Is Lust = corruption?
-
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.
Law prof Tey Tsun Hang found guilty in sex-for-grades case
- Thread starter watchman8
- Start date
Is Lust = corruption?
yes that's why if you want to go against PAP make sure all your Ts are crossed and Is are dotted......i can only imagine people like CST and LTK whenever they file income tax.....every last cent also accounted for.......never forget how CSJ went down to a $12 cab fare claim.
Dear Watch
I am predicting a sentence of thirty months and a fine of $50,000, for reason of " Seniority ". Senior Lawyer", "Deterrence" " Should have know and been fully aware of the law". His goose is truly cooked. Foie Gras charred with red wine cherry glaze please. The amount for corruption is absolutely small and should be at most be in the region of three or six months, his position however will make it worse.
People like Winnie assume that a defence any defence means he is not guilty. In that case why even have a fucking trial ? I stated a long long long time ago that he has only two possible routes and he took both but they were poorly executed. His appeal will rest in no small part on the "fact" whether there was grade inflation or not and if so to what extent. The corruption act involves two main elements, a favour, and a gratification.
Favor.
How far was the grade inflated, how far was is favour versus favouritism. The external markers gave her paper a range from A- to A with Prof Teh being on the high side. Was that enough to constitute Corruption and Favor ? This one was I belief marginal but the DJ ruled with the prosecution. If he does appeal it will have to be on this narrow grounds.
Relationship.
The claim of a relationship could not be proven. The onus was on the defence to prove it, the lack of emails smses and or a mutual gift exchange did not work in his favour. The mere assertion of raising that defence does not make it credible.
Locke
I am predicting a sentence of thirty months and a fine of $50,000, for reason of " Seniority ". Senior Lawyer", "Deterrence" " Should have know and been fully aware of the law". His goose is truly cooked. Foie Gras charred with red wine cherry glaze please. The amount for corruption is absolutely small and should be at most be in the region of three or six months, his position however will make it worse.
People like Winnie assume that a defence any defence means he is not guilty. In that case why even have a fucking trial ? I stated a long long long time ago that he has only two possible routes and he took both but they were poorly executed. His appeal will rest in no small part on the "fact" whether there was grade inflation or not and if so to what extent. The corruption act involves two main elements, a favour, and a gratification.
Favor.
How far was the grade inflated, how far was is favour versus favouritism. The external markers gave her paper a range from A- to A with Prof Teh being on the high side. Was that enough to constitute Corruption and Favor ? This one was I belief marginal but the DJ ruled with the prosecution. If he does appeal it will have to be on this narrow grounds.
Relationship.
The claim of a relationship could not be proven. The onus was on the defence to prove it, the lack of emails smses and or a mutual gift exchange did not work in his favour. The mere assertion of raising that defence does not make it credible.
Locke
Mr. Locke,
Wondering if Tey was convicted on the grounds that there was favor being induced or implied. When he was trying to gain the goodies from Ko, he could have promise to inflate her grades. This would be enough ground for corruption.
Whether did he actually inflate her grade then does not matter. The issue is he dangle his carrot (pun intended) in front of her and she took it.
What are your views on this? From a legal aspect?
Last edited:
Lock, on proving corruption, I am with the approach that singapore court takes. Reason being that it is extremely hard for the prosecution to prove that the favour was done and it is because of the bribe given. Furthermore, the accused may not have provided any favour in return for the bribe!
Without this way of treating corruption, any government officials can be out there hinting/demanding bribes from residents, contractors, students anyone etc. After receiving the bribe, the corrupt official can "chao kuan" and not deliver on his promise or simply not going overboard to deliver his promise. This to me is still corruption.
It is better for any one in position of power to simply refuse any pricey gifts or favours, otherwise Singapore will be like China where even seeing the doctor requires an extra "ang pao".
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.
Tank U 4 yu sapork! Jaga8 & Locke @ an eGGcellent team. No doubt Lock iz AGC or SUMthing like dat! But dey like CHINK say 七手八脚. Sabo me when tryin 2 sapork. No eye see. Me resigned 2B laughing stock of de Billytish CUNTmenWED legal world. Prs ve pity on me & enjoy zis vid. DE HEAT ZIS ON!
