jaslyngo | 
Can there ever be justice and fair play from govt depar, My MP Block Visit | 
09 26th, 2008| 
No Comments »Re: Unlawful Parking made by Police Vehicles (SIU 3494/2008)
Thursday, 11 September, 2008 2:20 PM
From:”Paul TAN”
—–Inline Attachment Follows—–
Dear Ms Jasly Go,
I refer to your email dated 8 Sep 08.
2 Police have taken internal departmental action against the officers concerned.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Tan
for Quality Service Manager
Singapore Police Force
| This website losing readers? |  |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 24 September 2008 |
|
To: The Editor Your correspondent Ms You Lun Tian quoted National Solidarity Party member Mr Goh Meng Seng as saying: “Extremist viewpoints may draw the attention of people and garner the support of other extremists, but most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments. This is also the reason why the SDP website is rapidly losing its readers.” (Lianhe Zaobao, 20 Sep 08) Our objective is to ensure that the PAP Government respects democratic principles as enshrined in our Constitution. These principles include the freedoms of speech, association and assembly. The actions of the SDP and other pro-democracy activists, which included the use of civil disobedience, have led to the opening up of Speakers’ Corner for demonstrations, albeit in a very limited way. The Government has, belatedly, acknowledged the necessity of protests. Freedoms of speech and assembly is the bread and butter of democratic politics. Without them, there is no democracy. Only in autocratic systems are such freedoms and the exercise of them considered extreme. On the point about the SDP website losing readers, we’ll let the statistics speak for themselves: Between 20 June and 20 September 2008, global traffic rank of the SDP website, according to the Alexa website, rose by 194,650 positions putting us at position number 337,797. PAP has the second highest position for Singapore’s political parties, coming in at a distant 1,286,895. Within Singapore, the SDP’s traffic rank is 2,429. Again, PAP comes in second but only at position 7,266. During this period, the number of users visiting our site saw a 51 percent increase. This compares to only 2 percent for the PAP website. This figure for the SDP may have dropped slightly in recent days due to our website being down for a couple of days. Not only are there more visitors, our readers are also spending more time reading our posts. The number of pages viewed per day per user increased by 31 percent. For a similar period, the figure for the PAP’s website recorded a minus 27 percent! In June, our website crashed because of the surge in the number of visitors. Since then, according to our own statistics, we have seen at least a tripling in the number of visitors. We don’t think these figures point to the SDP “rapidly losing its readers,” do you? If anything, they support the view that “most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments.” And that’s what the SDP intends to continue doing on our website. |
A friend, who after reading the rubbish article on Zaobao, send me this info ;
i guess the actions will speak for itself that readers are attracted to “extremists”
Lianhe Zaobao, Saturday 20 Sept 2008
Mr Brown (Blogger Lee Kin Mun)’s hilarious “Bak Chor Mee” blog post shot to fame two years ago just before the General Elections. This incident made Chinese paper readers who usually do not surf the internet start to notice the presence of new media.
Since PM Lee Hsien Loong announced the intention to liberalise the internet and new media hemisphere in the National Day Rally, the government-commissioned new media working group has also expressed in their report that the government should pay more attention to the voices of web users. In addition, they also recommended that the government should examine how to better use the new media communication channel to connect with web users.
The newspapers readers who do not participate in online forums may have the impression that web users have a uniform voice, just like the government uses a uniform approach to propagate its ideologies and policies. Some readers are only aware of the existence of Mr Brown or assume that most bloggers are similar to him.
On the contrary, the blogosphere and mainstream society are the same. They are a common space formed by people with varied viewpoints, inclinations, parties, objectives and temperaments.
If newspaper readers receive emails occasionally from their friends which includes hyperlinks to certain blogs, short videos or critiques that claim to shed the light on certain issues or uncover the wrongdoings of certain political figures, please do not believe them readily, or assume all web users think the same way. Other web users may also have strong opposing opinions, and thus various conspiracy theories and personal attacks abound.
Local English current affairs website “theonlinecitizen.com” is a recent example. This blog was set up after the last General Elections and covers news, interest topics, current affairs comics, columns and even translates part of the articles to mandarin to enlarge its reader base. It offers an alternative view to politics and mainstream media reports and is one of the top local websites of its kind.
However, this week someone resurfaced the conspiracy theories that were the hot topic in february earlier this year in the forum sammyboy.com. The user claimed that the persons in charge of “theonlinecitizen.com” are secretly put in place by PAP to act as internet spies. Allegedly, they offer alternative opinions on the surface, but in reality do not attack the key government blog sites.
The writer went on to claim that mainstream media were listening to instructions from ‘above’ to support “theonlinecitizen.com” and help it to gain popularity and therefore cause the genuine anti-government blogs to lose favour with web users.
These writers also pointed out that the person behind “theonlinecitizen.com” , Andrew Loh had switched allegiance from the PAP to WP and now no longer with WP. The other founder, Choo Zhengxi (NUS Law Faculty undergraduate) had previously worked as the speech writer for the West Coast GRC nominee He Yu Chu, drawing a salary of $500 for five consecutive months. Last but not least, one of the editors of “theonlinecitizen.com”, Liu Chuan Zhi (SMU Political Science undergraduate) is a member of Young PAP and have participated in various grassroots activites and maintains the same blog with the Foreign Affairs Minister.
The writers also highlighted that since the last elections, PAP has established a new media working group headed by the education minister and one of its objectives is to establish 20 communications representatives to participate in online forums and blogs to deflect and object to anti-government messages. It’s claimed that “theonlinecitizen.com” is one of its products.
This sounds like an exciting scene right out of the popular Hong Kong movie “Infernal Affairs”. When interviewed yesterday, the founders of “theonlinecitizen.com” denied that they were a propagation tool set up by PAP. Andrew Loh mentioned that they always used their real names in these activities and had nothing to hide, in contrast to the forum writers who hide behind anonymity.
This is just one of the methods on the internet to ‘dish dirt’ on and slander others. The real truth is of no interest to non web users. However, such online furore has brought to question the issue of whether web space can tolerate moderate, non-extremist opinions.
People who are anti-government likes to congregate in web forums, because they feel that mainstream media does not give them an opportunity to air their views. Hence, they are intolerant of any pro-government voices in such forums. Political blogs and forum topics are frequently critical towards policies, the government and PAP. On top of this, some web users feel that moderate viewpoints have no ‘marketability’ and the arguments that draw the most attention are the most harsh and extremist arguments. Thus, sites like “theonlinecitizen.com” which are moderate and non-confrontational are thus labelled as pro-government.
Highly anti-government web users not only gauge blogs by such benchmarks, they also ask the same of opposition parties. The Workers Party, who successfully placed two members in Parliament, is widely acknowledged as the most successful opposition party, but in the internet world, it is slammed by a small group of web users. They claim that giving WP a vote is equivalent to giving PAP a vote.
During the last elections, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen gave the Workers’ Party a degoratory nickname – ”Wayang Party” (Wayang Kulit Party) which prompted blogger Fang Zhi Yuan to set up a blog named wayangparty.wordpress.com to criticise WP, along with all the other Singaporean opposition parties for doing nothing except putting up a ”wayang’ or ’show’ for Singapore citizens to watch. Fang felt that these opposition parties do not dare to seek redress for the citizens or speak out against the PAP. They are merely there to help PAP validate their claim that Singapore parliament is not a one party monopoly, thereby legitimatizing their authoritarian rule.
However, when some bloggers who blog on current affairs were interviewed, they opined that they will not be demoralised by the small group of extremist views and do not agree that fierce online arguments showed that local web users were immature.
National Solidarity Party leader Mr Goh Meng Seng （singaporealternatives.blogspot.com） said “Extremist viewpoints may draw the attention of people and garner the support of other extremists, but most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments. This is also the reason why the SDP website is rapidly losing its readers.”
Mr Goh was thrust into the web forums arguments more than one year ago and was forced to leave the “Worker’s Party”, but he does not feel that such extremists online arguments will hinder the general development and maturity of web forum users. “If the web only allowed one form of viewpoint, then it would be no different from communism”.
Mr Zhu has adopted a calm attitude towards the personal attacks against him on online forums. “When someone criticises my opinions of current affairs, I will treat their opinions seriously and debate with him actively. However, I will not be bothered if they launch personal attacks.”
Original Chinese article:
Mr Brown（博客李健敏）令人捧腹大笑的“肉脞面”播客，在两年前的大选期间一炮而红，让许多不常上网的华文报读者也第一次注意到新媒体的存在。
自从李显龙总理在国庆群众大会上表示要开放新媒体空间之后，由政府委任的新媒体咨询理事会也已在所发表的报告书中，建议政府用心聆听网民的声音，并且研究该如何善用新媒体与网民接触。
没参与网络舆论的报纸读者也许会有这样的印象，就如政府有一套上下连贯、横竖统一的思想和说法，即网民的声音也是单一且鲜明的。一些读者也许只认识Mr Brown一个博客，或以为所有的博客都跟他差不多。
其实，网络空间和普通社会是一样的，是一个由不同观点、倾向、派系、目的、脾气的人组成的共同空间。“网民”不是单一、综合的个体，而是分化、分歧的群体。
报纸读者如果偶尔收到朋友传来的电邮，电邮上贴上某某网民的 播客、短片或评论，披露某某事件的“真相”或揭发某某政治人物的“恶行”，可别太快信以为真，或以为所有网民都这么想。因为其他网民也许会有很强烈的相反 意见，于是种种被指为阴谋论的谣言和人身攻击，也开始流传。
本地英文时事评论网站“网络公民”（theonlinecitizen.com）是一个最近的例子。这个博客网是在上一次大选后成立，除了有新闻和专题报道、时事漫画、专栏评论等，也把部分文章翻译成华文，以扩大读者群，对政策和主流媒体的报道提出尖锐批评，点击率在本地同类网站中算是数一数二。
但是，本周有人在热门网络论坛（sammyboy.com）上重提今年二月已炒过一轮的阴谋论。匿名者声称“网络公民”的几名负责人受到人民行动党的幕后主使，是行动党派来渗透互联网的卧底，终极目的是制造一个表面上提出另类观点，但实际上却不攻击政府要害的博客网站。
匿名者称主流媒体因接到“上面”的指示而力捧“网络公民”，使它大受网民欢迎并得以攻下网络空间，以致“真正”批评政府的博客网站失去读者。
这些匿名者还指出，创办人卢鸿佩是从行动党青年团跳槽到工人党青年团的，现在也已离开工人党。另一名创办人朱正熙（新加坡国立大学法律系学生）则曾经当过西海岸集选区议员何玉珠的国会讲稿写手，连续五个月领了每个月500元的津贴。而“网络公民”的编辑之一黎传智（新加坡管理大学政治系学生）则是行青团团员，不但参与基层活动，也跟外交部长杨荣文经营同一个博客。
匿名者也指出，行动党自上届大选过后成立了由教育部长黄永宏医生领导的新媒体委员会，任务之一就是派出20名信息科技达人，以匿名方式进军网络论坛和博客，以驳斥反政府的言论。“网络公民”就是这个委员会的“产品”之一。
这个有如电影《无间道》式的情节，听起来既耸动又刺激。当事人昨天受询时，否认了“网络公民”是行动党工具的说法。卢鸿佩说，他们几个人都以真实姓名写作并参加活动，没有见不得光的勾当，反而对方始终保持匿名，不愿露面。
这只是网上多种“扔泥巴”，以诬蔑别人的其中一种行为，真相到底是什么，网外人也许不会知道，也没太大兴趣知道。不过，这场小骂战却带出了有趣的思考，即网络空间是否能容忍温和的观点？
反政府的人喜欢聚集在网络论坛，因为他们认为主流媒体没有容 下他们的空间。他们于是无法容忍网络空间里有非反政府的言论。政治博客和论坛上的言论倾向批评政策、政府和行动党，少数网民则认为温和的评论没有市场，批 评越尖锐越刺耳，才越能引起共鸣，并吸引眼球。而像“网络公民”这类尝试以较理性、四平八稳的写法呈献观点的博客，则容易被扣上“捧政府”的帽子。
反政府情绪高昂的网民，不但对博客有这样的审核标准，对反对党也有同样的要求。将两名议员送入国会的工人党，被公认为本地最成功的反对党，但在网络空间里却受到一小撮网民唾弃。他们打出“投工人党一票，就等于投行动党一票”的标语。
黄永宏在上一次大选时称工人党（Workers’ Party）为“Wayang Party”（皮影戏党），批评该党光说不练。网民方志远也套用这个词，设立了wayangparty.wordpress.com，批评工人党以及所有新加坡民主党以外的反对党，都只是在跟执政党一起做戏给人民看。他认为反对党都不敢为民请愿，没有实质的反对效用，反而让行动党可以理所当然地说“你看，国会里有反对党，我们不是一党独大”。
不过，几名评论时事的博客受访时，都表示不会因受到少数偏激网民的攻击而灰心，他们也不认为骂战的出现意味着本地网民还不够成熟。
团结党中委吴明盛（singaporealternatives.blogspot.com）说：“偏激的言论也许能哗众取宠，博得一些立场本来就偏激的人拍手叫好，但大多数网民要看的还是客观、成熟的评论，这就是评论一面倒的新加坡民主党网站已大量流失读者的原因。”
他一年多前因卷入网络论坛的骂战而被逼退出工人党，但他也不认为类似涉及“网络公民”的骂战，足以阻挠网络社群的成熟与发展。“如果网络上只允许一把声音，那跟共产党没两样。”
朱正熙也对匿名者在网络论坛上所做的人身攻击处之泰然。“当有人批评我对时事课题所提出的看法时，我会认真地看待并积极同他谈论。但是，如果对方是批评我个人，我才懒得理。”
| The Chee Siok Chin I know, then and now | |
|
|
| Saturday, 20 September 2008 |
 Jaslyn (left), Jo-elle (centre) and Siok ChinJaslyn Go When I saw this supposed “feisty lady” in person, she gave me a very different impression as compared to her public persona portrayed by our local media. She struck me as rather personable and humorous, certainly not the kind of “siao char bo” (mad woman) some people describe her to be.A friend who stays in Woodlands told me that she did not vote for the SDP in the last elections because she was afraid that the parliament would turn into a circus if its candidates got in. Though I did not agree with her comment, I could not fault her because at that time that was my opinion of the SDP as well. As I mentioned in my earlier blog posting, my friendship with Siok Chin started to develop after the World Consumer Rights’ Day/Tak Boleh Tahan! protest on March 15 this year where 12 protesters were arrested and brought to the Cantonment Police Complex. Siok Chin was the first person I bailed out that night. I was later charged as well and because of that, we kept in touch through emails, phone calls and meeting up in person. I came to realise that Siok Chin and I have a lot in common: We are both left-handed, we both love chocolates, and we both possess a wry sense of humour. We worked together on the recent Democrats Go Hawaiian dinner and even though it was hard work, we rather enjoyed ourselves. Even when the manager of the originally venue cancelled our booking at the last minute, it did not dampen our mood. We just went on a search for another venue. We were meeting like every other day, sometimes from morning till evening. Siok Chin even accompanied me to pick up my kids and sent them home before continuing with our chores. That was when she visited my home. My dad, who was all along against me getting too close to SDP members, met her for the first tme. Siok Chin was the ever respectful type, greeting my dad warmly with “Hi Uncle.” The next day my mom (who was won over by Mrs Chee and Siok Chin when I took her to the first Tak Boleh Tahan! campaign in Toa Payoh) called to tell me my dad told her he met Siok Chin and she came across as a nice lady and not what he read from the newspapers. Of course, some supporters like to describe Siok Chin as an iron lady. But behind this iron lady’s mask, there is the gentle side of Siok Chin. For one thing, she truly loves kids. She makes it a point to know my children’s names, and chat and play with them. And she never fails to prepare sweets and chocolates whenever she knows she is going to see them. My children, especially my daughter has taken to her, affectionately calling her “Aunty Siok Chin”. Once my little gal called me while I was out with Siok Chin and wanted to come along. She insisted that I came home to take her out for a “girls’ outing” with her Aunty Siok Chin. We had a good time shopping for stuff for the Hawaiian-themed party and realised that we have one more thing in common – we were both good bargainers. Notwithstanding the need to count pennies, Siok Chin made every effort to ensure the guests got the best out of the $25-dinner ticket. I did ask Siok Chin and other members why not charge more as I believed that people would be willing to pay more to support the event. They told me that times are bad, and that they wanted to do something to show their appreciation to these supporters. The way she handled the officials from the Media Development Authority at the screening of One Nation Under Lee, the only protester who kept her Tak Boleh Tahan t-shirt after being arrested, and questioning Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong, shows an individual of substance. She is a good friend whom you can rely on, a sister you can share silly jokes with, and a good role model that I hope I can keep up with. She is an inspiration. Keep up the good work, Siok Chin. |
