fab Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 Benefit of doubt usually goes to victims. 18 minutes ago, Guest Guest said: S$4,000 is a hefty fine ... can buy a lot of things with this money ... 😥 Can buy many money boys. Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimochi Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 Isit because of weather hot hot make people horny horny thats why sudden surge on touch touch and horny horny cases? 😆 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Guest Me Good looking Too said: He will lose his job as security guard. Too risky to employ him. Is he a security guard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notorious Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Guest Me Good looking Too said: He will lose his job as security guard. Too risky to employ him. That is different case. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/security-guard-crime-molest-jailed-man-train-porn-11980710 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanMature Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, Notorious said: That is different case. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/security-guard-crime-molest-jailed-man-train-porn-11980710 67 yo and still so horny. Can stalk victim all the way to the police station. Quote Don't read and response to guests' post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Ben Ben Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) Having cock is the root cause Edited October 9, 2019 by Ben Ben Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groyn88 Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/three-court-challenges-against-section-377a-to-be-heard-in-november?fbclid=IwAR3SapRZfMa_MQiq16pEkXvtB0YyxPPybEEWVIVu1qPNOg9LD1cjz6nuUfE Three court challenges against Section 377A to be heard in November The Straits Times 9 October 2019 Rei Kurohi SINGAPORE - Three court cases filed separately by three different men - all with one single goal in challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises consensual sex between men - will be heard in November. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights activist Tan Seng Kee, a retired general practitioner better known as Roy Tan, said on Wednesday (Oct 9) that his lawyer M. Ravi from Carson Law Chambers had attended a pre-trial conference on Tuesday. Dr Tan, 61, who filed the latest challenge against the law in September, said his case and two other similar cases have been scheduled to be heard on Nov 13, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 22. The two other challenges were filed last year by disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, then 43, also known by his stage name DJ Big Kid, and Mr Bryan Choong, then 41, who is the former executive director of the LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga. All three cases argue that Section 377A is inconsistent with various articles of the Singapore Constitution. The Attorney-General has been listed as the defendant in all of the cases. Section 377A criminalises acts of "gross indecency" between men, and the offence carries up to a two-year jail term. All three cases will be heard in the presence of all the lawyers arguing for their respective plaintiffs on each of the dates, Dr Tan said in a statement sent to the media. "The court may ask questions directed at the lawyers of the other cases while they are all in the courtroom at the same time." He added that he looks forward to having a good hearing and is hoping to have Section 377A finally struck down with the novel arguments conceived of by his lawyer. In court documents seen earlier by The Straits Times, Dr Tan had said that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. He also said that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12, which states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to its equal protection, and Article 14, which states that every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression. Dr Tan said in a statement on Sept 25 that the challenge is based on "novel arguments". For example, the public prosecutor has discretion on whether or not to prosecute an accused person under Section 377A, and the Government has said that the law will not be enforced against acts done in private, Dr Tan said. He added that this is incongruous with Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the police to unconditionally investigate all complaints of suspected arrestable offences. "This subjects gay men to the potential distress of an investigation into private conduct, where they have a legitimate expectation that the state will decline to prosecute," Dr Tan said in his statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, groyn88 said: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/three-court-challenges-against-section-377a-to-be-heard-in-november?fbclid=IwAR3SapRZfMa_MQiq16pEkXvtB0YyxPPybEEWVIVu1qPNOg9LD1cjz6nuUfE Three court challenges against Section 377A to be heard in November The Straits Times 9 October 2019 Rei Kurohi SINGAPORE - Three court cases filed separately by three different men - all with one single goal in challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises consensual sex between men - will be heard in November. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights activist Tan Seng Kee, a retired general practitioner better known as Roy Tan, said on Wednesday (Oct 9) that his lawyer M. Ravi from Carson Law Chambers had attended a pre-trial conference on Tuesday. Dr Tan, 61, who filed the latest challenge against the law in September, said his case and two other similar cases have been scheduled to be heard on Nov 13, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 22. The two other challenges were filed last year by disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, then 43, also known by his stage name DJ Big Kid, and Mr Bryan Choong, then 41, who is the former executive director of the LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga. All three cases argue that Section 377A is inconsistent with various articles of the Singapore Constitution. The Attorney-General has been listed as the defendant in all of the cases. Section 377A criminalises acts of "gross indecency" between men, and the offence carries up to a two-year jail term. All three cases will be heard in the presence of all the lawyers arguing for their respective plaintiffs on each of the dates, Dr Tan said in a statement sent to the media. "The court may ask questions directed at the lawyers of the other cases while they are all in the courtroom at the same time." He added that he looks forward to having a good hearing and is hoping to have Section 377A finally struck down with the novel arguments conceived of by his lawyer. In court documents seen earlier by The Straits Times, Dr Tan had said that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. He also said that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12, which states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to its equal protection, and Article 14, which states that every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression. Dr Tan said in a statement on Sept 25 that the challenge is based on "novel arguments". For example, the public prosecutor has discretion on whether or not to prosecute an accused person under Section 377A, and the Government has said that the law will not be enforced against acts done in private, Dr Tan said. He added that this is incongruous with Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the police to unconditionally investigate all complaints of suspected arrestable offences. "This subjects gay men to the potential distress of an investigation into private conduct, where they have a legitimate expectation that the state will decline to prosecute," Dr Tan said in his statement. In all honesty, the push is really admirable. But where will it all lead to? It's not that I wanna rain on anybody's parade right now, but what do you think the outcome is going to be? I hope the people involved has the economic powers to see this through. Lawyers are not known to be specially charitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Ben Ben Ben said: Having cock is the root cause Having lust is. Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Ben Ben Ben said: Having cock is the root cause She's a sinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Ben Ben Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, fab said: Having lust is. No cock no lust just like 太监 so cock is the root cause while lust is the outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Youngster Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 hours ago, Guest Guest said: Is he a security guard? Ya, a gay one probably. When one gets older, they gets loneir and honier. Moral of the story, stay young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Ben Ben Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, Guest Youngster said: Ya, a gay one probably. When one gets older, they gets loneir and honier. Moral of the story, stay young. You can stay young buy she won’t stay for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 14 hours ago, Notorious said: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/man-fined-obscene-act-mrt-toilet-boy-reports-him-station-staff-11981968 That man never do anything with the boy or even touched him at all, and got fine for $4000 for performing obscene act! Like this i remember i was inside a straight gym steam room, one guy walked up to me and stroke my back, i just pushed away his hand. Silly me why i did not report him to the gym counter since he touched me? Haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yag123123 Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 11 hours ago, LeanMature said: 67 yo and still so horny. Can stalk victim all the way to the police station. If the person is younger, well built...good looking and a huge bulge i believe the story will be a 180 twist.. No person in their right mind will randomly perform such acts...unless the another party is giving the wrong signals... Maybe the dude saw that boy using grindr.... Maybe the dude notice him checking guys out...with a semi erected bulge.. So many questions...yet so many people and the media blames man rather than the boy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yag123123 Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Guest Youngster said: Ya, a gay one probably. When one gets older, they gets loneir and honier. Moral of the story, stay young. No , the moral of the story is to quickly find that life partner and stay with him through thick and thin..until death do us apart Edited October 9, 2019 by yag123123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 3 hours ago, Guest Youngster said: Ya, a gay one probably. When one gets older, they gets loneir and honier. Moral of the story, stay young. How to stay young? Drink your juice from your Fountain of Youth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest general Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 The 47y old MRT toilet guy was lucky just 4k because the victim under aged. Any guy at such age below 18y just stay away and stay neat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest general Posted October 9, 2019 Report Share Posted October 9, 2019 For the 2nd guy (security officer) , don't understand why he needed to be so persistant. Funny, some weeks back they said, cannot outrage the modesty of a guy. Now new case , you can.