[Huliwang]

Hello !! what the conclusions ?!!! 
Show or not show ?!! 

For me if I saw police come out of police car to check my IC because I look suspicious to them, I will offer them my IC for checking without them asking. I very co-operative with police type.

Of course if I saw one policeman in uniform came up to me alone suddenly looking suspiciously and don't know from where  or plain clothe detective; I will ask them to show me their Warrant Card before offering them my IC. 

I would remain silent if they arrest me as I knew my rights to remain silent as anything I said can and will be used against me. I will not ask the policeman to tell me my rights. ....

[Omnipresent88]

https://media.tenor.com/vnfMpBsZov4AAAAM...hunter.gif

[surfer]

When the Cheers employee asked in what rule that he must show his ID, the police answered it is in the section 65..............

What is ection 65.? As a common citizen I know you must have your IC at all times for identification but what is Section 65? I don’t study law so I’m in the dark. You know?

[sgbuffett]

The employee should have checked what is section 65 first to see if he's really required to show his id.

Here is section 65.

He is required to provide name and address only if he js a suspect or I seen committing the crime by officers.

[Blasterlord2]

Here is section 65.

He is required to provide name and address only if he js a suspect or I seen committing the crime by officers.

I'm thinking, if let's say the guy could not check section 65 (e.g. he does not have his handphone with him) then could the police check it and show it to him. It's on the onus on the police to show section 65 isn't it?

[K88 shu shu]

kumgong no cure.

[grotesqueness]

Wow!  You must be very senior or high ranking to have the PP talk to you directly.  Usually such cases are not discussed with members of public.  Also, DPPs or APPs handle such matters before highlighting salient issues to their respective HODs

they are my colleague
we lawyers all have lunch together sometime
they told to me like friends not as their designation

[sgbuffett]

I'm thinking, if let's say the guy could not check section 65 (e.g. he does not have his handphone with him) then could the police check it and show it to him. It's on the onus on the police to show section 65 isn't it?

As a professional officer, it is his responsibility to explain the situation clearly to a civilian who appears confused and anxious.

[K88 shu shu]

As a professional officer, it is his responsibility to explain the situation clearly to a civilian who appears confused and anxious.

confused and anxious ?

me think he trying to be hero and thinking with tik tok, he can outplay the mata.

[debono]

As a professional officer, it is his responsibility to explain the situation clearly to a civilian who appears confused and anxious.

Why  must the alleged person feel confused and anxious ...?

[p1acebo]

Charge him under the CPC Section blah blah blah

[Blasterlord2]

As a professional officer, it is his responsibility to explain the situation clearly to a civilian who appears confused and anxious.

The officers did explain to him.

[debono]

The officers did explain to him.

If in the US he will be manhandled...........and handcuffed.......

[WhatDoYouThink!]

As a professional officer, it is his responsibility to explain the situation clearly to a civilian who appears confused and anxious.

Shd feedback to the proper authorities concerned. Dun think got any use

[8ighty8]

The guy deserved to be handcuffed and ask him stand outside the store let others see while the police pretending to call HQ for instructions.

[IndianChief]

Lol Cheers guy is nervous? taunting the officer to wear mask and implying that he may be C+ considered nervous ah?

[Huliwang]

If in the US he will be manhandled...........and handcuffed.......

He will be neck locked on the ground until he cannot breathe with the knee of the police officer. ....

[Huliwang]

The guy deserved to be handcuffed and ask him stand outside the store let others see while the police pretending to call HQ for instructions.

Handcuffed him and ask him to stand outside the store. Then the police officer slowly explain to him section 65 until he understands and agreeable to show his IC. ....

[Fit]

I cannot agree with you. He was just trying to be funny and causing stress to the officers. He did not expect it to backfire.

[sgbuffett]

He will be neck locked on the ground until he cannot breathe with the knee of the police officer. ....

This is what happens in US situation.
There is no law in Singapore or US that say that a person has to 'obey" everything a police officer says.

When interacting with the police, it is governed by law. Hence, it is logical for person to ask the police which law is being applied when he is asked to do something.

When the police goes into the Cheers and tells customers to go away, they disrupt the business. Do they have this right? Under what law?

Those who have the mentality that police are all powerful and can command us in the interaction are mistaken.

As for the comment that the "Cheers employee is trying to be funny" . I suggest you watch the video again. Initially, I had the same impression. But if you watch carefully he is confused over what the police can and cannot do by law in the situation:

1. Why does the police have to talk to him during workinv hours and at a time when he has to run the business? They can arrange to talk to him later when he is no longer at work.

2. The police did not at anytime explain the situation clearly. Like why they are talking to him.

3. The police were quick to threaten him with warning (in less than 1 min) when the man sought clarification. In the interaction the police was condescending in that they acted like the man had no rights and cannot sought clarification.

4. Section 65 requires the man to be a suspect or seen committing a crime to be arrested for not providing name and address.

5. The assertion that a person MUST coorperate with the police is WRONG. He is not LEGALLY required to do so. He only need to meet legal requirements. A person has the right not to cooperate with the police.

