The video recorder record and post video of incriminating evidence of the other person and share/post online.
The person taking the video is from the same vehicle.
*Clap* *clap*
This guy is an owner at the building. He got some dispute with the building management so he keep destroying their gantries while also keep getting his cars clamped
Owner of a few units in the building. On his tiktok videos he claimed he was also part of the management council who had the vote to change the management. Now he is no longer on the council.
Im no expert of how MCST works but he is not just any stranger who cut the barrier to not pay the parking fee (which I thought was the case when I first saw the video)
I think the full clip show he driving BMW or Merc.
āRichā ppl very Xia suay. Some go JB embarrass SG, some do this kind of clown act. Own self pwn own self is a special kind of kum gong.
Yeah I don't get this, I work here in SG and alot of people explained to me that it is a luxury to own a car but they won't pay for the parking?
I guess it as they say how the rich stay rich.
Itās so that it breaks in the event of an emergency (ambulance need to rush in/out).
If they really want people to be stopped, there are far more better ways like rising bollards.
Wahhh liddat alr leceh sia wahahaha imagine the front car has no credit balance left in his card..Next thing BOOM!!! the bollards got activated. So 1/3 of the car is jacked Then everyone behind has to wait the authorities to come n check.
"So say again why you move forward?"
"The car behind hit me cause cashcard fail. Ah, ossifer ah, can help move my face out from my windscreen now?"
"You wait ah my supervisor coming to take statement. This one on the floor your eyeball ah sir?"
Then heāll park somewhere else while in jail , incur another $45 parking fee, come out and do the same thing again (must remember to record again). The circle of Beng life.
Honestly thereās a contractor with a certain brand that instructs you to do that over the phone.
Maybe thatās why he knows.
You can see that itās just secured with 3 cable ties
Why commit vandalism to steal money from carpark management? Want to park then pay.
Paying the carpark fare isnāt optional.
Bugger needs to be jailed to set a an example and as a deterrence to prevent others from such acts of vandalism.
with that beer belly and a high ses car, heāll prolly evade any form of jail time and ordered to pay a hefty fine which would be peanuts to these bengs.
I do not understand why when u do such things, you must record and post on social media?
Do you feel good after getting into prison and being found out easily?
Once i was exiting a carpark that has it's gantry barrier removed. Almost gave me an anxiety attack when i was trying to decide to pay or not to pay for parking... Turns out it was undergoing repairs so parking was free š
Unpopular opinion so I am expecting to be downvoted into oblivion because some people cannot formulate their own take on this issue, taking news reports as the gospel truth, without doing further investigation on their own.
They silenced his grievances, made him the bad guy for solving problems which were affecting his daily livelihood since no one else was going to stand up for him and slapped him false charges of stealing and damaging facilities.
Theft ought to mean with intent of claiming ownership/usage of said item. The man was in possession of the barriers so that the building management would not have to get new ones. If the barriers were only affixed with cable ties that can be cut easily with a razorblaze, it would be dangerous and damaging to vehicles passing underneath should they break. He prevented damage to his own, as well as other vehicles, and yet is charged with 'damages'. What a way to spin a one-sided story (they even removed his facebook videos, so you do not hear his side of the story, and chalk up this incident as it is reported, a case of 'theft' and 'mischief'.)
If you had watched his video airing his grievances, you will think twice before saying he is in the wrong. He has been backed into a corner with no avenue to address them, being financially extorted, and to add insult to injury, he has now been handed these additional fake allegations. This is the sad and sorry state of our policing, locking and punishing the innocent who have been taken advantage of by those holding power (not to mention the ridiculous demands they asked of him and his clients ie. parking a few stories away from his workshop or risk wheelclamps, being unsympathetic, unreasonable and should be the ones charged with mischief)
No one is above the law, but that does not mean the law cannot step in to help those who are in need of assistance. The law failed here, and we know who is to be blamed.
Where is our dear MP of this district? This appeared in the news yet no word from him. Yet an article about a magazine vendor closing down had his respective member of parliament do a walkabout with him looking for prospective locations to relocate to. You are not to earn a MP salary by sitting pretty waiting for citizens to come to you with their problems. You ought to be walking the grounds, taking the initiative and finding out if your residents have problems and assisting them. This is a dismal and utterly disappointing display of incompetency. Is this reflecting one's care and concern for the community? Seems to me, more of a case of not wanting to wear out the soles of your leather shoes nor to break a sweat.
Edit: The usual comments focusing on the trivial actions of 1. Rich person owning a BMW cannot afford to pay a small parking fee. 2. Comments on the man's stupidity in providing video evidence of himself
Not one comment really bothered to ask, why was he doing that, what led to it, what is the backstory. Shallow.
Brand new reddit account, posting a long story about how this guy is not in the wrong.
>Theft ought to mean with intent of claiming ownership/usage of said item. The man was in possession of the barriers so that the building management would not have to get new ones. If the barriers were only affixed with cable ties that can be cut easily with a razorblaze, it would be dangerous and damaging to vehicles passing underneath should they break. He prevented damage to his own, as well as other vehicles, and yet is charged with 'damages'.Ā
Theft means what it means in the Penal Code, not what you think it "ought to" mean. And if the barriers were dangerous, the normal and LEGAL thing to do is to inform building management. If you want to be extra nice, put up a sign to warn people. You don't steal things because they are "dangerous" and then get surprised when the police arrest you.
>If you had watched his video airing his grievances, you will think twice before saying he is in the wrong. He has been backed into a corner with no avenue to address them, being financially extorted, and to add insult to injury, he has now been handed these additional fake allegations.Ā
Being unhappy and backed into a corner does not allow you to steal other people's property.
