A Second Open Letter to the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister

[Redress]

A Open Tele-Communication between myself and ASP Mike Ting from Traffic Police on 22/1/2014 at about 6.45pm

Mike TING (SPF)
To Me
Today at 5:42 PM
This message contains blocked images.
Show Images Options
Message Classification: Restricted
Mr Chua

I acknowledge yr email and I refer to our meeting on Monday 20 January 2014 in Traffic Police.

I also understand that you have also forwarded the same queries to AGC for their attention. We will address AGC once we have the necessary information.

You will be informed of the outcome by way of letter.

Thanks


cid:[email protected]
MIKE TING, ASP
Chief Investigation Officer | Violation Investigation Team
Traffic Police Department | No 10 Ubi Avenue 3 Singapore 408865
Singapore Police Force
DID: + 65 65476142 | HP: 97577510 | Fax: +65 65474885
E-mail: [email protected]

Chua: Good Evening Sir, i am Mr Chua and i am referring to the email that you have just sent me awhile ago and i am clarifying the Content of your email as i do have a bundle of doubts with it.

ASP: Ok. Please tell me what you would like to know...

Chua: First of all, i appreciate your patient and time for listening to me once and for all as i do thank you for your acknowledgement in writing to me that you have now indeed read what i have told you previously that my Complaint against my ex-business partner, Mr Goh were of a valid reason for it and i repeated myself clearly that in doing so, i am being a responsible precedent partner and two for being as a dutiful citizen to expose the wrong doing of Mr Goh for what he had actually paid this Mr Ong a $800 from our partnership profit to engage him to take the rap for Mr Goh who had committed a Traffic Offence in beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon Road on 16/6/2011.

ASP: Chua can you please stop repeating it again and again as i do know what is happening from our investigation and i have also told you that we will wait for the AGC direction and you will be also inform in writing?

Chua:Sir, please allows me to redress it one more time on the basis of the Company's Vehicle rules & regulations as such it is going to be of great help into my complain and resulting to your further investigation on it as i am not good in presenting the whole case to you as i am only a plumber and my son is next to me reading at your email replies.

ASP: Then get your son to talk with me and let your son explain to you later.

Chua: Ok. Calling my son to answer the phone.

Chua's son: Hello, Sir my father english is no good and i think you don't get what he is trying to convey the whole incident. I am very well knew about this case as i have been helping my father to sent to the relevant authorities to relook into this matter as it concern many doubtful questions into TP allowed this Mr Ong who is not an official employee of iRepair company and moreover TP just base on a statement that Mr Ong is admitting that he is the said driver for this summon and i think TP is very bias about my dad to which Point No.1 Did TP asked for a company official letter to proof that Mr Ong is really an employee of the company iRepair? Point No:2 Did TP request both the partners in iRepair to satisfy that Mr Ong was indeed an employee or part-time worker OR TP just listen to what both Mr Ong and Mr Goh verbally in accepting that Mr Ong is Mr Goh part-time worker or an employee of the company? Point No: 3 As such this GQXXXXX is registered under the company of iRepair then in LTA's letter which has clearly meted out that:"There shall be no Personal Usage..." which mean in any case that There shall be and not in your thinking that "What if it is Consent by?" To put thing clearer, i shall use this as an example: In Our Laws states: "There shall be No Drinking of Alcohol while driving!" Can anyone just interpret it that "What if it is Consent by?" Then i think we do not have to have this laws in the first place right? Point No: 4 to this company vehicle underlying that it is a Company Vehicle that therefore we have to follow what LTA have meted out these rules & regulations that "There shall be no Personal Usage to it right? Whether to the effect that Mr Goh have actually Consent or not? It is not for anyone to say that he/she has Consent in lending the said company vehicle and this is outright against the Company Vehicle Acts and i shall give you another example of it to further clarifies this issue that: Can anyone just drove a Taxi or Police Patrol Car just like the argument here? Well, to drive a Taxi One has to obtain a Vocational License and to drive a Police Patrol Car and One has to be a Police Officer right? Point No:5 Sir, i do agreed that a normal civilian vehicle maybe lend to someone who does not have to satisfy the fulfilment of the company acts governed by the LTA Authority and maybe in this aspect my Dad will have nothing to say or complain about as it is strictly purely the agreement in the two parties, BUT here what we are talking is not a Police Patrol Car nor a Taxi and it is a Company's Registered Vehicle and it should not be just a sloppy or straight forward in accepting Mr Ong & Mr Goh the two sayings as this is Totally Unacceptable which my Dad had been doing his findings for the past 3 days after he had returned on Monday (20/1/2014) from your Office and according to my Dad understanding is despite what my Dad complain or Tip-Off is a Genuine One and TP just took it too lightly without calling for the Official Documents to prove and Satisfy that this Mr Ong was the said driver on that day itself or any other supporting logs liked from When to When this Mr Ong had been working for the company and if so who authorized it? Point No:6 Where even lets say Mr Ong is Mr Goh part-time worker then did TP go check with the CPF, MOM or even WDA to which all employee or even a Part-Time Worker also have to contribute the Skills Development Levy. The Skills Development Levy (SDL) Act (Cap.306) was established in 1979 and information of the SDL is recorded in the CPF Employer's Handbook> Under the Skill Development Levy Act (Cap306), it is compulsory that employers contribute the Skills Development Levy(SDL) for all their employees including local and foreign. SDL is generally liable on a per company basis. Point No:7 Whereas, in the absence of these necessary documentations and How can TP just base on a so-called ONE Liner Statement:" Yes, i (Mr Ong) am the said driver and case closed!"

