by: Jewel Philemon/

On 17 Aug 2011 at about 9.30am, one of our photographers noticed an accident along Marine Parade Road and started taking pictures of this incident involving two SBS Transit buses (one double-decker and the other a normal one).

A staff of SBS Transit who was with the vehicles that met with the accident, then stopped our photographer from taking any pictures of the accident. And not only that, he insisted that our photographer had committed an offence and compelled him to go to the nearest police station.

A police officer at the police station said that there was no case, but the staff of SBS Transit claimed that he was representing Public Transport Council (PTC) and that our photographer should be detained as he was in breach of an unspecified law pertaining to PTC.

Upon this insistence by the staff of SBS Transit, the police officer took down the name, NRIC and contact details of our contributor, without filing a case.

TOC wrote to the PTC to seek clarification on this and asked if there is any such law prohibiting a member of public from taking pictures of motor vehicle accidents on our public roads; and if the of staff SBS Transit can indeed represent himself as a representative of PTC?

We copied the Singapore Police Force in the same correspondence and asked if a case has been filed against our photographer, and if so what was the offence; and also SBS Transit asking if its staff had acted in an unbecoming manner, how do they intend to resolve the matter?

TOC received a reply on 19 August from SBS Transit saying:

We are horrified to learn that this had happened. This is certainly not something we condone. Our staff did not comply with company guidelines when he stopped Mr XXX from taking photographs and insisted that he accompany him to the Police station. There was also no need for him to identify himself as a Public Transport Official given that there was no fare enforcement action taking place. For these lapses, we are taking disciplinary action against him.

We would like to extend our deepest apologies to Mr XXX for the inconvenience and distress caused.

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

“前老板要我物色外籍人士履历!” 前人资主管揭职场聘雇秘辛

“我的前老板曾“强烈建议”我注意外籍人士的求职履历!” 我国聘雇外籍人士课题一直备受争议,PMET职场聘雇上存在歧视现象,更不是空穴来风。不久前人力部也承认,有47个雇主招揽雇员竟没有公平对待新加坡人,甚至多达30家金融、专业服务企业,聘请的外籍PMET(专业人士、经理、行政人员和技术人员),大部分来自同一国家! 然而,以上现象都还可能只是冰山一角。 近日,在社交媒体领英(Linkedin),培训和咨询公司ConnectOne的总监Joanne Yeoh,针对聘雇外籍人士的课题发文,指出近年来被要求招聘外籍人士而倍感困扰。 她表示,“这是相当悲哀的时代,我国公民在自己的国家面临聘雇歧视,如今需敦促聘请本地人才能确保职场多元化。” Joanne说,尽管欢迎不同外籍人士和外国投资进入新加坡,但聘雇歧视确实存在在我国已有一段时日。 她也举例,过去十年期间她作为公司的人力资源部主管,也曾遇过类似的聘雇歧视的经验。 “我有遇过一些老板,“强烈推荐”我先查阅外国人的履历,即使我当时面试的本地人都符合职缺条件。” 倡议打造以新加坡人为核心团队 “当我坚持要在公司内建立以新加坡人为核心的PMET团队,我也曾被刻上不服从的标签;我也曾参加过某次接班人规划的评议,外籍董事当场表示,“若没有亚洲人能够领导,而且将会成为一场大灾难”(P/S:我当机立断,也放弃大笔花红就辞职。)”” 不仅如此,她也曾参与由印度籍员工的商务会议,全程以印度语交流,而她忆述,她却是全场唯一的新加坡人。…

【防假消息法上诉】上诉庭保留判决 民主党辩护律师:举证责任应在部长一方

民主党脸书贴文和文章,被人力部援引防假消息法(POFMA)发出更正指示。就此该党已上诉至上诉庭,并于本月17日由五司审理。 这也是自防假消息法生效以来,本地最高法院首次受理相关上诉案件。以大法官梅达顺为首的五司,花了近六小时半,同时审理两宗与防假消息法有关的上诉。上诉庭保留判决,择日下判。 两宗上诉分别由民主党和《网络公民》提呈。控辩双方的争辩,主要围绕在谁应负担举证的责任? 民主党辩护律师:举证责任应在部长一方 民主党代表律师苏勒士奈尔( Suresh Nair)就争辩,举证的责任应在发出更正指示的部长一方,或是总检察署,来证明有关消息是假的。再者,内政部对民主党发出更正指示,要求该党贴出声明有关消息不实,却未阐述究竟民主党的消息,哪里不实? 总检察署代表,署理检控官 Kristy Tan则强调,举证责任应在发出消息的人身上,这并非过分繁重的负担,再者若无真凭实据,就不该发表可能影响公共利益的陈述。 去年12月14日,针对民主党的脸书贴文和文章,人力部援引防假消息法,对民主党发出要求更正指示。 人力部当时反驳,本地PMET的就业率自2015年实则逐步增长;且并没有出现本地PMET裁员增加的趋势。…

善用急救知识助受伤老人 哥哥社媒分享弟弟英勇事迹

见弟弟善用急救知识帮助跌倒的老人家,哥哥在脸书上分享有关事情经过,并以他为荣。 Norizam Baharon于周三(8月19日)在脸书上帖文,分享弟弟Aniq勇敢救人的事迹。 他指出,当时和弟弟正在淡滨尼21街第270栋组屋附近的学习区复习功课时,一名八旬老奶奶向他们求助,表示自己的丈夫跌倒并流血了。 他和弟弟听到老奶奶紧急的求助声,立刻赶到组屋8楼的意外地点,只见一名90余岁老人家倒在地板呻吟,指背部疼痛,且现场都是血。 就读淡马锡中学,并为了专注学业而刚刚自该校全国学生民防团(NCDCC)上士长职位上卸任的Aniq,立刻趋前展开急救行动。“Aniq用附近的衬衫绑了几个结后,将其绑在受伤流血的老人手上,以对伤口进行止血。他不断安抚老人家,一切都会好起来的。” 在等待医护人员到来时,Aniq也指挥哥哥与他配合,将老人家送到床上,并不断地安抚老人家。之后为了确保救护人员能够尽快赶到伤患身边,Aniq向哥哥说了一声,就到组屋楼下等待并进行指引工作。 救护人员抵达后,将老人家送到樟宜综合医院就医,而老妇也非常感谢Norizam和Aniq的帮助。 Norizam表示,他对弟弟的善良和无私举动、冷静理解所面临的状况和善用所学到的知识一事,感到非常感动。“他清楚展示了无私作为,宁愿自己流更多汗,也要确保老人家不流更多血。” 他对弟弟的英勇作为和领导能力感到骄傲,也为培养弟弟成才的校方和教育部感到骄傲。