http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,201151,00.html?
Bashed because he 'stole' customer
Spat between sales promoters at IT exhibition turns ugly
By Amanda Yong
May 07, 2009
TNP PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
FOR 10 minutes, nine men, several armed with motorcycle helmets, traded blows and punches.
A big brawl outside a boisterous bar?
Not quite. The unusual setting was Comex 2007, an IT exhibition at the Suntec Exhibition and Convention Centre.
The trigger that lit the fuse was a spat between two sales promoters over a touting incident.
The verbal confrontation quickly escalated into a violent fracas that left Mr Samuel Lai Kok Loong with various injuries, including a fracture in his right ring finger.
For being members of an unlawful assembly 'whose common object was to cause hurt', Quo Qiao Zhi and Li Yong Guang were jailed for 18 months and 12 months respectively, on 30 Mar after they pleaded guilty.
Court documents revealed that on 2 Sep 2007, Quo, 25, then a part-time sales promoter for Harvey Norman, approached Mr Lai at 11pm after the exhibition had ended, and when most staff were packing up their products.
Feared for his safety
Quo said he wanted to talk to Mr Lai outside the hall. But Mr Lai did not follow Quo as he feared for his safety.
It was not mentioned in court papers which company Mr Lai worked for.
He knew that Quo was unhappy with him over an earlier incident where he 'might have been perceived to be trying to snatch a customer from Quo'.
He also noticed that two of Quo's friends were standing about 2m away.
Instead, he called a friend for help.
Meanwhile, Quo's group of friends had grown to about six men, some of whom were holding motorcycle helmets. One of them was Li, 25.
When Mr Lai insisted they talk in the hall rather than outside, an argument broke out between him and Quo.
Then Li, 25, rushed forward and hit Mr Lai's head with a helmet.
By then, two of Mr Lai's friends had entered the hall and saw the attack. One of them tried to intervene but was also hit on the head with a helmet.
Quo's other friends joined in the assault, with some using their bare fists and others, their helmets.
Lim Chan Chuan allegedly used his helmet to hit Mr Lai's fingers repeatedly until Mr Lai, who was holding on to Quo, released his grip.
Mr Lai was taken to the Singapore General Hospital after Quo and his friends fled the scene.
Quo and Li were arrested later, but Lim is still on the run. A warrant for his arrest has been issued.
The accounts provided by Quo and Li in their written mitigation pleas pointed to Mr Lai as the 'aggressor who started the fight', noted District Judge Lee-Khoo Poh Choo in her written judgment.
But she was sceptical about their versions, and gave scant weight to the mitigation due to inconsistencies and illogical points.
Judge Lee-Khoo also thought they were not remorseful.
Quo tried to blame the victim while claiming ignorance, but the judge said Quo, who started working after Secondary 2, was 'not a naive teenager... who did not know any better'.
He has two previous convictions. In 2004, he was jailed for six months for disciplinary offences and for unlawfully absenting himself from duty under the Vigilante Corps Act.
The judge added that Quo and Li had neither offered compensation nor apologised to Mr Lai.
Alarming
Their lawyer, Ms Jenny Lai, had urged probation for the duo, but the judge thought they deserved heavier punishment.
She said it was 'alarming that this assault of an individual by a group' of five or six persons took place at a well-known centre in Singapore for holding public events.
'Public knowledge that unlawful activities took place...(there) could give the centre a bad name and raise concern about the safety of the place which Singapore is promoting as the place to hold conventions, exhibitions and public events,' she added.
She took into consideration that Quo was the 'root cause' of the matter and that Li had no previous conviction.
After they had been sentenced, Judge Lee-Khoo noted in her written judgment that she realised the sentences were incorrect, as they exceeded the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence.
The mistake arose as the prosecution had cited the incorrect penalty - up to two years' jail and a fine - which was for offences committed after 1 Feb 2008 under the Amended Penal Code.
Quo and Li had committed their offences before that date, for which the maximum penalty was a jail term of six months and a fine.
The defence lawyers had also missed this. Quo and Lu are appealing against the sentence.
