Singapore passes buck back to Glenn: It was public prosecutor's decision to charge Koon Swan

SINGAPORE - Singapore's Attorney-General's Chambers has pointed out the few errors in the book, 'The Prosecutor', created by former crime-buster Glenn Knight.

Local television Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported which Knight had pronounced in his book which former MCA boss Tan Koon Swan was poorly convicted as well as which in Knight's words, 'he was technically an innocent man'.

In 1986, Tan had pleaded guilty to the single assign of abetment of rapist crack of certitude in the High Court here before Justice Lai Kew Chai, who condemned him to two years' seizure as well as the excellent of S$ 500,000.

Tan admitted to aiding the executive of Pan-Electric Industries Ltd to dedicate rapist crack of certitude by engaging in the swindling with which executive to dishonestly dispose off skill belonging to the association in defilement of territory 157(1) of the Companies Act.

Fourteen alternative charges were not proceeded with.

Tan's appeal opposite the visualisation was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

CNA reported which the AG pronounced Tan did not, as well as could not have appealed opposite the conviction, given he had pleaded guilty as well as which via the proceedings, Tan was represented by counsel.

In 1996, in the box of Cheam Tat Pang vs Public Prosecutor, Chief Justice of Singapore Yong Pung How, sitting as the High Court judge, resolved which the defilement of territory 157(1) of the Companies Act could not be the basis of dishonest disposal of skill in the assign of rapist crack of trust.

CNA! reporte d which Chief Justice Yong had referred to Tan Koon Swan's case, noting which there were no arguments about the exactness of the charge.

Although Chief Justice Yong disagreed with the view of the law taken in Tan's case, his decision did not as well as could not overrule the decision in Tan's case, as both decisions were done by the High Court.

Decision was done by PP

The AG pronounced the decision to assign Tan was done by the Public Prosecutor upon the basis of the evidence opposite Tan as well as the germane law as well as furthermore, Tan had authorised recommendation via the total process. [Ed's Note: In Glenn's book, he wrote which he had sent the note to the supervision as well as it gave him the all-clear to prosecute, scroll next for some-more details]

Neither he nor his warn took issue with the exactness of the charge, CNA reported the AGC as observant as well as which Tan was convicted upon the basis of his own defence of guilt, formed upon the law as well as facts as was accepted by his own counsel.

Knight's point was which if the law had been accepted in 1986 to be as pronounced by Chief Justice Yong in 1996, afterwards Tan could not have been convicted.

But the AG pronounced which was not so, according to the CNA report. There were fourteen alternative charges which were not proceeded with in the 1986 box opposite Tan because he had pleaded guilty to the assign of rapist crack of certitude by defilement of territory 157(1).

Discrediting Glenn's book to save face?

CNA reported which the AGC pronounced Knight also done the series of errors in his book.

Firstly, he described the visualisation imposed as together with the excellent of S$ 1 million. The scold excellen! t was $ 500,000.

Secondly, the book settled which Chief Justice Yong resolved which Knight was wrong to assign Tan as he did, as well as which Chief Justice Yong was of the perspective which the territory Mr Tan was charged with was wrong in law.

Chief Justice Yong referred only to the fact which there were no arguments about the exactness of the charge.

The AG pronounced Chief Justice Yong did not go in to any detailed contention of Tan's box or Knight's control of the case.

Specifically, Chief Justice Yong did not express any perspective which Tan was poorly charged.

Thirdly, it was pronounced which the visualisation in Cheam Tat Pang meant which Tan had been poorly convicted as well as which he was technically an innocent man.

CNA serve quoted the AG as observant which Tan's self-assurance stands, as well as he remains guilty of the crime which he had admitted to.

[Editor's note: In the book, the 63-year-old Glenn had created about the many high-profile cases he handled. He pronounced which in 1996, the box identical to Koon Swan's came up for hearing as well as Singapore Chief Justice Yong Pung How "concluded which we was wrong to assign Tan for the offence".

"It was extremely unpleasant for me to suddenly find which the Singapore courts had got it wrong. It was the rarely significant box which led to enforceable regulations being introduced in to Singapore's stockbroking industry.As Koon Swan was the head of the MCA, we put up the paper upon his involvement in the Pan-El tale though left it to my superiors to confirm his predestine as he was out of (Singapore) as well as in Malaysia. In the end, the supervision decided which the CAD could take to court Koon Swan," Glenn wrote.

"Chief Justice Yong was of the perspective which the territory we had charged Koon Swan with was wro! ng in la w for we could not assign the chairman for stealing from the association because as the director, it was not the crack of the law in which sense. Chief Justice Yong resolved which it was wrong to crook anyone for stealing money if the wrong assign had been used to begin with. The visualisation cracked my idea in the authorised system. In the United Kingdom, such the turning point visualisation would have set aside Koon Swan's self-assurance though the jurisprudence does not allow for this though technically, Koon Swan could still have been granted the pardon."]

- Bernama

Read More @ Source

More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |

Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz