If it's an offence then all parents who slap should be charged
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Is slapping someone a Civil or Criminal Offence in Singapore?
- Thread starter eErotica69
- Start date
If it is not a crime, then any stranger can slap you. Parents who use excessive force in disclipining their own children are also guilty of crimes related to child abuse. Use your farking brain before you talk nonsense.
She/he totally obsessed wit little Amos.
LHL should know..
In 1990, an incident occurred in a pre-cabinet meeting which was the beginning of entrenching further among the many in the core executive, resistance to Lee Hsien Loong’s long term ambitions for prime ministership. Prior to this meeting Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the Minister of Finance, and removed a number of files without Hu’s permission. At that time Lee’s office was on the 48th floor of what is now Temasek Tower and Hu’s was on the 50th floor.
At the pre-cabinet meeting Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by Tony Tan. Lee’s response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father’s age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee’s superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should of itself deserve respect in Chinese society. Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other minister’s portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded and eventually Lee lost his temper, and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face.
This caused an uproar in the cabinet and Lee was severely chastised by Goh Chok Tong. Dhanabalan stormed out of the room and did not return for some time. Lee, in response to a demand from Goh, subsequently apologised to Dhanabalan, Hu and Tan. Hu, Dhanabalan and Tan all initially stated that they would leave the cabinet as a result of this incident. Goh later took up the matter with Lee Kuan Yew who reportedly verbally thrashed his son over the matter.
This was apparently followed by a more sober, educational but equally critical assessment from Lee Hsien Loong’s mother, a talented though background political adviser. Lee Kuan Yew reportedly met later that day with Hu, Tan and Dhanabalan, apologised for his son’s behaviour and requested that they not resign, supported by a similar request from Goh Chok Tong.
All held out for some time, eventually Hu agreed to stay, but Dhanabalan and Tan both resolved to leave. This they did the following August 1991 elections, all without a public word against Lee Hsien Loong, continuing to subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family.
In 1990, an incident occurred in a pre-cabinet meeting which was the beginning of entrenching further among the many in the core executive, resistance to Lee Hsien Loong’s long term ambitions for prime ministership. Prior to this meeting Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the Minister of Finance, and removed a number of files without Hu’s permission. At that time Lee’s office was on the 48th floor of what is now Temasek Tower and Hu’s was on the 50th floor.
At the pre-cabinet meeting Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by Tony Tan. Lee’s response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father’s age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee’s superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should of itself deserve respect in Chinese society. Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other minister’s portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded and eventually Lee lost his temper, and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face.
This caused an uproar in the cabinet and Lee was severely chastised by Goh Chok Tong. Dhanabalan stormed out of the room and did not return for some time. Lee, in response to a demand from Goh, subsequently apologised to Dhanabalan, Hu and Tan. Hu, Dhanabalan and Tan all initially stated that they would leave the cabinet as a result of this incident. Goh later took up the matter with Lee Kuan Yew who reportedly verbally thrashed his son over the matter.
This was apparently followed by a more sober, educational but equally critical assessment from Lee Hsien Loong’s mother, a talented though background political adviser. Lee Kuan Yew reportedly met later that day with Hu, Tan and Dhanabalan, apologised for his son’s behaviour and requested that they not resign, supported by a similar request from Goh Chok Tong.
All held out for some time, eventually Hu agreed to stay, but Dhanabalan and Tan both resolved to leave. This they did the following August 1991 elections, all without a public word against Lee Hsien Loong, continuing to subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family.
One or two slaps may not be a crime but a Tort (i.e. a civil offence).
Explain your mother phua chee bye. Fuck home to matland and explain to your UMNO masters and Anwar.sex buddy on matland "Law".
UMNO mats and MIC Ah Nehs fuck your mother old chee bye got brench any law.or not?
Last edited:
Really? I am NOT a lawyer, but my intuition tells me that something is not right with this statement which is typically of the sound bites that Lightning uses to fool daft Sinkies.
Let me do some quick googling and will get back to you soon ......... after I sort out some minor problem ............
[video=youtube;V2GeLjpiJUs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2GeLjpiJUs[/video]
Ask bro Virus, he seems to know better.
1) I am NOT a lawyer. Just an android who can process things quite fast.
2) You are attempting to construct the upper layers before the supports are ready. In other words, your knowledge of legal methods is quite farked up.
3) There is no such thing as a civil offence. The word "offence" when used in legalese, so says my lesbian friend, is reserved solely for crimes.
4) The same set of facts and circumstances can give rise to a punishable crime (to be prosecuted by the State on behalf of the People) and a civil cause of action (if the aggrieved individual choses to take the matter to court and get his compensation). They are not mutually exclusive.
