Re: Roy's English very Tok-kong !!!
What kind of fuck up engrish is this! :oIo::oIo::oIo:
:oIo:
What kind of fuck up engrish is this! :oIo::oIo::oIo:
:oIo:
-
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: Roy's English very Tok-kong !!!
How to translate in Hokkien?
Ah Loong Bo Kuan Yi A Nang. Long Zhong Bo Kar Si
Ah Loong's Secretary Jin Pai Si, Bo Hoh Hoh Chor Kang. Jin Pai.
Offit A Lan Jiao Chui Luan Luan Hoot Chut Lai.
How to translate in Hokkien?
Ah Loong Bo Kuan Yi A Nang. Long Zhong Bo Kar Si
Ah Loong's Secretary Jin Pai Si, Bo Hoh Hoh Chor Kang. Jin Pai.
Offit A Lan Jiao Chui Luan Luan Hoot Chut Lai.
Last edited:
Re: Roy Ngerng – The saga takes a nasty turn
Like how your freelancer mother raised her short time fees to pay for your kindergarten fees you fucking pap dog?
Nbccb
Like how your freelancer mother raised her short time fees to pay for your kindergarten fees you fucking pap dog?
Nbccb
Re: Roy's English very Tok-kong !!!
with tio poo liao, we know lah.
I ejaculated in my office you also know? *hee*hee*
Re: Roy's English very Tok-kong !!!
In that case, I'm dead sure you weren't English educated.
In that case, I'm dead sure you weren't English educated.
Re: Roy's English very Tok-kong !!!
He meant to say ejected or ejaculated? If ejected, also not very appropriate leh. So I figure he must have meant ejaculated after all as in reaching heaven.
".................ejaculated from his office". Bwahahahahahahhahahahahaha...................
He meant to say ejected or ejaculated? If ejected, also not very appropriate leh. So I figure he must have meant ejaculated after all as in reaching heaven.
Re: Roy's English very Tok-kong !!!
He meant "cummed".
Anyway, is Roy a NUS graduate in Arts and Social Science?
He meant to say ejected or ejaculated? If ejected, also not very appropriate leh. So I figure he must have meant ejaculated after all as in reaching heaven.
He meant "cummed".
Anyway, is Roy a NUS graduate in Arts and Social Science?
ROY: Ass Loon Son IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUE ME AS PM OF SINGAPORE OR GIC CHAIRMAN
[h=1]ROY: LHL IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUE ME AS PM OF SINGAPORE OR GIC CHAIRMAN[/h]
Post date:
16 Jan 2015 - 9:19pm
(1) I have made an application to set aside the summary judgment for my defamation case. Mr Lee Hsien Loong has sued me for defamation but he is “not entitled as the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC” to do so. He has been using government resources “in his capacity as the Prime Minister” for the suit.
(2) In addition, the prime minister’s secretary has also acted willfully and defiantly for the prime minister and sent out press statements on his behalf even though she knows that she is not allowed to do so in her position as a public servant. The prime minister’s secretary is supposed to hold an esteemed position in the public service and her abuse of her position to is appalling.
I understand that my lawyer, M Ravi, will be filing a notice on whether she is in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
(3) Also, a declaration will also be sought from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on whether he has also breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct as he is a public servant but he has been using public resources for his “personal suit”.
(4) If the public service commission does not to anything about this, we will file an application to the President of Singapore as he has vested powers as an elected president, given that the prime minister is primus inter-pares, or the first among equals.
Over the past few days, the prime minister’s secretary has continuously misrepresented what my lawyer and I had said at the pre-trial conference (to decide on the dates for the hearing on the damages to pay the prime minister).
However, throughout this period, the prime minister has kept entirely silent and in fact, throughout the whole case.
A pre-trial conference has been fixed on 23 January 2015 at 10am for this application. I appeal to all Singaporeans to turn up at the High Court. We cannot allow the bullying from the prime minister and government to persist. The oppression against ordinary Singaporeans and opposition politicians can no longer be taken sitting down.
We cannot allow the abuse of power to continue unchecked. Such abhorrent behaviour by the prime minister and the government has to stop.
Roy Ngerng
*The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/
[h=1]ROY: LHL IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUE ME AS PM OF SINGAPORE OR GIC CHAIRMAN[/h]
Post date:
16 Jan 2015 - 9:19pm
(1) I have made an application to set aside the summary judgment for my defamation case. Mr Lee Hsien Loong has sued me for defamation but he is “not entitled as the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC” to do so. He has been using government resources “in his capacity as the Prime Minister” for the suit.
(2) In addition, the prime minister’s secretary has also acted willfully and defiantly for the prime minister and sent out press statements on his behalf even though she knows that she is not allowed to do so in her position as a public servant. The prime minister’s secretary is supposed to hold an esteemed position in the public service and her abuse of her position to is appalling.
