Serious AG Lucien Wong Refutes Previous Two AGs Easily For Their Ignorance On Sinkie Law! Still Think Lucien Wong Is No Good?

[JohnTan]

Attorney-General (AG) Lucien Wong has responded to recent comments by two of his predecessors on section 377A, saying that they may give the “inaccurate impression” the public prosecutor’s (PP) discretion in relation to the law has been “removed or restricted”.

Walter Woon and V K Rajah, both former AGs, have pointed out that 377A, which criminalises sex between men, poses a constitutional problem given the government’s position on the law. The government has stated that the authorities will not proactively enforce 377A.

Woon has said that 377A sets a “dangerous precedent” whereby the political authorities are informing the PP – who is supposed to be independent – not to enforce some laws. Rajah echoed the view, saying that selective enforcement undermines the rule of law.

But AG Wong has rebutted his predecessors’ views, citing Article 35(8) of the Constitution. In a statement issued by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on Tuesday, Wong said the Article states “the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence is vested in the Attorney-General as the PP”.

“In exercising this discretion, the PP seeks only to advance the public interest, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, and other matters such as the recommendations of the investigating agencies and the expressed intention of Parliament.”

AG Wong pointed out if there are reports lodged relating to offences under 377A, for example, where minors are exploited and abused, the police will investigate.

For investigations into an offence under the section, the police will decide whether or not there is sufficient basis to refer the case to the PP, he added.

“It will then be for the PP to determine whether to prosecute. In doing so, the PP exercises his independent discretion on whether to charge the offender, solely on the basis of his assessment of the facts, the law, and the public interest,” said AG Wong.

While the PP is entitled to consider public policies in exercising his discretion, the exercise of the discretion remains unfettered, he added.

“In the case of section 377A, where the conduct in question was between two consenting adults in a private place, the PP had, absent other factors, taken the position that prosecution would not be in the public interest. This remains the position today.”

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/attorney-...er-woon-v-k-rajah-section-377a-121124109.html

 

[AhMeng]

Who is Lucien trying to smoke...Lol ... Unfettered discretion... He should try exercising it more often and I can guarantee you he will be replaced much sooner than later. Lol

 

[Hypocrite-The]

If his predecessors no good...which is true as they r Pappie Scrooges....is this Lucien saying pinky n old fart fucked up?

 

[halsey02]

Translucence wong must look into the mirror of papised & see what his future will be & the people who appears standing there, holding weapons like a hatchet; are the ones that are feeding him. People like him are so independent that a phone call in the dead of the night will assist him to make important decisions; that is so INDEPENDENT.

Only the 70% faithful believe in all these smoke & mirror acts.

 

[halsey02]

If his predecessors no good...which is true as they r Pappie Scrooges....is this Lucien saying pinky n old fart fucked up?

The PAP is already the BEST..is he saying he is BETTER??

 

[Hypocrite-The]

The PAP is already the BEST..is he saying he is BETTER??

Better than wat? A hole in the ground?

 

[a_korusawa]

Better than wat? A hole in the ground?

remember all AGs are pawns to ah long! hence this translucent ong is no difference
he's laying the path for ah long junior's survivor as per instructions from his pappy.

 

[kulgai]

remember all AGs are pawns to ah long! hence this translucent ong is no difference
he's laying the path for ah long junior's survivor as per instructions from his pappy.

Attorney-General (AG) Lucien Wong has responded to recent comments by two of his predecessors on section 377A, saying that they may give the “inaccurate impression” the public prosecutor’s (PP) discretion in relation to the law has been “removed or restricted”.

Walter Woon and V K Rajah, both former AGs, have pointed out that 377A, which criminalises sex between men, poses a constitutional problem given the government’s position on the law. The government has stated that the authorities will not proactively enforce 377A.

Woon has said that 377A sets a “dangerous precedent” whereby the political authorities are informing the PP – who is supposed to be independent – not to enforce some laws. Rajah echoed the view, saying that selective enforcement undermines the rule of law.

But AG Wong has rebutted his predecessors’ views, citing Article 35(8) of the Constitution. In a statement issued by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on Tuesday, Wong said the Article states “the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence is vested in the Attorney-General as the PP”.

“In exercising this discretion, the PP seeks only to advance the public interest, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, and other matters such as the recommendations of the investigating agencies and the expressed intention of Parliament.”

AG Wong pointed out if there are reports lodged relating to offences under 377A, for example, where minors are exploited and abused, the police will investigate.

For investigations into an offence under the section, the police will decide whether or not there is sufficient basis to refer the case to the PP, he added.

“It will then be for the PP to determine whether to prosecute. In doing so, the PP exercises his independent discretion on whether to charge the offender, solely on the basis of his assessment of the facts, the law, and the public interest,” said AG Wong.

While the PP is entitled to consider public policies in exercising his discretion, the exercise of the discretion remains unfettered, he added.

“In the case of section 377A, where the conduct in question was between two consenting adults in a private place, the PP had, absent other factors, taken the position that prosecution would not be in the public interest. This remains the position today.”

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/attorney-...er-woon-v-k-rajah-section-377a-121124109.html

Lucy is trying to appear more independent than he really is.

 

[congo9]

I would not use the word Independent.

He is either beholden by the law or his direct boss ( LHL )

 

[Hypocrite-The]

remember all AGs are pawns to ah long! hence this translucent ong is no difference
he's laying the path for ah long junior's survivor as per instructions from his pappy.

All these pappies will occasionally say one thing to show them as for the people n not yes men...but after their 1 shot wonder moment will tow the line accordingly. Look at Any Khor....those that don't tow the line will quit or retire like ah bock, Tan Soo Khoon etc

 

[Bonut]

But AG Wong has rebutted his predecessors’ views, citing Article 35(8) of the Constitution. In a statement issued by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on Tuesday, Wong said the Article states “the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence is vested in the Attorney-General as the PP”.

Lucy's reply was predicated on the mistaken assumption that the two ex-AGs - Water and Rojak didn't know of the existence of Article 35(8) of the Constitution, and then he went on to treat the two ex-AGs like some first year law undergraduate, expounding on the virtues of Article 35(8) of the Constitution.

The two ex-AGs are effectively saying that the pronouncement by the government that the authorities will not proactively enforce s.337A runs contrary to Article 35(8) of the Constitution. If the PP's discretion is unfettered, then Lucy should tell the government they are not entitled to make such a statement as the authority (to make such a statement) lies squarely with the AG. The government made up of elected MPs is a political machinery, not judicial institution.

 

[steffychun]

Lucifier Wong is a LHL lover. The previous AGs are not.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

vk rajah made his point today..... letz see wat LUCY WILL SAY

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

remember all AGs are pawns to ah long! hence this translucent ong is no difference
he's laying the path for ah long junior's survivor as per instructions from his pappy.

NOT VK who refused job extension refusing to do LEEgal work to come

 

[Bonut]

vk rajah made his point today..... letz see wat LUCY WILL SAY

Link ???

 

[mojito]

No standard lah, all these former AGs. Thanks to Loong, meritocracy prevails!

 

[a_korusawa]

Lucifier Wong is a LHL lover. The previous AGs are not.

you forgot to put " 's " behind LHL ..........

 

[kulgai]

you forgot to put " 's " behind LHL ..........

you mean like this?? 'sLHL