a manner as he thinks necessary for bringing it to the notice of all persons who in his opinion ought to have notice thereof; and that order shall, notwithstanding the provisions of the Interpretation Act, have effect as soon as the notice has been given, without publication in the Gazette.
Cap. 1.

Penalty.
7. If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of section 4 or 5 or any order made thereunder or any direction given or requirement imposed thereunder, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of 2 years or to both.

Offences seizable and non-bailable.
8. Every offence under the provisions of this Act shall be sezable and non-bailable for the purposes of the law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure.

Special powers in protected areas and protected places.
9. Any person who attempts to enter or who is in a protected area or a protected place and who fails to stop after being challenged 3 times by an authorised officer to do so may be arrested by force, which force may, if necessary to effect the arrest, extend to the voluntary causing of death.

Defensive measures at protected areas and protected places.
10. —(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to authorise the taking of such steps as he may consider necessary for the protection of any protected area or protected place, and such steps may extend to the taking of defensive measures which involve or may involve danger to the life of any person entering or attempting to enter a protected area or protected place.

(2) Where any measures such as are referred to in subsection (1) are adopted, the Commissioner of Police or any person so authorised by the Minister in that behalf shall cause such precautions to be taken, including the prominent display of warning notices, as he considers reasonably necessary to prevent inadvertent or accidental entry into any such protected area or protected place; and where such precautions have been duly taken, no person shall be entitled to compensation or damages in respect of any injuries received or death caused as a result of any unauthorised entry into any such protected area or protected place.

[Kiwi8]

Police Response on the incident.

SPF Media Releases

21 Nov 2007
Police Response

At about 6.00 pm today, Chee Siok Chin and John Tan had walked into Orange Grove Road, which is an area gazetted as a Protected Area. Police officers deployed along the stretch of road first engaged the pair at the junction of Orange Grove Road and Orchard Rd and advised them that they were about to enter the protected area and that they should not do so. However, they ignored the advice of the officers and continued to proceed along Orange Grove Road towards the Shangri-La Hotel. Police engaged them again along Orange Grove Road near Anderson Road . They were warned repeatedly that they had entered the protected area, and should they refuse to leave, they would be removed. When they ignored the repeated warnings, and still refused to leave and continued to move forward, police officers led them into a police vehicle to bring them out of the protected area.

The police officers offered to drive Chee and Tan to the SDP office but Chee requested to be alighted at Orchard Hotel as she claimed that her car was parked there. Both Chee and Tan were alighted at the hotel.

The area around Shangri-La Hotel and three other venues have been gazetted as Protected Areas. Any person engaging in activities, which may compromise the security of the ASEAN Summit, including protesting within the Protected Areas, may be removed to ensure the safety and security of the Summit .

Police had earlier today facilitated the request of four Singaporeans who had wanted to pass a greeting card to the ASEAN Summit leaders. They handed the card to an ASEAN Summit official outside the Protected Area and left. These four persons were not subjected to any police action.

Separately, Police were also informed at about 7pm today that some people wearing red t-shirts had assembled outside Orchard Parade Hotel near the Starbucks outlet. When Police officers approached the location, there was a group of about 35 persons standing in line holding hands. A banner was also displayed. Police advised them to disperse as they had committed an offence of unlawful assembly. The group heeded the advice and dispersed peacefully from the area.

Police will be investigating into the possible offences committed by Chee and Tan, as well as the outdoor protest outside Orchard Parade Hotel.

Police reiterate our advice to the public not to participate in an unlawful assembly or procession. The public are also advised to stay away from the vicinity of such illegal protest activities. Members of the public who choose to give expression to their political views or who wish to organise political activities are urged to do so through available avenues and lawful means. Indoor political forums by Singaporeans are exempt from the need to apply for any licence. Foreigners who wish to do so can apply for a licence from any Police station or on-line at www.spf.gov.sg/licence/index.html. Such licences have been granted in the past.


PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
21 November 2007 at 12.30am

[hellsoul]

i believe the police got their reasons...

[rednikki]

i dunno why, but i somehow feel that the police are video taping what ever they are doing to prevent people like them from sladering them.. last time no prove, they can say all they want. now anything happen got video..

[hellsoul]

the police video taping every where.. even the cars on the road.. becuz they always need evidence for everything...

[ckjo23]

i dunno why, but i somehow feel that the police are video taping what ever they are doing to prevent people like them from sladering them.. last time no prove, they can say all they want. now anything happen got video..

Now that our dear "Bullied" individuals are also doing the same to the police. But it is for a different reason, to show off their "plights" over the net and of course, advertisement to highlight their cause.

[satayxp]

OMG!! police bullying Sgians!!!

protected area??? in the video i see so many ppl walking past leh????

[satayxp]

So sad... We have such a couple of bullies in our life claiming to be bullied where they jolly well know what is the hidden agenda of their motive there... Simple instructions cannot follow, how to expect our children to follow us??? Just my two cents and non sense...

i guess for ppl like u following instruction is more important than differentiating wat's right and wat's wrong ~~ :s13:

hey u shld join the poodle force!

[Dryden28]

Hell... i can't believe it, human rights doesn't mean u can go anywhere want. Are u telling me that after signing the human rights treaty or stuffs like that allows normally citizen to walk into our SOF camps or any airbases like their home~? What i see makes me doubt the efficiency of out own police force. They should have removed Miss chee and her friend at the beginning god what if she is a sucide bomber she would hav gone all the way and that detective is still wait for female colleauges to engage her. Worse of all is a whole bunch of policeman and women standing in the middle of the street listen to miss chee's lecture. How bad can it get man.

What i feel is that our police force is too tamed. they should have excise their power of authority, if you are right u are right u don't have to fear a handphone camera recording.

This is just another ugly singaporean in action. If u want pple to cooperate do so too, don't give our law enforcers (who work shift day and night with not that much pay) trouble and they won't trouble u.
Be street wise not street smart and i am not with the police force, jus another suffering soul who had gone thru two years of hardship like all male had.

[ckjo23]

Thanks for the recommendation, then you should be sitting in at the interview panel.

But I am sure what you desire in life largely differs from mine. What seems to be right for you might be wrong to me. But I definitely know how to seek proper engagement then to... Nevermind, it's just so sad.

[satayxp]

Thanks for the recommendation, then you should be sitting in at the interview panel.

But I am sure what you desire in life largely differs from mine. What seems to be right for you might be wrong to me. But I definitely know how to seek proper engagement then to... Nevermind, it's just so sad.

or sign on with the SAF also can.. seriously they need ppl who dun question too much n follow instructions to a tee ~ :D

[Dryden28]

Obviously some don't watch CNA or news on 5 or travel alot... See what police officers do overseas and compare them to our local ones. Try what they did in US or england and u will not be alighting at where u park your car but in the nearest local station with a overnight stay in the cell with some bruises here and there. Some lucky ones gets a few broken bones.

btw if some still don't understand the word "Police" or "law enforcers", u can try the oxford dictionary at your local popular bookshop.

[korry]

Hell... i can't believe it, human rights doesn't mean u can go anywhere want. Are u telling me that after signing the human rights treaty or stuffs like that allows normally citizen to walk into our SOF camps or any airbases like their home~? What i see makes me doubt the efficiency of out own police force. They should have removed Miss chee and her friend at the beginning god what if she is a sucide bomber she would hav gone all the way and that detective is still wait for female colleauges to engage her. Worse of all is a whole bunch of policeman and women standing in the middle of the street listen to miss chee's lecture. How bad can it get man.

What i feel is that our police force is too tamed. they should have excise their power of authority, if you are right u are right u don't have to fear a handphone camera recording.

This is just another ugly singaporean in action. If u want pple to cooperate do so too, don't give our law enforcers (who work shift day and night with not that much pay) trouble and they won't trouble u.
Be street wise not street smart and i am not with the police force, jus another suffering soul who had gone thru two years of hardship like all male had.

You should reconsider what you are suggesting. The outrage in Burma was that a peaceful protest was met with disproportionate force. Its like giving the death penalty for chewing gum on the trains.

Our policemen did not make the same mistake. They did the right thing. She breached the law - a law which I disagree with - and they removed her. I admire them for keeping their composure and getting on with their jobs. Our tax dollars are well spent. Now if only we could get our politicians to work for us too.

My observations:
1. There is no evidence to show the SDP to be the Suicide Detonations Party.
2. The police were right to maintain their composure to escort her out of the protected zone. Its exactly what they have been trained to do.
3. If they had used brute force to remove her, they too would be guilty of executing disproportionate force to a fairly non-violent offender. She was arguing with words for crying out loud!

[SnakeKing]

we have voted away so much of our rights for them to implement those ambiguous terms in the Protected Places act. how far do you go to assume someone as a security threat? even if that someone is as notorious as Ms Chee, do you still evict her in advance, thereby applying the law before the crime is committed?

yes of course a crime is committed for attempted murder even if the murder did not take place, but intent has to be shown in any case isn't it?

if the poodles are so worried, why not assign a staff to shadow Ms Chee and once she display any signs of making trouble, record it down and evict her?

[satayxp]

My observations:
1. There is no evidence to show the SDP to be the Suicide Detonations Party.
2. The police were right to maintain their composure to escort her out of the protected zone. Its exactly what they have been trained to do.
3. If they had used brute force to remove her, they too would be guilty of executing disproportionate force to a fairly non-violent offender. She was arguing with words for crying out loud!

