[LottiFurmann]

Tey Sex Scandal: Let's Get Personal

I am heartened by the response to my previous thread, which shows that contrary to the PAP’s perception, Singaporeans are not daft. However, it does seem that the mainstream media is hell bent on conducting a smear campaign against the principals in this case while the matter is before the Courts, the only institution that has the power to decide whether a person is guilty or otherwise of a crime with which he has been charged.

Singaporeans, ordinary as well as those who are members of the elite, need to remember that if the Powers that Be can ignore the rules of the game and subject the Professor to a “trial by media”, it can happen to YOU too. Nonetheless, the game is now less skewed in the Government’s favour, thanks largely to the Internet and its contributors. Rumpole intends to do his part in this game change.

Let’s shift the focus a little and turn the spotlight (in a non-defamatory and purely factual manner) on “peripheral” characters in this soap opera.

Dean of Law Faculty, NUS: Simon Chesterman

This chap succeeded Tan Cheng Han, a Malaysian most of his life, who had been the previous dean. The University has a habit of appointing Malaysians to be dean of this important faculty. Native Singaporeans, when appointed as dean, tend to have a short tenure. One wonders why? Can’t be trusted to enforce the wishes of the Powers that Be to the letter?

Another long serving dean who was a Malaysian most of his life was Tan Lee Meng, who now sits as a judge of the Supreme Court. Tan Lee Meng was a roommate at Raffles Hall of one Wong Kan Seng and his pet name for this buddy is “One Can’t Sing”. How do I know? Suffice to say that I heard it from the horse’s mouth in front of many, many other people. Not only can Wong not sing, he is not even capable of keeping the windows of a strategic toilet shut. Wong, of course, is also well connected, which of course does not hurt the career path of his college roommate, Tan Lee Meng.

Back to Chesterman, he has married well indeed, his wife is Patricia Tan, which makes him the son-in-law of Tony Tan, President of the Little Red Dot. Chesterman does not believe in “humanitarian intervention”. This can be discerned from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Chesterman

In other words, he believes that the enforcement of the “no-fly zones” in Iraq and Kosovo was not justified, notwithstanding that such “no-fly zones” were instrumental in the overthrow of corrupt and inhumane dictators in those two countries preventing needless loss of innocent lives as these dictators hang on desperately to power. By analogy, I think he would not support any form of intervention in Syria even though Assad junior is subjecting his own people to genocide.

Odd that a professor with such a THIRD WORLD mentality can be appointed to lead a law faculty that aspires to be in the same league as those from the FIRST WORLD? However, did the Old Fart not hint at the use of the military to keep Singaporeans in line when push comes to shove? In such a scenario, will not the Old Fart’s plan have a greater chance of success if the Great Powers in the UN Security Council do not intervene?

Of course, as a lecturer in the faculty, the accused professor reports directly or indirectly to its dean, Chesterman, son-in-law of Tony Tan. That is a fact. The sequence of events is also on the record - Chesterman was appointed in January and investigations into Tey’s case began in April. Go figure whether these facts are relevant or not.

President of Singapore: Tony Tan

This chap is related to “He who must be Obeyed”, being the nephew of Tan Chin Tuan who in turn is the uncle-in-law of the Old Fart. More details can be found at http://singaporeelection.blogspot.hk...-kuan-yew.html

What is his role in our version of the Westminster model and more importantly does Mr. Tan stand up to the test?

The President’s role is to protect our nation’s financial reserves. So how is it that he does not know whether a US$4 billion loan commitment to the IMF has been properly approved in accordance with procedures required by our laws? Does he not think that US$4 billion of YOUR money deserve his full attention?

During the Presidential Election 2011, attention was drawn to his son, Patrick Tan and his super-long disruption from NS. This chap has another son, Peter Tan, his eldest, whose A level grades were not up to the mark for admission to law faculty. This son studied at ACJC and his graduating class was 2SB1. In the 80s, law faculty had already become a “hard to get in” faculty requiring outstanding A level grades. Every student that does not get in on his own merits deprives another student of an opportunity to study law. It is as simple as that. Rumpole got into NUS on his own merits. Chen Show Mao was forced to study law as he could not get into medical school notwithstanding that he was top student of his batch. Go figure what that says about “meritocracy” as practised in the Little Red Dot.

