• 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.

Chitchat Daniel Ong whining that keyboard warrior ls

pvtpublic

Alfrescian
Loyal
When I was working in manufacturing Singapore had just passed a law that penalised employers with a jail term if someone without a proper work permit was found working on the premises.

Security at the factory was performed by a security agency.

One night one of the regular guards that does night shift called in sick and the security company had to scramble to find a replacement. Unfortunately the scruffy character they came up with was on a social visit pass and had also overstayed his welcome.

This dastardly deed was uncovered because the ministry concerned happened to do a spot check.

So who is liable for the fact that an illegal overstayer was found working on the premises? The agency? The company? If the company is liable who should serve the prison sentence? The MD? HR Manager? Security manager?

I will provide details of the outcome later.

since it's legislation, the company would be liable

however the company is free to pursue a claim for damages against the grossly negligent security agency.

and the AG can separately prosecute the agent for hiring an illegal.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
what u highlighted refers to "no master-servant" ie no principal-agent

where there is a master-servant relationship, it is very clear the master (principal) is liable for the acts of the servant (agent)

If an Perm Sec is sent by his minister to attend a meeting and the Perm Sec has an accident along the way is the minister (his master) liable?
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
since it's legislation, the company would be liable

however the company is free to pursue a claim for damages against the grossly negligent security agency.

and the AG can separately prosecute the agent for hiring an illegal.

What if the illegal overstayer guard was on duty outside the main entrance was therefore not found to be "on company premises"?

Would the company still be liable?
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
When I was working in manufacturing Singapore had just passed a law that penalised employers with a jail term if someone without a proper work permit was found working on the premises.

Security at the factory was performed by a security agency.

One night one of the regular guards that does night shift called in sick and the security company had to scramble to find a replacement. Unfortunately the scruffy character they came up with was on a social visit pass and had also overstayed his welcome.

This dastardly deed was uncovered because the ministry concerned happened to do a spot check.

So who is liable for the fact that an illegal overstayer was found working on the premises? The agency? The company? If the company is liable who should serve the prison sentence? The MD? HR Manager? Security manager?

I will provide details of the outcome later.
The reason outsourcing has gain popularity is due to big business transfering it's liabilities to the 3rd party Agent. And also plausible deniability. In kangaroo land. The biz will just blame the agency for any fuck ups. However the biz itself needs to fulfill its obligations. So for this security guard thing. B4 the agency send the replacement. The replacement's paperwork, license, work visa etc must forward all details to the client n client approve. This is the proper way as client has done it's due diligence. If got a cock up...as long as due diligence is done...higher chance to get away. How ever in singkieland..it seem the due diligence not done. Tat way the authorities are looking for someone to blame..n of course the buck stops with the head honcho
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
The reason outsourcing has gain popularity is due to big business transfering it's liabilities to the 3rd party Agent. And also plausible deniability. In kangaroo land. The biz will just blame the agency for any fuck ups. However the biz itself needs to fulfill its obligations. So for this security guard thing. B4 the agency send the replacement. The replacement's paperwork, license, work visa etc must forward all details to the client n client approve. This is the proper way as client has done it's due diligence. If got a cock up...as long as due diligence is done...higher chance to get away. How ever in singkieland..it seem the due diligence not done. Tat way the authorities are looking for someone to blame..n of course the buck stops with the head honcho
Excellent.... so who was found liable and who went to prison?
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
In kangaroo land..depends in how good a lawyer, how deep a pocket will play a big part. In singkieland..its how well connected one is

It takes someone who can recognise a fake pandemic to also understand how things actually work behind the scenes.
 

pvtpublic

Alfrescian
Loyal
What if the illegal overstayer guard was on duty outside the main entrance was therefore not found to be "on company premises"?

Would the company still be liable?

depending on the legislation, No.

so the coin turns on whether the "outside" area is deemed part of company premises or not
 

myfoot123

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
You hire a driver to do deliveries for you. He has an accident while driving and kills someone. The police charge you instead of the driver because you own the vehicle he was driving.

Very often the law is an ass.
You hired a boy to kill someone and then whined about being implicated? As a director of any company, there is a law requiring all directors of new company to familiarise themselves with Singapore legal systems and corporate governance. Ignorance is not an excuse. Daniel Ong is not stupid not to have known that, otherwise he fail as being a boss, a leader and everything in between. He should be banned from doing business in Singapore.
 

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Get caught n try to blame agent , he forgot how much he pocket for so long

This is only the beginning of his problems. CPF will come after him, for falsifying records.
Then Income Tax will come after him for over-claiming expenses in order to reduce personal income taxes.
Huat ah!
 
Top