Netizens are up in arms over Wally Woffles’ $1000 fine. There are several reasons for this, and I will explore a darker reason later this week, I hope.
I was annoyed by his comment as reported in ST (remember this is the newspaper that is perceived by many as having an agenda when reporting the news) that he believes “many people similarly did not know that this is an offence”. I take this to mean that he still doesn’t realise the seriousness of what he did (in spirit helping to pervert the course of justice) and is not repentant. In fact, he comes across in the ST report, as saying,”This is not an offence that even merits me paying a ‘peanuts’ of a fine.” Why he was such a Wally to behave in such a perceived manner could be due to sheer arrogance or stupdidity or both. And anyway only a Wally would talk to the media: sit down and shut up is my advice when approached by a ST or SPH report.
In view of his unrepentant attitude to in spirit perverting the course of justice, this is a good reason for the Attorney-General to change his mind and appeal the sentence. The AG’s Chambers had earlier said that it was not going to appeal the sentence because a fine is “within the norm of usual sentences” under that charge.
This appeal is not throwing meat to the snarling beasts of the internet jungle, or handing over someone to the vigilantes from cowboy towns: but a proper and proportionate response to a unrepetent criminal (if ST is to be trusted) who in spirit perverted the course of justice.
But it would seem that the AG would do no such thing. SIGH, it would have dispelled the notion that the rich are different. Gd responses to the official spins coming from Law Minister and AG.
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 
Unfortunately, this will come to pass, as usual. The AGC, police and the judge will come up with claptrap to justify this treatment. It is very sickening to hear of this type of unfair treatment ever so often. I always tell myself: The type of voters deserves the type of government.
Not sure of claptrap as I would opine there are more cases involving family or extended family members for such rather than external parties.
In which case, imagine the outcry if all the mama and papas or ah poh and ah kong take the heat resulting from the above precedence.
This is a case of be careful what you wish for
am disappointed that mummy and daddy dint teach woffles
that lying is wrong when woffy was a boy. that woffy’s sch
– acs? – also dint teach woffy lying is wrong.
meanwhile, there’s the case of the journo who went thru a
red light, killed a person, seriously hurt another, and got
away with a kuti on a pinkie….
now to plot what i can get away with, besides lying, wen i hit 80.
That’s why Sinkaporeans are daft(at least 60%)