include("cmp.php");

Public statement by man allegedly abused by police officers at Central Division

The below statement that is copied to major news outlets in Singapore, is sent by the Singaporean male who alleged to have been abused by police officers at Cantonment Police Complex on 14 Feb 2020.

I’m See and these are my response to the statement issued by the Singapore Police Force on 29 June 2021 about the interview published on The Online Citizen Asia on 28 June 2021.

“See was arrested for drink-driving after he failed a breath analyzer test conducted at a Police roadblock along Boon Keng Road on 14 February 2020 at around 3.40am. He was brought back to the lock-up facility at Police Cantonment Complex at about 4.00am where he was processed for detention while pending the conduct of a further breath analyzer test via the Breath Evidential Analyzer (BEA) machine.”

Response: At no point was I told by the police officer at the roadblock that I was being arrested or have failed the breath analyzer test. In fact, I was told to wait for the police van and to accompany the van back to the cantonment police complex and I was given the form — which was incomplete and meant to be kept by the police officer at the roadblock. And hence, I’m still keeping the incomplete form till now. I also note that at no point, was I handcuffed by the police officers.

“At the lock-up, See was attended to by Nursing Officers on two occasions and he was assessed to be fit for detention. At about 4.40am, after a few attempts to provide a BEA test sample, See passed the BEA test taken in the lock-up with a recorded result of 31 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, which was just below the legal limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath.”

Response: There was only one occasion where my health condition was assessed. The lack of further details from the police confirms point (G). No request was made for me to fill up any forms after passing my BEA test, other than to wait for further instructions. I noted that I was told by the officer who performed the BEA test that it would normally be 30 mins before I am allowed to go off, if the result passed.

“As See was legally arrested (having failed his initial breath analyzer test), he was processed in accordance with the rules for persons arrested and brought into Police custody. This included conducting a search on him, verification of his identity, a medical examination and assessment of his condition to determine whether he was fit for detention, and registering of his property, among others. The Investigation Officer (“IO”), in charge of See’s case took charge of the processes, before See was released. The processes included checking if See had other pending traffic or police cases, the ownership of the car driven by him, the validity of his driving license and vehicle insurance.”

Response: The police officer at the roadblock did not tell me that I was being arrested, neither did any of the officers at the roadblock escort back to the Cantonment police complex. I was told to hitch a ride to the complex in a police van along with a CISCO officer.

“However, See refused to enter the temporary holding area as he told officers to the effect that he was claustrophobic and would harm himself if put into the temporary holding area again. See insisted on waiting along a common corridor, which would affect the movement of persons, including other persons-in-custody, within the facilities. Officers explained that he could not wait there, but he refused to move. See continued to disregard officers’ repeated instructions to move into the temporary holding area and warned officers that he might cause harm to himself.”

Response: The lock-up area is large enough for me to sit at a corner, and I had already voiced my concern about my claustrophobia which is medically certified. So, given the fact that I was not arrested and had passed my BEA test, why was there a need to detain me in the padded cell?

“At about 6am, See requested to use the toilet. Arrangements were made for more officers to escort See to the toilet due to his prior struggle. When the officers got to the cell, See was observed to be sleeping, hence they did not wake him. Prior to this, See was allowed to use the toilet on two occasions at about 4.30am and 4.55am.”

Response: SPF’s statement does not deny that I was forced to urinate in the cell.

“When breakfast was served at around 6.25am, an officer checked on See and found him to still be asleep. As such, breakfast was not served to him.”

Response: I was sleeping on the floor, curled up as I was so cold, having just my t-shirt and shorts in the freezing temperature.

“In our review, we did not find records of See’s request to make any phone calls. While in Police custody, requests for calls to external parties made by persons-in-custody are assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

Response: I emphasis that I was not arrested or told that I have been arrested. Therefore, my right to make a phone call should not have been deprived.

“CCTV footage showed that there were no signs of See limping or exhibiting discomfort when he eventually left the padded cell. He was able to walk normally and was escorted by officers.”

Response: SPF’s statement does not deny that I was so weak that I had to be helped out of the room with the aid of two officers.

“See was released unconditionally from Police custody at about 7.40am on 14 February 2020, around four hours after his arrest, and he was told to collect his vehicle later in the evening for safety considerations. The Police do not typically release vehicles back to persons arrested for drink driving straight after their release from custody as they may still have alcohol in their body, which could affect their faculties and cause them to pose a risk to themselves and other road users if they are allowed to operate the vehicle too soon. See subsequently collected his vehicle on the night of 14 February 2020.”