With his multi-million dollar salary, can Tony not afford to send his son to a law school abroad? Sure, with his poor grades, sonny won’t be able to get into Cambridge or Oxford, but surely Bristol or Warwick will do? For the record, Peter Tan did NOT get a second class upper from NUS. If I am not wrong, he got third class honours – the lowest grade. However, he went on to join Shook Lin & Bok, one of the top law firms in Singapore and which is closely associated with OCBC Bank, where Tony Tan, Tan Chin Tuan and Yong Pung How once held the reins. Shook Lin & Bok was founded in Kuala Lumpur by none other than Yong Pung How's father.

Peter Tan, whilst not academically gifted, was to his credit an excellent swimmer, both at ACS and ACJC, winning many medals. However, during his NS, he was rated Pass C and served in a clerical, non-combat role. This seems a bit odd, don’t you think? What’s your excuse Peter? Flat foot? How is asthma compared to flat foot in terms of impact on combat fitness? Many sons of less well off Singaporeans have asthma and yet are rated Pass A. Go figure for yourself whether this has anything to do with the “White Horse” syndrome.

Oh, by the way, Justice Pillai, before he became a judge of the Supreme Court, was also a senior partner in Shook Lin & Bok. As a judge of the Supreme Court, his annual PENSIONABLE salary is S$234,600 (see Judges’ Remuneration Order, G.N. No. S331/1994). For such a high pensionable salary, don’t you think we are entitled to expect a kind of judgment on the by-election case that involves a principled balancing of interests – the basic human rights of citizens versus the efficient administration of the State – rather than one that is only worthy of an overpaid exponent of “high school grammar”?

Former Chief Justice: Yong Pung How

This chap here is a fellow Hakka and bosom friend of “He who must be Obeyed”. From 1971 to 1989, he was a banker until he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in 1989 and within little more than a year became Chief Justice! His appointment as Chief Justice “just so happened” to be very close in time to the “retirement” of the Old Fart as PM in favour of seat warmer Goh Chok Tong. He was a senior figure in the Malaysian Chinese Association (“MCA”) a political party across the Causeway concerning itself mainly with the chauvinist protection of Chinese business interests before crossing the Rubicon (Causeway to be exact) after the 1969 racial riots in Kuala Lumpur, his true hometown.

How is this chap a “peripheral” character in this soap opera? Well, the Professor was a judicial law clerk to the former CJ and Yong was CJ from 1990 to 2006. If there are key personalities responsible for the “Judicial Internalising of Singapore’s Supreme Political Ideology”, for a “Singapore Consensus” that is defined by a “Supreme Executive, Supine Judiciary and Suppliant Profession”, would this person not be one of the star players by reason of his long reign at the top of the judicial hierarchy?

This is not the proper forum to launch into a discourse on the demerits of CJ Yong’s various judgments during a long and undistinguished tenure at the helm of Singapore’s judiciary. Suffice to say that Yong is no Lord Denning (every student of the common law will know this English version of Justice Pao and his exploits) and excels at nothing other than “high school grammar” and a “Four Walls” doctrine towards the interpretation of a Constitution, the highest law of the land, that is supposed to enshrine the core values of a nation and protect the individual’s rights against State intrusion. For more detailed criticisms of this judge’s faulty reasoning in his judicial decisions, please see the articles posted on the Professor’s website at http://singaporeconsensus.wordpress.com/about/

Yong was himself embroiled in another soap opera – the Boon Suan Ban saga. Boon was the remisier of the former CJ. It appears that he wrote 2 letters to the former CJ over some financial matters. Following that, Yong commenced civil defamation proceedings against Boon and at the same time the AG commenced a criminal defamation suit.

In the criminal proceeding, Boon pleaded guilty. Amazingly, the District Court judge did not pass the usual sentences but ordered that Boon be detained in a mental facility at the President’s pleasure. The judge apparently did not see it fit to obtain independent medical opinion as to whether or not Boon was indeed of unsound mind nor consider whether it was safe to accept a guilty plead from someone who is allegedly of unsound mind! If and when we do have a Lord Denning in our courts, he would surely ask this District Court judge to go have his own head examined!

Counsel to the Law Student: Subhas Anandan

It appears that the law student has picked the right man to be her counsel. For Subhas had himself been FIXED before, by a delinquent police officer, and his story had a happy ending.

If I may summarise from what I can recall after browsing through his autobiography: he was set up by a police officer with whom he had a row over some temple matters and charged with being a member of a secret society; his father was a grassroots activist who knew Goh Keng Swee personally; Goh agreed to help when he was Acting PM while the Old Fart went on one of his numerous overseas trips at taxpayers’ expense with wife, kids and the whole entourage as the Old Fart could not be bothered with such minor details as a young man’s life and reputation; after investigation it was revealed that Subhas had been FIXED and the police officer was punished. I don’t recall the Government ever giving Subhas a formal apology or paying any damages, but I do recall that the initial Straits Times reports were calculated to give the impression that Subhas was guilty as hell.

One wonders what would have happened if Subhas’ father did not know Goh Keng Swee personally? How many ordinary Singaporeans are blessed in this manner? Would it not be better to place reliance on a truly FIRST WORLD judicial system that has as its core value the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and not tolerate any sort of hanky pankies that would “prejudice a fair trial”? Would not any Singaporean, elite or otherwise, sleep better at night knowing that he lives in a country that truly has rule OF law instead of rule BY law? Do you think we would be better served by judges that have the boldness and independence to balance the basic human rights of ordinary citizens on the one hand and efficient administration of the State on the other rather than judges that are no more than overpaid exponents of “high school grammar”?

Piecing together the Jigsaw

Now, with the above information on the 3 “peripheral” characters –

1) Simon the son-in-law and strong objector to the overthrow of vile and evil dictators through UN intervention;

2) Tony the President who is supposed to look after YOUR reserves but seemed not have had his eyes on the ball with regards to the US$4 billion IMF loan commitment; and

3) Yong the ex-boss of the accused and person who spent many years at the top of a judicial hierarchy, described by his ex-subordinate as “Supine” and having “Internalised” the Executive’s supreme political ideology contrary to the Judiciary’s role as protector of citizens’ basic human rights

– I think members of the discerning public are now in a better position to put the pieces of the jigsaw together.

Do you think we have a vile and evil dictator in Singapore? Who said he will consider using the military on his own citizens if push comes to shove?

Judicial Power is vested Solely in the Courts

It is fitting to end this thread with a reminder to the Straits Times, Mediacorp, AG’s Chambers and NUS that Article 93 of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The judicial power of Singapore shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts as may be provided by any written law for the time being in force.”

And to the morons at NUS (standards have dropped drastically since I graduated), should any reporter ask “what are you going to do if the Professor is found guilty, if this, if that; what do you know about this, that, blah, blah, blah”, your proper course of action is to follow Pinky Loon’s example and say:

“The matter is now sub-judice (before the Courts which are the only institution that has power to decide guilt or otherwise) and we can’t comment any further without the risk of being held in contempt of court for prejudicing a fair trial. Amen”.

尽信书，则不如无书

He who believes everything that he reads might as well be illiterate – Confucius

Rumpole of the Bailey

* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.

[Slonopotam845]

Hi Rumpole,

Just have some questions which puzzle me.

Firstly, your drawing in of various peripheral characters does not have a relevance to Tey's case. Are you merely being mischievous? Perhaps you want to tell us you know about so-and-so?

Second, you are inviting conjecture(s) linking Tony Tan and/or to Tey's case. Would you say this is a fair act? Do you have more facts or information establishing a stronger link? Otherwise, is it not better to consider other explanations / possibilities that there is no link between them?

AF

PS: our media is sub-standard and deterioting, I believe we agree on this and there is ample evidence of "poor reporting" against rare counter examples of "actual journalism". Some of us are discerning enough not to give too much regard to what's written in the media, and will apply the same dose of questioning cynicism to writings in a forum such as this.

