-
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.
The Summary Judgement: Ass Loon Vs Roy Ngerng
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
Re: Ass Loon Lawyers Wants Roy Ngerng to Pay Them $50k in Fees for Summary Judgement!
when is he going to declare bankrupt? his father carrot cake stall had already increased price also won't be able to help him pay
when is he going to declare bankrupt? his father carrot cake stall had already increased price also won't be able to help him pay
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
http://sghardtruth.com/2015/01/13/c...roys-lawyer-earns-more-than-a-senior-counsel/
Overheard from QY:
So Roy’s lawyer earns more than a senior counsel?
He gave the figure of $70k himself when he asked for donations. Hahaha
He can inflate his lawyer’s legal fee to any amount he wants since he isn’t paying for it. It’s public donations and he is well able to manipulate people’s emotions to get them to donate. No one has any idea how much of the donations has been spent or how they were spent. There is no transparency or accountability.
The government raised the draw down age so that they can keep your CPF forever?
That’s a big lie.
What is true is that those who donate their money to Roy will never again see that money.
Since when was anyone unable to take back his CPF?
The older generation had already withdrawn all their CPF. The younger old are receiving their monthly payouts. People are using their CPF to buy their property, to pay medical bills and insurance and more. If a person lives to a ripe old age, the monthly payouts he receives in total exceeds what he has in his retirement account. If unfortunately he dies early, whatever money he has left in his CPF will be distributed to his family members according to his nomination. If he had not made any nomination, then the money will still be distributed to his family members – according to intestacy laws.
Either way, the CPF money is always returned – IN FULL.
Comment :
At my age of 74 years, I totally agree with the writer’s comment regarding the CPF.
Thru CPF I own my HDB Flat ( now rented ) n CPF has never fail to pay me.
Current income gives me much more than I need n yet to see the need of my personal saving, all thanks to our country’s good system …
****************************************************************
Overheard :
These 2 person, Roy & HHH are deem clever. If you are not successful in life due to deficiency of capability, the least is they know that a bunch of anti-PAP supporters would like to listen, cheers and support regardless. The more they spoke against the Ruling party, (any bullshit also can) the better and more money they get. I wonder if they might even get a long term salary to continue their act.
If it is not 70K , who in the right mind ( not even Ravi) will represent him for blalantly defamation of a country Prime Minister.
It is suicide , R&R ( Roy and Ravi ) are both in it for the money ,only very naive people can’t see that.
The only suckers here were the people who donated the amount…
I wonder how they are feeling now..
PM Lee’s legal fee is assessed to be $29,000, but Ravi’s legal fee to represent Roy Ngerng is $70,000 (based on this, Roy managed to crowd-source $110K).
Superb business model. Were you conned?
http://sghardtruth.com/2015/01/13/c...roys-lawyer-earns-more-than-a-senior-counsel/
Overheard from QY:
So Roy’s lawyer earns more than a senior counsel?
He gave the figure of $70k himself when he asked for donations. Hahaha
He can inflate his lawyer’s legal fee to any amount he wants since he isn’t paying for it. It’s public donations and he is well able to manipulate people’s emotions to get them to donate. No one has any idea how much of the donations has been spent or how they were spent. There is no transparency or accountability.
The government raised the draw down age so that they can keep your CPF forever?
That’s a big lie.
What is true is that those who donate their money to Roy will never again see that money.
Since when was anyone unable to take back his CPF?
The older generation had already withdrawn all their CPF. The younger old are receiving their monthly payouts. People are using their CPF to buy their property, to pay medical bills and insurance and more. If a person lives to a ripe old age, the monthly payouts he receives in total exceeds what he has in his retirement account. If unfortunately he dies early, whatever money he has left in his CPF will be distributed to his family members according to his nomination. If he had not made any nomination, then the money will still be distributed to his family members – according to intestacy laws.
Either way, the CPF money is always returned – IN FULL.
