3 extra strokes for prisoner: Govt regrets error
-
Abstracted from The Straits Time 1st July 2007
Steps taken to ensure it won't happen again. Govt rejects family's demand for $3m compensation
THE Government said it regrets an error which led to a prisoner being caned three more strokes than he was sentenced to and has taken steps to ensure that the mistake will not happen again.
A joint statement by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs last night also revealed that the prisoner's family has asked for $3 million in compensation, which the Government has rejected.
This was how the mistake came about: On Feb 28, Dickson Tan Yong Wen, 20, was sentenced to a total of nine months in jail and five strokes of the cane for two offences involving abetting an illegal moneylender to harass a debtor.
But a court clerk added three more strokes to the punishment when he was preparing the paperwork for Tan's commitment to prison. The clerk has since resigned.
The caning was carried out on March 29 and the authorities said prisons officers observed all procedures relating to the administration of the caning, including verifying with Tan that the number of strokes of caning was correct.
The statement said that Tan did not object to the number of strokes he would be receiving on three separate occasions: on March 1 when he was being interviewed by a prison officer during admission to Admiralty West Prison; on March 29 when he acknowledged on an official document that the eight strokes to be meted out to him was correct; and shortly before his caning, when he confirmed to prison officers and a medical officer that the number of strokes was correct.
When contacted yesterday, Tan's mother, Madam Ho Gee Lin, 52, contradicted the statement and said that her son had alerted two prison officers to the error prior to the caning.
'My son is prepared to go for a lie detector test,' she said.
The housewife said the officers had dismissed her son's protests and he decided to drop the matter because he was afraid of being punished for insubordination.
To ensure there is no repeat of such an incident, court officers now have to follow checklists when doing the paperwork for commitment to prison.
Madam Ho said she had initially asked for $150,000 in compensation but raised it to $300,000 because she felt that the authorities were not taking her complaint seriously.
She said her lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, then advised her to seek $3 million in compensation based on legal principles in the United States and Britain where the courts award punitive damages.
Tan is now on home detention until next month.
By Tan Dawn Wei & K.C. Vijayan -
Originally posted by (human):The Straits time 1st july 2007
......
She said her lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, then advised her to seek $3 million in compensation based on legal principles in the United States and Britain where the courts award punitive damages.
Definitely there's going to be a payout. The law works based on the principle: An eye for an eye.
But I think the lawyer is aiming for too much. And the lawyer is seeking compensation based on US and Britain law?!? That would be possible if the court is held in those places. E.g. Like during the Taiwan airport accident. In Singapore, we only follow Singapore law. Can't understand why the lawyer don't even understand basic principles. -
I thought the ministry of law and home affairs are run by ministers who are highly regarded as talent who are paid millions of tax payers' money annually in Singapore? How come such error can occur?
-
Originally posted by (human):I thought the ministry of law and home affairs are run by ministers who are highly regarded as talent who are paid millions of tax payers' money annually in Singapore? How come such error can occur? That's already the past. Playing the blame game is useless. What's important is how they are going to deal with this mistake.
-
They cane offenders for making mistakes which is considered the past, now they are making mistakes themselves, would it justify for people to close one eye and let them move on without any penalty?Originally posted by Parka: That's already the past. Playing the blame game is useless. What's important is how they are going to deal with this mistake. -
What can u do? cane is cane already. Or do you expect Lee's each take one stroke ?
-
Can people who wanted to treat people harshly when making mistakes expecting leniency when oneself has also made mistakes?Originally posted by dbowie:What can u do? cane is cane already. Or do you expect Lee's each take one stroke ? -
why not? they are the elites wat, but who are we? commonersOriginally posted by (human):Can people who wanted to treat people harshly when making mistakes expecting leniency when oneself has also made mistakes?
what can a boy do after realizing that his dad has caned him by mistake?
demand money from his dad as compensate, sue his dad or cane him back? -
That's already the past. Playing the blame game is useless. What's important is how they are going to deal with this mistake.
true. should pay $300k and close the case. or the whole ministries each get 3 cane stroke in return.
UK and US big country i can understand sometimes the efficiency of each states could be different. but singapoe so small counrty and famous for squeaky clean country can also make such mistake.
Â�•{–v˜ôÂ�H -
If this is so, no doubts it's perverted. Can people tolerate perverts?Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:why not? they are the elites, but who are we? commoners -
the principle of this game is,
they are higher up, they can make mistake while we cannot -
God creates some man to have more rights than the others? Sounded like you don't mind tyranny and can live with injustice.Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:the principle of this game is,
they are higher up, they can make mistake while we cannot -
i don't even think the government has the rights to administer capital/strokes punishments. i don't even think PAP will be much popular after this incident, at least after this incident, there will be some PAP supporters losing its trust.Originally posted by (human):God creates some man to have more rights than the others? Sounded like you don't mind tyranny and can live with injustice. -
Just like democracy.. when there is no true democracy but only benevolent despotism. But you all call it democracy.Originally posted by (human):God creates some man to have more rights than the others? Sounded like you don't mind tyranny and can live with injustice.
