Positive outcome from the Gomez saga

Below is a forum letter that highlighted a positive component to the debate about the Gomez saga.

The Election department official has the right to lodge a complaint to the police. The police has to investigate the complaint, and took the time to conduct a proper investigation. The public prosecutor reviewing the case stated that Mr Gomez committed an offense and recommends a punishment (i.e. warning). Mr Gomez accepted the warning and is now working in Sweden again, and continuing his party involvement in Worker's Party.

From what I seen from the video where Mr Gomez was asking for the minority candidate certificate, I can imagine the election officer will be very concerned when he is being accused of being able to provide the form. This is especially so since it was clearly communicate to him in a forceful manner by Mr Gomez that the certificate was already submitted in the presence of other witnesses. If Mr Gomez did not remember that he actually did not submit it, and there was no evidence proving it, the election officers will most probably be penalized in their civil service careers at the minimal.

Therefore, comparing this incident to a customer service complaint to a typical government department is incorrect. Accusing an election officer in an election period that the officer does not have a submitted form which would disadvantage the party and the candidate is a serious matter. Regardless whether Mr Gomez genuinely forgot that he has submitted the form or whether he intentionally choose not to submit the form, the conversation between him and the election officer would definitely caused a lot of concern for the officer involved.

Even when MM Lee, PM Lee and DPM Wong come out very strongly in public stating that Mr Gomez has the malicious intention to discredit the election system, the investigation was kept narrowly by the police and attorney general chambers to only address the complaint by the election department.

The only question which was not answered is why the election department brought the complaint officially to the police on May 6 (Polling day) when the event happened more than a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I think the judiciary and police handled this situation professionally, and it is good for Singapore political maturity and institutions moving forward.


May 16, 2006
Gomez case shows justice is very much alive

I REFER to the article, 'Gomez let off with a stern warning' (ST, May 13).

When news broke that Mr James Gomez had been hauled up by the police as he was checking in at Changi Airport to fly back to Sweden on May 7, coffee-shop gossip was abuzz with wild rumours that the People's Action Party (PAP) was once again using scare tactics against the opposition.

Fuelled by rumour-mongering, the saga soon became a game of chance. People betted heavily that Mr Gomez would eventually be charged in court and slapped with a hefty term of imprisonment. This, the gamblers believed, was because the judiciary was under the control of the executive.

So, when it was reported that he was let off with a stern warning, many punters were left poorer by a couple of hundred dollars. However, the losses incurred by punters are not relevant to the saga.

What is relevant and significant is this: it is crystal clear that, in Singapore, the executive has no clout in influencing the judiciary (Attorney-General's Chambers) to 'dance to its tune' and prosecute its opponents.

It appears to be the notion of the man in the street that justice is blind to anyone who is deemed to be an adversary of the PAP.

I trust that the knuckle-rapping meted out to Mr Gomez will change the mindsets of those who believe the PAP is authoritarian and it must always be its 'way or the highway'.

The laws of Singapore dictate that the public prosecutor is vested with absolute discretion in recommending the course of action to be taken in criminal cases.

In the Gomez case, he was certainly not absolved of any wrongdoing. The learned public prosecutor, after reviewing the evidence in the case and taking into consideration the mitigating factors, recommended to the police that a stern warning be administered to Mr Gomez.

It is therefore pertinent for local rumour-mongers, as well as foreign adversaries of Singapore, to take note that justice in Singapore is very much alive, and that Singapore's judiciary is definitely independent of the executive.

Majulah Singapura!

Lionel De Souza