Comment :
At my age of 74 years, I totally agree with the writer’s comment regarding the CPF.
Thru CPF I own my HDB Flat ( now rented ) n CPF has never fail to pay me.
Current income gives me much more than I need n yet to see the need of my personal saving, all thanks to our country’s good system …
****************************************************************
Overheard :
These 2 person, Roy & HHH are deem clever. If you are not successful in life due to deficiency of capability, the least is they know that a bunch of anti-PAP supporters would like to listen, cheers and support regardless. The more they spoke against the Ruling party, (any bullshit also can) the better and more money they get. I wonder if they might even get a long term salary to continue their act.
If it is not 70K , who in the right mind ( not even Ravi) will represent him for blalantly defamation of a country Prime Minister.
It is suicide , R&R ( Roy and Ravi ) are both in it for the money ,only very naive people can’t see that.
The only suckers here were the people who donated the amount…
I wonder how they are feeling now..
PM Lee’s legal fee is assessed to be $29,000, but Ravi’s legal fee to represent Roy Ngerng is $70,000 (based on this, Roy managed to crowd-source $110K).
Superb business model. Were you conned?
Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suite
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/allegations-by-ngerng-s/1587240.html
Allegations by Ngerng's legal team 'baseless', says PM's Press Secretary
Ms Chang Li-Lin cites legal notes, prior submissions to rebut claims that she had issued an "inaccurate statement" in relation to Mr Lee Hsien Loong's willingness to be cross-examined.
PHOTOS
File photo: Blogger Roy Ngerng with his lawyers at the Supreme Court (Wee Teck Hian/ TODAY)
Enlarge
Caption
SINGAPORE: Ms Chang Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on Tuesday (Jan 13) cited legal notes to rebut a statement from Roy Ngerng’s lawyers, which said Ms Chang had issued an “inaccurate statement” and was “misinformed” over the blogger’s willingness to be cross-examined.
Said Ms Chang in a statement issued to the media on Tuesday: "(Mr Ngerng's lawyer) M Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation." Her statement was based on notes taken by Drew & Napier, who are representing Mr Lee in the defamation lawsuit.
"My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct," she added, citing a letter dated Dec 22, 2014, and court submissions on Jan 9 this year as occasions on which Drew & Napier had indicated to the court that Mr Lee was ready to be cross-examined.
In their letter on Tuesday morning, the office of Mr Ravi had also asked whether it was appropriate for Ms Chang, "a civil servant", to be "issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant". In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.
"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary."
Ms Chang's statement, in full, is as follows:
Yesterday evening, Mr Roy Ngerng said in a blog post that I and the media lied in saying that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”.
This morning, Mr M Ravi issued a statement to the media saying that the following statement by me is inaccurate, and that I have been misinformed: “…Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm this by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”
Mr Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.
Mr Ravi said his statement was based on his “recollection”. But my statement was based on contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier.
Drew & Napier’s notes show that the following exchange took place in Court yesterday:
Footnote: According to Drew & Napier, the following shorthand was used in the notes: “P” (Plaintiff) is Mr Davinder Singh SC, “MR” is Mr M Ravi, “D” (Defendant) is Mr Roy Ngerng, “J” refers to the Judge, “AEIC” is affidavit of evidence in chief, “aff” is affidavit, “xxing” is cross-examining, “YH” is Your Honour, “wks” is weeks, “app” is application and “PTC” is pre-trial conference. The relevant extracts are attached.
P: Will D be filing aff?
MR: No
P: Is D calling any other witness?
MR: I will be seeking to rely on docs filed by my client in lower
proceedings.
J: Unless they ordered to stand as AEICs, not in evidence
MR: I ask that RN’s affidavit stand as AEIC
J: How many?
MR: 1.
J: Aff he filed in O 14 below to stand as AEIC?
P: I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.
MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH I won’t be filing
J: I suggest you go through his docs and see if all docs you want to
rely on are there
MR: 2 wks from now?
