City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 05:36:37 GMT

Estéema — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 05:36:37 GMT

We never know. Only God with His eyes see. Don’t need for us to futile search for answers. God will pursue

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 03:59:56 GMT

pirate — Sun, 04 Mar 2018 03:59:56 GMT

janet88:
thank goodness i don't attend church...especially that one.

all 6 went to jail while she is enjoying life in sentosa.

Sentosa was bought with church building funds meh? :scratchhead:

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Sat, 03 Mar 2018 14:09:42 GMT

Estéema — Sat, 03 Mar 2018 14:09:42 GMT

phtthp:
janet88:
[quote=\"areyoustressed\"]Chew has begun jail sentence, but face no fresh charges if I read the papers correctly.

nope...still investigating the escape charge.

what i'm totally pissed is SUN ESCAPED JAIL TIME :mad:

different outcome, life is like that.[/quote]
phtthp,

I see the parallel.

S'times in corporate life, there'll be mother's 'less impt' tobthe organization that has to be 'sacrificed'! Not fair, no justice to point finger elsewhere & let scapegoats bear the brunt. But in really it happens all so often to the 'powerless' as they're called in Korean movies.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Sat, 03 Mar 2018 13:51:56 GMT

janet88 — Sat, 03 Mar 2018 13:51:56 GMT

pirate:
janet88:
[quote=\"areyoustressed\"]Chew has begun jail sentence, but face no fresh charges if I read the papers correctly.

nope...still investigating the escape charge.

what i'm totally pissed is SUN ESCAPED JAIL TIME :mad:

Why you so pissed? Did you donate money to the church building fund? :imanangel:[/quote]thank goodness i don't attend church...especially that one.
all 6 went to jail while she is enjoying life in sentosa.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Sat, 03 Mar 2018 06:16:07 GMT

pirate — Sat, 03 Mar 2018 06:16:07 GMT

janet88:
areyoustressed:
Chew has begun jail sentence, but face no fresh charges if I read the papers correctly.

nope...still investigating the escape charge.

what i'm totally pissed is SUN ESCAPED JAIL TIME :mad:

Why you so pissed? Did you donate money to the church building fund? :imanangel:

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Sat, 03 Mar 2018 03:31:25 GMT

phtthp — Sat, 03 Mar 2018 03:31:25 GMT

janet88:
areyoustressed:
Chew has begun jail sentence, but face no fresh charges if I read the papers correctly.

nope...still investigating the escape charge.

what i'm totally pissed is SUN ESCAPED JAIL TIME :mad:

different outcome, life is like that.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:12:22 GMT

janet88 — Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:12:22 GMT

areyoustressed:
Chew has begun jail sentence, but face no fresh charges if I read the papers correctly.

nope...still investigating the escape charge.

what i'm totally pissed is SUN ESCAPED JAIL TIME :mad:

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 08:08:37 GMT

areyoustressed — Fri, 02 Mar 2018 08:08:37 GMT

Chew has begun jail sentence, but face no fresh charges if I read the papers correctly.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:51:11 GMT

limlim — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:51:11 GMT

Zeit:
Guys, for some mysterious reasons, the FB comment I said I saw is no longer there. I hope my old flower eyes aren't playing tricks on me. #watching #touche

I thought best to delete it as I've no screengrab. The subject matter appears to be quite sensitive. :shock:

https://www.facebook.com/MothershipSG/videos/1785861278120183/

deleted as request. What is quoted I cannot do anything about it.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:08:36 GMT

Zeit — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:08:36 GMT

Guys, for some mysterious reasons, the FB comment I said I saw is no longer there. I hope my old flower eyes aren't playing tricks on me. #watching #touche

I thought best to delete it as I've no screengrab. The subject matter appears to be quite sensitive. :shock:

https://www.facebook.com/MothershipSG/videos/1785861278120183/

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 06:31:05 GMT

pirate — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 06:31:05 GMT

limlim:
Zeit:

Someone posted a similar qn on Shanmugam's FB why Edwin Tong kept mum after spotting the gap and as an elected legislator, he oughta have alerted the govt early. That wasn't answered yet.
Good point.

