ok... i believe he will not be guilty provide these bikes r supplied without seats like boss sam's.
-
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.
Nparks ass director on trial next month for 22k Brompton bike scandal
- Thread starter Rogue Trader
- Start date
-
- Tags
- corruption nparks
ok... i believe he will not be guilty provide these bikes r supplied without seats like boss sam's.
Die die also have to crucify this mother fucker. Time for Sinkee peasants to do their part. Crucify these mother fuckers who eat money while Ah Pek and Ah Ma collect used carton boxes and empty mineral water bottles.
Updated: 04/03/2014 17:56 | By Channel NewsAsia
NParks director in Brompton bikes case to take stand when trial resumes
SINGAPORE: The National Parks Board (NParks) assistant director implicated in the controversial Brompton bikes case will take the stand in his own defence when the trial resumes on April 14.
The defence had indicated that 42-year-old Bernard Lim Yong Soon will be testifying in court.
Bernard Lim is fighting two counts of providing false information to officers from the Ministry of National Development (MND), who were conducting an internal audit into NParks' purchase of 26 Brompton bikes between June and July 2012.
Bernard Lim, who was overseeing the purchase, had allegedly denied being a friend of Mr Lawrence Lim Chun How, the director of Bikehop Singapore, which had won the tender to supply the bikes.
He also allegedly abetted Mr Lawrence Lim to provide the same false information to the auditors.
On Thursday, District Judge Marvin Bay ruled that Bernard Lim had a case to answer to, following the prosecution's rebuttals.
Prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy argued that the elements of the two charges were fulfilled.
Pointing to evidence heard in court, Mr Jumabhoy said the accused knew he was lying to the auditors and had admitted to this in his statements taken by the authorities.
The evidence of the MND auditors also showed that Bernard Lim had lied.
But Mr Jumabhoy stressed that it was the accused's reason for lying that was important.
"As the defence pointed out in the course of their submissions, the mere fact that a person lies, or that he lies to a public servant, is, in and of itself, not an offence. The prosecution does not suggest otherwise. It is the accused's reason for the lie that is important," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He added that the prosecution's case is that Bernard Lim had lied in an attempt to cover up his relationship with Mr Lawrence Lim "to avoid any suggestion of impropriety in the procurement process".
"Such impropriety may have become the subject of a criminal investigation, which it did, and disciplinary proceedings, and the accused was desperate to avoid both."
The prosecutor pointed out that the defence had not challenged Mr Lawrence Lim's evidence that the accused told him over the phone to "try not to tell anybody" that they knew each other.
The prosecution's case is that there is no requirement for the accused to batter Mr Lawrence Lim into submission.
Mr Jumabhoy said: "Plainly asking a person to lie when he had not thought to do so, and wants to do otherwise, can amount to either or all "active suggestion", "support", "stimulation" or "encouragement"."
As for the defence's argument that the charges have been framed ambiguously, the prosecution countered that the ambiguities were created by the defence and "simply do not exist".
On Tuesday, defence lawyer Lawrence Ang's key argument was that what Bernard Lim told the MND auditors did not amount to "information" as described under Section 182.
Mr Ang said the information that initiated the MND interview of the accused and Mr Lawrence Lim, was taken from online sources such as The Real Singapore blog and fuckwarezone forum, so it was "stale".
Another point raised by Mr Ang - that there is no evidence that the three auditors had the "lawful duty" and power to investigate the personal relationship between the accused and Mr Lawrence Lim.
The maximum punishment for providing false information or abetting someone to provide false information is a jail term of one year and a $5,000 fine. - CNA/de
Khaw Boon Wan thinks Brompton bikes are value for money. 
http://mndsingapore.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/value-for-money/
http://mndsingapore.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/value-for-money/
he is doing a good job by making the property agents not so proud...
Khaw Boon Wan thinks Brompton bikes are value for money.
http://mndsingapore.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/value-for-money/
No wonder. My partner and I have also been trying to bid for govt projects in gebiz unsuccessfully. Now i know why. Thanks for opening my "eyes"!!
Is this chap a superscale civil serpent? I mean to lose his job over a 50k ++++ contract is abit dumb...i mean his pay is tat amount for a few months right? N if he no connections... Mad khaw will make him the sacrificial lamb...
