Applying for Protection Order under Protection from Harassment Act

Published on Jan 14, 2015

The Protection from Harassment Act 2014 was introduced to strengthen harassment laws in Singapore. Details are available on For more information on applying for Protection Order under the Act, please visit


Mr K Shanmugam : The Protection from Harassment Act is now in force

Protecting harrassment victims and the vulnerable

The Protection from Harassment Act is now in force.

Avenues for self-help and civil remedies for victims of harassment are available under the Act.

Victims can also claim for damages separately. In very egregious cases, harassers may also face criminal prosecution. These two measures will complement the Protection Order, creating a ladder of remedies for victims.

However, harassment cannot be dealt with by laws alone. Each of us has a part to play in cultivating community norms, and educating each other on what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour.

Our children have a right to grow up in a safe environment, free from discrimination and bullying by peers. We should be free from intimidating, hostile and abusive environment, be it at home or at the workplace, online or offline.

The Act puts in place a framework for stopping behaviour which is socially unacceptable, and which better protects the vulnerable.

Police handcuff kids for safety reason


Overheard :

  • Reference – > Attorney-General’s Chambers
  • Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (‘CPC’) requires a police officer or other person making an arrest, to actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there is a submission to the custody by word or action. If arrest is resisted, or an attempt made to evade the arrest, the officer may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. Where there is submission the use of force is not permitted.
    Simultaneously, s 28 of the CPC provides that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

    The principle is clear:
    Restraint may be imposed where it is reasonably apprehended that the prisoner will attempt to escape. The restraint should be sufficient and necessary to prevent escape. Weapons may be used only against prisoners using violence or when the police officer has reasonable ground to believe that a police officer is in danger of life or limb or that grievous hurt is likely to be caused to him


  • Without any facts established, some “experts” already condemning the law enforcers.

Pre-judging before knowing the details does no one any good. It is especially bad for law enforcers. It will be a sad day when law enforcers begjn to do what they think the public expect of them instead of what they think is in the interest of the public.

What Victor Lye has to say about WP Sylvia Lim and APEHTC (Worker Party)


AHPETC trade fairs are about greed, not about benefiting shopkeepers & residents in Hougang

In the 25 Dec 2014 ST article “WP-run Town Council fined $800 over unlicensed fair”, Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim said, “we are unable to organise activities to benefit residents and businesses in the area.”

Do not be fooled by this desperate playing of the “victim card”.  The record shows that AHPETC trade fairs have hurt shopkeepers due to high frequency and long duration.

Instead, Ms Lim revealed AHPETC’s true motive when she said, “The town council has also lost a source of revenue to manage its operations.”

It is very clear. AHPETC’s trade fairs are about money. It has little to do with benefiting residents and businesses in the area.

Here is the background.

After AHPETC was formed, it took over common property at Hougang Central and at Kovan where Hougang Mall and Heartland Mall are located respectively. Hougang and Kovan MRT stations there ensure good crowds. It became apparent to AHPETC that it could generate revenue by renting out common property for commercial activities.

The more frequent and the longer the duration, the more money AHPETC gets. AHPETC pockets money from the highest bidder with little risk. The trade fair organiser takes the risk because he has to sublet and rent out the stalls to cover what he paid AHPETC. The stalls often sold items similar to those of the surrounding HDB shopkeepers.

At first, Hougang HDB shopkeepers were friendly and tolerated. As the trade fairs became more frequent and longer,their businesses were affected. They became unhappy. When the shopkeepers complained, AHPETC staff called the police. The issue was reported by the press. AHPETC’s gravy train was derailed.

AHPETC does not want to be restricted from making money by renting out common property for commercial activities.

The NEA trade fair application form states that “consensus of shopkeepers” and/or “letter of support from the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC)” are required, depending on where the fair is held.

The rules are meant to protect local shopkeepers against unfair competition and to balance community interests. Even trade fairs organised by grassroots organisations need approval from the authorities. There are self-imposed limits on frequency and duration with guidelines to minimise adverse effects and to benefit the community.

