Why a jail term shouldn't have been sought
I REFER to Attorney-General (AG) Walter Woon's letter on Saturday, 'Tang case: No one is above the law'.
The AG says that everyone is equal before the law, comparing Mr Tang the (rich) intended recipient with Mr Sulaiman the (poor) intended donor. Mr Sulaiman was sentenced to jail; therefore Mr Tang should go to jail.
The AG misses the point. I was not suggesting that Mr Tang should be treated differently because he is rich. In my view, neither Mr Tang nor Mr Sulaiman should have gone to jail.
But the fact that Mr Sulaiman went to jail does not automatically mean that Mr Tang should also go to jail. Mr Tang is seriously ill and unfit to go to jail.
In these circumstances, was it inevitable that Mr Tang be sentenced to jail?
Contrary to what the AG implies, there was no legal requirement (as far as I am aware) for Mr Tang to have signed the statutory declaration.
Why then was it necessary to charge him with making a false statutory declaration, which he was not required by law to make in the first place?
Mr Sulaiman could also have been spared jail if he had not been slapped with a charge that carried a mandatory jail sentence. A desperately poor man, he was trying to save his family.
The prosecution had the discretion to decide what charges Mr Tang should face. Neither the principle of equality before the law nor any other principle required the prosecution to abdicate its duty to exercise its discretion.
Justice, compassion and common sense suggest the following factors should have been considered:
Tang is desperately sick with one or two years to live.
He is unlikely to survive a few days in prison.
Society would not have been harmed if Mr Tang had not been jailed.
The Government has indicated it might legalise organ trading. There was therefore no public policy to be upheld by sending Mr Tang to jail.
There was no requirement in law for Mr Tang to have sworn the statutory declaration.
The AG uses high-sounding phrases about equality before the law, but says little about compassion or prosecutorial discretion. The law must be blind as to who is before the courts. But the law does not require law officers or the courts to be blind to justice and compassion.
Fortunately, in this case, the court was compassionate.
Dr Lee Wei Ling
I REFER to Attorney-General (AG) Walter Woon's letter on Saturday, 'Tang case: No one is above the law'.
The AG says that everyone is equal before the law, comparing Mr Tang the (rich) intended recipient with Mr Sulaiman the (poor) intended donor. Mr Sulaiman was sentenced to jail; therefore Mr Tang should go to jail.
The AG misses the point. I was not suggesting that Mr Tang should be treated differently because he is rich. In my view, neither Mr Tang nor Mr Sulaiman should have gone to jail.
But the fact that Mr Sulaiman went to jail does not automatically mean that Mr Tang should also go to jail. Mr Tang is seriously ill and unfit to go to jail.
In these circumstances, was it inevitable that Mr Tang be sentenced to jail?
Contrary to what the AG implies, there was no legal requirement (as far as I am aware) for Mr Tang to have signed the statutory declaration.
Why then was it necessary to charge him with making a false statutory declaration, which he was not required by law to make in the first place?
Mr Sulaiman could also have been spared jail if he had not been slapped with a charge that carried a mandatory jail sentence. A desperately poor man, he was trying to save his family.
The prosecution had the discretion to decide what charges Mr Tang should face. Neither the principle of equality before the law nor any other principle required the prosecution to abdicate its duty to exercise its discretion.
Justice, compassion and common sense suggest the following factors should have been considered:
Tang is desperately sick with one or two years to live.
He is unlikely to survive a few days in prison.
Society would not have been harmed if Mr Tang had not been jailed.
The Government has indicated it might legalise organ trading. There was therefore no public policy to be upheld by sending Mr Tang to jail.
There was no requirement in law for Mr Tang to have sworn the statutory declaration.
The AG uses high-sounding phrases about equality before the law, but says little about compassion or prosecutorial discretion. The law must be blind as to who is before the courts. But the law does not require law officers or the courts to be blind to justice and compassion.
Fortunately, in this case, the court was compassionate.
Dr Lee Wei Ling