NUS will ask CPIB to charge employee who violate its policy

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
28,058
Points
113
Prof on full pay while suspended Walter Sim | The Straits Times | Sat Jan 19 2013

Law professor Tey Tsun Hang was suspended in July last year, after he was charged with corruption.

The 41-year-old continued to receive full pay from his employer, the National University of Singapore (NUS).

This and other information on his employment with NUS were revealed in court last Wednesday by university officials, who were testifying on the fifth day of the sex-for-grades corruption trial.

The NUS law professor - believed to be paid $15,000 a month - is facing six charges of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko Wen Hui, 23.

The items she gave him include a Montblanc pen, an iPod and two tailored shirts. She also paid for a dinner Tey hosted.

Last week, the court heard that Ms Ko had lost her virginity to Tey on a couch in his NUS law school office on July 24, 2010.

They had sex again there four days later, on the eve of her 21st birthday, the court was told.

Ms Ko also testified last week that at some point during their relationship, she had believed they were in love.

NUS senior associate directors Lee Swee Khuen (human resources) and Eileen Pang (financial services) were among six prosecution witnesses who gave evidence on that day.

Two others testified about the gifts Ms Ko had bought for Tey.

Ms Lee said that Tey never declared any personal relationships or conflicts of interest even though it was required under the university's code of conduct.

But when Tey asked her during cross-examination if a failure to make such disclosures would warrant a probe by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), her answer was no.

The court heard that NUS also has a policy that requires all staff to report gifts worth more than $100.

But Ms Pang testified that Tey had never done so.

She said the system is based on trust and if discovered, staff may be subjected to disciplinary action.

Mr Akira Goh from local tailor CYC The Custom Shop, and Mr De Costa Desmond Max were next.

Mr De Costa testified that he had in May 2010 sold Ms Ko the iPod touch that she had given Tey.

Mr Goh confirmed a transaction of $236.20 for two tailored shirts meant for Tey, which Ms Ko had paid for on June 22, 2010.

He, however, said that four shirts - a light blue one, a checkered one, a batik one and a pink striped one - which have been admitted as evidence "were not made by us".

He told the court he arrived at the conclusion because CYC does not have the fabrics or buttons of those four shirts, and there was no order number or year of order indicated on them.

This contradicted what Ms Ko had testified previously, that one of the four shirts - the light blue one - was a gift to Tey from her.

Also among the six witnesses was the CPIB's chief special investigator, Mr Bay Chun How, who testified in a trial within a trial at last Wednesday's proceeding.

This was to allow the judge to decide if Tey's statements recorded by CPIB officers are admissible.

The trial resumed last Thursday, with Mr Bay returning to the witness stand.
 
I think Tey had better refute the NUS claim or suffer a massive credibility hit.
 
Tey has done a good job punching lots of holes at the prosecution case. Despite the credibility hit, the judge would have to explain why he would ignore the CPIB tactics of forcing the key witness to produce statements that she didn't agree with, why he thought this was a case of corruption when it was a mutually agreed sexcapade, that the inconsistency in the witness' statements ....is one convicted even when the prosecution's case is so weak?
 
This has nothing do with consensual sex. If it had not been we would be looking at a rape trial. This is a corruption case.

1. He was holding a position where he influence or determine her grades
2. He received gifts
3. He did give any in return
4. He did not report in the gifts
5. Both he and she are not denying the gifts
6. He has not even claimed that he even bought her bottle of coke, let alone a dinner.

So what do you think was going on?
So which holes did he punch in?
- no gifts was given or taken
- he was not in position of power and in fact was the law faculty janitor
- that their behaviour was reflective of a couple in a relationship and they had gone out on dates where he bought her dinner, paid for roses, or at least went dutch.

To make matters worse this guy conducted the trial where his credibility was hung out to dry. No lawyer defending a client will try to mislead the court by making incorrect claims such as the pay suspension. If the client complains or the court complains the lawyer can be disbarred.

After he made the colossal boo boo, I put out a thread on him for the first time. This guy removed the cover of the manhole in which he fell thru.


