I came across this recording sent in by an anonymous reader to The Real Singapore website.
Yesterday he sent another letter explaining the circumstances that was also published in the alternative news site. You can read it here.
Obviously he has admitted to hitting his father and something like that is always going to be treated by society at large as an abhorrent act. Needless to say it attracted a lot of negative remarks. However that is another issue altogether. That is matter that is subject to investigation (by the police) and prosecution by the AGC and a determination on what the penalties are by a court of law. There is a set course for this, it wasn't the first issue of this kind and unfortunately won't be the last either, but the Law is fully equipped to deal with the matter. In fact the Law did decide on this matter, he was served with a Personal Protection Order and given a warning by the Police (ostensibly after consultation with the AGC).
What is shocking and extremely troubling is the conduct of senior officer that attended to this incident, presumably on 7th April 2013. He is believed to be an Inspector of Police (Insp) in his 40s. If you listened to the recording carefully, you can hear him using a tirade of foul language repeatedly on the accused assailant. Not only that, he threatens to ruin the accused professionally by giving him a record and further to this, threatens to send him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). He first threatens him with arrest and then in a fit of anger instructs his subordinates to detain him and send him to IMH anyway. The accused was eventually detained and sent to IMH where he was put under 5 days of observation, which he describes as hellish.
There are several things wrong based on the recordings submitted. Firstly the Insp instead of ascertaining the full facts, decided straightaway to side with the victim of the assault. Police Officers attending cases of disputes and assaults must always maintain their neutrality and ascertain the facts as reported from both parties. Secondly, it's an offence for a member of public to use abusive language on a police officer, thus it must also mean that a police officer must NOT similarly use such language on a member of public. The Law is there to provide protection for officers to perform their duty without needless abuse, the Law does not empower the Police to become abusers.
Here the officer is heard using a tirade of abusive language. Thirdly, Police Officers are only Law enforcers not administrators of justice - that is a duty solely for the Courts. Here the Insp is heard threatening to ruin the accused by 'giving him a record and spoiling his career'. The accused is still only an accused, he had not been convicted - that determination is for a Court to decide. Who gave the Insp the power to decide on giving him a record?
Fourthly we have a case of wrongful determination of Laws empowered to Police Officers. the accused is only alleged to have used common assault (Section 323 of the Penal Code). This is a non seizable offence - it can never become a seizable offence unless Parliament changes the Law. Who gave the Insp the right to determine this was a seizable offence and threaten the accused with arrest based on this assault? Fifthly there is a question of verbal threat (Minor Offences Act) or Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 of the PC) used by the officer to threaten the accused with an arrest he was not legally empowered to effect. If you remember the case involving James Gomez and the Elections Department where he threatened to report officials if they made a mistake with the filing of his papers. What happened there? The ED made a police report and Mr Gomez was given a warning for either verbal threat/criminal intimidation for merely threatening to report the ED officials. Here we have a senior Police Officer issuing a threat of arrest for an offence he was not legally empowered to arrest. Why shouldn't this officer be taken to task if Mr Gomez could?
Finally, we have the arrest itself - ostensibly for an offence under the Mental Health Act. The Insp merely instructed his officers to detain the man and then left the scene. I strongly believe after returning to Central Station he realised that he was not legally empowered to detain him for assault and thus arrested him for being of an unsound mind - ostensibly for hitting a parent. The accused was referred to IMH and had to spend 5 days there. Did the accuse have a record of insanity? Did the accuse behave abnormally at the scene? I don't think so, if you listened to the recording, he was very quiet and apologetic. Is this the actions of an insane man? We could very well have a case of 'wrongful arrest' by the Insp, using another Act which provides arresting powers for an offence that does not. If anyone behaved like a madman, it was the Insp who was heard shouting at the top of his voice in a public place when there was no need for it.
The conduct of the accused deserves condemnation, and granted we can accept that Police Officers are human too, but surely we cannot allow Police Officers to behave in such a fashion and ignore the very laws that they are supposed to uphold? Moreover this was not a rookie junior officer but a senior officer with years of experience. If he can behave is such a fashion what does that reflect or show his subordinates? It's ok to abuse accused persons, it's ok to use vulgarities and shout in public, it's also ok to ignore or bypass the law and arrest a person you're not legally empowered to by using the powers conferred by another provision in a different Act?
Police Officers are not judges, they are not there to determine the accused guilt. They are there to determine the facts and assist in the investigation. Even for prosecution, that is not their domain, that is for a legally trained law officer to decide if the evidence adduced is sufficient to warrant prosecution or in the public interest to do so. If an accused resists arrest, they are empowered to use force, but in this case where the accused offered no resistance, the job of the officers is merely to ascertain the facts, ensure the safety of parties involved and ensure no further breach of the peace. There is no reason whatsoever to abuse the accused or humiliate him, there is no reason to get personally involved in a domestic matter that does not involve the SPF. There's no reason to use vulgarities or shout. The Police must act professionally and remember their pledge which contains a line 'to act without fear or favour'. Here the Insp was clearly biased and disfavouring the accused.
This case casts a shadow on the conduct of all officers, if an Insp cannot be relied upon to act professionally in a simple case of assault, what would happen in a more serious case? Supposed the police arrested a molester, will the officer assault him and force a confession? We cannot have officers deciding or determining justice, if this is going to be acceptable, we might as well close down the courts and empower our police officers to decide there and then what they want to do at scenes of crimes. Why waste time with due process and the Law if Police Officers are going to ignore the Law?
If Commissioner Ng Joo Hee is really serious about taking the SPF forward and making his mark, he must weed out officers like this Insp. The Insp is too emotional, too erratic, too ignorant and too biased to be entrusted with powers of enforcement. I shudder to think what would happen if a motorist were to encounter him after committing a traffic offence. Will he be accused of all sorts of things, threatened with arrest, verbally abused and then slapped with a heavy penalty that does not reflect the original offence?
Although this was sent in anonymously, and could obviously not reflect the full picture on the ground, I think there is enough there to warrant a full and thorough investigation about the conduct of the Insp on the day in question. There is a date provided - 7th April 2013 and we know the accused was sent to Central Police Station and then to IMH. It shouldn't be very hard to trace his identity and the Insp in question. The big question is whether Commissioner Ng will direct such an enquiry to get to the bottom of this matter?
Sir Nelspruit
*The writer blogs at http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/