"Government believes City Harvest sentences too low, will look at amending law: Shanmugam
He was reflecting the Government's position on the apex court’s decision last week to uphold shorter jail terms for CHC founder Kong Hee and five other former church leaders accused of misusing church funds amounting to millions.
This resulted from a new interpretation of the Penal Code section governing CBT offences, which led to the Court of Appeal ruling that company directors, governing board members or key officers of charities and officers of societies who commit CBT could be jailed up to seven years - compared to employees being liable for a maximum 15 years imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal subsequently called for a policy review of CBT legislation and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said it would work with relevant ministries to do so.
Said Mr Shanmugam: “The Government’s policy is clear: If you are a senior officer, director in the organisation, you are in a position of greater trust. You have considerable authority to make decisions in relation to the organisation’s assets. If you abuse that trust, you should be more culpable, and you should be liable for more severe punishments, compared with an ordinary employee.”"
A dissastisfsctory situation that shows the AGC n the government were right to argue what it see as too lenient a sentence vs. judges deciding to go technical. Disregard an old precedent n forcing the law makers to word the laws MORE SPECIFICALLY.
This is allowed in this system though logically it does not make senses; n was argued as much by the AGC. Still, it is what it is: the judges can interpret as they see fit. An irony? Maybe. Yet, it is how this work!!
May the laws b changed quickly n the next case of similr nature can make sense to ordinary people!!
No comments:
Post a Comment