Sammyboy RSS Feed
15-10-2014, 09:50 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
PAP, ADDRESS SINGAPOREANS NOW AND SACK ALVIN YEO!
.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
14 Oct 2014 - 7:29am
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/alvin%20yeo_1.png?itok=BK3CRo07 (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/alvin%20yeo_1.png)
A summary of the Alvin Yeo case: He overcharged his client by over a million dollars and raised legal fees to $100,000 per hour in court. Law Society let him off with the excuse that his clerk did it, not him.
Here’s a summary of netizens’ counter-arguments:
1. How can Alvin Yeo not be involved in the preparation of the accounts/costs when he himself was involved in the actual day to day provision of legal services/research/representation for the Singapore Medical Council?
2. The lawyer usually works closely with his secretary to finalize the time spent and the amount to be billed. Anyone who engages lawyers knows this. It is common sense. How else would the clerk know how many hours, what rates for each and what are the items to bill? The clerk cannot decide on the fees himself without consulting the lawyer. If Alvin Yeo is allowed to cheat, next time any lawyer who overcharges can also just blame his clerk.
3. It implies that Alvin Yeo is free to pocket any amount so long as it is on his invoice. $10 million? $1 billion? As a Senior Counsel and the Senior Managing Partner of the law firm, he should be completely aware of how much he is supposed to be paid. There shouldn’t be sudden obscene increases in his paycheck.
(Source: http://therealsingapore.com/content/open-letter-pap-your-silence-alvin-y... (http://therealsingapore.com/content/open-letter-pap-your-silence-alvin-yeos-overcharging-deafening))
4. Alvin Yeo overcharged not once, but TWICE. His second set of bills were also unreasonably high and were also taxed down by the court. How can the second instance be due to the clerk again? He was clearly arguing for higher legal fees for himself in court!
“The first taxation hearing agreed with Dr Lim that the fees were ridiculous and had them changed to $340,000. However, Alvin and Melanie disputed the taxation hearing’s decision and on appeal to the high court, were able to get the fees raised to $370,000. However, the courts now have reduced the final amount to only $317,000”. – Source: (http://therealsingapore.com/content/court-rules-lawyer-pap-mp-alvin-yeo-... (http://therealsingapore.com/content/court-rules-lawyer-pap-mp-alvin-yeo-overcharged-1-million-legal-fees))
5. If it is the trend to blame your secretary for overcharging clients, then Dr Susan Lim should have been able to do the same in the first place. If makes no sense that Dr Susan Lim cannot overcharge but Senior Counsel MP Alvin Yeo can do so.
If Alvin Yeo who has clearly overcharged his client knowingly is allowed to remain as a member of parliament,it will show that dishonesty is okay. Perhaps TT Durai and Yang Yin can also meet the criteria to be a MP now.
Having read about the government’s complete silence over the Alvin Yeo overcharging saga, I am deeply saddened.
This is not the PAP I grew up knowing. Lee Kuan Yew was a strong leader, a man who made it his foremost priority that his government would be seen as a clean government. He would respond swiftly to allegations about any of his MPs and if there was sufficient proof, he would ensure that an investigation would be carried out. He would certainly have not remained silent on any accusation about the people he selected as leaders. He decisively ensured that Tan Kia Gan, Phey Yew Kok, Wee Toon Boon and Teh Cheang Wan were brought to justice. In doing so, he consistently showed Singaporeans that he would keep the government clean, honest, transparent and fair.
It seems that the PAP of today is trying to get support by raising awareness of what Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP achieved. Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP. Not Lee Hsien Loong’s PAP. There’s a lot of news about the Battle for Merger radio talks at the moment. I am very grateful for what Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership achieved for Singapore but I cannot say the same about the current leadership. The emphasis on this chapter of the history of Singapore and the history of the PAP only enhances the contrast between the old PAP and the new PAP.
If not bothering to address public concerns about a MP who has been involved in cheating (by overcharging his client and subsequently found guilty by a court) is the way of Lee Hsien Loong’s ‘new PAP’, then all is not well for us Singaporeans. For the sake of Singapore, PAP must not go down this path. This must not become a norm.
As Singapore gears up for the grand jubilee, the 50th anniversary of our success as a nation, we shouldn’t be just rehashing history. It is all the more important that the PAP does not get complacent. Good leadership and good governance must be sustained. There are already signs of complacency, signs that the principles of good governance are being swept aside. Not even acknowledging public concern about Alvin Yeo’s integrity is a betrayal of Singaporeans’ trust in the government and in particular, the Prime Minister’s 2013 promise. More than that, it implies that the PAP no longer values honesty as a necessary core value, and is not serious in reassuring Singaporeans that we have a clean and honest government.
All the PAP had to do was to tell Singaporeans “Don’t speculate”, “He is innocent”, “He is guilty, so we will remove him” or “Wait for the Law Society to follow up”. Instead the PAP leadership became mute.
The PAP neither agreed nor disagreed, and instead has abstained from making a decision. Perhaps the PAP leadership has even ‘abstained from abstaining’. Is this how a country is run? Silence whenever a public servant faces valid criticism and accusations about his honesty? Please do not dishonour Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy by giving leeway to MPs when they are in the spotlight for the wrong reasons!
Public confidence in the PAP government has suffered a blow from this episode. Singaporeans will only become more cynical about the government’s initiatives. Nevertheless, it is not too late and I plead with the Prime Minister to address this very important issue before it is truly too late for the PAP. If the PAP loses its halo of cleanliness, it will be the beginning of its end because trust, once broken completely, cannot be restored easily.
A Pioneer Singaporean
TRS Contributor
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?192064-What-Does-it-Say-of-FAP-Traitors-if-Alvin-Yeo-is-Not-Sacked-for-Grossly-Overcharging&goto=newpost).
