Tey's Boss is Tony Tan's Son-in-Law!

[Rumpole]

I thought this is a simple and direct case. It is just got fuck or no fuck? Alll others things are just excuses leh. Anyway, this is an update of the case.

The "f... or no f..." part is only one key element of the case and it is by no means the be all and end all, there are several other key elements that need to be proved to constitute the offence - just like cream alone will not make the cake, you still need flour, fruits, chocolate, etc.

Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides as follows:

"Any person who shall by himself or in conjuction with any other person:

(a) corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive for himself, or any other person; or

(b) corruptly give, promise or offer to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or another person,

any gratification as an inducement to or reward for, or otherwise on account of -

(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."

So, what does this mean? It means that apart from the sex acts, which IF they occured, would form the "gratification" part of the offence, the prosecution must also prove that:

(1) the gratification was received "corruptly"; and

(2) such gratification was as "an inducement, reward or otherwise on account of ... any member ... of a public body doing ... anything in respect of any matter or transaction ... in which such public body is concerned", to wit, that the sex act was received in return for a promise to grade favourably.

So, the short answer is that it is not as "simple and direct" as the layman would imagine or to put it rather crudely "f... or no f...", because the offence involves more than the f... part and all of the required parts must be proved by the prosecution BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Readers will also note that Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also catches the provider of gratification (see 5(b)) i.e. the girl, if she had provided it corruptly with a view to getting the grades. Why is she not prosecuted? IF there is enough evidence to get the professor does it also not mean that there is enough evidence to hold the girl accountable? Why exercise the prosecutorial discretion in this manner? If it is in the public interest to punish the corrupted is it also not in the public interest to get those who tempt holders of public office? The AG's Chambers, while comfortably resting their bums on $600 Herman Miller ergonomic chairs, should also exercise their grey matter and explain to the public on whose behalf they exercise the prosecutorial discretion, why such a discrepancy exist!

"When constantly pushed for an answer if he had indeed had sex with his student ... Tey smiled but decline to comment further. Many may assumed that this would mean a silent admission as the answer should be simple ..."

This quote from "Singapore Hall of Fame" blogspot is very silly. Singa Roar's errors of grammar aside, his quantum leap of logic shows that not only is he not legally trained, he is also a typical brainwashed SINKIE, a loser using his blog to vent his anger on those who have achieved more in life than him.

An analogy - whenever I visit the Little Red Dot, some SINKIE auntie or other relative will ask me when am I returning "for good", why not return as SINKIELAND is "so safe and sound" and they are even surprised and feel sorry for me when they hear that there is no such thing as CPF in the FIRST WORLD place that I am now residing! When constantly pushed for an answer from such SINKIE relatives, I always say nothing and SMILED. Does this mean I agree with them? Does it mean that I agree that SINKIELAND is a paradise and CPF is not one big scam?

Actually, there are many types of SMILES. When pressed as above by my SINKIE aunties, I always give them the "you stupid frog in the well" type of sarcastic smile, but I don't think they get it as they keep asking the same questions year after year. Possibly the Professor gave those silly reporters (most of whom only hold general as opposed to professional degrees like law or medicine and are working for a media that the public perceives to be biased and used as an instrument of the state to spread propaganda and for other ulterior motives) the same sort of smile that I gave my SINKIE aunties - a SARCASTIC smile.

 

[Rumpole]

My,my,

Atticus Finch indeed from ertwhile classic cum O level Literature text 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'.
Rumpole of the Bailey... Chuckle!

I might as well use the name of that memorable fictictious Harvard Professor from 80s TV series 'Paper Chase'...

Thank you, guys for some good use of language

The fictitious Harvard Professor is Kingsfield.

For those who are interested, please click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOWgTtSiVwA to watch the clip on Youtube.

@ 0.03, Kingsfield says: "The study of law is something new and unfamiliar to most of you, unlike any other schooling that you have ever known before."

In Rumpole's class, there were some "bright scholars" from Hwa Chong who, being teleported from an environment of "memorise and regurgitate" to one of "critical thinking", struggled to survive. Rumpole knows of at least one Hwa Chong "bright spark" who quit law school in the second year out of despair and desperation.

@ 0.53, Professor Kingsfield strikes again with: "You teach yourselves the law, but I train your minds. You come in here with a skull full of mush and if you survive, you leave thinking like a lawyer."

This comment on Youtube is succinct and pertinent and Rumpole could not have said it better:

"Thinking like a lawyer" means that your mind is trained to be logical, compare issues, analyze facts instead of fiction, reason instead of emotion, be sharp and undestand the gray areas and nuances of human interaction, be able to think on your feet and perform under pressure, these qualities were not only good in the 70's but today. It's funny how some people put lawyers down but when they need to right a wrong they seek a lawyer right away.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Rumple

Professor Teh has only possible limbs for his defence but all are tied to Darrine's testimonies , statements and her demeanor on the stand under cross examination. They all are dependant on break the link between "sex" and " corruption "

Absolute Denial.