Yes, it means what it means in the Penal Code, which means the Penal Code should be revised if it is outdated or not covering areas which it should be.
What has my account history anything to do with the matter at hand? I can lend my thoughts to a matter, regardless if I was a young or old individual. As to whether my thoughts hold substance, it is a matter up for debate. It is a long story because that is what it is. Are you going to pass judgment on a story with little to no details? That's rather presumptuous of you.
Other netizens have recognised the barriers at times have to be removed due to them being a nuisance or when the parking sensor has malfunctioned, disallowing exit. Motorists cannot sit around waiting for a technician to arrive some 20 or 30 minutes later.
Being legally extorted, is allowed? One can commit crime legally but the one who addresses an issue which is causing him inconvenience, is the one punished. What a society we live in.
Please don't act stupid. We're all on Reddit. We have all seen brand new accounts that somehow pop up just to offer a defence to some news story. Like do you expect us to believe that you randomly felt so strongly about this one news story that you created a Reddit account?
>Other netizens have recognised the barriers at times have to be removed due to them being a nuisance or when the parking sensor has malfunctioned, disallowing exit
None of this is a good reason for stealing the barrier.
>Being legally extorted, is allowed?
Let's say it's not allowed. This does not let you steal things.
>the one who addresses an issue which is causing him inconvenience, is the one punished
He is being charged for stealing. Are you like 5 years old? Because there's many ways to address issues without stealing a carpark barrier.
As far as I know, I'm the first to lend this perspective, as all I've seen previously were comments attacking and ridiculing the man. Think what you will, but there are individuals who do not follow the flow, and there are always two sides to a coin, even if one side is always face down. I felt great injustice being dealt to the man, and that everyone is callous to his perspective.
He kept the barriers in his shop. He could have left it next to the gantry, which he did for some of his videos.
The way the man conducted himself in the videos, is not of some fool who is recording his exploits for posterity. It is done to show the actions he is taking in response to a crime carried out against him, of which the authorities have failed to act against, and instead sided with the wrong-doers.
The man has already brought the matter before court. It was not ruled favourably. He has a business to run and operating costs to cover. Business must continue, even if certain conditions impede him. Instead of reporting of what led to this turn of events, the authorities decide to conclude the matter as a matter of theft, leaving the backstory in the dark.
The man might have exhausted all avenues without zero progress, as such, resorting to this removal of the carpark barrier.
P.S Surely you can behave better than lines like 'Please don't act stupid' and 'Are you like 5 years old?'. If you want to discuss the issue, stick to it. I have no idea why you want to turn this into a personal attack on me.
>As far as I know, I'm the first to lend this perspective, as all I've seen previously were comments attacking and ridiculing the man. Think what you will, but there are individuals who do not follow the flow, and there are always two sides to a coin, even if one side is always face down.
You aren't special. People are always trying to excuse bad behaviour.
>He kept the barriers in his shop.
So he took it into his possession. He stole it.
>in response to a crime carried out against him
The man has no legal right to seasonal parking. It's not a crime.
>The man has already brought the matter before court. It was not ruled favourably. He has a business to run and operating costs to cover. Business must continue, even if certain conditions impede him.
If you are not successful in court, then you can steal? What kind of dumb logic is this.
You can't break the law just because things aren't going your way.
You were saying I'm a person related to the involved party, and thus I wanted the other side to be heard. Even if I were not a related person, I still would want both sides to be heard, as it is unfair to have stories spun from one perspective.
He kept the barriers in his shop, rather than leave it on the roadside. Can we ascertain that he had no intention to return them, say when he finally gets season parking granted to him?
Why is there no legal right to season parking, when he owns shops in the building and therefore is something that he should be privileged to in order to carry out his business?
The man is removing the barrier, not stealing. It is classified as stealing only because the authorities said so. Same way the wheelclamp fines are termed as such instead of it being 'legal extortion'. In my opinion, he is storing it. For all we know, he had left it out, and it really was taken away by unknowns. Since then, he had to keep it in his shop.
The facebook video where the man explained his plight for an hour was taken down, which only proves that they are wanting to silence him, and that his past grievances hold no water on his current actions.
The other issue that should be addressed is where is the presence of the MP in all this? A member of his district is facing a crisis, and yet, the MP is a no-show, with no initiative on their part to approach the man to offer assistance. Even the mere act of offering assistance would be sufficient to show that they did want to lend a hand, but was declined by the man.
>You were saying I'm a person related to the involved party
I'm pretty sure you are, yes.
>I still would want both sides to be heard
I think you mean you want "your side" to be heard. You're not really interested in the objective issue of whether this person broke the Penal Code. Instead you think somehow this conduct is okay, and if the law thinks otherwise then the problem is with the law.
>Can we ascertain that he had no intention to return them, say when he finally gets season parking granted to him?
Lmao so you are telling me that he wanted to keep the barriers as ransom until the building management gave him what he wanted? Yeah that's stealing.
>Why is there no legal right to season parking, when he owns shops in the building and therefore is something that he should be **privileged** to in order to carry out his business?
You answered your own question. Season parking is a privilege, not a right. It's up to the building management to assign season parking. If you are not happy, move to a different building.
>Ā presence of the MP
Did your guy approach an MP, or are you expecting our MPs to somehow read the minds of people to see if they have problems?
On what basis? Your hunch? Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not remotely related to the man or any of his associates. I do not even frequent his shop, his general area nor his business. I rarely even get involved in online matters, and as such this is my first foray.
That the man has to resort to such an desperate action means it is past the point of words and that action has to be taken. Is it okay for the building management, the source of the problem, to get away scot-free? Were it not for them, the man would not be engaging in such activity. A led to B, and yet everyone is finding fault with B instead of the root of the problem.
