There might have been hearsay about a few students sleeping with lecturers over the years, but that remains merely hearsay. When a lecturer is facing trial being accused of such an act it, because someone filed a complaint, then it moves from being hearsay to being a concrete allegation. The Court will decide the proof of the allegation.
Wrong. The accusation is not sleeping with students. That is NOT a criminal offence. The charge here is CORRUPTION. Sex in exchange for grades. Which the star prosecution witness has already denied vehemently in open court and stated unequivocally that she was forced by Mafia CPIB to sign a statement. See post # 15 for details. Could you please be so kind as to let me know which part of that post you do not understand?
When a lecturer is facing trial being accused of such an act it, because someone filed a complaint, then it moves from being hearsay to being a concrete allegation.
A complaint can be easily planted. Just as "someone" can easily register at SammyBoy and thereafter perform his paid role as a PAP IB by making allegations against this or that Oppo figure. As a former student of NUS law fac, I know for a
FACT that there are many students there whose parents are PAP MPs, Ministars, cronies, etc. And I avoid all of them, especially since one of their fathers had the temerity to say that the NTUC is part of the Govt, therefore an NTUC employee who joined an Oppo Party deserved to be fired. It ain't difficult to get these sons or daughters of PAP Minions to file a complaint.
I note your use of the adjective "concrete" before allegation. Nice try at Jedi mind trick. If I were not a novice Jedi, I too would not have spotted it. An allegation is just that - an accusation. There is nothing concrete about it. Your buddy here, Watchman8, has accused 2 people of being Tey. Your buddy in the other thread, ChewCheng, has accused me of being Tey as well, in addition to other things - gay, woman, an exile in HK, blah, blah, blah.
Concrete my foot. BULLSHIT is a much better adjective. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can make an unsubstantiated accusation especially if they have a vested interest in making the false charge stick e.g. daddy's lucrative contract with a Government (read PAP) linked entity.
For every one criminal caught and successfully prosecuted for a crime, X number may never be found out. It does not make the crime committed by those successfully brought to book any less wrong. Those who think this should not be so have a very misplaced sense of righteousness and morality. They are simply being Quixotic, tilting at windmills.
It is NOT about righteousness and morality. Diversity is an equally important right. Only certain societal norms are incorporated into the criminal law. The rest - like adultery, smoking, etc are all left to the individual to decide.
What is before the Court is whether CORRUPTION has been proved by the prosecution BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. This is the societal norm that has been incorporated into the criminal law - that bribery is bad for society as a whole and ought to be punished with jail or fine. If as a prosecutor you fail to understand this, a First World judge will not just call you Quixotic. He will say you are not qualified to appear before him.
Righteousness? Morality? OK, I concede that it is morally wrong for:
1) the CPIB to extract admissions and confessions through the use of Mafia tactics;
2) the Prosecution and the Judge to play dirty tricks in the process of hearing the case to deny the accused a fair trial;
3) the State to use resources meant for the protection of ordinary citizens against criminals to attack its critics;
4) to ensure that critics and those thinking of criticising are effectively silenced, the State to use the Media to manipulate the minds of daft Sinkies so that even if the accused were acquitted it is impossible for him or her and all those associated with him even remotely to live an ordinary life (Ng Boon Gay, Cecilia Sue, Peter Lim, CHC, etc);
5) for Sinkies to be unable to look beyond their nose and understand that
forced confessions and trial by media is bad for everyone, because they could be the next victim.
I can go on and on, but these are only some of the things that are morally wrong with the way this case has been pursued by our
KANGAROO system.
Sammyboy's next security question - Q: What animal is most frequently associated with Sinkie Courts? A: KANGAROO