The police head was later shouting. He lost his cool liao leh..

The police bundled her and the video guy by force into a van. I don't call that "escorting", or is that a uniquely SG definition of escorting? haha :s13:

[The_Republic]

OMG!! police bullying Sgians!!!

protected area??? in the video i see so many ppl walking past leh????

You are right, many people walked past up and down with no problem while she was conversing with the policeman except Miss Chee and her friend.

I also realise this issue have nothing to do with human rights but execution of some dubious laws as only Miss Chee and her friend were stopped but not other people.

I guess it is obvious SPF has single out members of other political parties long ago and wait for them to turn up. The police even know they have a HQ and know where to fetch them back. Theory of See - Face again

The so call "protected area" also don't know how big and how real as media never report to say "Please avoid these areas from when to when" so it is nobody's fault that people turn up and walk past these areas.

My feeling is the police over-reacted and their plans abit kiasu without considering the inconveniences of the public.

It will be wrong if SPF plan a super huge "protected area" just for its own convenience.

If SPF remove them just to play safe and assume Miss Chee and her friend will cause trouble, then SPF is wrong as SPF have no evidence as yet and nothing had happen yet. It was all assumption until now.

To make it worse, many others just walked past without police stopping them.

Anyway, it will be wrong to practise double standards but it had happen and SPF admitted that no crime was committed and some more ask the 2 people to switch off handphone for fear of embarassment maybe ?

Throughout the video, I realise the police could not answer the 2 people's questions on what law they have broken. The police was just eager for them to leave.

The loose term "protected area" is only for those 2 people as other cars and other pedestrians continue without obstacle.

It is obvious the police know they are doing something "special" with no real grounds to do so as the people were "special".

The police do remind me abit of Myanmar Police less the physical abuse...hahah

It is the same as past cases. Same law but execution base on See-Face. It is in the same mould as Cycling Permit for YPAP but not for WP.

The Suka Suka Law Syndrome strikes again.

Nothing new. Case close.

[SnakeKing]

that's why we got to ask ourselves why we voted away so many rights for them to rule by decree instead of rule by law? and the ambiguous terms in the law is unfair to the citizens as it may be left to the poodles to interpret in anyway they want.

[The_Republic]

Obviously some don't watch CNA or news on 5 or travel alot... See what police officers do overseas and compare them to our local ones. Try what they did in US or england and u will not be alighting at where u park your car but in the nearest local station with a overnight stay in the cell with some bruises here and there. Some lucky ones gets a few broken bones.

btw if some still don't understand the word "Police" or "law enforcers", u can try the oxford dictionary at your local popular bookshop.
Yep, I watched Channel 8 more often and watch how ICAC and Hong Kong Police perform their duties differently from SPF.

Give me the impression citizens are king in HK with so many procedures and transparency to take note before can arrest a suspected criminal or corrupted civil servant.

I watched JAG and was hoping SAF have it too cause the way JAG portray how trials for military are conducted is so much more professional than how SAF does it. Including investigation process.

Anyway, your examples are isolated cases that deserve to make it to the news at odd times. it does not happen everyday.

Besides, it is the job of our 141st Media to portray as much bad news as possible about other countries at the right time so as to make our leaders look better.

If everyday got police abuse people physically, I do not think US and UK can be what it is today with the kind of human rights systems they have. If you say China, maybe I will believe.

Anyway , each issue to be judge on its own and not lump together. For this lastest episode, I feel SPF have over-reacted unfairly to 2 single individuals. SPF is not Minority Report and it is not SPF's job to assume things will happen.

Even if Miss Chee and her friend shout "Free Burma" in front of PM Lee and his counterparts, I do not think it is that terrible.

Jiang Zemin when President went to Switzerland on state visit and was heckled by protestors as he wave to the crowd outside upon arrival. He was angry but it was Swiss culture and within Swiss law.

Did not SM Goh wants Singapore to have Swiss Standard of Living ??.....lol

[ckjo23]

The theory is the same: If you hate them, you just hate them. If you adore them, you just adore them. Be it whether what they did the right or wrong things, to you, it is still wrong. The way which people of such social status, hitting commoners right below the belt and thinking that I have to depend on them to bring me "democracy" or even worst, run the country, makes me sick.

Again just my opinion and it is definitely not yours.

[Yap_Can_Hole]

these mata kia sibeh funi, study so much dunno eat **** is it? should not have volunteer to sent them to simi siang eh siang hq, pack them up the plane and sent them to burma can liao... mai liao si kan. they will be the respected role model for the freedom of the people...

[Iceshadow]

we have voted away so much of our rights for them to implement those ambiguous terms in the Protected Places act. how far do you go to assume someone as a security threat? even if that someone is as notorious as Ms Chee, do you still evict her in advance, thereby applying the law before the crime is committed?

yes of course a crime is committed for attempted murder even if the murder did not take place, but intent has to be shown in any case isn't it?

if the poodles are so worried, why not assign a staff to shadow Ms Chee and once she display any signs of making trouble, record it down and evict her?

The Protected Places act is not as vague or ambiguous as it seems.

S5(1) - If as respects any premises it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special precautions should be taken to prevent the entry therein of unauthorised persons, he may by order declare the premises to be a protected place for the purposes of this Act; and so long as the order is in force no person shall be in those premises unless he is in possession of a pass-card or permit issued by such authority or person as may be specified in the order, or has received the permission of an authorised officer on duty at those premises to enter those premises.

S5(3) - If any person is in a protected place in contravention of this section, or while in such a place fails to comply with any direction given under this section, then, without prejudice to any proceedings which may be taken against him, he may be removed from the place by an authorised officer or any person authorised in that behalf by the occupier of the premises.

So whether she did or did not disrupt or intended to disrupt the summit it makes not difference, because the protected places act allows for her to be escorted out as indicated by S5(3) of the Act. If you are looking for intent then the intent is to enter a declared Protected Place despite not receiving the permission of an authorised officer on duty at those premises.

I also realise this issue have nothing to do with human rights but execution of some dubious laws as only Miss Chee and her friend were stopped but not other people.

This 'dubious law' as you call it, existed since 1959 and is not a recent addition to our laws. The last revision was done in 1985. Of course while it is possible that they created the law to deal with the woman and her companion, it's highly unlikely that they could have predicted her potential that long ago when they created the law, so it is more likely she fell afoul of an existing law.

Besides whether we want to admit it of not, there is no country that I know of that does not have an equivalent law with regards to the creation of Protected areas as needed and the the right to remove people from that area as deemed necessary without them having shown intent to create trouble. Even in the US.

While it is admittable that the SPF may have been prejudiced towards the woman and her companion, given the known behaviour of the woman, the police has no reason not to be wary of her unstated intentions. The potential for trouble, while only a potential, is reason enough to restrict her approach to the summit area, which is an authority granted by the statues.

[Iceshadow]

I watched JAG and was hoping SAF have it too cause the way JAG portray how trials for military are conducted is so much more professional than how SAF does it. Including investigation process.

:s13: :s13: TV dramas potray what they are meant to potray. You are aware of the propoganda as distributed locally, but seem woefully unaware of American propoganda as distributed internationally.

If everyday got police abuse people physically, I do not think US and UK can be what it is today with the kind of human rights systems they have. If you say China, maybe I will believe.

SAF rule no 1 applies accross the world even if they don't call it that. "Do what ever you want to do, don't get caught!"

Of course there are also 2 other rules that everyone uses but no one realises.

SAF rule no 2 "If you are caught, bloody hell, better have a f**king good excuse."

SAF rule no 3 "If you don't have a f**king good excuse, you better have as big a mountain to lean on as you can find"

Anyway , each issue to be judge on its own and not lump together. For this lastest episode, I feel SPF have over-reacted unfairly to 2 single individuals. SPF is not Minority Report and it is not SPF's job to assume things will happen.

Whether they over-reacted or not is open to argument. For as many people who argue that the SPF overreacted there will be as many who argue that the pre-emptive action taken in lieu of potential trouble is a preventive measure and not over reaction. In a democracy you will never have a concensus, just a majority view.

Jiang Zemin when President went to Switzerland on state visit and was heckled by protestors as he wave to the crowd outside upon arrival. He was angry but it was Swiss culture and within Swiss law.

Did not SM Goh wants Singapore to have Swiss Standard of Living ??.....lol

And since when does wanting a standard of living equate automatically to wanting to adopt their laws and culture? While it is co-related it is not the same thing.

[GrimaH]

So according to that law, we can accuse the law enforcement of not doing anything to enforce the law, since they did not stop any other passersby?
I'd think selective enforcement would be a big nono.

[jsbn]

Yep, I watched Channel 8 more often and watch how ICAC and Hong Kong Police perform their duties differently from SPF.

Give me the impression citizens are king in HK with so many procedures and transparency to take note before can arrest a suspected criminal or corrupted civil servant.

I watched JAG and was hoping SAF have it too cause the way JAG portray how trials for military are conducted is so much more professional than how SAF does it. Including investigation process.
Pretty interesting that you base your conclusions of how an organisation should be run based on a TV drama.

Lets face it, military trials in US are just as, if not, more skewered to a certain extent.

The difference? They've got it under deeper wraps. :s13:

[Iceshadow]

So according to that law, we can accuse the law enforcement of not doing anything to enforce the law, since they did not stop any other passersby?
I'd think selective enforcement would be a big nono.

