+Monkey+cut.jpg)
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Blind Justice: 'Trash' in court hoo ha...
Blind Justice: 'Trash' in court hoo ha...
Why the big hoo ha:
A simple example analogy:
A robber 'breaks into' a rich man's (mafia boss) house, tying up his 2 maids at gunpoint. Having found nothing to steal upstairs, he explores the wine cellar, only to discover a woman there gagged and tied outside the cellar door. She motions him to enter the cooled cellar where in a fresh corpse is seen. The burglar alarm sounds, but before escape, the robber photographs his findings, ostensibly with the intent of blackmailing the rich man/ releasing the captive (s).
The rich man refuses to pay blackmail$/ release his captives and the photographs of the known missing persons are extremely incriminating. (Victime are on the police 'missing persons' files)
The robber then posts his pictures and video on U tube...
Should the police investigate the matter?Is the (criminally obtained) evidence admissible in the court of law?
Who is this High Court judge Andrew Ang i wonder...
How does this episode differentiate Singapore from other parts of the world where $$$ greases the judgement. Where Judges are corrupt, sensitive only to the smell of $$?
Who upholds the law of justice?
------The Electric New Paper : Can trash be used in court? Clear legislation on issue may help draw more MNCs to set up shop here, says one lawyer CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case? By Andre Yeo 18 October 2007 CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?
Right now this is a grey area in Singapore law.
But it is allowed in the US state of Florida, said a lawyer who is here for the International Bar Association (IBA) Conference. He gave details of how a debtor was caught concealing his assets.
In Singapore, the issue came up when the High Court ruled in February that information from your rubbish bin can't be used against you.
But Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong allowed an appeal against the ruling, saying the issue would have 'serious repercussions for everybody'.
However, he said the issue of who owns the rubbish should be decided in a separate trial.
Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies would be comforted to know if there is clear legislation on this topic. They come from places where their laws are more stringent.
'So, if we want to attract them here, we need to offer them the same level of protection that they get in their own countries.
'We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'
Criminal lawyer Mark Goh said there were some hurdles to overcome when dealing with garbage ownership.
Said Mr Goh: 'Information can be confidential and must be separated from the physical piece of paper.
'So a person can argue that while he threw away the piece of paper because he did not want it anymore, he can also argue that the information contained on that piece of paper was confidential and he did not intend to give it away.
'So, the confidential information would still be his property.
'If I deliberately shred a piece of paper, that indicates I treat the information as confidential and want to deny public access to it.
'But if you retrieve it and piece it back together, how can you argue that it was in the public domain?'
FLORIDA CASE
Mr Martin Kenney, one of more than 4,000 participants from 120 countries at the IBA Conference, said in Monday's session on business intelligence and industrial espionage, that for 18 months, his law firm monitored a fraud suspect's movements at home.
He said his clients had accused the man in Florida of owing them US$21.9 million ($32m), which he had borrowed in a business deal.
He was also found to be involved in Medicare (a medical insurance programme for the elderly) fraud and was made a bankrupt.
Before Mr Kenney's agents began the sting operation, they had to make sure taking the man's trash was allowed there.
He said: 'We had to make sure it was not illegal in the state of Florida.
'It wasn't. It was by the side of a public road.
'As long as the trash was outside the person's property, it was considered 'abandoned property'.'
He said they found documents from the man's lawyers and other incriminating information showing he had had an elaborate plan to conceal his assets.
A settlement was reached, but Mr Kenney said he could not reveal its details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE question was posed last month in a case before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
Creditors who use private investigators to sift through debtor's bin want to use it against debtor in court.
High Court judge Andrew Ang says improper and/or illegal to do this, in February last year. Rules against creditors, but they appeal.
CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,145106,00.html?Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.
Why the big hoo ha:
A simple example analogy:
A robber 'breaks into' a rich man's (mafia boss) house, tying up his 2 maids at gunpoint. Having found nothing to steal upstairs, he explores the wine cellar, only to discover a woman there gagged and tied outside the cellar door. She motions him to enter the cooled cellar where in a fresh corpse is seen. The burglar alarm sounds, but before escape, the robber photographs his findings, ostensibly with the intent of blackmailing the rich man/ releasing the captive (s).
The rich man refuses to pay blackmail$/ release his captives and the photographs of the known missing persons are extremely incriminating. (Victime are on the police 'missing persons' files)
The robber then posts his pictures and video on U tube...
