~ By Bertha Henson ~

There were several stories over the past few days related to the price/cost of seeking justice.

a. Whether plastic surgeon Woffles Wu got away with a $1,000 fine for abetment because he is "rich''.

b. Whether the sandwiched class can afford legal advice, given the increasing complexity of court procedures.

c. Whether you can really ask for $600K from your employer after your butt fails to connect with the seat of a chair in your office.

In the first case, some answers were forthcoming from the AGC and Minister Shanmugam – it related to why Wu was charged with abetment rather than the heavier crime of giving misleading information. Seems his friend was the one who spoke to the police. But lawyer-MP Hri Kumar had a more general point when he first surfaced the issue in a blog – in some cases when you can't pay a fine, you go to jail. This means really, that if you are rich, you get a ‘Get out of Jail’ card. Judges should be given some sentencing options. I guess we will have to wait for the courts to say how it decided on the Wu case, and for police investigations on who was really driving Wu's car to be concluded. I hope they move fast. Because the fact remains that this case happened six years ago, and notwithstanding what police said that they only knew about it recently because of a complaint, I think people still want to know the ins and outs. It will not do for the ordinary fellow to start thinking that Singapore justice system is not a level playing field.

The second case was Law Society's Wong Meng Meng asking for a public agency to deal with legal stuff that doesn’t always have to make it to the courts. It's about access to justice for all. I wish someone would educate readers on what sort of things the ordinary fellow really needs a trained legal opinion for. As well as a range of fees that lawyers charge. I mean, what sort of stuff has got so complex for the courts that we now need a lawyer to deal with it?

In any case, how do you source for a lawyer? Pretty much like a doctor I think – word of mouth. Then it's a question of whether you think a cheaper one or a more expensive one can get the job done for you at the same quality of service? Are there cases when you can dispense with a lawyer? There's alternative dispute resolution, mediation (at community levels too) – Are they well-used?

As for the $600K asking price for damages by a Jap worker here who fell on her backside after a colleague failed to push in a chair he had pulled out. She is suing negligence, loss of future earnings etc. I pity the fellow – the colleague I mean. I pity the employer, which is really deep-pocketed – US-headquartered with more than US$5b in service revenue. Big target huh?

Seriously lah, as lawyers interviewed said, office mishaps happen and are usually settled within the company. But going to the High Court for this? I sort of choked until I read the last par – that both parties might just go to the Sub Courts to settle the final amount, where the cap is $250,000. That's more palatable. In any case, some advice especially for the chivalrous among the guys, when you pulled out a woman's chair, remember to push it back in…she won't appreciate landing on her backside…and might just sue you too.

TOC thanks Bertha Henson for her contribution, this article first appeared on her blog. Bertha Henson is a former Associate Editor of The Straits Times.

 

You May Also Like

PSP’s Taufik Supan vows to help the Malay community in Singapore to progress further

While speaking at Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) third outreach session via Facebook…

Bukit Brown Family Day

~By: Erika Lim~ “A family outing at a cemetery?! Are you crazy…

Govt has exciting plans for Tanjong Pagar after port moves to Tuas

The recent maritime dispute between Singapore and Malaysia has put a spotlight…

24岁青年经营非法酒廊! 52男女涉群聚遭警调查

24岁青年在新民巷商业单位经营非法酒廊,男男女女聚集饮酒歌唱,两次惊动警方上门。 警方昨晚(20日)发文告指出,52名男女涉嫌违反安全距离措施,正接受警方调查。警方于本月9日凌晨3点10分接获通报,指新民巷18号商业大楼内的一个单位有多人聚会。 在警方抵达现场后发现,共有27名男子与13名女子,年龄介于16岁至36岁在场喝酒、抽烟和唱歌。八天之后,即本月17日,警方在凌晨2点45分再次接获通报,指同个单位又有人聚会。 此次是七男六女,年龄介于19岁至36岁在场喝酒,而涉嫌提供娱乐和卖酒的则是24岁青年,两次都在场。 初步调查显示,该单位内并没有公共娱乐和卖酒的执照,因此警方也援引公共娱乐法令和酒类管制(供应与饮用)法令下调查24岁青年。 一经定罪,无照提供公共娱乐和卖酒分别可被罚款高达两万元;而违反安全距离措施则可被判监禁长达六个月、罚款高达一万元,或两者兼施。