• 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.

AG Walter Woon To Lee Wei Ling: No One is above the Law!

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Tang case: No one is above the law

I REFER to Dr Lee Wei Ling's article yesterday, 'Why mete out even a 'token sentence'?'.
Mr Tang Wee Sung pleaded guilty to two charges. He was fined $7,000 for the first charge relating to an arrangement to buy a kidney under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). There was no sentence of imprisonment.

Dr Lee's assertion that Mr Tang was 'sentenced in court to a day in jail for trying to buy a kidney' is therefore factually wrong.

The second charge was for making a false statement in a statutory declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act (Oda). When one makes a statutory declaration, one is making a statement on oath. The duty to tell the truth on oath is a basic principle of law.

Mr Tang made the following statements in his statutory declaration:

'I confirm that no money or financial gain has been or will be paid by me or on my behalf to the donor to procure his/her consent to the donation of his/her kidney and tissue to me;

I confirm that Sulaiman Damanik's aunt (mother's sister) married niece's (sister's daughter) brother-in-law.'

None of this was true. In short, he lied on oath.

The Oda prescribes a mandatory jail sentence for lying in a statutory declaration. The prosecution did not press for a custodial sentence beyond the minimum. The shortest sentence a judge can mete out is one day's jail. This is exactly what the learned District Judge did. It was not 'a token sentence'. It was the minimum sentence prescribed by law.

Dr Lee wonders whether the charges against Mr Tang were a matter of political correctness. The essential point is that everyone is equal before the law. The rich buyer faced exactly the same charges as the poor donor - one charge each under the Hota and the Oda. Representations were made to the Attorney-General's Chambers to drop the charge under the Oda. These were not acceded to precisely because of the fundamental principle that all must be treated alike. There cannot be one law for the poor and another for the rich.

The final point is Dr Lee's assertion that 'any one of us would have acted as Mr Tang did if we had been placed in the same predicament'. It is presumptuous of her to assume that she knows how other people would act, or worse, that they would act the same way as she would. Insofar as she suggests that it is permissible to break the law when 'placed in the same predicament', this must be emphatically refuted. Everyone, rich or poor, is obliged to comply with the law. It is not open to anyone to say, I disagree with the law enacted by Parliament, therefore I shall ignore it. If Dr Lee disagrees with the Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended. If she feels that, in some circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to lie in a statutory declaration, she may try to persuade Parliament to change the law. But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oda, they remain the law of Singapore.

The Rule of Law means that compliance with Acts of Parliament is not a matter of choice. No one is above the law.

Prof Walter Woon
Attorney-General
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dr Lee wonders whether the charges against Mr Tang were a matter of political correctness. The essential point is that everyone is equal before the law. The rich buyer faced exactly the same charges as the poor donor - one charge each under the Hota and the Oda. Representations were made to the Attorney-General's Chambers to drop the charge under the Oda. These were not acceded to precisely because of the fundamental principle that all must be treated alike. There cannot be one law for the poor and another for the rich.
====================

the middleman is a NS slave so he is classified under third class citizen or even under the beast category. Thus the 24 months sentence given is already very light as he could have been put to death and cook for prof walter woon breakfast.
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
A rich elite was given a token sentence and another elite cried foul against even this token sentence. Then a PAPee lap dog came out to defend the sentence and claimed "everybody is equal before the law". The immediate reaction of 66% coolie rice bowlers would be one of admiration for the Familee's just laws when the real issue is that the rich elite could get away with a token sentence! Nice wayang indeed!
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>1025.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Double standards again? The CK Tang guy only squat 1 afternoon.
Sep 4, 2008
Jail for man with cancer
A 58-YEAR-OLD man with terminal lung cancer will be spending some of his final days behind bars.


Heng Wa Seng will be serving seven months in jail for corruption, managing two unlicensed massage parlours and hiring a foreigner who had no work permit.

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat heard that Heng is suffering from advanced lung cancer that doctors say is incurable.

The court was not told how long he is expected to live, only that he is undergoing chemotherapy at the National Cancer Centre.

Police caught him running an unlicensed massage parlour in Upper Serangoon Road in July last year. Instead of closing shop, he continued operating until February. During that time, Heng also ran an unlicensed massage parlour in Yishun Avenue 11.

One of his hires was a 28-year-old Chinese national, Zheng Xiao Mu, who had no work permit.

Heng also received an $800 bribe from another Chinese national, Lin Zhihong, in May 2006 for using his name to register a massage parlour on her behalf. Yesterday, he was jailed for four months on this charge of corruption.

The unemployed Heng will serve another three months behind bars because he was unable to pay a $12,000 fine that accompanied the convictions for running the massage parlours.

KHUSHWANT SINGH
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
If you care to try and look at Tang's case in an objective manner, taking into consideration the full facts and circumstances of this specific case, you may appreciate that the Judge's sentence meted out to Tang was on balance quite fair and reasonable. Sadly alot of people including you just appear to jump on the rich vs poor, elite vs peasant bandwagon without exercising rational thought:wink:

Btw both Janine Tay and Lee Wei Ling povs are obviously wrong.

