Me
To [email protected][email protected][email protected] and [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]_shanmugam@mla[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]@[email protected][email protected].[email protected]
Today at 6:23 PM
17th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
CC: ASP Mike Ting
Traffic Police
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against Mr Goh XX Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. I refer to your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to express my utter surprise and skepticism towards your past replies stating that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged and no further action will be taken against Mr. Goh XX. I would like to reiterate and emphasize on the following points.
a) I am Mr. Chua and I hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth. I am also willing to stand trial and testify against Mr. Goh’s illicit act for using a third party’s driving license to deduct 12 demerit points for the offense of speeding. The Traffic Light Camera between the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. (Report No: 113029596512). The vehicle that was slapped with the offense has a registration number, GQXXXXX and is classified under the category of company’s vehicle.
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took the rap for Mr Goh , I was shocked and stunned. Mr Ong was never a recognized legal employee of iRepair XX. Since the vehicle was registered as a company’s vehicle, Mr Ong should have no legal right nor access to the company vehicle as the action of a third party who is not affiliated to the company utilizing the company’s vehicle is an illegal act that contravenes the rules and regulation established by the Land Transport Authority. Being a law abiding citizen, I could not condone such an irresponsible and heterodox action taken by Mr Goh.
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have lodged a report regarding this complicit matter to LTA and LTA Officer responded that the traffic offence is under the juridical discreet of Traffic Police.
d) A thorough parse of this incident would reveal 2 offences that breached the laws set by the relevant authorities. The first being the fact that Mr Ong’s driving license was being made the scapegoat of this incident. It is indeed ironic how Mr Ong can even drive a company’s vehicle without being the employee of the company and yet escape the long arms of the law for violating the regulation vested by the land transport authority.(The regulation that Mr Ong transgressed was that no third party may drive a company’s vehicle without being a formal employee of the company)
e) The second offence lies with Mr Goh bribing Mr Ong to take the rap for his offense and Mr Ong voluntarily being complicit in this affair. Prima Facie, it seems fallacious that Mr Ong,a non-employee of irepair XX, would actually gain access to the company’s vehicle. However, if we consider the fact that Mr Goh borrowed the vehicle to Mr Ong, the above scenario would then seem plausible. However, Mr Goh would have contravened the regulation set by Land Transport Authority by doing so. Furthermore, Mr Goh was well aware of the fact that the company’s vehicle should never be loaned to a third party under any circumstances as he is a co-partner of IrepairXX and would have been familiar with the rules and regulation established by the authorities on the subject of Company Vehicle. Hence, we can see that if that was the supposed scenario, Mr Goh would have already transgressed the law. However, if we were to scrutinize this matter under the assumption that Mr Goh loaned the vehicle to Mr Ong, the fact that Mr Ong took the rap willingly when he could have pushed the blame to Mr Goh as there was assumed to be no traffic cameras to testify the identity of the driver since Mr Goh was the regular driver of the company’s vehicle is highly questionable. Adding on, the offense was captured by the traffic camera and I believe that an analysis of the image on that day would reveal the identity of the driver.
f) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine has been paid, does this imply that the case is closed? Moreover, Mr Ong had accepted a sum of $800 from Mr Goh as he had confessed to me that he took $800 dollars out of our monthly earnings to bribe Mr Ong to take the rap for him. Mr Goh had already committed 2 offenses which were talking on his mobile phone while driving and parking at a zig-zag double yellow line at simpang bedok. This has clearly proved that Mr Goh has been driving the company’s vehicle all the time from the partnership 30th October 2009 to 21st Jan 2013 when I engaged a towing vehicle to tow back the vehicle as it cannot renew the road insurance. This can be traced back to the denial of the renewal of the company’s ROC due to Mr Goh not topping-up his medisave money which is a mandatory under the company’s acts.
g) I recalled during Mr Goh’s license suspension period, Mr Goh had drove GQXXXXX at Blk 303 SengKang into the loading & unloading bay from the service road and I immediately stopped and warned him against doing so, but he refused and kept rebuking me in an arrogant tone: “who see it? Who see it?” This action of his has already infringed the Court Order and I have also informed the TP Investigating Officer M/s: Cecilia Neo regarding this issue.
h) Next, I have gathered enough concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that Mr Goh has been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipts without a company name, address as well as contact number to his customers and that is constituted as breach of the Company Acts, under section 144.I question your firm stance against Mr Goh that no further action will be taken against him when ACRA’s letter had clearly stated to me that Mr Goh had already been taken to task for it and your AGC letter still remain unchanged that no action will be taken against Mr Goh?
i) Lastly, I would also like to state that Mr Goh have threatened to amputate my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain Case No: CM-2266-13. This may be attributed to the fact that he has a guilty conscience and my exposure of his illegal actions may land him in trouble with the law.
j) In light of this, I earnestly exhort the TP and Attorney’s General Chamber to re-investigate this matter as such action by Mr Ong and Mr Goh does indeed constitute as providing false declaration and information to the Traffic Police.