Nope. read the sections carefully. The law allows for the enforcement by the withdrawal of permission to be in the protected area. It's like the Istana on public holidays. Even when it is open for public it is still a protected area. The police can still deny permission to enter the Istana to individual if they wanted to. But until they tell an individual that they may not enter it's free entry to all even though it's a protected area.

[satayxp]

Nope. read the sections carefully. The law allows for the enforcement by the withdrawal of permission to be in the protected area. It's like the Istana on public holidays. Even when it is open for public it is still a protected area. The police can still deny permission to enter the Istana to individual if they wanted to. But until they tell an individual that they may not enter it's free entry to all even though it's a protected area.

See the video, other ppl are walking by. Double standards are being applied here. This is routine oppression and persecution of opposition, period. Guess many sillyzens take it as a norm after all these yrs of brainwashing.. :s13:

[Iceshadow]

See the video, other ppl are walking by. Double standards are being applied here. This is routine oppression and persecution of opposition, period. Guess many sillyzens take it as a norm after all these yrs of brainwashing.. :s13:

Apparently while you quote what I write you don't read. If you aren't going to read what I have written including the example then please don't quote it.

[Humster]

So according to that law, we can accuse the law enforcement of not doing anything to enforce the law, since they did not stop any other passersby?
I'd think selective enforcement would be a big nono.

You know why theres "selective enforcement".

Well, in layman terms, you wanna see a SunTech city incident, in which the shop owners all suffer 3 weeks of NO business due to a complete lockdown?

Either Selective enforcement or complete lockdown of area.

[satayxp]

Apparently while you quote what I write you don't read. If you aren't going to read what I have written including the example then please don't quote it.

i like to quote, cannot ah?
u write nonsense i also dun wan to point them out,, so relax lah ~

[AudiA6]

Guys, Lets not jump to conclusions and look at the facts, as shown in the video.

1) It is fact that Miss Chee was followed and engaged by police officers whereas other citizens were allowed to walk past without incident. If, based on the fact that the place in question was, indeed a protected area, would there have BEEN any onlookers in the first place? Logic would tell us the answer is NO. But we can clearly see on the video that there were witnesses and other civilians looking at the whole commotion.

2) It is also fact that Miss Chee had asked "Have i commited a crime?" To which the police could not answer.

3) Also fact when Miss Chee asked if the Shangri-La was still opened to the public to walk in, the Superintendent Lim did say it was. Would a Protected place be open to the public? Let logic tell you the answer.

4) The Superintendent repeatedly questioned Miss Chee's INTENTIONS. This goes to prove that they are practicing "Due Caution" in this instance.

The facts shows that Miss Chee and her friend ARE, infact singled out by the Police.

Now, we go to the WHY.

Is it Blatant Bullying by our Singapore Police? The answer is NO.

Are the Police Guilty of singling out Chee and her friend? Yes, the are.

The rational is very simple really. If you had not been such a trouble maker, Would the Police put a red flag on you and watch you closely?

Miss Chee, in politics for such a long time, Would have already Knownas a fact that she WILL be targeted.

She has only proven from this incident that the Police/Government has MARKed her and her family members and friends. Beyond that, she has nothing more to show.

Although i DO sympathise with her and her grosses (High Salaries of the leaders, GST, CPF blah blah blah) I have to say that she and her brother have only brought more problems to themselves by their antics. They are very strong to keep fighting with paper and sticks against an army of rocks and steel.

Lets be fair, are we TOTALLY happy with our country as it is?

Were the Police doing their Jobs? Yes

Did the Police Single out Miss Chee and friend? Yes

Were the Police bullying? No

Miss Chee questioned WHY she was singled out.

My question would be: After all that you have done, can you blame the police FOR doing so?

I'm not siding anyone here. Dun anyone go call the SWAT team on me now ok? LOL

[The_Republic]

Pretty interesting that you base your conclusions of how an organisation should be run based on a TV drama.

Lets face it, military trials in US are just as, if not, more skewered to a certain extent.

The difference? They've got it under deeper wraps. :s13:

Of course what is shown on TV could not be only true to a certain percentage. Everyone knows that. I quote from TV because the the poster quote from TV too.

But if TV can paint such a nice picture, it will be nice in reality to TRY to reach that same standards too right ??

This is what I mean

[satayxp]

Lets be fair, are we TOTALLY happy with our country as it is?

Were the Police doing their Jobs? Yes
The Nazis under Hitler were also doing their job, the junta's soldiers who gunned down monks n civilians were also doing their job.



Did the Police Single out Miss Chee and friend? Yes Obviously...



Were the Police bullying? No
Abducting civilians who have committed no crime is not bullying?



Miss Chee questioned WHY she was singled out.

My question would be: After all that you have done, can you blame the police FOR doing so?
that answer cannot stand. It is fascistic. Remember no crime and offence has been committed. You dun go around arresting ppl or carrying out pre-emptive strikes like some 'minority report'. Next time a crime has been committed can i go round up all ex-criminals based on their past? Besides Chee n the videographer are no criminals.

[The_Republic]

:s13: :s13: TV dramas potray what they are meant to potray. You are aware of the propoganda as distributed locally, but seem woefully unaware of American propoganda as distributed internationally.



SAF rule no 1 applies accross the world even if they don't call it that. "Do what ever you want to do, don't get caught!"

Of course there are also 2 other rules that everyone uses but no one realises.

SAF rule no 2 "If you are caught, bloody hell, better have a f**king good excuse."

SAF rule no 3 "If you don't have a f**king good excuse, you better have as big a mountain to lean on as you can find"



Whether they over-reacted or not is open to argument. For as many people who argue that the SPF overreacted there will be as many who argue that the pre-emptive action taken in lieu of potential trouble is a preventive measure and not over reaction. In a democracy you will never have a concensus, just a majority view.



And since when does wanting a standard of living equate automatically to wanting to adopt their laws and culture? While it is co-related it is not the same thing.Standard of Living is not just about money and wealth. It is more than that.

How cultured and refined the citizens are and what kind of laws (repressive, autocratic, progressive etc ) also plays a part.

We do not consider Saudi Arabians and Bruneians have high standard of living despite alot of services are free and their oil help the citizens attain some standard of GDP.

The culture, education and refineness are still lacking somewhat.

About TV drama, you mistook my meaning and I have indicated in the post above.

Each issue should be given its own merits/ demerits and should not be lump together with past issue completely or else why bother to have Yellow Ribbon Project ?

Might as well have all policemen keep pictures of convicts past 40 years just in case they pass by the so call "protected area" especially those jailed for fights, murder and rioting

To the police and government, Miss Chee and her friend is of course trouble because they do not agree with the government all the time.

To the layman, it is just 2 different sides which happens all the time be it in office, home or group of friends.

What is trouble to the government, police and PAP may not equal to trouble for laymen like us.

This issue is blatant in prejudice and with no evidence that anything might happen. It could happen to anybody, not just Miss Chee and her friend.

If this is the case, Miss Chee and her friend will eternally be blackmarked by police wherever they go because of assumption of trouble ??

No more NDP for them, no more walking the same area, same path and same route as MPs and Ministers ??

Why not disallow all Middle- Easterners from entering Singapore to play safe too ??

What are criterias to have "protected areas " ??

Can the government anyhow make your home area "protected area" too if police wants to block Miss Chee and her friend from passing by your home ??

I remember Police blocked off an entire road just to evict people from a Hindu Temple which they wish to demolish. Many riot police was there.

It cause much inconvenience as the road was the only way into the industrial park.

The police blocked off the road without making alternative plans for vehicles and pedestrians to go through elsewhere thus many were late and delays occured.

The policemen just anyhow point one direction for me to go and if I was new to the area I would have been lost.

But was there a need to do such a thing when everything could have been simpler instead of making the whole place "protected area" ??

Another case was the 4 busloads of riot police vs 8 people with toys and figures. Our police do have a history of over -reaction.

I expected better and more sensible planning from those police scholars instead of taking the easy way out and casting a net so wide just to play safe.

Sorry if I use too many question marks and sound harsh.

[Yap_Can_Hole]

mata mata, why cannot u be like the "dream" land mata....
:s8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DE9JeEj9aY&feature=related

or maybe let this kind of things to happen before taking action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoYpkcSyYiI&feature=related

should ta pao this couple to burma and sent them to help promote freedom there... the guy, ang mo sibeh quat and the chabor sure can wayang... people there will be blessed by them :s12: :s12: :s12:

[AudiA6]

The Nazis under Hitler were also doing their job, the junta's soldiers who gunned down monks n civilians were also doing their job.

Obviously...


Abducting civilians who have committed no crime is not bullying?

that answer cannot stand. It is fascistic. Remember no crime and offence has been committed. You dun go around arresting ppl or carrying out pre-emptive strikes like some 'minority report'. Next time a crime has been committed can i go round up all ex-criminals based on their past? Besides Chee n the videographer are no criminals.

After repeated requests for her to leave on her own, she refused. The Police officers then proceeded to remove her from the said place. Granted, the way they carried out the removal may have been extreme, but is it unfair for the officers to waste more time to convince her to leave, god knows HOW long she was gonna stay there. And at NO material time was she and her friend Hit or aggressively handled into the van, like what an Abduction would have been.

You are right that they have committed no crime. However, distrupting people, be it police or otherwise in doing their jobs is wrong too. Remember, she WAS creating a scene.

