Breaking News: Two SDP leaders arrested by Police!
-
Obviously, you misunderstood my meaning, since when did I put words in your mouth?Originally posted by foxtrout8:i never said anything about asking them to go to the boundary then push them out. i am warning now not to add words into my mouth again and again.
i am saying regulating the movement allows the police officer to ask them to move out of the area.
if you are a prison officer, yes you can ask them to MOVE anywhere but not LEAVE because the prisioner can only be confine to the prision. unless if chee and her group can only be confine to the protected area around shangrila, the police can ask them to MOVE OUT.
the security officer can ask people to move out of a perimeter. if you live in a condo, you will understand.
Please read again.
Since when did I quote you?
Well, you have to understand the orders from my supposed superiors.
His instructions were that, "I regulate the prisoners in the exercise area", or, maybe you can also say I am a pet caretaker, my boss tells me, "You regulate the dogs within this area".
Can I regulate the dogs outside this area and show them the exit?
Your situation always abit bizzare, either accident or fire, where the movement or non-movement will cause distress. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
when did i explain about regulating them to the boundary then push them out?
And [b]your explanation of regulate their movement is to regulate the pair to the circumference of the boundary and push them out?
[/b]
are you putting words into my mouth or you misread me? you are doing it again and again you know? -
Isn't that what you stated in a previous post?Originally posted by foxtrout8:when did i explain about regulating them to the boundary then push them out?
are you putting words into my mouth or you misread me? you are doing it again and again you know?
Do you have selective amnesia?Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 09:33 PM5)since you said 'control = regulate' do you agree that the police have the right to regulate movement in a protected area to the extent of controlling your movement one way to the exit by the 4 (2) of protected area and protected places act?
You also agreed that regulating is not to cause detachment, separation from the area. If the police have no right of causing the pair detachment from that area, the only possibility is to regulate them to the boundary and nudge them out.
You are self contradicting yourself by saying that the police has no right to cause detachment from the area and that of the police being able to ask that the pair exit (cause detachment from the area).Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 11:35 PMi agree regulating does not imply removal. removal is the taking away of something from a location but regulation of people movement does means in my opinion the control and the direction (as in directing) of the movement of people. -
"You regulate the dogs within this area".
you keep changing your scenarios again and again after i tear them apart one by one.
Can I regulate the dogs outside this area and show them the exit? :
on the dogs you can ask them to move out, it is not illegal. but of course i wonder why you want them to lose the dogs and yes you will get a scolding.
but you can also tell your boss that he never state that the dog movement must only be in this area. he said that you can regulate the dog in the area. another words in the area, you ask the dog to move anywhere including moving out. once the dog moved out, you got no power to ask him to move it. because he is out of the area and you are not to regulate.
the security guard can ask people to move out of the perimeter, it is not illegal.
the prison officer cannot ask a prisioner to move out of the prison compound with persmission because he doesnt have the power to do so, if he does it, it is illegal. -
i think you have problem with understanding.Originally posted by maurizio13:Do you have selective amnesia?
one way to the exit = to asking them to go to the boundary and then push them out? -
4(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.
your major misunderstanding in here.
''Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement''
the law never state that his movement can only be regulated to anywhere only in the area.
the law only states that as long as this person is in the area, his movement can be regulated. so that means, he can be ask to move. move where? for example, move out or move to the exit until you are not in the area.
once outside the area, his or her movement no longer come under the protected area and protected places act. -
I give more examples to help you understand, since you did not like the prison example.Originally posted by foxtrout8:you keep changing your scenarios again and again after i tear them apart one by one.
on the dogs you can ask them to move out, it is not illegal. but of course i wonder why you want them to lose the dogs and yes you will get a scolding.
the security guard can ask people to move out of the perimeter, it is not illegal.
the prison officer cannot ask a prisioner to move out of the prison compound with persmission because he doesnt have the power to do so, if he does it, it is illegal.
So, if my boss knows that the dog has some medical condition while I do not. (A medical condition where it has to be kept within the boundaries of an air-conditioned environment).
He tells me, "regulate the dog within this air-conditioned room (boundary)", I on my own volition take the dog outside of the boundary for a stroll, the dog dies because of the medical condition. Did I go beyond the expressed words of my boss? Nobody is questioning the legality of the dogs moving out of the boundary. I am just questioning your understanding and logic of the situation.
