Ah Seng's reaction after being fined $30K

[True Believer]

A criminal record is the overall history of someone’s criminal justice involvement. A prison record is specifically about what happened while they were inside From Chatgpt... think there are differences on the two

A conviction in court, even if it is only punished by a fine, results in a criminal record. A record is not only for the convicted who have been sentenced to prison. Convictions for offences, regardless of the punishment for a serious or minor crime and the penalty i.e. fine or imprisonment, are details within the record. However, the conviction itself is the crucial element that results in the record.

 

[Loofydralb]

How many ex MP, Ministers, present MP and Ministers have bought properties from OBS?

No! No! There is no corruption in Singapore!

 

[Sialoquent]

PAP is a Corrupt Party.

 

[True Believer]

PAP is a Corrupt Party.

The govt's control over key institutions and the media is evidence of a lack of transparency. This makes it difficult for the public to scrutinise govt actions, raising suspicions of behind-the-scenes dealings. The absence of a strong, independent opposition owing to the PAP's oppression, enables this abuse of power. Contrary to what Goh CT and Ong YK claim, the PAP is incapable of being its own check and balance.

 

[True Believer]

No! No! There is no corruption in Singapore!

Cases involving potential conflicts of interest such as land deals, appointment of board members to govt-linked companies and PAP leaders' family members holding high positions, have drawn public criticism. While the govt maintains that all procedures are above board, these instances fuel public suspicion about nepotism and cronyism.

 

[True Believer]

A good example in Singapore where corruption actually pays off.

The govt has been using its power to suppress dissent, intimidate critics and silence opposition voices. While not directly related to financial corruption, these actions are a form of political corruption that erodes democratic accountability.

 

[batman1]

PAP is a Corrupt Party.

It is a rotten apple.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

That’s like a $2 fine to him. Haha

 

[NanoSpeed]

CNA and Straits Times have started a campaign to gaslight Sinkies into accepting the decision that OBS does NOT deserve to be jailed:

Do we need a lawyer to tell us that in applying judicial mercy the Court must consider "the severity of the crime and the risk of re-offending"? The penalty for the offence is jail or fine. If the Court did not think that the offence was serious enough to warrant a jail term, the Court would not have had to consider his health condition. The Court could have just fined him because in the opinion of the Court it wasn't severe enough to warrant a jail term. The fact that the Court had to consider his health condition meant that the Court had already decided that he deserved a jail term. So the lawyer should NOT be talking about severity of the crime because in the opinion of the Court OBS deserved a jail term if not for his health condition.

Do we need another lawyer to tell us that judicial mercy is 'the tempering of punishment imposed in the light of the offender's personal circumstances '? Isn't it obvious to anyone who can understand basic English ?

And is 'reflecting the Court's and the society's humanity towards the offender's plight' within the purview of the Court ?

The lawyers should give us their jurisprudential view of the Court's decision, and NOT attempting to offer a linguistic explanation of what judicial mercy is.

Judges are supposed to be in the business of justice, and mercy is by nature contrary to justice. And mercy has a gift-like character, and gifts cannot be extracted, including by law. In 1976, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rejected a challenge to a refusal to show mercy in de Freitas v Benny, a case originating in Trinidad and Tobago. Lord Diplock, in a now infamous passage, said that ‘mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end.’ A person ‘has no legal right even to have his case considered … in connection with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy’.

Indeed, mercy is a prerogative - a prerogative of the Head of State. It is the prerogative of the Head of State to grant or refuse a request for a pardon or remission of a sentence for a criminal offence, and this prerogative is enshrined in the Constitution.

If a Constitution aims to give the Head of State a power to show genuine mercy, but genuine mercy cannot be demanded, and one can only demand that to which one has a legal right, then the creation of a legal right to mercy by the Court makes genuine mercy by the Head of State impossible, thereby subverting the aim of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.

@Boonsiong @Sialoquent 有沒有道理？​

 

[True Believer]

It is a rotten apple.

"Ownself check ownself" resulted in no wrongdoing found in the Ridout Road case:

 

[batman1]

CNA and Straits Times have started a campaign to gaslight Sinkies into accepting the decision that OBS does NOT deserve to be jailed:

View attachment 226701

Do we need a lawyer to tell us that in applying judicial mercy the Court must consider "the severity of the crime and the risk of re-offending"? The penalty for the offence is jail or fine. If the Court did not think that the offence was serious enough to warrant a jail term, the Court would not have had to consider his health condition. The Court could have just fined him because in the opinion of the Court it wasn't severe enough to warrant a jail term. The fact that the Court had to consider his health condition meant that the Court had already decided that he deserved a jail term. So the lawyer should NOT be talking about severity of the crime because in the opinion of the Court OBS deserved a jail term if not for his health condition.

