Photojournalist arrested for taking pictures of Flash Flood.

I'm surprised people are still twisting this to be more than it is. It's very clearly stated in the article that the guy was arrested for standing in dangerous positions while taking pictures. Plus he was first asked to leave that place and he refused.

If I eat an apple while standing in the middle of the highway and get arrested, I'm not going to be in the newspaper tomorrow: Man arrested for eating an apple.
 
^ In other times, maybe yes...people are twisting it. But in this current climate (no pun intended), many Singaporeans are already...well...pretty pissed off with the government over many issues. And it's no secret because you can see, hear and feel people's resentment all around. The ineffectiveness and excuses given by PUB over the flooding has raised further eyebrows, but it has also given people an avenue to voice their frustrations. So incidents like this is going to get people talking, including theories of government "cover ups" to contain bad publicity.
 
Still, guitarsan, if he had wanted to take his photographs, surely that there were many other places that he could have taken his photographs without obstructing the police from their job. The journalist was arrested because he was obstructing and prohibiting the police officers from doing his official duties.

Furthermore, the floods were due to really bad rain. The last flood, 179mm of water fell within a space of two hours. I've never seen such torrential rainfall of that ferocity in Singapore before
 
I don't know leh, has anyone here seen him obstructing the police? people who do not choose to believe the photojournalist's words, could be more objective.

for me, i don't think that by standing at a place, and taking some photos, could obstruct the police to the extent whereby they had to handcuff him and pull him to somewhere else.

So this is obstruction or for the sake of his safety?

and then, if that photojournalist was doing his duty, how? if he was shooting for reportage, how?
 
Just have to see the pix in his camera. If pix is award winning, that means he went where no others went. If the pix only so so, same like everybody's, that means he is standing where everyone else was standing.
 
The only place in the entire article which asserts he was arrested for taking photographs is in the title.

The only words quoted from the photojournalist was “I am not a criminal. Why are you handcuffing me?” Let me objectively think what that could mean. Hmmm. I think it means he doesn't think he was in the wrong.

Hmmm what could it be that the police thought he was wrong about. Oh wait, it states there later in the article. He was standing in a dangerous position. And was asked to leave. And he refused. And struggled. So they handcuffed him.

And somehow the title became "Man arrested for taking photos." I don't even see any quote of the photojournalist himself claiming that.

When you find a quote of the guy saying "I was just standing there by the road taking photos, when out of nowhere the police handcuff and arrest me." Then we can talk about his word vs the police.

Please find for me, ANYWHERE in the article, ANYBODY that claims the photojournalist was arrested FOR taking photos. Cos i'm reading and re-reading it and I don't see it. Super misleading title.
 
i think it is also important to be critical when you read information, especially, especially from singapore newspaper (straits times, hahah, which is a really funny newspaper if you get what i mean).

if, and this is only if, the whole thing was really an attempt to cover up, obviously you will never find it in the newspaper, especially straits times.

having said that, it is not good to speculate but i think it is good for the brain to be critical, not to take everything at face value and have the herd mentality, yeap.
 
The newspapers just want to sell their stories. They'll gladly lap up any gossip that will bring in the revenue. Not surprised that such a story has been badly twisted.

And before anyone screams "cover-up", oh come on. This is Singapore. We gripe about how the media is "controlled" by the government, so why let this out? If it was really a "cover-up", then no one would have the audacity to report and publish it because the "bosses" will whack them deep deep if that's the case
 
Its wan bao, they always have headlines of sex crimes on the front page, revealing pictures of the victims. they're not exactly the most reputable, reliable newspaper

the photographer is obviously testing the patience of the policeman. Kudos to the policeman for exercising his authority

Elections are coming sooon, people will naturally want to stir shit . But i would rather they go and stir some more shit about the SBS/SMRT fares than this.
 
It doesn't matter, in the end all media(mostly print, television, radio) in Singapore is controlled by the government, so they really didn't need to take such a trouble to arrest this guy if he is hired by any print media people.
 
the cold hard reality is that the police have the right to arrest and detain whoever they want, for whatever reason, or for no reason. that is why they are the police, not the mickey mouse club.

whether or not the person is charged or found guilty of a crime is another matter. if you didn't do anything wrong, they will *probably* release you. eventually.

so the moral of the story, which is pure common sense, is don't piss off the police. police are not there to protect individuals. police are there to protect society from individuals. and sometimes, doing this job requires them to bust your ass.

failure to obey the police is an offence in itself.

it is a fact that arrests are part of some police officers' KPI.
 
Last edited:
It's the Wan Bao. They need such headlines to get the papers off the rack.

What better than to vilify the common overlord of a government, while portraying the photographer as an innocent, contributing citizen being the victim of a whitewash?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top