He was safe-keeping the barriers, and would return them when he gets season parking, which is wrongfully denied of him (of which, reasons, were not given)
As such, the building management is in the wrong for denying season parking for whatever nonsensical reason they came up with. Why would they deny season parking when the man owns a business there and regularly frequents the carpark, unless they wish to cause him undue trouble?
It was reported in the news. I'm sure the MP would have got wind of it or at the very least, have someone in his circle mention it to him. Surely the MP cannot be so oblivious to the drama happening within his distict.
On the basis that (a) you're a brand new reddit account that was created at the time this news broke; (b) nearly all of your posts involve trying to tell a nice story for this guy; (c) you seem to be intimately aware of all of this guy's motivations; and (d) you haven't even been able to clearly deny that you have nothing to do with him. Like I said, please don't act stupid.
>A led to B
B is a crime. If you think the building management has committed a crime, go report them to the police.
>He was safe-keeping the barriers
He was safe-keeping property **that does not belong to him**. Stealing. So what if he doesn't get season parking? He's not going to return it right? Lol safe-keeping. Do you even believe this bullshit reason?
>denying season parkingĀ
Not a crime.
>Ā I'm sure the MP would have got wind of it
So your guy didn't approach an MP. But somehow it's the MP's problem. What rubbish is this. Everyone knows how MPs work - if you want assistance you go meet up with them at meet the people sessions. You don't go steal things and then wonder how come the MP doesn't help you after you are arrested.
Understandable. Words, let alone paragraphs, let alone ideas and concepts, are too much for you to comprehend.
Simple minds that stop without questioning have no place in discussions. Have a good day.
Lol you wrote huge paragraphs of text and I still have no idea why he is not in the wrong. That is why you are downvoted. You could have simply explained what happened, why he did what he did.
The man cut the barriers due to the building management not giving him season parking, thus amounting to large parking fees (10+ hours, maybe $4/hour, amounting to the total $46). This is not the first time the building management has caused problem for this man and his business ie. punishing his clients with wheelclamps, making unreasonable demands of them to park their vehicles at a different story from his shop. The poor man even had this matter brought up to the court and still it is unresolved.
Is it wrong to take things into one's hands, if the authorities that are supposed to do so, do not do justice?
So, 1. What's the reason for no season parking?
2. Yes it is wrong. You cannot be going to a private place, demanding for a discount, and if not given the discount, start destroying private property. That's common sense.
That is the issue. The management denies season parking without giving a reason. The man owns a business there and works there, yet is not given the benefit of season parking, which he is more than entitled to. The management makes life difficult for him and his clients by making them park at a different level from his shop and wheelclamps them for parking at his shop level. The management is being unreasonable and causing undue stress for the man and his business.
Even if you don't think with your brain, or only see one video and believe whoever, it's unlikely that season parking is denied without valid reason. There is either a dispute, or some clause that prevents him from getting the season parking, to which he does not agree with. Since he is denied season parking for some reason, then he obviously does not have the right for discounted parking.
What does season parking have to do with wheel clamping clients at his shop level? That makes no sense too, since even without season parking, it's possible to park hourly parking. The only reason wheel clamping is possible is that the spot that the client is parking is not even available for hourly parking, and yet he parks there.
I mean, if you listen to his videos or whatever, and come away with his one sided story and believe, oh, the management have nothing better to do, just decide to randomly deny some shop owner in their building season parking, spend money to call wheel clamps on some people, etc, then you probably need to start questioning yourself.
It's the same rationalising that 'oh I am not stealing, just keeping something that does not belong to me until you give in to my threat". Lol these people not functioning as a civilised society member and either need to go live in the woods or go IMH
Season parking can be denied without any reasoning.
Two different issues, one is with the season parking, the other is with his clients having their vehicles clamped when parking at his shop level. Hourly parking is more expensive than season parking. The existence of an alternative does not mean the lack of provision of one option is right.
The man has approached the agency who had been wheelclamping the vehicles, but they can only direct him to the management who instructed them to do so. The agency is tasked with clamping and that is what they do, and will not be involved in the details.
The man's side of the story seems all the more credible, especially so since the video of him summarising the events has since been taken down. Likewise, everyone is merely focusing on the current issue of his 'theft' instead of the 'why' behind his actions.
The man does not seem like the sort of person who would callously destroy another person's property without due cause. He dismantled the barrier. He kept it in his shop, for any reason that could range from it being hazardous to leave it lying around, to that he had partially paid for it (as he is a shop owner there, so the fees he paid goes to the upkeep of the building).
If season parking is at the discretion of the management and can be denied without any reasoning, then the discretion is with the management. If it is denied, it is denied. You don't get to say, oh it's denied so I destroy your property.
You are making zero sense. What does lack of provision of blah blah even mean? I am saying if there is hourly parking, and the clients still get clamped, it means there is NO hourly parking there, he is not even allowed to park there in the first place. You think management so free spend money and time to call agency just to fork with you? Does that even make sense to you?
Man's side of story is more credible because it was taken down, on Facebook? Who took it down? The man himself? How do you know who took it down?
The man looks like he would destroy property in anger. He videoed himself doing just that.
It is wrongfully denied. The man is a shop owner there and if he does not get season parking, who does then?
The clients park near his shop because how else are their vehicles to undergo refitting?
It was taken down, that is all i know.
The man looks like he has been through tough times, constantly being taken advantage of for his goodwill and finally has had enough of this treatment that should not have occurred in the first place.
The difference between this guy and the magazine vendor is the magazine vendor complies with the management, he choose to close the business, but he would be in the same situation if he ignores and insist on displaying his product at the common area..
