-
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.
Singapore is such a stressful place
- Thread starter dysentry
- Start date
everywhere is stressful lah...just have to adjust yourself to the environment...the world is stressed to breaking point leow!
understand stress and consider the trigger,i think
agree...sometimes cannot remove the triggers...so trigger oneself and say goodbye to this stressful world....gone with the wind...you see people jumping train, leaping buildings and simply slash themselves silly...and burn their flats....thisis hell world now...
why? demons and satans have won over. greed and more greed. more rich people and more poor people...the gap is widening like heaven and hell...so where got no stress...the triggers are everywhere...
just one trigger...you see one death, one suicide and even multiple murders and suicides..sad place really.
many people in sinkee go work stress, come back home also stress .....!!
In the old days stress was mostly manageable.
Nowadays you have the gov't adding to it. Increase in gst, utility prices, ERP,..
They then started squeezing more people into the system.
When the IR opens expect more monetary "stress"
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/64458.html
4. Between 3 pm and 4 pm on 17 July 2008, the accused scolded the domestic maid, Aseni for lapses in performing domestic chores, i.e. did not clean the ladder used by the pest control man to spray insecticide and for moving a dustbin which was in the area which was sprayed with insecticide. Aseni then took the ladder to the backyard to clean. After that she went to mop the living room. At this point, the accused asked Aseni whether she had washed her hands after placing the ladder in the backyard, then instructed Aseni to wash her hands in the kitchen. While Aseni was walking to the kitchen, the accused slapped her once on her left cheek.
Later, as Aseni was carrying a pail of water to the living room, the accused asked if she had cleaned the other side of the living room. When Aseni replied no, the accused used her knuckle to knock Aseni’s head twice.
14. It was at Prosecution’s request that the accused went to and was assessed at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”). Dr Tan Wee Lun Marcus, in his IMH report dated 10 September 2009 concurred with Dr Lim Yun Chin’ assessment. I quote Dr Tan Wee Lun Marcus’s opinion:
“Mdm Cheah has Major Depressive Disorder – Moderate Severity, Recurrent. She was depressed around the time the alleged offences occurred. It is highly plausible that her dysphoric mood and consequential irritability contributed significantly to the offending behaviour.
Presently, she remains depressed in view of ongoing stressors e.g. being the primary caregiver to her 3 young children, financial issues that she continues to struggle with on a day to day basis. I agree with Dr Lim that additional stressors, such as that represented by a term of imprisonment, may result in further psychological decompensation of her already tenuous mental state.”
4. Between 3 pm and 4 pm on 17 July 2008, the accused scolded the domestic maid, Aseni for lapses in performing domestic chores, i.e. did not clean the ladder used by the pest control man to spray insecticide and for moving a dustbin which was in the area which was sprayed with insecticide. Aseni then took the ladder to the backyard to clean. After that she went to mop the living room. At this point, the accused asked Aseni whether she had washed her hands after placing the ladder in the backyard, then instructed Aseni to wash her hands in the kitchen. While Aseni was walking to the kitchen, the accused slapped her once on her left cheek.
Later, as Aseni was carrying a pail of water to the living room, the accused asked if she had cleaned the other side of the living room. When Aseni replied no, the accused used her knuckle to knock Aseni’s head twice.
14. It was at Prosecution’s request that the accused went to and was assessed at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”). Dr Tan Wee Lun Marcus, in his IMH report dated 10 September 2009 concurred with Dr Lim Yun Chin’ assessment. I quote Dr Tan Wee Lun Marcus’s opinion:
“Mdm Cheah has Major Depressive Disorder – Moderate Severity, Recurrent. She was depressed around the time the alleged offences occurred. It is highly plausible that her dysphoric mood and consequential irritability contributed significantly to the offending behaviour.
Presently, she remains depressed in view of ongoing stressors e.g. being the primary caregiver to her 3 young children, financial issues that she continues to struggle with on a day to day basis. I agree with Dr Lim that additional stressors, such as that represented by a term of imprisonment, may result in further psychological decompensation of her already tenuous mental state.”
