You're not very sharp, are you ? Hri Kumar is also a Nair. Nowhere did the blogger say it's Vikram.
Next time don't take my word for it.
-
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.
Now a Major Legal Crisis - Unprecedented
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
You're not very sharp, are you ? Hri Kumar is also a Nair. Nowhere did the blogger say it's Vikram.
Next time don't take my word for it.
These days you also better make sure you screw the right cunt
interesting remember law minister saying the max fine is $1k? How come the Angela gal got fined 2k? Maybe I stand corrected : )
Last edited:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/woffles-wu-case-hits-a-nerve/#more-7488
Woffles Wu case hits a nerve
Published 18 June 2012 law, crime, court cases , politics and government48 Comments
"It started off as a small matter, but it hit a nerve, and now the entire government is in damage control mode. However, a bone in me says the damage control efforts will focus on technicalities and miss the big picture, as often is the case, and so will prove less than effective.
It’s a common refrain in Singapore. The government sees the problem, but doesn’t know how to deal with it, or is ideologically unable to do anything about it.
Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu was fined $1,000 by a court on 12 June 2012
. . . for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for him for a speeding offence.
The 52-year-old had abetted Mr Kuan Kit Wah, then 76, to provide false information to the police in November 2006.
The car, belonging to Wu, was travelling at 91-kilometres per hour along Adam Road when the speed limit is 70 kilometres per hour.
The court heard that Wu also made Mr Kuan take the rap for him for another speeding offence in September 2005.
This charge was taken into consideration during the sentencing on June 12.
– Channel NewsAsia, 13 June 2012, Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined S$1,000, by Claire Huang
The two incidents occurred on 11 September 2005 and 10 November 2006 respectively. The Straits Times had a similar report:
[with respect to the incident in September 2005,] . . . Wu got Mr Kuan, then 76, to tell police that he was the driver of a car speeding at 95kmh on Lornie Road. Mr Kuan is said to have lied again about a speeding offence committed at 9.45am on Nov 10, 2006. The car was then travelling at 91kmh on Adam Road.
The speed limit in both instances was 70kmh and involved Wu’s car. Court papers did not state who the actual driver was.
The court heard that a notice was sent to Wu to reveal the identity of the driver. Concerned that he would accumulate demerit points were he to accept liability for the speeding offences, he roped in Mr Kuan, then a maintenance technician in his clinic. Now 83 years old, Mr Kuan was also described as a close family friend of the doctor. He has not been charged.
– Straits Times, 13 June 2012, Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined $1,000 for misleading traffic police, by Khushwant Singh
Speeding can lead to tragic consequences. Not too long ago, a red Ferrari crashed into a taxi and three people died. Nonetheless, the Woffles case is relatively run-of-the-mill (or should have been) because in neither of the two incidents did an accident result.
However, the relatively low penalty immediately made it a talking point on the internet. Even a People’s Action Party member of parliament, Hri Kumar, said he was “surprised” by the sentence of only a fine.
Others who have committed similar offences have been jailed. I do not know what the Judge took into account in making his decision, and I accept that no two cases are the same.
– Hri Kumar, 14 June 2012, Link
In an unprecedented move, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) issued a statement over the weekend attempting to clarify the situation. It was helpful to the extent that it detailed the laws involved where press reports had not, but those details then opened it to further criticism from young lawyer Choo Zheng Xi writing in The Online Citizen.
Three laws are in play:
1. Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act – which imposes a duty on the owner of a vehicle to provide information within 7 days about the person driving the vehicle at the time of a suspected offence, and “anyone who wilfully or recklessly furnishes any false or misleading information” shall be guilty of an offence. The penalty is a fine of up to $1,000, or six months’ imprisonment or both.
2. Section 204A of the Penal Code – which says: “Whoever intentionally obstructs, prevents, perverts or defeats the course of justice shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.”
3. Section 182 of the Penal Code – which makes it an offence to provide “to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false” with the intention of causing the public servant to act differently were the truth be made known to him. The penalty is a fine up to $5,000, or one year’s jail or both.
The AGC revealed that Wu was charged for abetting an offence under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act. As for Section 204A, it clarified that this law cannot apply in this case because it only became law in 2008, after the speeding incidents had occurred.
