WHY ARE THE POLICE NOT TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CAUCASIAN BULLY?

Hi A.S.S.,
 
Just curious, I saw the video and the article about the angry ang moh man bullying the teenager boy on the MRT. It heartens me to know that there are good Singaporeans like Mr Elfy who will stand up for the rights of fellow citizens.
 
At the same time, I am curious about the part where the ang moh and Mr Elfy alighted at the Ang Mo Kio Station (ironic?) and approached some Special Operations Command police officers. Why didn't the police arrest the ang moh man for threatening the safety of other passengers? And why did they refuse to look at the video footage that Mr Elfy and his girlfriend recorded?
 
Obviously the ang moh man was a threat, so why didn't they put him aside for a while? Instead, they let the still angry ang moh board the same train as Mr Elfy and his girlfriend? What if the ang moh man tried to beat up Mr Elfy and his girlfriend? Did the police even think of that before they decided to let him go free?
 
And why hasn't anyone identified this rude and violent man? After Shanmugam says that his employer should take action against him, there has been no blip or sound at all from anyone on whether the ang moh man has been punished. Is this what they call "PAP-style wayang", where the words of our law minister can be treated just like the words of a raving lunatic - no credibility, no political will, therefore no need to pay any attention to him?
 
PAP, time to show us that you mean what you say instead of just making empty promises. Reveal that action has been taken against the ang moh.
 
And police, I am ashamed of your SOC officers and your ineffectiveness at containing this threat to public security, which will only result in a further loss of public trust in your boys. I wish I didn't have to, but I will quote to you the act that states that this ang moh has committed an offence:
 
"Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184
 
Any person who is found guilty of any riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public road or in any public place or place of public amusement or resort, or in the immediate vicinity of, or in, any court, public office, police station or place of worship, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
 
Section 3 and 4 of Protection from Harrassment Act, Chapter 256A
 
Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress
 
3.—(1)  No person shall, with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person, by any means —
 
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
 
(b) make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication,
 
thereby causing that other person or any other person (each referred to for the purposes of this section as the victim) harassment, alarm or distress.
 
(2)  Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and, subject to section 8, shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
 
(3)  In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (2), it is a defence for the accused person to prove that his conduct was reasonable.
 
Illustrations
 
(a)  X and Y are co‑workers. At the workplace, X loudly and graphically describes to the other co‑workers X’s desire for a sexual relationship with Y in an insulting manner. X knows that Y is within earshot and intends to cause Y distress. Y is distressed. X is guilty of an offence under this section.
 
(b)  X writes a letter containing threatening words towards Y intending to send the letter to Y to cause him alarm. X decides not to send the letter and throws it away. Y finds the letter and is alarmed. X is not guilty of an offence under this section as he had no reason to believe that the letter would be seen by Y.
 
Harassment, alarm or distress
 
4.—(1)  No person shall by any means —
 
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
 
(b) make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication,
 
which is heard, seen or otherwise perceived by any person (referred to for the purposes of this section as the victim) likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
 
(2)  Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and, subject to section 8, shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
 
(3)  In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (2), it is a defence for the accused person to prove —
 
(a) that he had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the communication made, by him would be heard, seen or otherwise perceived by the victim; or
 
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
 
Illustration
 
X and Y are classmates. X posts a vulgar tirade against Y on a website accessible to all of their classmates. One of Y’s classmates shows the message on the website to Y, and Y is distressed. X is guilty of an offence under this section."
 
If the public's trust in your police force is worth anything, please do your job and act against him now.
 
 
Wallace Chan
A.S.S. Contributor

Editor's Note: 

Do you have a story to share? Please use our submission form or email us at editorial@allsingaporestuff.com. If not, why not give us a 'Like'?

Filed Under: 

Tags: 

Advertisement

Your Views