-
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.
Any bro here named Donald Liew boh ??
- Thread starter rambo22
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
- Messages
- 4,335
- Points
- 113
yahoo
XYZ 2 hours ago
From above article:
"....The authorities added that Temasek had committed to assist as well as agreed that the work done by its linked companies would be done at a “cost-recovery basis, and in some cases, below cost”.
“There will be no profit made by Temasek and its linked companies for the work done. The Temasek linked companies agreed with these arrangements,....".
----------------------------------------------
Quoting Shanmugam's own words (his attacks on the fiduciary breach by WP AHTC town-councillors.)
QUOTE:
And you come and you say no money is lost.
One can only wonder at such a statement.
Strict view taken in law
The law takes an extremely strict view on related party transactions when conflicts of interests are involved. The lawyers in the house will know that.
Where contracts have been entered into with related parties in breach of fiduciary duties – and let there be no doubt, that there is a breach of fiduciary duties here, by everyone,
The law, presumes LOSS.
It will require the related party to justify every payment by
Showing what work was done; and
Assessing the true value of the work.
The contracts are all voidable. ..
END QUOTE
XYZ 2 hours ago
From above article:
"....The authorities added that Temasek had committed to assist as well as agreed that the work done by its linked companies would be done at a “cost-recovery basis, and in some cases, below cost”.
“There will be no profit made by Temasek and its linked companies for the work done. The Temasek linked companies agreed with these arrangements,....".
----------------------------------------------
Quoting Shanmugam's own words (his attacks on the fiduciary breach by WP AHTC town-councillors.)
QUOTE:
And you come and you say no money is lost.
One can only wonder at such a statement.
Strict view taken in law
The law takes an extremely strict view on related party transactions when conflicts of interests are involved. The lawyers in the house will know that.
Where contracts have been entered into with related parties in breach of fiduciary duties – and let there be no doubt, that there is a breach of fiduciary duties here, by everyone,
The law, presumes LOSS.
It will require the related party to justify every payment by
Showing what work was done; and
Assessing the true value of the work.
The contracts are all voidable. ..
END QUOTE
Actually if PM Lee can have his wife as manager of all Singapore state funds and that is not considered conflict of interest then all these small small cases really not conflict of interest also lah.
No brainer.
No brainer.
Similar threads