AHPETC questions the need for a letter of support from the CCC. This was not a show stopper for AHPETC’s earlier trade fairs. The CCC does not approve trade fairs. The National Environmental Agency (NEA) does. The CCC’s role is to assess if community interests are safeguarded. Nonetheless, the shopkeepers’ consensus appears paramount in the case of trade fair permit applications to the NEA.

In fact, AHPETC organised many trade fairs after it took office. It was not hampered at all. Truth is greed likely got the better of AHPETC. Its trade fairs became more frequent and longer in duration until the gravy train was derailed by angry shopkeepers.

How can AHPETC believe it is special and exempt from such checks and approvals?

AHPETC has cynically disregarded our laws and disrespected civil servants doing their duty. In chasing easy money, AHPETC trade fairs have hurt shopkeepers in Hougang. Based on AHPETC’s poor financial management, it appears that every two Aljunied households are paying for one other. Is there a shortfall of funds available to maintain the estate? Can Aljunied residents say the standard of cleanliness is as good as before?

In playing the “victim card”, Ms Lim has deviously failed to reveal that the CCC had given its support to the AHPETC trade fair in question. Yet AHPETC chose not to submit the application so that it could contest its case in court. Why?

AHPETC wants to challenge the checks and approvals required by law so that it can raise money freely using common property under its management.


The key questions to ask are:


  • Are town councils allowed to earn money by renting out common property for commercial activities?
  • Is AHPETC facing cash flow problems that it must raise funds, but for whom really, and for what purpose?

Thanks to Ms Lim’s revelation of AHPETC’s true motive, it is now of utmost public interest for AHPETC to disclose how much money it has generated from trade fairs held on common property, the number of trade fairs and the duration of each since it has been in charge.

When one says that “so what if Lim Chin Siong was a Communist”

Overheard :

The problem of “presentism” in Singapore’s historical debate

The storm that erupted when PM Lee talked about his visit to the Merger exhibition and his link to an open letter penned in response to Dr Poh Soo Kai makes for a most interesting case study in the discipline of history.

As usual, whenever the Government gives its version of history, it elicits a flurry of negative reactions.  Usually, you have on the one hand activists who know naught about history and just demolishes whatever the Government says by falling back on romantic ideals of human rights et al.  In truth, these activists do not care about whether Lim Chin Siong is a proxy of the violent Communist Party of Malaya. To quote Teo Soh Lung’s rather child-like argument, “But honestly, I don’t care if Lim Chin Siong was a communist or a CPM member. After all, the PAP does lots of business with communist Russia and China.” 

They do not care about Merger, Separation or historical accuracy for that matter. They constantly harp on the need for government to declassify its records and from there, they assume that some great wrong committed will be revealed and hence, demand a COI to seek redress for past detainees and ultimately remove the ISA. As a prominent socio-political website often claims, “As it stands, releasing the official documents of the secret branch would be the surest way of verifying this fact,” and ” it would be in the best interest of the government to open official documents”. 

But where do these activists get the idea of declassifying records from?  Behind these activists, there are actually some historians who were really the ones who started this historiographical debate by arguing that either there was no Communist threat in Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s or that this threat was inflated.  These historians actually did cite from declassified records by the British government which makes some sense since Singapore was in effect, ruled by the British until 1963.  These records did show doubt by some administrators of the extent of communist threat in Singapore then.  But the Government cleverly also cited from the same declassified British records of a shift in the administrators’ positions with regard to the Communist threat.  What’s more is, there are primary source materials of the Malayan Communist leaders at that time, who themselves profess to instigating violence, riots and political subversion to achieve a communist state.

That’s why, when you see the responses to PM Lee’s attempt at teaching history, you hear only the activists voices most clearly; simply because they are not historians and do not know or care that a fait accompli has been achieved.  When an activist says declassify all records, what does he mean? It is actually an empty call.  Even the CIA redacts sensitive information from what they declassify.  Does declassifying records mean that great wrongs will be found?  I am afraid not. And if wrongs are not found but justifications found, what happens then?  The activist will just accept meekly? Or perhaps they will say that some of these documents are forged?

