~ By Bertha Henson ~

There were several stories over the past few days related to the price/cost of seeking justice.

a. Whether plastic surgeon Woffles Wu got away with a $1,000 fine for abetment because he is "rich''.

b. Whether the sandwiched class can afford legal advice, given the increasing complexity of court procedures.

c. Whether you can really ask for $600K from your employer after your butt fails to connect with the seat of a chair in your office.

In the first case, some answers were forthcoming from the AGC and Minister Shanmugam – it related to why Wu was charged with abetment rather than the heavier crime of giving misleading information. Seems his friend was the one who spoke to the police. But lawyer-MP Hri Kumar had a more general point when he first surfaced the issue in a blog – in some cases when you can't pay a fine, you go to jail. This means really, that if you are rich, you get a ‘Get out of Jail’ card. Judges should be given some sentencing options. I guess we will have to wait for the courts to say how it decided on the Wu case, and for police investigations on who was really driving Wu's car to be concluded. I hope they move fast. Because the fact remains that this case happened six years ago, and notwithstanding what police said that they only knew about it recently because of a complaint, I think people still want to know the ins and outs. It will not do for the ordinary fellow to start thinking that Singapore justice system is not a level playing field.

The second case was Law Society's Wong Meng Meng asking for a public agency to deal with legal stuff that doesn’t always have to make it to the courts. It's about access to justice for all. I wish someone would educate readers on what sort of things the ordinary fellow really needs a trained legal opinion for. As well as a range of fees that lawyers charge. I mean, what sort of stuff has got so complex for the courts that we now need a lawyer to deal with it?

In any case, how do you source for a lawyer? Pretty much like a doctor I think – word of mouth. Then it's a question of whether you think a cheaper one or a more expensive one can get the job done for you at the same quality of service? Are there cases when you can dispense with a lawyer? There's alternative dispute resolution, mediation (at community levels too) – Are they well-used?

As for the $600K asking price for damages by a Jap worker here who fell on her backside after a colleague failed to push in a chair he had pulled out. She is suing negligence, loss of future earnings etc. I pity the fellow – the colleague I mean. I pity the employer, which is really deep-pocketed – US-headquartered with more than US$5b in service revenue. Big target huh?

Seriously lah, as lawyers interviewed said, office mishaps happen and are usually settled within the company. But going to the High Court for this? I sort of choked until I read the last par – that both parties might just go to the Sub Courts to settle the final amount, where the cap is $250,000. That's more palatable. In any case, some advice especially for the chivalrous among the guys, when you pulled out a woman's chair, remember to push it back in…she won't appreciate landing on her backside…and might just sue you too.

TOC thanks Bertha Henson for her contribution, this article first appeared on her blog. Bertha Henson is a former Associate Editor of The Straits Times.

 

You May Also Like

抵达我国前 15巴仙客工未获得IPA信函

人力部(MOM)去年委托市场调查公司展开一项调查,发现在非马来西亚籍工作准证持有者之中,有15.4巴仙在抵达新加坡之前,没有收到他们的原则批准信(In-Principle Approval Letter,简称:IPA)。 这个数据比最近一次进行类似调查—2014年的4巴仙来得高。 共有约2500名工作准证持有者和500名S准证持有者接受随机调查。 根据法律规定,雇主必须在为员工申请得工作准证后,于员工启程前往新加坡前,将有关的IPA信函邮寄给员工。有关的IPA信函列明就业的条款和条件,包括基本薪金。 未寄出IPA信函,雇主或被罚款一万元 在没有任何其他书面通知的情况下,该信函可作为实际上的工作合约。省略此步骤的雇主,可面对高达一万元的罚款。 至于为什么顽固的雇主仍然大幅增加,外籍劳工中心(MWC)主席杨木光表示,有些人可能并不了解这一规定。 他在出席职工总会假外籍员工中心首个娱乐俱乐部,为外籍员工举办的五一劳动节活动上致辞时指出,“我们需要继续敦促雇主们,为他们的员工提供IPA信函”。 他也促请没有收到IPA信函困扰、特别是面对薪金纠纷的外籍员工,能尽早反映他们的问题。 然而,非政府组织客工亦重(Transient…