The price is reasonable indeed.
Would have upz your points if I could... the icon for points seems to have disappear?
http://shop.dynamicbicycles.com/
yaya papaya face
Brompton bikes trial concludes
SINGAPORE — The trial involving the National Parks Board (NParks) officer who is accused of lying to auditors that he did not know a bicycle supplier in the Brompton bikes case concluded this morning (April 15).
Bernard Lim Yong Soon had been expected to take the stand after District Judge Marvin Bay ruled earlier this month that he had a case to answer, as the Judge found that prosecutors had established a prima facie case.
But Lim’s lawyer, Mr Lawrence Ang, informed the court this morning that his client was electing to remain silent. The Defence also said that it was not calling any witnesses.
With the conclusion of trial proceedings, Mr Bay is expected to deliver his verdict on May 29.
Brompton bikes trial concludes
SINGAPORE — The trial involving the National Parks Board (NParks) officer who is accused of lying to auditors that he did not know a bicycle supplier in the Brompton bikes case concluded this morning (April 15).
Bernard Lim Yong Soon had been expected to take the stand after District Judge Marvin Bay ruled earlier this month that he had a case to answer, as the Judge found that prosecutors had established a prima facie case.
But Lim’s lawyer, Mr Lawrence Ang, informed the court this morning that his client was electing to remain silent. The Defence also said that it was not calling any witnesses.
With the conclusion of trial proceedings, Mr Bay is expected to deliver his verdict on May 29.
This is the archetypal 狗官脸. In ancient China, if you ever had the misfortune of finding yourself in the court of a magistrate with such a face, be prepared to get jailed or beaten unless you cough up a big bribe.
What should we do with this kind of 贪官?
10 most brutal execution methods in ancient China
Posted on January 29, 2013 by Peter
Boiling, Ling Chi, Chariot-tearing, Castration, the list goes on… Ancient Chinese were pretty creative at torture prisoners. Here are some kinds of Chinese punishment that are considered most cruel.
1. Flaying (剥皮)
Brutal to the bone, it involved removing the skin from the body of a still living prisoner.The victim was flayed alive as part of a public execution, after which the skin was nailed to the wall as a warning, so that others would heed the lesson and never ever dare to defy the law. Flaying was used by Sun Hao, Fu Sheng, and Gao Heng.
2. Waist Chopping (腰 斩)
This means cutting a person’s body into half by chopping the waist. Because human major organs are on the upper half of the body, the prisoner will not die immediately after chopping and will still be alive for some time before death.
3. Ling Chi (凌 迟)
Ling Chi – execution by slow cutting – was practiced in China until it was outlawed in 1905. In the execution, the criminal is slowly cut in the arms, legs, and chest, until finally they are beheaded or stabbed in the heart.
4. Chariot-tearing (车裂 )
Simply tie each rope onto the head, the two hands, and two legs of the prisoner. Then connect 5 ropes to 5 horses or chariots respectively. Allow 5 horses to gallop away in 5 different directions, and thereby tearing a person’s body into 6 parts.
5. Five Cutting (俱五刑)
This means cutting away the head, feet, hands, ears as well as gorge out the eyes. Empress Lü Zhi in Han Dynasty had Concubine Qi`s limbs chopped off, eyes gouged out, ears sliced off, forced her to drink a potion that made her mute, and thrown into a latrine. She called Qi a “human swine”.
6. Hanging ( 缢 首)
Ancient Chinese use the bowstring to carry out death penalty …… the bow is put around prisoner`s neck with the bowstring facing forward, the executioner then begins to rotate the bow in the back until the criminal dies.
7. Boiling (烹煮)
The executioner put prisoner in a big pot filled with water and then light a fire below to heat the water up. As the water temperature rises, the prisoner will be boiled to death. There are many early woodcut drawings of prisoners meeting their end in pots of boiling water according to ancient Chinese accounts
8. Castration (宫 刑)
What’s castration? Castration is an operation to remove man`s genitalia (penis and testicles). In ancient China, castration was a traditional punishment , for instance, for prisoners of war or traitors. Even high-ranking officials could face the fate.
9. Chinese Bamboo Torture
The victim was suspended over a bamboo shoot, and since bamboo grows so fast, the shoot would grow into and out of the victims torso over several days, causing a slow and painful death.
