• 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.

Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?

"Mr Lun, who was then with law firm Foxwood, held a practising certificate for less than three years when he supervised Mr Lim Teng Jie and Ms Trinisha Ann Sunil, who started their training contracts on Dec 16, 2019, and Jan 2, 2020, respectively."

WTF? He's a frigging new bird himself in the profession. And he behaved like some old towkay boss throwing his weight around.

He is not a new bird. It's just that the time he spent as a General Counsel (in-house lawyer) with a private company does not count towards his experience. Being an in-house counsel does not require a practicing certificate, so you don't have to pay "protection fees" to your association and insurer.
 
He is not a new bird. It's just that the time he spent as a General Counsel (in-house lawyer) with a private company does not count towards his experience. Being an in-house counsel does not require a practicing certificate, so you don't have to pay "protection fees" to your association and insurer.

In-house counsel handles only corporate matters for the company that employs him. He does not attend court. To me, in-house counsels shouldn't be considered lawyers although they're legally trained. This means that as far as court and litigation exposure is concerned, this Lun bloke is still a new bird.
 

Forum: Difficult to understand differences in sentencing​

Dec 21, 2022

It seems the law works in ways which can confuse the layman.
Take, for example, two cases reported in The Straits Times on Dec 13.
In the first case, “Man jailed over offence linked to OCBC phishing scams and other crimes”, the culprit was sentenced to three months and 22 weeks’ jail over crimes that included allowing others to use his company’s bank account to handle the proceeds of online scams totalling more than $53,000, and threatening an elderly taxi driver with a knife.
In the second case, “Man gets 2 years’ jail for stealing at least $1,723 worth of Panadol from pharmacies, supermarkets”, the offender was sentenced to 24 months’ jail after pleading guilty to six counts of theft in dwelling, with 13 other charges taken into consideration.
He had stolen items worth at least $1,723.
I do not understand the differences in the sentences. Perhaps other factors like intent were considered.
Jurisprudence and the finer workings of the judicature are perhaps best left to our learned judges.
Meanwhile, the layman should just know that he had better not transgress the law.

Yik Keng Yeong (Dr)
 
Dinesh Bhatia They should of hung the bum, but Dinesh Bhatia gets one year
jail term! Spoiled Singapore brat and dilettante playboy, Dinesh Bhatia, 35,
has been sentenced to one year of jail for consuming cocaine. Bhatia's
lawyer, Member of Parliament K. Shanmugam (the shameless), had told the
court that Bhatia was not an addict but was given the drug by a friend. Even
though Bhatia did not know that it was cocaine, and had a 'fleeting
suspicion' the substance could be illegal, he took it on impulse. Yeah,
sure!
Bhatia's father was a judge, and his mother a former Singapore Member of
Parliament. Escape from Paradise was right -- Singapore condones drugs for
the elite, as Shanmugam, who aspires to become Solicitor-General (above),
comes to Bhatia's defense!

Then what happens?

THE STRAITS TIMES, April 7, 2005 - Bhatia, 35, appealed against his 12-month
sentence last month, asking for a heavy fine to be imposed instead.

Calling the previous sentence "excessive", Justice V K Rajah said yesterday
that the district judge erred by not tailoring the sentence to fit the
offender and failed to "attach adequate weight and merit to all the relevant
mitigating factors".

For example, the judge did not adequately consider the fact that Bhatia's
consumption was neither planned nor purchased, said Justice Rajah. Bhatia's
sentence was reduce to 8 months. Huh?

And then what happens?

THE STRAITS TIMES, July 7, 2005 - Dinesh Singh Bhatia, 35, who was sentenced
to eight months in jail for cocaine consumption after his arrest in a
high-society drug raid last October, is out of prison and is serving out his
sentence at home, wearing an electronic tag he cannot remove.

John Harding
whose book, Escape from Paradise, has been banned in Singapore
http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/bc2.html
 
How to trust a Kangaroo Court?

