SBS Transit: She claws driver till he BLEEDS .

[reachme2003]

it was so obvious from day one that it was and continue to be so. dont know why someone came in and started doubting their authority!

Just for information, Transitlink is owned by both bus operators (SBST and SMRT). Which means the EZlink card we are holding also belongs to them and they have the right to confiscate it if misused by anyone. So the bus driver did was part of the company regulations.

 

[westwest2]

Actually, if you board the bus it's written on a notice of the bus that the Bus Captain have the rights to confiscate your card if necessary for checking. I dunno why someone mentioned about about Civil Law when SBS gave the rights to the bus captains to confiscate any cards necessary?

cause you will have to accept the contract before getting the card and using it...

 

[Godzilla Invades]

cause you will have to accept the contract before getting the card and using it...

If you are using something which is own by someone else, you will have to check the T & C. I am sure if you rent out your flat, you will need to state what you can and cannot do to the house in the contract before agreeing to rent out a flat.

Many people never read this fine line behind the cards as many assume it's their own property.

If you read the back of the card.

"Use governed by Regulations and Published Conditions."

"This card shall be retained if it has been tampered with, MISUSED, replaced or refunded.

 

[westwest2]

If you are using something which is own by someone else, you will have to check the T & C. I am sure if you rent out your flat, you will need to state what you can and cannot do to the house in the contract before agreeing to rent out a flat.

Many people never read this fine line behind the cards as many assume it's their own property.

If you read the back of the card.

"Use governed by Regulations and Published Conditions."

"This card shall be retained if it has been tampered with, MISUSED, replaced or refunded.

another thing is that the terms can be implied by conduct...

 

[Override2Zion]

I think she'll get some good time in the women's prison. Unpardonable action. Good thing the bus captain was calm and not retaliate, even under the cover of self-defence, won't look good hitting a girl. Question is why no one from the bus stopped her when she assaulted the bus captain? Everyone just stood by to watch show.

 

[westwest2]

I think she'll get some good time in the women's prison. Unpardonable action. Good thing the bus captain was calm and not retaliate, even under the cover of self-defence, won't look good hitting a girl. Question is why no one from the bus stopped her when she assaulted the bus captain? Everyone just stood by to watch show.

its customer vs company ma...they also pay to get a bus ride...the gal can file for damages against the company as they should have protect its customer in its property...

 

[Godzilla Invades]

I think she'll get some good time in the women's prison. Unpardonable action. Good thing the bus captain was calm and not retaliate, even under the cover of self-defence, won't look good hitting a girl. Question is why no one from the bus stopped her when she assaulted the bus captain? Everyone just stood by to watch show.

That is Singapore style for you lor...........love to watch only. Not many people are willing to lend a helping hand. Then again, we do not know what really happend.....between the driver's conversation with the woman.....

 

[vince123123]

Here's an extract of a series of letters published in the Straits Times Forum on this topic for reading:

Why some ez-link cards may be retained

WE REFER to the letter, 'Review practice of retaining ez-link cards' (ST, May 23), by Mdm Telma Gomez. When a concession ez-link card is tapped against the bus card reader, commuters will hear two beeps and see a green light if the card has been read successfully.

However, if no beep tone is heard or a red light and a series of five beeps are produced by the card reader, this indicates a problem with the card, and that the transaction could not be conducted successfully.

The bus operator reserves the right to retain the card for investigation and verification. This is for the protection of ez-link card users in general, as the card may have been tampered with, misused, replaced or refunded.

Concurrently, a message will be shown on the bus captain's fare console to guide him on what he should do.

Bus captains are authorised to check, verify and, if necessary, retain cards and passes for investigation.

This includes cards that have been reported lost or stolen or have expired, as well as those that are misused by persons who are not entitled to concessionary travel.
The use of ez-link cards is governed by regulations and published conditions, as indicated on the back of the card. For details, commuters may visit www.transitlink.com.sg

Bus captains are trained on the proper procedures when retaining cards. If a card is retained for investigation, they would issue a retention slip to the cardholder.

After investigation by the bus operator, the card will be sent to TransitLink for cardholders' collection.

Cardholders may call the TransitLink Hotline 1800-2255-663 after five working days to check on the status of their card.

We thank the writer for her feedback.

Kathryn Lau (Ms)
Assistant Corporate Communications Manager
Transit Link Pte Ltd
Tammy Tan (Ms)
Director
Corporate Communications
SBS Transit

June 14, 2007 TransitLink and SBS have no statutory right to retain ez-link cards
I REFER to the article, 'Why some ez-link cards may be retained', by TransitLink and SBS Transit (ST, June 1). TransitLink and SBS assert that 'authorisation" is given to their bus captains to retain ez-link cards and further state that the use of ez-link cards is governed by 'regulations and published conditions".
This may appear officious sounding, but a look of these regulations and published conditions shows that Transit Link merely has a contractual right to retain such cards in accordance with its conditions.
This is not the same as saying that they have a statutory right.
In other words, if any disgruntled passengers wish to dispute the bus captain's right to retain their ez-link cards, the bus captain has no legal authority to confiscate the cards.

TransitLink's only recourse would be to file a civil suit in the courts against the customer for damages and incur substantial legal fees in the process.

Until and unless there are statutory rights given to transport operators, they do not have a statutory right to confiscate ez-link cards, even though the 'published conditions" state that the cards are the property of the transport operators.

We would like to highlight that SBS Transit and TransitLink have never stated that the right of retention is statutory in nature.

Each bus trip is a contract of carriage between the operator of the carriage and the passenger, subject to the consideration in the form of a fare by way of cash or ez-link card.

The use of the ez-link card is governed by the published General Conditions of Issue and Use for EZ-Link Cards. According to the Conditions, despite the payment of card cost for any ez-link card purchased, all ez-link cards remain the property of EZ-Link Pte Ltd.

Furthermore, the ez-link card must be produced at any time for inspection by any authorised personnel of EZ-Link Pte Ltd, the transport operators or qualified merchant. In addition, the Conditions entitle them to retain any ez-link card, which it reasonably suspects or has reason to believe to have been fraudulently issued, stolen, tampered with or misused.

Hence, the bus captain has the clear contractual right to retain an ez-link card once the above circumstances are met.

Kathryn Lau (Ms)
Assistant Corporate Communications Manager
TransitLink

I have emphasised some portions in the last letter.

 

[vince123123]

(cont'd from previous post)
My Comments

Note that the first letter never states that SBS Transit and TransitLink's position is that the right of retention is statutory in nature. Transit Link is trying to do double talk but failed in the process.

The general public who may have misunderstood the officious sounding tone of the 1 June 2007 letter as meaning that they would face statutory or criminal liability if they do not comply with any demands to inspect or retain the ez-link card, when it was merely a contractual dispute.

Transit Link has tried to give the impression that it has an absolute right and that customers MUST produce the card, when it is in fact, just a mere contractual right. This is misleading to the public (as can be seen from this thread, where so many people think that they have no choice but to allow the bus driver to confiscate it- some in fact quote the EZ LINK T&C and think that contractual obligations MUST be followed no matter whether they are justified or not).

Ms Lau's 21 June 2007 letter states that "the ez-link card MUST be produced at any time for inspection" - this would be more correctly phrased as "the customer has a contractual obligation to produce the ez-link card at any time for inspection".

Any customer who is sure that he is free of fraud, tampering or using a stolen card, can decline production or retention of the card.

The bus captain will have no right to forcibly (whether physically or verbally) demand for production or confiscation - to do so would expose the bus captain and/or SBS Transit to possible criminal liability.

SBS's only right in such a situation, is to take the customer to court and sue for damages, incurring substantial legal costs in the process without clear prospect of quantifying any significant monetary damages.

By way of analogy, if A buys goods from B, and B inserts in his terms and conditions that if A doesn't pay, B will have the right to go into A's house and cart away his property. If indeed A does not pay, B does not yet have an absolute right to cart away A's possession. B will have to sue in a court of law to get judgement in his favour before he can enforce that term. If B does not, he may be liabile to A for housebreaking, burglary, robbery, theft etc. Why is this so? Because, A may have a legitimate reason for not paying (goods faulty, etc) and B does not have the right to enforce his term immediately.

In this case, (where A is the commuter and B is SBS/TransitLink) where A thinks that B has no right to confiscate the card because A knows the card is his - hence A is disputing the fact that SBS/TL has the right to enforce the term since the preconditions is not met. Hence, there is now a legal dispute on the contract. If B wants to enforce that right, he has to get a court to issue a judgement saying that he has the right to enforce his term against A.

