ST Forum: Can't one take photos in MRT stations?

[vince123123]

And we are talking about calling the police only in cases where rights are trampled upon. Supposing in one of the checks you have experienced, the SMRT staff hold you for many hours, disallowing you to leave until they have "sorted this out", (however long it will take), I'm sure that you will sit there quietly for an indeterminate period of time since you have a cooperative attitude.

You are talking as if we are advocating the moment SMRT staff appears, we are goign to raise our fists and cry foul and shout at the Staff and threaten to call the police. I have always advocated a proportional response, and not an overly disproportionate response. The discussion here is to give more insight on what is the maximum extent SMRT can go, and what they cannot. This will enable members to know if SMRt has overstepped their boundaries (in which case a slightly firmer response is required). or otherwise.

In the past, people didn't even know that what these overzealous guards are doing may render them criminally liable.

 

[vince123123]

There is no need to write letters demanding apologies and explanations to claim your rights, all you need to do is to ensure a proportionate response when these people who overstep their boundaries do so. The only purpose of writing letters is to reach out to more people and inform them of the correct position, as in the case by writing in these forums.

I'm not sure why you are intent and bent on telling people to take a dispropotionate approach. Perhaps you should tell them that "if they feel so needing to claim their rights, they should file a suit in court, or lobby to the MP". That is so using a cannon to shoot a fly and does not serve your position that there is no need to claim rights.

Rights can easily be claimed with a measured response, not a disproportionate one.

:bsmilie: if you feel so needing to claim your rights of the matter, you can always continue writing letters to the media demanding explanation and apology.

 

[Godzilla Invades]

well, if you're talking about me, yes i don't believe that security personnels overstep their areas of duty unnecessarily. you call yours a security problem? i'll say it's your imagination.

one thing i notice in singapore anyway, people take being approached by security personnels as something that's shameful and embarrassing, and always want to bear some grudges for being checked. ask yourself if this is not true? people will always think of themselves as the ultimate rights owner and any behaviour that questions them as insults, but hardly make any consideration for others nor having any broader perspective.

if there's anything i'm even more against, it'll be the extremely narrow perspectives some people here like to promote in this forum. instead of promoting cooperative behaviours, the talk here just surrounds endlessly over self-centered bitching over rights and legal jurisdiction. it's always ''my rights,'' ''my freedom,'' ''call the police,'' ''i'm lawful and you're not etc.'' such is not the formula for work towards sensible solutions nor behaviour of a civilised society.

I applaud you for being for a good role citizen among many Singaporeans.

You have an open mind which I like a lot but there are some of us who think differently from your thoughts. While most of us encounter various problems from calling down a bomb squad (calling down a bomb squad...........why???) to requesting us to leave the station because I was loitering for more than 10 mins. That is the main issue for my case.

I am not a shame if they need to check which I did offer them which includes my identification as part of my package but if they have given an absoulute legal right to ask me to leave the station because I was loitering around, by all means I would leave.

We all have the rights to voice out our unhappiness if we find there is something the way they handle us. All of us are law abiding citizens and most of us would stay away from all this nonsense if we can.

One day you will know how important one's right is and how you can fight for it. Giving in is ok to avoid problems which may arise but not all the time................not all the time.

Anyway, peace on earth and save the planet!:bsmilie:

 

[Godzilla Invades]

There is no need to write letters demanding apologies and explanations to claim your rights, all you need to do is to ensure a proportionate response when these people who overstep their boundaries do so. The only purpose of writing letters is to reach out to more people and inform them of the correct position, as in the case by writing in these forums.

I'm not sure why you are intent and bent on telling people to take a dispropotionate approach. Perhaps you should tell them that "if they feel so needing to claim their rights, they should file a suit in court, or lobby to the MP". That is so using a cannon to shoot a fly and does not serve your position that there is no need to claim rights.

Rights can easily be claimed with a measured response, not a disproportionate one.

You read my mind like a book.......:thumbsup:

 

[eikin]

And we are talking about calling the police only in cases where rights are trampled upon. Supposing in one of the checks you have experienced, the SMRT staff hold you for many hours, disallowing you to leave until they have "sorted this out", (however long it will take), I'm sure that you will sit there quietly for an indeterminate period of time since you have a cooperative attitude.

You are talking as if we are advocating the moment SMRT staff appears, we are goign to raise our fists and cry foul and shout at the Staff and threaten to call the police. I have always advocated a proportional response, and not an overly disproportionate response. The discussion here is to give more insight on what is the maximum extent SMRT can go, and what they cannot. This will enable members to know if SMRt has overstepped their boundaries (in which case a slightly firmer response is required). or otherwise.

In the past, people didn't even know that what these overzealous guards are doing may render them criminally liable.

i suppose supporting a silly mass gathering at an MRT station just to prove your point is considered a proportionate action as well. you ought to review your own views more often before throwing legal advices around and making baseless claims yourself. i can only say that you're less than qualified to advice people of legal actions, the most you can do without the risk of misleading people around is just to project scenarios and point to facts.

 

[eikin]

I applaud you for being for a good role citizen among many Singaporeans.

You have an open mind which I like a lot but there are some of us who think differently from your thoughts. While most of us encounter various problems from calling down a bomb squad (calling down a bomb squad...........why???) to requesting us to leave the station because I was loitering for more than 10 mins. That is the main issue for my case.

I am not a shame if they need to check which I did offer them which includes my identification as part of my package but if they have given an absoulute legal right to ask me to leave the station because I was loitering around, by all means I would leave.

