SBS Transit: She claws driver till he BLEEDS .

[vince123123]

Yea, it is also interesting how people who condemn others for something, are in fact, guilty of the very same thing they are condemning.

Interesting too, to see how legal experts and socialogists have ignored this thread and making it into yet another flame thread... We should start another forum for Kopitiam call ClubFLAME. It would suit the needs of the folks in here better, don't you think? :bsmilie:

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Interesting too, to see how legal experts and socialogists have ignored this thread and making it into yet another flame thread... We should start another forum for Kopitiam call ClubFLAME. It would suit the needs of the folks in here better, don't you think? :bsmilie:

I think you have got it all wrong. This is not about flamming here and there. It's a healthy debate which I myself am not too sure what vince123123 was trying to say. If you want to comment something, make sure there is no head or tail missing as it may lead to a different meaning all together.

So that is why I started to question myself and ask vince123123 what was he trying to tell some of us. If you check on some posts, some members are a little confuse. It's not about ignoring. If the statement was made it clear cut, I would not have written all this in the first place.

 

[westwest2]

Thank you, I am doing pretty fine.

I will personally put my son to sleep if he does go out of line... LOL.

you will nv know fully what your son is doing out there...

 

[microcosm]

Yea, it is also interesting how people who condemn others for something, are in fact, guilty of the very same thing they are condemning.

Yup, there are some methods in proper parenting. Hope those who does not see bad parenting causing social problems should really learn to seek help instead of spending time in forums. Those who are yet to be parents, well, they should learn to shut up.

 

[vince123123]

Once again, I apologise if my position wasn't made clear in the beginning, although I do note that I did not mention anything specifically about the girl and wheher she's right or wrong. Perhaps my comment made in vacuo was interpreted as referring to the thread topic itself, and for that I regret the confusion.

I think you have got it all wrong. This is not about flamming here and there. It's a healthy debate which I myself am not too sure what vince123123 was trying to say. If you want to comment something, make sure there is no head or tail missing as it may lead to a different meaning all together.

So that is why I started to question myself and ask vince123123 what was he trying to tell some of us. If you check on some posts, some members are a little confuse. It's not about ignoring. If the statement was made it clear cut, I would not have written all this in the first place.

 

[vince123123]

Although I'm not sure why parenting is brought up, just to continue on, yes there are indeed methods in proper parenting. TO borrow your words, hopefully those who assume that they are superior to others in any certain way, could do better in their research before making statements that may end up embarrassing them when it is proven wrong. Those who assume too much and do not do proper research, well should also learn to seek help and shut up instead of spending time in forums and teaching their kids the wrong things.

Yup, there are some methods in proper parenting. Hope those who does not see bad parenting causing social problems should really learn to seek help instead of spending time in forums. Those who are yet to be parents, well, they should learn to shut up.

 

[yqt]

YQT - I have contemplated the exact situation you have brought up when writing my POV, but as you may have noticed, I have not commented on this situation because it is indeed more complicated that the first situation (where the customer has not yet handed over the card). Now that you have specifically brought it up, I'll try to share what I think of it.

I am not 100% sure of the answer, but lets use an analogy as the starting point. If someone walks up to me and asks to borrow my mobile phone, and after using it, refuses to give it back to me, then he has committed a criminal offence.

However, this does not entitle me to bash him up just to get back my phone, in the same way, the customer cannot and should not resort to violence to get back the card. In the phone example, the best way would be to call the police to arrest him for the offence, and perhaps try to get some public passersby to assist in detaining him until then.

For the bus driver situation, it gets more problematic as now, you will have to explain to policemen on the ground the difference between contractual rights and statutory rights (and as we can see even in this thread, this is easily confused). It will then result in a lot of time spent and effort spent just to get things sorted out, even if ultimately you are in the right.

This problem becomes further exacerbated by the fact that by contract, the EzLink company, as you pointed out, owns the card in the first place. Now, can someone be accused of stealing something of which he is the owner for? This is again yet another complication thrown in the mix. I doubt there's any clear answer until the courts issue a decision on such a complicated affair.

In short, the best way when in doubt, and when you are sure you are not using a stolen card/fraudulent card etc, is still not to hand over your card, to prevent yourself from all these headaches and complications.

I guess it all boils down to a case of who is the rightful owner of the card. Though it's part of the T&C of EZLink that they are the owner of the card, the court may look at it and see if it's reasonable for EZLink to claim ownership of the card. A slim chance and it'll take someone to challange this in court.

