Minister who supported Durai's wrongful acts does not own up

last SG · 2007-06-25T10:56:17+00:00

Do we the citizens need this kind of ministerial talent, who while they were in charge did not act to stop abuses in NKF but who only know how to shed crocod...

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Why not do you political masters a favour and actually sue them? After all, we all know what you really are.

iveco SG

What is he to you? A mongrel dog? Laughing

robertteh SG

Nazry Bahrawi
[email protected]

The virtual world may offer opportunities for open political discussion but most Singaporeans are not participating.
.
This is according to the preliminary findings of a yet-to-be-completed study, conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), on the behaviour of Singapore voters at last year's General Election.
.
"There are some blogs that are politically engaged but, if you look at the content and the total number of blogs, they are not that many for a country that is so wired up and so high up in terms of computerisation," said IPS deputy director Arun Mahizhnan, during a discussion at the 16th Asian Media Information and Communication Centre (Amic) annual conference yesterday.
.
"With regard to the contents of the blogs, only a few can be characterised as serious political engagement," Mr Mahizhnan said, citing Mr Alex Au of Yawning Bread and Mr Lee Kin Mun, also known as mr brown. "But there are not many others like these two."
.
When it comes to managing new media, Mr Mahizhnan believes authorities face a dilemma.
.
He told Today: "On the one hand, it (the Government) wants to promote information communications technologies (ICT) in Singapore, but on the other hand, it is also concerned about ICT abuses. So, it tries to put certain controls, but unfortunately, the Internet is not easily controlled by any one government or one organisation."
.
Mr Mahizhnan believes the way forward is to accept that there will be a divergence of views in the digital world. As such, he believes the focus should be on building a socially immune system. Hailing groupings such as the Parents Advisory Group for the Internet (PAGi) as exemplary, he said: "The move for society to build its own defences has to be a many-pronged approach, both top-down and bottom-up."
.
But will new media have any impact on regulations governing the mainstream press in Singapore?
.
Another panellist, Associate Professor Tey Tsung Hun who teaches at the National University of Singapore's law faculty, takes a cautious stand. He said: "It is unlikely that we will see any changes in the legislative framework governing the print media in the next two to three years. There is no reason to change the law unless there is evidence that it is not conducive to the Government's aspiration to develop Singapore as a media hub."
.
But panellist Au was hopeful. Citing the advent of gay websites, he said at the session: "Here is maybe an example where new media can lead to social change which, in turn, in due course might lead to a loosening of regulations governing mainstream media."

You go and see the blogs set up by the p65 and the YPblog, they hardly put up any new post, and they can hardly argue their points...How do you expect the people to engage them with politics? The worst is p65, must wait for the p65 MPs to certify safe to post, then can get through....Nabe, so scared, don't start a blog la.....Somemore got cheek to ignore my posts.....

iveco SG

Durai back in court to face another charge of deceiving NKF
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 27 June 2007 1641 hrs

SINGAPORE: Former NKF CEO TT Durai was back in court on Wednesday.

He was attending a pre-trial conference on a new charge of deceiving the organisation.

Durai had allegedly misled the NKF into paying S$5,000 to a company, called Decision One International, in September 2003.

This was supposedly for helping to look for a suitable candidate for a senior manager position in NKF.

The company was said to have identified Amy Ho from MediaCorp TV for this position.

But investigations revealed that no such service was rendered to the NKF.

If convicted, Durai can be jailed up to five years and fined up to S$100,000.

Last Thursday, the 58-year-old was sentenced to three months jail for falsifying documents to use S$20,000 of NKF funds.

He is appealing against the conviction and sentence. Bail of S$100,000 has been extended.

Durai had also agreed to pay over S$4 million to the NKF, to settle the civil case the charity had brought against him. - CNA/yy

4getmenot SG

I wonder what sentence he will get for this crime? Rolling Eyes

I notice all his charges are relatively small... hmmm..