God dont create some man to have more rights than the others. We make ourselves above others to have more rights then the rest. Thats why there are those up there that do the whopping.. while you guys down there do the b|tching.
So instead of the talk about all the justice and equality , maybe you should do something about it. Gather the people to make changes. Only by the masses can you make your voice heard...
if all fails.. there is always a bomb strapped unto u when u walk in to parliment
Just my 2 cents worth. -
you know ... my first instinct was to say no ... to not support the family in their lawsuit, cos it smacks of ambulance chasing to me, I wouldn't like to see Singapore turn into a litigious society like the states, where the crims seem have more rights that the law abiding citizens, and the people trying to enforce them ........
but then again ... I think it's ironic and hypocritical that on one hand, the powers-that-be talks of paying big money to attract the best talent for civil servants, and on the other, imply that they are not infallible ...
it simply doesn't work that way ... yes, a CEO or some other major executive may be paid a big bucks in the corporate world, but if he screws up, he'll be on the streets too .... why should civil servants (and "elected" representatives of the people for that matter), be any different, to get the best of both worlds ? to get pay on par with the private sector, and yet be insulated from the mistakes they make ? ....
it's hard for me to feel sympathetic towards a vandal and a loanshark runner, but a simple "it's too late" simply doesn't cut it ... it reminds me of other assorted screw-ups in recent years ... remember that blood transfusion HIV case ? ... I wondered if heads rolled at the health ministry, but i believe the victims got nothing much out of it (heck, the lawyer handling this case should go talk to those chaps too), and the blood donors got jailed instead ... -
There are no cases similar in nature as this in Singapore before. Singapore law is fundamentally base on Britain's law that is why the lawyer based the compensation on that of the British. If i am the lawyer i wld also ask for this much for after much discussion between lawyers especially those from the ministry the compensation wld surely decrease by a whole chunk. If u ask for 300k i think the most u will get will be 3k. 1k for each stroke.Originally posted by Parka: Definitely there's going to be a payout. The law works based on the principle: An eye for an eye.
But I think the lawyer is aiming for too much. And the lawyer is seeking compensation based on US and Britain law?!? That would be possible if the court is held in those places. E.g. Like during the Taiwan airport accident. In Singapore, we only follow Singapore law. Can't understand why the lawyer don't even understand basic principles. -
can't win the sg gov one la.
-
Singapore govt like to boast about it's first world achievement. If this is the outcome like you said, surely it is projecting third world image and telling the world it is not up to first world judiciary standards.Originally posted by NewAge:There are no cases similar in nature as this in Singapore before. Singapore law is fundamentally base on Britain's law that is why the lawyer based the compensation on that of the British. If i am the lawyer i wld also ask for this much for after much discussion between lawyers especially those from the ministry the compensation wld surely decrease by a whole chunk. If u ask for 300k i think the most u will get will be 3k. 1k for each stroke. -
Once a while, I like to see their "First World and/or World Class System" take a good beating from the public....
They need learn HUMILITY.... lots of it....
New checks after prisoner given extra strokes of the cane by mistake
By Ng Baoying, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 01 July 2007 1438 hrs
SINGAPORE : The Subordinate Courts have put in extra layers of checks to prevent a repeat of the mistake where a prisoner was given eight strokes of the cane although he was only sentenced to five.
The three extra strokes had come about due to an error by the Court Officer when preparing the documents.
The Court Officer in question has resigned and left the Subordinate Courts.
However, prisons officers verified the number of strokes to be meted out with the prisoner three times before caning.
He raised no objections.
The prisoner was sentenced to 9 months jail and 5 strokes of the cane for abetting an unlicensed moneylender to harass a debtor.
The Government says they are ready and willing to settle the matter through mediation.
In negotiations, the settlement sum escalated from an initial $150,000 to $3 million.
The Government did not accept this final sum.
To tighten processes, the Subordinate Courts will have checklists for Court Officers in preparing documents.
There will also be layers of additional checks. - CNA/ch -
The government's apology sounds rather insincere. Rather than issuing a rather impersonal statement through the press, it would be better if a high-level official or even the minister came out and apologised publicly.
Also, the haggling over compensation seems rather sordid and the figures should never have been revealed. -
Got 1 case 19 years agoOriginally posted by stellazio:can't win the sg gov one la.
1 kena 48 strokes, got compensated -
19 years ago!Originally posted by sbst275:Got 1 case 19 years ago
1 kena 48 strokes, got compensated
-
GST increase?
-
Originally posted by Keii:GST increase? wah lau. 2% only why increase so much!! MUST COMPLAIN TO CASE!!
-
Originally posted by (human):They cane offenders for making mistakes which is considered the past, now they are making mistakes themselves, would it justify for people to close one eye and let them move on without any penalty? Hence my second sentence.