TKL Kena Stalked. Work of FAPee DOGS?

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"></TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Fkapore <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>5:35 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>32291.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Mr Tan Kin Lian seeks help to trace IP address of cyber-stalker from….

November 3rd, 2008 |

Author: from Temasek Review

EDITORS’ NOTE: The NTUC voucher for last week’s quiz has been won by Mr Low H X. This week’s quiz will be published on 9 Nov 2008 between 9am to 11am on our blog.

By Eugene Yeo, Senior writer
It appears that Mr Tan has an enemy out there who is attempting to sabotage his good work. “Siew Khim”, who seems to know quite a bit about Mr Tan, has been posting potentially defamatory statements on his blog for the past one week.
Mr Tan believed that “Siew Khim” is “probably on the payroll of an organisation, and is paid to harrass me in my blog.”
Now which organization does “Siew Khim” belong to ?
According to our sources, quite a few officials from various branches of the bureaucracy have expressed unhappiness over Mr Tan’s efforts to ”instigate” the protestors to take up a class action suit against the banks as was alleged by “Siew Khim” in his posts that Mr Tan has offended a number of “wealthy and powerful” people who will not let him “go easy this time”.
In Singapore, the government is closely linked to the wealthy elites in the banking and financial industry, - a powerful closet clique of a few individuals and families whose vested interests are interwined intimately with one another like a cobweb.
Mr Tan had made an open appeal to his readers to help trace the IP address of “Siew Khim”. The lawyer on our team said that some of the statements made below can be construed as possible libel which serve to tarnish Mr Tan’s public standing and reputation.
Mr Tan Kin Lian’s appeal for help:
[URL="http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/11/stolen-identity.html"]http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/11/stolen-identity.html[/URL]
There are many ways that a thief can steal and use your personal identity to open credit card or access private information.
Some people in the internet pretend to be somebody else. They are also thieves and, if caught, can be prosecuted as thieves.
Some people hide behind a fictitious name and attack other people, including defamation. These people are commiting a crime and a civil offence. I hope that these people are aware about the legal consequences.
[URL="http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/11/trace-ip-address-of-siewkhim.html"]http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/11/trace-ip-address-of-siewkhim.html[/URL]
Dear Mr. Tan,
I suggest that you block the rubbish that is being posted by SiewKhim. This person is really terrible. He writes defamatory, malicious statements.
REPLY
I posted his comments so that his IP address can be traced. He is probably on the payroll of an organisation, and is paid to harrass me in my blog. I believe that this is a criminal act and can implicate his paymaster as well.
Some can help me to locate his IP address. You can check the time of his posting and check against the log of the site meter (recent visitors – details) to get the following page:
[URL="http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s30tankinlian&r=8"]http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s30tankinlian&r=8[/URL]
Happy detective work!
Posts by “Siew Khim” (the potential defamatory statements are crossed out)
[URL="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11702093&postID=8493923706607050879&isPopup=true"]https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11702093&postID=8493923706607050879&isPopup=true[/URL]
Kin Lian,
I give you an actuarial problem. If you can solve that problem you should be able to use your actuarial ingenuity to pick up the pieces from your solution to the problem to discover my identity. Look you claimed to be the best and the cleverest CEO and Actuary in Singapore and Johore Baru including Batam. No pray pray eh!!!
Are you prepared to test the quiz?
I saw your photo in today’s ST. You are really ugly man with your butcher belly.
Kin Lian,
I thought you gonna bar any postings from me? What the change of heart? You are getting soft my man.
You are now using your blooging kaki to hantum me for my direct truthful comments on you. That’s no fair man. They dared me to face you like the movie “High Noon” one to one with our guns ready. Coward does not mean refusing to show identity or not wanting to have one to one fight or to come out in the open. Such action is called “stupidity” not cowardice.
You kaki called me all kinds of names. I don’t want to waste time on such childish behavior. Futher they are venting their frustration on the failed investment.
[URL="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11702093&postID=3909168876946331866&isPopup=true"]https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11702093&postID=3909168876946331866&isPopup=true[/URL]
Kin Lian,
Now you are telling people that you are also an investment guru. What did you get the skill? You only know how to sell lousy par policies to NTUC workers.
During your time as CEO of NTUC Income you never talk about asset share to compute policy values. You still used the old damn XXXXXXX method, min SA. Now you are outside and become XXXXX because your former independent director XXXXXXX.
Look Kin Lian, give the dude a chance to show himself before XXXXXXX. You dig Kinny?
[URL="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11702093&postID=8233746630732145804&isPopup=true"]https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11702093&postID=8233746630732145804&isPopup=true[/URL]
Kin Lian,
The way you reply is basically you are not going to do anything. Even if you intend to do something with the NTUC Income bonus issue comes this AGM, I don’t think they care. They are no afraid of any damn protest or action you want to take. They have a big net ready to catch you from your ass, the moment you open your big mouth.
Look Kin Lian, you have offended MAS indirectly the PAP regime and many powerful and wealthy people linked to the regime. They will not let you go easy this time.
You know you game is up because you have made a fool of yourself.
The fact that you chicken out in the last AGM simply proves that your action has no bite meaning you have XXXXXXX.
What a pity!!!!
Hey you guys that worship Kin Lian as Lord Master of Singapore.
I am asking you to examine Kin Lian’s action at the 11th hour of NTUC Income last AGM. What did he do? He throw in the towel citing al, the big names and sat during the entire AGM proceeding tongue tied.
Before the AGM, he was on the war path organising protest and collecting signatures just like what he is doing now, only that voicing your grievances at Speaker’s Corner was not allowed by the PAP at that time.
Do you think your hero will not repeat his this again?
You watch and see and believe !!!!
The current CEO of NTUC Income is a Malaysian. He was kicked out of Prudential as CEO and somehow this kind hearted Kin Lian make him independent director of Income. Kin Lian play punk with the chairman and subsequently with the progress of time irritated the entire Income’s board. So they gang up and with the blessing from the political masters kick Kin Lian out.
So this Malaysian fellow not only stole the job of our Singapore born hero but also kick out his good friend, mentor and comrade in arms.
In this fucking world, everybody is making use of everybody and you will be intensely abused depending on your position, status and connection at that time. For example in Malaysia you can commit murder and get away with it if you are highly connected with the scum Malay Muslim UMNO bastards.
Also read the Straits Times latest report updated at 6.08pm on this matter here. (Mr Tan’s entry was posted yesterday morning. Why did the media take so long to publish this news and only after we spill on it in the morning today ?)
DISCLAIMER: The above is posts are reproduced directly from Mr Tan Kin Lian’s blog which is in the open domain word for word without any editing. We strongly condemn the malicious statements made by “Siew Khim” and we urge those with the necessary IT skills to help Mr Tan nab the culprit.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