Chua: Sir, whist every effort have been taken to provide my duties as a Precedent Partner and a dutiful citizen i hereby swear upon my life that if i had gave any false information to it and i am willing to take this curse on myself that i will be knocked down by a big lorry with horrible death to re-affirm that i am stating the truth and nothing else and do hope that you can re-investigate it and redress me.

ASP: Chua will look into it and waiting for AGC further direction.

Chua: I do understand and i do not blame AGC for not taking up action against Mr Goh and Mr Ong as AGC all depend on the TP Reports and if TP in omission or err in not pursuing further for the necessary Company Official Letter to Proof, then the answer will be the same and still no action will be taken! I also further understand that it is the responsibilities for TP concern to make a fair report by putting it in writing and not to believe whose talking is more out-quick in defend or to rushing for a already case closed matter and that the payment was made.

ASP: Chua, rest assured that we will re-investigate this matter as you yourself had also wrote in many times to the AGC and i will also forward all that you have clarified with me to the AGC again.

Chua: Ok. Thank you and hope that this matter can be properly addressed again with the above Points that i have duly given as this is indeed very important to the investigation. I would also liked to re-called what some Officers had told me that Mr Goh usually would says: Err we (i and him) had an On-Going Civil Sue and usually the Officer would pity him (Mr Goh) as he is indeed capable in bring a lawyer letter with him to the officer when asked for an interview OR Mr Goh take his lawyer along in my Magistrate Complain of a Criminal Intimidation whereby he says to me: "You want to choose hand or leg to be broken!" as i have been complaining him for this matter and Mr Goh abusing of a Student Pass to Obtain a Long-Term Stay in Singapore for his Undisclosed China Nationality Mistress to which the son is their illegitimate Biological Child and all that i know of this Mr Goh is playing with Singapore Laws Loopholes just like the Traffic Offence here and because it is captured by a Traffic Light Camera and he think he can fooled the TP intelligence in doing so? Lastly, i would like to thank you Sir for redressing this matter again.

PS: Goh had 2 Counts (2X12=24 Points) of talking on his mobile phone while driving the same said vehicle and 1 Count (4 Points) of illegal parking at a zig-zag double at simpang bedok and if this 12 Points were to added Goh had accumulated 40 Points within a short period of 3 Months!

 

[Redress]

26th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
Dear Sir/Mdm
RE: Re-appeal to take Immediate Action Against Mr Goh Nric No: S25XXXXXX

My name is Mr Chua and it is with a heavy heart that I am writing this to lodge a formal report against the traffic police.
My reasons for lodging a report against Mr Ting can be credited to the following points.
1. The Traffic Police has failed to investigate the report comprehensively, leaving no stones unturned. The report concerned is the one which I have filed against Mr Goh pertaining to the offense of beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. For your reference, the Traffic Report number for the case is 113029596512

2. Due to the complexity of this case, I would like to provide you with some background information that may, hopefully, facilitate your understanding in this matter. The parties who were complicit in this report were namely, Mr Goh (the mastermind who orchestrated the entire illicit affair) and Mr Ong, who was Mr Goh’s accomplice in this matter.

3. When Mr Goh was slapped with the summon of 12 demerits points from the traffic police for the offence of beating the traffic light camera at the junction of lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road, he had initially approached me to make a request that I would become his scapegoat in this matter to which I had flatly rejected him. This can be credited to the fact that he had a history of 3 counts of traffic offences which had accumulated to a total demerit point of 28 prior to this. Should he accept the deserved punishment of 12 demerits points for flouting the vested traffic rules, he would have accumulated a total of 40 demerits points within a short span of 3 or so months.

