Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law regarding the conviction of Dr Woffles Wu for abetment of giving false information to the police (a) in what manner did Dr Wu abet the giving of false information to the police; (b) whether the Attorney-General's Chambers' statement of 17 June 2012 explaining the choice of charge against Dr Wu has addressed public concerns about the equitability of the legal system; and (c) whether the Ministry has confirmation that written grounds of decision will be given by the sentencing court, despite there being no appeal pending.

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Law (a) whether, during the course of police investigations into speeding offences involving the car of Dr Woffles Wu in September 2005 and November 2006, information was obtained specifically and directly from Dr Wu and, if not, why not; (b) whether the information provided to the police by the person whom Dr Wu abetted was subjected to appropriate scrutiny in view of the employment relationship between them and, if not, why not; (c) whether the non-prosecution of the person whom Dr Wu abetted creates an exception that may be open to abuse; and (d) why are investigations into the identity of the driver of Dr Wu's car protracted.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, with your leave, I will take both questions together – Ms Lim's and then Prof Tan's.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Page: 469

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, a large part of Ms Lim's question concerns the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. That is within the independent province of the Attorney-General (AG), in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor. I have therefore consulted with the AG in giving this answer.

Ms Lim has asked three questions. I will answer them in turn. First question – in what manner did Dr Wu abet the giving of false information to the police? Dr Woffles Wu was the registered owner of a motorcar that was detected travelling at 95 km/h on 11 September 2005 in an area where the speed limit was 70 km/h. The same car was also detected travelling at 91 km/h on 11 November 2006 in an area where the speed limit was 70 km/h. On both occasions, the Traffic Police sent Dr Wu the usual notices and forms, requiring him to furnish the particulars of the person who was driving the car at the time of the traffic offence.

On both occasions, Dr Wu did not fill in the forms provided. Instead, Dr Wu's employee, Mr Kuan Yit Wah, filled in the forms and indicated that he, Mr Kuan, was the driver of the car. The Traffic Police receive many such forms each day, and usually proceed on the basis of the declarations received. Subsequently, information was received by CPIB that the Traffic Police may have been given false declarations. Investigations were then conducted. The investigations showed that false declarations had been made by Mr Kuan at the request of Dr Wu.

Dr Wu pleaded guilty to one count of abetting by instigating Mr Kuan to provide false or misleading information to the Traffic Police. He had abetted a breach of section 81(2) of the Road Traffic Act for the offence in 2006.

A second count of abetment for the earlier occasion was taken into consideration. The district court sentenced him to the maximum fine of $1,000. Mr Kuan was let off with a stern warning because he did not receive any monetary reward, because of his old age and because Dr Wu was considered the more culpable of the two.

Ms Lim next asked whether the Attorney-General's Chambers' statement of 17 June 2012 explaining the choice of charges against Dr Wu has addressed public concerns about the equitability of the legal system. Implicit in Ms Lim's question are, I believe, the following assertions – one, that Dr Wu could have been charged for a more serious offence, and two, he was not so charged because he is who he is. There was favouritism.

To answer this, we need to look at how Dr Wu's case was treated, in comparison with other similar cases. I assume Ms Lim has looked at the facts and law carefully. If so, she will know the answer to the questions she raises. Dr Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act. If I could have that handed out to Ms Lim, and we will read it today [ A h andout was distributed to hon Members ]. Can someone just give it to Ms Lim first, please?

If you look at section 81(2), where the driver of a motor vehicle is alleged or is suspected to be guilty of an offence under this Act, any other person who or should have been in charge of the motor vehicle shall, if required by a police officer or employee of the Authority, give any information which it is in his power to give, and which may lead to the identification of the driver, and within seven days of the date on which the information was required from him. If he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Mr Speaker: Minister, the handout that you provided does not have the Act –

Page: 470

Mr K Shanmugam: All right. I have read it out, I am sure Ms Lim knows it. Section 81(3) is an offence if you give false information. I think a Schedule has been handed out. It is useful to go through that Schedule and I will invite Ms Lim and the Members to go through it with me; of cases where a fine was imposed, which I am sure Ms Lim is aware of.

First, Desmond Ho, 11 February 2004, was caught speeding at 112 km/h on a 50 km/h stretch. He committed the following offences: driving without supervision while holding only a provisional driving licence; using a vehicle without insurance coverage; wilfully furnishing false information to a police officer, and speeding at 112 km/h. Members will see he was fined for all the offences.

Second, Lee Tak Seng, 2005. In October 2004, the accused was observed to be driving in a bus lane during prohibited hours. He committed the following offences: driving without a licence; using a vehicle without insurance; wilfully furnishing false information to the police officer by giving the wrong name, and driving in a bus lane. Again, fines.

