Give back kee lan lah, fucker is going to jail next week. So, you going to liberate him next week issit?
He won't be in jail forever. Perhaps you may wish to introduce yourself to him so that he can remember you when he gets out.
-
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.
SEX for 'A' grade: Law prof arrested
- Thread starter Akuma
- Start date
He won't be in jail forever. Perhaps you may wish to introduce yourself to him so that he can remember you when he gets out.
Sex-for-grades trial: Hearing for sentencing of former law professor Tey Tsun Hang begins
Published on Jun 03, 2013
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang arrived at the Subordinate Courts just after 9am on Monday for his sentencing. -- ST PHOTO: WALTER SIM
By Walter Sim
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang arrived at the Subordinate Courts just after 9am on Monday for his sentencing.
The 42-year-old was found guilty by Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye last Wednesday, on all six counts of corruptly obtaining sex and gifts - a Mont Blanc pen, an iPod, two tailored shirts, and dinner at Garibaldi Italian Restaurant & Bar - from his former student Darinne Ko.
Tey, who was sacked by the National University of Singapore on the day he was convicted, could be jailed for up to seven years and fined up to $100,000, or given both for each charge.
Last week, Deputy Public Prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy had pushed for a minimum jail time of 12 weeks for Tey, who was also a former district judge.
He also asked for Tey to be ordered to pay $1,514.80 for two tailored shirts and dinner, and to have the pen and iPod forfeited.
The DPP had argued against Tey's mitigation plea that a "stiff fine" would suffice, as it was "unjustifiable" and would underplay his level of culpability in the offences. He added that a jail term would give Tey a chance to reflect upon his misdeeds, especially since he has displayed "not one iota of remorse" for his conduct.
He also stressed that Tey's conduct throughout the investigation and the extended sex-for-grades trial had shown him to be dishonest, pointing to his attempts to disrupt court proceedings by "feigning illness" and implicating "other innocent people".
The DPP had said: "This accused did not only demonstrate he was prepared to lie, but was prepared to lie repeatedly."
These court antics were noted by the district judge, who said, when delivering his verdict on the case, that Tey was an unreliable witness who "lied on numerous occasions" during the trial.
Tey told The Straits Times last week that his lawyer Peter Low has prepared his appeal, but he has yet to decide whether to appeal against his conviction or his sentence, or both.
Sex-for-grades trial: 5 months jail for former law professor Tey Tsun Hang
Published on Jun 03, 2013
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang was sentenced to five months jail by Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye on Monday. -- ST PHOTO: ASHLEIGH SIM
By Walter Sim
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang was sentenced to five months jail by Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye on Monday.
Chief District Judge Tan noted in sentencing Tey, that the 42-year-old was "unbecoming" of a senior educator, having "clearly and systematically" taken advantage of the student. Another aggravating factor was that the "litany of lies" told by Tey, who also "behaved insidiously" from the start of the corruption probe to the end of the sex-for-grades trial.
He added that a fine, as submitted by Tey's lawyer last week, would not be appropriate as it would "trivalise the severity" of the case and it was an "irony" that these crimes took place at the law faculty of the National University of Singapore.
Tey was found guilty last Wednesday on all six counts of corruptly obtaining sex and gifts - a Mont Blanc pen, an iPod, two tailored shirts, and dinner at Garibaldi Italian Restaurant & Bar - from his former student Darinne Ko.
The 42-year old, who was sacked by NUS on the day he was convicted, could have been jailed for up to seven years and fined up to $100,000, or given both for each charge.
Tey had told The Straits Times before the start of proceedings earlier that he had been "distressed" by the court's judgement and plans to appeal against his sentence.
Sex-for-grades trial: 5 months jail for former law professor Tey Tsun Hang
Published on Jun 03, 2013
lianbeng smacks his stupid face with 5 months!
Last edited:
Sex-for-grades trial: Judge has harsh words for Tey
He cites ex-law prof's 'callousness' in giving longer jail term than sought
Published on Jun 04, 2013
Tey deserved a harsher penalty as he caused his ex-student to lose her virginity and took a life through an abortion, said the judge. -- ST PHOTO: ASHLEIGH SIM
By Bryna Singh And Walter Sim
FORMER National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor Tey Tsun Hang had always displayed a feisty, at times dramatic, presence during his 28-day trial, characterised by sharp exchanges between him and prosecutors.
But yesterday, the 42-year-old showed no emotion throughout the one hour that a district judge took to chastise him, and when he was led away in handcuffs.
Even his supporters - about 10 former students, former colleagues and friends - who had been religiously showing up in court were stoic when Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye passed the sentence. They had cried and hugged Tey after he was found guilty last Tuesday of corruption.
In giving his grounds of decision yesterday, the judge said Tey was in a position of trust and had a duty to nurture and impart the right moral values to his students. Yet, he "exploited the vulnerability" of former student Darinne Ko, and "chose to be corrupt".
