Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore
Law Watch, a Singapore Law Report, www.singaporelawwatch.sg, of August
31, 2009 has this judgment in the case of four foreign banks,
Plaintiffs, against the Singapore company Asia Pacific Breweries
(Singapore) Pte Ltd, Defendant. The four Plaintiff foreign banks were
Skandanaviska Enskilda Banken, Mizuho Corporation Bank, Bayerische Hypo
Und Vereinsbank Aktiengesellschaft and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking
Corporation.
The case involved the four banks suing the Asia
Pacific Breweries for over a $100 million for moneys lent to it,
through it's Finance Manager Chia Teck Leng who made off with it.
Anyone
who knows Singapore would have been able to accurately predict the
outcome of this lawsuit merely looking at Asia Pacific Breweries
(Singapore) Pte Ltd. A search on it's website www.apb.com shows it is
joint venture with Fraser and Neave Ltd and Heineken. For anyone who
knows Singapore, a search on Fraser and Neave's website
www.fraserandneave.com would have given the answer away immediately.
It's director is none other than Lee Hsien Yang, the son of Singapore's
strongman Lee Kuan Yew. No prizes for the right answer here! Asia
Pacific Breweries won. The banks lost.
There are many outside
Singapore, who wrongly think that Lee Kuan Yew only abuses the law in
human rights cases; that in commercial cases there is impartiality.
Singaporeans of course know better. This case clearly shows that not
only in human rights cases, as if it is not bad enough, but in every
type of case, the entire Singapore judiciary is corrupt to the core.
They always favor the Lee Kuan Yew family or the Singapore government
against everyone else.
In this case, giving the case to the
foreigh banks would mean Lee Kuan Yew's son's company losing over a
$100 million. Sucn an eventuality is unacceptable in Lee Kuan Yew's
Singapore, never mind where justice lies.
And let this case be
a warning to all foreigners; foreign banks, foreign companies and
foreigners with money in Singapore. The Singapore legal system is
corrupt. The Singapore's courts will shamelessly abuse the law to favor
Lee Kuan Yew or the Singapore government against anyone else. It is
impossible to get justice in the island when you are facing either the
Lee family and their interests, or the Singapore government. And keep
in mind, the Lee family and the government's interests stretch
throughout Singapore and in every industry you can think of. Therefore
beware your money and your interests in Singapore. In a dispute, there
is no guarantee that you will see justice, as this case so clearly
shows.
And what is more, the judge in this case was Belinda Ang
Saw Ean, the same judge about whom I wrote which landed me in a
Singapore jail last year. Need we say more? You of course know that in
that case of defamation, she had ordered Dr. Chee Soon Juan to pay Lee
Kuan Yew more than $400,000.00; as if money grows on trees; merely for
criticizing him in a newsletter. Not just that, she refused to allow
Dr. Chee Soon Juan to introduce any witnesses at his trial, deciding
the case in her private chambers instead!
Another tell tale
sign to predict the winner in this case are the lawyers. Asia Pacific
Breweries Singapore was represented by Davinder Singh and Hri Kumar,
Lee Kuan Yew's favorite lawyers and the favorite law firm to boot.
Belinda's
judgement in this case is very long, 110 pages to be exact. But there
is no need to read it all. The first few facts would be good enough to
tell anyone that the banks should have won, not Asia Pacific Breweries
(Singapore). Chia Teck Leng was the Finance Manager lawfully employed
by the Asia Breweries. He also happened to be a habitual gambler. He
was at all times working for the company. The company's documents
acknowledged that he was the Finance Manager. The company's documents
authorized him to make bank loans. In every way he had, what one would
expect, the powers of a Finance Manger of a company.
These four
banks, one Scandinavian, one German and 2 Japanese had no way of
knowing that Chia was dishonest. And as expected of any bank, they took
the normal precautions of ensuring that the company passed resolutions
for each loan, that the articles and memorandum indicated he was still
the Finance Manager and other routine documents for security. From the
entire judgement, there is nothing to indicate that these banks had
acted in any way improper or negligent.
Even a boy can tell
you this. Asia Breweries was entirely responsible for their actions of
it's Finance Manager. If he happened to be a crook, it is they who were
responsible. These 4 foreign banks were entirely innocent, as they did
not know Chia was a crook. How could they? They were an innocent
contracting party.
But you see, everything changes in
Singapore when Lee Kuan Yew or any of his family members are involved.