Former cabinet minister Teh rather kill himself than to stand trial in a Singapore court for corruption. This already tells us even Cabinet Ministers know they don't enjoy special privileges from the judiciary. I don't see jiuhu's najib and wife committing suicide despite their obvious guilt.
 
Former cabinet minister Teh rather kill himself than to stand trial in a Singapore court for corruption. This already tells us even Cabinet Ministers know they don't enjoy special privileges from the judiciary. I don't see jiuhu's najib and wife committing suicide despite their obvious guilt.
Najib is innocent lah. It's already stated that all those monies in his account are "donations from the Arabs". Najib won't be in this shit today if not for Rosmah and Jho Low.
 
These are precisely the kind of lawyers Piss And Poop desperately needs. Honest lawyers have no place in Pinky Lee's court.
 
In-house counsel handles only corporate matters for the company that employs him. He does not attend court. To me, in-house counsels shouldn't be considered lawyers although they're legally trained. This means that as far as court and litigation exposure is concerned, this Lun bloke is still a new bird.
If he has been called to the Bar in Singapore as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, he is considered a lawyer. Many in-house counsels have not been called to the Bar, and as long as your name is not in the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors in the Supreme Court, YES, you are not a lawyer.

If he has been called to the Bar in Singapore, but does not have a practicing certificate, then he is known as a non-practicing lawyer.
 
Most of them are scums anyways. If the body allows them to practice it shows it condone their actions
 
If you hold a law degree from Singapore, then you are learnt to do all kind of shortcuts to make money in SG. All such lawyers will be then licensed to practice anything unlawful with all the loopholes in laws.

This is not new, but from the inception of SG Politics that the opposition JBJ who was lawyer and judge himself was forced to be a bankrupt himself.

Q: Why do we have so many lawyers holding so many government jobs in SG?
They do all things to cover up so well with no public scrutiny

So stupid folks may trust in the Singapore legal system because they are stupid or ignorant of the facts.
The wise people who know the truth will not do so as they are longing for a real meritocracy/.
 

Troubling rise in breaches of ethics, professional standards by lawyers: Chief Justice​

202301097701783535726d29-a202-458a-a08e-c2ac99a6765d_0.jpg

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon speaks during the opening of the 2023 legal year at the Supreme Court, on Jan 9, 2023. ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG
selinalum.png

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Jan 9, 2023

SINGAPORE – There has been a troubling rise in breaches of ethics and professional standards by lawyers, and the profession must act together to guard against a drop in standards, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said on Monday.
Speaking at an annual ceremony to mark the opening of the legal year, the Chief Justice said: “My point is that a looming decline in ethical and professional standards is likely to be exacerbated if we do not actively apply ourselves to fostering the sort of values that must characterise our profession, and a drop in standards cannot, and will not be tolerated.
“We must therefore act together to guard against this.”
The event was held at the Supreme Court auditorium, with about 300 members of the legal community attending in person, after two years of online and hybrid formats.
In his speech, Chief Justice Menon noted the rising number of disciplinary tribunals over the years: 12 were appointed in 2018 to formally investigate complaints against lawyers, 13 in 2019, 16 in 2020, 28 in 2021 and 25 in 2022.
He said it was critical that lawyers remain anchored to the values of honesty, integrity and service, amid the changes affecting the profession.
At least three trends can be discerned from the disciplinary cases, he said.

First, a drop in client care standards. In many cases, lawyers acted contrary to their clients’ instructions, failed to keep their clients reasonably informed of the proceedings, or were disloyal to their clients’ interests.
Second, poor professional standards. Cases included those of lawyers failing to comply with the regulations for running a practice, falsely attesting to the execution of documents, and deliberately breaching a solicitor’s undertaking.
The third trend was a disregard for the court process, most notably in the criminal justice sphere, where counsel sought repeatedly to reopen capital cases on spurious grounds at the eleventh hour.

