Phone threats a non-seizable offence

Phone threats a “non-seizable offence”: case of double standards?

The contrasting differences in the police handling of the Ng Kim Ngweng’s case and another similar one involving a Madam Tan Lian Gim were too glaring to be missed.

Rag-and-bone man Ng was alleged to have committed criminal intimidation by threatening to beat an unknown MP over the phone. He was arrested immediately the very next day.

Madam Tan Lian Gim’s husband received a verbal threat on his mobile phone threatening to inflict bodily harm on him. A report was lodged at Bedok North Police station on the same day, but no action was taken.

Let’s compare the two cases:

1. Mr Ng Kim Ngweng did not call Ms Denise Phua directly on her phone to threaten her. On the other hand, Madam Tan’s husband was called directly on his phone by a mysterious person threatening to inflict bodily harm on him.

2. Mr Ng Kim Ngweng called the REACH hotline to complain about his MP’s attitude. He got agitated in the process and said the following words “How can you don’t hit her? I get angry when I see her so how can I don’t hit her?” - Notice that Mr Ng did not mention any names explicitly while in the case of Madam Tan’s husband, he received a verbal threat to beat him up directly.

Which case deserve more attention from the police?

According to my limited understanding of the law, for the charge of criminal intimidation to be qualified, three of the following criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The threat must be made to the victim directly in his or her presence.

2. There must be sufficient grounds to believe that the accused will carry out the threat.

3. The victim was frightened, intimidated and traumatized by the threat.

The speed at which the police arrested Ng almost immediately and their apparent unwillingness to investigate the claims of Madam Tan reflects an incongruity in the handling of cases involving PAP leaders and ordinary citizens.

Interestingly, DSP Paul Tay of the Singapore Police Force wrote a letter to the Straits Time Forum today defending the ineptitude of the police to act at the behest of Madam Tan:

“Under the law, verbal threat is a non-seizable offence where the police have limited powers of investigation and arrests. Nonetheless, when a report is made, the police will look into the facts and if no aggravating factor is found, the police will advise the complainant to lodge a complaint before a magistrate, who has the power to direct further action as provided under the law. ” (read full letter here)

May I ask DSP Paul Tay the following questions:

1. Since verbal threat is a “non-seizable” offence, why was Mr Ng arrested by the police the next day after allegedly making verbal threats on the phone against Ms Denise Phua?

2. Did the police exceed its powers of investigations and arrests in this instance?

3. Did the police look into facts of Mr Ng’s case and what are its findings? What was the likelihood of Mr Ng acting on his threat?

4. Why wasn’t Ms Denise Phua advised to lodge a complaint before a magistrate as is the standard operating procedure for all such cases?

The police and the legal officers are paid for taxpayers’ monies. Their time is precious and should not be spent on pursuing frivolous cases with the sole intention of sending a strong deterrent message to Singaporeans.

How much does it cost to arrest Mr Ng, hold him in custody and to charge him in court? Does the threat posed by Mr Ng warrant such drastic actions by the authorities? If the target of his threat is not his MP but a friend, will he be brought to justice so swiftly?

I would like to stress that I do not condone Mr Ng’s veiled threat to inflict physical pain on a public servant. It was plain stupid for him to do so and he rightly owed Ms Denise Phua an apology for the diatribes hurled at her.

Ms Denise Phua’s personal safety must be ensured at all costs to enable her to discharge her duties faithfully as an elected representative of the people. However, the authorities should consider each alleged threat on its own individual merit to assess its gravity and likelihood of the threat materializing instead of a knee-jerk reaction to arrest the culprit immediately.

Did Mr Ng display any signs that he is going to act on his threat? Did he stalk Ms Denise Phua? According to his statement, he had not approached Ms Phua since that unhappy encounter at her Meet-the-People session.

The mainstream media as usual had a field day smearing Mr Ng’s character by putting the spotlight on his family woes to absolve Ms Denise Phua of any liabilities. It was wrong for Mr Ng to beat his wife, but that does not increase the probablity of him dishing out the same treatment to Ms Denise Phua. Did Mr Ng have any record of violent crimes? Was he ever jailed for assaulting anybody?

In this instance, it is quite obvious that Mr Ng was provoked by anger over his alleged humiliation by Ms Denise Phua and her grassroots leader to lodge a complaint against them through the REACH hotline and got carried away in the heat of the moment.

While Mr Ng deserves to be punished by the law, Ms Denise Phua and her RC members should reflect on their attitude and behavior towards their residents to prevent a repeat of this unfortunate fiasco.

As Mr Ng told the court - “I see her and those people there, and I feel like I am a beggar, like I am a dog.” It is unlikely he is telling a lie since his statement was sworn under oath unless he want to be charged for perjury.

MPs are the “fu4 mu2 guan1″ or “parent-officials” of the people who looked up to them for help and guidence. Instead of showing care, concern and empathy to Mr Ng, Ms Denise Phua had managed to make him “feel like a dog.” Does she remember why she stand for elections to become a MP in the first place?

There is always two sides to a story. Ms Denise Phua had told the media earlier that she had helped Mr Ng “countless of times”, but obviously Mr Ng doesn’t appreciate her “kindness”. It is presumptuous for us to condemn Mr Ng as being ungrateful and bite off the hand which feeds him.

Mr Ng was given medical leave of 37 weeks. Obviously he had a medical condition which prevented him for seeking useful employment or he will not have to “beg” for cash handouts from his MP on a regular basis. He was also depressed as a result of his predicament and vented his frustration on his wife.

Is our safety net adequate to attend to residents in similar dire straits as Mr Ng? Is a monthly handout of $200 sufficient? What more can be done to assist these residents to prevent them from falling into a state of despair and hopelessness?

I am sure this is not an isolated incident. With retrenchment on the rise and our economy continue to be mired in recession, there will be a rise in the number of Singaporeans seeking financial assistance to help them tide through this difficult period.

It is time for a rethink of Singapore’s social safety net to assess its feasibility and usefulness not only to provide mere sustenance living, but to ensure our brethren live a meaningful and useful life befitting of their status as rightful citizens of Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24586.1