• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Members are encouraged to install GOM or HOLA or TUNNELBEAR for an added layer of protection.

    The SEX forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Commonsense advice for the judges hearing Kong Hee AGC appeal case in court tomorrow

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
#1
Commonsense advice for the judges hearing Kong Hee AGC appeal case in court tomorrow :

Shame on Kong Hee, no balls guy...
He should have stood up and corrected judge that he was indeed an 'agent' (i.e. big/ biggest boss of the mega church has ever had) and no ordinary small fry @CHC (which incidentally would receive higher penalty as compared to 'non-agent' which is lesser penalty for small fry people).

I think old law is split into 2 punishment arms hinging on the issue of 'agent' because some professionals are more culpable because they are professionals/ experts in a certain field.

E.g. A chartered accountant who misapproprates $$$ is more culpable than your personal (short skirt) secretary who has no $$$ training save PSLE/ O level certificate. A licensed dr who rape patient with mis-prescribed sedation is more culpable than stranger who rape a drunk woman, sleeping nude on pavement : all because these registered professionals have special training and thus awarded special trust, privilege / status in society which they need to respect: their special status played a large part in the perpetration of the crime. At the very least, they should receive no lesser sentence and have their professional license to practice revoked based on severity of the offence.

Pastors also have special status since not any congregation member can suka suka take to the pulpit to address the congregation. Even the gahmen accords religious organizations special respect by allowing them to register as charities : meaning zero property tax, zero income tax, zero GST etc.
Thus when a pastor who is also church board chairman siphons church funds to fund his wife striptease pop stardom campaign, forces parishioners to buy her pop CDs and obfuscate church financial account information to hide his theft, this is not simple criminal breech of trust by the barely literate Bangladeshi (construction worker on MC after workplace accudent) office boy or tea-lady : this is corruption and abuse of authority by a religious/ community leader in the highest degree.
Religious leaders need to be a paragon of morality fir the sake of social stability.

Perhaps old law was written at a time where a paper trail of $$ accounts was uncommon and the weight of gold coins lost might be in dispute depending on the brand of weighing scale used: thus the higher emphasis on the 'agent' status of the accused. Perhaps the concept of 'agent' was added to give judges food for though in judgement and question if an illiterate/ lowly paid accused person may indeed steal a large sum of $$$ or if he were just a scape goat, if indeed guilty at all?

Even if the preceding judges had been confused/ unlearned about the definition of 'agent', perhaps we can all agree that S$50m is no small change and that alone should overshadow any dispute arising from the understanding of the term 'agent'.

Or are Singapore court judges too afraid of the after world, which many religious leaders make lofty claims to have personal influence over or secret knowledge about ?

PS: i have no formal legal training save for reading newspapers court reports and some library books on law.
PS: Dear Mod, this is not subjudice because commonsense can never be biased/ wrong. So pls do not delete this post.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
#2
Re: Commonsense advice for the judges hearing Kong Hee AGC appeal case in court tomor

Completely agree with you about the importance of religious leaders that have to be "paragon of morality". And any abuse or fraud on their part must carry higher sentence. There just too many people that have been misled by rogue religious leaders.

Look at these 2 cases:


For most people lucky enough to win a cash prize the first point of action would usually be to book a long and expensive holiday abroad, or perhaps a new sports car.

The first thing this Omani imam did after finding out he had won over half a million dollars when his account was selected in a bank raffle was to return the prize money.

Sheikh Ali al-Ghaithi, who holds an account with the National Bank of Oman, was entered into an annual raffle where a lucky customer is picked at random to win a 250,000 Omani rial (more than $640,000) cash prize.

The 70-year-old received a call from the bank notifying him of his "good fortune" on Tuesday, however the imam of the local mosque said he rejected the prize due to religious reasons.

"They told me I was fortunate but it is not 'fortune' to win money I have not earned. Islamic laws say I cannot keep such money, so I told my bank to keep it. It is that simple," Sheikh al-Ghaithi told UAE daily The National.

The bank confirmed the rejection, stating it is not the first time a customer in Oman had won a raffle draw and returned the money.

Last year, another bank customer won 100,000 Omani rials (more than $260,000) in the annual raffle but rejected the money on religious grounds, the spokesman said.

According to some interpretations of Islamic law, raffles and lotteries are impermissible and are regularly likened to gambling - an action strictly prohibited in Islam.
 
Top