4. Fearing the possibility that his driving license may be revoked and my blunt repudiation of his unlawful request, he decided to search for another willing scapegoat to take the rap for him. The scapegoat was Mr Ong. He had confided in me that he needed a lump sum of $800 SGD to bribe the Mr Ong into carrying the offence for him. However, his request for $800 SGD was again, rebuffed by me as I did not approve of his actions that would translate into a downright transgression of Singapore law and order. Hence, he responded to my rebuff by surreptitiously taking out the sum of money from our partnership earnings.

5. When I realized his misdeed, I had confronted him immediately which elicited a response of sheer amusement as he pontificate me with his biased, unilateral claim that Singapore law enforcers were a bunch of “inefficient”, “inept” and “waste of the tax payer’s moneys” which I found utterly reprehensible and repugnant as a fellow Singapore Citizen. Following which he had boasted that his strategy of using a scapegoat to take the blame for him was a immaculate , cleared eye calculation on his part and the law enforcer can only “watch on helplessly” as he continues with his actions that demonstrates his outright rejection and contempt for the Singapore law.

6. To aggravate and exasperate matters, the vehicle involved ( GQ129XX) was registered on the Singapore roads as a company vehicle. Lawfully Speaking, no third party should be allowed to utilize the company’s vehicle for his their own selfish purposes. This draws our attention to a point of doubt where Mr Ong, who was never a company’s personnel, is taking the rap for Mr Goh’s offences. However, Mr Goh has refuted this claim by claiming that Mr Ong was a “temporary worker” hired by him as the fusillade of jobs during that period was overwhelming to the extent that our 2 man partnership could not handle them.

7. I would like to highlight the flagrant fact that the claim which Mr Goh had asserted was nothing but a fallacious sophistry and chicanery. First and Foremost, I had no antecedent knowledge of a person named Mr Ong until Mr Goh revealed to me that Mr Ong was a scapegoat who had accepted his largess to willingly take the rap for him. Secondly. Mr Ong was also never given any formal letter of employment by the company during that period of time. In other words, the company was never cognizant of a worker named “Mr Ong” and had never employed Mr Ong before. Hence, Mr Ong should not be authorized to drive the company vehicle, much less be registered as the sole malefactor of the traffic offense.

8. Moreover, I can testify to the fact that Mr Goh was indeed the driver of the company vehicle (GQ129XX). This is attributed to the company’s modulus operandi where both vehicles are sent as a pair of worker to the customer’s residence. Therefore, I was there to witness Mr Goh’s action of contravening the traffic rules by beating the traffic light at the junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road. I am willing to testify in court if needed.

9. I have reported this to the traffic police countless times. However, my claims were greeted with sweeping statements of blunt rejections. This would draw me to question the raison d’etre for the traffic police. To my understanding, the traffic polices are the law enforcers responsible for ensuring the safety of our roads and to bring all transgressor to justice, thus ensuring that justice has been served along with the safety of our road which would expedite and promote the daily road users convenience and more critical, the safety of all road users. By condoning such an action that violates the sanctity of the law and order established by the relevant authorities, the kind of message that the traffic police are doling out to me does nothing but exacerbate my feelings that justice was not served and obstruction of justice would go unscathed and free from the long arms of the justice.

10. From merely parsing through the traffic police’s sweeping replies to me to date, I found myself flashing on the image that the traffic police are trying their best to paper over this equivocal and flagitious case as it may be a stymied, complex issue to them. Instead of pulling the plug on Mr Goh, the traffic police seem to display scant interest in the case and condoning Mr Goh’s painfully obvious display of perfidy. As a whistle blower, I feel that such a cold response to my report was completely unwarranted and I am deeply rankled by this incident as it has resulted in me losing some faith and pride in the stringent and efficient judicial system that Singaporeans have took pride in. It is because of a highly competent and efficient judicial system that Singapore has in its arsenal that allows Singapore to be a prosperous state as it is today, to the extent of being famed worldwide and reputed to the “4 Asian dragons” in our region. Without law and order maintained by the judicial system, such a scenario would have never been plausible at all.

