• 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.

A Second Open Letter to the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister

R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
10th Jan 2014
To: The Prime Minister
Dear Mr Lee
A Second Open Letter to the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister
I am your obedient local born Singapore citizen wishing to seek help & redress from you and I affirm that I am speaking the truth and my Complains are as follows:-
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
I would also like to state that this person had also used my money ($800) to bribe someone to take the rap of him driving my company vehicle while speeding at a Traffic Light and was captured by the Traffic Light Camera. This incident was also reported to the Traffic Police but according’s to the Attorney-General’s Chamber reply, no action was taken to prosecute this person and may I know why too? Is it because the fine had been paid?
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
*******************/mybb/Thread-A-Second-Open-Letter-to-the-Republic-of-Singapore-Prime-Minister?pid=360406#pid360406
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
AGC (AGC)
To Me
Today at 9:02 AM

Dear Sir / Madam,


Thank you for writing to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
2 Please be informed that we have received your email, and have forwarded it to the relevant Division for their attention.

Yours faithfully,


Quality Service Manager
Attorney-General's Chambers, Singapore
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
*******************/mybb/Thread-A-Second-Open-Letter-to-the-Republic-of-Singapore-Prime-Minister?pid=365438#pid365438
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
10th Jan 2014
To: The Prime Minister
Dear Mr Lee
A Second Open Letter to the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister
I am your obedient local born Singapore citizen wishing to seek help & redress from you and I affirm that I am speaking the truth and my Complains are as follows:-
I am being threatened by this person to break my hand or leg as I have lodged a complaint against this person towards several government agencies which are all of valid grounds. I am just carrying out my duty as a citizen by reporting on this Singapore PR who is a Malaysian Chinese who also a lawful wife(a Malaysian Chinese) and a legal son too. However, this person lied to me that his wife was of a Chinese Nationality and they had a son forced to be born in China so he had borrowed ten over thousands of dollar from me to get his son a student pass and study in Singapore. I only realized that after he had successfully obtain for his son a student pass and his mistress become openly a “legal” accompanying mother which is a peidu mama here in Singapore of their illegitimate son and who is also their biological son too!
I have been complaining to ICA for the past one year and on the 30th of August 2013 I have also managed to get a photo of this person mistress which has already been submitted to the ICA. However it had not led to anywhere with no action being taken so far resulting in the child still remaining in Singapore, so as the mother of the said child and this person can thus continue to enjoy his two families here which our law does not permit at all! This is because I used his method and made the necessary about the same application and was rejected by ICA. Then, I questioned the ICA why a double standard exists. All that I know is that ICA does not assign any reason to the public and that’s why there is no answer to it! This is totally very unfair for those who are legally married (a one man one wife), but for this person he is so capable of enjoying polygamy with our law’s loopholes .
Here is what actually had happened. This person even told me that I cannot do anything or the authority can handle him at all because of:-
a) The local sponsor was not himself and he got someone to help him out. This fact was disclosed by himself when we were on talking term as he do crack a joke on me that should I try reported him also of no use as the authority cannot check on him at all as there’s no name of his to the application and moreover the child birth certificate also do not have his name in it referring to the (father’s name)
b) I suspected that this person had paid the sponsor a sum of money to become his biological illegitimate son sponsor for the boy to obtain a long-term pass and a student pass to study in Singapore.
c) The local sponsor was suspected to have made a false statement on the declaration and sponsorship form as the local sponsor is not related to the boy in any means. They are also not staying together all the time from the date the boy came to Singapore.
d) I wish ICA to further investigate into the local sponsor for making a false statement for the boy long term pass and student pass.
e) Because of this local sponsor, the boy’s biological father can cohabit together with the boy’s mother without the knowledge of the Authority.
f) Actually the boy is this person biological illegitimate son who is currently schooling in Primary Two
g) This person is abusing the system undiscovered until now and this person China Nationality mistress and this person biological illegitimate child are currently residing in a rented house at a HUDC in Tampines
Lastly, I do hope that you can personally look into this matter as this has already defeated the purpose of a peidu mama in Singapore and I would also like to state that this person had also used my money ($800) to bribe someone to take the rap of him driving my company vehicle while speeding at a Traffic Light and was captured by the Traffic Light Camera. This incident was also reported to the Traffic Police but according’s to the Attorney-General’s Chamber reply, no action was taken to prosecute this person and may I know why too? Is it because the fine had been paid? This person had approached me for this Traffic Offence, but I told him a “No” and our relationship soured from there. This person had also a 28 demerit point at that point of time and “if” this 12 points were to be added on then I think the Court would not just fine him a mere $800 and suspend his driving license for 4 months. This is also from the Ministry of Law replies after I have complained the matter and the Ministry of Law’s letter which states that the case is closed as the fine already been settled .However the news I read reported that a culprit who did the same thing got punished but for this case the AGC’s letter just reads: No Action to be taken against this person and matter deem closed. I have since then re-appealed several times with the help of my Area MP which was also of no use.
While this person and I are still on an On-Going Civil Sue for our partnership businesses dispute, I must clarify that I am not abusing this channel to gain advantages or anything relating to our civil sue as I do understand that it is totally a two separate thing and I am here merely carrying this out as a dutiful citizen to report on this person wrong doings and nothing else to it. I can be contactable at HP: 97604825

Yours faithfully,
From: Mr Chua
Your Obedient Citizen
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
To [email protected][email protected][email protected]_​[email protected][email protected][email protected]_Feedback​[email protected][email protected]@[email protected].​[email protected]
Today at 9:07 AM
2nd Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against (this person) Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. Thank you for your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to apologize for writing this final letter with regards to the above-mentioned matter. I am indeed very surprised to your past several reply that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged to take no further action against (this Person) and my list of Particulars and doubts as follows:-

a) I am Mr Chua and do solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth and nothing else. I am also willing to stand trial and testify on (this person) wrong doing for using someone driving license to deduct a 12 demerit points for speeding a Traffic Light Camera at the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road on 16/6/2011 Report No: 113029596512 driving my company vehicle No: GQXXXXX
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took this rap for (this person), I being the company precedent partner had done my duty to report to the authority concern (Traffic Police) since Ong is not an employee
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have duly reported the matter to LTA for (this person) using Mr Ong’s driving License to deduct this 12 demerit points
d) The fact to which Traffic Police and LTA are two different government agencies and “if” lets say Ong is the said driver committing the offence, then (this person) had already committed an offence for lending someone who is not an employee to drive the said company vehicle GQXXXXX in which LTA’s Letter had clearly stress and stated that Company Vehicle is solely to be used only for the said registered company businesses and no Personal usage to it. May I ask why you and your office still take no action on this?
e) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine had been paid, Does this imply that the case is closed? Once again, I being the precedent partner cannot just simply coved up for (this person) and “if” again lets say on the day itself this GQXXXXX killed somebody on the road while speeding a Traffic Light Camera and knock down a pedestrian then who is going to account it? Of course that said vehicle belongs to the registered company and the said registered company owner has to answer right? Then may I ask again as to why I, being the precedent partner here and my reporting statement are being cast to one side?
f) Next, I have gather concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that (this person) had been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipt without a company name, address and contact number to his customers and that already had infringed the Company Acts, under section 144. And I would also like to know Why again you and your good office still take no action against (this person)?
g) Lastly, I would also like to state that it was because these wrong-doings that I have reported against (this person) to the relevant authorities and (this person) did threaten to break my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain

Despite the fact that (this person) and I are now still on an On-Going civil sue and I hereby declare that I am not abusing this channel for my civil sue and gain advantage or favorably in doing so. I am merely doing a citizen duty and as a precedent partner and nothing else. I therefore sincerely urge you and your good office can re-open the investigation and I am willing to accept punishment should I had gave any false information.

Thank you and best regards.




Yours faithfully,

_____________________
Mr Chua
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
22nd December 2013
To: The Prime Minister
Singapore
Dear Sir,
Subject: An Open Letter to the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister
Before beginning my letter, please do accept my sincere apologies for publishing this article online. As a matter of fact, I’ve been pursuing the matter of a Permanent Resident in Singapore who is not only abusing the Student Pass but also involved in polygamy to the relevant authorities like CPIB, MHA and ICA through myself and with the assistance of my area MP, but have yielded no results.
First, let me clarify that I am not against your good policy of the influx of foreigners. I recognize it ultimately brings in more talents and contribute to our nation for economical reason as I am a commerce student. But, unfortunately one may think that my complaint is an isolated case “if” solely based on one person from the above paragraph. To be fair enough, I did render myself into exposing of him out and landed myself being threatened for a broken hand or leg all because I knew this person well full-proof planned to escape from the Laws and Immigration Authority.
Next, he even cheated me. He claimed that he needed some money to fetch his son from China to study here as the boy is turning 6 years old. As I took pity on him for having a family that cannot stay together as to which he had claimed that his wife is a China Nationality and they had a son who was being forced to born in China.
However, this was not the truth. He just wanted to use his son as an excuse for his illegitimate wife to gain residency in Singapore so that he could keep her close as a mistress together with his other family. I only realized that he actually has a legal son currently studying in Poly Year 2 and his lawful wife after I had lent him some monies.
Now, I am speaking up for those who are legally registered or married and due to some reason even if the couple is registered it does not mean auto grant a stay in Singapore. However, this man is indeed very capable to re-unite with his mistress and illegal-mate son in this way for applying a Studying Pass and the mother becoming an accompanying mother and in this way that a person can having 2 families at the same time and I would like to asked if it fair for those who is legally married one man one wife or Singapore can have such person around like this goes scot-free?
From: Your Obedient Citizen
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
MLAW Contact (MLAW)
To Me
Today at 12:08 PM
Dear Mr Chua

We refer to your email dated 14 January 2014.

