Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu fined S$1,000
-
SINGAPORE: Prominent plastic surgeon Woffles Wu Tze Liang has been ordered to pay the maximum fine of S$1,000 for getting an elderly employee to take the rap for him for a speeding offence.
The 52-year-old had abetted Mr Kuan Kit Wah, then 76, to provide false information to the police in November 2006.
The car, belonging to Wu, was travelling at 91-kilometer (km) per hour on Adam Road when the speed limit is 70km per hour.
The court heard that Wu also made Mr Kuan take the rap for him for another speeding offence in September 2005.
This charge was taken into consideration during the sentencing on June 12.
Wu could also have been jailed up to six months and fined.
- CNA/ck -
he committed the same offense twice yet all he got was a 1k fine??? is the fine enough to deter him from doing it a 3rd time????
-
Law Minister explains court sentencing of Dr Woffles Wu
SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam responded to comments that the sentence meted out to plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu was too lenient.
Dr Wu was fined S$1,000 on Wednesday for abetting Mr Kuan Kit Wah, then 76, to provide misleading information to the police in November 2006.
The car belonging to Dr Wu, was travelling at 91 kilometers per hour (kmph) on Adam Road when the speed limit is 70kmph.
In a blog post, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC Hri Kumar Nair said such offences are serious and that others who had been convicted of similar offences had been jailed.
Mr Shanmugam said the incident raises four questions.
Firstly, why Dr Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act; secondly why abetment; thirdly why he was given a fine; and lastly why there was a lapse of six years before Dr Wu was taken to task.
Mr Shanmugam explained that the offence was committed in 2006 when section 204 of the Penal Code had not been enacted yet.
Under usual provisions at that time, a person would be charged under Section 81(3).
As for why Dr Wu was charged with abetment, Mr Shanmugam said the 52-year-old "did not make the misleading statements himself."
The minister said the statements in question were made by Mr Kuan, which was why the charge could only be that of abetment.
Mr Shanmugam stressed that investigations are ongoing, as to who the driver actually was and that the case has not been concluded.
He said the decision to prosecute was made by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and that it is independent in making those decisions.
As for sentencing, Mr Shanmugam said the courts make that decision and a fine is apparently "within the norm of usual sentences" under that charge.
Noting that there have been cases where the offender was jailed, the law minister points out that fines are more commonly meted out.
In this particular instance, Mr Shanmugam said "no money passed hands".
He added that Mr Kuan was also not charged and that could have been because the AGC took into account the fact that Mr Kuan is now over 80 years of age.
As for why it took six years for Dr Wu to be prosecuted, Mr Shanmugam said the police were unaware of the offences at that time.
He said information was given only much later through a complain to the AGC, made "more recently".
Once the complaint was received, authorities investigated and thereafter the AGC decided to charge Dr Wu.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair said Mr Shanmugam has answered some of the public's questions on the case.
But it may be useful, Mr Hri said, if the public could understand why some cases involve jail terms while some only received fines.
Turning to the case of the 25-year-old, dubbed the sticker-lady, who was arrested for vandalism, Mr Shanmugam said there are no hard and fast rules on what's considered art on public buildings.
He said the government must look at the consensus of the majority and how the majority would like society to be structured.
Charges have yet to be filed on sticker-lady, Samantha Lo.
Mr Shanmugam's comments were made on the sidelines of a community event.
- CNA/ck -
if no money passed hands why did he take the rap for him?
-
Ahem, $1000 for Woffles Wu is just pocket change.
He probably got someone to take the rap for him because his annual quota of points was nearly passed the limit already.
-
who complained? who bao toh him?
-
even if no money changed hands its still too lenient coz he committed the offence twice.
-
You people do know that he is a socialite, and in singapore, usually socialites do get away with it.
-
first time see his lj bin
this kind can call plastic surgeon
any cosmetics salesgirl at robinsons also more gorgeous than him
-
He no have the looks, but he got money, loads of it, you have?
-
u also dun have
and i probably have more than u -
as long as he can work
i have an appointment with him to do rhinoplasty
lol
-
AGC clarifies media reports on Woffles Wu case
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chambers has clarified some media reports about the case against Woffles Wu. Wu was fined S$1,000 for getting someone else to take the rap for two speeding incidents.
The AGC said in a statement that Woffles Wu was charged for abetting his employee Kuan Yit Wah to give false information to the police about the incidents in 2005 and 2006. It was Kuan who gave the false information.
Wu, who did not give any information to the police, was charged with abetting Kuan to do so, which is an offence under 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.
The AGC said in general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for wilfully providing false information, under the 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.
The AGC said some media reports refer to cases in which a jail term has been imposed under section 204A of the Penal Code.
It said the accused could not have been charged under that provision for intentionally perverting the course of justice. This is because the accused committed his offence in 2006, before that particular section 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 jail term.
On the facts of this case, the AGC said as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code.
-CNA/ac -
What is $1000 to him? Peanuts!!!!
-
peanut de shell lor
-
Originally posted by ISTARI:
What is $1000 to him? Peanuts!!!!
woofless
-
$1000 can go for botox injection?
-
i think more expensive than that
-
Market rate for 1 botox session is about $800.
It is interesting to note that botox is also used to treat sweaty palms.
-
After reading the case, will the next rich guy who is found speeding and need to provide a driver's particulars to traffic police be honest? No girlfriend, empolyee or parent's name to help in the demerit points.
I guess they will risk it! $1K! Who will find out?
-
all are equal but some are more equal than others
-
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
-
Ok, I am quoting nonsense.
-
Elite fine 1k... peasant jail...
shoooo obvious, jin sad jin moody...
-
Originally posted by ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~:
Elite fine 1k... peasant jail...
shoooo obvious, jin sad jin moody...
Why you moody ?
This has nothing to do with you.