Should the police investigate the matter?Is the (criminally obtained) evidence admissible in the court of law?
Who is this High Court judge Andrew Ang i wonder...
How does this episode differentiate Singapore from other parts of the world where $$$ greases the judgement. Where Judges are corrupt, sensitive only to the smell of $$?
Who upholds the law of justice?
------The Electric New Paper : Can trash be used in court? Clear legislation on issue may help draw more MNCs to set up shop here, says one lawyer CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case? By Andre Yeo 18 October 2007 CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?
Right now this is a grey area in Singapore law.
But it is allowed in the US state of Florida, said a lawyer who is here for the International Bar Association (IBA) Conference. He gave details of how a debtor was caught concealing his assets.
In Singapore, the issue came up when the High Court ruled in February that information from your rubbish bin can't be used against you.
But Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong allowed an appeal against the ruling, saying the issue would have 'serious repercussions for everybody'.
However, he said the issue of who owns the rubbish should be decided in a separate trial.
Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies would be comforted to know if there is clear legislation on this topic. They come from places where their laws are more stringent.
'So, if we want to attract them here, we need to offer them the same level of protection that they get in their own countries.
'We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'
Criminal lawyer Mark Goh said there were some hurdles to overcome when dealing with garbage ownership.
Said Mr Goh: 'Information can be confidential and must be separated from the physical piece of paper.
'So a person can argue that while he threw away the piece of paper because he did not want it anymore, he can also argue that the information contained on that piece of paper was confidential and he did not intend to give it away.
'So, the confidential information would still be his property.
'If I deliberately shred a piece of paper, that indicates I treat the information as confidential and want to deny public access to it.
'But if you retrieve it and piece it back together, how can you argue that it was in the public domain?'
FLORIDA CASE
Mr Martin Kenney, one of more than 4,000 participants from 120 countries at the IBA Conference, said in Monday's session on business intelligence and industrial espionage, that for 18 months, his law firm monitored a fraud suspect's movements at home.
He said his clients had accused the man in Florida of owing them US$21.9 million ($32m), which he had borrowed in a business deal.
He was also found to be involved in Medicare (a medical insurance programme for the elderly) fraud and was made a bankrupt.
Before Mr Kenney's agents began the sting operation, they had to make sure taking the man's trash was allowed there.
He said: 'We had to make sure it was not illegal in the state of Florida.
'It wasn't. It was by the side of a public road.
'As long as the trash was outside the person's property, it was considered 'abandoned property'.'
He said they found documents from the man's lawyers and other incriminating information showing he had had an elaborate plan to conceal his assets.
A settlement was reached, but Mr Kenney said he could not reveal its details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE question was posed last month in a case before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
Creditors who use private investigators to sift through debtor's bin want to use it against debtor in court.
High Court judge Andrew Ang says improper and/or illegal to do this, in February last year. Rules against creditors, but they appeal.
CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,145106,00.html?Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.
Monday, October 15, 2007
$297,000p.a. for the next 99yrs (every-yr),
$297,000p.a. for the next 99yrs (every-yr),
Dear 'foreigner', (if your $$ is legitimate): thank you for your faith in Singapore's ability to contribute to your future.
I think:
1) You are a responsible person, understanding that SG's defence costs $11B p.a. and are willing to play your part through investing in a leasehold property that depreciates @ $297K p.a. In return for your interest in Singapore, I'm sure our citizens (trough various NS liabilities) will safeguard your property like their own- with their lives.
2) I salute your vision and integrity.
- -
Rich Singaporeans should realize that they are 'Defrauding' the govt of $2.03B p.a. through their support for freehold property laws in a land scarce developed country.
ERP, COE, water conservation taxes, GST, medisave etc are all well established pay per use systems.
SLA has already legislated that new 99yr-leasehold land shall be valued at 96% its freehold worth.
Can SG afford $2.03B p.a. annual subsidy to the rich?
Why hurry to implement means testing, annuity schemes?
$2.03B donation to the rich?
***FREEHOLD HAS NO PLACE IN A LAND SCARCE DEVELOPED CITY***
& MBT must stop copying the British crappy property laws...
Anyhow, thank you foreigner, given your contribution, I hope the next GST increase can be delayed by a short while...