Wonder if he consider himself a lawyer first or politician first.

Self before country, or country before self.

Points to ponder for the electorate.

It would not have made any difference to the case. The gap cannot be plugged retrospectively. That would be unconstitutional. Anyway, the government was already alerted of the potential gap as early as when the legal argument was first brought up in court, no? Then again, so was everybody else who reads the newspapers. That is a really unfair statement. Was Edwin Tong supposed to know that the Court of Appeal would agree with his argument?

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 06:23:32 GMT

pirate — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 06:23:32 GMT

limlim:
From what I'm aware, SG law is based on the common law doctrine.

[quote]The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis).

source - wiki
[quote]For 40 years, the courts relied on a 1976 High Court decision defining directors as \"agents\" - making them liable to the aggravated charge. At least 16 decisions were based on this precedent.[/quote]source - ST

For 40 years, directors are considerate agents. Then, for these group of people, directors are suddenly not considered as \"agents\"?.

The judge should apply the law as it stands, and it stands, for 40 years, that directors are agents, and 16 decisions had been based on this LAW.

Suddenly the law is different now?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z-s-z9MC_Kc/VyEt95gmWWI/AAAAAAAACbs/r-7fBIEAy2gHEtaxZbeIbIU2VLQ7V8-iQCLcB/s1600/all-animal-equal.jpg\">[/quote]The common law doctrine also says that a higher court (ie. Court of Appeal), is not bound by and can overrule a lower court (ie. High Court) precedent. Indeed, a court is not bound by and can depart from the precedent set by another court at the same level.

In this case, all it means is that the higher court (ie. Court of Appeal) has decided that the lower court (ie. High Court) was wrong 40 years ago.

So no, the law is not different now. It was just wrongly applied for the last 40 years. Which also means that the directors in those 16 cases can, technically speaking, apply for criminal revision... especially if they are still serving their sentences. :evil:

Yes, it is a big thing. That is why five judges sat on this Court of Appeal hearing instead of the usual three.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:31:17 GMT

limlim — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:31:17 GMT

deleted as requested.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 04:05:22 GMT

Zeit — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 04:05:22 GMT

Heard the Ministerial Statement yesterday? The final verdict’s been delivered. Rather than going on and on about it, why not do some CNY shopping instead? The more you go on, the more likely you’re going to scandalise the courts, and you’ve been reminded by the minister yesterday not to scold the Judges, lawyers and the pastors (and wife). Let God judge them on Judgment Day.

Kong Hei Fatt Choi!

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 03:59:41 GMT

Zeit — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 03:59:41 GMT

limlim:
Zeit:

232 These points, both individually and taken together, support the textual analysis of s 409 set out in the earlier part of our judgment. In other words, the extraneous material confirms, pursuant to s 9A(2)(a) of the IA, that the meaning of s 409 is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision, taking into account its context in the CBT provisions of the Penal Code and the purpose or object underlying the provision. The history also readily explains why the phrase “in the way of his business” is employed in s 409 (viz, as a reference to commercial activity), and reinforces the need for the term “agent” to be read ejusdem generis. Finally, on the crucial issue of legislative purpose, the historical material on s 409 and the related embezzlement provisions unequivocally indicate that the provision was intended to capture not any legal agent, but only professional agents, who played an important role in commercial life by providing services to the public at large, and who were entrusted with property in the way of their businesses.
So a \"professional agent\" is one that put \"CBT agent\" on their business card? lol..

What is important is, how would the law best serve the public interest? That should be the first consideration whenever interpretations is needed, and that changes with time.

When the law is outdated, legislation should fix it. When the law is subject to interpretation, the ball would be in the judge's court.

In this case, it's not outdated, but subjective to interpretation in current times & climate.

But to remove the ambiguity, some amendment naturally would do good.

And, don't forget that NOT all 3 judges are on the same page with regards to the judgement. We can say anything we like, but it's good to note that even in the court there are people who disagree with the judgement.

Have you read the verdict? There are sections on the Majority's case vs Minority case when it was heard at the HC. There is also a section on the Prosecution's case vs the Respondents' case at the CA.

