Saturday, June 16, 2012

The Waffle About Woffles

extract from Hri Kumar's blog
As a practising lawyer, Member of Parliament Hri Kumar should have known it was sub judice to comment on an ongoing case. To do so implies the file is closed on plastic surgeon Woffles Wu Tze Liang's tangle with the law.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) gives the same impression by saying it will not be appealing against Wu's sentence of a $1,000 fine for abetting a Kuan Yit Wah, 83, in providing misleading information to the police for a speeding offence involving Wu's car in 2005, and again in November 2006.  Kuan was not charged for the repeated offence, he's off the hook too.

Prior to amendment in 2008, the maximum penalty for speeding was 6 month's jail and a $1,000 fine. Sales executive Charlie Lim was slapped the full custodial sentencing of 6 months for a similar offence in 2008, and his partner-in-crime who took the rap, 54-year-old Benny Sng, was locked away for 6 weeks as "he had intentionally perverted the course of justice".

That Wu's case is ongoing is adduced from the police's own statement that  the speeding offences are still being probed - for some strange reason, court documents did not state who the actual driver was ("Woffles Wu pays fine, but speeding probe is ongoing", ST 15 June 2012). Wu would not tell the press who was actually behind the wheels, admitting only that "I was fined for providing the name of someone who was not driving the car, and it was a silly thing I did." The silly thing he did was to tick the box that declares:
"I am the registered vehicle owner but not the driver of the said vehicle on the date, time and place of offence as stated in your letter. I hereby furnish the driver's particular(sic) as follows:"

You don't have to be an Equity Partner at Drew & Napier like Hri Kumar Nair to appreciate that it was Wu who started the ball rolling when he filled in the "Request for Driver's Particulars" per Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276)  i.e. intentionally perverting the course of justice. For the AGC to frame a charge of Wu abetting Kuan in providing misleading information to the police instead of going after Wu for providing misleading information in the first place must be quite a creative exercise in convolution. Which kind of explains why it took 6 years to come to court. If the law had acted more swiftly like the way they went after the Sticker Lady,  then it's easy to surmise they must have taken to heart Assoc Prof Shi's advice about what hallucinogenic drugs can achieve for creativity.

It looks like Singapore is fast becoming a cowboy town. When a photograph surfaces with police commissioner Ng Joo Hee receiving a $10,000 donation from the same IT business development director who serviced the SCDF chief Peter Lim, in 7 innovative ways and locations, creative juices go into overdrive. Now all we need is to read is that the AGC is also serviced by NCS Private Limited, or that Esther Goh was behind the wheel of the Woffles car. Don't be too quick to blame LSD for the whacky ideas, it could be the Newater from the tap.

55 comments:

  1. We the unfortunate citizens of Singapore... Laws don't apply to the rich and elites it seems... based on injustice and inequality perhaps... for the happiness and prosperity of our rich and elites? Sad state for an island state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not only can Woffles botox out forehead wrinkles, he's also good at smoothing out any wrinkled crimes. I bet he has a wrinkle-free dick good for fellatio too. Who at AGC office is doing him exactly? It took 7 years to nail this guy, who lied not once, but twice. If this is not a perversion of course of justice, I don't know what is.

    Meantime, the real cowboys are still getting away with abetting our taxpayers money with no accountability to any sheriffs whatsoever. One can only hope that they get screwed hard by other cowboys of the McClendons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i first met him in a billiards saloon decades ago and had a pleasant laugh when he introduced himself as 'Woffles'
      but i was warned that he was the resident hustler in billiards, so i declined to accept his offer of a wager unless he returns the favour either over one set of tennis or one lap of the swimming pool. lol

      Delete
    2. In minor traffic offences case, once you submit the form sent by the Traffic Police and pay the fine, the case is closed, as in Wofflés' case. The police has no reason to suspect foul play. What happened was that a staff of Woffles' firm blew the whistle on Woffles as she was jailed for CBT. That was about two to three years ago.

      Delete
    3. Law Minister said "he was not the one providing misleading information.." So the AGC is so creative now to say that Kuan did the lying first? Woffles paid off the fine not know Kuan was the 'fall guy' for the offence and that made it ok?

      Also, it was claimed that there was no money exchanged. So maybe there were some sexual favors or others that have been transacted?
      This plot thickens.

      Delete
  3. blogger redbean and a reader have suggested woffles appeal for a heavier fine to errr get off the hook. good prescription, no?

    ReplyDelete
  4. We the citizens of Singapore,
    .....
    based on justice & equality,
    ......

    Our National Pledge.
    A solemn promise.
    Did our leaders lie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey guys ! Did you not know that that was only an Aspiration ?
      All along none of us actually pledged to uphold any Justice etc.....

      Delete
    2. Double standards law. Make it thriple standards law.

      One for pappee and its bedfellows, one for foreigners and most jiatlat one for local singaporeans. Justice and equality is for 1st and 2nd group only law.

