- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,575
- Points
- 113
Would Pinky make another public apology?
-
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.
Serious Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong
- Thread starter Froggy
- Start date
Would Pinky make another public apology?
Why? You jealous ar?
Here is something that has come from an interesting source.
The will was read on a Sunday, 12th April 2015. The next day Ho Ching notifies the Temasek Board that she is taking 3 months sabbatical. The media is notified on Tuesday. It also appears that she has been clearing stuff from 38 before she left for the overseas trip and after her return and all this before the will was read. It also appears that PMO and Cabinet did not want to reveal to the courts the date the transcript was received by the cabinet secretary.
NHB nows says they collected the items on 6 April - again before the will was read.
Looks like this woman has a lot to explain.
The will was read on a Sunday, 12th April 2015. The next day Ho Ching notifies the Temasek Board that she is taking 3 months sabbatical. The media is notified on Tuesday. It also appears that she has been clearing stuff from 38 before she left for the overseas trip and after her return and all this before the will was read. It also appears that PMO and Cabinet did not want to reveal to the courts the date the transcript was received by the cabinet secretary.
NHB nows says they collected the items on 6 April - again before the will was read.
Looks like this woman has a lot to explain.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,315
- Points
- 113
So, my little bird was correct? Because now even Hsien Yang is saying that Whore Jinx came to the house and remove the papers. he might have gotten the exact dates wrong, but nevertheless, he is saying Whore Jinx or her agents removed the paper without their consent.
You are very well connected indeed papsmearer!
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 32,792
- Points
- 113
I am sure you guys will agree with me that HC needs to be interrogated. I will gladly take up this role and I guarantee in less than 2 hrs, she will break down and confess.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 32,792
- Points
- 113
Papsmearer is Lee Hsien Yang!
Now that you mention it, it might make sense! All those vulgarities and belittling comments fit in with that theory too!
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,315
- Points
- 113
Thank you Ptader for correctly attributing it to MOI, a not that moron Screwedball.
Papsmearer have you heard any more juicy bits? Something that will really have major impact on LHL and HC rather than these family type squabbles? Eg revelations that they have been misappropriating money?
There was a number of press report on 29th Sept 2016 on this.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...-lee-kuan-yew-estate-rights-to-i-7794882Court dismisses lawsuit to grant Lee Kuan Yew estate rights to interview transcripts
Judge Tay Yong Kwang ruled that the interview transcripts from the founding Prime Minister come under the purview of the Official Secrets Act.
29 Sep 2016 05:09PM
SINGAPORE: The High Court on Wednesday (Sep 28) dismissed the application by founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s children, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, for rights and access to transcripts relating to a series of interviews given by the late Mr Lee to the Government’s Oral History Department between July 1981 and July 1982.
In the court ruling, published on the Supreme Court’s website, Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang ruled that the interview transcripts come under the purview of the Official Secrets Act (OSA). "In my view, the excerpts above support the Government's position that the Transcripts were not created as a personal enterprise by Lee Kuan Yew to record his observations for his own benefit.
"Instead, they were one of a series of similar recordings that were created as part of the Government's project to document the history of Singapore, then a city-state with shallow historical roots."
Due to the political sensitivity of its contents, the late Mr Lee and the Government put in place a "two key" system to control its custody and usage. To achieve this, he signed an agreement with the Cabinet Secretary and the Director of Archives in 1983, with specific terms governing the use and administration of the transcripts. All three signatories are now deceased.
Judge Tay also said that as the OSA applies to the transcripts, the estate cannot grant access, supply of copies of or use of the transcripts without the Government's authorisation. "Viewed in that light, the contractual rights that accrue to the Lee Kuan Yew estate under the interview agreement are curtailed by the OSA."
He wrote that the Lee Kuan Yew estate has the copyright to the interview transcripts, but only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms of an agreement signed related to the interviews.
"In my view, this copyright was vested in the Lee Kuan Yew estate only for the limited purpose of safeguarding the confidentiality of the transcripts, in that ensuring that the Government abides by the interview agreement," he wrote.
"Since no one thus far appeared to have been given express written express permission by Lee Kuan Yew to deal with the transcripts, the five-year moratorium as argued by the Government would result. This is in line with Lee Kuan Yew's undisputed intent not to have his politically sensitive comments quoted after his death."
As provided for in the agreement, the Government may hand the transcripts to the Director of Archives after a five-year moratorium following Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death.
TECHNICAL BREACH OF AGREEMENT 'MINOR'
The judge also noted that the Government had technically breached the terms of agreement when it allowed Mr Lee Hsien Yang to view the transcripts at the Ministry of Home Affairs.
According to background to the case cited by Judge Tay, the interview transcripts were at the late Mr Lee's Oxley Road home when he died on Mar 23, 2015. Sometime between Mar 23 and May 5 last year, a family member, thinking that the transcripts were official Government documents, handed them over to the Cabinet Secretary, Mr Tan Kee Yong, without the knowledge or consent of the Lee Kuan Yew estate.
The estate first knew of the transcripts when told by the family member on May 10 that there was an acknowledgement of receipt from the Cabinet Secretary. Later that month, Mr Lee Hsien Yang requested to see the transcripts, and the Government agreed to this request on the condition that it was done at the MHA and sign an undertaking to secrecy under the OSA.
Mr Lee, on understanding the transcripts were covered by the OSA and told by his family member that the documents were marked "Secret", complied. However, after looking through the transcripts, he found out that they were not marked "Secret".
Judge Tay said he viewed the breach in allowing Mr Lee to view the transcripts as “minor” as it was done out of a request from the estate, and by the founding Prime Minister’s children.
"However, I accept the explanation that it was done because of the request made by the Lee Kuan Yew estate, and as mentioned before, the executors are Lee Kuan Yew's daughter and younger son. The technical breach was therefore minor and does not change my belief that this Government will act honourably and in accordance with the spirit of the interview agreement."
The transcripts are to remain in the custody of the current Cabinet Secretary according to the original agreement, added Judge Tay.
He said the fact that the transcripts were specified to be kept by the Cabinet Secretary, instead of the late Mr Lee, indicates that the agreement "was not the usual copyright agreement".
The Government is also to inform the estate’s lawyers whether the late Mr Lee had “given written permission to anyone for access to, supply of copies of or use of the transcripts” during his lifetime. This is to be done within two weeks from Sep 28, unless the Government requests a longer period for compliance, the judge added.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee’s application on costs of the proceedings will also be decided after they have filed their written submissions within two weeks of the judgement, Judge Tay ruled.
The lawsuit was first filed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children last September.
ESTATE CONSIDERING APPEALS AGAINST COURT'S DECISION: SOLICITORS
Rajah & Tann, the estate's solicitors, said in a statement that the estate welcomed the High Court's decision that the estate had the copyright to the transcripts and tape recordings of the interviews.
"This resolves a key point on which the Government disagreed with the estate. The estate also awaits the Government's compliance with the Court's direction to inform the estate within two weeks whether the late Mr Lee had given his express written permission to anyone for access to, supply of copies or use of the tape recordings and transcripts."
However, the law firm also said it was considering the possibility of appealing parts of the Court's decision.
"The estate is reviewing the Court's ruling that the copyright vested in the estate is limited to ensuring the Government's compliance with the interview agreement, and does not include a right to use or make copies of the tape recordings and transcripts. The estate believes that such an interpretation of the interview agreement runs contrary to the context, language and purpose of the interview agreement, and is considering an appeal against this ruling. The estate is also considering seeking leave to appeal against the Court's decision to expunge parts of affidavits and documents filed for the purpose of the hearing," it stated.
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on Friday issued a clarification on an assertion in the statement from the estate of Mr Lee.
"The statement is incorrect in saying that the High Court decision that the estate holds a limited copyright to the oral history transcripts was a 'key point' that the Government had 'disagreed with' the estate on," said the AGC.
"On the contrary, the Government agreed that the estate had a limited copyright to the transcript under the interview agreement between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government. In fact, the High Court’s finding that the estate held a copyright, 'but only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms' of the agreement, is identical with the argument that the Attorney-General submitted to the court on behalf of the Government on Jul 14, 2016," it said.
Source: CNA/kk
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...grant-lee-kuan-yew-estate-rights-to-i-7794882
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...-lee-kuan-yew-estate-rights-to-i-7794882Court dismisses lawsuit to grant Lee Kuan Yew estate rights to interview transcripts
Judge Tay Yong Kwang ruled that the interview transcripts from the founding Prime Minister come under the purview of the Official Secrets Act.
29 Sep 2016 05:09PM
SINGAPORE: The High Court on Wednesday (Sep 28) dismissed the application by founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s children, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, for rights and access to transcripts relating to a series of interviews given by the late Mr Lee to the Government’s Oral History Department between July 1981 and July 1982.
In the court ruling, published on the Supreme Court’s website, Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang ruled that the interview transcripts come under the purview of the Official Secrets Act (OSA). "In my view, the excerpts above support the Government's position that the Transcripts were not created as a personal enterprise by Lee Kuan Yew to record his observations for his own benefit.
"Instead, they were one of a series of similar recordings that were created as part of the Government's project to document the history of Singapore, then a city-state with shallow historical roots."
Due to the political sensitivity of its contents, the late Mr Lee and the Government put in place a "two key" system to control its custody and usage. To achieve this, he signed an agreement with the Cabinet Secretary and the Director of Archives in 1983, with specific terms governing the use and administration of the transcripts. All three signatories are now deceased.
Judge Tay also said that as the OSA applies to the transcripts, the estate cannot grant access, supply of copies of or use of the transcripts without the Government's authorisation. "Viewed in that light, the contractual rights that accrue to the Lee Kuan Yew estate under the interview agreement are curtailed by the OSA."
He wrote that the Lee Kuan Yew estate has the copyright to the interview transcripts, but only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms of an agreement signed related to the interviews.
"In my view, this copyright was vested in the Lee Kuan Yew estate only for the limited purpose of safeguarding the confidentiality of the transcripts, in that ensuring that the Government abides by the interview agreement," he wrote.
"Since no one thus far appeared to have been given express written express permission by Lee Kuan Yew to deal with the transcripts, the five-year moratorium as argued by the Government would result. This is in line with Lee Kuan Yew's undisputed intent not to have his politically sensitive comments quoted after his death."
As provided for in the agreement, the Government may hand the transcripts to the Director of Archives after a five-year moratorium following Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death.
TECHNICAL BREACH OF AGREEMENT 'MINOR'
The judge also noted that the Government had technically breached the terms of agreement when it allowed Mr Lee Hsien Yang to view the transcripts at the Ministry of Home Affairs.
According to background to the case cited by Judge Tay, the interview transcripts were at the late Mr Lee's Oxley Road home when he died on Mar 23, 2015. Sometime between Mar 23 and May 5 last year, a family member, thinking that the transcripts were official Government documents, handed them over to the Cabinet Secretary, Mr Tan Kee Yong, without the knowledge or consent of the Lee Kuan Yew estate.
The estate first knew of the transcripts when told by the family member on May 10 that there was an acknowledgement of receipt from the Cabinet Secretary. Later that month, Mr Lee Hsien Yang requested to see the transcripts, and the Government agreed to this request on the condition that it was done at the MHA and sign an undertaking to secrecy under the OSA.
Mr Lee, on understanding the transcripts were covered by the OSA and told by his family member that the documents were marked "Secret", complied. However, after looking through the transcripts, he found out that they were not marked "Secret".
Judge Tay said he viewed the breach in allowing Mr Lee to view the transcripts as “minor” as it was done out of a request from the estate, and by the founding Prime Minister’s children.
"However, I accept the explanation that it was done because of the request made by the Lee Kuan Yew estate, and as mentioned before, the executors are Lee Kuan Yew's daughter and younger son. The technical breach was therefore minor and does not change my belief that this Government will act honourably and in accordance with the spirit of the interview agreement."
The transcripts are to remain in the custody of the current Cabinet Secretary according to the original agreement, added Judge Tay.
He said the fact that the transcripts were specified to be kept by the Cabinet Secretary, instead of the late Mr Lee, indicates that the agreement "was not the usual copyright agreement".
The Government is also to inform the estate’s lawyers whether the late Mr Lee had “given written permission to anyone for access to, supply of copies of or use of the transcripts” during his lifetime. This is to be done within two weeks from Sep 28, unless the Government requests a longer period for compliance, the judge added.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee’s application on costs of the proceedings will also be decided after they have filed their written submissions within two weeks of the judgement, Judge Tay ruled.
The lawsuit was first filed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children last September.
ESTATE CONSIDERING APPEALS AGAINST COURT'S DECISION: SOLICITORS
Rajah & Tann, the estate's solicitors, said in a statement that the estate welcomed the High Court's decision that the estate had the copyright to the transcripts and tape recordings of the interviews.
