M
-
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.
Glenn Knight, The Prosecutor
- Thread starter GoldenDragon
- Start date
The Commissioner of Police is not a big shot in the government food chain. He are about the level of a deputy secretary. This is evidenced by the transfer of Khoo Boon Hui as deputy sec in Home Affairs.
Another CP became High Commissioner to Brunei - which is the level of a deputy sec. He has to report to the Perm Sec. and the director responsible for his territory.
By the nature of his work, a DPP have the right to order a senior police office to perform specific tasks.
Thank you.
With respect, regardless how good or not as good KBH is (even taking into consideration his early career as a SAFOS, and at 1 SIR), the govt should " give him face " and promote him to be at least Deputy Secretary or 2 Permanent Secretary.
Saw him afew months back, he really aged alot ...!:o
he has similar tots about u in his mind ...
he has similar tots about u in his mind ...
Datok.
Not to say I boast. He is 2 years my junior but I definitely look 10 years younger than him Think he no exercise and also tidak ada minum heineken atau chivas and tidak ada makan buah buahan on a regular basis binya.:o:p
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
his toe no more also , jilat ...
his toe no more also , jilat ...
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) on Friday pointed out a few errors made in the book 'The Prosecutor', written by former crime-buster Glenn Knight.
Mr Knight has said in his book that Mr Tan Koon Swan was wrongly convicted and that in Mr Knight's words, 'he was technically an innocent man'.
In 1986, Mr Tan Koon Swan pleaded guilty to one charge of abetment of criminal breach of trust in the High Court before Justice Lai Kew Chai, who sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of S$500,000.
Mr Tan admitted to abetting a director of Pan-Electric Industries Ltd to commit criminal breach of trust by engaging in a conspiracy with that director to dishonestly dispose of property belonging to the company in violation of section 157(1) of the Companies Act.
Fourteen other charges were not proceeded with.
Mr Tan's appeal against the sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
The AGC said Mr Tan did not, and could not have appealed against the conviction, since he pleaded guilty.
And throughout the proceedings, Mr Tan was represented by counsel.
In 1996, in the case of Cheam Tat Pang v Public Prosecutor, Chief Justice Yong Pung How, sitting as a High Court judge, concluded that a violation of section 157(1) of the Companies Act could not be the basis of dishonest disposal of property in a charge of criminal breach of trust.
Chief Justice Yong referred to Mr Tan Koon Swan's case, noting that there were no arguments about the correctness of the charge.
Although Chief Justice Yong disagreed with the view of the law taken in Mr Tan Koon Swan's case, his decision did not and could not overrule the decision in Mr Tan Koon Swan's case, as both decisions were made by the High Court.
Differences in the Courts' pronouncements on the law occur, especially in legal systems based on the Common Law.
The AGC said the decision to charge Mr Tan Koon Swan was made by the Public Prosecutor on the basis of the evidence against Mr Tan Koon Swan and the applicable law.
Mr Tan had legal advice throughout the whole process.
Neither he nor his counsel took issue with the correctness of the charge.
Mr Tan Koon Swan was convicted on the basis of his own plea of guilt, based on the law and facts as was accepted by his own counsel.
Mr Knight's point is that if the law had been understood in 1986 to be as pronounced by Chief Justice Yong in 1996, then Mr Tan Koon Swan could not have been convicted.
But the AGC said that is not so.
There were fourteen other charges that were not proceeded with in 1986 against Mr Tan Koon Swan because he pleaded guilty to the charge of criminal breach of trust through violation of section 157(1).
The AGC said Mr Knight also made a number of errors in his book.
Firstly, he described the sentence imposed as including a fine of S$1 million. The correct fine was $500,000.
Secondly, the book stated that Chief Justice Yong concluded that Mr Knight was wrong to charge Mr Tan Koon Swan as he did, and that Chief Justice Yong was of the opinion that the section Mr Tan was charged with was wrong in law.