Again, i am not trying to defend anyone, however, one must look at things objectively. Do you mean to say that just because Chee or anyone for that matter did not commit a sizeable offence during that time means she could create a scene and get away with it?

Please remember that she was NEVER arrested and merely "Escorted" away from the place.

[The_Republic]

After repeated requests for her to leave on her own, she refused. The Police officers then proceeded to remove her from the said place. Granted, the way they carried out the removal may have been extreme, but is it unfair for the officers to waste more time to convince her to leave, god knows HOW long she was gonna stay there. And at NO material time was she and her friend Hit or aggressively handled into the van, like what an Abduction would have been.

You are right that they have committed no crime. However, distrupting people, be it police or otherwise in doing their jobs is wrong too. Remember, she WAS creating a scene.

Again, i am not trying to defend anyone, however, one must look at things objectively. Do you mean to say that just because Chee or anyone for that matter did not commit a sizeable offence during that time means she could create a scene and get away with it?

Please remember that she was NEVER arrested and merely "Escorted" away from the place.
It was the police that was creating a scene, not her.

She was doing what other passerbys were doing and that is walking.

She did not want to leave because police could not explain to her why she need to leave while others can use the "protected area" .

[Iceshadow]

i like to quote, cannot ah?
u write nonsense i also dun wan to point them out,, so relax lah ~

You are free to quote. You are also free to make a statement like "See the video, other ppl are walking by. Double standards are being applied here." But when I have already said "It's like the Istana on public holidays. Even when it is open for public it is still a protected area. The police can still deny permission to enter the Istana to individual if they wanted to. But until they tell an individual that they may not enter it's free entry to all even though it's a protected area." I also have aright to say "Apparently while you quote what I write you don't read. If you aren't going to read what I have written including the example then please don't quote it."

[Iceshadow]

3) Also fact when Miss Chee asked if the Shangri-La was still opened to the public to walk in, the Superintendent Lim did say it was. Would a Protected place be open to the public? Let logic tell you the answer.

To answer your question, yes it would. The Istana is a protected place. No deyning that. It is also open to the public on public holidays. Do you mean to tell me that it suddenly ceases to be a protected place on public holidays? You know the answer as well as I do.

[AudiA6]

To answer your question, yes it would. The Istana is a protected place. No deyning that. It is also open to the public on public holidays. Do you mean to tell me that it suddenly ceases to be a protected place on public holidays? You know the answer as well as I do.

Erm, the case at hand is that the place in question was NOT the Istanta, nor was it a Public Holiday. You should also know that even though the Istana is opened to the public, visitors will have to go through security checks and what not BEFORE they could actually step into the grounds of the Istana.

We do not see such checks conducted in the video in this instance do we?

[satayxp]

You are right that they have committed no crime. However, distrupting people, be it police or otherwise in doing their jobs is wrong too. Remember, she WAS creating a scene.

Again, i am not trying to defend anyone, however, one must look at things objectively. Do you mean to say that just because Chee or anyone for that matter did not commit a sizeable offence during that time means she could create a scene and get away with it?

no leh.. it is the police who created a scene unnecessarily. You see other ppl walk by also nothing happen what. Obviously the police r targeting them. If one day u are being targeted n mistreated do u just swallow the injustice silently? And if u defend your rights u are branded as creating a scene?? :D


Please remember that she was NEVER arrested and merely "Escorted" away from the place.
the police uses the word 'escort'. But is there consent? Of cos not, they r forcefully removed. So to use the word 'escort' here is completely inappropriate n to bluff pp..

[Yap_Can_Hole]

the mata check this couple taking a stroll there towards the hotel is also check... it is up to the discretion of the mata kia to work and check mah, else must as well built one great wall of sinkapo better, just like the imf... built wall got things to say, let you walk got things to say, sinkapa lan sibeh demanding... very good at taking small fry to operate and gain ammunition for the sake of "democracy".

[Yap_Can_Hole]

no leh.. it is the police who created a scene unnecessarily. You see other ppl walk by also nothing happen what. Obviously the police r targeting them. If one day u are being targeted n mistreated do u just swallow the injustice silently? And if u defend your rights u are branded as creating a scene?? :D

why should not the mata kia target them? they mean well to be there? go check in hotel only ah? what is their agenda, you do not know? come on, who dunno who is that chapbo and what she want to create? you think the world just begin yesterday? sinkapo just pop up yesterday? got nothing to hide, bring camera go hotel take private movie ah?

[satayxp]

why should not the mata kia target them? they mean well to be there? go check in hotel only ah? what is their agenda, you do not know? come on, who dunno who is that chapbo and what she want to create? you think the world just begin yesterday? sinkapo just pop up yesterday? got nothing to hide, bring camera go hotel take private movie ah?
hello poodle clone ~~

[Yap_Can_Hole]

call me names or whatever la, but you cannot hide the facts... be objective. everything against those "democracy" advocates means must be from poodle??? sibeh tian zhen...

[satayxp]

call me names or whatever la, but you cannot hide the facts... be objective. everything against those "democracy" advocates means must be from poodle??? sibeh tian zhen...

sorry for calling u a name..
but u shld be proud of our mata kia leh, that is not being tian zhen hor ~~ :o

[Yap_Can_Hole]

proud of them? think twice lor... but one thing for sure, definitely i am not proud of the couple... anyway, the fact is there for people to judge, how credible it is? leave it to the lan in the forum. i always believe this hokkien verse from fellow inmates, ai hiong siew, beh chiap siew... sorry if the pinyin not to standard. it means, want to enjoy need to face the consequences.

[satayxp]

"Singapore is a protected area, where the MIW are protected from opposition."





i took this quote from mollymeek, a blogger ~~ :D

[Iceshadow]

Standard of Living is not just about money and wealth. It is more than that.

How cultured and refined the citizens are and what kind of laws (repressive, autocratic, progressive etc ) also plays a part.

We do not consider Saudi Arabians and Bruneians have high standard of living despite alot of services are free and their oil help the citizens attain some standard of GDP.

The culture, education and refineness are still lacking somewhat.

It sounds more like you are talking about a quality of living rather then standard of living.


About TV drama, you mistook my meaning and I have indicated in the post above.

Which is why I said "TV dramas potray what they are meant to potray. You are aware of the propoganda as distributed locally, but seem woefully unaware of American propoganda as distributed internationally"

Each issue should be given its own merits/ demerits and should not be lump together with past issue completely or else why bother to have Yellow Ribbon Project ?

Might as well have all policemen keep pictures of convicts past 40 years just in case they pass by the so call "protected area" especially those jailed for fights, murder and rioting

And what makes think they don't keep pictures of past convicts? lol... that aside. You are right that each issue should be given it's own merits and demerits. But that also applies to one and all. That claim either applies to all or to none. Not selectively. And therefore applies to the SPF and the PAP and the Junta and cirminals whether we like with them or not. So that being the case, would you willingly let a known murder stay the night in your house with your family?

This issue is blatant in prejudice and with no evidence that anything might happen. It could happen to anybody, not just Miss Chee and her friend.

If this is the case, Miss Chee and her friend will eternally be blackmarked by police wherever they go because of assumption of trouble ??

There is also no evidence that nothing might not happen. And you are right, it can happen to anybody. The law allows for that. The fact is that woman, her companion and her brother are noted for their ways. Time and again they have proven true to their nature. While it is best not to judge a book by it's cover, leopards never change their spot.

No more NDP for them, no more walking the same area, same path and same route as MPs and Ministers ??

Why not disallow all Middle- Easterners from entering Singapore to play safe too ??

Because while there is the potential for trouble not all middle easterners have been known to cause trouble, unlike them.

What are criterias to have "protected areas " ??

Can the government anyhow make your home area "protected area" too if police wants to block Miss Chee and her friend from passing by your home ??

I remember Police blocked off an entire road just to evict people from a Hindu Temple which they wish to demolish. Many riot police was there.

It cause much inconvenience as the road was the only way into the industrial park.

The police blocked off the road without making alternative plans for vehicles and pedestrians to go through elsewhere thus many were late and delays occured.

The policemen just anyhow point one direction for me to go and if I was new to the area I would have been lost.

But was there a need to do such a thing when everything could have been simpler instead of making the whole place "protected area" ??

Another case was the 4 busloads of riot police vs 8 people with toys and figures. Our police do have a history of over -reaction.

I expected better and more sensible planning from those police scholars instead of taking the easy way out and casting a net so wide just to play safe.

Sorry if I use too many question marks and sound harsh.

S4(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.

S5 (1)- If as respects any premises it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special precautions should be taken to prevent the entry therein of unauthorised persons, he may by order declare the premises to be a protected place for the purposes of this Act; and so long as the order is in force no person shall be in those premises unless he is in possession of a pass-card or permit issued by such authority or person as may be specified in the order, or has received the permission of an authorised officer on duty at those premises to enter those premises.

Then 1959 act allows for the Minister to declare any area a protected area if he deems it necessary. But a protected area does not mean that everyone cannot enter. Section 5 is clear on that. It can be used to deny entry to selected types of people as determined by the minister within the confines of the law.

[Iceshadow]

Erm, the case at hand is that the place in question was NOT the Istanta, nor was it a Public Holiday. You should also know that even though the Istana is opened to the public, visitors will have to go through security checks and what not BEFORE they could actually step into the grounds of the Istana.

We do not see such checks conducted in the video in this instance do we?