IE no sex took place, Darrine and her stories are an absolute Lie. No sex took place, the gifts were normal and no corruption because her grades were deserved.

Plausible Denial.

It means losing his public reputation but maintaining his professional one with damage to his personal reputation. Yes I did have sex, I had an affair but it was not corruption. Yes she did give me gifts but I also gave her gifts in return because we were in love. No I did not improve her grades, but I did help tutor her and she improved of her own accord.


Which limb to chose depends on what evidence has , on hand kept for purposes of the affair. If he has deleted the past SMSes from darrine . private forensic data recovery can and will do wonders. But if I had to take a rational bet, I would chose b, and chose not to discredit the sole witness for the prosecution.




Locke

The "f... or no f..." part is only one key element of the case and it is by no means the be all and end all, there are several other key elements that need to be proved to constitute the offence - just like cream alone will not make the cake, you still need flour, fruits, chocolate, etc.

Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides as follows:

"Any person who shall by himself or in conjuction with any other person:

(a) corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive for himself, or any other person; or

(b) corruptly give, promise or offer to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or another person,

any gratification as an inducement to or reward for, or otherwise on account of -

(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."

So, what does this mean? It means that apart from the sex acts, which IF they occured, would form the "gratification" part of the offence, the prosecution must also prove that:

(1) the gratification was received "corruptly"; and

(2) such gratification was as "an inducement, reward or otherwise on account of ... any member ... of a public body doing ... anything in respect of any matter or transaction ... in which such public body is concerned", to wit, that the sex act was received in return for a promise to grade favourably.

So, the short answer is that it is not as "simple and direct" as the layman would imagine or to put it rather crudely "f... or no f...", because the offence involves more than the f... part and all of the required parts must be proved by the prosecution BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Readers will also note that Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also catches the provider of gratification (see 5(b)) i.e. the girl, if she had provided it corruptly with a view to getting the grades. Why is she not prosecuted? IF there is enough evidence to get the professor does it also not mean that there is enough evidence to hold the girl accountable? Why exercise the prosecutorial discretion in this manner? If it is in the public interest to punish the corrupted is it also not in the public interest to get those who tempt holders of public office? The AG's Chambers, while comfortably resting their bums on $600 Herman Miller ergonomic chairs, should also exercise their grey matter and explain to the public on whose behalf they exercise the prosecutorial discretion, why such a discrepancy exist!

"When constantly pushed for an answer if he had indeed had sex with his student ... Tey smiled but decline to comment further. Many may assumed that this would mean a silent admission as the answer should be simple ..."

This quote from "Singapore Hall of Fame" blogspot is very silly. Singa Roar's errors of grammar aside, his quantum leap of logic shows that not only is he not legally trained, he is also a typical brainwashed SINKIE, a loser using his blog to vent his anger on those who have achieved more in life than him.

An analogy - whenever I visit the Little Red Dot, some SINKIE auntie or other relative will ask me when am I returning "for good", why not return as SINKIELAND is "so safe and sound" and they are even surprised and feel sorry for me when they hear that there is no such thing as CPF in the FIRST WORLD place that I am now residing! When constantly pushed for an answer from such SINKIE relatives, I always say nothing and SMILED. Does this mean I agree with them? Does it mean that I agree that SINKIELAND is a paradise and CPF is not one big scam?

Actually, there are many types of SMILES. When pressed as above by my SINKIE aunties, I always give them the "you stupid frog in the well" type of sarcastic smile, but I don't think they get it as they keep asking the same questions year after year. Possibly the Professor gave those silly reporters (most of whom only hold general as opposed to professional degrees like law or medicine and are working for a media that the public perceives to be biased and used as an instrument of the state to spread propaganda and for other ulterior motives) the same sort of smile that I gave my SINKIE aunties - a SARCASTIC smile.

 

[captainxerox]

The fictitious Harvard Professor is Kingsfield.

For those who are interested, please click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOWgTtSiVwA to watch the clip on Youtube.

@ 0.03, Kingsfield says: "The study of law is something new and unfamiliar to most of you, unlike any other schooling that you have ever known before."

In Rumpole's class, there were some "bright scholars" from Hwa Chong who, being teleported from an environment of "memorise and regurgitate" to one of "critical thinking", struggled to survive. Rumpole knows of at least one Hwa Chong "bright spark" who quit law school in the second year out of despair and desperation.

@ 0.53, Professor Kingsfield strikes again with: "You teach yourselves the law, but I train your minds. You come in here with a skull full of mush and if you survive, you leave thinking like a lawyer."

