different punishment for similar offence - why?

[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.

[3Boys]

concern2:

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.

I thought you said you had not been following how this case has been handled? Then how do you come to the conclusion that it was badly managed? Are you also then saying that there was a miscarriage of justice?

There are people who will only be satisfied when Woffles goes to jail, any other outcome is unsatisfactory, regardless of whether justice is served, its that simple.

[3Boys]

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


So it's ok for people to throw stones at our judiciary, but not ok for people to defend it vigorously?

Sylvia and WP got off lightly....

Ignorant, irresponsible social media got off completely....they are the unspoken target of Shanmugam's tirade.

[corneyAmber]

3Boys:

So it's ok for people to throw stones at our judiciary, but not ok for people to defend it vigorously?

Sylvia and WP got off lightly....

Ignorant, irresponsible social media got off completely....they are the unspoken target of Shanmugam's tirade.

I understand where you are coming from cos recently during the LKY's rumour, I read more of these garbage than necessary. A lot of nonsensical social media posting to the extent of utter poor taste, not to mention irresponsible and ignorant.

The only gut feel I have is sometimes not all DETAIL truth can be shared in the open. For example, if Dr WW has a special circumstance which allowed his case to be given a different sentence, would it teach potential offenders to quote the same circumstance? Sometimes we think we want to be transparent and all but sometimes we are also educating the potential law breakers to be smart law breakers. JMHO. Whenever, we ask a question or debate an issue, we typically forget it is millions of eyes reading.

But that does not mean we do not question, just need to understand the outcome is not always what we expect.

[concern2]

3Boys:

concern2:

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.

I thought you said you had not been following how this case has been handled? Then how do you come to the conclusion that it was badly managed? Are you also then saying that there was a miscarriage of justice?

There are people who will only be satisfied when Woffles goes to jail, any other outcome is unsatisfactory, regardless of whether justice is served, its that simple.

Yes, I haven't been following. I am only inspired to comment when I saw some of the posts here which appeared since the Parliamentary debate. My comments are solely based on the information cited here, and a video I watched from CNA on this debate. When I say 'how this case has been handed', I did not mean the judiciary system, but how it was dealt with in parliament.

I suppose it couldn't have been dealt with better by the older guards as they are too used to the way issues of public concerns have been dealt with in the past - by brushing it aside. Perhaps we do have a generation gap here... but I do hope to see improvement. :xedfingers:

[3Boys]

concern2:

Yes, I haven't been following. I am only inspired to comment when I saw some of the posts here which appeared since the Parliamentary debate. My comments are solely based on the information cited here, and a video I watched from CNA on this debate. When I say 'how this case has been handed', I did not mean the judiciary system, but how it was dealt with in parliament.

I suppose it couldn't have been dealt with better by the older guards as they are too used to the way issues of public concerns have been dealt with in the past - by brushing it aside. Perhaps we do have a generation gap here... but I do hope to see improvement. :xedfingers:

Shanmugam said that the judge may issue a written judgement, depending on whether appeal is filed. Lets wait and see. (But even then there will be people who will not be satisfied).

[concern2]

3Boys:

concern2:

Yes, I haven't been following. I am only inspired to comment when I saw some of the posts here which appeared since the Parliamentary debate. My comments are solely based on the information cited here, and a video I watched from CNA on this debate. When I say 'how this case has been handed', I did not mean the judiciary system, but how it was dealt with in parliament.

I suppose it couldn't have been dealt with better by the older guards as they are too used to the way issues of public concerns have been dealt with in the past - by brushing it aside. Perhaps we do have a generation gap here... but I do hope to see improvement. :xedfingers:

Shanmugam said that the judge may issue a written judgement, depending on whether appeal is filed. Lets wait and see. (But even then there will be people who will not be satisfied).

I see. Thanks for the info, 3Boys. (I am sure there will always be )