continue from Part I..
Next came my turn to question him. I asked him if he could tell me once and for all what is illegal and what is legal and stop confusing me further when the police had issued statements that the first TBT campaigns was not illegal but this time they claim says it’s illegal..
He told me (listen here) : distributing pamphlets is no problem, he used the word “pampletings” is not illegal.. but promoting a campaign or a cause is illegal!!!????
I asked him to explain further what he meant by promoting a campaign or cause is illegal, he told me that I should ask our lawyer friend in our group who will know the law..I replied him that if our lawyer friend know their law he won’t be under investigation with us..
He then asked me to check out AGC’s website and if I am unclear, I can always walk in to the police post, check with them if its legal or illegal before I proceed to show my support (sounds stupid right??)
I asked him if he was a police officer and he said yes. I replied if he is a police officer, he would be in a better position to answer me instead of pushing to lawyers or asking me to read AGC website or asking me to write in..Apparently he is threaten by my pen n notes ready to quote him..
Next, he showed me the Miscellaneous Offenses Act which he claimed was available from the AGC website, citing that promoting of a campaign and cause is no no…(somehow, the website he gave me, I can’t access and when I went through the AGC website on the Miscellaneous Act, I can’t seem to find the same description on the laws as what he has shown me…)
He told me that SDP should try to apply for a permit if they are not too sure..so I ask him..if the permit applications are always rejected then how? he says that will means the event is illegal, that’s why the police permit is not granted..(legal or illegal is deem by them, they can always find reasons to reject the permit, WP’s cycling event is a very good example!).. but wait a minute, isn’t it not that the permit was not granted and that made it illegal? How is it that Inspector Tan is now saying that because it is illegal that is why the police did not grant the permit? Maybe this is a freudian slip, that the Police views everything done by SDP as illegal.
He also mentioned that police will usually only act when someone calls to complain. To which I ask him why is it another political party at the same place conducting similar activities but yet police never take action against them? he asked whether when police came was the other political party there. I replied no. He then said that’s it! its because no one complain about their activities but someone complained about ours!!! (I was just wondering, whether if the police witnessed someone committing an illegal activity, would they just walk away from it or stand there to wait till someone calls to complain before they take actions? or they make the complain call just to justify taking actions? – I’m just curious!)..
Next I asked IO Tan why was it that when asked to disperse and we complied, they were still calling us up for investigations?
His reply was even though we did disperse, but since there was a complaint, police have to act on it and investigate if any offense was committed.