5) Putting aside the question of use of force on another person causing hurt, remember what I said about building the support first before constructing the top, the place to start in the pursuit of criminal retribution against that PAP dog who suka suka slap a stranger who happens to hold a different opinion from him are these provisions in the Sinkie Penal Code:
350. Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, .........., knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
Illustrations:
.........
(d) A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has therefore intentionally used force to Z, and if he has done so without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
352. Whoever ....... uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...Results.w3p;lette r=P;type=actsAll#pr351-he-.
6) If hurt or grevious hurt has been caused, then proceed to the other provisions of the Sinkie Penal Code.
7) You telling me that the overpaid Farktards at the AGC don't know this? Or don't dare to apply what they know? Which raises the question of in their mind who do they think they are serving? The PAP or the People?
8) Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go to the bridge.
[video=youtube;TgnUFan6iwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgnUFan6iwg[/video]
Last edited:
Ok, Tort (civil wrong) not civil offence.
So it is a TORT (civil wrong) or crminal.offence?
So it is a TORT (civil wrong) or crminal.offence?
I am glad that you managed to get point 3, but seem unable to grasp point 4 - it is BOTH a tort AND a criminal offence.
a tort need not b physical harm but results from one's action that causes damage or suffering regardless of whether a breach of duty or contract exist between the plaintiff and the defendent.
these actions may be deceit, wilful, nuisance, intentional or unintentional.
so even if the bugger was charged, a civil suit can still follow.
these actions may be deceit, wilful, nuisance, intentional or unintentional.
so even if the bugger was charged, a civil suit can still follow.
Maximum is $1,000.
Public Prosecutor v Chew Kwee Mui
[2005] SGMC 33
Suit No: PS 1296/2005, MA 140/2005
Decision Date: 29 Nov 2005
Court: Magistrates Court
Coram: May Lucia Mesenas
Counsel: Inspector Alaudeen for the appellant, Respondent in person
Subject Area / Catchwords
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Sentencing - Principles - Aggravating factors - Section 73(2) Penal Code not applicable as accused not victim's employer, but victim falling within category of vulnerable victims which s 73(2) aimed at protecting - Accused having been in position of authority vis-a-vis victim
Criminal Law - Offences - Hurt - Voluntarily causing hurt - Accused a maid agent - Victim having been brought to accused's home to be trained as domestic maid - Accused slapping victim on cheek, pulling her hair and hitting her on face with plastic clothes hanger - Section 73(2) Penal Code not applicable as accused not victimÂ’s employer - Sentence - Sections 73, 323 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Sentencing - Principles - Mitigating factors - Accused first offender for such offence - Accused showing remorse - Injuries suffered by victim minor, and evidence of their true extent not before court - No evidence of abuse having occurred over prolonged period or on more than one occasion - Matter appearing to be one-off incident where accused had possibly acted on spur of moment due to stress created by personal circumstances
Up
Judgment
29 November 2005
Magistrate May Lucia Mesenas:
1 On 11 November 2005, the Accused pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code Cap 224. The charge is set out below:
Charge – Exhibit “P1”
“You, Chew Kwee Mui, female/40 years, NRIC No. S1715578D, are charged that you on 1st day of July 2005 at or about 7.30pm, at No.1Elias Green, #02-03, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Efi Nuraeni, to wit, by slapping her on the cheek, pulling her hair and hitting her with a plastic cloth hanger on the face, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Cap 224.
Statement of Facts
2 The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (Exhibit ‘A’) pertaining to the above charge, without qualification. The salient points are as follows:
(a) On 13 June 2005, the victim, Efi Nuraeni, came to Singapore to work as a domestic maid. At the material time, the accused is one of the two partners of the maid agency “Domestic Help Point”;
(b) On 30 June 2005, the victim was brought back to the accused’s home at No. 1 Elias Green, #02-03, for training;
(c) On 1 July 2005 at about 7.30pm, the victim informed the accused that she wanted to stay with another agent. Upon hearing this, the accused became angry and gave the victim a slap on the cheek, pulled her hair and also hit her face with a plastic cloth hanger.
Antecedents and Mitigation
3 The Accused is a first offender for such offences. Her last conviction was on 27 August 1983 for a theft offence under section 380 of the Penal Code Cap 224 for which she was sentenced to a fine of $300 and one day imprisonment. The following mitigating factors are highlighted below:
(a) The accused is a divorcee and has three children;
(b) She is holding onto three jobs and taking care of her mother;
(c) In the event that a custodial sentence is imposed, there will be no one to look after them.