Do we need another lawyer to tell us that judicial mercy is 'the tempering of punishment imposed in the light of the offender's personal circumstances '? Isn't it obvious to anyone who can understand basic English ?

And is 'reflecting the Court's and the society's humanity towards the offender's plight' within the purview of the Court ?

The lawyers should give us their jurisprudential view of the Court's decision, and NOT attempting to offer a linguistic explanation of what judicial mercy is.

Judges are supposed to be in the business of justice, and mercy is by nature contrary to justice. And mercy has a gift-like character, and gifts cannot be extracted, including by law. In 1976, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rejected a challenge to a refusal to show mercy in de Freitas v Benny, a case originating in Trinidad and Tobago. Lord Diplock, in a now infamous passage, said that ‘mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end.’ A person ‘has no legal right even to have his case considered … in connection with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy’.

Indeed, mercy is a prerogative - a prerogative of the Head of State. It is the prerogative of the Head of State to grant or refuse a request for a pardon or remission of a sentence for a criminal offence, and this prerogative is enshrined in the Constitution.

If a Constitution aims to give the Head of State a power to show genuine mercy, but genuine mercy cannot be demanded, and one can only demand that to which one has a legal right, then the creation of a legal right to mercy by the Court makes genuine mercy by the Head of State impossible, thereby subverting the aim of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.

@Boonsiong @Sialoquent 有沒有道理？​

In short,the judge usurped the powers of the head of state.

 

[batman1]

"Ownself check ownself" resulted in no wrongdoing found in the Ridout Road case:

All the COI findings are against the legal precedents.

 

[True Believer]

All the COI findings are against the legal precedents.

A significant and unresolved question arising from the parliamentary debate is the conflict of interest created by Shanmugam's relationship with the SLA. As the Minister overseeing SLA, he is effectively the landlord, while his tenancy of a state property positions him as a tenant. The interests of these 2 roles are basically at odds, leading to a conflict that will last as long as the tenancy. This situation is not comparable to a Minister using public services like schools or hospitals. Instead, it involves the rental of a very expensive and non-essential asset. This specific conflict of interest has never been properly addressed and explained in Parliament. It is also ridiculous that the Minister is permitted to continue in a position where his public and private interests are directly linked.

 

[NanoSpeed]

CNA and Straits Times have started a campaign to gaslight Sinkies into accepting the decision that OBS does NOT deserve to be jailed:

View attachment 226701

Do we need a lawyer to tell us that in applying judicial mercy the Court must consider "the severity of the crime and the risk of re-offending"? The penalty for the offence is jail or fine. If the Court did not think that the offence was serious enough to warrant a jail term, the Court would not have had to consider his health condition. The Court could have just fined him because in the opinion of the Court it wasn't severe enough to warrant a jail term. The fact that the Court had to consider his health condition meant that the Court had already decided that he deserved a jail term. So the lawyer should NOT be talking about severity of the crime because in the opinion of the Court OBS deserved a jail term if not for his health condition.

Do we need another lawyer to tell us that judicial mercy is 'the tempering of punishment imposed in the light of the offender's personal circumstances '? Isn't it obvious to anyone who can understand basic English ?

And is 'reflecting the Court's and the society's humanity towards the offender's plight' within the purview of the Court ?

The lawyers should give us their jurisprudential view of the Court's decision, and NOT attempting to offer a linguistic explanation of what judicial mercy is.

Judges are supposed to be in the business of justice, and mercy is by nature contrary to justice. And mercy has a gift-like character, and gifts cannot be extracted, including by law. In 1976, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rejected a challenge to a refusal to show mercy in de Freitas v Benny, a case originating in Trinidad and Tobago. Lord Diplock, in a now infamous passage, said that ‘mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end.’ A person ‘has no legal right even to have his case considered … in connection with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy’.

Indeed, mercy is a prerogative - a prerogative of the Head of State. It is the prerogative of the Head of State to grant or refuse a request for a pardon or remission of a sentence for a criminal offence, and this prerogative is enshrined in the Constitution.

If a Constitution aims to give the Head of State a power to show genuine mercy, but genuine mercy cannot be demanded, and one can only demand that to which one has a legal right, then the creation of a legal right to mercy by the Court makes genuine mercy by the Head of State impossible, thereby subverting the aim of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.

@Boonsiong @Sialoquent 有沒有道理？​

Why Ravi's drug addict mules pleaded for mercy, nobody hiu him? Why nobody except siao Ravi and NGOs spoke about humanity?

But when it came to OBS the media went full monty, and even bothered to garner support from lawyers?

 

[Sialoquent]

The corrupt face of PAP is shown all over this case