I thank you for sharing things you know, but I'm not comfortable that your post may color and influence the view of a reader less critical.

[Paul Bunyan]

Hi Rumpole,we appreciate you hard work.
Allow me to say something about your profession,it is my view that most of the lawyers in Singapore are of lower standard compared to their peers in Malaysia,where they carry high the law school's motto-without fear,without favour,here many lawyers are with fear and with favour.It is my humble opinion and may be wrong as I know there are exception,like you or mad Ravi.

[Big A]

Hi Rumpole,we appreciate you hard work.
Allow me to say something about your profession,it is my view that most of the lawyers in Singapore are of lower standard compared to their peers in Malaysia,where they carry high the law school's motto-without fear,without favour,here many lawyers are with fear and with favour.It is my humble opinion and may be wrong as I know there are exception,like you or mad Ravi.

Since Francis Seow's time as president of Law Society, lawyers do wise to keep their mouth shut. Can't blame them. But there are many brave ones who were smart enuf to stay out of trouble and are only now coming out to offer their services to opposition party SDP.

JBJ, Rumpole, Ravi, Chia Ti Lik, are some of the brave men amongst others, living to the spirit and letter of the law. Men who sold their souls to the emperor for profit and gain are many. Just like the emperor, they will live to regret what they have done, on earth and in heaven.

[tgs]

Firstly, your drawing in of various peripheral characters does not have a relevance to Tey's case. Are you merely being mischievous? Perhaps you want to tell us you know about so-and-so?

Thanks for your comments. Please indulge my "lawyerly" style and don't get offended. Even my clients sometimes ask me why I am talking to them as if they were the other side's lawyer.

Actually, there are only two places in my thread that might give you that impression - the "One Can't Sing" part and the "graduating class is 2SB1" part. These are just two SMALL parts and do not detract from the much larger whole. They are just the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. How I got to know about these is besides the point.

We are not here talking about "Relevance" in terms of admissibility of pieces of evidence in court. Note that I have completely avoided commenting on the case itself, because I stand by the advice that I gave to NUS - that the matter is sub-judice and to comment on the case itself or the principals would "prejudice a fair trial".

"Relevance" in the layman sense is what I am after. Everybody knows about office politics, nobody is silly enough to assume that there is none and that personal relationships, networks, etc have no part to play at all in SG or anywhere else.

I did consider whether to exclude the part about Peter Tan as it is not of direct relevance and would have excluded it if there was a "guillotine". However, no issue exists in isolation free from the context of the society out of which that issue arises. That unequal treatment in NS is a "hot button" issue is undeniable and it crops up regularly. Hence, it is there, and I don't apologise for including it. The underlying message is that there are many things wrong with our society and commentators are free to raise any points and should not be required to "compartmentalise" their arguments. It is typical PAP tactic to "compartmentalise" the arguments e.g. national issues vs local by-election. It is this "pigeon hole" mentality that has got us to where we are now.

Second, you are inviting conjecture(s) linking Tony Tan and/or to Tey's case. Would you say this is a fair act? Do you have more facts or information establishing a stronger link? Otherwise, is it not better to consider other explanations / possibilities that there is no link between them?

It is fair to lay out the facts which are: Simon is son-in-law of Tony; Tey reports to Simon; Tony is President and PAP man most of his life and currently facing some questions about his seriousness in protecting our reserves; Tony is linked to Yong via OCBC and Shook Lin & Bok; Yong has been subject to strong criticisms by Tey for not upholding the Judiciary's role as a protector of citizens' basic human rights.

I did no more than lay these out. If you are of the view that we live in Alice in Wonderland where there is no office politics and personal relationships, networks, etc plays absolutely no part at all, then you are entitled to your opinion. My point is, readers are entitled to know these and come to their own conclusions. They can also use their knowledge of other facts to aid them in their thinking.

