Support the court's judgement in Mr Mah Kiat Seng vs Police case.
The Issue
We are concerned citizens who are very shocked and angered about the government’s recent statements in Parliament regarding Mr Mah Kiat Seng’s case.
Instead of apologising for the Police officer’s behaviour, Shanmugam has mentioned the possibility of “enacting laws to address any gaps “between the policy intent and the position in law”.
While Shanmugam cited the fact that police officers would now be very worried when they are arresting people, we believe this case serves as a good balance to the already all-powerful police and reminds Police officers that they must act without abusing their power and without malicious intent when dealing with ordinary citizens. This is one of the ways where police powers can be balanced when an errant officer is punished and others are warned not to commit the same error when doing their jobs.
The police already have a lot of latitude in the investigations of cases. The law already gives a lot of leeway to police officers who may make mistakes in the course of their work if what they are doing is in good faith. In the case of Mr Mah’s case, the officer involved was found to be “acting in bad faith”. The case also went through a long period of trial which Mr Mah painstakingly prepared for.
We cannot allow citizens to be fearful of police because their ultimate aim is to protect citizens against crime, and not to commit crimes against citizens in the course of their work.
While the majority of police officers are good people, we must prevent the abuse of power and fall into a culture of “offensive policing” where citizens would be left defenceless and become potential victims of police officers who may have malicious intent or abuse their powers by virtue of the positions that they are in.
Good people who have done no wrong, should not fear the police and the current laws already have enough latitude for police officers doing their jobs since it is incredibly hard to sue the police officers and win.
Submitting this case to the high court for appeal would create the very result that Shanmugam does not want: A loss of trust in our justice system (since we agree that the judgement is sound), a loss of a sense of safety amongst citizens and a loss of accountability for how law enforcers must behave when interacting with citizens. If Mr Mah loses in the appeal, it would embolden police officers to potentially abuse citizens in the course of their work, since they will not be punished. If Mr Mah wins, by virtue of having to go through the stress of another lawsuit would be a loss in itself. It is also a deeply disgusting message to send to citizens that we cannot hold those who are in power to task, opening the floodgates to potential corruption for people holding office, which I am sure is not the intended outcome of the appeal.
Article 12 of our constitution provides for the right to equal protection under the law. These provisions suggest that individuals are entitled to a fair and impartial trial and that the judicial process should be free from bias or discrimination. Just because someone is a police officer should not give them the right to have an unfair advantage over someone else. After all, as Shanmugam has said so himself, “No one is above the law”.
Being law enforcers themselves, they must of cos be subjected to high levels of lawful behaviour themselves. Police officers wear uniforms and they hold guns and weapons. This already gives them an unfair advantage and power over ordinary citizens and they must be taught not to abuse the power and position they are in. This would be in keeping with our anti-corruption policies.
Additionally, the independence of the judiciary is enshrined in the constitution under Article 93, which provides that the judiciary has the power to hear and determine any dispute or matter brought before it. This helps to ensure that the judiciary operates independently of the executive and legislative branches of government and can make impartial decisions based on the law and the facts of each case.
Should we give unfettered powers to the police?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I leave you all with the Police Pledge.
Police Pledge
We pledge to be loyal and true to the Police service and the Republic of Singapore.
We pledge to uphold the law, to protect life and property, to prevent and detect crime.
We pledge to discharge our responsibilities without fear or favour, regardless of race, language or religion.
We pledge to strive for excellence, to be proactive and to exercise initiative in our duties.
We pledge to serve our community and our country and to be courteous and humane in our dealings with every fellow man.
Was the police officers involved in Mr Mah’s case courteous and humane?
Give Mr Mah the compensation he deserves.
In our view, if the government chooses to appeal, whatever the outcome, it will be a big loss to the PAP Government and an absolute loss of confidence to the ruling party. An attempt to enact additional laws to “plug” the hole will be seen as another attempt to dilute our Constitutional rights.
All these will not sit well with the people of Singapore.
Thank you for standing up for the rights of Mr Mah and the man/woman on the street.
A few "bad" cops will not spoil the reputation of the Singapore Police Force. On the contrary, if SPF can take this opportunity to improve its education of police officers and improve its processes, it would certainly lead to greater trust and cooperation between the public and the police in the future.
That would be the positive impact that Mr Mah's lawsuit has on our society.
The other positive impact is the confidence in our judiciary that a judge gave a favourable judgement to an ordinary citizen vs the Police. It gives hope to everyone standing up against the potential abuse of power.
Surely, these are all positive impacts for Singapore as a country that values anti-corruption.
Please sign this petition and share it with others.
Protect your constitutional rights. We don't need additional laws.
Thank you,
Iris Koh
To learn more about your rights during Police arrest/ remand, go to https://healingthedivide.cc/info11
Iris Koh is also currently suing the police for the way they handled her evidence. She also intends to sue the police officer for not allowing her to make police report for 3 days while she was in remand and other breaches. She is also defending herself against her current criminal charges. She maintains that she is innocent and did not conspire with Dr Jipson Quah to cheat MOH.
To support her lawsuits, you can PAYNOW 98291678 to her. (Ref: Support)
Please note that if you donate to this petition, the money doesn't come to me, but go to change.org to show this petition to more people.