We have referred your email to the Immigration Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the Corruption Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) for their follow-up and direct correspondence with you.


Regards

Carolene Loo (Ms)
for Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Law
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Me
To [email protected][email protected][email protected] and [email protected][email protected][email protected]​[email protected][email protected][email protected]_shanmugam@mla​[email protected][email protected][email protected]​[email protected][email protected][email protected]​[email protected]@[email protected][email protected].​[email protected]
Today at 6:23 PM
17th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
CC: ASP Mike Ting
Traffic Police
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against Mr Goh XX Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. I refer to your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to express my utter surprise and skepticism towards your past replies stating that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged and no further action will be taken against Mr. Goh XX. I would like to reiterate and emphasize on the following points.

a) I am Mr. Chua and I hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth. I am also willing to stand trial and testify against Mr. Goh’s illicit act for using a third party’s driving license to deduct 12 demerit points for the offense of speeding. The Traffic Light Camera between the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. (Report No: 113029596512). The vehicle that was slapped with the offense has a registration number, GQXXXXX and is classified under the category of company’s vehicle.
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took the rap for Mr Goh , I was shocked and stunned. Mr Ong was never a recognized legal employee of iRepair XX. Since the vehicle was registered as a company’s vehicle, Mr Ong should have no legal right nor access to the company vehicle as the action of a third party who is not affiliated to the company utilizing the company’s vehicle is an illegal act that contravenes the rules and regulation established by the Land Transport Authority. Being a law abiding citizen, I could not condone such an irresponsible and heterodox action taken by Mr Goh.
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have lodged a report regarding this complicit matter to LTA and LTA Officer responded that the traffic offence is under the juridical discreet of Traffic Police.
d) A thorough parse of this incident would reveal 2 offences that breached the laws set by the relevant authorities. The first being the fact that Mr Ong’s driving license was being made the scapegoat of this incident. It is indeed ironic how Mr Ong can even drive a company’s vehicle without being the employee of the company and yet escape the long arms of the law for violating the regulation vested by the land transport authority.(The regulation that Mr Ong transgressed was that no third party may drive a company’s vehicle without being a formal employee of the company)
e) The second offence lies with Mr Goh bribing Mr Ong to take the rap for his offense and Mr Ong voluntarily being complicit in this affair. Prima Facie, it seems fallacious that Mr Ong,a non-employee of irepair XX, would actually gain access to the company’s vehicle. However, if we consider the fact that Mr Goh borrowed the vehicle to Mr Ong, the above scenario would then seem plausible. However, Mr Goh would have contravened the regulation set by Land Transport Authority by doing so. Furthermore, Mr Goh was well aware of the fact that the company’s vehicle should never be loaned to a third party under any circumstances as he is a co-partner of IrepairXX and would have been familiar with the rules and regulation established by the authorities on the subject of Company Vehicle. Hence, we can see that if that was the supposed scenario, Mr Goh would have already transgressed the law. However, if we were to scrutinize this matter under the assumption that Mr Goh loaned the vehicle to Mr Ong, the fact that Mr Ong took the rap willingly when he could have pushed the blame to Mr Goh as there was assumed to be no traffic cameras to testify the identity of the driver since Mr Goh was the regular driver of the company’s vehicle is highly questionable. Adding on, the offense was captured by the traffic camera and I believe that an analysis of the image on that day would reveal the identity of the driver.
f) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine has been paid, does this imply that the case is closed? Moreover, Mr Ong had accepted a sum of $800 from Mr Goh as he had confessed to me that he took $800 dollars out of our monthly earnings to bribe Mr Ong to take the rap for him. Mr Goh had already committed 2 offenses which were talking on his mobile phone while driving and parking at a zig-zag double yellow line at simpang bedok. This has clearly proved that Mr Goh has been driving the company’s vehicle all the time from the partnership 30th October 2009 to 21st Jan 2013 when I engaged a towing vehicle to tow back the vehicle as it cannot renew the road insurance. This can be traced back to the denial of the renewal of the company’s ROC due to Mr Goh not topping-up his medisave money which is a mandatory under the company’s acts.
g) I recalled during Mr Goh’s license suspension period, Mr Goh had drove GQXXXXX at Blk 303 SengKang into the loading & unloading bay from the service road and I immediately stopped and warned him against doing so, but he refused and kept rebuking me in an arrogant tone: “who see it? Who see it?” This action of his has already infringed the Court Order and I have also informed the TP Investigating Officer M/s: Cecilia Neo regarding this issue.
h) Next, I have gathered enough concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that Mr Goh has been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipts without a company name, address as well as contact number to his customers and that is constituted as breach of the Company Acts, under section 144.I question your firm stance against Mr Goh that no further action will be taken against him when ACRA’s letter had clearly stated to me that Mr Goh had already been taken to task for it and your AGC letter still remain unchanged that no action will be taken against Mr Goh?
i) Lastly, I would also like to state that Mr Goh have threatened to amputate my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain Case No: CM-2266-13. This may be attributed to the fact that he has a guilty conscience and my exposure of his illegal actions may land him in trouble with the law.
j) In light of this, I earnestly exhort the TP and Attorney’s General Chamber to re-investigate this matter as such action by Mr Ong and Mr Goh does indeed constitute as providing false declaration and information to the Traffic Police.

Despite the fact that Mr Goh and I are now still engaged in an On-Going civil sue, I declare that I am not abusing this channel to gain an unfair advantage in the civil sue. I have faith in Singapore’s judicial system and I believe justice will be meted out duly in the end. I am merely carrying out my duties of a citizen and as a precedent partner of the company.
My Questions in question for the Traffic Police Investigating Officer are:-

1) Did the IO not have any doubts of this Ong and Goh’s relationship between each other? To my understanding that during our talking term, Mr Goh had revealed to me that he will say that he had get someone a so-called part-time worker to bear this 12 demerit points summon when I rejected him to use mine driving license and our partnership relation then turned sour!
2) As a precedent partner of myself and the rightful owner of this GQXXXXX why my statement does not merit in the prosecution of this Mr Goh and Mr Ong?
3) As spoken with ASP Mike Ting from TP on (17/1/2014) that it does required evidences and why my evidences given is not strong enough, just because the fine were paid or Mr Ong & Mr Goh coordination statement to render TP a quick closing on the matter?
4) I am also curious to find out how TP had submitted the report to the AGC?
5) I do not know this person Mr Ong until I decided to make this report.
6) In IO M/s: Cecilia Neo reply that the Condo at Oxford Guard’s House have no record of this GQXXXXX particulars and it is either Guard never record or Guard’s Record book were lost as this were told by the IO and immediately I did question the IO why you never go the address that I have given to asked our customer for verification that on the day 16/6/2011 did our customer saw this Mr Ong or just myself and Mr Goh and no news from the IO.
7) What make TP so certain that Ong is the said driver?

Thank you and best regards.
Yours faithfully,

_____________________
Mr Chua
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Tele-Conversation between myself and Traffic Police ASP Mike Ting to expose my ex-business partner who had bribed someone to be a scapegoat for his 12 demerit points.

At that point of time, my ex-partner had committed 2 offences which were

1)using his mobile phone talking while driving and got caught by the TP (2X12 Points) and

2)Parking illegally at a zig-zag double yellow line near simpang bedok and got slapped with a 4 demerit points.

Total: 28 points and "if" that 12 points were to be accumulated here, just imagine within a short span of less than 3 months, a driver had accumulated 40 demerit Points.Do you honestly think that the Court will mete out a measly $800 fine and a 4 months driving suspension?Drivers,feel free to comment.

CHUA: Sir, May i know why Mr Ong is able to drive my company registered vehicle when he is obviously not an employee at all.Furthermore, the offence of beating a Traffic Light on 16/6/2011 at the Junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road is accounted for by Ong and not my ex-business partner Goh.I find this deeply ironic when Goh was the driver who transgressed the traffic laws knowingly by beating the traffic light.

ASP: anyone also can drive a vehicle so long he/she had a driving licence...

Chua: Sir, I question the fact that Ong was registered as the driver of the company's vehicle in the offence record form when he is clearly not a recognized employee of the company. In accordance to the LTA rules, company registered vehicles are solely to be used for the company staff and it's company businesses activities and not for personal usage right?

ASP: i have been in office for more than 20 Years and i know all of the laws and regulation governing our Singapore Road at the back of my hands.

CHUA: Sir, but this is already an infringement of the rules and regulation of LTA! An analogy would be like if we only possess a normal driver license and not a Taxi-vocational license,are we permitted to drive taxi?