We all have the rights to voice out our unhappiness if we find there is something the way they handle us. All of us are law abiding citizens and most of us would stay away from all this nonsense if we can.

One day you will know how important one's right is and how you can fight for it. Giving in is ok to avoid problems which may arise but not all the time................not all the time.

Anyway, peace on earth and save the planet!:bsmilie:

you just proved my point about people over-reacting. i dare ask you, was your case a security issue? or just a case of you being unhappy about the MRT staff doing his/her job? it's easy for people to victimize a single source for all the problems they face and classify everything without differentiating circumstances intelligently. if you choose to believe in the existence of the big bogeyman sitting in the glass control room ever so intimidatingly watching your every single move, well, too bad.

 

[vince123123]

Oh really? It's silly?

The gathering at the MRT station was intended to put a real live test to skeptics like yourself on the enforcement of rights as well as a better setting to obtain measured responses when elements such as surprise, disorientation and loss are eliminated. If you think that it is silly, you are entitled to your view. In any event, even if I were to withdraw my support for the mass gathering, it is just a small cog in the wheel of photographer education on how to identify when they are being smoked.

As for reviewing my views, I think you would do well to take your own advice, especially when you give advice which are not substantiated with references when challenged.

I'm not sure how you can arrive at a conclusion that I am "less than qualified" given that you do not know the state of qualifications that I have, and I never purport that you are better or lesser "qualified". Why do you need to bring qualifications into issue here? Are you better qualified? Do you fancy a meetup to compare qualifications since you are implying you are better qualified?

Qualifications are immaterial in discussions - the key point is to substantiate your points well with references and authority and not shoot from the hips and then shy away when that is being challenged or dismiss them as "not worth the time to respond". Just because one is qualified does it automatically mean he is correct?

If you're a Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel, can you tell the judge "I am right and you should give me judgment because I'm a QC/SC"? Even our Judicial Commissioners and Judges have been wrong before but that does not make them any less qualified. Hence talking about qualifications is merely a red herring thrown to obeviate the need for substantive discussion.

And if you wish to talk about qualifications and putting down other's qualifications, please do show your own qualifications before opening this can of worms.

Also, please provide elaboration to support your allegation that I have made "baseless claims".

i suppose supporting a silly mass gathering at an MRT station just to prove your point is considered a proportionate action as well. you ought to review your own views more often before throwing legal advices around and making baseless claims yourself. i can only say that you're less than qualified to advice people of legal actions, the most you can do without the risk of misleading people around is just to project scenarios and point to facts.

 

[vince123123]

You're welcome .

But in your case, I would say that SMRT does have the legal right to ask you to leave the premises, because it is after all, their property.

They probably could have done it with a lot more tact and a better PR approach. That said, a number of employees, both in the public and private sector, when faced with a situation they do not know how to handle, tend to quote the all encompassing "it is our policy" as a fall back position, simply because their superiors have taught them the same thing. They may not even know what the policy is or the rationale for the policy, or whether even the policy exists, or for that matter, whether the policy is even legally sustainable.

You read my mind like a book.......:thumbsup:

 

[eikin]

Oh really? It's silly?

The gathering at the MRT station was intended to put a real live test to skeptics like yourself on the enforcement of rights as well as a better setting to obtain measured responses when elements such as surprise, disorientation and loss are eliminated. If you think that it is silly, you are entitled to your view. In any event, even if I were to withdraw my support for the mass gathering, it is just a small cog in the wheel of photographer education on how to identify when they are being smoked.

As for reviewing my views, I think you would do well to take your own advice, especially when you give advice which are not substantiated with references when challenged.

I'm not sure how you can arrive at a conclusion that I am "less than qualified" given that you do not know the state of qualifications that I have, and I never purport that you are better or lesser "qualified". Why do you need to bring qualifications into issue here? Are you better qualified? Do you fancy a meetup to compare qualifications since you are implying you are better qualified?

Qualifications are immaterial in discussions - the key point is to substantiate your points well with references and authority and not shoot from the hips and then shy away when that is being challenged or dismiss them as "not worth the time to respond". Just because one is qualified does it automatically mean he is correct?

If you're a Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel, can you tell the judge "I am right and you should give me judgment because I'm a QC/SC"? Even our Judicial Commissioners and Judges have been wrong before but that does not make them any less qualified. Hence talking about qualifications is merely a red herring thrown to obeviate the need for substantive discussion.

And if you wish to talk about qualifications and putting down other's qualifications, please do show your own qualifications before opening this can of worms.

Also, please provide elaboration to support your allegation that I have made "baseless claims".

i don't owe you any elaboration, you're only a couple of bytes on this internet forum as far as i can see. if you believe that you do not need to check yourself, do carry on with it, i only wish you good luck that you don't run into troubles.

 

[vince123123]

Sure, you don't owe me, you actually owe it to yourself.
In any case, your allegation is now as baseless as the claim it was attempting to state .

EDIT: Addon: As for the comment on couple of bytes, my invitation to meetup to compare qualifications if you wish to assert the superiority of your qualifications is still open

i don't owe you any elaboration, you're only a couple of bytes on this internet forum as far as i can see. if you believe that you do not need to check yourself, do carry on with it, i only wish you good luck that you don't run into troubles.

 

[eikin]

Sure, you don't owe me, you actually owe it to yourself.

In any case, your allegation is now as baseless as the claim it was attempting to state .

it works bothways

 

[vince123123]

Everything works both ways.

I'll leave the audience to judge who has been making baseless claims

it works bothways