Third, Yong Yoong Shin, 2005. His offences: furnishing false information; driving without a licence; using a vehicle without insurance, and furnishing false information twice to two different officers. Fines.

Fourth case, Tan Toh Koon, 2006. All of these are in 2005 or 2006. His offences: driving without a licence; using a vehicle without insurance coverage; wilfully furnishing false information. Fines.

Case number five, Ong Chong Cheng, 2009. Offences: using a handphone while driving a motorvan; again, offences driving without a licence; using a vehicle without insurance coverage; using a handphone while driving; wilfully providing false information. Fines.

Six, Divi Raina binte Syed. Offences: driving without a supplementary licence and wilfully providing false information to a police officer. She filed one of these false forms as well.

Now that I have taken the House through the facts of these cases, would Ms Lim agree that the sentence imposed on Dr Wu was in line, broadly, with the cases I have shown?

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the Minister for the Schedule of cases that he has listed out for the House. The reason why I filed the question largely was because of the issue in the public discussion about equitability of the legal system. While I am aware of some of those cases where fines were imposed, there were also other cases where imprisonment was imposed. My consultations with lawyers who are familiar with this area of practice have told me that Dr Wu got off lightly. And I would like, perhaps, to ask the Minister for his view on some of these possible aggravating factors in Dr Wu's case.

First point is that it appears from the police investigations that it was Dr Wu's idea for Mr Kuan to provide the information to the Police and he did it with deliberation. He received the forms from the Traffic Police but decided not to get his hands dirty and asked his employee instead to provide the information. Second point is it occurred over a period of time. It was multiple offences: once in 2005, second time in 2006. So, it is not a case of "a spur of the moment" kind of a conduct but conduct over a certain period of time. Thirdly, the motive of Dr Wu instigating Mr Kuan to provide the information is that he wanted to shield himself from collecting points which possibly could result in his disqualification from driving subsequently. This is one of the factors which the Court has said: The motive in the person's mind when the false information was provided is very important. So, these are some of the aggravating factors in Dr Wu's case and I wonder if the Minister would agree with that.

Page: 471

Mr K Shanmugam: I would be happy to answer them but I noticed Ms Lim avoided answering whether she thinks – and she is a qualified lawyer – the cases that I have listed suggest that Dr Wu's case and the treatment fell broadly in line with the punishments meted out in those six cases between 2004 and 2007. Could I have an answer?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, as I have mentioned earlier, I am aware of some of these cases where fines were imposed. But as I have said, there are some aggravating factors in Dr Wu's case which I believe should have been taken into account and that has led to this opinion on the part of criminal lawyers as well as members of the public.

Mr K Shanmugam: Well, let us look at the points that Ms Lim makes. Motive: in each of those cases I have pointed out, there was the same motive – do not identify oneself. And in each of those cases, Ms Lim will accept, on the face of it, it was not a speeding simpliciter. One case was driving without supplementary licence. There were other cases where there was deliberate misinformation given. For all these, the motive is to avoid one's identity. So that is neither here nor there. As regards the fact that here there were two offences, if Ms Lim looks at the cases I have cited, they also involve situations where there have been more than one offence. So, in that context, I ask her for the third time whether she is willing to answer – and she is capable of answering as a lawyer − all those facts she has identified are present in some of those cases.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, as I have said earlier, I have consulted lawyers who are in practice and familiar with this area of the law, and in their opinion they feel that a custodial sentence would have been warranted in such a situation based on the facts.

Mr K Shanmugam: Can Ms Lim identify a single case where on such facts, custodial sentence was imposed? One case.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Sir, on a point of order – whether this is a session for Question for Oral Answer or a session for debate. Ms Lim basically asked a question in the matter of public interest. Where is the need for the Minister for Law to invoke such a debate? Is he trying to impose some form of intimidation?

Mr K Shanmugam: These questions are entirely capable of being answered, including the very last question I asked. If there is a case that Ms Lim knows, where on similar facts a custodial sentence was imposed – no gratification, underlying offence is speeding simpliciter, no false appeals made, no drunk driving, nothing else – speeding simpliciter with a false statement. Let me know if there is a case where someone was sent to jail.

Page: 472

Ms Sylvia Lim: What I have with me is one case called Tan Jack Saa − I do not have the year with me but I am aware that the facts are quite similar in terms of it being a speeding –

Mr K Shanmugam: Tan Jack Saa – in this case, there was a deliberate false appeal made. It does not exactly fall square with the facts here. Let me make two points: first, if all that Ms Lim can point to is one case compared with the six cases I have identified, then, as a lawyer, she will agree that in six cases, we are talking about situations where the person drove without insurance coverage, without a valid driving licence. So many cases where offences were very serious − wilfully furnishing false information twice and driving without a proper licence. Six cases in contrast to one case. As a fair-minded lawyer, I assume Ms Lim would accept that the treatment given to Dr Wu falls within the broad framework of these six cases. Let me move on.