I understand that my lawyer, M Ravi, will be filing a notice on whether she is in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
(3) Also, a declaration will also be sought from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on whether he has also breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct as he is a public servant but he has been using public resources for his “personal suit”.
(4) If the public service commission does not to anything about this, we will file an application to the President of Singapore as he has vested powers as an elected president, given that the prime minister is primus inter-pares, or the first among equals.
Over the past few days, the prime minister’s secretary has continuously misrepresented what my lawyer and I had said at the pre-trial conference (to decide on the dates for the hearing on the damages to pay the prime minister).
However, throughout this period, the prime minister has kept entirely silent and in fact, throughout the whole case.
A pre-trial conference has been fixed on 23 January 2015 at 10am for this application. I appeal to all Singaporeans to turn up at the High Court. We cannot allow the bullying from the prime minister and government to persist. The oppression against ordinary Singaporeans and opposition politicians can no longer be taken sitting down.
We cannot allow the abuse of power to continue unchecked. Such abhorrent behaviour by the prime minister and the government has to stop.
Roy Ngerng
*The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/
Re: TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong
LHL is getting burned every which way he turns. RN is going to be his nemesis comes GE2016. Results will show.
LHL is getting burned every which way he turns. RN is going to be his nemesis comes GE2016. Results will show.
Re: Shd the taxpayer be paying PM Lee's Press Secretary to assist him in his pte suit
"Independence means we operate separately from the government. This ensures that when we are called upon for an investigation we do not have any worries even if high ranking government officials are involved." Simon Peh - head of ICAC
As can be seen from the video, independence is not the same as not subject to supervision. There is a committee, which is itself independent, that supervises the work of ICAC.
One way to test the independence and efficacy of Singapore's anti-corruption bureau under the Prime Minister's Office is to make a complain, no hundreds and thousands of individual complaints, against the use of taxpayer funded resources such as the PM's press secretary's time and effort, for matters which are of a purely personal nature, such as a defamatory suit against a lone citizen who simply wants to have his CPF back at 55.
The aim of such an exercise is not to get an outcome from the anti-corruption bureau's investigation, if any, but in the court of public opinion which ultimately translates into votes.
[video=youtube;q1bMVNBXUPo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1bMVNBXUPo[/video]
"Independence means we operate separately from the government. This ensures that when we are called upon for an investigation we do not have any worries even if high ranking government officials are involved." Simon Peh - head of ICAC
As can be seen from the video, independence is not the same as not subject to supervision. There is a committee, which is itself independent, that supervises the work of ICAC.
One way to test the independence and efficacy of Singapore's anti-corruption bureau under the Prime Minister's Office is to make a complain, no hundreds and thousands of individual complaints, against the use of taxpayer funded resources such as the PM's press secretary's time and effort, for matters which are of a purely personal nature, such as a defamatory suit against a lone citizen who simply wants to have his CPF back at 55.
The aim of such an exercise is not to get an outcome from the anti-corruption bureau's investigation, if any, but in the court of public opinion which ultimately translates into votes.
[video=youtube;q1bMVNBXUPo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1bMVNBXUPo[/video]
Re: TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong
On the contrary, Pappy ball lickers and balls carriers not only get extra bonuses but has a very high chance of being elevated to the next higher post.
If you cannot take the truth...
too bad loh!LoL
On the contrary, Pappy ball lickers and balls carriers not only get extra bonuses but has a very high chance of being elevated to the next higher post.
If you cannot take the truth...
too bad loh!LoL
Re: TRE reader explains why PM Press Sec got it wrong
PUBLISHED ON JUN 11, 2015 1:12 PM
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/si...ounsel-dismissed-high-co#sthash.ENvIZb9e.dpuf
The High Court has dismissed blogger Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel dismissed by High Court
By Rachel Chang
SINGAPORE - The High Court has dismissed blogger Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Mr Ngerng, who was found to have defamed PM Lee by suggesting in one of his blog posts that PM Lee had misappropriated Central Provident Fund savings, said that the Judge had dismissed the application on the grounds that the QC does not have relevant qualifications.
"I was intending to bring in a Queen's Counsel to help fight the defamation suit. It was difficult looking for a Senior Counsel in Singapore who would do so," he wrote in a Facebook post on Thursday.
Mr Ngerng added that the QC he wanted to represent him, Ms Heather Rogers, had helped draft the new defamation law in the United Kingdom. She has also been assisting on Mr Ngerng's case "for a few months now", he revealed in a blog post on Thursday.
High Court dismisses Ngerng’s bid to appoint Queen’s Counsel
SINGAPORE: The High Court has dismissed Roy Ngerng’s bid for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
High Court judge Steven Chong on Thursday (Jun 11) also ordered Ngerng to pay S$6,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.
Under the Legal Profession Act, a QC can only be admitted to argue cases in the Singapore courts if they have special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case. The courts will also look into factors such as whether local senior counsel are available for the case.
In dismissing the application which Ngerng’s lawyer George Hwang filed on May 28, Justice Chong ruled that although Ms Heather Rogers QC - whom Ngerng had applied to argue his case before the High Court in July to assess the amount of damages - is well-respected in the field of defamation in the United Kingdom, the subject matter of this case is “local-centric”.
Expertise in the issue of defamation of a local politician, and in local political and social conditions is required in Ngerng’s case, said the judge, and “no material in the application suggests that (Ms Rogers) is particularly conversant in (this regard)”.
He added that the local courts has long ceased to rely on precedents set by the English courts, and recent defamation law reforms in the United Kingdom have “taken (its) position even further (from Singapore)”.
Justice Chong also found that the issue at hand is “not particularly complex”. While Mr Hwang had argued in a hearing on Tuesday that this is the first time a blogger is being sued by the Prime Minister, Justice Chong stressed that “novelty is not to be confused with complexity”.
He added that Ngerng’s attempts to seek members of the local bar who are not senior counsels to argue his case has been “disappointing”.
“If Mr Ravi was suitable (to argue) at the more complex stage, I fail to see why local non-senior counsels would not be suitable at this less complex stage,” said Justice Chong, who was referring to lawyer M Ravi, who initially represented Ngerng but has been suspended from practising law following concerns about his mental health.
When asked if he would continue to represent Ngerng, Mr Hwang said: “I should think so, unless he doesn’t want me to. I will have to seek further instructions from my client.”
Read the original TODAY report here.
TODAY reports: Justice Chong ruled that although Ms Heather Rogers QC - whom Ngerng had applied to argue his case before the High Court in July to assess the amount of damages - is well-respected in the field of defamation in the UK, the subject matter of this case is “local-centric”.
Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel dismissed by High CourtPUBLISHED ON JUN 11, 2015 1:12 PM
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/si...ounsel-dismissed-high-co#sthash.ENvIZb9e.dpuf
The High Court has dismissed blogger Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel dismissed by High Court
By Rachel Chang
SINGAPORE - The High Court has dismissed blogger Roy Ngerng's application for a Queen's Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Mr Ngerng, who was found to have defamed PM Lee by suggesting in one of his blog posts that PM Lee had misappropriated Central Provident Fund savings, said that the Judge had dismissed the application on the grounds that the QC does not have relevant qualifications.
"I was intending to bring in a Queen's Counsel to help fight the defamation suit. It was difficult looking for a Senior Counsel in Singapore who would do so," he wrote in a Facebook post on Thursday.
Mr Ngerng added that the QC he wanted to represent him, Ms Heather Rogers, had helped draft the new defamation law in the United Kingdom. She has also been assisting on Mr Ngerng's case "for a few months now", he revealed in a blog post on Thursday.
High Court dismisses Ngerng’s bid to appoint Queen’s Counsel
SINGAPORE: The High Court has dismissed Roy Ngerng’s bid for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to represent him in a hearing on damages he must pay for defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
High Court judge Steven Chong on Thursday (Jun 11) also ordered Ngerng to pay S$6,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.
Under the Legal Profession Act, a QC can only be admitted to argue cases in the Singapore courts if they have special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case. The courts will also look into factors such as whether local senior counsel are available for the case.
In dismissing the application which Ngerng’s lawyer George Hwang filed on May 28, Justice Chong ruled that although Ms Heather Rogers QC - whom Ngerng had applied to argue his case before the High Court in July to assess the amount of damages - is well-respected in the field of defamation in the United Kingdom, the subject matter of this case is “local-centric”.
Expertise in the issue of defamation of a local politician, and in local political and social conditions is required in Ngerng’s case, said the judge, and “no material in the application suggests that (Ms Rogers) is particularly conversant in (this regard)”.
He added that the local courts has long ceased to rely on precedents set by the English courts, and recent defamation law reforms in the United Kingdom have “taken (its) position even further (from Singapore)”.
Justice Chong also found that the issue at hand is “not particularly complex”. While Mr Hwang had argued in a hearing on Tuesday that this is the first time a blogger is being sued by the Prime Minister, Justice Chong stressed that “novelty is not to be confused with complexity”.
He added that Ngerng’s attempts to seek members of the local bar who are not senior counsels to argue his case has been “disappointing”.
“If Mr Ravi was suitable (to argue) at the more complex stage, I fail to see why local non-senior counsels would not be suitable at this less complex stage,” said Justice Chong, who was referring to lawyer M Ravi, who initially represented Ngerng but has been suspended from practising law following concerns about his mental health.
When asked if he would continue to represent Ngerng, Mr Hwang said: “I should think so, unless he doesn’t want me to. I will have to seek further instructions from my client.”
Read the original TODAY report here.
TODAY reports: Justice Chong ruled that although Ms Heather Rogers QC - whom Ngerng had applied to argue his case before the High Court in July to assess the amount of damages - is well-respected in the field of defamation in the UK, the subject matter of this case is “local-centric”.
Similar threads