1 out of 3 J disagreed with the defence, but so? In the HC, the majority rules, right? At least I was heartened Prosecution continued to press on and put up another appeal. CA upheld the majority's ruling, which meant Prosecution's (and minority's) case was either not strong enough or the existing legislation requires urgent updating. Give some credit to the majority for spotting the lacuna, shouldn't we?

When the law is outdated, legislation should fix it. Yes, I agree. Yesterday, Ms Cheng (MP for Tampines) asked a similar qn after Law Minister delivered his min statement. He answered your question in Parliament already. Go google for it.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 03:06:34 GMT

limlim — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 03:06:34 GMT

From what I'm aware, SG law is based on the common law doctrine.

[quote]The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis).[/quote]source - wiki
[quote]For 40 years, the courts relied on a 1976 High Court decision defining directors as \"agents\" - making them liable to the aggravated charge. At least 16 decisions were based on this precedent.[/quote]source - ST

For 40 years, directors are considerate agents. Then, for these group of people, directors are suddenly not considered as \"agents\"?.

The judge should apply the law as it stands, and it stands, for 40 years, that directors are agents, and 16 decisions had been based on this LAW.

Suddenly the law is different now?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z-s-z9MC_Kc/VyEt95gmWWI/AAAAAAAACbs/r-7fBIEAy2gHEtaxZbeIbIU2VLQ7V8-iQCLcB/s1600/all-animal-equal.jpg\">

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Tue, 06 Feb 2018 02:50:11 GMT

limlim — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 02:50:11 GMT

Angelsdontexist:
https://imgur.com/jIQTn9e.png\">

https://www.prolificskins.com/forum/current-affairs/chc-case-apex-court-rejects-reinstating-longer-jail-terms

When the verdict was passed by the high court last year, why don't they comment on it and make the necessary changes then? Why wait?

mysteries.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 11:28:02 GMT

Angelsdontexist — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 11:28:02 GMT

https://imgur.com/jIQTn9e.png\">

https://www.prolificskins.com/forum/current-affairs/chc-case-apex-court-rejects-reinstating-longer-jail-terms

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:42:30 GMT

pirate — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 08:42:30 GMT

Zeit:
pirate:
[quote=\"limlim\"]The judge are in a position to interpret. But not all choose to interpret it in a way to holdup justice.

I much prefer that judges just interpret and not do Parliament's job and legislate under the guise of 'interpretation'. Thank you very much.

it's not for us to prefer or anything. It's just not the judiciary's job to fix the lacuna.

\"As a matter of constitutional principle and public policy, we are firmly of the view that, in the present case, the shaping of a remedy should be left to Parliament.\"[/quote]I much prefer that the Judiciary sticks to its constitutional role and not try to usurp Parliament's function under the guise of 'interpretation' then.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:55:32 GMT

limlim — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:55:32 GMT

Zeit:

232 These points, both individually and taken together, support the textual analysis of s 409 set out in the earlier part of our judgment. In other words, the extraneous material confirms, pursuant to s 9A(2)(a) of the IA, that the meaning of s 409 is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision, taking into account its context in the CBT provisions of the Penal Code and the purpose or object underlying the provision. The history also readily explains why the phrase “in the way of his business” is employed in s 409 (viz, as a reference to commercial activity), and reinforces the need for the term “agent” to be read ejusdem generis. Finally, on the crucial issue of legislative purpose, the historical material on s 409 and the related embezzlement provisions unequivocally indicate that the provision was intended to capture not any legal agent, but only professional agents, who played an important role in commercial life by providing services to the public at large, and who were entrusted with property in the way of their businesses.

So a \"professional agent\" is one that put \"CBT agent\" on their business card? lol..

What is important is, how would the law best serve the public interest? That should be the first consideration whenever interpretations is needed, and that changes with time.

When the law is outdated, legislation should fix it. When the law is subject to interpretation, the ball would be in the judge's court.

In this case, it's not outdated, but subjective to interpretation in current times & climate.

But to remove the ambiguity, some amendment naturally would do good.

