• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

No Caning For Ang Moh!!!

GramStroker

Alfrescian
Loyal
Mother who entered Singapore illegally to look for son given 10 weeks' jail


Her two accomplices - Adam Christopher Whittington and Todd Allan Wilson - were on Monday (Sep 8) sentenced to 16 weeks' and 10 weeks' jail, respectively.

SINGAPORE: The mother who pleaded guilty to entering Singapore illegally via a chartered vessel from Malaysia was on Monday (Sep 8) sentenced to 10 weeks' jail.

The 30-year-old woman - whose name and nationality cannot be revealed to protect the identity of the boy - entered the country to take back her two-year-old son, of which she had custody over as ruled by the English Court in January.

However, she entered the country illegally via a vessel from Langkawi because her husband had previously made police reports against her and she was afraid of being arrested on arrival. She pleaded guilty to illegal entry into Singapore last Thursday.

The mother travelled to Singapore with two foreigners - Briton Adam Christopher Whittington, who runs the non-governmental organisation Child Abduction Recovery International, and Australian Todd Allan Wilson, who drove the vessel.

Whittington was sentenced to 16 weeks' jail, while Wilson was sentenced to 10 weeks' jail. The court gave the former a higher jail sentence for his active role in hatching the plan to recover the child, and for hurting the boy's grandparents.

Whittington had admitted earlir to "arm-locking" the boy's grandfather and hurting the neck of the boy's grandmother in a scuffle at their home.



FROM MHA WEBSITE:

"Currently, attempted illegal entry and departure attract penalties which are less severe than those for actual illegal entry and departure. While the penalty for illegal entry is a maximum 6 months' jail and mandatory caning of a minimum 3 strokes, the penalty for the attempted illegal entry offence is imprisonment of between 3 months to 2 years and a fine of $4,000, but no caning. For illegal departure, the penalty is a maximum $2,000 fine and 6 months' jail, while the penalty for attempted illegal departure is a maximum $2,000 fine and 3 months' jail."


Why no caning????
 

congo9

Alfrescian
Loyal
Ang mo TUA KEE.

Ang Mo will make enough noise just to justify it is for "right" cause. So Singkie Judge will always punish people who are powerless and balless to make noise.
 

Timerty

Alfrescian
Loyal
caning is for Asians because the whipper is not trained to whip ang moh. Ang moh butt too big and fat, you whip also not pain. Ang moh must be gunshot.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am not totally sure on this but I heard that rotan in Singapore is only for males and even then, not if they are 50 years or older.

Cheers!
 

neddy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Because angmoh small small matter also complain to the top Uncle Sam with their names and addresses, whereas Sinkies only know how to complain to SBF Sam anonymously.
 

GramStroker

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am not totally sure on this but I heard that rotan in Singapore is only for males and even then, not if they are 50 years or older.

Cheers!


Mother and two foreigners each get 10 to 16 weeks' jail for bid to get her child back
PUBLISHED ON SEP 8, 2014 12:33 PM 45 3 0 0
PRINT
EMAIL


BY ELENA CHONG
SINGAPORE - The mother of a two-year-old who is the subject of a court case here and in England was jailed for 10 weeks on Monday for entering Singapore at an unauthorised landing place.

The woman had sneaked into Singapore with two foreigners at Raffles Marina last month in a bid to get her child back from her in-laws. The 30-year-old foreigner, who cannot be named, is undergoing divorce proceedings with her Singaporean husband. She was given custody of the child by the English court this year.

One of the other two foreigners, Adam Christopher Whittington, 38, who has British and Australian citizenship, was given a total of 16 weeks on three charges, while Australian Todd Allan Wilson, 39, the skipper of the catamaran, was jailed for 10 weeks for illegal entry.

Whittington, managing director of Child Abduction Recovery International, a non-governmental organisation, had seven charges in all. He pleaded guilty to three - entering Singapore by sea and not proceeding to the nearest immigration officer; using criminal force on the woman's 66-year-old father-in-law; and causing hurt to the 68-year-old mother-in-law.

