How come Tharman who is convicted of criminal offence can still be President of Singapore?

[metanoia]

Why huh?

 

[myfoot123]

Why huh?

Offence is not decided by law, but by who holds the power. If you think politic is fair play, think again..

 

[Sustanon]

Why huh?

没射! 没射! 没有这回射!

 

[Dreamliner787]

Why huh?

In the 1994 trial, Tharman was acquitted of the more serious charge of communicating secrets but was found guilty of a lesser charge of negligence in handling the document and was fined S$1,500.

Under the Singapore Constitution, a person may be disqualified from standing for President if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of at least 1 year, or a fine of at least S$10,000, and have not been pardoned.

Tharman’s case did not meet those thresholds as his fine of S$1,500 was below the constitutional disqualification level, and there was no imprisonment sentence.

Moreover, his conviction was for negligence in circumstances where there was no finding that he intentionally communicated classified information. KYM ?​

 

[millim6868]

Kelong

 

[jsctan]

One country 2 or 3 systems kym?

 

[bobby]

Why so surprised? Even an Indian can change and becum a Malay and be the dumb president

 

[searcher1]

In the 1994 trial, Tharman was acquitted of the more serious charge of communicating secrets but was found guilty of a lesser charge of negligence in handling the document and was fined S$1,500.

Under the Singapore Constitution, a person may be disqualified from standing for President if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of at least 1 year, or a fine of at least S$10,000, and have not been pardoned.

Tharman’s case did not meet those thresholds as his fine of S$1,500 was below the constitutional disqualification level, and there was no imprisonment sentence.

Moreover, his conviction was for negligence in circumstances where there was no finding that he intentionally communicated classified information. KYM ?​

But by their high moral code, this is dishonourable & lack of integrity.
It will stain our Parliament, lost Public trust & must fired this criminal President !
They cannot say, because he is ex-PAP, so no issue, integrity intact, no compromise

 

[jsctan]

Why so surprised? Even an Indian can change and becum a Malay and be the dumb president

majority sinkies cmi! Look away and allowed this to happened.

 

[metanoia]

In the 1994 trial, Tharman was acquitted of the more serious charge of communicating secrets but was found guilty of a lesser charge of negligence in handling the document and was fined S$1,500.

Under the Singapore Constitution, a person may be disqualified from standing for President if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of at least 1 year, or a fine of at least S$10,000, and have not been pardoned.

Tharman’s case did not meet those thresholds as his fine of S$1,500 was below the constitutional disqualification level, and there was no imprisonment sentence.

Moreover, his conviction was for negligence in circumstances where there was no finding that he intentionally communicated classified information. KYM ?​

Still a criminal conviction and he is allowed to hold the top position of President? Doesn't seem right.

 

[cockie]

Why huh?

Because he is with the “Correct” side… if he is in the opposition side, he is gone long time ago

 

[Dreamliner787]

Still a criminal conviction and he is allowed to hold the top position of President? Doesn't seem right.

@metanoia exposed as a hardcore WP member. He wrote the speech for Pritam:

 

[THE_CHANSTER]

People have short memories and Tharman was protected.

 

[WangChuk]

Why huh?

simple reason ... he is a papaya ... period.