TR EMERITUS

PAP Foreign Minister George Yeo is getting himself prepared for the next general election without his buddy PBM Jack Neo who was embroiled in a sensational sex scandal a few months earlier. Prior to his fall from grace, there were unverified rumors circulating around that Jack may be tapped on as a possible candidate to stand in George Yeo's GRC Aljunied in the coming election. A PAP member and grassroots leader, Jack had a two-year affair with a 22 year old model young enough to be his daughter, sparking an outcry among Singaporeans. However, Mr Yeo did not think too much about Jack's sexual exploits and issued a public statement on his blog urging all Singaporeans to "rally" around Jack the adulterer immediately after the scandal was reported by the media. The PAP team helmed by George Yeo won only 56 percent of the valid votes in the 2006 elections, a dismal result attributed to Mr Yeo's frequent absence from his constituency. Mr Yeo claimed that he is now "better prepared" for the upcoming election and told PAP activists to be ready "for an election either at the end of this year, or in the second quarter of next year after the national Budget" according to a Straits Times report. The Workers' Party led by its Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim is likely to compete in Aljunied GRC again, whom Mr Yeo described as a "good opponent." Ms Lim, together with her boss Low Thia Kiang are often held up as examples of "constructive opposition" by the PAP as they almost never dare to confront the PAP on important matters of national concern in Parliament.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

OPINION The handcuffing and temporary detention of Lianhe Wanbao photographer Mr Wu Qing Shun by a police officer yesterday at Bukit Timah sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace with many netizens lampooning the police for "misuse" of power. Let us study the two accounts given by Mr Wu and the Singapore Police Force Mr Wu's account: Mr Wu was on duty that morning taking photos of the flooding. He claimed that the police officer was sitting in a police car at that time, and only put on his raincoat and left the car after he saw him taking photos. Mr Wu said that the police officer told him to move off, but he politely requested to take another photo. Just as he had finished speaking, the police officer had already taken out his handcuffs and handcuffed his right wrist. When Mr Wu tried to take a photo of his handcuffed wrist, the police officer immediately removed the handcuff. The police officer brought Mr Wu to a condominium along the road and asked him to wait till the investigation personnel arrived. He waited there for one hour before he was allowed to leave. Singapore Police Force's account: Mr Wu was posing a danger to himself and the public and was asked by the police officer to leave several times, but refused to do so. As such, the police officer has no choice but to handcuff him for "obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty." He was then brought to a safe area and was allowed to leave after the police ascertained that he did not pose a threat to public safety. Analysis There are obvious discrepancies in the accounts given by Mr Wu and the Singapore Police Force. 1. According to Mr Wu, the police officer was sitting in a police car when he was taking the photos and therefore it is impossible that Mr Wu was being obstructing the traffic or posing a danger to the public at that time. 2. Mr Wu claimed that he spoke only a few words to the police officer. However, the Singapore Police Force insisted that Mr Wu had been warned several times to leave the scene. 3. Mr Wu said he was detained for one hour to wait for the arrival of investigation personnel, but the Singapore Police Force claimed the detention was for the police to remove Mr Wu from the "danger" area. The inherent differences in the conflicting accounts given by the two parties are impossible to reconcile and seem to suggest that one is lying. Regardless of who is speaking the truth, the police has committed a few procedural lapses under the Criminal Procedural Code based on the police's account alone. Under Section 32 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68), the police has the power to arrest without warrant "any person who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty or who has escaped or attempts to escape from lawful custody." As such, the police officer has the right to arrest Mr Wu if he was deemed to have obstructed him in the discharge of his public duties under Section 186 of the Penal Code (CAP 224): "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both." In this case, there is nothing technically wrong in Mr Wu being handcuffed, but in what transpired after his so-called "arrest": Procedural lapses under Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68) Upon being handcuffed, Mr Wu is technically being arrested. As such, under Section 35 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68): "A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein as to bail or previous release, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate’s Court." If the Magistrate's Court is closed on the weekends, then Mr Wu must be held in police custody for no more than 48 hours before being produced before a Magistrate's Court to be charged for whatever offence he has committed. It is baffling that the Mr Wu's handcuffs were released almost immediately after he tried to take a snapshot of it. Strictly speaking, he was already arrested and should be sent to the Magistrate's court under the CPC. Furthermore, the police officer cannot simply just remove the handcuffs without any writing from a Magistrate or a police officer not below the rank of a sergeant under Section 37 of the CPC: "No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be released except on his own bond or on bail or under the special order in writing of a Magistrate or of a police officer not below the rank of sergeant." The actions of the police officer handcuffing Mr Wu are totally incongruent with the stipulations proscribed under the CPC which all police officers have to follow in the course of duty. Conclusion The glaring procedural lapses in this case cast serious doubts on the professionalism and competence of the Singapore Police Force. Both the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law should account to the public and answer the following questions: 1. Did Mr Wu commit an offence under the law and if so, which law? 2. If Mr Wu did commit an offence, why was he handcuffed only momentarily and not arrested? 3. Was Mr Wu arrested at all? 4. Why was Mr Wu not sent to a Magistrate's Court or the police HQ for detention after he was arrested? 5. Why was Mr Wu being released arbitrarily one hour later after he was arrested without any written order from a Magistrate? 6. What are the legal grounds for detaining Mr Wu for one hour? 7. If Mr Wu was not arrested at all, is it lawful for the police to detain him (somemore at an inappropriate venue)? Whether Mr Wu was indeed arrested or not, there remain many inconsistencies in the way the police conducted its operations. Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs Shanmugam said lately that his ministry will be upgrading the knowledge and skills of its investigation officers. They should be taught to memorize the entire CPC by heart before being sent outfield for operative duties lest they disgraced the entire police force and made a fool of themselves again in the eyes of the public.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

