CJ Yong ups Pandiaraj & Balakrishnan sentence
-
Two commandos, who appealed against their court sentence for causing the death of 19-year-old national serviceman Second Sergeant Hu En Huai during a dunking exercise, have had their jail terms increased instead.
Note the CJ's comments at the end.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How on Thursday also dismissed the appeals of Captain M Pandiaraj and Warrant Officer S Balakrishnan.
Captain Pandiaraj had been sentenced to a jail term of three months each on two charges.
One was with abetting Mr Hu's death, by instigating the instructors to carry out the training.
The other was with causing grievous hurt to Captain Ho Wan Huo, who underwent the same training.
The Chief Justice raised his jail term to 12 months for each charge.
The sentences were to run concurrently, which means he would have to serve 12 months in prison.
Warrant Officer Balakrishnan, who was originally jailed two months for each of the two charges against him, had his sentence increased to six months per charge.
The sentences were also to run concurrently.
This means he will have to serve only six months in jail.
During the appeal hearing, Chief Justice Yong said the accused persons were a disgrace to any army, much less the Singapore army.
When Sergeant Hu was dunked, he said they stood by and did nothing and were enjoying it.
Chief Justice Yong described their acts as absolutely brutish and sadistic. - CNA /ch -
they deserved it
-
Thanks iveco for the news.. what do u mean by CJ comments at the end? What about it? -
We've been through this issue ad nausuem, so I'll leave it at saying that there's so much about this case that is not public knowledge that a black-and-white conclusion like above is unwise.Originally posted by chikopek:they deserved it
As another point for consideration, CJ Yong has a known habit of turning down appeals and increasing sentences instead, so this isn't any surprise. Besides, how would you trust the judgement of a CJ who's had complaints of excessive harshness and improper procedure filed against him by the Public PROSECUTOR (not the defence lawyers, mind you!)? Who's brutish and sadistic, I ask you?
As for the CJ's comments, you'd think that he'd have the brains to reserve such crap for the guys who physically carried out the dunking. -
Well, I guess he was reserving his comments for those people, which he sees as the culprits, which most laymen are told to think too.Originally posted by Gedanken:We've been through this issue ad nausuem, so I'll leave it at saying that there's so much about this case that is not public knowledge that a black-and-white conclusion like above is unwise.
As another point for consideration, CJ Yong has a known habit of turning down appeals and increasing sentences instead, so this isn't any surprise. Besides, how would you trust the judgement of a CJ who's had complaints of excessive harshness and improper procedure filed against him by the Public PROSECUTOR (not the defence lawyers, mind you!)? Who's brutish and sadistic, I ask you?
As for the CJ's comments, you'd think that he'd have the brains to reserve such crap for the guys who physically carried out the dunking. -
Well, Lordz, you've seen all of the debates we've had about this topic. There are so many holes in this case that any reasonable person would have to ask what's really going on here.
-
either way i still think those trainers shld just DIE
-
If Enhuai's father put a bullet in the head of each of the 4 instructors, I don't think he has committed any sin. The quartet have their hands dripping with innocent blood, after all.Originally posted by bismarck:either way i still think those trainers shld just DIE -
Are you a personal friend of the deceased? What's with the first-name basis reference?Originally posted by iveco:If Enhuai's father put a bullet in the head of each of the 4 instructors, I don't think he has committed any sin. The quartet have their hands dripping with innocent blood, after all.
Sure shoot them - while you're at it, why not shoot the MO who approved a PES B man for a PES A course, or the safety officer who was AWOL that night, or every man involved in the course over the years who did nothing to stop this practice (trainees included) or our dear RADM Teo for letting such a thing happen on his watch? Hey, all their hands are "dripping with innocent blood" (an overly dramatic statement), right?
Ridiculous. -
well said my fren...well said..Originally posted by Gedanken:Are you a personal friend of the deceased? What's with the first-name basis reference?
Sure shoot them - while you're at it, why not shoot the MO who approved a PES B man for a PES A course, or the safety officer who was AWOL that night, or every man involved in the course over the years who did nothing to stop this practice (trainees included) or our dear RADM Teo for letting such a thing happen on his watch? Hey, all their hands are "dripping with innocent blood" (an overly dramatic statement), right?