Prosecution’s submission on sentence
4 The Prosecuting Officer, Inspector Alaudeen informed the court that the prosecution does not view the present matter as a maid abuse case. Consequently, section 73 of the Penal Code Cap 224 was not invoked as the accused was not the employer of the maid at the material time and hence the enhanced punishment of ‘one and a half times the amount of punishment’ to which the accused would otherwise have been liable was not applicable in this case. The punishment prescribed for section 323 of the Penal Code Cap 224, simpliciter, would therefore be a maximum imprisonment term of up to one year or to a maximum fine of up to $1,000 or to both. Furthermore, the prosecution had submitted that it was not pressing for a custodial sentence.
Sentencing Considerations
5 The prosecution did not invoke section 73(2) of the Penal Code Cap 224 as the facts of the case did not satisfy the criteria under section 73(1) of the Penal Code where such enhanced punishment is applicable to ‘an employer of a domestic maid or a member of the employer’s household’. In the present case, the accused was not the employer of the victim at the material time but, in fact, the maid agent for which the victim was undergoing training. Notwithstanding that the enhanced punishment may not be applicable to the accused, I was nonetheless mindful of the fact that the victim falls in the category of vulnerable victims for which section 73(2) of the Penal Code Cap 224 was aimed to protect. In addition, I was mindful of the accused’s position vis-à-vis the victim, in that the accused, being the maid agent, was in a position of authority even though she was not the direct employer of the maid. For maid abuse cases prosecuted under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code Cap 224, the courts have taken a serious view on such matters and have imposed custodial sentences: PP v Chong Siew Chin [2002] 1 SLR 117, Ong Ting Ting v PP [2004] 4 SLR 53.
6 However, I also took into account the following mitigating factors that the accused was a first offender for such offences and was remorseful in her demeanour. Furthermore, the injuries, if at all, were minor as submitted by the prosecution. There was no medical report tendered by the prosecution to confirm the same either. The prosecution also did not press for a custodial sentence and neither were there any aggravating circumstances which were brought to the attention to this court save for what was stated in the Statement of Facts.
7 Notwithstanding that the injuries were minor, and that the true extent of the victim’s injuries were not before the court in the absence of a medical report, I was also mindful that the accused had used a plastic cloth hanger to hit the victim’s face (which is a vulnerable part of the body), in addition to pulling her hair. However, there was no evidence that the abuse occurred over a prolonged period or that it occurred on more than one occasion, which would be aggravating. It appears from the statement of facts that it was an one-off incident where the accused possibly acted on the spur of the moment. Afterall, she was holding three jobs at the material time (which was undisputed), and the stress of juggling work together with taking care of three children and an aged parent, would have put a tremendous amount of stress on the accused at the material time.
8 Having considered all the factors, I am of the view that a fine would be appropriate and accordingly, I sentenced her to the maximum fine of $1,000 in default two weeks’ imprisonment.
9 Dissatisfied with the sentence of a fine only, the prosecution lodged a Notice of Appeal on 17 November 2005. The fine has since been fully paid up by the accused.
Public Prosecutor v Chew Kwee Mui
[2005] SGMC 33
Suit No: PS 1296/2005, MA 140/2005
Decision Date: 29 Nov 2005
Court: Magistrates Court
Coram: May Lucia Mesenas
Counsel: Inspector Alaudeen for the appellant, Respondent in person
Subject Area / Catchwords
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Sentencing - Principles - Aggravating factors - Section 73(2) Penal Code not applicable as accused not victim's employer, but victim falling within category of vulnerable victims which s 73(2) aimed at protecting - Accused having been in position of authority vis-a-vis victim
Criminal Law - Offences - Hurt - Voluntarily causing hurt - Accused a maid agent - Victim having been brought to accused's home to be trained as domestic maid - Accused slapping victim on cheek, pulling her hair and hitting her on face with plastic clothes hanger - Section 73(2) Penal Code not applicable as accused not victimÂ’s employer - Sentence - Sections 73, 323 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Sentencing - Principles - Mitigating factors - Accused first offender for such offence - Accused showing remorse - Injuries suffered by victim minor, and evidence of their true extent not before court - No evidence of abuse having occurred over prolonged period or on more than one occasion - Matter appearing to be one-off incident where accused had possibly acted on spur of moment due to stress created by personal circumstances
Up
Judgment
29 November 2005
Magistrate May Lucia Mesenas:
1 On 11 November 2005, the Accused pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code Cap 224. The charge is set out below:
Charge – Exhibit “P1”
“You, Chew Kwee Mui, female/40 years, NRIC No. S1715578D, are charged that you on 1st day of July 2005 at or about 7.30pm, at No.1Elias Green, #02-03, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Efi Nuraeni, to wit, by slapping her on the cheek, pulling her hair and hitting her with a plastic cloth hanger on the face, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Cap 224.
Statement of Facts
2 The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (Exhibit ‘A’) pertaining to the above charge, without qualification. The salient points are as follows:
(a) On 13 June 2005, the victim, Efi Nuraeni, came to Singapore to work as a domestic maid. At the material time, the accused is one of the two partners of the maid agency “Domestic Help Point”;
(b) On 30 June 2005, the victim was brought back to the accused’s home at No. 1 Elias Green, #02-03, for training;
(c) On 1 July 2005 at about 7.30pm, the victim informed the accused that she wanted to stay with another agent. Upon hearing this, the accused became angry and gave the victim a slap on the cheek, pulled her hair and also hit her face with a plastic cloth hanger.
Antecedents and Mitigation
3 The Accused is a first offender for such offences. Her last conviction was on 27 August 1983 for a theft offence under section 380 of the Penal Code Cap 224 for which she was sentenced to a fine of $300 and one day imprisonment. The following mitigating factors are highlighted below:
(a) The accused is a divorcee and has three children;
(b) She is holding onto three jobs and taking care of her mother;
(c) In the event that a custodial sentence is imposed, there will be no one to look after them.
Prosecution’s submission on sentence
4 The Prosecuting Officer, Inspector Alaudeen informed the court that the prosecution does not view the present matter as a maid abuse case. Consequently, section 73 of the Penal Code Cap 224 was not invoked as the accused was not the employer of the maid at the material time and hence the enhanced punishment of ‘one and a half times the amount of punishment’ to which the accused would otherwise have been liable was not applicable in this case. The punishment prescribed for section 323 of the Penal Code Cap 224, simpliciter, would therefore be a maximum imprisonment term of up to one year or to a maximum fine of up to $1,000 or to both. Furthermore, the prosecution had submitted that it was not pressing for a custodial sentence.
Sentencing Considerations
5 The prosecution did not invoke section 73(2) of the Penal Code Cap 224 as the facts of the case did not satisfy the criteria under section 73(1) of the Penal Code where such enhanced punishment is applicable to ‘an employer of a domestic maid or a member of the employer’s household’. In the present case, the accused was not the employer of the victim at the material time but, in fact, the maid agent for which the victim was undergoing training. Notwithstanding that the enhanced punishment may not be applicable to the accused, I was nonetheless mindful of the fact that the victim falls in the category of vulnerable victims for which section 73(2) of the Penal Code Cap 224 was aimed to protect. In addition, I was mindful of the accused’s position vis-à-vis the victim, in that the accused, being the maid agent, was in a position of authority even though she was not the direct employer of the maid. For maid abuse cases prosecuted under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code Cap 224, the courts have taken a serious view on such matters and have imposed custodial sentences: PP v Chong Siew Chin [2002] 1 SLR 117, Ong Ting Ting v PP [2004] 4 SLR 53.
6 However, I also took into account the following mitigating factors that the accused was a first offender for such offences and was remorseful in her demeanour. Furthermore, the injuries, if at all, were minor as submitted by the prosecution. There was no medical report tendered by the prosecution to confirm the same either. The prosecution also did not press for a custodial sentence and neither were there any aggravating circumstances which were brought to the attention to this court save for what was stated in the Statement of Facts.
7 Notwithstanding that the injuries were minor, and that the true extent of the victim’s injuries were not before the court in the absence of a medical report, I was also mindful that the accused had used a plastic cloth hanger to hit the victim’s face (which is a vulnerable part of the body), in addition to pulling her hair. However, there was no evidence that the abuse occurred over a prolonged period or that it occurred on more than one occasion, which would be aggravating. It appears from the statement of facts that it was an one-off incident where the accused possibly acted on the spur of the moment. Afterall, she was holding three jobs at the material time (which was undisputed), and the stress of juggling work together with taking care of three children and an aged parent, would have put a tremendous amount of stress on the accused at the material time.
8 Having considered all the factors, I am of the view that a fine would be appropriate and accordingly, I sentenced her to the maximum fine of $1,000 in default two weeks’ imprisonment.
9 Dissatisfied with the sentence of a fine only, the prosecution lodged a Notice of Appeal on 17 November 2005. The fine has since been fully paid up by the accused.
Civil. Unless the one kanna slapped is LKY or his son.
No crime if you have directorships to compensate.
Similar threads
