Stolen wallet, lost Dependant Pass/FIN cards

[sundaymorningstaple]

Because it happens to be the policy of the country you are in? Seams reasonably to me. Their country,their rules. If you visit a country, you should be aware of the rules. Hence warning on drugs posted and even strongly warned on incoming flights.

What's that old saying? Ignorance of the law is no excuse? Even less excuse today than it was, say, 20 years ago when there was no easily available online references.

Thanks for the reply, but that wasn't my angle.

I appreciate it's their law/policy, their country their rules etc etc. But most laws exist for a reason*, most of which seem to focus on aiming to dissuade behaviour that harms, or potentially harms society as a whole.

Why should my wife, who has 'never said boo to a goose' [i.e. broken even the most minor/trivial of laws] have to carry an IC 24/7, *AND* then face unjustifiably large re-issue/punishment fees, in the case that she might one day lose it, or have it stolen?

In other words. In the States, you don't have to carry id, so why here?

[*I'm not trying to have a P'ing contest ... I'm honestly just trying to understand what this reason is]

In the states, they've been pushing for identity cards for several years now, In fact most states issue non-driving driving licenses just for that purpose. You have to carry photo ID to cash or write a cheque in the US as well. Oh, This isn't the US.

As the NRIC and/or EP/WP/DP here are valuable, it makes sense to make it costly. That's why it's only 100 for the first offense and three hundred for subsequent offenses.

Also, I believe in the US, foreigner have to carry their "green cards" or H1B visa on their person. As far as photo ID's are concerned isn't that one of the sticking points in Arizona at the moment with illegal aliens?

Have no fear. Obamy will have your affiliations/religion/politicalpersuasion tattooed on your head soon. Reminds me brownshirts and jackboots in the 1930's

[JR8]

. dupe, sorry.

[JR8]

So would it be ok if they check everybody?
intimidation? I feel much more comfortable with the police here than in any of the Western countries. I never seen local police with arrogant or bullying attitude. I think the right word is discouragement. Besides, outside the cctv areas it may help in some cases to track those not that innocent. Lastly, I don't think these are random people being checked.

Check everyone: That's hypothetical, as they don't have the manpower, and hence not a valid question. On the flip-side, you could argue that they already do, but generally at arms-length via CCTV. But stopping a person and checking their ID card is a level higher (and you can be sure they're carrying out other visual/psych, perhaps even DNA checks at the same time as such searches).

If there was one section of society, or race, much more liable to be checked like this, how would you feel about it? (as happened in the UK with police 'Stop and Search' powers).

If a citizenry are generally pussies (for law-abidingness), then they can be policed by relative pussies. British police are pretty pussy too in this regard. In comparison I would not want to be in an altercation with say a NYC cop, who will have the 'manner' required for his job.

You think the checks are 'profiled'. Yes, I think you're likely right there. I still don't know what they're checking IDs for though. Do they record the 'antisocial behaviour' committed, by race, or nationality? Or are they expecting to find the next Mas Selamat p'ing it up with a bunch of others at a void deck?

And did someone mention random police ID checks at Clarke Quay.... if so, to what ends are they done?


p.s. Would 'stopping everybody' as you posit, be any different to having a speed camera on a highway bridge videoing/IDing every vehicle?

[JR8]

In the states, they've been pushing for identity cards for several years now, In fact most states issue non-driving driving licenses just for that purpose. You have to carry photo ID to cash or write a cheque in the US as well. Oh, This isn't the US.

I appreciate that in the States, the driving license serves as a de facto ID card [ironic to us, as you still label yourselves 'The Land of the Free' ]. And yes, I also knew you could be am un-qualified driver, and yet get a ''''driving'''' license, for precisely the requirement to provide ID. This ties with some states requiring people who might look even 30, to prove their age to buy a beer.

I wonder how a non-drivers driving license ties with the surprisingly high (at face value) percentage of Americans who don't have passports, i.e., a form or ID I'd expect most people in other developed countries have. I.e. plenty of US people don't have passports, some don't drive - the non-driving drivers license is the fill-in ID for such people.

