Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested

[Just relax]

limlim:

3Boys:

In doing so, has justice been done to the individual? He is out of pocket to the tune of half-a-million dollars, he is subjected to public ridicule. What if he were a commoner without such deep pockets, could he afford to defend himself?

Would he have ended up in this state had he followed proper code of conduct expected of a high ranking civil officer? is EMA a necessity?

The problem is that 2 supposedly capable men succumbed to temptation. The qn. the public can ask, if tempted by this although already married, is there some other temptations these men could fall for as well?

Both are in impt. front line jobs dealing with Singapore's security and safety. These men have to behave impeccably at all times as the temptations are distractions from their job.

BUT that does not mean they were criminal. The other way would have been to have an internal Board of Inquiry (BOI) and if sufficient evidence then hand over to CPIB for further investigation and prosecution by AGC if sufficient evidence.

If you see both the law prof. and CNB case, the women claim relationship, the men also claim relationship, now SCDF also claim relationship, so it is not outright corruption where there is money given (although sex is also corruption but not so clear cut as Judge in CNB case has rightly pointed out) so perhaps BOI 1st?

Then there is no issue of cover up and then all this media circus won't happen. If BOI finds improper then can still punish by sacking etc.

BOI can be 3 man, 1 senior civil servant from different ministry, 1 lawyer from private practice who is Senior Counsel or retired Judge and a 3rd person can be anybody else. The 3 cases of corruption involving affairs are not complicated cases. The BOI can get the facts and all 3men can have their lawyers with them and BOI can conduct inquiry. Very straightforward. No cover up because got retired Judge or senior outside lawyer on BOI.

[pirate]

Nah. The political climate is now so poisonous that nothing short of an open trial will satisfy the baying masses. Anything less and the crowd will scream, "Elitist cover up!"

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

In doing so, has justice been done to the individual? He is out of pocket to the tune of half-a-million dollars, he is subjected to public ridicule. What if he were a commoner without such deep pockets, could he afford to defend himself?

Would he have ended up in this state had he followed proper code of conduct expected of a high ranking civil officer? is EMA a necessity?

Since when did EMA become grounds for criminal prosecution?

Don't stretch the logic of what's going on here.

[3Boys]

pirate:

Nah. The political climate is now so poisonous that nothing short of an open trial will satisfy the baying masses. Anything less and the crowd will scream, \"Elitist cover up!\"

You ain't being sarcastic, are you?

[winchester]

3Boys:

pirate:

Nah. The political climate is now so poisonous that nothing short of an open trial will satisfy the baying masses. Anything less and the crowd will scream, \"Elitist cover up!\"

You ain't being sarcastic, are you?

i think he is astute lol

[winchester]

pirate:

Nah. The political climate is now so poisonous that nothing short of an open trial will satisfy the baying masses. Anything less and the crowd will scream, \"Elitist cover up!\"

also even if there is trial and judgment not to mob's liking - \"elitist cover up\" and \"compliant judiciary\" lol

[pirate]

winchester:

pirate:

Nah. The political climate is now so poisonous that nothing short of an open trial will satisfy the baying masses. Anything less and the crowd will scream, \"Elitist cover up!\"

also even if there is trial and judgment not to mob's liking - \"elitist cover up\" and \"compliant judiciary\" lol

Oh yeah. I forgot about that one. :slapshead:

[limlim]

Just relax:

limlim:

Would he have ended up in this state had he followed proper code of conduct expected of a high ranking civil officer? is EMA a necessity?

BUT that does not mean they were criminal. The other way would have been to have an internal Board of Inquiry (BOI) and if sufficient evidence then hand over to CPIB for further investigation and prosecution by AGC if sufficient evidence.

If you see both the law prof. and CNB case, the women claim relationship, the men also claim relationship, now SCDF also claim relationship, so it is not outright corruption where there is money given (although sex is also corruption but not so clear cut as Judge in CNB case has rightly pointed out) so perhaps BOI 1st?

Then there is no issue of cover up and then all this media circus won't happen. If BOI finds improper then can still punish by sacking etc.

The thing is, there is external party critical to the establishment of guilt, which is the women in question. Their statement is crucial to determine if there is any wrong doing.

The BOI doesn't have the power to call in an external party for judgement or investigation. And, the BOI doesn't enjoy the same power as the court, such as making it criminal act to give false statement. Anyone can lie to the BOI w/o being liable for it.. isn't it?

If any one who is suspected of corruption INSIST that they are in r/s with the other party whether they are man or woman, the BOI would not be able to proceed to the stage to hand over over to the AGC? becasue like what you say, unable to proof they are Not in r/s mah. One sided story. I guess the BOI have no powers to pull evidences such as records from hotels etc.. also.

And no, sacking is not the appropriate punishment they broke the law. (corruption etc..)

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]

In doing so, has justice been done to the individual? He is out of pocket to the tune of half-a-million dollars, he is subjected to public ridicule. What if he were a commoner without such deep pockets, could he afford to defend himself?

Would he have ended up in this state had he followed proper code of conduct expected of a high ranking civil officer? is EMA a necessity?

Since when did EMA become grounds for criminal prosecution?

Don't stretch the logic of what's going on here.[/quote]I NEVER said that. Don't anyhow shoot hor.

Corruption is the grounds of prosecution.

As it happens, it was EMA and not corruption. However, before the trial, it was not known if it is corruption OR EMA. Hence need to trial.

The fact it, he got exposed to the media bcoz of his dealings with the women which give raise to possible conflict of interest. Is it not his own doing that lead him to the current state of affairs? That he deals with the women in a way that arose suspicion and that he did not declare it when it is his job nature that requires him to declare.

[AC_Power]

limlim:

I NEVER said that. Don't anyhow shoot hor.

Corruption is the grounds of prosecution.

As it happens, it was EMA and not corruption. However, before the trial, it was not known if it is corruption OR EMA. Hence need to trial.

The fact it, he got exposed to the media bcoz of his dealings with the women which give raise to possible conflict of interest. Is it not his own doing that lead him to the current state of affairs? That he deals with the women in a way that arose suspicion and that he did not declare it when it is his job nature that requires him to declare.

Is it really necessary for the judge to confirm that it is an EMA and not a corruption? Is the judge the wisest man of all such that only he can tell the difference between an EMA and a corruption and hence a court trial is needed?

I do agree with you though, by declaring his relationship with CS would have saved him lots of money.