Tell me how is this in English, different from subsection 4(2) of the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act?[/color]
(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. -
4(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.Originally posted by maurizio13:I give more examples to help you understand, since you did not like the prison example.
So, if my boss knows that the dog has some medical condition while I do not. (A medical condition where it has to be kept within the boundaries of an air-conditioned environment).
He tells me, "regulate the dog within this air-conditioned room (boundary)", I on my own volition take the dog outside of the boundary for a stroll, the dog dies because of the medical condition. Did I go beyond the expressed words of my boss? Nobody is questioning the legality of the dogs moving out of the boundary. I am just questioning your understanding and logic of the situation.
Tell me how is this in English, different from subsection 4(2) of the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act?[/color]
(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.
your major misunderstanding in here.
''Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement''
the law never state that his movement can only be regulated to anywhere only in the area.
the law only states that as long as this person is in the area, his movement can be regulated. so that means, he can be ask to move. move where? for example, move out or move to the exit until you are not in the area.
once outside the area, his or her movement no longer come under the protected area and protected places act. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Section 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore already stated the full sentence.
the protection against discriminations [b]is limited onli to ground of religion, race, descent or place of birth.[b] thats mean, it is illegal only if say the police discriminate againsty you for your religion, race, descent and birth place.[/b]
it is totally legal say for example for an individual to proclaim that he or she only hire people with no criminal records. althought it is outright discrimination but the law on equality doesnt go so far as to protect people from being discriminated because of crime records.
so did the police treat them (chee and her group of people) discriminately based on their race, religion, descent or place or birth?
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
[/b]
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
(3) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit —
(a) any provision regulating personal law; or
(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.
In subsection 12(1), it is specifically stated that everybody is equal in the eyes of the law, the treatment should be fair and equal.
Subsection 12(2) just states, unless it is stated in the Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens based on religion, race, descent.................
It does not mean, we can discriminate against people based on any other exclusions.
So if what you said is true, about the explicit mention of groups protected in subsection 12(2). So non specific mention in 12(2) will exclude the person being treated fairly under the eyes of the law. Then I guess a physically handicapped person would not be protected with equal rights under the eyes of the law. So does it mean that a physically handicapped person will be treated differently from a businessman if he commits a murder? It also did not specifically mention unemployed persons given equal rights. Does it mean that the jobless are different in the eyes of the law? A jobless man committing murder will be different from a person holding trade or business?
I have to reiterate.
In subsection 12(1), it is specifically stated that everybody is equal in the eyes of the law, the treatment should be fair and equal.
You not only have a logic problem, you have an English language problem too. -
Then how can the pair be moved or severed from the area, if "regulating" does not mean to cause detachment or separation from the area.Originally posted by foxtrout8:4(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.
your major misunderstanding in here.
''Any person who is in any protected area shall comply with such directions for regulating his movement''
the law [b]never state that his movement can only be regulated to anywhere only in the area.
the law only states that as long as this person is in the area, his movement can be regulated. so that means, he can be ask to move. move where? for example, move out or move to the exit until you are not in the area.
once outside the area, his or her movement no longer come under the protected area and protected places act.[/b][/quote]
Hehehe.......
I think you have a problem understanding logic and English.
Like I said before and I repeat again.
If they have a subsection 4(2) in the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act (PAAPPA), that gives them the right to move in your words "move out or move to the exit until you are not in the area."
You still need a subsection 4(3) of PAAPPA to move the person(s) out of the protected area?
Like I said before and before and shall repeat again.
If you read subsection 4(2) in it's entirety, it does not express the removal (I used this word neutrally, as you used move which is homologous to it) of the person from the area, which was also agreed by you in an earlier post.
In your own words,
[quote]Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 11:35 PM
i agree regulating does not imply removal. removal is the taking away of something from a location but regulation of people movement does means in my opinion the control and the direction (as in directing) of the movement of people.
If subsection 4(2) of PAAPPA does not authorize the police from moving or removing the person from the area. Then what right have the police to enforce subsection 4(3) of PAAPPA to remove them from the area.
If subsection 4(2) of PAAPPA "really" enpowers them to move or caused to be removed from the area, then subsection 4(3) is redundant, because subsection 4(3) of PAAPPA also states the same.
