-
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.
Rumpole to be convicted at the way that he is conducting his case
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
where's the rule of law when it comes to the abuse of public funds by Town Councils and he People's Association?
what about the use of a sham crony company in a clearly related party transaction without any disclosure of the apparent conflict of interests?
how many more of such companies, what other projects and transactions, how much public funds were impacted in the last 10 years?
that's what i really want to know.....
Last edited:
I am waiting for him to counter that. If he does not, then he is plain stupid.
hahaha....somebody pse post the transcripts....
my cow sense tell me that Tey would not be so stupid to tell such a blatant lie that can be easily exposed in open court...
The question is why would two consenting adults indulging in sex - albeit one has power over the other is some respect - becomes a corruption case? CPIB tries so hard to put together a case even when the key witness has suggested in so many ways that there were no corrupt intent at all. That the NUS filed a report, the CPIB has to make it a case regardless of the lack of evidence.
Tey is now making a fool of the two institutions. If the judge convicts Tey, it will be the biggest joke in the legal world and the judge will be noted for his idiocy.
Getting pay while on suspension. Is this the norm?
Not sure about NUS. In the SPF, you get half your pay if interdicted. Otherwise, full pay.
Case against Prof Tey and NBG are considered super high profile. Whatever recommendations from the CPIB IO and DPP assigned will have to clear AG. In the case of NBG, current CJ was AG then. The DJ presiding over NBG's case will be in two minds if he is inclined towards a DATA for NBG. Sundaresh Menon will look like a fool for having okayed proceeding with PCA charges for NBG. Not sure if Menon was AG when Prof Tey's case was in progress.
Well, I can tell you for a fact that many PRC entrepreneurs immediately apply for a foreign passport the moment they lay their hands on their IPO wealth. There are how many Singaporeans living and working abroad? Estimated at 200,000. And someone who was present at the scene told me that Pinky got a hostile reception from Singaporeans in Melbourne last year on the way back from his NZ trip (the one in which he refused to take questions from foreign media).
It is worth remembering what Alvin Yeo, MP for Hong Kah, said on 27th February 2008 in the debate over the budget for Ministry of Law:
"Mdm Chairman, the rule of law is a value readily associated with Singapore in the vast hinterland that is Asia. It is also one of our most important competitive advantages up there with our political stability and our educated workforce. It is a principle we should hold dear and strive to enhance.
..........
Turning now to the other aspect of the laws governing the individual. Our criminal justice system has rightly attracted widespread praise for its rigour, efficiency and the results it has delivered over largely crime-free Singapore. Yet, it has its blocks and it is hoped the upcoming review of the Criminal Procedure Code will seize the opportunity to clear these away.
Like Dr Teo, I am referring to the dearth of protection given to accused persons in terms of getting copies of the statements they have given to the Police during investigation and also getting access to legal counsel. The absence of strict rules relating to discovery in criminal proceedings means that all too often a statement is sprung upon the defendant at or shortly before the trial. For an accused who has undergone a lengthy investigation, given several statements, it might be almost impossible to recall in detail everything that was contained in the statement signed maybe a year ago. After all, which of you in this House would consider it fair to sign a document and not get a copy of it. Yet, that is the system that prevails in our Subordinate Courts. In the High Court, they have adopted the procedure of giving an accused copies of his own statements, which makes the dichotomy of practice all the harder to justify."
Hint, hint, time now is 4.52 pm Singapore, 8.52 am London. Somebody is still in the dock.
Last edited:
Dear Rumpole,
I would like to address your concerns vis sa vis the "springing of statements". The new CPC in place whether one goes through a criminal discovery process or not allows for defence lawyers to have sight of all the statements of the accused. Under the new rules, of discovery, any evidence to be used by the prosecution has to be disclosed at Pre Trial conference. There are however still several areas to be worked on which further lobbying might assist om.
a. Disclosure of key witness statements pre trial, in full and not at the discretion of the prosecution.
b. Recording of accused statements and whether it should be recorded or not and with a lawyer present or not.
