include("cmp.php");

The Law Minister and Attorney-General have failed to safeguard our rights as citizens

The power to enter homes without a warrant was previously the exclusive prerogative of the police. Even then, the power has to be exercised by an officer with the rank of Inspector. Only in seizable offences could a lower rank officer enter without a warrant.

This was all eminently sensible. In normal circumstances, you need an Inspector. In an emergency, any officer would do.

Over time, other agencies sought similar powers, but without the clarity set out in the Criminal Procedure Code, and without setting out the special circumstances.

So, for example any vector officer from NEA can insist on coming into your house. No rank required. All he needed to do was to flash his NEA tag. And you must let him in, otherwise it is an offence. There are therefore no safeguards, as he need not be an officer, no offence need be committed first, he can come into your bedroom, and he can stay as long as he wants.

One reason why the powers of NEA have not raised any issue has been the rather sensible behaviour of their officers. And they will not insist on entering if told by the maid that “Sir not in, and I cannot let anyone in”. Also they will do their job quickly and sensibly.

So no one seems to realize the extent of the NEA’s power. But the principle is important, as you cannot guarantee that all vector officers will act sensibly. And I guess once NEA has such powers, other agencies felt they should have the same.

In allowing the proliferation of such arbitrary powers, I frankly think both the Minister and AG have failed. Both of them should guard jealously the powers of the police, and should also have safeguarded the rights of citizens.

Both of them seem to have forgotten that police officers are trained to deal with delicate situations involving the law. Police officers know that if they overstep, they will be punished, and sometimes severely.

So now we have the URA incident, and nothing seems to be done. What is the training of the URA so-called ambassador? There are lots of issues when you give special powers to people not trained in the law, or even lacking the minimum education required of police officers.

Perhaps some authority greater than the Minister and AG can look into this.

 

*Circulated via WhatsApp.

 

 

yyy
READER COMMENTS BELOW

40 Responses to “The Law Minister and Attorney-General have failed to safeguard our rights as citizens”

  • Unless the laws have changed over the years, I think there are some factual errors in the following statement:

    The power to enter homes without a warrant was previously the exclusive prerogative of the police. Even then, the power has to be exercised by an officer with the rank of Inspector. Only in seizable offences could a lower rank officer enter without a warrant.

    1. As far as the police are concerned, only a gazetted officer (i.e. ASP and above) has the authority to enter premises without the need for a warrant, because he is a “walking warrant”. Insp is a junior officer and has no such authority. (CNB and ISD not sure if the same applies)

    2. Technically, lower-rank (junior) officers cannot enter a private premise even if “seizable offences” have been committed unless it is for the prevention of/an ongoing emergency life-threatening situation, serious offenses or is invited by the owner/tenant.

    For example, any non-seizable offense committed in the view of a police officer (any rank) becomes a seizable offense, so even if a junior police officer were to say, witnessed a husband slapping his wife (at most a VCH case, Sec 323), he cannot demand to enter the house unless he is invited to.

    However, point #2 is very subjective and dependant on the situation, there are of course many legal ways to circumvent that, for example: The junior officer can claim he supposedly heard the wife yelled: “help, he is trying to kill me”. lol

    Anyway, under normal circumstances, if the husband were to tell the junior officer to go mate with a spider, he/she also lan lan.

    I stand corrected.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Master Baiter:

    Can the authorities prove clearly when was such powers granted to the Safe distancing people?

    Is it last minute?
    Am sure there is no coverup?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Master Baiter

    Section 35(5) of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020:

    “An enforcement officer has all the powers of a Health Officer authorised under sections 55A, 55B and 57 of the Infectious Diseases Act for the purposes of ascertaining whether the control order is being complied with”

    The powers include:

    1. To furnish any information within his knowledge;
    2. At any time without warrants and with such force as may be necessary, stop, board, enter, inspect and search any premises or conveyance;
    3. Demand any person to give his name and address, and other proof of identity

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • ah chik:

    Timely article.
    Arbitrary Power to allow entry into private homes is compromising the individual’s security especially for the old and feeble or single females and even males.
    Opportunities for impostors avail.

    Besides,if so-called officers ‘ identity cannot be confirmed as most agencies’ close for office hours.
    Imagine,how to check the officer’s idenity at 3AM in the morning?

    Maybe,we,sgs,should also be allowed ENTRY INTO THE i$tana to CHECK IF OUR MINISTERS N EP are working or idling?

    Tech: If wee hours and unsure, always dial 999 and get the police to check the identity. The police have ways of doing that (check). Meanwhile, DO NOT allow the supposed SDOs to enter the premise before the police arrive (not an offense to let them wait). Remember to always call the police whenever in doubt, better be safe than sorry.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Work Pass Holder & Dependents:

    WTF, latest news on TV mentioned that now vaccinated Employment Pass workers and their dependents from High Risks Country eg India now are allowed to enter Singapore again.

    LHL and the 4G leaders never learnt their lessons. Hope the infection rate goes very high and many people die so that the public can kick the PAP out. KNNBCCB

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Asd:

    I think somebody should like into possibility of rascist hiring which seems obvious

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • ah chik:

    @TECH

    THANKS FOR ADVICE N CAUTION.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Smart Nation:

    Work Pass Holder & Dependents:
    WTF, latest news on TV mentioned that now vaccinated Employment Pass workers and their dependents from High Risks Country eg India now are allowed to enter Singapore again.

    LHL and the 4G leaders never learnt their lessons. Hope the infection rate goes very high and many people die so that the public can kick the PAP out. KNNBCCB

    Response: Get ready for a Covid Roller Coaster ride. May run out of hospital beds or spread inside the hospitals; or may see new and more aggressive variants. Asean countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Myanmar are all high risks. Even Sydney, Australia is on lockdown. If the situation across the causeway continues to worsen, there could even be a shortage of food for export to SG.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • MIS:

    They are opening the doors to welcome Delta Plus. They will not stop until they develop Delta Super Plus casts a name Mad-in-Singapore, for the record.

    Smart Nation: Response: Get ready for a Covid Roller Coaster ride. May run out of hospital beds or spread inside the hospitals; or may see new and more aggressive variants. Asean countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Myanmar are all high risks. Even Sydney, Australia is on lockdown. If the situation across the causeway continues to worsen, there could even be a shortage of food for export to SG.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @MIS

    With so high a percentage of vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines, there is a high probability of what you say may come true.

    One of the inventors of the mRNA technology has warned that those vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines carry the same amount of viral load as an un-vaccinated person when infected, BUT the vaccine is likely to provide a more conducive environment for the C19 virus to mutate and spread.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Whwn will Sinkies ever learn:

    @ Work Pass Holder & Dependent,
    @ Smart Nation

    U think the multimillionaires ministers care. Dream om fellows.

    Getting AG n Minister of Law tp protect your rights when Indranee defended Conflict of interest violation of the appt of AG, personal lawyer of Lhl on career success signals unlawful can become lawful on ownself ffffff ownself platform! Dream on daft! When will ya ever wake up?

    Talking abt entry into home. Wait until dead, rape, or some rich foreigners r done in by by fakes or arrogant papic circuit link armed with papic self importance n Trumpic self declared immunity happen. Even then unless absolute threatening the papic interests n benefits, rounds of wayanging perhormances will go on, number of episode depends on the papic weightage of the objects n subjects of the case issue. When will dafts strip of the stigma?

    Pathetic n sad. Image, making history, wealth blind human soul, values n differentials between humans n beasts!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Circles Master:

    Send in the army,
    Oop sorry, send in the clowns,
    Oop sorry again, the clowns are already in.

    TRE Techie:
    @MIS

    With so high a percentage of vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines, there is a high probability of what you say may come true.

    One of the inventors of the mRNA technology has warned that those vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines carry the same amount of viral load as an un-vaccinated person when infected, BUT the vaccine is likely to provide a more conducive environment for the C19 virus to mutate and spread.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Hm… I wonder if the home of that Nas Daily kenna also like that, the SDOs dare to like that enter or not?

    He is after all not some nobody, heard he sibei good terms with the PAPies and its LEEders wor.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Can carry guns ambassadors:

    are these airline staff trained in an uniform setting of discipline n law lectures before entering one’s home.
    .

    Do they know what is criminal trespass?

    Their gazetted powers of free entry should be stripped immediately……
    Ura is not an uniformed group……….or organization……..
    …it is not trained in-law n order!

    Even good kisser knows when she give guns to Cisco kids! Why don’t your ambassadors also carry guns?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • 566:

    That is y even former director of cnb also don’t know

    He got power invested in him.

    No body know anything.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Privacy?:

    https://singaporelegaladvice.com/appearing-naked-in-public-view/

    PSA: Appearing Naked in Public View is Illegal, Even If You Do it at Home.

    What happen if these officiers walk into your private home and caught you naked in your bedroom?

    This would mean that appearing naked in the public view despite being in a private place such as your home, will expose you to criminal liability under the Act.

    So for goodness sake, lock all doors and gates. Install sensor dectators and cameras. It is not safe in this Sinking Land.