The court heard that the woman had entered into a contract with Whittington's company in June this year to get her child back to London from his grandparents in Singapore.

As she had told Whittington that she could not enter Singapore through the usual immigration channels, Whittington made arrangements to charter a catamaran from an agent in Langkawi, Malaysia.

All three met in Langkawi on Aug 14. Five days later, they made their way to Singapore on the boat, arriving at Raffles Marina, which is not an authorised landing place, between 5pm and 9am.

After disembarking at around 6am, Whittington and the child's mother took a cab to a condominium where the child lived.

They waited for the elderly couple to come out of the flat. The mother grabbed the child from her father-in-law, who was arm-locked in the neck by Whittington.

A scuffle broke out at the lift landing between the couple and Whittington. When the grandmother held onto Whittington's bag strap to stop him from leaving, Whittington pressed the neck of the grandmother with his fingers.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/si...eeks-jail-bid-get-her-ch#sthash.7gmBU0Vm.dpuf
 

shittypore

Alfrescian
Loyal
caning is for Asians because the whipper is not trained to whip ang moh. Ang moh butt too big and fat, you whip also not pain. Ang moh must be gunshot.


The Whipper has got nothing to do with passing sentence, who ever is being sent to
him gets their arse whipped. Its the Judge that's makes out who to whip, Ang Moh
no whip cos they are Superior and Cultured, Asians must be treated like Dogs even
if the Judge is Asian himself. Asian Culture the Bestest.
 

songsongjurong

Alfrescian
Loyal
the smugglers knowing and aiding the woman-on-question to illegal entry to sinkieland , no caning ? indeed, something is not right in sinkieland judicial system.

how many times has the human smugglers aided in illegal entries ? not the first definitely, MHA is going soft. Our water could have been poisoned, critical installation sabotaged....citizen of sinkieland, armed and protect yourself, do not leave it to the authority anymore.
 

sochi2014

Alfrescian
Loyal
Wise judge! He is compassionate to the circumstances when the law was violated. Even so they got some jail sentences.
 

neddy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
the smugglers knowing and aiding the woman-on-question to illegal entry to sinkieland , no caning ? indeed, something is not right in sinkieland judicial system.

how many times has the human smugglers aided in illegal entries ? not the first definitely, MHA is going soft. Our water could have been poisoned, critical installation sabotaged....citizen of sinkieland, armed and protect yourself, do not leave it to the authority anymore.

PAP govt better not try anything funny because the govt has too many things to hide from the people and the foreign govts know the secrets.


What happened after Aussie drug mule was hung in Singapore.

While it was reported that some minor ties have been broken (including airport workers refusing to process Singapore Airlines luggage), John Howard, the then Australian Prime Minister, said that the country would not be taking any punitive action against Singapore.

But on 23 February 2006, the Australian government rejected a bid by Singapore Airlines for permission to fly a permanent route between Sydney and the United States. This drew strong criticism from the government of Singapore.


Just Punishment
documentary was broadcast by the ABC in December 2006. It’s been widely shown around the world.


In July 2012, the Singapore government changed its laws so that the death penalty is no longer mandatory for some forms of drug trafficking.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
In July 2012, the Singapore government changed its laws so that the death penalty is no longer mandatory for some forms of drug trafficking.

More likely it will depend on the nationality of the drug traffickers whether they live or get executed.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sorry for misreading the script. Wasn't thinking about the two males accompanying the "main" or "subject" character.

Cheers!

.....................

One of the other two foreigners, Adam Christopher Whittington, 38, who has British and Australian citizenship, was given a total of 16 weeks on three charges, while Australian Todd Allan Wilson, 39, the skipper of the catamaran, was jailed for 10 weeks for illegal entry.

