Law prof Tey Tsun Hang found guilty in sex-for-grades case

[watchman8]

Since we pay public officials extremely well so that they are not tempted by bribery, I suggest the next step is to sanction private bordellos for them so that they are less likely to be tempted by sex. Furthermore, they should be provided with free fine dining restaurants. Then all avenues for outside gratification can be taken care of.

You missed the point. Issue is officials in position of power should not take any goodies from people that are under their charge, or have a commercial relationship with the official's unit.

Officials can spend their own money on sex, food and other goodies, no body cares.

 

[WongMengMeng]

You missed the point. Issue is officials in position of power should not take any goodies from people that are under their charge, or have a commercial relationship with the official's unit.

Officials can spend their own money on sex, food and other goodies, no body cares.

You missed the point, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was sex FOR grades because that was what's stated in the charge sheet and to do it BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Sinkie

The act itself has the widest discretion and wording you are correct. It also covers a having a xmas card from a contractor, supplier and that supplier getting a contract a year and a half later as corruption ( PL ). Thus far the prosecutions under these acts have been pretty narrow and straight forward, i.e money in exchange to do something or not to do something, sexual favors for throwing matches, money for throwing matches etc etc etc.

The question is the link between the person giving and the person receiving and whether there was in fact a "promise". I believe the charge itself specified an act not just the fact that PT was in a position to do x and y. Thus his defence was specific that he did not inflate.



Locke

You're talking cock!

He's convicted on all 6 counts, and all have nothing to do with favour or relationship. As long as prosecution shows that there is motive and opportunity under Prevention of Corruption Act, the onus is for defence to prove there is no case to answer. All this harping on whether the grade had been inflated is irrelevant, as long as there is a lecturer-student relationship and that lecturer can exact absolute influence on the victim's relationship with him, that is enough to show he has committed the offence under the Act and he has to answer to the court why he has sex, iphone, free dinner, monblanc, free air-fare, customed shirts, etc, etc, from the student when he is marking her paper. Whether there is a relationship or not is Catch-22. If they say Yes, both die, if they say No, also gone case. If one say Yes, the other say No, also die.

 

[WongMengMeng]

At least PAP pays GD, Lock, me and many others PAP IB double for working on public holidays.

There is no such criminal law to say that people in positions of power should not take gifts from people under them. In fact, some lady under me just bought me a gift and she made an excuse - she was stuck in such and such a place and suddenly thought of buying this for me. Of course I'm not guilty of any crime. Even an idiot can see that, but a paid PAP IB must say what he is paid to say.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Watch

Wong would go on and on and on that any defence has to be believable and that any point of defence raised must not also be weighed against the evidence on hand to arrive at a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion.

The question is has PT raised enough reasonable doubt ? Do remember the very existence of a defence is not enough in any jurisdiction for "reasonable doubt"


Locke

You missed the point. Issue is officials in position of power should not take any goodies from people that are under their charge, or have a commercial relationship with the official's unit.

Officials can spend their own money on sex, food and other goodies, no body cares.

 

[watchman8]

You missed the point, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was sex FOR grades because that was what's stated in the charge sheet and to do it BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

I think is very clear to all the dangers of allowing high value gifts to flow towards officials. Anyone with half a brain can tell you what this means.

 

[WongMengMeng]

Where even the prosecution’s star witness has said that she did not do it for grades but out of affection i.e. it is not sex FOR grades in layman terms, then it is pretty obvious that sufficient doubt has been cast. Your other points are nothing more than smoke screens to avoid dealing with this main point. As LKY accused the Labour Front of doing: trying to bury the confused laymen in a pile of trivial details so as to make them believe that “black is white and white is black”.

Why didn’t I think of posting a video earlier, so here it is. Replace jury with finder of fact (as in judge) and the video is broadly speaking appropriate. Sinkies can judge for themselves whether this very high standard of proof has been satisfied and be willing to CALL A SPADE A SPADE.

[video=youtube;JOBzeWFrEsA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOBzeWFrEsA[/video]

 

[Sinkie]

Dear Sinkie

The act itself has the widest discretion and wording you are correct. It also covers a having a xmas card from a contractor, supplier and that supplier getting a contract a year and a half later as corruption ( PL ). Thus far the prosecutions under these acts have been pretty narrow and straight forward, i.e money in exchange to do something or not to do something, sexual favors for throwing matches, money for throwing matches etc etc etc.

The question is the link between the person giving and the person receiving and whether there was in fact a "promise". I believe the charge itself specified an act not just the fact that PT was in a position to do x and y. Thus his defence was specific that he did not inflate.



Locke

Wrong. Very wrong. There is no need to prove "promise". The presumption of corruption provided by the Act is sufficient enough. The charge is framed just so to spear-head the prosecution case and get it passed through to be heard. Once the judge agrees to hear the case, it's his discretion to interpret the law. You've read his judgment, didn't you? Where did the judge touch on grade inflation? Of course he didn't because this is not the key issue to the case. Unless the defence can proof that there was no lecturer-student relationship and that the corrupt Prof Tey is not a public servant or civil servant, then the defence can ask the case to be dismissed on grounds that there is nothing to prove. Obviously the defence can't, and since that is the case, everything else debated in court is merely side-show. The stage is already set for conviction. Crystal clear as Diamond water.

 

[WongMengMeng]

Don't talk cock lah, you useless SINKIE.

Here is the link to the Prevention of Corruption Act for ordinary Singaporeans to read.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...ansactionTime:29/05/2013 Status:inforce;rec=0

To understand this case properly and not be deceived by PAP IBs here, you only need to read Sections 5 and 8. More importantly, you have to remember that the onus is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and AS STATED IN THE CHARGE SHEET and not as published in the SHIT TIMES or as distorted by PAP IBs like Locke, Watchman8, SINKIE, etc.