"This is, perhaps, the first case of corruption at the NUS Faculty of Law which has reached the courts," he said, adding that the university's reputation was also tarnished with Tey's conviction last Tuesday. Tey was sacked from NUS the same day.
The judge refuted the defence's citing of a case involving former Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) senior executive Peter Khoo to prove there was no "actual loss or detriment" to NUS. Mr Khoo was fined $100,000 and given an $83,500 penalty - the total sum of bribes he pocketed - last year after he pleaded guilty to two counts of corruption and one of criminal breach of trust.
The judge said in Mr Khoo's case, SPH was not part of the public administration, and he had voluntarily disclosed his own misdeeds. But in Tey's case, he did not admit to the offences when charged in court, said the judge.
Tey had also "played the lead role" in the two sexual encounters he had with Ms Ko, he said, and his "callousness" was evident as he had asked Ms Ko to "get rid of the baby", while claiming he had no money to pay for the abortion. As he caused her to lose her virginity and took a life through an abortion, Tey deserved a harsher sentence of three months each for those charges than the prosecution's suggestion of six to eight weeks per charge, he said.
"The scourge of corruption, which causes untold misery and human suffering, must not be allowed to take root in our tertiary institutions," said the judge.
Tey was released yesterday after bail of $150,000 was posted by his former colleague, associate professor Chan Wing Cheong, and Tey's sister-in-law. Yesterday, as he was leaving, Tey told reporters he was "touched by the support and concern" of his former colleagues, a few of whom were present yesterday. "None of them have deserted me," he said.
[email protected]
[email protected]
NUS: No legal basis to recover salary paid to Tey
June 7, 2013 - 1:03am
By: Foo Jie Ying
Tey Tsun Hang may have lost his job as a law professor after being found guilty of corruption in the sex-for-grades trial.
But the 42-year-old will leave with close to $200,000 from the National University of Singapore (NUS), where he was an associate professor since 2006.
Last July, after Tey was charged with six counts of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from his former student, Miss Darinne Ko, now 23, the university suspended him with full pay.
On May 28, a district court sentenced him to five months’ jail after he was convicted of all six charges.
The university confirmed yesterday that Tey, who is now out on bail pending his appeal against the conviction and sentence, will get to keep the salary that he received during his 10 months under suspension.
An NUS spokesman said that while Tey was suspended to “protect the interests” of its students, his salary was not withheld as “investigations and court proceedings were in progress”.
He said Tey’s appointment was terminated with immediate effect after his conviction, but the university will not be recovering the salary paid to him “as there is no legal basis to do so”.
Read the full report in The New Paper on Friday (June 7).
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang, ex-SCDF chief Peter Lim begin jail term
By Claire Huang
POSTED: 26 Jun 2013 1:01 PM
UPDATED: 26 Jun 2013 7:50 PM
Former National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor Tey Tsun Hang. (photo: Francine Lim, channelnewsasia.com)
SINGAPORE: Both former National University of Singapore law professor Tey Tsun Hang and ex-Civil Defence chief Peter Lim started their jail terms on Wednesday.
Tey, 42, was convicted of six counts of corruption in late May in a sex-for-grades case.
Earlier this month, he was sentenced to five months' jail.
Speaking to Channel NewsAsia, Tey said the move to serve his sentence now is so he can be released earlier.
He clarified that his appeal against his conviction and sentence will still proceed.
Of his recent decision to serve his sentence earlier, the Malaysian said that he and his family are no longer permanent residents in Singapore.
When asked about his wife and daughter, Tey said they are both overseas.
On his future, the former district judge said he has a book proposal.
He also said he is looking forward to the future and to take care of his parents, both of whom are in Malaysia.
Separately, former Singapore Civil Defence Force chief Peter Lim also started his six-month jail term on Wednesday.
Lim was convicted of corruptly obtaining a sexual favour from a former general manager of one of SCDF's vendors.
His appeal is pending for now.
- CNA/xq/de
Ex-law professor appeals against conviction, jail term
Published on Jul 12, 2013
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang arriving at the Subordinate Courts on 26 June 2013 to begin his five-month jail term for corruption. Tey had his lawyers file appeals against his conviction and five- month jail sentence yesterday. -- ST FILE PHOTO: KEVIN LIM CP
By Bryna Singh
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang had his lawyers file appeals against his conviction and five- month jail sentence yesterday.
Tey, who is now in prison after being found guilty of six counts of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko, continues to insist that he loved her, and that a stiff fine would have been enough.
The appeals are expected to be heard three months from now, which may coincide with Tey's release. Before starting his jail term last month, he predicted that he would be out by "early October" after remission.
Tey's lawyer Peter Low, who visited him last week, said his client was "in good spirits and counting down towards his freedom".
Get the full story from The Straits Times.