The lawyer on our team said that some of the statements made below can be construed as possible libel which serve to tarnish Mr Tan’s public standing and reputation.

I wonder what kind of lawyer would say such a thing ? It's either libel or it's not. "can be construed" = not sure; "possible" = not sure. You give this kind of answer in a law exams, I don't think you're going score with the examiners.

At the same time, the statement "serve to tarnish Mr Tan’s public standing and reputation" sounds so sure.

It gives the impression that the person is a bit confused.

 

[Ramseth]

I wonder what kind of lawyer would say such a thing ? It's either libel or it's not. "can be construed" = not sure; "possible" = not sure. You give this kind of answer in a law exams, I don't think you're going score with the examiners.

Real life law practice is not the same as law exam. A brought a knife to B house to confront B. At the confrontation A accidentally fell forward and plunged the knife into B, thus killing B. Is that murder (death penalty), causing death by rash and negligent act (up to 20 years) or accident (no criminal offence except civil liability)? Write all beautiful graphic essays about ifs and buts and whyforths to score points.

In real life, all lawyers use words like construed, alleged, suspected etc. before the case received a verdict from a judge.

 

[jw5]

Real life law practice is not the same as law exam. A brought a knife to B house to confront B. At the confrontation A accidentally fell forward and plunged the knife into B, thus killing B. Is that murder (death penalty), causing death by rash and negligent act (up to 20 years) or accident (no criminal offence except civil liability)? Write all beautiful graphic essays about ifs and buts and whyforths to score points.