Criminal Liability

If a bus driver forcibly tries to confiscate the card, or tries to snatch the card out of the customer's hands, or reaches in for the card inside the customer's wallet, or even retains the card after the customer said that he does not consent, the bus driver may be liable for the following offences:

350. Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or 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.

351. Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

378. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

390. When theft is robbery.
(2) Theft is “robbery” if, in order to commit theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

If the overzealous bus driver tries to prevent someone from leaving the bus, he may be liable for:

339. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person, so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

340. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

Guys, no point guessing who is right or wrong here. The justice system shall decide. No one knows if the driver wispered some words/phrases to irate the young lady to make her turned wild.

As for whether the driver has the right to seize the card form the lady, the system here acts according to T&Cs. "Just follow law" is usually the ans. Human Rights are played pretty low here to be frank.

The terms and conditions are contractual civil rights. Every day, there are many many civil disputes where parties sue one another over disputes on how the terms should be read, or if in fact, there is a breach of the term, or whether the term is even valid/fair/enforceable in the first place.

Just because it is in a T&C doesn't automatically make it correct. What more, comitting criminal acts to enforce civil rights.

As we become more 'civilised' we become more demanding. We ask for our right. We become very individualist and forget about others feeling and and we dont follow the law of nature!

The rule of nature is simple..Wrong is wrong and right is right but in our world, we need witness, we must restain ourselves, we must... we must... Any way, it is a matter to time before she gets herself into more troubles. let the society takes care of her!

The reason why we ask is because there are many big companies and organisations who try to mislead people by giving half a story. As seen from above, the way TransitLink wrote its press release - I'm not surprised that many people think that they have no choice but to give it up. Even after some people have tried to poke holes at this "illusion", other people still think they have no choice.

I don't think we should ever follow what other people feed you blindly, go ask your own questions and find out for yourself, or engage in discussions of similar nature as this one.

Just for information, Transitlink is owned by both bus operators (SBST and SMRT). Which means the EZlink card we are holding also belongs to them and they have the right to confiscate it if misused by anyone. So the bus driver did was part of the company regulations.

Yes, it is but "company regulations" - whether or not it is legal is another question. We all know about company regulations that disallow photographers to take photos of publicly viewable buildings or shopfronts or other.

A company can come up with any regulations or policies it likes, but that does not make them valid, legal, or even correct. We have been fed with too much of "It is company policy" and nowadays, when that is said to Singaporeans, no one even stops to think and question whether the policy is even correct or validly enforceable.

 

[vince123123]

Recently, the Police did release a press statement about wrongful confinement.

Store detectives do not have the right to detain a person based on mere suspicion, only a police office may do so, after reasonable suspicion or viewing of any requisite video evidence or independant witnesses.

could you direct us to where we can find the press statement? thanks.

I'm not quite sure myself whether the Police did in fact release such a press statement, but I think the following two letters published in the ST Forum would be useful reading for overzealous security guards detaining people:

When retailers run the risk of a false imprisonment

MADAM Kamalia Sailan's letter, 'Couple wrongly suspected of shoplifting and humiliated' (Online forum, July 3), raises the issue of the liability of a department store which detains suspected shoplifters who subsequently turn out to be innocent.
Department stores have to exercise the utmost care and prudence before detaining suspects, otherwise they may face a false imprisonment (FI) suit.

FI is any intentional detention of a person not authorised by law and the plaintiff's remedy is to recover damages for the injury by action of trespass.

It is the non-consensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short. Once the plaintiff has proven the elements of the tort, the defendant has the burden of establishing that the detention was legally justified.

FI affects a person's freedom of movement. Usually this involves confining a person within fixed boundaries like an office or room. Both the threat of being physically confined and actually being physically confined can be considered FI if the customer is not free to leave. Uniformed security officers sometimes give the impression that they are operating under some colour of authority and that customers must comply with their demands .
Detaining a customer and transporting him to some room or office without reasonable cause could be considered FI. Some retailers arrogate to themselves the right to detain a customer for almost any rule infraction while they collect the person's identification or take his photograph.