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/64334.html
Factual Matrix
2. Parties are neighbours. In renovating their home at no.21 Jalan Naga Sari, the 1st and 2nd defendants (husband and wife) had allegedly encroached onto the plaintiff’s property. In addition, they had left a side of the right gate pier unplastered thereby affecting the aesthetics of the plaintiff’s property at no. 19 Jalan Naga Sari. The 1st defendant worked outside of Singapore and was compelled to leave matters relating to the rectification work to his wife and their lawyer to handle. He was however, aware of what was happening through regular communication with his wife. Differences between the neighbours arose and they appeared before a district judge in November 2007. They entered into a consent order which placed obligations on both parties. The consent order is reproduced for ease of reference:
As against the defendants:
(a) The defendants are to remove the encroaching roof flashing and capping and re-build one which is symmetrically extending from the boundary line and to do so in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff;
(b) The defendants are to remove the triangular box-like structure/false ceiling which encroaches and covers the plaintiff’s Singapore Cable Vision trunking and to do so in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff;
(c) The defendants are to remove the encroaching fascia board and rebuild one such that it ends on the defendants property side of the boundary line and to do so in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff; and
(d) The defendants are to plaster the unplastered side of the right gate pier in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff.
As against the plaintiff, there were 2 court orders issued (one of which appears to be declaratory in nature), also by way of consent on the same day. They were:
(a) The plaintiff is and has been in wrongful possession of the defendants’ land and has trespassed thereon; and
(b) The plaintiff is to remove the rear fencing; kerbs and current slab that encroach on the defendants’ property.
Factual Matrix
2. Parties are neighbours. In renovating their home at no.21 Jalan Naga Sari, the 1st and 2nd defendants (husband and wife) had allegedly encroached onto the plaintiff’s property. In addition, they had left a side of the right gate pier unplastered thereby affecting the aesthetics of the plaintiff’s property at no. 19 Jalan Naga Sari. The 1st defendant worked outside of Singapore and was compelled to leave matters relating to the rectification work to his wife and their lawyer to handle. He was however, aware of what was happening through regular communication with his wife. Differences between the neighbours arose and they appeared before a district judge in November 2007. They entered into a consent order which placed obligations on both parties. The consent order is reproduced for ease of reference:
As against the defendants:
(a) The defendants are to remove the encroaching roof flashing and capping and re-build one which is symmetrically extending from the boundary line and to do so in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff;
(b) The defendants are to remove the triangular box-like structure/false ceiling which encroaches and covers the plaintiff’s Singapore Cable Vision trunking and to do so in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff;
(c) The defendants are to remove the encroaching fascia board and rebuild one such that it ends on the defendants property side of the boundary line and to do so in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff; and
(d) The defendants are to plaster the unplastered side of the right gate pier in accordance with good building practice and an acceptable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the plaintiff.
As against the plaintiff, there were 2 court orders issued (one of which appears to be declaratory in nature), also by way of consent on the same day. They were:
(a) The plaintiff is and has been in wrongful possession of the defendants’ land and has trespassed thereon; and
(b) The plaintiff is to remove the rear fencing; kerbs and current slab that encroach on the defendants’ property.
no excuse to abuse another human being because you are under stress...just an excuse to escape from the responsibilities of one's misdeeds....
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/64499.html
3. On 17 June 2008, sometime after 11.00am, Ms Tay and Mr Yip had asked the victim to clean up the storeroom. They gave her 20 minutes to complete the task. The victim informed them that she would not be able to complete the task within the allocated time, as the items in the storeroom were heavy. The victim started crying and pleaded for them to send her back to the maid agency. She was informed by the accused persons that she would be sent back when they wanted to send her back. Further, the victim was told by Ms Tay that she wanted to torture the victim and make her suffer before sending her back.