($297k pa= $280k +4%prop tax, 1% bc 99yr, 1% maintenance fee )
------
$5,600 psf for penthouse new high in property price here
BT 12.10.2007
53rd-storey Orchard Residences unit fetches over $28m
By KALPANA RASHIWALA
A NEW record property price for Singapore has been set, even though fewer sales are being made in high-end residential projects since the time of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.
CapitaLand and Sun Hung Kai Properties are said to have sold earlier this week a penthouse on the 53rd storey of The Orchard Residences for about $5,600 per square foot (psf), or over $28 million. This surpasses the previous benchmark of $5,500 psf set in August when a 54th storey penthouse fetched about $27.8 million.
This means that all four penthouses in the 99-year leasehold development are now sold.
The developers are said to have sold about 73 per cent of the total 175 units in the condo. The buyer of the final penthouse sold this week is believed to be a foreigner. The 5,048 sq ft unit has five bedrooms, a study and a family room.
A stone's throw away, Wheelock Properties (Singapore) is said to have sold more than 30 apartments at its freehold Scotts Square since the official launch of the project on Sept 28.
The developer is said to have largely maintained its average price at around the $4,000 psf mark from its preview in July, when it sold about half of the project's 338 apartments.
Over in Sentosa Cove, Ho Bee has sold 38 of the 50 units it has released so far in its 91-unit condo, Turquoise, since late September. The units have been sold at prices ranging from nearly $2,500 psf to $2,770 psf.
The average price is about $2,600 psf, Ho Bee Investment executive director Ong Chong Hua said when contacted by BT yesterday. Buyers of the 38 units - which include four penthouses - were an equal mix of foreigners and Singaporeans, he said.
Apartments at the 99-year leasehold Turquoise typically cost around $5.3 million for a three-bedroom unit, $6.4 million for a four-bedder and around $9.3 million for a penthouse.
DTZ Debenham Tie Leung executive director (residential) Margaret Thean acknowledges that buyers, both local and foreign, have been more cautious after the stock market setback at the time of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.
'But we still see activity going on. For the high-end projects, we've not noticed any withdrawal of liquidity. The only difference is that prospective buyers are more cautious, doing more calculations and being more selective in their choice of investment before making a commitment,' she said.
Market watchers also say that the recovery in the stock market in recent weeks has led to a return of confidence in the property market, as seen in a pick-up in subsales activity lately.
Over in the Seletar Hills area, Tong Eng Brothers unit Fairview Developments is launching two landed developments. One is the freehold 8 @ Stratton, comprising eight cluster semi-detached houses priced at $1.98 million to $2.2 million.
The houses have built-up areas ranging from 3,595 sq ft to 3,649 sq ft and strata areas of 4,930 sq ft to 5,145 sq ft. The second project is Nim Green, a collection of just three terrace houses - a corner unit with an asking price of $2.5 million and two intermediate units with a price tag of about $2 million.
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://forums.condosingapore.com/showthread.php?t=2758
Dear 'foreigner', (if your $$ is legitimate): thank you for your faith in Singapore's ability to contribute to your future.
I think:
1) You are a responsible person, understanding that SG's defence costs $11B p.a. and are willing to play your part through investing in a leasehold property that depreciates @ $297K p.a. In return for your interest in Singapore, I'm sure our citizens (trough various NS liabilities) will safeguard your property like their own- with their lives.
2) I salute your vision and integrity.
- -
Rich Singaporeans should realize that they are 'Defrauding' the govt of $2.03B p.a. through their support for freehold property laws in a land scarce developed country.
ERP, COE, water conservation taxes, GST, medisave etc are all well established pay per use systems.
SLA has already legislated that new 99yr-leasehold land shall be valued at 96% its freehold worth.
Can SG afford $2.03B p.a. annual subsidy to the rich?
Why hurry to implement means testing, annuity schemes?
$2.03B donation to the rich?
***FREEHOLD HAS NO PLACE IN A LAND SCARCE DEVELOPED CITY***
& MBT must stop copying the British crappy property laws...
Anyhow, thank you foreigner, given your contribution, I hope the next GST increase can be delayed by a short while...
($297k pa= $280k +4%prop tax, 1% bc 99yr, 1% maintenance fee )
------
$5,600 psf for penthouse new high in property price here
BT 12.10.2007
53rd-storey Orchard Residences unit fetches over $28m
By KALPANA RASHIWALA
A NEW record property price for Singapore has been set, even though fewer sales are being made in high-end residential projects since the time of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.
