as told by.
Friday, November 9 @ 12:40 AM
The facts of the case that were not repeated in the Court of Appeal are simply that the respondent, Taw Cheng Kong, who was an Asia Pacific regional manager of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Pte Ltd (GIC) based in Hong Kong, was accused to have accepted ‘incentive fees’ from Kevin Lee in order to make GIC purchases of certain counters in Hong Kong and Australia.
There were two issues that had to be considered by the court of appeal. The first being whether s37 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap241, 1993 Ed) is ultra vires the powers of the legislature and the second issue being whether s37 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is inconsistent with Art12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
(tests found in- para 46 and 47) gdnight.
i got bored with homework. so i'll finish it up tomorrow. writing lameass case summaries that have no relevance whatsoever to anything is just a waste of bloody time.
here's a random statement: i love my Abang.
my smallish brain has shut down, bye