    There are so many cameras and if they caught you naked you will be in trouble.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Asd:

    I think all must study the law in school else how to know and further amendment are also not updated to all individuals

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    >>Perhaps some authority greater than the Minister and AG can look into this.<<

    Another free loader's attempt to get others to fight the BROKEN justice system, when the originator of the Whatsapp msg – most likely a lawyer – dares not do his/her part to help put an end to this blatant and brazen abuse of power in contravention of the Constitution…………the originator and others like Teo Soh Lung should do more research and understanding of the Administrative Law……………..

    The smoking gun can be found in the farcical judgment by the Court of Appeal in neutral citation as follows:

    HH Bin v SL Ho (Acting as Executrix and Trustee of the Estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin) [2020] SGCA 4 @:

    https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Docs/Judgments/2020/2020%20SGCA%204.pdf

    I declare that I AM the said HH Bin.

    By the way, this was a case of the illegal striking out of most part of my SOC at the INTERLOCUTORY stage where the only criteria for striking out is whether the Statement of Claim (SOC) is factually and or legally sustainable…………..and is applicable for ALL civil litigation cases and not just mine alone. I'll just add that there cannot be another contentious probate case more substantive, compelling and deserving than mine…………it was a clear case, beyond ANY doubt of the travesties of justice………..more impactful than the legal opinion of the UK's preeminent lawyer Mr Timothy Dutton CBE QC implicitly criticizing and condemning the travesty of justice by the 3 Judges Court presided by Sundaresh Menon, CJ, himself.

    Tech: The link provided has been removed. Just curious, what were you fighting for?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • leeconyou:

    ag and law ministers are both colleagues at a&g now they are partners at pap

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech:

    >>The link provided has been removed. Just curious, what were you fighting for?<<

    The fact that the power that be chose to remove it, shows without ANY DOUBT that the judgment CANNOT stand, as it, as well as ALL those prior decisions, were contrary to the CORE FUNDAMENTAL jurisdiction principles their disregard for fidelity to the Constitution and the concomitant breaches of their Oath under the First Schedule (Form 6) and other Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

    Anyway, the original suit HCF/S 8/2016 was filed in September 2016 at the Family Justice Courts. The causes of action was basically a contentious probate and other claims which involved PRIVATE LAW, including but not limited to the Civil Law Act pertaining to a wrongful death medical claim settled out of court but not being paid a cent contrary to the CLA despite the oncologists describing me as "a paragon of the devoted husband"…….so it was a CIVIL CASE, like hundred of thousands before and after I'd filed my case.

    As with ALL civil cases, the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar at the INTERLOCUTORY stage (ie preliminary stage) was to determine whether I, as the Plaintiff, had an ARGUABLE CASE ie whether my causes of action were LEGALLY and FACTUALLY sustainable.

    Per case law – both Singapore at the CA level as well as the UK at the House of Lord levels –
    “A reasonable cause of action … connotes a cause of action which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. As long as the statement of claim discloses some cause of action, or raises some question fit to be decided at the trial, the mere fact that the case is weak and is not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out.”

    The AR had fraudulently and maliciously ruled that one of my claims to our last matrimonial home at a PRIVATE condominium based on a resulting and or common intention constructive trust was legally unsustainable relying on the decision in the case of Cheong Yoke Kuen and others v Cheong Kwok Kiong [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1126; [1999] SGCA 27. The said Cheong Yoke Kuen case involved an HDB flat. Under the HDB statute law, all TRUSTS were illegal unless written permission had been given by the HDB. In fact at [13] of the Cheong Yoke Kuen judgment, it unambiguously stated, inter alia, as follows: “Hence, if the flat were not an HDB property, the beneficial ownership in the flat would remain with the respondent by operation of a resulting trust.” Also I had given the fact that for our earlier matrimonial home, I had included my late wife’s name in the title deeds even though I had paid All the money for the property from my CPF a/c because she insisted that our matrimonial home should be jointly owned ie common intention constructive trust.

    To be cont'd

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    I had shown that her signatures on the Will filed for probate were different from an earlier Will and her usual signatures and other legal documents. It was my case that she was unduly influenced and had suffered testamentary capacity problem because she had been under chemotherapy treatment for around 2 years. The AR decided, against the authorities of our CA, which I will list, that the differences in signature could ONLY be due to forgery and since I did not allege forgery, I have no legal case. This was total rubbish, as there was NO expert testimony by a handwriting expert from the Health Science Authority or any other person and that the Will was executed and witnessed by in a lawyer – Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss’ mother – and witnessed by her law clerk.

    Anyway, in one CA judgment – coram including Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JA, stated that “To put it another way, the fact that the circumstances might give rise to a presumption of undue influence says nothing about whether the Deed was or was not forged…… this (undue influence) could possibly co-exist with the case on forgery. In another CA judgment, Sundaresh Menon CJ giving judgment on behalf of the court had stated that: “…it is inconceivable in our judgment that the court is to disregard P’s actual circumstances (of testamentary incapacity and undue influence).