…………
J: liberty to D to apply within 2 wks, by 31 Jan 2015, leave to submit
AEIC?
…………
J: Might make sense for you to give new aff if only 1-2 docs
P: If D chooses to give AEIC in whatever form, I will be xxing.
J: Until 31 Jan if you have anything you can apply for leave.
…………
MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file app?
J: Will be a further PTC.
Write to inform the Registry that D wishes to tender evidence
Write in before 31 Jan. Will schedule PTC for you in Feb to give
necessary leave.
…………
J: Liberty to D to apply to give evidence on or before 31 Jan
Ms Yap tells me 31 Jan is Sat
30 Jan?
MR: Ok
From the notes, it is clear that Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages. Mr Davinder Singh then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng. Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would “Therefore” not be filing any evidence.
This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be crossexamined.
After saying that Mr Ngerng intended to rely on an earlier affidavit as his evidence, Mr Ravi did a hasty U-turn after Mr Singh said that he will cross-examine Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence. Mr Ravi was so determined that Mr Ngerng not be cross-examined that he even said to the Court “Enough Y[our] H[onour] I won’t be filing”.
In his statement, Mr Ravi said that if “the client choses [sic] to give evidence… he will be liable to cross examination. If he does not, he will not”. That explains why Mr Ravi changed his position at the hearing.
As is also clear from the notes, Mr Ravi’s statement that “If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015” is also incorrect. The fact is that after Mr Ravi said that Mr Ngerng would not be giving evidence, and even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 January 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.
My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct.
There are two parts to this case.
The first was the application for summary judgment. That application was decided on the basis of affidavit evidence, and the issue of cross-examination did not arise. Judgment was given in favour of the Prime Minister on 7 November 2014.
The second is the assessment of damages where evidence is given on the stand and the witnesses are subject to cross-examination. That process began with the Prime Minister’s application for directions that was filed on 18 November 2014.
At the very first hearing of that application, which took place on 19 December 2014, Mr Singh informed the Court in Mr Ravi’s presence that the Prime Minister will give evidence and that any suggestion that the Prime Minister is not to be cross-examined should be dispelled.
Drew & Napier indicated to the Court and to Mr Ravi on at least two more occasions before yesterday’s hearing that the Prime Minister stands ready to be cross-examined. The first was by a letter dated 22 December 2014 and the second was in submissions which were filed in Court and served on Mr Ravi on 9 January 2015.
Finally, Mr Ravi has asked whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary to issue statements in connection with this case. He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that “the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF”. It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary.
- CNA/es
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/allegations-by-ngerng-s/1587240.html
Allegations by Ngerng's legal team 'baseless', says PM's Press Secretary
Ms Chang Li-Lin cites legal notes, prior submissions to rebut claims that she had issued an "inaccurate statement" in relation to Mr Lee Hsien Loong's willingness to be cross-examined.
PHOTOS
File photo: Blogger Roy Ngerng with his lawyers at the Supreme Court (Wee Teck Hian/ TODAY)
Enlarge
Caption
SINGAPORE: Ms Chang Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on Tuesday (Jan 13) cited legal notes to rebut a statement from Roy Ngerng’s lawyers, which said Ms Chang had issued an “inaccurate statement” and was “misinformed” over the blogger’s willingness to be cross-examined.
Said Ms Chang in a statement issued to the media on Tuesday: "(Mr Ngerng's lawyer) M Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation." Her statement was based on notes taken by Drew & Napier, who are representing Mr Lee in the defamation lawsuit.
"My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct," she added, citing a letter dated Dec 22, 2014, and court submissions on Jan 9 this year as occasions on which Drew & Napier had indicated to the court that Mr Lee was ready to be cross-examined.
In their letter on Tuesday morning, the office of Mr Ravi had also asked whether it was appropriate for Ms Chang, "a civil servant", to be "issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant". In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.
"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary."
