Jap national who assaulted cabby spared jail term, but not local who kicked bus driver
Written by Our Correspondent
Two similar cases of appeal was heard by High Court judge Justice Lee Seiu Kin yesterday with two different results.
While a Japanese national was successful in his appeal against imprisonment for assaulting a cabby, a Singaporean was jailed a month for kicking a bus driver.
Mr Taniguchi Mitsuru, 47, a Japanese construction site manager was initially sentenced to six weeks’ jail in September for using an umbrella to assault a cabby on the forehead and thigh.
He had hailed Mr Lim Hing Soon’s cab along Orchard Road in the early hours of Sept 2 last year after a night out with a friend at a pub. Mr Lim then pursued Mr Mitsuru to collect his taxi fare but was pushed to the ground by Mr Mitsuru.
When Mr Lim returned to his taxi to retrieve an umbrella, Mr Taniguchi tried to grab it away from him and both fell to the ground during the tussle.
The scuffle for control of the umbrella continued which resulted in the victim having a 7cm-long cut over the forehead, a left upper thigh wound and chest pain.
Mr Mitsuru’s lawyer argued that his actions were in “self-defence” and he stopped when he saw the taxi driver bleed. Justice Lee substituted Mr Mitsuru’s jail sentence with a $2,000 fine.
In another case, Singaporean Balbir Singh was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for kicking a bus driver on his leg after being reminded the second time to pay his fare.
Justice Lee dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the act was committed in “a spur of the moment” and that he was “in a hurry”.
He said a deterrent message needed to be sent out that attacks against bus drivers would not be tolerated.
Loading ...
cy on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 9:12 pm
so attacks on taxi-driver will be tolerated???
Citizen of Kangaroo Country on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 9:15 pm
Not paying taxi fare (cheating) and beating up the same taxi driver can be tolerated.
Kicking a bus driver on the leg cannot be tolerated?
What kind of justice is this?
Have the kangaroos from Aussie land got loose again?
knnbccb on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 10:21 pm
Singapore, being a puny country that strives to slavishly carry the balls of other countries (especially the more powerful ones), will pervert the administration of justice.
ronin on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 10:23 pm
This is the result of our garhment laying red carpet for foreign “talent”!!!
anon on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 10:49 pm
How can this be possible? One country two legal system?
Time for Change on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 10:51 pm
How many times have we seen this happen. Singaporeans are really third class citizens in their own land.
It used to be, only, ‘Jobs for foreigners, NSF for Singaporeans’.
Now we can add another slogan, ‘Fine for foreigners, Jail for Singaporeans’.
Time for Change.
Time for Change on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 10:53 pm
How many foreigners have got away with assaulting Singaporeans with only a small fine. Is seems like it is no big deal if foreigners use Singaporeans as punching bags.
Bouncing here and there.. on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 11:17 pm
*sing to the tune of gummi bear*
Kangaroos.. bouncing here and there and everywhere.. bouncing underneath my underwear… they are the bouncing kangaroos…
~Kuku lah.
Jonah on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 11:23 pm
Hmmm. interesting…
the discrepancy seems unjustified
wat? on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 12:59 am
Dear TR,
the term “Jap” is considered to be derogatory to the Japanese
in many places. stop using it…
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:10 am
Are these two cases similar at all to begin with ?
First , We know that the Japanese was perhaps drunk at the point of time , that could be a mitigating factor for not knowingly assault or inflict harm.
Second , the cab driver was the one who bought out the umbrella , apparently to “attack” or at least threaten the Japanese for payment.
Third, less for the earlier pushing, the injuries sustained by the cab driver were hard to determine to be done deliberately by the Japanese. Given the benefit of doubt, the cab driver was the unfortunate loser from this senseless scuffle.
On the other hand , for the man assaulting the bus driver , we need to know some crucial information before we can have a meaningful comparison .
Very importantly , was the man a public menace ? Did he kick the bus driver when the bus was moving ? If the bus was moving and there are passengers on board , the action will have seriously threaten the well being of other passengers.
Was the man remorseful about his action during the hearings or was he adamant that he was right ?
Was the man as well represented by his lawyer as in the Japanese’s case?
All these could result in very different outcomes of the appeals. We probably need to know more before we jump to quick conclusion, especially at sentiments that preferential treatments were given to foreigners.
And Justice For All on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:45 am
My friend who had a Japanese client who involved in an accident and who failed the alcohol test had his case compounded by just paying a small fine. For such cases the ruling was a mandatory jail term in addition to a fine, if necessary. This ruling was set by the Chief Justice Yong Pung How at that time, and there had been many precedent cases.