Bashed because he 'stole' customer
Spat between sales promoters at IT exhibition turns ugly
By Amanda Yong
May 07, 2009
TNP PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
FOR 10 minutes, nine men, several armed with motorcycle helmets, traded blows and punches.
A big brawl outside a boisterous bar?
Not quite. The unusual setting was Comex 2007, an IT exhibition at the Suntec Exhibition and Convention Centre.
The trigger that lit the fuse was a spat between two sales promoters over a touting incident.
The verbal confrontation quickly escalated into a violent fracas that left Mr Samuel Lai Kok Loong with various injuries, including a fracture in his right ring finger.
For being members of an unlawful assembly 'whose common object was to cause hurt', Quo Qiao Zhi and Li Yong Guang were jailed for 18 months and 12 months respectively, on 30 Mar after they pleaded guilty.
Court documents revealed that on 2 Sep 2007, Quo, 25, then a part-time sales promoter for Harvey Norman, approached Mr Lai at 11pm after the exhibition had ended, and when most staff were packing up their products.
Feared for his safety
Quo said he wanted to talk to Mr Lai outside the hall. But Mr Lai did not follow Quo as he feared for his safety.
It was not mentioned in court papers which company Mr Lai worked for.
He knew that Quo was unhappy with him over an earlier incident where he 'might have been perceived to be trying to snatch a customer from Quo'.
He also noticed that two of Quo's friends were standing about 2m away.
Instead, he called a friend for help.
Meanwhile, Quo's group of friends had grown to about six men, some of whom were holding motorcycle helmets. One of them was Li, 25.
When Mr Lai insisted they talk in the hall rather than outside, an argument broke out between him and Quo.
Then Li, 25, rushed forward and hit Mr Lai's head with a helmet.
By then, two of Mr Lai's friends had entered the hall and saw the attack. One of them tried to intervene but was also hit on the head with a helmet.
Quo's other friends joined in the assault, with some using their bare fists and others, their helmets.
Lim Chan Chuan allegedly used his helmet to hit Mr Lai's fingers repeatedly until Mr Lai, who was holding on to Quo, released his grip.
Mr Lai was taken to the Singapore General Hospital after Quo and his friends fled the scene.
Quo and Li were arrested later, but Lim is still on the run. A warrant for his arrest has been issued.
The accounts provided by Quo and Li in their written mitigation pleas pointed to Mr Lai as the 'aggressor who started the fight', noted District Judge Lee-Khoo Poh Choo in her written judgment.
But she was sceptical about their versions, and gave scant weight to the mitigation due to inconsistencies and illogical points.
Judge Lee-Khoo also thought they were not remorseful.
Quo tried to blame the victim while claiming ignorance, but the judge said Quo, who started working after Secondary 2, was 'not a naive teenager... who did not know any better'.
He has two previous convictions. In 2004, he was jailed for six months for disciplinary offences and for unlawfully absenting himself from duty under the Vigilante Corps Act.
The judge added that Quo and Li had neither offered compensation nor apologised to Mr Lai.
Alarming
Their lawyer, Ms Jenny Lai, had urged probation for the duo, but the judge thought they deserved heavier punishment.
She said it was 'alarming that this assault of an individual by a group' of five or six persons took place at a well-known centre in Singapore for holding public events.
'Public knowledge that unlawful activities took place...(there) could give the centre a bad name and raise concern about the safety of the place which Singapore is promoting as the place to hold conventions, exhibitions and public events,' she added.
She took into consideration that Quo was the 'root cause' of the matter and that Li had no previous conviction.
After they had been sentenced, Judge Lee-Khoo noted in her written judgment that she realised the sentences were incorrect, as they exceeded the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence.
The mistake arose as the prosecution had cited the incorrect penalty - up to two years' jail and a fine - which was for offences committed after 1 Feb 2008 under the Amended Penal Code.
Quo and Li had committed their offences before that date, for which the maximum penalty was a jail term of six months and a fine.
The defence lawyers had also missed this. Quo and Lu are appealing against the sentence.