In real life, all lawyers use words like construed, alleged, suspected etc. before the case received a verdict from a judge.

If only A and B were at the scene, A would have a tough time trying to prove it was not murder. After all, he brought the knife to B's house.

 

[Ramseth]

If only A and B were at the scene, A would have a tough time trying to prove it was not murder. After all, he brought the knife to B's house.

Exactly, law exam question. Whatever is stated in the question, deal with it, nothing else.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Real life law practice is not the same as law exam. A brought a knife to B house to confront B. At the confrontation A accidentally fell forward and plunged the knife into B, thus killing B. Is that murder (death penalty), causing death by rash and negligent act (up to 20 years) or accident (no criminal offence except civil liability)? Write all beautiful graphic essays about ifs and buts and whyforths to score points.

In real life, all lawyers use words like construed, alleged, suspected etc. before the case received a verdict from a judge.

When you use words like "construe", or worse still, "can be construed", and then "possible libel", clearly you're not very sound in law. I'm not going to pay someone who sits on the fence. If you sit on the fence, rightly so your grade should sit on the fence - 50/100.

And because the lawyer is now confronted with a real situation, and not writing essays, all the more he should not be using words like "can be construed" and "possible". If TKL wants to know if the statement published is defamatory, the lawyers says "can be construed", which also means may not necessarily be so. If the lawyer says "possible libel", it's not even probable. So does TKL have a case ? In an examination, you can straightaway tell that it's the kind of answer coming from a not-so sure candidate, who seeks to be right in all corners.

How are you going to convince the judge that "it's a libel" as counsel you think it's only "possible" ?

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

If only A and B were at the scene, A would have a tough time trying to prove it was not murder. After all, he brought the knife to B's house.

Go back to the basic - actus reus and mens rea.

 

[Ramseth]

When you use words like "construe", or worse still, "can be construed", and then "possible libel", clearly you're not very sound in law. I'm not going to pay someone who sits on the fence. If you sit on the fence, rightly so your grade should sit on the fence - 50/100.

Davinder Singh SC uses words like "insinuate" and is at the top of his profession smiling.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Davinder Singh SC uses words like "insinuate" and is at the top of his profession smiling.

It depends on the context. "Insinuate" is very different from "can be construed".

If the lawyer knows the test for defamatory statement, he will apply the test and decide if it's defamatory or it's not. If it's only a possibility, there is no case for the defendant to answer.

 

[Ramseth]

It depends on the context. "Insinuate" is very different from "can be construed".

If the lawyer knows the test for defamatory statement, he will apply the test and decide if it's defamatory or it's not. If it's only a possibility, there is no case for the defendant to answer.

Your earlier post about actus rea and mens rea is absolutely on the point. The action must be in context of the intention. But that's for criminal cases, mind you, not civil cases. In civil cases, it's about damages caused and restitution and/or compensation sought, even by unintended accidents. Intention comes in only to add to damages, i.e. aggravated.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Your earlier post about actus rea and mens rea is absolutely on the point. The action must be in context of the intention. But that's for criminal cases, mind you, not civil cases. In civil cases, it's about damages caused and restitution and/or compensation sought, even by unintended accidents. Intention comes in only to add to damages, i.e. aggravated.

You're quoting my post out of context, which you always do, anyway.

The post actus reus and mens rea is in response to your illustration of a murder scenario. It's definitely criminal, so why turn around and say things like "mind you, not civil cases" ? It was an unfair presumption that I was ignorant in that respect.

In civil cases, it depends on which area of law. But I'm not interested. I just wanted to point out that the lawyer who advised TKL that whatever mentioned by SiewKhim "can be construed" and "possible libel" wasn't very sure, let alone persuasive.

If libel is only a "possibility", that surely is not enough for any libel action to be taken.

 

[kingrant]

Davinder uses that word because he believes the Force is with him.

If one day he ends up on the wrong side of the bed, like Glen Knight, he wopnt be so yaya.