4. Mr Yip then called the maid agency to inform the manager that they would be sending the victim back to the Philippines that night and requested that the victim’s work permit be cancelled. The accused persons thus informed the victim that they wanted to send her back to Philippines that night. On hearing this, the victim ran to the open kitchen windows and began screaming for help, as she was unable to run out of the house without any keys.
5. At this point, Mr Yip quickly put his hand over the victim’s mouth, and grabbed the victim by her neck, whilst Ms Tay pulled the victim’s hair from behind. Together, the accused persons dragged the victim to their master bedroom.
21. That was still not the end of the matter. Ms Tay and Mr Yip then made the victim kneel down in front of them. This was clearly designed to humiliate and intimidate the victim. Mr Yip then slapped the victim while Ms Tay used her finger to push the victim’s forehead. Even worse, Ms Tay then brought in a knife from the kitchen and Mr Yip then tapped the flat side of the knife on the victim’s arm. It was explained that the victim was being questioned on how the tip of the knife was broken. Nevertheless, from the threat that the accused persons could be “very bad and nasty” which was made just before the knife was brought in, it was clear that the knife was not merely brought in to seek an explanation as to how it was damaged but to cause further terror and intimidation of the victim.
3. On 17 June 2008, sometime after 11.00am, Ms Tay and Mr Yip had asked the victim to clean up the storeroom. They gave her 20 minutes to complete the task. The victim informed them that she would not be able to complete the task within the allocated time, as the items in the storeroom were heavy. The victim started crying and pleaded for them to send her back to the maid agency. She was informed by the accused persons that she would be sent back when they wanted to send her back. Further, the victim was told by Ms Tay that she wanted to torture the victim and make her suffer before sending her back.
4. Mr Yip then called the maid agency to inform the manager that they would be sending the victim back to the Philippines that night and requested that the victim’s work permit be cancelled. The accused persons thus informed the victim that they wanted to send her back to Philippines that night. On hearing this, the victim ran to the open kitchen windows and began screaming for help, as she was unable to run out of the house without any keys.
5. At this point, Mr Yip quickly put his hand over the victim’s mouth, and grabbed the victim by her neck, whilst Ms Tay pulled the victim’s hair from behind. Together, the accused persons dragged the victim to their master bedroom.
21. That was still not the end of the matter. Ms Tay and Mr Yip then made the victim kneel down in front of them. This was clearly designed to humiliate and intimidate the victim. Mr Yip then slapped the victim while Ms Tay used her finger to push the victim’s forehead. Even worse, Ms Tay then brought in a knife from the kitchen and Mr Yip then tapped the flat side of the knife on the victim’s arm. It was explained that the victim was being questioned on how the tip of the knife was broken. Nevertheless, from the threat that the accused persons could be “very bad and nasty” which was made just before the knife was brought in, it was clear that the knife was not merely brought in to seek an explanation as to how it was damaged but to cause further terror and intimidation of the victim.
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/64555.html
5. Investigations revealed that staff from the A & E department spotted the two witnesses and the victim entering the A & E department seeking treatment for the victim. Upon admitting the victim, both witnesses waited outside NUH. Shortly after, both witnesses sighted the accused arriving at the scene in a taxi. Upon sight of the accused, the two witnesses ran from the accused and sought assistance from A & E staff who were present at the material time. The accused attempted to pursue the two witnesses but was prevented from doing so by the A & E staff. Assistance from NUH Police Post was subsequently sought by the said staff and the accused left NUH prior to the arrival of police officers.
6. Further investigations revealed that on 9th May 2009 at approximately 9 am, the accused, victim and the two witnesses and one unknown male Indian subject were sitting at the void deck of Blk 5 Dover Road #01-02. The witnesses had contacted the accused and asked to meet at the said location to discuss the issue of switching gangs from “369” of Tanglin Halt to “969” of Dover.
7. After talking for a few minutes, the accused got agitated that the witnesses and victim had changed gangs and took out a chopper of about 20cm length, which he had brought down to the scene, and swung it towards the victim. The victim used his forearm to block defend himself against the swing and the chopper slashed the victim’s left forearm. The victim was beginning to bleed profusely as a result and together with both witnesses, he fled towards the main road and took a taxi to National University Hospital to seek medical attention.