I used the Istana because it is the most obvious place. Whether we want to admit it or not the Istana is a protected place. The Act does not require that a person be checked before he is allowed entry into a protected place. At least not that I recall reading. Security Checks are an additional measure but not a requirement. I also remember a time when the Istana, when open to the public, did not have the stringent checks we do now. If the SPF wanted not to check citizens entering the Istana on Public Hols they don't have to. But the eviction rule would still apply.

[SnakeKing]

as i said earlier, the 66.6% have voted away their rights to be treated equally. they think it's nothing wrong for the police to practice selective discrimination based on their assumptions. despite the notoriety of Chee Siok Chin, should the police thereby evict her even before she express any intent of causing trouble? shouldn't the sequence be that she has to show intent first before being evicted? even for attempted murder intent must be proven too. of course those 66.6% think that it's all fine since it doesn't happen to those who do not oppose the pappies but is it the right way?

[Iceshadow]

as i said earlier, the 66.6% have voted away their rights to be treated equally. they think it's nothing wrong for the police to practice selective discrimination based on their assumptions. despite the notoriety of Chee Siok Chin, should the police thereby evict her even before she express any intent of causing trouble? shouldn't the sequence be that she has to show intent first before being evicted? even for attempted murder intent must be proven too. of course those 66.6% think that it's all fine since it doesn't happen to those who do not oppose the pappies but is it the right way?

And what intent are you asking, to cause trouble? That would have gotten her in jail. The Protected Area Act is very clear on what is intent and what is the recourse. She's already shown intent to enter a protected area despite the fact that she was denied the right to do so, as is allowed under the law. Every country in the world practicies this right or restriction in one way or another. You make it sound as if we are unique in the respect. We aren't

[largeresource]

singapore police force and judicial system is a system than works with the PAP saddam regime

arrest anyone when they feel like it and without apparent reason or evident

like saddam police force they threaten and intimidate those that are not with saddam.

[The_Republic]

It sounds more like you are talking about a quality of living rather then standard of living.




Which is why I said "TV dramas potray what they are meant to potray. You are aware of the propoganda as distributed locally, but seem woefully unaware of American propoganda as distributed internationally"



And what makes think they don't keep pictures of past convicts? lol... that aside. You are right that each issue should be given it's own merits and demerits. But that also applies to one and all. That claim either applies to all or to none. Not selectively. And therefore applies to the SPF and the PAP and the Junta and cirminals whether we like with them or not. So that being the case, would you willingly let a known murder stay the night in your house with your family?



There is also no evidence that nothing might not happen. And you are right, it can happen to anybody. The law allows for that. The fact is that woman, her companion and her brother are noted for their ways. Time and again they have proven true to their nature. While it is best not to judge a book by it's cover, leopards never change their spot.



Because while there is the potential for trouble not all middle easterners have been known to cause trouble, unlike them.



S4(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.

S5 (1)- If as respects any premises it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that special precautions should be taken to prevent the entry therein of unauthorised persons, he may by order declare the premises to be a protected place for the purposes of this Act; and so long as the order is in force no person shall be in those premises unless he is in possession of a pass-card or permit issued by such authority or person as may be specified in the order, or has received the permission of an authorised officer on duty at those premises to enter those premises.

Then 1959 act allows for the Minister to declare any area a protected area if he deems it necessary. But a protected area does not mean that everyone cannot enter. Section 5 is clear on that. It can be used to deny entry to selected types of people as determined by the minister within the confines of the law.
I remember one your posts, you disagree with "guilty until proven innocent" and prefer the more universal "innocent until proven guilty".

I think it applies here as if SPF forever assume and play Minority Report, life will be living hell for people that is under assumption.

If you are right about photos, it is ridiculous every constable need to keep photos of convicts past 40 years so that SPF can play assumption.

Regarding "protected areas", if you are right ,the PAP kept pre-independence colonial laws for their own usage. Why bother to fight for independence then ??

Singapore simply had switched from one overseas colonial master for a local master. The people remain 2nd class citizens.

Did not LKY and his comrades clamour for independence because of the lesson learnt from WW 2 and felt grave injustice ??

I think this particular set of law is way too old and outdated and needs review. We need more laws to serve the people, not laws to serve the government, a political party or a clique of people.

I think this case is straightforward enough.

Miss Chee does have her past but this instance have proven Singapore lack laws to protect citizens from harassment of authorities due to the inconsistency it was applied.

In future, it could be you the SPF is applying a set of laws on but not on others base on their wimps and fancies. It could apply to anyone in Singapore.

This is so very dangerous for Singapore's future.

If we got a leaders like Hitler or Pol Pot, the present system and laws are not enough and strong enough to defend the people from such type of leaders.

[SnakeKing]

And what intent are you asking, to cause trouble? That would have gotten her in jail. The Protected Area Act is very clear on what is intent and what is the recourse. She's already shown intent to enter a protected area despite the fact that she was denied the right to do so, as is allowed under the law. Every country in the world practicies this right or restriction in one way or another. You make it sound as if we are unique in the respect. We aren't
no intent, just trying to speak a fair word. what had she done first to merit the eviction? was she carrying any banners in her handbag or any other materials which may help if she wanted to do a protest? did the police even search her bag before deciding she is to be evicted? note that i support the searching of her bag, since this would be reasonable and expected (the poodles can't be expected to search every bag). since she's assumed to be a security problem, let her bags be searched to check her intent. and up until her eviction, did she start any demonstration by holding up any boards or banners? she was just walking to the hotel, intending to have her meal.

this is just like the Gomez case where the pap accused him of lying. where's the proof?

[tequila_powered]

If we got a leaders like Hitler or Pol Pot, the present system and laws are not enough and strong enough to defend the people from such type of leaders.
* preeeee *
* blows the whistle *

Pub, how come when I brought up historical folks as example to guard against a scenario (like using a host country's freedom to launch a negative coup against home country), you said I am wrong to do so. And a day or two later, you used historical folks as example to guard against a scenario (of *******izing governance)?

Anyway, that aside, I did not quite follow this MsChee event, and I did not quite read through all the posts here. Of some of the great points debated, my prelim opinions are -

1. Record of criminals would be there for eternity, almost. Yellow Ribbon is not about deleting the records, but asking ppl not to discriminate against ppl with record going forward.

a. However, sensitive jobs or location would require a risk assessment of the person and his/her records, true worldwide. Eg you do not wish to put a repeat convicted pedophile to work unsupervised in a kindergarten, but you could put the person to work in other places.

b. There is also faith in a person's changed outlook/mindset. Especially over a significant period of time, if the person had been recognized to have changed, the person is more likely to be treated as "one of us" without further baggage, anything else being negative discrimination.

Therefore, since MsChee has displayed repeated behavior to testing police instructions on site, and has not shown changed behavior for recent significant amt of time, it is no surprise to any law enforcement officers worldwide that SG police regards her as a risk to police operations in the designated area. You do not need to publicly express intent to disrupt for police to be on lookout for you.

2. I could be wrong, but after the immediate ruckus of her "arrest", and data started to flow for ppl to judge, seemed that allegations of "arrest" is losing ground. That leads me to the next important point of this saga. Again I could be wrong but looking at headlines alone, seemed that the team did not go quietly but put up resistance, even if passive + verbal resistance. What amount of force the Police met out to put them into the van, but some ppl scream of police brutality for the fact they were forced into the van against their wills.

In Western erhmm "police states", if you do not comply with repeated police instructions, at the least you will likely to be pushed to the ground or wall and be handcuffed before being put into the van. Again, in the old thread about legal civilized demonstrations, you are expected to challenge the Police action in courts (before or after, your prerogative), not on the frontline against the police officer. Any of you guys who drove/drive a lot in these "police states" know the rule very well that when you are stopped by a cop, follow his instructions very very carefully. He says stay in your car, you stay in your car. He says come out and walk the line, you come out and walk the line. Not hollywood. You think you are discriminated against by your color, take Police/authority to court later. You refuse to follow that frontline officer instruction on the site, be ready for the worst.

* Think Rodney, or that Polish man. Police overreacted but in first place, they are trained to react to non-compliance of instructions *

If Chee and team went quietly into the van, bully for them. They made their point effectively and on the right side of Law even if they believe the Law is against them.

3. The odd part is that other people could walk into a designated protected area without a prelim check. I would expect a form of other boundary with checks. Would be nice to know exactly what they had put into place around it. Else, what's the point? If this is not an officially designated protected zone, then Chee has all rights to walk there. If security requirements for that area is so low (like mebbe only secondary officials visiting that place) that only random checks are required, Chee may also be in the right to be allowed to walk there.


Too much confusion and hubris at the moment for me to decide.

* I could watch the videos, but it is school holidays and I need to catch up against my kids' maplestory characters. *

[tequila_powered]

"Singapore is a protected area, where the MIW are protected from opposition."





i took this quote from mollymeek, a blogger ~~ :D
...and from Uncle Ho Chi Minh, the retired taxi driver :D

[Iceshadow]

no intent, just trying to speak a fair word. what had she done first to merit the eviction? was she carrying any banners in her handbag or any other materials which may help if she wanted to do a protest? did the police even search her bag before deciding she is to be evicted? note that i support the searching of her bag, since this would be reasonable and expected (the poodles can't be expected to search every bag). since she's assumed to be a security problem, let her bags be searched to check her intent. and up until her eviction, did she start any demonstration by holding up any boards or banners? she was just walking to the hotel, intending to have her meal.

this is just like the Gomez case where the pap accused him of lying. where's the proof?

