I am no lawyer, but common sense tells me that when a judge allows a prosecutor to amend the charges that an accused is facing just before the end of a trial -- mind you, it's not even in the middle of the trial -- it is most unfair to the accused.
This is even more so, when the amendment is to shift the burden of proof to the accused!
It is unfair because when you are accused of A, you may defend yourself thus: "Nope, I did not do A, I was doing B, and these are the evidences...". Then, the prosecutor drops charge A and now charges you for doing B, based on the evidence you presented to defend yourself against A. Then if it turns out that the judge finds you not guilty of B, the prosecutor now claims that your account in court,while defending against crime A and B, proves that you have committed C and re-charges you again, and again, and again! A country with a good legal system will not allow such nonsense!
It does not take a first class law degree to deduce that DPP Edwin San must have. after listening to almost everything the defendant has to say to defend himself, realised that it is difficult to prove that the accused has intended to cause harm to the victim, which is what the DPP has to prove under 4 (1). And so, now he cleverly request to amend the charge to include 4 (2), which states that an accused is assumed to have intended to cause harm, once he fires a gun, unless the accused can convinced the court otherwise!
And the court granted this amendment!!!
What kind of a mother fucker is this Edwin San? Yeah, it is most justified for this Human Battery to call this DPP a mother fucker! Here is a man facing the death penalty -- mind you, not any ordinary charge -- and just when he has almost finished defending himself successfully, this asshole of a DPP shifts the goal post and amends the charge to nail him.
Is this not double jeopardy, except that instead of being charged twice with the same crime, now the man is charged "once" since technically the trial, while about to end, has not ended yet? But that's being technical. For all practicality, the poor accused has been charged twice: once under 4( 1) and now under 4 (2)?
But even a greater mother fucker is the judge Tay Yong Kwang! One can argue that after all, it is up to the DPP to request but the final decision lies with the judge. What kind of judge is this? Does he has any sense of morality? He rubber-stamp everything the DPP request, day in day out. And he still can eat and sleep in peace every night?!?
Well, let's leave it to heaven to take care of such bastards -- that Justice Lai Kew Chai has lots of ill-gotten wealth, accumulated from years of being Lee's bootlicker in numerous defamation suits -- all of which "coincidentally" were heard in his court room. And of course, he also had one or more luxurious condominium bought at hugh discount, in the Hotel Property scandal. In fact, he refused to recuse himself from hearing Lee's defamation suit against Tang Liang Hong. So, is he enjoying his beautiful condo now?
Nah. He died of cancer soon after sentencing Took Leng How to death! It is a Law of Nature that those who wishes harm upon causes death to others intentionally - nevermind if others are guilty or not -- will not reap the good fruit of a happy long life! Such a person too will have his retribution soon. A cruel painful untimely death, as it turned out in Lai's case!
This Matrix Island used not to allow such last-minute amendments of charges. If memory serves me right, it was that Yong Pung How (or was it Pung Sai?) who ruled that such last-minute amendments are allowed under our law.
It was also he who abolished (or requested parliament to do so) the 3-judge system for capital punishment - he said it is ok for a man's life to be determined by just 1 judge. (Incidentally, under the 3-judge system, Took Leng How would not have been sentenced to death, since there was no unanimous decision among the 3 judges (assuming the 3 of them had heard his case, instead of his appeal)).
Oh, and I believe it was also this shit-man who ruled against spousal privilege - i.e. the privilege that one spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other, concerning confidential communications made during the marriage. The privilege allows us to open our heart to our spouse, without the fear that whatever we say in the bedroom between husband and wife, can one day be used as evidence against us in court. With its abolishment, the court can now compel husband and wife to turn against one another, instead of treating them as one united entity.
Funny thing is, why is this Pung Sai piece of shit still alive and kicking happily? Well, retribution takes time, I believe. But surely it will come, for that's the way Nature works - what goes around comes around.
Oh, and look at how our 146-ranked newspaper's reporter helped us be better Human Batteries. The bitch started with the caption: "after amendment of charge, the same penalty applies", and finished off the article by reminding us a second time: "this section's penalty is the same as section 4(1), both death penalty". In other words, the bitch not only did not highlight the significance of such an unfair last-minute amendment, but she actually made the effort to psycho her readers that there is no difference at all! Amazing. And disgusting! Her retribution will come too. One day.
By the way, in many other countries, where citizens are kings and not Human Batteries, double jeopardy (or in this case, a similar version of it) is not allowed. The United States constitution -- which is not changed as frequently as our "constitution" -- contains the following:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Maybe our "constitution" has such a similar clause too? Who knows? Doesnt matter anyway. It's only the "constitution" -- already amended for the umpteenth time by parliament in its short 40 years of history!
Finally, if anybody think this "small" hiccup in our court has nothing to do with us, think again! Even if you did nothing wrong, can you be ever so sure that you and your sons and daughters and father and mother and friends will never, ever, be falsely accused of a crime and be forced to face a capital charge?
Read this wise saying and learn!
No Matrix quote available. The Matrix Master in the movie did not shift his goal post back and forth to nail anybody. Even Machines have better ethics than our kangaroo court!