Shanmugam vs Sylvia Lim on Woffles Wu

[Einfield]

One PAP Minister did say that everything is about politics or to that extend.

Mr Shanmugam said: "I am certainly casting no motive on Ms Lim. What I was saying - 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."

Those words underlined in RED. I read several times and don't quite get it. Why must everything that came out from opposition mouths be considered as politically motivated? I see it as sign that Shamugam is fumbling over SL's simple question.

 

[wendychan]

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

just like how can you assume someone got sex from someone else, if they say NO they didn't, and there is no DNA evidence, or photo evidence....

 

[Hans168]

It is obvious who is lying.
http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2012/07/19/lie-detection-basics/#more-4055

Shanmugam was a seasoned lawyer. He carefully selected the cases and tabled them to MPs. That being the case would a ex Sr Counsel be so stupid as to choose cases which show that Woffles Wu indeed gotten off lightly? WP has NO access to the thousands of Woffles Wu similar cases hence Shanmu can pull any rabbit from his tricky hat. Wasn't it his ex wife who called him a congenial or compulsive liar? Any
body remember the details of her allegations?

If WP in asking questions in parliament can be accused of politicising the issues, what is left for oppositions to do? Fuck you Shanmu!

 

[Hans168]

Sylvia also got snookered lah. When Sham bring up that 6 cases between 2004 and 2007, Sylvia should have fired by by asking how many cases between 2004 and 2007 resulted in jail terms. I bet you the number is much larger than 6, and Sylvia could have used this number to indicate its unusual.

Spot on.......... you are the sharp ONE

 

[cass888]

Rubbish. Sylvia can get access to the cases if she pays for it like all lawyers do. Pritam can probably get access for free using his school account.

Shanmugam was a seasoned lawyer. He carefully selected the cases and tabled them to MPs. That being the case would a ex Sr Counsel be so stupid as to choose cases which show that Woffles Wu indeed gotten off lightly? WP has NO access to the thousands of Woffles Wu similar cases hence Shanmu can pull any rabbit from his tricky hat. Wasn't it his ex wife who called him a congenial or compulsive liar? Any
body remember the details of her allegations?

If WP in asking questions in parliament can be accused of politicising the issues, what is left for oppositions to do? Fuck you Shanmu!

 

[Dreamer1]

Shanmugam was a seasoned lawyer. He carefully selected the cases and tabled them to MPs. That being the case would a ex Sr Counsel be so stupid as to choose cases which show that Woffles Wu indeed gotten off lightly? WP has NO access to the thousands of Woffles Wu similar cases hence Shanmu can pull any rabbit from his tricky hat. Wasn't it his ex wife who called him a congenial or compulsive liar? Any
body remember the details of her allegations?

Jothie Rajah,ex-wife's book
-'Authoritarian Rule of Law' by Jothie Rajah -2012,

 

[ionzu]

Rubbish. Sylvia can get access to the cases if she pays for it like all lawyers do. Pritam can probably get access for free using his school account.

that is true, but sham has the entire min.law backing him.
it is a question of resources, and the incumbents have more.
should they surrender this advantage of resource?

from a party's perspective, no.
from a country's perspective, yes.

will the PAP act for PAP? or for Singapore?

 

[cass888]

In this case, clearly Sylvia is the one caught flat footed, because she was too lazy to do her own research. Any lawyer will tell you this is a 20 minute job.

that is true, but sham has the entire min.law backing him.
it is a question of resources, and the incumbents have more.
should they surrender this advantage of resource?

from a party's perspective, no.
from a country's perspective, yes.

will the PAP act for PAP? or for Singapore?

 

[nylongods]

It is not about sylvia lim not answering his question. If u hav watched court proceedings, u wld hav noticed that when lawyers ask certain questions, the other lawyer would protest to the judge tat his client need not answer that question because it is a leading question. By answerg tat qn, it would hav implied tat the client has admitted defeat n the case would b closed. So it was rite for her not to answer tat qn.

Some of u hav rightfully pointd out tat the context is now an opp mp asking a public concern qn to the minister ic. So the minister shd hav answered it fully like follows, instead of thowing back w another qn:

SL: There is public concern tat the sentence meted out is rather light. Why isnt he given a jail term for lying twice to the police?

S: Tis because offences of tis nature n magnitude warrant only a fine. In the past, there were at least 6 similar cases whereby offenders were given fines n not jail terms.