And, don't forget that NOT all 3 judges are on the same page with regards to the judgement. We can say anything we like, but it's good to note that even in the court there are people who disagree with the judgement.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:05:58 GMT

Zeit — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:05:58 GMT

pirate:
limlim:
The judge are in a position to interpret. But not all choose to interpret it in a way to holdup justice.

I much prefer that judges just interpret and not do Parliament's job and legislate under the guise of 'interpretation'. Thank you very much.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:01:19 GMT

Zeit — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 06:01:19 GMT

limlim

May I suggest you read the 152-page verdict? It seems to me you're quite lost. The J explained very clearly the guiding principles behind statutory intrepretation (pp38-67), as well as delved into the history of s 409 of the Penal Code, which in case you've forgotten was a rehash of the Indian Penal Code, inherited from our common colonial masters who drafted and enacted it in the 19th century. Over the years, some Commonwealth countries have amended some bits of their own Penal Code, e.g. M'sia's s 409 equivalent was already updated, unlike SG's.

https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/crf1-2017--2018-sgca-7%28ed%29-chcfinal5-1feb18-pdf.pdf

Professional agents in the 19th century

220 Finally, to round up the historical analysis, we consider the status of agents as a class of persons in the 19th century. In our view, a proper appreciation of the history of agents as a profession is crucial to understanding the context in which the statutory provisions discussed above were enacted, in particular s 409.

221 The essence of legal agency, as traditionally understood, is the power of the agent to affect the principal’s legal relations with third parties (Bowstead and Reynolds at para 1-004). It developed from the relationship of master and servant, and emerged as a “single and significant” subject at the turn of the 19th century (S J Stoljar, The Law of Agency: Its History and Present Principles (Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 1961) (“Stoljar”) at p 14 and more generally at pp 3–17). Its growth was sparked in many ways by the development of commercial life, such as the growth of trading companies, from the 17th century onwards (G H L Fridman, The Law of Agency (Butterworths, 7th Ed, 1996) at p 7).

222 From the beginning, it was recognised that “agents” were not a homogenous category and that there were different classes of agents. Stoljar notes as follows (at p 2):
… there are professional middlemen like the factor and broker mainly concerned with market exchanges, and there are organisational agents such as a manager, a director or a salesman who help in the functioning of larger commercial concerns, whether a firm or a company, a shop or an office.

223 Stoljar also makes clear that the “professional middlemen like the factor and broker” [emphasis added] were among the “most important agents” (at p 2). Other historical commentators were of the same view. For instance, William Paley wrote an early treatise on the law of agency in 1819 which “chiefly concern[ed] mercantile affairs” (William Paley, A Treatise on the Law of Principal and Agent: Chiefly with Reference to Mercantile Transactions (Joseph Butterworth and Son, 2nd Ed, 1819) at p viii). He noted, at p 13, that “[i]n addition to the … general duties, which affect all descriptions of agents alike, there are distinct duties depending upon their respective employments: of which the present treatise chiefly concerns such as regard mercantile affairs”. Paley then went on to describe “mercantile agents” and, in particular, factors and brokers as examples of such mercantile agents. Similarly, Harold Greville Hanbury in The Principles of Agency (Stevens & Sons Limited, 2nd Ed, 1960) (“Hanbury”), at p 13, identified five “important classes” of agents – factors, brokers, commission agents, del credere agents and auctioneers.

224 The reason for the importance of professional agents was the central role which they, and in particular factors and brokers, played in commerce. Factors were mercantile agents who, in the ordinary course of business, were entrusted with the possession of goods or the documents of title thereto (Hanbury at p 13). Brokers were analogous to factors save that they were mercantile agents who were employed to make contracts for the purchase or sale of personal property of which they were not entrusted with possession, or documents of title thereto (Hanbury at p 13). The terms were fluid, but what is clear is that these professional agents played an important role not just in facilitating the transactions of their principals, but also in providing finance and were therefore crucial to all aspects of commerce. Munday gives the example of the “Blackwell Hall factor”, in reference to factors who facilitated sales at the cloth market at Blackwell Hall. He notes that “[t]he Blackwell Hall factor of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries … presents a good example of an agent whose dominant position within his own branch of commerce led him to adopt the role of a financier” (Munday at p 231).