I think you have a mistaken assumption that she was being arrested or that she was evicted based on some terrorism charge or the like. That is not so. The right to evict her while she is in a protected area is defined in the law under the Protected Areas Act and is not based on the need for them to search her bag or that she carries banners.

Protected Areas and Protected Places Act 1959 (1985 rev)
Defensive measures at protected areas and protected places.
10. —(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to authorise the taking of such steps as he may consider necessary for the protection of any protected area or protected place, and such steps may extend to the taking of defensive measures which involve or may involve danger to the life of any person entering or attempting to enter a protected area or protected place.

(2) Where any measures such as are referred to in subsection (1) are adopted, the Commissioner of Police or any person so authorised by the Minister in that behalf shall cause such precautions to be taken, including the prominent display of warning notices, as he considers reasonably necessary to prevent inadvertent or accidental entry into any such protected area or protected place; and where such precautions have been duly taken, no person shall be entitled to compensation or damages in respect of any injuries received or death caused as a result of any unauthorised entry into any such protected area or protected place.

She can have cotton wool in her bags or a used tampons for all I care, it doesn't matter. She insisted on going to a protected area in defiance of instructions that she turn around. Thus her intent here was to break the law with regards to the Protected Areas and Protected Places act. Further under the act the SPF have the right to turn away anyone they choose to for whatever reason they choose to. I also believe there was also a report that she was taken away in a van and dropped off later? Not that she was taken into custody? Or was I mistaken in that?

[Yap_Can_Hole]

ha ha... mata kia do this type of service ah, fetch here fetch there... sibeh liao chia you... but at least they are smart enough not to check her bag, or else, allegation that her bag got some things needed to be used at the hotel and say it is lost then mata kia head sure roll... heng ah, you chao mata....

[fox1]

Somehow, some people are zooming in on the policy maker, instead of the policy.

In other words, 对人不对事. It has been shown so many times that the 'innocent party' had made use of international press to advance their agenda.

Why would they choose such an 'auspicious' day to feel like dining at the Shang? Well prepared and taking video along the way, no less.

Much as I do no like policies that the policy makers push out, I am against the policies only.

Having said that, I am also very appreciative of certain policies pushed out by them. One of them is the 'English as administration language' policy. I'm glad I was English educated.

No matter how you feel about the policy makers, the very reason why you are able to sit in front of your PC and condemn them, is because of the education they put in place. You can say that so and so country also has a education systems in place. The fact is, you are not a citizen of that country.

If you are not happy with the recent policies, champion your cause. Please, be more objective.

[Iceshadow]

I remember one your posts, you disagree with "guilty until proven innocent" and prefer the more universal "innocent until proven guilty".

I think it applies here as if SPF forever assume and play Minority Report, life will be living hell for people that is under assumption.

Yes I do agree with the innocent until proven guilty. But if you are trying to allude that it was not applied here you will fail. I have quoted time and again the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act which also states what can be done in defiance of instructions given to leave a protected place. It is also very clear that one need not be a terrorist to be barred from such an area. You can scream discrimination and prejudice, I would say she set herself up and got her just deserts. If she had complied with the instrutions to turn around and leave the area then she wouldn't have been in violation of the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act and bundled up in a van and sent on her merry way. Had she done that, she'd have a case of out right discrimination or had she been sent packing into the van immediately you'd be right about the police and the guilty until proven innocent claims, but instead she chose to be in defiant of the law as pertaining to a protected area and chose to break it, she is therefore guilty of the crime of violating instructions pertaining to a protected area and the SPF had the right to carry out what they did as is allowed under the Act. You have no case.

BTW I assume by Minority Report you are referring to the Tom Cruise film?

If you are right about photos, it is ridiculous every constable need to keep photos of convicts past 40 years so that SPF can play assumption.

Do you seriously think that the SPF/CID/SSB does not keep on file records of every convict and their crimes? Records that are acessible to the SPF/CID/SSB as and when they need it? :s8:

Regarding "protected areas", if you are right ,the PAP kept pre-independence colonial laws for their own usage. Why bother to fight for independence then ??

Singapore simply had switched from one overseas colonial master for a local master. The people remain 2nd class citizens.

Errm for the right to enforce the laws ourselves rather then on the whim of the colonials? Think animal farm? :P

Did not LKY and his comrades clamour for independence because of the lesson learnt from WW 2 and felt grave injustice ??

Animal Farm.. think Animal Farm...

I think this particular set of law is way too old and outdated and needs review. We need more laws to serve the people, not laws to serve the government, a political party or a clique of people.

The last revision was done in 1985. 20 over years ago. Too old and outdated? *shrugs* open to argument, and we both know that.

I think this case is straightforward enough.

Miss Chee does have her past but this instance have proven Singapore lack laws to protect citizens from harassment of authorities due to the inconsistency it was applied.

In future, it could be you the SPF is applying a set of laws on but not on others base on their wimps and fancies. It could apply to anyone in Singapore.

This is so very dangerous for Singapore's future.

If we got a leaders like Hitler or Pol Pot, the present system and laws are not enough and strong enough to defend the people from such type of leaders.

Despite you claims to a lack of laws, the truth is there is a surfeit of laws. As I mentioned above, had the woman not chosen to move forward indefiace of requests to leave the area she would have had grounds to claim harrassment or the like. The problem is that despite knowing that she was not suppose to move further forward she chose to do so and therefore allowed the law as pertaining to this situation to be used on her. If we had leaders like Hitler or Pol Pot no law would be enough to stop them. They'd simply repeal any law on the spot that is of an inconvenience to them.

[SnakeKing]

i do not want to respond to Iceshadow's remarks anymore after this. he keeps bringing us around the garden round and round. yes of course the law is there and yes they are following the law. i'm talking about the fairness of the law and you simply cannot deny that discrimination has occured by using that law as an excuse.

[fox1]

i do not want to respond to Iceshadow's remarks anymore after this. he keeps bringing us around the garden round and round. yes of course the law is there and yes they are following the law. i'm talking about the fairness of the law and you simply cannot deny that discrimination has occured by using that law as an excuse.


What do you think is the intent of the duo, going to the Shang when the ASEAN meeting and the international media is there?

[CNAlamak]

All I want in credible opposition ... is that really too much to ask for?

[Yap_Can_Hole]

i do not want to respond to Iceshadow's remarks anymore after this. he keeps bringing us around the garden round and round. yes of course the law is there and yes they are following the law. i'm talking about the fairness of the law and you simply cannot deny that discrimination has occured by using that law as an excuse.

why are we not accepting the fact that there is discrimination on this couple here? i agree that there is. mata will be wary of them, because of their past actions. but why we cannot accept the fact that this couple is there not to eat, not to open room but to promote their cause? some knew it yet choose to ignore it for the sake of promoting 'democracy'.

[The_Republic]

Yes I do agree with the innocent until proven guilty. But if you are trying to allude that it was not applied here you will fail. I have quoted time and again the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act which also states what can be done in defiance of instructions given to leave a protected place. It is also very clear that one need not be a terrorist to be barred from such an area. You can scream discrimination and prejudice, I would say she set herself up and got her just deserts. If she had complied with the instrutions to turn around and leave the area then she wouldn't have been in violation of the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act and bundled up in a van and sent on her merry way. Had she done that, she'd have a case of out right discrimination or had she been sent packing into the van immediately you'd be right about the police and the guilty until proven innocent claims, but instead she chose to be in defiant of the law as pertaining to a protected area and chose to break it, she is therefore guilty of the crime of violating instructions pertaining to a protected area and the SPF had the right to carry out what they did as is allowed under the Act. You have no case.

BTW I assume by Minority Report you are referring to the Tom Cruise film?



Do you seriously think that the SPF/CID/SSB does not keep on file records of every convict and their crimes? Records that are acessible to the SPF/CID/SSB as and when they need it? :s8:



Errm for the right to enforce the laws ourselves rather then on the whim of the colonials? Think animal farm? :P



Animal Farm.. think Animal Farm...



The last revision was done in 1985. 20 over years ago. Too old and outdated? *shrugs* open to argument, and we both know that.



Despite you claims to a lack of laws, the truth is there is a surfeit of laws. As I mentioned above, had the woman not chosen to move forward indefiace of requests to leave the area she would have had grounds to claim harrassment or the like. The problem is that despite knowing that she was not suppose to move further forward she chose to do so and therefore allowed the law as pertaining to this situation to be used on her. If we had leaders like Hitler or Pol Pot no law would be enough to stop them. They'd simply repeal any law on the spot that is of an inconvenience to them.She did not move because police could not explain why she need to leave while others just stroll past.

The entire protected area law was just for her ?? Extravagant ??

In the end, its a law that See Face only base on the whims and fancies of people executing it and it becomes inconsistent.

This is in the same mould as YPAP got cycling license while WP did not.

Ho Peng Kee was a joker and he tried his best to give a worse assumption he could think of just to make himself and PAP government look right to deny WP a license but make the government look clownish.

[The_Republic]

* preeeee *
* blows the whistle *

Pub, how come when I brought up historical folks as example to guard against a scenario (like using a host country's freedom to launch a negative coup against home country), you said I am wrong to do so. And a day or two later, you used historical folks as example to guard against a scenario (of *******izing governance)?