Ms Chang's statement, in full, is as follows:
Yesterday evening, Mr Roy Ngerng said in a blog post that I and the media lied in saying that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”.
This morning, Mr M Ravi issued a statement to the media saying that the following statement by me is inaccurate, and that I have been misinformed: “…Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm this by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”
Mr Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.
Mr Ravi said his statement was based on his “recollection”. But my statement was based on contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier.
Drew & Napier’s notes show that the following exchange took place in Court yesterday:
Footnote: According to Drew & Napier, the following shorthand was used in the notes: “P” (Plaintiff) is Mr Davinder Singh SC, “MR” is Mr M Ravi, “D” (Defendant) is Mr Roy Ngerng, “J” refers to the Judge, “AEIC” is affidavit of evidence in chief, “aff” is affidavit, “xxing” is cross-examining, “YH” is Your Honour, “wks” is weeks, “app” is application and “PTC” is pre-trial conference. The relevant extracts are attached.
P: Will D be filing aff?
MR: No
P: Is D calling any other witness?
MR: I will be seeking to rely on docs filed by my client in lower
proceedings.
J: Unless they ordered to stand as AEICs, not in evidence
MR: I ask that RN’s affidavit stand as AEIC
J: How many?
MR: 1.
J: Aff he filed in O 14 below to stand as AEIC?
P: I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.
MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH I won’t be filing
J: I suggest you go through his docs and see if all docs you want to
rely on are there
MR: 2 wks from now?
…………
J: liberty to D to apply within 2 wks, by 31 Jan 2015, leave to submit
AEIC?
…………
J: Might make sense for you to give new aff if only 1-2 docs
P: If D chooses to give AEIC in whatever form, I will be xxing.
J: Until 31 Jan if you have anything you can apply for leave.
…………
MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file app?
J: Will be a further PTC.
Write to inform the Registry that D wishes to tender evidence
Write in before 31 Jan. Will schedule PTC for you in Feb to give
necessary leave.
…………
J: Liberty to D to apply to give evidence on or before 31 Jan
Ms Yap tells me 31 Jan is Sat
30 Jan?
MR: Ok
From the notes, it is clear that Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages. Mr Davinder Singh then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng. Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would “Therefore” not be filing any evidence.
This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be crossexamined.
After saying that Mr Ngerng intended to rely on an earlier affidavit as his evidence, Mr Ravi did a hasty U-turn after Mr Singh said that he will cross-examine Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence. Mr Ravi was so determined that Mr Ngerng not be cross-examined that he even said to the Court “Enough Y[our] H[onour] I won’t be filing”.
In his statement, Mr Ravi said that if “the client choses [sic] to give evidence… he will be liable to cross examination. If he does not, he will not”. That explains why Mr Ravi changed his position at the hearing.
As is also clear from the notes, Mr Ravi’s statement that “If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015” is also incorrect. The fact is that after Mr Ravi said that Mr Ngerng would not be giving evidence, and even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 January 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.
My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct.
There are two parts to this case.
The first was the application for summary judgment. That application was decided on the basis of affidavit evidence, and the issue of cross-examination did not arise. Judgment was given in favour of the Prime Minister on 7 November 2014.
The second is the assessment of damages where evidence is given on the stand and the witnesses are subject to cross-examination. That process began with the Prime Minister’s application for directions that was filed on 18 November 2014.
At the very first hearing of that application, which took place on 19 December 2014, Mr Singh informed the Court in Mr Ravi’s presence that the Prime Minister will give evidence and that any suggestion that the Prime Minister is not to be cross-examined should be dispelled.
Drew & Napier indicated to the Court and to Mr Ravi on at least two more occasions before yesterday’s hearing that the Prime Minister stands ready to be cross-examined. The first was by a letter dated 22 December 2014 and the second was in submissions which were filed in Court and served on Mr Ravi on 9 January 2015.
Finally, Mr Ravi has asked whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary to issue statements in connection with this case. He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that “the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF”. It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary.
