Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
He is a lawyer but he wasn't speaking in Court or during a trial. The rules of evidence do not apply to him in such a situation. AWARE is apparently not aware.
Mr Chia is married, has a wife, a mother, probably a daughter or two and a law practice partner who is a lady.
In Singapore context, to publicly label someone misogynistic is to throw a bloody meat to the sharks in AWARE. True enough, it didn't take too long for AWARE to bite the bait.
There was no direct evidence that the woman was raped. If convicted, it would be based on circumstantial evidence. Mr Chia was merely casting doubts on the circumstances.
The rules of evidence are already skewed in favour of the victim, and I fully agree that no woman should be at the receiving end of the offence of rape. However, if the Defendant is not allowed to cast aspersions on the victim's defense, how is the Prosecution going to prove the guilt of the Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt when the latter is not allowed to cast doubts to begin with?