All that they needed to do way before this sitting of parliament was to publish and explain these six cases. Instead they took us through the maze and left many of us bewildered and confused.
Because I ain't a lawyer, now I kept thinking and not getting wiser why they dealt with it in such a daft fashion. As they are not stupid, they must been hiding somethings. This is bad when I realized I cannot be the only one feeling this way.
If there wasn't a whistle blower in the first place, would the Woffles Wu case not become another precedent case where there was no jail term ?
ReplyDeleteIn such a possibility, would the Law Minister look like an idiot to cite the Woffles Wu case as another case without a precedent jail term ?
You would note that he quoted 6 cases where no jail term were imposed. It would be more interesting and relevant to post 6 more cases where jail term was imposed. Only then can we see why WW don't deserved to go to jail in spite of his cowardly act of asking an old man to take his rap not once but TWO times. Clearly, he would have done it a 3rd time if necessary, if someone did not blow the whistle on him and our dum dum SPF would not have even the slightest suspicion why an old man can afford to be constantly caught speeding in a car that does not belong to him! That's Singapore police work, only good at keeping close tabs on the opposition and dissenting folks.
ReplyDelete