So are you trying to "imply" that our parliament makes redundant sections to the law?
Protected areas.
4. —(1) .........
(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.
In your own words again,
So your interpretation of subsection 4(2) and subsection 4(3) of PAAPPA is, if the person in contravention refuse to comply with being moved out of the area (in your own words, "controlling [regulating] your movement one way to the exit), the police will be empowered by subsection 4(3) and caused you to be removed from the area.Originally posted by foxtrout8: 24 November 2007 -- 11:53 PMthe third part exist to give the authorised officers the power to escort anyone whom refuse to comply with the directions of the officer out of a protected area in the second part which includes, regulating movement, searching etc.
Makes perfect logic doesn't it. -
My eyes!
Piang eh, this become Moot Court liao. -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:My eyes!
Piang eh, this become Moot Court liao.
Must base explanation with substantive facts and logic.
Sorry for damaging your eyes. -
Tell us how you would have caused them to be exited?Originally posted by foxtrout8:i think you have problem with understanding.
one way to the exit = to asking them to go to the boundary and then push them out?
Then how else are the police able to cause them to be outside of the boundary when they clearly refused to be out of the boundary.
Asking them or requesting from them is subject to refusal. e.g. if you request that I stop rebutting your logically weak post, I can refuse it; if you request that I not rebut anymore, I can similarly refuse it. Their strong refusal can be verified by look at the video again.
If you ask me, objectively I will tell you, the Superintendant acted out of disregard for PAAPPA (Protected Areas And Protected Places Act) and exercise undue force to remove the dynamic duo (Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan).
Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 1
Ms. Chee outside Shangrila Hotel Part 2
I think all police officers should study the Act pertaining to their duties that they are to perform carefully, before being tasked. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
a physically handicapped person can lawfully be treated differently depending on what law is concerning the issue.
So if what you said is true, about the explicit mention of groups protected in subsection 12(2). So non specific mention in 12(2) will exclude the person being treated fairly under the eyes of the law. Then I guess a physically handicapped person would not be protected with equal rights under the eyes of the law. So does it mean that a physically handicapped person will be treated differently from a businessman if he commits a murder? It also did not specifically mention unemployed persons given equal rights. Does it mean that the jobless are different in the eyes of the law? A jobless man committing murder will be different from a person holding trade or business?
example, you can discriminate him lawfully by telling him that you cannot hire him because he dont have a pair of working legs. he cannot report to police claiming that you discriminate him.
to look at how far discrimination is protected you must look at the constitution then look at the particular section of the law.
say your example of a businessman commits murder cannot be treated differently although the constitution states that it only protects people on religion, race...etc but in particularly under the law for murder,
Punishment for murder.
302 . Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.
it shows that the constitution on equal protection is not a blanketing protection law, the constitution itself states that there are exceptions. -
If subsection 4(2) of PAAPPA does not authorize the police from moving or removing the person from the area. Then what right have the police to enforce subsection 4(3) of PAAPPA to remove them from the area.
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.
If subsection 4(2) of PAAPPA "really" enpowers them to move or caused to be removed from the area, then subsection 4(3) is redundant, because subsection 4(3) of PAAPPA also states the same.
So are you trying to "imply" that our parliament makes redundant sections to the law?
so 4(2) gives the police power to request the person to move out of the area because any person in the area shall comply with such directions...
(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.
so 4(3) gives the police power to remove the person out of the area by neccesary force if the person refuse to comply 4(2).
thus it shows that removal comes in only it 4(3) where 4(2) is just about ordering you to move out
and so why is it redundant? -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Maybe you can tell me which law provides a physically handicapped from not being prosecuted under the same basis as normal men?
a physically handicapped person can lawfully be treated differently depending on what law is concerning the issue.
example, you can discriminate him lawfully by telling him that you cannot hire him because he dont have a pair of working legs. he cannot report to police claiming that you discriminate him.
to look at how far discrimination is protected you must look at the constitution then look at the particular section of the law.
say your example of a businessman commits murder cannot be treated differently although the constitution states that it only protects people on religion, race...etc but in particularly under the law for murder,
Punishment for murder.
302 [b]. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.
it shows that the constitution on equal protection is not a blanketing protection law, the constitution itself states that there are exceptions.