FocusPoint SG

But it's only gold tap. We should feel 'happy' and blessed' that it ain't platinum. I mean he 'work' so hard he should deserve to pamper himself, right? Rolling Eyes

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Oh no, a chihuahua. Talk big, flees when the bigger dogs come to bite.

4getmenot SG

maybe platinium model was not available..? or maybe ..just maybe he liked gold better.. Mr. Green

the Bear SG

can we somehow stick to facts without name-calling in SC?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

There is a world of difference between negligence and complicity in a crime. You can criticize the government for their oversight but you cannot defame them without evidence like CSJ did. Too bad there are so many here filled with hot air rather than any sense of propriety. Shooting their mouth off deserves to get them sued.

Will robert and atobe be prepared to retract their defamatory remarks or be prepared to defend their allegations in a court of law? I doubt their gonadal fortitude

As I have said before, if you stick to your 'field of specialty in medicine', you will not find your feet stuck in your mouth with your persistence in being arrogant with your limited knowledge and attempt to be larger than your head can bear the weight of your imagination.

Where does one's responsibility begin and end when through one's ''negligence'' in NOT taking preventive actions, but will even create a protected environment to allow the crime to be committed in an even bolder scale ?

Try digesting the following from an eminent lawyer, who wrote the following paper - comparing English and American Laws - which Law do you think Singapore has adopted ?

Journal Article Excerpt

Reckless complicity

by Sanford H. Kadish

The law of complicity (or accomplices or aiding and abetting, as it is sometimes called) imposes liability on one person ("S" for secondary party) for a crime committed by another ("P" for principal party) where S intentionally helps or encourages P to do the action constituting that crime.

The law is inescapably complex since it involves two dimensions of interacting mens rea and actus reus problems, those associated with S and those associated with P. I attempted to deal with complicity law generally over a decade ago.(1)

In this paper I revisit one group of issues, namely those arising from the mens rea requirement that S must intend his actions to encourage or help P to commit a particular crime. My earlier study was concerned mainly with why the law of complicity should have taken the form it did. Here I want to take a more critical view of the requirement of intention and ask how far it can withstand critical scrutiny.

The puzzle in the requirement of intention is that it stands in contrast with situations where the accountability of an actor for the harmful consequences of his action turns on whether he caused them.

In these latter cases, recklessness as to the occurrence of the consequences (and sometimes negligence) is enough to make the actor criminally liable -- the crime of manslaughter is the commonest example.

Why should it be different where the consequences of a person's action take the form of the criminal actions of another? Can reckless aiding or encouraging the crime of another ever be an acceptable basis for holding S criminally liable? These are the questions I will pursue in this paper.

The thread of my argument is as follows. Part I argues that three main considerations lie behind the law's general requirement that S's help or encouragement of P's crime be intentional -- culpability, the policy of not subjecting lawful practices to excessive risk, and an ethic of individualism and self-determinism. The remainder of the paper considers whether those considerations are incompatible with recklessness as an alternative basis of complicity liability. Parts II and III deal with the culpability consideration.

Part II describes the one situation where English and American law systematically depart from the requirement of intention and allow negligence or even less to suffice.

This occurs in what the English misleadingly call "common purpose" or "joint enterprise" cases, where S is already an accomplice of P in some other crime (misleadingly, because the common purpose is to commit some other crime, not the one P commits).

I argue that the major defects of this doctrine are that it permits punishment for mere negligence, or even less, and that it provides for the conviction of S for a crime for which S lacks the required culpability or its equivalent.

In Part III, I argue that the doctrine of reckless complicity can be made compatible with the requirement of culpability by restricting it to cases where P's crime is one of recklessness or can be committed recklessly.

I then consider in Part IV whether the policy of not chilling lawful activities precludes the creation of a general reckless complicity principle untied to the situation where S is already an accomplice of P in some other crime. I argue that it does not, and therefore conclude that neither the principle of culpability nor policy considerations require rejection of a general doctrine of reckless complicity.

The final section, Part V, considers the ethic of individualism and self-determinism, and concludes that it does indeed stand against reckless complicity as a general ground of liability, and is the real force behind the law's requirement of intention; and further that this ethic, while deeply ingrained, is normatively problematic.

