-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Shameful and Despicable CPIB and Its Chief Eric Tan
- Thread starter gingerlyn
- Start date
If you are on bail it can be for several years. Truly amazing and they challenge you to complain.
i heard CPIB officers morale are low and depressed due to various mishandling cases including Edwin Yeo and their boss Eric Tan was sacked
What is so likeable about this Ah Bui?
Who is this wet market pork seller?
He wasnt sacked. Just replaced. If sacked PSC needs to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Similar to NBG.
From what I gathered, Eric was a popular boss. Caring and decisive when making decisions.
That is true, the morale is low because he left. His only folly was being too trusting towards his men.
Precious two directors did not mix with their men - Cher Yak and Kee Hean. ET was different. Even played soccer with his men.
CPIB was abused as a tool to silent academic dissents according to this article published in Online Citizen
Quote:
Tey Tsun Hang was an NUS law professor, former district judge, and seat counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Prof. Tey has been critical of Singapore’s legal system, as evident in his publications such as Death Penalty Singapore-Style: Clinical and Carefree.
In 2011, Hong Kong University Press published his book, Legal Consensus. The blurb states that the book “hints at the power relations and dynamics between the political establishment and the Singapore judiciary.”
In April 2012, Prof. Tey was arrested by the CPIB for investigation on charges of corruptly gaining favours from students. A year later, Prof. Tey was found guilty of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko, and sentenced to five months’ jail in June.
Darinne Ko said that she had been pressured into agreeing with CPIB on her witness statement after being told by Mr Teng that she could also be charged for corruption.
As Ray Buono wrote:
“I am not the only lecturer to have this happen. I can name two of my contemporaries (and there are many more). . .who were expelled for political reasons.”
One has to wonder how “many more” academics have been treated in a similar manner — and how much of a factor this is in contributing to the steady brain drain whereby many of Singapore’s best and brightest leave for a better life elsewhere.
Unquote:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/02/academic-freedom-in-singapore/
Quote:
Tey Tsun Hang was an NUS law professor, former district judge, and seat counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Prof. Tey has been critical of Singapore’s legal system, as evident in his publications such as Death Penalty Singapore-Style: Clinical and Carefree.
In 2011, Hong Kong University Press published his book, Legal Consensus. The blurb states that the book “hints at the power relations and dynamics between the political establishment and the Singapore judiciary.”
In April 2012, Prof. Tey was arrested by the CPIB for investigation on charges of corruptly gaining favours from students. A year later, Prof. Tey was found guilty of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko, and sentenced to five months’ jail in June.
Darinne Ko said that she had been pressured into agreeing with CPIB on her witness statement after being told by Mr Teng that she could also be charged for corruption.
As Ray Buono wrote:
“I am not the only lecturer to have this happen. I can name two of my contemporaries (and there are many more). . .who were expelled for political reasons.”
One has to wonder how “many more” academics have been treated in a similar manner — and how much of a factor this is in contributing to the steady brain drain whereby many of Singapore’s best and brightest leave for a better life elsewhere.
Unquote:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/02/academic-freedom-in-singapore/
Last edited:
Cpib started out to clamp the wings of senior civil servants. Original aim is to clamp down Power or corruption by senior civil serpents , not sure the original purpose still alive? Seems like a political tool now.
All govt entities and stat boards are political tools. When need to, they will be used.
It is a to protect the Lees who think they are untouchable. Their haughtiness is now getting in to trouble. They can be flattened overnight by the rest of the world. Their bullying tactics do not work in other 3rd world countries. Little India was just a drop to taste. One teaspoon, and hatchet man Lee is finished with his family. Do not know why they like to tempt fate. Their genes are really shitty and yet want to play eugenics. Must be some kind of virus species.
Drastic changes can only take place when LKY up lorry and 60% show more courage and intelligence. Next GE may expedite this i hope.
Shameful CPIB and shameless PM LEE HSIEN LOONG and this is the article that says it all.
The Invisible Man and CPIB
First it was the former CNB chief, Ng Boon Gay, who was acquitted of corruption charges for awarding lucrative IT contracts in exchange for sexual favors. Then it is former NUS law professor Tey Tsun Hang's turn to be acquitted for giving good grades in exchange for sex. It begs the question: why is there such a great disconnect between the CPIB's definition of corruption, to the Subordinate Court's and the High Court's? It is understandable that law enforcement is open to interpretation, but there ought to be some consistency and common consensus in what is outright wrong, and there is no way a suspect charged and hauled up to be shamed in public could be acquitted. We thought Ng Boon Gay's acquittal is a one-off because it is rare anyone can get off the hook when they are charged by a public prosecutor - especially when it is the almighty Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau.