The reason why his Japanese friend escaped a jail term was because he paid a certain some to a syndicate, i.e. he paid a bribe to court officials. This is true and such things have been going on all along. Remember a few years back when a mother and her teenage son had been charged for assaulting and ill-treating their maid ? Well the son was found guilty and fined a small sum, while the mother was acquitted ! Reason ? Son was a minor so only face a fine. Mother if found guilty means jail term (so the court used the son be the fall guy). But what is the court’s interest in this ? The father was an influential guy you know, someone with links to our MIW.
BarelyAlive on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 2:22 am
I’m disappointed by our judicial standards. It’s not an issue of who’s the defendant – japanese national or a local.
I think there’s no consistency here. The japanese guy was trying to get away from not paying the cab fees in the first place and he can use “an act of self-defence” as a defense? From jail term reduced to just a fine?
He should not have been able to claim that he unknowingly assault or cause harm/damage to others because he was drunk. Even drunk drivers get fined. There’ll be chaos if each time someone commits crime and claimed not to be aware of the seriouness of their actions because they were drunk. It should not be an excuse.
Ignorance is no excuse, so is getting intoxicated. Error of law?
Bird Talk on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 4:42 am
//Jonah on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 11:23 pm
Its all depending whether the judge uses his right or left brain.
Parking Attendant on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 4:56 am
The judge must have saw Mr. Mitsuru first before Mr. Singh.
Mr. Singh came in later and was unlucky becos the judge needs to meet her quota for the day.
Similar to my job.
Road Surveyor on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 5:00 am
One judge can’t even measure distances whether its within 200m or outside 200m from the polling station. So, what do you expect from his peers.
fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 5:02 am
//nocityforoldmen
What a joke!
Is being drunk a good excuse?
Even if the indian Singaporean is drunk, he would not have gotten off.
He would have gotten an even more severe sentence.
This jap goes to Taxi to stop the guy from getting the umbrella. How is that self defence?
The logical thing to do was to run away.
The govt is biased against S’porean.
Another real life example.
Aussie on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 5:05 am
//Citizen of Kangaroo Country on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 9:15 pm.
Down under kangaroo very fair. You keep kicking my pouch! Ooch!
Time for Change on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 8:14 am
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:10 am
It is absolutely foolish to think that Singaporeans have come to this conclusion based on just this two cases.
The fact is, that if you had bothered to read the recent cases on foreigners being charged for assaulting Singaporeans, all of them got off with just a fine and the majority of them gave the excuse that they were drunk.
Since foreigners know that it is okay to whack Singaporeans, they will become more brazen and you can expect to see many more such cases.
Please don’t insult us by accusing of making rash judgments. That is what I find particularly irritating from the internet brigade.
low class citizen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 8:53 am
“We know that the Japanese was perhaps drunk at the point of time , that could be a mitigating factor for not knowingly assault or inflict harm”
If drunk in public, why not charged for misbehaviour in public? Another standard?
knnbccb on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 9:05 am
@wat:
wat? on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 12:59 am
Dear TR,
the term “Jap” is considered to be derogatory to the Japanese
in many places. stop using it…
—–
Screw you and your political correctness.
indexer on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 10:02 am
Some facts are missing. The taxi driver drove round and round Punggol but could not get Mitsuru home. That is why Mitsuru refused to pay the fare and got out. It was the taxi driver that went after Mitsuru, and then went back to his taxi to get the umbrella, intending to use it as a weapon against the drunk man. What Mitsuru did after that was wrong, but he had clearly been provoked by the taxi driver.
As opposed to Balbir, who boarded the bus and refused to pay, with every intention of getting a free ride, and then went to kick the bus driver.
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 10:13 am
@FPC and others who think likewise
Being Drunk is of course not an excuse for wrongdoing .
I had already said it COULD BE a mitigating factor for a less punishment.
From Wikipedia , a mitigating factor takes into consideration “the defendant’s ability to appreciate the criminal aspect of his offense (mens rea), or his ability to control his behavior to meet the requirements of the law, was impaired.”
From article ,”When Mr Lim returned to his taxi to retrieve an umbrella, Mr Taniguchi tried to grab it away from him and both fell to the ground during the tussle. ”
Your intepretation “This jap goes to Taxi to stop the guy from getting the umbrella. How is that self defence?”
Why would the cab driver want to get an umbrella from his cab in the first place ? Don’t tell me he wants to provide good service by sheltering his non-paying Japanese customer.
My intepretation is that the cab driver intends “to “attack” or at least threaten the Japanese for payment” using that umbrella.
I could be wrong , there might be special uses for that umbrella which FPC is aware of.
wat? on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 10:16 am
knnbccb.
i’m sure when someone uses racial slurs on you.. you are okay with it.
just pointing out something TR always misses.
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 11:13 am
Time for Change on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 8:14 am
For the number of foreigners getting off with fines , there are probably another sizeable number of foreigners getting jail sentences for the offences they did . Is the increasingly number of cases involving foreigners showing up in the news any surprisingly given more and more foreigners flooding into this city ?
@”Since foreigners know that it is okay to whack Singaporeans, they will become more brazen and you can expect to see many more such cases.” Sorry to say I have not know any foreign Singaporeans Whacking hobbist to comment on this .
Many cases of local men assaulting ended up with fines or warnings too. Some cases the police will not even take up any charges, asking the victims to press civil charges if they want to pursue.
Maybe “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” holds here .
@”Please don’t insult us by accusing of making rash judgments.”
Sorry if you feel insulted by my earlier comments.
My words were “All these could result in very different outcomes of the appeals. We probably need to know more before we jump to quick conclusion, especially at sentiments that preferential treatments were given to foreigners.”
To me, there is no basis on why you could think I am accusing anyone of making rash judgments. Unless you felt it personally I have insinuated on how you have derived your conclusion ?
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 11:38 am
With the new additional information from indexer on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 10:02 am
@fpc and Time for Change
I did not see the information from Indexer earlier on because it was still under moderation.
Have your opinions about this matter change with this new information ? This matter involving just the 2 cases and not the entire episode on treatment of foreigners vs local .
Sinkapore on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:03 pm
It would really be interesting to read the Judgement on these 2 appeals. Anyone has link to them?
@nocityforoldmen, not withstanding the issue of law, Foreginers from ‘preferred country’ are DEFINITELY treated much better than locals.
And by ‘preferred’, certainly not Pakistan, Thailand or Cambodia.
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:26 pm
@Sinkapore on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:03 pm
What I was saying from the start is these two cases are not even similar for meaningful comparison in the first place .
@”Foreginers from ‘preferred country’ are DEFINITELY treated much better than locals.”
There is no doubt about this. Similar to “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” .
Under the United Nations , all nations are equal whether they are small or big .However , simple reality checks dictate otherwise so.
Despite this , in dealing with this matter of just comparing these two cases alone , with the information we have at hand , there is no justification to say that the japanese was preferentially treated for his nationality.
For any other stories of preferentially treatments of foreign nationalities , that is another matter and should not be used to justify for the judgements here.
Must Eat on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 1:53 pm
SMART – judge Lee has carefully thought over i.e. 1 month sushi costs much more than 1 month supply of japati bread.
And Justice For All on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 2:20 pm
Time For Change
Like I said in my earlier comments, there were many such cases – and most of the time it’s not due to discretion of the judges, its due to money factor. This has been a fact all along.
In case you didn’t know, I am pretty sure you do not, some staff members in our Subordinate Courts at Havelock Road are also on the take. It is not just an individual matter, but rather a systematic problem involving various levels. I personally have experienced it through my work experience. One instance was when a defaulting policemen working there failed to appear before court upon my company’s petition and a Warrant of Arrest (WA) was issued against him, this WA could not be enforced because the court staff told us the file on the policeman was lost (missing). Can you believe that? None of lawyers on our our panel was willing to file a complaint to the courts – the reason being they did not want to jeopardise their rice bowl because they needed to appear in the courts regularly in their course of work.
Also, staff in the Sheriff’s Office, the bailiffs, also have dirt on them. Under regulatory practice, plaintiffs have to bear the transport cost of the bailiffs in the exercise of issue of Writ of Seizure (WS) against defaulting borrowers. But most of the time these court staff do not want to accept the lift offered by plaintiffs giving all kinds of excuses, etc. and state that they get to the appointed address on their own for the WS to be served at the appointed time. After the WS has been served, they will then ask for transport re-imbursement to be given to them on the spot and in cash, and no receipt to be given. The amount of claim ? Varies between $40 – $60 ! In one day if they have to serve 5 WS they would be $200 – $300 richer. So how do you lodge a complaint on such court staff? If you do, the next time you require their bailiff services they will make you wait at the relevant address for hours and deliberately turn up late (so that you get the picture the next time).
Time For Change, you must be still relatively young and not so exposed to the workings of our judiciary process in Singapore. Perhaps I should address you as Time To Wake Up ?
Terence Goh on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 3:44 pm
No point arguing just these two cases. Preferential judgments for foreigners have been dished out for ages. It has become a fact. You must have your head in the sand if you refuse to believe this.
For example, the female German drug trafficker’s amount of drugs was reduced to just 0.01 gram less than the amount which mandates a death penalty.
Japanese men were just given fines for molesting local women. More recently an Indian FT was also just given a fine for molesting a local woman.
A more bizarre case is a White man who committed suicide by throwing himself into oncoming car outside Goodwood Park hotel. The court judged that the Singaporean female driver is 40% liable for his death.
PRC kitchen helper at Soup Spoon killed Singaporean supervisor and got just 4 years jail. Contrast this with a recent case where Singaporean was jailed 4 years for causing hurt.
QQ农场外挂 on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 5:11 pm
已经达到忘我的境界了,呵呵
Mas Selamat on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 6:18 pm
Perhaps someone can collate and make a list of foreigners & locals with the same offences & the different sentences that they got, it would be very interesting.
I remember reading somewhere a foreigner molested 2 sg women, grabbing the beautiful breast of one of them & said “So what? I’m a foreigner?” & true enough, he got off with only a 3 months jail.
A Singaporean doing that would definitely be caned & sentenced to many more years in jail.
http://www.singaporebikes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243429
Poor Singaporeans are the lowest class in their own country!
nocolour on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 6:35 pm
remember the SPH editor who got jailed for one day?
fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 7:01 pm
//indexer and nocityforoldmen
I have many experiences with taxi drivers driving around and around – apparently not know where they are going.
I still pay them and reserve the right to complain.
Even if you are a foreigner, and you think the cab driver is crap, you still have to pay them.
You can complain later but you still have to pay them.
Let alone, beating them up later.
What a joke!
fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 7:10 pm
//indexer and nocityforoldmen
The whole episode could have been avoided if the jap paid up and complain later.
To just walk out and not pay up is cheap. After all, he did arrive at the place he wanted to go right.
The jap is asking for trouble in the first place by not paying. Try not paying your fines and see if you are asking for trouble.
Pretending to be drunk and not pay a cab driver is cheap. All the more so, when he is alert enough to take a cab.
How can we be sure he had the impression that he was being send around because he was drunk.
fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 7:13 pm
//nocityforoldmen
To fall in a tussle ? A lot of push and pulling with a significant amount of strength must be involved in order for 2 grown men to fall.
There certainly is a lot of agressivity involved.
I don’t know how that mitigates the case for jap.
fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 7:15 pm
if only we can use this kind of reasoning (like the jap) when it comes to govt rules and fines.
Joke!
fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 7:17 pm
We have a minister telling us that we need to pay more HDB property tax now because it will be more when the property prices go up.
He charges us more even before the prices go up.
Let alone a cab driver who has managed to send you to where you want to go and you don’t pay up.
U are asking for trouble.
nocityforoldmen on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 10:58 pm
@fpc on Sat, 28th Nov 2009 7:10 pm
To others , my apologies that the dialogue between fpc and I have took up so much space here or has offended you. The following is actually intended for fpc only, I must admit it has gotten a bit personal .
For “taxi drivers driving around and around – apparently not know where they are going.” ,Your approach is to “paid up and complain later”.
You are not wrong to do that , but for me I will only pay the usual amount if it is a regular route I take. A ‘Take it or leave it ‘situation , and I tell the driver to go to the nearest police station if he wants to.
Why should I have to pay more for someone’s incompetence or someone’s unreasonable attempt to get more money out of me, and then have to waste more of my time to complain later, without knowing if I will ever get a satisfactory reply.
@“Pretending to be drunk and not pay a cab driver is cheap. All the more so, when he is alert enough to take a cab.”
If I am to follow your way of talking, similarly, can I say that the cab driver ‘pretends’ not to know the way and take the drunk man for a long spin to demand a higher cab fare?
One thing for certain is that you and I do not know what the real situation then and so do not make exaggerated claims. “Pretending to be drunk to avoid paying the cab fare” has not been established as a fact with the information we have at hand yet.
@”How can we be sure he had the impression that he was being send around because he was drunk.” –The most simple and obvious way is the cab fare on the meter , is it excessively higher than usual ?
No one will say that the Japanese is right not to pay the cab fare, but does the law or the cab company policy allow the driver to arm himself with an umbrella for hostile confrontation? You said previously “The logical thing to do was to run away.” In the animal kingdom, it is “flight or fight” when hostility appears, what are the chances of an assumed drunken man running away from an umbrella wielding man unscathed ?
One thing for sure is that your self-preservation approach of “paying up first and complain later” and “logical thing to do was to run away” is strikingly different from mine.