Also, politicians in democracies all over the world know that they have to have a thick-skin, otherwise get out of politics. SG is the only exception where the defamation laws have been distorted so far from the common law model that the "public figure" doctrine has been turned on its head. In all other common law countries, public figures are accorded less protection than ordinary citizens by defamation laws because citizens' right to criticise their leaders are deemed more important than the politicians' right to have their reputations protected. Only in SG has it been twisted around to accord politicians more protection.

PS: ... Some of us are discerning enough not to give too much regard to what's written in the media, and will apply the same dose of questioning cynicism to writings in a forum such as this.

I thank you for sharing things you know, but I'm not comfortable that your post may color and influence the view of a reader less critical.

"Some of us are discerning enough ..." - meaning your good self, but you have less faith in your fellow readers? "... may color and influence the view of a reader less critical" - meaning you think others may be daft, but you are not. On the other hand, I do have more faith than you that Singaporeans are NOT daft, but just to err on the side of safety, I have ended my thread with the warning from Confucius, which applies to the ST as well as to postings on this forum including mine. You see, I am very fair, I warn people not to believe the ST blindly and also warn them not to believe me blindly!

Anyway, AtticusFinch, thanks for your comments and apologies for my "lawyerly" reply.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Hi Rumpole,

Good reply to AF. Very succinct. Thank you for your posts. They raise the quality of discussions here.

You have a good one.

[Drugmachine]

Hi Rumpole,

No apologies needed here

I read and follow your thoughtful posts.

This post is a bit of 'out of character' from your usual. I was wondering whether you know some er.. 'inside stuff' about the Tey's case. That's why I posted my questions.

Anyway, after reading what you wrote, I still have questions and will refrain from linking too many things/people to Tey. But, as you said, it's fair game for you to point out facts and give a context to consider what's happening in Tey's case.

On your last bit...

"Some of us are discerning enough ..." - meaning your good self, but you have less faith in your fellow readers? "... may color and influence the view of a reader less critical" - meaning you think others may be daft, but you are not. On the other hand, I do have more faith than you that Singaporeans are NOT daft, but just to err on the side of safety, I have ended my thread with the warning from Confucius, which applies to the ST as well as to postings on this forum including mine. You see, I am very fair, I warn people not to believe the ST blindly and also warn them not to believe me blindly!

Anyway, AtticusFinch, thanks for your comments and apologies for my "lawyerly" reply.

Who's Daft

Yeah, I think 'my good self' is not 'daft' - most of the times.. Of cos I do stupid things sometimes, have my share of errors in judgement, lol

On fellow readers, I don't know them, but I'd say this forum has a lot more discerning readers than other online forums. But hey, even in this forum, there are some who may draw all kinds of connections after reading your posts... Just saying.

Yeah, you probably have more faith than me that Singaporeans are not daft (but your faith or my faith either way is not gonna change how Singaporeans are). If they are daft, they are daft; if they are not, they are not.

You made an astonishing guess about my view... when you wrote...

meaning you think others may be daft, but you are not.

I used the word "discerning" for a reason... if I wanted to use the word "daft", then I would have written that. This is a cheap shot for suggesting I think others in this forum are 'daft'. Is this a 'lawyerly' kind of thing? Putting words in my mouth? Anyway, no offence taken cos a cheap shot is a cheap shot, so don't apologise.

I would avoid using the word 'daft' considering it was made fashionable after an old senile man used it on Singaporeans gratuitously. Assuming you are a Singaporean, you would be offended when that word was used to describe you, right?

Warning from Confucius
you mentioned you had a warning from Confucius.

Look, I have no problem with you. I have no problem with other readers who come to different conclusions from me after reading your post.

I think this post of yours is substandard... it's suggesting connections, 'nudge-nudge'. I'm a little disappointed, that's all.

On the Confucius warning, cannot like dat lah... 'Lawyerly' thing again? Put in a caveat? You lawyers are too smart.

Let me ask you this: if the lousy reporters at ST wrote articles, bring in peripheral characters who are known to be corrupt, suggest that Tey is associated with them in some way... nudge-nudge... Then they end their writings with a warning from Confucius and ask their readers not to blindly believe what they wrote ... is that acceptable? Cannot be, right?