Ridiculous. -
I think this CJ is unfit to be a judge, much less a CJ. Appealing against a sentence should be a right and by upping the sentences seemingly flippantly, he is in effect denying the right of appeal.
I have never had high regard for Yong, and this incident just reinforcoes my contempt for him. -
i find it funny too.
its like warning people against appealing.
what is the point then? maybe as well remove it from out system. -
Admiral Teo only took over in late 2002 before the RSS Courageous incident and he had so much $hit to mop up in his 1st year in office.Originally posted by Gedanken:Sure shoot them - while you're at it, why not shoot the MO who approved a PES B man for a PES A course, or the safety officer who was AWOL that night, or every man involved in the course over the years who did nothing to stop this practice (trainees included) or our dear RADM Teo for letting such a thing happen on his watch? Hey, all their hands are "dripping with innocent blood" (an overly dramatic statement), right?
Ridiculous.
Anyway, those dangerous practices had already been around during the Tony Tan era, so why isn't Dr Tan at fault?
-
Pandiaraj only took over in one course before the drowning incident and he had so much $hit to mop up in his first few weeks in the role.Originally posted by TIB1133B:Admiral Teo only took over in late 2002 before the RSS Courageous incident and he had so much $hit to mop up in his 1st year in office.
Anyway, those dangerous practices had already been around during the Tony Tan era, so why isn't Dr Tan at fault?
So what's your point? -
Ged, the main culprit here is the establishment.The establishment never put forth their clearest story,and so the consequences still ring forth.Originally posted by Gedanken:Pandiaraj only took over in one course before the drowning incident and he had so much $hit to mop up in his first few weeks in the role.
So what's your point?
There is a lesson to be learnt here, but I'm afraid CJ and the establishment have not learnt it yet. -
Sheesh, this can't get any dumber, Lordz. Teo was around a helluva lot longer than Pandiaraj, but of course the worker bees must be sacrificed so that the Minister can have the nice warm feeling of his arse being covered.
It's funny that our friend should mention Tony Tan. The good doctor was an experienced enough politician to understand that an army can't operate with the public interfering, and would have sidestepped the issue by saying something along the lines of, "We'll look into this". His buffoon of a successor had to kickover a hornet's nest by saying, "We'll get to the bottom of this".
Let's face it, guys - thanks to crap like this, all army standards are going to hell in a handbasket, and although I can't give details (OSA), the drop has already started creating problems resulting in at least one new death that I know of. -
Well, shouldn't a more safety conscious SAF have less deaths?Unless of course their training accidents are a result of lack of experienced instructors and not enhanced safety coverage.Originally posted by Gedanken:Sheesh, this can't get any dumber, Lordz. Teo was around a helluva lot longer than Pandiaraj, but of course the worker bees must be sacrificed so that the Minister can have the nice warm feeling of his arse being covered.
It's funny that our friend should mention Tony Tan. The good doctor was an experienced enough politician to understand that an army can't operate with the public interfering, and would have sidestepped the issue by saying something along the lines of, "We'll look into this". His buffoon of a successor had to kickover a hornet's nest by saying, "We'll get to the bottom of this".
Let's face it, guys - thanks to crap like this, all army standards are going to hell in a handbasket, and although I can't give details (OSA), the drop has already started creating problems resulting in at least one new death that I know of.
And this trend is disturbing. -
[quote]Originally posted by lwflee:
I think this CJ is unfit to be a judge, much less a CJ. Appealing against a sentence should be a right and by upping the sentences seemingly flippantly, he is in effect denying the right of appeal.
I have never had high regard for Yong, and this incident just reinforcoes my contempt for him.[/quote)
I beg to disagree with you on this point that CJ is unfit to be a judge, much less a CJ.
Remember, appealing against a sentence is a right of an accused.
Similarly it is the prerogative of the CJ to take into consideration of the various aspects of the case, review the grounds considered by the judge, reduce or up the sentence, or send it back to the trial judge (for retrial?).
Yes, CJ hands are tied to a certain extend. They are things he can do and take into consideration and not the others.