6. If Cheers wants employees to surrender all their rights when police appear and simply obey the police, they have to get employees to sign off their rights and train them to be obedient to coorperate with authorities.

7. If employee did not break the law, he should not be sacked especially when he was in the midst of doing his work duties when police came.

[p1acebo]

As a professional officer, it is his responsibility to explain the situation clearly to a civilian who appears confused and anxious.

He didn’t sound confused or anxious.  He sounded Kwai lan.

[Sentinel]

Simply put, NTUC is wrong to coerce and persuade its franchisee to sack the employee because someone in NTUC has the wrong idea that everyone needs to be fully compliant and to cooperate with the police's demands.

Even the police themselves know the extent of their iwn reach, yet NTUC pussywuss chose to throw their hammer down on the employee through what it knows it has leverage, and that is its leverage over its franchisee.

And that is just a lowly employee and both the franchisee and NTUC are working for businesses

Also, serves the employee right

He thought the police is at his command but he forgot that he is he, the franchisee and NTUC are on the other side with the police

The employee is stewpig, like some SgTalkers here

They dun comprehend which side the bread is buttered on

So, serves him right

Like PAP voters, you get what you asked for, so stop complaining

[WhatDoYouThink!]

Like that Ah butt better dun go to us, where the mata will knee lock you on the floor for not cooperating. In Chna duno the mata will make you disappear?

[Huliwang]

This is what happens in US situation.
There is no law in Singapore or US that say that a person has to 'obey" everything a police officer says.

When interacting with the police, it is governed by law. Hence, it is logical for person to ask the police which law is being applied when he is asked to do something.

When the police goes into the Cheers and tells customers to go away, they disrupt the business. Do they have this right? Under what law?

Those who have the mentality that police are all powerful and can command us in the interaction are mistaken.

As for the comment that the "Cheers employee is trying to be funny" . I suggest you watch the video again. Initially, I had the same impression. But if you watch carefully he is confused over what the police can and cannot do by law in the situation:

1. Why does the police have to talk to him during workinv hours and at a time when he has to run the business? They can arrange to talk to him later when he is no longer at work.

2. The police did not at anytime explain the situation clearly. Like why they are talking to him.

3. The police were quick to threaten him with warning (in less than 1 min) when the man sought clarification. In the interaction the police was condescending in that they acted like the man had no rights and cannot sought clarification.

4. Section 65 requires the man to be a suspect or seen committing a crime to be arrested for not providing name and address.

5. The assertion that a person MUST coorperate with the police is WRONG. He is not LEGALLY required to do so. He only need to meet legal requirements. A person has the right not to cooperate with the police.

6. If Cheers wants employees to surrender all their rights when police appear and simply obey the police, they have to get employees to sign off their rights and train them to be obedient to coorperate with authorities.

7. If employee did not break the law, he should not be sacked especially when he was in the midst of doing his work duties when police came.

Where is the video on that Cheer case which I have not seen? I only see a couple of videos posted by you on US police. You wrote so much craps for what? I inferred from reading some posts that this case involved a simple case of police officer asking the Cheer employee to identify himself by showing his ID because he appeared suspicious, and he was reluctant to cooperate for unknown reasons.  
What is so difficult, or harm will happen to him to show the police his IC so that the law enforcement officer can move on? All it takes is just a few minutes and no delay will incur to his "busy" work as you invented with your creative imagination. He is obviously trying to be a smart ass or trying to be funny by obstructing the law enforcement work by questioning and probably delaying the police in pursuing of the real criminal who might escape because of his hindrance. ....

[sgbuffett]

Where is the video on that Cheer case which I have not seen? I only see a couple of videos posted by you on US police. You wrote so much craps for what? I inferred from reading some posts that this case involved a simple case of police officer asking the Cheer employee to identify himself by showing his ID because he appeared suspicious, and he was reluctant to cooperate for unknown reasons.  
What is so difficult, or harm will happen to him to show the police his IC so that the law enforcement officer can move on? All it takes is just a few minutes and no delay will incur to his "busy" work as you invented with your creative imagination. He is obviously trying to be a smart ass or trying to be funny by obstructing the law enforcement work by questioning and probably delaying the police in pursuing of the real criminal who might escape because of his hindrance. ....

The question is not whether jts a simple thing but whether they have right to it and what is legal requirement 

You said you have not seen the video so you are just jumping into conclusions.

[Huliwang]

The question is not whether jts a simple thing but whether they have right to it and what is legal requirement 

You said you have not seen the video so you are just jumping into conclusions.

He looks suspicious to the police and the police wants to identify him. This is for the security of the public. There is no legal requirement, just the police warrant card is sufficient for the police to do his work.
So where is the video after so many talks? .....

[grotesqueness]

Next time if discuss about tray return, he'll also work there. 

yeah

toilet manager also


why?

cannot it?


i hard working mah


not like you all CCP lazy fake keyboard warriors

[Omnipresent88]

https://media.tenor.com/Y-NEslRMrlQAAAAM/singapore.gif https://media.tenor.com/riKvVZ2Et-cAAAAM/dumb-huh.gif