10 New Facts About the Saga Whereby A Man Alleged He Was Abused by SPF Officers

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) and The Online Citizen (TOC) haven’t exactly been BFFs lately.

As you know, the two clashed last month after the latter shared an interview with an elderly woman who claimed she was abused by SPF officers.

SPF later released footage from an officer’s bodycam to show that the officers did not mistreat the woman, and even bought food for her. Their investigations also revealed that the woman had dementia and may not have been able to remember what happened.

The beef was put to bed, and everyone moved on with their lives.

But recently, TOC uploaded a video of someone claiming he was abused by police officers at a police station, which is not a headline many will ignore.

So, what exactly happened, and what does the SPF has to say about it?

Here are 10 facts about the latest TOC-SPF squabble, the second installment in a series that promises to go on forever.

It All Started With A Breathalyser Test

In the early hours of 14 February last year, a man who we shall refer to as See was having supper at a coffee shop in Geylang with his friends.

See’s friends suggested they go to a pub and he agreed.

“I said okay, but I told them that I’m driving, I’m not going to drink,” he told TOC.

However, just as the pub was closing, his friends coaxed him into having a drink.

“So I think I took a glass or two of beer, then after that, we waited until the lights were back on and we went back home.”

“I drove back as usual… I could still control the wheels,” he said.

Near his home, See was stopped at a roadblock where officers administered a breathalyser test.

The result, See said, was inconclusive.

See insisted that he was sober but the officers informed him that his car would be towed and that he would be brought to the police station for further tests.

The Man Said He Passed A Breathylser Test at Cantonment Station

After reaching Cantonment Police station at about 4:00am, a “very nice” officer attended to See to administer several breathalyser tests.

During the fourth round of tests, the man said he finally passed.

“The receipt [was] printed out [showing] the result. The officer told me, ‘It’s 31.’ I asked him, what does 31 mean? He said 31 means pass,” he said.

He Claimed He Was Forced Into A Padded Cell & Suffered Injuries As A Result

See said he was initially told that he could leave within half an hour.

But then several police officers allegedly moved him to a padded cell even though See protested strongly and said he suffers from claustrophobia.

Here’s where the alleged abuse occurs, according to See.

Several officers allegedly manhandled him and handcuffed him to a wheelchair before forcing him into a cell.

“One fella was using their elbow onto my neck… I really couldn’t breathe. They started to kick me, using unnecessary force. One guy—I don’t know who—stepped on my feet,” he said.

See claimed he sustained several injuries as a result of the officers’ use of force.

He Was Allegedly Forced to Relieve Himself in the Padded Cell

At one point, See made a request to use the toilet.

“One of the Chinese officers, I can remember, he opened a small window. He looked at me, and he giggled. He gave me a sinister smile before shutting the window,” he said.

He waited for around ten minutes without any response, so he relieved himself in the corner of the padded room.

The man added that the air-conditioned room was very cold and that he had to curl up to warm himself, as he was only wearing a polo shirt and shorts.

“No extra clothing, no blanket,” he said.

The man claims that he was also not given anything to drink or eat during his stint at the station.

Due to his claustrophobia, See said he suffered panic attacks in his cell.

A GP Determined That He Had Suffered Injuries From A Blunt Object

When he was finally brought out of the cell, See claims that he had no strength to walk on his own and had to be supported by two officers.

“I did not commit any offence and you purposely put me into the cell… ” he told one of them.

“I’m not drunk. I passed my test. Why do you have to do this to me?”

See later visited a general practitioner (GP) to document his injuries. The doctor determined that he had suffered injuries caused by blows from a blunt object (like sticks, fists, feet, etc.) within a day of the examination.

The GP also concluded that the injuries were not self-inflicted.

The Man Raised the Matter to SPF, His MP & MHA, But Was Dissatisfied With Their Response

Shortly after his release, See lodged a police report about the abuse he allegedly suffered at Cantonment Police Station.

There, he was given a medical report form for documenting complaints of violence.

The man also raised the matter to Jalan Besar Member of Parliament (MP) Heng Chee How, who then wrote a letter to the police.

Months later, in June, the police responded to See’s formal complaint saying he was placed in the cell for his own safety while officers were carrying out investigations.

Dissatisfied with their response, the man approached a lawyer for help, but wasn’t exactly encouraged by his words.

“You are trying to sue the Singapore Police Force… This is going to be very draggy and tedious,” the lawyer allegedly said to him.