He went on to try and assure me that doesn’t mean that if i am under police investigations, I will be charged. He explained that was why my police statement is important to help in their investigations into whether we did commit any offence. I told him based on experience, probability of police proceeding to charge SDP and us after our police investigations is quite high…so do away with the assurance…
I also cited that on SDP’s 1st TBT campaign in TP, police has openly says that it was not a illegal activities, though we might get into trouble with NEA..he ask me to send him the report on that as he is not aware of it..(later on I realise from another activist who was also called up for the interview before me, when she posed the same question to IO Tan, she was told that May Day event was just distributing pamphlets, so it was ok..but National Day we were promoting a cause, so it was illegal!!! hmm..the inconsistency of IO Tan!!)
I ended my interview with IO Tan because i saw that it was not going anywhere because of the following:-
I had a picture of myself taken wearing my TBT t-shirt just outside Bukit Merah West Police Center before leaving the place. If the police continue bend the law to do us in, I believe I won’t see the last of that place.
Finally I went down for my much anticipated police ‘date’ with my 2 trusting bodyguards in tow..
I went there wearing my TBT tees..When I walk in, the police officer at the counter (4 of them if I am not wrong) seem taken aback by my tee. TBT is indeed very eye catching
Inspector Tan Sin Choon is the investigating officer in charge of this case. He greeted me and show me to the interview room.
Now..these were the questions posted to me ;
Initially when IO Tan was questioning me, I was taking down notes to his questions and my answer. He told me don’t have to as he will let me copy after that.
When he finished all his questioning and show me my statement, I started taking down notes and corrected some of it - ( 1) my name was type wrongly, 2) he stated that I was putting on the TBT tees for my police interview which I think is irrelevant to the case and I want that removed from the statement) he said I can’t copy his questions I can only copy my answers, to which I reply how I know what question I am answering where most of it is no comment, irrelevant, yes, no..he says that is their rules..(haha THEIR RULES)
My part II will show my questions pose to him..stay tuned…
| It’s official – promoting a cause is illegal: Part I | |
|
|
| Friday, 12 September 2008 |
 Singapore Democrats
Ms Jaslyn Go walked into the police station on 10 Sep 08 to be questioned for being part of an illegal assembly on National Day this year. The group of activists were distributing Tak Boleh Tahan! flyers at Toa Payoh Central. So what did Ms Go wear for the interview? The Tak Boleh Tahan! T-shirt. It certainly caught the attention of the officers manning the reception counter. After being greeted by Inspector Tan Sin Choon, Ms Go was ushered into the interview room. When the Inspector started with his questions, Ms Go started with her note-taking. “You don’t have to take notes while I’m questioning you, you can copy later. I’ll show you the statement at the end,” Inspector Tan said. When he was done with the questions, Ms Go asked why it was illegal on some occasions to distribute flyers and not on others. “Pamphleting is not illegal but promoting a campaign or a cause is illegal,” replied the Inspector. What? Real or not? Since when did promoting a cause or a campaign become illegal? How do these guys come up with such things, anyway? “Go and ask a lawyer,” the officer said. “Or go to the AG Chamber’s website. Next time if you are unclear go to the police post first and get clearance on whether something is illegal or not before you support it.” Ms Go was beginning to wonder if she was living in Pyongyang. Apparently perturbed by her taking down his every word, the officer quickly showed her the section of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, citing that promoting a campaign and cause is an offence. (We’ll talk more about what the Act says in Part II.) Asked why the police have not taken action against other political parties conducting similar activities, the officer replied that it was because the police did not receive any calls about them. What about the police statement saying that the Tak Boleh Tahan activity held on 1 May 08, where activists were also distributing flyers at Toa Payoh Central, was legal? Inspector Tan said he was not aware of that and asked Ms Go to send him the information. Perhaps, the good Inspector should meet with his superiors once in a while and get clued in to what’s going on at his station. But was the Inspector really so clueless or was he just playing games? When asked the same question by another activist he interviewed, the Inspector revealed that the 1 May TBT event was just distributing flyers. The 9 Aug TBT event is different — it was promoting a cause. If you’re thoroughly confused at this point, it’s okay, you’re not alone. The inanity of the answer notwithstanding, why did Inspector Tan give two different answers to the same question? When the questioning was over and the statement finally shown to her, Ms Go started jotting down its content. “You can’t copy my questions, you can only copy your answers,” the officer said. “How do I know what question I am answering if I don’t copy down the questions especially when most of my answers are ‘Yes’ and ‘No’?” Appropriately stumped, the Inspector reached for his handy-dandy, evade-all-hard-questions, civil-service-manual answer: “It’s the rule.” That’s the nub of the problem: It’s the rule — real or not, it’s the rule. |
Re: Report against Police vehicles for parking in reserved lots at public car parks
Monday, 8 September, 2008 11:57 AM
To:
“URA CPPLU”
Cc:
cheong_koon_hean@ura.gov.sg, taykimpoh@hdb.gov.sg
Dear Esther…
I believe my earlier email has addressed all of the items (a) – (d).
