Search the Community

Here's the full story, Cut a long story short - Dual citizen with Kiwi father been living in NZ since he was 8, Doesn't wanna do NS

to all MCFs....looking to buy ink for yr printer....pls avoid the stated ink shop at ALLLLLLLL cost. siam it......ok my case i will share ltr....gg to work now

today i know raining very heavily. if u drivers have no confidence in driving in such heavy rain condition, u can move to lane 2 or 3 on the e'way, why hog lane 1?? dun assume that everyone else has the same driving skill as you are :angry: just today, i encounter 3 cars doing 70km/h on ECP on 3 separate occasions. 2 were taxi, 1 was a car. and when i overtook the taxi from the left, he high beam me

The Immigration & Checkpoint Authority (ICA) has rejected the application of Zhang Junyi to denounce his Singapore citizenship, citing that he is not yet a legal adult. In addition, the ICA also reminded Zhang of his National Service obligation when he becomes 18 year-old. In response, Zhang sought a judicial review on ICA's decision. Zhang Junyi filed his request to the Supreme Court through his father Zhang Shaowei. Zhang Junyi was represented by lawyer Lee Jing Xiong who asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of the ICA and the Ministry of Defence on Zhang Junyi's case. Zhang Junyi urged the Court to rule that he is eligible to renounce his Singapore citizenship, he doesn't qualify for national service, and that his notice to the ICA last year which declared his intention to renounce citizenship is valid. Zhang Junyi is due for National Service registration soon. He is currently on an exit permit which cleared him for overseas studies. The exit permit will expire on 30 December 2011. The law requires males eligible for National Service to register with the Ministry of Defence when they turn 16.5 years old. Zhang Junyi's parents Zhang Shaowei and Liang Jiali emigrated to Singapore in January 1996. They converted to Singapore citizenship, along with Zhang Junyi's 2 elder sisters. 2 months after gaining citizenship, they moved to Hongkong. Zhang Junyi was borned in Hongkong 3 months after his family moved there. Subsequently, Zhang Junyi was granted Singapore citizenship the following Febraury. He lived in Hongkong until he returned to Singapore in 2005 at the age of 10 to study. In August 2010, Zhang Junyi applied to Hongkong Department of Immigration to restore his Chinese citizenship. Although the Department accepted his application, it was conditional that he relinquishes his Singapore citizenship. 4 months later, Zhang Junyi notified the ICA of his intention to renouce his Singapore citizenship. However. the ICA rejected his application, citing Section 1, Article 128 of the Singapore Constitution that a citizen can only give up his citizenship when he is above 21 years old and that parents may not make such a decision for the child. The ICA also added that according to Section 2, Article 128 of the Singapore Constitution, Zhang Junyi is obligated to complete his National Service as long as he remains a Singapore citizen. The Central Manpower Base (CPMB) also suggested that Zhang Junyi should postpone his application for change of citizenship until he has turned 21 years old and that he has completed his National Service. CMPB will consider his application. In response, Zhang Junyi described the constitutional interpretation of the ICA and the CMPB as "illogical and unfair", citing 3 points. Firstly, the Singapore citizenship was imposed on him because his parents emigrated to Singapore. Secondly, he is not a 100% citizen because he will only be accorded with full citizenship rights as soon as he relinquished other citizenships within a year after he turned 21 years old. As such, the aforementioned constitutional provisions are irrelevant. Thirdly, the Enlistment Act does not apply on him because he was less than 16 years old when he first declared his intention to ICA to renounce his Singapore citizenship. The Attorney General's Chamber (AGC) was notified of the application for judicial review in the middle of November by Zhang Junyi's lawyer Mr Lee Jing Xiong. The pre-conference trial starts today. Expert: "Interesting" Judicial Review Constitutional law expert Dr Kevin Tan told Zaobao this would be an "interesting" judicial review. He also pointed out that the Courts rarely take on cases which involve citizenship rights because very few people would submit such issues to the Courts. He also added that Zhang Junyi may not succeed in securing a judicial review because both the ICA and the CMPB did not act wilfully or irregularly, and as well as exceed their jurisdictions. Dr Kevin Tan said that Article 128 of the Singapore Constitution appears absolute and that only Singaporeans above the age of 21 are eligible to renounce their citizenship. Few days ago, Minster of Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen revealed in Parliament 8800 sons of new immigrants had been enlisted for National Service over the last five years. Among them, 6100 (70%) opted to become Singapore citizens. However, among second-generation permanent residents, 4200 gave up their permanent residency over the same period. In another words, for every three sons of permanent residents, two would enlist while one would give up his permanent residency status in order to forgo national service. Link

Like that also can? Just feel that fellas who drink really shldn't drive. When they do, they not only risk their own lives but more importantly, other innocent folks might get hurt or even killed. From STOMP: Motorists set up Facebook page to help drink drivers evade Police road blocks This Facebook group unabashedly states its intentions -- to help drivers evade road blocks meant to prevent drink driving on the roads, providing tip-offs to drivers seeking to drink and drive. STOMPer Concerned feels that this group makes roads less safe for other road users. The comments posted by the users provide detailed information as to where each road block can be found, down to the deployment of vehicles at each block. Concerned commented on the group: "I recently found out about this Facebook group that's helping drunk drivers not get caught. "They're making the roads less safe for us all by giving tip-offs to help evade road blocks."

http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic65149.html NBz.. Enjoy for 19yrs.. siam 2yrs of liability, now you want to enjoy again..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWt3-...eature=related I suppose it's the Arab equivalent of pah sio lin. There's a petition to free the shoe thrower, Muntather al-Zeidi, at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/montather/ The guy deserves an Iraqi of the Year award.

