Search the Community

Zi pai toa kee liao.... Still not sure what's on this chap's mind when he made those remarks against his brethren-you and me. If he is really a civics tutor, he should know what he can or cannot say as a educator especially if he is using his own name. From STOMP: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sg...rouble_too.html MOE acts: Now hubby of pinoy who insulted S'poreans in trouble too The Ministry of Education posted in a comment on its Facebook page that it is aware of Mr Gay's replies to MP Penny Low's apology on Facebook in which he insulted Singaporeans using his Filipino wife's account. The MOE is now looking into the incident. Mr Gay Chao Hui, a teacher a Tampines Junior College, later apologised on the MP's page and said it was him who used his wife's Facebook account to post the comments, in which he called Singaporeans 'moronic' and 'incompetent'. His wife, Rachelle Ann Beguia, is said to be a clerk working at the National Heart Centre, and disciplinary action has since been taken against her. Netizens were concerned with the fact that Mr Gay is an educator, while others are sceptical about the apology, saying he might just be taking the fall for his wife. STOMPer Stefanie alerted STOMP to MOE's response on its Facebook page. The comment was posted yesterday afternoon (Aug 14): "Thank you for this feedback regarding Mr Gay Chao Hui. MOE is aware of this incident and takes a serious view of the matter. We are looking into it."

People has been telling me that the recent unfortunate events are the acts of god and I cannot blame the government. I think they are missing the point. I DON'T blame the government for flooding. I DON'T blame the government for the tree falling and killing that poor chap. What reallly GETS on my nerve is that the way they handled all the incidents. 1) Orchard road floods last month and after some superficial study, they just kick the blame to someone else and say it was due to a choked drainage pipe. I mean we are talking about Orchard Road here. Surely that warrants more detailed analysis and study. The government is just concerned about covering its butt and brushing off responsibility. And the worst thing happened. Orchard road is flooded for a second time in one month after the blockage was supposedly fixed. I am emabarassed for the guy in charged. Did anything happen to him? any accountability? Serious, everyone makes mistakes. Nobody is lynching someone because of an "honest mistake" But when that someone makes the same mistake TWICE, it just goes to show they never bother to learn from the first mistake. 2) the tree falling incident. Within 24 hours of the incident, the pepople in charge give the Microburst reason.... frankly, I don't even want to comment on this. from the newpaper article "In fact, residents said trees were pruned early this year when drainage works were carried out. " That tree was a HUGE tree. I passed by there every week. Its crown was pruned and quite sparse. So why did it get blown down within one year of the drainage works? Some resident commented that the roots looked damaged from the drainage works being done. Shouldn't more investigattion be done BEFORE CONCLUDING that the cause is due to microburst? They don't even look sincere in looking for the root cause and just repeat what they did for the orchard road flood one month ago. It sucks...... It is not about blaming people for acts of god. Seriously, I don't think given the number of trees we have, we could have prevented the casualty. It is about responsibility and accountability. It is about learning from one's mistakes and finding out the ROOT CAUSE so that it is prevented in the future.

this is a bit silly, if u ask me. but, on the other hand, the argument do have a point. in the future, it may be terms as Hit, and Did Not Stop offence. anyway, this should carry 2 charges of failure to stop after an accident and failing to render assistance which ought to put anyone into sleepless nites... ------------------- from STI: IF A High Court judge is right, drivers involved in hit-and-run accidents have routinely been slapped with two contradictory charges. One is failure to stop after an accident, and the other is removing a vehicle involved in an accident without police permission. Hit-and-run drivers typically face these two charges under the Road Traffic Act, as well as a third - the most serious - of failing to render assistance. However, in February, High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang ruled that failure to stop and removal of a vehicle are 'mutually exclusive'. Referring to the hit-and-run appeal case before him, he said in court: 'If the guy hasn't stopped, then how can he be accused of removing his car from the scene at the same time?' If the Court of Appeal, which yesterday heard the Public Prosecutor's request for a definitive ruling, agrees with Justice Tay, it could mean one fewer charge for hit-and-run drivers in future. In the original hearing before Justice Tay, a driver did not stop his BMW after rear-ending a motorcycle. Although the judge dismissed the appeal, he set aside the man's conviction for removing his car and ordered the $1,000 fine to be refunded to him. In his written judgment in April, Justice Tay said that implicit in the offence of removing a vehicle is that the vehicle in question is stationary at the accident scene. 'Put simply, in order to remove an object from point A, it must be at point A,' he said. But the BMW was never stationary at the scene. In March, the Public Prosecutor had applied to refer the case to the Court of Appeal to decide on this issue. Yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Han Ming Kuang argued that the two offences are not mutually exclusive. He said both offences can be made out if the driver did not stop his vehicle at once after a serious accident, but did so at some distance away because he realised someone had witnessed the accident. The DPP argued that the law does not require that the vehicle must have stopped before moving off. He also argued that the two offences carry different objectives. Preserving evidence would require the 'removal of a vehicle' charge. On the other hand, an offender has to stop to provide particulars. The Court of Appeal will give its decision at a later date.