Tey has done a good job punching lots of holes at the prosecution case. Despite the credibility hit, the judge would have to explain why he would ignore the CPIB tactics of forcing the key witness to produce statements that she didn't agree with, why he thought this was a case of corruption when it was a mutually agreed sexcapade, that the inconsistency in the witness' statements ....is one convicted even when the prosecution's case is so weak?
 
scroobal;1379160This is a corruption case. 1. He was holding a position where he influence or determine her grades[QUOTE said:
Did he misused his position? The prosecution has not proven that.
2. He received gifts
And that is wrong when they are in love? He did not report to NUS, that's a violation of NUS policy. A corruption case when the partner professed publicly her love for him and he likewise.
3. He did give any in return
He flew to be with her in the US ...would that not count? Did he not pay the bills for some meals?
4. He did not report in the gifts
Is that corruption?
5. Both he and she are not denying the gifts
Non-issue.
6. He has not even claimed that he even bought her bottle of coke, let alone a dinner.
You know for a fact?
So what do you think was going on?
A love affair!
So which holes did he punch in?
- no gifts was given or taken
- he was not in position of power and in fact was the law faculty janitor
- that their behaviour was reflective of a couple in a relationship and they had gone out on dates where he bought her dinner, paid for roses, or at least went dutch.
She was in love with him and he was in love with her. She didn't ask or expected him to boost her grades; she didn't think she needed his help. He conveyed how she was faring in the course, how is that indicative that he was helping? Did CPIB prove that she should have a lower grade than she deserves? The CPIB has been shown to have pressure the key witness to make statement to support their charges rather than listen to her side of the story and then decide if a charge was warranted. That's not investigation, that's called framing. The witness have testified that she was not comfortable with statements drafted by the CPIB and had negotiated to weaken certain statements.

The NUS official said it was unusual that a violation of not reporting gifts is reported to the CPIB for corruption.

There are just too many questions in the prosecution case to warrant a conviction. I don't think the evidence supports a corruption charge.
To make matters worse this guy conducted the trial where his credibility was hung out to dry. No lawyer defending a client will try to mislead the court by making incorrect claims such as the pay suspension. If the client complains or the court complains the lawyer can be disbarred.
That was stupid. So, I await his rebuttal, if any.
 
Last edited:
He may be corrupt but the CPIB has not proven its case. If the accused is acquitted, he should sue the CPIB.
 
i started a tok kong organization in bedok and am relying on this precedent to request the cpib to charge an organization employee of accepting gifts from clients in connection with granting favors (and flavors) such as moving them far forward of a very long queue. gifts exceeding sgd100 must be disclosed to management (me and me only) but apparently the employee pocketed all items including a dozen lower body massage passes worth $12 each, 3-night stay at a changi hotel, 69 video downloads of sbf porn, and a 3-month supply of condoms. it is definitely a case of corruption according to my definition, and i'm hoping that the tok kong dd of cpib can put this bugger in the slammer. i was really looking forward to the 3-night stay the changi hotel as my rent in bedok always go into arrears, and my room mates are no longer helping after they've helped me countless times. the only worry is the client base or "witnesses" does not have a chio lady in the mix. the most chio and she's likely not a real lady is a "gal" named toni. the next chio client is a fat gal named sadplumbedgal. both do not attract the attention of the tok kong "always in the news" dd of cpib. can rumpole the great solicitor and prosecutor help me..... please? my organ... oops organization will suffer serious setbacks if the entire gov apparatus don't lend a hand. they can forget about aim-ing at more high priority stuff as this corrupt practice is no frivolous episode. after this employee is found guilty as charged, i'll need cpib to go after my partner.... rogue trader. :eek:
 
Last edited:
it would be interesting to see how many nus employees will be charged.:D
 
This has nothing do with consensual sex. If it had not been we would be looking at a rape trial. This is a corruption case.

1. He was holding a position where he influence or determine her grades
2. He received gifts
3. He did give any in return
4. He did not report in the gifts
5. Both he and she are not denying the gifts
6. He has not even claimed that he even bought her bottle of coke, let alone a dinner.
Add the gifts are unusually expensive for a full time student whose parents are well to do middle class, but certainly not minister level filthy rich type. Vast majority of men have never received gifts of such value over time from girlfriends without even any gifts in return.

I find it strange that tey wants to claim trial. With his experience he should know that his defense is very weak. Perhaps he has been corrupted for so long that he has lost perspective of what is wrong and social values.
 
Back
Top