ASP: But, the one we are referring here is a van.

ME: But Sir, that's a company registered van and a personal who is not an employee should not be allowed to drive the van as it is a obvious breach of law right?

ASP: i do not wish to comment over the phone and you come and see me on the coming Monday then we discuss further on the matter

Chua: Duly Noted. But Sir, i would like to affirm what i have spoke is the truth. I only wish to fulfil my duties as a law-abiding citizen and bring my ex partner illicit actions to light.

ASP: Any one also can "soon-pah" that he/ she is stating the truth and i cannot just judge based on your unilateral claim.

Chua: Fair enough, I would like to question the fact that TP is so certain that ong is the driver then?Assuming the TP has done a complete investigation in this case, would i bother to persist in my complaints?

ASP: We have submitted your report to the AGC for direction and our stand remains firm in not taking any action against Mr Goh who is (your ex-partner)

Chua: Sir, can i get a report on the investigation statement?

ASP: No! Even lawyer or the Court cannot have our investigation statement as "they" are classified.

Chua: Then i would wish to challenge the point that TP is adamant about the fact that Ong was the driver who flouted the traffic law.

ASP: i do not wish to continue this conversation any further. Please do come and see me on the coming Monday.

Chua: Okay Sir
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Tele-Conversation between myself and Traffic Police ASP Mike Ting to expose my ex-business partner who had bribed someone to be a scapegoat for his 12 demerit points.

At that point of time, my ex-partner had committed 2 offences which were

1)using his mobile phone talking while driving and got caught by the TP (2X12 Points) and

2)Parking illegally at a zig-zag double yellow line near simpang bedok and got slapped with a 4 demerit points.

Total: 28 points and "if" that 12 points were to be accumulated here, just imagine within a short span of less than 3 months, a driver had accumulated 40 demerit Points.Do you honestly think that the Court will mete out a measly $800 fine and a 4 months driving suspension?Drivers,feel free to comment.

CHUA: Sir, May i know why Mr Ong is able to drive my company registered vehicle when he is obviously not an employee at all.Furthermore, the offence of beating a Traffic Light on 16/6/2011 at the Junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road is accounted for by Ong and not my ex-business partner Goh.I find this deeply ironic when Goh was the driver who transgressed the traffic laws knowingly by beating the traffic light.

ASP: anyone also can drive a vehicle so long he/she had a driving licence...

Chua: Sir, I question the fact that Ong was registered as the driver of the company's vehicle in the offence record form when he is clearly not a recognized employee of the company. In accordance to the LTA rules, company registered vehicles are solely to be used for the company staff and it's company businesses activities and not for personal usage right?

ASP: i have been in office for more than 20 Years and i know all of the laws and regulation governing our Singapore Road at the back of my hands.

CHUA: Sir, but this is already an infringement of the rules and regulation of LTA! An analogy would be like if we only possess a normal driver license and not a Taxi-vocational license,are we permitted to drive taxi?

ASP: But, the one we are referring here is a van.

ME: But Sir, that's a company registered van and a personal who is not an employee should not be allowed to drive the van as it is a obvious breach of law right?

ASP: i do not wish to comment over the phone and you come and see me on the coming Monday then we discuss further on the matter

Chua: Duly Noted. But Sir, i would like to affirm what i have spoke is the truth. I only wish to fulfil my duties as a law-abiding citizen and bring my ex partner illicit actions to light.

ASP: Any one also can "soon-pah" that he/ she is stating the truth and i cannot just judge based on your unilateral claim.

Chua: Fair enough, I would like to question the fact that TP is so certain that ong is the driver then?Assuming the TP has done a complete investigation in this case, would i bother to persist in my complaints?

ASP: We have submitted your report to the AGC for direction and our stand remains firm in not taking any action against Mr Goh who is (your ex-partner)

Chua: Sir, can i get a report on the investigation statement?

ASP: No! Even lawyer or the Court cannot have our investigation statement as "they" are classified.

Chua: Then i would wish to challenge the point that TP is adamant about the fact that Ong was the driver who flouted the traffic law.

ASP: i do not wish to continue this conversation any further. Please do come and see me on the coming Monday.

Chua: Okay Sir
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
10th Jan 2014
To: The Prime Minister
Dear Mr Lee
A Second Open Letter to the Republic of Singapore Prime Minister
I am your obedient local born Singapore citizen wishing to seek help & redress from you and I affirm that I am speaking the truth and my Complains are as follows:-
I am being threatened by this person to break my hand or leg as I have lodged a complaint against this person towards several government agencies which are all of valid grounds. I am just carrying out my duty as a citizen by reporting on this Singapore PR who is a Malaysian Chinese who also a lawful wife(a Malaysian Chinese) and a legal son too. However, this person lied to me that his wife was of a Chinese Nationality and they had a son forced to be born in China so he had borrowed ten over thousands of dollar from me to get his son a student pass and study in Singapore. I only realized that after he had successfully obtain for his son a student pass and his mistress become openly a “legal” accompanying mother which is a peidu mama here in Singapore of their illegitimate son and who is also their biological son too!
I have been complaining to ICA for the past one year and on the 30th of August 2013 I have also managed to get a photo of this person mistress which has already been submitted to the ICA. However it had not led to anywhere with no action being taken so far resulting in the child still remaining in Singapore, so as the mother of the said child and this person can thus continue to enjoy his two families here which our law does not permit at all! This is because I used his method and made the necessary about the same application and was rejected by ICA. Then, I questioned the ICA why a double standard exists. All that I know is that ICA does not assign any reason to the public and that’s why there is no answer to it! This is totally very unfair for those who are legally married (a one man one wife), but for this person he is so capable of enjoying polygamy with our law’s loopholes .
Here is what actually had happened. This person even told me that I cannot do anything or the authority can handle him at all because of:-
a) The local sponsor was not himself and he got someone to help him out. This fact was disclosed by himself when we were on talking term as he do crack a joke on me that should I try reported him also of no use as the authority cannot check on him at all as there’s no name of his to the application and moreover the child birth certificate also do not have his name in it referring to the (father’s name)
b) I suspected that this person had paid the sponsor a sum of money to become his biological illegitimate son sponsor for the boy to obtain a long-term pass and a student pass to study in Singapore.
c) The local sponsor was suspected to have made a false statement on the declaration and sponsorship form as the local sponsor is not related to the boy in any means. They are also not staying together all the time from the date the boy came to Singapore.
d) I wish ICA to further investigate into the local sponsor for making a false statement for the boy long term pass and student pass.
e) Because of this local sponsor, the boy’s biological father can cohabit together with the boy’s mother without the knowledge of the Authority.
f) Actually the boy is this person biological illegitimate son who is currently schooling in Primary Two
g) This person is abusing the system undiscovered until now and this person China Nationality mistress and this person biological illegitimate child are currently residing in a rented house at a HUDC in Tampines
Lastly, I do hope that you can personally look into this matter as this has already defeated the purpose of a peidu mama in Singapore and I would also like to state that this person had also used my money ($800) to bribe someone to take the rap of him driving my company vehicle while speeding at a Traffic Light and was captured by the Traffic Light Camera. This incident was also reported to the Traffic Police but according’s to the Attorney-General’s Chamber reply, no action was taken to prosecute this person and may I know why too? Is it because the fine had been paid? This person had approached me for this Traffic Offence, but I told him a “No” and our relationship soured from there. This person had also a 28 demerit point at that point of time and “if” this 12 points were to be added on then I think the Court would not just fine him a mere $800 and suspend his driving license for 4 months. This is also from the Ministry of Law replies after I have complained the matter and the Ministry of Law’s letter which states that the case is closed as the fine already been settled .However the news I read reported that a culprit who did the same thing got punished but for this case the AGC’s letter just reads: No Action to be taken against this person and matter deem closed. I have since then re-appealed several times with the help of my Area MP which was also of no use.
While this person and I are still on an On-Going Civil Sue for our partnership businesses dispute, I must clarify that I am not abusing this channel to gain advantages or anything relating to our civil sue as I do understand that it is totally a two separate thing and I am here merely carrying this out as a dutiful citizen to report on this person wrong doings and nothing else to it. I can be contactable at HP: 97604825

Yours faithfully,
From: Mr Chua
Your Obedient Citizen
Like · · Share · Unfollow Post · Promote
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Me
To [email protected][email protected][email protected] and [email protected][email protected][email protected]​[email protected][email protected][email protected]_shanmugam@mla​[email protected][email protected][email protected]​[email protected][email protected][email protected]​[email protected]@[email protected][email protected].​[email protected]
Today at 6:23 PM
17th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
CC: ASP Mike Ting
Traffic Police
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against Mr Goh XX Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. I refer to your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to express my utter surprise and skepticism towards your past replies stating that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged and no further action will be taken against Mr. Goh XX. I would like to reiterate and emphasize on the following points.