'Cashing a cheque' would probably be considered archaic in much of Europe, in fact just the idea of any cheque is. People use ATMs or a counter to draw from their own accounts. I think the age of cashing a cheque in your own name (or from someone else) stopped in the mid-80s or so. > Money Laundering Regs etc. But then the Americans had/have really impenetrable rules about cashing/depositing cheques -even- across state lines.

[Confused by the last bit, 'this is the US, this is not the US...' ]

As the NRIC and/or EP/WP/DP here are valuable, it makes sense to make it costly. That's why it's only 100 for the first offense and three hundred for subsequent offenses.

But why are they valuable to other than the rightful owner?

Also, I believe in the US, foreigner have to carry their "green cards" or H1B visa on their person. As far as photo ID's are concerned isn't that one of the sticking points in Arizona at the moment with illegal aliens?

I don't know, but I can see how that could be a real political/profiling/race hot potato. Can't say I ever carried ID in the States, except, if I was going to a bar/club where I knew they'd be prickly on *everyone* proving their age.

Have no fear. Obamy will have your affiliations/religion/politicalpersuasion tattooed on your head soon. Reminds me brownshirts and jackboots in the 1930's

Well yes, that WAS sort of my original point. Just that it might seem to some even more overt in some countries, other than the US.

I remember being very taken, when I was young, by the ideas of freedom possible within the US. What I have come to realise though, is that I think there are several equally or more civilised countries, that are freer. (No offence, just IMHO)...

[sundaymorningstaple]

At the moment, I think you'll find that probably better than 60% of Americans would agree with you.

NB: this is the US. This is not the US: two different sentences. The second This is Singapore.

[Max Headroom]

^ This.

[Max Headroom]

One interesting event just came to mind. Years back, whilst in the middle of my EP application/company registration processes, years back, I'd befriended the manager of my hotel, a decent bloke with an interesting background.

One day, he told me that a mate of his, an ex-police officer, wanted to meet with me. Apparently, his mate was going to travel to my country of origin soon for a holiday and he wanted to ask me about the best sites to visit, hotels to stay etc.

Well, I told my friend that his mate better Google all that, because he'd find a lot more interesting stuff there than I can ever come up with, given that I'm the last guy to give a rat's patootie about touristy places in my own country.

But his mate insisted I meet with him. I thought it was weird, but at some point I started twigging that it may be a way for them to suss me out. So I figured I'd go and meet this dude.

We did have that meet-up, but, just as I suspected, the chap didn't ask me one single question about my country. He pretty much did a why and wherefore job on me. Why did I want to stay in Singapore? What was I going to do? Where was I going to live?

Of course I can't be sure that this is really what it was. But if it was, then all power to them. Their country, their conditions.

Anyhoo, evidently I passed

[sundaymorningstaple]

Singapore is easy to live in once you understand and accept their conditions (You don't really have to understand as long as you are willing to accept). Nobody forced you to come here and I think that's a very good point to always keep in mind. You are here at their pleasure and on their terms.

[JR8]

Sure. But that it has to be repeatedly repeated, is rather a QED, and a sad indictment ...

'You are here on their terms etc', but if you're a talented SGn who 'quits' for another country, then the government have an agency 'Contact Singapore' who rove the world and try and lure you back.
http://www.contactsingapore.sg/overseas_singaporeans/

So there is an element of society here, comprising talented SGns with initiative, who know the grass really can be greener on the other side. So much so, the government have what is essentially a counter task-force to stop this talent quitting.

This would seem contrary to any simple and bald assertion that 'If you don't like it, you can leave'. Many locals who choose to do so, only to be almost hunted down. Most expats come here expecting a 2-3 year stint: These people don't wish or expect to assimilate, they're in-country to make $, shag the dolly-birds, and then go home.

Should accepting every single facet of a country, as above criticism, be a pre-requisite to living there? If so, is this just re: Singapore, or does it apply uniformly?

[sundaymorningstaple]

Honestly, you are being just as obtuse as you were before. Sure it's the same in every country. What that country decides is right for them, you either accept or don't go. Or, get bounced out. Sad indictment of whom? In your eyes? I'm sure the care. Not one iota. Or anybody else's that's for sure. They've proved that time & time again. Makes sense to try to lure citizens back. They are much more valuable with international exposure and actually have learned something that is of value to the country. And they are already citizens with all the entitlemenst that that enjoys. Makes sense to me.

