Minister who supported Durai's wrongful acts does not own up
-
They should benchmark themselves with minister from Korea or Taiwan.Originally posted by the Bear:actually, the fricken ministers keep talking about benchmarking...
why don't they benchmark themselves against this?
-
gahmen pay and pay mata is here!!! anyone wants to eat mushrooms?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Who are you referring to? If you have the courage to make such serious allegations, surely you are prepared to stand by them?
-
After nearly 30 years of comfortable governance, where stability and trust with the people has degraded into arrogance and delusions of omnipotence, some of our leaders have forgotten what it means to step into public service.
It is almost impossible to hear a 'sorry' or a humble apology anymore from some of our ministers. Their dismissive attitude and cold calculating approach is not only threatening to ruin their political future, but also erode away the image of a once caring government, charged with the duty to bring us out of the doldrums.
The more they refuse to acknowledge their incompetence, the MORE INFALLIABLE they will perceive themselves, despite the obvious. (think emperor's clothes).
Perhaps MM Lee had it backwards; SG already has a dose of INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP. Now all we need to do is vote rationally. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:After nearly 30 years of comfortable governance, where stability and trust with the people has degraded into arrogance and delusions of omnipotence, some of our leaders have forgotten what it means to step into public service.
It is almost impossible to hear a 'sorry' or a humble apology anymore from some of our ministers. Their dismissive attitude and cold calculating approach is not only threatening to ruin their political future, but also erode away the image of a once caring government, charged with the duty to bring us out of the doldrums.
The more they refuse to acknowledge their incompetence, the MORE INFALLIABLE they will perceive themselves, despite the obvious. (think emperor's clothes).
Perhaps MM Lee had it backwards; SG already has a dose of INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP. Now all we need to do is vote rationally. . Arrogance/pride : Pride goes before a fall!! -
As posted at www.youngpap.org.sg
Were the above-stated wrongdoings by Durai figments of imagination? What did the regulatory authority and minister do with these findings by KPMG?
The international accountancy firm KPMG investigated the business activities of NKF and issued a report on 16 December 2005 including the following conclusions:
-In 1995 Durai's pay was increased from $12,000 to $18,000. The promotion was backdated six months, so he received another $36,000. On top of that, Durai received a $30,000 bonus "top-up" based on the revised salary.
-In 1997 Durai was offered a salary of $30,000 a month but he chose to accept only $25,000, a $7,000 increase over his previous wage. The increment was backdated 11 months, amounting to an extra $77,000.
-September 1997 to October 2003. His overtime pay amounted to $187,000.
-May 1995 to November 2003. Encashing his leave entitlement brought in another $350,000.
-In 2004 Durai chalked up an average bill of $32,952 per month on his corporate credit card.
-In 2004 a $70,000 "study trip" to Las Vegas for six of NKF's staff, including Durai, to get fresh ideas on doing charity shows.
-In 2004 $430,000 on movie and concert tickets to be given free to "nurture" donors
-Staff received pay increments as often as four times a year. Former director Matilda Chua's salary rose from $1,300 to $12,500 over nine years.
-Staff were given exit payments of up to 10 months' salary.
-Durai used NKF funds to pay bills relating to his wife's Mercedes, including paying for petrol and repairing the car.
-In 2004 NKF made a surplus of $993,677 from drug sales. Although NKF claimed it helped its patients save over $3.5 million in treatment costs, it had charged its patients a premium for certain discounted drugs, instead of passing the savings on to them.
So many misdeeds, only worth 3 months jail for NKF TT Durai, Kan-ni-na, then better be corrupt and rob the banks man, here I come!! -
JUST a day after one chapter was brought to a close in the National Kidney Foundation scandal, another multi-million-dollar bombshell rocked the charity scene.
If the minister in charge of NKF at the time had acted more effectively, instead of repeating what Durai had claimed to defend him in parliament would we be seeing so many more cases of irregularities at so many charitable institutions?
.
The Commissioner of Charities on Friday launched an inquiry into the disappearance of some $3.88 million from the coffers of the St John's Home for Elderly Persons, apparently drawn without authorisation by a staff member.
.
The loss was discovered on June 8 when two of the home's cheques to its vendors bounced.
.
The home checked with the bank and found that a fixed deposit account, from which the cheques were to have been paid, had been emptied out.
.
The next day, a check with another bank revealed that all the home's fixed deposits with it had also been withdrawn, according to a joint press release issued by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) and the home on Friday.
.
A report was filed with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and the police last Monday.
.
That same day, home superintendent Benjamin Ho, 60 — who had gone on overseas leave in late May — did not return to work as he was scheduled to. He could not be reached despite repeated calls to his home and mobile phone.
.
The home, which was set up in 1959 at Macpherson and now has 62 residents — some of whom are destitute and homeless — does not get any government grants and relies wholly on donations from various churches and members of the public.
.
