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.