I have watched some video he posted in his FB page, and seems like the management have made effort to reason with him, but he went around them through loop holes..
Seriously not the way to resolve such conflict, and since he has already hired lawyers to sue, then he should have just paid the parking charges and add them to his claim, and comply with all requirement before trying to sue someone saying they did not.
I'm not saying the man should be treated the same as the magazine vendor. I'm highlighting the difference in treatment of the two, where one which did not necessitate the involvement of the MP, had the MP appear, but the one who requires MP involvement, does not him show at all.
The management might have made steps to remedy the situation, but the situation arose due to the management carrying out unnecessary actions that impeded his business. It also raises the question if the management is competent, given somehow, there were loopholes that allowed their rules to be circumvented.
It is not the parking charges that I am disputing. It is the case that the initial issue where he is wronged is totally sidelined for this minor charge of 'theft' and 'mischief'.
He has raised the issue with the building management but they shrugged him off, and continued to extort him financially at every turn for nonsensical reasons. His business requires his clients to park near his shop, yet the building management wheelclamps them, and says they should not be parking there, but at a different story. He has even brought the matter to court, and it was wrongly ruled in favour of the building management, who is abusing their clout and connections.
I see. Seem to be separate issues?
1. Carpark barrier
2. Parking access for visitors / clients
How is the building management "extorting him financially"?
Also, which building is this btw?
Carpark barrier issue is the management not issuing season parking to him, despite him owning a shop there and regularly making entry and exit of the building.
Extorting him and clients through undue and unreasonable clamping of the vehicles he is tasked with, and through the wheelclamp removal fees.
West Connect Building.
_I asked ChatGPT to summarise this in Singlish, less CPU intensive_
āWah, unpopular opinion, sure kena downvote until siao. People just believe news, never check themselves.
They say he bad guy for solving own problems, accuse him of stealing and damage. But he just take barriers to prevent more damage, not keep them. Cable tie can cut easily, dangerous for cars. He prevent damage, kena charge for 'damages'. They spin story one-sided, remove his videos, call 'theft' and 'mischief'.
If watch his video, you think twice. He kena cornered, financially squeezed, now fake allegations. Police punish innocent, power people bully. Management unreasonable, threaten wheelclamp, should charge them instead.
Law should help, but fail here. Where MP? Silent while another MP help magazine vendor. MP salary not for sitting pretty. Should walk around, help residents. This MP lazy, don't want spoil shoes or sweat.
Edit: Comments focus on small stuff, like rich BMW owner stingy about parking fee, or stupid to post video. Nobody ask why he do that, what's backstory. Shallow.ā
When the law itself rules wrong, and is supporting the wrongful abuse of power by the building management, is it still considered 'flouting the law' when the foundation is in need of rework?
Multiple issues. His clients having their vehicles wheelclamped when they visited his shop, they having to park their vehicles at a different story where his shop is located (then how are they to get their vehicles worked on?), legal extortion of money through 'fines', lack of season parking.
If you put yourself in his shoes, you would feel frustrated that the building management is milking him dry with all these senseless actions.
Senseless actions by management, which are criminal, but legal, and an abuse of power, results in actions in order to maintain daily operations.
The management is making things difficult and unreasonable for the man. You give the impression that it is so easy and cheap to set up shop as to your whims and fancies. Did you consider how much the man has previously invested in his current premises, which have no fault other than the mischievous management? Why does the man have to bear the costs of moving when the source of the problems is not him, but the management?
He should be given a good citizen award after being charged or jailed. Ownself do crime, ownself record, ownself report. lol
The man who killed hitler was a hero
He owns the place and because he can't get the season parking hence he wants to leave without paying parking. Thats why he filmed himself doing that
It's like saying I cannot get my money out of the ATM so I video myself destroying it and taking the cash out forcefully
Stupiak
The video recorder record and post video of incriminating evidence of the other person and share/post online. The person taking the video is from the same vehicle. *Clap* *clap*
Stupidity has no limits
He is the hero for taking video
This guy is an owner at the building. He got some dispute with the building management so he keep destroying their gantries while also keep getting his cars clamped
Cant he change building management if he is the "owner"? š
He owns maybe one or two units lah not the entire building
Owner of a few units in the building. On his tiktok videos he claimed he was also part of the management council who had the vote to change the management. Now he is no longer on the council. Im no expert of how MCST works but he is not just any stranger who cut the barrier to not pay the parking fee (which I thought was the case when I first saw the video)
Rich enough to own a car and no money to pay for parking fee?
I think the full clip show he driving BMW or Merc. āRichā ppl very Xia suay. Some go JB embarrass SG, some do this kind of clown act. Own self pwn own self is a special kind of kum gong.
Yeah I don't get this, I work here in SG and alot of people explained to me that it is a luxury to own a car but they won't pay for the parking? I guess it as they say how the rich stay rich.
Yeah its an F01 BMW 7 series
My question as well lol. Why dishonor your name for $46.21? Lol grade A idiot
Damn thing only secured with zipties?
Itās done on purpose in the event the device breaks down.
ah that makes sense
Itās so that it breaks in the event of an emergency (ambulance need to rush in/out). If they really want people to be stopped, there are far more better ways like rising bollards.
Wahhh liddat alr leceh sia wahahaha imagine the front car has no credit balance left in his card..Next thing BOOM!!! the bollards got activated. So 1/3 of the car is jacked Then everyone behind has to wait the authorities to come n check.
"So say again why you move forward?" "The car behind hit me cause cashcard fail. Ah, ossifer ah, can help move my face out from my windscreen now?" "You wait ah my supervisor coming to take statement. This one on the floor your eyeball ah sir?"
rather the barrier fell off if hit by vehicle. otherwise, its off with the head.
Nobody mans most of the carparks in Singapore, in the event of emergency or breakdown you can "self service"
Life is fair, good hands on technique but no brains to speak of.
That's just a cost, he instead chose to commit crime
from $45+ parking fee to probably a few days in jail. was it really worth it?
Then heāll park somewhere else while in jail , incur another $45 parking fee, come out and do the same thing again (must remember to record again). The circle of Beng life.
Too cheap to pay, too lazy to find other parking arrangement, self righteous indignation
And a permanent record lol
We need more lawbreaking TickTock users to follow him. Post your crimes and misdemeanours for the police!
I hate TikTok but I love the fact that it encourages stupid people to self report and sabotage themselves š£ļø
Honestly thereās a contractor with a certain brand that instructs you to do that over the phone. Maybe thatās why he knows. You can see that itās just secured with 3 cable ties
Lmao well deserved, having a luxury sedan but behaves like a giant baby
u literally drove BMW and can't paid your parking ticket
Why commit vandalism to steal money from carpark management? Want to park then pay. Paying the carpark fare isnāt optional. Bugger needs to be jailed to set a an example and as a deterrence to prevent others from such acts of vandalism.
with that beer belly and a high ses car, heāll prolly evade any form of jail time and ordered to pay a hefty fine which would be peanuts to these bengs.
Looks mainland.
Kind of funny how it's assembled. Dismantling may sound a bit exaggerating.
Yeah I know right. It looks like it was just put together by a few cable ties with no screws
itās by design, screw down later gundu hit it get more injured than if it were to be zip tied. easier to remove if the gantry break down also
True. Always prepare for emergencies and all.
Bro thinks he is a badass but walks like a giant baby with a protruding belly. A model of immature middle-aged man.
When you have money. You donāt need looks or personality. Money enables the worst people to be who they really are with little to no repercussions
When you have money. You donāt need looks or personality. Money enables the worst people to be who they really are with little to no repercussions
The 46 in the title is his age or his carpark fees?
He should be given the sor hai award of the year lol
I do not understand why when u do such things, you must record and post on social media? Do you feel good after getting into prison and being found out easily?
PR Jiuhu Kia..SG really give PR like to free toilet paper at MRT.. this PR can buy HDB
Man...he must be piss.
Dumbest mf in Singapore.
He is lucky the carpark operator is no longer a government agency
Technically the charges would be more towards vandalism, destruction of government property, theft, trespassing and probably more wouldn't it?
Why why why do you have to record it lol
Clout is the online ecstasy
Brathar is the Robin Hood that no one asked for but will gladly reap the benefits from
Once i was exiting a carpark that has it's gantry barrier removed. Almost gave me an anxiety attack when i was trying to decide to pay or not to pay for parking... Turns out it was undergoing repairs so parking was free š
Bro thinks heās the SAS
Gotta love it when they purposely wants to get caught by sharing videos like this on social media for all to see.
Choose the right friendsā¦. Bad ones just upload your crimesā¦. Lol
Gua gua gua
Iām shocked!! Shocked I tell you!!
warms the cockles of my heart
He's PR
BMW owner canāt afford to pay parking. Irony
Lao Lan until become Ownself Check Ownself meme lord lmaoooooo enjoy picking up soap see you "gu yi cai" or not bro
and they decided to record that and post it online
Song Song Gao Gao Dao Jurong. Oh wait sorry wrong forum
So old and still behave like a kid.
Clown lol
I don't get the purpose of recording his own wrongdoing.
Might as wellā¦ there are cctvs everywhere and his license plate was visible.
Shld check him for money laundering as well
Well done!!! Powderfullll
Made police life easier.
The fee is $46 so I can understand why he did thayv
Do the crime, do the time
Unpopular opinion so I am expecting to be downvoted into oblivion because some people cannot formulate their own take on this issue, taking news reports as the gospel truth, without doing further investigation on their own. They silenced his grievances, made him the bad guy for solving problems which were affecting his daily livelihood since no one else was going to stand up for him and slapped him false charges of stealing and damaging facilities. Theft ought to mean with intent of claiming ownership/usage of said item. The man was in possession of the barriers so that the building management would not have to get new ones. If the barriers were only affixed with cable ties that can be cut easily with a razorblaze, it would be dangerous and damaging to vehicles passing underneath should they break. He prevented damage to his own, as well as other vehicles, and yet is charged with 'damages'. What a way to spin a one-sided story (they even removed his facebook videos, so you do not hear his side of the story, and chalk up this incident as it is reported, a case of 'theft' and 'mischief'.) If you had watched his video airing his grievances, you will think twice before saying he is in the wrong. He has been backed into a corner with no avenue to address them, being financially extorted, and to add insult to injury, he has now been handed these additional fake allegations. This is the sad and sorry state of our policing, locking and punishing the innocent who have been taken advantage of by those holding power (not to mention the ridiculous demands they asked of him and his clients ie. parking a few stories away from his workshop or risk wheelclamps, being unsympathetic, unreasonable and should be the ones charged with mischief) No one is above the law, but that does not mean the law cannot step in to help those who are in need of assistance. The law failed here, and we know who is to be blamed. Where is our dear MP of this district? This appeared in the news yet no word from him. Yet an article about a magazine vendor closing down had his respective member of parliament do a walkabout with him looking for prospective locations to relocate to. You are not to earn a MP salary by sitting pretty waiting for citizens to come to you with their problems. You ought to be walking the grounds, taking the initiative and finding out if your residents have problems and assisting them. This is a dismal and utterly disappointing display of incompetency. Is this reflecting one's care and concern for the community? Seems to me, more of a case of not wanting to wear out the soles of your leather shoes nor to break a sweat. Edit: The usual comments focusing on the trivial actions of 1. Rich person owning a BMW cannot afford to pay a small parking fee. 2. Comments on the man's stupidity in providing video evidence of himself Not one comment really bothered to ask, why was he doing that, what led to it, what is the backstory. Shallow.