Anyway, that aside, I did not quite follow this MsChee event, and I did not quite read through all the posts here. Of some of the great points debated, my prelim opinions are -

1. Record of criminals would be there for eternity, almost. Yellow Ribbon is not about deleting the records, but asking ppl not to discriminate against ppl with record going forward.

a. However, sensitive jobs or location would require a risk assessment of the person and his/her records, true worldwide. Eg you do not wish to put a repeat convicted pedophile to work unsupervised in a kindergarten, but you could put the person to work in other places.

b. There is also faith in a person's changed outlook/mindset. Especially over a significant period of time, if the person had been recognized to have changed, the person is more likely to be treated as "one of us" without further baggage, anything else being negative discrimination.

Therefore, since MsChee has displayed repeated behavior to testing police instructions on site, and has not shown changed behavior for recent significant amt of time, it is no surprise to any law enforcement officers worldwide that SG police regards her as a risk to police operations in the designated area. You do not need to publicly express intent to disrupt for police to be on lookout for you.

2. I could be wrong, but after the immediate ruckus of her "arrest", and data started to flow for ppl to judge, seemed that allegations of "arrest" is losing ground. That leads me to the next important point of this saga. Again I could be wrong but looking at headlines alone, seemed that the team did not go quietly but put up resistance, even if passive + verbal resistance. What amount of force the Police met out to put them into the van, but some ppl scream of police brutality for the fact they were forced into the van against their wills.

In Western erhmm "police states", if you do not comply with repeated police instructions, at the least you will likely to be pushed to the ground or wall and be handcuffed before being put into the van. Again, in the old thread about legal civilized demonstrations, you are expected to challenge the Police action in courts (before or after, your prerogative), not on the frontline against the police officer. Any of you guys who drove/drive a lot in these "police states" know the rule very well that when you are stopped by a cop, follow his instructions very very carefully. He says stay in your car, you stay in your car. He says come out and walk the line, you come out and walk the line. Not hollywood. You think you are discriminated against by your color, take Police/authority to court later. You refuse to follow that frontline officer instruction on the site, be ready for the worst.

* Think Rodney, or that Polish man. Police overreacted but in first place, they are trained to react to non-compliance of instructions *

If Chee and team went quietly into the van, bully for them. They made their point effectively and on the right side of Law even if they believe the Law is against them.

3. The odd part is that other people could walk into a designated protected area without a prelim check. I would expect a form of other boundary with checks. Would be nice to know exactly what they had put into place around it. Else, what's the point? If this is not an officially designated protected zone, then Chee has all rights to walk there. If security requirements for that area is so low (like mebbe only secondary officials visiting that place) that only random checks are required, Chee may also be in the right to be allowed to walk there.


Too much confusion and hubris at the moment for me to decide.

* I could watch the videos, but it is school holidays and I need to catch up against my kids' maplestory characters. *
To cut it short, my main concern is the discrimination and inconsistency of laws executed.

Miss Chee have a past but this issue should be merited on its own.

If police could not explain to her why she need to leave while others stroll past, they should not remove her.

They should at least let her continue to walk to where she wants to go until a area where ALL public people cannot go.

She and her friend carried nothing else and were just walking.

All people hates being assumed by somebody else especially when nothing had happen so at that moment and point, I do not think police was right implement one law on her but not on others.

It is the same for WP and YPAP cycling license. Ho Peng Kee's ridiculous reason is assumption until the worse of the worse even with no historical facts.

This "protect area law" if Ice is right is left behind by the British and fine tuned by PAP.

Colonial laws were made to subvert local populace into colonial subjects, not citizens of a nation. It was mean to make colonists as good as kings.

We should not have such laws in today's independent Singapore.

[korry]

The police head was later shouting. He lost his cool liao leh..

The police bundled her and the video guy by force into a van. I don't call that "escorting", or is that a uniquely SG definition of escorting? haha :s13:

They used force to move the people obviously! If you get your kids to leave the supermarket, thats force too.

Look at my post again. I said "brute force" didnt I? The previous poster was suggesting the police use brute force. I said that proportionate force is part of the police training, and that the officers remained calm.

Brute force would be something like punching, kicking, drawing your baton or firing on the offenders. Proportionate force is the concept that you dont use a nuke to stop a bank robber. If he has a gun, you use a gun with a higher rate of fire.

Let me ask you, if your kids refused to leave the supermarket, telling you that they are doing nothing wrong and that they are peaceful, would you be able to keep calm?

[tequila_powered]

To cut it short, my main concern is the discrimination and inconsistency of laws executed.

Miss Chee have a past but this issue should be merited on its own.

If police could not explain to her why she need to leave while others stroll past, they should not remove her.

They should at least let her continue to walk to where she wants to go until a area where ALL public people cannot go.

She and her friend carried nothing else and were just walking.

All people hates being assumed by somebody else especially when nothing had happen so at that moment and point, I do not think police was right implement one law on her but not on others.

It is the same for WP and YPAP cycling license. Ho Peng Kee's ridiculous reason is assumption until the worse of the worse even with no historical facts.

This "protect area law" if Ice is right is left behind by the British and fine tuned by PAP.

Colonial laws were made to subvert local populace into colonial subjects, not citizens of a nation. It was mean to make colonists as good as kings.

We should not have such laws in today's independent Singapore.Make up your mind. In the first section of your post, you say it is the inconsistent execution of the Law. In the latter half, you veer towards that it is the Law itself.

As for myself, which is disagreeble to many but hey we are all distinct individuals, I believe the current form of regulations, framework and laws dealing with protection and demontrations are fine (the vagueness of application is suspect though). However, using CHEE to champion for human rights (ie innocent til proven guilty) is rubbish here, because as said earlier it is known then and today that she does not need to publicly announce her intent to cause trouble at the place before getting ejected out - eg the repeated convicted pedophile wanting to work at kindergarten unsupervised; or the rights of country to turn ppl away at border checkpoint on suspicion of intent and not wait for a known towelhead (ie participated in previous bombings elsewhere recently) to declare to the immigration officer that he is there to conduct a bombing; they will not buy his I-am-here-for-lunch explanation either. ie positive discrimination. If she had long stopped doing what she had been doing, and still get ejected, then I support the concept of miscarriage of justice ie denial of access on negative discrimination. Of course, I will still want to know exactly why the place is declared a protected place and what level of protection is required, since other ppl can still walk in there unchallenged at the perimeter.

You will disagree, and that's fine. My overall "ideology" is centre-right, after all.

[Iceshadow]

i do not want to respond to Iceshadow's remarks anymore after this. he keeps bringing us around the garden round and round. yes of course the law is there and yes they are following the law. i'm talking about the fairness of the law and you simply cannot deny that discrimination has occured by using that law as an excuse.

The only ones who are bringing anyone around the mulberry bush are those who persistenly insist that what is done under the law is not fair or prejudiced. Whether you like it or not the Act is not prejudiced or discriminatory. It just is.

You persistently tried to show that what the police did was unlawful because they had no grounds to evict her, and when shown that to be wrong you switch tactics to now say that you are talking about the fairness of the law? Please decided which angle you want. Are you talking about the fairness of the execution of the law or are you claiming that the SPF had no grounds for the eviction? They are 2 seperate things. One deals with the basis on which the woman and her companion was evicted and the other deals with whether it was fair that she was singled out, which by the way is not illegal according to the act.

[Iceshadow]

She did not move because police could not explain why she need to leave while others just stroll past.

The entire protected area law was just for her ?? Extravagant ??

In the end, its a law that See Face only base on the whims and fancies of people executing it and it becomes inconsistent.

This is in the same mould as YPAP got cycling license while WP did not.

Ho Peng Kee was a joker and he tried his best to give a worse assumption he could think of just to make himself and PAP government look right to deny WP a license but make the government look clownish.

You don't get it do you? Under the PPPA Act, they need not explain to here why she needed to leave beyond telling her that it is a protected area and that she cannot proceed beyond that point. There is no requirement for them to do that despite your unhappiness about the situation because it is mandated by law.

And if you think the entire protected area is for her alone you must be raving mad! Otherwise why would the men-in-red t-shirts be told to disperse or the group who wanted to hand a card to the leaders have to wait to pass it via an official? Were they allowed to saunter into the protected area as if they had the right? Of course not!

A protected area is a protected area, whether it is open to the public to stroll down the area or not. A protected area is a special area where the SPF have greater jurisdiction to deny anyone they deem necessary from entering and not an area where they have to prevent anyone from entering. There is a difference.

As for the Act itself it was adopted in 1959 during the period of internal selfgovernance before merger, and some time after the Hock Lee bus riots and Chinese School riots. While I may not know the exact reasoning for the Act itself I suspect that it was adopted to allow for the handling of future riots by cordoning off areas as necessary. Thus we didn't really inherit it from the colonials

We should not have such laws in today's independent Singapore

All independant countries have such a law in one guise or another. It's only a matter of whether you recognise it for what it is when you see it..

EDIT

Frankly if you guys are unhappy with it, petition to repeal the law. Whether it will happen or not is one thing. But at the least we'll know how much support there will be for the repeal petition.

[spielberg]

[QUOTE=hellsoul]the police video taping every where.. even the cars on the road.. becuz they always

Well...of course, they need video taping in case something bad happen so that they search for clues in video taping, u see...