It also said in its statement that “On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under s 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as s 182. . . . Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under s 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.”
Choo Zheng Xi promptly pointed out several cases in the past that attracted charges under Section 182 of the Penal Code, even though no major accidents or injury had occurred, thus contradicting the AGC’s statement. Offenders were jailed too.
* * * * *
It is possible that the issue will be weighed down by legal technicalities in any further discussion. If so, this may miss the real issue. The reason netizens took interest in the case was because it resonated with a widespread feeling that there is one law for the rich and powerful and another for ordinary blokes. (And I might add: a third law for political opponents.) Explaining the technicalities is not going to convince people otherwise.
Compounding the problem is that the explanation itself begs additional questions. Choo Zheng Xi pointing out contradictions is one, and it will cement that notion that the AGC’s statement was more whitewash than explanation.
Moreover, I found this sentence in the AGC’s statement very curious: “Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police . . .” As The Online Citizen reader Guan Kiat Chua wrote, Wu would have been obliged under the law to provide information about the person driving the vehicle within 7 days:
For the benefit of non-drivers in our midst, when the speed cam take a picture of of a car speeding, the traffic police would be sent a letter to the registered owner of the car to request for driver’s particulars, such as the following.
“I am the registered vehicle owner but not the driver of the said vehicle on the date, time and place of offence as stated in your letter. I hereby furnish the driver’s particular(sic) as follows:”.
– Comment posted beneath Choo Zheng Xi’s article.
Law minister K Shanmugam seemed to confirm that Wu had not been required to make a statement:
As for why Dr Wu was charged with abetment, Mr Shanmugam said the 52-year-old “did not make the misleading statements himself.”
The minister said the statements in question were made by Mr Kuan, which was why the charge could only be that of abetment.
Mr Shanmugam stressed that investigations are ongoing, as to who the driver actually was and that the case has not been concluded.
– Channel NewsAsia, 16 June 2012, Law Minister explains court sentencing of Dr Woffles Wu. Link
So the question: Why was Wu excused from replying to the obligatory request for information?
Even more curious was this bit:
As for why it took six years for Dr Wu to be prosecuted, Mr Shanmugam said the police were unaware of the offences at that time.
He said information was received only much later through a complaint to the AGC, made “more recently”.
Once the complaint was received, authorities investigated and thereafter the AGC decided to charge Dr Wu.
– ibid.
It’s not as if the speeding offences weren’t known to the police. The prosecution presented precise speeds, which can only have been recorded by police speed-measuring devices.
What Shanmugam probably meant was that the police were not aware of the offence of false statements until recently. Yet, if they had all along believed Kuan’s confession that he was the one driving the car, why didn’t they charge Kuan?
* * * * *
This kind of half-baked damage control isn’t going to disabuse anyone of his belief that the law is not blind, and that the police, prosecutors and judges are indulgent towards the well-connected. And frankly, even if the authorities can explain all the details, it may achieve nothing either, for the belief didn’t spring from just this case alone. The belief comes from a toxic mix of many events in our history, some involving the way law had been used, others not:
•Defamation suits against political opponents and foreign media;
•Petty prosecutions against political opponents;
•Ministers paying themselves handsomely through passing legislation;
•Ministers who never take responsibility for cock-ups;
•Mainstream media whose role is to protect the government from criticism; and so on.
The law minister and the AGC could see that this controversy will further erode public trust in the law and that’s why they leapt into action, but neither of them can truly tackle the real reasons for such mistrust. Only some massive overturning of past judgements and political decisions will do. And that is not within their power."
Woffles Wu case hits a nerve
Published 18 June 2012 law, crime, court cases , politics and government48 Comments
"It started off as a small matter, but it hit a nerve, and now the entire government is in damage control mode. However, a bone in me says the damage control efforts will focus on technicalities and miss the big picture, as often is the case, and so will prove less than effective.
It’s a common refrain in Singapore. The government sees the problem, but doesn’t know how to deal with it, or is ideologically unable to do anything about it.
Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu was fined $1,000 by a court on 12 June 2012
. . . for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for him for a speeding offence.
The 52-year-old had abetted Mr Kuan Kit Wah, then 76, to provide false information to the police in November 2006.
The car, belonging to Wu, was travelling at 91-kilometres per hour along Adam Road when the speed limit is 70 kilometres per hour.
