.
.
.
.
Reason is very simple. Because...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reason is very simple. Because...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
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.
Guess why??? Why did AGC drop corruption charges against Iswaran despite PCA’s section 8’s presumption clause?
- Thread starter Hightech88
- Start date
If you are an oppie, they will throw everything at you including the kitchen sink.
I really thought it was Iswalan jigging to his freedom.
.
.
.
Reason is very simple. Because...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They can allow their puppet president to moonlight elsewhere simply with a stroke of the pen. They can simply change electoral boundaries to sextify their urges. So yes, they can do anything they feel like it, and there is nothing you can do about this except to suck it up and watch the fake drama unfold.
First day in Singapore?
NBG was acquitted because the Court accepted that Cecilia and NBG had an intimate relationship, and the 30+ bjs were given due to the intimate relationship, and NOT in exchange for government contractsDaft Sinkies still believe the kangaroo courts of a totalitarian regime will actually dispense justice.
A little trip down memory lane...
Iswaran can adopt the same defence
To maintain the record that not a single PAP minister was ever convicted of corruption.
This in itself is already corrupted system.
This in itself is already corrupted system.
If you are oppie, becomes the other way round - initially charged under Section 165 can suddenly become charged under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) NBCB, LOL.
Imagine if Pritam Singh accidentally accepted a gift worth only $200 and found out will likely jitao tio charged under PCA, LOL.
.
.
.
.
Reason is very simple. Because...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And Bernie.
It's political. He has nothing to gain. On the other hand ..NBG was acquitted because the Court accepted that Cecilia and NBG had an intimate relationship, and the 30+ bjs were given due to the intimate relationship, and NOT in exchange for government contracts
Iswaran can adopt the same defence
same reason why Ong Beng Seng not charged lor..................scared these 2 will open more cans of worms..........
The prosecution's justification to amend the corruption charges under s.6(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act to s.165 of Penal Code is flawed.
The "litigation risk" was in reference to corruption charges. In other words, there was no litigation risk with respect to the 32 lesser charges of accepting gifts and 1 charge for obstruction of justice. That is to say, irrespective of the corruption charges, the Prosecution would still have secured a conviction for the lesser charges. That is also to say, if the Prosecution had proceeded with both corruption and accepting gifts charges, regardless of the litigation risk with respect to the corruption charges, the Prosecution would still have secured a conviction for the lesser charges WITHOUT THE NECESSITY of accepting a guilty plea for the lesser charges.
On the other hand, if there was a risk that they might not secure a conviction for the lesser charges and that the Prosecution might not get anything, then it would be worthwhile to consider giving up the corruption charges for a sure conviction under the lesser charges via a guilty plea. So, if anything, the Prosecution should have concerned itself with whether there was a litigation risk with respect to the lesser charges, and not the corruption charges.
骗人的！
The "litigation risk" was in reference to corruption charges. In other words, there was no litigation risk with respect to the 32 lesser charges of accepting gifts and 1 charge for obstruction of justice. That is to say, irrespective of the corruption charges, the Prosecution would still have secured a conviction for the lesser charges. That is also to say, if the Prosecution had proceeded with both corruption and accepting gifts charges, regardless of the litigation risk with respect to the corruption charges, the Prosecution would still have secured a conviction for the lesser charges WITHOUT THE NECESSITY of accepting a guilty plea for the lesser charges.
On the other hand, if there was a risk that they might not secure a conviction for the lesser charges and that the Prosecution might not get anything, then it would be worthwhile to consider giving up the corruption charges for a sure conviction under the lesser charges via a guilty plea. So, if anything, the Prosecution should have concerned itself with whether there was a litigation risk with respect to the lesser charges, and not the corruption charges.
骗人的！
Last edited:
It is to provide a light censure.. including PMO whose audit failure fail to pick the so call light misdemeanor …!!!
Iswalan is a senior PAP.
Similar threads