“They are so afraid of the police… So actually, who will police the police?” The man asked.

The man also claimed to have approached several news outlets, none of whom covered his story.

See then turned to TOC when the alternative press site hit the headlines last month.

See also wrote to Minister of Home Affairs K Shanmugam about the matter on two occasions in June, but has not received a response.

SPF Responds, Says Man’s Account of Events is “Misleading”

Yesterday (29 Jun), SPF responded to the man’s claims in a lengthy post on Facebook.

It claims that statements give a misleading impression, because “he has not set out the full facts.”

According to them, See had failed his breathalyser test at a police roadblock along Boon Keng Road on 14 February 2020 at around 3:40am.

“He was brought back to the lock-up facility at Police Cantonment Complex at about 4:00am where he was processed for detention while pending the conduct of a further breath analyser test via the Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) machine,” they added.

SPF Explained That “Necessary Force” Had to Be Used Because the Man Put Up Strong Resistance

SPF also explained why See had to be put into a padded cell.

While in custody, See was brought to wait in a temporary holding area in between his multiple BEA test attempts.

“After he had completed his BEA test attempts, he was escorted to another temporary holding area to await the processing of his release, pending confirmation that he was not required for further investigations,” it said.

However, See allegedly refused to enter the temporary holding area, telling officers he was claustrophobic and that he would harm himself if put into the temporary holding area again.

“See insisted on waiting along a common corridor, which would affect the movement of persons, including other persons-in-custody, within the facilities. Officers explained that he could not wait there, but he refused to move,” SPF said.

“See continued to disregard officers’ repeated instructions to move into the temporary holding area and warned officers that he might cause harm to himself.

“In view of his threat to harm himself and out of concern for his safety, officers decided to transfer See to a padded cell instead, using a wheelchair.

“See put up a strong resistance entering into the padded cell and struggled with officers. Despite repeated advice by the officers, See refused to comply with officers’ instruction. Officers therefore had to apply necessary force to physically move him into the padded cell,” SPF said.

SPF Said It Did Not Find Any Evidence of Wrongdoing

SPF said it conducted internal investigations, which included reviewing CCTV footage, and concluded that there was no evidence of abuse or wrongdoing.

“The findings were conveyed to See in June 2020. See then wrote in again one year later, on 2 June 2021, to enquire about this case. The Police had tried to contact him on two separate occasions and offered to arrange a further interview with him to hear his concerns. However, he declined to be interviewed,” SPF said.

SPF also explained that when See made a request to use the toilet at 6:00am, arrangements had to be made for more officers to escort him to the toilet due to his prior struggle.

“When the officers got to the cell, See was observed to be sleeping, hence they did not wake him. Prior to this, See was allowed to use the toilet on two occasions at about 4:30am and 4:55am.”

SPF added that CCTV footage showed there were no signs of See limping or exhibiting discomfort when he eventually left the padded cell.

“He was able to walk normally and was escorted by officers.”

The Man Released A Statement in Response to SPF’s Statement

A day later, See released a statement through TOC in response to SPF’s statement on Facebook, challenging some of SPF’s claims.

See said that at no point was he told at the roadblock that he was being arrested.

“I was told to wait for the police van and to accompany the van back to the cantonment police complex and I was given the form—which was incomplete and meant to be kept by the police officer at the roadblock,” he wrote, adding that he was never handcuffed.

He also argued that SPF’s statement does not contradict his claim that he was forced to relieve himself in the cell, nor does it deny that he was so weak he had to be helped out of the cell by two officers.

SPF claimed that it reached out to See for an interview, but See said that the police only “started to contact” him on 23 June 2021 after TOC wrote to the police for their response on 14 June 2021.

“SPF keep insisting that I had been arrested, but it cannot provide any documentation to prove this assertion. If I had been arrested, can SPF name the police officer who arrested me and read out my rights to me?” the man wrote.

See was also displeased with the fact that his name was published in SPF’s statement.

“I would like to express my utmost disappointment to the SPF for disclosing my full name in its statement on Facebook. Is SPF trying to intimidate me and my family members so that I will not pursue the matter any further? Does Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) still exist?”

Whoever you believe, one thing’s for sure: this saga has not ended yet.

You can watch the man’s interview with TOC here, if you have 28 minutes to spare:

Feature Image: YouTube (theonlinecitizen toc)