The difference between Law and Justice
Every now and then, a country leader does something so downright #$%@$, and my Libran scales of justice gets really flipped.
If I may quote the Straits Times today, "Law minister S. Jayakumar yesterday dismissed suggestions that there were some serious lapses or a travesty of justice when a man's appeal against his convictions was heard only after he had finished his jail term."
He took elaborate pains to explain that Mr Yeo's case, (him being an unemployed man of 52, who spent nearly five months in jail serving time for the crime of 'letting an overstayer spend one night in his flat', a case which the Chief Justice overturned on appeal - a rare case in itself) was very rare and the result of unusual circumstance, and outrightrejected compensation for him. He also harped on the fact that there was no malice in the prosecution nor any delay or flaw in the system.
Let's agree on the fact that there is no 'malice in the prosecution' because that's a no-brainer, right? If I were a medical doctor and jabbed a patient with a HIV tainted needle, I should clearly be completely vindicated and pay no penance for that mishandling, because it happens in very rare cases under unusual circumstances, and may the sky fall down on our heads if doctors and hospitals harbour malice while prosecuting lawyers don't.
But for one to claim that there is really wrong with the judicial system when a man has been unjustifiably sentenced behind bars truly takes the left ball of a lawyer and the right ball of a politician.
So when our hero MP Arthur Fong asked if the public's sympathy was misplaced, our Minister of Law (not Justice, may I ironically add), answered not with regret, nor with the slightest compassion for Mr Yeo's plight that would have been his mitigating mark of humanity and nobility. He had predictably, dredged up old dirt from Mr Yeo's past, smeared it all over the latter's name, and quite possibly sealed the poor fellow's status amongst the unemployed.
But hey, to quote a certain remisier currently being sued by Chief Justice even though the CJ has no dealings with him and has never met the remisier in his life, "I should keep my mouth shut. I don't want to have free food and lodging."
If I may quote the Straits Times today, "Law minister S. Jayakumar yesterday dismissed suggestions that there were some serious lapses or a travesty of justice when a man's appeal against his convictions was heard only after he had finished his jail term."
He took elaborate pains to explain that Mr Yeo's case, (him being an unemployed man of 52, who spent nearly five months in jail serving time for the crime of 'letting an overstayer spend one night in his flat', a case which the Chief Justice overturned on appeal - a rare case in itself) was very rare and the result of unusual circumstance, and outrightrejected compensation for him. He also harped on the fact that there was no malice in the prosecution nor any delay or flaw in the system.
Let's agree on the fact that there is no 'malice in the prosecution' because that's a no-brainer, right? If I were a medical doctor and jabbed a patient with a HIV tainted needle, I should clearly be completely vindicated and pay no penance for that mishandling, because it happens in very rare cases under unusual circumstances, and may the sky fall down on our heads if doctors and hospitals harbour malice while prosecuting lawyers don't.
But for one to claim that there is really wrong with the judicial system when a man has been unjustifiably sentenced behind bars truly takes the left ball of a lawyer and the right ball of a politician.
So when our hero MP Arthur Fong asked if the public's sympathy was misplaced, our Minister of Law (not Justice, may I ironically add), answered not with regret, nor with the slightest compassion for Mr Yeo's plight that would have been his mitigating mark of humanity and nobility. He had predictably, dredged up old dirt from Mr Yeo's past, smeared it all over the latter's name, and quite possibly sealed the poor fellow's status amongst the unemployed.
But hey, to quote a certain remisier currently being sued by Chief Justice even though the CJ has no dealings with him and has never met the remisier in his life, "I should keep my mouth shut. I don't want to have free food and lodging."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home