Locke
I would like to address your concerns vis sa vis the "springing of statements". The new CPC in place whether one goes through a criminal discovery process or not allows for defence lawyers to have sight of all the statements of the accused. Under the new rules, of discovery, any evidence to be used by the prosecution has to be disclosed at Pre Trial conference. There are however still several areas to be worked on which further lobbying might assist om.
a. Disclosure of key witness statements pre trial, in full and not at the discretion of the prosecution.
b. Recording of accused statements and whether it should be recorded or not and with a lawyer present or not.
Locke
Should not be. Anyway, he claimed all this while he was not paid and that is why he is defending himself! So it turned out he has a fat paycheck still as NUS law lecturers easily paid at least $15k a month. Plus his freeloading from Darinne, makes Rumpole a cheap bastard.
Who is more stupid though, Tey for getting caught in trying to game the system and defending himself? I think the most stupid are the girls who slept with Tey and merely got frustration and now public shame in return.
If the judge convicted Tey, he see himself to be the CJ in time to come - just like the previous CJ Chan and the polling station. Like that you think he song boh?
Disappointed with these aspiring and competitive young undergrads. Paying so much to secure these sort of relationships. Their moral compass either do not exist or corrupted. You are right. This court case is not about the Prof but the other parties not to mention their families and friends.
Hi there,
Me thinks you made a Freudian slip. Tey is going to prison and Rumpole is going to IMH. Master always likes to remind me - different strokes for different people! Though I noticed that in your next post, you referred to Tey as Tey - no more Freudian slip - credit to you.
Defending yourself is not just about cost. It is very difficult to detect perjury i.e. telling lies in court. However, human nature is such that most people will find it easier to tell a lie to a stranger than to someone with whom you have or have had a close relationship. Hell, I always rehearse many times before telling a lie to momy or wifey, including rehearsing the body language and then suddenly she springs an unexpected question or expression and the lie is detected.
The key witness here is the girl. If questioned by Peter Low, a relative stranger, it is easier for her to tell the things that she has been told to tell. A different situation altogether if she is questioned by her former lover. Notice the element of surprise. Everybody thought that Peter Low was to conduct the trial until just before it starts, then it is revealed that actually he is doing it himself. Imagine the psychological impact it would have on the girl.
Then, there is also the pyschological angle from the perspective of the judge. Judges tend to be kinder to those who are doing it DIY, especially if he is a layman. Here, the judge and the accused probably know each other as Tey was a former district judge himself.
There is also the public sympathy angle. This one is dicey, in my view. In most First World countries, the public is conscious of their basic human rights and will side with the underdog because what injustice befalls on the underdog could also be suffered by the average Joe in future as unfair practices becomes institutionalised. In Sinkieland however, the prevailing climate is myopia and SOUR GRAPES. Hence, all this obsession about his pay being $15,000 blah, blah, blah. And of course, there is your wonderful SHIT TIMES, a government progapanda machine and now the PAP Internet Brigade.
All things considered, if I were Tey, I would conduct some of the proceedings myself and leave the others to Peter Low, so I get the best of both worlds. Witnesses I will question myself are the girl, some but not all of the CPIB officers (those who I think have a conscience), etc.
hahaha...let me summaise:
1. money is not the issue when Tey chose to defend himself - agree.
2. he iwas caught lying because he told a blatant lie in open court that he was suspended with no pay??? -is this true?? still interested to know.
3. he should have let PL conduct some of the proceedings - no comment, different people, different strokes
4. whether Rumpole is tey?? - again it is another case of my idol anyhow whack...very very very highkly unlikely tey will waste time debating in sbf.
1. money is not the issue when Tey chose to defend himself - agree.
2. he iwas caught lying because he told a blatant lie in open court that he was suspended with no pay??? -is this true?? still interested to know.
3. he should have let PL conduct some of the proceedings - no comment, different people, different strokes
4. whether Rumpole is tey?? - again it is another case of my idol anyhow whack...very very very highkly unlikely tey will waste time debating in sbf.