    Tay Yong Kwang JA was the president of the coram hearing my appeal in CA/CA 186/2018 who dismissed my appeal immediately after I had finished reading my prepared Oral Arguments with a copy to each of the 3 judges and Counsel for the Respondent, and before Counsel had even rose to present his Oral Arguments ie decision was predetermined despite the strength of my Oral arguments, which the late expert contentious probate lawyer to whom I had sought consultation immediately following the (illegal) CA 186 oral decision, had commended my case.

    So I had Tay Yong Kwang dismissing my appeal in CA 186 and Sundaresh Menon dismissing my appeal and application for judicial review against their earlier decisions on similar legal issue………….if this was not contrary to and in contradiction to Article 12(1) of the Constitution which the [2020] SGCA 4 judgment claimed, what does the CA think otherwise?

    As I have previously posted on some of the paragraphs of the [2020] SGCA judgment, the court’s decision went against the very grain of the common law system, which by and of themselves would revealed a systemic process of wreaking travesties of justice against me and deny me of my human and constitutional rights.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Just to correct some minor errors: The decisions of all those courts including [2020] SGCA 4 were contrary to and violated ALL the CORE FUNDAMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE principles……….not, jurisdiction principles.

    As for my claim of ownership of our last matrimonial home I would also state the funds for the purchase of the property included my upfront contribution AND the monthly mortgage payments, but for personal reasons, only my late wife’s name appeared on the title deeds………..In any case, it was NOT for the AR to rule, let alone struck off my claim, as to do so would be to USURP the role of a JUDGE at a TRIAL………..not at the INTERLOCUTORY stage.

    Anyway, since the link to the judgment has been rendered ineffective, I would post the said judgment in [2020] SGCA 4, in the next 3 posts and would debunk the judgment on the crucial issues which alone would more than debunk the entirety of the judgment. I had already submitted a point by point debunking of the judgment within 2 weeks of the judgment.

    Which was why the exact details of my case is NOT important……….because, as stated, the current judgment, AND all those preceding and leading up to it, were, without ANY doubt, contrary to and gross violation of the CORE FUNDAMENTAL jurisprudence principles; against the judges’ fidelity to the Constitution and the RULE OF LAW applicable to ALL CIVIL CASES; etc.

    As stated, there cannot be a more unambiguous case of travesties of justice even more so than what the UK’s preeminent lawyer on Administrative Law and professional misconduct cases, Mr Timothy Dutton’s written legal opinion of the decision of the 3 Judges Court to bar Lee Suet Fern from practising law in SINKaPOOR for 15 months.

    Tech: Please do not start again, your case is history and has been posted on TRE x number of times. Lets it go and move on, pointless to harp on it.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech: The link provided has been removed. Just curious, what were you fighting for?

    I tried the earlier link and it worked.

    However I also just tried the following link which works:

    https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Docs/Judgments/2020/2020%20SGCA%204.pdf

    Tech: Page cannot be found
    Sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found and might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. It is recommended that you start again from the homepage. Feel free to contact us if the problem persists or if you cannot find what you’re looking for.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • #06-195 Ah Lee Baba me 3:

    Daily is an asshole butt sniffer.

    https://mothership.sg/2021/08/nas-daily-philippines/

    TRE Techie:
    Hm… I wonder if the home of that Nas Daily kenna also like that, the SDOs dare to like that enter or not?

    He is after all not some nobody, heard he sibei good terms with the PAPies and its LEEders wor.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech: Page cannot be found.

    When I posted the link this morning, it worked…I just tried again, and it does NOT work………obviously has been removed.

    It’s OK, as I am posting the judgment for those interested, but as there are over 12k characters, I have to split into 4 separate postings, including this:

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

    [2020] SGCA 04

    Civil Appeal No 119 of 2019 (Summons No 129 of 2019)

    Between

    HH Bin ……Appellant in CA/CA 119/2019
    Applicant in CA/SUM129/2019

    And

    SL Ho
    (acting as Executrix and Trustee in the Estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin)
    … Respondent in CA/CA 119/2019
    and CA/SUM 129/2019

    In the matter of Originating Summons No 1496 of 2018

    In the matter of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore

    And

    In the matter of the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of
    Singapore

    And

    In the matter of Section 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322), paragraph 14 of the First Schedule thereto and Order 15 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court

    And

    In the Matter of Section 29A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
    (Cap 322) and/or the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Courts

    Between

    HH Bin … Plaintiff
    And

    SL Ho
    (acting as Executrix and Trustee in the Estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin)
    … Defendant
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    JUDGMENT
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    [Civil procedure] — [Extension of time]

    This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

    HH Bin v SL Ho
    (acting as executrix and trustee in the estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin)

    [2020] SGCA 04

    Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 119 of 2019 (Summons No 129 of 2019)

    Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JA and Woo Bih Li J

    6 February 2020

    6 February 2020

    Woo Bih Li J (delivering the judgment of the court):

    Introduction

    1 In CA/SUM 129 of 2019 (“SUM 129”), the Applicant, HH Bin (“BHH”), is seeking an extension of time to file certain documents connected with his appeal to the Court of Appeal in CA 119 of 2019 (“CA 119/2019”) in order to maintain that appeal.

