Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The Final Say

If there is ever any doubt that rule by law, instead of law, prevails on this little red dot, Attorney-General (AG) Steven Chong made it all abundantly clear when he addressed over 100 criminal lawyers at the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore Annual Lecture on Tuesday. If anyone still bothers to ask, AG Chong is not about to reveal, or publish guidelines, on prosecutorial decisions.

He offered three reasons (near verbatim quotes):
1) would-be offenders would be able to game the decision making process;
2) public clamour for even more refinements would be entirely unhelpful for prosecutors;
3) would-be criminals would be less concerned with the law

For the layman, these sound like cop-outs for not being able to argue a legal case competently.
1) If a would-be offender has a "sufficient body of reasons", does that not imply he or she may not be guilty as assumed by the system? All reasons need to be considered if the decision making is to be above reproach. Whatever happened to "seen to be fair"?
2) Poor things, prosecutors will have to work harder if the public is not happy with the outcome. Reminds one of what Yeo Cheow Tong once whispered to then prime minister Goh Chok Tong, but unfortunately caught on an open mike, "If more opposition members get into parliament, our job will be more difficult".
3) Anyone, not just criminals, are concerned with the law. It is the law that determines whether one is a criminal or not. It is not the person, lawyer or prosecutor, that is judge, juror and hangman.

Apparently the question about transparent guidelines stems from the case of Woffles Wu, who was charged under the Road Traffic Act instead of the Penal Code over making his employee take the rap for speeding offences. K Shanmugam had hinted then the reason for the judicial decision would be forthcoming, but it never did materialise. This is not to be confused with the case of the puppy Woffles, which got it's owners into a legal mess for going on holiday without permission of the authorities. The puppy was never brought in to help with the investigations. Dogs appear have a better deal than humans. Just listen to the AG: "It is their right, but I don't think I should assist them in discharging their burden".

15 comments:

  1. keep writing Tattler, you are the best!

    ReplyDelete
  2. K Shanmugam seems to be more forthcoming to contractual law issues with dogs than with people, oh the sort of people that leads the people running the government have all the wrong priorities, that why quick fix with cable tie, expensive chair for delicate asshole are common now.a day

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shanmugam's priorities are best explained by the ex wife...like giving more love and attention to canines including the two legged kind ?

      Delete
  3. I'm glad that Ravi has filed an application to seek a declaration from the Court that immediate access to an attorney by an accused is a constitutionally protected right.
    Article 9(3) of the Constitution of Singapore provides that,
    “Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.”

    It's time the whole world knows about the mockery of justice in this "first world" country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is only a hacking offence and yet the suspect is treated worst than aa alleged murderer devoid of his very basic rights. Does that alone tells much about our justice system?

      Delete
    2. What hacking are they talking about? I thought IDA said the sites were only compromised?

      Delete
    3. Our Justice system has been compromised not by hackers, but by one old fart and son planting their Trojan horses in the system....and only a collective effort from sporeans can help purge the system.

      Delete
  4. It is about time that the offices of the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor be separated to avoid a conflict of interest and duties. This conflation of offices and duties is a relic of our colonial past and even our former colonial masters have, after much public criticism, separated them. Under the Constitution the A-G is the legal advisor to the government and the views you have recounted appear to reflect this conflict od duties and loyalty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "appear to reflect this conflict od duties and loyalty", unquote.
    The Duty of the Laws is to provide JUSTICE AND TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE; read ABSOLUTELYNO ONE IS WRONGFULLY BLAMED AND OR HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING NOT COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED.

    THE JUDICIARY HAS ONLY A DUTY AND NO LOYALTY. AND THE DUTY IS TO SERVE JUSTICE TO ALL.

    IF AND WHEN A LAND IS RULE BY LAWS, JUSTICE INVARIABLY WILL BE COMPROMISED DUE TO BIASNESS OR PREJUDICE. IT SHALL THEN MAKE TYRANNY THE LAWS AND THERE WILL BE NO JUSTICE TO TALK ABOUT.

    patriot

    patriot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Duty of the Laws is to provide JUSTICE ..."

      Only when Pigs fly ... out of Singapore.

      Delete
    2. have to agree with anon @ 12.50pm
      What's the point of having Laws when the interpretation is done by Pigs and how to expect Pigs to understand the meaning of Justice ?

      Delete
    3. Are all of you referring to those pigs in Animal Farm? 4 legs good but 2 legs better! Lol!

      Delete
  6. Hurricanes have names.
    Let's nickname each Singapore disaster after a PAP Minister;
    Would the following be fair and accurate?:

    Lee (Dengue Fever) Hsien Loong ?
    Vivian (Tuberculosisi) Balakrishnan ?
    Lui (Broken MRT) Tuck Yew ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hurricanes are named after females only - so I guess only 2 out of the 3 can apply.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Laws(represent by the Court) that
    fail to deliver JUSTICE make a mockery
    of the Justice System(Judiciary).

    patriot

    ReplyDelete