Response: I note that the officers only decided to release me after I had shouted for help at around 7.30am. If I had not sounded out to the officers, I would surely have been detained in the cell for a longer period of time.

Also, if I had been arrested, shouldn’t I have to fill in a form to be processed or released? To my recollection, I was not made to fill up any form or provide any particulars to the police, other than for the purpose of depositing my belongings. In the interview published on 28 June 2021, there was no complain about the collection of my vehicle. Interestingly, they needed 3-4 hours to check if I have any previous criminal record?

“See then wrote in again one year later, on 2 June 2021, to enquire about this case. The Police had tried to contact him on two separate occasions and offered to arrange a further interview with him to hear his concerns. However, he declined to be interviewed.”

Response: I wrote to the Minister of Home Affairs on 2 June 2021. The Police only started to contact me on 23 June 2021 after TOC wrote to the police for their response on 14 June 2021.

Other than the statement, SPF has also summarized the points of my interview with TOC in the following points.

a) He was held in the Police lock-up for longer than necessary;
b) The Police had assigned him to a padded cell and he was alone inside, even though he had mentioned that he had claustrophobia;
c) The Police had pinned him down and used excessive force in moving him into the padded cell, and he had sustained injuries as a result;
d) The Police had ignored his request to use the toilet and he ended up urinating inside his cell;
e) No food was given to him;
f) The Police had refused to let him call his family members;
g) The medical personnel at the lock-up had ignored his concerns on his high heart rate; and
h) His car was returned to him only after a long time.

I would like to state that in its statement, SPF does not deny (b),(c),(d),(e),(f),(g) but instead attempts to provide a justified explanation of the circumstances.

As for point (a), although SPF keep insisting that I had been arrested, but it cannot provide any documentation to prove this assertion. If I had been arrested, can SPF name the police officer who arrested me and read out my rights to me? I emphasis that I was only handcuffed by the police when they wanted to push me into the padded cell.

As for point (h), this was a point that was not featured in the interview published on TOC.

To conclude, I would like to express my utmost disappointment to the SPF for disclosing my full name in its statement on Facebook. Is SPF trying to intimidate me and my family members so that I will not pursue the matter any further? Does Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) still exist?

 

Mr See

.

yyy
READER COMMENTS BELOW

21 Responses to “Public statement by man allegedly abused by police officers at Central Division”

  • No CCTV, again:

    Why not just release the full CCTV?

    So much talk needed?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Evidently, just by reading the statements and responses (by both parties), it appears to me that BOTH parties are guilty of telling half-truths.

    Anyway, regardless of the merits of the arguments, the final winner will ALWAYS be the police.

    Does anyone disagree?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • MarBowling:

    Totally agree with TRE Techie.

    At the end of the day, the final WINNER will ALWAYS be the Police!

    ALWAYS REMEMBER THE COVERMENT HAS 2 BIG MOUTHS!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    I dont know if the police officers conducted themselves errantly.
    But to DRINK N DRIVE IS IRRESPONSIBLE!

    YOUNGSTERS N EVEN OLDER sgs want to demand their rights even when they do wrongs by breaking laws or offend others???

    You know DRINK N DRIVE IS WRONG,WHY DO IT?

    YOU ARE NOT STUPID BY THE RESPONSES YOU GAVE.
    Why do stupid thing that can cause lives,even your own?

    Your case is not like that young boy who got shackled for suspected shop-lifting some years ago.
    That,i must say the police was wrong.

    As for the alleged abuse,GO SEE YOUR CRIMINAL LAWYER.
    You can seek justice for yourself.

    Tech: In China, drink 1 cup, 1/2 cup or even 1 sip also kenna, as long as got alcohol minimum license kiss goodbye for 6 months to 5 years. Maybe Sinkie traffic should also do so?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • mere administrative:

    //At about 4.40am, after a few attempts to provide a BEA test sample, See passed the BEA test taken in the lock-up with a recorded result of 31 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, which was just below the legal limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath.//

    how many attempts ??? did he not cooperate ??? “failed” attempts with failed readings or pass reading or no readings at all ???)

    and if it is a pass reading (last sample), why not immediately release him from the hold up – as any follow up procedures are mere administrative ????

    //The processes included checking if See had other pending traffic or police cases, the ownership of the car driven by him, the validity of his driving license and vehicle insurance.”//

    aiyoh. surely the dept assigned to handle such offences will have all the online link-up with all the other relevant depts already in place (for instant / quick verification ???) ???

