-
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.
Church and MOM secrets spilled in ongoing Kong drama
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
Self evident that leaders or members of religious sects
Are equally entitled to challenge the conduct and decisions of secular civil servants
As any other Tom, Dick, Harry, Ah Beng or Ah Lian
Clearly the Ministar of Manpower has no special exemption from judicial review
Even if the applicant is a pastor of “deviant” sect
Does the Ministar not know what is the meaning of “sub judice”?
Well, he can Google it and stop acting blur!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice
Are equally entitled to challenge the conduct and decisions of secular civil servants
As any other Tom, Dick, Harry, Ah Beng or Ah Lian
Clearly the Ministar of Manpower has no special exemption from judicial review
Even if the applicant is a pastor of “deviant” sect
Does the Ministar not know what is the meaning of “sub judice”?
Well, he can Google it and stop acting blur!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice
Last edited:
Ah Khong's daughter has always been involved in his church's activity otherwise she won't got herself pregnant in the first place.
It does not matter whether she is employed by the church or not when it come to adultery.
Both cases still linked to the church.
It does not matter whether she is employed by the church or not when it come to adultery.
Both cases still linked to the church.
Last edited:
Indeed both cases are still linked to the church in a very general sense
That is where you show your superficiality and stupidity
Unlawful dismissal is a matter of employment law part of the secular
Expulsion from membership of a religious group or sect
Is between the group and its members according to their own rules
Your brain is certainly dark and it's not that of a knight
In actual fact your brain is more like the characters in "asterix and obelix comics" which simply can't think out of the box.
Who can have the final say that the case of dismissal of members/employee is unlawful or lawful?
MOM may claimed that it's unlawful while that Ah Khong said it's lawful?
Or MOM claimed that it's lawful while Ah Khong claimed that it's unlawful?
Is it MOM or that Ah Khong who will win the case if they see each other in court?
Whatever reasons and excuses that Ah Khong came out with for his daughter versus the employee is still related to adultery in his church.
You want to practice double standard? Not if you are the Sillypore gahbrament.
You are the representative of the Sinkie gahbras
Obviously MOM does not have the final say
If Ah Dark ahem knight was dismissed for being gahbra
Appealed successfully to the Ministar of Slave Matters
Minstar's decision is based on wrong considerations
Ah Dark peasant's employer can challenge in Court
Does not matter that employer is Ah Beng or Pastor
That is the whole point of judicial review understand
Unlawful dismissal is part of secular law and MOM's remit
Expulsion from religious group is not part of secular law
It is for the group to decide according to its own rules
And is none of stupid Ministar's business
This fucking Gahbra Minister of Slave Matters
Should go back to primary school like this stupid Dark Brain
Obviously MOM does not have the final say
If Ah Dark ahem knight was dismissed for being gahbra
Appealed successfully to the Ministar of Slave Matters
Minstar's decision is based on wrong considerations
Ah Dark peasant's employer can challenge in Court
Does not matter that employer is Ah Beng or Pastor
That is the whole point of judicial review understand
Unlawful dismissal is part of secular law and MOM's remit
Expulsion from religious group is not part of secular law
It is for the group to decide according to its own rules
And is none of stupid Ministar's business
This fucking Gahbra Minister of Slave Matters
Should go back to primary school like this stupid Dark Brain
Should go back to kindergarten like this act smart Asterix Brain.
If that is the whole point in believing Sillypore's double standard judicial system.
Doesn't matter if employer is Ah Beng or Pastor on adultery case.
Once you step on MOM's tail it will become Ministar's business for sure.
Do u think the father of her child is also from the church??? hmm...
