Is it the face of Joshua Robinson that compounded the public ire of his crime? Surely it's not, right? Although with his looks he could fit snugly into any villainy role in the mold of Lo Pan of Big Trouble in Little China, his crime nevertheless speaks for itself, right?
To the public at large, especially the 27,000 who had signed the petition, Joshua Robinson deserves more than 4 years in cold cell and it warrants a few strokes where it really hurts - looks or no looks, goatee or otherwise. Surely, a few whips of the cats of nine tails would have sent Joshua off to the road to perdition, right?
Now, to set the record straight, the AGC is not appealing, however, Shanumgam is reviewing. So, how's that for a win-win for all - that is, the petitioners and that villiany-looking perpetrator. AGC clarified that it's not statutory rape (girls under 14). It's actually consensual sex with two 15-year-old.
And as for that disgusting act of showing an obscene clip to a six-year-old (...what was Joshua thinking!?), her father hopes that the "authorities will look into the existing system and consider having harsher punishment for similar cases."
The father said, "That's all I want. I want the Government to look into it. As for my family and I, we want closure. We are not angry. I'm content, and I want to move on."
Lesson? Well, for one thing, I am glad that social activism is not dead in Singapore. Our government asked for a responsive citizenry, and I think we have a rather vibrant and sensitive one. We petition against the Casino, against repealing S377A, against Madonna and Adam Lambert, and now Joshua Robinson.
They say the conscience of the society is the people at large, the moral majority, the social sentry keepers, and I think our little red dot sees red every time something of this indecent and morally-perturbing nature pricks our conscience, insults our intelligence and keeps us huffing and puffing with moral indignation. Nothing escapes our indecent-sensitive radar.
Here is another news in the other corner of the judicial radar for us to think about. Wang Kim Fatt, 53, is rich. But he has a track record. He was charged with drink driving thrice, yes, three times. He was given six weeks' imprisonment with fine and ban.
Wang can accept the fine ($10k) and ban (8 years) but he appealed against the jail term of six weeks. Here is why.
After being charged for the second time, Wang has learnt his lesson. He hired a valet to drive him when he drinks. That fateful night, last March, he wanted his valet to drive after drinking but the catch is that he "had picked up the $600k GranTurismo MC Stradale (short for Maserati) from a dealer just hours earlier."
His witless valet asked Wang to demonstrate how to drive that supercar because it "does not have a gear shift; instead, the gearbox is robotised and the drive modes are activated by paddle shifters."
Wang then got into the driver's seat and drove 710m before was stopped by a police roadblock.
DPP Kong asked for six weeks, which is in the lower range for such offences, because Wang "ought to know he should not have been driving." But JA Chao "agreed that the circumstances were not typical and cut Wang's jail term (from six to four weeks)." The Judge said, "He should have left the car in the parking lot rather than try to demonstrate to the driver how to operate the machine." Underscore "machine".
This is the part that stirred in me some moral consternation. Wang's lawyer said, "The prospect of leaving the brand-new car overnight in the car park was unpleasant." Underscore "unpleasant".
Alas, Wang could have called a cab, uber, grabcar, or called a friend (and maybe fire the valet - for allowing his boss to test-drive 710m on the road instead of in the parking lot), or rent a bicycle and ask the valet to pillion him (ok, the last suggestion was pure silly).
But he didn't. He wanted to operate the machine all by himself in a bid to demonstrate to his valet how to tame it, ride it and ply it on the road after drinking all because it would be "unpleasant" to leave that machine overnight in a drab car park (instead of in the cozy garage in his mansion).
What travesty! Should I petition? Cheerz?