The court heard that Wu also made Mr Kuan take the rap for him for another speeding offence in September 2005.
This charge was taken into consideration during the sentencing on June 12.
– Channel NewsAsia, 13 June 2012, Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined S$1,000, by Claire Huang
The two incidents occurred on 11 September 2005 and 10 November 2006 respectively. The Straits Times had a similar report:
[with respect to the incident in September 2005,] . . . Wu got Mr Kuan, then 76, to tell police that he was the driver of a car speeding at 95kmh on Lornie Road. Mr Kuan is said to have lied again about a speeding offence committed at 9.45am on Nov 10, 2006. The car was then travelling at 91kmh on Adam Road.
The speed limit in both instances was 70kmh and involved Wu’s car. Court papers did not state who the actual driver was.
The court heard that a notice was sent to Wu to reveal the identity of the driver. Concerned that he would accumulate demerit points were he to accept liability for the speeding offences, he roped in Mr Kuan, then a maintenance technician in his clinic. Now 83 years old, Mr Kuan was also described as a close family friend of the doctor. He has not been charged.
– Straits Times, 13 June 2012, Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined $1,000 for misleading traffic police, by Khushwant Singh
Speeding can lead to tragic consequences. Not too long ago, a red Ferrari crashed into a taxi and three people died. Nonetheless, the Woffles case is relatively run-of-the-mill (or should have been) because in neither of the two incidents did an accident result.
However, the relatively low penalty immediately made it a talking point on the internet. Even a People’s Action Party member of parliament, Hri Kumar, said he was “surprised” by the sentence of only a fine.
Others who have committed similar offences have been jailed. I do not know what the Judge took into account in making his decision, and I accept that no two cases are the same.
– Hri Kumar, 14 June 2012, Link
In an unprecedented move, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) issued a statement over the weekend attempting to clarify the situation. It was helpful to the extent that it detailed the laws involved where press reports had not, but those details then opened it to further criticism from young lawyer Choo Zheng Xi writing in The Online Citizen.
Three laws are in play:
1. Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act – which imposes a duty on the owner of a vehicle to provide information within 7 days about the person driving the vehicle at the time of a suspected offence, and “anyone who wilfully or recklessly furnishes any false or misleading information” shall be guilty of an offence. The penalty is a fine of up to $1,000, or six months’ imprisonment or both.
2. Section 204A of the Penal Code – which says: “Whoever intentionally obstructs, prevents, perverts or defeats the course of justice shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.”
3. Section 182 of the Penal Code – which makes it an offence to provide “to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false” with the intention of causing the public servant to act differently were the truth be made known to him. The penalty is a fine up to $5,000, or one year’s jail or both.
The AGC revealed that Wu was charged for abetting an offence under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act. As for Section 204A, it clarified that this law cannot apply in this case because it only became law in 2008, after the speeding incidents had occurred.
It also said in its statement that “On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under s 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as s 182. . . . Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under s 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.”
Choo Zheng Xi promptly pointed out several cases in the past that attracted charges under Section 182 of the Penal Code, even though no major accidents or injury had occurred, thus contradicting the AGC’s statement. Offenders were jailed too.
* * * * *
It is possible that the issue will be weighed down by legal technicalities in any further discussion. If so, this may miss the real issue. The reason netizens took interest in the case was because it resonated with a widespread feeling that there is one law for the rich and powerful and another for ordinary blokes. (And I might add: a third law for political opponents.) Explaining the technicalities is not going to convince people otherwise.
Compounding the problem is that the explanation itself begs additional questions. Choo Zheng Xi pointing out contradictions is one, and it will cement that notion that the AGC’s statement was more whitewash than explanation.
Moreover, I found this sentence in the AGC’s statement very curious: “Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police . . .” As The Online Citizen reader Guan Kiat Chua wrote, Wu would have been obliged under the law to provide information about the person driving the vehicle within 7 days:
For the benefit of non-drivers in our midst, when the speed cam take a picture of of a car speeding, the traffic police would be sent a letter to the registered owner of the car to request for driver’s particulars, such as the following.
“I am the registered vehicle owner but not the driver of the said vehicle on the date, time and place of offence as stated in your letter. I hereby furnish the driver’s particular(sic) as follows:”.
