The crazy (biased) laws (/courts) of Singapore:
"For destroying the electronic record with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence, Koo could have been jailed up to two years and fined.
For insulting the modesty of the woman, he could have been jailed up to one year and fined. "
Brings back the recollection of the pastor guy who was jailed for lying about petrol tank level to ICA staffs: was initially jailed for lying but jail was converted to $4000 fine upon appeal because the original crime of less than 3/4 tank full was not a jail-able one.
And for ‘perverting the course of justice’, Dr Woffles Wu has to pay a paltry sum which costs almost a tenth of what he earns from a chin implant, or a 50th of a liposuction procedure.
Does District judge Hamidah Ibrahim suffer from temporary memory loss, or was the defendant it deemed too unimportant to be granted justice when sentence was passed. Why do those who have either status or hire expensive lawyers so routinely enjoy the benefits of significantly lighter sentences the result of legal 'technicalities'?
Guess these lying/ destroy evidence offences ought be dependent on the original size of the crime: e.g. a murderer disposed of body/ knife as compared to a hungry man finishing off a loaf of bread in the supermarket toilet....
"District judge Hamidah Ibrahim said Koo’s act of destroying evidence to avoid prosecution was far more serious than the offence of insulting the modesty of the woman.": this district judge I think isn't using her brains: just another rubber stamper: guess if I paid her to convict poor people for eating bread in supermarket: she would say that eating the bread (concealing it in stomach) is as serious as discarding a murdered corpse (both = destroying criminal evidence)...
Very few situations warrant a higher punishment for 'destroying evidence' than the crime itself (e.g. institutionalised crime syndicates, internal security act etc): if eating bread in supermarket without paying first for it were to be AS SERIOUS as discarding a murdered corpse (both involve concealing/ destroying 'evidence'): then it becomes unclear how proportionate punishments are since discarding a murder weapon would then ironically be more severe a crime than the murder itself: then many people will be punished excessively for crimes they had little or nothing to do with: whilst the rich and connected get off scot free often on 'technicalities'.
Man gets three months
Anyhow, this is how the rule of law operates in Singapore: U can actually influence elections inside polling stations and be credited for it based upon whose HDB flat U chose to upgrade last year...:
(Pict source)(alt source)
__________________
"For destroying the electronic record with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence, Koo could have been jailed up to two years and fined.
For insulting the modesty of the woman, he could have been jailed up to one year and fined. "
Brings back the recollection of the pastor guy who was jailed for lying about petrol tank level to ICA staffs: was initially jailed for lying but jail was converted to $4000 fine upon appeal because the original crime of less than 3/4 tank full was not a jail-able one.
And for ‘perverting the course of justice’, Dr Woffles Wu has to pay a paltry sum which costs almost a tenth of what he earns from a chin implant, or a 50th of a liposuction procedure.
Does District judge Hamidah Ibrahim suffer from temporary memory loss, or was the defendant it deemed too unimportant to be granted justice when sentence was passed. Why do those who have either status or hire expensive lawyers so routinely enjoy the benefits of significantly lighter sentences the result of legal 'technicalities'?
Guess these lying/ destroy evidence offences ought be dependent on the original size of the crime: e.g. a murderer disposed of body/ knife as compared to a hungry man finishing off a loaf of bread in the supermarket toilet....
"District judge Hamidah Ibrahim said Koo’s act of destroying evidence to avoid prosecution was far more serious than the offence of insulting the modesty of the woman.": this district judge I think isn't using her brains: just another rubber stamper: guess if I paid her to convict poor people for eating bread in supermarket: she would say that eating the bread (concealing it in stomach) is as serious as discarding a murdered corpse (both = destroying criminal evidence)...
Very few situations warrant a higher punishment for 'destroying evidence' than the crime itself (e.g. institutionalised crime syndicates, internal security act etc): if eating bread in supermarket without paying first for it were to be AS SERIOUS as discarding a murdered corpse (both involve concealing/ destroying 'evidence'): then it becomes unclear how proportionate punishments are since discarding a murder weapon would then ironically be more severe a crime than the murder itself: then many people will be punished excessively for crimes they had little or nothing to do with: whilst the rich and connected get off scot free often on 'technicalities'.
Man gets three months
Anyhow, this is how the rule of law operates in Singapore: U can actually influence elections inside polling stations and be credited for it based upon whose HDB flat U chose to upgrade last year...:
(Pict source)(alt source)
Quote:
|
Man gets three months’ jail for taking upskirt video, destroying evidence SINGAPORE — When he was caught red-handed for taking an upskirt video of a fellow bus commuter with his mobile phone, Koo Kiat Boon smashed his phone repeatedly against the floor and even swallowed its memory card in a desperate bid to erase evidence of his crime. By Kelly Ng - 11th December 2014. SINGAPORE — When he was caught red-handed for taking an upskirt video of a fellow bus commuter with his mobile phone, Koo Kiat Boon smashed his phone repeatedly against the floor and even swallowed its memory card in a desperate bid to erase evidence of his crime. For destroying the electronic record and insulting the modesty of a woman, the 25-year-old Malaysian was sentenced to three months’ jail yesterday. A district court heard that the former electrician was on board SBS Transit’s Service 170, heading towards Woodlands Checkpoint, at about 7pm on Sept 3 when he spotted a 28-year-old commuter whom he found pretty. Taking advantage of being on a crowded bus, Koo bent down, stretched his hand under the victim’s skirt and made a recording using his mobile phone. When another commuter caught him in the act, Koo smashed his phone repeatedly against the floor, hoping to destroy evidence. The action bent the phone in half, exposing its back. Koo also removed its memory card and swallowed it as he was afraid of the repercussions, the court heard. Koo was arrested by police officers at the Woodlands Checkpoint. The memory card remains missing. In mitigation, defence counsel Richard Lim said his client had destroyed the mobile phone and swallowed the memory card “partly due to the fact that they contained intimate pictures of him and his wife, and he did not want a third party to see (them)”. Mr Lim added that Koo’s former employer knew him to be hard-working and obedient, and that he had a clean record prior to this offence. He has been suspended from work and will have to return to Malaysia after serving his sentence, the lawyer said. District judge Hamidah Ibrahim said Koo’s act of destroying evidence to avoid prosecution was far more serious than the offence of insulting the modesty of the woman. Accompanied by his mother, wife and two-year-old son in court yesterday, Koo sat red-eyed in the dock as his sentence was read out. For destroying the electronic record with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence, Koo could have been jailed up to two years and fined. For insulting the modesty of the woman, he could have been jailed up to one year and fined. KELLY NG Man gets three months |
No comments:
Post a Comment