11. Lastly, I would like to draw to the attention that Traffic Police have accepted the “he says…and she says…” in accepting Mr Ong 12 Points and fine and has omitted and err in the further investigation for requesting the necessary documentation such as the Company’s Employment Letter, CPF Statement or WDA (Singapore Workforce Development Agency) to call for the verification of Mr Ong employment of the said company as this GQ129XX is registered under a company styled: “iRepair XXXXXXX and in LTA’s letter dated 18 December 2012 had also clearly stated in paragraph 2: “Please note that vehicles owned by this company are to be used solely for the Company business. There shall be no personal use of the vehicles (including commuting to and from work) or usage by another company. Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be in violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”

12. However, Your learned ASP Mike Ting from Traffic Police had argued with me on 20th Jan 2014 while meeting him at TP HQ at Ubi (Room 6) at about 9.30am in my above paragraph 11 that in the LTA’s letter stated: “There shall be no personal use of the vehicles…” What “if” consent is given? And ASP continue to challenge on the “What types of action is LTA going to take and what enforcement actions is LTA going to take for the: “…Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”

13. I immediately quoted this phase: “There shall be no drinking of alcohol while driving under the Laws!” Can you, Sir, please enlightened me what “if” consent is given here by the ASP and see what will Your Patrolling Officer(s) says to me then? I had also quoted a Taxi and Police Car in my explanations to Your learned ASP Mike Ting that it do require a Vocational License to drive a Taxi and ONLY authorized Police Officer(s) is/are allowed to drive a Police Car and here there cannot be a “if” or consent is given, then anyone can drive a Taxi or Police Car and similarly to that of a company registered vehicle. I am also at the same time implying that then anyone also can come forward to admit those Traffic Offences.

14. As this complain is revolving in the bribery for Mr Goh paying someone (Mr Ong) and providing false information’s and declarations and also Mr Goh driving license is the heart of this undisclosed 12 Points and if it were to be added on to his (Mr Goh) existing 28 Points then most probably his driving license will be revoked and that his conviction on 1st August 2012 would not be just a $800 fine and 4 months suspension of driving!

15. During Mr Goh driving license suspension period by the Court, I had also reported the matter to IO M/s Cecelia Neo at Traffic Police that on somewhere October 2012, Mr Goh did drove the said GQ129XX from a service road at Blk 303 Sengkang into the Loading/Unloading Bay while I had stopped him in doing so and he had refused and continue saying: “Who see it…and who see it to me”!

16. I am also referring to a ACRA’s letter dated 3 Jan 2013 that from my complain and the ACRA Investigation Report revealed in Paragraph 2: “We have conducted our inquiry into the matter. We have verified that Mr Goh is currently working for Comfort XXXXX…” and paragraph 3 had also again revealed that Mr Goh is using the iRepair company vehicle for another company namely Comfort as such Mr Goh had time and again disregarded in the LTA rules & regulations for that GQ129XX

17. I would also like to addressed on the company’s vehicle governed by the LTA rules and regulations as “if” GQ129XX is a van liked what ASP Mike Ting on the issue of “what if consent is given?” then I would be buying a PA plate van instead rather than a GQ plate as COE and car price is different by almost half (50%) and do u think LTA would allowed it? This is because each license plate is of a certain usage and also the differences between insurance coverage matters in it should an accident occurred.

18. Lastly, I wish to state that I have already fulfilled myself as a Precedent Partner responsibilities and being a dutiful citizen in reporting this matter to the extent of being threatened by Mr Goh for wanting to break my hand or leg and also I have make a Police Report and laid a Magistrate Complain about Mr Goh behavior and Our Laws cannot allow such person to go scot free
In lights of the above, I earnestly implore the Attorney-General Chamber of Singapore would look into this case instead of brushing it off to see to that justice will be served and the due punishment will be meted out to the recalcitrant offenders.
I hope to hear a reply from you soon.
Thank You
Yours faithfully,

__________________
Mr Chua
100% A True Account of the above statement!

 

[Redress]

26th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
Dear Sir/Mdm
RE: Re-appeal to take Immediate Action Against Mr Goh Nric No: S25XXXXXX

My name is Mr Chua and it is with a heavy heart that I am writing this to lodge a formal report against the traffic police.
My reasons for lodging a report against Mr Ting can be credited to the following points.
1. The Traffic Police has failed to investigate the report comprehensively, leaving no stones unturned. The report concerned is the one which I have filed against Mr Goh pertaining to the offense of beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. For your reference, the Traffic Report number for the case is 113029596512

2. Due to the complexity of this case, I would like to provide you with some background information that may, hopefully, facilitate your understanding in this matter. The parties who were complicit in this report were namely, Mr Goh (the mastermind who orchestrated the entire illicit affair) and Mr Ong, who was Mr Goh’s accomplice in this matter.