- CNA/es
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
who's that in your avatar?
who's that in your avatar?
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
So ever know what a shit skin snake looks like?
A snake that dress in black ( black mama snake very poisonous you know?) that coils round and slowly squeeze the money out of you?
And also a fool that thought he has told the truth but is none the wiser himself let alone richer?
There you have it, a snake and the fool!! LoooooooL
So ever know what a shit skin snake looks like?
A snake that dress in black ( black mama snake very poisonous you know?) that coils round and slowly squeeze the money out of you?
And also a fool that thought he has told the truth but is none the wiser himself let alone richer?
There you have it, a snake and the fool!! LoooooooL
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
The Papa can increased his price of his carrot cake by 100 times and attempt to sell 1000 or more plates aday.
It still would:
1) Not help to pay his hopeless son's debt.
2) clear his name.
3) enable his son to find meaningful employment for the rest of his life ( best hope is to be char tow kway assistant)
4) eventually die in peace for what his son has brought onto his own family.
The Papa can increased his price of his carrot cake by 100 times and attempt to sell 1000 or more plates aday.
It still would:
1) Not help to pay his hopeless son's debt.
2) clear his name.
3) enable his son to find meaningful employment for the rest of his life ( best hope is to be char tow kway assistant)
4) eventually die in peace for what his son has brought onto his own family.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
Who gives a damn. He chose the wrong country to make noise in. Millions in France and worldwide Je Suis Charlie. No one is going to Je Suis this guy with a skewed surname. Not Obama, not Ba Ki Moon not any world leader.
Who gives a damn. He chose the wrong country to make noise in. Millions in France and worldwide Je Suis Charlie. No one is going to Je Suis this guy with a skewed surname. Not Obama, not Ba Ki Moon not any world leader.
Re: Court ordered Roy to pay LHL $29K M Ravi charge legal fee $100K fair?
go and find out yesterday Straits Time
go and find out yesterday Straits Time
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
more tongue twisting from a civil servant under tax payers money.
Does she know the meaning of private citizen suing a private citizen. What press statement is required from PMO office?
She likes to confirm what LKY has said all these time?
“I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Petir, 1982
Hello! civil servant! be impartial and keep your mouths shut.
more tongue twisting from a civil servant under tax payers money.
Does she know the meaning of private citizen suing a private citizen. What press statement is required from PMO office?
She likes to confirm what LKY has said all these time?
“I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Petir, 1982
Hello! civil servant! be impartial and keep your mouths shut.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
Why are we giving 100k to this useless guy to throw away?its obviously his campaign has come to a crashing end and achieved nothing. The Singapore courts has made a mockery of him,the media is blatantly lieing about it and getting away with it and he can't do anything except cry about it on some website that 90% of sinkies dunno and fuck care about.now he's throwing away tens of thousands of other people's money over a cat fight and attracting less attention than a pinoy with a Facebook account.this Roy is finished.the only consolation we have is if that jiu hu KIA tony chat come and collect his Malaysian annoying stupid barking bitch Han Hui hui and fuck off.
Why are we giving 100k to this useless guy to throw away?its obviously his campaign has come to a crashing end and achieved nothing. The Singapore courts has made a mockery of him,the media is blatantly lieing about it and getting away with it and he can't do anything except cry about it on some website that 90% of sinkies dunno and fuck care about.now he's throwing away tens of thousands of other people's money over a cat fight and attracting less attention than a pinoy with a Facebook account.this Roy is finished.the only consolation we have is if that jiu hu KIA tony chat come and collect his Malaysian annoying stupid barking bitch Han Hui hui and fuck off.
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
Loyalty knows no boundaries. She is simply speaking up in her private capacity on behalf of a benefactor and an honorable member of the community. This young trainee lawyer too much lah. He can forget about raking in big bucks in the legal fraternity. hehe
Loyalty knows no boundaries. She is simply speaking up in her private capacity on behalf of a benefactor and an honorable member of the community. This young trainee lawyer too much lah. He can forget about raking in big bucks in the legal fraternity. hehe
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
This Chang Li-Lin is just a stupid cunt.
