The seeming disquiet over the non-custodial sentence for Waffles Whu was the question

[Confuseous]

The question by Ms Lim is how did the Minister view the seeming disquiet over the non-custodial sentence for plastic surgeon Woffles Wu. That's still not answered.

From the very start, the brothel's Lappydog Tessa Wong from Lappydog ST paints a picture of Ms Lim having an agenda in mind, and at the same time, painting Crafty Fox as a quick thinking guy, able to counter Ms Lim in an instant. Note that Lappydog Tessa did not mention that Shanmu did not answer Ms Lim's question.

Tessa sure is quick to note that Ms Lim did not answer Shanmu, yet totally pretending to be oblivious to the fact that it was Shanmu who didn't answer Ms Lim's original question!

Hello, Shanmu, that's also the third time you didn't answer her! Who the heck are you to think that you should be answered when you don't answer questions yourself?

- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/08/shanmugams-crafty-way-to-avoid-woffles.html

 

[Force 136]

Re: The seeming disquiet over the non-custodial sentence for Waffles Whu was the ques

any diff in woffles' facts of case and that of Loyang Temple chairman?

 

[ahkow]

Re: The seeming disquiet over the non-custodial sentence for Waffles Whu was the ques

any diff in woffles' facts of case and that of Loyang Temple chairman?

Comparison of Woffles Wu's case with similar cases of traffic incidents coupled with abetting/providing false information to the law enforcement.

Source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/...les-wu-matter/

In the 1997 case of Thirumalai Kumar v Public Prosecutor, which primarily related to speeding and rash driving charges, a Section 182 charge was brought, as a result of which the accused was sentenced to a two-week term of imprisonment.


In the 2001 case of PP v Yap Khim Huat, which again involved primary traffic offences of driving without a licence, being under the influence of drink and beating a red light, a charge under Section 182 was brought. This resulted in a 4 week sentence of imprisonment.


In the 2008 case of PP v Poh Chee Hwee, the accused gave false information to the police to help his brother avoid prosecution for a traffic offence. He was charged under Section 182 of the Penal Code, and given 2 weeks imprisonment.


In the 2001 cases of Lim Seng Keong v PP and Koh Chee Khoon v PP, the two offenders pleaded guilty to charges of covering up a traffic offence of driving a motor car without a valid licence. They were sentenced to 1 week’s imprisonment each.


In the 2001 case of Tan Jack Saa v PP, the offender was convicted on charges of speeding and abetting the furnishing of false information to the police. He persuaded the person taking the rap to sign a false letter of appeal stating he was innocent. While he was originally fined $400, on appeal the sentence was enhanced to two months imprisonment.

In the 2007 case of PP v Chia Pei Si, the accused was charged under Section 182 for providing false information that she was the driver of a car involved in a drink driving incident to cover up for her friend. She was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.

District Judge Liew Thiam Leng also noted in his judgment: “Where false information is given by an accused to the police to evade prosecution, the norm is a custodial sentence of 2 weeks to 4 weeks imprisonment for a first offender”.