3. When Mr Goh was slapped with the summon of 12 demerits points from the traffic police for the offence of beating the traffic light camera at the junction of lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road, he had initially approached me to make a request that I would become his scapegoat in this matter to which I had flatly rejected him. This can be credited to the fact that he had a history of 3 counts of traffic offences which had accumulated to a total demerit point of 28 prior to this. Should he accept the deserved punishment of 12 demerits points for flouting the vested traffic rules, he would have accumulated a total of 40 demerits points within a short span of 3 or so months.

4. Fearing the possibility that his driving license may be revoked and my blunt repudiation of his unlawful request, he decided to search for another willing scapegoat to take the rap for him. The scapegoat was Mr Ong. He had confided in me that he needed a lump sum of $800 SGD to bribe the Mr Ong into carrying the offence for him. However, his request for $800 SGD was again, rebuffed by me as I did not approve of his actions that would translate into a downright transgression of Singapore law and order. Hence, he responded to my rebuff by surreptitiously taking out the sum of money from our partnership earnings.

5. When I realized his misdeed, I had confronted him immediately which elicited a response of sheer amusement as he pontificate me with his biased, unilateral claim that Singapore law enforcers were a bunch of “inefficient”, “inept” and “waste of the tax payer’s moneys” which I found utterly reprehensible and repugnant as a fellow Singapore Citizen. Following which he had boasted that his strategy of using a scapegoat to take the blame for him was a immaculate , cleared eye calculation on his part and the law enforcer can only “watch on helplessly” as he continues with his actions that demonstrates his outright rejection and contempt for the Singapore law.

6. To aggravate and exasperate matters, the vehicle involved ( GQ129XX) was registered on the Singapore roads as a company vehicle. Lawfully Speaking, no third party should be allowed to utilize the company’s vehicle for his their own selfish purposes. This draws our attention to a point of doubt where Mr Ong, who was never a company’s personnel, is taking the rap for Mr Goh’s offences. However, Mr Goh has refuted this claim by claiming that Mr Ong was a “temporary worker” hired by him as the fusillade of jobs during that period was overwhelming to the extent that our 2 man partnership could not handle them.

7. I would like to highlight the flagrant fact that the claim which Mr Goh had asserted was nothing but a fallacious sophistry and chicanery. First and Foremost, I had no antecedent knowledge of a person named Mr Ong until Mr Goh revealed to me that Mr Ong was a scapegoat who had accepted his largess to willingly take the rap for him. Secondly. Mr Ong was also never given any formal letter of employment by the company during that period of time. In other words, the company was never cognizant of a worker named “Mr Ong” and had never employed Mr Ong before. Hence, Mr Ong should not be authorized to drive the company vehicle, much less be registered as the sole malefactor of the traffic offense.

8. Moreover, I can testify to the fact that Mr Goh was indeed the driver of the company vehicle (GQ129XX). This is attributed to the company’s modulus operandi where both vehicles are sent as a pair of worker to the customer’s residence. Therefore, I was there to witness Mr Goh’s action of contravening the traffic rules by beating the traffic light at the junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road. I am willing to testify in court if needed.

9. I have reported this to the traffic police countless times. However, my claims were greeted with sweeping statements of blunt rejections. This would draw me to question the raison d’etre for the traffic police. To my understanding, the traffic polices are the law enforcers responsible for ensuring the safety of our roads and to bring all transgressor to justice, thus ensuring that justice has been served along with the safety of our road which would expedite and promote the daily road users convenience and more critical, the safety of all road users. By condoning such an action that violates the sanctity of the law and order established by the relevant authorities, the kind of message that the traffic police are doling out to me does nothing but exacerbate my feelings that justice was not served and obstruction of justice would go unscathed and free from the long arms of the justice.

10. From merely parsing through the traffic police’s sweeping replies to me to date, I found myself flashing on the image that the traffic police are trying their best to paper over this equivocal and flagitious case as it may be a stymied, complex issue to them. Instead of pulling the plug on Mr Goh, the traffic police seem to display scant interest in the case and condoning Mr Goh’s painfully obvious display of perfidy. As a whistle blower, I feel that such a cold response to my report was completely unwarranted and I am deeply rankled by this incident as it has resulted in me losing some faith and pride in the stringent and efficient judicial system that Singaporeans have took pride in. It is because of a highly competent and efficient judicial system that Singapore has in its arsenal that allows Singapore to be a prosperous state as it is today, to the extent of being famed worldwide and reputed to the “4 Asian dragons” in our region. Without law and order maintained by the judicial system, such a scenario would have never been plausible at all.

11. Lastly, I would like to draw to the attention that Traffic Police have accepted the “he says…and she says…” in accepting Mr Ong 12 Points and fine and has omitted and err in the further investigation for requesting the necessary documentation such as the Company’s Employment Letter, CPF Statement or WDA (Singapore Workforce Development Agency) to call for the verification of Mr Ong employment of the said company as this GQ129XX is registered under a company styled: “iRepair XXXXXXX and in LTA’s letter dated 18 December 2012 had also clearly stated in paragraph 2: “Please note that vehicles owned by this company are to be used solely for the Company business. There shall be no personal use of the vehicles (including commuting to and from work) or usage by another company. Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be in violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”

12. However, Your learned ASP Mike Ting from Traffic Police had argued with me on 20th Jan 2014 while meeting him at TP HQ at Ubi (Room 6) at about 9.30am in my above paragraph 11 that in the LTA’s letter stated: “There shall be no personal use of the vehicles…” What “if” consent is given? And ASP continue to challenge on the “What types of action is LTA going to take and what enforcement actions is LTA going to take for the: “…Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”

13. I immediately quoted this phase: “There shall be no drinking of alcohol while driving under the Laws!” Can you, Sir, please enlightened me what “if” consent is given here by the ASP and see what will Your Patrolling Officer(s) says to me then? I had also quoted a Taxi and Police Car in my explanations to Your learned ASP Mike Ting that it do require a Vocational License to drive a Taxi and ONLY authorized Police Officer(s) is/are allowed to drive a Police Car and here there cannot be a “if” or consent is given, then anyone can drive a Taxi or Police Car and similarly to that of a company registered vehicle. I am also at the same time implying that then anyone also can come forward to admit those Traffic Offences.

14. As this complain is revolving in the bribery for Mr Goh paying someone (Mr Ong) and providing false information’s and declarations and also Mr Goh driving license is the heart of this undisclosed 12 Points and if it were to be added on to his (Mr Goh) existing 28 Points then most probably his driving license will be revoked and that his conviction on 1st August 2012 would not be just a $800 fine and 4 months suspension of driving!

15. During Mr Goh driving license suspension period by the Court, I had also reported the matter to IO M/s Cecelia Neo at Traffic Police that on somewhere October 2012, Mr Goh did drove the said GQ129XX from a service road at Blk 303 Sengkang into the Loading/Unloading Bay while I had stopped him in doing so and he had refused and continue saying: “Who see it…and who see it to me”!

16. I am also referring to a ACRA’s letter dated 3 Jan 2013 that from my complain and the ACRA Investigation Report revealed in Paragraph 2: “We have conducted our inquiry into the matter. We have verified that Mr Goh is currently working for Comfort XXXXX…” and paragraph 3 had also again revealed that Mr Goh is using the iRepair company vehicle for another company namely Comfort as such Mr Goh had time and again disregarded in the LTA rules & regulations for that GQ129XX

17. I would also like to addressed on the company’s vehicle governed by the LTA rules and regulations as “if” GQ129XX is a van liked what ASP Mike Ting on the issue of “what if consent is given?” then I would be buying a PA plate van instead rather than a GQ plate as COE and car price is different by almost half (50%) and do u think LTA would allowed it? This is because each license plate is of a certain usage and also the differences between insurance coverage matters in it should an accident occurred.

18. Lastly, I wish to state that I have already fulfilled myself as a Precedent Partner responsibilities and being a dutiful citizen in reporting this matter to the extent of being threatened by Mr Goh for wanting to break my hand or leg and also I have make a Police Report and laid a Magistrate Complain about Mr Goh behavior and Our Laws cannot allow such person to go scot free
In lights of the above, I earnestly implore the Attorney-General Chamber of Singapore would look into this case instead of brushing it off to see to that justice will be served and the due punishment will be meted out to the recalcitrant offenders.
I hope to hear a reply from you soon.
Thank You
Yours faithfully,

__________________
Mr Chua
HP: 97604825
100% A True Account of the above statement!

 

[Redress]

26th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
Dear Sir/Mdm
RE: Re-appeal to take Immediate Action Against Mr Goh Nric No: S25XXXXXX

My name is Mr Chua and it is with a heavy heart that I am writing this to lodge a formal report against the traffic police.
My reasons for lodging a report against Mr Ting can be credited to the following points.
1. The Traffic Police has failed to investigate the report comprehensively, leaving no stones unturned. The report concerned is the one which I have filed against Mr Goh pertaining to the offense of beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. For your reference, the Traffic Report number for the case is 113029596512

2. Due to the complexity of this case, I would like to provide you with some background information that may, hopefully, facilitate your understanding in this matter. The parties who were complicit in this report were namely, Mr Goh (the mastermind who orchestrated the entire illicit affair) and Mr Ong, who was Mr Goh’s accomplice in this matter.