Sex-for-grades: Appeal hearing dates for former law professor set for October
Published on Jul 25, 2013
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang arrives at the Subordinate Courts on June 26, 2013, to begin his five-month jail term for corruption. The appeal hearing for Tey against his conviction and five-month jail sentence has been set for October. -- ST FILE PHOTO: KEVIN LIM CP
By Walter Sim And Bryna Singh
The appeal hearing for former law professor Tey Tsun Hang against his conviction and five-month jail sentence has been set for October. This comes after defence counsel Peter Low requested for the original Aug 6 date to be postponed so that the defence could have sufficient time to adequately prepare for the appeal hearing - having only been notified of the date on July 17.
Following a pre-trial conference before Assistant Registrar Janice Wong at the High Court on Thursday, the hearing has been set from Oct 16 to 18. This means that Tey, 42, who is now in prison after being convicted of six counts of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko, may be released by then. Before starting his jail term in June, he had predicted he would be out by "early October" after remission.
In court documents, Mr Low indicated that if Tey's appeal succeeds, and if he fully completes his sentence by then, Tey "fully understands" that his appeal against his sentence would be futile. But his "good name would be cleared and his reputation vindicated'.
After Tey's conviction in May, the former National University of Singapore (NUS) don continued to maintain his innocence. Before going to jail, he said he was "extremely disappointed" by the judgment.
Get the full story from The Straits Times.
09/18/2013 11:30
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang released from prison
Tey Tsun Hang will serve the remainder of his sentence in home detention.
Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang released from prison
SINGAPORE : Former National University of Singapore law professor Tey Tsun Hang was released from prison on Tuesday.
The 42-year-old, who was sentenced to five months jail for corruption in June, will serve the remainder of his sentence in home detention.
According to his lawyer, Tey was released on the conditions that he is only allowed to leave home between 12pm and 3pm and will not to speak with the media.
Tey was convicted of six counts of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from his former student Darinne Ko. Though he filed appeals against his conviction and jail sentence, Tey opted to start serving his sentence on June 26.
Tey's official release date is said to be October 5, if he is given a remission for good behaviour.
lianbeng quotes a chinese saying: 放虎归山后患无穷！dun let tiger go back to mountain leh!
Lian Beng, are you refering to paper tiger as mentioned by Prof Michael Barr? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295894
Singapore's shameful sham judiciary, Part 1
http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/231437
Singapore loves feeling superior to Malaysia in every way. They have plenty of things to boast about: better public transport, less corruption, higher standards of living, and so on.
Here’s one simple question: is the Singapore judiciary any better than Malaysia’s?
That the Malaysian judiciary has had a tarnished reputation cannot be denied - the VK Lingam judge-fixing scandal, a history of sound judgements being overturned by judges promoted to the higher courts, and perhaps most blatant of all, the sodomy trials of Anwar Ibrahim.
Singapore can boast of cleaner streets, but when it comes to the judiciary, theirs is the burning shame of being right down there in the gutter with Malaysia. Now, we have a sham trial of almost Anwar-like proportions to demonstrate it.
A judiciary is far from clean when trials become a farcical mockery of justice, and political agendas and vendettas are the basis for trampling the very principles of due process. Even a first- year law student can recognise the blatant miscarriage of justice and meddling fingers of the government.
The pride and arrogance of the Singapore government, borne of being in power for too long (just like the BN) has blinded it to a distinct reality of contemporary society. To paraphrase Buddha: three things cannot long remain hidden - the sun, the moon and the truth.
They remain stuck in the past, where a nation’s perception of reality has been easy to manipulate by monopolising all print and broadcast media.
Malaysia has led the way in showing that people will not stand for lies and evil deception any more. If Singapore thinks it can hold back this tide of truth, it will go the way of all those who refuse to accept progress and change.
The case that has thrown the shameful failings of a core state institution into relief is that of Professor Tey Tsun Hang (left), who stands accused of accepting sexual favours and gifts from a student in exchange for better grades.
Before we examine the details of the case, who is Tey?
He was born in Segamat, Johor, and went on to study law in King's College and Cambridge in the UK. He rose in the system to become a district judge in the Subordinate Court (equivalent of Malaysia's Sessions Court), and then moved to a career in academia.
His academic work has been very critical of the Singapore government, also focusing in great detail on the failings of the judicial system and highlighting its shameful subservience to the overbearing powers of the Executive.
Tey’s publications are well respected and have found a ready audience internationally, where it is harder to suppress the freedom of academic inquiry, and where ideas require true merit to become popular.
Sex for grades?
Of course, being a crusader for a clean judiciary does not automatically absolve an individual of criminal charges. The question then becomes whether it is true that Tey accepted favours in exchange for giving better grades.
In order to prove their case, the prosecution would have to prove that he had sexual relations with this student, accepted her gifts, and in turn gave her better grades than she deserved.
The defence focused on disproving the last two of these accusations.
Firstly, it relied on evidence in the form of cheques issued in payment of the gifts that were allegedly given by the student. These cheques proved that Tey had himself paid for the items in question.
Secondly, it relied on detailed academic records audited by National University of Singapore (NUS) staff, which clearly indicate that the grades the student received from Tey were completely in accordance with the quality of her work, and were marked according to the exact same standard as that of other students in the class.
These two pieces of evidence should have immediately cleared Tey of any corruption charges. If it can be proven that there were sexual relations between him and the student, then this would constitute a clear and shameful breach of ethics and professionalism.
It would then warrant internal discipline proceedings at the NUS level, without sufficient evidence or cause to institute criminal proceedings.
What happened then in court, when the defence attempted to produce the vindicating evidence?
It was revealed that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had seized evidence of cheque payment records which indicated Tey made payments for the supposed corrupt gifts. Yet, no investigation was pursued.
It was observed that investigators who were questioned in court were evasive, and eventually had to admit that no action was taken to investigate such important evidence.
To salvage the lapse in CPIB investigations, the prosecution objected strongly to the Tey’s application for forensic ink-dating tests and handwriting comparison analysis of the cheque payment records.
This was a make-or-break point, because the test results would prove scientifically that the payment records were made by Tey three years ago in 2010, when the alleged crimes of corruption took place.
The prosecution could not afford for the tests to be carried out, lest its theory be proven wrong on the spot and the case against Tey collapsed on itself.
Taking cue from the prosecution's strong objection, the judge refused Tey’s applications for forensic ink-dating and handwriting tests.
With this victory in hand, the prosecution then turned around and proclaimed that there was no such payments, calling Tey a liar who had fabricated a story about making payments.
Why did the judge refuse Tey's application for the scientific tests? If he was objective as a judge should be, he should have allowed the tests so that this critical evidence could finally be looked into, so that there is no miscarriage of justice.
To seek guidance from the prosecution and then simply brush aside the critical evidence reflects very poorly on his judgment, and indicates a total lack of independence, as well as an intent to convict Tey right from the very beginning.
Evidence rejected
Early on during the trial, the lawyer representing NUS, whose interest was obviously to vindicate itself with a bulletproof grading system, stood up to state that the university was ready to cooperate with providing all the necessary academic records as soon as the court issues the appropriate orders.
The lawyer was instead slapped with an order from the judge not to speak any more in court until he was told to do so.
Subsequently, the defence requests to compel NUS to provide those academic records were mostly disallowed by the judge or objected to by the prosecution, mainly on the grounds of student data confidentiality or completely silent without providing any ground of objection.
It seemed that the judiciary is more interested to maintain data confidentiality for NUS than to uphold truth and justice.
Furthermore, no less than six defence witnesses were censored by the judge. Worst of all, they were censored without providing grounds.
Could there be a more blatant miscarriage of justice? Who were the six witnesses? Why were they censored? What was said that could not have been said in the open? Might this have impacted the trial? Did the censoring of the witnesses prejudice the defence?
Yesterday, the Singapore court found Tey guilty of all six corruption charges. Sentencing has been fixed for today.
http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/231437
Singapore loves feeling superior to Malaysia in every way. They have plenty of things to boast about: better public transport, less corruption, higher standards of living, and so on.
Here’s one simple question: is the Singapore judiciary any better than Malaysia’s?
That the Malaysian judiciary has had a tarnished reputation cannot be denied - the VK Lingam judge-fixing scandal, a history of sound judgements being overturned by judges promoted to the higher courts, and perhaps most blatant of all, the sodomy trials of Anwar Ibrahim.
Singapore can boast of cleaner streets, but when it comes to the judiciary, theirs is the burning shame of being right down there in the gutter with Malaysia. Now, we have a sham trial of almost Anwar-like proportions to demonstrate it.
A judiciary is far from clean when trials become a farcical mockery of justice, and political agendas and vendettas are the basis for trampling the very principles of due process. Even a first- year law student can recognise the blatant miscarriage of justice and meddling fingers of the government.
The pride and arrogance of the Singapore government, borne of being in power for too long (just like the BN) has blinded it to a distinct reality of contemporary society. To paraphrase Buddha: three things cannot long remain hidden - the sun, the moon and the truth.
They remain stuck in the past, where a nation’s perception of reality has been easy to manipulate by monopolising all print and broadcast media.
Malaysia has led the way in showing that people will not stand for lies and evil deception any more. If Singapore thinks it can hold back this tide of truth, it will go the way of all those who refuse to accept progress and change.
The case that has thrown the shameful failings of a core state institution into relief is that of Professor Tey Tsun Hang (left), who stands accused of accepting sexual favours and gifts from a student in exchange for better grades.
Before we examine the details of the case, who is Tey?
He was born in Segamat, Johor, and went on to study law in King's College and Cambridge in the UK. He rose in the system to become a district judge in the Subordinate Court (equivalent of Malaysia's Sessions Court), and then moved to a career in academia.
His academic work has been very critical of the Singapore government, also focusing in great detail on the failings of the judicial system and highlighting its shameful subservience to the overbearing powers of the Executive.
Tey’s publications are well respected and have found a ready audience internationally, where it is harder to suppress the freedom of academic inquiry, and where ideas require true merit to become popular.
Sex for grades?
Of course, being a crusader for a clean judiciary does not automatically absolve an individual of criminal charges. The question then becomes whether it is true that Tey accepted favours in exchange for giving better grades.
In order to prove their case, the prosecution would have to prove that he had sexual relations with this student, accepted her gifts, and in turn gave her better grades than she deserved.
The defence focused on disproving the last two of these accusations.
Firstly, it relied on evidence in the form of cheques issued in payment of the gifts that were allegedly given by the student. These cheques proved that Tey had himself paid for the items in question.
Secondly, it relied on detailed academic records audited by National University of Singapore (NUS) staff, which clearly indicate that the grades the student received from Tey were completely in accordance with the quality of her work, and were marked according to the exact same standard as that of other students in the class.
These two pieces of evidence should have immediately cleared Tey of any corruption charges. If it can be proven that there were sexual relations between him and the student, then this would constitute a clear and shameful breach of ethics and professionalism.
It would then warrant internal discipline proceedings at the NUS level, without sufficient evidence or cause to institute criminal proceedings.
What happened then in court, when the defence attempted to produce the vindicating evidence?
It was revealed that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had seized evidence of cheque payment records which indicated Tey made payments for the supposed corrupt gifts. Yet, no investigation was pursued.
It was observed that investigators who were questioned in court were evasive, and eventually had to admit that no action was taken to investigate such important evidence.
To salvage the lapse in CPIB investigations, the prosecution objected strongly to the Tey’s application for forensic ink-dating tests and handwriting comparison analysis of the cheque payment records.
This was a make-or-break point, because the test results would prove scientifically that the payment records were made by Tey three years ago in 2010, when the alleged crimes of corruption took place.
The prosecution could not afford for the tests to be carried out, lest its theory be proven wrong on the spot and the case against Tey collapsed on itself.
Taking cue from the prosecution's strong objection, the judge refused Tey’s applications for forensic ink-dating and handwriting tests.
With this victory in hand, the prosecution then turned around and proclaimed that there was no such payments, calling Tey a liar who had fabricated a story about making payments.
Why did the judge refuse Tey's application for the scientific tests? If he was objective as a judge should be, he should have allowed the tests so that this critical evidence could finally be looked into, so that there is no miscarriage of justice.
To seek guidance from the prosecution and then simply brush aside the critical evidence reflects very poorly on his judgment, and indicates a total lack of independence, as well as an intent to convict Tey right from the very beginning.
Evidence rejected
Early on during the trial, the lawyer representing NUS, whose interest was obviously to vindicate itself with a bulletproof grading system, stood up to state that the university was ready to cooperate with providing all the necessary academic records as soon as the court issues the appropriate orders.
The lawyer was instead slapped with an order from the judge not to speak any more in court until he was told to do so.
Subsequently, the defence requests to compel NUS to provide those academic records were mostly disallowed by the judge or objected to by the prosecution, mainly on the grounds of student data confidentiality or completely silent without providing any ground of objection.
It seemed that the judiciary is more interested to maintain data confidentiality for NUS than to uphold truth and justice.
Furthermore, no less than six defence witnesses were censored by the judge. Worst of all, they were censored without providing grounds.
Could there be a more blatant miscarriage of justice? Who were the six witnesses? Why were they censored? What was said that could not have been said in the open? Might this have impacted the trial? Did the censoring of the witnesses prejudice the defence?
Yesterday, the Singapore court found Tey guilty of all six corruption charges. Sentencing has been fixed for today.
lianbeng is referring to that smiling face tiger who is going to be released from iron cage soon!
lianbeng is referring to that smiling face tiger who is going to be released from iron cage soon!
Hi Mr Lian,
do u mind if I post the related news which are published in Overseas media and not in Local MSM?
I want to share more news with all the brothers and sisters here
Last edited:
Updated: 10/16/2013 11:47 | By Channel NewsAsia
Former law prof Tey Tsun Hang's appeal hearing to continue despite his absence
SINGAPORE: Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang did not show up for an appeal against his conviction for corruption which was slated to start on Wednesday.
However, High Court judge Woo Bih Li decided to continue with the proceedings in his absence following a short stand down.
Mr Tey's lawyer, Peter Low, told the court on Wednesday morning that he was caught by surprise when his client did not show up. He was only informed shortly before 10am that Mr Tey was in Kuala Lumpur with his parents.
Mr Low also said he had no indication that Mr Tey, 42, would not be attending the appeal, adding that his client had always attended all proceedings in the past, including criminal motions.
He said his client had instructed him to proceed with the appeal.
On his part, Deputy Public Prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy said the court has the discretion to decide whether the appeal should be allowed to continue.