[JR8]

One thing I think they -Quitters- have learned, is that unlike common perception, you don't have to be afraid of quitting. 'They broke the spell'. So they must be repatriated at all cost.

Ironic, isn't it.



p.s. And no, with respect, I'm not intending to be the slightest obtuse. I'm trying to break an argument down, and simply call it, when it appears not to stand up to scrutiny. To me it's not obtuse, it's having a discussing, and at times trying to winkle out a rationale (naturally, in order that I meant attempt to then crush it hehe )

[JR8]

'What'

Doesn't that presume the state and the people are shoulder to shoulder in formulating policy etc? The state and the people, are one? Are you at one with Obama and co?

re: 'What a country decides is right - '. So why does America keep invading foreign countries? It's not even that they are there and don't accept, it's that they don't accept, and hence invade (no less).

Do you never criticise anything, about any country's politics; not even anything wafting up from the Obama administration?

Sorry, I'm really not wishing to sound antagonistic at all (if I do). I'm more interested in probing the point-blank precept of 'If you don't like it go home', which I feel is flawed.

[sundaymorningstaple]

'What'

Doesn't that presume the state and the people are shoulder to shoulder in formulating policy etc? The state and the people, are one? Are you at one with Obama and co?

re: 'What a country decides is right - '. So why does America keep invading foreign countries? It's not even that they are there and don't accept, it's that they don't accept, and hence invade (no less).

Do you never criticise anything, about any country's politics; not even anything wafting up from the Obama administration?

I think you can answer you own question re being at one with your country's leader(s).

What does 'people' have to do with anything once a government gets into office. Sadly, especially in the US flavour, the people are being trampled on by a 'victim' president. US Policies are one of the reasons why I've been out of the country for 30 years (both sides of the aisle).

If you are going to "re:"something at least try to keep it in context so that you look like you know what you are talking about. It's about what they think is right, not what you, I, john doe, or john major thinks. Or any other country in the world.

If you don't like "don't like it, go home". Then change it to"if you don't like it, just go somewhere else. For me, I don't need to like all of a system, I weigh the pros & cons (which are different from person to person) as they pertain to my sit.uation. Ergo, I stay. Otherwise, I'd go somewhere else.

[x9200]

Check everyone: That's hypothetical, as they don't have the manpower, and hence not a valid question. On the flip-side, you could argue that they already do, but generally at arms-length via CCTV. But stopping a person and checking their ID card is a level higher (and you can be sure they're carrying out other visual/psych, perhaps even DNA checks at the same time as such searches).

For me it's comparable in that sense that having my every step recorded is equally if not more abusive than disrupting my walk or whatever I was doing, by a police check. Recording is like gathering evidence for the crime that not happened "just in case". You can think about examples where you just were in a wrong place and wrong time and got recorded to become a subject to interrogation.

If there was one section of society, or race, much more liable to be checked like this, how would you feel about it? (as happened in the UK with police 'Stop and Search' powers).

Why do you think this happens here?

You think the checks are 'profiled'. Yes, I think you're likely right there. I still don't know what they're checking IDs for though. Do they record the 'antisocial behaviour' committed, by race, or nationality? Or are they expecting to find the next Mas Selamat p'ing it up with a bunch of others at a void deck?

Probably everything from thi is recorded but I don't really get why you insist it has to be all some Orwellian-racist plot.
In my country such checks are normal and you can read in the newspapers pretty regularly on criminals or under Interpol/EU wanted list caught this way. Its a part of reality and people are happy if their area has visible presence of police. Yes, it would be ideal if the police could act completely invisible with no checks or cctv but lets be realistic, it's not going to happen for purely objective (pragmatic) reasons. Complaining about some really infrequent checks and being a subject of everyday permanent and massive invigilation is like not seeing a forest for the trees.

p.s. Would 'stopping everybody' as you posit, be any different to having a speed camera on a highway bridge videoing/IDing every vehicle?

