In a statement released from China, where he is currently on a visit, Mr Lee reiterated what he had called Mr Gomez earlier.

The Minister Mentor had said that Mr Gomez was a liar and dishonest and that Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim and the party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang did not act honourably by shielding him.

Mr Lee added that if Gomez claims he is not a liar nor dishonest, he can go to court to clear his name.

Earlier on Friday, Mr Gomez had been let off with a stern warning for threatening an Elections Department officer, ending a three week long saga.

Investigations by police started after a complaint by the Elections Department against Mr Gomez on May 6.

Police said that after reviewing the evidence, the Public Prosecutor was satisfied that Mr Gomez had used threatening words towards a public servant.

He could have been fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to one year.

But police decided it would let Mr Gomez go with a warning instead, as he had been cooperative and had not committed any previous criminal offences.

The saga revolved around Mr Gomez 's claim that he had applied for a minority candidate certificate at the Elections Department before the May 6 General Election.

Security camera footage from the Elections Department later showed that he did not submit the application form but instead put it into his bag.

Mr Gomez subsequently admitted he did not hand in the form and apologised, saying he was distracted.

But People's Action Party leaders found his apology inadequate and accused him of lying and trying to discredit the Elections Department.

"It is in the AG's authority to exercise his discretion, but his decision not to prosecute does not, in any way, make James Gomez less of a liar or less dishonest.  I reiterate what I have called him, a ilar and dishonest, and that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang did not act honourably by shielding him.  If Gomez claims he is not a liar nor dishonest, he can go to court to clear his name," said Mr Lee in his statement.

- CNA /ls

I'm first and foremost exhilarated by Gomez's release with only a 'stern warning'.  But even as we breathe a little easier that this life, at least, has not been ruined this general election, the particulars of the case has illicited from me some observations regarding the reasons behind Gomez's release.  Let's take a look at them one by one.

1. Lee Hsien Loong does not want to taint his infant regime.  Lee has said that he wishes to create a more open and inclusive society, with a 'consultative government' -- sentencing Gomez or taking too many steps too far would bode ill for his claims.  Not following through with the intimidation tactics taken so far will allow them to point at the affair and say: see? Don't call us bullies.  We could have made his life miserable but we didn't.
2. There is insufficient evidence to hold up to scrutiny in a court of law.  I did a quick Google search on 'criminal intimidation singapore' and came up with knife-wielding maniacs.  Consider the definition of 'criminal intimidation' as per Section 503 of our penal code: 'Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation'.  Gomez telling the Elections Department personnel that there will be 'consequences' if they had misplaced or concealed the minority certificate would hold up as flimsy evidence in a court of law, given this definition.  Imagine me taking my teacher to court for telling me that there will be consequences if I had lied to her about being sick that day, instead of really having been down with the flu (who, me, never).
   
3. Now the PAP can continue with their smear campaign on his person with impunity.  Minister Mentor Lee, on his visit to China, has thoughtfully found the free time to remind us that Gomez is a liar, just in case we had forgotten.  He can do this because Gomez's name has not been cleared in the court of law, and because poor men generally have less resources with which to fight extensive legal battles with our esteemed founding father, nor his associates who likely play golf with court officials (according to Wikipedia, the chief justice, judges of appeal and high court judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister).  He can also do this because the Public Prosecutor, as we were told in the initial news releases, had found enough grounds to find Gomez guilty.  This allows the PAP to have the legal high ground on nothing more than the Public Prosecutor's claim (since when is he judge or jury) despite the fact that Gomez has not been tried in court.
4. The government fears the backlash from its people and its voters.  The online furore over the PAP involvement in the manufactured scandal has been largely negative, and mrbrown's persistently non-political podcast about the bak chor mee stall has been mimicked to me by countless people recently -- even my dad, and he relies on me to keep informed about politics! Even George Yeo admitted that the reaction of voters may be negative, in the final days of hustings.  From what I hear, people generally believe the PAP to be justified in how it handled the SDP allegations, but I haven't heard more than two, three people at most condone their approach to the Gomez affair.
   
5. Lee Kuan Yew is out of town!  Alright, perhaps I'm being a little tongue in cheek about this, but it's perfectly possible that the reins are a little looser when he absents himself.  And he has been the most vociferously relentless decrier of Gomez since the whole affair, so perhaps his visit to China is a nice opportunity for police and statesmen to do the right thing while he is gone. 
   

The rationale behind Gomez's release is likely a combination of the above factors, which upon examination point us in conflicting directions between celebration and regret -- celebration that the state cannot harass and browbeat without checking its steps and being mindful of public opinion, and regret that the manner in which the affair was handled leaves loopholes for Gomez's character to continue to be under assault in the years to come.  Singaporeans' reactions to the issue and our ensuing discourse will likely determine whether or not this new manner of manipulating the legal arm of our state will become a frequent resort in the future.