Mervyn Tan's show trial was a sham
-
then why are you wasting your time here trying to convince us?Originally posted by Salman:moral of the story is, work hard and be somebody and don't waste your energy whining.
go work hard and be somebody. i am sure no one here will miss you.
-
The judges will tell you are are only adminstrators of law and that the law are set by the minister. Therefore the best person to come out and explain would still be the Ministers themselves.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The ministers know this is a hot potato to handle...all of them are taking cover now. That colonel in the SAF essentially washed his hands off, saying that they had dealt with him by charging him...it's up to the court to sentence him...nothing to do with SAF.
The responsibility now falls to the AG Chambers....why did the Public Prosecutor not appeal against the sentence? We all know how keen the DPP is with pressing for a harsh sentence to send a stern warning against others who might commit a similar crime.
But not in this case, involving an elite.....I suspect the mastermind who told the judge not to impose a custodial sentence also instructed the DPP not to appeal...
I wish there is an MP I can ask to raise this issue in Parliament...but whilst I have been communicating with the MP in my constituency here in the UK, I don't even know who is my MP in Singapore now, since my constituency changes in every election. The fact is, I got to vote my UK MP as a citizen of the British Commonwealth, but I have never got to vote my MP in Singapore, since it's walkover each time...
-
Even if it appears like a scam, a sham, a whatever, what the heck can anyone do about?
Whatever the powers that be does, we can all just watch in dismay. That is all there is. Watch in dismay. Nothing more.
Frankly I don't give a !@#$ about it. -
sorry, they are not answerable to us.Originally posted by LinYu:The judges will tell you are are only adminstrators of law and that the law are set by the minister. Therefore the best person to come out and explain would still be the Ministers themselves. -
They are currently holding meetings among themselves to discuss what is the best way to respond to the growing amount of agitated and disgruntled NS men.Originally posted by LinYu:The judges will tell you are are only adminstrators of law and that the law are set by the minister. Therefore the best person to come out and explain would still be the Ministers themselves.
Just wait for their reply.
-
mindef already replied to the forum.Originally posted by charlize:They are currently holding meetings among themselves to discuss what is the best way to respond to the growing amount of agitated and disgruntled NS men.
Just wait for their reply. -
that's not a reply. that's farting.Originally posted by dragg:mindef already replied to the forum.
-
one man's fart is another man's reply.Originally posted by LinYu:that's not a reply. that's farting. -
My response is in relation to Lin Yu's post that the ministers are in the best position to clarify the issue and state officially the goverment's stand.Originally posted by dragg:mindef already replied to the forum.
The ministers themselves should be discussing among themselves as to how best to settle the issue and appease the disgruntled camp. -
Its not mindef's fault. If mindef had a choice, they would surely have put him in DB.
The court needs to be examined closely on their decision. -
the court had already pass down the sentence therefore should not up the sentence otherwise Mr Tan will get double punishment as he did not make an appeal.Originally posted by Salman:Its not mindef's fault. If mindef had a choice, they would surely have put him in DB.
The court needs to be examined closely on their decision.
This is sheer mockery on the court and law. -
I'm not suggesting a retrial.
I am suggesting that this court decision be examined. Put the court under trial, not Mervyn.
This thing needs to be dealt with openly and some heads need to roll. -
So according to you, Salman, if you make a name for yourself as an elite, you deserve to be treated different frm the others? Laws should not apply to you in the same way?Originally posted by Salman:moral of the story is, work hard and be somebody and don't waste your energy whining.
Is that what you mean by being reasonable and logical? -
Our legal process has n inbuilt appeal mechanism...the AGC should appeal on the grounds that the sentence is too lenient and does not reflect the severity of the crime.Originally posted by Salman:I'm not suggesting a retrial.
I am suggesting that this court decision be examined. Put the court under trial, not Mervyn.
This thing needs to be dealt with openly and some heads need to roll.
I suspect someone is telling AGC not to appeal.. -
I got a feeling Mervyn's case is not the one and only exceptional case.
I take the view that the system is tweaked with gentle punishment to entice, welcome and accommodate those who left Singapore to return and contribute in other ways and the media is used to send the deeper message out.
NSmen may get more monetary incentives in recognition of their NS service recently but the incentives and recognition accorded to someone like Mervyn are far far far greater.
NS for my son - no thanks!
