Abuse of Power by Singapore Civil Servants

[kakowi]

Tomasloh,

Does a person who falls under the OA oversight have a capacity to sue and be sued?

It seems to be an unfair proposition.

When such a person wins his case, the other party will need to pay.

But when the other party wins, that person cannot pay and neither can he be sued for non-payment.

From reading the posts, this seems to be the most plausible reason why the OA may not be going into the case full steam.

Even if your lawyer is prepared to work for free and get paid only when he wins the case, it is still unfair for the other side because their lawyer will have to be paid by them. Thus whether they win or lose the case, they lose in terms of fees which can be substantial.

Speaking only from this perspective, are such grounds valid?

*****

In the above post, you said that you target on the basis of 'spirit of the law'.

The spirit is like a wind - where it comes from, where it goes to - only geographers know.

So shouldn't the court focused on the letter of the law?

I say this because many times, lawyers say they don't make the laws especially when people voiced certain applications which are unfair in practice.

 

[tomasloh]

Tomasloh,

Does a person who falls under the OA oversight have a capacity to sue and be sued?

It seems to be an unfair proposition.

When such a person wins his case, the other party will need to pay.

But when the other party wins, that person cannot pay and neither can he be sued for non-payment.

From reading the posts, this seems to be the most plausible reason why the OA may not be going into the case full steam.

Even if your lawyer is prepared to work for free and get paid only when he wins the case, it is still unfair for the other side because their lawyer will have to be paid by them. Thus whether they win or lose the case, they lose in terms of fees which can be substantial.

Speaking only from this perspective, are such grounds valid?

*****

In the above post, you said that you target on the basis of 'spirit of the law'.

The spirit is like a wind - where it comes from, where it goes to - only geographers know.

So shouldn't the court focused on the letter of the law?

I say this because many times, lawyers say they don't make the laws especially when people voiced certain applications which are unfair in practice.

What you have just raised as to whether the bankrupt has the right to sue or not is a point of law that was argued in the Court of Appeal where judgment has been reserved till a later date.

It has always been the practice of the OA to give their consent to bankrupt to sue whenever there is a prima facie case or a credible case so long as it is not an abuse of court process or totally hopeless case. The OA will usually ask for a deposit to cover the other party legal costs before consent is given to sue in case if the bankrupt loses the case, part of the costs could be covered. But the deposit must not be an exorbitant amount that it is as good as asking the bankrupt not to sue even if he has a case.

In my case with Standchart, cash deposit was deposited with the OA before the consent from the OA was given. In subsequent proceedings, Standchart asked the court to order that I put up further deposit of $90,000 but it was refused by the court. The court ordered additional deposit of $5000. This is a tactics used by many Defendants whenever a bankrupt sue because if the bankrupt cannot come up with the deposit then the case cannot proceed. The question then beg as to what is the justice if the bankrupt has a good case but cannot come up with the deposit.

Take for example, a bankrupt has met with an industrial accident and he needs to sue to get his compensation. If he cannot comes up with the deposit, then he cannot even sue and claim for compensation and the employer would walk out scot free. Is this fair?

In another scenario, someone, who is not a bankrupt, sue the Defendants and lost his case in the court. Assuming, he goes for a 5 days trial in the high court, his legal costs could easily amount to between $100,000 and $150,000. He lost his case and cannot pay the Defendants the costs awarded against him by the court. Compare the 2 scenario I mentioned aforesaid, is there any difference when the Defendants are still not paid. But somehow, in the bankrupt's case, part of his costs can be recovered from the deposit. The court would be the best judge to see whether the bankrupt has a case or not and if so, the court may have to decide on the amount the bankrupt has to come up with the deposit. Obviously, the amount must not be ridiculous that it is as good as asking the bankrupt to drop his case.

If the bankrupt cannot come up with the deposit, then the court has to decide further, whether he has a good case of succeeding and if so, then the deposit can be waived and justice would have been done by allowing him to have his case heard in court.

In my case with Standchart on my law firm client account that went into overdraft, what I am fighting with the OA on the deposit they required me to put up with them is ridiculous before I could sue the bank. In this case, they require me to deposit $230,000 with them before Standchart could be sued. This is a sure win case because client account cannot go into overdraft. The court and the OA says that I have no merit in my case. If what they are saying is true, then they are directly "licensing" all lawyers that taking money from client account is lawful because they ruled that I have no merit in my case. Are they right to say that I have no merit in my case. This is utter nonsense.

 

[kakowi]

Thank you for answering a point that has been puzzling me when i was following your points.