Hi Kukubird,
An instant reply is always a good sign - welcome comrade - we are both PAP IB. I wasn't in the Court to observe proceedings and am sure you weren't either. So, what the public gets is second hand knowledge as reported by the media, which is of course Government controlled. I get my news on this exciting, tintillating, etc sexcapade from Channel News Asia's website and the link is here:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1248002/1/.html
I also noticed that the contents keep changing from day to day. Report first and check later? That's bad. Lousy journalistic standards. Adjust contents in response to unfavourable comments on the Internet? Why, that's criminal! Anyway, I will comment on the contents in the next post, but below is the cut-and-paste of the full article as it appears on Chanel News Asia's website as at 12.34 pm Singapore time:
Prosecution witness tells court Tey didn't ask for gifts
By Claire Huang | Posted: 15 January 2013 1121 hrs
SINGAPORE: National University of Singapore law professor Tey Tsun Hang, 41, on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case said he had paid for the gifts he received from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko.
Tey, who said this on Day 4 of the hearing on Tuesday, also produced cheque book entries in court.
This came after 23-year-old Ms Ko, the prosecution's star witness, told the court about two CYC tailored shirts and an iPod touch.
She said at no point did Tey ask for the gifts from her and that she had given them to him on her own accord.
Tey put it to Ms Ko that he had paid her for those gifts, as well as for the dinner at Garibaldi, which had a bill dated 21 July 2010.
He said he had issued a cheque amounting to S$2,500 in July 2010 before she left for an overseas study stint.
This amount, he said, is slightly more than the value of the gifts mentioned in the first four charges.
But Ms Ko said no such cheque was given to her.
"Based on my recollection no such cheque was given to me. That's different from whether I even remember that a cheque was given to me," replied Ms Ko.
Tey's move drew strong objections from lead prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy, who said the only reason why he is showing Ms Ko his cheque book entries is to "colour the evidence."
"And that to make the submission, puts the cart before the horse," he said.
This drew Tey's rebuttal that Mr Jumabhoy is insinuating that he is seeking to coach Ms Ko in her testimony. Tey said: "I do not think Ms Ko is so naive to be coached as a witness under oath."
After arguing for more than 30 minutes, Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye allowed Tey's questioning but he warned that there should not be contamination of the exhibits.
Continuing his line of questioning, Tey then said he made out the cheque to Ms Ko but she did not encash it. So he paid her in cash, he said. This would explain a second cheque book entry he made to indicate that, said Tey.
Ms Ko disagreed to both claims.
To support his case, Tey asked the court to make an order for two tests to be conducted - the first, a forensic ink dating test, the other, a handwriting comparison analysis.
"The first four charges tally up to slightly less than S$2,500. The two cheque book entries indicate in the defendant's own handwriting "DWH Ko". Both cheque book entries indicate the same amount - $2,500," said Tey.
He said one of the entries was dated July 2010 and the forensic ink dating test and handwriting analysis would "prove conclusively" that the entries are made by him. It would also prove that they were "written contemporaneously" around or in the period of July 2010 and not "recent concoctions".
Tey also asked for disclosure of his DBS bank account information to prove that Ms Ko did not encash the cheque.
Another reason cited by Tey for his three requests - that the forensic tests cost more than S$50,000. Given his suspension since late July 2012, Tey said he is "not in a position" to engage an overseas expert.
Mr Jumabhoy objected, saying Tey's application "is little more than a smoke screen, designed to distract the court from the impact" of what Ms Ko had said.
Mr Jumabhoy also raised doubts, pointing out that the cheque was dated early July 2, 2010, while the dinner bill was dated July 21.
He said Tey is purporting to pay for a dinner even before it had taken place. "It shows a remarkable ability on his part to establish not only future events but the price that such events entail," said Mr Jumabhoy.
The prosecutor also argued that Ms Ko's testimony that she did not receive the cheque caused "irreparable damage" to Tey's case.