8. Shortly after their departure, the accused too took a taxi to NUH with his wife, where upon seeing many people in the vicinity, he decided to leave the scene. On 12th May 2009 at about 11.55 pm, accused was arrested for being suspected of being a member of an unlawful society under Sec 14(3) Cap 311. Thereafter he was arrested for committing the offence of Voluntarily Causing Hurt with dangerous weapon under Sec 324 Cap 224.
9. It was revealed that accused bought the chopper from Blk 19 Ghim Moh Road, Super Budget Store before proceeding down to Blk 5 Dover Road to meet up with the accused and the two witnesses. After committing the offence, the accused disposed of the chopper into a dustbin beside Blk 3 Dover Road because he did not want anyone to see it. The said chopper was not recovered, and the accused has since admitted to committing the offence.
5. Investigations revealed that staff from the A & E department spotted the two witnesses and the victim entering the A & E department seeking treatment for the victim. Upon admitting the victim, both witnesses waited outside NUH. Shortly after, both witnesses sighted the accused arriving at the scene in a taxi. Upon sight of the accused, the two witnesses ran from the accused and sought assistance from A & E staff who were present at the material time. The accused attempted to pursue the two witnesses but was prevented from doing so by the A & E staff. Assistance from NUH Police Post was subsequently sought by the said staff and the accused left NUH prior to the arrival of police officers.
6. Further investigations revealed that on 9th May 2009 at approximately 9 am, the accused, victim and the two witnesses and one unknown male Indian subject were sitting at the void deck of Blk 5 Dover Road #01-02. The witnesses had contacted the accused and asked to meet at the said location to discuss the issue of switching gangs from “369” of Tanglin Halt to “969” of Dover.
7. After talking for a few minutes, the accused got agitated that the witnesses and victim had changed gangs and took out a chopper of about 20cm length, which he had brought down to the scene, and swung it towards the victim. The victim used his forearm to block defend himself against the swing and the chopper slashed the victim’s left forearm. The victim was beginning to bleed profusely as a result and together with both witnesses, he fled towards the main road and took a taxi to National University Hospital to seek medical attention.
8. Shortly after their departure, the accused too took a taxi to NUH with his wife, where upon seeing many people in the vicinity, he decided to leave the scene. On 12th May 2009 at about 11.55 pm, accused was arrested for being suspected of being a member of an unlawful society under Sec 14(3) Cap 311. Thereafter he was arrested for committing the offence of Voluntarily Causing Hurt with dangerous weapon under Sec 324 Cap 224.
9. It was revealed that accused bought the chopper from Blk 19 Ghim Moh Road, Super Budget Store before proceeding down to Blk 5 Dover Road to meet up with the accused and the two witnesses. After committing the offence, the accused disposed of the chopper into a dustbin beside Blk 3 Dover Road because he did not want anyone to see it. The said chopper was not recovered, and the accused has since admitted to committing the offence.
i think all the psychiatric reports are very contradictory...if you ask 2 psychiatrist to assess the accused - one for the defence and one for the prosecutors - the reports will be different...that's why psychiatry is a non-evidence based pseudo-science....in short plenty of empty air and bull...a good judge will be able to discern. but i doubt so....
Presently, she remains depressed in view of ongoing stressors e.g. being the primary caregiver to her 3 young children, financial issues that she continues to struggle with on a day to day basis. I agree with Dr Lim that additional stressors, such as that represented by a term of imprisonment, may result in further psychological decompensation of her already tenuous mental state.”
------------------------------
so does it mean it's ok to release one's stress by giving other people more stress?
------------------------------
so does it mean it's ok to release one's stress by giving other people more stress?
think positive in life ...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q0MIG_VRFDU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q0MIG_VRFDU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q0MIG_VRFDU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q0MIG_VRFDU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Similar threads