"Given the involvement the appellant has had in this appeal, his absence is worrying," Mr Jumabhoy had told the court.
But Judge Woo allowed the appeal to proceed.
He said before standing down the court, "I wonder what's the rationale for dismissing the appeal if the appellant isn't here but his counsel is, and he has instructions to proceed with the appeal."
"I wonder why the absence of good reasons should indicate why the court should dismiss the appeal," the judge said.
And noting that court dates were set according to Mr Tey's request, the judge added: "One would have thought he's the one most interested in the outcome."
Mr Tey became a free man earlier this month, after serving a five-month jail term for six counts of corruption obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko.
Part of his sentence was served on home detention.
In court on Wednesday, Mr Low argued that Mr Tey and Ms Ko were in a mutually-loving relationship, and this was the context in which the gifts were given.
He pointed to two cards that Ms Ko wrote to the former law professor, in which she articulated her feelings for him.
"My point is that their relationship was not one-sided... if you look at the cards, it was not one sided.," he said, adding that there was "reasonable doubt" whether the gifts were given by Ms Ko and accepted by Mr Tey with the expectation of favour being shown on the part of the former law professor.
Mr Low also took the court through several instances where Mr Tey said he had been threatened and "badgered" by officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) during investigations.
"He was in a fragile state of mind...and they took advantage of his physical and mental condition, and coerced him into agreeing to statements," said Mr Low.
The hearing continues on Thursday. - CNA/fa/gn
MALAYSIAKINI: Sex charge an academic persecution of law professor?
Original article appears on Malaysiakini: http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/218455
Jeffrey Ong | 11:42AM Jan 9, 2013
COMMENT In 1993, Dr Chee Soon Juan was sacked by his employer the National University of Singapore for allegedly using research funds to send his wife’s doctoral thesis to the United States. Just a few months earlier, he became the first Singaporean academic to join an opposition party and contest in the general election.
In 1994, Dr Christopher Lingle, a foreigner, fled the island state after writing a commentary published in the International Herald Tribune. He was found guilty of contempt of court by a Singapore court, in his absence.
One would imagine Singapore academia would from then on be well ‘sanitised’ of any form of ‘foolhardy’ and ‘in-your-face’ dissent and direct challenge, at least until now.
Some time by the end of 2011, a book titled ‘Legal Consensus - Supreme Executive, Supine Jurisprudence, Suppliant Profession of Singapore’ by NUS law professor Tey Tsun Hang, a Malaysian, suddenly popped up in Hong Kong. It was published by the Hong Kong University.
The book title itself is loaded with significance. Firstly, exclaiming ‘supreme executive’ is a direct and explicit, almost certainly a most foolhardy, way of attracting direct trouble to the author.
Secondly, calling the legal profession in Singapore ‘suppliant’ carries many emotions that only those in it will appreciate. More troublesome, of course, is that Prof Tey was part of the ‘executive’. He was a former subordinate judge before he became part of the National University of Singapore.
It was a shout in silence, but a very reckless one. For, very soon after that, he would get a full taste of the response. He got it wrong - the situation has not actually changed since the 1990s. There are still some lines that must not be crossed by the academia.
Scandalising the Singapore judiciary
For lay persons, the book is actually an interesting read because it is less legalistic than you would imagine from the title. It charts the evolution of politics in Singapore and political supremacy of the ruling party, PAP, with the orientation and perspective from the legal profession.
Chapter 1 lays the foundation by describing the political model based on ‘Asian’ values, as championed by Singapore’s first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (father of the current Prime Minister):
“The mantra of ‘Asian’ values was adopted as a direct challenge to Western ethno-centric imposition of a rights-oriented ideology... The imposition of ‘Asian’ values was, in itself, a pragmatic response to achieve communitarian good.
“It served as a replacement for western liberal ideology, which is deemed by the PAP as a threat to its political dominance... importation of Asian values has been seen as artificial and selective; certain Confucianist values... were emphasised, while other values... were conveniently neglected. ... to create a hegemonic state that is submissive to its aims...”
It then relates the many court cases of defamation, in particular political defamation, that have effectively silenced critics of the government from the large damages imposed that bankrupted them. It was a blow-by-blow account of how Singapore judges had been a party to such an achievement.
This is followed by the subject of scandalising the Singapore judiciary, where there has been significant prosecution of contempt of court over the decades. The legal thinking, often narrow and ignoring other competing interests in the society, of the judiciary is elaborated, with the case-law meticulously mined and examination of a jurisprudence assembled over decades.
The Singapore judiciary has in fact become diminished, or rather, has chosen to diminish its role, having “internalised the supreme political ideology, resulting in excessive deference to the executive determination of public interests, and the watering down of both criminal and civil-political rights”.
The final blow to the legal profession is how the Law Society, being the body vested with statutory powers, had its role and authority diminished over the decades. The book deals with this subject extensively in its final chapter, detailing the many confrontations occurred between the government and the Law Society in the 1980s.