If a customer consents to an exit bag check or to a meeting in the manager's office, it is not considered FI unless that consent is later revoked by the customer. For example, a voluntary meeting can change to confinement if the exit to the room is repeatedly blocked by the store manager who wants to keep the customer detained until the police arrive. A customer must always be free to go unless lawfully detained.

A department store makes a deliberate choice when it decides to apprehend and arrest those who attempt to steal their merchandise. Making that choice creates a legal responsibility of doing it correctly. This involves the proper hiring, training and supervising those who make shoplifter apprehensions and arrests. In the retail loss prevention profession, the possibility of falsely accusing and detaining a customer for theft is a business reality that must be addressed. Security guards employed by a store should not frivolously apprehend a customer unless they have proper evidence to suspect that he has stolen some items from the store.

In most countries, citizens value their civil liberties and constitutional rights and do not appreciate submitting to unlawful seizure and search. Because of this, there has been a legal trend of suing the department store anytime a customer is wrongfully accused of shoplifting .

The ingredients of an FI claim are:
1. You must actually see the shoplifter approach the merchandise.
2. You must see the shoplifter select the merchandise.
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, or carry away the merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter.
5. You must observe that the shoplifter failed to pay for the merchandise
6. You must apprehend the shoplifter outside the store.

If these steps are followed, FI lawsuits can be obviated. These steps have been designed to establish a high degree of probable cause for detention and arrest of a person suspected of shoplifting. If any of these steps is skipped, the chance for FI increases proportionately.

The retail industry does not like the word 'false imprisonment' and have resorted to words like 'non-productive detention' and 'investigative detention'. Whatever the terminology you use, if you stop a customer who is not holding or has in his possession stolen merchandise, you run the risk of an FI claim.

July 12, 2007
False imprisonment - criminal prosecution also possible

I REFER to the article, 'When retailers run the risk of a false imprisonment' (Online forum, July 6).

Other than the tort of false imprisonment, which is a civil claim, it is also possible that false detention by security staff may lead to criminal offences being disclosed.

In particular, Section 339 of the Penal Code provides for the offence of wrongful restraint, and Section 340, wrongful confinement. Both carry sentences of fines between $500 and $1,000, or jail of up to one year or both.

The route of criminal prosecution as an alternative means of redress should be highlighted as a civil claim for false imprisonment may involve significant legal costs on the part of the complainant.

 

[vince123123]

Actually, if you board the bus it's written on a notice of the bus that the Bus Captain have the rights to confiscate your card if necessary for checking. I dunno why someone mentioned about about Civil Law when SBS gave the rights to the bus captains to confiscate any cards necessary?

SBS/TL is a commercial entity, not a government body. The conferring of authority is only as good as the contract. The popular misconception is that once it is written on some paper/notice or captured in some T&C, you are automatically have no choice but to comply. If everyone thinks that way, there is no need for civil suits in courts anymore. Everyone can just enforce their contractual rights unilaterally.

it was so obvious from day one that it was and continue to be so. dont know why someone came in and started doubting their authority!

If you were referring to me (which I would appreciate a direct reference rather than "someone" for easier clarification), I just like to clarify that I am not doubting the authority conferred by TransitLink TO their bus captains. I am raising a possibility that a customer has an option to refuse to allow confiscation if indeed they think they are right to do so. See the analogy on defective goods and A & B above. If you are not referring to me, then just ignore this.

If at the end of the day, you still think SBS has the right to confiscate your card and you do not wish to explore the option of not allow confiscation when you know you are right, thats your choice. I am merely highlighting an additional option to those who may want to consider using it, rather than the more violent alternatives of wrestling with the bus captain or to fight with the bus captain.

There is a clear difference between a statutory right (e.g. something prescribed by statute such that if you do or don't do something, you are liable criminally) and a contractual right (where enforcement of such rights need to be done by the courts, and not unilaterally).

P.S. All of the above is merely my personal point of view for the purposes of discussion and sharing in this thread only - feel free to rebutt with substantive arguments or discussions if you have an alternative viewpoint.

 

[Override2Zion]

That is Singapore style for you lor...........love to watch only. Not many people are willing to lend a helping hand. Then again, we do not know what really happend.....between the driver's conversation with the woman.....

It doesn't matter whether its a provoked attack or otherwise, to assault someone in the first place already lands you on the losing side. The only difference is how much time you're gonna serve, she'll be considered lucky if company/driver accepts out of court settlement.