This comment on Youtube is succinct and pertinent and Rumpole could not have said it better:

"Thinking like a lawyer" means that your mind is trained to be logical, compare issues, analyze facts instead of fiction, reason instead of emotion, be sharp and undestand the gray areas and nuances of human interaction, be able to think on your feet and perform under pressure, these qualities were not only good in the 70's but today. It's funny how some people put lawyers down but when they need to right a wrong they seek a lawyer right away.

btw prof teh, you screwed the girl is fine as she is consenting adult, we are not prudes here. but as they say, legally right, morally wrong in the eyes of the public.

 

[hurley]

if the girl had not told her so-called friends...

 

[Rumpole]

btw prof teh, you screwed the girl is fine as she is consenting adult, we are not prudes here. but as they say, legally right, morally wrong in the eyes of the public.

This and the earlier post by "redoubtable" to the effect that the "obvious hypothesis is that Rumpole is Tey's alter ego" gives me the impression that some believe that Rumpole may be Tey in disguise, which I flatly deny.

My denial is not helped by the fact that the Professor had included a link to my thread "Fixing the Opposition Again? Don't be Fooled by the Latest Sex Scandal" in this blog @ http://singaporeconsensus.wordpress.com/legal-trouble/

Rumpole found this out a few weeks ago and thought a few steps ahead that this could possibly lead to mistaken identity, but hey anonymity has its side effects and this is one of them, we'll deal with it when the issue arises and now it has arisen. The Professor is smart, but is also "too clever by half", if I may say so.

Suffice to say that Rumpole is not Tey and has not met Tey before. Rumpole is a lawyer by day and a closet journalist by night. To dispel any doubts, Rumpole will try to write on other topics of interest to SINKIELAND as well as this "scandal".

If this question of "mistaken identity" increases interest in Rumpole's writing in blogosphere, then it is a blessing in disguise and thank you to the Professor for putting in the link and planting the doubts.

Have to go, "She who must be Obeyed" is pulling my eyes and no, she is not Japanese. :*:

 

[Rumpole]

Dear Rumple

Professor Teh has only possible limbs for his defence but all are tied to Darrine's testimonies , statements and her demeanor on the stand under cross examination.

.........................

Which limb to chose depends on what evidence has , on hand kept for purposes of the affair. If he has deleted the past SMSes from darrine . private forensic data recovery can and will do wonders. But if I had to take a rational bet, I would chose b, and chose not to discredit the sole witness for the prosecution.

Dear Locke,

If one googles "Trial by Media", you will get 518 million hits! So, it is not a phenomenon unique to SINKIELAND. What is unique to SINKIELAND is that the MSM is controlled directly or indirectly by the government (or the PAP to be exact). To find out more about how it is controlled, I recommend Francis Seow's "The Media Enthralled". In USA, UK, etc, the "trial by media" phenomenon is driven by competititon for readership and the advertising revenue that comes with it - if newspaper A is the first to report juicy details about whatever case, it gains a business edge over others. Here, it is driven by something else.

I will not answer the points raised in your post because that would amount to participating in trial by media, which can take many forms such as:

- biased reporting
- media conducting parallel investigations thereby interfering with those conducted by police
- speculating about evidence or lack thereof, etc

All these have an effect on the subconscious and the most powerful way to influence public opinion is through this medium. The much talked about "Climate of Fear" is largely a subconscious phenomenon. And as I mentioned before, if one is minded to fix somebody by damaging his credibility, you don't need a conviction to do that. Biased media reporting alone will achieve that. The end result being the accused is acquitted in a court of law but his reputation and standing in society is irreparably damaged, not to mention that he has to spend money to hire lawyers to defend himself whereas the prosecution is funded with taxpayers' money!

"Trial by Media" occurs basically because human beings are curious. They also have base instincts. It is fun to watch the powerful suffer. It proves to us that despite their palaces and luxurious lifestyle (real or imagined), they too are like us - eat, shit and die. That's face it, we all have schadenfreude (pleasure derived from the suffering of others). Human beings' base instincts cannot be legislated away.

In the US, where the constitutional right to freeedom of expression is largely unfettered, an accused's choice of lawyer is also informed by the various candidates' perceived skill at handling the media in highly publicised trials. If you are OJ Simpson, you hire a lawyer not just based on his courtroom skills but also on the basis of how good his skills are at handling and even making use of the media. However, "technically" we follow the UK model, which grants less freedom to the press, believing that an accused's person right to a free trial is equally important.

If one were to click on some of the links generated by Google, you will note that in UK, NZ, Aus, etc, there have been cases where the media has gone overboard in the run-up to the trial and the Attorney General ("AG") of those FIRST WORLD countries has intervened and charged the culprits for contempt of court and/or obtained restraining orders to prevent future contraventions. The AG in those FIRST WORLD countries is the one prosecuting the accused, yet the AG is also charging the media for contempt in denying the accused a fair trial - that is the sort of fair minded CIVIL SERVANT that we need. That is the sort of "balancing of interests" that we seek so that our human rights will not be trampled upon, but I suspect our chaps in the AGC are more interested in balancing their bums on those $600 Herman Miller chairs!