With Singapore's Laws largely following English Law, are you claiming that it is erroneous to claim of negligence on those with the Authority to check on a ''KNOWN event of Public Concern'' ?

continue below

Atobe SG

continuation

Do you even know the term ''Defamation'' when you are so eager to use it so liberally, and shoot it off from your hips at the slightest imagined provocation ?

Defamation means tarnishing the reputation of someone.

It is divided into two parts, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel is defaming somebody through print (or broadcasting). Both share the same features.

To defame someone, you must (a) make a factual assertion (b) for which you cannot provide evidence of its truth.

Defamation does not affect the voicing of opinions, but comes into the same fields as rights to free speech in the United States Constitution's First Amendment, or the European Convention's Article 10.

Related to defamation in the US are the actions for misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are often classified as dignitary torts as well.

Is the inaction of the two ministers not already obvious, and their refusal to act not amounting to their being liable for their negligence in their Public Duties to prevent a Crime from being committed ?

Should we hazard a guess as to their intentions of refusing to investigate despite the loud cries of concern even from their own Party's Backbenchers ?

The arrogant methods employed by Durai is no different from that used by the Ruling Party in attacking, attacking and attacking, simply to beat those who dare to pop up and question the ''integrity of the system''.

The System was being questioned, and yet the Ministers defended vigorously the questionable events that were raised even by their own Party Backbenchers.

This failure will simply allow any reasonable minded person to an obvious conclusion that those in authority are culpable to some tacit complicity to the unfortunate events that had occurred - given the similarities of the situations in the ''localised and global forms''.

Your boorish behaviour in threatening to sue is a poor imitation of what Durai had attempted and resulted in a rotting can of worms being blown open.

Do you think that will be the end of the ''can of worms'' from where it has come from - when there are more skeletons remained in the cupboards that cannot even see the light of day ?

Is it not amazing that for one who has supposedly receive a tertiary education in Oxford, you have not absorbed some degree of political tolerance, but will instead easily emulate the arrogant intolerance of the MIW ?

One can only wonder how you manage to survive in the UK environment, or are you simply a Dr Jekyll in the day, and become a Mr Hyde at night in this Speaker's Corner ?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Wow, OM is getting pwned bad, his defamation angle just isn't catching on, and the lack of knowledge of the law is getting exposed.

Looks like it's going to be another case of not-doing-your-homework before he posted.

soul_rage SG

similar to Gazelle, whom has gone delusional in another thread.
Anyway, I see ministers in other countries resigning when something major happens in the domain they are in charge of, like for instance, a major accident, etc.

You can argue that its not their fault and they should not resign, but at the end of the day, they are sitting in a position where they must be ever-vigilant to ensure that the domain they are taking care of have as little problems as possible. Stepping down is a show of their willingness to accept blame that they are not doing an adequate job on their part.

What have our ministers done when screw-ups occur (train derail, circle line deaths, NKF, etc)? Mostly just to perform taichi and redirect blame away from themselves. Not one has been willing to accept responsibility for the problems occurring under their charge.

How can we trust such ministers, when they refuse to accept responsibility to their inadequacies, and instead continue to insist they are the cream of the crop?

In fact, what proof do they have that they are the cream of the crop, other than just blasting that they are talents with their mouths? As I said, name me one good thing they have done all these years (taking over what the old guard has done such as CPF/HDB), and you will be hard-pressed to find something worth commending about.

holygoh SG

ah you have hit the nail right on the head. who decides who should be given millions from the money that you, me, our parents, our grandparents contributed? who should they prove to? its us regular folks. people in HDB flats, working in hawker centers, educated in neighbourhood schools. ordinary people. if you hired someone, trusted him, paid him, gave him a good life, and he mismanages something in which he was hired to oversee. would you ask him to step down and let someone else more capable and more deserving to continue the work? or would you continue to enrich him, make him an ever richer man?

take responsibility and step down. because you know the people can't vote you out because the system has been so screwed that you can get into office not because the people voted you in, but one person thinks you can do the job.

maurizio13 SG

Hmmm....

According to Wikipedia, Durai was an international arms dealer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._T._Durai

bigmouthjoe SG

Bumpz. I would love to see a rebuttal to some of the more recent points, if there is anyone game enough to do so...

Our Ministers only care to portray themselves in a good light... switching camps at every opportunity.

robertteh SG

="geminii"][quote="HAPPY"][quote="noelofarc"]dear gemini sweathard
tell you
funny hdb rulings
my kaki hdb @ jalan besar
upstair jumbuan sewerage giant pipe got stucked
so they must cut downstair pipe to mend it
guess what?
hdb demand downstair owner to pay 1/2 the bill when hdb contractors finished repairing the pipe
which was stucked by the upstair fellow
i remembered onced the upgrading was in my block
almost finished
the hdb comes around demand that i pay EXTRAS for providing aluminium covers for the upstair residents to walk under the shade and never get wet
i told hdb
upstairs neighbour got caught in the rain
or scroned by the hotsun
also my problemo mey?
i told them my castle in front
you dun placed the aluminums awnings
i liked sunshine
i ain't paying $1 extras...
naibei
as though i am responsible for all my neighbours
and i ain't even elected as mayor for my block as well

Last 2 to 3 years ago, I have change all the tiolet pipe to pvc.

And the hdb contractor told me pipe that is straight from top to bottom, dont need to pay.
Pipe that turn here and there (L shape or U shape or whatever), we have to pay.

where got such logic as to pay for neighbours right?

if neighbour constipated, is that our problem too?

HDB constructed flats with louya materials or louya workmanship
they should be responsible to have it rectified.

if the whole block of flat collapse, who is responsible?

acts of GOD or HDB or resident??

Hotel New World collapsed due to poor design, failures to check structural calculations, twisted foundation piles (non-alignments of pile caps to piles) and lack of proper oversight by BCD.

That was history.

However, the same problem was repeated in Nicol Highway collapse where the structural calculations were not submitted to BCD for prior checking and approval with issuing of permit to commence work obtained upon fulfilling relevant critical structural requirements spelt out in regulations.

When questioned by me during a seminar in 2006, Head of BCD was only able to give the excuse the in the case of Nicol Highway collapse, the structural checking was done by an internal BCD sub-team.

Is this excuse acceptable?

Now with HDB, was there an internal BCD sub-team which goes through structural calculations to ensure compliance with relevant designs for safety purposes. Were the standards maintained at these BCD sub-teams.

If not how can HDB claim that its ceiling slabs or windows were properly designed complying with minimum of requirements for structural safety purposes as spelt out by the regulations governing structural strengths and integrity relating to columns and structures.

Spalling concrete is only a superficial aspect of structural strengths and integrity and we have relevant regulations prescribing requirements and standards to be met. Why must minister for ND excuse HDB for any non-compliance by legalistic wrangling of the general laws and regulations relating to building and structural safety?

oxford mushroom SG

Haha...dare to comment when you have no clue about what you are talking about Mr. Green It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than open your big mouth and remove all doubts Laughing

Atobe is trying hard to avoid the issue. As I said, you can accuse the government of negligence, but not complicity in Durai's crimes. The former is fair comment, the latter is DEFAMATION.

Like CSJ, Atobe and Robert have not been able to show proof that the government was aware of Durai's misdeeds. Yet their allegations are designed to cast aspersions on the integrity of a minister...every court in the land will agree there's a prima facie case of defamation. So what's their defence? If Atobe has something up his sleeve, why did not run to the assistance of CSJ, who was found guilty of defamation....yet again.... Mr. Green

oxford mushroom SG

Originally posted by Atobe:
[bIs the inaction of the two ministers not already obvious, and their refusal to act not amounting to their being liable for their negligence in their Public Duties to prevent a Crime from being committed ?[/b]

The inaction was based on an error of judgment on the part of the ministers who mistakenly placed their faith in the integrity of Durai and more importantly, in the yearly audit reports by a well-respected auditing firm. Given that the NKF financial irregularities were not picked by by the auditors, experts in their field; I fail to see how you can make a case of complicity on the grounds of reckless behaviour.