In Singapore, the Lee Family never loses. How could this judge allow
these foreign banks to win even if she wanted to. But knowing what she
did to Dr. Chee Soon Juan when Lee Kuan yew sued him for defamation, we
know also know that she is corrupt to the core.
This is how
Belinda Ang, Lee Kuan Yew's judge twists the law and the evidence to
favor her master Lee Kuan Yew. Her 110 page judgement starts off with
the sentence "Chia Teck Leng was an inveterate gambler who
unremittingly resorted to cheating and forgery in order to fuel and
sustain his gambling addiction". Thoughout the long judgement she makes
repeated reference to his dishonesty, trying very hard to justify her
decision which clearly goes against the grain. And her reason for
giving the case to Lee Kuan Yew's son's company, believe it or not,was
to say that the banks had not used due dilingence when giving the
loans, when nothing in the evidence indicates that! It is simply a
biased judgment written by a baised judge.
Singapore's
Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, and others in this government have been
trying very hard to throw a veil over the real goings on there, arguing
that there is rule of law in Singapore. For anyone who knows Singapore
will tell you, nothing can be further from the truth. Your transactions
and assets in Singapore are not safe and you may lose everything if you
are not careful, as these four foreign banks have realized.
It
is not just criminal law and the law of human rights that Lee Kuan Yew
abuses in Singapore. And it is not just Singaporeans whom he abuses.
Foreigners fare no better in Lee Kuan Yew's courts. Caution is prudent.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: [email protected]
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to [email protected] And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be
helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives
information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this
dictatorial regime.
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/singapore-courts-abuse-law-to-favor-lee.html
How old is this judge belinda ang?
Maybe post her fark face picture down here for everybody to see
again the Gopal lan lan making trouble here...this ah ney bo ji one
Originally posted by angel7030:again the Gopal lan lan making trouble here...this ah ney bo ji one
is it? YOu are the one who is creating trouble not him.
Originally posted by Fantagf:is it? YOu are the one who is creating trouble not him.
let singaporeans finish off ourselves, we dun need a coward
Originally posted by angel7030:
let singaporeans finish off ourselves, we dun need a coward
YOu go finish yourself
well, this kind of case is hard to judge whether the judge is bias or not. cant the 4 company appeal? they should bring the case to a higher level or exert their financial influence to a political stage.
personally i dont trust singapore legal system.
anyone can be prosecuted, if they wanted to.
ya, i finished my lunch liao, still got some salmon left behind, you want or not?? i ta pao for you..dessert is Durian Puff leh..my next door frens give me..the famous JOO CHIAT durian puffs
Originally posted by reyes:well, this kind of case is hard to judge whether the judge is bias or not. cant the 4 company appeal? they should bring the case to a higher level or exert their financial influence to a political stage.
personally i dont trust singapore legal system.
anyone can be prosecuted, if they wanted to.
This is a corporate matters, nothing to do with govt, tho govt may have a share in Asia brewery, but it is still a private corporate entities case, so let them settle among themselves, if the 4 banks felt that they cannot bang Asia Brewery here, they can go to any court of internation court to appeal..this is not even politic, and some ah ney are trying to link to it and mess up the whole picture, that is why i said, opposition dun provide solution, just trouble after trouble.
Originally posted by angel7030:
This is a corporate matters, nothing to do with govt, tho govt may have a share in Asia brewery, but it is still a private corporate entities case, so let them settle among themselves, if the 4 banks felt that they cannot bang Asia Brewery here, they can go to any court of internation court to appeal..this is not even politic, and some ah ney are trying to link to it and mess up the whole picture, that is why i said, opposition dun provide solution, just trouble after trouble.
What does a "hum" know when its ignorance is due to the brain being left out of the small living space of a small tight shell ?
Only a "hum" will accept that Government Linked Companies capitalised with public money should be accepted as "Private Corporate entities".
If the "hum" is able to raise itself from the muck that it prefer to settle in, and do some simple research - it would have discovered that the Asia Pacific Brewery is a join-venture with Heineken and F&N.
If the "hum" is able to do deeper research into the set up of F&N, it cannot possibly be co-incidental that the Board of Directors are all associates - in one form or another - to the PAP Government.
Does international court have any jurisdiction over commercial matters that originate in Singapore ?
Perhaps the "hum" will depend on the international court to protect its right to spread its ignorance globally.
