• 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.

Wp-1, pap-0

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Present Situation - Retirement age for Singapore High Court Judges is 65. Singapore is short of HC Judges.

PAP's Solution - Extend selected HC Judges retirement to 70years old

WP's Solution - Extend all HC Judges retirement to 70years old.

Problem with PAP's solution - allows PAP to show favouritism and encourages cronyism.

Merit of WP solution - pap cant favour Judges it like

PAP acknowledges that WP's recommendation is good and cant disagree with it. But PAP still insists on going ahead with selectively offering extension of service to Judges.

Even a donkey knows that WP's solution is superior to PAP's. And we have million dollar PAP ministers coming out with such idiotic and immoral solution!

WP-1, PAP-0
 
Last edited:

Cestbon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Agree!!!
Why selective????
Is either all or none.

If selective mean something wrong!!! Or Judge not qualify. If not qualify why qualify to be judge in the beginning.
 

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Agree!!!
Why selective????
Is either all or none.

If selective mean something wrong!!! Or Judge not qualify. If not qualify why qualify to be judge in the beginning.

Selective so the pap can use tenure extension to control Judges and reward obedient Judges who do pap's bidding
 

bigboss

Alfrescian
Loyal
Or else how we PAP win defamation suits...:biggrin:

Winning defamation suit is like playing poker. Calling the bluff and the guy with the deep pocket will always win. When paps sue you, who has the deeper pocket? Even an ordinary pap MP has a pocket deeper than an ordinary sinkie.

By using the process of summary judgement, only the party with deep pocket will win in any defamation suit. It has already been proven throughout the years in sinkie land. If you are poor in sinkie land, keep your mouth shut.
 

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Winning defamation suit is like playing poker. Calling the bluff and the guy with the deep pocket will always win. When paps sue you, who has the deeper pocket? Even an ordinary pap MP has a pocket deeper than an ordinary sinkie.

By using the process of summary judgement, only the party with deep pocket will win in any defamation suit. It has already been proven throughout the years in sinkie land. If you are poor in sinkie land, keep your mouth shut.

True...reminds me of TT Durai vs Archie Ong. Archie claimed that TT Durai used public funds and travelled 1st Class on SIA. TT Durai denied it and threatened to sue Archie unless he apologise. Archie did. But in subsequent revelations, TT Durai did fly 1st Class on SIA and Archie's friends encouraged Archie to pursue the matter and bring TT Durai to task. But Archie was magnanimous and decided to pardon TT Durai.

We can see the who is the righteous man and who is the crook.

Likewise, in the LHL vs RN defamation case, we can predict who is the crook and who is the righteous man
 
Top