I am disappointed cos this post almost descended to that low a level.

Still, at least we learn a few things about One Can't Sing and stuff. By the way, many other earlier posts in this forum have also mentioned most of the things in your post in details.

I look forward to other posts from you, please keep posting.
peace out bro

AF

[MannoFr]

To AtticusFinch,

We are both newcomers here, I joined in late July and you joined just this month. Also, your moniker is the name of a fictitious lawyer (from To Kill a Mocking Bird) and so is mine. We have much in common, but can agree to disagree on things. This is what gentlemen do and the true spirit of democracy.

Anyway, I received a veiled threat in the form of a "private message" on this forum, probably sent by a PAP mole going by the moniker "trafficman" and I have referred his "private message" to the administrators (Leongsam?) for further handling. My advice to all other users is to be careful when opening links in "private messages" on this forum. Maybe oldtimers already know what I don't. In any case, this "trafficman" (or his Masters) has faulty tracking machinery and got the IP address of some freaking company that has absolutely no connection with me. Any other useful info or advice on how to deal with these moles/spies/whatever from oldtimers on this forum would be most welcome!

We live in interesting and dangerous times!

All the best to you too,

Rumpole of the Bailey

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

My,my,

Atticus Finch indeed from ertwhile classic cum O level Literature text 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'.
Rumpole of the Bailey... Chuckle!

I might as well use the name of that memorable fictictious Harvard Professor from 80s TV series 'Paper Chase'...

Thank you, guys for some good use of language other than the usual vitroil from the likes of papsmearer and chaopappy.

It's quite obvious to me you two belong to the Legal Profession - Rumpole delf declared, Atticus well, talk the talk.

Rumpole,
i am not as miffed as Atticus but your post, this particular one, brings forth this passing thought to me:

In one respect, you can be said to be like 'The One who must be obeyed' - what the late Tungku said wryly: too clever by half.

But hey, i enjoy the wit and alliteration : Supreme.. Supine... Suppliant. Refreshing!
But of course, as an alumni of 'The Best is yet to be', i gleefully await better to come.

The whole tone of Atticus, on the other hand, reminds me so much of lawyer MIW MP , Alvin Yeo : faultless and sound, but humorless and pedestrian. Yes, learned men of Justice can be equally pedestrian in outlook : competent, logical, sensible, conscientious but utterly mundane.

Unlike you guys, i am entitled to commenting like the reasonable man in the street.

Daft me also who do not think highly of the quality of our Justices and Justice System.
Two, i do not know Prof Tey personally.

I however, couldn't care less if that B grade gal was a swallow/sparrow (USSR style), the fact that the horny Prof got embroiled lowered him in my estimation right away.

Perhaps he is really a self styled crusader for the law who views himself with much romanticism plus Persecution complex.

But either you are honorable all the way, or fucking get off the high horse of moral justice avenger.

By and large, Citizens don't give a shit - cynicially conditioned, this is merely the latest in this year's unique Scandal Season, sleaze publicity involving Stat Board heads, senior civil servants, principals, teachers, academics, pastors, philantropist scions, sitting MP .... The list goes on.

Sex, Money, Corruption, Law ...

And why am i not surprised some scholar type in CPIB with help from MDA has produced a movie commercial to show they are doing their PR part to educate the public on pitfalls of seduction and compromise ... Bloody hell, peasants are already stressed enough in life, then going cinema to destress, still must be subjected to self-righteous kindergarten indoctrination !

They should fucking playbit in Civil Service College for the mandarins wannabes!

Bloody wayang !

[brraverishhh]

Pardon the few typos, what the hell, typing on ipad screen keyboard is really trying!

[PhillipHer]

Dear Rumpole,

Sad to hear about the dastardly message from "trafficman".

Won't be surprising if "trafficman" is a PAP agent.

How long more before such suspicious and oppressive instincts of PAP can be replaced by intelligent engagement? The promise of a consultative and inclusive leadership is empty, as long as vertiges of inordinate distrust and fears (fear of the people's voice, fear of an erosion in absolute power, fear of the truth) remain.