I would assume that none of us here, I would say –

Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, let him finish.

Mr K Shanmugam: Ms Lim can ask the question at the end. Let me move on.

I assume none of us would say that the sentence should be heavier simply because Dr Wu is rich or famous, or perhaps some of us may not like him. Now, I will say this to Ms Lim: rather than referring to some unnamed lawyers, who she says know better, she is a lawyer, she can look at the facts and she can give us a view based on the facts. Because I think if we leave aside politics and we want to be honest and fair, then we must look at the facts and we have a duty to the public to say exactly, based on these facts, based on these cases, I agree this is the position. It has got nothing to do with intimidation. Let us not throw words like "intimidation" around.

Let me get a couple of points out the way in this context. First of all, some mention has been made of section 204(a) of the Penal Code, which I think everyone knows was not even enforced in 2005 and 2006. Next, section 182, when Dr Wu committed his offences, an offence under section 182 was punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both, which is exactly the same punishment for a charge under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act, and I assume at least qualified lawyers will not quarrel over that.

If it is necessary, I will go through section 182 with the House, but section 182 of the Penal Code, apart from providing for the same penalties at the material time, is a broad general provision. Sections 81(2) and 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act deal directly with the offence in question – furnishing of false information.

So, I said there were two questions that were implicit in the question that Ms Lim had asked, that Dr Wu could have been charged under some other provisions to face a heavier sentence. There is no such other provision. And if there is, I am sure Ms Lim will tell me.

Several people have rushed in to allege bad faith on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution is an important institution in our legal framework, and I think Ms Lim as well as other Members will agree that we have to be responsible when making comments about it. It is easy to pull down and mock, less easy to build. And in the context of these facts, I trust that Members will acknowledge that it is quite untenable to allege that the prosecution had exercised this discretion in bad faith given the facts that I have set out.

Page: 473

Specific to the three points that Ms Lim makes, it was Dr Wu's idea to provide false information. If you look at the facts that I have given for the other cases, it will be obvious that in each of those cases, it was the defendant's idea to give the false information. He got the forms, and there were two offences and motive. Those are all not broadly dissimilar with these cases. In fact, the facts are more serious – driving without a driving licence and exposing people to serious claims.

Let us go to the third question that Ms Lim asked: whether my Ministry has confirmation that written grounds of decision will be given by the sentencing court despite there being no appeal pending. Again, Ms Lim will know the answer to this question. Whether the Court issues grounds of decision is within its sole and independent province. The Court does not confirm its decision with me, with the Ministry of Law, and as far as I know, with anyone else.

Sir, I will now reply Asst Prof Tan's questions.

Asst Prof Tan first asked whether information was obtained specifically and directly from Dr Wu during the course of police investigations into speeding offences involving Dr Wu's car in September 2005 and November 2006, and if not, why not.

Dr Wu was not interviewed by the Traffic Police when the traffic violations in 2005 and 2006 were initially investigated. This was consistent with the usual practice. Mr Kuan had signed the relevant forms identifying himself as the driver of the motorcar when the violations were committed. There was no reason for the Traffic Police to suspect that anything was amiss.

Asst Prof Tan next asked whether the information provided to the Police by the person whom Dr Wu abetted was subjected to the appropriate scrutiny in view of the employment relationship between them, and if not, why not.

When a speeding violation is alleged or suspected to have been committed, the owner or the driver of the vehicle in question is only required to disclose the identity, address and driving licence number of the person who drove the vehicle at the material time. The Police will then act on the information provided. The information that was provided by Mr Kuan in relation to the two incidents in 2005 and 2006 were dealt with according to standard procedure.

Regarding Asst Prof Tan's question about Mr Kuan being an employee, it is not a requirement for the driver to disclose his or her relationship with the registered owner of the car. As such, the relationship between Dr Wu and Mr Kuan would not have been flagged out in the first place. Even if the employer/employee relationship between Dr Wu and Mr Kuan had been disclosed, given the fact that Mr Kuan had voluntarily identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on both occasions, there would have been no cogent reason to further scrutinise the information that was provided.

