(Or “Benefit of doubt for Woolly Wally even when the reported facts point to his guilt?)
Following the twists and turns of the tale of Woolly Wally Woffles especially the apparent factual inconsistency(details below) and how the AG’s “clarifications” have been challenged, made me wonder if S’pore’s administration of justice could ever become first-world: by admitting that goof-ups can happen.
I read that Britain’s Serious Fraud Office said that the way it had handled some seized material in an investigation into the role of a property developer in the collapse of the Icelandic bank Kaupthing “was flawed and thus unlawful” http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/british-prosecutor-acknowledges-errors-in-inquiry/?nl=business&emc=edit_dlbkpm_20120522
It has now dropped the investigation and is likely to have to pay serious damages.
Has the identity of driver been established?
Both the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Law minister said that investigations were ongoing, as to who the driver actually was; and that the case has not been concluded. But reports from the constructive, nation-building media on what happened in court give the impression (see words in red) that Woolly Wally was the driver. On the face of these reports, Woolly Wally Woffles was the driver (Otherwise why get someone to take the rap for him?) unless the local media got it wrong (Always a possibility despite Yaacob wanting us netizens to use it as an example.).
Note the government has not complained to the media about the accuracy of these reports. So we can accept them as an accurate reflection of what was said in court.
So is this a case where a rich and prominent person gets treated with kid gloves in an investigation even when the reported facts point to his guilt?
— CNA carried this report:
13 th June 2012
SINGAPORE: Prominent plastic surgeon Woffles Wu Tze Liang has been ordered to pay the maximum fine of S$1,000 for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for him for a speeding offence.
The 52-year-old had abetted Mr Kuan Kit Wah, then 76, to provide false information to the police in November 2006.
The car, belonging to Wu, was travelling at 91-kilometer (km) per hour on Adam Road when the speed limit is 70km per hour.
The court heard that Wu also made Mr Kuan take the rap for him for another speeding offence in September 2005.
This charge was taken into consideration during the sentencing on June 12.
Wu could also have been jailed up to six months and fined.
— ST’s report:
[in relation to the incident in September 2005,] . . . Wu got Mr Kuan, then 76, to tell police that he was the driver of a car speeding at 95kmh on Lornie Road. Mr Kuan is said to have lied again about a speeding offence committed at 9.45am on Nov 10, 2006. The car was then travelling at 91kmh on Adam Road.
The speed limit in both instances was 70kmh and involved Wu’s car. Court papers did not state who the actual driver was.
The court heard that a notice was sent to Wu to reveal the identity of the driver. Concerned that he would accumulate demerit points were he to accept liability for the speeding offences, he roped in Mr Kuan, then a maintenance technician in his clinic. Now 83 years old, Mr Kuan was also described as a close family friend of the doctor. He has not been charged.