Such behaviour is both deplorable and pitiable at the same time...smh

Hope the oldtimers can provide assistance and bring you some assuring guidance. As a fellow newcomer, I shall especially heed your advice.

Interesting times indeed ... and the plot thickens.

Take care my friend.

AF

[PhillipHer]

Couple of comments;

1) The Prof has only himself to blame.

2) The others have little link except they all fall within the 6 degree of separation paradigm.

3) It was Subhas's brother who was holding a senior post in MOF that approached his Minister, GKS. GKS did not intervene until he became acting PM.

4) The Police Officer had tainted the case when began an affair with Subhas's girlfriend after the detention commenced. The Minister of Home Affairs must personally sign the detention order and no Minister wants to be associated with a tainted case. Nothing to do with innocence. He was refused citizenship for 2 decades despite his release. Detention orders are routinely declined by MHA, it does not mean the person of interest is innocent.

5) There was no temple dispute. Subhas was indeed the head of the Black Eagles and the gang's weapon was held in temple premises which was common practice amongst triads as the authorities are loathe to raid such places. The temple authorities approached the Ministry for assistance. No temple committee member is going to come forward and say that when triads are involved - the very reason why CLPS is needed.

[MannoFr]

Dear Rumpole

While I enjoy reading what you have shared but I really do not see how these peripheral persons are involved in this case. I mean Prof Tey did screw his student, the question now is whether there is corruption or just a simple EMA fling. On that, I agree with you that we should all hold our judgment and let Tey has a fair trial in Court, not by media.

If I am daft and missed the links to this case, please enlighten.

[TorryJens]

i agree. and the darinne gal hired not one but two lawyers. Subhas somemore

Couple of comments;

1) The Prof has only himself to blame.

[NeroASERCH]

The one good thing about the PAPzis and their dogs is that their tune never changes. This makes it easy to see where they are going and their motivation. I am assured that there are many more flings that have gone on in many of our tertiary institutions, both private and public ones and that it is an extreme act to take matters to the courts on such matters. I am inclined to agree with Rumpole that the choice words as used by the 154th and the actions of the AGC shows that for one or more reasons this case is of more importance than mere student-teacher relationship. Of course with more knowledge forthcoming my belief may differ but looking at things as they are, this smells like bad shit.

[Paul Bunyan]

Oh dearie me, I did not know that blogging can be such hard work! And can't charge at GBP 1,000 per hour!

While I enjoy reading what you have shared but I really do not see how these peripheral persons are involved in this case.

Please see my first first reply to Atticus Finch - in the middle, after the second quote from his message.

As things can get out of control, and I might have overdone it a little bit, and as ordered by "She who must be Obeyed" this seems to be the right place to put a disclaimer, so here you go:

Nothing written in this or other threads by one calling himself, herself or itself "Rumpole" makes any reference to, or cast any aspersions on the character of anyone. They do not make any imputation or insinuation of any motives to any member of the Singapore judiciary or anyone taking part in the administration of justice in Singapore. Neither do they impugn the integrity, propriety, impartiality, independence of the Singapore judiciary or the administration of justice in Singapore. All comments, opinions, statements of fact, etc are made in good faith and if subsequently proved to be without basis or otherwise not wholly accurate, then the author "stands corrected" which ahem, may be taken as an unreserved apology. Needless to say, "Rumpole" is not responsible for statements made by others in their replies to any of his threads.

I mean Prof Tey did screw his student, .....

This and another part of one of your replies to my other thread ("Fixing the Opposition Again? ...) to the effect that "he bonked her" or something does give me the opportunity to wax lyrical on this thing called the "Subconscious". Has it been proven that she had given him the pleasures imagined? Where, when, how? How did it get into your subconscious that they did it? Through reading about the girl's preference for short skirts, about the professor being "friendly and eccentric", photos of the girl partying? Would the effect have been the same if the media had shown a photo of her in high school with pigtails and long skirt and at a library desk with eyes intensely focused on a book?