Despite the fact that Mr Goh and I are now still engaged in an On-Going civil sue, I declare that I am not abusing this channel to gain an unfair advantage in the civil sue. I have faith in Singapore’s judicial system and I believe justice will be meted out duly in the end. I am merely carrying out my duties of a citizen and as a precedent partner of the company.
My Questions in question for the Traffic Police Investigating Officer are:-
1) Did the IO not have any doubts of this Ong and Goh’s relationship between each other? To my understanding that during our talking term, Mr Goh had revealed to me that he will say that he had get someone a so-called part-time worker to bear this 12 demerit points summon when I rejected him to use mine driving license and our partnership relation then turned sour!
2) As a precedent partner of myself and the rightful owner of this GQXXXXX why my statement does not merit in the prosecution of this Mr Goh and Mr Ong?
3) As spoken with ASP Mike Ting from TP on (17/1/2014) that it does required evidences and why my evidences given is not strong enough, just because the fine were paid or Mr Ong & Mr Goh coordination statement to render TP a quick closing on the matter?
4) I am also curious to find out how TP had submitted the report to the AGC?
5) I do not know this person Mr Ong until I decided to make this report.
6) In IO M/s: Cecilia Neo reply that the Condo at Oxford Guard’s House have no record of this GQXXXXX particulars and it is either Guard never record or Guard’s Record book were lost as this were told by the IO and immediately I did question the IO why you never go the address that I have given to asked our customer for verification that on the day 16/6/2011 did our customer saw this Mr Ong or just myself and Mr Goh and no news from the IO.
7) What make TP so certain that Ong is the said driver?
Thank you and best regards.
Yours faithfully,
_____________________
Mr Chua
To [email protected][email protected][email protected] and [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]_shanmugam@mla[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]@[email protected][email protected].[email protected]
Today at 6:23 PM
17th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor
Attorney-General’s Chambers
CC: ASP Mike Ting
Traffic Police
Dear Sirs,
RE: Re-Appeal to take Action Against Mr Goh XX Nric No: S25XXXXXX
1. I refer to your letter dated 27 December 2013 Reference No: AG/CJD/10/200/2012/81
2. First and foremost, I would like to express my utter surprise and skepticism towards your past replies stating that the prosecution’s position remains unchanged and no further action will be taken against Mr. Goh XX. I would like to reiterate and emphasize on the following points.
a) I am Mr. Chua and I hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I am speaking the truth. I am also willing to stand trial and testify against Mr. Goh’s illicit act for using a third party’s driving license to deduct 12 demerit points for the offense of speeding. The Traffic Light Camera between the junction of Lavender Street and Serangoon Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. (Report No: 113029596512). The vehicle that was slapped with the offense has a registration number, GQXXXXX and is classified under the category of company’s vehicle.
b) When I realized that Mr Ong took the rap for Mr Goh , I was shocked and stunned. Mr Ong was never a recognized legal employee of iRepair XX. Since the vehicle was registered as a company’s vehicle, Mr Ong should have no legal right nor access to the company vehicle as the action of a third party who is not affiliated to the company utilizing the company’s vehicle is an illegal act that contravenes the rules and regulation established by the Land Transport Authority. Being a law abiding citizen, I could not condone such an irresponsible and heterodox action taken by Mr Goh.
c) As GQXXXXX is a registered company vehicle, I have lodged a report regarding this complicit matter to LTA and LTA Officer responded that the traffic offence is under the juridical discreet of Traffic Police.
d) A thorough parse of this incident would reveal 2 offences that breached the laws set by the relevant authorities. The first being the fact that Mr Ong’s driving license was being made the scapegoat of this incident. It is indeed ironic how Mr Ong can even drive a company’s vehicle without being the employee of the company and yet escape the long arms of the law for violating the regulation vested by the land transport authority.(The regulation that Mr Ong transgressed was that no third party may drive a company’s vehicle without being a formal employee of the company)
e) The second offence lies with Mr Goh bribing Mr Ong to take the rap for his offense and Mr Ong voluntarily being complicit in this affair. Prima Facie, it seems fallacious that Mr Ong,a non-employee of irepair XX, would actually gain access to the company’s vehicle. However, if we consider the fact that Mr Goh borrowed the vehicle to Mr Ong, the above scenario would then seem plausible. However, Mr Goh would have contravened the regulation set by Land Transport Authority by doing so. Furthermore, Mr Goh was well aware of the fact that the company’s vehicle should never be loaned to a third party under any circumstances as he is a co-partner of IrepairXX and would have been familiar with the rules and regulation established by the authorities on the subject of Company Vehicle. Hence, we can see that if that was the supposed scenario, Mr Goh would have already transgressed the law. However, if we were to scrutinize this matter under the assumption that Mr Goh loaned the vehicle to Mr Ong, the fact that Mr Ong took the rap willingly when he could have pushed the blame to Mr Goh as there was assumed to be no traffic cameras to testify the identity of the driver since Mr Goh was the regular driver of the company’s vehicle is highly questionable. Adding on, the offense was captured by the traffic camera and I believe that an analysis of the image on that day would reveal the identity of the driver.