"...She has denied in no uncertain terms, (a) having received the cheque and (b) having not encashed the cheque and subsequently been paid for in cash by this accused," argued Mr Jumabhoy.
The judge denied Tey's request after many barbs were traded.
Later in the day, CPIB officer Png Chen Chen also took to the stand as the prosecution's second witness. She told the court that Ms Ko had voluntarily given her statements to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
The court heard that Ms Ko told Ms Png that she expected Tey to protect her and not give her a failing grade as he was her boyfriend. But during cross-examination, Tey pointed out that this was not likely as Ms Ko's average grade at NUS was a "B".
During the prosecution's questioning, Ms Png said Ms Ko was the one who revealed voluntarily to the CPIB that four other former students had given Tey gifts. Of the four, two are current Assistant Registrars at the Supreme Court -- Mr Colin Seow and Ms Elaine Chew.
Tey, a former district judge, faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from Ms Ko between May and July 2010, in exchange for lifting her grades.
If convicted, he could be jailed up to five years and fined S$100,000.
An instant reply is always a good sign - welcome comrade - we are both PAP IB. I wasn't in the Court to observe proceedings and am sure you weren't either. So, what the public gets is second hand knowledge as reported by the media, which is of course Government controlled. I get my news on this exciting, tintillating, etc sexcapade from Channel News Asia's website and the link is here:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1248002/1/.html
I also noticed that the contents keep changing from day to day. Report first and check later? That's bad. Lousy journalistic standards. Adjust contents in response to unfavourable comments on the Internet? Why, that's criminal! Anyway, I will comment on the contents in the next post, but below is the cut-and-paste of the full article as it appears on Chanel News Asia's website as at 12.34 pm Singapore time:
Prosecution witness tells court Tey didn't ask for gifts
By Claire Huang | Posted: 15 January 2013 1121 hrs
SINGAPORE: National University of Singapore law professor Tey Tsun Hang, 41, on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case said he had paid for the gifts he received from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko.
Tey, who said this on Day 4 of the hearing on Tuesday, also produced cheque book entries in court.
This came after 23-year-old Ms Ko, the prosecution's star witness, told the court about two CYC tailored shirts and an iPod touch.
She said at no point did Tey ask for the gifts from her and that she had given them to him on her own accord.
Tey put it to Ms Ko that he had paid her for those gifts, as well as for the dinner at Garibaldi, which had a bill dated 21 July 2010.
He said he had issued a cheque amounting to S$2,500 in July 2010 before she left for an overseas study stint.
This amount, he said, is slightly more than the value of the gifts mentioned in the first four charges.
But Ms Ko said no such cheque was given to her.
"Based on my recollection no such cheque was given to me. That's different from whether I even remember that a cheque was given to me," replied Ms Ko.
Tey's move drew strong objections from lead prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy, who said the only reason why he is showing Ms Ko his cheque book entries is to "colour the evidence."
"And that to make the submission, puts the cart before the horse," he said.
This drew Tey's rebuttal that Mr Jumabhoy is insinuating that he is seeking to coach Ms Ko in her testimony. Tey said: "I do not think Ms Ko is so naive to be coached as a witness under oath."
After arguing for more than 30 minutes, Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye allowed Tey's questioning but he warned that there should not be contamination of the exhibits.
Continuing his line of questioning, Tey then said he made out the cheque to Ms Ko but she did not encash it. So he paid her in cash, he said. This would explain a second cheque book entry he made to indicate that, said Tey.
Ms Ko disagreed to both claims.
To support his case, Tey asked the court to make an order for two tests to be conducted - the first, a forensic ink dating test, the other, a handwriting comparison analysis.
"The first four charges tally up to slightly less than S$2,500. The two cheque book entries indicate in the defendant's own handwriting "DWH Ko". Both cheque book entries indicate the same amount - $2,500," said Tey.
