Originally posted by laoda99:

I was in the force as a regular. What were u smart alec?

Then u cannot make any comments regarding life as a JO becoz u were never in the force.

=========================================================

Originally posted by Bamboozler:

I'm just glad you left.

=========================================================

common.... so free to argue here? i created this forum not for this and hope ou understand.... thou those words said might no be what they meant to be... but... whats the point of quarrelling?

so what if you are still in the force? or so what if you are not in the force?

those who left might regret as well as those who choose to stay....
those who left might not be happy as well as those who choose to stay too...

life is full of choices... its all about what you choose at the end of the day, the rest are just history and experiance that you learn in life...

chill... help out then to stir trouble here can? i say thank you in advance ok?



QAZPLM

===================================
To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine

i rest my case....

thought it have been explained over and over again? email have been sent out for clarifications too? my god....

Sec 323 Cap 224 (Penal Code) is NOT, i would like to mention again, ITS NOT A CIVIL CASE!!!

its a non-seizable case where police have not power of investigation as stated on CPC Sec 120 to 126 CAP 68 (Criminal Procedure Code), as such victim is advised to lodge a magistrate complaint at sub court and with the powers granted from Magistrate then the police can exercise whatever that is stated on Sec 120 to 126 of Cap 68 prior to the case.

HOWEVER, if the assailant "refusal to give name and residence". under Sec 32 Cap 68 of CPC, officers can execute to arrest without warrent in order to ascertain his particulars and to let him go after establishing it. If the act is committed in front of the officers, they can use some of the sections stated in Cap 184 (MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES (PUBLIC ORDER AND NUISANCE) ACT).

Hope this can be useful to all.... cheers..

Originally posted by LazerLordz:

The day that efficiency takes precedence over proper respect for individuals' rights, is a very sad day.

The mindset in Singapore should be that the govt and her agencies are there to serve the people, and it's not an obligation for the people to make their lives any smoother.

That's why it's called Public Service. Somewhere along the line, some figures of authority decided to play God and twist it to ensure the people make the Govt's life better.

I'm not degrading anyone here in particular, just trying to raise some awareness amongst fellow Singaporeans who always think they must not make life hard for the government and actually burden themselves unnecessarily.

well said, though they are just mere words type out here. But i believe you had your message send to everyone here.

Its definately a sad day if what you said came true and i believe that will not be the case. Gone were the days where employee from the Public Service that are autoritive like the old days. If i am not wrong there is a PSO setup under the PMO for employees to understand the change of culture in the Public service.

Well, definately i do agree that everyone have their rights to remain silent or refuse to be check on upon(as of the main concern of this thread). I also believe by not having any burden to oneself is = to make life difficult for the govt. There is always a feedback unit for everyone to raise any concern. And as what they have stated on one of their para(in the PS21 website),

"Singaporeans are now better educated and more informed. They have a stronger desire to be involved in what is happening around them. They are demanding greater discursive space, and a culture which encourages them to express themselves freely, make mistakes, voice diverse views and experiment."

Which i believe the public services itself are aware that they are handling a different kind of public nowadays.

So, i have to agree with MCSquare that, by giving orally to the officers the name and address is sufficient. And of course that the officers can further escertain it by seeing any id shown(if neccessary). If not, its just a mere consensual conversation between the officers and the public(which one can choose to reject). And do please ask for the reasons for the checks, rather then to question the powers and the rights of officers conducting it. Unless the reasons given is not appropriate, then the public can raise their suspicion.

Originally posted by M©+square:

If my memories doesnt fail me, you should be helping....

Hows ur KINS?

Originally posted by prso:

If i did say the police are unsure about the law, you are going to believe me uh?
I'm surprised you are taking my words as authoritative

;p

anyway, what i meant is, there are many many police procedures. It is impossible for each P.O to remember every law by hard. However, there are written instruction manuals that they do follow. And will certainly know how to deal with people who make things difficult wilfully.

prso,

why bother to explain? as you can see in my previous other post, its a waste of time and the best part is they will take our words as authoritative.... omg...

If they want to continue behaving like kids, just let them whine and throw their own tamtrum....