To close by sharing a case which i heard from someone. He had a friend who felt very unjustly treated. Because he believed in the legal system, he worked within the system to get his point across. Friends told him that he is fighting a losing battle. But he fought on, a lonely battle.

In the end, after a hugh cost to himself, he won the case.

As i heard it, i was wondering if it is worth it. Injustices are everywhere.

But he felt that it was worth all the effort. And the principle was upheld - that the law is inherently fair and to those who dare to believe and pursue it, they will be vindicated.

I do not know the points of law or its similarities with yours.

But if that is the road you are determined to travel, then hopefully this story will be an encouragement to you.

 

[tomasloh]

Thank you for answering a point that has been puzzling me when i was following your points.

To close by sharing a case which i heard from someone. He had a friend who felt very unjustly treated. Because he believed in the legal system, he worked within the system to get his point across. Friends told him that he is fighting a losing battle. But he fought on, a lonely battle.

In the end, after a hugh cost to himself, he won the case.

As i heard it, i was wondering if it is worth it. Injustices are everywhere.

But he felt that it was worth all the effort. And the principle was upheld - that the law is inherently fair and to those who dare to believe and pursue it, they will be vindicated.

I do not know the points of law or its similarities with yours.

But if that is the road you are determined to travel, then hopefully this story will be an encouragement to you.

Thanks for your words of encouragement.

I am fighting on with this case as this is a clear case of blatant disregard for the law by Standchart as it is trite law and a known fact that law firm client account cannot go into overdraft and moreover to prevent my case from being heard in the open court in 1998, the bank fiddled with my bank accounts for more than 16 months to cause me financial stress so that I will drop my counterclaim against them. The fiddling of bank accounts by the bank themselves in disregard for the law has got to stop.

To make matter worse, the Official Assignee are helping the bank to "suppress" my case by imposing unreasonable conditions on my case such as that my case must be "settled" through the OA office and not through the court system, not following Rules of Court and the Rules of Law, committing contempt of court and bending the law to suit their way of interpretation, ordering my solicitors that I cannot pursue my case in court without the permission of the OA, withholding all legal costs that have been awarded to me and others.

All the actions done by the banks and the OA must come to a stop and that is why I am fighting on with the case. Someone has to put a stop to it.

Minister Teo Chee Hean has said in Parliament that civil servants must conduct themselves with decorum and humility and that civil servants must know what their duty is and where their duty lies. Did the OA conduct themselves in that fashion. Certianily NO as the Minister for Law was silent till todate.

I have always said that our ministers says one thing but practises another thing and that is why our civil servants are so bold to take the law into their own hands.

 

[cass888]

Oh grow up. I await what you have to say when you ultimately lose the case.

In my case with Standchart on my law firm client account that went into overdraft, what I am fighting with the OA on the deposit they required me to put up with them is ridiculous before I could sue the bank. In this case, they require me to deposit $230,000 with them before Standchart could be sued. This is a sure win case because client account cannot go into overdraft. The court and the OA says that I have no merit in my case. If what they are saying is true, then they are directly "licensing" all lawyers that taking money from client account is lawful because they ruled that I have no merit in my case. Are they right to say that I have no merit in my case. This is utter nonsense.

 

[tomasloh]

Oh grow up. I await what you have to say when you ultimately lose the case.

If I lose my case in court, then this government and the courts are contradicting themselves by what they have done over the last several years. Then all the convicted lawyers who took clients' monies will have to walk out scot free as they have been given the "licence" by the courts and the government to take clients money.

The Banking Act and all banking legislation can be shred away as they will no longer be the governing law as the banks will be entilted at its whims and fancy to dig into any customer accounts and deal with the funds as they like.

 

[Hope]

What you have just raised as to whether the bankrupt has the right to sue or not is a point of law that was argued in the Court of Appeal where judgment has been reserved till a later date.

It has always been the practice of the OA to give their consent to bankrupt to sue whenever there is a prima facie case or a credible case so long as it is not an abuse of court process or totally hopeless case. The OA will usually ask for a deposit to cover the other party legal costs before consent is given to sue in case if the bankrupt loses the case, part of the costs could be covered. But the deposit must not be an exorbitant amount that it is as good as asking the bankrupt not to sue even if he has a case.

In my case with Standchart, cash deposit was deposited with the OA before the consent from the OA was given. In subsequent proceedings, Standchart asked the court to order that I put up further deposit of $90,000 but it was refused by the court. The court ordered additional deposit of $5000. This is a tactics used by many Defendants whenever a bankrupt sue because if the bankrupt cannot come up with the deposit then the case cannot proceed. The question then beg as to what is the justice if the bankrupt has a good case but cannot come up with the deposit.