10. The Nine Familial Exterminations (株连九族)
It was the most serious punishment for a capital offense in Ancient China.Typically associated with offenses such as treason, the punishment involved the execution of all relatives of an individual, which were categorized into nine groups.
10 most brutal execution methods in ancient China
Posted on January 29, 2013 by Peter
Boiling, Ling Chi, Chariot-tearing, Castration, the list goes on… Ancient Chinese were pretty creative at torture prisoners. Here are some kinds of Chinese punishment that are considered most cruel.
1. Flaying (剥皮)
Brutal to the bone, it involved removing the skin from the body of a still living prisoner.The victim was flayed alive as part of a public execution, after which the skin was nailed to the wall as a warning, so that others would heed the lesson and never ever dare to defy the law. Flaying was used by Sun Hao, Fu Sheng, and Gao Heng.
2. Waist Chopping (腰 斩)
This means cutting a person’s body into half by chopping the waist. Because human major organs are on the upper half of the body, the prisoner will not die immediately after chopping and will still be alive for some time before death.
3. Ling Chi (凌 迟)
Ling Chi – execution by slow cutting – was practiced in China until it was outlawed in 1905. In the execution, the criminal is slowly cut in the arms, legs, and chest, until finally they are beheaded or stabbed in the heart.
4. Chariot-tearing (车裂 )
Simply tie each rope onto the head, the two hands, and two legs of the prisoner. Then connect 5 ropes to 5 horses or chariots respectively. Allow 5 horses to gallop away in 5 different directions, and thereby tearing a person’s body into 6 parts.
5. Five Cutting (俱五刑)
This means cutting away the head, feet, hands, ears as well as gorge out the eyes. Empress Lü Zhi in Han Dynasty had Concubine Qi`s limbs chopped off, eyes gouged out, ears sliced off, forced her to drink a potion that made her mute, and thrown into a latrine. She called Qi a “human swine”.
6. Hanging ( 缢 首)
Ancient Chinese use the bowstring to carry out death penalty …… the bow is put around prisoner`s neck with the bowstring facing forward, the executioner then begins to rotate the bow in the back until the criminal dies.
7. Boiling (烹煮)
The executioner put prisoner in a big pot filled with water and then light a fire below to heat the water up. As the water temperature rises, the prisoner will be boiled to death. There are many early woodcut drawings of prisoners meeting their end in pots of boiling water according to ancient Chinese accounts
8. Castration (宫 刑)
What’s castration? Castration is an operation to remove man`s genitalia (penis and testicles). In ancient China, castration was a traditional punishment , for instance, for prisoners of war or traitors. Even high-ranking officials could face the fate.
9. Chinese Bamboo Torture
The victim was suspended over a bamboo shoot, and since bamboo grows so fast, the shoot would grow into and out of the victims torso over several days, causing a slow and painful death.
10. The Nine Familial Exterminations (株连九族)
It was the most serious punishment for a capital offense in Ancient China.Typically associated with offenses such as treason, the punishment involved the execution of all relatives of an individual, which were categorized into nine groups.
<header style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, 'DejaVu Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 15.555556297302246px; line-height: 23.999998092651367px;">贪官 has decided against defending himself in court.
屁股洗白白准备进牢吧！
Brompton bikes: Accused opts not to put up defence
</header>
SINGAPORE — Having fought against accusations of wrongdoing so far, the National Parks Board (NParks) officer in the dock in the high-profile Brompton bikes case yesterday surprisingly opted not to put up a defence, clearing the way for the court to deliver its verdict next month.
BY AMIR HUSSAIN -
APRIL 16
SINGAPORE — Having fought against accusations of wrongdoing so far, the National Parks Board (NParks) officer in the dock in the high-profile Brompton bikes case yesterday surprisingly opted not to put up a defence, clearing the way for the court to deliver its verdict next month.
Less than two weeks ago, Bernard Lim Yong Soon, 42, had indicated he would take the stand, after the court dismissed his argument that he had no case to answer because the prosecution had not proven a prima facie case.
Yesterday, however, lawyers for the NParks Assistant Director, accused of lying to auditors about his relationship with a bicycle supplier who sold 26 Brompton bikes to the statutory board for S$57,200, said their client had changed his mind.