One of them will want you to state which section, yet the other will want you to state the powers... its definately that they were being spot checks before and felt that they were being "ill-treated"....

why bother to explain to people which already have bias mindset against the SPF... let them let it the hard way, and i really wish that they are not a bunch of people whom are NATO.... and try to influence the whole world by their "westerner's mindset" about human rights blah blah....

I did remember there is this article in TNP stating two EX SPF officers challenge the PO regarding their powers conducting check on them during road blocks, no doubt in the end they were acquitted... they regret for their actions as its a waste of time for all the court procedures....

let them learn the hard way.... then they will grow up...

my 2 cents...

Originally posted by nomood:

Which is what's so worrying.

Police need to have a legal basis for their actions. Not their "own opinion".

In any case, i think you've managed to succeed in confusing me more. Now I'm not so sure what you're talking about anymore.

Just a small piece of advice, and please don't take offense. Before you type, try summarizing your points into 1 single sentence or question. If you can't do that, then you probably do not have a point.

I think either you are a clone or you can be bamboolzer best friend~

my whole quote is

"i aways think that i am wasting my time replying to you..... well, my own opinion though not representing anyone.... "

you rather choose to pick up the last few words in the sentenses.... well done...

I think i shall not waste my time replying to you too.... those forumites that are reading this thread should know what i am trying to say.... those that have doubts still can post qns though... not going to waste time on humans that have pre-bias mindset about the SPF.... its wasting my time explaining...

Originally posted by Bamboozler:

I just state a fact - they need to have a legal basis for what they do.

We need to know exactly when we are obliged to comply with such a request and when there is no power at all.

Exectly! i told you that they should have a reason and of course i means power too! I regret that i should have been a good student back then, so i no need to convince to people like you using simpler words with my standard of english(which i sux in)....

i aways think that i am wasting my time replying to you..... well, my own opinion though not representing anyone....

You just cant buy the idea that if you are being checked, there is definately a reason(or LEGAL RIGHTS if you insist on using these words)? and of cos as i have stated alot of times that you have the right to reject?

perhaps my poor command in english is the main concern as i have used the word "random checks" throughout the whole thread... my apology... then i think its time for me to change "random checks" to just "checks" alone... And of cos when there is no power, you think the police will want to make check on you? for nothing?

i am actually glad that you can deduced a rank for me based on those replies i have posted and i am honoured....

ASK is the word i advised everyone to do so when they are being check.... for the reason(or LEGAL RIGHTS) behind every checks conducted will only be clear if you or me are the policeman whom is conducting it....

cheers

P.S. if you think you are being check due to the policeman abusing his powers, do feedback to SIU...

Originally posted by nomood:

That happens to be what i believe in too.

The police is the enforcement agency of the law, not the other way round.

I think i have to blame it on my poor command of english.... i am a bad student back then and did not get great results printed on my certificate...

I was wanting to prove that law enforcer in SG does not abuse their power by just conduct checks for no reason and when they have no power to...

and if such police officer exist, there is always the SIU to feedback to....

I did state that you can refuse and of cos, please ask them for the reason for the checks... hope i do not confuse you by the above answers...

Originally posted by Samuelpsw:

they nv write anything abt criminal record or watsoever in the recruitment webby eh..

You can try...... no harm... no one says cannot....

Originally posted by R3SsH|n:

cut the long story short.
can i refuse?

You do have a choice to refuse....

They have a choice to arrest....

short enough?

Originally posted by zanza:

Well , in truth you do have the right. But the consequence is that you will be brought to the police station.

S.33(1) Of the Criminal Procedure Code gives a police officer the right to demand the name and residence of a person whom he reasonably believes has commited a non- seizable offence.

If that person does not give his name and residence, ( ie, show his ic) , or gives a false one, he can be arrested by the police officer to ascertain his name and residence but must be released within 24 hrs or brought before the nearest magistrate's court.

my bro,

Sec 33(1) of CPC is for officers that are used pertaining to non-seizable case... please dont mislead fella forumites..... but of cos it can be one of the reason behind checks....