    //only started to contact me on 23 June 2021 after TOC wrote to the police for their response on 14 June 2021.//

    this is the problem ??? no good reply (or standard template reply which does not address much ???) until something blow big big ???

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • KT:

    There is no way for the public to know “the truth, the whole truth nothing but the truth” other than to release the full CCTV as suggested by some. I believe there is nothing to hide, and the public will thank you for doing so, and for being transparent and accountable ! Come on, let have it !

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Reboot:

    If the guy is guilty, he wont be so daring…

    SPF has done this so many freaking times…

    We are authoritarian country, there is no room for democracy.

    Liew maid case was thrown out by high court, it tells you something.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • liew mun leong must be jailed:

    when drink, even one sip, don’t drive.

    when drive, even one metre, don’t drink.

    no excuse. zero. unless name is liew mun leong. then, no case per pap modus operandi. since not liew mun leong, stop the gimmicks and see the judge. there is no other way if not liew mun leong.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan chen:

    TRE Police, what would you do to make things easier for yourself if you were Mr See What would you say, to the Station-Master when he tells you in your face,
    “Cantonment Police Complex is not a five-star hotel build to serve people like you”. “Not happy, complain later, in the meanwhile I am in charge here do as you are told”.

    The fact was Mr See did drink before he got ambushed by the police-road block.The fact that See also passed the BEA test. 31 against 35 don’t know what fcuking per breath test legal limit. At this point, the Chinapore police from Canton cannot detain See longer than necessary. However, you know and I know the legal power of the man in blue got no limit. The Sky is the limit.

    What would you do. Demand an apology immediately inside the police station for being manhandled like a common criminal when the BEA test proved your innocence of drink-driving, the very reason See was invited by the police of late or early drink coffee session.

    TRE Police, do you know how to handle the police mind-games in the Lion’s den?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    $G is a Police State. There is no Rule Of Law. Since at least 50% will always vote regime, why should they worry? Sheeple are meant to be stepped on.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Shame:

    I am sure shame has a view!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Shame:

    Hey hello …..IF IT IS below 35 milligram it means he was not drunk!

    So what if it is 32, 33, or 34 milligram, it is still not drunk, leh!

    Don’t try a conviction if there is no conviction?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • The issue I see, in this whole fiasco is whether was there an arrest before See arrived at Central or after he arrived at Central.

    According to the police, he was arrested after he had tested failed, which means before he was brought to Central.

    If he was indeed arrested before he arrived at Central, then whatever the police allegedly did to him can be said to be “reasonable” beucase he was then already an accused person.

    Logically, it is almost impossible for him to be arrested at Central because he had passed the analyzer test and therefore there was no legitimate reason to be placing him under arrest, which would mean everything the police allegedly did to him was possibly abuse of procedures.

    This is a very simple case for the IO handling his case against the police. Just check the ops room log and radio recording for the day.

    If See was arrested on the spot, it is customary that the ops room in central be informed of the arrest before See is brought back to Central. Also, IO can also check the timing of the arrest report and tally that with the time See was brought into the lock up. Was the arrest report made immediately upon See’s arrival ar Central or some long time after See was already in lockup?

    If the arrest report was made some time after See had arrived at the lock up and after See was tested passed, then it is possibly that something fishy was going on.

    In the past, whenever the police manhandled some person who were not arrested but the person had threatened to complain, then the police involved would pre-arrest the person (fake earlier timing in the NP 299, i.e. arrest report), therefore covering the manhandling act on the pretext that “because the person (arrested) was violent, minimal force had to be used”.

    So it all boils down to the timing of the arrest.

    Anyway, I think See should just let this matter rest because it would lead to nowhere. Ministers and police can completely ignore him, he lan lan. Hypothetically speaking, even if the police were to issue a statement (signed by the CP or Perm Sec) admitting that they had maliciously and intentionally manhandled him because the police don’t like his face, what can See do?

    Davinder the police in court like the maid (Parti), the judge will say beam too high. Still lan lan wat.

    If See really kenna 4D and the police do care and take action, at most the ikan-bilis lockup PC (probably Cisco or Aetos) kenna a slap on the wrist since it was his lock up, dio bo?

