By Choo Zheng Xi / Consultant Editor
 
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has issued a statement addressing some of the questions I raised in my earlier article this morning. I appreciate the fact the AGC response came on a Sunday morning and that time and effort was put into answering some of the concerns members of the public have been raising.
In my earlier article, I raised several cases where a charge under Section 182 of the Penal Code was used in situations similar to the one Dr Woffles Wu found himself in.
The AGC’s response is as follows:
“On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as Section 182.”
This statement suggests that Section 182 cases would generally involve major accidents or injury and that the lack of major accident or injury informed AGC’s decision to proceed with a charge under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act.
This is, however, incorrect.
Section 182 invoked in cases not involving major accident or injury
In the case of PP v Poh Chee Hwee, the accused had given a false statement to the police in order to help his brother avoid prosecution for driving under disqualification. No injury or major accident was involved.
There was also no injury or major accident involved in the 2001 case of Lim Seng Keong v PP and Koh Chee Khoon v PP. As I noted in my previous article, 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 under Section 182.
Additionally, in the case of Ng Kwee Leong v PP, the offender was convicted of drink-driving and giving false information to the police. At the scene of the accident, the accused gave false information to the police that his sister was the driver of the vehicle. The offender was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment on the Section 182 charge. No injury or major accident was involved.
In a case most similar to Woffles, the 2001 case of Tan Jack Saa v PP, the primary offence was speeding, with a charge of providing false information under Section 182. Again, no injury or major accident was involved.
As I noted in my previous article, there were certain aggravating factors that led to the final sentence in Tan Jack Saa’s case being 2 months, but that had nothing to do with the question of why a charge of Section 182 was brought in the first place.
Apart from answering the questions I’ve raised with regards to the nature of the cases brought under Section 182, AGC would do well to take this opportunity to explain, with specific reference to Dr Wu, the reasons why it chose to proceed with a Section 81 (3) charge under the Road Traffic Act.
In particular, was the original charge brought under Section 182 and subsequently reduced by way of plea bargain to Section 81 (3)? If so, what factors influenced this decision?
Minister Shanmugam’s explanation
Yesterday Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs Mr K Shanmugam briefly set out his answers to the following questions:
“Firstly, why Dr Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act; secondly why abetment; thirdly why he was given a fine; and lastly why there was a lapse of six years before Dr Wu was taken to task.”
As the full context of his answers have been provided in the mainstream press, as well as the link above, I will not reprise them here.
However, it is important to note his explanation that the decision to charge was made by AGC which is independent of the Ministry.
The information Minister Shanmugam provided was thus a timely effort to put as much information as possible out in the public domain in response to questions that were being asked.
As I set out in my original article on  this saga, it is important to direct our questions to the right public bodies if we want satisfactory answers.
The remaining questions as set out in my article this morning as well as in this piece, remain for AGC alone to answer. I am hopeful that those answers will be forthcoming.
 
Additional note, from the authour:
A few readers have written to me requesting that a further question be put to AGC and the Police.
The question is as follows: Who was the registered owner of the vehicle? If it was Dr Wu, wouldn’t Dr Wu then be asked to provide the details of the driver? If so, Dr Wu should have been the primary offender for providing the false information (as opposed to the abettor).

You May Also Like

【冠状病毒19】确诊病患曾到访国大西餐厅多次

卫生部指出,有冠状病毒19确诊病患曾到访金文泰广场和榜鹅水滨坊,更有确诊病患曾多次到访新加坡国立大学内的一家西餐厅,促请曾于相同时段出现在相关地点的民众留意。 卫生部昨日(9月13日)发布文告,列出确诊病患曾到访过得新增地点和时段,并表示已向曾与确诊病患有亲密接触者发出通知。当局也促请曾于同一时段,和确诊病患到访同一地点的民众留意自身健康,若出现急性呼吸道感染症状、或发烧、味觉或嗅觉失灵,应尽快就医,并向医生坦承曾到过的地点。 确诊病患曾到访的新增地点和时段如下: 8月30日中午12时至12时45分:张振南路4号的印度餐馆Ameen Makan House 9月2日中午12时15分至1时10分、9月4日中午1时10分至下午2时10分、9月7日下午3时45分至傍晚5时45分:新加坡国立大学The Spread西餐厅 9月4日傍晚5时25分至6时20分:金文泰广场 9月6日晚上7时至8时55分:榜鹅水滨坊 9月9日中午12时25分至1时:竹脚中心(Tekka Centre)

Genting Hong Kong sells Zouk Group at S$14 million to offload non-core assets and seeks liquidity

Ailing cruise operator Genting Hong Kong on Tuesday (1 Sept) has agreed…

Sir, may I have the can please?

This excerpt is taken from Yawning Bread’s website. I was having a…

冠毒疫情薪金补贴 首周接约两万申请

社会及家庭发展部长李智陞指出,冠状病毒疫情薪金补贴自5月1日开放后的首个星期,已经接获了约两万分申请,当局也已展开处理程序。 他于昨日(5月11日),在脸书帖文做出以上公布。政府自本月起至9月30日,开放两种协助受疫情影响,导致失业、被迫休无薪假或月薪收入至少减少30巴仙的津贴申请。申请者可透过政府电子密码(SingPass),上网到go.gov.sg/CSG提出申请。 政府为了协助受到疫情影响员工,推出冠毒疫情薪金补贴(COVID-19 Support Grant)。若员工因疫情失业,可申请每月800元补贴,为期三个月。 至于因疫情收入减少至少三成的人士,符合条件申请者可获得三个月的补贴,每月补贴金额多达500元。 此外,自雇人士无需申请冠毒疫情薪金补贴,可透过自雇人士收入补贴计划(Self-employed Persons Income Relief Scheme)申请援助。 不在以上群体的国民,若面对财务困境也可直接求助社会服务中心。