He said one of the entries was dated July 2010 and the forensic ink dating test and handwriting analysis would "prove conclusively" that the entries are made by him. It would also prove that they were "written contemporaneously" around or in the period of July 2010 and not "recent concoctions".
Tey also asked for disclosure of his DBS bank account information to prove that Ms Ko did not encash the cheque.
Another reason cited by Tey for his three requests - that the forensic tests cost more than S$50,000. Given his suspension since late July 2012, Tey said he is "not in a position" to engage an overseas expert.
Mr Jumabhoy objected, saying Tey's application "is little more than a smoke screen, designed to distract the court from the impact" of what Ms Ko had said.
Mr Jumabhoy also raised doubts, pointing out that the cheque was dated early July 2, 2010, while the dinner bill was dated July 21.
He said Tey is purporting to pay for a dinner even before it had taken place. "It shows a remarkable ability on his part to establish not only future events but the price that such events entail," said Mr Jumabhoy.
The prosecutor also argued that Ms Ko's testimony that she did not receive the cheque caused "irreparable damage" to Tey's case.
"...She has denied in no uncertain terms, (a) having received the cheque and (b) having not encashed the cheque and subsequently been paid for in cash by this accused," argued Mr Jumabhoy.
The judge denied Tey's request after many barbs were traded.
Later in the day, CPIB officer Png Chen Chen also took to the stand as the prosecution's second witness. She told the court that Ms Ko had voluntarily given her statements to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
The court heard that Ms Ko told Ms Png that she expected Tey to protect her and not give her a failing grade as he was her boyfriend. But during cross-examination, Tey pointed out that this was not likely as Ms Ko's average grade at NUS was a "B".
During the prosecution's questioning, Ms Png said Ms Ko was the one who revealed voluntarily to the CPIB that four other former students had given Tey gifts. Of the four, two are current Assistant Registrars at the Supreme Court -- Mr Colin Seow and Ms Elaine Chew.
Tey, a former district judge, faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from Ms Ko between May and July 2010, in exchange for lifting her grades.
If convicted, he could be jailed up to five years and fined S$100,000.
Last edited:
Hi Kukubird, what a nice name you have. Managed to digest the Channel News Asia article in post #78?
Hint, the key parts have been underlined.
In other words, the accused requested the Court to order that the cheques be sent for testing. Why? If the Court makes the order, the costs will not have to be paid by him. Should it be done on his own volition, he has to bear the cost.
Remember the recent case of a guy who was charged but acquitted of rape and spent SGD 100,000 in defending his case? That SGD 100,000 cannot be recovered from the prosecution. It is money down the drain. Average Joes can be made to spend big money defending themselves in court while the prosecution is funded by taxpayers' money. The prosecution is not punished for sloppy investigations. Well, they should be and there are many, many developed countries that pay the accused their legal costs should they be found innocent after a trial. Sad to say, Sinkieland does not have Swiss standards in this regard. Happy to say, this lack of material progress in developing a legal system that meets first world standards does not prevent the Minister of Law from being paid an OUT OF THIS WORLD salary.
Did the article say he said he was not paid during suspension? If you have read thus, then you need to take lessons in English comprehension. It says: "Given his suspension since late July 2012, Tey said he is "not in a position" to engage an overseas expert."
S$50,000 may look like small potatoes, IF you do not take into account liabilities - mortgage payments, car loan, child's education, upcoming legal bill from Peter Low, etc. For sure suspension means your job is not as secure as before. So, better save your reserves for a rainy day and draw upon it only if absolutely necessary. In this case, this S$50,000 is definitely money down the drain even if the accused wins his case, because we do not have a Cost in Criminal Proceedings Act like New Zealand or other developed countries. Therefore, it is reported in Channel News Asia as "he said he is not in a position to engage an overseas expert". Which then becomes distorted by PAP IBs as he said he was not being paid while he was under suspension.
Any more distortions you want me to correct? Always at your service, my dear Kuku ...
Last edited:
you forget jealousy and sour grapes.....
Similar threads
