-
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.
Justice Vincent Hoong sure made Davinder Singh look bad
- Thread starter Aaron carter
- Start date
I am sure it must have been really embarrasingh for Davinder Singh.
Doesn't he still gets paid and no discount.
he has to make Laolan Wong look good especially erections coming. 皮蛋猩better watch out...he may soon join 伊絲滑蛋in Changi Hilton
Imagine getting 12 months after getting Davinder Singh. What if u get a clown lawyer like M Ravi? To be hanged?
That's not how I see it. He's indirectly telling Bahyi to appeal knowing that the Appellate Court is likely to reduce the sentence to what the Prosecution had originally proposed. In which case, the following purposes are achieved:
1. To show to the world that the laws of Sinkieland are extremely harsh when it comes to corruption.
2. But the court is also fair and sympathetic in it's sentencing which the court of appeal has had the opportunity to review.
3. If the appeal against sentencing is allowed and Iswaran's sentence is reduced, it'll look good on Bahyi. In fact, his reputation will be even better.
So, it's a win win situation for all parties.
1. To show to the world that the laws of Sinkieland are extremely harsh when it comes to corruption.
2. But the court is also fair and sympathetic in it's sentencing which the court of appeal has had the opportunity to review.
3. If the appeal against sentencing is allowed and Iswaran's sentence is reduced, it'll look good on Bahyi. In fact, his reputation will be even better.
So, it's a win win situation for all parties.
Singapore is a 3rd world banana republic
Judge are not there to make any freaking lawyer look good.
What do you expect from a kangaroo court? Even if you got the best King's Counsel silks from the UK to represent Iswaran, they'd be humiliated. The way our judges interpret and execute the law is extremely arbitrary and subject the whims and vested interests of the executive.
The insignificant nobody me can't say the same for other Nations, but HERE in Singapore - Justice is BLIND - it FEARS OR FAVORS NONE.
While our judges are appointed, they are appointed thru ELECTED legislators & the Executive, to interprete legislated laws, from a WIDE field of proven successful & dedicated lawyers over YEARS in the country.
Only the best are selected, BUT it is a VOLUNTARY appointment. Most are due for retirement, & by their successes in the legal field to support & Upholding the Rule of Law in our Nation, NONE can begrudge them of their retirement. regardless of the pay or benefits for continued service beyond retirement.
Thus, those who volunteered to continue serving our Nation, must be respected for their wisdom & dedication in UPHOLDING the Rule of Law in our society, our Singapore Civilization & Nation.
Why corruption case got no fine
Greedy for money heavy fine is best deterrent
4 months inside can come out with ill gotten gains and pension all intact retire into sunset. What a great deal
Greedy for money heavy fine is best deterrent
4 months inside can come out with ill gotten gains and pension all intact retire into sunset. What a great deal
You're either talking through your hat, or drinking too much of the PAP Kool-Aid. Our courts have been far from independent or neutral when it comes to politically charged cases.
Case in point:
"There is a law in Singapore that prohibits loitering "within 200m of a polling station" on elections day. In 1997, GCT, LHL and TT were loitering inside a polling station in Cheng San on elections day. A complaint was made. The Attorney-General of the day concluded that no offence had been committed because the law prohibited loitering "within 200m", which is not the same as loitering inside. That AG later became the Chief Justice 9 years later. Make of that what you will."
Last edited:
That was an interesting case you brought up. It is a matter of SEMANTICS, with RELEVANCES to legislators getting the RIGHT wordings in place, so that there be NO disputes in question, & a learning lesson for other Elected legislatives - current or opposition - to take serious note of.
Ultimately, our Court is the 3rd arm of Democracy. Should our Courts - whom does not make laws but only interpret Legislated laws by Parliament, be not independent or neutral, that AG would had been appointed Chief Justice the NEXT day after elections.
But it took him 9 long arduous years, with PROVEN dedication in many, many more other legal disputes resolution, to uphold the Rule of Law in our Singapore Civilization, to be selected by legislators, Executive & peers, to become the Chief Justice, an ambition of EVERY lawyer but only one can make it.
Similar threads