Take for example, a bankrupt has met with an industrial accident and he needs to sue to get his compensation. If he cannot comes up with the deposit, then he cannot even sue and claim for compensation and the employer would walk out scot free. Is this fair?

In another scenario, someone, who is not a bankrupt, sue the Defendants and lost his case in the court. Assuming, he goes for a 5 days trial in the high court, his legal costs could easily amount to between $100,000 and $150,000. He lost his case and cannot pay the Defendants the costs awarded against him by the court. Compare the 2 scenario I mentioned aforesaid, is there any difference when the Defendants are still not paid. But somehow, in the bankrupt's case, part of his costs can be recovered from the deposit. The court would be the best judge to see whether the bankrupt has a case or not and if so, the court may have to decide on the amount the bankrupt has to come up with the deposit. Obviously, the amount must not be ridiculous that it is as good as asking the bankrupt to drop his case.

If the bankrupt cannot come up with the deposit, then the court has to decide further, whether he has a good case of succeeding and if so, then the deposit can be waived and justice would have been done by allowing him to have his case heard in court.

In my case with Standchart on my law firm client account that went into overdraft, what I am fighting with the OA on the deposit they required me to put up with them is ridiculous before I could sue the bank. In this case, they require me to deposit $230,000 with them before Standchart could be sued. This is a sure win case because client account cannot go into overdraft. The court and the OA says that I have no merit in my case. If what they are saying is true, then they are directly "licensing" all lawyers that taking money from client account is lawful because they ruled that I have no merit in my case. Are they right to say that I have no merit in my case. This is utter nonsense.

Hi Thomas,

I read about yr case many years back,I am quite surprised that you are still at it.

I can truly imagine the traials and tribulation that you & yr family have gone thro' all these years.

Thomas,I believe in miracle,and I hv personal experience of miracle.So I sincerely pray that some thing positive would happen yo you.

Perhaps I might suggest that you bring yr plight to some one who sits /stays very near to our god,and who just recenly proclaimed in 154th that she would right any wrong she came upon.

Give it a try,best of luck.

And may yr whole family have a nice CNY,let it be the last one that you have such burden.

Cheers.

 

[tomasloh]

Hi Thomas,

I read about yr case many years back,I am quite surprised that you are still at it.

I can truly imagine the traials and tribulation that you & yr family have gone thro' all these years.

Thomas,I believe in miracle,and I hv personal experience of miracle.So I sincerely pray that some thing positive would happen yo you.

Perhaps I might suggest that you bring yr plight to some one who sits /stays very near to our god,and who just recenly proclaimed in 154th that she would right any wrong she came upon.

Give it a try,best of luck.

And may yr whole family have a nice CNY,let it be the last one that you have such burden.

Cheers.

Thank you very much.

I will continue with my fight against Standchart and to stop the abuse of power by civil servants who are supposed to help its citizens but are actually helping the international bank to come and kill you.

 

[tomasloh]

Till todate, there is no action being taken by the minister on the conduct of the civil servants. It can therefore be safely concluded that the action of the civil servants have the blessings of the government.

 

[glock]

You, Bankrupt Loh, have to wake up. Stop wasting your time and go get a job to repay your creditors.

if he bankrupted he cannot be a lawyer

like that how can he work as the job he trained to do and repay creditors?

not so easy

 

[glock]

They should change the law to require all bankrupts like you to take any job available on the streets, even if it is a cleaner. What a haughty lawyer, scratch that, ex-lawyer, like you needs is to have a broom placed in your hands.

but if he work as road sweeper he will never make enough money to pay back the creditors-he kena more than $250000 right ? how can road sweeper make that money ?

you say he is haughty personally or you just dont like lawyers ?

 

[tomasloh]

Cass888 does not read carefully what was said in other's view and talk sense in his reply so it is difficult to engage intellectually with him.

 

[tomasloh]

The arrogance of the civil servants continues when the OA claim in their affidavit that they have sought independent legal advice. When asked for a copy of the report given by the independent law firm, they are unable to produce it.

The question begs as to whether what was stated by the OA in the affidavit that they had sought independent legal advice is true or not is not known. The OA has been asked on several occasions to produce a copy of the legal advice but they are unable to produce it todate. If they are unable to produce it, then the truthfulness of what they have stated in the affidavit will be called into question. Is the Attorney-General or the courts going to do anything about it if found that the afiidavit contains untrue statement.

The AG has no response nor taken any action todate on the OA committing contempt of court. So do you expect the AG or the courts to take action if what is stated in the affidavit turns out to be untrue.

So who does the checks and balances then.