Search the Community

Hi everyone, am fiddling with the thought of buying a GPS, then a question come to mind: 1) Is it against TP rules to have the GPS on while driving? Though I don't remember reading or hearing from people specifically saying that 'Its against the traffic rules to use GPS while driving', just thought I'll post it here as a general enquiry.

I was at East Coast Lagoon car park last nite when this guy drove against the flow of traffic near the entrance which is a one way street and forcing his way into a car park lot. I was quite hesitant to gv way to him cos i was nearer to the lot and hv the rights over it. I gestured to him saying that this is a one way street. That ass hole pointed to the lot as if that he owned that car park lot. Not wanting to pk up a quarrel, i gave way to him. Just curious to know how will other drivers react to this?

Do you discriminate against people of considerably wide girth? Since I believe in honesty over political correctness, I will admit that I do. I can understand some people have a medical condition. I can also accept people who are a bit plump or have a middle aged paunch. What I can't stand are normal healthy people who get so spherically massive I feel strangely compelled to orbit them. To me, fat people who have no reason to be fat indicate: 1) No self discipline: Just eat and eat 2) Laziness: Never get off their butts to excercise 3) No pride: Don't care how they look I myself am not a perfect physical specimen, but at least I am still reasonably slim. In Western countries, there are all sorts of excuses for people to be fat but in my opiniion, if they took half the effort of making excuses to doing some exercise, they would not be fat to begin with. Agree or disagree?

Clearly you can see the ball didnt cross the line. Germany were the better team Case closed

nose bleeding.... havent halftime sure knock out.. Sexy_worldcup_Girls.jpg

One picture shows the Lexus parked against traffic flow. The other wide angle picture shows the correct flow ...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/10/video-m...r-in/#continued

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/30/video-e...rsch/#continued

BANGKOK, April 26, 2010 (AFP) - Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's ruling party moved closer to possible dissolution Monday as an election body submitted a case against it to court. The case, which centres on allegations of misuse of a grant from the Election Commission, comes amid a tense standoff between the government and 'Red Shirt' protesters that has left 26 people dead and almost 1,000 injured. The Election Commission earlier this month called for Abhisit's Democrat Party - the oldest in the country - to be abolished over two allegations of an illegal political donation in 2005 and misuse of a commission grant. Fifty boxes of documents relating to the second count were sent to the Constitutional Court on Monday afternoon. "The court will consider whether and when the hearing should start," said Thanis Sriprathet, the commission's deputy secretary general, adding that there was no time frame for a decision. The other case, which involves allegations of an illegal multi-million-dollar donation to the Democrat Party during 2005 elections, will be forwarded to the Attorney General, who has 30 days to consider it. Thanis said the body was preparing the documents related to that case and expected to send them to the office of the Attorney General by early May. The party has said it will challenge the commission's recommendation, which refers to a donation made when Abhisit was its deputy leader. The Red Shirts, who have been holding mass rallies in Bangkok for weeks, accuse the government of being undemocratic because it came to power in 2008 after the Constitutional Court ousted allies of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) is taking court action against the licensee of the Geylang Serai Rojak stall, Sheik Allaudin Mohideen. The decision was taken after the NEA, together with the Attorney General

As per above, do you think it is necessary to insure your car against flood - say the increase in premium is $200?

