• 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.

Lee Wei Ling puts on her Judge's Hat Again!

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
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
 

sunny302

Alfrescian
Loyal
When peasants speak...its cheap talk and would be shooooed away:mad:...When she speaks everybody listens...why....The answer is obvious right....:wink:
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
Since I heard her speak on a couple of issues a few years back, I became deeply impressed with her.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
I disagree. She clearly does not understand basic jurisprudence concepts. Regardless of whether Tang had to sign a Statutory Declaration, the fact of the matter is that Tang did indeed sign the SD and lied in the same. Hence Tang had to be charged under the relevant statutory provisions for lying in the SD, which carries a mandatory custodial sentence.

Lee Wei Ling does not appear to understand that her arguments are only relevant to MITIGATION and not to the fact that Tang had to be charged for lying in his SD. AG Walter Woon is right and the Court was also right to exercise Judicial Mercy ironically largely based on Lee Wei Ling's arguments.

still...she does makes sense
 

Hans168

Alfrescian
Loyal
Peasant like you talk rot, while she spoke with insight & wisdom which you will never have!
 

sunny302

Alfrescian
Loyal
IMHO As human, one is bound to be selective in the manner one wants to interpret a subject...no right and wrong here cos its how you want to be swayed by the arguement..:smile:

The crux will be who is the speaker and in this case its a VVIP...pronto :biggrin:
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
The Government has indicated it might legalise organ trading. There was therefore no public policy to be upheld by sending Mr Tang to jail.

What is she saying?

Might legalise (in the future) => no public policy to be upheld (now)?
No point upholding the law now, because it is based on the fundamental principles that, in the future may be deemed irrelevant?


Or

Is she saying that organ trading will definitely be legalised? So don't jail anyone now.


:confused::confused::confused:
 

popdod

Alfrescian
Loyal
When peasants speak...its cheap talk and would be shooooed away:mad:...When she speaks everybody listens...why....The answer is obvious right....:wink:


She got the influence and power.....to voice out.
Peasants like us dun have....only can gripe in kopitiams.

:p :( :p
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
AG was right and justice was done

I FULLY support Attorney-General Walter Woon's clarification last Saturday ('Tang case: No one is above the law').
The gravity of an offence under the Oaths and Declarations Act requires a mandatory jail sentence because of the need to protect minority shareholders who have no recourse to obtain the truth.

For a long time since the case was first brought to light by investigative reports of the press, Mr Tang Wee Sung professed that his kidney illness did not impair his abilities to discharge his duties as executive chairman of a public listed company. That company had a substantial turnover of more than $230 million in the past financial year.

For his pains in discharging his duties, Mr Tang grossed more than $500,000 in director's remuneration, the exact amount of which was never disclosed in the company's annual report.

However, over the course of the trial in the past couple of weeks, Mr Tang was portrayed as a helpless and terminally ill patient who was forced, out of desperation, to pursue an illegal avenue to prolong his life.

It was not until he was formally convicted on Aug 27, and owing to the mandatory jail sentence, that he finally stepped down as executive chairman and director of the public listed company.

Singapore law bars convicted individuals who have served jail sentences from directorships in Singapore-registered companies for at least five years.

I believe many minority shareholders are finally breathing a sigh of relief that the key executive of their public listed company, who had no qualms in lying under statutory oath and who refused to relinquish his director's position, was statutorily removed by law.

His conduct has cast serious doubts on his professed commitment to corporate governance.

For the minority shareholders, justice has finally been done.

Lok Hwee Chong
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
Since I heard her speak on a couple of issues a few years back, I became deeply impressed with her.

I think for this case, I need to correct my own self.

Dr Lee appears to have a misconception on:

quote:

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?

unquote

because that sort of argument, is in my opinion, fallacious.

Nonetheless, I still hold the deepest respect for her and it has nothing to do with her family position but how she spoke up against wrongful practices in earlier cases.
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
I hate doing this but I have to agree with LKY daughter on this case. Really dumb sg justice system especailly when they gonna to jail the middle man for 14 months !!!! ANd they say govt want to encourage enterpresuship.
 

tommyh

Alfrescian
Loyal
9th commandment - DO NOT LIE
especially in this case he lied under oath

However, I agree that given Tang's health the sentence was just.

But this back and forth has now shifted public opinion from "wah the rich can get away" to "wah that is a judicious use of law". That in itself is great mgmt of PR.

Given LWL's sphere of influence in the medical community, I would not be surprised if she is spearheading this whole HOTA/Legalization issue.

Go tell that to the lung cancer guy who got no reprieve -because he got no money nor influence. His crime was to operate illegal massage parlors and he is not some murderer or rapist.
 
Top