Davinder Singh SC uses words like "insinuate" and is at the top of his profession smiling.

 

[Ramseth]

If libel is only a "possibility", that surely is not enough for any libel action to be taken.

Criminal cases are judged on basis of beyond reasonable doubt. The police decides if there's any probability of case beyond reasonable doubt in the evidence to charge, then let the defendant defend and the judge judge.

Civil cases are judged on basis of balance of probability. The plaintiff can sue as long as there's grievance suffered. The plaintiff may lose, and lose big including paying for the defendant's legal costs and risks countersuit.

 

[makapaaa]

The current CEO of NTUC Income is a Malaysian. He was kicked out of Prudential as CEO and somehow this kind hearted Kin Lian make him independent director of Income. Kin Lian play punk with the chairman and subsequently with the progress of time irritated the entire Income’s board. So they gang up and with the blessing from the political masters kick Kin Lian out.
So this Malaysian fellow not only stole the job of our Singapore born hero but also kick out his good friend, mentor and comrade in arms.
In this fucking world, everybody is making use of everybody and you will be intensely abused depending on your position, status and connection at that time. For example in Malaysia you can commit murder and get away with it if you are highly connected with the scum Malay Muslim UMNO bastards.

http://www.income.com.sg/aboutus/management.asp

Tan Suee Chieh
Chief Executive

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Tan Suee Chieh </TD><TD class=buttonheading width="100%" align=right> </TD><TD class=buttonheading width="100%" align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>CEO, NTUC Income (Singapore)

http://www.icmif.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80&catid=25&Itemid=121&lang=en

Tan Suee Chieh was appointed Chief Executive of NTUC Income in February 2007, having been a board member since 2003. A qualified actuary, he was previously President in charge of the Asia Pacific region for human resource consultancy SHL Group (2003–2007); Managing Director (Established Markets) in Prudential Corporation Asia (1999–2001); and Chief Executive of Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (1994–1999).
Mr Tan has a first-class Honours Degree from the London School of Economics, is a Fellow of Royal Statistical Society and Institute of Actuaries and holds a Masters Degree in Organisational Psychology from Columbia University. He was also a past President of the Life Insurance Association of Singapore and the Actuarial Society of Malaysia.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Criminal cases are judged on basis of beyond reasonable doubt. The police decides if there's any probability of case beyond reasonable doubt in the evidence to charge, then let the defendant defend and the judge judge.

Civil cases are judged on basis of balance of probability. The plaintiff can sue as long as there's grievance suffered. The plaintiff may lose, and lose big including paying for the defendant's legal costs and risks countersuit.

Who doesn't know the Standard of Proof in criminal cases is different from Civil Cases ? Yet another unfair presumption of ignorance. And why are you telling me about Civil Procedure ?

Yes, the Plaintiff can sue. But the claim can also be struck out for being vexatious. We're not talking about the right to sue. We're talking about whether the elements of defamation are sufficient.

From the comment made by the lawyer, it doesn't sound sufficient at all. There is some distance for possibility to cross into probability.

 

[Ramseth]

We're not talking about the right to sue. We're talking about whether the elements of defamation are sufficient.

I see. Let's leave it to the lawyer involved then. S/he's the one with full information, not me, not us. Let's not prejudge.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

If you feel uncomfortable with commenting on the lawyer's remark, I'm not going to stop you from refraining to comment. But goodness sake, don't drag me along.

I'm not saying if TKL has a case. I'm saying the comment by the lawyer shows he is not sure if it's defamatory. It's unlikely to have come from a lawyer; it sounds every bit like a layman's opinion.

 

[Ramseth]

If you feel uncomfortable with commenting on the lawyer's remark, I'm not going to stop you from refraining to comment. But goodness sake, don't drag me along.

I'm not saying if TKL has a case. I'm saying the comment by the lawyer shows he is not sure if it's defamatory. It's unlikely to have come from a lawyer; it sounds every bit like a layman's opinion.

There's no intention to "drag" you along. Just a friendly discussion as usual. And I do have high respect and value your point of view, whether in agreement or in deferrence.