So what happened to the CPIB? The CPIB reports to only one person, the Prime Minister, and not even the elected President. It is hence logical to see that whoever CPIB is prosecuting, nothing proceeds without the the approval of Lee Hsien Loong himself. The Prime Minister has been clever to sit totally invisible and not make a single comment referencing to the slew of corruption cases that have opened up. It wouldn't be appropriate of CPIB to make a press statement, but the Prime Minister's Office owe the public an explanation what resulted in the two high profile acquittals. Does the CPIB not have decent prosecutors who could present their case to make these cases a no-brainer? Who will be next to be found not guilty and inconvenienced to the point of having served a 5 month jail sentence?
Or perhaps, a more pressing explanation the Prime Minister owe to the public is the $1.76 million corruption case committed by former CPIB assistant director Edwin Yeo. It happened under your watch, Prime Minister? What went wrong? Why are you silent on these issues? Where are you?
Going back to the point where the CPIB reports to no one but the Prime Minister, it begs another question: Could the Prime Minister be investigated by the CPIB? If not, who is there to check on a corrupted Prime Minister? Perhaps the PMO would like to clarify on this as well. Then again, who investigates the CPIB? It seems that the current system is not as corruption-proof as it is. A piece is missing to close the loop of accountability, and that is Transparency to public scrutiny.
Salaries, balance sheets, budget statements and many other relevant financial details and rationale behind state decisions should be made available to the public. In Australia, they enacted transparency into their system and called it the Freedom of Information Act. Journalists, activists and any members of the public have the enforceable right to access government documents relating to policy making. While such act doesn't stamp out corruption, it certainly doesn't impede the carriage of justice. Throughout the 50 years PAP have been government, their biggest failure is to instil a system of transparency and accountability. There are many questions unanswered, and many questions unquestioned because there is a buffet of laws including civil defamation lawsuits that are ready to serve the questioner. Singapore's system is designed to be one-way open loop, where nobody has the right to question the person at the highest chain of command, who is believed to be utterly incorruptible. To put in plainly, Singapore is indeed a dictatorship.
Posted by Cheated Singaporean at 19:41 No comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
The Invisible Man and CPIB
First it was the former CNB chief, Ng Boon Gay, who was acquitted of corruption charges for awarding lucrative IT contracts in exchange for sexual favors. Then it is former NUS law professor Tey Tsun Hang's turn to be acquitted for giving good grades in exchange for sex. It begs the question: why is there such a great disconnect between the CPIB's definition of corruption, to the Subordinate Court's and the High Court's? It is understandable that law enforcement is open to interpretation, but there ought to be some consistency and common consensus in what is outright wrong, and there is no way a suspect charged and hauled up to be shamed in public could be acquitted. We thought Ng Boon Gay's acquittal is a one-off because it is rare anyone can get off the hook when they are charged by a public prosecutor - especially when it is the almighty Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau.
So what happened to the CPIB? The CPIB reports to only one person, the Prime Minister, and not even the elected President. It is hence logical to see that whoever CPIB is prosecuting, nothing proceeds without the the approval of Lee Hsien Loong himself. The Prime Minister has been clever to sit totally invisible and not make a single comment referencing to the slew of corruption cases that have opened up. It wouldn't be appropriate of CPIB to make a press statement, but the Prime Minister's Office owe the public an explanation what resulted in the two high profile acquittals. Does the CPIB not have decent prosecutors who could present their case to make these cases a no-brainer? Who will be next to be found not guilty and inconvenienced to the point of having served a 5 month jail sentence?
Or perhaps, a more pressing explanation the Prime Minister owe to the public is the $1.76 million corruption case committed by former CPIB assistant director Edwin Yeo. It happened under your watch, Prime Minister? What went wrong? Why are you silent on these issues? Where are you?
Going back to the point where the CPIB reports to no one but the Prime Minister, it begs another question: Could the Prime Minister be investigated by the CPIB? If not, who is there to check on a corrupted Prime Minister? Perhaps the PMO would like to clarify on this as well. Then again, who investigates the CPIB? It seems that the current system is not as corruption-proof as it is. A piece is missing to close the loop of accountability, and that is Transparency to public scrutiny.
Salaries, balance sheets, budget statements and many other relevant financial details and rationale behind state decisions should be made available to the public. In Australia, they enacted transparency into their system and called it the Freedom of Information Act. Journalists, activists and any members of the public have the enforceable right to access government documents relating to policy making. While such act doesn't stamp out corruption, it certainly doesn't impede the carriage of justice. Throughout the 50 years PAP have been government, their biggest failure is to instil a system of transparency and accountability. There are many questions unanswered, and many questions unquestioned because there is a buffet of laws including civil defamation lawsuits that are ready to serve the questioner. Singapore's system is designed to be one-way open loop, where nobody has the right to question the person at the highest chain of command, who is believed to be utterly incorruptible. To put in plainly, Singapore is indeed a dictatorship.
Posted by Cheated Singaporean at 19:41 No comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Similar threads
