The Community Justice Centre and the lawyers from Invictus Law Corporation who represented Mr Kirpal Singh pro bono deserve recognition for assisting him in obtaining an acquittal of the charges related to his workplace injury (Worker accused of faking injury to cheat company gets acquittal, Nov 24).

The prosecution's decision to withdraw the charges will have saved taxpayers' money and considerable time for all parties.

However, the outcome raises a few questions.

If it was a discharge amounting to an acquittal, why was Mr Singh issued with a stern warning?

Given that Mr Singh pleaded not guilty, and the evidence needed for prosecution was insufficient, the stern warning appears to be inappropriate.

What are the implications of the stern warning for Mr Singh's eligibility to return to work in Singapore in the future?

A stern warning often denies the recipient the right to return to work, which is understandable when the accused person admits guilt. However, in this case, Mr Singh did not admit guilt, and the denial of future work in Singapore would be an unjustifiably harsh consequence.

Deborah D. Fordyce

President

Transient Workers Count Too