A rich elite was given a token sentence and another elite cried foul against even this token sentence. Then a PAPee lap dog came out to defend the sentence and claimed "everybody is equal before the law". The immediate reaction of 66% coolie rice bowlers would be one of admiration for the Familee's just laws when the real issue is that the rich elite could get away with a token sentence! Nice wayang indeed!
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
f you care to try and look at Tang's case in an objective manner, taking into consideration the full facts and circumstances of this specific case, you may appreciate that the Judge's sentence meted out to Tang was on balance quite fair and reasonable. Sadly alot of people including you just appear to jump on the rich vs poor, elite vs peasant bandwagon without exercising rational thought
==============


u got cheese brain only talk about the one day sentence. How about the 14 or 24 months sentence for middle man.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
You appear to be comparing apples with oranges. Look at the specific facts, nature and circumstances of Tang and the other chap's offences. Clearly no DBs here, just you trying to play the green envy rich vs poor, elite vs peasants irrational card.:rolleyes:

makapaaa;33805[COLOR=red said:
Double standards again? The CK Tang guy only squat 1 afternoon.[/COLOR]
Sep 4, 2008
[>
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Use your brain and exercise some rational critical thinking instead of lashing out blindly with your standard irrational rich vs poor, elites vs peasants crap.

Look at Tang's case i.e. the specific facts, nature and circumstances and compare it to the Organ Trader's case. Apples and oranges again. Hence the 14 months sentence. :wink:

u got cheese brain only talk about the one day sentence. How about the 14 or 24 months sentence for middle man.
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
so I pay assasin to murder you , then I kena one day sentence as punishment. the assasinator get the heavier puishement hor. Apple and orange justice.
 

Man in the streets

Alfrescian
Loyal
now we have a elite acting like citizen dissident.

she can act, the father can act, and all the Pappy dogs can act.

got father got daughter, like that, lau zoe finished liao, wtf.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
If you care to try and look at Tang's case in an objective manner, taking into consideration the full facts and circumstances of this specific case, you may appreciate that the Judge's sentence meted out to Tang was on balance quite fair and reasonable.
Agree. Any person in his condition would do the same thing without thinking.

He has done something else that will benefit others - forced the issue and brought out the ostrich's head from the sand.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
If I were Tang I would have given that twat Janine Tay a bollocking after her wayang performance on the telly, won him no favours at all. On the otherhand, his childhood chum Keith Chua spoke in a rational and measured tone. Also Bull's cachet appears to have gone up a notch or two with this case.

Tang's nephew in law on the otherhand must be seriously shitting in his pants now if the $100K commission allegation is in fact true:eek:

Agree. Any person in his condition would do the same thing without thinking.

He has done something else that will benefit others - forced the issue and brought out the ostrich's head from the sand.
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
f you care to try and look at Tang's case in an objective manner, taking into consideration the full facts and circumstances of this specific case, you may appreciate that the Judge's sentence meted out to Tang was on balance quite fair and reasonable. Sadly alot of people including you just appear to jump on the rich vs poor, elite vs peasant bandwagon without exercising rational thought
==============


u got cheese brain only talk about the one day sentence. How about the 14 or 24 months sentence for middle man.

And 30 months + 13 cycles for the NSman?
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
if pap is anygood at all , they should give a medal to the middleman for being enterprienual and not punish him. But the IQ of the judges and lawyers are subnormal. That is why many lawyers give up and run away with clients money.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
If you care to try and look at Tang's case in an objective manner, taking into consideration the full facts and circumstances of this specific case, you may appreciate that the Judge's sentence meted out to Tang was on balance quite fair and reasonable.
Agree. Any person in his condition would do the same thing without thinking.

He has done something else that will benefit others - forced the issue and brought out the ostrich's head from the sand.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
If I were Tang I would have given that twat Janine Tay a bollocking after her wayang performance on the telly, won him no favours at all. On the otherhand, his childhood chum Keith Chua spoke in a rational and measured tone. Also Bull's cachet appears to have gone up a notch or two with this case.

Tang's nephew in law on the otherhand must be seriously shitting in his pants now if the $100K commission allegation is in fact true:eek:
In all my life, I can't recall Janine Tay say a single sane word. She tried starting a business and failed so bad after the Australian partners got plain fed with her.
 

sage

Alfrescian
Loyal
[....The final point is Dr Lee's assertion that 'any one of us would have acted as Mr Tang did if we had been placed in the same predicament'. It is presumptuous of her to assume that she knows how other people would act, or worse, that they would act the same way as she would. Insofar as she suggests that it is permissible to break the law when 'placed in the same predicament', this must be emphatically refuted....]

So Woon is so righteous that if it was him he would follow law to the D (death). He is so theorectical and impractical with his rebuttal. C'mon, it is human nature to try to avoid death at all costs and risks. Of course Tang has the financial means to get to that organ such as bring his medical entourage to a foreign facility to carry out the transplant. Alternatively he should have consulted his friendly lawyer how to 'formalise' acceptable donorship if done in Singapore.
 
Top