-
i extracted this sentence from STimes today.
singaporeans are asked to be charitable and join in celebrating the return of a notable son.
see REVIEW S12 for details. -
Another double standard trial in Singapore
-
Yes, it is reasonable and logical. And why not?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So according to you, Salman, if you make a name for yourself as an elite, you deserve to be treated different frm the others? Laws should not apply to you in the same way?
Is that what you mean by being reasonable and logical?
Its not a matter of deserve, you may be treated better. -
NS is good regardless of what happened. I will still want my son to serve NS no matter what. If you depend on the circumstances around you to make your decisions, you will always be shifty, you can always find excuses not to do the right thingy.Originally posted by macjoe:NS for my son - no thanks! -
extracted from ST forum.
Mindef owes it to S'poreans to take clear stand on NS evaders
I refer to Mindef's Colonel Benedict Lim's much anticipated letter 'Pianist dealt with though he's no longer a citizen' (ST Nov 24). Section 33 of the Enlistment Act states that any person within or outside Singapore who
(a) fails to comply with any order or notice issued under this Act;
(b) fails to fulfil any liability imposed on him under this Act;
(c) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain postponement, release, discharge or exemption from any duty under this Act;
(d) does any act with the intention of unlawfully evading service;
(e) gives the proper authority or any person acting on his behalf false or misleading information; or (f) aids, abets or counsels any other person to act in the manner laid down in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e),
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
This section covers a list of offences with varying degrees of seriousness. It thus gives various punishment options to the courts in determining a suitable penalty for offenders.
In pianist Melvyn Tan's case, is it not right to say that his failure to fulfill National Service obligation is one of the more serious offences under the Act? If so, why was the lightest of possible punishments given?
I am disappointed with Col Lim's reply as he did not address our concerns. I believe we do not want a typical customer service type of response here.
Instead, Mindef owes the men of Singapore a more definite stand on this issue. Fine or jail? Make it known to all.
Looking ahead, it may want to review the Enlistment Act with the Attorney-General Chambers to state categorically the kind of punishment for a clear-cut offence like this.
Henry Ong Ling Tiong -
nice one.Originally posted by dragg:extracted from ST forum.
Mindef owes it to S'poreans to take clear stand on NS evaders
I refer to Mindef's Colonel Benedict Lim's much anticipated letter 'Pianist dealt with though he's no longer a citizen' (ST Nov 24). Section 33 of the Enlistment Act states that any person within or outside Singapore who
(a) fails to comply with any order or notice issued under this Act;
(b) fails to fulfil any liability imposed on him under this Act;
(c) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain postponement, release, discharge or exemption from any duty under this Act;
(d) does any act with the intention of unlawfully evading service;
(e) gives the proper authority or any person acting on his behalf false or misleading information; or (f) aids, abets or counsels any other person to act in the manner laid down in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e),
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
This section covers a list of offences with varying degrees of seriousness. It thus gives various punishment options to the courts in determining a suitable penalty for offenders.
In pianist Melvyn Tan's case, is it not right to say that his failure to fulfill National Service obligation is one of the more serious offences under the Act? If so, why was the lightest of possible punishments given?
I am disappointed with Col Lim's reply as he did not address our concerns. I believe we do not want a typical customer service type of response here.
Instead, Mindef owes the men of Singapore a more definite stand on this issue. Fine or jail? Make it known to all.
Looking ahead, it may want to review the Enlistment Act with the Attorney-General Chambers to state categorically the kind of punishment for a clear-cut offence like this.
Henry Ong Ling Tiong
-
bo bian, gahmen want like dat u can do wat...u can do fark niah...write to newspaper oso bo eng one....u can't tell the sun not to shine nor can u tell the skies not to turn dark...we can only suck thumb and lan lan...wat to do. they want to increase GST to 10% we oso lan lan....
-
Soon you will have people slamming the ones who call for tougher enforcement, cuz there are a lot of people here with the money to buy freedom for their sons you know..
-
like?Originally posted by LazerLordz:there are a lot of people here with the money to buy freedom for their sons you know.. -
The Biggest Fool is always the one who treated other like idiots.
The response from the army did not address directly to the query posted by the previous forumer in the Strait Times.
They have take the matter seriously.
Dun expect the guy to come back and perform in Singapore in a warm reception.
He deserted Singapore in 1978, dun expect people to take you back just because he want to come back to take care of his parents.
His past achievements were credited as his own, not of Singapore or British.
He is a very good example of a deserter.
Do Singapore have to look up such a loser for a performance ???
That is ridiculous.