a) I am Mr. Chua and I hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth. I am also willing to stand trial and testify against Mr. Goh’s illicit act for using a third party’s driving license to deduct 12 demerit points for the offense of speeding. The Traffic Light Camera between the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. (Report No: 113029596512). The vehicle that was slapped with the offense has a registration number, GQXXXXX and is classified under the category of company’s vehicle.
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took the rap for Mr Goh , I was shocked and stunned. Mr Ong was never a recognized legal employee of iRepair XX. Since the vehicle was registered as a company’s vehicle, Mr Ong should have no legal right nor access to the company vehicle as the action of a third party who is not affiliated to the company utilizing the company’s vehicle is an illegal act that contravenes the rules and regulation established by the Land Transport Authority. Being a law abiding citizen, I could not condone such an irresponsible and heterodox action taken by Mr Goh.
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have lodged a report regarding this complicit matter to LTA and LTA Officer responded that the traffic offence is under the juridical discreet of Traffic Police.
d) A thorough parse of this incident would reveal 2 offences that breached the laws set by the relevant authorities. The first being the fact that Mr Ong’s driving license was being made the scapegoat of this incident. It is indeed ironic how Mr Ong can even drive a company’s vehicle without being the employee of the company and yet escape the long arms of the law for violating the regulation vested by the land transport authority.(The regulation that Mr Ong transgressed was that no third party may drive a company’s vehicle without being a formal employee of the company)
e) The second offence lies with Mr Goh bribing Mr Ong to take the rap for his offense and Mr Ong voluntarily being complicit in this affair. Prima Facie, it seems fallacious that Mr Ong,a non-employee of irepair XX, would actually gain access to the company’s vehicle. However, if we consider the fact that Mr Goh borrowed the vehicle to Mr Ong, the above scenario would then seem plausible. However, Mr Goh would have contravened the regulation set by Land Transport Authority by doing so. Furthermore, Mr Goh was well aware of the fact that the company’s vehicle should never be loaned to a third party under any circumstances as he is a co-partner of IrepairXX and would have been familiar with the rules and regulation established by the authorities on the subject of Company Vehicle. Hence, we can see that if that was the supposed scenario, Mr Goh would have already transgressed the law. However, if we were to scrutinize this matter under the assumption that Mr Goh loaned the vehicle to Mr Ong, the fact that Mr Ong took the rap willingly when he could have pushed the blame to Mr Goh as there was assumed to be no traffic cameras to testify the identity of the driver since Mr Goh was the regular driver of the company’s vehicle is highly questionable. Adding on, the offense was captured by the traffic camera and I believe that an analysis of the image on that day would reveal the identity of the driver.
f) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine has been paid, does this imply that the case is closed? Moreover, Mr Ong had accepted a sum of $800 from Mr Goh as he had confessed to me that he took $800 dollars out of our monthly earnings to bribe Mr Ong to take the rap for him. Mr Goh had already committed 2 offenses which were talking on his mobile phone while driving and parking at a zig-zag double yellow line at simpang bedok. This has clearly proved that Mr Goh has been driving the company’s vehicle all the time from the partnership 30th October 2009 to 21st Jan 2013 when I engaged a towing vehicle to tow back the vehicle as it cannot renew the road insurance. This can be traced back to the denial of the renewal of the company’s ROC due to Mr Goh not topping-up his medisave money which is a mandatory under the company’s acts.
g) I recalled during Mr Goh’s license suspension period, Mr Goh had drove GQXXXXX at Blk 303 SengKang into the loading & unloading bay from the service road and I immediately stopped and warned him against doing so, but he refused and kept rebuking me in an arrogant tone: “who see it? Who see it?” This action of his has already infringed the Court Order and I have also informed the TP Investigating Officer M/s: Cecilia Neo regarding this issue.
h) Next, I have gathered enough concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that Mr Goh has been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipts without a company name, address as well as contact number to his customers and that is constituted as breach of the Company Acts, under section 144.I question your firm stance against Mr Goh that no further action will be taken against him when ACRA’s letter had clearly stated to me that Mr Goh had already been taken to task for it and your AGC letter still remain unchanged that no action will be taken against Mr Goh?
i) Lastly, I would also like to state that Mr Goh have threatened to amputate my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain Case No: CM-2266-13. This may be attributed to the fact that he has a guilty conscience and my exposure of his illegal actions may land him in trouble with the law.
j) In light of this, I earnestly exhort the TP and Attorney’s General Chamber to re-investigate this matter as such action by Mr Ong and Mr Goh does indeed constitute as providing false declaration and information to the Traffic Police.

Despite the fact that Mr Goh and I are now still engaged in an On-Going civil sue, I declare that I am not abusing this channel to gain an unfair advantage in the civil sue. I have faith in Singapore’s judicial system and I believe justice will be meted out duly in the end. I am merely carrying out my duties of a citizen and as a precedent partner of the company.
My Questions in question for the Traffic Police Investigating Officer are:-

1) Did the IO not have any doubts of this Ong and Goh’s relationship between each other? To my understanding that during our talking term, Mr Goh had revealed to me that he will say that he had get someone a so-called part-time worker to bear this 12 demerit points summon when I rejected him to use mine driving license and our partnership relation then turned sour!
2) As a precedent partner of myself and the rightful owner of this GQXXXXX why my statement does not merit in the prosecution of this Mr Goh and Mr Ong?
3) As spoken with ASP Mike Ting from TP on (17/1/2014) that it does required evidences and why my evidences given is not strong enough, just because the fine were paid or Mr Ong & Mr Goh coordination statement to render TP a quick closing on the matter?
4) I am also curious to find out how TP had submitted the report to the AGC?
5) I do not know this person Mr Ong until I decided to make this report.
6) In IO M/s: Cecilia Neo reply that the Condo at Oxford Guard’s House have no record of this GQXXXXX particulars and it is either Guard never record or Guard’s Record book were lost as this were told by the IO and immediately I did question the IO why you never go the address that I have given to asked our customer for verification that on the day 16/6/2011 did our customer saw this Mr Ong or just myself and Mr Goh and no news from the IO.
7) What make TP so certain that Ong is the said driver?

Thank you and best regards.
Yours faithfully,

_____________________
Mr Chua
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Today at 6:23 PM
17th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
CC: ASP Mike Ting
Traffic Police
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against Mr Goh XX Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. I refer to your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to express my utter surprise and skepticism towards your past replies stating that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged and no further action will be taken against Mr. Goh XX. I would like to reiterate and emphasize on the following points.

a) I am Mr. Chua and I hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth. I am also willing to stand trial and testify against Mr. Goh’s illicit act for using a third party’s driving license to deduct 12 demerit points for the offense of speeding. The Traffic Light Camera between the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. (Report No: 113029596512). The vehicle that was slapped with the offense has a registration number, GQXXXXX and is classified under the category of company’s vehicle.
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took the rap for Mr Goh , I was shocked and stunned. Mr Ong was never a recognized legal employee of iRepair XX. Since the vehicle was registered as a company’s vehicle, Mr Ong should have no legal right nor access to the company vehicle as the action of a third party who is not affiliated to the company utilizing the company’s vehicle is an illegal act that contravenes the rules and regulation established by the Land Transport Authority. Being a law abiding citizen, I could not condone such an irresponsible and heterodox action taken by Mr Goh.
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have lodged a report regarding this complicit matter to LTA and LTA Officer responded that the traffic offence is under the juridical discreet of Traffic Police.
d) A thorough parse of this incident would reveal 2 offences that breached the laws set by the relevant authorities. The first being the fact that Mr Ong’s driving license was being made the scapegoat of this incident. It is indeed ironic how Mr Ong can even drive a company’s vehicle without being the employee of the company and yet escape the long arms of the law for violating the regulation vested by the land transport authority.(The regulation that Mr Ong transgressed was that no third party may drive a company’s vehicle without being a formal employee of the company)
e) The second offence lies with Mr Goh bribing Mr Ong to take the rap for his offense and Mr Ong voluntarily being complicit in this affair. Prima Facie, it seems fallacious that Mr Ong,a non-employee of irepair XX, would actually gain access to the company’s vehicle. However, if we consider the fact that Mr Goh borrowed the vehicle to Mr Ong, the above scenario would then seem plausible. However, Mr Goh would have contravened the regulation set by Land Transport Authority by doing so. Furthermore, Mr Goh was well aware of the fact that the company’s vehicle should never be loaned to a third party under any circumstances as he is a co-partner of IrepairXX and would have been familiar with the rules and regulation established by the authorities on the subject of Company Vehicle. Hence, we can see that if that was the supposed scenario, Mr Goh would have already transgressed the law. However, if we were to scrutinize this matter under the assumption that Mr Goh loaned the vehicle to Mr Ong, the fact that Mr Ong took the rap willingly when he could have pushed the blame to Mr Goh as there was assumed to be no traffic cameras to testify the identity of the driver since Mr Goh was the regular driver of the company’s vehicle is highly questionable. Adding on, the offense was captured by the traffic camera and I believe that an analysis of the image on that day would reveal the identity of the driver.
f) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine has been paid, does this imply that the case is closed? Moreover, Mr Ong had accepted a sum of $800 from Mr Goh as he had confessed to me that he took $800 dollars out of our monthly earnings to bribe Mr Ong to take the rap for him. Mr Goh had already committed 2 offenses which were talking on his mobile phone while driving and parking at a zig-zag double yellow line at simpang bedok. This has clearly proved that Mr Goh has been driving the company’s vehicle all the time from the partnership 30th October 2009 to 21st Jan 2013 when I engaged a towing vehicle to tow back the vehicle as it cannot renew the road insurance. This can be traced back to the denial of the renewal of the company’s ROC due to Mr Goh not topping-up his medisave money which is a mandatory under the company’s acts.
g) I recalled during Mr Goh’s license suspension period, Mr Goh had drove GQXXXXX at Blk 303 SengKang into the loading & unloading bay from the service road and I immediately stopped and warned him against doing so, but he refused and kept rebuking me in an arrogant tone: “who see it? Who see it?” This action of his has already infringed the Court Order and I have also informed the TP Investigating Officer M/s: Cecilia Neo regarding this issue.
h) Next, I have gathered enough concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that Mr Goh has been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipts without a company name, address as well as contact number to his customers and that is constituted as breach of the Company Acts, under section 144.I question your firm stance against Mr Goh that no further action will be taken against him when ACRA’s letter had clearly stated to me that Mr Goh had already been taken to task for it and your AGC letter still remain unchanged that no action will be taken against Mr Goh?
i) Lastly, I would also like to state that Mr Goh have threatened to amputate my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain Case No: CM-2266-13. This may be attributed to the fact that he has a guilty conscience and my exposure of his illegal actions may land him in trouble with the law.
j) In light of this, I earnestly exhort the TP and Attorney’s General Chamber to re-investigate this matter as such action by Mr Ong and Mr Goh does indeed constitute as providing false declaration and information to the Traffic Police.