"This resolves a key point on which the Government disagreed with the estate. The estate also awaits the Government's compliance with the Court's direction to inform the estate within two weeks whether the late Mr Lee had given his express written permission to anyone for access to, supply of copies or use of the tape recordings and transcripts."
However, the law firm also said it was considering the possibility of appealing parts of the Court's decision.
"The estate is reviewing the Court's ruling that the copyright vested in the estate is limited to ensuring the Government's compliance with the interview agreement, and does not include a right to use or make copies of the tape recordings and transcripts. The estate believes that such an interpretation of the interview agreement runs contrary to the context, language and purpose of the interview agreement, and is considering an appeal against this ruling. The estate is also considering seeking leave to appeal against the Court's decision to expunge parts of affidavits and documents filed for the purpose of the hearing," it stated.
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on Friday issued a clarification on an assertion in the statement from the estate of Mr Lee.
"The statement is incorrect in saying that the High Court decision that the estate holds a limited copyright to the oral history transcripts was a 'key point' that the Government had 'disagreed with' the estate on," said the AGC.
"On the contrary, the Government agreed that the estate had a limited copyright to the transcript under the interview agreement between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government. In fact, the High Court’s finding that the estate held a copyright, 'but only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms' of the agreement, is identical with the argument that the Attorney-General submitted to the court on behalf of the Government on Jul 14, 2016," it said.
Source: CNA/kk
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...grant-lee-kuan-yew-estate-rights-to-i-7794882
http://www.theindependent.sg/dpm-tharman-irks-netizens-for-coming-out-to-support-pm-lee/
DPM Tharman irks netizens for coming out to support PM Lee
June 22, 20172174
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
Earlier today Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam urged Singaporeans to have confidence in the Government. He tried to explain that Ministerial Committees are not uncommon and that he himself chairs several of such Committees.
He acknowledged that the PAP-led government had its share of policies that have turned out quite wrong at different points in our history, but dismissed it as a challenge in governance that will never disappear, and is a challenge everywhere in the world.
His post touched especially on the integrity of the different generations of PAP leaders and said that they were all men of honour. DPM Tharman said that PM Lee is committed to the system of preserving the rule of law, and of policy-making that balances public against private interests.
Readers of various media outlets who responded to DPM Tharman’s message of support for PM Lee criticised him for it.
Facebook user Seng Herng Yueng who responded to our post of the story in Facebook said: “Isn’t it the job of DPM to represent the interests of the citizens ? Has he forgotten his due diligence ? So instead of questioning the PM on so many of the alleged lapses (procuring deed of gift, installing personal lawyer as AG and so many more..) he went ahead to defend him ? I hv lost respect for this supposed last good guy of pap.”
The commenters with the most likes in The Straits Times report of the story in their Facebook similarly disapproved his message of support.
Joseph Kee: “Tharman, I always thought you are the clear thinking type but you joined the fray. There is nothing new in what you said which TCH had already said. Its the big glaring conflict of interest as a committee formed by ministers all of whom reports to the central figure of this whole controversy. I would expect the government to be smarter than that.Now it seems, when it was found out of this formation of the committee, the government is trying to wriggle its way out with all sorts of excuse.”
Lucy Chong: “Yes, set up ministerial committees to look into more urgent affairs like radicalized Muslims in our midst and armed forces. Leave private affairs and Wills of others alone. Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s dignity and legacy are being tarnished by unnecessary government interference. Advise your comrades to do the right thing.”
Leong Lim: “Our honourable minister Tharman, please don’t worry in this family affair & the committee that set up to deal with the options. Why don’t u set up more committees to look into improving our country’s economy, state welfare for the underprivileged & the senior citizens, creating more jobs instead of young abled bodied young people driving Uber & Grab. It’s a waste of our education system in training only drivers!”
Commenters with most number of likes in the Channel NewsAsia’s report in their Facebook also censured the DPM.
Frederick Lim: “Why is Oxley38 committee a secret and PM claimed he doesn’t know about it? You mean ministers can set up committees without approval from the boss? And why a secret committee is set up for a family dispute? Don’t claim national interest now when GCT (Goh Chok Tong) said it was a petty family dispute.”
Lupin Duabuipanda: “I don’t see a special committee being set up when the National Library at Stamford Rd is given up for a bypass , or the iconic Rochor Center being given up for (wait a min)… A bypass. And don’t get me start on Sungei Rd.”
