The Singapore Police Force (SPF) responded to accusations earlier today (July 5) of police abuse made by a man who was detained in police custody in February 2020 for drink-driving.
In the video posted on the Online Citizen platform, See claimed that he was locked up longer than needed and said that he supers claustrophobia and he was harm during his lockup.
However, the Singapore Police Force posted further statements to debunk the accusations.
Here are the statements Police posted on Facebook:
FURTHER STATEMENT ON ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE POLICE BY SEE KIAN BENG
In response to further media queries – the Police are aware of the further allegations carried by The Online Citizen Asia (“TOCA”), that See Kian Beng (“See”) was not aware that he had been arrested for drink driving.
In his latest statement, he said that he was not told that he had failed the initial breath analyser test at the roadblock.As we had stated in our previous statement, See had failed his first breath analyser test conducted at the Police roadblock, which gave a preliminary indication of the level of alcohol in his body.
Otherwise, there would have been no grounds to arrest him, and no reason to bring him to the lock-up to be subject to a Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) machine test for a more detailed reading.
See passed the BEA machine test, after multiple attempts, with a recorded result of 31 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, which is just below the legal limit of 35 micrograms.
It is possible for a person who fails the initial breath analyser test during checks at the roadblock to subsequently pass the BEA machine test at the Police lock-up. This is because the body will process the alcohol in a person’s bloodstream over time. The benefit of the doubt is given to the person should he pass the BEA machine test.
After See failed his breath analyser test at the roadblock, he was conveyed in a Police van to the lock-up. During this time, See was not placed in handcuffs, although he had been arrested for drink driving.
Police officers have the discretion not to apply handcuffs on a person arrested for drink driving if he is cooperative, but this does not mean that the person is not under arrest.In fact, See’s claims that he was not told that he had failed the initial breath analyser test at the roadblock, is contrary to the accounts that he had given to the Police in the course of investigations.
He had acknowledged that he had “failed” his breath analyser test at the roadblock, and hence had to be brought to the lock-up for a further test. While being processed for admission into the Police lock-up, See was given the opportunity to highlight his pre-existing medical conditions.
See did not declare claustrophobia when he was examined by the Nursing Officer. He was assessed to be fit for detention. Thereafter, See was placed in a Temporary Holding Area (THA) that is about 30 square metres in size, which is about half the floor area of a typical HDB 3-room flat, with a ceiling height of more than 5 metres, which is about twice that of most flats. The THA also has almost floor-to-ceiling transparent panels and overlooks a common corridor. See remained within the view of our officers while in the THA.
See eventually had to be transferred to a padded cell as he had refused to remain in the THA, and had threatened to hurt himself.
The letter which TOCA produced from a Medical Officer simply stated that See had failed to proceed with an MRI scan on 5 May 2016 as See claimed to suffer from claustrophobia. It is not a clinical diagnosis of claustrophobia.Police had tried to contact See before the posting had been carried online. However, he had refused our offer to arrange a further interview with him.
We thank the public for their continued support and trust in us. We hope to be able to devote our resources to keeping the public safe from crime and security threats, rather than having to debunk false allegations against our officers who are just trying their best to do their job.
Unfortunately, within the past two months, the Police have had to debunk two sets of false allegations which were published by the same social media platform.
However, it has now turned out that people overseas are outraged at how the Ang Moh, Benjamin Glynn, is being “treated”.
They have allegedly raised over $50,000 for his legal fees and accused Singapore, saying that Glynn is stuck under an “oppressive legal regime”.
They claimed that Glynn was “arrested unfairly and violently by the Singapore Police”.
They also said that “The people of Singapore are hell bent on starting a witch hunt against Ben for exercising his human right of freedom of movement without a mask.”
A post was recently published on Facebook about a doctor who cried while explaining the death of the patient to the family of the patient. The doctor broke down in tears and cried. However, a netizen that witnessed the scene thinks that professionals should not behave in that way.
Netizens were quick to respond and said that the doctor cried because he/she cared.
Here is the original post
“Thoughts on professionals/ employees crying at work?I was recently visiting my elderly aunt who was hospitalised at one of our major public hospitals.
We were chatting happily when all of a sudden there was a huge commotion at the opposite bed when one of the patients suddenly collapsed and became unconscious. The next thing I knew, a whole team of almost 10 people rushed in to attend to the patient with the alarms blaring throughout the hospital PA system about a “Code Blue” (which I later learned is called when patients collapse and need CPR). Fast forward about 1 hour later, the group of 8 (yes, I counted) slowly left the patient’s side one by one. The poor husband only came towards the end of the hour and so did not even know what had happened.
One of the junior doctors (very young, looks like just graduated) then stepped outside of the curtains to speak to him and to my shock, she only managed a few words then choked up and couldn’t even deliver the news properly and proceeded to excuse herself (probably to cry) just like that… Everyone else was just stepping aside to pack up and left the husband there standing in confusion and shock.
It took almost 10 minutes later until another more senior doctor, I think one of the professors, had to come in to help explain everything to the husband instead. His heartbreak I cannot even fathom. I don’t doubt that working in the hospital is difficult. There are surely a lot of deaths out there. But I don’t think it is right for medical PROFESSIONALS to put their own grief of losing their patient (whom they only see for a few hours at work every day) above the families’ (who are literal life and blood and whom they have known and loved from birth).
How can you even think your loss is greater than the families? It puts the families in very uncomfortable situations in needing to “comfort” the crying doctor/ nurse instead, or in very confusing situations like the above, which is ridiculous.
I suggest the hospitals should look into protocols to enforce that the more senior doctors should be the ones updating families, and for more training of professionalism in this aspect.
Grieving is natural and a part of life, but there is always a time and place for it, and I don’t think any workplace (much less hospitals) should be it.”