Despite the fact that Mr Goh and I are now still engaged in an On-Going civil sue, I declare that I am not abusing this channel to gain an unfair advantage in the civil sue. I have faith in Singapore’s judicial system and I believe justice will be meted out duly in the end. I am merely carrying out my duties of a citizen and as a precedent partner of the company.
My Questions in question for the Traffic Police Investigating Officer are:-

1) Did the IO not have any doubts of this Ong and Goh’s relationship between each other? To my understanding that during our talking term, Mr Goh had revealed to me that he will say that he had get someone a so-called part-time worker to bear this 12 demerit points summon when I rejected him to use mine driving license and our partnership relation then turned sour!
2) As a precedent partner of myself and the rightful owner of this GQXXXXX why my statement does not merit in the prosecution of this Mr Goh and Mr Ong?
3) As spoken with ASP Mike Ting from TP on (17/1/2014) that it does required evidences and why my evidences given is not strong enough, just because the fine were paid or Mr Ong & Mr Goh coordination statement to render TP a quick closing on the matter?
4) I am also curious to find out how TP had submitted the report to the AGC?
5) I do not know this person Mr Ong until I decided to make this report.
6) In IO M/s: Cecilia Neo reply that the Condo at Oxford Guard’s House have no record of this GQXXXXX particulars and it is either Guard never record or Guard’s Record book were lost as this were told by the IO and immediately I did question the IO why you never go the address that I have given to asked our customer for verification that on the day 16/6/2011 did our customer saw this Mr Ong or just myself and Mr Goh and no news from the IO.
7) What make TP so certain that Ong is the said driver?

Thank you and best regards.
Yours faithfully,

_____________________
Mr Chua
Like · · Promote · Share
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Today at 6:23 PM
17th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
CC: ASP Mike Ting
Traffic Police
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against Mr Goh XX Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. I refer to your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to express my utter surprise and skepticism towards your past replies stating that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged and no further action will be taken against Mr. Goh XX. I would like to reiterate and emphasize on the following points.

a) I am Mr. Chua and I hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth. I am also willing to stand trial and testify against Mr. Goh’s illicit act for using a third party’s driving license to deduct 12 demerit points for the offense of speeding. The Traffic Light Camera between the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. (Report No: 113029596512). The vehicle that was slapped with the offense has a registration number, GQXXXXX and is classified under the category of company’s vehicle.
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took the rap for Mr Goh , I was shocked and stunned. Mr Ong was never a recognized legal employee of iRepair XX. Since the vehicle was registered as a company’s vehicle, Mr Ong should have no legal right nor access to the company vehicle as the action of a third party who is not affiliated to the company utilizing the company’s vehicle is an illegal act that contravenes the rules and regulation established by the Land Transport Authority. Being a law abiding citizen, I could not condone such an irresponsible and heterodox action taken by Mr Goh.
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have lodged a report regarding this complicit matter to LTA and LTA Officer responded that the traffic offence is under the juridical discreet of Traffic Police.
d) A thorough parse of this incident would reveal 2 offences that breached the laws set by the relevant authorities. The first being the fact that Mr Ong’s driving license was being made the scapegoat of this incident. It is indeed ironic how Mr Ong can even drive a company’s vehicle without being the employee of the company and yet escape the long arms of the law for violating the regulation vested by the land transport authority.(The regulation that Mr Ong transgressed was that no third party may drive a company’s vehicle without being a formal employee of the company)
e) The second offence lies with Mr Goh bribing Mr Ong to take the rap for his offense and Mr Ong voluntarily being complicit in this affair. Prima Facie, it seems fallacious that Mr Ong,a non-employee of irepair XX, would actually gain access to the company’s vehicle. However, if we consider the fact that Mr Goh borrowed the vehicle to Mr Ong, the above scenario would then seem plausible. However, Mr Goh would have contravened the regulation set by Land Transport Authority by doing so. Furthermore, Mr Goh was well aware of the fact that the company’s vehicle should never be loaned to a third party under any circumstances as he is a co-partner of IrepairXX and would have been familiar with the rules and regulation established by the authorities on the subject of Company Vehicle. Hence, we can see that if that was the supposed scenario, Mr Goh would have already transgressed the law. However, if we were to scrutinize this matter under the assumption that Mr Goh loaned the vehicle to Mr Ong, the fact that Mr Ong took the rap willingly when he could have pushed the blame to Mr Goh as there was assumed to be no traffic cameras to testify the identity of the driver since Mr Goh was the regular driver of the company’s vehicle is highly questionable. Adding on, the offense was captured by the traffic camera and I believe that an analysis of the image on that day would reveal the identity of the driver.
f) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine has been paid, does this imply that the case is closed? Moreover, Mr Ong had accepted a sum of $800 from Mr Goh as he had confessed to me that he took $800 dollars out of our monthly earnings to bribe Mr Ong to take the rap for him. Mr Goh had already committed 2 offenses which were talking on his mobile phone while driving and parking at a zig-zag double yellow line at simpang bedok. This has clearly proved that Mr Goh has been driving the company’s vehicle all the time from the partnership 30th October 2009 to 21st Jan 2013 when I engaged a towing vehicle to tow back the vehicle as it cannot renew the road insurance. This can be traced back to the denial of the renewal of the company’s ROC due to Mr Goh not topping-up his medisave money which is a mandatory under the company’s acts.
g) I recalled during Mr Goh’s license suspension period, Mr Goh had drove GQXXXXX at Blk 303 SengKang into the loading & unloading bay from the service road and I immediately stopped and warned him against doing so, but he refused and kept rebuking me in an arrogant tone: “who see it? Who see it?” This action of his has already infringed the Court Order and I have also informed the TP Investigating Officer M/s: Cecilia Neo regarding this issue.
h) Next, I have gathered enough concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that Mr Goh has been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipts without a company name, address as well as contact number to his customers and that is constituted as breach of the Company Acts, under section 144.I question your firm stance against Mr Goh that no further action will be taken against him when ACRA’s letter had clearly stated to me that Mr Goh had already been taken to task for it and your AGC letter still remain unchanged that no action will be taken against Mr Goh?
i) Lastly, I would also like to state that Mr Goh have threatened to amputate my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain Case No: CM-2266-13. This may be attributed to the fact that he has a guilty conscience and my exposure of his illegal actions may land him in trouble with the law.
j) In light of this, I earnestly exhort the TP and Attorney’s General Chamber to re-investigate this matter as such action by Mr Ong and Mr Goh does indeed constitute as providing false declaration and information to the Traffic Police.

Despite the fact that Mr Goh and I are now still engaged in an On-Going civil sue, I declare that I am not abusing this channel to gain an unfair advantage in the civil sue. I have faith in Singapore’s judicial system and I believe justice will be meted out duly in the end. I am merely carrying out my duties of a citizen and as a precedent partner of the company.
My Questions in question for the Traffic Police Investigating Officer are:-

1) Did the IO not have any doubts of this Ong and Goh’s relationship between each other? To my understanding that during our talking term, Mr Goh had revealed to me that he will say that he had get someone a so-called part-time worker to bear this 12 demerit points summon when I rejected him to use mine driving license and our partnership relation then turned sour!
2) As a precedent partner of myself and the rightful owner of this GQXXXXX why my statement does not merit in the prosecution of this Mr Goh and Mr Ong?
3) As spoken with ASP Mike Ting from TP on (17/1/2014) that it does required evidences and why my evidences given is not strong enough, just because the fine were paid or Mr Ong & Mr Goh coordination statement to render TP a quick closing on the matter?
4) I am also curious to find out how TP had submitted the report to the AGC?
5) I do not know this person Mr Ong until I decided to make this report.
6) In IO M/s: Cecilia Neo reply that the Condo at Oxford Guard’s House have no record of this GQXXXXX particulars and it is either Guard never record or Guard’s Record book were lost as this were told by the IO and immediately I did question the IO why you never go the address that I have given to asked our customer for verification that on the day 16/6/2011 did our customer saw this Mr Ong or just myself and Mr Goh and no news from the IO.
7) What make TP so certain that Ong is the said driver?