Danny Yong: “The fact is you guys are trying to put aside the late LKY’s (Lee Kuan Yew’s) last wishes, plain and simple. That is a total disrespect to a great man.”
DPM Tharman irks netizens for coming out to support PM Lee
June 22, 20172174
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
Earlier today Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam urged Singaporeans to have confidence in the Government. He tried to explain that Ministerial Committees are not uncommon and that he himself chairs several of such Committees.
He acknowledged that the PAP-led government had its share of policies that have turned out quite wrong at different points in our history, but dismissed it as a challenge in governance that will never disappear, and is a challenge everywhere in the world.
His post touched especially on the integrity of the different generations of PAP leaders and said that they were all men of honour. DPM Tharman said that PM Lee is committed to the system of preserving the rule of law, and of policy-making that balances public against private interests.
Readers of various media outlets who responded to DPM Tharman’s message of support for PM Lee criticised him for it.
Facebook user Seng Herng Yueng who responded to our post of the story in Facebook said: “Isn’t it the job of DPM to represent the interests of the citizens ? Has he forgotten his due diligence ? So instead of questioning the PM on so many of the alleged lapses (procuring deed of gift, installing personal lawyer as AG and so many more..) he went ahead to defend him ? I hv lost respect for this supposed last good guy of pap.”
The commenters with the most likes in The Straits Times report of the story in their Facebook similarly disapproved his message of support.
Joseph Kee: “Tharman, I always thought you are the clear thinking type but you joined the fray. There is nothing new in what you said which TCH had already said. Its the big glaring conflict of interest as a committee formed by ministers all of whom reports to the central figure of this whole controversy. I would expect the government to be smarter than that.Now it seems, when it was found out of this formation of the committee, the government is trying to wriggle its way out with all sorts of excuse.”
Lucy Chong: “Yes, set up ministerial committees to look into more urgent affairs like radicalized Muslims in our midst and armed forces. Leave private affairs and Wills of others alone. Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s dignity and legacy are being tarnished by unnecessary government interference. Advise your comrades to do the right thing.”
Leong Lim: “Our honourable minister Tharman, please don’t worry in this family affair & the committee that set up to deal with the options. Why don’t u set up more committees to look into improving our country’s economy, state welfare for the underprivileged & the senior citizens, creating more jobs instead of young abled bodied young people driving Uber & Grab. It’s a waste of our education system in training only drivers!”
Commenters with most number of likes in the Channel NewsAsia’s report in their Facebook also censured the DPM.
Frederick Lim: “Why is Oxley38 committee a secret and PM claimed he doesn’t know about it? You mean ministers can set up committees without approval from the boss? And why a secret committee is set up for a family dispute? Don’t claim national interest now when GCT (Goh Chok Tong) said it was a petty family dispute.”
Lupin Duabuipanda: “I don’t see a special committee being set up when the National Library at Stamford Rd is given up for a bypass , or the iconic Rochor Center being given up for (wait a min)… A bypass. And don’t get me start on Sungei Rd.”
Danny Yong: “The fact is you guys are trying to put aside the late LKY’s (Lee Kuan Yew’s) last wishes, plain and simple. That is a total disrespect to a great man.”
Any photos of the master bedroom?
We the kaypoh citizens wld like to see the great sage taste of bedroom relating to how he get sexed started and end.
Even confuscius Laos or Mao we lkie yo see their bedroom sex things .... hehehe
We the kaypoh citizens wld like to see the great sage taste of bedroom relating to how he get sexed started and end.
Even confuscius Laos or Mao we lkie yo see their bedroom sex things .... hehehe
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,315
- Points
- 113
KNN, I broke oready lah. LOL
Haven't you heard? I gave my lancheow brother over $12 million for his share of Oxley and then have to contribute another $6 million to charities. I am now porkalai. I need Ling to buy me my first class ticket to Sydney.
I see. Sorry to hear that. I can see why you are so du lan with your brother. Lucky your wife rich.
Eh, got any big revelations or not? CPF very little money left is it? That's why they came up with Medishield Life? When the "subsidies" are gone, really can account for the losses then by reducing the so called CPF balances.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,315
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,315
- Points
- 113
I can do that in 2 mins.................by putting a
mirror in front of her and making her stare at it.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,315
- Points
- 113
Fern and I emphatically deny your accusation that I am PAPsmearer, ok?
Similar threads
