different punishment for similar offence - why?

[concern2]

winchester:

you have a pt. it is not court of law but court of lay public opinion now.

Such thinking will only breed a species of ignorant people, forever in self-doubt and forever dependent on others for one's own welfare. I find no flaws in the questioning. I did not see mockery either. The person answering the question needs to be more convincing than to accuse the one raising the question of ulterior motive. I am personally surprise at our law minister's retort. Eye-opening indeed.

If I put myself in the shoes of Charlie Lim, I might be asking the same questions. JMHO.

[concern2]

verykiasu2010:

what if the public opinion is proven wrong ? proven unfounded ?

Then it is time to educate them, not to mock them. By mocking them as lay, one looks down and despises and further divides the society. By educating them, and putting forth one's best argument, one earns respect, and sets a positive foot forward, more so if coming from a leader of the state, something that is essential as we continue to strive for a better tomorrow, as a nation.

[concern2]

Do point out to me how convincing the argument had been if I had missed any important message there.

[Daddy D]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/shanmugam--sylvia-lim-clash-over-woffles-wu-case.html


Didn't catch the telecast... From what I read from the newspaper... Dunno who is mocking at who... To the extent that Low has to step in...
The law has decided, the debate may has been won, but everyone is watching and making their own judgement as well...

:celebrate:

[verykiasu2010]

concern2:

verykiasu2010:

what if the public opinion is proven wrong ? proven unfounded ?

Then it is time to educate them, not to mock them. By mocking them as lay, one looks down and despises and further divides the society. By educating them, and putting forth one's best argument, one earns respect, and sets a positive foot forward, more so if coming from a leader of the state, something that is essential as we continue to strive for a better tomorrow, as a nation.

good point.

however, you always have the vocal minority who are out to cast aspersion and unfounded allegations and flame and fan internet chatters giving themselves a \"larger than life\" voice masquerading as the \"champion\" of injustice etc...and then every time the gov't has to step in to debunk the nonsense...isn't it an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money?

with regard to the recent crossing of swords between the two lawyers in parliament ..... probably from their tone there is unspoken point that both are trying to say it silently lah .....

[3Boys]

concern2:

winchester:

you have a pt. it is not court of law but court of lay public opinion now.

Such thinking will only breed a species of ignorant people, forever in self-doubt and forever dependent on others for one's own welfare. I find no flaws in the questioning. I did not see mockery either. The person answering the question needs to be more convincing than to accuse the one raising the question of ulterior motive. I am personally surprise at our law minister's retort. Eye-opening indeed.

If I put myself in the shoes of Charlie Lim, I might be asking the same questions. JMHO.

I think Shanmugam's reply was more than appropriate. You fail to see that the first mockery was cast by people who accused the courts and AGC of bias. I.e. favouritism was shown. A robust response was completely in order, and WP and Sylvia just need to grow a thick skin.

[Nebbermind]

Actually it's not all that bad after all. If anyone gets a heavier penalty than WW in the future, can always quote his case and appeal.

[concern2]

verykiasu2010:

however, you always have the vocal minority who are out to cast aspersion and unfounded allegations and flame and fan internet chatters giving themselves a \"larger than life\" voice masquerading as the \"champion\" of injustice etc...and then every time the gov't has to step in to debunk the nonsense...isn't it an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money?

I have to agree on this. If this group of minority gets any larger, it is going to be bad for the country.

3Boys:

I think Shanmugam's reply was more than appropriate. You fail to see that the first mockery was cast by people who accused the courts and AGC of bias. I.e. favouritism was shown. A robust response was completely in order, and WP and Sylvia just need to grow a thick skin.

Not sure if you are referring to mockery in the social media (which I haven't been following on this topic) or during the parliamentary debate (since only a section of it is available). Nevertheless, I hear Sylvia was seeking clarification from the law minister which I see nothing wrong, and do not detect mockery in the way the question was asked. On the contrary, I sensed mockery in the ministers tone, especially when he suddenly mentioned the 'P' word which caused Sylvia to be even more defensive. On growing a thick skin, maybe. It takes much 'seasoning' and exposure to come to this stage when one could point the finger, then imply \"I never said that\" - like it is a matter of fact.

The way the enquiry was handled, I foresee more accusations of bias and feeling of injustice, and possibly, people will get more scrutinizing. The trust factor hasn't gotten any better in this instance, hence, personally, I think it could have been better dealt with.

[Daddy D]

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/confrontational-debate-not-the-way-20120815

[quote]WHAT transpires in court or in Parliament presumably is easily understood by lawyers and politicians, but the average citizen is sometimes left nonplussed.

Hence, we have MPs keeping watch on our behalf and to ask questions to obtain answers to enlighten us. The representatives in Parliament work for the greater good of the nation.

When Workers' Party chairman and MP Sylvia Lim raised the question of legal equitability with respect to the $1,000 fine for renowned plastic surgeon Woffles Wu, who got an elderly employee to take the rap for two speeding offences in 2005 and 2006, one would expect Law Minister K. Shanmugam to explain the matter calmly (\"Heated or healthy debate?\"; yesterday).

The minister's presentation would be for the benefit of all citizens, and not just Ms Lim's. It seems unnecessary that the question should have triggered a heated exchange.

We do not want a confrontational atmosphere in Parliament. We want to see that accountability is upheld.

Despite the shortcomings of the American electoral system, one must admire the way the two opposing presidential candidates debate. They remain gentlemanly to each other and shake hands at the end.

The days when two British parliamentarians debated at one sword's length from each other for safety should be over.

Dr Ong Siew Chey
[/quote]Thumbs up for the doc... :celebrate:

[3Boys]

concern2:

Not sure if you are referring to mockery in the social media (which I haven't been following on this topic) or during the parliamentary debate (since only a section of it is available).

The brave and right thing for WP to do was to ignore the social media and not be the voice of the social media in a setting like parliament. If one raises the issue as an agent of the social media, without having substantiation of their position (they did not), then one cannot run and hide and say, \"I ask in good faith what...\".

So far, I see a lack of real conviction on the part of the WP to push back on some of the more extreme elements of the anti-g'ment bandwagon. If they wish to ride these elements for popularity's sake, then don't go crying to momma when ah-gong slaps their wrists.