Well, that's my point. The only difference, it's less invasive but then it captures everything instead of some potentially crucial data.

[JR8]

Interesting replies, thanks. I’m going to have to do a bit of an ‘edit-for-sanity’, as the size is bordering on unmanageable for Ol’ Slo-Fingers here

What does 'people' have to do with anything once a government gets into office. Sadly, especially in the US flavour, the people are being trampled on by a 'victim' president. US Policies are one of the reasons why I've been out of the country for 30 years (both sides of the aisle).

A thought provoking point, it suggests a cynical chameleon like manifesto-creep. Elected on one platform, but when in power, actually doing something different. This happened at the last UK election (re: one major issue), where the present government promised a referendum on membership of the EU (which the majority of people wish to exit). Of course now there are ‘higher priorities’, and they’re promising to hold one in 2017 – which presumes that they’ll get re-elected and form the next government. Lol, they ‘take the people for fools’.

‘Victim president’... hehehe, I’ll have to consider that further but I get the drift...

For me it's comparable in that sense that having my every step recorded is equally if not more abusive than disrupting my walk or whatever I was doing, by a police check. Recording is like gathering evidence for the crime that not happened "just in case". You can think about examples where you just were in a wrong place and wrong time and got recorded to become a subject to interrogation.

I can see there is a fine line on the matter. As you describe it, it could be considered reminiscent of ‘Stasi Germany’, or Cuba. Re: your latter point, innocent people already got pulled in for questioning, in pre-CCTV days, if they were seen in the WP+WT, or if a crime fitted their known profile. Hence the expression ‘The Usual Suspects’ http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tjwXBkooYaI/movi ... v=50fcf849

JR8 previously wrote: <'If there was one section of society, or race, much more liable to be checked like this, how would you feel about it? (as happened in the UK with police 'Stop and Search' powers).'>

Why do you think this happens here?

I didn’t know that it does.

Probably everything from thsi is recorded but I don't really get why you insist it has to be all some Orwellian-racist plot.

Come now, I’m not trying to suggest (never mind insist upon) any of that . They record the race-profile of stop and search subjects in the UK. There have been protest marches against the high-frequency of S+S’s one particular race is subject to (i.e. this ethnic group know the official recorded statistics/by race). Well that is in a country where race is a pretty benign matter; whereas here it seems be a permanent hot-topic, hence my semi-flippant point.

In my country such checks are normal and you can read in the newspapers pretty regularly on criminals or under Interpol/EU wanted list caught this way. Its a part of reality and people are happy if their area has visible presence of police.

Interesting. In the UK, the criminals tend to get caught by ‘Intelligence-led policing’ (that said we have the advantage of being an island). People where I’m from are also happy to see the [very] occasional officer out on the street, or even in their neighbourhood, but it’s a rare thing... maybe once or twice a year? I remember I was quite startled to see a PC walking up my street last time I was back home. So, on one hand happy to see them, but on the flip-side for me, and most people, would be extremely unhappy for them to stop and (attempt to) ID me, or question me, etc.

Complaining about some really infrequent checks

I’m not complaining, I’m trying to join-the-dots, between ...
- having to carry ID at all times in this country*
- the reason for this
- vs the very high cost of getting a lost ID card replaced
- why that ID card is so expensive
- if it’s valuable to ‘undesirables’, then why not simply increase the cards security. I.e. it implies the current card is a security risk in itself, due to it's potential value to 'bad people'. It gets circular thereafter: You're making people carry ID every day, some of which will get lost and fall into the hands of the wrong people. This wouldn't happen if people didn't have to carry ID on them 24/7.

* I previously asked if tourists have to carry ID/passports on them as well, and don’t recall now if anyone knew or replied. Logic would suggest they would have to. But I wonder if there an entry on the STB website reminding visitors to carry their passports at all times? [Side-thought: If this were the case, I expect quite some number get lost or stolen. 'Nightmare: Tourists trapped in SG on stop-over whilst trying to get their passports re-issued'. Further-side-thought: What other countries require you to have to carry ID at all times? – IIRC I’ve only experienced one, Bolivia].