[/b]
If someone has only one arm, he steals, he robs, he rapes, he molest, he kidnaps, he embezzles, in what way is he treated differently?
He has lighter sentence?
If that's the case, someone would amputate one of his arm before he commits murder because he can get a lighter sentence.
It would be good if you can provide come credible evidence to support you logic.
So now a businessman's decision to hire is considered the law of Singapore?
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
What do you understand from the above subsection 12(1)? That the decisions of a businessman is considered law of Singapore?
Get your facts right. Else next, you will be equating my choice of eating prawn noodle or chicken rice a law of Singapore.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
Except:
–preposition
1. with the exclusion of; excluding; save; but: They were all there except me.
–conjunction
2. only; with the exception (usually fol. by that): parallel cases except that one is younger than the other.
3. otherwise than; but (fol. by an adv., phrase, or clause): well fortified except here.
4. Archaic. unless.
Expressly:
1. for the particular or specific purpose; specially: I came expressly to see you.
2. in an express manner; explicitly: I asked him expressly to stop talking.
This statement doesn't authorise discrimination against physically disabled, opposition politicians or unemployed.
It just states, unless it has been specifically authorised, there should be not discrimination against citizens of Singapore based on religion, race, place of birth...............
YOU MISUNDERSTOOD the whole subsection. If I say you cannot steal, does it MEAN that you can kill? If your parents tell you, "you must be home by 11pm", does it mean that you can take alcohol?
If I say unless I specifically authorise you, you cannot watch tv, take alcohol, engage in sexual conduct.
Does the above statement authorise you to pick a fight on the street with someone?
What are the exceptions? Please explain. -
I thought you already agreed in an earlier post that regulating is not, removal, move out, detachment and separation from area?Originally posted by foxtrout8:2) 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.
so 4(2) gives the police power to request the person to move out of the area because any person in the area shall comply with such directions...
(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.
so 4(3) gives the police power to remove the person out of the area by neccesary force if the person refuse to comply 4(2).
thus it shows that removal comes in only it 4(3) where 4(2) is just about ordering you to move out
and so why is it redundant?
Do you have memory issues?
Doesn't your "move out of the area" a contradiction of your earlier statement?Originally posted by foxtrout8: 23 November 2007 -- 11:35 PMi agree regulating does not imply removal. removal is the taking away of something from a location but regulation of people movement does means in my opinion the control and the direction (as in directing) of the movement of people.
Once again subsection 4(2) of PAAPPA does not authorise the officers to move a person out of the area, it was meant to regulate his movement.
If you don't even agree with what you said earlier, then how can your statements be ever agreeable, they keep contradicting and negating each other out.
But like I said, the dynamic duo of Ms. Chee and Mr. John Tan did not violate any forms of regulating or search by the authorities. The pair did not violate subsection 4(2) and was wrongfully abducted by the police officers.
Like I repeated many times before subsection 4(3) can only be used if they had violated subsection 4(2). But the pair did not violate subsection 4(2).
You should not incorporate your OWN STATEMENTS with that of the ACT, you are misleading and confusing people into thinking that what you said is in the 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.
In your own interpretation, subsection 4(2), which empowers the police officer to remove the perpetrator; and subsection 4(3) which also empowers the police officer to remove the perpetrator.
Isn't your interpretation making subsection 4(3) redundant?
You already agreed that regulating is not to cause detachment from the area, then how would the pair have violated subsection 4(2)? The police officer asked the pair to leave the area, which the police officers have no right, as they are only to "regulate" and regulate means not to be separated from the area. -
Being a police officer on duty does not give a police officer absolute power. If so, then the police officer would be above the law in all respect of the law. This would make a mockery of the legal system, where people will be treated differently because of different occupations.
A police officer is to work within the framework of the law, which he is suppose to protect, not discriminate against others based on political affiliations or otherwise, when such person has not violated the law. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:Being a police officer on duty does not give a police officer absolute power. If so, then the police officer would be above the law in all respect of the law. This would make a mockery of the legal system, where people will be treated differently because of different occupations.
A police officer is to work within the framework of the law, which he is suppose to protect, not discriminate against others based on political affiliations or otherwise, when such person has not violated the law.
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