– Comment posted beneath Choo Zheng Xi’s article.
Law minister K Shanmugam seemed to confirm that Wu had not been required to make a statement:
As for why Dr Wu was charged with abetment, Mr Shanmugam said the 52-year-old “did not make the misleading statements himself.”
The minister said the statements in question were made by Mr Kuan, which was why the charge could only be that of abetment.
Mr Shanmugam stressed that investigations are ongoing, as to who the driver actually was and that the case has not been concluded.
– Channel NewsAsia, 16 June 2012, Law Minister explains court sentencing of Dr Woffles Wu. Link
So the question: Why was Wu excused from replying to the obligatory request for information?
Even more curious was this bit:
As for why it took six years for Dr Wu to be prosecuted, Mr Shanmugam said the police were unaware of the offences at that time.
He said information was received only much later through a complaint to the AGC, made “more recently”.
Once the complaint was received, authorities investigated and thereafter the AGC decided to charge Dr Wu.
– ibid.
It’s not as if the speeding offences weren’t known to the police. The prosecution presented precise speeds, which can only have been recorded by police speed-measuring devices.
What Shanmugam probably meant was that the police were not aware of the offence of false statements until recently. Yet, if they had all along believed Kuan’s confession that he was the one driving the car, why didn’t they charge Kuan?
* * * * *
This kind of half-baked damage control isn’t going to disabuse anyone of his belief that the law is not blind, and that the police, prosecutors and judges are indulgent towards the well-connected. And frankly, even if the authorities can explain all the details, it may achieve nothing either, for the belief didn’t spring from just this case alone. The belief comes from a toxic mix of many events in our history, some involving the way law had been used, others not:
•Defamation suits against political opponents and foreign media;
•Petty prosecutions against political opponents;
•Ministers paying themselves handsomely through passing legislation;
•Ministers who never take responsibility for cock-ups;
•Mainstream media whose role is to protect the government from criticism; and so on.
The law minister and the AGC could see that this controversy will further erode public trust in the law and that’s why they leapt into action, but neither of them can truly tackle the real reasons for such mistrust. Only some massive overturning of past judgements and political decisions will do. And that is not within their power."
If you read Alex Au well written article, you will note or realise that last paragraph is the most important for a number of reasons. Reproduced here below
"The law minister and the AGC could see that this controversy will further erode public trust in the law and that’s why they leapt into action, but neither of them can truly tackle the real reasons for such mistrust. Only some massive overturning of past judgements and political decisions will do. And that is not within their power."
He is right that both the Law Minister and the AGC have done all they care. This now falls on the shoulders of the PM and it is will test his leadership. There are 2 important things to address.
1. There are enough cases cited by Choo in TOC, cases that appeared in the press over the years that have created a strong perception that justice is neither administered or served well. This needs to be addressed as the eroding faith is obvious.
2. Though Yong Pung How is to be credited for bringing efficiency and speedier resolution of court cases which until his appointment was notoriously bad - a Wee Chong Jin legacy, he however is universally acknowledged to have gone overboard in terms of sentencing and by damaging the appeals process across the board. It came to the point that lawyers did not want to take up appeal cases or advised against it. Even though those who were presumably innocent did not want to appeal to avoid tempting fate with a more severe sentence. It was common knowledge that the enhanced punishment meted out did not correspond to the severity of the case but meted out as punishment for just appealing and his comments seem to strongly suggest that. Some of these sentences have become guidelines that have propagated within the system.
So what does the PM needs to do.
1) Have an independent review of all cases to determine if miscarriage of justice has occurred and if so to what extent.
2) If and where they have occurred the govt need to make the appropriate compensation and acknowledge their mistakes.
The above two will bring faith back into the system and correct the harm done to some extent.
What will he actually do:
YPH is the closest friend that both his mum and dad had that went all the way back to their student days. While the YPH and his father are alive, nothing will be done. This guy has never done anything that resembles leadership and he is not about to start now. He can't even contemplate replacing his wife as head of Temasek despite the notion of conflict of interest has been a prominent control issue for yonks.
He will however plead with the people to be more understandable.