By Law, he cannot go and dig into why the establishment is not punished?, why not put blame on Dr Tony Tan? as these are not brought up in the trial proper. DonÂ’t ask me why. I am not a lawyer.
I had high regard for CJ Yong. In this case, a precious life is lost. The parents lost a very promising son. The sentence melt out by CJ reflect a lot of our sentiment with regard punishment to the immediate offenders.
Yes, we (including the parents) may not be happy with the establishment (we feel is the main culprit) but it is a different issue. It has to be taken at another level / another forum. We may not know but I believe a lot of changes had already taken place and more changes may be in line. -
Well, Lordz, it comes down to this. Sure, you can be more safety-conscious, but ultimately any combat vocation is a dangerous job. If you are more safety conscious (to prevent any accusations of tekaning) at one stage, say selection of a soldier for a role, you may end up subjecting that soldier to later training that he is unable to handle, making it more dangerous.
-
Therefore the QC/QA process is still very much flawed.So much for the local mentality of treating one symptom and not the whole body as a whole.Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, Lordz, it comes down to this. Sure, you can be more safety-conscious, but ultimately any combat vocation is a dangerous job. If you are more safety conscious (to prevent any accusations of tekaning) at one stage, say selection of a soldier for a role, you may end up subjecting that soldier to later training that he is unable to handle, making it more dangerous. -
All things being equal, it may be a fair point. However, take a look at Yong's track record of turning down appeals and instead increasing sentences, and you'll see that his policy is to actively discourage appeals by promising to make things worse for the defendant.Originally posted by PatrickLTH:I beg to disagree with you on this point that CJ is unfit to be a judge, much less a CJ.
Remember, appealing against a sentence is a right of an accused.
Similarly it is the prerogative of the CJ to take into consideration of the various aspects of the case, review the grounds considered by the judge, reduce or up the sentence, or send it back to the trial judge (for retrial?).
Yes, CJ hands are tied to a certain extend. They are things he can do and take into consideration and not the others. -
Ehhh, Lordz, it's not just the local mentality. I've yet to come across a population that pays more attention to the spirit of the law than to the letter of the law - it's a perfectly natural response to having to live under laws.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Therefore the QC/QA process is still very much flawed.So much for the local mentality of treating one symptom and not the whole body as a whole.
However, one would imagine that politicians running a country would be aware of this tendency and be circumspect in their actions, instead of providing knee-jerk reactions to satisfy a bloodthirsty public. -
That's why stupid people should be killed during birth. Any babies with low IQ should be strangled to death. iveco? Certainly qualifies this instance.Originally posted by Gedanken:Are you a personal friend of the deceased? What's with the first-name basis reference?
Sure shoot them - while you're at it, why not shoot the MO who approved a PES B man for a PES A course, or the safety officer who was AWOL that night, or every man involved in the course over the years who did nothing to stop this practice (trainees included) or our dear RADM Teo for letting such a thing happen on his watch? Hey, all their hands are "dripping with innocent blood" (an overly dramatic statement), right?
Ridiculous.
Paedophiles should not be tolerated at all cost. Vermin of society. I'm not accusing anyone am I?
-
We must learn that appeal against sentence is an offender right.Originally posted by dragg:i find it funny too.
its like warning people against appealing.
what is the point then? maybe as well remove it from out system.
It is also the duty of the CJ to review the grounds and adequacy of the sentences, ie the accused already found guilty, the sentence passed by the trial judge could stay, or could be up or down.
If all appeal must result in stay of sentence or reduce in sentence, every criminal will appeal. CJ will be very very busy then.
We must learn that appeal can result in higher, lower or stay in sentence.
So do think very very carefully if you contemplate to appeal against sentencing! -
I get what you mean..but if we were to explore the reasons behind the political failure here..you and I would drift too close to the OSA if you get my drift.Originally posted by Gedanken:Ehhh, Lordz, it's not just the local mentality. I've yet to come across a population that pays more attention to the spirit of the law than to the letter of the law - it's a perfectly natural response to having to live under laws.
However, one would imagine that politicians running a country would be aware of this tendency and be circumspect in their actions, instead of providing knee-jerk reactions to satisfy a bloodthirsty public.
Sigh.