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanMature Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 7 hours ago, yag123123 said: If the person is younger, well built...good looking and a huge bulge i believe the story will be a 180 twist.. No person in their right mind will randomly perform such acts...unless the another party is giving the wrong signals... Maybe the dude saw that boy using grindr.... Maybe the dude notice him checking guys out...with a semi erected bulge.. So many questions...yet so many people and the media blames man rather than the boy... Even if the boy is gay, that does not give the 67yo the green light to molest him. The grandpa just can't control himself, that it. No maybe. Quote Don't read and response to guests' post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groyn88 Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 A reminder of the origins and tortuous journey of Section 377A to arrive at where we are now: https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yag123123 Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 3 hours ago, LeanMature said: Even if the boy is gay, that does not give the 67yo the green light to molest him. The grandpa just can't control himself, that it. No maybe. The guy did not molest him! The news says he nudge the boy with his elbows....can you molest someone with your elbows??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanMature Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 17 minutes ago, yag123123 said: The guy did not molest him! The news says he nudge the boy with his elbows....can you molest someone with your elbows??? Yah, yah, yah. It's just a report. Lets wait for the police investigation and the court verdict, to see if the grandpa plead guilty or not. Quote Don't read and response to guests' post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 36 minutes ago, LeanMature said: Yah, yah, yah. It's just a report. Lets wait for the police investigation and the court verdict, to see if the grandpa plead guilty or not. You do know that you are on a thread talking about a 47 year old guy, and this is a different piece of news from the 67 year old security guard, right? This was mentioned above already, you still want to keep talking about a "grandpa"? In this case, the 47 year old guy already fine $4000 already, still wait for what report? "Yah yah yah" some more? Papaya huh? "Yah"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feedersmiracle Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 Aw man why try to hit on underaged lol Quote Speaking loudly, suffers softly. Smiles so wide, cuts unseen inside.Bitin' the bullet, but never kick the bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 24 minutes ago, feedersmiracle said: Aw man why try to hit on underaged lol Maybe cos he dunno he's underage? Nowadays, younger people have grown much bigger and faster. Some 12 years old has the height of 18 years old now... (and some 18 yo behave like 12 year old) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feedersmiracle Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Guest Guest said: Maybe cos he dunno he's underage? Nowadays, younger people have grown much bigger and faster. Some 12 years old has the height of 18 years old now... (and some 18 yo behave like 12 year old) I’m 24 and people still think I’m in secondary school. Lol Quote Speaking loudly, suffers softly. Smiles so wide, cuts unseen inside.Bitin' the bullet, but never kick the bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPYmuscle69 Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 I thought it’s just common sense not to tackle underage kids. It’s just wrong, not to mention illegal. Will harsher punishment help? Quote Confucius says: man who masturbates without tenga takes matter into his own hands.The woman sat next to me on the train is writing a text on her iPhone. It's all underlined with the squiggly red line. Illiterate cunt.Singapore's '白制服' 的官: 只准州官放火 | 不准百姓点灯The Gynecologist - A lesbian went to the gynecologist one day, and as the doctor is examining her, he remarked, "My, aren't we clean today." "Yeah," replied the lesbian, "I have a woman who comes in twice a week." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 10, 2019 Report Share Posted October 10, 2019 1 hour ago, TPYmuscle69 said: I thought it’s just common sense not to tackle underage kids. It’s just wrong, not to mention illegal. Will harsher punishment help? Like that nobody will dare to tackle @feedersmiracle already. He will need to remain a virgin for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groyn88 Posted October 14, 2019 Report Share Posted October 14, 2019 (edited) A former Chief Justice and Attorney-General (AG), Chan Sek Keong, has just published a groundbreaking paper based on a talk he delivered at NUS on 20 February 2019 arguing that Section 377A is unconstitutional. He is only one of three former AG's, as well as current Deputy AG, Hri Kumar Nair, who feel Section 377A should be struck down. As reported before, Dr Roy Tan and his lawyer, M Ravi, are going to use their arguments during Tan's hearing. The stature, experience and legal opinions of the former Chief Justice, AGs and the current Deputy AG lend an immense amount of weight and credibility to Tan's case, scheduled to be heard on 13 November 2019. You may download Chan's paper, entitled "Equal justice under the constitution and Section 377A of the Penal Code - The Roads Not Taken" published on 14 October 2019, here: https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal/e-First/ctl/eFirstPDFPage/mid/519/ArticleId/1232?Citation=Published+on+e-First+14+October+2019&fbclid=IwAR00BDXL1plZBkwxblduKX_tBexnS5Zd0FsuWa4md8rSHRlHYMWe6dc2i2w The following are his conclusions: (a) Section 377A was not intended to cover penetrative sex, that is, anal or oral sex, when it was enacted in 1938 as the same offences had already been covered by s 377 since 1872. Section 377A covers only non-penetrative sex, such as masturbation and other kinds of sexual touching and “lewd” acts. (b) In so far as the Courts have decided that s 377A does not violate the fundamental rights of equality before the law and equal protection of the law on the basis that s 377A covers penetrative sex, the decisions are not binding on lower courts as being given per incuriam. (c) If so, it is open to an applicant or defendant in a new action or prosecution to contend that s 377A violates Art 12(1) on the ground that it unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminates against male homosexuals in respect of acts of gross indecency of a non-penetrative nature. (d) If s 377A had been enacted to criminalise penetrative sex covered under s 377, it would have the effect of impliedly repealing the same offences in s 377. If s 377A had impliedly repealed those offences in s 377 in 1938, those offences criminalised by s 377A would have been impliedly repealed by s 376(1)(a) in 2007 to the extent of their inconsistency, that is, with respect to consensual penetrative sex between males. (e) Under s 376(1)(a), consensual penetrative sex between males in private is no longer criminalised as an unnatural offence (because s 377 has been repealed) but is punishable under s 20 of the Minor Offences Act or s 294(a) of the Penal Code, if performed in public. (f) The legislative purpose or object of s 377A determined at the time of its enactment in 1938 will always remain the same thereafter. Accordingly, the retention of s 377A by Parliament in 2007 does not affirm or reaffirm its 1938 purpose. (g) Section 377A was enacted for the purpose of dealing with the mischief of male prostitution and its associate activities (which involved male homosexual conduct) which were rife in 1938, and not because male homosexual conduct was not acceptable in Singapore society in 1938. (h) The purpose of s 377A as described in (g) above ceased to exist or was no longer valid in 2007 or 2013, or there was no evidence that similar conditions existed in 2007 or 2013. Accordingly, the legislative classification (or differentia) would no longer be reasonable and would not have rational relation to the purpose of s 377A (having ceased to exist). Section 377A therefore cannot satisfy the requirements of the reasonable classification test and therefore violates Art 12(1). (i) Section 377A, being a pre-constitution law, cannot be declared void for unconstitutionality because Art 162 requires any existing law to be construed to conform to the Constitution. Accordingly, the court has to interpret s 377A by reading it to have a meaning that does not violate the Constitution. How s 377A should be construed (or read) to conform to the Constitution depends on the nature of its inconsistency with Art 12(1). (j) If the purpose of s 377A has ceased to exist in 2007 or 2013, s 337A may be construed to conform to the Constitution by reading it as a gender-neutral provision that criminalises non-penetrative sex of gross indecency committed in public. Edited October 14, 2019 by groyn88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groyn88 Posted October 16, 2019 Report Share Posted October 16, 2019 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/former-chief-justice-chan-sek-keong-calls-for-review-of-section-12005804 Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong calls for review of Section 377A, says law is outdated Although not enforced, Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalises sex between men, with offenders facing up to two years’ jail. By Zhaki Abdullah 16 Oct 2019 SINGAPORE: Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has called for the constitutional validity of Section 377A, which criminalises sexual acts between men, to be reviewed. He made the call in a paper titled Equal Justice under the Constitution and Section 377A of the Penal Code which was published online by the Singapore Academy of Law Journal on Monday (Oct 14). In his paper, Mr Chan notes that Section 377A criminalises acts of gross indecency between males, whether homosexual or bisexual, but not similar acts between males and females, or between females. He asked whether such unequal treatment violated the fundamental rights of all to equality before the law and equal protection under the law, as provided for under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Laws differentiating based on sex or gender must have a rational basis, he said, giving the example of Parliament hypothetically passing a law against women smoking cigars. “If Parliament bans women, but not men, from smoking cigars, equality of all persons under Article 12(1) requires the state to justify the reasonableness of the ban,” said Mr Chan. This could be done on health grounds, if medical research showed women were more prone to lung cancer than men, for example. However, if this were based on Parliament finding women smoking cigars undignified or unseemly, the courts would have to consider whether such a reason was legitimate, he argued. Citing the case of Lim Meng Suang - who launched a legal bid against the constitutionality of Section 377A in 2013 - Mr Chan noted the judge at the time had upheld the law on the grounds that its purpose was to criminalise male homosexual conduct, as such behaviour was not acceptable or desirable here. However, the former Chief Justice noted that Section 377A was in fact enacted in 1938 to strengthen laws against male prostitution, which was “rife” according to crime reports at the time and posed serious problems to law and order, public morality and wholesome government. “Section 377A was enacted for this purpose, and not because male homosexuality per se was unacceptable in Singapore society,” he said. The law, he argued, was a product of specific social conditions that have long ceased to exist here. Mr Chan described Section 377A as an outlier in Singapore’s criminal law regime, and the “only genuine gender-specific offence in our criminal laws”. GOVERNMENT SEES NO “LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSE” IN ENFORCEMENT While Section 377 – under which “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals” was an offence – was repealed in 2007 under amendments to the Penal Code, Section 377A was retained. The decision not to repeal was based on the “misapprehension” that the section covered penetrative sex, a “hallmark of male homosexuality", he said. “Parliament reaffirmed the wrong purpose,” he added. Furthermore, the decision not to repeal Section 377A did not affirm its purpose, said Mr Chan. He noted MPs at the time were not asked to vote on it as the Government had already decided “well before the parliamentary sitting that it would not repeal Section 377A, but at the same time not enforce it”. The decision not to enforce Section 377A with respect to consensual male penetrative sex in private can be seen as a repudiation of its legitimacy, he said, adding it implies the Government sees no “legitimate state purpose” in criminalising or prosecuting male homosexual conduct. “The 1938 purpose became invalid in the eyes of the Government in 2007,” he stated. The court must interpret Section 377A in a way that does not violate the Constitution, which depends on the nature of its inconsistency with Article 12(1), said Mr Chan. If the original purpose of Section 377A no longer exists, it can be construed to conform to the Constitution by reading it as a “gender-neutral provision that criminalises non-penetrative sex of gross indecency committed in public”, he added. COURT CHALLENGES TO 377A TO BE HEARD IN NOVEMBER The views of Mr Chan, who served as attorney-general (AG) between 1992 and 2006 – together with those of other former AGs such as V K Rajah and Walter Woon, as well as current Deputy AG Hri Kumar Nair – are being cited by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights activist Roy Tan, who filed a challenge against the constitutionality of Section 377A in court in September. Dr Tan, a retired general practitioner who helped organise the first Pink Dot event in 2009, is one of three people who have filed court challenges against Section 377A since last year. The other two are disc jockey Mr Johnson Ong Ming and Mr Bryan Choong, former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga. All three cases will be heard in court in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sgguy Posted October 16, 2019 Report Share Posted October 16, 2019 Primary school vice-principal who committed sexual acts on underage boy sentenced to 10 years' jail PUBLISHED 3 HOURS AGO FACEBOOKTWITTERWHATSAPPEMAIL Shaffiq Alkhatib Court Correspondent SINGAPORE - A primary school vice-principal, who started performing sexual acts on a male pupil when the boy was just 14 years old, was sentenced on Wednesday (Oct 16) to 10 years' jail. In sentencing him, District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt noted that the case involved "serious sexual offences" and that the offender had shown "gross abuse of authority". Judge Chay convicted the man, now 57, in August after a trial. He had found the offender guilty of three counts of sexually exploiting a minor and five counts of carnal intercourse. The man, who has been suspended from duty, cannot be named due to a gag order to protect the victim's identity. The boy and his mother had arrived here from China in 1999 when he was about nine years old. The victim is now 30 years old and a Singaporean. In his submissions, Deputy Public Prosecutor James Chew had earlier said the victim was a Primary 5 pupil in 2003 when he reported to the man every morning as he was the school's vice-head prefect. They were in their school gym some time that year when the man sexually stimulated the boy. DPP Chew had said: "(The boy) did not know how to react, and had doubts about the nature of what the accused did, as the accused was a very respected figure." The boy became the head prefect the following year and accepted the vice-principal's offer for one-to-one English tuition at the man's Woodlands flat. The man would then sexually stimulate the teenager after lessons. During the trial in March last year, the victim testified that his mother was repatriated around 2002 for working illegally in Singapore and he had to live with a relative here. When the relative could no longer be his guardian after the Primary School Leaving Examination in 2004, he moved in with the vice-principal, who became his guardian. The man continued to commit sexual acts on the victim until 2006 and the activities progressed to involve oral sex. DPP Chew had said the victim started becoming more resistant to the man's advances in 2007. However, he would still give in due to pressure from the man. In 