This is the problem when “presentism” seeps into the study of history.  It tends to blind objectivity.  When one says that “so what if Lim Chin Siong was a Communist”, it is clear as day to those who study history that it is a statement with great ramifications.  Today, admitting that you are a communist makes you a harmless laughing stock; but in the 1950s/60s, if one was a Communist, one was a terrorist, supporter, sympathizer of terrorism and a criminal.  There is no “so what”. 

It’s a very slippery slope and therefore the historians who really started this debate, have been very smart to stay in the sidelines, preferring to use the activists to fight their cause. The activists are not historians, they do not profess to be and they do not need to put forth sound arguments backed by sources. Romantic, emotive arguments and ideas are what move the present internet. 

But what about the historians watching this show, of their own doing, unfurl?  What are their intentions?  Are they truly noble and seeking historical truth or are they just seeking, like the activists, to redress present political concerns?


  Lee Hsien Loong   <-link
20 December 2014

I visited the Battle for Merger exhibition in October. This was the book of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s radio talks in 1961, explaining what the fight against the Communists was about, and why Singapore needed Merger with Malaya. 

The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) was a violent, illegal organisation. So it operated secretly, underground. But the Communists infiltrated open, legal organisations like trade unions, student associations and political parties. These supported the Communist cause, but denied that they themselves were Communist. Mr Lee exposed this Communist united front tactic.

I took these photos of a fascinating exhibit: a pair of original handwritten documents. One was a trade union document, signed 林清祥 Lim Chin Siong. He was the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the main open front political party. The other was a Communist study cell document, signed 王明 Wang Ming. The handwriting was identical. In fact Wang Ming was Lim Chin Siong’s party name; Communist cadres took party names to conceal their real identities. So Lim Chin Siong was a Communist, and the Barisan Sosialis was Communist controlled.

This was more than 50 years ago. Many old Communist and pro-Communist activists have reconciled with their past, and become good citizens. But a few hard core ones still deny these historical facts. They don’t want to admit that they had fought on the wrong side, and that luckily for Singapore they lost. Some “revisionist” historians make this argument too. One motivation: cast doubt on the legitimacy of the PAP government, not just in the 1960s, but today.

The British have been declassifying documents from their archives in London, and making them available to the public. Also senior CPM leaders like Chin Peng, Eu Chooi Yip, Fong Chong Pik (aka the Plen) and others have published memoirs. Their first person accounts, like the British documents, confirm the extent of the Communist united front in Singapore, and leave no doubt that the Barisan was formed at the instigation of the CPM, and that Lim Chin Siong was a Communist cadre.

We have put together an account using evidence from the British archives as well as CPM sources, which confirm that Mr Lee Kuan Yew told the truth. Here it is, for your weekend reading – > Reponse to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations – LHL


(Photo by me)


Reponse to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations

How oppressive hor?

Overheard :


Huh? So this is one of the “heroes” purportedly voicing out the grievances of the people against an oppressive PAP? 

Just thinking out loud. Don’t look quite the underdog to me. Wonder what’s the PAP done to him or his family and what qualified him to be a mouthpiece for the “people”?

Or is this a restless youth trying to do a “popular” thing? I hear it is now quite popular to slam PAP. If you slam, you must be right. You must be a hero.

Irony is that “the Courts controlled by the oppressive PAP” (i.e. what dudes who love to slam the PAP often say… which, for the avoidance of doubt, I disagree completely) is considering probation to rehabilitate this “hero”. 

How oppressive hor?


One of five Toa Payoh vandalism suspects pleads guilty


SINGAPORE – One of five youths allegedly involved in a rooftop graffiti case in Toa Payoh in May pleaded guilty yesterday (Dec 24) to theft and criminal trespass.

David William Graaskov, 18, pleaded guilty to three of the six charges he was facing.

He admitted to stealing four cans of spray paint from a lorry on May 6 along with four others – Goh Rong Liang, Boaz Koh Wen Jie, Reagan Tan Chang Zhi and Chay Nam Shen.

His four accomplices allegedly used the cans to spray profanities against the People’s Action Party and the police along the rooftop of Block 85A at Toa Payoh Lorong 4.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Tang Shangjun told the court that while Graaskov had agreed to take part in defacing the rooftop, he “realised it was getting late” and took the bus home at about 11.50pm that night and was not there when the spray painting took place.

The unemployed man also pleaded guilty to trespassing at the rooftop area of Marina Bay Suites in March and into a construction site at Jalan Rajah between October and December of 2013.

Three other charges – including trespassing onto the same Toa Payoh rooftop and stealing a $5 reflective vest from there – were taken into consideration.

If found guilty of theft, Graaskov could be jailed for up to three years’ jail and fined. For trespassing, he faces up to three months’ jail and a fine of up to S$1,500, or both.

The other four youths are due to appear in court next month. CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Source link – > One of five Toa Payoh vandalism suspects pleads guilty






Breaking ! Why Dr Intan signed the letter to ICA for Yang Yin ?

Overheard :

I have seen government defenders constantly bombarded with the accusation that PM Lee is abetting Dr Intan, both MPs of Ang Mo Kio GRC of covering up the support for infamous Yang Yin as a grassroots leader. Many will be quite familiar as how the accusation goes, and what was the story behind.

I would have expected grassroots of Jalan Kayu to come out to counter those accusations because only them would have the sharper edge.

Anyway, the summary of the accusation is that Dr Intan had in essence supported a criminal in acquiring Permanent Residence in Singapore.

Maybe this may help some government defenders, who many had nothing to do with the PAP to understand how things work, and where did those accusation went wrong.

The 87 year old widow walked into the Jalan Kayu PAP branch one evening during their Meet-The-People session. She produced her IC to prove that she is indeed a citizen and resident of the constituency. After the registration and endless waiting she gets to be interviewed by the MP or her assistant. Procedural wise it makes no difference because ultimately it is the office of the MP who makes the representation to the relevant authorities.

This is about a story of an 87 year old lady living alone after her husband passed away, and in dire need of someone who can be around to care for her. She told the MP that Yang is her grandson from China and further probes shows that this Yang will not an economic burden to Singapore as his grandmother has over and above resources to ensure this is the case.

With all these facts, Dr Intan signed on the letter to ICA. With or without ding donging, the appeal was successful.

Critical point here is, the MP Dr Intan has in the first place no knowledge that a crime is in the making. No MP will, including all those sitting in the void decks of Aljunied GRC would treat those who come for help and assistance with a suspicion of criminal activities. No MP can also prevent their residents from committing crime. So the accusation of PM Lee and Dr Intan supporting a criminal into getting Permanent Residence status is arguing with the cart before the bull.

Yang Yin saw that the letter by the MP was indeed “powerful” and may have nourished a thought that if he could get close to the MP, it would be very useful in the future. So, upon getting the PR status (by whatever means unknown) he plots to join the Residents Committee under Peoples Association. To be fair, he may in fact be doing it out of gratefulness of being granted PR status. There is no rule to prevent PRs from serving in the community as this promotes harmony amongst residents.

Everyone who gets a card as a GRO member is casually known as grassroots leader. So I don’t see why Jalan Kayu cannot come out to defuse this and more so I don’t know what is the big fuss by the accusers over the use of the term grassroots leader.


Overheard on the overheard :

  • Maybe due to legacy or prolong periods of entrenchment, we have to reinforce the following distinction…..
    1) grassroot positions and office holders can be from political entities (PAP, WP, …..etc)
    2) grassroot functions and activities must be non-partisan in terms serving and interacting with the constituents in words, communication, and displays.


  • Point number 1, the elderly widow sponsored Mr Yang’s application as a Singapore Citizen through Dr Intan, and Dr Intan can reject the elderly widow but on very shaky ground.

    Point number 2, upon getting his PR, although I am not familiar with hos he got his Grassroots Leader (GRL) status, he may go to the Community Center, filled a form and submit to be consider as a volunteer. The approving authority may or may not consult the serving Advisor /MP. And even if the Advisor/MP is consulted, there is little means accorded to do background check.

    In short, all the naysayers, are in the words in Chinese looking for bone in an egg.