.........................
 

sochi2014

Alfrescian
Loyal
if you look from their point of view, they aren't really bad people.

just cross the imaginary man made border to see her son! how bad could that be?

please don't let your prejudice for FTs blind your compassion!
 

khunking

Alfrescian
Loyal
For posterity

straitstimes.jpg

The Straits Times, Singapore, 1 April 1994

Fay loses appeal

His acts were relentless and wilful, says CJ

By Elena Chong
THE High Court yesterday dismissed American student Michael Peter Fay's appeal against sentence of four months' jail and six strokes of the cane for vandalising two cars.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who noted that Fay had also vandalised 16 other cars, told a packed court that those acts of vandalism were committed "relentlessly and wilfully" over 10 days last September and amounted to a "calculated course of criminal conduct".

[SIZE=-1]Click to enlarge[/SIZE]

<tbody>
</tbody>
Fay, 18, sporting a new haircut and dressed in a white long-sleeve shirt and black trousers, put his palms together and bowed his head as if in prayer before the CJ gave his judgment.
The teenager pleaded guilty early last month to vandalism by spray-painting two cars at Chatsworth Road and Cairnhill Place multi-storey carpark on Sept 17 and 18 with two or three others.
He was also fined a total of $3,500 by District Judge F.G. Remedios on two counts of mischief and one charge of keeping 16 stolen items.
Sixteen other vandalism and four mischief charges were taken into consideration.
In arguing the appeal, Queen's Counsel Michael David Sherrard said that Fay was not responsible for the "welter of publicity and attention" surrounding the case and had been desperately unhappy about the whole matter.
He said the trial judge had misconstrued the proviso to Section 3 of the Vandalism Act and held wrongly that paint was an indelible substance.
He said that the spray-paint on the two cars concerned was easily removed with thinner and turpentine.
He said Mr Remedios had concluded wrongly that a pre-sentence report was not called for because imprisonment was required as a matter of public policy.
He also thought wrongly that he had no alternative but to order caning.
Mr Sherrard then argued that the judge was wrong in not calling for a pre-sentence report and in rejecting the defence psychiatric reports.
Fay, he said, deserved a second chance. He submitted that this was a suitable and proper case for probation despite the seriousness of the offences.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Jennifer Marie said that Parliament considered acts of vandalism, even when committed by a first offender through the use of paint, as deserving the sentence of caning.
She said there was no requirement in law that a pre-sentence report was to be called in every case where a young offender was involved.
She said that harsh punishment had to be meted out for vandalism because of the difficulty in removing "paint, tar or other indelible substances".
In his oral judgment, Chief Justice Yong said the proviso makes it clear that when an act of vandalism has been committed with paint, whether with one type or another, it attracts a mandatory minimum of three strokes of the cane.
Hence, he could not accept counsel's construction of the proviso.
The CJ said he was satisfied that the trial judge had considered fully all relevant mitigating factors and the psychiatric evidence.
He said he found no cause to disagree with the judge's decision in not calling for a pre-sentence report.
The CJ then dismissed the appeal and said full written grounds of judgment would be released shortly.
Fay's lawyers are expected to ask for presidential clemency.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is not prejudice. It is the inculcated Peesai mindset to carry out the hardest disciplinary action on whoever breaks the "law." Because it is perceived that the level of excellence in Peesai came about as a result of adherence to strict disciplinary standards, this standard has to be maintained. The norm here is not to forgive, but to punish, even if the offender have not caused harm to anybody. Getting away with a light punishment or a warning will bring about dissatisfaction from a good number of "righteous" people.

Cheers!

if you look from their point of view, they aren't really bad people.

just cross the imaginary man made border to see her son! how bad could that be?

please don't let your prejudice for FTs blind your compassion!
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
if you look from their point of view, they aren't really bad people.

just cross the imaginary man made border to see her son! how bad could that be?

please don't let your prejudice for FTs blind your compassion!

You think this is a Hollywood movie and suka suka come in and abduct ppl?

That woman already used legal ways back in her own country why don't do it the legal way here too?

These are bad men ,which the woman would rather associate with in their life style rather than do things the legal way.
 
Top