After suffering the aftermaths of its key leaders incarcerated and changes to the legislation clipping its powers, the Law Society eventually has to compete with another body, the Singapore Academy of Law, fighting over their roles and functions, while having many overlapping powers. A cleverly crafted plan to divide the legal profession and an exercise of co-option, according to the author.
Malaysians should beware. Recently, a minister proposed such an alternative to the Bar Council.
Prof Tey ended his book with a Latin phrase, “aude sapere”, which literally means “have courage to use your own reason”. Courage, indeed, for what is happening to him now is making the book even more exciting. His book was published in late 2011 by the Hong Kong University, not by his own university.
Mini version of Sodomy II
The Chief Justice of Singapore, Chan Sek Keong, criticised his writing in February 2012. According to Singapore newspaper reports, by early April, 2012, he was arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (the Singaporean equivalent of MACC) for investigation on charges of corruptly gaining favours from students.
After being rendered incommunicado overnight, he was admitted to a government hospital, apparently giving in to the torture he suffered and collapsing on the floor of the interrogation room. It was obvious that the authorities were acting fast in a typically efficient manner in response to the signal of the chief justice with tremendous seriousness.
The National University of Singapore frantically tried to salvage the situation, because it has the most to lose. The newly-minted Yale NUS College, a prized catch of the PAP regime, is still in early development and is already facing challenges from Yale professors. The case may be seen as a setback to academic freedom and the return of the old politics of the 1990s.
The National University of Singapore conducted its own review, absolving Prof Tey (right) of any improper conduct, practically pleading the authorities to drop the case.
All went on in silence behind the scene, until late July 2012. At first, the English-language tabloid, New Paper, carried a report of the investigation without naming Prof Tey. The following day all newspapers came out with detailed reports and names.
On the third day, Prof Tey was promptly charged in court with corruptly obtaining sex and gifts in return for favourable grades to a female student. The Singapore newspapers went crazy for weeks, but it seems, not many have questioned why the leak to the media and the over-efficient manner in which Prof Tey was charged in court occurred.
Further embarrassing details have surfaced that other male and female students were also called in for investigation, on suspicion of committing similar corrupt offences. But the fact that they were wiped off the charge sheet indicates that the authorities were on a fishing expedition from April 2012.
His trial is scheduled to run from Jan 10 to 22.
For Malaysians who are familiar with Sodomy II, this is a mini version, whereby the defence has been repeatedly dealt with roadblocks and frustrations. The authorities refused to give him various key evidences, including the students’ grades, his hospital records and statements from important witnesses.
Interestingly, having researched himself how the PAP regime has been using the defamation and contempt of court as the tools to silence dissent, Prof Tey now has to face a new tool he has not covered in his book - what Singaporean newspaper call him “sex for grade professor”. It is an irony he had not considered such a possibility.
Perhaps Singaporeans should discover the book to help them connect the dots.
Most ironically, being a Malaysian, Prof Tey started the foreword of his book with a big “thank you” to Singapore, expressing his deep gratitude to Singapore as his home since 1997. Perhaps, it is the Singaporeans who should say “thank you” to Prof Tey, for having the courage to speak up and is now suffering the consequences.
Original article appears on Malaysiakini: http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/218455
Jeffrey Ong | 11:42AM Jan 9, 2013
COMMENT In 1993, Dr Chee Soon Juan was sacked by his employer the National University of Singapore for allegedly using research funds to send his wife’s doctoral thesis to the United States. Just a few months earlier, he became the first Singaporean academic to join an opposition party and contest in the general election.
In 1994, Dr Christopher Lingle, a foreigner, fled the island state after writing a commentary published in the International Herald Tribune. He was found guilty of contempt of court by a Singapore court, in his absence.
One would imagine Singapore academia would from then on be well ‘sanitised’ of any form of ‘foolhardy’ and ‘in-your-face’ dissent and direct challenge, at least until now.
Some time by the end of 2011, a book titled ‘Legal Consensus - Supreme Executive, Supine Jurisprudence, Suppliant Profession of Singapore’ by NUS law professor Tey Tsun Hang, a Malaysian, suddenly popped up in Hong Kong. It was published by the Hong Kong University.
The book title itself is loaded with significance. Firstly, exclaiming ‘supreme executive’ is a direct and explicit, almost certainly a most foolhardy, way of attracting direct trouble to the author.
Secondly, calling the legal profession in Singapore ‘suppliant’ carries many emotions that only those in it will appreciate. More troublesome, of course, is that Prof Tey was part of the ‘executive’. He was a former subordinate judge before he became part of the National University of Singapore.
It was a shout in silence, but a very reckless one. For, very soon after that, he would get a full taste of the response. He got it wrong - the situation has not actually changed since the 1990s. There are still some lines that must not be crossed by the academia.
Scandalising the Singapore judiciary
For lay persons, the book is actually an interesting read because it is less legalistic than you would imagine from the title. It charts the evolution of politics in Singapore and political supremacy of the ruling party, PAP, with the orientation and perspective from the legal profession.
Chapter 1 lays the foundation by describing the political model based on ‘Asian’ values, as championed by Singapore’s first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (father of the current Prime Minister):
“The mantra of ‘Asian’ values was adopted as a direct challenge to Western ethno-centric imposition of a rights-oriented ideology... The imposition of ‘Asian’ values was, in itself, a pragmatic response to achieve communitarian good.
“It served as a replacement for western liberal ideology, which is deemed by the PAP as a threat to its political dominance... importation of Asian values has been seen as artificial and selective; certain Confucianist values... were emphasised, while other values... were conveniently neglected. ... to create a hegemonic state that is submissive to its aims...”
It then relates the many court cases of defamation, in particular political defamation, that have effectively silenced critics of the government from the large damages imposed that bankrupted them. It was a blow-by-blow account of how Singapore judges had been a party to such an achievement.
This is followed by the subject of scandalising the Singapore judiciary, where there has been significant prosecution of contempt of court over the decades. The legal thinking, often narrow and ignoring other competing interests in the society, of the judiciary is elaborated, with the case-law meticulously mined and examination of a jurisprudence assembled over decades.
The Singapore judiciary has in fact become diminished, or rather, has chosen to diminish its role, having “internalised the supreme political ideology, resulting in excessive deference to the executive determination of public interests, and the watering down of both criminal and civil-political rights”.
The final blow to the legal profession is how the Law Society, being the body vested with statutory powers, had its role and authority diminished over the decades. The book deals with this subject extensively in its final chapter, detailing the many confrontations occurred between the government and the Law Society in the 1980s.
After suffering the aftermaths of its key leaders incarcerated and changes to the legislation clipping its powers, the Law Society eventually has to compete with another body, the Singapore Academy of Law, fighting over their roles and functions, while having many overlapping powers. A cleverly crafted plan to divide the legal profession and an exercise of co-option, according to the author.
Malaysians should beware. Recently, a minister proposed such an alternative to the Bar Council.
Prof Tey ended his book with a Latin phrase, “aude sapere”, which literally means “have courage to use your own reason”. Courage, indeed, for what is happening to him now is making the book even more exciting. His book was published in late 2011 by the Hong Kong University, not by his own university.
Mini version of Sodomy II
The Chief Justice of Singapore, Chan Sek Keong, criticised his writing in February 2012. According to Singapore newspaper reports, by early April, 2012, he was arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (the Singaporean equivalent of MACC) for investigation on charges of corruptly gaining favours from students.
After being rendered incommunicado overnight, he was admitted to a government hospital, apparently giving in to the torture he suffered and collapsing on the floor of the interrogation room. It was obvious that the authorities were acting fast in a typically efficient manner in response to the signal of the chief justice with tremendous seriousness.
The National University of Singapore frantically tried to salvage the situation, because it has the most to lose. The newly-minted Yale NUS College, a prized catch of the PAP regime, is still in early development and is already facing challenges from Yale professors. The case may be seen as a setback to academic freedom and the return of the old politics of the 1990s.
The National University of Singapore conducted its own review, absolving Prof Tey (right) of any improper conduct, practically pleading the authorities to drop the case.
All went on in silence behind the scene, until late July 2012. At first, the English-language tabloid, New Paper, carried a report of the investigation without naming Prof Tey. The following day all newspapers came out with detailed reports and names.
On the third day, Prof Tey was promptly charged in court with corruptly obtaining sex and gifts in return for favourable grades to a female student. The Singapore newspapers went crazy for weeks, but it seems, not many have questioned why the leak to the media and the over-efficient manner in which Prof Tey was charged in court occurred.
Further embarrassing details have surfaced that other male and female students were also called in for investigation, on suspicion of committing similar corrupt offences. But the fact that they were wiped off the charge sheet indicates that the authorities were on a fishing expedition from April 2012.
His trial is scheduled to run from Jan 10 to 22.
For Malaysians who are familiar with Sodomy II, this is a mini version, whereby the defence has been repeatedly dealt with roadblocks and frustrations. The authorities refused to give him various key evidences, including the students’ grades, his hospital records and statements from important witnesses.
Interestingly, having researched himself how the PAP regime has been using the defamation and contempt of court as the tools to silence dissent, Prof Tey now has to face a new tool he has not covered in his book - what Singaporean newspaper call him “sex for grade professor”. It is an irony he had not considered such a possibility.
Perhaps Singaporeans should discover the book to help them connect the dots.
Most ironically, being a Malaysian, Prof Tey started the foreword of his book with a big “thank you” to Singapore, expressing his deep gratitude to Singapore as his home since 1997. Perhaps, it is the Singaporeans who should say “thank you” to Prof Tey, for having the courage to speak up and is now suffering the consequences.
Last edited:
Similar threads
