Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Improvements To Be Made

It now appears that an audience with the Queen of England is easier to arrange than an interview with Woffles Wu. The minister - maybe we should start calling him Mr SHAMugam - just provided the clue why the police has yet to determine the driver of his speeding car: they never got to ask the plastic surgeon the important question. Maybe the cops did, but the doctor thought it beneath his dignity to exchange words with a lowly paid civil servant. After all, not everyone has the privilege of the Law Minister batting for him.

Responding to Nominated Member of Parliament Eugene Tan's tabled question, Shanmugam said Wu was not interviewed during initial investigations in 2005 and 2006 because Kuan  had identified himself as the driver. And the trusting cops simply took the word of one old guy without seeking collaborative evidence from other witnesses? Such as the addressee of the official government letter requesting particulars of the driver? Well, it looks like the procurement system is not the only standard operating procedure that is in dire need of improvement.

Shanmugam also disclosed for the first time that the speeding case of 2005 was reopened after "graft cops" received a tip-off in July 2009, and acted upon only in February 2010. The CPIB handed the hot potato to the traffic police in August after concluding no corrupt practices had transpired. In the context of current definition of the "c" word, we assume that no gratification was obtained or received. Whether Mont Blanc pens or Apple iPods count as much has yet to be decided in court.

Since only a few paragraphs of the 30 minute exchange with Sylvia Lim was reported in the mainstream media, we may never get to know what upset Shanmugam so much that he tried to pin her for implying the AGC had acted mala fide.That's highfalutin Latin for "undertaken in bad faith" or  the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation. Ms Lim's original query was whether "public concerns about the equitability of the legal system" was addressed. The public is still waiting.

29 comments:

  1. How times have changed: in the past, Chinese eleites from their CCP bureacracy descended in droves to be "educated" in our civil service ways. Now our civil service and politicans are taking pages out from the Chinese autocrats. For in China, when you are a "politically connected" person, any trouble with the law, such as running over a pedestran in your Lambo, can easily be fixed by finding a scapegoat (wink wink anyone thinks the woman photographed in court looked like GuKailai's picture before she was arrested?). Failing that you have your powerful acquaintance arrange for the police to destroy the evidence. If all else fails and the aggrieved family's allies dare to petition the central govt in Beijing, you arrest them on various charges of defamation and send them to labour camps. Ms Lim is brave and she is legally trained, still she shud be prepared to leverage popular support in case push comes to shams

    ReplyDelete
  2. Should we vote in even more Opposition MPs into parliament to ask questions?

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am amazed by the way our minister reacted over a simple question. If there is no wrong doing, a simple answer will do. There is no need to challenge and forcing the other party to show proof. It tells a lot on the one who answer. Are the people convinced?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not as simple as you think. Sylvia was imputing that special favour was shown to Woffles Wu. If Mr. Shanmugam did not vigorously defend his actions, wouldn't it be construed as corruption. The PAP is known to fiercely defend the country's reputation and hence would not allow anyone to stain it. Suppose someone were to impute that you are gay,(when you are not) would you just keep quiet or defend yourself to the end?

      Delete
    2. If it walks like a duck, quack like a duck, then most people will call it a duck, threatening people with smart legalese will endear the ducks to the academics and fawning sycophantic elites, but the men on the street will call it a duck (and not a 2 cent chicken or a "PAP 50-cent brigadier").

      Delete
    3. Simple question.
      But the oversized reaction certainly has made me wonder.

      Delete
    4. Law Minister can defend all he wants but he should not intimidate. That's just unbecoming. Opposition MP has the right to ask and people have the right to know.

      Delete
    5. The oversized reaction from Shanmugam shows that he was burdened with a guilty conscience, to the extent he went into parliament with prepared answers to questions not asked.

      Delete
    6. What is essentially a question and answer session becomes a debate session, simply because the one questioning is from the opposition. MIWs are ultra-sensitive that an even innocent question can be conjured as an imputation on their integrity.

      Delete
    7. This is simply arrogance.....A follower of the octogenarian. Transparency??? What transparency?

      Our words are our bonds....you ask no questions!

      That's the trouble of being in power for too long

      Delete
  4. The public institution which were supposed to protect the citizens from the politicians is not doing its function for its been marginalised for far too long.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is easier to speak the truth despite it being ugly. Lies, no matter how beautifully they are packaged, cannot withstand close scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sylvia's robust performance may have been in response to the WP performance in the previous Parliament session. The rest of the WP MPs need to follow her lead and to not be intimidated. Dont get bogged down with policy details but go for the big issues.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see the government insistence to turn Singapore into a parliament like Taiwan's and prove to voters how they made mistake ,wise for LTK and Ms Lim to know how not to fall under.good work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. why can't mediacorp show the Parliamentary sessions in full instead of just snippets?
    Viewership was never the issue with national concerns...

