Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singaporeans

  • Teens Mock Death Of Shina Hendricks, Claimed She Died Because Of A Dare

    Teens Mock Death Of Shina Hendricks, Claimed She Died Because Of A Dare

    Recently the media reported on the death of a 14 year old girl, Shina Hendricks, a student with Spectra Secondary School.  Speculation is rife that Shina fell from the fourth storey, while trying to do parkour. Police are investigating this as a case of misadventure.

    http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/girl-14-falls-death-doing-parkour

    There have also been murmurs that Shina was doing parkour on a dare when she fell. Facebook exchanges between several individuals acquainted with Shina suggest that they had been part of a group that had dared Shina to carry out a stunt as a dare. One girl even had posted that she “[has her] popcorn ready and waiting for the news to say that someone just committed suicide”.

    Shariah Jenna 1a

    They seem to be unhappy with a photo allegedly taken by Shina on the block with a caption that read “this is my last day”.

    Sharifah Jenna 1

    They even posted messages which disrespected the deceased and did not show any remorse at all.

    Sharifah Jennna 2 Sharifah Jennna 3 Sharifah Jennna 4

    Shina’s sister, Rina Hendricks, was distraught by her death and lay the blame on those who were “trending” Shina. According to Rina, Shina does not have any interest in parkour.

    Rina Hendricks

    Rina Hendricks Comments

     

    What really happened to Shina Hendricks? Who are responsible for her death?

     

    Rilek1Corner

    with contributions from Anonymous.

  • Legal Action Threatened Against Rilek1Corner For 2014, Public-Submitted Information Article On Halal Practices At 89.7 Supper Club

    Legal Action Threatened Against Rilek1Corner For 2014, Public-Submitted Information Article On Halal Practices At 89.7 Supper Club

    On 27 May 2014, #Rilek1Corner published an article on halal practices concerning 89.7 Supper Club.

     http://rilek1corner.com/2014/05/27/89-7-supper-club-food-court-is-not-100-halal-certified

    The information contained within the article was received from a member of the public (informant) who used the moniker “Hamba Allah”.  “Hamba Alllah” had provided two attachments which contained a feedback to MUIS Feedback (dated 24 Apr 2014), as well as the response, from MUIS (dated 5 May 2014). These attachments were reproduced in full, in the article concerned. MUIS Feedback, as the recipient of the feedback in question, and the sender of the reply, can testify to this fact.

    Subsequently on 29 May 2014, we published a clarification from HalalDesk, a company that provides halal consultancy to 89.7 Supper Club.  http://rilek1corner.com/2014/05/29/halal-issue-halaldesk-clarifies-on-behalf-of-89-7-restaurant

    Neither the information from “Hamba Allah”, or the clarification from HalalDesk, were embellished or edited. As far as Rilek1Corner is concerned, we, as an online media platform, have given fair representation for both sides to state their case and address the facts. This is in line with our objective of serving the public, to be an independent online voice for the Malay-Muslim community.

    We regret to inform you that we recently received an email from Gomez & Vasu LLC (dated 21 Oct 2015), acting on behalf of 89.7 Supper Club Pte Ltd, demanding, the following:

    Gomez and Vasu LLC 1

    Gomez and Vasu LLC 2

    We will be taking down the two articles concerned within the next two hours. Nonetheless, this should not, in any manner, be taken as an admission of wrongdoing or guilt on our part.

    We are especially concerned with the demand to reveal information that may lead to the identification of the informant. This will, no doubt, undermine journalistic principles and integrity.

    We would like to assure you, our readers, that we continue to welcome information from our readers, so long as the information you provide is not baseless and falsely created with malicious intent.

    Rilek1Corner

  • NSman With Serious Shoulder Injury Aggrieved To Be Unfairly Charged For Failing IPPT

    NSman With Serious Shoulder Injury Aggrieved To Be Unfairly Charged For Failing IPPT

    Dear Editors,

    I am 2SG Azizul Haikal bin Rahmat, Senior Medic from Kranji camp III – 31CSSB, 3Discom. I write this email in light of my pending SAF264 Charge tomorrow 22 October 2015 for defaulting my IPPT for the IPPT window 30/08/2014 to 29/08/2015.

    Back in 2006 while enlisted in Pulau Tekong for BMT, I had injured my left shoulder during FBO SOC where said injury left me with a torn ligament supporting the Acromion and Collarbone. Went to seek medical attention and the MO cited that it was not a serious injury. Trusting the MO, being a medical officer I did not take further action and All throughout the duration have participated in the training despite feeling pain.

    In 2007 while participating for training in my vocational unit Medical Response Force(MRF), I had aggravated the shoulder injury and again visited Medical Centre where the MO at Nee Soon camp cited the injury is not a serious case but X-ray was done. Again trusting the MO being a Medical Officer I did not pursue further medical attention at a specialist except the normal GP visits and self-medication through Heat therapy on the injured shoulder.

    I have not been able to Pass a single IPPT since.