When this newspaper dropped in on Friday evening, its Annual General Meeting was under way and the managerial committee had just informed donors and volunteers about the loss. They received the news calmly.
.
Speaking for the board, honorary treasurer Mr Andrew Lioe told Today: "We all feel very sad. A lot of this was based on trust and so we are quite stunned. Our trust has been betrayed."
.
Chairman Wilfred Anthonisz declined to speculate on Mr Ho's involvement as the matter is under police investigation.
.
But the possibility that forgery was involved was raised. According to the home, any withdrawals from the banks required Mr Lioe's signature and that of one of three approved people -- Mr Anthonisz, vice-chairman Mr Woon Wee Yim and honorary secretary Mdm Laureen Tan.
.
All four have told police they did not sign off on any withdrawals.
.
Meanwhile, Mr Anthonisz gave the assurance that the home had enough funds to carry on. Its total monthly spending is about $40,000. He said: "We want to carry on running it as normally as possible."
.
The NCSS is helping to ensure that residents continue to be cared for and, at the home's behest, will take over its financial administration functions in the interim. It will also look at ways to improve the home's financial systems and internal controls.
.
According to the home's 2005 financial statements posted online, its total expenditure that year was $583,000, while its total assets amounted to $4.66 million and total funds were $4.62 million. The total receipts – including from donations, grants, members' fees and investments – stood at $613,000.
.
This development, so close on the heels of other high-profile lapses among charities – which led to an overhaul of regulatory systems – has shocked observers.
.
Said Associate Professor Mak Yuen Teen, who sits on the Charity Council and heads the Corporate Governance and Financial Reporting Centre at the National University of Singapore: "The charity sector certainly does not need another one of these episodes. But the commissioner is doing the right thing by stepping in quickly to announce it to the public and investigate it as speedily as possible."
.
The COC will look into how the loss occurred and assess the governance and financial control systems at the home, whose Institution of Public Character status will be reviewed.
Sheralyn Tay and Lin Yanqin
sheralyn@mediacorp.
Where is the accountability of government ? If government does not believe in helping citizens in needs due to unfortunate unemployments it should at least let them survive by desisting to tax them heavily with all kinds of direct and indirect taxes plus all the profiteering schemes on lands and assets as HDB has been doing after Mah Bow Tan has become minister for ND.
At the very least if government does not want to offer any help at all to citizens in needs of help due to illness or old age, by making the public look after them through charities, the minister in charge should have ensured charity donations do not get misused by CEOs to enrich themselves as has happened in so many cases. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
No wonder it is said that empty vessels make the most noise...very apt of someone known for his verbose posts.
The absurdity of a Mushroom knows no bounds.
Is it not a quirk of nature that a Mushroom is always big in its head, when all other creatures and plants are more well formed and independently grounded - without the need to be naturally parasitical in any way ?
Was NKF not formed with the blessing of this Government ?
If the Ministers have not - or appear not to prefer to - investigate the NKF issues [b]when the calls of concerns were made before the storm broke open, and solid defense were made BY THE MINISTERS to PROTECT the interest of the NKF and its MANAGEMENT - how would the Public View of such conduct be ?
Even Minister Khaw Boon Hwan had the humility to admit his oversight.
What have you to offer with your arrogance in defense of an already arrogant Government ?
Nothing more than a twirp of a Mushroom trying to look like an Oak Tree.
[/b]
The government was not aware of the going-ons in NKF...as you yourself pointed out, the minister admitted to an oversight. An oversight is a very different matter from condoning an action, the latter means the government was aware of Durai's activities. The government may be accused of negligence or at least, an error of judgment...the Minister had admitted as much, but not complicity, as you and robert allege. The former is fair comment, the latter is defamation.
Like the clown CSJ, there are plenty of idiots here who cannot understand the difference. You are only asking to be sued. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
As ''big and thick'' as the Mushroom head can be, it is also known to be ''soft in the head'' too.
No wonder it is said that empty vessels make the most noise...very apt of someone known for his verbose posts.
The government was not aware of the going-ons in NKF...as you yourself pointed out, the minister admitted to an oversight. An oversight is a very different matter from condoning an action, the latter means the government was aware of Durai's activities. The government may be accused of negligence or at least, an error of judgment...the Minister had admitted as much, but not complicity, as you and robert allege. The former is fair comment, the latter is defamation.
Like the clown CSJ, there are plenty of idiots here who cannot understand the difference. You are only asking to be sued.
How can the government not be aware, when even the backbenchers from their own Party is calling for an investigation ?
An ''oversight'' is a mere excuse that one can probably accept - with some degree of generosity given to someone as humble as Minister Khaw.
What has Minister Lim Hng Kiang got to offer, as well as the other members of the Ruling Party that backed these two ministers ?
Not forgetting that some of the expressions of concern came from the Backbenchers from the Ruling Party itself - yet these calls were ignored.
When 'an unwitting accompanying person to a crime' can be found guilty as an accomplice, with the court dismissing his ''claims of ignorance'' that the other members are armed with intent to commit murder and robbery - how should we judge the Ministers ?
How many ''claims of ignorance'' have been dismissed by the Chief Justice Yong Pung Howe - from accomplices to major crimes, and even from landlords pleading ignorance to the legal status of their tenants on mundane rental issues ?
Yet on a subject of public confidence in a multi-million dollar charity, should the two ministers have been less diligent and so protective towards a person and an organisation that is a mirror to their own image ?
One would have expected the many voiced concerns to have led to some kind of enquiry instead of an outright dismissal.
If inaction is not implied approval, and if implied approval is not complicity - what else is ?
Stick to your own medicine, and leave the law as it is - there is no need for you to interprete an exaggeration of an already burdensome bundle of legislations designed to trap Singaporeans.:
From my post on Page 1 of this thread:
Lim: “Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to have clear guidelines on the raising and utilisation of funds to maintain public confidence in our non-profit organisations and their programmes. There are essentially three questions the public is most interested in. First, what methods are used to raise the money? Second, how much of the charity dollar is used to raise funds? And, finally, how is the money spent or saved?”
Of the three questions, the third is the most relevant to the issue today: Was NKF in compliance with regulations over how the money spent or saved?
Mr Lim did not mince words: “Mr Speaker, Sir, the NKF is in full compliance with the regulations.” (emphasis added)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there was the matter of the National Council of Social Services (NCSS). On Dec 31, 2001, the NCSS revoked the IPC status of NKF. The NCSS took action because it saw the problems within the NKF. And yet, within a month the Ministry of Health reinstated the NKFÂ’s IPC status.
Now read what Mr Lim told Parliament in 2004: “[The Ministry of Finance] has certain criteria by which [it] evaluates applicants who want IPC status, and these criteria are set by IRAS, and we make sure that people who apply have to qualify before they are given this IPC status.” (emphasis added)
In other words we are given to believe that there was an active search for answers from the NKF before NKF was given clearance to reclaim its IPC status.
Ignoring clear calls for some checks to be made with an arrogant dismissal can hardly be called ''an oversight'' - a term that did not even originate from Minister Khaw Boon Wan, and was coined to allow some idiot to desparately pick it up and make some hopeless defense from an already indefensible position.
Compared to idiots, it will be fools that will pick-up trails designed to be a trap, and there will be clowns who will put up the pitiful act of ''Ministerial arrogance'' when they are no more then just ''a puff of hot air'' from a self-inflated head similar to a mere size of a mushroom.
It seems that your bark is worst than your bite - sue anyone in this Speaker's Corner ? Your Mushroom head must be suckling with an overdose from some ''opium tree''.
The severity of the damage in this NKF saga is best covered at the earliest opportunity, and you have to be a fool to think that this matter will need to be further pursued by chasing any participants in any open forum.
Continue being a twirp, as all the empty cans are fixed onto your rear waiting for a Mushroom to be wedded to an Oak Tree.
BTW : thanks for your insightful revelation of your recognition to my verbose posts - do I detect some sense of resignation on your part ? -
Negligence is just as bad.
We're not talking of middle management, we're talking of high political office. If you cannot have the information you need at that level, it means that someone's not working hard enough to find out more about the issues.
If a Ministry cannot perform effective oversight over a constituent agency/private association, something is not quite right with the entire working setup within a Ministry.
I recall we are to expect the best from our civil servants and politicians, because they are paid with our tax dollars. Nothing less will do.
-
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.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Negligence is just as bad.
We're not talking of middle management, we're talking of high political office. If you cannot have the information you need at that level, it means that someone's not working hard enough to find out more about the issues.
If a Ministry cannot perform effective oversight over a constituent agency/private association, something is not quite right with the entire working setup within a Ministry.
I recall we are to expect the best from our civil servants and politicians, because they are paid with our tax dollars. Nothing less will do.
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 -
Why not do you political masters a favour and actually sue them? After all, we all know what you really are.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 -
What is he to you? A mongrel dog?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Why not do you political masters a favour and actually sue them? After all, we all know what you really are. -
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.....
-
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 -
I wonder what sentence he will get for this crime?
I notice all his charges are relatively small... hmmm.. -
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?Originally posted by BusSpeeder:agreed. after it was revealed that Durai's office was furnished so "rich man" style, i think that he used NKF's money for his own use -
Oh no, a chihuahua. Talk big, flees when the bigger dogs come to bite.Originally posted by iveco:What is he to you? A mongrel dog? -
maybe platinium model was not available..? or maybe ..just maybe he liked gold better..Originally posted by FocusPoint: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? -
can we somehow stick to facts without name-calling in SC?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
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.
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
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 -
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 ? -
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. -
similar to Gazelle, whom has gone delusional in another thread.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
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. -
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?Originally posted by soul_rage: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 has our ministers do 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.
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. -
Hmmm....
According to Wikipedia, Durai was an international arms dealer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._T._Durai