Law Minister explains court sentencing of Dr Woffles
Wu
SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam responded to
comments that the sentence meted out to plastic surgeon Dr Woffles
Wu was too lenient.
Dr Wu was fined S$1,000 on Wednesday for abetting Mr
Kuan Kit Wah, then 76, to provide misleading information to the
police in November 2006.
The car belonging to Dr Wu, was travelling at 91
kilometers per hour (kmph) on Adam Road when the speed limit is
70kmph.
In a blog post, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC Hri Kumar Nair said
such offences are serious and that others who had been convicted of
similar offences had been jailed.
Mr Shanmugam said the incident raises four questions.
Firstly, why Dr Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road
Traffic Act; secondly why abetment; thirdly why he was given a
fine; and lastly why there was a lapse of six years before Dr Wu
was taken to task.
Mr Shanmugam explained that the offence was committed in 2006 when
section 204 of the Penal Code had not been enacted yet.
Under usual provisions at that time, a person would be charged
under Section 81(3).
As for why Dr Wu was charged with abetment, Mr Shanmugam said the
52-year-old "did not make the misleading statements himself."
The minister said the statements in question were made by Mr Kuan,
which was why the charge could only be that of abetment.
Mr Shanmugam stressed that investigations are ongoing, as to who
the driver actually was and that the case has not been
concluded.
He said the decision to prosecute was made by the
Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and that it is independent in
making those decisions.
As for sentencing, Mr Shanmugam said the courts make that decision
and a fine is apparently "within the norm of usual sentences" under
that charge.
Noting that there have been cases where the offender was jailed,
the law minister points out that fines are more commonly meted
out.
In this particular instance, Mr Shanmugam said "no money passed
hands".
He added that Mr Kuan was also not charged and that could have been
because the AGC took into account the fact that Mr Kuan is now over
80 years of age.
As for why it took six years for Dr Wu to be prosecuted, Mr
Shanmugam said the police were unaware of the offences at that
time.
He said information was given only much later through a complain to
the AGC, made "more recently".
Once the complaint was received, authorities investigated and
thereafter the AGC decided to charge Dr Wu.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair said Mr Shanmugam has answered some of the
public's questions on the case.
But it may be useful, Mr Hri said, if the public could understand
why some cases involve jail terms while some only received
fines.
Turning to the case of the 25-year-old, dubbed the sticker-lady,
who was arrested for vandalism, Mr Shanmugam said there are no hard
and fast rules on what's considered art on public buildings.
He said the government must look at the consensus of the majority
and how the majority would like society to be structured.
Charges have yet to be filed on sticker-lady, Samantha Lo.
Mr Shanmugam's comments were made on the sidelines of a community
event.
- CNA/ck