July 4, 2008 Army regular run over by lorry - it's an accident By Elena Chong AN ARMY physical training instructor died about an hour after he was run over by a lorry when he fell off his scooter and landed on an expressway. Mr Lim Chee Wee, 23, was riding behind his friend, Mr Edward Phua Wen Fu, then 22, on a motorcycle along Pan-Island Expressway last Oct 26 morning when Mr Phua decided to take shelter from the heavy downpour at the Toh Guan flyover. Mr Lim did not realise that his friend had collided into the back of his machine. Due to the impact, Mr Lim fell to the right and landed on the left lane of PIE while his friend fell along the road shoulder. Just then, a lorry driven by Mr Tan Poh Soon, 35, ran over Mr Lim as he could not stop in time. At Friday's coroner's inquiry into Mr Lim's death, Mr Tan, who was named a potential defendant, chose to remain silent. In recording a verdict of misadventure, State Coroner Earnest Lau said on the evidence, he did not think any objective motorist in the potential defendant's position would be able to take evasive action in a split second. He said neither Mr Tan nor Mr Phua was culpable. http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/...ory_254507.html surprisingly nobody question if the lorry was too close for comfort. and that he cud overrun 1 motorbike yet not the other... afterall, lorry do tat 40% longer distance to stop. so wat is sensible precaution esp when raining. if he has maintained safe distance + 40% wud this hv happened?

travelling from Punggol to Harbourfront in the morning... i know the fastest route would be CTE -> AYE. But bane is due to all the ERPs... is there a cheaper way car-driving route to take, but not too much longer? I was thinking of using Upp Serangoon -> Bradell -> Lornie -> Queensway ... what u think?

Oh well ... For the sake of the all future drivers : better siam this instructor far, far away.[/color] 15/01/08 - 1815hrs (wet weather after a rain shower) - Happened at the junction of jalan kayu and yio chu kang road towards amk ave 5. - Was cruising at a healthy speed of downslope towards the Junction on a wet road condition around 60kmh. - some 100m before can see clearly a Harrier turning towards Jalan kayu so I started to slow down a bit, no problem since there's a bit of downslope to watch out. - when at the junction, slowed down to 50kmh, traffic light in my favour so I go straight. Cars turning also on stationary, no problem too. -Then saw a car (gold colour sunny) just reaching the end of the junction (see attached) and guess what? Can see clearly someone urging the driver to turn. The driver blur, blur turn without seeing me approaching. I have to jam brake even at 50kmh?? Only then I've realised that it's a L-plate driver (I don't blame him seriously). BUT I want those who's friends or relatives still learning to SIAM far, far away from this instructor. Remember this plate number : SGK 4757H I tried to stop the car for an explaination but the instructor asked the driver to carry on. Nevermind, I quickly dotted down the car number when I reached my parent's home. I cannot accept such instructors to guide the students and driving blindly without knowing the dangers of incoming cars, especially when they are coming from minor road to main road. I will understand students will be students but the instructor?? If this is the standard, better let the whole world know. I am lucky that the Harrier kinda slow me to a comfortable speed for I believe I cannot react fast on the second part if I stick to my initial speed. Those who drives there knows what I'm talking regarding the downslope at the junction so don't start flaming without reading.

Just read this in Toyota Club Singapore forum and was wondering if any one here is affected by this? Feeling very sorry and at the same time damn pekchek for the car owners involved Details on this thread here (but you need to create an account): http://www.toyotaclubsg.com/nuke/modules.p...ewtopic&t=23245 ------- Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: Need help urgently. (Very bad experience) I bought a toyota wish from PI(Pinnacle Motors) 1 year plus ago, as what they recommended i always bring my vehicle to their appointed service centre(Jackspeed) to do my servicing to prevent warranty void. During my first 1000Km and 10000Km servicing this service centre added in a kind of oil treatment for my gearbox. After driving this vehicle for almost 1 year plus, now i having problem on my gearbox. Now their next appointed service centre (Premier Auto Parts & Services Pte Ltd) told me that my gearbox defective and need to be replaced, so i need to pay for the damage because gearbox warranty only cover on the 1st year. The most funny part is the reason they give me is that the treatment which was added in during the 1000Km and 10000Km caused my gearbox to breakdown.That is ridiculous, why should i pay for the damage they cause. By the way i am not the only victim. Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: Today I went down to their service centre(PAPS) to check what is the outcome, lucky enough I saw a guy who is driving a toyota Harrier also having the same problem as mine., so we are ask to speak to the workshop manager regarding the problem we had.To my surprise, the first thing the workshop manager told me is "ASK YOUR LAWYER WRITE A LETTER TO ME".Wow...that was a very aggressive phase, if those people who can't afford to get a lawyer, then we should let this matter rest?I don't think so because there is law in Singapore.What ever I ask, this manager will reply back in a very simple words "SUE ME IF YOU WANT".By the way I not going against him but I am going against the company and the way this guy handle this problem is by shouting back at you.Until I really can't stand the way he talk, i ask him to talk nicely but the anwser he give me is "THIS IS THE WAY I TALK". Haiz, what kind of manager is that, when a company facing this kind of problem yet he still dare to shout at consumers. After a long discussion, I think this guy can't give me an proper anwser because i don't feel he has the PR skill enough to handle this kind of problem.In the end, i try to look for the manager at the PI head office, haiz another fellow who use a dam stupid comparison to compare my problem. He compare my problem with HID lights by saying if a service centre ask you to install a HID light and been caught by the traffic police, should the PI bear the fine? That was like comparing an apple with an orange. He do not know what he is talking about.But he did know that there are quite a lot of people affected by that additive, so as a PI they should communicate with the service centre who damage my car not me. But he keeps on asking me to approach the service centre who damage my car, so he can wash his hands out of it (I believe). After approaching the service centre, another comapny who do not want to bear the responsible.