Shanmugam vs Sylvia Lim on Woffles Wu

[Balancemind]

it is clear that sham is a better lawyer than sylvia
but do we want our government to be run by a bunch of lawyers?
look what happened the last time a lawyer ran the country.

How can sham be a better lawyer than sylvia when in the first place he do not understand where sylvia was coming from. The 6 cases citied by sham are all traffic offences cases which is applicable to the speeding offences of WW which is not the issue that sylvia raised in Parliament. Here sylvia was not talking about the speeding offences but rather one of dishonesty of WW in allowing his aged employee to take the rap for him for more than one occassion. The key word is DISHONESTY which sham wants to confuse everyone and come out smelling like a rose. So is WW dishonest? Charge him under the Penal Code should be the way to go to determine that issue and that is the issue of whether WW has been dishonest at law. That was what sylvia was addressing Parliament on the disquiet outside Parliament and here come sham throwing a useless spanner trying to confuse the public of how upright he has been and in the course of which fools many that has miss the mountain for the hill. The issue of honesty is to be tried under the Penal Code and if you see Post 133 of this thread you should know what the outcome it would have been for WW and of course I cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility that our Judiciary being what they are their interpretation of the law can more often than not be more puzzling than the case itself.

 

[TheDarkKnightRises]

there is only 1 clear winner when trying to sell snake oil

 

[cass888]

look what happened the last time a lawyer ran the country.

You whiners can complain all you want. Life is good ...

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

If you don't bring politics into the house of Parliament, where else do you bring it?


ASK SHAME HIMSELF......... HE SAID SO IN THE SAME INSTANCE.



















jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj













jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

 

[ionzu]

How can sham be a better lawyer than sylvia when in the first place he do not understand where sylvia was coming from. The 6 cases citied by sham are all traffic offences cases which is applicable to the speeding offences of WW which is not the issue that sylvia raised in Parliament. Here sylvia was not talking about the speeding offences but rather one of dishonesty of WW in allowing his aged employee to take the rap for him for more than one occassion. The key word is DISHONESTY which sham wants to confuse everyone and come out smelling like a rose. So is WW dishonest? Charge him under the Penal Code should be the way to go to determine that issue and that is the issue of whether WW has been dishonest at law. That was what sylvia was addressing Parliament on the disquiet outside Parliament and here come sham throwing a useless spanner trying to confuse the public of how upright he has been and in the course of which fools many that has miss the mountain for the hill. The issue of honesty is to be tried under the Penal Code and if you see Post 133 of this thread you should know what the outcome it would have been for WW and of course I cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility that our Judiciary being what they are their interpretation of the law can more often than not be more puzzling than the case itself.

i rest my case, sham is a better lawyer.

but i believe in the integrity of our current judiciary.

 

[ionzu]

You whiners can complain all you want. Life is good ...

life is good for the top 20%
life is ok for the bottom 10%
everyone else is just kind of screwed.

 

[Confuseous]

Richard Lu:
August 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm (Quote)
Shanmugam is a Minister and no less The Minister of Law.
In Parliament he behaves like a two-bit lawyer defending a hoodlum – bullying, bulldozing and always looking for the upper hand. Does he believe that he is Lee Kuan Yew or LKY incarnate? There can be only one ‘hatchet man’ and we don’t want another one in Parliament.
The Minister of Law must remember that Parliament is the place to explain and dispense good advice if he has any. As a Minister he must never talk down. He must be humble and speak with humility. He must explain things simply and if possible with wit and humor. Instead we have a belligerent and confrontational cock waiting to strike down anyone who opposes him.
Netizens are waiting to flay him and that I am sure they will do. Shamugam’s methods in Parliament will not win him friends. Mind you he is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is far distant in abilities and experience compared to ex-Minister George Yeo who unfortunately had to be removed from Government. Ex-Minister Yeo makes a a fairly good minister and is mostly polite and non-confrontational. What a difference in the two.

- http://feedmetothefish.blogspot.sg/

 

[Conqueror]

To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

To be frank, doing 95 km/h is NOT fast lah. Don't go beyond the point till you have to answer to the judge. $130 is not cheap, hor.

I know many people do this kind of thing too - abetting others to be offenders (fall guys) since they are not active drivers. Everyone takes advantage of loopholes.