To find out more about the quackzines, you can join her telegram group.
https://t.me/healingthedividenews
To read the details of Mr Mah vs Police Officer case, go to
128
The Issue
We are concerned citizens who are very shocked and angered about the government’s recent statements in Parliament regarding Mr Mah Kiat Seng’s case.
Instead of apologising for the Police officer’s behaviour, Shanmugam has mentioned the possibility of “enacting laws to address any gaps “between the policy intent and the position in law”.
While Shanmugam cited the fact that police officers would now be very worried when they are arresting people, we believe this case serves as a good balance to the already all-powerful police and reminds Police officers that they must act without abusing their power and without malicious intent when dealing with ordinary citizens. This is one of the ways where police powers can be balanced when an errant officer is punished and others are warned not to commit the same error when doing their jobs.
The police already have a lot of latitude in the investigations of cases. The law already gives a lot of leeway to police officers who may make mistakes in the course of their work if what they are doing is in good faith. In the case of Mr Mah’s case, the officer involved was found to be “acting in bad faith”. The case also went through a long period of trial which Mr Mah painstakingly prepared for.
We cannot allow citizens to be fearful of police because their ultimate aim is to protect citizens against crime, and not to commit crimes against citizens in the course of their work.
While the majority of police officers are good people, we must prevent the abuse of power and fall into a culture of “offensive policing” where citizens would be left defenceless and become potential victims of police officers who may have malicious intent or abuse their powers by virtue of the positions that they are in.
Good people who have done no wrong, should not fear the police and the current laws already have enough latitude for police officers doing their jobs since it is incredibly hard to sue the police officers and win.
Submitting this case to the high court for appeal would create the very result that Shanmugam does not want: A loss of trust in our justice system (since we agree that the judgement is sound), a loss of a sense of safety amongst citizens and a loss of accountability for how law enforcers must behave when interacting with citizens. If Mr Mah loses in the appeal, it would embolden police officers to potentially abuse citizens in the course of their work, since they will not be punished. If Mr Mah wins, by virtue of having to go through the stress of another lawsuit would be a loss in itself. It is also a deeply disgusting message to send to citizens that we cannot hold those who are in power to task, opening the floodgates to potential corruption for people holding office, which I am sure is not the intended outcome of the appeal.
Article 12 of our constitution provides for the right to equal protection under the law. These provisions suggest that individuals are entitled to a fair and impartial trial and that the judicial process should be free from bias or discrimination. Just because someone is a police officer should not give them the right to have an unfair advantage over someone else. After all, as Shanmugam has said so himself, “No one is above the law”.
Being law enforcers themselves, they must of cos be subjected to high levels of lawful behaviour themselves. Police officers wear uniforms and they hold guns and weapons. This already gives them an unfair advantage and power over ordinary citizens and they must be taught not to abuse the power and position they are in. This would be in keeping with our anti-corruption policies.
Additionally, the independence of the judiciary is enshrined in the constitution under Article 93, which provides that the judiciary has the power to hear and determine any dispute or matter brought before it. This helps to ensure that the judiciary operates independently of the executive and legislative branches of government and can make impartial decisions based on the law and the facts of each case.
Should we give unfettered powers to the police?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I leave you all with the Police Pledge.
Police Pledge
We pledge to be loyal and true to the Police service and the Republic of Singapore.
We pledge to uphold the law, to protect life and property, to prevent and detect crime.
We pledge to discharge our responsibilities without fear or favour, regardless of race, language or religion.
We pledge to strive for excellence, to be proactive and to exercise initiative in our duties.
We pledge to serve our community and our country and to be courteous and humane in our dealings with every fellow man.
Was the police officers involved in Mr Mah’s case courteous and humane?
Give Mr Mah the compensation he deserves.
In our view, if the government chooses to appeal, whatever the outcome, it will be a big loss to the PAP Government and an absolute loss of confidence to the ruling party. An attempt to enact additional laws to “plug” the hole will be seen as another attempt to dilute our Constitutional rights.
All these will not sit well with the people of Singapore.
Thank you for standing up for the rights of Mr Mah and the man/woman on the street.
A few "bad" cops will not spoil the reputation of the Singapore Police Force. On the contrary, if SPF can take this opportunity to improve its education of police officers and improve its processes, it would certainly lead to greater trust and cooperation between the public and the police in the future.
That would be the positive impact that Mr Mah's lawsuit has on our society.
The other positive impact is the confidence in our judiciary that a judge gave a favourable judgement to an ordinary citizen vs the Police. It gives hope to everyone standing up against the potential abuse of power.
Surely, these are all positive impacts for Singapore as a country that values anti-corruption.
Please sign this petition and share it with others.
Protect your constitutional rights. We don't need additional laws.
Thank you,
Iris Koh
To learn more about your rights during Police arrest/ remand, go to https://healingthedivide.cc/info11
Iris Koh is also currently suing the police for the way they handled her evidence. She also intends to sue the police officer for not allowing her to make police report for 3 days while she was in remand and other breaches. She is also defending herself against her current criminal charges. She maintains that she is innocent and did not conspire with Dr Jipson Quah to cheat MOH.
To support her lawsuits, you can PAYNOW 98291678 to her. (Ref: Support)
Please note that if you donate to this petition, the money doesn't come to me, but go to change.org to show this petition to more people.
To find out more about the quackzines, you can join her telegram group.
https://t.me/healingthedividenews
To read the details of Mr Mah vs Police Officer case, go to
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 8 February 2023