    In 2012 during my ICT Call up, the shoulder injury had worsened and affected myself at work following the days after ICT. With the injury in mind and thinking I should take greater care to be able to carry out my vocational duty, I had opted to defer from any NS liability to pursue further study while saving up on funds to prepare for a shoulder reconstruction surgery. Attempted my IPPT and failing on account of my worsening shoulder injury. Having only attaining a part time job after the completion of my studies, working 2 part time jobs it is impossible for me to attend RT without risking termination from my job within the probation period.

    On the days leading up to my summary trial on 09 October 2015 I had been in contact with Gleneagles bone health Specialist to do a primary medical examination for the consideration to proceed with surgery if that is the best course of action but the process is put on hold with the current ICT High Key 12 -23 Oct running.

    On the 9th October attending the summary trial I was given a Harsh reprimanding by the S4* I did not manage to note down the Name and ID of the officer. I was also advised to book the current window RT sessions and complete all sessions before 29/08/2016.

    My question is, why is it that having serve my duty responsibly and diligently despite my injury i am being penalised for failing IPPT with only the option of paying $400 and more depending on Rank or going to Detention Barrack(DB)?

    i have tried to tag this post to PM Lee, Mr Ng Eng Hen and Dr. Maliki Osman but unable to. Please assist to bring forth my issue as i feel it may help those in my similar situation.

    Azizul Haikal
    A.S.S. Contributor

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Judge: Woman Dismissed From Civil Service In 1998 Cannot Start Another Legal Action Without High Court’s Permission

    Judge: Woman Dismissed From Civil Service In 1998 Cannot Start Another Legal Action Without High Court’s Permission

    Over the past 15 years, Madam Linda Lai Swee Lin has appeared before 10 High Court judges and had five hearings in the highest court of the land over one matter: Her dismissal from the Civil Service in 1998.

    On Monday, Justice Woo Bih Li agreed with the Attorney-General (AG) that enough is enough, and invoked a provision against Mdm Lai, 59, as a “vexatious litigant”.

    This means she needs to ask the High Court for permission to start another legal action related to her dismissal. Normally, a litigant just needs to file papers with the registry.

    It is rare for the AG to invoke such a provision.

    One previous case happened in 2007 when a property agent convicted of giving false evidence started at least half a dozen legal actions related to the case. In his judgment grounds released on Wednesday (Oct 21), Justice Woo said that it is “apparent that (she) is unwilling or unable to come to terms with any decision of the court that goes against her”.

    Mdm Lai had, however, disputed this, saying she was pursuing the matter because her career was compromised and her reputation was tarnished when she was wrongly accused of being incompetent in her job, among other things.

    The slew of court applications filed by Mdm Lai started in January 2000, slightly over a year after she was dismissed from her job as a senior officer at the Land Office under the Ministry of Law – the termination came after her one-year probation was retrospectively extended.

    Since then, Mdm Lai, who has a Master’s in Law, took up legal action against various parties – including the Government, the AG , and the Public Service Commission – one after another, although the issues in question had been decided by the courts.

    Citing Mdm Lai’s persistent and baseless attempts to re-litigate the matter through various court applications, Justice Woo wrote that she was doing so “in the hope that some court may subsequently rule in her favour”.

    Vexatious litigation causes problems “because it diverts the court’s resources from dealing with meritorious disputes”, he added.

    The judge also stressed that such orders balance the public interest in preventing abuses of the court process and a litigant’s right to pursue avenues of recourse he is statutorily entitled to.

    Justice Woo said: “In my view, her legal battle has gone on for too long. It is in the interest of the court, society in general, the AG and Mdm Lai herself that I grant the AG’s application. It is my sincerest hope and desire that this order will help Mdm Lai move on with her life.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Mohamed Jufrie: Failure Of Opposition To Let Voters Have Their Cake And Eat It Let To Their Dismal Showing At The Polls

    Mohamed Jufrie: Failure Of Opposition To Let Voters Have Their Cake And Eat It Let To Their Dismal Showing At The Polls

    Much has been said about the last GE, or rather its result. A combination of factors – from LKY’s passing to newly minted citizens, right down to the bookies who predicted PAP’s loss in many constituencies which alarmed many voters.One important factor which many failed to mention was the failure of the opposition to give voters what they wanted ie to have their cake and eat it.

    Singaporeans are very smart indeed. What is the use of having the cake and not getting to eat it?

    Simply speaking the voters wanted the PAP to still be the governing party and at the same time they want a strong opposition presence. The alternative parties were just not ready. When they heard minister Khaw Boon Wan’s threat that the PAP might not be able to form the government they panicked and decided to play it safe. They went for the cake even if they end up not getting to eat it.

    Had the opposition been smart enough they would have executed the By Election Effect Strategy (BEES as we described it some years ago) to let the PAP form the government on Nomination Day by contesting less than 50% of the seats. Just like we did in 1991 when the opposition won an unprecedented 4 seats – 3 SDP and Low Thia Khiang for the WP.

    Had we repeated the BEES voters would not have been threatened and would have voted for the more credible candidates without fear. The credible opposition candidates could then prove themselves worthy of the peoples’ support and gone on to prepare themselves for future elections to win more seats and by then would be on their way to ready themselves for government in subsequent elections.

    Voters now get the cake but cannot get to eat it because the PAP would not let them. Just watch.

     

    Source: Mohamed Jufrie Bin Mahmood

deneme bonusu