1. We refer to the media reports about the case against Woffles Wu.

2. Woffles Wu was charged for abetting his employee Kuan to give false information to the police about the commission of speeding offenses in 2005 and 2006. Kuan gave the false information. Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police, was charged with abetting Kuan to do so, which is an offence under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act.  There was no evidence of payment or gratification given to Kuan. Kuan, who is 82 years old, was given a stern warning.

3. In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for wilfully providing false information, under Section 81(3) Road Traffic Act. Custodial sentences are typically imposed under this section when there are aggravating features, such as many instances of the offence committed by the same person.  

4. Some media reports refer to cases in which imprisonment term has been imposed under Section 204A of the Penal Code.  The accused could not have been charged under that provision for intentionally perverting the course of justice (which is a more serious charge compared with Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act).  This is because the accused committed his offence in 2006, before Section 204A of the Penal Code was enacted in 2008. The position of the accused is therefore different from others who were subject to Section 204A and who have been punished with a term of imprisonment.

5. The charge preferred against an accused person would be calibrated to reflect the seriousness of the criminal act and the fact situation, and whether the legislation in question provides a specific provision dealing with the criminal act or whether reliance has to be placed on general legislation such as the Penal Code. 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. Other sections have their own requirements, which would not have been met on the facts of the present case. Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

*  *  *

Media Contact:

Li Jin Haw (Ms)

Assistant Director, Corporate Communications Unit

Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 6332 4693

 

You May Also Like

SAF medical support team to be sent to Iraq in 2017

Dr Lim Wee Kiak from Sembawang GRC asked the Minister for Defence…

PAP’s Lee Hsien Loong has falsely accused alternative parties of being “completely silent” about tackling the pandemic, says SDP

The Secretary-General of People’s Action Party (PAP) Lee Hsien Loong had falsely…

耶鲁-国大学院腰斩异议课程 耶鲁大学调查称未受政府干涉

日前耶鲁-国大学院取消《新加坡的异议与抵抗》的课程一事,美国耶鲁大学对此展开调查,昨日(1日)耶鲁调查公布调查结果表示,取消决定均由校方内部决定,并无受到政府干涉。 耶鲁大学校长苏必德教授(Peter Solovey)日前委任环球策略副院长佩里克莱斯·鲁维思教授(Pericles Lewis)调查此事,鲁维斯也与相关人员会面,包括耶鲁—国大教员以及原本负责策划课程的亚菲言(Alfian Sa’at)会面,了解来龙去脉,表示课程没有影响学术自由与开放审视,取消课程是考虑到学术要求和法律问题 “在我看来,这(决定)并没有侵犯学院内任何人的学术自由。“,鲁维斯表示。 上月,耶鲁—国大学院临时取消一门名为《新加坡的异议与抵抗》的课程。有关课程将由新加坡知名剧作家亚菲言(Alfian Sa’at),与参与学生探讨本土的公民抗命模式。原计划于本月本月27日至10月5日进行,结果在开课前两周就却被喊停。 对此,耶鲁—国大学院校长陈大荣教授解释,课程“未批判性地接触多元观点,这对于探讨围绕在异议周边的政治、社会和伦理议题,去做作妥当的学术检视是需要的”。 而耶鲁一些教职员则认为,可能已侵犯学术自由与公开言论,而取消课程的行为可能隐含侵犯言论自由的意义。 据悉,该课程曾在5月31日获得初步批准,但后来因担心该课程有可能违反法律或不符合学术标准。对此,他们称已要求亚菲言修改教案,但一直没能联系上亚菲言,直到两个月后。但亚菲言则表示,并未接受校方到“清楚的指示”,如何处理相关课题。 鲁维斯阐明,尽管耶鲁-国大学院已说明理由,但课程委员应更积极参与,并提早进行风险评估,例如,不应该在8月14日未获得官方批准前,就事先宣布课程。报告也指出,关于外籍学生参加学生可能会面临的后果。他举例,如课程计划在芳林公园“模拟”一场示威可能导致外籍学生触法。…

新型冠状病毒累积80宗死亡病例 一官员抢救无效逝世

据中国卫生应急办公室官网资讯,截至本月27日凌晨12时,中国国家卫生健康委会共收到30省累积确诊病例2744宗,重症病例461例,累积死亡病例80例。 累积治愈出院有51例以及疑似病例多达5794例。至于已知香港确诊病例多达八例,澳门五例例以及台湾地区四例。 新加坡迄今为止确诊的病例多达四宗,邻国马来西亚四宗、泰国七例、日本三例、韩国三例,美国三例,越南二例,尼泊尔一例,法国三例,澳大利亚四例。 此外,在武汉新增死亡病例中,亦包括一位武汉市民宗委原主任王献良。他在本月26日下午,抢救无效在武汉市中心医院(北区)去世。 王献良今年62岁,湖北监利人,曾任武汉市民政局副局长。2012年,王献良被任命为武汉市民宗委主任。此后五年间他一直担任该职。 北京新增5起武汉肺炎确诊病例,其中包含一名9个月大女婴,成为北京最小的年龄最小确诊病例。