12 Demerit Points

Exceeding speed limit for vehicle by more than 40km/h up to 50km/h.
Exceeding the speed limit of the road by more than 40km/h up to 50km/h.
These offenders will be prosecuted in court.


18 Demerit Points

Exceeding speed limit for vehicle by more than 50 km/h up to 60km/h.
Exceeding speed limit of the road by more than 50km/h up to 60km/h.
Offender will be prosecuted in court.


24 Demerit Points

Exceeding speed limit for vehicle by more than 60 km/h.
Exceeding speed limit of the road by more than 60km/h.
Reckless or dangerous driving.
Offender will be prosecuted in court.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

We have to face it, Sylvia performed badly, under perform is just a polite way of putting it. She doesn't parry, she doesn't put up the thrust, even when the curve ball is quite obvious for her to throw back, she just give her goal poles to her opponent.

Whether we like it or not, the parliament is the place of politics. We can rationalize all we want about how wrong the minister is but the gallery is shown to ALL Singaporeans at large. There is no use to shout foul and that a goal should be awarded to your favourite team when in reality, the striker just miss that goal by a mile. There is also no use to cry foul of offside after your opponent has kicked that ball into your favourite team's goal pole because your goal keeper just dive at the wrong side. There is also no use of criticising how stupid or devious your opponents were after the game when in actual fact, your favourite players just didn't score any of the points you have made.

That is the reality of parliamentary politics. If you missed that opportunity or just basically screwed up during the sitting, no amount of rationalization thereafter would help to save you from humiliation. You can mock at Shan with all sorts of good points now, like six out of how many similar traffic cases etc but the simple fact is, Sylvia didn't utter those points in parliament and the mass media are only interested to report on what transpire during the parliamentary sitting, not what you or I have said in internet forums. That's the cruel reality of parliamentary politics.

I have to say, old ginger is still the best. LTK has immediately spotted the flaws of Shan's argument and hit back (hey, this is an oral session where Ministers provide answers to MP's questions, not the other way round!) while Sylvia was still in a daze of searching for answers to Shan's diversion tactic.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

We have to face it, Sylvia performed badly, under perform is just a polite way of putting it. She doesn't parry, she doesn't put up the thrust, even when the curve ball is quite obvious for her to throw back, she just give her goal poles to her opponent.

Whether we like it or not, the parliament is the place of politics. We can rationalize all we want about how wrong the minister is but the gallery is shown to ALL Singaporeans at large. There is no use to shout foul and that a goal should be awarded to your favourite team when in reality, the striker just miss that goal by a mile. There is also no use to cry foul of offside after your opponent has kicked that ball into your favourite team's goal pole because your goal keeper just dive at the wrong side. There is also no use of criticising how stupid or devious your opponents were after the game when in actual fact, your favourite players just didn't score any of the points you have made.

That is the reality of parliamentary politics. If you missed that opportunity or just basically screwed up during the sitting, no amount of rationalization thereafter would help to save you from humiliation. You can mock at Shan with all sorts of good points now, like six out of how many similar traffic cases etc but the simple fact is, Sylvia didn't utter those points in parliament and the mass media are only interested to report on what transpire during the parliamentary sitting, not what you or I have said in internet forums. That's the cruel reality of parliamentary politics.

I have to say, old ginger is still the best. LTK has immediately spotted the flaws of Shan's argument and hit back (hey, this is an oral session where Ministers provide answers to MP's questions, not the other way round!) while Sylvia was still in a daze of searching for answers to Shan's diversion tactic.

Goh Meng Seng

Yes, you are right, LTK caught this and came to her rescue.

But right now, these sort of exchanges between the oppo and the PAP in Parliament only serves to illustrate to the public the big disconnect between what they were seeing in GE campaigning and what they are seeing now in parliament. During GE, the oppo were all fire and brimstone and raised up many relevant NAtional issues such as the FT policy, housing costs, minister salaries, etc. There were some heated exchanges between them and the PAP on these issues now. Now that they are in Parliament, all they can talk about is a what Woffles did or did not do. Who gives a damn, everyone knows he is a rich connected MIW, and he got away with a slap on the wrist. What is the point of tabling all these questions about Woffles for Sham to answer? Better to ask why foreigners can violate laws like "unlawful assembly" when they demonstrate in front of the ministry building, and singaporeans cannot. Or Better to ask why there are no laws to protect singaporeans from losing their jobs to cheap overseas FT. These kinds of question will put Sham on the defensive. Most People who cannot afford to own cars don't care about Woffles, but they do care if they lose their jobs to an FT. Sylvia can bring out many examples of other countries that have laws in place to protect their citizens, why not the PAP. Or ask why the National Enlistment act is not amended to make new healthy and young citizens serve NS. These sort of questions should be asked instead.