The defence is also not calling any witnesses and has wrapped up its case, lawyer Lawrence Ang added.
District Judge Marvin Bay told Lim that where an accused elects not to give evidence, the court may draw any inference from it, including those that may be adverse to him.
After Lim confirmed he was sticking to his decision, the judge instructed both parties to exchange written submissions on May 15 and tender their replies to the court a week later.
Lim, who was overseeing the NParks’ controversial purchase of the Brompton bikes, is facing two charges.
He is alleged to have hidden his friendship with supplier Lawrence Lim Chun How from auditors from the Ministry of National Development looking into the purchase. A second charge alleges that he instigated Mr Lim, Director of BikeHop Singapore, which won the tender to provide the foldable bikes, to perpetuate the lie to the same auditors.
During the trial, the supplier testified that he had befriended Lim in 2011 at a cycling event. He also told the court that when online chatter questioning the tender grew after NParks’ purchase came to light, Lim asked him to keep mum about their friendship and unfriend him on Facebook.
However, he agreed, under cross-examination, that Lim did not insist that he lie about their friendship nor was there an agreement between them to do so.
The judge is expected to hand down his verdict on May 29. If convicted, Lim, who is currently suspended from his job, can be jailed for up to a year and/or fined up to S$5,000, for each of the charges.
屁股洗白白准备进牢吧！
Brompton bikes: Accused opts not to put up defence
</header>
SINGAPORE — Having fought against accusations of wrongdoing so far, the National Parks Board (NParks) officer in the dock in the high-profile Brompton bikes case yesterday surprisingly opted not to put up a defence, clearing the way for the court to deliver its verdict next month.
BY AMIR HUSSAIN -
APRIL 16
SINGAPORE — Having fought against accusations of wrongdoing so far, the National Parks Board (NParks) officer in the dock in the high-profile Brompton bikes case yesterday surprisingly opted not to put up a defence, clearing the way for the court to deliver its verdict next month.
Less than two weeks ago, Bernard Lim Yong Soon, 42, had indicated he would take the stand, after the court dismissed his argument that he had no case to answer because the prosecution had not proven a prima facie case.
Yesterday, however, lawyers for the NParks Assistant Director, accused of lying to auditors about his relationship with a bicycle supplier who sold 26 Brompton bikes to the statutory board for S$57,200, said their client had changed his mind.
The defence is also not calling any witnesses and has wrapped up its case, lawyer Lawrence Ang added.
District Judge Marvin Bay told Lim that where an accused elects not to give evidence, the court may draw any inference from it, including those that may be adverse to him.
After Lim confirmed he was sticking to his decision, the judge instructed both parties to exchange written submissions on May 15 and tender their replies to the court a week later.
Lim, who was overseeing the NParks’ controversial purchase of the Brompton bikes, is facing two charges.
He is alleged to have hidden his friendship with supplier Lawrence Lim Chun How from auditors from the Ministry of National Development looking into the purchase. A second charge alleges that he instigated Mr Lim, Director of BikeHop Singapore, which won the tender to provide the foldable bikes, to perpetuate the lie to the same auditors.
During the trial, the supplier testified that he had befriended Lim in 2011 at a cycling event. He also told the court that when online chatter questioning the tender grew after NParks’ purchase came to light, Lim asked him to keep mum about their friendship and unfriend him on Facebook.
However, he agreed, under cross-examination, that Lim did not insist that he lie about their friendship nor was there an agreement between them to do so.
The judge is expected to hand down his verdict on May 29. If convicted, Lim, who is currently suspended from his job, can be jailed for up to a year and/or fined up to S$5,000, for each of the charges.
Khaw Boon Wan thinks Brompton bikes are value for money.
http://mndsingapore.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/value-for-money/
he was talking about the bikes or the stolen toothpicks?
Fine 10k or around there. Can start looking for a job at his friend bike shop.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/brompton-bikes-case/1126752.html?cid=FBSG
guilty! tio cheng liao...
guilty! tio cheng liao...
The bikes lah!...back in Penang...the bikes, not only do not have seats...the wheels but no spokes..!!..toothpicks no value, unless those are the 'special ones' by a 'special restaurant' given to 'honored guests'...made of, Ivory, Jade & even gold...wahh!! , then they are value for money... ha ha ha
Similar threads