6月19日迈入解封第二阶段 允五人聚会

政府跨部门防疫工作小组今日(15日)宣布,第二阶段解封将在本月19日开始,允许不超过五人的聚会,每户家庭也获允许接受不超过五人拜访。 不过,在公共场合民众仍受促戴口罩和尽可能保持社交距离。 第二阶段解封也意味着大部分商业活动可恢复正常。卫生部长颜金勇称,阻断措施结束后的过去两周,社区病例仍保持稳定,客工宿舍的传染率也有所下降,未有出现大型感染群。 可恢复的活动就包括可堂食、私人不惜、音乐课等,惟歌唱培训则除外。 零售商店、公园、体育馆和其他公共设施,包括游泳池、高尔夫球场、游乐场、保龄球馆和健身室也将重新开放。 在采取预防措施的情况下,也可以恢复在养老院的面对面访问。 所有乐龄人士保健服务,包括中医,美容服务、乐龄护理、活动中心等,将逐步被允许重新开放。但年长者仍受促留在家中。 不过,宗教活动、会议和大型商展仍不允许。

马国六消防员 为搜救溺水少年集体殉职

为救难而牺牲!马国六名消防拯救人员,于昨晚进入雪兰莪蒲种一个废矿湖,尝试拯救一名失踪者,不幸被急流冲走,全数罹难。 当时,消防局在昨日傍晚5时,接获民众投报,指蒲种Taman Putra Perdana地区,有一名17岁少年失足坠落出口水闸门,遭急流冲至废矿湖,下落不明。 消防部门随即动员莎阿南、赛博再也和巴生消防局,超过15名消防员前往现场搜救。 消防部队在晚上8时55分抵达现场,六名来自巴生港口消防局和莎阿南消防局的潜水队,以蛙人装备潜入水中搜救。 六人身上都连接绑着安全绳索,但是,矿湖中激流汹涌,水流太急,六名消防人员瞬间被卷入激流漩涡中,即便岸上同僚极力拉住绳索,但还是拯救失败。 同僚费了半个小时把溺水消防员拉上岸,但经过抢救,已回天乏术。 六名殉职消防员,年龄介于34至24岁: 马国消防拯救局随后表示,这是当局有史以来首次出现最多消防员殉职溺毙的事件。至于失踪的17岁少年仍在搜救中,至今仍未寻获。 六名消防员的遗体也在今早送往莎阿南消防局,由长官和同僚们致最后敬礼,再运返家乡。  

新加坡捷运被揭 委2前军官任要职

今年四月,经过一轮“全球海选”,从20多位候选人中,前三军总长梁建鸿脱颖而出,被钦定为新加坡捷运(SMRT)新任总裁,并已在本月1日走马上任。 对于新总裁仍是军人背景,前总裁郭木财称“纯属巧合”,表示自己没有参与遴选过程,认为董事会即使直到会引来民众批评,还是选了梁建鸿,显示他们坚信梁就是最适合人选。 不过,据《新报》报导,新加坡捷运其实也雇用了两名武装部队上校— 姜文纪(45岁)和李炎珠(49岁),接管人事管理职务,他们都是郭木财任期内被聘用的。 姜文纪在5月加入新加坡捷运,任职人事部主任。李炎珠则负责领导汤申–东海岸地铁线部门的人事部。该线路将在六年后启用,将有超过1千职员投入运营。 姜文纪在军中任人事指挥(personnel command),直至2016年把职务移交给李炎珠。也在同一年,新加坡武装部队在卓越人力资源表现评奖,连续三年卫冕电子人力管理以及学习发展奖项。 郭木财2012招揽四军官 2012年,郭木财招揽了四名前军中高官,加入新加坡捷运,其中就包括首席运营长许庆瑞。48岁的他,原是新加坡国防部国民服役事务处长,获委捷运公司人事部主任,如今已掌控该公司的资讯科技、采购、人事和培训事务。 至于揭育文(Alvin Kek),在武装部队服务14年,军衔达上校,曾当过编队指挥官首席工程官。在2008年担任国庆筹委会负责节目的筹委主席;2011年国庆庆典执行委会主席。曾于2009年获颁国庆公共行政(军事)奖章。 他也是郭木财当年招揽加入新加坡捷运的高级军官之一。45岁当上捷运营运总监、营运副总裁而后擢升为首席营运总管。但是在不久前因为犯下酒驾罪,而被降职,也不能领取2019年财政年花红。…