    2 To facilitate a better understanding of what his main appeal in CA 119/2019 is all about, we set out below the background leading to CA 119/2019 and consequently his application for an extension of time to file those documents therein.

    Background

    3 BHH was the husband of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin who executed a last Will and Testament on 11 August 2012 (“the 2012 Will”). She passed away on 17 September 2013. We will refer to her as “the Deceased”. Grant of Probate was issued on 3 July 2014.

    Tech: If my understanding just from the above is correct, you are fighting for your late wife’s estate, which she willed to someone else instead of you. Okay, understood.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech: Page cannot be found

    I checked the link this morning b4 posting it and it worked.

    It must be obvious that the judgment has been removed or the link deactivated.

    I tried posting the said judgment piece by piece (4 postings) but it would seem that I cannot do so………obviously I have been blocked from posting on this thread.

    Tech: You have not been blocked from TRE.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    4 SL Ho (“HSL”), the respondent in this summons, is the sister of the Deceased. She is also the executrix and trustee of the Estate of the Deceased.

    5 On or about 20 September 2016, BHH filed an action in HCF/S 8/2016 in the Family Division of the High Court naming HSL as defendant in her capacity as executrix and trustee of the Estate of the Deceased.

    6 On or about 25 November 2016, BHH filed his Statement of Claim (“SOC”). According to HSL, the SOC was exceedingly prolix and convoluted. The gist of the claims was that the Deceased’s 2012 Will was null and void as the Deceased lacked mental capacity and the 2012 Will was made under undue influence. BHH claimed compensation and/or a share of the Deceased’s estate in the SOC.

    7 On 20 January 2017, HSL filed an application by way of HCF/SUM 27/2017 to strike out portions of the SOC as being irrelevant, scandalous, frivolous, and/or vexatious.

    8 This application was heard by Assistant Registrar Jonathan Lee Zhong Wei (“AR Lee”) on 24 May 2017. On 14 June 2017, AR Lee ordered that various portions of the SOC be struck out and gave his reasons for doing so.

    9 On 27 June 2017, BHH filed an appeal against AR Lee’s decision. This is HCF/RAS 12/2017.

    10 BHH’s appeal was heard on 2 October 2017 by JC Foo Tuat Yien (“JC Foo”). After hearing arguments, she dismissed his appeal.

    11 BHH then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This is CA 186/2017.

    12 This appeal was heard by a three-judge coram on 6 September 2018. After hearing arguments, the Court of Appeal dismissed BHH’s appeal and gave directions for BHH to re-file his SOC as amended according to AR Lee’s decision.

    13 According to HSL, there were two minor discrepancies in the extracted Order of Court arising from AR Lee’s decision. She filed HCF/SUM 334/2018 to correct the extracted Order of Court and her application was allowed by another Assistant Registrar on 14 November 2018. The Assistant Registrar also directed BHH to file a correctly amended SOC by 28 November 2018.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    14 However, BHH did not do so. Instead, on or about 6 December 2018, he filed a second action in the High Court by way of OS 1496 of 2018. He sought a judicial review of the decision of the Court of Appeal of 6 September 2018. He wanted the review to be conducted by a coram which was different from the coram which made that decision. In his supporting affidavit, he alleged that the Court of Appeal did not give any grounds for its decision on 6 September 2018 except to say that it agreed with AR Lee’s decision, and that AR Lee’s decision itself was untenable as it was against the weight of various authorities. He alleged that in upholding AR Lee’s decision, the coram in the Court of Appeal were in breach of their oath/affirmation of office to “… do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Republic of Singapore without fear or favour, affection or ill-will …” pursuant to the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. The coram had also breached Art 12(1) of the Constitution as they had discriminated against him by failing to treat him equally before the law.
    15 The second action was heard by Justice Choo Han Teck on 24 May 2019. Choo J dismissed this second action on the basis that the High Court has no jurisdiction to re-constitute a fresh coram in the Court of Appeal to re-hear the first appeal to the Court of Appeal, ie, CA 186/2017.

