u think he wont get u arrested then... your "punishment" for spitting will probably be more than his for lying !!!!!!
people who are hypocrites will be the first to "get you"
-
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.
Elite Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined only $1K for lying to police 2 times
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
u think he wont get u arrested then... your "punishment" for spitting will probably be more than his for lying !!!!!!
people who are hypocrites will be the first to "get you"
who requested?
police say they were never aware of the incident until someone made a complain recently
Dear Scroo,
His uncle or somewhere in the family tree is an ex Police Com or Asst Police com as well. The recognition of being a world class plastic surgeon is by his peers globally. Plastic Surgey and reconstructive surgery in terms of the demands on skill and medical knowledge pails only next to that of a neuro surgeon and or and eye sruegon for the delicacy of the work.
There is a certain amount of professional jealousy at the success that he has garnered. His work whilst in public service and his decision or desire to get "wealthy" in private practice is a common thread for plastic surgeons anywhere especially if they are at or near the top of their field.
Firstly he was guilty of something many or nearly all drivers have done in the past. As Shammunagan noted correctly he was charged under the old act , thus the offense based on legal principles would be prosecuted under the old act and not retrospectively.
What is interesting to a large degree is the government in the interest of "administration" and "ease of administration" has pushed into law, broadly drawn up offenses which are all encompassing and making everything and anything criminal , and finally leaving it up the discretion of the AGC on what or how to proceed.
Firstly why should getting someone to take your demerit points for speeding for you be such a big deal as to warrant the potential of a fine and or a jail term under the new ACT ? Granted the law as it is drafted covers on the very act of someone to take your demerit points for you being criminal but in that very act it encompasses everything possible situation from speeding, to knocking over a cat, to running a red light all the way up to a minor accident, serious accident, serious accident causing hurt etc etc .
There is no middle road, no finely drafted law, no possibility of a community sentence and when a law is drafted making something criminal, it is so broadly drafted as to cover every spectrum possible.
Locke
I would like to add that his " offense " if at all was to be " famous" and to get "caught" both for the offense and the debate in between the wealth divide.
His uncle or somewhere in the family tree is an ex Police Com or Asst Police com as well. The recognition of being a world class plastic surgeon is by his peers globally. Plastic Surgey and reconstructive surgery in terms of the demands on skill and medical knowledge pails only next to that of a neuro surgeon and or and eye sruegon for the delicacy of the work.
There is a certain amount of professional jealousy at the success that he has garnered. His work whilst in public service and his decision or desire to get "wealthy" in private practice is a common thread for plastic surgeons anywhere especially if they are at or near the top of their field.
Firstly he was guilty of something many or nearly all drivers have done in the past. As Shammunagan noted correctly he was charged under the old act , thus the offense based on legal principles would be prosecuted under the old act and not retrospectively.
What is interesting to a large degree is the government in the interest of "administration" and "ease of administration" has pushed into law, broadly drawn up offenses which are all encompassing and making everything and anything criminal , and finally leaving it up the discretion of the AGC on what or how to proceed.
Firstly why should getting someone to take your demerit points for speeding for you be such a big deal as to warrant the potential of a fine and or a jail term under the new ACT ? Granted the law as it is drafted covers on the very act of someone to take your demerit points for you being criminal but in that very act it encompasses everything possible situation from speeding, to knocking over a cat, to running a red light all the way up to a minor accident, serious accident, serious accident causing hurt etc etc .
There is no middle road, no finely drafted law, no possibility of a community sentence and when a law is drafted making something criminal, it is so broadly drafted as to cover every spectrum possible.
Locke
I would like to add that his " offense " if at all was to be " famous" and to get "caught" both for the offense and the debate in between the wealth divide.
BREAKING: AGC’s response to the Woffles Wu case (17 June 2012)
1. We refer to the media reports about the case against Woffles Wu.
2. Woffles Wu was charged for abetting his employee Kuan to give false information to the police about the commission of speeding offenses in 2005 and 2006. Kuan gave the false information. Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police, was charged with abetting Kuan to do so, which is an offence under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act. There was no evidence of payment or gratification given to Kuan. Kuan, who is 82 years old, was given a stern warning.
3. In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for wilfully providing false information, under s 81(3) Road Traffic Act. Custodial sentences are typically imposed under this section when there are aggravating features, such as many instances of the offence committed by the same person.
4. Some media reports refer to cases in which imprisonment term has been imposed under Section 204A of the Penal Code. The accused could not have been charged under that provision for intentionally perverting the course of justice (which is a more serious charge compared with Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act). This is because the accused committed his offence in 2006, before Section 204A of the Penal Code was enacted in 2008. The position of the accused is therefore different from others who were subject to Section 204A and who have been punished with a term of imprisonment.
5. The charge preferred against an accused person would be calibrated to reflect the seriousness of the criminal act and the fact situation, and whether the legislation in question provides a specific provision dealing with the criminal act or whether reliance has to be placed on general legislation such as the Penal Code. On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as Section 182. Other sections have their own requirements, which would not have been met on the facts of the present case. Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.
* * *
Media Contact:
Li Jin Haw (Ms)
Assistant Director, Corporate Communications Unit
Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 6332 4693
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/breaking-agcs-response-to-the-woffles-wu-case-17-june-2012/
===================================
Questions Remain in Woffles Wu Matter
Published by The Online Citizen on June 17, 2012
~ By Choo Zheng Xi ~
In my article of 16 June 2012, I wrote:
“From reports in the Straits Times (which, unfortunately, have not been particularly clear about the precise charge that was brought), it seems that Woffles was charged with abetting the giving of "False information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person" under Section 182 of the Penal Code.”
My article further notes that under the Penal Code, there are a few possible sections that could apply to Dr Wu.
Minister of Law and Foreign Affairs Mr K Shanmugam has since clarified that Dr Wu was charged under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act as the offences occurred in 2006.
He has further clarified that a charge under Section 204 of the Penal Code for perverting the course of justice was not preferred as the section had not been enacted in 2006.
I am grateful for the Law Minister’s clarification with regards to why Section 204 of the Penal Code was not the charge used.
However, I hope the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) can clarify why Section 182 of the Penal Code, which was in force at the time of Dr Wu’s offence, was not the charge used.
Section 182 has been used in cases involving the provision of false information to the police in traffic related violations.
In the 1997 case of Thirumalai Kumar v Public Prosecutor, which primarily related to speeding and rash driving charges, a Section 182 charge was brought, as a result of which the accused was sentenced to a two-week term of imprisonment.
In the 2001 case of PP v Yap Khim Huat, which again involved primary traffic offences of driving without a licence, being under the influence of drink and beating a red light, a charge under Section 182 was brought. This resulted in a 4 week sentence of imprisonment.
In the 2008 case of PP v Poh Chee Hwee, the accused gave false information to the police to help his brother avoid prosecution for a traffic offence. He was charged under Section 182 of the Penal Code, and given 2 weeks imprisonment.
In the 2001 cases of Lim Seng Keong v PP and Koh Chee Khoon v PP, the two offenders pleaded guilty to charges of covering up a traffic offence of driving a motor car without a valid licence. They were sentenced to 1 week’s imprisonment each.
In the 2001 case of Tan Jack Saa v PP, the offender was convicted on charges of speeding and abetting the furnishing of false information to the police. He persuaded the person taking the rap to sign a false letter of appeal stating he was innocent. While he was originally fined $400, on appeal the sentence was enhanced to two months imprisonment.
To be fair, the reason the above sentence was so long could have been influenced by the fact that the accused in this case had levelled “injurious falsehoods” at the police officer at the scene.
In the 2007 case of PP v Chia Pei Si, the accused was charged under Section 182 for providing false information that she was the driver of a car involved in a drink driving incident to cover up for her friend. She was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.
District Judge Liew Thiam Leng also noted in his judgment: “Where false information is given by an accused to the police to evade prosecution, the norm is a custodial sentence of 2 weeks to 4 weeks imprisonment for a first offender”.
It should be noted that the accused in Chia Pei Si appealed but the result of the appeal is not available to me.
Zheng Xi is a Consultant Editor of TOC and a lawyer in private practice, but nothing in this article is to be taken as or relied upon as legal advice.
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/questions-remain-in-woffles-wu-matter/
1. We refer to the media reports about the case against Woffles Wu.
2. Woffles Wu was charged for abetting his employee Kuan to give false information to the police about the commission of speeding offenses in 2005 and 2006. Kuan gave the false information. Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police, was charged with abetting Kuan to do so, which is an offence under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act. There was no evidence of payment or gratification given to Kuan. Kuan, who is 82 years old, was given a stern warning.
