-
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.
NParks assistant director behind Brompton bikes controversy charged
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
this bugger still holding on to Nparks cushy job? is he rntitled to the civil service bonus this year?
if eventually he is dismissed, is his conviction gonna deny him taxi license?
if eventually he is dismissed, is his conviction gonna deny him taxi license?
Why not? He's the least corrupted of the lot.
In Sinkieland, if you are connected to the right people, and of the right pedigree, most mistakes can be easily forgiven.
Why not? He's the least corrupted of the lot.
In Sinkieland, if you are connected to the right people, and of the right pedigree, most mistakes can be easily forgiven.
Wong Kan Seng ?
Lightning is full of one-eyed bandits!
[video=youtube;jXGAIiPtEuQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGAIiPtEuQ&index=50&list=PLo8yfhZId6IzGbTy5Bm8RBW8HDK8qqMjO[/video]
what is the fine to him vis a vis his salary? dunno why this guy damm specialWhy not? He's the least corrupted of the lot.
In Sinkieland, if you are connected to the right people, and of the right pedigree, most mistakes can be easily forgiven.
What kind of law is this? Of course is to cover up corruption then he need to lie to the auditors. If nothing wrong he lied for what? So the proof of lying is already proof of corruption. How can he be charged for lying but not corruption?
Did they sack him? or is he still working for Nfarks ?? if this guy was working in the private sector....he would have been sacked...if this guy was CSJ, who misuse courier services..would have been "crucified"....'ga gi lang, buay siang kang"....
you are right. it really depends on who you are. to be precise, who you know.
Brompton bikes case: AGC asks court to clarify when jail warranted for lying offence
Published on Dec 8, 2014 7:12 PM
Former National Parks Board (NParks) assistant director Bernard Lim Yong Soon, who was fined the maximum $5,000 in June over the Brompton bikes case, leaving the State Courts on June 10, 2014. In the latest development in the case, the prosecution has asked Singapore's apex court to clarify when a jail term is warranted for lying to a public servant. -- PHOTO: ST FILE
By Ian Poh
SINGAPORE - In the latest development in the Brompton bikes case, the prosecution has asked Singapore's apex court to clarify when a jail term is warranted for lying to a public servant.
It has filed what is known as a criminal reference with the Court of Appeal, under which only points of law, rather than factual issues, are to be decided.
"The Attorney-General (V.K. Rajah) is of the view that it is in the public interest to clarify certain issues of sentencing law," a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Chambers said in a statement on Monday.
This was in light of "important questions of law" that had arisen during an appeal in the case of former National Parks Board (NParks) officer Bernard Lim Yong Soon, the spokesman said.
Lim had been fined the maximum $5,000 in June by a district court, which found him guilty of giving false information to a public servant after a nine-day trial.
Most recently on Nov 21, the High Court dismissed both the prosecution's appeal that Lim should be jailed for three to four months, as well as Lim's appeal against conviction.
In late 2011, Lim had tipped off the boss of bicycle retailer Bikehop about an upcoming NParks tender for foldable bikes.
Bikehop entered a bid to sell 26 Brompton bikes to NParks in January 2012. It was the sole bidder and it won the tender.
In June 2012, the deal came under intense public scrutiny over the $2,200 price of each bicycle.
When questioned by Ministry of National Development auditors about his relationship with Bikehop director Lawrence Lim, Lim lied that they met for the first time only in March 2012, after the tender was awarded.
But the truth was that the two first met at a night cycling event in September 2011, before NParks invited bids for the bikes.
In May, Lim was convicted of lying to the auditors but acquitted of a second charge of instigating the Bikehop boss to lie.
The prosecution dropped its appeal against the acquittal.
In the criminal reference filed on Monday, it also wants the court to make clear whether the existence of mitigating factors can justify not imposing imprisonment, once a sentencing court has decided jail is warranted.
NParks bikes case: Apex court declines to answer prosecution's question
Published on Apr 10, 2015 3:42 PM
Bernard Lim Yong Soon leaving the State Courts on March 26, 2014. Lim was fined $5,000 last June by a district court for giving false information to auditors about his relationship with a bike supplier. -- ST PHOTO: FILE
By Selina Lum
SINGAPORE - The criminal case that arose out of the Brompton bicycles saga, which saw a former NParks assistant director fined $5,000 for lying to auditors, came to a close on Friday with the country's highest court declining to answer a question posed by the prosecution.
Last June, Bernard Lim Yong Soon, 43, was fined $5,000 by a district court for giving false information to auditors about his relationship with a bike supplier. This was upheld by the High Court, dismissing the prosecution's appeal for jail.
In February, the prosecution, in a procedure known as a criminal reference, took the case to the Court of Appeal, asking it to determine when a jail term is warranted for such offences.
The three-judge court had then declined to give a ruling based on the present question of law submitted, but gave the prosecution two weeks to re-submit a "more appropriately framed" question.
But the reframed question was also rejected by the court, which dismissed the prosecution's application on Friday.
In the judgement, delivered by Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, the court said that the question was not a question of law of public interest.
Under the law, the procedure of criminal reference is only reserved for the court to determine questions of law of public interest.
But in the current case, the prosecution was in effect seeking a ruling on a benchmark sentence for such an offence.
"The truth of the matter is that a question concerning sentence, which is necessarily fact-sensitive, cannot be camouflaged as a question of law," said the court.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) noted that the Court of Appeal "has explained how and when it considers it appropriate to exercise its powers under the Criminal Reference mechanism".
The AGC will study the grounds of decision very carefully, she said.
another fuckface.
Batman & Robbing, oops! Robin, will say " HOLY COW"!...the question would be, did he come clean as he had directed this question to the opposition accounting practices, the best question would be, " did he commit harakiri"? for his subordinate erred? was this man who lied, bluff, "cheat" or just "plain forgetful"...HOLY!.."HOLY COW!"
The District Court had ruled that jail time was not appropriate, as Lim had not provided false information to evade prosecution. His lie did not have material impact, as the auditors did not accept it at face value, the District Judge noted.
Meaning it is not an offence to lie as long as the other party is not deceived by it.
Meaning it is not an offence to lie as long as the other party is not deceived by it.