The Chief Justice said he did not attribute these trends to the shift to working remotely after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
He said he has asked Justice Valerie Thean and Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim to spearhead a team that will develop a strategy aimed at re-establishing the moral centre and the values of the profession for existing practitioners, and at fostering them among new entrants to the ranks.
The Chief Justice would also like the group to consider the impact of the changes arising from events of the last three years, from the perspective of the professional and ethical well-being of the profession.
He said: “The practice of law is not just a way to earn a living. It is a calling to participate in the administration of justice.”
He said he had occasion to reflect on this when he heard the cases of some aspiring lawyers who had cheated in some papers for Part B of the Bar examinations in 2020.
All 11 candidates who were caught cheating in the exam have been allowed to withdraw their applications to be admitted to the Bar.
“I think we need to emphasise the inescapable truth that being a lawyer entails a choice to live by those values of honesty, integrity and service which transcend our individual careers, cases or examinations,” the Chief Justice said.
He noted that the practice of law has traditionally been learnt by apprenticeship, and its values have been transmitted through sustained mentorship.
This entails watching and listening to one’s mentors and role models. Having spent much of the past three or so years working remotely, there will inevitably be some loss of such opportunities, the Chief Justice said.
“Even with hybrid arrangements, we should not think that mentoring can be put aside just because we are working from home. On the contrary, there must be a conscientious, intentional effort to mentor our juniors and to invest in their developmental growth,” he said.
He also briefly touched on the issue of salary, which was cited as a push factor by some who chose to leave the profession.
He observed that lawyers have traditionally been well compensated, although market forces ultimately determine salaries. Those forces have recently put considerable pressure on salaries at local law firms, and the legal service and the judicial service recently adjusted salaries and their compensation frameworks to narrow the gap, especially for younger officers.
“That said, we should also recognise that those who come to the law because they think it is a road to quick riches will likely find disappointment. Law is a demanding vocation,” said the Chief Justice.
“It takes time, decades in fact, to achieve a higher degree of competence. It is therefore best seen as a calling to be answered with devotion and stamina, rather than as a gig to be experienced.”
In his speech, Law Society president Adrian Tan reported that membership had shrunk for the first time in five years.
Mr Tan said that from 2017 to 2021, the society’s membership grew year on year, reaching a high of 6,333 in 2021. But in 2022, it dropped to 6,273 members.
The loss came from juniors who left the profession after practising for less than five years, he noted.
International studies suggest the decline in lawyer numbers may not be a Singapore problem, said Mr Tan, who revealed that the Law Society has commissioned a study to investigate the reasons behind the decline.
 

Troubling rise in breaches of ethics, professional standards by lawyers: Chief Justice​

202301097701783535726d29-a202-458a-a08e-c2ac99a6765d_0.jpg

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon speaks during the opening of the 2023 legal year at the Supreme Court, on Jan 9, 2023. ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG
selinalum.png

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Jan 9, 2023

SINGAPORE – There has been a troubling rise in breaches of ethics and professional standards by lawyers, and the profession must act together to guard against a drop in standards, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said on Monday.
Speaking at an annual ceremony to mark the opening of the legal year, the Chief Justice said: “My point is that a looming decline in ethical and professional standards is likely to be exacerbated if we do not actively apply ourselves to fostering the sort of values that must characterise our profession, and a drop in standards cannot, and will not be tolerated.
“We must therefore act together to guard against this.”
The event was held at the Supreme Court auditorium, with about 300 members of the legal community attending in person, after two years of online and hybrid formats.
In his speech, Chief Justice Menon noted the rising number of disciplinary tribunals over the years: 12 were appointed in 2018 to formally investigate complaints against lawyers, 13 in 2019, 16 in 2020, 28 in 2021 and 25 in 2022.
He said it was critical that lawyers remain anchored to the values of honesty, integrity and service, amid the changes affecting the profession.
At least three trends can be discerned from the disciplinary cases, he said.