In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.
"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary."
Technically, There is no such thing as a Prime Minister. There is the Office of the Prime Minister, which is occupied by Lee Hsien Loong. At the gist of the matter, the individual Lee Hsien Loong and not The Office Of the Prime Minister of Singapore is suing Roy Ngerng. If the Office of the Prime Minister is launching the lawsuit, then govt lawyers and the Attorney General will be the ones launching legal action on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister. But this is not the case here. The Individual citizen Lee Hsien Loong is the one launching the legal action. Therefore, any resources from the Office of the Prime Minister cannot be used to aid his private lawsuit. Ms Chang Cheebye seems not to understand this simple point. When Lee Hsien Loong sues as a private citizen, any use of govt resources to aid him is simply corruption and breach of trust on his part. He is doing his own personal affairs on the company time.
This Chang Li-Lin is just a stupid cunt.
In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: "He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that 'the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF'.
"It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister's Press Secretary."
Technically, There is no such thing as a Prime Minister. There is the Office of the Prime Minister, which is occupied by Lee Hsien Loong. At the gist of the matter, the individual Lee Hsien Loong and not The Office Of the Prime Minister of Singapore is suing Roy Ngerng. If the Office of the Prime Minister is launching the lawsuit, then govt lawyers and the Attorney General will be the ones launching legal action on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister. But this is not the case here. The Individual citizen Lee Hsien Loong is the one launching the legal action. Therefore, any resources from the Office of the Prime Minister cannot be used to aid his private lawsuit. Ms Chang Cheebye seems not to understand this simple point. When Lee Hsien Loong sues as a private citizen, any use of govt resources to aid him is simply corruption and breach of trust on his part. He is doing his own personal affairs on the company time.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
I think you should appraise yourself of the facts before you shoot your mouth off. I would think Roy does not care about the 90% of sinkies who don't give a fuck. he only cares about 11%. I don't know whether you live in singapore or not, but the last election, 40% of singaporeans DID NOT VOTE FOR THE PAP. Let that sink in. SInce that happened, the PAP has been constantly shooting itself in the foot. eg. allow in pinoy FTs in to insult us, allowing PRC FTs in to shit in public places, mishandling of the Little India riot, losses in Temasek, screw ups in CPF, high cost of living, high cost of housing, FT kids getting free scholarships, etc. This lawsuit is just another nail in the PAP coffin. If 11% of the votes change their minds about the PAP for the next election, they will have less then 50% of the vote. They may still be in power, but their mandate to govern is not there anymore.
I think you should appraise yourself of the facts before you shoot your mouth off. I would think Roy does not care about the 90% of sinkies who don't give a fuck. he only cares about 11%. I don't know whether you live in singapore or not, but the last election, 40% of singaporeans DID NOT VOTE FOR THE PAP. Let that sink in. SInce that happened, the PAP has been constantly shooting itself in the foot. eg. allow in pinoy FTs in to insult us, allowing PRC FTs in to shit in public places, mishandling of the Little India riot, losses in Temasek, screw ups in CPF, high cost of living, high cost of housing, FT kids getting free scholarships, etc. This lawsuit is just another nail in the PAP coffin. If 11% of the votes change their minds about the PAP for the next election, they will have less then 50% of the vote. They may still be in power, but their mandate to govern is not there anymore.
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
That is why people infract u all the time. U are a fucktard. Obviously people give a damn, they raised over $80K for his legal funds. He had the balls to raise these CPF points, and made it into a national discussion. What have you done other then hide in this forum and complain about people infracting you.
That is why people infract u all the time. U are a fucktard. Obviously people give a damn, they raised over $80K for his legal funds. He had the balls to raise these CPF points, and made it into a national discussion. What have you done other then hide in this forum and complain about people infracting you.
Similar threads
