Thats right, thats why I say Sylvia can't debate.
-
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.
Shanmugam vs Sylvia Lim on Woffles Wu
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
Thats right, thats why I say Sylvia can't debate.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Sylvia can poke ( jok jok ) well ...
"what do you think ??? "
"what do you think ??? "
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Originally Posted by Mdm Tang
.
Please show respect to our late President Ong
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woffles_Wu
Woffles Wu Tze Liang (Chinese: 吴志良) (b. 1960[1]) is a renowned celebrity plastic surgeon in Singapore. Besides being the nephew of former Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong[citation needed], he is also related to many other prominent personalities in Singapore. He currently resides in Bishan, Singapore. Apart from being a plastic surgeon, Wu has also appeared many times on local TV sitcoms and dramas, becoming a minor TV celebrity.
.
Please show respect to our late President Ong
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woffles_Wu
Woffles Wu Tze Liang (Chinese: 吴志良) (b. 1960[1]) is a renowned celebrity plastic surgeon in Singapore. Besides being the nephew of former Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong[citation needed], he is also related to many other prominent personalities in Singapore. He currently resides in Bishan, Singapore. Apart from being a plastic surgeon, Wu has also appeared many times on local TV sitcoms and dramas, becoming a minor TV celebrity.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woffles_Wu
.
Woffles Wu Tze Liang (Chinese: 吴志良) (b. 1960[1]) is a renowned celebrity plastic surgeon in Singapore. Besides being the nephew of former Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong[citation needed], he is also related to many other prominent personalities in Singapore. He currently resides in Bishan, Singapore. Apart from being a plastic surgeon, Wu has also appeared many times on local TV sitcoms and dramas, becoming a minor TV celebrity.
[edit] Controversies
Wu was fined $1000 in June 2012[2] for abetment, the maximum charge possible.[3] He abetted his clinic's maintenance technician, Kuan Yit Wah, in providing misleading information to the police for a speeding offence involving his car in November 2006.[4] Wu was travelling more than 90 kilometres per hour along Adam Road, which has a speed limit of 60 km/h.[5]
Another similar offence, this time committed on September 11, 2005, around Lornie Road, was taken into consideration by the judge whilst passing sentence. Kuan was given a stern warning. The case took nearly six years to come to court because it was only until recently that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau received a complaint. Wu's case sparked heated debates on social networking sites and online forums, with some saying that the charge was too lenient, and others saying that Wu should rightfully be charged with providing false information, instead of abetment.
Speculation that Wu was spared time in jail due to his affluence arose. Law Minister K. Shanmugam dismissed such claims. As to why Wu was charged under the Singapore Road Traffic Act, instead of under the stiffer Penal Code of Singapore, it was, according to Shanmugam, because at the time when Wu committed the offence, the Penal Code was not yet tightened and thus he was charged according to what was the standard practice prior to the year 2008. Also, Wu was only charged with abetment, instead of providing misleading information, as "it was not Wu who made the false statements, but one of his staff". The Law Minister also added that investigations were still ongoing to determine whether Wu was the one driving his car at the time of the offences, and that additional punishments may be dished out. Wu refused to comment on his case, fearing that the final outcome of the case would be compromised if he did so.[6]
On his blog directed to his constituents, Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair expressed surprise with Wu's charge. Hri said that the offences committed by Wu were serious as "they seek to undermine the course of justice".[7] The Member of Parliament for the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, who is also a lawyer, went on to note that in previous cases, perpetrators of similar offences were meted out prison time, though he conceded that "no two cases are the same". He also stated that he hoped the court would fully explain its seemingly controversial reason for imposing a fine, when other similar cases merited a jail sentence. By doing so, he added, the court "will promote transparency and confidence in our legal system, and deal with allegations of unfair treatment, which have already appeared on the Net."[8]
On June 18, 2012, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) issued an official statement.[9] The AGC was quoted as saying,
“ In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for willfully providing false information, under Section 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. 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. 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.[10]
.
Woffles Wu Tze Liang (Chinese: 吴志良) (b. 1960[1]) is a renowned celebrity plastic surgeon in Singapore. Besides being the nephew of former Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong[citation needed], he is also related to many other prominent personalities in Singapore. He currently resides in Bishan, Singapore. Apart from being a plastic surgeon, Wu has also appeared many times on local TV sitcoms and dramas, becoming a minor TV celebrity.
[edit] Controversies
Wu was fined $1000 in June 2012[2] for abetment, the maximum charge possible.[3] He abetted his clinic's maintenance technician, Kuan Yit Wah, in providing misleading information to the police for a speeding offence involving his car in November 2006.[4] Wu was travelling more than 90 kilometres per hour along Adam Road, which has a speed limit of 60 km/h.[5]
Another similar offence, this time committed on September 11, 2005, around Lornie Road, was taken into consideration by the judge whilst passing sentence. Kuan was given a stern warning. The case took nearly six years to come to court because it was only until recently that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau received a complaint. Wu's case sparked heated debates on social networking sites and online forums, with some saying that the charge was too lenient, and others saying that Wu should rightfully be charged with providing false information, instead of abetment.