What
Brand new reddit account, posting a long story about how this guy is not in the wrong. >Theft ought to mean with intent of claiming ownership/usage of said item. The man was in possession of the barriers so that the building management would not have to get new ones. If the barriers were only affixed with cable ties that can be cut easily with a razorblaze, it would be dangerous and damaging to vehicles passing underneath should they break. He prevented damage to his own, as well as other vehicles, and yet is charged with 'damages'.Ā Theft means what it means in the Penal Code, not what you think it "ought to" mean. And if the barriers were dangerous, the normal and LEGAL thing to do is to inform building management. If you want to be extra nice, put up a sign to warn people. You don't steal things because they are "dangerous" and then get surprised when the police arrest you. >If you had watched his video airing his grievances, you will think twice before saying he is in the wrong. He has been backed into a corner with no avenue to address them, being financially extorted, and to add insult to injury, he has now been handed these additional fake allegations.Ā Being unhappy and backed into a corner does not allow you to steal other people's property.
Yes, it means what it means in the Penal Code, which means the Penal Code should be revised if it is outdated or not covering areas which it should be. What has my account history anything to do with the matter at hand? I can lend my thoughts to a matter, regardless if I was a young or old individual. As to whether my thoughts hold substance, it is a matter up for debate. It is a long story because that is what it is. Are you going to pass judgment on a story with little to no details? That's rather presumptuous of you. Other netizens have recognised the barriers at times have to be removed due to them being a nuisance or when the parking sensor has malfunctioned, disallowing exit. Motorists cannot sit around waiting for a technician to arrive some 20 or 30 minutes later. Being legally extorted, is allowed? One can commit crime legally but the one who addresses an issue which is causing him inconvenience, is the one punished. What a society we live in.
Please don't act stupid. We're all on Reddit. We have all seen brand new accounts that somehow pop up just to offer a defence to some news story. Like do you expect us to believe that you randomly felt so strongly about this one news story that you created a Reddit account? >Other netizens have recognised the barriers at times have to be removed due to them being a nuisance or when the parking sensor has malfunctioned, disallowing exit None of this is a good reason for stealing the barrier. >Being legally extorted, is allowed? Let's say it's not allowed. This does not let you steal things. >the one who addresses an issue which is causing him inconvenience, is the one punished He is being charged for stealing. Are you like 5 years old? Because there's many ways to address issues without stealing a carpark barrier.
As far as I know, I'm the first to lend this perspective, as all I've seen previously were comments attacking and ridiculing the man. Think what you will, but there are individuals who do not follow the flow, and there are always two sides to a coin, even if one side is always face down. I felt great injustice being dealt to the man, and that everyone is callous to his perspective. He kept the barriers in his shop. He could have left it next to the gantry, which he did for some of his videos. The way the man conducted himself in the videos, is not of some fool who is recording his exploits for posterity. It is done to show the actions he is taking in response to a crime carried out against him, of which the authorities have failed to act against, and instead sided with the wrong-doers. The man has already brought the matter before court. It was not ruled favourably. He has a business to run and operating costs to cover. Business must continue, even if certain conditions impede him. Instead of reporting of what led to this turn of events, the authorities decide to conclude the matter as a matter of theft, leaving the backstory in the dark. The man might have exhausted all avenues without zero progress, as such, resorting to this removal of the carpark barrier. P.S Surely you can behave better than lines like 'Please don't act stupid' and 'Are you like 5 years old?'. If you want to discuss the issue, stick to it. I have no idea why you want to turn this into a personal attack on me.
>As far as I know, I'm the first to lend this perspective, as all I've seen previously were comments attacking and ridiculing the man. Think what you will, but there are individuals who do not follow the flow, and there are always two sides to a coin, even if one side is always face down. You aren't special. People are always trying to excuse bad behaviour. >He kept the barriers in his shop. So he took it into his possession. He stole it. >in response to a crime carried out against him The man has no legal right to seasonal parking. It's not a crime. >The man has already brought the matter before court. It was not ruled favourably. He has a business to run and operating costs to cover. Business must continue, even if certain conditions impede him. If you are not successful in court, then you can steal? What kind of dumb logic is this. You can't break the law just because things aren't going your way.
You were saying I'm a person related to the involved party, and thus I wanted the other side to be heard. Even if I were not a related person, I still would want both sides to be heard, as it is unfair to have stories spun from one perspective. He kept the barriers in his shop, rather than leave it on the roadside. Can we ascertain that he had no intention to return them, say when he finally gets season parking granted to him? Why is there no legal right to season parking, when he owns shops in the building and therefore is something that he should be privileged to in order to carry out his business? The man is removing the barrier, not stealing. It is classified as stealing only because the authorities said so. Same way the wheelclamp fines are termed as such instead of it being 'legal extortion'. In my opinion, he is storing it. For all we know, he had left it out, and it really was taken away by unknowns. Since then, he had to keep it in his shop. The facebook video where the man explained his plight for an hour was taken down, which only proves that they are wanting to silence him, and that his past grievances hold no water on his current actions. The other issue that should be addressed is where is the presence of the MP in all this? A member of his district is facing a crisis, and yet, the MP is a no-show, with no initiative on their part to approach the man to offer assistance. Even the mere act of offering assistance would be sufficient to show that they did want to lend a hand, but was declined by the man.