    So this thru and fro, got meaning bo?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Nathan Chen:

    Mr See was cleared of drink-driving by 4.40 am. He walked out of the Cantonment Police Complex at 7.30 am. The police almost took 3 hrs to complete the discharge procedure ski by.The Police sure know how to take their own sweet time. The police cannot deny any person held in the lock up medical attention and food and drink. This is a right. Mr See should have demanded to be sent to a hospital instead of just seeing a nurse. A nurse belongs in
    hospital not police station. The police manning the lock up should have woke Mr See up and give him the food and drink. There are canteens in every police stations though I am not sure it is open at 4.AM.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • suka suka behaviors:

    //Anyway, I think See should just let this matter rest because it would lead to nowhere. Ministers and police can completely ignore him, he lan lan. //

    correct lar ? anyway he (or like some other minded persons) has already made loud about the case (however for those with enough guts / resources, it has to be brought up to ‘curb potential abuse of power’) as all enforcement officers need to be on their toes (no improper suka suka behaviors ??) ???

    and if Si is not telling “the truth”, how come the police is not charging him (which may further open a can of worms if it goes to trial) for false information (maligning ???) ?????

    the reputation of the whole force is also at stake and if abuse is present, the higher-up should also NOT die die wayang the case by ‘sacrificing the innocent’ ????

    //Hypothetically speaking, even if the police were to issue a statement (signed by the CP or Perm Sec) admitting that they had maliciously and intentionally manhandled him because the police don’t like his face, what can See do?//

    perhaps this will be a good enough closure as this means some people (those treating him badly ????) have to be accountable ??? but hor this may open up the possibility of civil suits on the force lar ??

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan chen:

    It’s up to See, whether to pursue the matter further, not you. There will always be legal ground and space for victims of legal and social travesty, even in a dictatorial regime form of government. It’s up to the individual.

    Tech: Go to court judges will say legal beam too high, cannot jump over. What “legal ground and space for victims” you talking about?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan chen:

    Of course, I am not a lawyer. To you, I am just a scumbag. But I will explain what I mean by legal ground and legal space as I meander along. I beg your indulgence.

    But first, what do you mean, by ‘Go to court judges will say legal beam too high, cannot jump over. You owe M Ravi and Eugene Thuraisingam an explanation.

    Both men have saved the lives of condemned drug traffickers and Eugene as recently as June 2021 secured an acquittal for another capital drug trafficking charge. You create your own legal space. Eugene did this by challenging the prosecutor legality argument on the law on importation and wildful blindness, successfully. Experience is knowledge.

    The Misuse of Drug Act and the death penalty for drug traffickers with all the subsections on presumptions clauses has mountain high and river deep legal beams. Leaving little or no legal grounds of defence counsel against the state prosecutor.When all avenues to save a death-row inmates have been exhausted, M Ravi has manage to dig up fresh evidence and flaw arguments of lower courts to force the three judges to reconvene for a special hearing after the Defence final appeal has failed.

    Tre Police, you can go to Eugene and Ravi blog to fact-check what I have said.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • the other person:

    //But first, what do you mean, by ‘Go to court judges will say legal beam too high, cannot jump over. You owe M Ravi and Eugene Thuraisingam an explanation.//

    aiyoh. why only to MR / ET ?? do you mean the other person related to the case of “beam-too-high” did not expend enough resources to create enough leekgal space ??? or collectively ppl have to keep on pushing the boundaries (of course for a good cause and with perhaps many failures and names tarnished) before these boundaries can expand bit by bit ??

    //You create your own legal space//

    aiyoh. can you appoint your own judge and make your own rules ???

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan chen:

    “Can you appoint your own judge and make your own rules ???”

    This is a political question, I leave you to masturbate on.

    “collectively ppl have to keep on pushing the boundaries (of course for a good cause and with perhaps many failures and names tarnished) before these boundaries can expand bit by bit ??”

    You are wrong. You don’t need strength in numbers to create your own legal space. You can’t buy legal space. It had been sold to the devils long ago.

    Legal grounds and legal space? When you find it, you will know.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • it benefits mankind:

    //This is a political question, I leave you to masturbate on.//

    aiyoh this is the reality of life lar ? everything is life is about politics lar (or about the politics of policies / decisions or whatever the name you want to call it lar) ?? if used correctly, it benefits mankind ???

    //You are wrong. You don’t need strength in numbers to create your own legal space. You can’t buy legal space. It had been sold to the devils long ago.//

    yar lor sold to the “devils” hor ? ask the white idiots lor, their nos in the parliatmant and one-curry party function lor ???? if you do not have enough numbers (whatever wayang way one may get it or frame it to get legitimacy ???), you think you can create the legal rules & statutes and indirectly appoint (or influence) the key persons in the jootdisiary meh ??

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Trust only myself:

    Surely people with brain will believe Mr See’s version of events is correct………

    PDA not applicable for SPF………..? The minister sleeping on the job?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisements
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1