In the absents of a clear statement from the court, given the complication of the matter which you mention above, I guess in my own layman judgement,

1) since I gave him the card upon request, the bus driver did not infringe on my rights.
2) as an agent of EZLink the bus driver have a contractual right to hold on to the card.
3) since I'm not the owner of the card and he's an agent of EZLink, and I gave him my card willingly, I don't have a contractual right to demand it back from him if he deem it fit to retain my card.
4) Don't give them the card in the first place? Do I want to get into a war of words everytime I use the card and it don't work? And if I don't use the card, why do I want to keep a card I can't use?

Is this fair?

Well, goes to show that size does matter.

 

[vince123123]

I'm not too sure, perhaps so, but I think there is a higher chance that Ez Link will be considered as the owner of the card - but perhaps an attack can be made on that term. This as you point out, is fraught with legal complications. I doubt anyone will sue anyone on this because the quantum of damages involved is so small that it doesn't make any sense to sue.

(1) - yes, until the point you want it back, but see (3)
(2) - yes
(3) - here it is tricky, since it is his card, then do you have the right to get it back?
(4) I'd do this if it happens personally to me and will normally recommend the same to others. The people who raise a ruckus over giving it up are those who need the card for other purposes (e.g. identification, buying other stuffs in school etc), so even retaining a faulty card has other uses for them.

Besides, if the card is with you, it works on your schedule when you want it fixed or replaced. if the card is with them, you have to wait for their schedule/investigations/etc and in the meantime, you do not have a replacement.

I guess it all boils down to a case of who is the rightful owner of the card. Though it's part of the T&C of EZLink that they are the owner of the card, the court may look at it and see if it's reasonable for EZLink to claim ownership of the card. A slim chance and it'll take someone to challange this in court.

In the absents of a clear statement from the court, given the complication of the matter which you mention above, I guess in my own layman judgement,

1) since I gave him the card upon request, the bus driver did not infringe on my rights.
2) as an agent of EZLink the bus driver have a contractual right to hold on to the card.
3) since I'm not the owner of the card and he's an agent of EZLink, and I gave him my card willingly, I don't have a contractual right to demand it back from him if he deem it fit to retain my card.
4) Don't give them the card in the first place? Do I want to get into a war of words everytime I use the card and it don't work? And if I don't use the card, why do I want to keep a card I can't use?

Is this fair?

Well, goes to show that size does matter.

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Once again, I apologise if my position wasn't made clear in the beginning, although I do note that I did not mention anything specifically about the girl and wheher she's right or wrong. Perhaps my comment made in vacuo was interpreted as referring to the thread topic itself, and for that I regret the confusion.

vince123123,

no need to apologise because I am really not sure about your first post. so that is why i am a little confuse about it. so that is why i was wondering what you were saying as from what i read on the news, the woman seems to be in the wrong.

so when you explain, i assume you were saying the woman have her civil rights not to hand over the card because the bus captain have no rights to ask her.

the problem came in because she had tried to use an expired concession card and try to board the bus on it. so she was asked to pass the card to the bus captain to see if the card had a problem. (which indeed was a problem)

anyway, still thanks for the explanation on your post no.130. it indeed open up my horizon about a small litlle incident can turn into a big incident.

 

[yqt]

I'm not too sure, perhaps so, but I think there is a higher chance that Ez Link will be considered as the owner of the card - but perhaps an attack can be made on that term. This as you point out, is fraught with legal complications. I doubt anyone will sue anyone on this because the quantum of damages involved is so small that it doesn't make any sense to sue.

(1) - yes, until the point you want it back, but see (3)
(2) - yes
(3) - here it is tricky, since it is his card, then do you have the right to get it back?
(4) I'd do this if it happens personally to me and will normally recommend the same to others. The people who raise a ruckus over giving it up are those who need the card for other purposes (e.g. identification, buying other stuffs in school etc), so even retaining a faulty card has other uses for them.

Besides, if the card is with you, it works on your schedule when you want it fixed or replaced. if the card is with them, you have to wait for their schedule/investigations/etc and in the meantime, you do not have a replacement.

Your point below:
(3) - here it is tricky, since it is his card, then do you have the right to get it back?

My answer is NO.
Since EZLink owns the card, the bus driver is an agent of EZLink authorised to retain the card, and I gave him the card willingly in the first place, I can't demand it back.
What grounds do I have to demand the return? I don't have statutory rights to demand, according to contractual rights, he have every right to retain the card which is a property of EZLINK and not mine. Civil? No clear statement yet. So base on what rights do I demand the card?
I don't like it and if it happen to me I'll be very pissed but that's the way things are as of now. At least in my opinion.

 

[Godzilla Invades]

Your point below:
(3) - here it is tricky, since it is his card, then do you have the right to get it back?

My answer is NO.
Since EZLink owns the card, the bus driver is an agent of EZLink authorised to retain the card, and I gave him the card willingly in the first place, I can't demand it back.
What grounds do I have to demand the return? I don't have statutory rights to demand, according to contractual rights, he have every right to retain the card which is a property of EZLINK and not mine. Civil? No clear statement yet. So base on what rights do I demand the card?
I don't like it and if it happen to me I'll be very pissed but that's the way things are as of now. At least in my opinion.

Well if my card was newly fillled with $50.00, yes I would be pissed too because he had retain my card but because I am using an expired concession card, I do not have other any alternative but to surrender the card (I have broken the rules and regulation of the card).

I have to surrender the expired card to the bus captain if he request it (as I am trying to board the bus with an expired card) as it is after all their property. It maybe troublesome to get back the $50.00 but I have made a mistake by using an expired concession card in the first place. But no matter how pissed I am with the bus captain (which is not his fault at all as he is just donig his job as a bus captain), I would never attack him because he retain my expried card (which is the property of EZ Link). Pissed yes but attack him no lar.

Trouble would not have happen if I follow the rules and regulation.

 

[vince123123]

Thanks for being understanding And I'm glad that you could now also see what I was trying to say I am always happy to help share some legal points to the public (no matter how large or small in numbers) especially when I sense bullying or preying on ignorance by big companies or other groups taking place.

vince123123,

no need to apologise because I am really not sure about your first post. so that is why i am a little confuse about it. so that is why i was wondering what you were saying as from what i read on the news, the woman seems to be in the wrong.

so when you explain, i assume you were saying the woman have her civil rights not to hand over the card because the bus captain have no rights to ask her.

the problem came in because she had tried to use an expired concession card and try to board the bus on it. so she was asked to pass the card to the bus captain to see if the card had a problem. (which indeed was a problem)

anyway, still thanks for the explanation on your post no.130. it indeed open up my horizon about a small litlle incident can turn into a big incident.

 

[vince123123]

Yeap I'll probably think its a "no" rahter than a "yes", and even if a small small yes, it will be a heck of a troublesome to enforce your "yes".

In the same way, it is very troublesome for SBS to sue someone just because he doens't hand over his card - which was one of the points I was trying to make.

In summary, and since it is so tricky, I still stick by my suggestion NOT to hand over the card. If you want to show you are not guilty, then you can hold on to the card and let the bus inspector visually inspect the card, or you can tap the card at his direction for him to check, but never relinquish physical possession of the card.

You don't like it is because its a classic case of big fish eat small fish. And small fish in Singapore are always eaten by big fish because the King Fish says big fish can do so; and the big fish follow the example of the King Fish when eating small fish.

Your point below:
(3) - here it is tricky, since it is his card, then do you have the right to get it back?

My answer is NO.
Since EZLink owns the card, the bus driver is an agent of EZLink authorised to retain the card, and I gave him the card willingly in the first place, I can't demand it back.
What grounds do I have to demand the return? I don't have statutory rights to demand, according to contractual rights, he have every right to retain the card which is a property of EZLINK and not mine. Civil? No clear statement yet. So base on what rights do I demand the card?
I don't like it and if it happen to me I'll be very pissed but that's the way things are as of now. At least in my opinion.

 

[reachme2003]

could you pls explain 'some methods in proper parenting'?

Yup, there are some methods in proper parenting. Hope those who does not see bad parenting causing social problems should really learn to seek help instead of spending time in forums. Those who are yet to be parents, well, they should learn to shut up.

 

[yqt]

Yeap I'll probably think its a "no" rahter than a "yes", and even if a small small yes, it will be a heck of a troublesome to enforce your "yes".

In the same way, it is very troublesome for SBS to sue someone just because he doens't hand over his card - which was one of the points I was trying to make.

In summary, and since it is so tricky, I still stick by my suggestion NOT to hand over the card. If you want to show you are not guilty, then you can hold on to the card and let the bus inspector visually inspect the card, or you can tap the card at his direction for him to check, but never relinquish physical possession of the card.

You don't like it is because its a classic case of big fish eat small fish. And small fish in Singapore are always eaten by big fish because the King Fish says big fish can do so; and the big fish follow the example of the King Fish when eating small fish.

Yeah, big fish eat small fish, king fish sits there and says it's OK. All this fishy business is going on everyday and everywhere.