NRA are used to ascertain the particulars of any person check before a NRO or a policeman....

and the list will goes on.... MODA for drug related cases, MOA for offences stated in it etc etc....

Originally posted by MohamedF:

Serious question... I heard that police questioning sometimes like to twist it so you sound like you're guilty... Do we really have the right to keep quite until a court case has been established or our 48hrs are up?

I got heard from a friend that we have...

Do they twist and turn, maybe you should ask them, but if you think that you have done nothing wrong, then just maintain your stand, no one can do anything to you....

But its a wise choice for you to ask them for the reason for checks, and then chat with them.... well if you choose to keep quiet, then you might be arrested for the wrong reason...

Cause human can sometimes be "at the wrong place, at the wrong time", so hope this can answer your doubts...

And of course if the police have charges against you, they have 48hrs to establish it and bring you to a court to request you to be remanded for a period of time......

Originally posted by :

Of course you have the right to refuse. The police officer must have a vallid reason to ask you for your i/c.

Of course you have the rights to refuse and they have the rights to arrest you too...

Well, just polietly ask for the reason for checks will be a better alternative....

Originally posted by Bamboozler:


Why?

I am sure they will have a reason to check on members of the public, but they also need a legal basis. I don't see it in the sections you gave. Perhaps you're not aware of that because you're not a police officer, but they are not allowed to make random checks.

When I get spot checked I will comply and I always ask them why. I think everybody should.

I still dont get it that why are you being so offensive towards police checks? In the first place, if police officers are not empowered, then why will they wanna check you for? fun?

There will definately be A REASON for them to check and how can i tell you which section? omg.... As long as you did not do anything wrong, what are you trying to prove by your every post in this thread? that policeman have no rights to conduct spot checks? or policeman have no legal powers to conduct checks?

I did told you that they do it for a reasons and they are 'responsible' enough for their own actions to conduct the checks as a police officer....

You want sections? i can give you alot, NRA(Cap 201), MOA(Cap 184), MODA(Cap 185), Penal Code(Cap 224), CPC(Cap 68 ) and the list will go very long...

It doesnt matter if i am a Police Officer a not, and who told you that they cant do random checks? its just that they cant do checks without any valid reasons, get it? the different now compare to the older days due to the EDUCATION of the member of public like YOU, is that they should have a valid reason to conducts checks(be it random a not) and you think which policeman so free to conduct random check for no reasons? They have better things to do ok?

Hope this answer your doubts in them...

Originally posted by freedom4ever:

they want to check let them check lor. they doing guard duty mah. i think they need some quota or what de. just help them out lor.

There is no such things as quota in the SPF....

another common misunderstanding of public towards the SPF...

i dont blame you...

Originally posted by 3strips:

That because those u mention are in uniform group... it carries the organisation name on it. And maybe people dun like that organisation.. so got chance must do something to complain

Cause most people can accept seeing NYPDs going Starbucks to buy coffee ON TV and not SPF....

lol.... well, its not the first time that SPF handle such complains....

It nothing wrong to know that there are people whom think that policeman are super man that dont eat/pee/rest like what they normally do while work....

And its nothing wrong to be surprise that policeman pay TAX too...

Hope that everyone had enjoyed their part as its not easy to get involved in such big EVENT held in SG....

Give yourselves a good pat and say well done man~

Originally posted by i-SHOT:

D, Kitty,

You folks are very welcome. I don't know everything but I try to know as much as I can. Like I said, it's part of my job.

Kitty, I understand where some folks are coming from, especially those that are anti-gun. In Singapore, that is how we are brought up (yes, I am a Singaporean and proud to be one). We had little or no exposure to firearms, other than what we are taught in schools (air rifles, etc) and the military.

Only when I moved here eons ago that I got curios and sought to learn as much as I can. One thing lead to another, it ended becoming my business. It all bores down to not being ignorant about something you have no idea about.

I don't know of any other Singaporean stateside that's in the biz. Wish there we more of us. I wrote a short article about a year ago about how I think that with the proper training, we can run and gun with the very best of 'em. The Filipinos are now dominating the scene. They won first and second at the last Steel Challenge in California.

DVC.

