Search the Community

July 22, 2008 Durai cleared on false invoice charge By Elena Chong FORMER National Kidney Foundation (NKF) chief executive T T Durai was cleared on Tuesday of the remaining charge of using a false invoice to deceive the charity. The 59-year-old, who was brought to court in orange prison overalls and handcuffed, is currently serving a three-month jail sentence for deceiving the charity with a fake invoice of $20,000 to be paid to his interior designer friend, Mr David Tan. As he was led into the dock, he broke into a smile when he saw his family members, including his wife. He appeared to have put on some weight. In end-May, he lost his appeal against conviction and sentence in the High Court, which upheld the lower court's decision. He started serving his sentence on June 10. The case followed on the heels of the scandal which rocked the charity and led Durai and the entire board to step down in 2005. In court on Tuesday, Deputy Public Prosecutor David Khoo told District Judge Liew Thiam Leng that the prosecution had decided to withdraw the remaining charge against Durai. He applied for a discharge amounting to an acquittal. With good behaviour, Durai is exepcted to be out of jail in about three weeks. His lawyer, Senior Counsel Sant Singh, spoke to Durai together with his family members for a while after the court session was over. http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/...ory_260261.html muahahahaha... hurray.. can celebrate ND liaoz.

Look what leaky pipe did to his car Owner demands compensation for damage to car parked in T3, but CAAS says it's not liable March 19, 2008 ? ? MOTOR vehicles are parked at owner's own risk.' This disclaimer found at public carparks has special resonance for a motorist whose car's paintwork was damaged while it was left at the Basement 1 carpark of Changi Airport's Terminal 3. Mr Gabriel Lin, who works in the airline service industry, had parked his three-month-old Mazda RX8 there overnight on 14 Jan. When he returned the next day, the 26-year-old found it stained with an unknown substance leaking from a pipe above. 'It had stained the whole of the car's roof and right door,' he claimed. 'There were also spots on the bonnet, boot, left door and rear right window.' Mr Lin described it as a 'hard stain' that airport staff allegedly tried unsuccessfully to remove with wax and polish. He claimed that more than three-quarters of his car was stained. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) later said the substance was a mixture of paint and water. It believed the leak was caused by a fault in the ceiling which has since been fixed. Mr Lin decided to get the car resprayed immediately and then tried to claim the cost of $2,700 from CAAS. But CAAS explained in a letter to Mr Lin why it would not accept his claim. java script:window.open("/picturegallerypopup/0,6303,StoryPage-159568-2,00.html?", "name", "resizable,scrollbars=yes,width=475,height=580");void(""); Firstly, Mr Lin 'did not obtain an Idac (Independent Damage Assessment Centre) assessment of the damage'. Secondly, the invoice from the workshop Mr Lin had sent his car to 'does not give a clear or detailed description of the works done'. The report from the workshop had read: 'Respray and remove stain.' Mr Lin also 'did not obtain any other quotes from other workshops to substantiate that this workshop charged the least'. And CAAS said: 'There are clear disclaimers located at the entrance and centre of the carpark stating 'motor vehicles are parked at the owner's own risk'.' CAAS said it cannot be held responsible or liable for the damage. Mr Lin said: 'I do not understand why I have to source for the cheapest rate for a spray job for CAAS when I was the victim.' CAAS told The New Paper: 'The respraying works and costs should be reasonable and proportionate. These are in line with standard practice.' However, Mr Lin said his $2,700 repair cost was not unreasonable as the cost for respraying can range from $1,600 to $5,000. He also felt that it would be unfair to him to settle for cheap paintwork as 'no other paintwork is better than the car's original paintwork'. Calls by The New Paper to several car workshops revealed that the cost for a similar job ranged from $1,000 to $3,000 for Mr Lin's car model. Mr Lin said: 'I did not even claim for the loss of use of my car while it was left for more than a week at the workshop.' He said that during this time, he had to take taxis to work. Mr Lin also felt that the carpark disclaimer should apply only to 'criminal cases such as car thefts, break-ins and vandalism cases'. The CAAS said it is prepared to review Mr Lin's claim. Cheryl Teo, Newsroom intern http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,...,159568,00.html?