Judicial Managers considering to take Goh Jin Hian, son of Goh Chok Tong....
#21
I want to see more transparency of such cases involving the Top Management.
Quote
#22
think it is a procedure that he must be sued so that banks and other lenders under the tax regime can do a total write off against their profits. I have just simply read the Soc Gen's trade financing of usd96.3m. Frankly most banks rely on the long standing trust of the company's directors and managers when granting trading financing facilities (something like a loan against some 'collaterised' future trades, bunkers. ships, whatever). Since Hin Leong went belly up the whole system of bunkering services exposed the system of trade finance using the OKLim' s reputation to continue lending to Hing Leong. It is almost similar to that maid against Liew Mun Leong case where a reputable person cannot be doubted by anyone of his/her integrity.
Quote
#23
16-9-2020 11:05 PM
Goodboy said:
Deloitte & Touche JMsbelieve IPP has a viable claim against Dr Goh Jin Hian for breaches of his director’s duties to act with skill, care and diligence which he owned to IPP, states court document.

https://www.manifoldtimes.com/news/judic...m-to-court

They have to say they "believe". They can't be telling the whole wide world they don't believe that there is a case against Dr Goh, but they just want to go after him for the fun of it anyway right.

But I see them going to have a hard time because it's really like clutching at straws.

The director signs the accounts, the auditors sign after that saying that they present a true and fair view. The auditors say they are not a bloodhound but a watchdog. Neither is the director expected to micro-manage the company. If the storeman had been stealing spare parts and selling them in the black market, you are going to hold the chairman and directors of the company responsible? Laughing
[+] 1 user Likes Yanghua's post
Quote
#24
19-9-2020 9:25 PM
[email protected] said:
History repeated.

All these princelings deserve punishment for being frontmen.

In 80's during PanEl debacle, son of minister got wrapped up in shares failure but was spared 'punishment'.

Currently we witness 3 cases of brush with law. These serves to warn children of ministers n those in power to navigate carefully as no one can be above the law.

Their foolishness will not be tolerated by society. Always remember python can swallow an elephant but once ingested, it will not be able to move to get away.

I am sure there are many cases of crimes and various civil suits involving sons of say, taxi drivers, bus captains, hawkers, barbers, or some white collar workers like a HR executive, or accounts executive etc. And in all of these cases, their parents should not and never be blamed or hauled to court, not did their lowly status bear adversely on the cases.

The law tries the one who is guilty based on the Act.

I do not have any reason to suspect that anyone got away from the law because he was the son of this or that Minister or MP. If there was, and you are now bringing this "fact" up, then it only means that the Opposition had been sleeping and not doing their job when they were expected to question the government about this. So Chiam See Tong was sleeping? Low Thia Khiang too? or even JBJ? Cannot be lar. Laughing
Quote
#25
17-9-2020 8:50 AM
Yanghua said:
It should be "which he owed to..."

The standard of English is really..........................and this is not written by school dropouts but supposedly professionals! 245

even my english is better
Quote
#26
For those of you who are questioning the JM's judgement or motives, I have this to say, Dr Goh had his chance to tell his side of his story at the CAD and at the end of his story telling, Dr Goh's passport was impounded. Now, if you guys are still questioning the JM's judgement, then you guys should also question the CAD's decision to impound DR Goh's passport.
Quote
#27
12-10-2020 12:08 PM
Yanghua said:
They have to say they "believe". They can't be telling the whole wide world they don't believe that there is a case against Dr Goh, but they just want to go after him for the fun of it anyway right.

But I see them going to have a hard time because it's really like clutching at straws.

The director signs the accounts, the auditors sign after that saying that they present a true and fair view. The auditors say they are not a bloodhound but a watchdog. Neither is the director expected to micro-manage the company. If the storeman had been stealing spare parts and selling them in the black market, you are going to hold the chairman and directors of the company responsible? Laughing

....con'td

Anything similar between the above in bold and the below inset?

https://theindependent.sg/goh-chok-tongs...petroleum/

Quote:IPP began to go under after the crew of a vessel chartered by the firm was charged over bunkering malpractices. The crew had tampered with a mass flowmeter, illegally using magnets to increase its readings to claim that it had delivered more fuel than it was actually carrying, during bunkering operations.

The Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) temporarily suspended IPP’s bunker craft operator license during investigations in June. Dr Goh, who was an IPP director at the time, called MPA’s move “premature” and asserted that the authority should have “discussed the incident with us giving us a chance to review the facts.”
Quote
#28
12-10-2020 1:11 PM
Yanghua said:
....con'td

Anything similar between the above in bold and the below inset?

https://theindependent.sg/goh-chok-tongs...petroleum/

I only have this to say, if Dr Goh annual remuneration is less than 500K, then he is mediocre and he should not be faulted for all the monkey business his store men is involved in, but if his annual remuneration is in the million dollar bracket, then he is no longer mediocre and his not knowing his store men are monkeys doing monkey business is no longer an excuse.
Quote
#29
12-10-2020 1:24 PM
AhMoan said:
I only have this to say, if Dr Goh annual remuneration is less than 500K, then he is mediocre and he should not be faulted for all the monkey business his store men is involved in, but if his annual remuneration is in the million dollar bracket, then he is no longer mediocre and his not knowing his store men are monkeys doing monkey business is no longer an excuse.

If his salary is still lower, say $6000 a month, while the storeman is being paid say $2100 per month, then I would haul him, whom I believe is the store manager, up for questioning, why this had been going on and he was not aware of it. But I would not ask the chairman or director that question.

The closer you are to the culprit's level, the more you are expected to be aware of something going wrong in your department.
Quote
#30
17-9-2020 6:19 AM
walaneh said:
walaneh! Big Grin
Bro, like father like son lah! thumbs upWinking
Tiger father no dog son lah! 245

U better cum clean ok
Quote
Users browsing: 1 Guest(s)


Forum Jump: