~ 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

《海时》读者来函具诽谤性指控 遭本社总编要求撤文

今日,《网络公民》总编许渊臣在个人脸书分享,本地英语媒体《海峡时报》刊载一则读者来函,不过内容“包含诽谤性指控”,被前者要求撤文。 许渊臣在昨日致函新加坡报业控股编辑,要求他们撤下有关文章并确保不再重犯。据了解,《海时》已撤下有关文章。 不过,许渊臣表示他并无意要求对方道歉或索偿,他只希望看到对方“把事做对”。他感叹,近期许多针对《网络公民》的含沙射影,导致群众对本社持有不实的看法。 然而,他不怪有关文章作者持有自己的意见,惟批评《海时》既然声称自己是对抗“假新闻的最佳抗生素”,理应对于文章是否包含虚假信息有更好的理解。 有关文章是在上月29日刊载在《海时》的论坛,呼应此前律政暨内政部长尚穆根,指新加坡有必要立法以应对外国干预或影响本地政策或舆论。 据报导,尚穆根曾指出我国或许也得考虑如何限制外国人参与领导特定组织,这些组织都是密切参与我国政治的。“这个做法与我们限制外国人参与倡导议题公共集会和游行等的立场一致。” 他也认为,现今互联网的普及和覆盖面,也使得干预途径影响更为深远。 除了抨击学者覃炳鑫与自由新闻工作者韩俐颖,曾联名申请成立公司,但使用外国资金在新加坡推动民主和人权等课题;尚穆根点名本社聘用外国人撰写有关新加坡政治的负面文章。 不过,许渊臣此前已经回应,作为总编他必须指导和审核批准这些文章,自己也必须对通讯及新闻部负责。 对于雇用外籍编采人员的说法,他回应我国法律并未阻止我们聘雇外籍雇员,再者,《网络公民》从未接受任何外国款项。“所以律政部长是在吠什么?” 日前许渊臣也上载一张照片,清楚展示本社的作业方式。对于有关被指冒犯总理的文章,对于文章导向、如何撰写和角度,都由总编亲自给予指示,茹巴并没有在指示以外添加其他内容,“所以不管他是马来西亚人、新加坡人、印度人等,有差别吗?” “如同我此前对尚穆根的答复,这很明显是是有组织的行动抹黑本社信誉,令人震惊的是,律政部长竟然复述那些亲行动党粉丝专页和恶搞网站,在过去几周以来作出的指控。”

各国”反假新闻法“比一比

我国总理李显龙在本月9日,在新马领导人非正式会议后的联合记者会上,被记者质问其对防假消息法的立场。 记者指防假消息法遭到新加坡国内外人士质疑,包括”无国界记者“组织也抨击新法案可能赋予政府过大权力。 当时,总理表示,不清楚马国打算废除的《反假新闻法》内容,不过他捍卫新加坡政府要推行的《防止网络假消息和网络操纵法案》,指出不止新加坡,德国、法国和澳洲都有立法对付,连英国也考虑透过司法管制网络假消息。 既然总理提到其他国家也有反假新闻法,本社简略整理我国和其他四个国家:法、德、澳洲和马来西亚相关“反假新闻法”,对比其中的区别: 各国“假消息法”类型 《2019年防止网络假消息与网络操纵法案》 2019年4月1日在国会一读 2018年,出台第2018-1202法令和2018-1201组织性法案,打击信息操纵 2018年出台《社交网络强制法》(Netzwerk-durchsetzung-sgesetz,简称NetzDG) 澳洲国会于本月4日通过《分享重大暴力内容》刑法典修正案(Criminal Code Amendment…

【冠状病毒19】接种疫苗工作陆续展开 卫生部发简讯邀国人登记

卫生部向国人发出邀请,登记接种冠状病毒19疫苗! 据卫生部所说,如今接种疫苗工作已陆续展开,卫生部已向符合条件的国人发出简讯,邀请他们登记接种冠状病毒19疫苗。 卫生部也呼吁受到简讯的国人勿将其转发给其他人,因为只有指定的收件人才会接到邀请。 当局也表示,收到简讯者应仔细阅读内容,确保链接结尾是.gov.sg,才可点入,呼吁国人当心落入骗局。 卫生部也指出,有人收到谎称是由药剂公司所发出的诈骗简讯,内容提及药剂公司已批准为收件人接种疫苗,因此要国人提高警惕。 卫生部强调,这类简讯并不是由当局发出的。当局也没有批准任何药剂公司直接联系任何人。卫生部呼吁收到诈骗简讯的国人不要回复简讯。 如果有需要验证电邮或来电的真实性,或是对接种冠病疫苗的计划有任何疑问,可拨打卫生部热线1800-333-9999。

Does criticism = opposition?

By Ney Reed Sunday, 10 December, 2006 criticism (noun) – serious examination…