Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested
-
limlim:
I also got mention in other post.
No lah.. aiyo.. I got mention in the other post mah..AC_Power:
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?
There are differences between a court and BOI.. and these differences can have big impact on uncovering the truth.
of coz, before he is charged in court, there have to be material evidences sufficient for the prosecution to decide to proceed.
If depend on BOI alone, maybe the truth wouldn't see the light at all.
It is not about the difference between court and BOI. It's about having the balls to make a stand.
After their investigation, don't tell me none of the top men has a doubt in the mind that NBG and CS are purely lovers and then put up a case to AGC not be proceed with criminal charges but to refer back to MHA for disciplinary action against NBG?
I believe that they do not want to make this call and took the easier way out - charge NGB in court and let the judge decide. -
AC_Power:
It is not about the difference between court and BOI. It's about having the balls to make a stand.
Charge head of CNB and SCDF? You think the call would have been made by anyone lower than Cabinet level? The stand was to sacrifice these two whose conduct was, at the very least, less than totally exemplary. Balls or no balls? That one I don't know. -
Just relax:
No lah.. aiyo.. I got mention in the other post mah..limlim:
[quote=\"AC_Power\"]
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?
There are differences between a court and BOI.. and these differences can have big impact on uncovering the truth.
of coz, before he is charged in court, there have to be material evidences sufficient for the prosecution to decide to proceed.
If depend on BOI alone, maybe the truth wouldn't see the light at all.
Don't confuse BOI with criminal trial. BOI is administrative procedure in many civil service organisations around the world to deal with breach of employee code of conduct. It is inquisitorial in nature unlike a criminal trial in Singapore. The powers of BOI are dependent on the rules that create the BOI. My point which you have missed is that the BOI performs its task away from the media so that an innocent person need not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, since such costs cannot be recovered in a criminal trial. There is no media glare and if innocent the matter ends there but if there is some questionable conduct then refer to CPIB to investigate further.
A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.
So then BOI can recommend disciplinary action if appropriate. I don't think employee handbook says cannot have affairs :rotflmao: So see how BOI will deal with situation. How to punish a civil servant for being unfaithful in marriage :idea:[/quote]Precisely what I have been trying to tell limlim, who continues to conflate the role of investigation/BOI with that of prosecution. Should one use the prosecutorial process as a fact-finding mission? And potentially do harm to the accused?
I really can't see the logic of that line of thinking, other than just being plain voyeuristic and blood-thirsty. -
pirate:
If what you are saying is true, it is then very wrong about our system.AC_Power:
It is not about the difference between court and BOI. It's about having the balls to make a stand.
Charge head of CNB and SCDF? You think the call would have been made by anyone lower than Cabinet level? The stand was to sacrifice these two whose conduct was, at the very least, less than totally exemplary. Balls or no balls? That one I don't know.
The Cabinet should in no way has a say in this. If we allow them to have a say, ie to sacrifice these two, in other cases, they can also have a say on not to charge someone as well. Do we want this?
My ideal state of affairs is this, CPIB investigate independently. Based on their findings, they recommend the course of action to the AGC who would advise on the legal aspect and see if their recommendation is sound. If the decision taken is to charge them, the Minister for Home Affairs should then be informed (FOR HIS INFORMATION ONLY) so that he can prepare for press enquiry etc. IN NO WAY must he influences the outcome.
If you are right that Cabinet is involved in this, God Bless Singapore. Having the Cabinet exerting influence over a criminal proceeding is worse then our top dogs getting sexual gratification from the vendors. -
The only issue with the BOI is this - it can only be convened if no police report is made against NBG for a possible corruption practice. Once there is an official report made, CPIB will have to step in if potentially it is a corruption case.
Therefore, procedurally, there isn’t a choice on whether we should go the BOI way or the CPIB investigation route. Once a report is lodged, it sets the entire machinery into motion. -
Just relax:
Did it explain in the verdict why he is not guilty?
A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.
bcoz the witness statement was invalid or bcoz they found that he has no influence on the tender process and there is no contract between CNB and CS company? -
Just relax:
I'm very clear what is the difference between BOI and trial. I'm not sure why you get that wrong impression from. And in fact I have been repeating not only once that trial and BOI is DIFFERENT.
Don't confuse BOI with criminal trial. BOI is administrative procedure in many civil service organisations around the world to deal with breach of employee code of conduct. It is inquisitorial in nature unlike a criminal trial in Singapore. The powers of BOI are dependent on the rules that create the BOI. My point which you have missed is that the BOI performs its task away from the media so that an innocent person need not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, since such costs cannot be recovered in a criminal trial. There is no media glare and if innocent the matter ends there but if there is some questionable conduct then refer to CPIB to investigate further.
