Just imagine, the Police has refused to intervene in slapping incidents between citizens many times claiming that such incidents come under non-seizable offences and the victims will have to file his own private summons to seek redress.

All of a sudden in the latest case of a SIA stewardess being lapped, the police changes its mind and charge the assailant for a crime of voluntarily hurting or causing hurt to someone.

Where is the rule of law our MM Lee told international audience of lawyers Singapore is staunchly upholding? Is he telling the truth about the ability of his MHA given so many such incidents which he had failed to prosecute in the past.

The police are fickled minded, sometimes they act only there is a complain.They see people also. If an indian lady slap a man on the street of Tekka, then no case. Few years ago i lost my wallet and I went to report lost, I suspected my friend stole, the police shouted at me saying don't any how accused people without evidence. From that time onwards, I feel that the police is a bully, because they look down on me when during report I could not present myself properly, they pressure me like I am an accused person. So whenever I saw cases of theft or robbery, I would pretend 'tak tahu' no point we become witness if the police treat me like this. Even I see mat selamat, i wont report also, let them go and catch, we help them no use, they are paid to do the job, we are paid nothing.

... the air stewardess must have made Magistrate's Complaint...

... and I cannot help, but must say that for someone who possess a face like that (The Happy Slapper), I have no compassion for her... I feel she's had too much of a High Life and her feet has left the ground too high...

Originally posted by HyperFocal:

... the air stewardess must have made Magistrate's Complaint...

 

... and I cannot help, but must say that for someone who possess a face like that (The Happy Slapper), I have no compassion for her... I feel she's had too much of a High Life and her feet has left the ground too high...

 

 

really? i never saw her picture before. i'm not feeling compassionate, but i am more annoyed with that rich bitch who slapped her. i hate those high and mighty rich folks

I agree. that day i short of money i ate the 'chap chye rice' i ordered 2 vege, no meat. $1.50 only, the one behind me look like rich folks stared at me, seem like look down onme

This call to mind with regard to the old taxi driver who punched the MP during the "see the MP session". Following that incident, a law was passed to protect the MPs.

Little wonder, did the police actually advise the MP to take a civil case on the taxi driver

in case you guys don't know, violence in the air is taken much MUCH more seriously than violence on the ground.

Perhaps parliament can pass a law to make violence in the air more serious invoking heavier punishment rather than at the discretion of judges. That will prevent abuse by the judges of their position as even judges can be spoiled once given too much power.

violence in the air has been treated very seriously since the 9/11 incident.

Truth be told, I'm not surprised that the woman was arrested. I would assume it's pretty much in the SOP.

Let us not exaggerate this case as a typical terrorist threat. It will cover up more worms within the police force. Not it is full of worms as seen in the Mas Selamat case.

Cos can fine and increase the vault for more upcoming salary increments...

Originally posted by robertteh:

Let us not exaggerate this case as a typical terrorist threat. It will cover up more worms within the police force. Not it is full of worms as seen in the Mas Selamat case.

I'm not exagerrating the case.

I'm just saying, that DUE to the 9/11 incident, violence in the air is taken very seriously, terrorist or not.

If you have a fist fight with your friend or a stranger with no grevious hurt, then the aggreived party would be advised to take private action.

But if you hit a public employee, like the carpark warden, police,  post man, or HDB officer, you'll be cuffed, and given one night free stay in Heartbreak Hotel. IOs are notorious for taking their time to attend to you.

Can you honestly not tell the difference?

In the course of duty.

If you hit a traffic warden on his off day at Changi Beach, non seizable.

If you hit a trafic warden at the car park while he is issuing you a ticket, you're in for it.

these are public servants ..... an air-stewardess is not ......

Originally posted by Fatum:

these are public servants ..... an air-stewardess is not ......

 

violence on a plane is much more dangerous mah. enclosed area at high altitute...

and the stewardess was doing her duty~

hate all those high and mighty people~

Originally posted by crimson soldier:

violence on a plane is much more dangerous mah. enclosed area at high altitute...