CapitaLand and Sun Hung Kai Properties are said to have sold earlier this week a penthouse on the 53rd storey of The Orchard Residences for about $5,600 per square foot (psf), or over $28 million. This surpasses the previous benchmark of $5,500 psf set in August when a 54th storey penthouse fetched about $27.8 million.
This means that all four penthouses in the 99-year leasehold development are now sold.
The developers are said to have sold about 73 per cent of the total 175 units in the condo. The buyer of the final penthouse sold this week is believed to be a foreigner. The 5,048 sq ft unit has five bedrooms, a study and a family room.
A stone's throw away, Wheelock Properties (Singapore) is said to have sold more than 30 apartments at its freehold Scotts Square since the official launch of the project on Sept 28.
The developer is said to have largely maintained its average price at around the $4,000 psf mark from its preview in July, when it sold about half of the project's 338 apartments.
Over in Sentosa Cove, Ho Bee has sold 38 of the 50 units it has released so far in its 91-unit condo, Turquoise, since late September. The units have been sold at prices ranging from nearly $2,500 psf to $2,770 psf.
The average price is about $2,600 psf, Ho Bee Investment executive director Ong Chong Hua said when contacted by BT yesterday. Buyers of the 38 units - which include four penthouses - were an equal mix of foreigners and Singaporeans, he said.
Apartments at the 99-year leasehold Turquoise typically cost around $5.3 million for a three-bedroom unit, $6.4 million for a four-bedder and around $9.3 million for a penthouse.
DTZ Debenham Tie Leung executive director (residential) Margaret Thean acknowledges that buyers, both local and foreign, have been more cautious after the stock market setback at the time of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.
'But we still see activity going on. For the high-end projects, we've not noticed any withdrawal of liquidity. The only difference is that prospective buyers are more cautious, doing more calculations and being more selective in their choice of investment before making a commitment,' she said.
Market watchers also say that the recovery in the stock market in recent weeks has led to a return of confidence in the property market, as seen in a pick-up in subsales activity lately.
Over in the Seletar Hills area, Tong Eng Brothers unit Fairview Developments is launching two landed developments. One is the freehold 8 @ Stratton, comprising eight cluster semi-detached houses priced at $1.98 million to $2.2 million.
The houses have built-up areas ranging from 3,595 sq ft to 3,649 sq ft and strata areas of 4,930 sq ft to 5,145 sq ft. The second project is Nim Green, a collection of just three terrace houses - a corner unit with an asking price of $2.5 million and two intermediate units with a price tag of about $2 million.
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://forums.condosingapore.com/showthread.php?t=2758
Friday, September 21, 2007
SG govt expenditure2006
Fr 'SG in fig 07': http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sif2007.pdf
In short:2006:
Tot Opr expenditure: $23,463M
Edu spend: $5,684M
Health: $1,764M
Defence: $11,973M
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
It's a real mess: Judge
It's a real mess: Judge
Court orders a stay on Phoenix Court en bloc sale
Weekend • September 8, 2007
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
IT HAD seemed like a walk in the park for Phoenix Court residents en route to a windfall, when the owners of all but one of the units agreed to sell off their apartments collectively for $88.1 million.
But just 11 days to go before the owners were due to pocket $1.8 million each, the sale has been stalled indefinitely — in a complicated legal saga that demonstrates why impending sweeping changes to the en bloc legislation, unveiled just two weeks ago in Parliament, are desperately needed.
On Friday, High Court Judge Andrew Ang, after hearing an appeal by the dissenting co-owners ordered that the sale be put on hold as he reserved judgement.
The tussle began in April last year when owners of freehold Phoenix Court (picture), a 13-storey apartment block in River Valley, inked the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Out of the 47 units, the only dissenting co-owners were an elderly couple, Mr Yip Hoi Thong and Madam Ng Swee Lang.
Six months later, a deal was sealed with Bukit Panjang Plaza for $88.1 million. The sale committee went on to apply for a Strata Titles Board (STB) order to proceed with the sale in January. After the Board dismissed the couple's objection, they took the matter to the High Court, demanding that the sale be annulled due to "defective" procedures.
Their lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, argued that two of the three majority owners who had applied to the STB for the sale order, were not authorised to do so.
He also took issue with the fact that the valuation report by Savills was done six weeks after the CSA was signed — which while in line with current legislation, would flout new laws which are expected to kick in next month.
Furthermore, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds was also omitted from the sale and purchase (S&P) agreement.
