Another legal “mystery”

The recent case of plastic surgeon Woffles Wu’s run-in with the law has made it imperative for the Ministry of Law to make charge sheets and subsequent sentencing or acquittal accessible via a dedicated website so that concerned Singaporeans can read, digest, compare, understand and be convinced that justice has been done and can be seen to have been done.

At the very least, the info would help each of us learn how to keep on the straight and narrow, even if it’s just a technicality 😆

Yet before the AG Chambers came out with its explanations (see below) on why Dr Wu got just a $1K fine for his part in deceiving the police, I thought all the hoohah in cyberspace was in the infamous words of JP Morgan’s Jaimie Dimon, “a tempest in a tea cup”.

Apres what the AGC said, I’m left to wonder whether it’s really true that if one got someone to lie to the police, then one didn’t really lie to the police but merely abetted someone to lie and by inference less cuplpable than the person who directly lied to the police?

Also, the fact that the person who lied to the police is a 76-year-old employee — and thus could be deemed to be a vulnerable employee — matters less than the fact that the good doctor didn’t give the said employee any “favours”.  🙄

Now I wish the AGC could give us a primer on how one could go round hugging old men and taking their money but don’t end up in years of  preventive detention like this hapless woman!


AGC releases statement on Woffles Wu case

SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) explained why Woffles Wu was charged under the Road Traffic Act, and not under the Penal Code, which is a more serious charge.

Wu was fined S$1,000 on 13 June for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for two speeding incidents.

The AGC released a statement on Sunday stating one of the reasons was that there was no major accident or injury in the case.

In response to recent media reports, the AGC said Woffles Wu could not have been charged for intentionally perverting the course of justice, which carries a heavier sentence under Section 204A of the Penal Code.

That’s because the offence took place in 2006, before this section of the Penal Code came into force in 2008.

The public prosecution therefore considered it appropriate to proceed under the Road Traffic Act and charged the plastic surgeon with abetting his employee Kuan Yit Wah to give false information to the police about the speeding incidents.

The AGC said Wu did not give any information to the police as only Kuan did.

And there was no evidence that he had paid or given any favours to Kuan, who was 76 years old at the time.

Wu was slapped with the maximum fine of S$1,000, and Kuan, who’s now 82, was given a stern warning.

Fines or short jail terms are imposed for giving false information under the Road Traffic Act.

But the AGC said a jail term typically applies when there are aggravating features, such as repeated offences by the same person.

Police investigations into the speeding cases are ongoing.

Law Minister K Shanmugam said investigations into who the driver was have not been concluded and that may or may not result in additional proceedings.



9 thoughts on “Another legal “mystery”

  1. “Law Minister K Shanmugam said investigations into who the driver was have not been concluded and that may or may not result in additional proceedings”. Unquote

    As a reader of the Above Statement, I find it very confusing. If the Driver of the speeding offences has not been ascertained and when the offences were detected without the Driver(s) identity(ies) established, was(is) it not the DUTY of the Authority to have the Owner of the Offending Vehicle to furnish his/her(their) particulars(identity(ies). As Woffles Wu was the Owner, why was he not THE FIRST TO BE investigated or required to furnish the Driver(s) ?

    Maybe, some experienced investigators can kindly tell us laymen/women what investigation is all about.


  2. Uncle P: mayb Dr Wu has so many cars and such a large family/entourage that he won’t know whom at what time was driving which. Perhaps when the summons came, he just told one of his minders “pse settle this”… and left them to do his bidding. Perhaps he never even saw the summonses as busy peeps unlike u or moi, have their mail vetted by their minders, to stop unpleasant or begging letters coming to their attention. The more pertinent question u may want to ask is why after so many yrs, the investigations haven’t been completed? Mayb Traffic Police need more staff? Otherwise the statute on limitations may soon kick in 😆

  3. Pingback: Daily SG: 18 June 2012 « The Singapore Daily

  4. Got You Auntielucia, as layman there are
    indeed many areas that are too intricate for us.
    Just hope they will not accuse us for wondering!


  5. TQ Uncle Wang, I’ve seen and provided the link already in my FB — yesterday as a matter of fact. However, I wish the likes of Alps Tan would use her persuasive powers (altho a couple of my FB friends who are real-life friends weren’t persuaded) for cases like Tan Yoke Lan who deserves our sympathy more than a 1,000 Woffles Wu. 😥

    12+years of Preventive Detention, for hugging old men and garnering all of $4K for her efforts! Some murderers have gotten off with far less! Where’s the justice? And I don’t want another explanation from Unlce Unbrandedbread which is essentially, she’s a recalcitrant. I don’t buy it. Hope our CJ or AG will look into the matter or one of our more legal-knowledgeable men in Government.

  6. Auntie Lucia

    For your cause of Tan Yoke Lan, based on my limited legal knowledge, the main cause was the number of cases and the fact that the judge took into consideration the number of such cases.
    Further, the legal precedence as per Alps Tan would likely not work in her favour

  7. Uncle Wang: yes, yes, I know she’s supposed to be a recalcitrant but none of her victims died as a result of her hugs. If number of victims is a deciding conclusion, then those people who run scams shld similarly be put under preventive detention and have the key thrown away.

    In my view, of all the people deserving of Internet hoo-hah, Tan Yoke Lan does. Not our Sticker Lady, unless all those who sympathise with her will open their homes/offices etc and let her do similar graffiti on their walls and treasured furniture. Otherwise, it’s all hypocratic sympathy 😡

  8. Auntie Lucia

    Agree with you on Sticker lady especially the part of opening their homes/office to the same decorations.
    For your pet cause, my sympathies but realistically a lost cause.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s