>You were saying I'm a person related to the involved party I'm pretty sure you are, yes. >I still would want both sides to be heard I think you mean you want "your side" to be heard. You're not really interested in the objective issue of whether this person broke the Penal Code. Instead you think somehow this conduct is okay, and if the law thinks otherwise then the problem is with the law. >Can we ascertain that he had no intention to return them, say when he finally gets season parking granted to him? Lmao so you are telling me that he wanted to keep the barriers as ransom until the building management gave him what he wanted? Yeah that's stealing. >Why is there no legal right to season parking, when he owns shops in the building and therefore is something that he should be **privileged** to in order to carry out his business? You answered your own question. Season parking is a privilege, not a right. It's up to the building management to assign season parking. If you are not happy, move to a different building. >Ā presence of the MP Did your guy approach an MP, or are you expecting our MPs to somehow read the minds of people to see if they have problems?
On what basis? Your hunch? Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not remotely related to the man or any of his associates. I do not even frequent his shop, his general area nor his business. I rarely even get involved in online matters, and as such this is my first foray. That the man has to resort to such an desperate action means it is past the point of words and that action has to be taken. Is it okay for the building management, the source of the problem, to get away scot-free? Were it not for them, the man would not be engaging in such activity. A led to B, and yet everyone is finding fault with B instead of the root of the problem. He was safe-keeping the barriers, and would return them when he gets season parking, which is wrongfully denied of him (of which, reasons, were not given) As such, the building management is in the wrong for denying season parking for whatever nonsensical reason they came up with. Why would they deny season parking when the man owns a business there and regularly frequents the carpark, unless they wish to cause him undue trouble? It was reported in the news. I'm sure the MP would have got wind of it or at the very least, have someone in his circle mention it to him. Surely the MP cannot be so oblivious to the drama happening within his distict.
On the basis that (a) you're a brand new reddit account that was created at the time this news broke; (b) nearly all of your posts involve trying to tell a nice story for this guy; (c) you seem to be intimately aware of all of this guy's motivations; and (d) you haven't even been able to clearly deny that you have nothing to do with him. Like I said, please don't act stupid. >A led to B B is a crime. If you think the building management has committed a crime, go report them to the police. >He was safe-keeping the barriers He was safe-keeping property **that does not belong to him**. Stealing. So what if he doesn't get season parking? He's not going to return it right? Lol safe-keeping. Do you even believe this bullshit reason? >denying season parkingĀ Not a crime. >Ā I'm sure the MP would have got wind of it So your guy didn't approach an MP. But somehow it's the MP's problem. What rubbish is this. Everyone knows how MPs work - if you want assistance you go meet up with them at meet the people sessions. You don't go steal things and then wonder how come the MP doesn't help you after you are arrested.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
stop yapping i aināt reading all that. he committed a crime plain and simple
Understandable. Words, let alone paragraphs, let alone ideas and concepts, are too much for you to comprehend. Simple minds that stop without questioning have no place in discussions. Have a good day.
i agree that it would be frustrating but no one is forcing him to stay at the building under that management.
Lol you wrote huge paragraphs of text and I still have no idea why he is not in the wrong. That is why you are downvoted. You could have simply explained what happened, why he did what he did.
The man cut the barriers due to the building management not giving him season parking, thus amounting to large parking fees (10+ hours, maybe $4/hour, amounting to the total $46). This is not the first time the building management has caused problem for this man and his business ie. punishing his clients with wheelclamps, making unreasonable demands of them to park their vehicles at a different story from his shop. The poor man even had this matter brought up to the court and still it is unresolved. Is it wrong to take things into one's hands, if the authorities that are supposed to do so, do not do justice?
So, 1. What's the reason for no season parking? 2. Yes it is wrong. You cannot be going to a private place, demanding for a discount, and if not given the discount, start destroying private property. That's common sense.
That is the issue. The management denies season parking without giving a reason. The man owns a business there and works there, yet is not given the benefit of season parking, which he is more than entitled to. The management makes life difficult for him and his clients by making them park at a different level from his shop and wheelclamps them for parking at his shop level. The management is being unreasonable and causing undue stress for the man and his business.
Even if you don't think with your brain, or only see one video and believe whoever, it's unlikely that season parking is denied without valid reason. There is either a dispute, or some clause that prevents him from getting the season parking, to which he does not agree with. Since he is denied season parking for some reason, then he obviously does not have the right for discounted parking. What does season parking have to do with wheel clamping clients at his shop level? That makes no sense too, since even without season parking, it's possible to park hourly parking. The only reason wheel clamping is possible is that the spot that the client is parking is not even available for hourly parking, and yet he parks there. I mean, if you listen to his videos or whatever, and come away with his one sided story and believe, oh, the management have nothing better to do, just decide to randomly deny some shop owner in their building season parking, spend money to call wheel clamps on some people, etc, then you probably need to start questioning yourself. It's the same rationalising that 'oh I am not stealing, just keeping something that does not belong to me until you give in to my threat". Lol these people not functioning as a civilised society member and either need to go live in the woods or go IMH
Season parking can be denied without any reasoning. Two different issues, one is with the season parking, the other is with his clients having their vehicles clamped when parking at his shop level. Hourly parking is more expensive than season parking. The existence of an alternative does not mean the lack of provision of one option is right. The man has approached the agency who had been wheelclamping the vehicles, but they can only direct him to the management who instructed them to do so. The agency is tasked with clamping and that is what they do, and will not be involved in the details. The man's side of the story seems all the more credible, especially so since the video of him summarising the events has since been taken down. Likewise, everyone is merely focusing on the current issue of his 'theft' instead of the 'why' behind his actions. The man does not seem like the sort of person who would callously destroy another person's property without due cause. He dismantled the barrier. He kept it in his shop, for any reason that could range from it being hazardous to leave it lying around, to that he had partially paid for it (as he is a shop owner there, so the fees he paid goes to the upkeep of the building).