Speculation that Wu was spared time in jail due to his affluence arose. Law Minister K. Shanmugam dismissed such claims. As to why Wu was charged under the Singapore Road Traffic Act, instead of under the stiffer Penal Code of Singapore, it was, according to Shanmugam, because at the time when Wu committed the offence, the Penal Code was not yet tightened and thus he was charged according to what was the standard practice prior to the year 2008. Also, Wu was only charged with abetment, instead of providing misleading information, as "it was not Wu who made the false statements, but one of his staff". The Law Minister also added that investigations were still ongoing to determine whether Wu was the one driving his car at the time of the offences, and that additional punishments may be dished out. Wu refused to comment on his case, fearing that the final outcome of the case would be compromised if he did so.[6]
On his blog directed to his constituents, Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair expressed surprise with Wu's charge. Hri said that the offences committed by Wu were serious as "they seek to undermine the course of justice".[7] The Member of Parliament for the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, who is also a lawyer, went on to note that in previous cases, perpetrators of similar offences were meted out prison time, though he conceded that "no two cases are the same". He also stated that he hoped the court would fully explain its seemingly controversial reason for imposing a fine, when other similar cases merited a jail sentence. By doing so, he added, the court "will promote transparency and confidence in our legal system, and deal with allegations of unfair treatment, which have already appeared on the Net."[8]
On June 18, 2012, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) issued an official statement.[9] The AGC was quoted as saying,
“ In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for willfully providing false information, under Section 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. 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. 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.[10]
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/shanmugam--sylvia-lim-clash-over-woffles-wu-case.html
.
A debate over the case involving one of Singapore’s
most prominent plastic surgeon grew heated in
Parliament on Monday.
Responding to questions by Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim regarding the conviction of Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang for abetment of giving false information to the police, Law Minister K Shanmugam gave the facts regarding the matter and a schedule of cases where a fine was imposed.
The minister then asked Lim, who is chairman of the opposition Workers' Party, whether she would agree that the sentence imposed on Wu was in line broadly with the cases cited.
Wu was fined $1,000 in June for abetting his employee, 82-year old Kuan Yit Wah, to take the rap for him for two speeding tickets in 2005 and 2006. However, after the report on the fine came out, some members of the public went online to wonder why Wu was not given a heavier sentence under the Penal code.
In her reply to Shanmugam's question, Lim explained the reason for her inquiry was because of the issue in the public discussion about equitability of the legal system.
"While I am aware of some of those cases where fines were imposed, there were also other cases where imprisonment was imposed,” Lim said.
She then cited "aggravating factors" in the case and said, "I wonder if Minister would agree with that?”
Shanmugam retorted, “I would be happy to answer them but I noticed Ms Lim avoided answering whether she thinks, and she is a qualified lawyer, whether the cases that I’ve listed suggest that Dr Wu’s case and the treatment fell broadly in line with the punishments meted out in those six cases between 2004 and 2007. Could I have an answer?”
As the debate went on, Shanmugam then said, “Can Ms Lim identify a single case where on such facts, a custodial sentence was imposed? One case?”
Shanmugam continued, “What I was saying is, it would be helpful in the context of statements that Ms Lim and others have made in the past that we can actually in this House debate issues, look at issues, without having to inject politics into it.”
It was then that Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang stepped in.
“Point of Order, Mr Speaker, whether this is a session for question for oral answer, or a session for debate? Ms Lim basically asked a question, a matter of public interest, why is there a need for the Minister for Law to invoke such a debate? Is he trying to impose some form of intimidation?” he asked.
Shanmugam however quickly defended himself, saying that “these questions are entirely capable of being answered”.
He had also cited six cases between 2004 and 2007 to emphasise that Wu’s verdict was consistent to the six where no jail term was imposed.
Lim clarified, “Unless the Minister says that there is no public concern on this matter – which I would be very surprised to hear – Sir, I just want the Minister to confirm whether he is questioning my motive in filing the question? Is he alleging bad faith on my part to cast aspersions on the legal system?”
To which, Shanmugam clarified he had no “motives” involved, and urged Lim to leave politics out of the case.
He said the explanation of the six cases was in hopes “for what is really an obvious answer, that having looked at these cases, Ms Lim would be fair enough to say, “Yes, I agree. The judgment in Dr Wu’s case comes within the framework here.”
He continued, “I gave her three opportunities, she did not. It is not a question of questioning the motive, but it is, rather, hoping because of these statements that have been made in various places about the Attorney-General and our judicial system, that between two lawyers, Ms Lim and myself, we can put to rest these allegations in a fair, transparent open way. But it is not to be.”
Shanmugam wrapped the session saying that he is “glad” no allegations have been made against the AGC. “I am happy to hear that no allegation whatsoever is being made against AGC, so we can all at least move on, on the basis that they exercise their discretion properly.”
.