SINGAPORE has issued a Warrant of Arrest against ex-Romanian envoy Dr Silviu Ionescu, who was involved in a tragic hit-and-run accident in December. The Romanian Ambassador to Singapore, HE Aurelian Neagu was officially informed of this during a meeting with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on Friday. Ambassador Neagu was also informed of the findings of the Coroner's Inquiry and the charges preferred by the Singapore Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) against Dr Ionescu. MFA stressed that the Romanian Government had a clear moral obligation to do all it could to persuade Dr Ionescu to come back to Singapore to stand trial. A Red Notice has been issued against Dr Ionescu. Ambassador Neagu informed MFA that the Romanian Prosecutor's Office had started criminal investigations against Dr Ionescu on 2 February 2010 on "homicide by negligence, leaving the scene of an accident and false statements". Ambassador Neagu stressed that Romania was committed to seeing justice done. The Ambassador explained that Romania would need to conduct its own investigations against Dr Ionescu in accordance with Romanian law. He assured MFA that Romania would continue to cooperate fully with Singapore on the matter. Singapore would also cooperate with Romania to the fullest extent possible under our law to our common purpose of seeing that justice was served. To this end, MFA formally informed the Ambassador that Singapore agreed to the establishment of a Joint Technical Working Group (or Rogatory Commission) as proposed by the Romanian side in a letter dated 24 February 2010, and conveyed to Singapore by the Romanian Embassy in Singapore only on 8 March (which was received on 10 March 2010.) The Ambassador was told that Singapore could not have formally agreed to the proposal for a Joint Technical Working Group (or Rogatory Commission) before the Coroner had given his findings on 31 March 2010 as Singapore could not prejudge the outcome of the Coroner's Inquiry and the subsequent decision by our AGC to prefer charges against Dr Ionescu. However, MFA noted that Singapore's Minister for Law had already replied on 16 March 2010 indicating our willingness to cooperate with the Romanian authorities to the fullest extent possible under our law. MFA stressed that the Joint Technical Working Group (or Rogatory Commission) should be set up as soon as possible, and should start work by May 2010. If the Romanian side was ready to begin work earlier, Singapore was ready to do so as we had already appointed our representatives to the Joint Technical Working Group (or Rogatory Commission). The Ambassador thanked Singapore for agreeing to the setting up of the Joint Technical Working Group (or Rogatory Commission) and said that the Romanian Prosecutor was ready to fly down to Singapore to meet with his counterparts "at anytime". MFA welcomed this assurance and told the Ambassador that we hoped that the Romanian authorities would propose specific dates for the visit without delay. MFA also lodged a strong protest to the Ambassador on the inappropriate comments made by Dr Ionescu to the media on the integrity of Singapore's judicial system and the victims. Dr Ionescu's comments were without basis, callous in the extreme and showed an utter lack of remorse. MFA pointed out that the Singapore legal system was widely known for its transparency, integrity and high standards and that Dr Ionescu's callous comments on the victims had only further inflamed public feelings against Dr Ionescu and Romania. MFA welcomed the Romanian MFA's disavowal of the allegations made by Dr Ionescu about the Coroner's Inquiry and Singapore's judicial system and its clarification that they did not represent the position of the Romanian Government. MFA, however, stressed to the Ambassador that it was puzzling that the Romanian MFA continued to allow Dr Ionescu, who was still an employee of the Romanian Foreign Ministry, to make such inappropriate remarks. While Dr Ionescu had been suspended from his duties pending the outcome of the criminal investigation against him in Romania, he had not been dismissed. As long as Dr Ionescu remained formally in the employment of the Romanian government, the Romanian MFA had a strong obligation to ensure that Dr Ionescu refrained from making outrageous and inappropriate statements. Such statements damaged Romania's reputation and were not in Dr Ionescu's own interests either. MFA cautioned Ambassador Neagu that Romania should not underestimate the depth of feelings that had been aroused in Singapore over the case. Questions had been asked in Parliament. The Romanian Government must in its own interests ensure that justice was served and seen to be served. Otherwise, there would inevitably be consequences for bilateral relations.

Friend of mine just encountered this irresponsible doctor. Dispense medicine which causes allergy and says amoxocilin is 'good medicine'. Now my fren wants to lodge complain against this doctor. Any bros know where to lodge such complaints?

Once again, General Motors has found itself in hot water with the United Auto Workers. Way back when in 2007, GM signed a deal with Delphi to provide a total of $450 million for the UAW's Voluntary Employee Beneficiary

SINGAPORE: The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is getting a court injunction against Mustafa Centre to close part of its building for breaching safety violations. According to SCDF, these include "serious episodes of overcrowding". A pre

After much deliberation, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has decided to issue a $16.4 million penalty to Toyota

CNA HDB takes action against 56 flat owners for illegal sub-letting SINGAPORE : The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has taken action against 56 flat owners for illegal sub-letting between January 2008 and December last year. Most were fined between S$1,000 and S$21,000. One owner had his flat repossessed for blatantly flouting HDB's sub-letting rules. Giving details of the case, HDB said it first received feedback on the unauthorised sub-letting of a unit in Block 336 Bukit Batok Street 32 on November 11 last year. The flat was bought by Poh Boon Kay, who is a registered real estate agent. His wife was listed as an occupier. He purchased the four-room flat from the open market in June 2007 without any loan. HDB said the couple are also owners of five private properties. Its investigations found that the flat was sublet without its prior approval to three couples. Mr Poh and his family did not live in the flat. He was informed on November 25 to take immediate steps to evict the unauthorised sub-tenants, failing which HDB would take compulsory acquisition action. However, the subtenants continued to occupy the flat. A notice to compulsorily acquire the flat was then served on December 23. Mr Poh informed HDB on the same day that the sub-tenants had signed an undertaking to vacate the flat by the end of December. A day later, the couple appealed. He claimed that the sub-tenant needed time to work out his finances before buying over the flat from Mr Poh. He had therefore decided to rent out the flat to the sub-tenants in the interim. On January 5, when the couple was interviewed by HDB, they claimed they did not know that they needed to seek the board's prior approval before subletting the flat. They also claimed that they were not aware of the policy for flat owners to fulfil the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) of three years before they were eligible to sublet the whole flat. HDB's further investigations have shown that Mr Poh is also related to two other cases of unauthorised subletting at Bukit Batok and Telok Blangah. With these further instances of unauthorised subletting related to Mr Poh, his claims that he is "unaware" of HDB rules cannot be substantiated. HDB said as he has blatantly flouted HDB's rules, there are no grounds for leniency and legal action has been taken to compulsorily acquire the flat. HDB will also be taking legal action to compulsorily acquire the other two flats. HDB would like to emphasise the severity of unauthorised subletting. HDB flats are meant for owner occupation. Flat owners who wish to sublet their whole flat must obtain approval from HDB and fulfil the MOP. The current MOP for the subletting of flats is as follows: *Flats bought directly from HDB - 5 years *Resale flats purchased with CPF Housing Grant - 5 years *Resale flats purchased without CPF Housing Grant - 3 years - CNA/ms These owners still dunno how to die.... http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/listing/788...innnacle-duxton http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/listing/854...pinnacle-duxton http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/listing/858...pinnacle-duxton http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/listing/853...innacles-duxton http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/listing/784...innacles-duxton

