Below is what you wrote, you moron...you said there is no law to say that people in positions of power should not take gifts from people under them......you must be a fucking idiot to say that, if you've not read and understood the Constitution, you numbskull!!!
Yes, that is indeed what I wrote and stand by EVERY word of it. There is no such law that says that people in positions of power should not take gifts from those under them. Every large law firm will have celebrations for secretaries' day AND yes, boss' day. On boss' day, it is the secretaries that treat the lawyers. So we all go to jail lah. That's utter nonsense. When you are charged in a criminal court, the prosecution must cite a specific provision that you're alleged to have breached and the allegations of facts. Cannot suka suka say it's generally not acceptable to do this or that.
The provision that Tey is charged with is Section 5 of the PCA, the pertinent parts of which states:
"Any person who shall ....... :
(a) corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive ........ ;
any gratification as an inducement to or reward for ........ -
(i) any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed;
(ii) any member, officer or servant of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which such public body is concerned,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both."
This means that apart from the sex acts ("gratification" part of the offence), the prosecution must also prove that:
(1) the gratification was received "corruptly"; and
(2) such gratification (the sex) was received in return for a promise to grade favourably.
This second part the prosecution has FAILED to prove. Their "star" witness already said that she did it out of affection and it had nothing to do with grades. In other words, she did it for free. Case closed. Not guilty unless you are being tried in a
KANGAROO COURT .
Better do yourself justice and go read and memorise the Constitution, then come here to debate with me, you frigid cheebye.
Better do your SINKIE self justice by flushing your head in the toilet. The specific provision that is ALLEGED to have been breached here is Section 5 of the PCA and the prosecution has FAILED to prove EACH and EVERY element of the alleged crime BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Besides cheebye what other swear word do you know? How about
FUCKTARD, which is very appropriate to describe YOU!