PAP, ADDRESS SINGAPOREANS NOW AND SACK ALVIN YEO!
.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
14 Oct 2014 - 7:29am
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/alvin%20yeo_1.png?itok=BK3CRo07 (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/alvin%20yeo_1.png)
A summary of the Alvin Yeo case: He overcharged his client by over a million dollars and raised legal fees to $100,000 per hour in court. Law Society let him off with the excuse that his clerk did it, not him.
Here’s a summary of netizens’ counter-arguments:
1. How can Alvin Yeo not be involved in the preparation of the accounts/costs when he himself was involved in the actual day to day provision of legal services/research/representation for the Singapore Medical Council?
2. The lawyer usually works closely with his secretary to finalize the time spent and the amount to be billed. Anyone who engages lawyers knows this. It is common sense. How else would the clerk know how many hours, what rates for each and what are the items to bill? The clerk cannot decide on the fees himself without consulting the lawyer. If Alvin Yeo is allowed to cheat, next time any lawyer who overcharges can also just blame his clerk.
3. It implies that Alvin Yeo is free to pocket any amount so long as it is on his invoice. $10 million? $1 billion? As a Senior Counsel and the Senior Managing Partner of the law firm, he should be completely aware of how much he is supposed to be paid. There shouldn’t be sudden obscene increases in his paycheck.
(Source: http://therealsingapore.com/content/open-letter-pap-your-silence-alvin-y... (http://therealsingapore.com/content/open-letter-pap-your-silence-alvin-yeos-overcharging-deafening))
4. Alvin Yeo overcharged not once, but TWICE. His second set of bills were also unreasonably high and were also taxed down by the court. How can the second instance be due to the clerk again? He was clearly arguing for higher legal fees for himself in court!
“The first taxation hearing agreed with Dr Lim that the fees were ridiculous and had them changed to $340,000. However, Alvin and Melanie disputed the taxation hearing’s decision and on appeal to the high court, were able to get the fees raised to $370,000. However, the courts now have reduced the final amount to only $317,000”. – Source: (http://therealsingapore.com/content/court-rules-lawyer-pap-mp-alvin-yeo-... (http://therealsingapore.com/content/court-rules-lawyer-pap-mp-alvin-yeo-overcharged-1-million-legal-fees))
5. If it is the trend to blame your secretary for overcharging clients, then Dr Susan Lim should have been able to do the same in the first place. If makes no sense that Dr Susan Lim cannot overcharge but Senior Counsel MP Alvin Yeo can do so.
If Alvin Yeo who has clearly overcharged his client knowingly is allowed to remain as a member of parliament,it will show that dishonesty is okay. Perhaps TT Durai and Yang Yin can also meet the criteria to be a MP now.
Having read about the government’s complete silence over the Alvin Yeo overcharging saga, I am deeply saddened.
This is not the PAP I grew up knowing. Lee Kuan Yew was a strong leader, a man who made it his foremost priority that his government would be seen as a clean government. He would respond swiftly to allegations about any of his MPs and if there was sufficient proof, he would ensure that an investigation would be carried out. He would certainly have not remained silent on any accusation about the people he selected as leaders. He decisively ensured that Tan Kia Gan, Phey Yew Kok, Wee Toon Boon and Teh Cheang Wan were brought to justice. In doing so, he consistently showed Singaporeans that he would keep the government clean, honest, transparent and fair.
It seems that the PAP of today is trying to get support by raising awareness of what Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP achieved. Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP. Not Lee Hsien Loong’s PAP. There’s a lot of news about the Battle for Merger radio talks at the moment. I am very grateful for what Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership achieved for Singapore but I cannot say the same about the current leadership. The emphasis on this chapter of the history of Singapore and the history of the PAP only enhances the contrast between the old PAP and the new PAP.
If not bothering to address public concerns about a MP who has been involved in cheating (by overcharging his client and subsequently found guilty by a court) is the way of Lee Hsien Loong’s ‘new PAP’, then all is not well for us Singaporeans. For the sake of Singapore, PAP must not go down this path. This must not become a norm.
As Singapore gears up for the grand jubilee, the 50th anniversary of our success as a nation, we shouldn’t be just rehashing history. It is all the more important that the PAP does not get complacent. Good leadership and good governance must be sustained. There are already signs of complacency, signs that the principles of good governance are being swept aside. Not even acknowledging public concern about Alvin Yeo’s integrity is a betrayal of Singaporeans’ trust in the government and in particular, the Prime Minister’s 2013 promise. More than that, it implies that the PAP no longer values honesty as a necessary core value, and is not serious in reassuring Singaporeans that we have a clean and honest government.
All the PAP had to do was to tell Singaporeans “Don’t speculate”, “He is innocent”, “He is guilty, so we will remove him” or “Wait for the Law Society to follow up”. Instead the PAP leadership became mute.
The PAP neither agreed nor disagreed, and instead has abstained from making a decision. Perhaps the PAP leadership has even ‘abstained from abstaining’. Is this how a country is run? Silence whenever a public servant faces valid criticism and accusations about his honesty? Please do not dishonour Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy by giving leeway to MPs when they are in the spotlight for the wrong reasons!
Public confidence in the PAP government has suffered a blow from this episode. Singaporeans will only become more cynical about the government’s initiatives. Nevertheless, it is not too late and I plead with the Prime Minister to address this very important issue before it is truly too late for the PAP. If the PAP loses its halo of cleanliness, it will be the beginning of its end because trust, once broken completely, cannot be restored easily.
A Pioneer Singaporean
TRS Contributor
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?192064-What-Does-it-Say-of-FAP-Traitors-if-Alvin-Yeo-is-Not-Sacked-for-Grossly-Overcharging&goto=newpost).