Slyvia's and every oppo members role in Parliament is to point out the flaws in the PAP policies, and constantly remind the public of the PAP injustices against them, so that at the next election, more disenfranchised voters will vote for the oppos. There are many serious issues on a national level that need to be raised. but What I am seeing now, is after the firece rhetoric, all these oppos in parliament are not rocking the boat and quietly collecting the $16K a month salary and big fact pension. U cannot tell me that money did not playa role in their running for parliament. At the very best, all I am seeing is subtandard oppo performance now. caused by either a lack of hunger from a large pay cheque, or even worse, they were PAP moles planted in the oppo.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

The Dr Wu's case is a "populist" case which doesn't need any POLICY COMMITMENT from WP, thus it is viewed as "EASY TARGET", unlike the "Ministerial Salary" issue which ends up in a mess when WP was to commit itself politically by giving its own policy deliberation that ended up with the MX9 embarrassment and ideological incoherence.

Soft targets like these cases will be used in parliament. To debate on policy details and perspective will need more expertise in policy analysis and careful formulation of policy stance.

Goh Meng Seng

Yes, you are right, LTK caught this and came to her rescue.

But right now, these sort of exchanges between the oppo and the PAP in Parliament only serves to illustrate to the public the big disconnect between what they were seeing in GE campaigning and what they are seeing now in parliament. During GE, the oppo were all fire and brimstone and raised up many relevant NAtional issues such as the FT policy, housing costs, minister salaries, etc. There were some heated exchanges between them and the PAP on these issues now. Now that they are in Parliament, all they can talk about is a what Woffles did or did not do. Who gives a damn, everyone knows he is a rich connected MIW, and he got away with a slap on the wrist. What is the point of tabling all these questions about Woffles for Sham to answer? Better to ask why foreigners can violate laws like "unlawful assembly" when they demonstrate in front of the ministry building, and singaporeans cannot. Or Better to ask why there are no laws to protect singaporeans from losing their jobs to cheap overseas FT. These kinds of question will put Sham on the defensive. Most People who cannot afford to own cars don't care about Woffles, but they do care if they lose their jobs to an FT. Sylvia can bring out many examples of other countries that have laws in place to protect their citizens, why not the PAP. Or ask why the National Enlistment act is not amended to make new healthy and young citizens serve NS. These sort of questions should be asked instead.

Slyvia's and every oppo members role in Parliament is to point out the flaws in the PAP policies, and constantly remind the public of the PAP injustices against them, so that at the next election, more disenfranchised voters will vote for the oppos. There are many serious issues on a national level that need to be raised. but What I am seeing now, is after the firece rhetoric, all these oppos in parliament are not rocking the boat and quietly collecting the $16K a month salary and big fact pension. U cannot tell me that money did not playa role in their running for parliament. At the very best, all I am seeing is subtandard oppo performance now. caused by either a lack of hunger from a large pay cheque, or even worse, they were PAP moles planted in the oppo.

 

[ConyuConhee]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

The Dr Wu's case is a "populist" case which doesn't need any POLICY COMMITMENT from WP, thus it is viewed as "EASY TARGET", unlike the "Ministerial Salary" issue which ends up in a mess when WP was to commit itself politically by Goh Meng Seng

try to get yourself elected as an MP
your audience here are limited
keyboard warriors at most
haha

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

I have no problem of sharing views in a forum like this one.

To become an elected MP is a double edged sword actually, WP MPs should understand this very well.

Goh Meng Seng

try to get yourself elected as an MP
your audience here are limited
keyboard warriors at most
haha

 

[ConyuConhee]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

I have no problem of sharing views in a forum like this one.

To become an elected MP is a double edged sword actually, WP MPs should understand this very well.

