So the man sped and got his elderly employee to take the rap for two separate speeding occasions. It really just started off as a small matter but now, the government, including the Law Minister Shanmugam saying that this fine was normal and fair, as well as The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) coming out to explain the charges against Wu.
What really sparked a talking point was the fact that Wu was charged with a relatively low penalty, a fine that probably costs him peanuts. Even the PAP Mp, Hri Kumar said he was taken aback from the sentence of only a fine, adding that others who have committed similar offences have been jailed. So to clarify the messy situation, AGC has, over the weekend, issued a statement that details three laws, one of which was, according to the AGC was used to determine Wu’s sentence. It was revealed that Wu was charged for abetting an offence under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act and added that there were no major accidents or injury. (More details here and here)
I just want to highlight one issue from this case: The two offences took place in 2005 and 2006. This was used by the AGC to support the fact that Wu was charged under the Road Traffic Act and not the Penal Code, which was enacted in 2008. That was convenient on their part. But here’s another curious part: 6 years later, the Police was magically notified that the statements from the speeding offences were false. I mean, if the police had believed Kuan’s (the elderly employee that took the rap), confession, why did they not charge Kuan in the first place?
My honest thoughts to this matter are that the Police, prosecutors and judges have executed really bad, half-baked damage control. Even if the authorities have come out to explain the situation, providing details and what not, it is an open secret that the authorities are indulgent towards the “well connected”. Full stop. That is the sad reason why Wu was let off with a S$1000 fine that he could easily earn in an hour’s work.