    16 On or about 31 May 2019, BHH filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Choo J. This is CA 119/2019. Pursuant to O 57 r 5(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”), the Registrar of the Supreme Court (“the Registrar”) notified the parties on 7 August 2019 that the Record of Proceedings was available. Pursuant to O 57 r 9(1) of the ROC, BHH had to file (a) one copy of the record of appeal, (b) the appellant’s case and (c) a core bundle of documents, within two months from 7 August 2019 (ie, by 7 October 2019).

    17 On 7 October 2019, BHH filed his appellant’s case. However, he did not file the record of appeal and core bundle by 7 October 2019. He attempted to file some documents on 11 October 2019 but the documents were rejected as his appeal had been deemed withdrawn by then. BHH’s appeal in CA 119/2019 had been deemed withdrawn pursuant to O 59 r 9(4) of the ROC.

    18 On 17 October 2019, an Assistant Registrar conducted a case management conference and informed the parties that BHH’s appeal had been deemed withdrawn.

    19 On 18 October 2019, a Notice of Deemed Withdrawal of Appeal was issued by the Registrar to notify parties of the deemed withdrawal.

    20 Consequently, on 24 October 2019, BHH filed SUM 129 for an extension of time to file his record of appeal and core bundle. His position was that the extension of time would not prejudice the hearing of his second appeal to the Court of Appeal which was originally scheduled to be heard between 17 February 2020 and 6 March 2020.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    21 This application for an extension of time was opposed by HSL. We add that at all material times, BHH was and is acting in person while HSL was and is represented by solicitors.

    22 Pursuant to s 34A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”), we decided to hear this application without oral arguments as written submissions had been tendered by the parties and oral arguments were unnecessary. Indeed, BHH himself suggested that the written submissions would suffice.

    23 The usual factors to be considered in an application for such an extension of time are (Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo [2011] 2 SLR 196 at [29]): (a) the length of the delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the merits of the intended appeal; and (d) whether there was undue prejudice to the respondent if the extension of time were granted.

    24 If there were clearly no merits in the intended appeal, then the other factors will not be relevant.

    25 In the present case, it is clear to us that there is no merit in BHH’s intended appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Choo J.

    26 First, as Choo J observed, the High Court has no jurisdiction to order that a new coram be constituted in the Court of Appeal, which is higher in the hierarchy than the High Court, to re-hear the first appeal in CA 186/2017. This defect is not cured by an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Choo J.

    27 Secondly, there is no question of judicial review of a decision of the Court of Appeal. It is not an administrative tribunal. Its decision is final and binding and there is no further avenue of appeal.

    28 Thirdly, there is no substantive merit in the second action in OS 1496 of 2018 alleging that AR Lee’s decision was a nullity and that the Court of Appeal’s decision of 6 September 2018 (which effectively upheld AR Lee’s decision) was also a nullity.

    29 BHH stressed that there are numerous authorities which make AR Lee’s decision untenable. That is not the point. AR Lee’s decision may be correct or incorrect but it is not a nullity. It is still a decision which stands unless it is set aside on appeal.

    30 BHH did appeal but, as mentioned, his appeal was dismissed by JC Foo. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal and that appeal was also dismissed.

    31 It is not open to BHH to argue that because the initial decision of AR Lee was against the weight of authorities, it must also mean that the Court of Appeal’s decision, which effectively uphold AR Lee’s decision, was unconstitutional.

    32 There is simply no valid basis for BHH to make the scandalous allegations that the coram in the Court of Appeal had not acted in accordance with their oath of office or had denied him equal protection of the law just because BHH thinks that there are numerous authorities which support his case.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    33 It is common for each side to believe that he or she has a good case whether on the law or on the facts or on both the law and facts. That does not mean that he or she will win. That is why a court has to make the decision. A decision may be given orally or by way of a written judgment. The absence of a written judgment does not make a valid decision invalid.

    34 Furthermore, a decision which appears to a litigant to be contrary to the authorities does not in itself mean a breach of constitutional rights. Also, an oral decision may expand on reasons given below or it may not. There is no necessity to repeat reasons already given or to expand on reasons if the expansion serves no useful purpose.

    35 If BHH were right, every litigant who is unhappy with a court decision, based on his own perception of the law and/or the facts, will be able to seek another hearing until he gets the result that he wants even though he has exhausted his avenues of appeal. That cannot be right.

    36 Accordingly, CA 119/2019 is doomed to fail and we dismiss SUM 129 for an extension of time for BHH to file his record of appeal and core bundle for CA 119/2019.

    37 It follows that since SUM 129 has been dismissed, the appeal in CA 119/2019 is still deemed withdrawn. We order BHH to pay HSL the costs of the application and of the appeal fixed at $3,000, inclusive of disbursements, forthwith with the usual consequential orders.

    38 As mentioned at [13] above, BHH was to file a correctly amended SOC by 28 November 2018. Apparently he has not done so. We direct him to file and serve it within 14 days from the date of this decision.

