The trial has started oredi and I was wasting my time replying to some other thread on influx of foreign lawyers.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1247779/1/.html
From this article published by the State Owned Propaganda Machine, it sure as hell looks like the prosecution’s case is going kaputz!
“Ms Ko said she was hauled in by two officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), at about 7am or 8am during the examination period. She said she was deprived of sleep, felt scared and anxious, and was interrogated until about 7pm before she was brought to see CPIB's deputy director, Teng Khee Fatt. She said the recording officer had told Mr Teng she had been uncooperative.
Mr Teng, she said, told her that the evidence she gave the CPIB was "not making out the elements of the charge against Tey". During their two-and-a-half-hour conversation, she said Mr Teng told her that corruption is a two-sided offence and that indemnity could be granted if the need arose. She also said Mr Teng had wanted her to write that she had given the gifts because she wanted "favour" from Tey but she refused.
The two then argued about the terms to be used and finally settled on the words "undue prejudice", which she took as "treating her unfairly". "I was slightly more comfortable with that compromise even though it was still not an accurate depiction of the true state of affairs," said Ms Ko.
When asked by Tey what was the true state of affairs, Ms Ko said: "I only bought Prof Tey the gifts because I liked him and we were in a relationship." But Mr Teng didn't buy this answer, she said.
Ms Ko said he told her that it was not possible for a girl to buy a guy gifts. She said Mr Teng also insisted that the reason why she bought those gifts was so that Tey would show her favour vis-a-vis her grades.
Ms Ko said she was told she was not allowed to go home until the CPIB recorded a statement from her. When asked if the statement was accurate, Ms Ko said it wasn't. She said the inaccuracy pertained to her motivation for showering Tey with gifts.”
Some points for discussion:
1. Obtaining “coerced” confessions. “Coerced” in what sense? Questioning from 7 am to 7 pm. Recording officer’s definition of “unco-operative” i.e. you are not telling us what we want to hear. “Indemnity could be granted if the need arose” – inducement.
2. “Compromise” – why the fark does a person need to make a “compromise” with the police when making a statement? Either I saw a blue car approaching the junction or I didn’t. What’s there to compromise. Isn’t there something at the bottom of the form to say that it was made voluntarily and without inducement? How does this squeezing of a “compromise” square with that fine print?
3. My personal favourite: Teng “told her that it was not possible for a girl to buy a guy gifts”! Hahaha, Teng must be a true frog in the well.
4. Not allowed to go home until a statement was taken. Unlawful confinement? Inducement? Sign and you can go home and have a good night’s sleep and cuddle your teddy bear.
5. Motivation for the gifts – not grades – implies essential element of the offence of sex FOR grades not present and this is right from the mouth of the prosecution’s star witness.
6. Insight into how our boys in blue actually operate - was told that "evidence she gave the CPIB was not making out the elements of the charge". Step 1 - decide what charge to put on a person's head. Step 2 - go and look for the evidence you want. Excuse me, are you a police officer of a FIRST WORLD country? Are you putting the cart before the horse? Or was Step 1 decided for you by somebody else?