I have to agree on the above statement.....

Originally posted by viciouskitty74:

Sorry I shot. No mods allowed on the standard police belt.

And here's something about belt. I was warn ealier not to check in my belts and holsters with my luggage. So I sent them IPSC belts by mail to the USA.

And then....as I was flying from Seattle to USA. My friend refuse to let me check in the belts in my luggage saying I might get stopped and questioned.

So now....I sort of gave up my belts to my friend.

Getting new ones back in SG! Yeah!!! Shopping!!!!

GO USA BO JIO!!!!!!

Originally posted by Thru' Thick N Thin:

Is it true that joining VSC will Greatly Enhance one's chance when it comes to applying for the post of a regular police?

Not proven but you can try....

then again, what makes you think that interview for VSC is so much different from a normal PO interview? since both are policeman?

Originally posted by Bamboozler:

Which section in there gives the cops permission to check me? I read from Sections 172 to 190 ... I did not see a single section that gave them the power to check my NRIC.

i almost laugh off my chair when i read your reply....

My answer is to the question the thread starter posted and not to yours...
He was asking does he/she have the rights to refuse, but u are instead asking what section empowers the officer to do so....

i am amused by your reply and indeed sure that you have replied it with a wrong intention....

well, just to answer you(in case you going to pass remarks on me), I believe every police officers have their own reason to conduct spot checks as stated on my previous reply... You think they so free to just hand pick anyone in the street and start to questioned them for nothing? or perhaps you must be thinking that they are abusing their powers to conduct checks on Member of Public?

I would like to state again, there will be a reason behind every spot checks, and If you think you are being mistreated by the policeman conducting a spot checks then please feedback to the SPF.... i believe every police man is aware about complains and can handle them well.... for example the recent hot topic in STORM.... i was amused that who the hell was so free to waste time doing the whole process, kudos to he/her or them man~

May be when you are being spot checked in the future, do ask the men in blue for the reasons behind the checks? then again, if you have nothing to hide, why retaliate when being check?

Originally posted by Texcoco II:

People, just want to ask something. If a Singapore cop in uniform ask to see my NRIC (for no apparent reason) when I'm having coffee or walking along the road, do I have a right to refuse?

What if the "Mata" NOT in uniform but shows me proof that he is a officer? Same applies?

well, usually there is a reason for spot checks.....

so maybe you wanna read this for your own references?

CONTEMPTS OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Originally posted by saline:

noo.. i don't mean that... sorry.
i've always thought that the customs were part of the home team. so when u posted that ICA= customs, i got curious so i googled it.
apologies if i sounded too offensive.

cheers.

dont worry, i am not offended.... this is how i talk here.... most people whom read this forum knows my charecter.... no worries....

dont take it to heart...

Originally posted by saline:

http://www.customs.gov.sg/
quote:
Singapore Customs is a government agency under the Ministry of Finance. Formed on 1 April 2003, Singapore Customs is the lead agency on trade facilitation and revenue enforcement matters. It is responsible for implementation of customs and trade enforcement measures including those related to free trade agreements and strategic goods.

http://www.ica.gov.sg/
quote:
The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) is a government agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs. ICA has brought together the former Singapore Immigration & Registration (SIR) and the enforcement work performed by the former Customs & Excise Department (CED) at the various checkpoints. Operational on 1 April 2003, ICA is responsible for the security of Singapore's borders against the entry of undesirable persons and cargo through our land, air and sea checkpoints. ICA also performs other immigration and registration functions such as issuing travel documents and identity cards to Singapore citizens and various immigration passes and permits to foreigners. It also conducts operations against immigration offenders.

so customs is not ICA.

i beg to differ.... well.... its ok... since i didnt ask u that your post means CUSTOMS & EXERCISE or SINGAPORE CUSTOMS.... my fault....

yet still.... i rest my case...


no need to post questions here and answer yourself to tell me that i am stupid.... =)

donno wats your point too.... maybe u wanna tell me that you are cleverer.... i am sorry.... because i am stupid....

Originally posted by saline:

errr... customs leh?

i almost faint....

ICA = custom....

ICA is used to known as SIR