    ReplyDelete
  9. So is our Law Minister advising future defendants to cite these 6 cases to ensure that one will never be jailed for committing similar offences ? Is he an idiot or what ?

    In the same token of argument used by the Law Minister, can he enlighten us any 6 other cases where any suspect or defendant in any case are let off the hook on account of their old age ?

    And if there are such cases, what is the exact cut-off age that one will be given immunity from persecution ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only when it involves us, the common people, they will tell you, no 2 cases are similar and start to list the aggravating factors.

      Delete
    2. The 6 cases that Shanmugan cited had drivers who lied that someone else (not them) were driving the cars. But they did not abet another person to take the rap, which is the case in Woffles.
      So it still doesn't give us the reason why he was let off so leniently for the two repeated crimes.

      In UK, a similar case involving Chris Hugh an MP was forced to resign as he is standing trial for cover up. He abetted his wife to take the speeding ticket.

      Delete
  10. Why be "defensive" and "intimidating" when an Opposition MP poses a "citizen-need-to-know" question. It's the "intolerant" and "arrogant" attitude of the Minister that I abhor! Please know that we are living in a democratic country.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Was the minister there in parliament to answer questions from other mps, oppos included, or to enjoy the air-con?

    It appears that the aircon wasn't cold enough to cool him or his hot air off. Sad for us that we have such a minister. Paid so much and doesn't even know that is his job. Damned shameful!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vote the PAP out, wholesale

    ReplyDelete
  13. my hairdresser, who is in her 70s, said musingly the other day, "TodaY ah, small small thing also people want to get angry. Why ah? you think they eat too many hot things?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shanmugam cited six cases where drivers had committed the same offence and were fined.

    How about providing complete data, Mr Law Minister?

    I hope some blogger will find 60 cases where drivers were jailed for the same offence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shan should stop behaving as if he is cross-examining opposition MPs in court. They are there to raise public concerns. We can see for ourselves there is a lot of disquiet about this issue in the media even before Sylvia Lim asked the question. The minister's job should be to investigate and respond politely his findings. There is no need to ask what Ms Lim personally thinks. This reminded me that he did the same thing to Mr Pritam Singh previously. As a member of the public, what Ms Lim and Mr Singh think is not relevant, only what the public thinks is relevant. Mr Shanmugam does the government no favours with his method of response; it only make the ministry sound defensive and petty. The ministry should also disclose fuller facts of the 6 cases and not just bullet points. I sincerely hope Mr Shanmugam will stop using his litigator style questioning in parliament. I for one does not think it works to the government's favour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I voted Opposition.
      I hope Shan continues with his endearing style.
      Every time he opens his mouth.
      The Opposition gets fresh converts.

      Delete
  16. Go and watch on youtube the many brilliant free-flow spontaneous debates in the UK Chambers between Cameron & his opponents etc. You'll learn a lot more about UK politics than our sleepy SG parliament, where Q&A are read from sheets and prepared in advance.

    And most annoyingly, where legal eagles like Mr Shamugam can only ask or intimidate if the opponents are "alleging, slandering, or libel or contempt of court" (take your pick), even in the parliament! For christ's sake, this is NOT a court house. Just answer the fucking questions that the public wants to know, and their representative Sylvia Lim happens to ask!! Why are they so retard?

    ReplyDelete
  17. It appeared that the Minister was practicing the Laws in Parliament.
    He had no interest in the disquiet and unease of the people.
    Maybe, scoring a victory in Parliament is as satisfying as winning in a murder case that resulted in the client escaping the gallows.

    patriot

    ReplyDelete
  18. lee hsien loong, didn't you say that you and your ministers are our servants and we are your masters?
    Were you at all serious in making such an utterance?
    If serious, why was junior minister shammugam behaving like a big bully in, of all places, parliament? He is your subordinate so it's your duty to correct him and put him in his rightful place.

    We the netizens and the public in general are watching and we don't like what we see. We see a big bully in the guise of a minister lording it over other mps in parliament when he is in fact just a servant.

    This is going to cost you votes when the time comes, make no mistake. Better you rein him in, or face the consequences of losing more seats and even the collapse of your government.

    ReplyDelete