225 Likewise, when Singapore was still within the Straits Settlements, professional agents in the form of commission agents played a central role in the flourishing entrepot trade of the colony right from its founding in 1819. As chronicled by George Windsor Earl, these mercantile agents “receive[d] consignments of goods from merchants in Great Britain and [made] returns in oriental produce purchased in the settlement” (George Windsor Earl, The Eastern Seas (Wm H Allen and Co, 1837; Oxford University Press, Reprint, 1971) at p 415). They also handled the transhipment of goods between East and West, operating through the great merchant and agency houses of Singapore such as those established by Alexander Guthrie, John Purvis and Edward Boustead (Peter Drake, Merchants, Bankers, Governors: British Enterprise in Singapore and Malaya 1786–1920 (World Scientific, 2017) (“Drake”) at pp 5– 14; see also the detailed academic exercise by Loh Wen Fong, Singapore Agency Houses: 1819–1900 (1958) (unpublished academic exercise, University of Malaya in Singapore, archived at the National University of Singapore). Drake emphasises that these Singapore mercantile houses were not “mere subsidiaries or extensions of London firms or Calcutta agency houses”. Instead, they were independent and important, having strong commercial relationships with numerous Asian traders and producers in the Straits Settlements and, following the growth of banks in the Straits ports in the 1840s, frequently dealing with banks for the discounting of bills of exchange and promissory notes or seeking overdraft accommodation. Due in no small part to the influence and entrenchment of these mercantile agents, Singapore’s entrepot trade continued to flourish even after the East India Company’s monopoly in China was abolished in 1833 (Drake at pp 7–10). This stands testament to the nature of mercantile agents in the 19th century as an independent, powerful and wealthy professional class.

226 Focussing in greater depth on the class of “mercantile agents”, it is worth noting that, in the early 19th century, a special common law exception to the nemo dat quod non habet principle was carved out for this category of agents to allow mercantile agents who, in the customary course of business as agents, had the authority to sell goods, or to consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to buy goods, or to raise money on the security of goods, to give good title to a third party (Pickering v Busk (1812) 15 East 38 as cited in Hanbury at pp 14–15). As alluded to earlier at [147], this common law exception was supplemented by the enactment of the early Factors Acts which covered “agents entrusted” with property. Despite the ostensibly wide terminology used in the early Factors Acts, the phrase “agent entrusted” was construed as referring only to mercantile agents. Notably, in construing the term “agent entrusted” in the Factors Act 1823, Willes J in Heyman v Flewker (1863) 143 ER 205 held that “the term ‘agent’ does not include a mere servant or care-taker, or one who has possession of goods for carriage, safe custody, or otherwise, as an independent contracting party; but only persons whose employment corresponds to that of some known kind of commercial agent, like that class (factors) from which the act has taken its name” [emphasis added in italics and bold italics] (at 209). This construction was later incorporated into the Factors Act 1889 (c 45) (UK) which was expressly limited to the “mercantile agent”. There is a telling parallel between the way in which the courts construed the wide phrase “agent entrusted” in the early Factors Acts as referring to mercantile agents, and the judicial interpretation of the similarly broad phrase “other agents” in the Embezzlement Act 1812 and the Larceny Act 1827 as referring only to professional agents (see [239]–[246] below). These cases indicate that it was well understood at the time that the word “agents”, in the commercial or business context, referred to professional or mercantile agents who provided services to the public as part of the emerging market economy of that era.

227 Our brief review of the history of professional agents therefore reveals that professional agents – which included factors, brokers and the like – were already a recognised and distinct class of persons throughout the Commonwealth when the Larceny Act provisions were first enacted by the UK Parliament in the early 19th century, and certainly by the time the Indian Penal Code was passed in 1860.

