~by: Jewel Philemon~

“What are the extra ingredients that require expedited justice? It's not rocket science.” – Mr Paul Louis Liew Kai Ming on the inefficacious police force and legal system.”

Inefficient, Ineffective, Slow Police Force and Legal System?

Mr Liew suffered the worst injuries with a broken nose and a deep gash on his forehead. He also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and attends monthly therapy sessions with a psychiatrist. “Whenever I look into the mirror, the scar is there. It’s a constant reminder”, he expresses, “I also have to make sure I don’t hurt anyone through my actions. I have to be anal about myself in controlling my emotions.”

Being attacked from behind has also had its own ramifications for Mr Liew. He says that he cannot bring himself to enter crowded elevators and that if he has to enter one, he turns around and makes sure the door faces his back, “I need to physically place my back on a wall. I cannot have people standing behind me.”

As an undergraduate of an Australian university, Mr Liew also talks about the difficulties of adapting to a new environment, especially amongst Caucasians. “I have to face new people. I have to face Caucasians. I cannot have any prejudices because of this”, he says openly.

However, both Mr Liew and Mr Wong attest that these repercussions are minor compared to the inefficient and ineffective manner the police force and legal system have handled the case.

Mr Wong reveals that despite making three phone calls to the police throughout the duration of the attack, the cops only arrived after the ambulance, about an hour later. Mr Liew, who was almost unconscious due to his head wounds, adds that he only remembers opening his eyes once and seeing the ambulance take a wrong turn.

Mr Wong further mentioned that the investigating officer (IO) acted insensitively and more importantly, unprofessionally. He said that the IO seemed quite unconcerned in his investigations and did not put in enough effort in taking the statements of bystanders who were still in the vicinity.

It was almost a week before Mr Wong and company heard from the IO again and when they finally did speak to the officer, it was only to be told that there were no conclusive leads.

A frustrated Mr Wong took it upon himself to catch the unprovoked assailants. He managed to uncover their identities after an amateur investigation spanning two hours. “They were obviously coming from a charity event! They were wearing suits!” exclaims Mr Wong, “I found pictures and names within two hours. I don’t know how an investigating officer can take a week to do something and still not come up with answers especially when that is their job.”

The investigation officer’s reaction was one of casual nonchalance. According to Mr Wong, the IO claimed that the police force is short of manpower and that they handle an average of forty cases a month. “How is this my problem!”, Mr Wong asks.

Mr Wong and company have been playing a waiting game since then. Frustrated at the lack of swift action, they decided to inform the people via the press.

“Our disappointment has stemmed from the accident site itself”, Mr Liew interjects, “I could have died that night, can I be blamed for being upset?” Mr Liew asks. The assessment that the police force use their own prerogative to prioritise cases only adds salt to the wound.

“We have been conscientious about not hindering proceedings. We only want justice to be served. But it has only been disappointments upon disappointments upon disappointments”, laments Mr Liew.

Mr Liew recounted that it was months before their statements were submitted to court and that even that was only done after much coaxing. “We trust the authorities to do their job. But nothing is being done! What else do we need to do.”

The lack of accountability and transparency is another sore point for the victims. They were apparently told that the case is being handled by the IO, then the AG, and then by the ministry of foreign affairs. “I am still chasing after them while in Australia”, Mr Liew confirms, “I don’t have any benefits from this. I don’t want a story. All I want is accountability.”

It took fifteen months for the case to get to the courts. Fifteen months filled with headaches and roadblocks and justice has still not been served. “You have facts! What is holding you back?”, Mr Liew questions, “I don’t want to speculate, but why is it stagnating?”

“It has been a year and three months and you know everything about the case- A to Z. So what is happening? What are the extra ingredients that require expedited justice? It is not rocket science.”, he opines.

Mr Springall sped away again in December 2011, unbeknownst to the victims of his violent crime. Perhaps to join his co-assailant Mr Robert Stephen Dahlberg, in greener pastures safe from the long arm of Singaporean law enforcement.

These pictures were submitted to the police by the victims to assist the police in their investigations:


"We chose not to keep quiet for the sake of the victim of Ionescu, who is already dead," assault victim Lawrence Wong. Watch this space for Part 3.

See part 1 of this exclusive interview HERE and part 3 is HERE.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

林志蔚解析最低薪金制 经济讲师要工人党先实验政策提案?