      Delete
    3. It's an aspiration lah.

      Delete
  5. More grist for Alan Shadrake's new book, I guess. With all the recent happenings, he probably has enough material to write a tome on Singapore's justice system.

    Wonder who was the driver. Could be he himself, then he should also be charged for a traffic offence. Woof woof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As they say, the plot get thicker.
      More players from the SPF, the AGC & the Judiciary expected to be featured in the continuing saga, no ?

      Delete
    2. Lady Justice is usually depicted as wearing a blind-fold, meaning no preferential treatment - justice is blind.

      In 1801, during the Battle Of Copenhagen, Horatio Nelson disobeyed a flag signal. He turned to his flag-captain and said, ‘Foley, you know that I have lost an eye, and have a right to be blind sometimes’. Then he did raise his telescope to his blind eye and said, “I really do not see the signal.”

      You could sometimes depict Lady Justice as wearing an eyepatch. What do you think?

      Delete
    3. "Wonder who was the driver. Could be he himself, then he should also be charged for a traffic offence."

      Did he know Dennis Ho ?

      Delete
  6. singapore has never produced a legendary Justice Bao
    i think it's about time to import one from PRC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From PRC, not a good idea. Too many fake stuff. Recall the fake monks ? For sure to get fake Justice Bao with $ logo on his forehead.

      Delete
    2. History has shown that we do have justice Bao, but due to ISA, it is more like Detainee Bao without trial and charge if these Baos remain in Singapore LOL.

      Delete
  7. So rich and shameless equals to scotts free? This makes a unfortunate example. Injustice and inequality to the people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fortunately, the old grandfather clock is on its last legs?

    More good years ahead?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Law Minister just explained why he was given that light sentence and ended by saying, "No one is above the law". Ironic isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No one is above the law"

      Can it be that "NoOne" is actually referring to nickname for the super privilege elite just like NoBody ?

      Delete
    2. the law minister meant No.One is above the law. he should know better since he is serving number one.

      Delete
  10. A light sentence too for ms sticker lady please. Give ms sticker lady a lighter sentence like appoint her a creative director job for next ndp. She is creative without needing LSD as recommended by a professor from a local tertiary institution. If ndp no space then just let her go.

    ReplyDelete
  11. K.Shanmugam said "...he did not make the misleading information himself.."

    What does that mean? He was not the one who lied (kuan did first?), he merely withhold the truth? So is ok as long as you don't lie but you just keep quiet and let the 'willing guy' whom you paid take the fall? And who the hell was the driver that night ? If you tell me the driver that night was someone else other than kuan, then the scenario is very unlikely that Woffles Wu doesn't know what he is doing.

    Wow...remember that loophole people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must amend my earlier comment that the plot thickens.
      Now we even have the Law Minister in the saga.
      As he pointed out, it seem that this will turn out to be rather long running serial......

      Seems that present cases before our courts are now being scripted for mini-series.
      Eg : the below 18 years on line sex..

      Something to divert our attention.... no?

      Delete
    2. Recall ChanSK when he was the AG, how he articulated that TT, LauGoh, AhLoong did not no wrong when they were found loitering inside the election voting premises ?
      No prizes if you can name me the current CJ.

      Delete
  12. All I want to know is who was the damn driver behind the car in both instances? We now know Kuan is a close family friend, and was 76 yrs old then. So WW think it was ok to send an old man and a close family friend to a sentence? Where is his conscience? And it only proves that once he lied and got away in 2005, he would do it again in 2006 because he could!! If not for the whistleblower, 3rd time would be a charm eh.

    In Sep 2005
    In Nov 2006

    So TOC has a great article. He was charged under Section 813, not Section 204 which came into effect much later. So why was he not charged under Section 182 like so many perpetrators had before him?

    And how come a sentence is given out if the case is still ongoing? Huh, what the fuck is that about? Not only Hri Kumar, even Shanmugam can sub-judice the case?!! What are we missing here? Why is he being protected?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all can be excused for commenting, even if this case is still on-going, no?

      Delete
    2. We are just peasants, all having fair comments.
      Unlike some MPs who are in position of authority, can have an influence mah..

      Delete
  13. hri kumar please dont be surprised it is happening for years.U HAVE BEEN SLEEPING

    ReplyDelete
  14. Do people remember that two aestheticians (georgialee) who were being charged for offering the mesotherapy treatments? Woffles Wu also offered the same treatment. Yet the law selectively charged the two but not Woffles. Maybe he got away not because he is rich, but because he is powerful?
    Who is propping up his spine?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Seems like the Minister is making matters worse by trying to argue for the light sentence as it lacks the basic sense and logic.

    If it was that crutial to stress that it was old man who volunteered the false details and not Woffles himself, then how the hell did it ended up that the old man is let off the hook with only a stern warning ... so that they can then impose a light sentence of S$1000 fine for Woffles ?

    Did they not even bothered establishing that this old man has a certain motive to take the rap for Woffles ?

    Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law and if indeed old age is a mitigation factor, then they better start exempting anyone above 83 years (same age as this Kuan) from be sentenced for any offence ? No double standards, mah ?

    And when he clarified that the current amended law cannot be applied as it was yet to be amended at the time of the incident, then what about our legislation regarding CPF withdrawal at 55 ? Why is it that the new CPF amendment restricting total withdrawal applies to everyone, new and old members then ?

    Looks like the Chinese saying that the "Govt Official has 2 mouths" is quite applicable here, no ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Minister for Law, methinks thou dost protest too much.

      Delete
  16. $1000 fine just enough to pay for woffle's truffles at the raffles. Sub sub sui!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100001184/truffles-with-woffles-at-raffles/

    Apparently it was a lady judge who meted out the sentence. Wonder if she was one of his nip-n-tuck admirers or clientele? hehe

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dog wagging Tail6/17/2012 2:13 PM

    ST reported " it was Kuan, not Wu who gave false information".
    So Wu didn't lie, but he didn't tell the truth either. And for that, he's not culpable? Who paid the first fine? Was it Kuan or Wu? Wouldn't you consider that a payoff (money passing hands)? If not, why would Kuan be so willingly to take the rap for him, twice? Was his job under threat? Was he doing it out of goodwill and loyalty to his paymaster? What did he get? How does AGC know there was no money exchanged (perhaps down the road? or in other forms?)

    No wonder CNB chief defense lawyer say no graft money or business deals have changed hands..only sex. And that's only affairs, not quid pro quo?!

    The other question, why did the speeding charge not taken alongside with the false information charge? Why are they separately sentenced when one actually led to the next?

    ReplyDelete
  18. So..WW is another white horse.
    A nephew of ex-President Ong Teng Cheong.
    Now I know how to read in between the line of our MSM.
    He gets away NOT because he is RICH, but because he IS CONNECTED.

    My dad is LiGang!! Classy Singapore!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG! His grandfather road!!!

      Delete
    2. Correction. His uncle's road.

      Delete
    3. Wah piang, sure or not ? OTC dead for long time already.
      so if your info is true, it will imply
      connection with the dead can still reap benefits ? if like that, how to end nepotism, cronyism, even when one old fart kicks the bucket ?

      Delete
    4. You can't. It passes on from dynasties to dynasties, from powerful to powerful. Why do you think the call for democracy and plurarity are for? You need a strong check and balance in place.

      I personally don't care who is related to. But whether he abuses his power to get things his way and subvert the law.

      Delete
    5. //Wah piang, sure or not ?//

      http://www.pachealthholdings.com/csc/articles/nip_tuck.html

      Delete
  19. Compare this case, then compare Charlie case, then compare waffles' case.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSzXQl-tIKU

    Who deserves the best Oscar worthy performance award?!

    The similarities among these 3 cases are - perversion of justice.
    Two of them are repeat offenders.
    Two of them are related to powerful connections ie. elite or foreigner.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kuan was not the driver nor the owner so how did the traffic police issue him a speeding summon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not Born Yesterday6/17/2012 10:13 PM

      Precisely. If I were the one receiving the summon, then I was the one who provides the misinformation to police right? Only then do I abet the other person to take the rap right?

      AGC has no clarity here. They need to issue another clarification to clarify the clarification. What do you think?

      Delete
  21. "He said that the prosecution could not find any money passing hands..." from http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120617-353373.html
    so we have to imagine what gratification might have taken place beside the reimbursement or was there no reimbursement?

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?116675-Famous-plastic-surgeon-Woffles-Wu%92s-abetting-case-was-exposed-by-his-ex-staff-only-in&s=ab1b85b55a8e03fb84730c83b8ddb99f

    You decide if there was a cover up or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Early this Sunday afternoon ,17th June Father's Day, mind you, the AGC issued their clarifications.

      My, my, the plot sure thickens by the half days.
      How are the SPF & the AGC going to explain if the car was registered under WW, then why he was not the one to inform the Traffic Police that he was NOT the driver. How could the Traffic Police have taken a "volunteered" statement from Kuan at face value ?

      We still have unfinished business.
      Not least the written judgement.

      Delete
  23. I think if Kuan had been charged, the shit may hit the fan with the details from the charge sheet. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  24. <>

    According to clarification by AGC as reported by CNA, "The AGC said Wu did not give any information to the police as only Kuan did."
    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1208110/1/.html

    So what exactly did Wu do to be charged with abetting Kuan? I cannot understand the logic. This is like the logic of inside polling station is not within 200m of polling station. The person coming out with this kind of logic seems to be CJ worthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. then it has to be ChanSK the magician for justice.
      only he alone can create the illusion justice is served.

      Delete
  25. Many very good questions found in this Thread.

    Will there be answer?

    patriot

    ReplyDelete
  26. This reminds me of an old song;
    "Smoke on the water"
    Deep Purple

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WX_4FNoto4&feature=related

      Delete