A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.
So then BOI can recommend disciplinary action if appropriate. I don't think employee handbook says cannot have affairs :rotflmao: So see how BOI will deal with situation. How to punish a civil servant for being unfaithful in marriage :idea:
Away from the media, of coz I'm aware of that. But that is not a consideration.
The consideration is if there is any criminal act and whether there is sufficient material evidence to warrant/justify a prosecution. And apparently, there is.
And that is all that matters.
BOI is appropriate if they want to investigate professional misconduct, EMA, or maybe not.. since EMA is not \"wrong doing\" wrt professional conduct and discharge of job duties.
But a trial is appropriate for a corruption charge (with material evidences), as simple as that.
How would you know if there had been, or had been no, BOI before they press charges? -
limlim:
That is where again you have mixed up disciplinary proceedings which will also cover corruption as that is still a breach of civil service code of conduct.
I'm very clear what is the difference between BOI and trial. I'm not sure why you get that wrong impression from. And in fact I have been repeating not only once that trial and BOI is DIFFERENT.Just relax:
Don't confuse BOI with criminal trial. BOI is administrative procedure in many civil service organisations around the world to deal with breach of employee code of conduct. It is inquisitorial in nature unlike a criminal trial in Singapore. The powers of BOI are dependent on the rules that create the BOI. My point which you have missed is that the BOI performs its task away from the media so that an innocent person need not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, since such costs cannot be recovered in a criminal trial. There is no media glare and if innocent the matter ends there but if there is some questionable conduct then refer to CPIB to investigate further.
A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.
So then BOI can recommend disciplinary action if appropriate. I don't think employee handbook says cannot have affairs :rotflmao: So see how BOI will deal with situation. How to punish a civil servant for being unfaithful in marriage :idea:
Away from the media, of coz I'm aware of that. But that is not a consideration.
The consideration is if there is any criminal act and whether there is sufficient material evidence to warrant/justify a prosecution. And apparently, there is.
And that is all that matters.
BOI is appropriate if they want to investigate professional misconduct, EMA, or maybe not.. since EMA is not \"wrong doing\" wrt professional conduct and discharge of job duties.
But a trial is appropriate for a corruption charge (with material evidences), as simple as that.
How would you know if there had been, or had been no, BOI before they press charges?
Unfortunately the BOI according to NBG's lawyer after the acquittal had been suspended pending the trial. So that is the defect of the system. Having a BOI 1st can have benefits in dealing with precisely the issues that were uncovered here.
Both in law prof. case and NBG case the women involved clearly had relationships with the men yet appeared to have made statements to the CPIB that caused the element of corruption to surface. Both women testified that they spent many hours at the CPIB when making their statements. And both women claimed that the statements made did not clearly reflect what happened.
What would have happened if these women had made their statements at a BOI before an experienced tribunal of a retired judge and senior counsel who by their expertise and training will be able to assess the truthfulness of the women's statements, ask the right questions and get to the truth. All this would not have required the women to spend 10+ hours at a stretch to give their CPIB statements. -
Just relax:
I agree generally to what you have said apart from the above.
What would have happened if these women had made their statements at a BOI before an experienced tribunal of a retired judge and senior counsel who by their expertise and training will be able to assess the truthfulness of the women's statements, ask the right questions and get to the truth. All this would not have required the women to spend 10+ hours at a stretch to give their CPIB statements.
On what basis have you formed your perception that the tribunal of the BOI is better in assessing the truthfulness of the statements as compared to the investigators in CPIB? The retired judge, senior counsel are definitely more familiar with the legal proceedings and the legislation due to their expertise and experience. However, in terms of detecting deceit, I would expect investigators to have a better expertise in these due to the fact that they have been carrying out investigations throughout their careers while judges and counsels merely look at the findings from these investigators.
If like what you have said is correct, then we can jolly well disband all investigation units in our law enforcement agencies. Once suspect is arrested, just send to the court and let the judges and counsels to decide their guilt or innocence. -
Just relax:
I believe getting the women to appear before the BOI is on a volunteer nature (?).
What would have happened if these women had made their statements at a BOI before an experienced tribunal of a retired judge and senior counsel who by their expertise and training will be able to assess the truthfulness of the women's statements, ask the right questions and get to the truth. All this would not have required the women to spend 10+ hours at a stretch to give their CPIB statements.
And, there is no restrictions for the men/women to contact/meetup each other before/during/after the BOI? At least not bounded by the law.
Sure, can have BOI first.. beat all the grass and put the snakes into battle station ready mode.....
With sufficient planning, all the testimonials can be cooked to fit flawlessly making prosecute difficult if not impossible.. BEFORE a trial?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Recent Topics