It is well accepted that there is a culpability requirement for accomplice liability. To make a case that an act of recklessness is so criminally repugnant that it suffices as the mens rea for accomplice liability requires an exceptional degree of irresponsibility, which you nor CSJ nor his lawyers have been able to prove.

Thank your lucky stars that the ministers aren't particularly interested in takeing losers like you to court.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Haha...dare to comment when you have no clue about what you are talking about It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than open your big mouth and remove all doubts

Atobe is trying hard to avoid the issue. As I said, you can accuse the government of negligence, but not complicity in Durai's crimes. The former is fair comment, the latter is DEFAMATION.

Like CSJ, Atobe and Robert have not been able to show proof that the government was aware of Durai's misdeeds. Yet their allegations are designed to cast aspersions on the integrity of a minister...every court in the land will agree there's a prima facie case of defamation. So what's their defence?

I am still waiting....waiting...waiting....

''Every court in the land'' ? ''Whose court'' in whose land ?

Is the Judiciary in Singapore qualified to pass judgment on cases that involved the Executive Branch - especially on political issues that concern the MIW ?

Every courts in the First World is already amazed at the past ''politically tainted decisions'' made by the Singapore Courts towards the Political Opponents in blatant bias support to the position of those MIW.

Only you and your ''Masters in White'' will hide behind a 'Closed System' to support your own position, and threaten legitimate voices.

Will you or your MIW even dare to put this matter - AND all other past judgment decisions - to the ''litmus test of legitimacy'' through the International Court of Justice as an arbiter ?

Hopelessly, you are no closer to being looked at as a candidate to be recruited into the MIW Team; and your current stand is a poor and fraudulent imitation of those in the MIW Leadership.

Is your personal opinionated view of defamation of any substance ?

It seems clear that either you have no wish to engage on factual issues as transpired publicly, or you simply have no capacity to appreciate legal issues but prefer to stand on mere ''theartricks'' simply to recover your hopeless positions on many issues that have found yourself being debunked repeatedly.

The Ministers' lack of positive actions - even in the face of concerns voiced by their own backbenchers - have already exposed themselves into a position of ''reckless negligence'' to the duties of their Public Office.

The fact that they prefer NOT to investigate but will even DEFEND the position of NKF and its Management - inspite of the many Voice of Concerns from the Public and their own Backbenchers - will surely see them as being ''criminally complicit'' to the events that transpired despite the issues already being raised so publicly at a National Forum - Parliament itself.

Can you manage any understanding of the term - ''culpability'' ?

Do you even have the capacity to understand the terms - ''recklessness'' and ''criminal negligence'' ?

Try digesting the following :-

from ''Principles of Liability''

General requirements of culpability.

(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.

(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:

(i) he is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or

(ii) he has information which would lead a reasonable man in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.

(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

(3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.

Why should you be waiting for facts, when the facts are already published ?

Are you denying that the Ministers have no knowledge of the issues raised by the Backbenchers in Parliament ?

The fact that the Miisters have been informed of these issues would have proven the culpabilities of the Ministers for their preferred inaction even with their newly gained ''KNOWLEDGE'' - based on the ambit in Point 1[b][ii] ?

On the second ground of culpability, the Ministers' outright dismissal despite the knowledge of the concerned issues raised is again confirmed by their acts of ''RECKLESSNESS'' as decribed in Point 1[c]; and this is mere academic if their action is not considered to be ''NEGLIGENCE'' as detailed in Point 1[d].

Instead of avoiding issues by indulging in polemics, you can gain some self-respect and credibility by debunking the above statements if you are so eager to prove me wrong.

You are certainly great at being a true twirp.

Keep growing your head bigger, and you will surely be a Mushroom.

« Previous Page Next Page »