Thank you and best regards.
Yours faithfully,

_____________________
Mr Chua
Like · · Promote · Share
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
Redress Wrote:
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Mike TING (SPF)
To Me
Jan 20 at 10:30 PM
This message contains blocked images.
Show Images Options
Message Classification: Restricted
tks

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


Open Interviewing at the Traffic Police HQ between myself, ASP Mike and IO M/s: Cecilia Neo on 20/1/2014 @ about 9:30am (Room 6)

Chua: Good morning to both Officers present

ASP Mike: Chua take a seat

Chua: Thank you Sir.

Chua: Today my present here is to assist in a Police Report to which i have made for my business ex-partner who uses our partnership profit $800 to bribe one Mr Ong to whom i do not know this person at all to a Traffic Offence committed by my company's vehicle GQXXXXX on 16/6/2011 for beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon Road.

ASP: Ok. Tell me what actually had happened?

Chua: Sir, i have indeed made several attempts in reporting this matter and i am indeed very disappointed with the outcome that the AGC took no action against my ex-partner and i would again like to bring this matter to your immediate attention to re-open this case for further investigation on the merit of the questionable grounds below:-
a) What makes TP so certain that Mr Ong is the said driver?

ASP: that we cannot reveal and disclose to you, it is the investigation report and we have submitted 3 times on your behalf's to the AGC for direction and if AGC says no action which mean no action

b) Pointing out the materials that my ex-partner Mr Goh was the only driver from date of Partnership commence at 30th Oct 2009 till 23rd Jan 2013 when i towed away the vehicle at Tampines Court, a HUDC Condo whereby Goh had hide it at his undisclosed China Nationality Mistress rented apartment and because i had informed the Insurance Company that this vehicle Insurance cannot be renewed as the company ROC was not able to renewed because of my ex-partner did not or do not Top-Up his Medisave which is a Compulsory and Mandatory in the Companies Acts and therefore thus revoked by the said Insurance Company and LTA was also duly informed by me and later the vehicle was laid up by me.

c) i had also clearly point out to my ACRA Complaint letter that my ex-partner was also using this vehicle GQXXXXX to work for another company which was declared by the ACRA Officer in their letter which had already infringed the LTA rules and regulations to this action as in the LTA Letter states: 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 unauthorised use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.

d) next, i immediately Point Out to ASP that assuming Ong was the said driver then c) Why AGC still take no action in it? Or is it of different government agencies and because this c) is a LTA matter and does not come after TP or ACRA does not concern any LTA or TP matter? I think if we put these 2 papers from (LTA & ACRA Investigation revealed that my ex-partner uses this GQXXXXX to worked for another company) on the table then Sir ASP Mike Ting may be interest to know Why too right?

e) going forward to my recent Police Report that Ong is not an employee and until today i do not know Ong at all and how come TP can allow this 12 Points deduction in Ong account taking into Consideration that this GQXXXXX is my company's vehicle? Isn't this fishy and funny while i tried to Point Out to ASP where i came to know about this Ong is when i made complain to TP through my area MP about my ex-partner beating a Traffic Light and it is the TP mistake to mail me the letter which cc to me as:" We refer to your representation by Mr Chua....." in which that this letter is to be mailed to this Ong address and i also told my MP about this as i Mr Chua is not an MP and how come TP so making such a mistake in writing and replying?

f) i had also explained and told ASP Mike Ting that during our talking term, my ex-partner did revealed and disclosed to me that should anyone from TP asked he will just say this summon of beating a Traffic Light was incurred by a part-time worker and told me not to say anything just informed me to pretend that i am not aware of this...While every effort is taken by me to report from the time that the notice of summon was mailed to my mailing addresses and all ASP Mike again says to me is that TP had already doing me a favour by submitting 3 times to the AGC for direction and the answer is no action taken and TP also cannot do anything and while i assured and re-affirmed that the fact that my ex-partner and i are on an On-Going Civil Sue that this matter is purely a separate issue and i am also willing to accept punishment should i gave false information. I did clearly and repeatedly told ASP that the reason for me to report this bribery of $800 is because my ex-partner had took it from our partnership profit and being a responsible precedent partner i cannot pretend that i never know and also wish to be a dutiful citizen.

g) I therefore, highlighted these questionable grounds on the basis that Ong was not even an employee and Pointing again to the LTA Letter and the ASP says: In LTA Letter's state: "There shall be no personal use of vehicle...." What if it is consent? then it is for TP into accepting this Mr Ong 12 Points deduction and ASP also told me that he had indeed enlighten me that where ever i go and made this complain again the answer it will still come back to TP no matter what...i thus therefore putting these into writing again and ASP Mike Ting had also advised me to see a lawyer to ask the lawyer how to proof Mr Goh (my ex-partner) was the driver and not Mr Ong
Chua: Sir, i do double checked it with LTA and LTA says: "There shall be no personal usage....." it mean there shall be no personal usage!
ASP: go ask LTA to put this into writing again to me
Chua: Sir, let me asked you this simple question:- "There shall be no driving while driving...i mean alcohol and not coca cola" Sir, you now can tell me the "What if is consent to" and see what your TP on the road on patrol will say?

h) Repeatedly, i asked ASP Mike Ting again: "Sir, may i know what make you so certain that Ong was the driver?" While i continue to give 2 counts of my ex-partner droving the same vehicle while talking using his mobile phone (24 Points) and i count parking at a Double Zig-Zag Yellow Lines at simpang bedok and is this rendered enough fair evidences that my ex-partner is the only person to use and drove this GQXXXXX. Next, this Ong so co-coincidently just part-time worker as claimed by him and my ex-partner statement can easily fooled the TP and the eyes of laws?

Chua: Sir, why are you always doubting in my statement? I had proved and show a document from the Crime Registry that i have laid a Magistrate Complaint as Goh had threaten to break my hand or leg as i have reported him to many authorities and this still not enough?

ASP: The Laws requires Proof!

Chua: Sir, then may i again know what Proof do this Mr Ong & Mr Goh has?

ASP: Okay i will resubmit it to the AGC Chamber and you wait
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
pannateo Wrote:
I remembered my wife told me, a singaporean would NEVER NEVER win any case against the GARMENT. The GARMENT IS GOD. I had a bad experience with a polyclinic n i was billed with 90+$$$$ for transfering me to Alexandra Hospital at around 4.30pm. I had NOTHING WRONG wanted to check with the doctor whether the medication prescribed caused allergy. The nurse got an ambulance to send me to hospital. I totally refused to go. I refused to pay the bill of 90+ n wrote in to explain what had happened in the nursing room. The director defenced the clinic, n called for Garment Loan Collector to collect the 90+. I wife kept on NAGING saying how can u win, they are the GARMENT. YES just paid up the 90$ n have peace in the family.


Redress Wrote:
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Mike TING (SPF)
To Me
Jan 20 at 10:30 PM
This message contains blocked images.
Show Images Options
Message Classification: Restricted
tks

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


Open Interviewing at the Traffic Police HQ between myself, ASP Mike and IO M/s: Cecilia Neo on 20/1/2014 @ about 9:30am (Room 6)

Chua: Good morning to both Officers present

ASP Mike: Chua take a seat

Chua: Thank you Sir.

Chua: Today my present here is to assist in a Police Report to which i have made for my business ex-partner who uses our partnership profit $800 to bribe one Mr Ong to whom i do not know this person at all to a Traffic Offence committed by my company's vehicle GQXXXXX on 16/6/2011 for beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon Road.

ASP: Ok. Tell me what actually had happened?

Chua: Sir, i have indeed made several attempts in reporting this matter and i am indeed very disappointed with the outcome that the AGC took no action against my ex-partner and i would again like to bring this matter to your immediate attention to re-open this case for further investigation on the merit of the questionable grounds below:-
a) What makes TP so certain that Mr Ong is the said driver?