Conclusions to be drawn from the historical material

228 From a review of the above historical material, three vital points can be distilled.

229 First, the history of the early embezzlement provisions in the UK indicates that these provisions were legislated in a piecemeal fashion to capture particular professions and trades in response to specific cases which brought about widespread public concern. There is no indication from the legislative debates or the historical material that the UK Parliament intended to inculpate persons based on broad legal categories. These specific classes found their way into the provisions on aggravated CBT in the Penal Code, including s 409, through the English Digest. And it was expressly presumed by the English Law Commissioners who drafted the English Digest that the “somewhat indefinite term” “agent” used in the aggravated offence of CBT would be interpreted in its statutory context and “restrained to other agents, ejusdem generis with those specified”.

230 Second, CBT by directors was only first criminalised in the UK when the Punishment of Frauds Act 1857 was enacted. However, as we have explained at [215]–[216] above, there was a sharp historical disconnect between the Punishment of Frauds Act 1857 and the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, it could not have been intended by the Indian Law Commissioners that directors and other officers of body corporates were to fall within s 409 as “agents”. This is also evident from the lack of any reference to company directors in the Penal Code. There was also no reference in the English Digest or in the earlier UK statutes to directors. All of this was merely a corollary of the fact that the special position of company directors, and the “new evil” arising from the misuse and abuse of the joint-stock company, had not yet surfaced in the public consciousness. As described at [198]–[208] above, this became a public concern only in 1856, following the collapse of the Royal British Bank. The Indian Penal Code, in contrast, was based on the state of English law prior to the enactment of the Punishment of Frauds Act 1857, at a time when only CBT by “agents for hire” was covered by statute.

231 Third, the Indian Penal Code and the earlier UK Embezzlement Act provisions were enacted at a time when professional agents, which included factors, brokers and the like, were a recognised and distinct class of persons who provided agency services to the public. Therefore, as the English cases on the early Factors Acts as well as on the Embezzlement Act 1812 and the Larceny Act 1827 indicate (see [239]–[246] below), it was readily understood at the time that the ostensibly broad references to “agents” in these Acts had to be construed purposively as referring to professional or mercantile agents who provided commercial services to the community at large as part of the emerging market economy of that era.

232 These points, both individually and taken together, support the textual analysis of s 409 set out in the earlier part of our judgment. In other words, the extraneous material confirms, pursuant to s 9A(2)(a) of the IA, that the meaning of s 409 is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision, taking into account its context in the CBT provisions of the Penal Code and the purpose or object underlying the provision. The history also readily explains why the phrase “in the way of his business” is employed in s 409 (viz, as a reference to commercial activity), and reinforces the need for the term “agent” to be read ejusdem generis. Finally, on the crucial issue of legislative purpose, the historical material on s 409 and the related embezzlement provisions unequivocally indicate that the provision was intended to capture not any legal agent, but only professional agents, who played an important role in commercial life by providing services to the public at large, and who were entrusted with property in the way of their businesses.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:45:05 GMT

limlim — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:45:05 GMT

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/government-believes-city-harvest-sentences-are-too-low-shanmugam-9927828

[quote]“The Government’s policy is clear: If you are a senior officer, director in the organisation, you are in a position of greater trust. You have considerable authority to make decisions in relation to the organisation’s assets. If you abuse that trust, you should be more culpable, and you should be liable for more severe punishments, compared with an ordinary employee.”

“That's really common sense, and there can be no question about that.”

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/government-believes-city-harvest-sentences-are-too-low-shanmugam-9927828[/quote]error 404: common sense not found.
catastrophic interpretation failure.

Reply to City Harvest's founder Kong Hee & 4 others arrested/charged on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:27:03 GMT

limlim — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:27:03 GMT

pirate:
limlim:
The judge are in a position to interpret. But not all choose to interpret it in a way to holdup justice.

I much prefer that judges just interpret and not do Parliament's job and legislate under the guise of 'interpretation'. Thank you very much.

Where legislation failed to draw the line, it's up to the judges interpretation.

When legislation finally addresses the line and turns out it is contrary to the 2 judges decision, it means their interpretation Failed. If it doesn't, great, all future CBT criminals and lawyers can take a cue from the landmark verdict.