3. When Mr Goh was slapped with the summon of 12 demerits points from the traffic police for the offence of beating the traffic light camera at the junction of lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road, he had initially approached me to make a request that I would become his scapegoat in this matter to which I had flatly rejected him. This can be credited to the fact that he had a history of 3 counts of traffic offences which had accumulated to a total demerit point of 28 prior to this. Should he accept the deserved punishment of 12 demerits points for flouting the vested traffic rules, he would have accumulated a total of 40 demerits points within a short span of 3 or so months.

4. Fearing the possibility that his driving license may be revoked and my blunt repudiation of his unlawful request, he decided to search for another willing scapegoat to take the rap for him. The scapegoat was Mr Ong. He had confided in me that he needed a lump sum of $800 SGD to bribe the Mr Ong into carrying the offence for him. However, his request for $800 SGD was again, rebuffed by me as I did not approve of his actions that would translate into a downright transgression of Singapore law and order. Hence, he responded to my rebuff by surreptitiously taking out the sum of money from our partnership earnings.

5. When I realized his misdeed, I had confronted him immediately which elicited a response of sheer amusement as he pontificate me with his biased, unilateral claim that Singapore law enforcers were a bunch of “inefficient”, “inept” and “waste of the tax payer’s moneys” which I found utterly reprehensible and repugnant as a fellow Singapore Citizen. Following which he had boasted that his strategy of using a scapegoat to take the blame for him was a immaculate , cleared eye calculation on his part and the law enforcer can only “watch on helplessly” as he continues with his actions that demonstrates his outright rejection and contempt for the Singapore law.

6. To aggravate and exasperate matters, the vehicle involved ( GQ129XX) was registered on the Singapore roads as a company vehicle. Lawfully Speaking, no third party should be allowed to utilize the company’s vehicle for his their own selfish purposes. This draws our attention to a point of doubt where Mr Ong, who was never a company’s personnel, is taking the rap for Mr Goh’s offences. However, Mr Goh has refuted this claim by claiming that Mr Ong was a “temporary worker” hired by him as the fusillade of jobs during that period was overwhelming to the extent that our 2 man partnership could not handle them.

7. I would like to highlight the flagrant fact that the claim which Mr Goh had asserted was nothing but a fallacious sophistry and chicanery. First and Foremost, I had no antecedent knowledge of a person named Mr Ong until Mr Goh revealed to me that Mr Ong was a scapegoat who had accepted his largess to willingly take the rap for him. Secondly. Mr Ong was also never given any formal letter of employment by the company during that period of time. In other words, the company was never cognizant of a worker named “Mr Ong” and had never employed Mr Ong before. Hence, Mr Ong should not be authorized to drive the company vehicle, much less be registered as the sole malefactor of the traffic offense.

8. Moreover, I can testify to the fact that Mr Goh was indeed the driver of the company vehicle (GQ129XX). This is attributed to the company’s modulus operandi where both vehicles are sent as a pair of worker to the customer’s residence. Therefore, I was there to witness Mr Goh’s action of contravening the traffic rules by beating the traffic light at the junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road. I am willing to testify in court if needed.

9. I have reported this to the traffic police countless times. However, my claims were greeted with sweeping statements of blunt rejections. This would draw me to question the raison d’etre for the traffic police. To my understanding, the traffic polices are the law enforcers responsible for ensuring the safety of our roads and to bring all transgressor to justice, thus ensuring that justice has been served along with the safety of our road which would expedite and promote the daily road users convenience and more critical, the safety of all road users. By condoning such an action that violates the sanctity of the law and order established by the relevant authorities, the kind of message that the traffic police are doling out to me does nothing but exacerbate my feelings that justice was not served and obstruction of justice would go unscathed and free from the long arms of the justice.