 

and the stewardess was doing her duty~

 

hate all those high and mighty people~

yes of course ... but I think that's not the whole story ....

the police seems to be a bit tardy in bringing up the case ...

but the wind told me that morale inside SQ is at rock bottom now ... cost cutting and what not for ever greater profits .... air crew accomodations at certain destinations are being downgraded from 5 stars to 3 ... flights are being delayed cos they work the existing planes on the minimum turn around time on the ground and are cutting it too close ....

and the failure of the company to stand up for one of their number was the last straw .... apparently many have been jumping ship to emirates air

Originally posted by robertteh:

Let us not exaggerate this case as a typical terrorist threat. It will cover up more worms within the police force. Not it is full of worms as seen in the Mas Selamat case.

Robert is just taking mindless potshots at the government as usual. If the police had not charged the assailant for commiting a violent act in an aircraft, he would have accused the government of siding with the elite wife of a CEO.

Violence in an aircraft has to be handled differently. This is not the first time that the police has charged someone with unruly behaviour in an aircraft. Drunk passengers have been handcuffed and subsequently charged in court. The action of the police in this case is consistent.

What I cannot understand is the Public Prosecutor's decision to drop charges in the end. It sends a very wrong signal. Irregardless of the out-of-court settlement, the criminal case should habve proceeded. I hope the DPP's decision was not influenced by voices like Robert's.

Oxfordmushroom,

If MHA is consistent in earlier cases of assault he will have no problem in charging the tycoon's wife in this case. Now to compound the inconsistency in earlier cases of assault, not charging the tycoon's wife can be regarded as favoring the powerful and the rich. So there is a flip-flop here on the part of MHA due to earlier lack of thought in refusing to charge certain violent assailant for criminal assault.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

For criminal assault charge to proceed the victim's testimony is crucial. Out-of-court settlements have swayed many a victim.

"Take the money" advice.

Tsk! tsk!

I wonder if PAP MP wife/daughter/son committed assault, would they even need to pay out of court settlement?

Actually inconsistent laws are the norm. The (homo) anal sex law is still there but not being enforced. So if anyone has a video of a PAP MP or relatives....

err just come forward with PG stills and spare us the details.

Originally posted by deathbait:

I'm not exagerrating the case.

I'm just saying, that DUE to the 9/11 incident, violence in the air is taken very seriously, terrorist or not.

if it is taken very seriously then why were the charges withdrew in the end?

Originally posted by lotus999:

if it is taken very seriously then why were the charges withdrew in the end?

The reason why the charges were dropped and why they were initiated in the first place is the same: it is because of the stewardess.

As you all know [though plenty do not understand], the case was classified as that of voluntarily causing hurt [VCH], a non-seizable offence. In most cases of VCH, the victim will be advised to lodge a magistrate's complaint in order to furnish the Police with full powers of investigation, as Police have limited investigative powers for non-seizable offences. Only in exceptional cases will the Police apply to have full investigative powers via their respective Head of Investigation.

This might lead to the "inconsistency" that you see, but you must understand that it is actually at the discretion of the Magistrate, whether or not to direct the report to the Police to investigate. The Police will have their own review on which VCH cases need to be investigated proactively [without concurrence from the Magistrate] and will update the victim accordingly if that is the case. So it depends on two areas: either the Magistrate's direction, or the Police's own initiation [for those exceptional cases].

Unlike typical Police investigations [where people get arrested and/or charged in court], in Magistrate's Complaints, the Victim is able to tell the Police when to cease investigations, seeing as to they were the ones who requested the Police to look into the matter [via a written order by the Magistrate] in the first place. This was what happened in this case.

It is not about inconsistency in the law. It is all about understanding it, and, as in the case of courtroom battles, making use of the laws and loopholes and putting those understandings to a debate. The one who argues his case best usually ends up the winner.