He Apologises (really?)

It was reported that blogger Alex Au had issued an apology to the AGC (Attorney-General's Chambers) for alleging that plastic surgeon Woffles Wu had received special treatment with regards to his speeding case.

I wonder what is the point of it all. Does Alex's apology actually do anything to repair the alleged damage to the reputation of the Singapore's courts in the court of public opinion? The balance of power in this case is so out of balance in the AGC's favour that it cannot but be seen as being heavy handed and typical of high authority riding roughshod over the 'smaller' people. Alex's apology is unlikely to be sincere and given under duress, so net net, such action to supposedly protect the reputation of the courts is unlikely to achieve its objective.

Doing far more to repair the reputation of the courts would be for the AGC to clarify a few points related to Woffles Wu's case. Why was Woffles Wu's case delayed for 6 years? Was the backlog of traffic offences before the courts so heavy that it took 6 years for his case to be heard? In the intervening years since Woffles was booked for his offences, were any similar cases committed by other offenders heard by the courts BEFORE him? If so, WHY?

Woffles was caught for the offence not once but TWICE. This is evidence that can be interpreted as defining a pattern of behaviour and not a one off misjudgement. I am not sure, but I do not think the law on speeding actually discriminates based on how much above the speed limit the offence was to decide on the severity of the punishment. Granted this could be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the case, but given that it was for TWO similar offences, I should think any leniency would have been cancelled out. Also, the AGC did not specify just how 'little' the speeding was above the limit so that the public could decide if such an apparently light sentence was merited.

Clarity on such matters would do far more to repair any perceived damage to the reputation of the courts than putting Alex in a position where he felt compelled to issue an apology. Afterall, in whose eyes is the perceived damage to the courts reputation is the AGC trying to correct? The court of public opinion isn't it? This high handed action is unlikely to achieve its objective. Sad.