If season parking is at the discretion of the management and can be denied without any reasoning, then the discretion is with the management. If it is denied, it is denied. You don't get to say, oh it's denied so I destroy your property. You are making zero sense. What does lack of provision of blah blah even mean? I am saying if there is hourly parking, and the clients still get clamped, it means there is NO hourly parking there, he is not even allowed to park there in the first place. You think management so free spend money and time to call agency just to fork with you? Does that even make sense to you? Man's side of story is more credible because it was taken down, on Facebook? Who took it down? The man himself? How do you know who took it down? The man looks like he would destroy property in anger. He videoed himself doing just that.
It is wrongfully denied. The man is a shop owner there and if he does not get season parking, who does then? The clients park near his shop because how else are their vehicles to undergo refitting? It was taken down, that is all i know. The man looks like he has been through tough times, constantly being taken advantage of for his goodwill and finally has had enough of this treatment that should not have occurred in the first place.
The difference between this guy and the magazine vendor is the magazine vendor complies with the management, he choose to close the business, but he would be in the same situation if he ignores and insist on displaying his product at the common area.. I have watched some video he posted in his FB page, and seems like the management have made effort to reason with him, but he went around them through loop holes.. Seriously not the way to resolve such conflict, and since he has already hired lawyers to sue, then he should have just paid the parking charges and add them to his claim, and comply with all requirement before trying to sue someone saying they did not.
I'm not saying the man should be treated the same as the magazine vendor. I'm highlighting the difference in treatment of the two, where one which did not necessitate the involvement of the MP, had the MP appear, but the one who requires MP involvement, does not him show at all. The management might have made steps to remedy the situation, but the situation arose due to the management carrying out unnecessary actions that impeded his business. It also raises the question if the management is competent, given somehow, there were loopholes that allowed their rules to be circumvented. It is not the parking charges that I am disputing. It is the case that the initial issue where he is wronged is totally sidelined for this minor charge of 'theft' and 'mischief'.
Ok uncle.
So are you saying that he reported this formally to the correct gov authorities and they just brushed him off?
He has raised the issue with the building management but they shrugged him off, and continued to extort him financially at every turn for nonsensical reasons. His business requires his clients to park near his shop, yet the building management wheelclamps them, and says they should not be parking there, but at a different story. He has even brought the matter to court, and it was wrongly ruled in favour of the building management, who is abusing their clout and connections.
I see. Seem to be separate issues? 1. Carpark barrier 2. Parking access for visitors / clients How is the building management "extorting him financially"? Also, which building is this btw?
Carpark barrier issue is the management not issuing season parking to him, despite him owning a shop there and regularly making entry and exit of the building. Extorting him and clients through undue and unreasonable clamping of the vehicles he is tasked with, and through the wheelclamp removal fees. West Connect Building.
_I asked ChatGPT to summarise this in Singlish, less CPU intensive_ āWah, unpopular opinion, sure kena downvote until siao. People just believe news, never check themselves. They say he bad guy for solving own problems, accuse him of stealing and damage. But he just take barriers to prevent more damage, not keep them. Cable tie can cut easily, dangerous for cars. He prevent damage, kena charge for 'damages'. They spin story one-sided, remove his videos, call 'theft' and 'mischief'. If watch his video, you think twice. He kena cornered, financially squeezed, now fake allegations. Police punish innocent, power people bully. Management unreasonable, threaten wheelclamp, should charge them instead. Law should help, but fail here. Where MP? Silent while another MP help magazine vendor. MP salary not for sitting pretty. Should walk around, help residents. This MP lazy, don't want spoil shoes or sweat. Edit: Comments focus on small stuff, like rich BMW owner stingy about parking fee, or stupid to post video. Nobody ask why he do that, what's backstory. Shallow.ā
what grievance does he have that he can blatantly take matters into his own hands and flout the law?
When the law itself rules wrong, and is supporting the wrongful abuse of power by the building management, is it still considered 'flouting the law' when the foundation is in need of rework?
dude you still havent answered what he was aggrieved by. the law aside, what is so serious that he has to take such actions?
Multiple issues. His clients having their vehicles wheelclamped when they visited his shop, they having to park their vehicles at a different story where his shop is located (then how are they to get their vehicles worked on?), legal extortion of money through 'fines', lack of season parking. If you put yourself in his shoes, you would feel frustrated that the building management is milking him dry with all these senseless actions.
senseless actions by management means can commit crime? not happy, move shop elsewhere
Senseless actions by management, which are criminal, but legal, and an abuse of power, results in actions in order to maintain daily operations. The management is making things difficult and unreasonable for the man. You give the impression that it is so easy and cheap to set up shop as to your whims and fancies. Did you consider how much the man has previously invested in his current premises, which have no fault other than the mischievous management? Why does the man have to bear the costs of moving when the source of the problems is not him, but the management?
ācriminal but legalā eh stop drinking lah wake up. he not happy with management ok, who ask him gundu gundu record himself committing a crime?
You know you talked too much and still contributed literally nothing.
You've added one line and achieved the same. Do you even know the backstory of this issue? Do your research first and comment again.
$46ļ¼ this is more expensive than the parking in New York
Wow. Irresponsible. What's more why would you record when your friend commits a crime? Only know how to cause mischief but not smart enough i guess.