- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,684
- Points
- 113
Tang case: No one is above the law
I REFER to Dr Lee Wei Ling's article yesterday, 'Why mete out even a 'token sentence'?'.
Mr Tang Wee Sung pleaded guilty to two charges. He was fined $7,000 for the first charge relating to an arrangement to buy a kidney under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). There was no sentence of imprisonment.
Dr Lee's assertion that Mr Tang was 'sentenced in court to a day in jail for trying to buy a kidney' is therefore factually wrong.
The second charge was for making a false statement in a statutory declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act (Oda). When one makes a statutory declaration, one is making a statement on oath. The duty to tell the truth on oath is a basic principle of law.
Mr Tang made the following statements in his statutory declaration:
'I confirm that no money or financial gain has been or will be paid by me or on my behalf to the donor to procure his/her consent to the donation of his/her kidney and tissue to me;
I confirm that Sulaiman Damanik's aunt (mother's sister) married niece's (sister's daughter) brother-in-law.'
None of this was true. In short, he lied on oath.
The Oda prescribes a mandatory jail sentence for lying in a statutory declaration. The prosecution did not press for a custodial sentence beyond the minimum. The shortest sentence a judge can mete out is one day's jail. This is exactly what the learned District Judge did. It was not 'a token sentence'. It was the minimum sentence prescribed by law.
Dr Lee wonders whether the charges against Mr Tang were a matter of political correctness. The essential point is that everyone is equal before the law. The rich buyer faced exactly the same charges as the poor donor - one charge each under the Hota and the Oda. Representations were made to the Attorney-General's Chambers to drop the charge under the Oda. These were not acceded to precisely because of the fundamental principle that all must be treated alike. There cannot be one law for the poor and another for the rich.
The final point is Dr Lee's assertion that 'any one of us would have acted as Mr Tang did if we had been placed in the same predicament'. It is presumptuous of her to assume that she knows how other people would act, or worse, that they would act the same way as she would. Insofar as she suggests that it is permissible to break the law when 'placed in the same predicament', this must be emphatically refuted. Everyone, rich or poor, is obliged to comply with the law. It is not open to anyone to say, I disagree with the law enacted by Parliament, therefore I shall ignore it. If Dr Lee disagrees with the Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended. If she feels that, in some circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to lie in a statutory declaration, she may try to persuade Parliament to change the law. But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oda, they remain the law of Singapore.
The Rule of Law means that compliance with Acts of Parliament is not a matter of choice. No one is above the law.
Prof Walter Woon
Attorney-General
I REFER to Dr Lee Wei Ling's article yesterday, 'Why mete out even a 'token sentence'?'.
Mr Tang Wee Sung pleaded guilty to two charges. He was fined $7,000 for the first charge relating to an arrangement to buy a kidney under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). There was no sentence of imprisonment.
Dr Lee's assertion that Mr Tang was 'sentenced in court to a day in jail for trying to buy a kidney' is therefore factually wrong.
The second charge was for making a false statement in a statutory declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act (Oda). When one makes a statutory declaration, one is making a statement on oath. The duty to tell the truth on oath is a basic principle of law.
Mr Tang made the following statements in his statutory declaration:
'I confirm that no money or financial gain has been or will be paid by me or on my behalf to the donor to procure his/her consent to the donation of his/her kidney and tissue to me;
I confirm that Sulaiman Damanik's aunt (mother's sister) married niece's (sister's daughter) brother-in-law.'
None of this was true. In short, he lied on oath.
The Oda prescribes a mandatory jail sentence for lying in a statutory declaration. The prosecution did not press for a custodial sentence beyond the minimum. The shortest sentence a judge can mete out is one day's jail. This is exactly what the learned District Judge did. It was not 'a token sentence'. It was the minimum sentence prescribed by law.
Dr Lee wonders whether the charges against Mr Tang were a matter of political correctness. The essential point is that everyone is equal before the law. The rich buyer faced exactly the same charges as the poor donor - one charge each under the Hota and the Oda. Representations were made to the Attorney-General's Chambers to drop the charge under the Oda. These were not acceded to precisely because of the fundamental principle that all must be treated alike. There cannot be one law for the poor and another for the rich.
The final point is Dr Lee's assertion that 'any one of us would have acted as Mr Tang did if we had been placed in the same predicament'. It is presumptuous of her to assume that she knows how other people would act, or worse, that they would act the same way as she would. Insofar as she suggests that it is permissible to break the law when 'placed in the same predicament', this must be emphatically refuted. Everyone, rich or poor, is obliged to comply with the law. It is not open to anyone to say, I disagree with the law enacted by Parliament, therefore I shall ignore it. If Dr Lee disagrees with the Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended. If she feels that, in some circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to lie in a statutory declaration, she may try to persuade Parliament to change the law. But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oda, they remain the law of Singapore.
The Rule of Law means that compliance with Acts of Parliament is not a matter of choice. No one is above the law.
Prof Walter Woon
Attorney-General