Asst Prof Tan also queries the non-prosecution of Mr Kuan. I think Members know that the Attorney-General's discretion is exercised with reference to a range of factors. Between the elderly Mr Kuan, who had not received any monetary reward, and Dr Wu, it was assessed that Dr Wu was the more culpable of the two. Dr Wu was therefore prosecuted, whereas Mr Kuan was issued with a stern warning, and I think Members will agree with that exercise of discretion.

Page: 474

Finally, Asst Prof Tan asks: why have investigations into the identity of the driver of Dr Wu's car been so protracted? The underlying speeding offences were committed in 2005 and 2006, but the complaint that Dr Wu had procured Mr Kuan to make a false statement was only received by the CPIB much later in July 2009. Due to the personal circumstances of the complainant, which I really do not want to go into, the CPIB was only able to obtain a full statement in February 2010. After the CPIB concluded that no corrupt practices had transpired, investigations were taken over by Traffic Police in August 2010. Whilst investigations into the identity of the driver were ongoing, Prosecution proceeded against Dr Wu for abetting the giving of false information in September 2011. Investigations have been completed on the identity and I understand that AGC will issue a statement on their decision.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, I am sure there is some clarification you want to make.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister seems very focused on questioning my competence and I feel that there is a need –

Mr K Shanmugam: Not at all.

Ms Sylvia Lim: I think it is apparent to everyone in the House

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, I agree.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Perhaps I should answer point by point the allegations which he makes and ask him for some clarification as well. The first point is with regard to the PQs I filed. Part (c) of my PQ asked "whether the Ministry has confirmation that written grounds of decision will be given by the sentencing court, despite there being no appeal pending" − this was in the context of statements which the Minister reportedly made in the press saying that we should not make comments on the case until the written grounds of decision have come out. So I am aware that there is no appeal pending, and my question is: why make that statement unless you know that their written grounds of decision are going to come out?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, hear, hear!

Ms Sylvia Lim: The second point is on part (b) of my question. I think all of us know that the public is concerned about this case. I did not make any allegation there that the Attorney-General's Chambers has acted mala fides in any way. I am just asking whether that statement issued by the AG's Chambers has addressed public concerns, unless the Minister says there is no public concern on this matter, which I will be very surprised to hear.

Thirdly, Sir, I just want the Minister to confirm whether he is actually questioning my motive in filing the Question. Is he alleging bad faith on my part to cast aspersions on the legal system?

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me take the third question first − that is the easiest. I am certainly casting no motive on Ms Lim. What I was saying is that it would be helpful in the context of statements that Ms Lim and others had made in the past, that we can actually, in this House, debate issues, look at issues, without having to inject politics into it, which is why – [ Interruption .]

Page: 475

Mr Low Thia Khiang: You are the one playing politics.

Mr K Shanmugam: If I may answer without being interrupted. I gave the courtesy of letting Ms Lim finish; Mr Low, thank you. That is why, somewhat hopefully, I went through six cases fact by fact, item by item, and any lawyer would know looking at those six cases that the final result in Dr Wu's case is consistent and falls within those six cases. And I was hoping for what is a really an obvious answer that having looked at these cases, Ms Lim would be fair enough to say, "Yes, I agree. The judgement in Dr Wu's case comes within the framework here."

I gave her three opportunities. She did not. It is not a question of questioning the motive but it is rather hoping because of these statements that have been made in various places about the Attorney-General and our judicial system that between two lawyers, Ms Lim and myself, we can put to rest these allegations in a fair, transparent and open way. But it is not to be.

Let me deal with the other two questions: whether there would be written grounds of decision. Ms Lim would know the context in which I made the statement. The period for Notice of Appeal has not expired. I do not know whether there would be notice that is filed. I would not know whether written grounds of decision would be given or would not be given, and, in that context, I made that statement. Second, I am glad to note that no allegations are being made against the Attorney-General's Chambers and that it is not being suggested in any way that the Attorney-General's Chambers made a wrong choice or a false choice in choosing the charges that they did against Dr Wu.

But the context of the questions certainly and implicitly raised that possibility and because it is a serious possibility, I had to deal with it openly. That is what this House is for, but I welcome Ms Lim's suggestion and I take it wholeheartedly. I am happy to hear that no allegation whatsoever is being made against the Attorney-General's Chambers. So, we can all at least move on, on the basis that they exercised their discretion properly.

3.02 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3) Written Answers to Question Nos 17-27, 30-33, 36-38, 40-42, 45-46, 48-57, 60, 62-70, 73, 77-84, 86, 88, 91-94, 96-97 and 99-104 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 504-550). Question Nos 13-16, 28-29, 34-35, 39, 43-44, 47, 58-59, 61, 71-72, 74-76, 85, 87, 89-90, 95 and 98 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament. ]

Bills Introduced

Page: 476