Even Judiciary reports being fixed by Singapore Parliament too...

Okay, maybe in this case = inadvertently. But it still shows how much the SG Parliament is trying too hard tomicro manage things: perhaps a +ve way forward would be for parliament to just give guidelines within the penal code and other statutes: e.g. the 'recommended' punishment for e.g. theft, extortion, uncensored films, managing a brothel: i.e.: the words 'shall be liable to...' rather than 'for a term of not less than XX years'...
PS: there is a Probation of Offenders (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act 37 of 1993): perhaps this act can specify that those with IQ below certain level will be more favourably chosen for probation in lieu of jail etc.
Where parliament is concerned about judges being overly lenient, parliament may make clarification within the penal code that the minimum sentence shall apply to first time offenders without any significant mitigating factors.


Judges highlight lack of probation as sentencing option for less serious crimes | TODAYonline

Fixing the opposition:

Quote:

fixing opposition parties; actually just creating a strait jacket, monolithic authoritarian political state, where citizens are just slaves serving the political elite...... (YouTube; LHL: "fix the opposition")

Influenced or not influence the people's vote??? (AGC says that PAP politicians loitering within polling station willnot influence):
(Pict source)(alt source)

Quote:

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT (CHAPTER 218) Undue influence at or near polling station 82.—(1) No person shall — (a) endeavour to establish the identity of any person entering a polling station; (b) check the name of any person entering a polling station on any list at the approach to a polling station; (c) anywhere place any desk or table or establish any office or booth for the purpose of recording particulars of voters; (d) wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote; (e) loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day; or (f) open or maintain, for the purpose of any activity directed towards promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, any office in any room, building or any place whatsoever, whether open or enclosed, on polling day. ... (2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. [10/2010] (3) The offence under subsection (2) shall be an arrestable offence within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010).

Quote:

Judges highlight lack of probation as sentencing option for less serious crimes SINGAPORE — The fact that a sentence of probation is not an option for judges for some offences, despite it being so for certain more serious crimes, has been highlighted to Parliament. BY NEO CHAI CHIN - 30DECEMBER 2014. SINGAPORE — The fact that a sentence of probation is not an option for judges for some offences, despite it being so for certain more serious crimes, has been highlighted to Parliament. For instance, a first-time adult offender who managed a brothel could get probation because the sentence of a jail term and fine spelt out for the offence is neither a mandatory nor a specified minimum sentence. But a first-time adult offender who possessed uncensored films would not be eligible for probation, because a fine is the only prescribed sentence for the offence. Circumstances in which probation is a sentencing option might thus appear anomalous, three High Court judges, including Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, have observed in a judgment recently released. “Specifically, the concern is that probation would not be a sentencing option for adult offenders ... and repeat youth offenders ... for what might appear to be relatively less serious offences, whereas it might well be a sentencing option for adult offenders and repeat youth offenders who have committed what are seemingly more serious offences, just because Parliament has not thought it fit to impose either a mandatory or specified minimum sentence in the latter instances,” the three judges wrote. “We offer these observations as something Parliament may wish to consider.” It is, however, for Parliament to decide on the relative gravity of offences, the judges noted. Policy considerations that underlie the legislative choice to impose a mandatory or specified minimum sentence may not be identical or relevant to the consideration of whether or not probation should be available in a given case, they added. Probation, which entails supervision by a probation officer, can be imposed on first-time offenders below age 21 where the prescribed sentence is a mandatory or specified minimum sentence. The judging panel, which also comprised Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, were ruling on a Magistrate’s Appeal by Mohamad Fairuuz Saleh, who was sentenced to three months’ jail and fined S$30,000 by the district court for performing multiple fund transfers for an unlicensed moneylender through his bank account. Magistrate’s Appeals are typically heard by one High Court judge, but CJ Menon, in his speech to mark the opening of the legal year in January, said “special” three-judge panels could be convened to hear cases where the setting of sentencing guidelines is likely to be helpful. Where appropriate, the court may also appoint an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to give independent views on the issue. In this case, the judges, who were assisted by amicus curiae Darius Chan, agreed with the district judge that Mohamad Fairuuz was ineligible for probation, but reduced his jail term to six weeks, given his “excellent prospects of rehabilitation”. The physiotherapist had borrowed S$1,000 in 2011 to settle his father’s debt. But the amount spiralled out of control due to the terms of the loan and he agreed to help the unlicensed moneylender, named in court documents only as Tango, in 2012. Mohamad Fairuuz, represented by lawyer S K Kumar, had submitted medical reports stating he was unfit for prison. The judges also noted that he had stopped his illegal activities some time before he was caught. Judges highlight lack of probation as sentencing option for less serious crimes | TODAYonline

__________________

------