A debate over the case involving one of Singapore’s
most prominent plastic surgeon grew heated in
Parliament on Monday.
Responding to questions by Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim regarding the conviction of Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang for abetment of giving false information to the police, Law Minister K Shanmugam gave the facts regarding the matter and a schedule of cases where a fine was imposed.
The minister then asked Lim, who is chairman of the opposition Workers' Party, whether she would agree that the sentence imposed on Wu was in line broadly with the cases cited.
Wu was fined $1,000 in June for abetting his employee, 82-year old Kuan Yit Wah, to take the rap for him for two speeding tickets in 2005 and 2006. However, after the report on the fine came out, some members of the public went online to wonder why Wu was not given a heavier sentence under the Penal code.
In her reply to Shanmugam's question, Lim explained the reason for her inquiry was because of the issue in the public discussion about equitability of the legal system.
"While I am aware of some of those cases where fines were imposed, there were also other cases where imprisonment was imposed,” Lim said.
She then cited "aggravating factors" in the case and said, "I wonder if Minister would agree with that?”
Shanmugam retorted, “I would be happy to answer them but I noticed Ms Lim avoided answering whether she thinks, and she is a qualified lawyer, whether the cases that I’ve listed suggest that Dr Wu’s case and the treatment fell broadly in line with the punishments meted out in those six cases between 2004 and 2007. Could I have an answer?”
As the debate went on, Shanmugam then said, “Can Ms Lim identify a single case where on such facts, a custodial sentence was imposed? One case?”
Shanmugam continued, “What I was saying is, it would be helpful in the context of statements that Ms Lim and others have made in the past that we can actually in this House debate issues, look at issues, without having to inject politics into it.”
It was then that Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang stepped in.
“Point of Order, Mr Speaker, whether this is a session for question for oral answer, or a session for debate? Ms Lim basically asked a question, a matter of public interest, why is there a need for the Minister for Law to invoke such a debate? Is he trying to impose some form of intimidation?” he asked.
Shanmugam however quickly defended himself, saying that “these questions are entirely capable of being answered”.
He had also cited six cases between 2004 and 2007 to emphasise that Wu’s verdict was consistent to the six where no jail term was imposed.
Lim clarified, “Unless the Minister says that there is no public concern on this matter – which I would be very surprised to hear – Sir, I just want the Minister to confirm whether he is questioning my motive in filing the question? Is he alleging bad faith on my part to cast aspersions on the legal system?”
To which, Shanmugam clarified he had no “motives” involved, and urged Lim to leave politics out of the case.
He said the explanation of the six cases was in hopes “for what is really an obvious answer, that having looked at these cases, Ms Lim would be fair enough to say, “Yes, I agree. The judgment in Dr Wu’s case comes within the framework here.”
He continued, “I gave her three opportunities, she did not. It is not a question of questioning the motive, but it is, rather, hoping because of these statements that have been made in various places about the Attorney-General and our judicial system, that between two lawyers, Ms Lim and myself, we can put to rest these allegations in a fair, transparent open way. But it is not to be.”
Shanmugam wrapped the session saying that he is “glad” no allegations have been made against the AGC. “I am happy to hear that no allegation whatsoever is being made against AGC, so we can all at least move on, on the basis that they exercise their discretion properly.”
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,401
- Points
- 48
First and foremost the Traffic Police would have raised their eye-brows when a "so-called 82 year old man" admitted to speeding charges.
If it were violations under the Pedestrian Crossing Rules (crossing a road within 50m of a traffic light), it would have made sense.
What would police do if WW had said the "speeding driver" was a his 3 year old nephew...Come on lah.....
Put these words to the PAP MP of Chong Pang for "he is wise and respectable member of the legal fraternity".
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 369
- Points
- 0
How can the AGC assume that no $ changed hands between the old man and WW just because there is no evidence on it. I thought law is about common sense. No $ or goodies given to old man? Possible? WW never asked him to do it? Old man did it on his own accord out of goodwill? Believeable?
I thought last time when Sunny Ang was convicted of murder, the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. Now this is simply double standards.
http://www.singapedia.com.sg/entries/a/ang_sunny.html
I thought last time when Sunny Ang was convicted of murder, the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. Now this is simply double standards.
http://www.singapedia.com.sg/entries/a/ang_sunny.html
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,902
- Points
- 113
Senior citizens drivers after certain age (think 70 years old) need yearly medical examination to renew driving license.
Police need to check if WW is the doctor who signed off on this old man's medical report.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,902
- Points
- 113
Blame the 60.1% of fucktards
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 90,198
- Points
- 113
"Debait is what you catch de fish with."
---- Maximilian Chua-Heng ----
PS: May you have a happy marriage and have lots of babies.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,424
- Points
- 0
Sham thinks the debate is over. But he is fooling no one. In fact he just made it worse.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 369
- Points
- 0
Sham sure can snake.
Sham may be good senator for all we know but he didn't need to do much. It was Sylvia n Low that was so weak in debate. WP must be in conspiracy with PAP
Similar threads