You said “To fall in a tussle ? A lot of push and pulling with a significant amount of strength must be involved in order for 2 grown men to fall. There certainly is a lot of agressivity involved. I don’t know how that mitigates the case for jap. “
Is there a possibility or an equal likelihood that the pushing and pulling , aggression involved could have came from cab driver as much as from the Japanese ? We know that the cab driver is the one who probably starts the confrontation with his umbrella.
For illustration sake , if you start a fight by first throwing a punch at me , and you ended up badly walloped by me, then you cried victim and said I had assaulted you with your bruises as evidence . I can only have my own bad luck to blame for engaging in a fight with a sore loser. I am not saying that the Japanese case is like that but that could be a possibility.
For your “if only we can use this kind of reasoning (like the jap) when it comes to govt rules and fines.” and “We have a minister telling us that we need to pay more HDB property tax now because it will be more when the property prices go up. ” is it relevant to what I had said ? seems not to me.
And Justice For All on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 1:16 am
Just as I expected. I brought up a very serious revelation about the widespread practice of money taking by Sub-court staff (all the way from the bottom up) and no one was bothered by this.
All you guys talk about centres on the Jap and his taxi fare issue, which is a small little micro is miniscule compared to the wider repercussions I have brought up, of systematic plundering by court staff and no one raised any eyebrow. Why the interest on a specific case (which is of no consequence) and no concern expressed regarding a more dangerous trend that is developing ? Why focusing on such detail regarding a tree when it is the forest we should be concerned about?
fpc on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 4:33 am
Yeah, it is true there are many cab drivers who pretend not to know the way and drive around.
You can always ask him to stop and alight after paying him.
You cannot choose not to pay especially he got you there in the first place.
You can complain later.
But you cannot choose not to pay and hit the driver.
If you are drunk (and Singaporean) and hit another driver physically. I can assure you, you will not just get a fine. You probably cannot drive a cab anymore in Singapore.
There are many such cases.
Like it or not, this happens to many Singaporeans.
That’s why this ruling is bias.
fpc on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 4:39 am
You can push, you can pull but you cannot instigate a fight but not paying for a rendered service.
It is cheap.
I do not believe the cab driver instigate the fight because rules are so strict here in Singapore and these drivers know it.
They won’t want to jeopardise their livelihood because of a cheap shot.
I bet you if the Jap had stopped the driver and pay him on the spot before leaving (if you want, he could ask for a receipt), I assure you that the driver would very likely reduce the fee and smile and apologise to the Jap.
For the cab driver to do that, there must be prior provocation from the Jap.
These drivers work hard for their living and they know the rules are stacked against them.
I don’t believe they would instigate the fight.
fpc on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 4:41 am
don’t believe, try doing that when you take a cab to work. See how the cab driver changes his/her behavior.
angryman on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 9:53 am
the criminal justice system in singapore is full of loopholes! a senior inspector once told me, “the accused has a lot of big shots writing for him…” and i was naive enough to think it din matter, that i had faith in the system… lolololol…
you see, in singapore, it matters not if you don’t “know” the law. what is more important is that you do know people who can pull strings at the law.
i see this in so many cases, drug-trafficking, violence (domestic or public) and defamation. the virus is spreading faster than H1N1…
nocityforoldmen on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 11:12 am
@ And Justice For All on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 1:16 am
My friend , I had to answer fpc’s remarks directed at me.
For what you have highlighted so far. These are serious allegations at legal departments, and the relevant authorities will go all out to ‘disprove’ them ,which measures might include discrediting the whistle blower . I guess most of us here have little or no experience with what you had revealed , and so we reserve our comments here. It is only naive for those to truly believe in the excellent non-corruption or high judical rankings that Singapore attained.
For you might think we are missing out on the big picture here and what we are talking about is lengthly and trivial , but the line of thoughts remains consistent with the article.
If you will like comments to be discussing what the things you had said , consider submitting an article to the site.
fpc on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 8:11 pm
//nocityforoldmen
What is your point?
fpc on Mon, 30th Nov 2009 7:30 pm
//nocityforoldmen
““Pretending to be drunk to avoid paying the cab fare” has not been established as a fact with the information we have at hand yet.
”
The Jap didn’t pay the driver. That’s what established.
The Jap claimed he was drunk. That’s why the court accepted his appeal.
Nonetheless, it is cheap not to pay for a rendered service and to instigate a fight is sickening too.
Whether the Jap is drunk or not, is not relevant.
He has enough good sense to decide not to pay. That meant he is sober enough.