One memory card= worth the modesty of TWO women???!!!
The crazy (biased) laws (/courts) of Singapore:
"For destroying the electronic record with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence, Koo could have been jailed up to two years and fined.
For insulting the modesty of the woman, he could have been jailed up to one year and fined. "
Brings back the recollection of the pastor guy who was jailed for lying about petrol tank level to ICA staffs: was initially jailed for lying but jail was converted to $4000 fine upon appeal because the original crime of less than 3/4 tank full was not a jail-able one.
And for ‘perverting the course of justice’, Dr Woffles Wu has to pay a paltry sum which costs almost a tenth of what he earns from a chin implant, or a 50th of a liposuction procedure.
Does District judge Hamidah Ibrahim suffer from temporary memory loss, or was the defendant it deemed too unimportant to be granted justice when sentence was passed. Why do those who have either status or hire expensive lawyers so routinely enjoy the benefits of significantly lighter sentences the result of legal 'technicalities'?
Guess these lying/ destroy evidence offences ought be dependent on the original size of the crime: e.g. a murderer disposed of body/ knife as compared to a hungry man finishing off a loaf of bread in the supermarket toilet....
"District judge Hamidah Ibrahim said Koo’s act of destroying evidence to avoid prosecution was far more serious than the offence of insulting the modesty of the woman.": this district judge I think isn't using her brains: just another rubber stamper: guess if I paid her to convict poor people for eating bread in supermarket: she would say that eating the bread (concealing it in stomach) is as serious as discarding a murdered corpse (both = destroying criminal evidence)...
Very few situations warrant a higher punishment for 'destroying evidence' than the crime itself (e.g. institutionalised crime syndicates, internal security act etc): if eating bread in supermarket without paying first for it were to be AS SERIOUS as discarding a murdered corpse (both involve concealing/ destroying 'evidence'): then it becomes unclear how proportionate punishments are since discarding a murder weapon would then ironically be more severe a crime than the murder itself: then many people will be punished excessively for crimes they had little or nothing to do with: whilst the rich and connected get off scot free often on 'technicalities'.
Man gets three months
Anyhow, this is how the rule of law operates in Singapore: U can actually influence elections inside polling stations and be credited for it based upon whose HDB flat U chose to upgrade last year...:
(Pict source)(alt source)
The crazy (biased) laws (/courts) of Singapore:
"For destroying the electronic record with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence, Koo could have been jailed up to two years and fined.
For insulting the modesty of the woman, he could have been jailed up to one year and fined. "
Brings back the recollection of the pastor guy who was jailed for lying about petrol tank level to ICA staffs: was initially jailed for lying but jail was converted to $4000 fine upon appeal because the original crime of less than 3/4 tank full was not a jail-able one.
And for ‘perverting the course of justice’, Dr Woffles Wu has to pay a paltry sum which costs almost a tenth of what he earns from a chin implant, or a 50th of a liposuction procedure.
Does District judge Hamidah Ibrahim suffer from temporary memory loss, or was the defendant it deemed too unimportant to be granted justice when sentence was passed. Why do those who have either status or hire expensive lawyers so routinely enjoy the benefits of significantly lighter sentences the result of legal 'technicalities'?
Guess these lying/ destroy evidence offences ought be dependent on the original size of the crime: e.g. a murderer disposed of body/ knife as compared to a hungry man finishing off a loaf of bread in the supermarket toilet....
"District judge Hamidah Ibrahim said Koo’s act of destroying evidence to avoid prosecution was far more serious than the offence of insulting the modesty of the woman.": this district judge I think isn't using her brains: just another rubber stamper: guess if I paid her to convict poor people for eating bread in supermarket: she would say that eating the bread (concealing it in stomach) is as serious as discarding a murdered corpse (both = destroying criminal evidence)...
Very few situations warrant a higher punishment for 'destroying evidence' than the crime itself (e.g. institutionalised crime syndicates, internal security act etc): if eating bread in supermarket without paying first for it were to be AS SERIOUS as discarding a murdered corpse (both involve concealing/ destroying 'evidence'): then it becomes unclear how proportionate punishments are since discarding a murder weapon would then ironically be more severe a crime than the murder itself: then many people will be punished excessively for crimes they had little or nothing to do with: whilst the rich and connected get off scot free often on 'technicalities'.
Man gets three months
Anyhow, this is how the rule of law operates in Singapore: U can actually influence elections inside polling stations and be credited for it based upon whose HDB flat U chose to upgrade last year...:
Last edited:
