yy
The High Court on Tuesday overturned a District Judge’s decision to grant bail to Chinese national and Singapore permanent resident, Yang Yin.
On Friday, District Judge Eddy Tham set bail for Mr Yang at S$150,000, despite objections by the Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Tan Ken Hwee.
The prosecution then filed a Criminal Revision which allows the High Court to amend any irregularities in a decision made by the State Courts, even though no appeal has been filed against the decision of the State Courts.
Mr Tan argued yesterday that the judge Tham “was palpably wrong and had disregarded that Yang, a China national lacking roots in Singapore, was a high flight risk.”
“The proposed bail arrangements were perverse in that they appeared to approve of an arrangement where a Singaporean bailor would put up bail money furnished to her by Yang’s parents, he said.” (TODAY)
The prosecution had urged the court to set bail at S$800,000 given that it was suspected that Mr Yang had transferred some S$500,000 to his father’s account in China.
The money, it is alleged, came from the account of Mdm Chung Khin Chun, the 76-year old lady with whom Mr Yang had befriended and whose assets he was given legal authority to oversee.
Mdm Chung is now applying to the authorities to revoke the Lasting Power of Attorney she had granted to Mr Yang.
According to a TODAY report, Mr Yang’s lawyer, Wee Pan Lee, said the prosecution, in asking for the court not to offer bail and for no plea to be taken by Yang on his charges, was asking for Yang to be incarcerated indefinitely.
“This was indefensible, as Yang was not being charged with a capital offence, nor would his release endanger the public, argued Mr Wee,” TODAY said.
On Tuesday morning, the High Court revoked the order to grant bail to Mr Yang.
He is currently in remand and will reappear in court on Dec 4.
Mr Yang has been charged with 331 charges for falsifying receipts to his company, Young Music and Dance Studio between 2009 and this year.
If convicted, he could be jailed up to 10 years and/or fined.
He is also currently under investigations by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) for possible immigration infringements with regards to his PR application, and is also embroiled in a civil suit lodged by the niece of Mdm Chung over Mr Yang’s alleged dereliction of duties towards Mdm Chung.

Subscribe
Notify of
15 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

总理提告梁实轩诽谤诉讼 今早公堂开审

总理李显龙提告时评人梁实轩的诽谤诉讼,于今早(6日)10时开始在高庭公堂审理,审讯将持续至本周五(9日)。 承审法官是高庭法官艾迪阿都拉(Aedit Abdullah)。时评人梁实轩的代表律师是林鼎律师,总理则由高级律师文达星等人代表。 今日的审讯也吸引不少民众有意出席,从早上5时许,就有民众排队;但基于疫情关系,高庭限制旁听人数。直至早上7时许,所有20个旁听席位都已座满。 总理李显龙今早9时30分抵达法庭,他也将在庭上接受证人的质询。上述诉讼原定在今年7月6日聆审,然而由于总理代表律师之一文达星身体不适而展延。 只因分享一则脸书贴文,梁实轩在2018年11月被总理提告诽谤。 梁实轩是在2018年11月初,分享了誌期11月5日的State Times Review(STR)文章,标题为《李显龙成为一马公司弊案主要调查对象》。 有关文章指《砂拉越报告》主编克莱尔,在接受访谈时指出在一马公司弊案中,新加坡和瑞士及美国,成了调查对象。但较后《砂》已澄清有关文章内容不实,要求STR纠正。 据了解,资讯与媒体发展局(IMDA)隔日致函梁实轩,指其文章违反网络行为准则,要求后者在六小时内撤下有关文章。梁实轩也遵守IMDA的要求。 11月12日,德尊(新加坡)法律事务所致函梁实轩,要求他对总理李显龙公开道歉,并赔偿后者名誉损失。…

End of the road: Dyson quits race to make electric cars

by Martin Abbugao / Catherine Lai British inventor James Dyson has dropped…

有舆论才肯检讨? 全国眼科中心三月起调整收费

《海峡时报》早前报导一名82岁老翁,到全国眼科中心进行白内障手术后,获政府津贴后的4477元的医药费,其终身健保(MediShield Life)仅赔4元5角,引来民众关注议论纷纷,再次让大家留意到索赔程序的繁琐和高免赔额(deductible)问题。 报导出街后,全国眼科中心和卫生部,在昨天透露将在三月起调整眼科中心收费,并会定期检讨,确保在成本和让民众可负担的价格之间,能取得平衡。 眼科中心表示,常见手术如白内障和青光眼手术的成本都受到密切监督,确保患者能以健保储蓄(Medisave)支付,不需动用太多现金。 该中心首席营运员Charity Wai称,作为三级医护中心,罕见和复杂病例也有较高风险,需要高级和经验丰富医生来诊断治疗,也需要更长的手术时间。 “萧万延的眼科手术较复杂” Charity Wai也解释,萧万延的双眼都要接受泪囊缓解这种不常见的手术。在该中心2017年进行的4万2000个手术中,相关手术只有七宗。 她承认该中心可以在检讨成本上做得更多,让院方收取即足以维续、病患也能负担得起的医疗费用。 她透露,最近眼科中心进行的收费检讨,在较大范围手术种类的健保储蓄和终身健保索赔限额,进行更好地调整,如同萧万延先生一样,哪些需要进行较复杂手术的病患,费用将有所降低。 另一方面,卫生部则表示,眼科中心检讨收费,将确保国人不会因为负担不起而无法接受重要的医疗治疗。卫生部企业宣传部总监Lim…

抨击现有公共组屋政策 半辈子供房  最后一无所有

针对近期总理李显龙在国庆群众大会上,宣称将确保提供国人可负担的公共组屋、医疗服务和教育,让国人无需担心。 不过,在总理宣布了数项新政策后,仍令一些网民感到失望。 网民Calvin Goh认为现有公共住宅政策根本就不是“可负担”,我们几乎花大半辈子,把大部分积蓄花在上面,但是到最后,缺什么也不能传承给下一代。 “当你买下组屋并偿还房贷好些年,房子应该属于你的。但在新加坡,到最后房子却不属于你的。你只是偿还房租和长期住在那间组屋。供了这么多年房贷,但最后好多人还是一无所有,什么也不能传承给子孙后代。” 他提问:究竟新加坡属于谁的?国人的存在,是否就只是为了还房贷和贡献给政府?我们究竟是为了谁打拼? 公共住宅理应负担得起 我指的是公共组屋,或者公共住宅。至于私有产业不管是永久屋契还是租赁权,都属私人“拥有”,开放给本地或外国人购买(设定一些条规限定只有国人能购买土地财产),又或者较少法规限制。 他认为,建屋发展局的公共住宅,理应让民众负担得起或真正拥屋。但实际上只要看看售屋合同,就很明白所谓屋主其实都只是租户。 公共住宅理应让人民有瓦遮头,不应让国人对房屋产权有其他的猜测。“我不认为用20-40年偿还公共组屋房贷是可负担的。真正的可负担,指的是国人只需要数年时间,即5至10年就可清还所有房贷。” 如此,在清还房贷之后,国人才有余钱储蓄,或追求其他梦想。 但是,在现有制度下,国人几乎大部分收入都花在房贷,可是一旦屋契到期,价值归零。形同公积金一样,所有的价值只能看,却用不了。…