she's already cheating the PUBLIC transport and abusing the authority, she should get what she deserves. I don;t understand why some members are bringing up legal jargons on whose right the card belongs to...sheesh..
Since we are into "who's right, who's wrong".
Let me jus give my 2c worth.
The card may be EZL, however the $$$ value inside the card isn't. To further complicate the matter, nowadays such cards are multi use. And lastly is constitutes an identification of the owner.
Firstly, EZL and their whoever can retain the card, but not the $$ inside. This constitutes a breach of contract on EZL side without first proving beyond doubt that the card is used fraudulently.
Second, have anyone tried tapping with 2 cards in close proximity, ie, 2 cards in wallet. How do you know which cards gets read and deducted? Since she has 2 cards with her (actual case can't be verified thru what's reported). How can the bus driver ascertain that it's not the case of reader reading the wrong card since the reminding value in the concession cards may be used for other payment.
Thirdly, is now become a form if identification, I don't think any civilian have the right to "confiscate" any form of identification, even if it's in the T&S. And I don't tink EZL "contract" is statuary.
*edit* I have tried the second point myself, I've 2 cards in my wallet all the time.
*edit* However, contract or whatever, it does not give anyone the right to assault.
Well, if she pays with a 2nd adult ez-link card, then all is settled right?
The civil right is not an express right granted to retain the card in this instance, should she pay eventually the adult fare, or demands the driver let her off the bus, in which case he must do, to keep up the "contractual" part of the exchange.
However, when she assaults the bus driver, it's already an offence, equally so if the driver refuses to let her off the bus if she cannot pay. That latter act may be a criminal offence committed with the intent to enforce a civil contract.
Last edited by LazerLordz; 22nd July 2007 at 01:13 AM.
We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde
Whether the rights is of the bus company to hold the card and owner of card to have rights over mony value is besides the point here.... You dont go hammer someone over it..... it is like the absurd case in the USA a long time ago where a burgler sue successfully the owner of the house he tried to break into. Seems that the owner has some anti burgler system which injured the burgler..... Imagine getting punched by someone, he hits your bone, breaks his hand and sues you and wins that your bone is too hard and injured him.
In this case even if the girl had the right over her card, does it condone beating up the bus driver???!
Singaporeans seem become "uglier", first we have kids bashing bus drivers, now we have "female claw-ers", what's next? bus hijacking?
So what if the money inside is yours?? Remember that when you top up your ezlink card, it is credited as a stored valued to you. That doens't mean the right is yours.. same as when atm cards are swallowed by the atms. It is a form of security measure for the greater public, who knows if the girl stole the card? And already stated in the report, if they confiscate the card, they will issue you a ticket as a legal documentation of which driver took it.
I am all for the confiscation of ezlink cards as it is to protect myself should I lose it. Now all I need is to report the missing ezlink card number and the card would be deem unusable/reclaimable in the event I lose the card.
Even MORE Important is the fact that such cards are for purposes of my IDENTITY! Imagine if it has my money, personal info stored inside, the MORE i want the various agencies involve to confiscate the card so that I can have peace of mind. Who knows if some stupid girl go around making transactions and creating havoc, I woundn't want the hassle of the police tracing the card back to me for her crimes if such preventive measure aren't in place.
Worse, even if you THINK the right is yours, you don't behave like an uncivilised idiot and scream your rights out loud. Singaporeans are so intolerant, impatient and downright ugly and uncivilised that I am ashamed of what has become of the newer generation.
Folks, look at the bigger picture..
Last edited by viix; 22nd July 2007 at 03:09 AM.
She deserved a jail term for her assault on the driver of a moving bus. This kind of incidents should be treated seriously. Are bus commuters' lives any lesser value than air commuters ?
For intentionally using an expired concessionary pass if proven, she deserved to on SBS's blacklist. EZL reader refused to read her card, hence, she can either choose to get off the bus, or pay cash. As we know, cash fare cost more, and if she's transferring to/from MRT or other bus services, there is not rebate. This should recover the fares that she had cheated for who knows how long. I think SBS SHs will be happy if SBS adopt this in their T & C
seriously, based on my understanding:
1. I think the SBS driver is not entitled to confiscate the EZL card unless he is specifically empowered by EZL to act as an agent of EZL (directly or indirectly thru SBS).
2. Regardless of the SBS driver's contractual rights, i think
(a) SBS driver is not allowed to use force to snatch the card (i think it can be a case of robbery or snatch theft if the cardholder is subsequently found to be eligible to use the card); and
(b) SBS driver is not allowed to detain the suspected fraudster once he/she gets off the bus because he/she is out of the driver's area of authority (i.e. bus) just as a security guard hired by a shop cannot stop you once u have left the shop; and
(c) SBS driver may detain you on the bus only till the police arrive or to drive to police station but not to anywhere else (i dun think it is considered as illegal imprisonment or kidnapping); and
(d) the one whose card is confiscated is not allowed to use force to snatch back the card too.
3. I think EZL is entitled to confiscate any card that EZL reasonably think that it is used fraudently and i believe that all consequential damages resulting from that confiscation has been excluded under the agreement.
4. i think there is a law that makes it a criminal offence to cheat on fares too rite?
I say "i think" because these are just opinions from my limited knowledge and should only be used for discussions. Please do not use them as basis or worse test them out.
Last edited by godzilla60; 22nd July 2007 at 04:21 AM.
so if (b) is true by you understanding, after a person leave the shop without paying for the goods, he / she just needs to step outside the shop and is homefree.
photography makes one sees things from all angles.
"ashes to ashes; funk to funky..we know major_tom's a junkie
strung out on heaven's high....."
all of us know that it isn't a very nice feeling to get something confiscated, esp when it is something of an identification. but this girl still when abit too far out.
the issue of using a concession ezlink card as identification document has been raised in the press before. to me, it only accord one a status of a student of an recognised educational bodies for the sole purpose of enjoying fare concession. besides this, how often is it being used? i am not sure.