You Rice Wasting brainwashed Lightning cult member
Better you go back to the womb and try for better genes
The Ministar's ego is nobody's business except his own
All Ministars should remember that whatever decisions
They made are subject to judicial review
Sinkie judges have never been tested much
On this front because previously Sinkies are ball-less
Now with the Internet and impending death of Old Fart
Sinkies are challenging authority more
And that is as it should be in a democracy
Ordinary Sinkie got no money to use Courts
Church has and it should lead the way
Let the Ministar's balls shrink when his decisions
And the judges' conduct are put under the microscope
Better you go back to the womb and try for better genes
The Ministar's ego is nobody's business except his own
All Ministars should remember that whatever decisions
They made are subject to judicial review
Sinkie judges have never been tested much
On this front because previously Sinkies are ball-less
Now with the Internet and impending death of Old Fart
Sinkies are challenging authority more
And that is as it should be in a democracy
Ordinary Sinkie got no money to use Courts
Church has and it should lead the way
Let the Ministar's balls shrink when his decisions
And the judges' conduct are put under the microscope
But the father founded the church...hmmm!, she is not working for the church,then who is she working for?? I guess he meant that she is working for the organization, that is affiliated or related to the church but not the church.....
Bwahahaha, you blur or act blur?
Working for the church as in there is a relationship of employer and employee
Volunteers also work for the church but there is no such legal relationship
Unlawful dismissal case concerned an employee
Daughter is not an employee maybe a volunteer
Volunteer cannot be dismissed by organisation
Because she did not work for wages you TWIT
Nice try to pull wool over the eyes of the masses
Fortunately, it can be disposed of in a few lines
Working for the church as in there is a relationship of employer and employee
Volunteers also work for the church but there is no such legal relationship
Unlawful dismissal case concerned an employee
Daughter is not an employee maybe a volunteer
Volunteer cannot be dismissed by organisation
Because she did not work for wages you TWIT
Nice try to pull wool over the eyes of the masses
Fortunately, it can be disposed of in a few lines
Last edited:
There're secular laws to govern charities, societies, et cetera
Same goes for investment companies and what not
If a church or for that matter a Lightning Cult goes into
Such activities they are subject to the laws of the land
Governing those activities same as any Tom, Dick or Atheist
Frankly I am more concerned about People's Association
Whose resources are funded by general taxpayers
Regardless of who they vote for but only Lightning can use
Same goes for investment companies and what not
If a church or for that matter a Lightning Cult goes into
Such activities they are subject to the laws of the land
Governing those activities same as any Tom, Dick or Atheist
Frankly I am more concerned about People's Association
Whose resources are funded by general taxpayers
Regardless of who they vote for but only Lightning can use
A paid employee = MOM is the boss.
An unpaid volunteer = internal affair of the church.
But there's plenty of obfuscation in these megachurches these days, you can't even tell if one is a business or charity or church or investment company.
Last edited:
A paid employee = subject to employment law
Employment law may be administered by MOM since you don't want to choke up the general court system with thousands of such minor cases
MOM's administrative decision can be challenged
General court system is final arbiter of what the law says, unless amended by Parliament
Let's see if the court system is up to the task or ball-less like the typical Sinkie
So paid employee not equals to MOM is the boss, but court system is SUPPOSED to be the boss
No need to be lawyer to know all this
In First World democracies, civic education classes already teach this to all commoners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
Last edited:
A paid employee = MOM is the boss.
An unpaid volunteer = internal affair of the church.
But there's plenty of obfuscation in these megachurches these days, you can't even tell if one is a business or charity or church or investment company.
hmm, so better go to the one whereby you get yr rewards 100X folds.
Who is the twit...?? the case is clear, the woman is an EMPLOYEE, who is attending the church that employs her. The daughter & father & church relationship..who do not know?? Have been following them since they started as Touch Community Service...I am talking about, affiliations, association etc... of course, she is not a church employee...
Okay, let me explain these in simple layman terms:
1. The staff was dismissed and she challenged it as being "unfair dismissal" according to Sinkie employment laws.
2. Legitimate grounds for dismissal obviously depends on the nature of the job.
Example 1: Bargain Hen is a 60 plus surgeon. His hands, while steady enough to write and type normally, do not make the grade anymore for surgery where a tiny error of a few millimetres can lead to instant death for a patient. The hospital at which Bargain Hen works decides to fire him. Is this unfair dismissal? No. The reason for the dismissal is related to his work as a surgeon.
Example 2: Kaypoh Auntie is 40 plus typist. Her hands have become unsteady lately, however she can write and type normally, it does not affect her work as a typist. Her employer fires her for having unsteady hands. Is this unfair dismissal? Yes. The reason for dismissal is not related to her work and does not affect it.