Chief Justice Yong referred only to the fact that there were no arguments about the correctness of the charge.
AGC said Chief Justice Yong did not go into any detailed discussion of Mr Tan Koon Swan's case or Mr Knight's conduct of the case.
Specifically, Chief Justice Yong did not express any opinion that Mr Tan was wrongly charged.
Thirdly, it was said that the judgment in Cheam Tat Pang meant that Mr Tan Koon Swan had been wrongly convicted and that he was technically an innocent man.
The AGC said Mr Tan Koon Swan's conviction stands, and he remains guilty of the crime that he had admitted to.
- CNA/fa
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) on Friday pointed out a few errors made in the book 'The Prosecutor', written by former crime-buster Glenn Knight.
Mr Knight has said in his book that Mr Tan Koon Swan was wrongly convicted and that in Mr Knight's words, 'he was technically an innocent man'.
In 1986, Mr Tan Koon Swan pleaded guilty to one charge of abetment of criminal breach of trust in the High Court before Justice Lai Kew Chai, who sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of S$500,000.
Mr Tan admitted to abetting a director of Pan-Electric Industries Ltd to commit criminal breach of trust by engaging in a conspiracy with that director to dishonestly dispose of property belonging to the company in violation of section 157(1) of the Companies Act.
Fourteen other charges were not proceeded with.
Mr Tan's appeal against the sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
The AGC said Mr Tan did not, and could not have appealed against the conviction, since he pleaded guilty.
And throughout the proceedings, Mr Tan was represented by counsel.
In 1996, in the case of Cheam Tat Pang v Public Prosecutor, Chief Justice Yong Pung How, sitting as a High Court judge, concluded that a violation of section 157(1) of the Companies Act could not be the basis of dishonest disposal of property in a charge of criminal breach of trust.
Chief Justice Yong referred to Mr Tan Koon Swan's case, noting that there were no arguments about the correctness of the charge.
Although Chief Justice Yong disagreed with the view of the law taken in Mr Tan Koon Swan's case, his decision did not and could not overrule the decision in Mr Tan Koon Swan's case, as both decisions were made by the High Court.
Differences in the Courts' pronouncements on the law occur, especially in legal systems based on the Common Law.
The AGC said the decision to charge Mr Tan Koon Swan was made by the Public Prosecutor on the basis of the evidence against Mr Tan Koon Swan and the applicable law.
Mr Tan had legal advice throughout the whole process.
Neither he nor his counsel took issue with the correctness of the charge.
Mr Tan Koon Swan was convicted on the basis of his own plea of guilt, based on the law and facts as was accepted by his own counsel.
Mr Knight's point is that if the law had been understood in 1986 to be as pronounced by Chief Justice Yong in 1996, then Mr Tan Koon Swan could not have been convicted.
But the AGC said that is not so.
There were fourteen other charges that were not proceeded with in 1986 against Mr Tan Koon Swan because he pleaded guilty to the charge of criminal breach of trust through violation of section 157(1).
The AGC said Mr Knight also made a number of errors in his book.
Firstly, he described the sentence imposed as including a fine of S$1 million. The correct fine was $500,000.
Secondly, the book stated that Chief Justice Yong concluded that Mr Knight was wrong to charge Mr Tan Koon Swan as he did, and that Chief Justice Yong was of the opinion that the section Mr Tan was charged with was wrong in law.
Chief Justice Yong referred only to the fact that there were no arguments about the correctness of the charge.
AGC said Chief Justice Yong did not go into any detailed discussion of Mr Tan Koon Swan's case or Mr Knight's conduct of the case.
Specifically, Chief Justice Yong did not express any opinion that Mr Tan was wrongly charged.
Thirdly, it was said that the judgment in Cheam Tat Pang meant that Mr Tan Koon Swan had been wrongly convicted and that he was technically an innocent man.
The AGC said Mr Tan Koon Swan's conviction stands, and he remains guilty of the crime that he had admitted to.
- CNA/fa
AGC will want to save face and make laws and rules to entrap business owner, nothing new/ too bad GK got entrapped by his own karma.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
Originally Posted by Mdm Tang
.
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) on Friday pointed out a few errors made in the book 'The Prosecutor', written by former crime-buster Glenn Knight.
Mr Knight's words, 'he was technically an innocent man'.
.
if like that , can Tan Koon Swan ask
for compensation ?
Originally Posted by Mdm Tang
.
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) on Friday pointed out a few errors made in the book 'The Prosecutor', written by former crime-buster Glenn Knight.
Mr Knight's words, 'he was technically an innocent man'.
.
if like that , can Tan Koon Swan ask
for compensation ?
Mdm, as usual, you are well-informed.
can run road to prc or north korea, and still enjoy your mei mei pork buns and kimchi. last checked, prc and nk have pretty much zilch extradition treaties with anyone, especially nk. true hermit state. and their safe houses are stocked with great propaganda reading materials. no internet access though. need to surf sbf from fake iphone. :p
merl and you hit the jackpot. wonder how is alan now. really suay in sg to be stalked by a bully and thug. and we know the biggest of them all is his good golf buddy, the emperor. the entire system is adulterated and anal-engineered with them in mind, with everything in their favor. an open and shut case could be turned around 180 to make the victim the terrorist. not surprised if weeny and his harassing cronies are here on sbf.
With the $$$$$$$$$ from sale of book, NK and China will not feature in my runroad plan. I opine Ang Mo countries are safer. I can try look for bro Charlie in Toronto! I understand there also can chiong if you know where to head to. I need to stay in touch with bros in this forum. They are buying my book afterall.
netherlands, literally, where you can enjoy life in the nether parts of the body. whether with or without extradition treaties, sg traditionally has a problem getting fugitives and syndicate bosses yanked from that 1st world cesspit. and moreover over there, there's fear and respect for sinkie men. show your sinkie passport, and the middle-aged dutch go soft between their thighs, sometimes getting wet.
Hello brother [GoldenDragon],
My ears are ringing,
If you ever need to travel here, to live your luxurious life after selling your no. one top selling book, or to seek asylum,
this True North Strong and Free will be one of the better alternatives, because other than the extended cold winter
(but you can always travel to Cuba or the Caribbean to warm up), there is almost anything money can buy.
Take care.
Sincerely,
When people are in a position of power, more often than not they forget about their humble past and use their newly-found powers to oppress the weaker ones that they had occassion to deal with.
Be it a criminal case in the hands of a police investigator or public prosecutor or for that matter something concerning a powerful politician, it should be remembered that Power and Privileges SHOULD NOT be abused to such an extent as to disadvantage the weaker mortals on the receiving end.
Sympathy and Empathy are the Golden words. Always think about the plight of the person being investigated or taken to task (by powerful politicians). Weigh the reasons for him or her having committed the act. Think of his innocent wife and children, maybe elderly parents and sick siblings.
There have been cases whereby investigators, keen on getting commendations and testimonials may have gone over-board and in so doing placed many people in sheer hardship.
Let's not forget the fact that those facing charges or being arraigned in a Court of Law, may have pleaded guilty as as an easy way out for the fact that they simply cannot afford to hire and pay a lawyer to defend them. Legal Aid is not easily available in Singapore. There is much to prove before one is granted Legal Aid.
Heaven knows how many innocent people have languished in Singapore Jails due to this reason.
In conclusion, please believe in KARMA. Remember, that those who are in power today may one day find themselves on the receiving end - be it in the course of answering charges of human-rights abuses or criminal acts. So many examples in the papers.........
One good example is the Khmer Rouge leaders (some of them insane and senile) facing the Tribunal.
KARMA is true. There will be a time when we see it in action.
fishingsteve
New Member
Is it SJ by any chance?
fishingsteve
New Member
It's same same.