SL: I c. Looking at the 6 cases u cited, i noted tat all r involving offender drivers THEMSELVES falsely declaring that they werent behind the wheels but somebody else. But in contrast, for the case of WW, he din falsely declare on the letter sent to him (as car owner), but got someone else to go to the tp to falsely declare that he was the driver (where he wasnt). Consider the two scenarios: i broke a vase n when my mum asked me if i did it, i said it was my youngr bro. Tis is bad. But if i convince my bro to ON HIS OWN ACCORD approach my mum to say he was the one who broke it, dun u think tis is WORSE? So by the same token WW should b given a stiffer sentence.

S: ...i see ur point. In that case we will review his case and do our level best to more accurately peg our sentences in the future.

SL: Thank u very much.

However, if the above supposedly righteous conversation were to occur in REAL LIFE, either we r in utopia or the sun has risen from the west.

There is a reason as to why what actually had been said is said instead of the above ideal one.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Rubbish. Sylvia can get access to the cases if she pays for it like all lawyers do. Pritam can probably get access for free using his school account.

Clearly you are a PAPist of the dirtiest kind!
Sylvia wud not know that liar Shanmu was going to distribute the cases to fortify his stand. If he were truthful, he shud have distributed all cases covered by those years. He did not!
His own ex wife called him a liar....... I did not.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Jothie Rajah,ex-wife's book
-'Authoritarian Rule of Law' by Jothie Rajah -2012,

So it must have contained lots of defamatory stuff...... why din Shanmu sue??????

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Ministers' duty is to answer questions; MPs have the right to ask questions - NOT ministerial prerogative!!
What makes Shanmu think it is the other way round? He is the one who is paid millions & therefore need to answer question esp those of public interest!
Turning parliament into kangeroo court shud be dis-allowed!

 

[ionzu]

In this case, clearly Sylvia is the one caught flat footed, because she was too lazy to do her own research. Any lawyer will tell you this is a 20 minute job.

shan was too lazy too, but he had an assistant to help him.
sylvia needs an assistant.

 

[cass888]

If Sylvia were my lawyer, I would have fired her. Even yawning bread could find 6 cases to support her position. I would have expected Sylvia to have been able to cite the cases where imprisonment was meted out.

Clearly you are a PAPist of the dirtiest kind!
Sylvia wud not know that liar Shanmu was going to distribute the cases to fortify his stand. If he were truthful, he shud have distributed all cases covered by those years. He did not!
His own ex wife called him a liar....... I did not.

 

[cass888]

shan was too lazy too, but he had an assistant to help him.
sylvia needs an assistant.

She does have a budget of $1,500.00 per month to hire a legislative assistant. With 6 MPs, that is $9k a month, more than enough to hire at least 2 qualified assistants.

 

[darylmackoy]

S: ...i see ur point. In that case we will review his case and do our level best to more accurately peg our sentences in the future.

Case closed. Let's move on.

 

[Cruxx]

So it must have contained lots of defamatory stuff...... why din Shanmu sue??????

He should. The book is riddled with pernicious lies and fabrications. Even Sylvia Lim, chairman of the opposition Workers' Party, can attest to the fair and just nature of the Singapore judiciary which she regards as a good benchmark for international standards. The founder of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, also offered corroboration in the form of a letter from the International Bar Association that spoke about "how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary…Standards of the rule of law and the judges, the meritocracy which is practiced throughout the judiciary."

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

In this case, clearly Sylvia is the one caught flat footed, because she was too lazy to do her own research. Any lawyer will tell you this is a 20 minute job.

What research when one does not know which rabbits will be pluck out of the tricky hat???

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

She does have a budget of $1,500.00 per month to hire a legislative assistant. With 6 MPs, that is $9k a month, more than enough to hire at least 2 qualified assistants.

Compared to the entire SPF & AGC.....!!!

 

[Spock]

If Sylvia were my lawyer, I would have fired her. Even yawning bread could find 6 cases to support her position. I would have expected Sylvia to have been able to cite the cases where imprisonment was meted out.

It is not mandatory for an MP to have a legal background or training. The MP is there to safeguard the interests of their constituents. Getting questions of public interest answered properly is one of their responsibilities. It is not their duty to attempt to investigate and answer those questions themselves.