    Sundaresh Menon Steven Chong Woo Bih Li Chief Justice Judge of Appeal Judge The applicant in person; Goh Kok Yeow and Lim Huiling, Naomi (De Souza Lim & Goh LLP) for the respondent.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Vote for the Opposition:

    If you are not happy with the pap government, VOTE FOR THE OPPOSITION IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    I hv made a preliminary reply to @ Tech:

    >>If my understanding just from the above is correct, you are fighting for your late wife’s estate, which she willed to someone else instead of you. Okay, understood.<<

    stating that @ Tech has misunderstood my Statement of Claims, which the [2020] SGCA 4 judgment willfully failed to state………and for which my posting did NOT appear on TRE………must be CENSORSHIP.

    In FACT the Court of Appeal should be slapped with a POFMA for failing to state all the relevant legal issues and FACTS as to the contravention and willful violation of the CORE FUNDAMENTAL jurisprudence principles.

    So I wonder if TRE imposes CENSORSHIP on the FACTS and TRUTHS?

    The FACT that the said https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Docs/Judgments/2020/2020%20SGCA%204.pdf cannot be found when it was OK hours b4 and had been there for more than 19 months must speak more loudly about the FARCE and ILLEGALITY of the said judgment which cannot stand up to any legal scrutiny.

    Tech: I have allowed your post and read the entire judgment, and also CJ’s comments. Obviously he had addressed the allegations you hurled at the CA and made it very clear that as far as this action is concerned, it’s closed. As such, it is pointless for you to keep repeating your allegations on TRE or any other platform for that matter, because the DECISION IS FINAL.

    Whatever the outcome, its time to let it be and move on.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech:

    >>I have allowed your post and read the entire judgment, and also CJ’s comments. Obviously he had addressed the allegations you hurled at the CA and made it very clear that as far as this action is concerned, it’s closed. As such, it is pointless for you to keep repeating your allegations on TRE or any other platform for that matter, because the DECISION IS FINAL.<>Whatever the outcome, its time to let it be and move on<<

    On what BASIS are YOU to tell me to "move one" in the face of the TRAVESTIES OF JUSTICE and the CRIMES?

    By the way, as you know I hv made additional comments which YOU hv censored.

    I hope you would allow me to post the my CAUSES OF ACTION, as reflected in the Assistant Registrar's Notes of Evidence, a copy of which and all the judgments I have sent to the wayang-party MPs in my next post……..and which for obvious reasons, the judgment willfully failed to include as the crucial background facts.

    Tech: So far, I have not censored any of your comments. The “move on” part is just an advice, you can take it or leave it, but as far as TRE is concerned, no more allegations against the judiciary will be allowed. TRE is not looking forward to a “contempt of court” charge, neither should you. You may repeat your allegations on SammyBoy’s forum, HWZ or maybe even Reach, I heard their forum is no-hold-barred.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    My Causes Of Action:

    (a) Lack of mental capacity: The Plaintiff claims that both the 2010 Will and the 2012 Will are vitiated by the Deceased’s alleged lack of mental capacity to make either will.

    (b) Undue Influence: The Plaintiff’s position is that that both the 2010 Will and the 2012 Will should be set aside on the basis of undue influence which the Deceased was subjected to all the time.

    (c) Constructive trust: The Plaintiff argues that a constructive trust has arisen such that he should be entitled to some of the assets of the estate.

    (d) Claim for settlement proceeds in Suit 983: The Plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds obtained by the estate in Suit 983

    (e) Payment for services: The Plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled to payment for his services, in caring for the Defendant, pursuant to the decision of the UK House of Lords in the case of Hunt v Severs [1994] UKHL 4.

    (f) Compensation for moving out of matrimonial home: The Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to compensation for being allegedly forced out of the matrimonial home.

    (emphasis in bold and underlining, added)

    Additionally, I had also include the TORT OF CONSPIRACY against the Defendant in my draft amended SOC.

    All the above, which are crucial and relevant had been willfully left out of the said [2020] SGCA 4 judgment. Why, if not to give a FALSE picture of my claims and the travesties of justice?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech:

    >>So far, I have not censored any of your comments. The “move on” part is just an advice, you can take it or leave it, but as far as TRE is concerned, no more allegations against the judiciary will be allowed. TRE is not looking forward to a “contempt of court” charge, neither should you. You may repeat your allegations on SammyBoy’s forum, HWZ or maybe even Reach, I heard their forum is no-hold-barred.<<

    I suggest you read Law & Home Affairs Minister K.Shanmugam's speech at the 2nd reading of the then Bill to enact the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AJA) about ANY legitimate/good faith comments about a CA decision…………in the context of your "contempt of court" charge which is pursuant to section 3 of the AJA.

