[vimeo id=”132998075″ align=”center” mode=”normal”]

An elderly Singaporean claims that he was wrongly arrested by plainclothes police officers in an alley along Rowell Road on 5 July 2015 at 5 pm. He further alleged that the officers had threatened to beat him up for speaking back at them.

It has been three months since Mr Yet Bin Hin, 58, resigned from his previous job of a cleaner at a coffeeshop due to health problems.

According to Mr Yet, he was pushing his bicycle through the alley when a man came up to him in plainclothes and asked for his identification card. Despite not being shown a warrant card, Mr Yet assumed that the man was a police officer as he thought to himself that only a police officer has the authority to ask for one’s identification.

Mr Yet chooses not to say anything to the officer, and just handed his NRIC over to him. When the officer took his NRIC, he said something which Mr Yet did not expect.

This was the exchange between Mr Yet and the police officers based on Mr Yet’s testimony:

Officer, speaking in Malay: “Saya tidak otang anda”, “I did not owe you money”

Mr Yet retorted back, also in Malay: “I also did not owe you money”.

Officer: “Why you talk so loud?”

Mr Yet: “Is there anything wrong with speaking loud?”

Another officer (“Officer 2”) then walked over to show his police warrant card to Mr Yet:

Officer 2: “Saya police” (“I am police”)

Mr Yet: “Saya tahu”  (“I know”)

The officer asked Mr Yet why he was speaking so loud?

Mr Yet retorted back by saying that it was the first officer who had spoken loudly first.

“Officer 2” asked Mr Yet if Mr Yet believes that he [Officer 2] would hit Mr Yet up.

Mr Yet challenged the officer to beat him up if he really wishes to do so: “You want, you beat la”.

Another 3rd officer came up to Mr Yet and said, “Why you so loud?”, Mr Yet replied to the officer that it is because the 2nd officer threatened to beat him up.

Subsequently, Mr Yet was handcuffed by the officers and pulled to a corner where three other individuals were also at. According to Mr Yet, only he and another Bangladeshi were handcuffed and escorted to the Rochor police station subsequently.

Mr Yet was seated in the police station on a stool while still being handcuffed. The three who were also arrested were interviewed at the police station while Mr Yet was to be transferred to Cantonment Police Station for questioning.

“I knew they were going to press unfounded charges against me after knowing that I am being transferred to Cantonment police station,” Mr Yet said.

When the police car came for him to bring him over to the Cantonment Police headquarters, Mr Yet said two of the officers who arrested him said to him outside the police station, “You better be careful, I see you one time, I catch you one time, I see you ten times, I catch you ten times.”

According to Mr Yet, the two Chinese uniformed officers who were escorting him heard the conversation and had acknowledged that they did during the trip in the police vehicle.

At Cantonment Police headquarters, Mr Yet was placed in remand in a cell with a few other detainees before being interviewed by an Investigation Officer (IO) assigned to his case. The IO told him that the police is charging him. Mr Yet retorted that there was no evidence of that charge.

Mr Yet did not receive a copy of the statement nor the charge against him, but told TOC that he was charged for unruly behaviour, which is most likely to be “Riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in, or in the immediate vicinity of, certain places” under the penal code.

The statement was written in English and Mr Yet could not understand what was written as he does not understand English. He signed the statement as he did not think the police officer would frame him.

When he was finally released on a $5,000 bail at 9.30am the next day, Mr Yet went straight to the counter at the Police headquarters to file a complaint based on what he had gone through.

When the staff at the counter asked if the complaint is completed, Mr Yet said the duty officer pulled him to a quiet corner where he shared with Mr Yet that this is something common and is not much of an issue, “没有事”.

The duty officer promised Mr Yet that he will talk with the duty officer and the four officers at Rochor police station to resolve the situation for him and at most he would get a warning letter for the charge against him.

A day after the incident, Mr Yet was contemplating of letting the issue go but could not bear the fact that he was to be given a warning letter for an offence he did not commit.

“It is unfair! How can police officers behave in this manner? Can such individuals be considered as police officers?” said Mr Yet in Chinese.

Singapore Police Force in response to TOC’s queries wrote, “We regret to inform you that as all information relating to investigation is confidential, we will be unable to provide you with any update on this case.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Singapore tourism sector takes a hit for at least 6 to 8 months due to virus outbreak, say experts

One of the main casualties of the coronavirus outbreak in Singapore is…

oBike宣布退出新加坡共享脚车市场

无桩脚车出租公司oBike透过脸书公开宣布,基于预期在履行陆路交通管理局规章将面对困难,现有营运模式难以维持,为此终止其在新加坡的业务。 oBike在文告中宣布该公司的脚车出租服务,将在6月25日停止营运,突如其来的消息令其用户感到错愕,特别关注是否能顺利获得押金退款。 oBike在文告中宣布该公司的脚车出租服务,将在6月25日停止营运。 “我们坚信脚车出租服务,有助改善交通系统和提供使用者出行便利,遗憾政府新规章与我们理念相违。” oBike强调,上述决定并不影响oBike在新加坡以外区域的营运。拥有oBike超级会员卡的成员,仍可在新加坡境外使用我们的服务。 oBike声称,用户仍能透过合作伙伴GrabCycle继续使用该公司的服务,惟后者已澄清,基于oBike已终止业务,GrabCycle的应用程序从本周一起,也将无法使用oBike脚车。 oBike公司自2017年1月起进驻新加坡,该公司也向100万新加坡用户致谢。 陆交局严打违规停放脚车 陆交局限定所有脚车出租服务提供者,须在7月7日之前申请执照,否则将无法在公共场所营运。该局将审核各公司的申请,并在9月份发出执照。 政府今年五月修法规范停车场所法令,严打违法和随意停放出租脚车的缺德行为。 上述执照用以约束租脚车用户,需扫描设立在指定停车地点的二维码,证明他们已把脚车停放妥当,若随意把脚车停在其他地方,将被继续征收费用。 脚车出租公司也必须暂停违规用户的使用权。不遵守陆交局规章的公司,将被罚款10万新元、裁减脚车数量、被令停牌甚至取消执照。…

Singapore Democratic Party's 3rd Rally Speech videos

Videos of the speeches by speakers from Singapore Democratic Party at the…