I will rebut this SINKIE later, if I have time. Cheers.

Wrong. Very wrong. There is no need to prove "promise". The presumption of corruption provided by the Act is sufficient enough. The charge is framed just so to spear-head the prosecution case and get it passed through to be heard. Once the judge agrees to hear the case, it's his discretion to interpret the law. You've read his judgment, didn't you? Where did the judge touch on grade inflation? Of course he didn't because this is not the key issue to the case. Unless the defence can proof that there was no lecturer-student relationship and that the corrupt Prof Tey is not a public servant or civil servant, then the defence can ask the case to be dismissed on grounds that there is nothing to prove. Obviously the defence can't, and since that is the case, everything else debated in court is merely side-show. The stage is already set for conviction. Crystal clear as Diamond water.

 

[halsey02]

All these arguments, just come to one single point..in Hokkien " tau ciak, buay heow cheat chui"...in other words, 'steal something to eat, must remember to clean the mouth"...this what this 'teh kosong' didn't do!...

 

[Sinkie]

Don't talk cock lah, you useless SINKIE.

Here is the link to the Prevention of Corruption Act for ordinary Singaporeans to read.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=bfc5c851-7c0d-4e2f-8ed3-04569fec6422;page=0;query=DocId%3Aba9a8115-fb33-4254-8070-7b618d4fd8d1%20Depth%3A0%20ValidTime%3A29%2F05%2F2013%20TransactionTime%3A29%2F05%2F2013%20Status%3Ainforce;rec=0

To understand this case properly and not be deceived by PAP IBs here, you only need to read Sections 5 and 8. More importantly, you have to remember that the onus is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and AS STATED IN THE CHARGE SHEET and not as published in the SHIT TIMES or as distorted by PAP IBs like Locke, Watchman8, SINKIE, etc.

I will rebut this SINKIE later, if I have time. Cheers.

Dun show the code when you don't understand it. You mean you're better than the judge at reading the law?
Reasonable doubt, my two hairy ding dongs. This is not a capital crime, what reasonable doubt shit you spewing here?

You can pull wool on naive eager beavers, but you'll get properly clubbed if you're talking to people with a bit of intelligence and common sense.

 

[WongMengMeng]

All these arguments, just come to one single point..in Hokkien " tau ciak, buay heow cheat chui"...in other words, 'steal something to eat, must remember to clean the mouth"...this what this 'teh kosong' didn't do!...

Of course it is not so simple lah. I definitely recalled that you post something about having to "digest" cases in your student days. Obviously you did not digest them very well.

Steal eat is a private matter. Consequences between Husband & Wife. Criminal law is another matter. Steal eat is NOT a crime. PERIOD. Clean mouth or no clean mouth it is steal NOT a crime. I'll dig up that "digest" cases post of yours. For reference only lah. Cheers.

 

[WongMengMeng]

Of course I am better than the judge. No doubt about it at all.

Dun show the code when you don't understand it. You mean you're better than the judge at reading the law?
Reasonable doubt, my two hairy ding dongs. This is not a capital crime, what reasonable doubt shit you spewing here?

You can pull wool on naive eager beavers, but you'll get properly clubbed if you're talking to people with a bit of intelligence and common sense.

 

[Sinkie]

There is no such criminal law to say that people in positions of power should not take gifts from people under them. In fact, some lady under me just bought me a gift and she made an excuse - she was stuck in such and such a place and suddenly thought of buying this for me. Of course I'm not guilty of any crime. Even an idiot can see that, but a paid PAP IB must say what he is paid to say.

What rubbish you spewing, numbskull. Go read the fucking Singapore Constitution, you dumbass!!! ...and read it a million times to get the whole substance into your fucking pea-size brain, if you've one.

 

[Sinkie]

Of course I am better than the judge. No doubt about it at all.

Lan jiao Le KAR, go fuck spiders lah, numbskull. KNN, I just wasted 2 minutes of my life replying to a numbskull. KNN

 

[Sinkie]

Of course it is not so simple lah. I definitely recalled that you post something about having to "digest" cases in your student days. Obviously you did not digest them very well.

Steal eat is a private matter. Consequences between Husband & Wife. Criminal law is another matter. Steal eat is NOT a crime. PERIOD. Clean mouth or no clean mouth it is steal NOT a crime. I'll dig up that "digest" cases post of yours. For reference only lah. Cheers.

The case is about CORRUPTION and numbskull here talk rubbish about "steal eat". KNN, what a dumbass!!! LOL

 

[Sinkie]

I wasted another 1 minute of my life to reply to that numbskull. KNN

 

[TanSiongThye]

I wasted another 1 minute of my life to reply to that numbskull. KNN

Allo Sinkie. Tanks U 4 U sapork. Butt U useless 1 liners @ maKING U team look like idiots ant make me laughing stock of ze Billytish CUNTmenWED legal world. U like ze Pom Pom Laurel here.

Oredi I bery fat UP ve 2 make zis STUpig derision. Dun know how to sing, then U butter FUCK OFF understand! :oIo:


[video=youtube;gdYgKrSgCyY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdYgKrSgCyY[/video]

 

[Sinkie]

Kum my lan jiao, since you so free to type gibberish. KNN. LOL

 

[Satyr]

You missed the point. Issue is officials in position of power should not take any goodies from people that are under their charge, or have a commercial relationship with the official's unit.

Officials can spend their own money on sex, food and other goodies, no body cares.

Yes, they can do that but so many of them prefer to get it for free though they can well afford it. Anyway, the remark is tongue-in-cheek. Maybe a psychologist can explain their behavior. Possibly a power trip.