8228:

Can someone provide more details (place, time etc.) about the walkathon tomorrow? Is it compulsory for all students? TIA.

Your kid in S1? Compulsory except with valid excuse.
For S1, be in school by 7 am.
Walkathon held at Marina Barrage.
Expected to end by 11 am n S1 will be bus back to school bwt 11.30 - 11.45 am.

Strparent:

some aunties are lidat de la, else why got saying sum koo lok por ? simi can nag also nag de. :siam:


u live there, really http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2013/01/look-like-boh-lang-leh.html ? tumpor malu wor

still unreachable in defeat.
To connect, Punggolites must either grow either very long arms or be at least 10 feet tall.

phtthp:

AC_Power:

For a corruption case to stand, the prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:
1) The person receiving the gratification is in the position of power or influence over the person offering the gratification;

2) The person has indeed received the gratification.

In this case, Tey clearly can influence DK's grades and Tey clearly had received the gratification. Prosecution has proven their case. Now it is left to Tey to prove that what he has no corrupted intent when receiving the gifts and having sex with her.

u are right.
because under PCA, that is how they define \"coruption\" below :-

\"Under Section 6 of the PCA, a corruption offence is committed :-

a.\tan agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;

b.\tany person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gratification to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or

c. ...

Anyone found guilty of an offence under Section 5 or 6 of the PCA shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000/- or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.\"

info source :-
http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=204

d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.

Just relax:

AC_Power:

[quote=\"Just relax\"]The difficulty for prosecution is to show that gifts=better grades, otherwise accepting gifts just shows poor judgment by Tey. Even the affair is poor judgment by Tey, unless affair=better grades. Accepting gifts or affair with students is a disciplinary issue and employee (Tey) can be punished including suspension or dismissal depending on severity. When does accepting gifts or affair become a crime? when it is an attempt to corrupt. Then for it to be corrupt somebody must have made the 1st move that had the corrupt intent, was it Tey or Ko? Or neither in which case no crime.

This is a common misconception. Please read my post couple of pages back.

For a corruption case to stand, the prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:
1) The person receiving the gratification is in the position of power or influence over the person offering the gratification;
2) The person has indeed received the gratification.

In this case, Tey clearly can influence DK's grades and Tey clearly had received the gratification. Prosecution has proven their case. Now it is left to Tey to prove that what he has no corrupted intent when receiving the gifts and having sex with her.

U have misunderstood what I have said, it still goes back to intent.

Today the Prosecution asked the question in submission what was Ng Boon Gay's intent when receiving oral sex and that is what I had highlighted in my post. Referring to the statute is not enough as the Court's in the past have always asked the question what was the intent of the receiver (Tey).

If the intent was to merely have fun then there is no corruption, if the intent was to help her grades then it is corruption. In a criminal case you have to show a criminal intent in addition to doing the act.[/quote]While its generally taken dat intent must be proven by prosecution in criminal cases, it does not apply to corruption cases under PCA.
AC Power is correct.
d onus is on d accused to prove dat there is no corrupt intent.

HVR:

Balanced views, nothing pro government or pro opposition.

Many with more discerning views wld beg to differ.

HVR:

limlim:

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/workers-party-lacks-minority-representation-20130128

ST publish these type of letters.. This is called balanced views? did ST even verify the facts? Not anti-Opp?

We have GRC and I am not concern there will be lack of minority representation regardless who formed the government in future. Maybe the writer did not see enough WP minority on the ground and felt compelled to raise his concern? In any case it gives WP a platform to respond, which they duly did. Balanced, in my view cos we also get to hear from WP.

HVR, without being partisan, can u seriously defend ST publishing dis letter in d first place?
ST had reporters on d ground during d campaign.
They also didn't see Pritam, Faisal or other minority volunteers?
Or were Pritam & Faisal really Chinese dressed up for Racial Harmony Day?
Please look at video link (fr 0:10):
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nMl1XoNPEW4][/youtube]
d tone of d letter is very disturbing.
Either d editor is sleeping or he has allowed ST to be a party to mischief in trying to sow racial discord.

btw, dis A. Fernandez chap was wan of d assentors for KJ fr RP.

sinoboy:

So would last night's result accelerate national policies before 2016? 8 million instead of 7 million? More spouse to have more chilren? COE, Bus, MRT, property, gst? Anyone?

We wld be going down a dangerous road if in order to stem d tide, d ruling party embarked on populist but wrong policies to win votes.
d ppl of PP n HG rightly rejected pork barrel politics in previous elections.
me agree with WP stance dat long-term goals must be given time to bear fruits.
Wat is missing is d MIWs apparently has lost touch with d ground.

3Boys:

I would have thought a prediction made at 12 noon just after booths open would hold more cachet than a prediction made at 9pm after polls closed?

MIW always have problems with bye elections, when was the last time they won an SMC by election? I think not since before JBJ.

When they started sorting out d votes at both counting centres, d number of votes were still close at 9 pm thereabouts.
It was much later at around 10 pm when reports were floated dat WP was pulling away in vote count.

While concur dat BE was a factor, but don't think dat factor alone caused a >13% swing.
Something more fundamental on d ground has changed.
It is telling dat, in d last rally, MIWS put up PM who spoke much longer than d candidate in defence of govt policies n there were three Malay speakers, including Halimah Y, who rallied.
Ministers n white MPs fanned out to distribute flyers to connect with d ground.
But those moves still didn't sway d ground n they got hammered by WP with a resounding victory.

pinkblue:

Way2GO:

[quote=\"ngl2010\"]Maybe PAP would have won if they nominated George Yeo. But he is retired, right?

Why do u think so?
GY was well liked n capable.
In GE 2011, when d tide turned strongly against his team, he pledged to reform d party fr within. We all know he left politics after he lost dat election.
Think he lost some political currency with dat move.
Dr KPK used d same message dat he wants to change d party from within, but it didn't resonate well with d voters coz those who said so before him has not managed to do so.

I like George Yeo but I still did not vote for him during last election. [/quote]Kudos to u.
Many others in Aljunied felt d same in showing farsightedness when exercising their votes.
Its unfortunate he was d wan sacrificed.

MMM:

I think they won in terms of emotional engagement. They are just like us the commoners iso some parachuted elites. They also come across as real and candid. It is also a clear sign that being a pap candidate is no longer a sure win.

Yes indeed.
Seems like MIWs stuck to their old n previously successful system of parachuting in candidates with strong credentials but who has little time to or cannot connect with d ground;
whereas d MIBs continue to till d ground with their grassroots, to connect with ppl to win d ground.
When d MIWs started from d 1980s (IIRC) onwards to bring in technocrats to help run d govt, their grassroots went into decline.

d spontaneity of WP supporters at rallies n at HG Blk 322 in both BEs is heartfelt n telling when compared to d 'orchestrated' actions of d MIW support.

ngl2010:

Maybe PAP would have won if they nominated George Yeo. But he is retired, right?

Why do u think so?
GY was well liked n capable.
In GE 2011, when d tide turned strongly against his team, he pledged to reform d party fr within. We all know he left politics after he lost dat election.
Think he lost some political currency with dat move.
Dr KPK used d same message dat he wants to change d party from within, but it didn't resonate well with d voters coz those who said so before him has not managed to do so.