This is ridiculous
WP’s Gomez detained over Elections Department complaint
And you wonder why people say that there is a climate of fear in Singapore?
This is utterly ridiculous. What exactly are they going to charge him with? The police have no case, period. Unless they can adduce additonal damning evidence, what the police have as of now is the most tenuous of evidence and hardly enough to convict him. You may be able to prove that Gomez is blur, or negligent, but being muddleheaded is NOT a crime. Unless malicious intent can be proved, the police has no case. Furthermore, criminal liability must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and not just on the balance of probabilities.
Anyway, the way i see it, Gomez may potentially be accused of either cheating, or criminal intimidation, none of which the police can prove.
Cheating.
415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Criminal intimidation.
503. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. And lets not forget that mistake is ALWAYS a defence to any crime.
Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law.
79. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
and that trivial acts also does not attract criminal liability
Act causing slight harm.
95. Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
In conclusion, this is a frivolous act by the police with the most tenous of evidence and a waste of taxpayer’s money. Just like the time the police actually bothered to investigate the White Elephant incident. Of course, Sylvia Lim could also tell you the same thing.
On a seperate note, the more LKY harps on the Gomez issue, the more my respect for him drops.