For was it not in Attorney General v BBC [1981] AC 303 that Lord Dilhorne, in the House of Lords, said:

"It is sometimes said that no Judge can be influenced in his Judgement by anything said by the media and consequently that the need to prevent publication of matter prejudical to the hearing of a case only exists where the decision rests with laymen. This claim to judicial superiority over human frailty is one that I find some difficulty in accepting. Every holder of a Judicial Office does his utmost not to let his mind be affected by what he has seen or heard or read outside the Court and he will not knowingly let himself be influenced by the media, nor in my view will any layman, experienced in the discharge of judicial duties. Nevertheless, it should, I think, be recognised that a man may not be able to put that which he has seen, heard or read entirely out of his mind and that he may be subconsciously affected by it. It is the law, and it remains the law until it is changed by Parliament, that the publication of matter likely to prejudice the hearing of a case before a court of law will constitute contempt of court punishable by fine or imprisonment or both."

The judge's surname is so appropriate for this occasion (Dil-do and Horn-y)!

On the other side of the Atlantic, Cardozo, one of the greatest judges of the US Supreme Court, when referring to "the forces which enter into the conclusion of Judges" observed that "the great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their curse and pass the Judges by". Have some of the replies not shown that their authors have been similarly cursed by the force of the Subconscious?

Lest it be said that I do not hold the same respect for some of our own judges, I would like to draw readers attention to a speech by Retired Judge LP Thean at an Asean Forum, which lo and behold is available on the internet at http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/docs/w1_sing.pdf , though he only refers to the isssue of "trial by media" in passing as he was talking about all aspects of "Judicial Independence and Effectiveness". I can assure you that Judge Thean is a strict taskmaster and it is not a pleasure to be scolded by him in chambers or open court in his high-pitched voice! Which reminds me not to neglect "She who must be Obeyed".

Now, I can go to the beach for some R & R. Yes, I agree with Elephanto's comment that sometimes I am "too clever by half"!

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Any reasom for the sudden self-fear? The forum format clearly credits the author of each and every post. If we are scared of starting a thread on the basis that someone might posts something false, defamatory etc we all will be doomed as a society.

Needless to say, "Rumpole" is not responsible for statements made by others in their replies to any of his threads. [/I]

Yes, I agree with Elephanto's comment that sometimes I am "too clever by half"!

[TorryJens]

The obvious hypothesis is that Rumpole is Tey's alter ego.

[HedgeYourBets]

Anyway, I received a veiled threat in the form of a "private message" on this forum, probably sent by a PAP mole going by the moniker "trafficman" and I have referred his "private message" to the administrators (Leongsam?) for further handling. My advice to all other users is to be careful when opening links in "private messages" on this forum. Maybe oldtimers already know what I don't. In any case, this "trafficman" (or his Masters) has faulty tracking machinery and got the IP address of some freaking company that has absolutely no connection with me. Any other useful info or advice on how to deal with these moles/spies/whatever from oldtimers on this forum would be most welcome!

Disable your PM if u don't need it. Doing that will also fight spam. Instead of clicking on a link, do a mouse over and then look at the status bar at the bottom of your browser page for the name of the website without visiting it. They can use any tracking devices they want because i always mask my IP address when visiting government owned forums, websites including MSM as precautionary measures.

[HedgeYourBets]

I thought this is a simple and direct case. It is just got fuck or no fuck? Alll others things are just excuses leh. Anyway, this is an update of the case.

Prof Tey Tsun Hang, 41, arrived in court on 24 Aug 2012 (Thurs) afternoon with his lawyer for a pre-trial conference. Reacting differently from his previous encounters with reporters, Prof Tey refused to reply to the queries made by reporters. When constantly pushed for an answer if he had indeed had sex with his student, Darinne Ko Wen Hui, between May and July 2010, Prof Tey smiled but decline to comment further. Many may assumed that this would mean a silent admission as the answer should be simple and blunt if otherwise, nonetheless, I guess we will know in mid October 2012 when he is due to appear in court again. the trial is expected to last for 9 days.



http://sporehallofshame.blogspot.com...admission.html