Fucking useless jokers!
We paid tax dollars to feed these useless pigs and Ah Seng took millions of fucking dollars while squandering millions more for NOTHING! :oIo:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1094915/1/.html
blogs
yournews
7 Day News Archive
M | T | W | T | F | S | S
Search
Video Finance Lifestyle Travel Weather Discussion TV Shows
| |
About Us
Home ›
Singapore News
Hundreds probed after Mas Selamat's escape
By S Ramesh | Posted: 22 November 2010 2205 hrs
Mas Selamat Kastari
Photos 1 of 1
Mas Selamat Kastari
Twitter Digg
SINGAPORE: A few hundred people including Mas Selamat Kastari's own extended family - numbering nearly a hundred - were investigated following the escape of the Jemaah Islamiah leader from detention on 27 February, 2008.
The others included the fugitive's friends and ex-JI associates, said Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday.
He was responding to questions from MPs following his statement to the House that Mas Selamat had sought shelter at his brother Asmom's flat in Tampines from February 29 to March 1 and had help also from his sister-in-law and niece, to facilitate his escape out of Singapore to Malaysia.
Uppermost on the minds of Malay-Muslim MPs were concerns of a backlash against the community.
"Given the fact that Mas Selamat did escape in a tudung, will the Ministry assure the Malay community that there won't be unnecessary scrutiny on Malay women wearing tudung in security areas and when they seek appointments for jobs," asked Zaqy Mohamed, MP for Hong Kah GRC.
In reply, Mr Shanmugam said: "Whether someone is picked up for scrutiny, whether he or she is wearing a tudung, really depends on security assessments. It's really difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum. If there is an intelligence assessment and if there is a necessity to check, there will be a check. If there is no reason to check, there will be none.
"As to the broader question, the government has consistently stated over the years that the actions of a few are not a reflection of the Malay-Muslim community as a whole.
"Our position remains unchanged. Over the years, the actions of the Malay-Muslim community have borne that out. They have been very supportive of our efforts to build a tolerant, united community. They have consistently spoken out against violence in the name of any religion.
"There is no reason for employers or anyone else to shy away from employing members of the Malay-Muslim community or for anyone to use this incident as an excuse to target members of the Malay-Muslim community.
"In the civil service, the recruitment policy is based on a system of meritocracy. I can state categorically that this incident will not affect the government's recruitment policies. Employers in the private sector, (too), should hire based on the individual's suitability for the job."
Mr Shanmugam also stressed that the threat Mas Selamat posed was to Singapore as a whole.
"His actions put all Singaporeans at risk. As such, all Singaporeans across the communities will feel disappointed with the actions of Asmom and his family. Their actions should not be projected on the Malay community at large."
Also raised in Parliament was the gravity of the sentences meted out to those who had harboured Mas Selamat.
MP Maliki Osman wanted to know, given the seriousness of the offence, if the sentences to Asmom and his family members were too lenient.
Under the law, a person who knowingly harbours or conceals any such fugitive is liable to life imprisonment or a jail term of up to 15 years, and be fined as well.
Mr Shanmugam said the sentences were based on submissions from both the prosecution and defence.
He said: "The sentences in our view reflect the different degrees of involvement of the family in harbouring and aiding Mas Selamat. Nur Aini was obviously the most culpable, (so) she has been given the longest jail sentence. The other two were given shorter sentences because of their lesser involvement. The court is likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not pre-meditated, rather the three persons appear to have acted on misguided instinct on family ties, on the spur of the moment."
We paid tax dollars to feed these useless pigs and Ah Seng took millions of fucking dollars while squandering millions more for NOTHING! :oIo:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1094915/1/.html
blogs
yournews
7 Day News Archive
M | T | W | T | F | S | S
Search
Video Finance Lifestyle Travel Weather Discussion TV Shows
| |
About Us
Home ›
Singapore News
Hundreds probed after Mas Selamat's escape
By S Ramesh | Posted: 22 November 2010 2205 hrs
Mas Selamat Kastari
Photos 1 of 1
Mas Selamat Kastari
Twitter Digg
SINGAPORE: A few hundred people including Mas Selamat Kastari's own extended family - numbering nearly a hundred - were investigated following the escape of the Jemaah Islamiah leader from detention on 27 February, 2008.
The others included the fugitive's friends and ex-JI associates, said Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday.
He was responding to questions from MPs following his statement to the House that Mas Selamat had sought shelter at his brother Asmom's flat in Tampines from February 29 to March 1 and had help also from his sister-in-law and niece, to facilitate his escape out of Singapore to Malaysia.
Uppermost on the minds of Malay-Muslim MPs were concerns of a backlash against the community.
"Given the fact that Mas Selamat did escape in a tudung, will the Ministry assure the Malay community that there won't be unnecessary scrutiny on Malay women wearing tudung in security areas and when they seek appointments for jobs," asked Zaqy Mohamed, MP for Hong Kah GRC.
In reply, Mr Shanmugam said: "Whether someone is picked up for scrutiny, whether he or she is wearing a tudung, really depends on security assessments. It's really difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum. If there is an intelligence assessment and if there is a necessity to check, there will be a check. If there is no reason to check, there will be none.
"As to the broader question, the government has consistently stated over the years that the actions of a few are not a reflection of the Malay-Muslim community as a whole.
"Our position remains unchanged. Over the years, the actions of the Malay-Muslim community have borne that out. They have been very supportive of our efforts to build a tolerant, united community. They have consistently spoken out against violence in the name of any religion.
"There is no reason for employers or anyone else to shy away from employing members of the Malay-Muslim community or for anyone to use this incident as an excuse to target members of the Malay-Muslim community.
"In the civil service, the recruitment policy is based on a system of meritocracy. I can state categorically that this incident will not affect the government's recruitment policies. Employers in the private sector, (too), should hire based on the individual's suitability for the job."
Mr Shanmugam also stressed that the threat Mas Selamat posed was to Singapore as a whole.
"His actions put all Singaporeans at risk. As such, all Singaporeans across the communities will feel disappointed with the actions of Asmom and his family. Their actions should not be projected on the Malay community at large."
Also raised in Parliament was the gravity of the sentences meted out to those who had harboured Mas Selamat.
MP Maliki Osman wanted to know, given the seriousness of the offence, if the sentences to Asmom and his family members were too lenient.
Under the law, a person who knowingly harbours or conceals any such fugitive is liable to life imprisonment or a jail term of up to 15 years, and be fined as well.
Mr Shanmugam said the sentences were based on submissions from both the prosecution and defence.
He said: "The sentences in our view reflect the different degrees of involvement of the family in harbouring and aiding Mas Selamat. Nur Aini was obviously the most culpable, (so) she has been given the longest jail sentence. The other two were given shorter sentences because of their lesser involvement. The court is likely to have given weight to the fact that the assistance was not pre-meditated, rather the three persons appear to have acted on misguided instinct on family ties, on the spur of the moment."