[video=youtube;TjJGmHIvNfE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjJGmHIvNfE[/video]
Last edited:
Correct. The law is there to protect fair play and impartiality. That hypocrite is a persistent lying fuck, a lawyer and hence he should know the law. He deserves it. Why Ng Ah Gay got acquitted is because he made it clear to Cecilia that he has no control over the tender award process and he did ask for the funds to be put to renovate the building and not for IT in the first place. Hence, he had successfully proven there is no case of motive and opportunity and that he exacts zero influence on the relationship dynamics with Cecilia. So, he is free to get how many blowjobs she is willing to give him. CPIB is dumb to file charges against him. That case is flimsy but this Prof Tey case is crystal clear where graft is present and in plain sight. Besides, this fucker is a senior lawyer. He should know better.
Was Darinne Ko a virgin? Wonder how she is hiding herself....... one day her children will discover what a cheap fuck their mother was.
This ex Prof Tey is probably devil incarnatellllllllll fucked free, demand free makan n free gifts
Pregnant? Go abort it at your expense...........
How come one day with Jappo wife? She din allow to fuck anymore?
Is there another ultra bastard like him>
This ex Prof Tey is probably devil incarnatellllllllll fucked free, demand free makan n free gifts
Pregnant? Go abort it at your expense...........
How come one day with Jappo wife? She din allow to fuck anymore?
Is there another ultra bastard like him>
He is a Malusial just like you are!!
How was this thingie uncovered? Did some tell on him or them?
Who blew the whist;e?
more like who blew his lanjiao?
Tey will be blowing his own lanjiao from now onwards since he lost his job and PR. No female student will ever need to blow his lanjiao anymore.
Why do you assume that she'll be a mother one day?
Death is inevitable. Procreation is not.
i just became an Australian citizen..
congrats! now eat your vegemite!
Just like you unwittingly predicted here: (see post #70 http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?149890-Looking-beyond-the-persecution-of-Tey-Tsun-Hang/page4) that Peter Low will be acquitted? Where you get all this inside knowledge from? Yes, I agree that after this is obviously kangaroo decision, something needs to be done to redeem the reputation of our courts and this has been carefully orchestrated. Those 2 Fat Cats (Peter & Gay) had obviously offended the establishment too and this is also a way to impoverish them and tarnish their reputation without the need to secure a conviction. Stick in the middle (note the orchestrated timing), the case you really want to FIX and then it is not so obvious. What Najib did was rather clumsy. Let the Anwar case went all the way and then order the court to acquit him, makes the orchestration rather obvious.
Foie Gras? I noticed that you took care to spell it properly this time. Last time, you spelled it “fioe gra”. Didn’t I tell you to use your analogies carefully. Readers may click here to see why Kate Winslet finds the consumption of this delicacy deplorable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojvu7qHWqoM ; as cruel and shameless as obtaining kangaroo convictions through the use of CPIB mafia to extract forced confessions.
For those from the legal fraternity who’re interested in the rule of law as well as $$$, look around you, see which one of your friends have a fetish for Foie Gras. He/she will be a good suspect for your Locke.
Before I rebutt you on the other points, which I might not have time to do, I cite here again your claim to have ZERO legal training:
Whereas this other post clearly shows that you’re from one of the stakeholders in the criminal litigation process (judiciary, prosecutors, defence lawyers) to be privy to what was discussed but not publicised in the lobbying process:
I also provide here the link to one other thread where I’ve asked others to be cautious of Locke & his gibberish:
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...ockeLiberal-Case-FIXED!&p=1500569#post1500569 – posts #1, 2 and 44
Last edited:
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.
People like Locke are paid to be here to confuse clueless laymen with their gibberish. The key question here is: has the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the standard of proof is high – BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. And the State must prove EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT of the crime as stated in the charge sheet and not as printed in your friendly SHIT TIMES or as posted by PAP IBs in Sammyboy.
Last edited:
Similar threads