ASP: that we cannot reveal and disclose to you, it is the investigation report and we have submitted 3 times on your behalf's to the AGC for direction and if AGC says no action which mean no action

b) Pointing out the materials that my ex-partner Mr Goh was the only driver from date of Partnership commence at 30th Oct 2009 till 23rd Jan 2013 when i towed away the vehicle at Tampines Court, a HUDC Condo whereby Goh had hide it at his undisclosed China Nationality Mistress rented apartment and because i had informed the Insurance Company that this vehicle Insurance cannot be renewed as the company ROC was not able to renewed because of my ex-partner did not or do not Top-Up his Medisave which is a Compulsory and Mandatory in the Companies Acts and therefore thus revoked by the said Insurance Company and LTA was also duly informed by me and later the vehicle was laid up by me.

c) i had also clearly point out to my ACRA Complaint letter that my ex-partner was also using this vehicle GQXXXXX to work for another company which was declared by the ACRA Officer in their letter which had already infringed the LTA rules and regulations to this action as in the LTA Letter states: 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 unauthorised use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.

d) next, i immediately Point Out to ASP that assuming Ong was the said driver then c) Why AGC still take no action in it? Or is it of different government agencies and because this c) is a LTA matter and does not come after TP or ACRA does not concern any LTA or TP matter? I think if we put these 2 papers from (LTA & ACRA Investigation revealed that my ex-partner uses this GQXXXXX to worked for another company) on the table then Sir ASP Mike Ting may be interest to know Why too right?

e) going forward to my recent Police Report that Ong is not an employee and until today i do not know Ong at all and how come TP can allow this 12 Points deduction in Ong account taking into Consideration that this GQXXXXX is my company's vehicle? Isn't this fishy and funny while i tried to Point Out to ASP where i came to know about this Ong is when i made complain to TP through my area MP about my ex-partner beating a Traffic Light and it is the TP mistake to mail me the letter which cc to me as:" We refer to your representation by Mr Chua....." in which that this letter is to be mailed to this Ong address and i also told my MP about this as i Mr Chua is not an MP and how come TP so making such a mistake in writing and replying?

f) i had also explained and told ASP Mike Ting that during our talking term, my ex-partner did revealed and disclosed to me that should anyone from TP asked he will just say this summon of beating a Traffic Light was incurred by a part-time worker and told me not to say anything just informed me to pretend that i am not aware of this...While every effort is taken by me to report from the time that the notice of summon was mailed to my mailing addresses and all ASP Mike again says to me is that TP had already doing me a favour by submitting 3 times to the AGC for direction and the answer is no action taken and TP also cannot do anything and while i assured and re-affirmed that the fact that my ex-partner and i are on an On-Going Civil Sue that this matter is purely a separate issue and i am also willing to accept punishment should i gave false information. I did clearly and repeatedly told ASP that the reason for me to report this bribery of $800 is because my ex-partner had took it from our partnership profit and being a responsible precedent partner i cannot pretend that i never know and also wish to be a dutiful citizen.

g) I therefore, highlighted these questionable grounds on the basis that Ong was not even an employee and Pointing again to the LTA Letter and the ASP says: In LTA Letter's state: "There shall be no personal use of vehicle...." What if it is consent? then it is for TP into accepting this Mr Ong 12 Points deduction and ASP also told me that he had indeed enlighten me that where ever i go and made this complain again the answer it will still come back to TP no matter what...i thus therefore putting these into writing again and ASP Mike Ting had also advised me to see a lawyer to ask the lawyer how to proof Mr Goh (my ex-partner) was the driver and not Mr Ong
Chua: Sir, i do double checked it with LTA and LTA says: "There shall be no personal usage....." it mean there shall be no personal usage!
ASP: go ask LTA to put this into writing again to me
Chua: Sir, let me asked you this simple question:- "There shall be no driving while driving...i mean alcohol and not coca cola" Sir, you now can tell me the "What if is consent to" and see what your TP on the road on patrol will say?

h) Repeatedly, i asked ASP Mike Ting again: "Sir, may i know what make you so certain that Ong was the driver?" While i continue to give 2 counts of my ex-partner droving the same vehicle while talking using his mobile phone (24 Points) and i count parking at a Double Zig-Zag Yellow Lines at simpang bedok and is this rendered enough fair evidences that my ex-partner is the only person to use and drove this GQXXXXX. Next, this Ong so co-coincidently just part-time worker as claimed by him and my ex-partner statement can easily fooled the TP and the eyes of laws?

Chua: Sir, why are you always doubting in my statement? I had proved and show a document from the Crime Registry that i have laid a Magistrate Complaint as Goh had threaten to break my hand or leg as i have reported him to many authorities and this still not enough?

ASP: The Laws requires Proof!

Chua: Sir, then may i again know what Proof do this Mr Ong & Mr Goh has?

ASP: Okay i will resubmit it to the AGC Chamber and you wait
100% A True Account of the above statement!
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
SPF Feedback Unit (SPF)
To Me
Today at 5:16 PM
This message contains blocked images.
Show Images Options
Dear Sir,

We refer to your email dated 22 January 2014.

2. We have referred the matter to the Traffic Police Department for their attention and appropriate action.

3. Should you require further assistance, you may contact the Traffic Police Department at 6547 0000.

4. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Siti Nur Fadilah Md Rosli (Ms)
Customer Relations Executive
Service Feedback Division
Service Delivery Department | Singapore Police Force
Customer Hotline: 1800- 358-0000 | E-mail: [email protected]
 
R

Redress

Alfrescian
Loyal
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]
cid:[email protected]

http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/police@SG_logo.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/policelife@SG_logo.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf_facebook.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf_twitter.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf-youtube.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf-rasor.gif
A Force For The Nation
•WARNING• "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorised person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."


From: Tina HEE (SPF)
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Mike TING (SPF)
Subject: FW: (SR#: SR/20140117/0690) - Activity # - 1-SWRNE:Recorded Tele-Conversation with TP ASP Mile Ting (SFD 854/2014)

Dear Sir,

A request to forward this email to you.

For your necessary action pls.

With Regards,

SSS HEE Wei Ting, Tina
Assistant, Service Quality Officer
Traffic Police Department | Singapore Police Force
cid:[email protected]

http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/police@SG_logo.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/policelife@SG_logo.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf_facebook.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf_twitter.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf-youtube.gif http://intranet.spf.gov.sg/email_footer/web/spf-rasor.gif
A Force For The Nation
•WARNING• "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorised person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."


From: SPF Feedback Unit (SPF)
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January, 2014 5:18 PM
To: SPF-TP SQB
Subject: FW: (SR#: SR/20140117/0690) - Activity # - 1-SWRNE:Recorded Tele-Conversation with TP ASP Mile Ting (SFD 854/2014)

SQB TP

Please assist to forward the emails to ASP Mike Ting, CIO of VIT of Traffic Police, for his attention and appropriate action.

2 Thank you.

Siti Nur Fadilah Md Rosli (Ms)
Customer Relations Executive
Service Feedback Division
Service Delivery Department | Singapore Police Force
Customer Hotline: 1800- 358-0000 | E-mail: [email protected]

cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected]
A Force For The Nation
•WARNING• "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorised person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."

From: SPF Feedback Unit (SPF)
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January, 2014 5:17 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: FW: (SR#: SR/20140117/0690) - Activity # - 1-SWRNE:Recorded Tele-Conversation with TP ASP Mile Ting (SFD 854/2014)

Dear Sir,

We refer to your email dated 22 January 2014.

2. We have referred the matter to the Traffic Police Department for their attention and appropriate action.

3. Should you require further assistance, you may contact the Traffic Police Department at 6547 0000.

4. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Siti Nur Fadilah Md Rosli (Ms)
Customer Relations Executive
Service Feedback Division
Service Delivery Department | Singapore Police Force
Customer Hotline: 1800- 358-0000 | E-mail: [email protected]

cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected] cid:[email protected]
A Force For The Nation
•WARNING• "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorised person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."

From: Singapore Plumber [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January, 2014 3:22 AM
To: SPF Feedback TP (SPF); SPF Feedback Unit (SPF)
Subject: Lodging a Police Report for the Particulars stated below:-

Redress Wrote:
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Mike TING (SPF)
To Me
Jan 20 at 10:30 PM
This message contains blocked images.
Show Images Options
Message Classification: Restricted
tks

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


Open Interviewing at the Traffic Police HQ between myself, ASP Mike and IO M/s: Cecilia Neo on 20/1/2014 @ about 9:30am (Room 6)

Chua: Good morning to both Officers present

ASP Mike: Chua take a seat

Chua: Thank you Sir.

Chua: Today my present here is to assist in a Police Report to which i have made for my business ex-partner who uses our partnership profit $800 to bribe one Mr Ong to whom i do not know this person at all to a Traffic Offence committed by my company's vehicle GQXXXXX on 16/6/2011 for beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon Road.

ASP: Ok. Tell me what actually had happened?

Chua: Sir, i have indeed made several attempts in reporting this matter and i am indeed very disappointed with the outcome that the AGC took no action against my ex-partner and i would again like to bring this matter to your immediate attention to re-open this case for further investigation on the merit of the questionable grounds below:-
a) What makes TP so certain that Mr Ong is the said driver?