First, a drop in client care standards. In many cases, lawyers acted contrary to their clients’ instructions, failed to keep their clients reasonably informed of the proceedings, or were disloyal to their clients’ interests.
Second, poor professional standards. Cases included those of lawyers failing to comply with the regulations for running a practice, falsely attesting to the execution of documents, and deliberately breaching a solicitor’s undertaking.
The third trend was a disregard for the court process, most notably in the criminal justice sphere, where counsel sought repeatedly to reopen capital cases on spurious grounds at the eleventh hour.

The Chief Justice said he did not attribute these trends to the shift to working remotely after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
He said he has asked Justice Valerie Thean and Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim to spearhead a team that will develop a strategy aimed at re-establishing the moral centre and the values of the profession for existing practitioners, and at fostering them among new entrants to the ranks.
The Chief Justice would also like the group to consider the impact of the changes arising from events of the last three years, from the perspective of the professional and ethical well-being of the profession.
He said: “The practice of law is not just a way to earn a living. It is a calling to participate in the administration of justice.”
He said he had occasion to reflect on this when he heard the cases of some aspiring lawyers who had cheated in some papers for Part B of the Bar examinations in 2020.
All 11 candidates who were caught cheating in the exam have been allowed to withdraw their applications to be admitted to the Bar.
“I think we need to emphasise the inescapable truth that being a lawyer entails a choice to live by those values of honesty, integrity and service which transcend our individual careers, cases or examinations,” the Chief Justice said.
He noted that the practice of law has traditionally been learnt by apprenticeship, and its values have been transmitted through sustained mentorship.
This entails watching and listening to one’s mentors and role models. Having spent much of the past three or so years working remotely, there will inevitably be some loss of such opportunities, the Chief Justice said.
“Even with hybrid arrangements, we should not think that mentoring can be put aside just because we are working from home. On the contrary, there must be a conscientious, intentional effort to mentor our juniors and to invest in their developmental growth,” he said.
He also briefly touched on the issue of salary, which was cited as a push factor by some who chose to leave the profession.
He observed that lawyers have traditionally been well compensated, although market forces ultimately determine salaries. Those forces have recently put considerable pressure on salaries at local law firms, and the legal service and the judicial service recently adjusted salaries and their compensation frameworks to narrow the gap, especially for younger officers.
“That said, we should also recognise that those who come to the law because they think it is a road to quick riches will likely find disappointment. Law is a demanding vocation,” said the Chief Justice.
“It takes time, decades in fact, to achieve a higher degree of competence. It is therefore best seen as a calling to be answered with devotion and stamina, rather than as a gig to be experienced.”
In his speech, Law Society president Adrian Tan reported that membership had shrunk for the first time in five years.
Mr Tan said that from 2017 to 2021, the society’s membership grew year on year, reaching a high of 6,333 in 2021. But in 2022, it dropped to 6,273 members.
The loss came from juniors who left the profession after practising for less than five years, he noted.
International studies suggest the decline in lawyer numbers may not be a Singapore problem, said Mr Tan, who revealed that the Law Society has commissioned a study to investigate the reasons behind the decline.
shanrot.JPG
 
If he has been called to the Bar in Singapore as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, he is considered a lawyer. Many in-house counsels have not been called to the Bar, and as long as your name is not in the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors in the Supreme Court, YES, you are not a lawyer.

If he has been called to the Bar in Singapore, but does not have a practicing certificate, then he is known as a non-practicing lawyer.
He can be to called to this bar anytime.

image.jpg
 
Lawyer these days only sounds good. But their life sucks. Slog like fuck but earning pittance. Clients these days all damn chowkuan when it comes to payment. There are other easier ways to make money than being a lawyer.
 
Lawyer these days only sounds good. But their life sucks. Slog like fuck but earning pittance. Clients these days all damn chowkuan when it comes to payment. There are other easier ways to make money than being a lawyer.
The best lawyers are those that work for drug cartels.
 
Back
Top