3. In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for wilfully providing false information, under s 81(3) Road Traffic Act. Custodial sentences are typically imposed under this section when there are aggravating features, such as many instances of the offence committed by the same person.
4. Some media reports refer to cases in which imprisonment term has been imposed under Section 204A of the Penal Code. The accused could not have been charged under that provision for intentionally perverting the course of justice (which is a more serious charge compared with Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act). This is because the accused committed his offence in 2006, before Section 204A of the Penal Code was enacted in 2008. The position of the accused is therefore different from others who were subject to Section 204A and who have been punished with a term of imprisonment.
5. The charge preferred against an accused person would be calibrated to reflect the seriousness of the criminal act and the fact situation, and whether the legislation in question provides a specific provision dealing with the criminal act or whether reliance has to be placed on general legislation such as the Penal Code. On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as Section 182. Other sections have their own requirements, which would not have been met on the facts of the present case. Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.
* * *
Media Contact:
Li Jin Haw (Ms)
Assistant Director, Corporate Communications Unit
Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 6332 4693
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/breaking-agcs-response-to-the-woffles-wu-case-17-june-2012/
===================================
Questions Remain in Woffles Wu Matter
Published by The Online Citizen on June 17, 2012
~ By Choo Zheng Xi ~
In my article of 16 June 2012, I wrote:
“From reports in the Straits Times (which, unfortunately, have not been particularly clear about the precise charge that was brought), it seems that Woffles was charged with abetting the giving of "False information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person" under Section 182 of the Penal Code.”
My article further notes that under the Penal Code, there are a few possible sections that could apply to Dr Wu.
Minister of Law and Foreign Affairs Mr K Shanmugam has since clarified that Dr Wu was charged under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act as the offences occurred in 2006.
He has further clarified that a charge under Section 204 of the Penal Code for perverting the course of justice was not preferred as the section had not been enacted in 2006.
I am grateful for the Law Minister’s clarification with regards to why Section 204 of the Penal Code was not the charge used.
However, I hope the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) can clarify why Section 182 of the Penal Code, which was in force at the time of Dr Wu’s offence, was not the charge used.
Section 182 has been used in cases involving the provision of false information to the police in traffic related violations.
In the 1997 case of Thirumalai Kumar v Public Prosecutor, which primarily related to speeding and rash driving charges, a Section 182 charge was brought, as a result of which the accused was sentenced to a two-week term of imprisonment.
In the 2001 case of PP v Yap Khim Huat, which again involved primary traffic offences of driving without a licence, being under the influence of drink and beating a red light, a charge under Section 182 was brought. This resulted in a 4 week sentence of imprisonment.
In the 2008 case of PP v Poh Chee Hwee, the accused gave false information to the police to help his brother avoid prosecution for a traffic offence. He was charged under Section 182 of the Penal Code, and given 2 weeks imprisonment.
In the 2001 cases of Lim Seng Keong v PP and Koh Chee Khoon v PP, the two offenders pleaded guilty to charges of covering up a traffic offence of driving a motor car without a valid licence. They were sentenced to 1 week’s imprisonment each.
In the 2001 case of Tan Jack Saa v PP, the offender was convicted on charges of speeding and abetting the furnishing of false information to the police. He persuaded the person taking the rap to sign a false letter of appeal stating he was innocent. While he was originally fined $400, on appeal the sentence was enhanced to two months imprisonment.
To be fair, the reason the above sentence was so long could have been influenced by the fact that the accused in this case had levelled “injurious falsehoods” at the police officer at the scene.
In the 2007 case of PP v Chia Pei Si, the accused was charged under Section 182 for providing false information that she was the driver of a car involved in a drink driving incident to cover up for her friend. She was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.
District Judge Liew Thiam Leng also noted in his judgment: “Where false information is given by an accused to the police to evade prosecution, the norm is a custodial sentence of 2 weeks to 4 weeks imprisonment for a first offender”.
It should be noted that the accused in Chia Pei Si appealed but the result of the appeal is not available to me.
Zheng Xi is a Consultant Editor of TOC and a lawyer in private practice, but nothing in this article is to be taken as or relied upon as legal advice.
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/questions-remain-in-woffles-wu-matter/
No need long essay to spin it.
3 year old kid also can tell....$1k fine is fair? The scapegoat also got off scot free.
It's precisely of his wealth fame and most important his connections that got him off the hook.
Offense also won't come to light if not for persistent whistleblower.
Dun try spin it any other way.
No need long essay to spin it.
3 year old kid also can tell....$1k fine is fair? The scapegoat also got off scot free.
It's precisely of his wealth fame and most important his connections that got him off the hook.
Offense also won't come to light if not for persistent whistleblower.
Dun try spin it any other way.
Re: BREAKING: AGC’s response to the Woffles Wu case (17 June 2012)
No evidence of payment or gratification? The old man help WW for fuck is it? WW handsome is it?
Namah, the man is 80+ years old, to employ him, WW is already giving some form of gratification.
No evidence of payment or gratification? The old man help WW for fuck is it? WW handsome is it?
Namah, the man is 80+ years old, to employ him, WW is already giving some form of gratification.
Re: BREAKING: AGC’s response to the Woffles Wu case (17 June 2012)
It's not a bribe if no money changed hands.
Ng Boon Gay is banking on that.
It's not a bribe if no money changed hands.
Ng Boon Gay is banking on that.
I am just curious how far WW's file went in AGC. Did it pass thru the desk of AG? SG? For direction/instruction. What was the attention level given to a simple straight-forward case? If it did, then it's strange. If an Ah Beng committed the same offence, would SG and/or AG bother to peruse the file?
In addition, before sentencing, did the DJ 'consult' his boss for this case, given the personality involved?
If this case was treated as normal by both AGC and the Sub Cts, I have nothing to say.
Last edited:
No need to spin.......... the plastic surgeon has done a cosmetic on his own case to escape detection by AGC radar.......
bro, File did not go to SG. File came from AG. Police buried 2 previous complaints. This came from the top and there was extensive exchange between AG and Counsel. That is why good lawyers are highly prized. He was very lucky that this surfaced before the change in law. Worth evry penny as they have a team of lawyers and consultants to dreg thru every word and meaning, including precedents. That is why Justice will no longer serve the ordinary man as he cannot afford it.
I am expecting a police disciplinary to follow if it had not already begun. The lady who lodge the complaint is prepared to go online to pursue this till completion. I understand she has blogged on this before but I cannot find it.
I am expecting a police disciplinary to follow if it had not already begun. The lady who lodge the complaint is prepared to go online to pursue this till completion. I understand she has blogged on this before but I cannot find it.
Bro, wait for Part 2.
I do hope someone like Chua Beng Huat do some work to show how Justice system is served for the rich who can afford competent talent.
I am not suggesting that shortcuts or favours were done in view of who he is as I understand that this immediately came under the top radar because the Police out of self fear buried previous complaints. If you ask AGC, the English standard of the present generation of investigating officers is shocking. There is also neglect of duty by senior police officer will no longer want to record Police statement for high profile cases or intimidating witnesses.
I recall JBJ statements were recorded by Supt Jamal Singh Head of Commercial Crime ( rank inflation would be put his rank now as AC) He was not asked to but he chose to. He was also an extremely competent investigator having investigated Robinson Rd Fire and led Homicide investigation and he had an MBA to boot, a rarity to boot in those days.
The Police Force is now at the same standard of Health Inspectors of the 1970: and speak and write like them.
I do hope someone like Chua Beng Huat do some work to show how Justice system is served for the rich who can afford competent talent.
I am not suggesting that shortcuts or favours were done in view of who he is as I understand that this immediately came under the top radar because the Police out of self fear buried previous complaints. If you ask AGC, the English standard of the present generation of investigating officers is shocking. There is also neglect of duty by senior police officer will no longer want to record Police statement for high profile cases or intimidating witnesses.
I recall JBJ statements were recorded by Supt Jamal Singh Head of Commercial Crime ( rank inflation would be put his rank now as AC) He was not asked to but he chose to. He was also an extremely competent investigator having investigated Robinson Rd Fire and led Homicide investigation and he had an MBA to boot, a rarity to boot in those days.
The Police Force is now at the same standard of Health Inspectors of the 1970: and speak and write like them.
Agree with your asseement on this JS. The other JS stinks! I think this JS retired at DAC rank. Don't recall him as AC. He was marginalised for many years. He used to represent S'ore in rugby. Many orang lama respect this man. Very competent and fair chap. Most importantly, he was never a politician or porlumpar. And he hates officers who try to por his lumpar. Recall reading somewhere he was seconded to CISCO towards the end of his career.
Agree with your assessment bro. I spoke to a Sikh who told me that JS was not liked by the Sikh community as he refused to help despite being a regular temple attendee. Show the inner strength of the man in such a close knit community.
He never made AC. The most honest Police Officer with extremely high standards. He was indeed marginalised. I suspect that it was because of his MBA which he paid for himself. He ended up in the same class as Wrangler scholar GLK. In those days, you simply cannot do MBA without PSC having a say.
He was not only a first class investigator, an outstanding Sr Officer, he was also a first class Rugby player and captained the National Team to the highest ever victory. At that time he was Director Police Academy and the probably the fittest bastard in the whole academy.
He would have been made a first class CP.
I remember someone told me that he met a Sikh a soft spoken Sikh gentleman at a playground somewhere in Balestier who was with his kid. They spoke and he sensed that this guy was somewhat special. Later his photo appeared in the press and he realised who he was.
He never made AC. The most honest Police Officer with extremely high standards. He was indeed marginalised. I suspect that it was because of his MBA which he paid for himself. He ended up in the same class as Wrangler scholar GLK. In those days, you simply cannot do MBA without PSC having a say.
He was not only a first class investigator, an outstanding Sr Officer, he was also a first class Rugby player and captained the National Team to the highest ever victory. At that time he was Director Police Academy and the probably the fittest bastard in the whole academy.
He would have been made a first class CP.
I remember someone told me that he met a Sikh a soft spoken Sikh gentleman at a playground somewhere in Balestier who was with his kid. They spoke and he sensed that this guy was somewhat special. Later his photo appeared in the press and he realised who he was.
Last edited:
Dear Narong
Within the cases cited by TOC, I believe justice has been done. He was fortunate that the offense was committed under the old act and not the new. I have already stated broadly my objections to the new act and how it shifts from the traffic act to the penal code,what was previously a minor offense to a serious offense under very broad legislative and investigative powers.
The fact that he abetted, matters , the date of the act matters and also the circumstances, did he abet a drink driving, driving without a valid license, rash driving, dangerous driving, did the driver run over a cat dog, hurt a human being ? In sentencing where discretion is allowed, the facts of the case matter as it determines the nature of the offense.
Locke
3 year old kid also can tell....$1k fine is fair? The scapegoat also got off scot free.
It's precisely of his wealth fame and most important his connections that got him off the hook.
Offense also won't come to light if not for persistent whistleblower.
Dun try spin it any other way.[/QUOTE]
Within the cases cited by TOC, I believe justice has been done. He was fortunate that the offense was committed under the old act and not the new. I have already stated broadly my objections to the new act and how it shifts from the traffic act to the penal code,what was previously a minor offense to a serious offense under very broad legislative and investigative powers.
The fact that he abetted, matters , the date of the act matters and also the circumstances, did he abet a drink driving, driving without a valid license, rash driving, dangerous driving, did the driver run over a cat dog, hurt a human being ? In sentencing where discretion is allowed, the facts of the case matter as it determines the nature of the offense.
Locke
3 year old kid also can tell....$1k fine is fair? The scapegoat also got off scot free.
It's precisely of his wealth fame and most important his connections that got him off the hook.
Offense also won't come to light if not for persistent whistleblower.
Dun try spin it any other way.[/QUOTE]
I was told he did not rank highly in Benedict's 'favourite listing' coz he totally bo hew BC even when the latter was AC holding the appt of Dir Ops. JS treated all his officers the same. Didn't matter if JO or scholar. I think he was once Comdr Airport Police. CCD/CID posting and Dir PA confirmed. Maybe even Comdr Jurong.
Re: BREAKING: AGC’s response to the Woffles Wu case (17 June 2012)
if this is so, why waste court time and money to charge Mr Ng....??????
hilarious
if this is so, why waste court time and money to charge Mr Ng....??????
hilarious
The PSC scheme for 1st tier scholars require them to undertake project on behalf of PS and report to PS directly. The PS use these meetings to ask about other senior officers. The scheme was designed to groom future leaders but it turn out to undermine other senior officers. When the scholar ranks grew, it became highly competitive and a nightmare. Naturally porlumpars flourished. The mentor scheme both in the public and private sector like the 360 feedback loop has done so much damage that it is beyond believe.
Similar threads