Originally posted by angel3070:Singapore Courts abuse the law to favor the Lee Kuan Yew family in a commercial case. Skandinaviska, Mizuho, Bayerische, Sumitomo vs APBS
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore Law Watch, a Singapore Law Report, www.singaporelawwatch.sg, of August 31, 2009 has this judgment in the case of four foreign banks, Plaintiffs, against the Singapore company Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Defendant. The four Plaintiff foreign banks were Skandanaviska Enskilda Banken, Mizuho Corporation Bank, Bayerische Hypo Und Vereinsbank Aktiengesellschaft and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation.
The case involved the four banks suing the Asia Pacific Breweries for over a $100 million for moneys lent to it, through it's Finance Manager Chia Teck Leng who made off with it.
Anyone who knows Singapore would have been able to accurately predict the outcome of this lawsuit merely looking at Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd. A search on it's website www.apb.com shows it is joint venture with Fraser and Neave Ltd and Heineken. For anyone who knows Singapore, a search on Fraser and Neave's website www.fraserandneave.com would have given the answer away immediately. It's director is none other than Lee Hsien Yang, the son of Singapore's strongman Lee Kuan Yew. No prizes for the right answer here! Asia Pacific Breweries won. The banks lost.
There are many outside Singapore, who wrongly think that Lee Kuan Yew only abuses the law in human rights cases; that in commercial cases there is impartiality. Singaporeans of course know better. This case clearly shows that not only in human rights cases, as if it is not bad enough, but in every type of case, the entire Singapore judiciary is corrupt to the core. They always favor the Lee Kuan Yew family or the Singapore government against everyone else.
In this case, giving the case to the foreigh banks would mean Lee Kuan Yew's son's company losing over a $100 million. Sucn an eventuality is unacceptable in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, never mind where justice lies.
And let this case be a warning to all foreigners; foreign banks, foreign companies and foreigners with money in Singapore. The Singapore legal system is corrupt. The Singapore's courts will shamelessly abuse the law to favor Lee Kuan Yew or the Singapore government against anyone else. It is impossible to get justice in the island when you are facing either the Lee family and their interests, or the Singapore government. And keep in mind, the Lee family and the government's interests stretch throughout Singapore and in every industry you can think of. Therefore beware your money and your interests in Singapore. In a dispute, there is no guarantee that you will see justice, as this case so clearly shows.
And what is more, the judge in this case was Belinda Ang Saw Ean, the same judge about whom I wrote which landed me in a Singapore jail last year. Need we say more? You of course know that in that case of defamation, she had ordered Dr. Chee Soon Juan to pay Lee Kuan Yew more than $400,000.00; as if money grows on trees; merely for criticizing him in a newsletter. Not just that, she refused to allow Dr. Chee Soon Juan to introduce any witnesses at his trial, deciding the case in her private chambers instead!
Another tell tale sign to predict the winner in this case are the lawyers. Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore was represented by Davinder Singh and Hri Kumar, Lee Kuan Yew's favorite lawyers and the favorite law firm to boot.
Belinda's judgement in this case is very long, 110 pages to be exact. But there is no need to read it all. The first few facts would be good enough to tell anyone that the banks should have won, not Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore). Chia Teck Leng was the Finance Manager lawfully employed by the Asia Breweries. He also happened to be a habitual gambler. He was at all times working for the company. The company's documents acknowledged that he was the Finance Manager. The company's documents authorized him to make bank loans. In every way he had, what one would expect, the powers of a Finance Manger of a company.
These four banks, one Scandinavian, one German and 2 Japanese had no way of knowing that Chia was dishonest. And as expected of any bank, they took the normal precautions of ensuring that the company passed resolutions for each loan, that the articles and memorandum indicated he was still the Finance Manager and other routine documents for security. From the entire judgement, there is nothing to indicate that these banks had acted in any way improper or negligent.
Even a boy can tell you this. Asia Breweries was entirely responsible for their actions of it's Finance Manager. If he happened to be a crook, it is they who were responsible. These 4 foreign banks were entirely innocent, as they did not know Chia was a crook. How could they? They were an innocent contracting party.
But you see, everything changes in Singapore when Lee Kuan Yew or any of his family members are involved. In Singapore, the Lee Family never loses. How could this judge allow these foreign banks to win even if she wanted to. But knowing what she did to Dr. Chee Soon Juan when Lee Kuan yew sued him for defamation, we know also know that she is corrupt to the core.