Lawyer Christopher Yong, who was acting for the sale committee, pointed out that it was common industry practice to set out the method in the CSA only, adding that it was "at worst a technical error" that should not jeopardise the whole sale.
But Mr Hwang argued that the S&P agreement must define the contractual obligations between a buyer and the individual owners — since members of sale committee "lose interest very quickly, especially if they have gotten their money".
The prevalent practice of treating the owners as one collective entity has resulted in many problems arising from "post-completion issues", including the deadline for each owner to vacate.
Mr Yong maintained that what mattered was for the STB to be satisfied that the deal was done in "good faith" . He said the statutory requirements "are not absolute" and a deal must be allowed to go through as long as the procedural lapses are immaterial.
But Mr Hwang disagreed: "This is in effect a compulsory acquisition. The onus is on those who acquire my clients' properties to adhere strictly to the requirements set out by the law."
With the sale due to go through on Sept 18 and with many owners already committed to their new properties, Justice Ang did not hide his unease at ordering a stay on the deal — a move that could potentially result in further lawsuits by the buyers.
"Aptly summed up, it's a real mess," the judge said as he shook his head.
This is not the only "mess" for Phoenix Court residents. In a separate development, a group of 13 majority owners — who had turned their backs on the sale — have filed an appeal after their case was dismissed by the High Court. The group argued that the extension to the CSA — which had already expired — was not valid.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/210030.asp
Court orders a stay on Phoenix Court en bloc sale
Weekend • September 8, 2007
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
IT HAD seemed like a walk in the park for Phoenix Court residents en route to a windfall, when the owners of all but one of the units agreed to sell off their apartments collectively for $88.1 million.
But just 11 days to go before the owners were due to pocket $1.8 million each, the sale has been stalled indefinitely — in a complicated legal saga that demonstrates why impending sweeping changes to the en bloc legislation, unveiled just two weeks ago in Parliament, are desperately needed.
On Friday, High Court Judge Andrew Ang, after hearing an appeal by the dissenting co-owners ordered that the sale be put on hold as he reserved judgement.
The tussle began in April last year when owners of freehold Phoenix Court (picture), a 13-storey apartment block in River Valley, inked the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Out of the 47 units, the only dissenting co-owners were an elderly couple, Mr Yip Hoi Thong and Madam Ng Swee Lang.
Six months later, a deal was sealed with Bukit Panjang Plaza for $88.1 million. The sale committee went on to apply for a Strata Titles Board (STB) order to proceed with the sale in January. After the Board dismissed the couple's objection, they took the matter to the High Court, demanding that the sale be annulled due to "defective" procedures.
Their lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, argued that two of the three majority owners who had applied to the STB for the sale order, were not authorised to do so.
He also took issue with the fact that the valuation report by Savills was done six weeks after the CSA was signed — which while in line with current legislation, would flout new laws which are expected to kick in next month.
Furthermore, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds was also omitted from the sale and purchase (S&P) agreement.
Lawyer Christopher Yong, who was acting for the sale committee, pointed out that it was common industry practice to set out the method in the CSA only, adding that it was "at worst a technical error" that should not jeopardise the whole sale.
But Mr Hwang argued that the S&P agreement must define the contractual obligations between a buyer and the individual owners — since members of sale committee "lose interest very quickly, especially if they have gotten their money".
The prevalent practice of treating the owners as one collective entity has resulted in many problems arising from "post-completion issues", including the deadline for each owner to vacate.
Mr Yong maintained that what mattered was for the STB to be satisfied that the deal was done in "good faith" . He said the statutory requirements "are not absolute" and a deal must be allowed to go through as long as the procedural lapses are immaterial.
But Mr Hwang disagreed: "This is in effect a compulsory acquisition. The onus is on those who acquire my clients' properties to adhere strictly to the requirements set out by the law."
With the sale due to go through on Sept 18 and with many owners already committed to their new properties, Justice Ang did not hide his unease at ordering a stay on the deal — a move that could potentially result in further lawsuits by the buyers.
"Aptly summed up, it's a real mess," the judge said as he shook his head.
This is not the only "mess" for Phoenix Court residents. In a separate development, a group of 13 majority owners — who had turned their backs on the sale — have filed an appeal after their case was dismissed by the High Court. The group argued that the extension to the CSA — which had already expired — was not valid.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/210030.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+Monkey+cut.jpg)