    At [32] of the judgment, the court alleged that I had made "the SCANDALOUS allegations that the coram in the Court of Appeal had not acted in accordance with their oath of office or had denied him equal protection of the law just because BHH thinks that there are numerous authorities which support his case." (emphasis in capital added to the word SCANDALOUS)

    As I've said already, the judgment stating that "just because BHH thinks that there are numerous authorities which support his case." is against and contrary to the BASIS of the COMMON LAW system of justice in SINKaPOOR, inherited from the British, which together with the references to "authorities" in [34] only confirmed without a shadow of a doubt of the MALE FIDE and ILLEGAL judgments, which according to the authorities were VOID IB INITIAO as legal NULLITIES and can be IGNORED.

    Let me just say that I have many other legal arguments with the authorities to show why the proceedings in my case must be ILLEGAL and therefore ib initio void as legal nullities.

    Tech: You still don’t get it don’t you. As far as your this case is concerned, it’s closed and the decision is FINAL. This is a CA decision, no one on planet Earth can overturn that, understand?

    Think of it that you have been sentenced to jail for a crime you did not commit. Now that you have served your time, no matter how unfair to you that may be, it’s history and there is nothing you can do about it. Which is why I said, no point harping on it endlessly. Let it go and move on.

    As far as TRE and I are concerned, this is also the end of our discussion on your this case.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech:

    >.You still don’t get it don’t you. As far as your this case is concerned, it’s closed and the decision is FINAL. This is a CA decision, no one on planet Earth can overturn that, understand?<<

    I suggest you do YOUR research about ILLEGAL judicial proceedings and judgment.

    The English authorities state unambiguously:

    VOID act is VOID from the OUSET; NO COURT – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) HAS JURISDICTION to give LEGAL EFFECT to a VOID ACT".

    Tech: I do not need to do any research because the FACT of the matter is your case is closed and I repeat “no one on planet Earth can overturn that”. That’s all I need to know.

    It doesn’t matter who killed John F Kennedy and I am not interested nor do I want to know. All I need to know is that he is dead, PERIOD.

    I have no wish to engage you any further on this case of yours.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Sorry,it should read:

    VOID act is VOID from the OUTSET; NO COURT – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) HAS JURISDICTION to give LEGAL EFFECT to a VOID ACT” and that:

    “If an act is void then in law (notwithstanding that such acts were illegal) it is a nullity. It is not only bad, but INCURABLY BAD”. Also “It has long been laid down that WHEN AN ORDER IS A NULLITY , THE PERSON WHOM THE ORDER PURPORTS TO AFFECT has the OPTION EITHER OF IGNORING IT or of going to court and asking for it to be set aside”.

    Since the SINKaPOOR justice system is BROKEN, we shall see.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Tech:

    >>As far as TRE and I are concerned, this is also the end of our discussion on your this case.<<

    It is your prerogative whether to publish my comments…………by not doing so, you are censoring and give a FALSE picture as regards to the travesties of justice and my submission that the SINKaPOOR justice system IS BROKEN.

    Tech: “…travesties of justice… SINKaPOOR justice system IS BROKEN” is YOUR perspective, many (including me) may not agree with you. You are entitled to your opinion about the justice system, but we need not agree with you and need you not to impose upon us to agree, understand?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    I participated in this thread because “The Law Minister and Attorney-General have failed to safeguard our rights as citizens”

    My objective is to present the REALITY of the justice system in SINKaPOOR……………that it is BROKEN which is more imperative than the “law Minister and Attorney-General have failed to safeguard our rights as citizens”. I showed with concrete facts and the “SUPREME LAW” of SINKaPOOR against which the judges of the Supreme Court including but not limited to the Chief Justice, had FAILED to discharge “…their judicial duties in good faith and to do right to all manner of people according to the laws and usages of the Republic of Singapore…” as in their Oath found in the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution read with Articles 2,4, 9, 12(1)and 97(1) of the Constitution of which I have shown those judges to have breached………..notwithstanding the breaches/contravention/violation of the CORE FUNDAMENTAL jurisprudence principles and their concomitant prima facie crimes under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act and the Penal Code.

    Whether TRE deems against the authorities that there is nothing I could do about the travesties of justice, is NOT my nor his concern………….the FACT that the links of the judgment no longer works is CLEAR evidence that the judgment CANNOT STAND to legal scrutiny. Any attempt to draw whatever parallel based on totally irrelevant cases/examples only raises the question as to why TRE should engage in such nonsensical response.

    Like I said, readers can judge for themselves.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • leeconyou:

    as former colleagues at a&g they certainly scratch each other’s back like monkeys….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisements
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1