A picture speaks a thousand words. Do not attempt to use the lack of information as an excuse not to take further action against the police for the offense they have clearly committed.
Your reply further confirms that the URA will not take a stand against government departments when similar offences are committed and when citizens have complained. Government departments shielding one another from the consequences of breaking of our laws is not something which the public will take kindly to bearing in mind that your guys call yourselves public servants.
cheers;
Jaslyn Go
Re: Unlawful Parking made by Police Vehicles (SIU 3494/2008)
Monday, 8 September, 2008 12:02 PM
To:
“Paul TAN”
Cc:
“MHA Kan Seng WONG”
Dear Paul,
As a complainant, I believe I do have the right to know what sort of action is the Police Force taking against the officers guilty of those acts.
If action has indeed been taken against them, kindly cite to me under which provision they are punished under and the punishment meted out to them.
cheers;
Jaslyn Go
jaslyngo | Can there ever be justice and fair play from govt depar, My MP Block Visit | 09 4th, 2008| No Comments »Re: Report against Police vehicles for parking in reserved lots at public car parks
Thursday, 4 September, 2008 7:39 PM
From:
“URA CPPLU”
—–Inline Attachment Follows—–
Our Ref : CPD PO/E (08082956635) Tel : 6329 3464
Fax : 6225 3336
Email: ura_cpplu@ura.gov.sg
4 Sep 08
REPORT AGAINST POLICE VEHICLES FOR PARKING IN RESERVED LOTS AT PUBLIC CAR PARKS
Dear Ms Go,
We refer to your email of 28 Aug 08.
In our earlier reply, we have requested that you confirm the following details in writing if you wish to lodge a report against the illegally parked vehicles:
a. The offending vehicle number.
b. The location of offence (name of car park, parking lot number, etc).
c. The date and time of offence.
d. Whether you agree to bear witness in court if the need arises.
We wish to explain that as a public regulatory authority, we have to ensure the reliability and accuracy of any public reports, before we can take follow up action on them. The complainant will have to attend court as a witness if required. The same requirements apply to anyone who makes such public reports.
Since we did not receive the information from you, we are unable to follow up on your report. If you still wish to submit the required information, you may do so in writing for our consideration.
Yours Sincerely,
ESTHER WANG (MS)
for DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
CAR PARKS DIVISION
jaslyngo | Can there ever be justice and fair play from govt depar, My MP Block Visit | 09 1st, 2008| No Comments »Re: Unlawful Parking made by Police Vehicles (SIU 3494/2008)
Monday, 1 September, 2008 12:22 PM
From:
“Paul TAN”
—–Inline Attachment Follows—–
Dear Ms Jaslyn Go,
I refer to your email of 29 Aug 08.
2 As indicated in our previous reply, Police do take action against officers who park at these lots when they are not on operational duty. Thank you.
Regards,
Paul Tan
for Quality Service Manager
Singapore Police Force
Re: Unlawful Parking made by Police Vehicles (SIU 3494/2008)
Monday, 1 September, 2008 9:53 AM
From:
“Paul TAN”
—–Inline Attachment Follows—–
Dear Ms Jaslyn Go,
I refer to your email of 29 Aug 08.
2 We are looking into the issues you have raised and we will reply to you soon. Thank you.
Regards,
Paul Tan
for Quality Service Manager
Singapore Police Force