f) Notwithstanding the fact that the concerned 12 demerit points and fine has been paid, does this imply that the case is closed? Moreover, Mr Ong had accepted a sum of $800 from Mr Goh as he had confessed to me that he took $800 dollars out of our monthly earnings to bribe Mr Ong to take the rap for him. Mr Goh had already committed 2 offenses which were talking on his mobile phone while driving and parking at a zig-zag double yellow line at simpang bedok. This has clearly proved that Mr Goh has been driving the company’s vehicle all the time from the partnership 30th October 2009 to 21st Jan 2013 when I engaged a towing vehicle to tow back the vehicle as it cannot renew the road insurance. This can be traced back to the denial of the renewal of the company’s ROC due to Mr Goh not topping-up his medisave money which is a mandatory under the company’s acts.
g) I recalled during Mr Goh’s license suspension period, Mr Goh had drove GQXXXXX at Blk 303 SengKang into the loading & unloading bay from the service road and I immediately stopped and warned him against doing so, but he refused and kept rebuking me in an arrogant tone: “who see it? Who see it?” This action of his has already infringed the Court Order and I have also informed the TP Investigating Officer M/s: Cecilia Neo regarding this issue.
h) Next, I have gathered enough concrete evidences and had reported to ACRA that Mr Goh has been using a bookshop receipt book to issue receipts without a company name, address as well as contact number to his customers and that is constituted as breach of the Company Acts, under section 144.I question your firm stance against Mr Goh that no further action will be taken against him when ACRA’s letter had clearly stated to me that Mr Goh had already been taken to task for it and your AGC letter still remain unchanged that no action will be taken against Mr Goh?
i) Lastly, I would also like to state that Mr Goh have threatened to amputate my hand or leg and I have also duly make a police report on this matter and had also laid a Magistrate Complain Case No: CM-2266-13. This may be attributed to the fact that he has a guilty conscience and my exposure of his illegal actions may land him in trouble with the law.
j) In light of this, I earnestly exhort the TP and Attorney’s General Chamber to re-investigate this matter as such action by Mr Ong and Mr Goh does indeed constitute as providing false declaration and information to the Traffic Police.
Despite the fact that Mr Goh and I are now still engaged in an On-Going civil sue, I declare that I am not abusing this channel to gain an unfair advantage in the civil sue. I have faith in Singapore’s judicial system and I believe justice will be meted out duly in the end. I am merely carrying out my duties of a citizen and as a precedent partner of the company.
My Questions in question for the Traffic Police Investigating Officer are:-
1) Did the IO not have any doubts of this Ong and Goh’s relationship between each other? To my understanding that during our talking term, Mr Goh had revealed to me that he will say that he had get someone a so-called part-time worker to bear this 12 demerit points summon when I rejected him to use mine driving license and our partnership relation then turned sour!
2) As a precedent partner of myself and the rightful owner of this GQXXXXX why my statement does not merit in the prosecution of this Mr Goh and Mr Ong?
3) As spoken with ASP Mike Ting from TP on (17/1/2014) that it does required evidences and why my evidences given is not strong enough, just because the fine were paid or Mr Ong & Mr Goh coordination statement to render TP a quick closing on the matter?
4) I am also curious to find out how TP had submitted the report to the AGC?
5) I do not know this person Mr Ong until I decided to make this report.
6) In IO M/s: Cecilia Neo reply that the Condo at Oxford Guard’s House have no record of this GQXXXXX particulars and it is either Guard never record or Guard’s Record book were lost as this were told by the IO and immediately I did question the IO why you never go the address that I have given to asked our customer for verification that on the day 16/6/2011 did our customer saw this Mr Ong or just myself and Mr Goh and no news from the IO.
7) What make TP so certain that Ong is the said driver?
Thank you and best regards.
Yours faithfully,
_____________________
Mr Chua