This is how Belinda Ang, Lee Kuan Yew's judge twists the law and the evidence to favor her master Lee Kuan Yew. Her 110 page judgement starts off with the sentence "Chia Teck Leng was an inveterate gambler who unremittingly resorted to cheating and forgery in order to fuel and sustain his gambling addiction". Thoughout the long judgement she makes repeated reference to his dishonesty, trying very hard to justify her decision which clearly goes against the grain. And her reason for giving the case to Lee Kuan Yew's son's company, believe it or not,was to say that the banks had not used due dilingence when giving the loans, when nothing in the evidence indicates that! It is simply a biased judgment written by a baised judge.
Singapore's Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, and others in this government have been trying very hard to throw a veil over the real goings on there, arguing that there is rule of law in Singapore. For anyone who knows Singapore will tell you, nothing can be further from the truth. Your transactions and assets in Singapore are not safe and you may lose everything if you are not careful, as these four foreign banks have realized.
It is not just criminal law and the law of human rights that Lee Kuan Yew abuses in Singapore. And it is not just Singaporeans whom he abuses. Foreigners fare no better in Lee Kuan Yew's courts. Caution is prudent.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: [email protected]
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to [email protected] And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/singapore-courts-abuse-law-to-favor-lee.html
Again, Gopalan is putting the onus on APB to clean house on all its employees which is ridiculous to say the least. The four banks have the right to sue and the judge has the right to decline the lawsuit against an innocent party. Unless you would like to have a PI tail all employees even on their own freetime or leisure time, then APB doesn't not know that the Finance Manager,Chia, was an inveterate gambler until the bank came calling on loans due.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Again, Gopalan is putting the onus on APB to clean house on all its employees which is ridiculous to say the least. The four banks have the right to sue and the judge has the right to decline the lawsuit against an innocent party. Unless you would like to have a PI tail all employees even on their own freetime or leisure time, then APB doesn't not know that the Finance Manager,Chia, was an inveterate gambler until the bank came calling on loans due.
And as expected of any bank, they took the normal precautions of ensuring that the company passed resolutions for each loan, that the articles and memorandum indicated he was still the Finance Manager and other routine documents for security.
Could the Finance Manager pass a Company Resolution by himself - without any second or third authorised signatory representing either the Board or the Executive Management ?
If there exist a second or third signatory - is there collusion ?
If no collusion exist - is there negligence on the part of the signatories for not checking the need or even the authencity of the loans application ?
Under such circumstances, is there a miscarriage of justice in effect ?
A company is responsible for the decisions and acts of its employees that it employs and empower with the authority, as much as it is responsible for the organisation and methods in the way business is conducted and authority distributed or concentrated.
In this case, the Finance Manager - Chia - had "represented" or "mis-represented" APB in the loans application to the various banks.
The loans were made on behalf of APB - not in the personal name of the Finance Manager.
The banks transferred their loans into the legitimate bank accounts of APB.
APB had taken criminal proceedings against its Finance Manager for criminal breach of trust on the company.
Why should it take such actions against its employee - the Finance Manager, if the funds do not belong to APB ?
If APB accused its employee for taking its money, why should it deny responsibility to the claims from the Banks ?
Is the case about the Finance Manager being a gambler ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
What does a "hum" know when its ignorance is due to the brain being left out of the small living space of a small tight shell ?Only a "hum" will accept that Government Linked Companies capitalised with public money should be accepted as "Private Corporate entities".
If the "hum" is able to raise itself from the muck that it prefer to settle in, and do some simple research - it would have discovered that the Asia Pacific Brewery is a join-venture with Heineken and F&N.
If the "hum" is able to do deeper research into the set up of F&N, it cannot possibly be co-incidental that the Board of Directors are all associates - in one form or another - to the PAP Government.
Does international court have any jurisdiction over commercial matters that originate in Singapore ?
Perhaps the "hum" will depend on the international court to protect its right to spread its ignorance globally.
but it is still a independent company, nothing to do with politics. Doesn't mean that someone from PAP sit on the board mean that the court will look and support the firm. Banks are just legal loanshark, they lends with the greed mentality of getting better return, but they also must take the risk of no return..
No one is above the Law Lar
except .........
Originally posted by angel7030:
but it is still a independent company, nothing to do with politics. Doesn't mean that someone from PAP sit on the board mean that the court will look and support the firm. Banks are just legal loanshark, they lends with the greed mentality of getting better return, but they also must take the risk of no return..