"The law minister and the AGC could see that this controversy will further erode public trust in the law and that’s why they leapt into action, but neither of them can truly tackle the real reasons for such mistrust. Only some massive overturning of past judgements and political decisions will do. And that is not within their power."
He is right that both the Law Minister and the AGC have done all they care. This now falls on the shoulders of the PM and it is will test his leadership. There are 2 important things to address.
1. There are enough cases cited by Choo in TOC, cases that appeared in the press over the years that have created a strong perception that justice is neither administered or served well. This needs to be addressed as the eroding faith is obvious.
2. Though Yong Pung How is to be credited for bringing efficiency and speedier resolution of court cases which until his appointment was notoriously bad - a Wee Chong Jin legacy, he however is universally acknowledged to have gone overboard in terms of sentencing and by damaging the appeals process across the board. It came to the point that lawyers did not want to take up appeal cases or advised against it. Even though those who were presumably innocent did not want to appeal to avoid tempting fate with a more severe sentence. It was common knowledge that the enhanced punishment meted out did not correspond to the severity of the case but meted out as punishment for just appealing and his comments seem to strongly suggest that. Some of these sentences have become guidelines that have propagated within the system.
So what does the PM needs to do.
1) Have an independent review of all cases to determine if miscarriage of justice has occurred and if so to what extent.
2) If and where they have occurred the govt need to make the appropriate compensation and acknowledge their mistakes.
The above two will bring faith back into the system and correct the harm done to some extent.
What will he actually do:
YPH is the closest friend that both his mum and dad had that went all the way back to their student days. While the YPH and his father are alive, nothing will be done. This guy has never done anything that resembles leadership and he is not about to start now. He can't even contemplate replacing his wife as head of Temasek despite the notion of conflict of interest has been a prominent control issue for yonks.
He will however plead with the people to be more understandable.
Last edited:
You mean more understanding? That's what the clown prince had been trying to do when he can't make ppl understand his point of view.
ex PAP MP Mr Peh Chin Hua said recently that saying sorry is akin to jiak roti
me only understand that me is not voting PAP in the next GE, will remind my family, relatives and friends to do likewise.
ex PAP MP Mr Peh Chin Hua said recently that saying sorry is akin to jiak roti
me only understand that me is not voting PAP in the next GE, will remind my family, relatives and friends to do likewise.
Bro , the elite's will just have a slap on their hand, they have let a couple of cats out of the sack, they are not going to let the whole sack full of cats out, the cases will just drag on, till most of the peasants forgot about it....
He'll probably kneel down and look up to the heavens and ask, "Why the fuck must it be me? Why always under my watch?"
Agree with you. I doubt if shaw will see the inside of Changi.
But you know, world is not fair. If you are powerful you get more eggs, if you are rich you hire best lawyers, you are classified as a white horse in SAF. However since the offences are similar, I wonder how he can get out of jail since the principal already went through that ordeal.
But you know, world is not fair. If you are powerful you get more eggs, if you are rich you hire best lawyers, you are classified as a white horse in SAF. However since the offences are similar, I wonder how he can get out of jail since the principal already went through that ordeal.
Was really surprised that H Shaw was brought to court over this indiscretion, with that kind of background & money, surely thre are many other 'tasty tarts' he would have tasted! You connect the dots, & wonder why this was brought to "light" and is a wonder!
This case will showcase, which ones get the deepest connection, thickets wallets. The punishment will be an triangle with the pinnacle at the top which correspond with an inverse triangle with the broadest base at the top, coreesponding with the connection & money.
It will be interesting if they punishment will be the same as the common man...what's the difference between a deluxe & class C in any government hospital...that is an example!
Exactly!...i am more than happy for PAP to carry on in this manner...come next GE lose another GRC is the best lesson for them...also not forgetting to give Kinana another big tight slap in Hougang...
Last edited:
He's always leaving so many loose ends, so many open sores they start festering, and when the GE comes, he wonders where has he gone wrong. Really sad what this country has become.
Bro , the elite's will just have a slap on their hand, they have let a couple of cats out of the sack, they are not going to let the whole sack full of cats out, the cases will just drag on, till most of the peasants forgot about it....
bro,
in the Internet age, the peasants will be kept reminded, the PAP would soon be shitting bricks :p:p:p
How do we know if it is a right hole? authenticity!?
Similar threads