 

[Override2Zion]

its customer vs company ma...they also pay to get a bus ride...the gal can file for damages against the company as they should have protect its customer in its property...

Yes of course she could do that but the difference is, who stands to lose out more considering the mistake that she made? Company probably need to compensate for damages and business goes on as usual but a jail term record ain't gonna help much in a resume.

 

[godzilla60]

its customer vs company ma...they also pay to get a bus ride...the gal can file for damages against the company as they should have protect its customer in its property...

haha....i dun think the duty of care can be imposed here since the rest of the passengers do not have a fidicuary relationship with her, though the boy friend is supposed to have....however i dun think she can make that case coz she initiaited it

 

[weevil84]

Hi vince, have got a question for u. Let's say a bus captain requests a passenger to produce his/her EZlink card and the passenger refuses, can the bus captain legally refuse to let the passenger off the bus? If the bus captain refuses to let the passenger off the bus, can the passenger lodge a complain to the police?

 

[vince123123]

I'm not really sure of the answer given the situation you have proposed.

However, lets say the person taps the card, and an error msg results. The person is 100% sure there it is his card, there's no fraud or tampering or stolen card situation.

The person can choose not to give the card to the bus captain. However, when we are talking about not being let off the bus, I think that to preempt presumptions of guilt (guilty people running away), the customer can offer to let the bus captain take down his particulars, so that TransitLink can sue the customer in a civil claim for breach of contract if it wants to.

Essentially, the customer is saying "hey I got nothing to hide, if you want to enforce your right, do it the proper way. here's my contact so you can serve me the writ if you want to"

If after this, the bus captain still tries to prevent him from leaving, then I think we are starting to go into the false imprisonment / wrongful confinement situation. In such a case, the customer can warn the bus driver of this, and if the bus driver still refuses, then the customer should call the police.

If the police arrives and finds that the customer is indeed innocent, then the customer now has the right to file a Magistrate's Complaint against the bus driver for wrongful confinement/restraint - and the tables are turned.

This is just my opinion.

Hi vince, have got a question for u. Let's say a bus captain requests a passenger to produce his/her EZlink card and the passenger refuses, can the bus captain legally refuse to let the passenger off the bus? If the bus captain refuses to let the passenger off the bus, can the passenger lodge a complain to the police?

 

[wranger]

Why am I pissed - TransitLink says every trip is a contractual agreement, so if you don't agree don't take their bus loh. HELLO! PUBLIC TRANSPORT! It's (almost) a necessity! Else what can I take?!

You can still take the bus, but pay in cash instead of using the EZlink card. Everyone have an option.

 

[sillyme]

This is probably my simplistic way of viewing things. Instead of demanding our own rights, we probably be better off exercising our responsibilities. If are no longer able to enjoy concessionary fares, we should pay adult fares.

The reaction of the girl and her friend is a definite sign of guilt. If they had not tried to beat the system, they would not have got themselves in that situation.

Maybe the bus driver could have asked the her to pay with another card or by cash. He doesn't really need follow the directives so strictly. (unless an expired card is logged and he is to produce the card at the end of the day.)

 

[wranger]

Yah then I'll be penalized for paying cash (pay more). And if I'm a student and they **** up, I'll have to pay adult fare + cash, paying even more too.

why would you be penalized for paying cash if you pay the correct amount for the journey.

 

[westwest2]

Hear hear!!! This is the kind of GEM that you only find once in a blue moon!

Why am I pissed - TransitLink says every trip is a contractual agreement, so if you don't agree don't take their bus loh. HELLO! PUBLIC TRANSPORT! It's (almost) a necessity! Else what can I take?!?

thats how it works...read the internet for more info...

Think about this scenario (which a similiar thing did happen in real life) - You have an elderly parent at home who is bedridden and hooked up to a machine (runs on electricity). The electrical company says you didn't pay your bills but you say you did. During the process of sorting things out, they cut off electricity to your house, which they can because of contractual agreement (never pay bills = cut off). As a result, the machine stops and then your parent died.

So how now?

you are suppose to pay your bill on time...i always tell people its their responsibility to pay their bills...since they know its such a important thing...they suppose to pay on time mthly...there is no excuse on this...how to blame people on your own mistake...