Only a "hum" will see the banks as "shark".
Can we expect a "hum" to see the real World from a narrow view out of a half open shell ?
We can understand the greed mentality of a "hum" even to take the "risk of no return" from working the empty streets all night.
Perhaps the "hum" bank will offer loans and takes risks of no return ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Only a "hum" will see the banks as "shark".Can we expect a "hum" to see the real World from a narrow view out of a half open shell ?
We can understand the greed mentality of a "hum" even to take the "risk of no return" from working the empty streets all night.
Perhaps the "hum" bank will offer loans and takes risks of no return ?
if the streets of singapore ever become empty, i go shave my head and become a nun.
Look, this is business, either you loan in or out, you need to have risk, and usually, the higher the risk, the better the return, and vice versa for low risk. Sometime in the street, you see rich peoples and wonder why they become rich, there are 3 situation, first, ah gong very rich, second, lucky chap, third, hardworking, thick skin and able to take risk.
Originally posted by angel7030:
if the streets of singapore ever become empty, i go shave my head and become a nun.
Look, this is business, either you loan in or out, you need to have risk, and usually, the higher the risk, the better the return, and vice versa for low risk. Sometime in the street, you see rich peoples and wonder why they become rich, there are 3 situation, first, ah gong very rich, second, lucky chap, third, hardworking, thick skin and able to take risk.
You must be the only "hum" with hair around it that need to be shaved, when most are already nice, clean, pink and wet.
Only a "hum" will need to wonder and envy why others become rich, and why you remain a "hum" and must work all night.
Obviously, you will take big risks with your "hum" to get better returns - just don't forget to take precautions.
One "hum" is enough and already insufferable.
Originally posted by angel7030:
if the streets of singapore ever become empty, i go shave my head and become a nun.
Look, this is business, either you loan in or out, you need to have risk, and usually, the higher the risk, the better the return, and vice versa for low risk. Sometime in the street, you see rich peoples and wonder why they become rich, there are 3 situation, first, ah gong very rich, second, lucky chap, third, hardworking, thick skin and able to take risk.
dirty prostitute go and pollute all the nuns
"hum" is one of her selling point what!
or else how to sell liquor and earn money
Originally posted by Georgetan884:"hum" is one of her selling point what!
or else how to sell liquor and earn money
ya, my pub also got live band playing humming tune to attract customer..
This is a corporate matters, nothing to do with govt, tho govt may have a share in Asia brewery, but it is still a private corporate entities case, so let them settle among themselves, if the 4 banks felt that they cannot bang Asia Brewery here, they can go to any court of internation court to appeal..this is not even politic, and some ah ney are trying to link to it and mess up the whole picture, that is why i said, opposition dun provide solution, just trouble after trouble.
one can definitely link business with politics. Just look at how US exert their political influence on Swiss govt to force UBS to disclosure clients data.
i also did mention, they can go for appeal at higher court . politics is also one of the other way.
not all big business is done in pure business terms. politics in some cases, play a major role.
Originally posted by reyes:one can definitely link business with politics. Just look at how US exert their political influence on Swiss govt to force UBS to disclosure clients data.
i also did mention, they can go for appeal at higher court . politics is also one of the other way.
not all big business is done in pure business terms. politics in some cases, play a major role.
That is intervention, the govt had all the rights to intervent for the purpose of the national secruity and the citizens they need to answer for it. Whereas, corporate need to answer to private shareholders. It is when corporate mgts, whom in desparate situation, uses unethical business tactics, then the govt have to intervent and set it clear. The country govt created the Corporate Laws for the country to function and stay within the framework of the legal system.
Originally posted by angel7030:
ya, my pub also got live band playing humming tune to attract customer..
Ya your pub also got you standing nake trying to attract customers to fuck you
Originally posted by angel7030:That is intervention, the govt had all the rights to intervent for the purpose of the national secruity and the citizens they need to answer for it. Whereas, corporate need to answer to private shareholders. It is when corporate mgts, whom in desparate situation, uses unethical business tactics, then the govt have to intervent and set it clear. The country govt created the Corporate Laws for the country to function and stay within the framework of the legal system.
"they need to answer for"
wen did they answer for anythin?
Originally posted by seyKai:
"they need to answer for"wen did they answer for anythin?
ask yourself, why are you here peacefully, relaxing and posting??