上周,工人党盛港候任议员、也是一名经济学者的林志蔚,分析政府渐进式薪金模式和最低薪金制的差异。即便最低薪金制不是毫无疑问的好政策,但却是能改善雇员处境的良好开端,近期的研究,也倾向支持最低薪资制,即时薪资涨幅很大,对于低薪工友的就业问题实则带来冲击微小。 不过,新加坡管理大学经济系高级讲师吴正晓,在《联合早报》的交流站则表示要给林志蔚“两个建议”,认为对工人党的政策如最低薪金制不能“为了同意而同意”;再者也建议若林志蔚认为工人党政策可行,如冗员保险可先在盛港市镇会试行看下效果如何。 由于目前在冠病疫情影响下,对经济和社会造成冲击,他认为林志蔚在电视辩论,却提起最低薪金制感到惊讶,因为大部分经济学家都会反对在失业率上升、经济下行之时,实行最低薪金制。 “林志蔚把视野放到疫情后” 但民众林师顺也在另一篇文章强调,大选不仅仅是为了克服此次疫情举行,也是决定国家未来五年发展由谁带领。“身为在野党一员的林博士,把视野放到冠病疫情后的新加坡,在辩论中有此发言,并不奇怪。” 他认为吴正晓似乎误解了林志蔚,为何在辩论时提出最低薪资和冗员保险等提案。 在新加坡现有的渐进式薪金模式下的低薪员工,也是重要的劳动力,给予他们一定的薪资,应超越学术经济分析,是社会应该在解决贫富差距的课题上所进行的讨论。 吴正晓是在评论中指出,最低薪金制在目前仍有争议,尽管部分经济学家赞同,但大部分都会坚决反对在失业率上升和经济下行时,提高最低薪资。 至于冗员保险,他则分析假设一名员工一生工作40年,大概只有40/280(七分之一)的机会,他能够领取到这个保险赔付。 羊毛出在羊身上。以每月4元的保费,如果想这个保险能够持续可行,那么平均每1万3428÷4=3357个月,也即大约每280年,员工可以拿到一次保险赔付。 他认为低保费,高赔付的保险产品是存在的,只是大部分顾客永远得不到赔付。 “五年以后,在下一次大选的辩论会上,在推荐新政策的时候,如果林博士可以说他们已经“实验过了”(done…

Tan Meng Wah urges Singaporeans to consider if 4G leaders work for the interests of Singapore as a whole, or are they working for interests of specific groups of people

As the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) conducted a Meet The People session…

直指我国部长和高级公务员 林鼎:年薪高得离谱!

人民之声党领袖林鼎昨日(7月29日)在脸书上发帖,对我国执政者和高级公务员领取高薪一事表示不满。 他指出,人民之声是唯一要求把总理薪金降低多达70巴仙的政党,并要求政治职位和高级公务员,必须进行相应的调整。 他提醒民众公务员的职责所在,“这是为民众服务。我不清楚他们是否还是用公务员(public servants)一词,但是在以前,一名公务员(civil servant)也是公仆。” “可笑的是,我们许多政治职务持有者和高级公务员的年薪都超过100万元(李显龙年薪就有220万元)。但是,这和大部分民众每日辛劳所赚取的薪资相比,简直就差天差地。而我们政治职务持有者表示,他们的薪水应该和社会上的精英,如顶尖的总裁、高新律师和医生挂钩。” 对此,他表示,这些公务员的薪水简直就是“荒谬”。 以英国美国领导者为例 除了总理和部长都获得高薪之外,林鼎也提醒,新加坡市长的年薪为66万元,国会议员的薪资为20万元,合计每年至少能获得86万元。“在我们这个小国内,就有五个(市长兼国会议员)!伦敦的地方面积是我国的两倍以上,人口也多达900万人,但是市长只有一位。” “以目前约1.38新元兑换1美元的汇率来说,市长的薪水等于47万1000美元,而国会议员兼市长的薪酬为62万3188美元。” 他之后也以美国总统为例,美国总统年薪为40万美元,虽然住在白宫,但是总统也要缴付白宫厨房的高昂费用。 此外,英国国会议员的基本薪金为8万1932英镑(约14万5905新元),但是,林鼎表示,该国总理、部长和包括反对党领袖及其他高级反对党领袖在内的公务员们,都会获得薪金补贴。…