10. From merely parsing through the traffic police’s sweeping replies to me to date, I found myself flashing on the image that the traffic police are trying their best to paper over this equivocal and flagitious case as it may be a stymied, complex issue to them. Instead of pulling the plug on Mr Goh, the traffic police seem to display scant interest in the case and condoning Mr Goh’s painfully obvious display of perfidy. As a whistle blower, I feel that such a cold response to my report was completely unwarranted and I am deeply rankled by this incident as it has resulted in me losing some faith and pride in the stringent and efficient judicial system that Singaporeans have took pride in. It is because of a highly competent and efficient judicial system that Singapore has in its arsenal that allows Singapore to be a prosperous state as it is today, to the extent of being famed worldwide and reputed to the “4 Asian dragons” in our region. Without law and order maintained by the judicial system, such a scenario would have never been plausible at all.

11. Lastly, I would like to draw to the attention that Traffic Police have accepted the “he says…and she says…” in accepting Mr Ong 12 Points and fine and has omitted and err in the further investigation for requesting the necessary documentation such as the Company’s Employment Letter, CPF Statement or WDA (Singapore Workforce Development Agency) to call for the verification of Mr Ong employment of the said company as this GQ129XX is registered under a company styled: “iRepair XXXXXXX and in LTA’s letter dated 18 December 2012 had also clearly stated in paragraph 2: “Please note that vehicles owned by this company are to be used solely for the Company business. There shall be no personal use of the vehicles (including commuting to and from work) or usage by another company. Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be in violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”

12. However, Your learned ASP Mike Ting from Traffic Police had argued with me on 20th Jan 2014 while meeting him at TP HQ at Ubi (Room 6) at about 9.30am in my above paragraph 11 that in the LTA’s letter stated: “There shall be no personal use of the vehicles…” What “if” consent is given? And ASP continue to challenge on the “What types of action is LTA going to take and what enforcement actions is LTA going to take for the: “…Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”

13. I immediately quoted this phase: “There shall be no drinking of alcohol while driving under the Laws!” Can you, Sir, please enlightened me what “if” consent is given here by the ASP and see what will Your Patrolling Officer(s) says to me then? I had also quoted a Taxi and Police Car in my explanations to Your learned ASP Mike Ting that it do require a Vocational License to drive a Taxi and ONLY authorized Police Officer(s) is/are allowed to drive a Police Car and here there cannot be a “if” or consent is given, then anyone can drive a Taxi or Police Car and similarly to that of a company registered vehicle. I am also at the same time implying that then anyone also can come forward to admit those Traffic Offences.

14. As this complain is revolving in the bribery for Mr Goh paying someone (Mr Ong) and providing false information’s and declarations and also Mr Goh driving license is the heart of this undisclosed 12 Points and if it were to be added on to his (Mr Goh) existing 28 Points then most probably his driving license will be revoked and that his conviction on 1st August 2012 would not be just a $800 fine and 4 months suspension of driving!

15. During Mr Goh driving license suspension period by the Court, I had also reported the matter to IO M/s Cecelia Neo at Traffic Police that on somewhere October 2012, Mr Goh did drove the said GQ129XX from a service road at Blk 303 Sengkang into the Loading/Unloading Bay while I had stopped him in doing so and he had refused and continue saying: “Who see it…and who see it to me”!

16. I am also referring to a ACRA’s letter dated 3 Jan 2013 that from my complain and the ACRA Investigation Report revealed in Paragraph 2: “We have conducted our inquiry into the matter. We have verified that Mr Goh is currently working for Comfort XXXXX…” and paragraph 3 had also again revealed that Mr Goh is using the iRepair company vehicle for another company namely Comfort as such Mr Goh had time and again disregarded in the LTA rules & regulations for that GQ129XX

17. I would also like to addressed on the company’s vehicle governed by the LTA rules and regulations as “if” GQ129XX is a van liked what ASP Mike Ting on the issue of “what if consent is given?” then I would be buying a PA plate van instead rather than a GQ plate as COE and car price is different by almost half (50%) and do u think LTA would allowed it? This is because each license plate is of a certain usage and also the differences between insurance coverage matters in it should an accident occurred.

18. Lastly, I wish to state that I have already fulfilled myself as a Precedent Partner responsibilities and being a dutiful citizen in reporting this matter to the extent of being threatened by Mr Goh for wanting to break my hand or leg and also I have make a Police Report and laid a Magistrate Complain about Mr Goh behavior and Our Laws cannot allow such person to go scot free
In lights of the above, I earnestly implore the Attorney-General Chamber of Singapore would look into this case instead of brushing it off to see to that justice will be served and the due punishment will be meted out to the recalcitrant offenders.
I hope to hear a reply from you soon.
Thank You
Yours faithfully,

__________________
Mr Chua
100% A True Account of the above statement!