Controversial YPAP leader and new citizen from India Mr Sinha Shekhar who sparked an outcry in Singapore last month by boasting about him subletting his resale HDB flat for income is now back in "business" after a month's hiatus. His posting on the REACH Facebook prompted an irate netizen to write in to HDB to complain about him. HDB has since verified that it has given Mr Sinha Shekhar permission to sublet his flat. A speech therapist by training, Mr Sinha Shekhar obtained his Singapore citizenship in 1994 at 25 years of age. He joined the PAP four years later, rising fast high up its rank to become its most prominent face in cyberspace. He is currently the Head of Rehabilitation at Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital. Mr Sinha Shekhar is notorious in Singapore blogosphere for his description of PAP critics as “dogs” on the YPAP Facebook in March this year.  Ironically, he was later given an “Outstanding Contributors’ award” by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in person for the regularity of his contributions on the PAP REACH Forum and Facebook. [Source: YPAP Facebook] In the interview with the media, Mr Sinha Shekhar claimed he would be making a public statement to clarify the matter. However till today, nothing is heard from him. Neither was there any comment on the matter by YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck and his deputy Zaqy Mohamad which appeared to suggest that they endorse Mr Sinha's disparaging remarks about Singaporeans. Mr Sinha Shekhar had been keeping a low profile for a month before posting on the PAP Facebook yesterday. It is unlikely that the PAP will take any action against him. Due to erosion of support among native Singaporeans, the PAP has to court new citizens like Mr Sinha Shekhar aggressively to pop up its support base. It is expected that most new citizens are PAP supporters as they are thankful to the party who give them the opportunity to resettle in Singapore. Mr Sinha Shekhar would not have succeeded in life had he remained in India. Thanks to the PAP's pro-foreigner and ultra-liberal immigration policies, he now own a private property and resale HDB flat in Singapore. He would be able to retire pretty comfortably back home in India upon selling his HDB flat at a hefty profit years later.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.     Related articles: 1. YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar blamed Singaporeans for misunderstanding him 2.YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar threatened to sue whistle-blower for slander 3. YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar complains about low rent of his resale HDB flat 4. YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar described PAP critics as “DOGS” 5. YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar urged CDCs to reach out to immigrants 6. Indian new citizen Sinha Shekhar scolds unemployed Singapore NSman  Read More →