hyenergix
17-06-12, 20:44
Fill in the blank.
In terms of __________________
Woffles Wu 'not spared because he's rich'
Law minister weighs in on plastic surgeon's case amid speculation that he got off lightly
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_811875.html
Published on Jun 17, 2012
Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday dismissed speculation that prominent plastic surgeon Woffles Wu was spared a jail sentence 'because he's rich'.
He said Wu's $1,000 fine for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for two speeding offences appeared to be 'within the norm of usual sentences' according to what the Attorney-General's Chambers had told him.
Wu's case has drawn much interest, especially online, with questions raised about the law under which he was charged; why he was hauled up for abetment rather than providing false information; his apparently lenient sentence; and why his case took so long to come to court when the offences were committed in 2005 and 2006.
Last week, Mr Hri Kumar Nair, a senior counsel and MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, also expressed surprise at the sentence, writing in a blog that such offences were serious as 'they seek to undermine the course of justice'.
Speaking to reporters while visiting Yishun yesterday evening, Mr Shanmugam responded to the issues raised.
Wu, 52, was charged under the Road Traffic Act rather than the Penal Code which provides for stiffer penalties.
Mr Shanmugam said that Wu's offences were committed before the Penal Code was tightened in 2008 to make giving the traffic police misleading information a more serious crime.
So he was charged according to what was the normal practice prior to 2008. 'You can't charge a person for an offence if the section was not in existence at that time,' he said.
Explaining why Wu was charged with abetment rather than providing false information, Mr Shanmugam said this was because Wu 'did not make the misleading statements himself'.
It was Mr Kuan Yit Wah, an elderly maintenance technician who worked in Wu's clinic at the time, who gave police the false information.
He said it is for the Attorney-General's Chambers, acting independently, to decide whether to prosecute and under which section of the law to prosecute. Similarly, sentencing is left to the courts, which are independent.
Mr Shanmugam said that based on what the AG's Chambers had told him, Wu's fine was within the norm for the section of the law he was charged under.
'There have been some cases where courts have sent people to jail, often fines have been imposed. I think it depends on a variety of factors,' he said.
'In this case, the prosecution could not find, did not find any money passing hands for the provision of false information. So they had to simply rely on the fact that an abetment offence was committed.' Noting that Mr Kuan, now 83, was not charged, he said: 'I assume prosecution took into account his age, and presumably, the employer-employee relationship, and so gave him a stern warning.
'But the precise reasons we'll only know if and when the court releases a written judgment. We can all only speculate.'
As for why the case took six years to come to court, the minister revealed that it was because the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau received a complaint only recently.
He was also asked about widespread rumours that it was because of Wu's prominent status that he had been spared jail by being charged under the Road Traffic Act instead of the Penal Code.
He replied that the facts were that Wu had been charged under the normal practice which applied at the time of his offences, rather than the tightened law that came into effect later.
He noted that many were assuming the prosecution could have charged Wu under either the Road Traffic Act or Penal Code, but chose the more lenient 'because he's rich and (so) he got away with it'.
'But that's just factually inaccurate,' he said. 'No one is above the law, and (in) prosecutions, AGC makes independent decisions, the court also makes independent decisions.'
He also said that investigations were ongoing to determine who drove Wu's car at the time of the offences, and additional punishments may be meted out.
This information was not stated in court papers and Wu has so far refused to comment on the question, saying it could compromise the outcome of the case.
[email protected]
In terms of __________________
Woffles Wu 'not spared because he's rich'
Law minister weighs in on plastic surgeon's case amid speculation that he got off lightly
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_811875.html
Published on Jun 17, 2012
Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday dismissed speculation that prominent plastic surgeon Woffles Wu was spared a jail sentence 'because he's rich'.
He said Wu's $1,000 fine for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for two speeding offences appeared to be 'within the norm of usual sentences' according to what the Attorney-General's Chambers had told him.
Wu's case has drawn much interest, especially online, with questions raised about the law under which he was charged; why he was hauled up for abetment rather than providing false information; his apparently lenient sentence; and why his case took so long to come to court when the offences were committed in 2005 and 2006.
Last week, Mr Hri Kumar Nair, a senior counsel and MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, also expressed surprise at the sentence, writing in a blog that such offences were serious as 'they seek to undermine the course of justice'.
Speaking to reporters while visiting Yishun yesterday evening, Mr Shanmugam responded to the issues raised.
Wu, 52, was charged under the Road Traffic Act rather than the Penal Code which provides for stiffer penalties.
Mr Shanmugam said that Wu's offences were committed before the Penal Code was tightened in 2008 to make giving the traffic police misleading information a more serious crime.
So he was charged according to what was the normal practice prior to 2008. 'You can't charge a person for an offence if the section was not in existence at that time,' he said.
Explaining why Wu was charged with abetment rather than providing false information, Mr Shanmugam said this was because Wu 'did not make the misleading statements himself'.
It was Mr Kuan Yit Wah, an elderly maintenance technician who worked in Wu's clinic at the time, who gave police the false information.
He said it is for the Attorney-General's Chambers, acting independently, to decide whether to prosecute and under which section of the law to prosecute. Similarly, sentencing is left to the courts, which are independent.
Mr Shanmugam said that based on what the AG's Chambers had told him, Wu's fine was within the norm for the section of the law he was charged under.
'There have been some cases where courts have sent people to jail, often fines have been imposed. I think it depends on a variety of factors,' he said.
'In this case, the prosecution could not find, did not find any money passing hands for the provision of false information. So they had to simply rely on the fact that an abetment offence was committed.' Noting that Mr Kuan, now 83, was not charged, he said: 'I assume prosecution took into account his age, and presumably, the employer-employee relationship, and so gave him a stern warning.
'But the precise reasons we'll only know if and when the court releases a written judgment. We can all only speculate.'
As for why the case took six years to come to court, the minister revealed that it was because the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau received a complaint only recently.
He was also asked about widespread rumours that it was because of Wu's prominent status that he had been spared jail by being charged under the Road Traffic Act instead of the Penal Code.
He replied that the facts were that Wu had been charged under the normal practice which applied at the time of his offences, rather than the tightened law that came into effect later.
He noted that many were assuming the prosecution could have charged Wu under either the Road Traffic Act or Penal Code, but chose the more lenient 'because he's rich and (so) he got away with it'.
'But that's just factually inaccurate,' he said. 'No one is above the law, and (in) prosecutions, AGC makes independent decisions, the court also makes independent decisions.'
He also said that investigations were ongoing to determine who drove Wu's car at the time of the offences, and additional punishments may be meted out.
This information was not stated in court papers and Wu has so far refused to comment on the question, saying it could compromise the outcome of the case.
[email protected]