I find this thread interesting about sister of CSJ. Too bad, she is not pretty, so which is why the police don't fall into her trap, hahah! :P

[azacamis]

if you want to apply the law, BE FAIR. Has she committed any crime? NO. So just because she is an assumed troublemaker that automatically means she will be creating trouble in there? If that is the case, scrap the yellow ribbon project. In fact, scrap the courts too since you are already judged beforehand.

Most people admit that injustice is done here but conceded to it for the sake of a bigger picture. That is simply because it is not happening to you, yet. You want to wait until it does then take action? By the time it is too late. You see people throwing a guy out of the boat in the name of survival and you kept quiet. Want to wait for your turn?

[tequila_powered]

if you want to apply the law, BE FAIR. Has she committed any crime? NO. So just because she is a assumed troublemaker that automatically means she will be creating trouble in there? If that is the case, scrap the yellow ribbon project. In fact, scrap the courts too since you are already judged beforehand.

Most people admit that injustice is done here but conceded to it for the sake of a bigger picture. That is simply because it is not happening to you, yet. You want to wait until it does than take action? By the time it is too late. You see people throwing a guy out of the boat in the name of survival and you keep quiet. Want to wait for your turn?Yellow ribbon is for people who are believed to have repented/conformed/changed. Are you telling me that CHEE would no longer conduct protests?


Had the 911 terrorists conducted any terrorist acts in US before 911? Should they not be stopped at the border because they had not? A recently released multiple repeat convicted pedophile wanting to work in kindergarten unsupervised? Track record of recent activities is sufficient support.

btw most courts worldwide allow for precautionary legal actions too based upon suspected behavior, so you are mighty wrong on this path too.

[satayxp]

if you want to apply the law, BE FAIR. Has she committed any crime? NO. So just because she is an assumed troublemaker that automatically means she will be creating trouble in there? If that is the case, scrap the yellow ribbon project. In fact, scrap the courts too since you are already judged beforehand.

Most people admit that injustice is done here but conceded to it for the sake of a bigger picture. That is simply because it is not happening to you, yet. You want to wait until it does then take action? By the time it is too late. You see people throwing a guy out of the boat in the name of survival and you kept quiet. Want to wait for your turn?

well said ~~
problem with myopic ppl is they cannot see far ~ :o

[azacamis]

Yellow ribbon is for people who are believed to have repented/conformed/changed. Are you telling me that CHEE would no longer conduct protests?


Had the 911 terrorists conducted any terrorist acts in US before 911? Should they not be stopped at the border because they had not? A recently released multiple repeat convicted pedophile wanting to work in kindergarten unsupervised? Track record of recent activities is sufficient support.

btw most courts worldwide allow for precautionary legal actions too based upon suspected behavior, so you are mighty wrong on this path too.

like I said, it has not happened to you yet so the law is justified in your eyes. Fine, I concede. If a human life is at stake, precautionary measures are warranted. But in this case, what life is at stake here? PAP's lost of its iron grip?

So conducting a protest is a bad thing? Since when gathering of 4 people is against the law? Since when standing doing nothing wearing a T-shirt with a letter is against the law? Since when wearing a T-shirt with a ministers factual pay is against the law?

Long live PAP

[Iceshadow]

if you want to apply the law, BE FAIR. Has she committed any crime? NO. So just because she is an assumed troublemaker that automatically means she will be creating trouble in there? If that is the case, scrap the yellow ribbon project. In fact, scrap the courts too since you are already judged beforehand.

Most people admit that injustice is done here but conceded to it for the sake of a bigger picture. That is simply because it is not happening to you, yet. You want to wait until it does then take action? By the time it is too late. You see people throwing a guy out of the boat in the name of survival and you kept quiet. Want to wait for your turn?

And how has the law not been applied fairly? You claim that she has not commited any crime. The fact is she has. Whether you want to admit it or not she was, under the law, legally barred from proceeding further into the protected area. She was informed so. Even your reports tell you so. The Act is clear that permission can be denied to anyone for any reason. She chose to break that law by insisting on continuing to enter the area despite being told to turn around. If you want to argue that she was unfairly treated, that's your perogative, but if you want to use the basis that she was treated unfairly because she didn't break the law, then you better think of a better reason.

[pete98]

And how has the law not been applied fairly? You claim that she has not commited any crime. The fact is she has. Whether you want to admit it or not she was, under the law, legally barred from proceeding further into the protected area. She was informed so. Even your reports tell you so. The Act is clear that permission can be denied to anyone for any reason. She chose to break that law by insisting on continuing to enter the area despite being told to turn around. If you want to argue that she was unfairly treated, that's your perogative, but if you want to use the basis that she was treated unfairly because she didn't break the law, then you better think of a better reason.

Law apply fairly but law itself targets certain individual so is the law itself fair? Legal does not always equal fairness. So is the discussion about the law being fair or is it being applied fairly? There is a difference.

[tequila_powered]

like I said, it has not happened to you yet so the law is justified in your eyes. Fine, I concede. If a human life is at stake, precautionary measures are warranted. But in this case, what life is at stake here? PAP's lost of its iron grip?

So conducting a protest is a bad thing? Since when gathering of 4 people is against the law? Since when standing doing nothing wearing a T-shirt with a letter is against the law? Since when wearing a T-shirt with a ministers factual pay is against the law?

Long live PAPNo, I did not challenge you on good or bad of protest.

No, I did not challenge you on value of lives.

No, I did not challenge you on PAP and their fears.

I challenge you on your concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. You had not answered why repeated convicted pedophiles just released from prison should not be allowed to work unsupervised in kindergarten. Do you not champion for his rights of Innocent til Proven Guilty? You have not answered why terrorists who had not commited terrorists acts in Singapore should not be allowed in for lunch. Do you not champion allowing AlQeada operatives to move freely here?

Unless you do, you are equally in same boat as I am, MYOPIC and all.

[Mianhaeyo]

Yellow ribbon is for people who are believed to have repented/conformed/changed. Are you telling me that CHEE would no longer conduct protests?


Had the 911 terrorists conducted any terrorist acts in US before 911? Should they not be stopped at the border because they had not? A recently released multiple repeat convicted pedophile wanting to work in kindergarten unsupervised? Track record of recent activities is sufficient support.

btw most courts worldwide allow for precautionary legal actions too based upon suspected behavior, so you are mighty wrong on this path too.

Are you comparing Chee Soon Juan (or anyone in his household) to Terrorists and Pedophiles?

Protest = Criminal Activity? I am not sure how does a protest by a very small group makes one a criminal who needs to be reformed.

I can see it, Chee goes into the area, brings out a few slogans and gets classified as a threat to national security. Geezh, those Million and Billion Dollar Leaders got to live with it. If they can't, they should not be ruling their countries at all.

[tequila_powered]

I can't remember your position on the following, Aza, but for the other folks in CAL that I do remember the following, note very very carefully.


For CHEE, you insist upon innocent until proven guilty regardless that she had done it repeatedly, recently, and had not renounced doing it [again].

Hark back to Durai and his syncopates, and you baying for removal of his bails and confiscation of his passports. What happened to absolute innocent til proven guily? Sure, one of them did leave the country but remember the hindisight.

I could think up more real examples from previous CAL debates, but remember your own positions in older postings before commiting your self to an aboslute innocent til proven guilty to support just this thread.

[tequila_powered]

Are you comparing Chee Soon Juan (or anyone in his household) to Terrorists and Pedophiles?

Protest = Criminal Activity? I am not sure how does a protest by a very small group makes one a criminal who needs to be reformed.
Mian, you probably missed the post I did just before yours.

[Humster]

Things I notice so far.......

Arguments are avoided.

Arguments are put down in place by playing I'm liberal.

Selective arguments.

If the above 3 points are not there, this is one hell of a thread. Like the good old days....

[cscs3]

sister lah
eat too much nothing to do

Yes, thats right. Dog Chee sister!
Nothing better to do !

[Mianhaeyo]

I am not sure what your point is. You seem to imply that Chee or his associates has some sinister terrorist plot to take over this island when all they had done was to protest legally.

If there isn't any criminal activity involved, I can see why should the debate of "guilt and innocence" be brought up. And I've seen you using terrorists as comparison. What is Osama walked into the area? what if someone with a Molotov cocktail and knives tried to get into the area? Using the common denominator as support, its so easy.

I can't see how does it apply to Chee and his associates, did they destroy a building in anger?. Its not even a legal or criminal issue at all.

[cscs3]

Are you comparing Chee Soon Juan (or anyone in his household) to Terrorists and Pedophiles?

Protest = Criminal Activity? I am not sure how does a protest by a very small group makes one a criminal who needs to be reformed.

I can see it, Chee goes into the area, brings out a few slogans and gets classified as a threat to national security. Geezh, those Million and Billion Dollar Leaders got to live with it. If they can't, they should not be ruling their countries at all.


Terrosists = Person who try to protect their country? or party right by putting other into risk
Dog Chee = A "Singaporean" who sell Singapore away by asking others to destory Singapore !

You see the different?

[Mianhaeyo]

Terrosists = Person who try to protect their country? or party right by putting other into risk
Dog Chee = A "Singaporean" who sell Singapore away by asking others to destory Singapore !

You see the different?

I can't see how is asking for more freedom and openness as selling out Singapore. Sure he does it in the foreign media, but LKY used to have a monthly Column in Business Week and other foreign publications.

[tequila_powered]

I am not sure what your point is. You seem to imply that Chee or his associates has some sinister terrorist plot to take over this island