Goh Meng Seng

haha
so it was never your intention to be elected when you participated in previous elections?
why so selfish?
by standing for election, you denying the voters a chance to vote in a creditable opposition
i dun know what to say ........ shake head

 

[Balancemind]

i rest my case, sham is a better lawyer.

but i believe in the integrity of our current judiciary.

Well, our respective view stands enjoined. Let others form their own opinion. As for your faith in the integrity of our judiciary let it be your and yours alone. When a well known Plaintiff in his assessment for damages has breach the basic doctrine of equity of he who comes to equity comes with clean hands in the witness box claiming that he has the letter from IBA singing the integrity of our judiciary and the system which at the end of the day the truth was the opposite and yet he was awarded half a million buck for damages, tell me what is left of that integrity? Let us be honest, if it was either you or me or for that matter any other party except the power that be and when do such things as what has been done, do you really expect to have your damages for the defamation you claimed to have suffered. Remember, it is standard precedent that any party moreso a plaintiff that has been prove to breach any of the basic doctrines of equity will have his claim thrown out of court. Only in this red dot we find the exception. Do read the IBA Report on this red dot released in July 2008 right after that grand conference that IBA has it here in 2008 hosted by us. This link for your holiday reading and it's the 3rd Report under 2008 -http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/HRI_Publications/Country_reports.aspx#2008

 

[scroobal]

All the opposition had to do was raise the question in Parliament. Shanmugam did no favours for him, the SGC and the Govt when he cast aspersions on the Sylvia and questioned her motives rather than answer the question. He was promptly put in his place by her retort.

His subsequent answers to the question was neither convincing nor even partially addressed the concerns expressed by citizens.

There was no need for anyone to probe further. This episode has left an indelible mark on the prosecutorial service, the Police for not investigating when the allegations were first raised and the judiciary. Shanmugam and the Govt failed to address this in Parliament.

Lets not nitpick about petty issues. We all know there are so many holes. Do we need to count the holes and know where they are exactly.

Within the legal fraternity, some think his counsel managed to argue his case well and precedents cited for the certain charges to be applied. That those who went in did not have quality representation. Sadly it reflects poorly on administration of justice in this country where situations which are not complex draws outcomes that are so far apart. Well its took the celebrity son of an ex-judicial commissioner and an ex-NMP to have sentencing guideline that stood for many years to be overturned. That tells a story and that story has mot changed.

This episode will remain and will continue to haunt the PAP.

 

[Confuseous]

By now, the biggest surprise is that within 2 days of the minister saying that the police did not query WW on who drove the car, the police/AGC came out with statement that WW had admitted that he was the driver. Was the information supplied earlier by the man but withheld even from the minister himself when the latter made the statement in parliament or WW confessed after the minister's acknowledgement in parliament that the driver's identity was still unknown.

Also mystifying was the decision not to announce the 'punishment' that was meted out to the plastic surgeion, when usually such information is published in the media after sentencing by the courts.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Nope. I think you have problems in understanding my point.

Whether I am in parliament or not, it doesn't really matter to me and I will continue to speak up. Small audience big audience don't really matter as long as you got it right.

But from another angle, if you get into parliament and you start to fumble like that, then it will be very very ugly. It is a double edged sword and WP MPs should have very good experience to share with you on that.

Goh Meng Seng

haha
so it was never your intention to be elected when you participated in previous elections?
why so selfish?
by standing for election, you denying the voters a chance to vote in a creditable opposition
i dun know what to say ........ shake head

 

[myfoot123]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

We have to face it, Sylvia performed badly, under perform is just a polite way of putting it. She doesn't parry, she doesn't put up the thrust, even when the curve ball is quite obvious for her to throw back, she just give her goal poles to her opponent.
Goh Meng Seng

Regardless of WP's thrust, WP will still be outnumbered. Let's say if PAP has lost all its ammunition to argue, the grand master will suddently appear like god and his un-reason will surpass all other reasons.

 

[myfoot123]

Richard Lu:
August 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm (Quote)
Shanmugam is a Minister and no less The Minister of Law.

He is a lousy law minister and his arguments kept making a mockery of Singapore judiciary system. I have no respect for him. He is better being an ordinary lawyer than a law minister.