So easy to mock, so difficult to build one's integrity and self-worth

Is our Parliament nothing more than a rubber stamp to pass laws and amendments proposed by PAP? Is it an institution for the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans or a place for PAP Ministers to politically browbeat their opponents?

In Part 1 and Part 2 of below, you can listen and judge for yourself if this is a criminal court where innocents are browbeaten and insulted into submission. Or is it Singapore's Parliament?

(Please bear with the first 30 seconds of silence as the Law Minister was comfortably arranging his papers while other members of the house wait.)

Part 1

Part 2

If a picture paints a thousand words, a video does much more. Unfortunately, the above video ends up as an audio. On the bright side, it will help readers rest their eyes a little while concentrating more in listening to arrogance, insults and belittlement of one Singaporean against another: The insults on the integrity and competence by a minister against an MP of the same law fraternity but of different political party.

Is Sylvia Lim not a 'fair minded lawyer' because she refused to accept Shanmugum's proposition? If we go along with Shanmugum, I'm afraid there are many Singaporeans who are not fair minded simply because we are disquieted by the action of the prosecution.

At 01:20 of Part 2, the Law Minister said,"Let me move on". When the Speaker of the House interjected to let Sylvia has her say, Shanmugum simply brushed the speaker off by saying, "Miss Lim can answer at the end. Let me move." If my ears are not playing tricks on me, am I to infer that protocol and respect for parliamentary proceedings has become a sham, gone to the dogs? What's the Speaker of the House there for? To be timidly walked over by a PAP minister? With that, how is the Speaker going to call the Parliament to order?

Shanmumgum said at 1:46 of Part 2, " I would say this to Miss 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 her 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 nothing to do with intimidation. Let's not throw words like intimidation around."

I humbly suggest that the Minister not throw words like "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." Just because Shan said so, we must agree with his position? It's bloody condescending! It shows the arrogance that makes PAP so detestable!

At 2:51, he said,"Next, Section 182 when Dr Wu committed his offences, an offence under 182 was punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment of a term not exceeding 6 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 won't quarrel with that."

Again, a detrimental insinuation against Sylvia on her quality as a lawyer.

4:10: " 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. I think Miss Lim as well as other members 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 members will acknowledge it is quite untenable to allege that prosecution had exercise discretion in bad faith given the facts I have set out."

"And I was really hoping for an obvious answer that having looked at these cases, Miss 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 3 opportunities, she did not (sic). It is not a question of questioning the motive but rather hoping because of these statements that I have made in many palces about the Attorney-General and our Judicial System that between 2 lawyers, Miss Lim and myself, we can put to rest these allegations in a fair, transparent, open way. But it is not to be."

After insulting and intimidating Sylvia, Shanmugum ended by being disappointed by Sylvia not agreeing with him as one lawyer to another that the prosecution did not screw up.

As commoner to a successful ex-lawyer-now-law-minister, I humbly say it is easy to pull down and mock a alternative politician but it is less easy to build your reputation and impossible to have your integrity intact after such an act!

My previous blog on this issue was featured at TR Emeritus [Link] and here are some cogent comments that may be worth reading:


Richard Lu:
August 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)
Shanmugam is a Minister and no less The Minister of Law.
In Parliament he behaves like a two-bit lawyer defending a hoodlum – bullying, bulldozing and always looking for the upper hand. Does he believe that he is Lee Kuan Yew or LKY incarnate? There can be only one ‘hatchet man’ and we don’t want another one in Parliament.
The Minister of Law must remember that Parliament is the place to explain and dispense good advice if he has any. As a Minister he must never talk down. He must be humble and speak with humility. He must explain things simply and if possible with wit and humor. Instead we have a belligerent and confrontational cock waiting to strike down anyone who opposes him.
Netizens are waiting to flay him and that I am sure they will do. Shamugam’s methods in Parliament will not win him friends. Mind you he is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is far distant in abilities and experience compared to ex-Minister George Yeo who unfortunately had to be removed from Government. Ex-Minister Yeo makes a a fairly good minister and is mostly polite and non-confrontational. What a difference in the two.


WAS WOOFLES EVEN DISQUALIFIED:
August 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm  (Quote)
In case you are not aware……5 of the 6 cases mentioned by Shanmugam were penalised with disqualification from driving, ranging from 12 months to 24 months.
They were also fined between $1,500 to $4,000.
So a repeat offender like Woffles Wu…..did he get an equivalent
sentence?
Interesting to compare apples with apples since all these cases were prosecuted under the same law.
Any comments please?

District Magistrate:
August 16, 2012 at 11:13 pm  (Quote)
After watching the short debate between Miss Slyvia Lim of the WP party and the PAP Law Minister Mr Shamemugam in Parliament, I am all praise for Miss Lim for standing up to speak on matters that the people of Singapore really want to know. However I cannot said the same for Mr Shamemugam, who I find that he had used ‘threatening and intimitating’ words at Miss Lim.
As I see it Miss Lim was asking a legitimate question in Parliament and it is the concerned Ministry or Minister to give a explanation or a answer to the question asked. However the Minister chosed to avoid giving a direct answer and instead used threatening and intimitating words in the reply. He had turned this Parliament session into a criminal interrogation session.
Poor Miss Lim must have been nervous but not afraid although she could have been taken aback at the sudden outburst of the Minister. It is very clear before the many eyes of the people who watched this episode that the Law Minister was trying to twist around the situation. He was clearly unable to give a legitimate answer to Miss Lim’s question.
I am really ashamed to see a man who had learned Law and is now using his Law knowledge to bully a lady. He is acting like a criminal lawyer and not a respectable Minister. It is indeed a SHAME to the Govt and especially to the Prime Minister who had employed such person like Mr Shamemugam

feedmetothfish