3. What is the nature of the church employee's work? Marriage counseling. Is her adultery related to her work?
Yes, very related, because she is expected to guide members of the congregation who are getting married on proper conduct. How is she going to do that when the whole damn church knows that she herself has breached those rules of proper conduct flagrantly?
4. The Manpower Ministar should be shot for the crime of not understanding the laws that he is supposed to be enforcing.
5. This Assistant Commissioner for Labour should be fired. Only employment matters are within the Manpower Ministry's purview. The pastor's daughter is not an employee and it is none of that overpaid Ministry's business. Controlling the influx of foreign "talents" by ensuring that those admitted indeed have qualifications which are needed by the Sinkie economy on the other hand falls squarely within this Ministry's purview and everybody knows that it has failed MISERABLY.
6. This is typical Lightning way of doing things. Junior staff are easily intimidated. It taints the proceedings and subject them to successful challenge in Court for being unfair. Imagine a divorce case in which the mediator only listens to the wife, but not the husband. Sama sama.
Quoted passages are from this article on Today:
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/church-seeking-guidance-what-constitutes-religious-affairs
PS: I think this Halsey fella did not "digest" his cases very well when in law school and who in hell would "follow" this or that Christian sect unless he works for some government department or is a class one kaypoh.
1. The staff was dismissed and she challenged it as being "unfair dismissal" according to Sinkie employment laws.
2. Legitimate grounds for dismissal obviously depends on the nature of the job.
Example 1: Bargain Hen is a 60 plus surgeon. His hands, while steady enough to write and type normally, do not make the grade anymore for surgery where a tiny error of a few millimetres can lead to instant death for a patient. The hospital at which Bargain Hen works decides to fire him. Is this unfair dismissal? No. The reason for the dismissal is related to his work as a surgeon.
Example 2: Kaypoh Auntie is 40 plus typist. Her hands have become unsteady lately, however she can write and type normally, it does not affect her work as a typist. Her employer fires her for having unsteady hands. Is this unfair dismissal? Yes. The reason for dismissal is not related to her work and does not affect it.
3. What is the nature of the church employee's work? Marriage counseling. Is her adultery related to her work?
Yes, very related, because she is expected to guide members of the congregation who are getting married on proper conduct. How is she going to do that when the whole damn church knows that she herself has breached those rules of proper conduct flagrantly?
4. The Manpower Ministar should be shot for the crime of not understanding the laws that he is supposed to be enforcing.
5. This Assistant Commissioner for Labour should be fired. Only employment matters are within the Manpower Ministry's purview. The pastor's daughter is not an employee and it is none of that overpaid Ministry's business. Controlling the influx of foreign "talents" by ensuring that those admitted indeed have qualifications which are needed by the Sinkie economy on the other hand falls squarely within this Ministry's purview and everybody knows that it has failed MISERABLY.
6. This is typical Lightning way of doing things. Junior staff are easily intimidated. It taints the proceedings and subject them to successful challenge in Court for being unfair. Imagine a divorce case in which the mediator only listens to the wife, but not the husband. Sama sama.
Quoted passages are from this article on Today:
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/church-seeking-guidance-what-constitutes-religious-affairs
PS: I think this Halsey fella did not "digest" his cases very well when in law school and who in hell would "follow" this or that Christian sect unless he works for some government department or is a class one kaypoh.
Last edited:
Wong meng meng is a a little screwed up there. Of course, pastor has the right to ask for a judicial review if you have enough cash to spare. Why not ???
Clearly, FCBC has screwed up handling this matter. They should have paid and let go. Instead, they want to try to apply their own set of law into the state. MOM HAS been very clear, it state law above the religious law.You can sack the lady. MOM is not preventing you to sack your own employee.
When you sack someone, you must pay her accordingly.
Clearly, FCBC has screwed up handling this matter. They should have paid and let go. Instead, they want to try to apply their own set of law into the state. MOM HAS been very clear, it state law above the religious law.You can sack the lady. MOM is not preventing you to sack your own employee.
When you sack someone, you must pay her accordingly.