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/17/video-m...ersp/#continued

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/08/video-m...cion/#continued

Did not our singapore pledge say'...so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress' but y aren't our ppl happy despite the seeming prosperity which also is not evenly spread and progress which again is self acclaim but see we lose out to the koreans, taiwanese and china. if we singaporeans are not happy, then 45 yrs of nation building is down the drain, we have not attain the objective the nation 1st sought out to to do after 45 byrs and the very thing we force kids and ourselves to repaeat every morning.

KUALA LUMPUR: Action will be taken against high-ranking officers overseeing the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) fighter jet at the time when its RM50mil engines were stolen, said Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. He said the action to be taken will be decided during the next meeting of the Malaysian Armed Forces Council of which he was the chairman. Describing the thieves as traitors to the nation, Dr Ahmad Zahid vowed that those found guilty would have to pay a heavy price for the crime.

Its been a while since I start a thread in the Football Channel forum.... For the past few mths, Pool has been in the depths of hell in the BPL and suddenly, one win has reignited the race for 4th place... with Man City getting into form, Spurs is form team at the moment? Can Pool go against all odds?

BILLIONAIRE investor Peter Lim has won his defamation suit against the main shareholders of Raffles Town Club (RTC), after the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour on Thursday. The stunning verdict is likely to lead to a big payout to Mr Lim as the court also ordered the defendants - Mr Lin Jian Wei and Ms Margaret Tung - to pay aggravated damages. Mr Lim had claimed that a statement signed by Mr Lin Jian Wei and Ms Margaret Tung was defamatory, as it implied that the club's financial difficulties were due to mismanagement by the original directors, of whom he was one. This was Mr Lim's second attempt at clearing his name, after his defamation action was dismissed by the High Court in February. Justice Chan Seng Onn had then found the statement to be defamatory, but ruled that it was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and that the purpose was not to hurt Mr Lim's reputation. The statement, issued in 2005, was to explain a scheme of payment the club had to make to its members who had successfully sued it for recruiting too many members. The club had to come up with the scheme as it was unable to pay the damages. Under Thursday's 34-page ruling, Mr Lin and Ms Tung were ordered to pay aggravated damages and cost of indemnity to Mr Lim.

I was driving down crawford street towards lavender st and this AT cyclist was cycling against traffic from north bridge road towards me. I slowed down, knowing that this joker might try something and he really did. If i moved abit closer, there would be a collision. Still got the cheek to stare at me and take out his comb from his back pocket to comb his hair. Cycle on the ped crossing on victoria St and back on the roads along lavendar st again. Do we have some form of protection against them? Since its a vehicle hit a cyclist, we die die got to bear some fines and points.

Hi, All this is a carforum, we share our encounters - good or bad. especially it comes to a workshop that does not work for customer interests hopefully this thread will reveal the truth and urgliness . . . pls contribute if you had these experiences.... I spent 2 nights reasoning with my fren to help him to minimize his loses - here it goes: my fren met an accident last month. while he was hospitalised (a few days), his wife helped to settle the car by assigning a workshop they thought was good (as recommended) for 3rd party claim. inevitably, my fren had to approved & authorised workshop to go ahead - repair work & necessary claims. of cos, the other party deny all faults & offer 50-50% (this is norm). but my fren has photos to proof & also traffic summon was also issued to the other party, thus its at least a 80-20% assumptions. under most circumtances of this case, workshop whom act on interest of customer will - try to repair fast (minimal loss of use) or within surveyors' designated duration - engage lawyer to expedite the claims if they know whos right/wrong or confidence however, my fren's workshop din even pressure the other party insurance - & took a month to repair my fren's car (only bodyworks). during the repair, the workshop actually promised and agreed upfront that the repair will include the rims and bodykits, but sit on it until when my fren start chasing. Then my fren was requested to get the rims & BK himself and be reimbursed when claim is successful. So no choice, my fren obliged so as to expedite the work. now, finally car collection (a month later), the workshop insisted that the rims & BK were not his scope of works. workshop even blamed my fren's for delaying the repairs. worse, workshop : - insisted that my fren should only get back stock parts only (rims etc.) - only replaced with 2nd hand tires to my fren - invoiced my fren for the BK works workshop told my fren that he has 2 paths: A - either take it as it is (pay up 1st) & continue approval for workshop with the insurance claims (not settled yet) B - pay up all repair works and do the insurance claims himself ................................................................................ ................................ after much consideration, I told my fren to take option A as not to avoid further loses (eg. further loss of use). those whom faced similar situations will definitely agreed with me. there are a lot of calculations & reasons to this option!!! now, I'm thinking of how to help my fren to get back the workshop when the insurance claims is concluded - suggestions??? I'm only worried the workshop will duress my fren to accept 80-20% offer when he has the chance to fight for 100-0%. your thoughts???