ASP: that we cannot reveal and disclose to you, it is the investigation report and we have submitted 3 times on your behalf's to the AGC for direction and if AGC says no action which mean no action

b) Pointing out the materials that my ex-partner Mr Goh was the only driver from date of Partnership commence at 30th Oct 2009 till 23rd Jan 2013 when i towed away the vehicle at Tampines Court, a HUDC Condo whereby Goh had hide it at his undisclosed China Nationality Mistress rented apartment and because i had informed the Insurance Company that this vehicle Insurance cannot be renewed as the company ROC was not able to renewed because of my ex-partner did not or do not Top-Up his Medisave which is a Compulsory and Mandatory in the Companies Acts and therefore thus revoked by the said Insurance Company and LTA was also duly informed by me and later the vehicle was laid up by me.

c) i had also clearly point out to my ACRA Complaint letter that my ex-partner was also using this vehicle GQXXXXX to work for another company which was declared by the ACRA Officer in their letter which had already infringed the LTA rules and regulations to this action as in the LTA Letter states: 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 unauthorised use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.

d) next, i immediately Point Out to ASP that assuming Ong was the said driver then c) Why AGC still take no action in it? Or is it of different government agencies and because this c) is a LTA matter and does not come after TP or ACRA does not concern any LTA or TP matter? I think if we put these 2 papers from (LTA & ACRA Investigation revealed that my ex-partner uses this GQXXXXX to worked for another company) on the table then Sir ASP Mike Ting may be interest to know Why too right?

e) going forward to my recent Police Report that Ong is not an employee and until today i do not know Ong at all and how come TP can allow this 12 Points deduction in Ong account taking into Consideration that this GQXXXXX is my company's vehicle? Isn't this fishy and funny while i tried to Point Out to ASP where i came to know about this Ong is when i made complain to TP through my area MP about my ex-partner beating a Traffic Light and it is the TP mistake to mail me the letter which cc to me as:" We refer to your representation by Mr Chua....." in which that this letter is to be mailed to this Ong address and i also told my MP about this as i Mr Chua is not an MP and how come TP so making such a mistake in writing and replying?

f) i had also explained and told ASP Mike Ting that during our talking term, my ex-partner did revealed and disclosed to me that should anyone from TP asked he will just say this summon of beating a Traffic Light was incurred by a part-time worker and told me not to say anything just informed me to pretend that i am not aware of this...While every effort is taken by me to report from the time that the notice of summon was mailed to my mailing addresses and all ASP Mike again says to me is that TP had already doing me a favour by submitting 3 times to the AGC for direction and the answer is no action taken and TP also cannot do anything and while i assured and re-affirmed that the fact that my ex-partner and i are on an On-Going Civil Sue that this matter is purely a separate issue and i am also willing to accept punishment should i gave false information. I did clearly and repeatedly told ASP that the reason for me to report this bribery of $800 is because my ex-partner had took it from our partnership profit and being a responsible precedent partner i cannot pretend that i never know and also wish to be a dutiful citizen.

g) I therefore, highlighted these questionable grounds on the basis that Ong was not even an employee and Pointing again to the LTA Letter and the ASP says: In LTA Letter's state: "There shall be no personal use of vehicle...." What if it is consent? then it is for TP into accepting this Mr Ong 12 Points deduction and ASP also told me that he had indeed enlighten me that where ever i go and made this complain again the answer it will still come back to TP no matter what...i thus therefore putting these into writing again and ASP Mike Ting had also advised me to see a lawyer to ask the lawyer how to proof Mr Goh (my ex-partner) was the driver and not Mr Ong
Chua: Sir, i do double checked it with LTA and LTA says: "There shall be no personal usage....." it mean there shall be no personal usage!
ASP: go ask LTA to put this into writing again to me
Chua: Sir, let me asked you this simple question:- "There shall be no driving while driving...i mean alcohol and not coca cola" Sir, you now can tell me the "What if is consent to" and see what your TP on the road on patrol will say?

h) Repeatedly, i asked ASP Mike Ting again: "Sir, may i know what make you so certain that Ong was the driver?" While i continue to give 2 counts of my ex-partner droving the same vehicle while talking using his mobile phone (24 Points) and i count parking at a Double Zig-Zag Yellow Lines at simpang bedok and is this rendered enough fair evidences that my ex-partner is the only person to use and drove this GQXXXXX. Next, this Ong so co-coincidently just part-time worker as claimed by him and my ex-partner statement can easily fooled the TP and the eyes of laws?

Chua: Sir, why are you always doubting in my statement? I had proved and show a document from the Crime Registry that i have laid a Magistrate Complaint as Goh had threaten to break my hand or leg as i have reported him to many authorities and this still not enough?

ASP: The Laws requires Proof!

Chua: Sir, then may i again know what Proof do this Mr Ong & Mr Goh has?

ASP: Okay i will resubmit it to the AGC Chamber and you wait
My Name is Mr Chua and my HP: 97604825


From: Singapore Plumber [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January, 2014 3:12 AM
To: SPF Feedback Unit (SPF)
Subject: Re: (SR#: SR/20140117/0690) - Activity # - 1-SWRNE:Recorded Tele-Conversation with TP ASP Mile Ting (SFD 854/2014)

I am Mr Chua @ HP: 97604825


On Tuesday, 21 January 2014, 14:19, SPF Feedback Unit (SPF) <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Sir

We refer to your email of 17 January 2014.

2 We would appreciate if you could provide us with more information or any Police report reference number, if any, in order for us to look into the matter.

3 You may also wish to leave your full particulars (Full Name, NRIC & Contact Number) as well.

4 Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Siti Nur Fadilah Md Rosli (Ms)
Customer Relations Executive
Service Feedback Division
Service Delivery Department | Singapore Police Force
Customer Hotline: 1800- 358-0000 | E-mail: [email protected]


A Force For The Nation
•WARNING• "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorised person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."

From: Singapore Plumber [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 17 January, 2014 10:56 PM
To: Cecilia NEO (SPF); Michelle SIM (LTA); Mike TING (SPF); SPF Feedback TP (SPF); SPF Feedback Unit (SPF)
Subject: Recorded Tele-Conversation with TP ASP Mile Ting

Tele-Conversation between myself and Traffic Police ASP Mike Ting to expose my ex-business partner who had bribed someone to be a scapegoat for his 12 demerit points.

At that point of time, my ex-partner had committed 2 offences which were

1)using his mobile phone talking while driving and got caught by the TP (2X12 Points) and

2)Parking illegally at a zig-zag double yellow line near simpang bedok and got slapped with a 4 demerit points.

Total: 28 points and "if" that 12 points were to be accumulated here, just imagine within a short span of less than 3 months, a driver had accumulated 40 demerit Points.Do you honestly think that the Court will mete out a measly $800 fine and a 4 months driving suspension?Drivers,feel free to comment.

CHUA: Sir, May i know why Mr Ong is able to drive my company registered vehicle when he is obviously not an employee at all.Furthermore, the offence of beating a Traffic Light on 16/6/2011 at the Junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road is accounted for by Ong and not my ex-business partner Goh.I find this deeply ironic when Goh was the driver who transgressed the traffic laws knowingly by beating the traffic light.

ASP: anyone also can drive a vehicle so long he/she had a driving licence...

Chua: Sir, I question the fact that Ong was registered as the driver of the company's vehicle in the offence record form when he is clearly not a recognized employee of the company. In accordance to the LTA rules, company registered vehicles are solely to be used for the company staff and it's company businesses activities and not for personal usage right?

ASP: i have been in office for more than 20 Years and i know all of the laws and regulation governing our Singapore Road at the back of my hands.

CHUA: Sir, but this is already an infringement of the rules and regulation of LTA! An analogy would be like if we only possess a normal driver license and not a Taxi-vocational license,are we permitted to drive taxi?

ASP: But, the one we are referring here is a van.

ME: But Sir, that's a company registered van and a personal who is not an employee should not be allowed to drive the van as it is a obvious breach of law right?

ASP: i do not wish to comment over the phone and you come and see me on the coming Monday then we discuss further on the matter

Chua: Duly Noted. But Sir, i would like to affirm what i have spoke is the truth. I only wish to fulfil my duties as a law-abiding citizen and bring my ex partner illicit actions to light.

ASP: Any one also can "soon-pah" that he/ she is stating the truth and i cannot just judge based on your unilateral claim.

Chua: Fair enough, I would like to question the fact that TP is so certain that ong is the driver then?Assuming the TP has done a complete investigation in this case, would i bother to persist in my complaints?

ASP: We have submitted your report to the AGC for direction and our stand remains firm in not taking any action against Mr Goh who is (your ex-partner)

Chua: Sir, can i get a report on the investigation statement?

ASP: No! Even lawyer or the Court cannot have our investigation statement as "they" are classified.

Chua: Then i would wish to challenge the point that TP is adamant about the fact that Ong was the driver who flouted the traffic law.

ASP: i do not wish to continue this conversation any further. Please do come and see me on the coming Monday.

Chua: Okay Sir
100% A True Account of the above statement!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

k1976
Happy India 75th Republic Day...Hurray Hurray
Replies
13
Views
1K
Sikodolaukazzz
S
Hightech88
S’pore ‘must remain an open society’ while pursuing integration of locals, foreigners: PM Wong
Replies
11
Views
575
searcher1
searcher1
LaoHongBiscuit
National Heritage Board to study if Oxley Road site is worthy of preservation as national monument
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
bobby
bobby
LaoHongBiscuit
Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia and Her Majesty Raja Zarith Sofiah, Queen of Malaysia, will make a state visit to Singapore on May 6 and 7
Replies
8
Views
901
batman1
B
JohnTan
Serious jiuhu muuds Say That They Are Bigger Than Facebook, Tiktok, Sammyboy And X! Must Apply For jiuhu License To Operate! For Boss Sam's
Replies
15
Views
448
k1976
k1976
Top