My Negro Amigo Bites Back #3 - The Long Short Arm of the Law

My Negro Amigo will refer you to two separate incidents that has happened.

-------

Case 1 :

Taken from The Straits Times, Saturday August 19 2006, FORUM Section, Page H22, "Cop failed to check 'drunk' driver."

What happened?

1. A family witnessed a min-van on the road swerving from left to right.
2. They suspected that the driver was drunk and decided to call the police, all in the spirit of civic-mindedness.
3. Before the call was made, they saw a police car stopping at the same traffic junction. They approached the police officer hoping that he would intervene.
4. No action was taken because the officer said a police report had to be lodged before action can be taken.

Case 2 :

Taken from The Straits Times, Saturday August 16 2006, FORUM Section, Page H7, "Police explain actions taken in assault case."

What happened?

1. A doctor was assaulted at a food stall by (6-8) hooligans.
2. Although there were signs of physical injury: he was observed to be bleeding from the nose, the police classified this case as voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code.
3. Such cases require a magistrate's authorisation before the police can exercise full powers of investigation. Dr Liew was given a police medical-report form and a referral letter to lodge a complaint with the magistrate.
4. He lodged a medical report indicating a fracture and the police reclassified the case from Section 323: voluntarily causing hurt, to Section 325: voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

The difference between Section 323 and 325?

1. Section 323: causing hurt is a non-seizable offence. Cases can range from a parent disciplining his child by slapping him, to family disputes, to scuffles between quarrelling persons, to bullying cases arising from road rage or a staring incident. For non-seizable offences, police require a warrant of arrest or an order from a magistrate to make an arrest.
2. Section 325: causing grievous hurt is a seizable offence. Cases can range from murder, rape, voluntarily causing grievous hurt or causing hurt with weapons. For seizable offences, police officers are legally empowered to arrest without a warrant.

-------

So what can My Negro Amigo conclude from these 2 cases?

1. I can beat up anyone I want. I just have to exercise some restraint: beat the person up enough so that he is partially bruised. The strength of my punch must be tweaked so that the person would feel substantial pain but not enough for fractures to incur. That way the police cannot/will not intervene.
2. In the absence of police on the road, I can drive as recklessly as I want. I might even down a few dozen beers before driving home. If I am lucky enough to avoid a pull-over by the police, all will be fine, after all, the police won't do anything unless a civilian goes through the hassle of reporting my little indiscretion.
3. Many years back, the government encouraged citizens to be civic minded. That was a tough sell because everyone just did not want the hassle of poking into someone else's business. The attitude of the average citizen at that time was 'I do not want trouble, why do I want these extra headaches, let the police handle it, that's what they are there for anyway.' After many years, the message finally got through and people are starting to aid the authorities. BUT now, it seems that the tide has turned: it is almost futile for people to practice their civic mindedness, since the authorities view paperwork to be of a higher priority than intuitive intervention.

-------

Something is seriously screwed up with this system. Police are sticking so closely to administrative and procedural responsibilities, that they ignore their instincts altogether. Nevermind that someone is bleeding, nevermind that someone is drunk driving, better just stick to 'safe' responsibilities like issuing traffic summons, sending out riot police to disperse peaceful protests and warning those evil evil bloggers not to be partisan players.