2013, they went on a trip to Scandinavia together, where the victim met a woman whom he later married. He moved into her home in Singapore later that year, added DPP Chew. In 2015, the victim happened to meet the vice-principal's niece and told her about his ordeal. She encouraged him to lodge a police report. The victim finally alerted the police in November that year. On Wednesday, DPP Chew urged Judge Chay to sentence the man to at least 10 years jail, adding: "The accused's grievous and appalling breach of trust as a vice-principal of a primary school and legal guardian to sexually exploit the young victim, together with the long duration of the sexual abuse, necessitates a strong sentence of sufficient deterrent and retributive force." Defence lawyer T. M. Sinnadurai asked the judge to consider a lenient sentence that is not "crushing". The man, who intends to appeal against his conviction and sentence, is now out on bail of $30,000. In an earlier statement, the Ministry of Education (MOE) said the man has been suspended from duty since Dec 2015 and is not deployed at any school. Its spokesman added: "MOE takes a serious view of staff misconduct and will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against those who fail to adhere to our standards of conduct and discipline, including dismissal from service. "All educators are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which upholds the integrity of the profession and the trust placed in them." For each carnal intercourse charge, the man could have either been jailed for life or jailed for up to 10 years and fined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Watever Posted November 18, 2019 Report Share Posted November 18, 2019 Man jailed for making false police report, accusing partner of drugging and raping him Fredy Kosman Kwee called 999 three times, resulting in police officers being dispatched to a Housing Board flat in West Coast based on the false information about his partner.ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO FACEBOOKWHATSAPPTWITTER Charmaine Ng SINGAPORE - Upset that he was not showered with enough attention by his partner, a man accused his boyfriend of drugging and raping him. Indonesian Fredy Kosman Kwee, 34, called 999 three times, resulting in police officers being dispatched to a Housing Board flat in West Coast based on the false information about his partner. For making a false police report, the Singapore permanent resident was sentenced to five days' jail on Monday (Nov 18). The court heard that on Jan 2 this year, Kwee, a McDonald's employee, called the emergency hotline at around 6.15pm claiming that there was a fight going on in a unit at Block 702 West Coast Road. Within 30 minutes of the first call, Kwee called 999 twice more and asked for more police officers to be dispatched to the location, alleging that someone had tried to drug and rape him. At 9.15pm, Kwee told Senior Staff Sergeant Loh Chee Wee from Clementi Police Division Headquarters that he had been drugged and raped by his partner, Mr Lui Cheng Kiat, 50. He claimed that Mr Lui had covered him with a pillow case, pinned him down and force-fed him a pill while he was sleeping, causing him to lose consciousness. Kwee falsely asserted that he had felt giddy when he regained consciousness at around 4.30pm, Deputy Public Prosecutor Seah Ee Wei told the court. As a result of Kwee's statement, SSS Loh then began investigating Mr Lui for offences under the Penal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, which Mr Lui denied during interview. When the police officer checked CCTV footage of the vicinity, he found that Mr Lui had not entered the flat in the afternoon, contrary to Kwee's allegations. When the police officer told Kwee about this, the latter maintained that Mr Lui had indeed drugged and raped him. He only later retracted his statement and admitted to lying about the allegations when SSS Loh told him that another officer from the Specialised Crime Branch would arrive soon to interview him. Kwee said he had given false information because he was stressed about being diagnosed with a life-threatening condition and felt that Mr Lui was not showering him with enough attention. On Monday, Kwee's lawyer Malcolm Tan urged the court to either impose a fine or a very short jail term of one day and a fine of $2,000. Mr Tan told District Judge Marvin Bay that his client had been suffering from amphetamine induced psychosis at the time of the offences, which led to a confused state of mind even after he was arrested. Kwee, who was previously convicted for consuming the drug "ice" in 2016, has also stopped abusing drugs with Mr Lui's support, said Mr Tan. The couple has also reconciled after the incident. In his sentencing remarks, District Judge Bay said Kwee should realise that offences of this nature are taken "very seriously", as there can be dire consequences from false reports of sexual and drug-related crimes. "In such cases, there is every chance that the unwitting and completely innocent victim would have been arrested and held in remand while investigations were underway," he said, adding that it was fortunate that the CCTV footage had exposed Kwee's allegations to be fabrications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feedersmiracle Posted November 18, 2019 Report Share Posted November 18, 2019 Will he lose PR?... leo yok loo 1 Quote Speaking loudly, suffers softly. Smiles so wide, cuts unseen inside.Bitin' the bullet, but never kick the bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 18, 2019 Report Share Posted November 18, 2019 19 minutes ago, feedersmiracle said: Will he lose PR?... Foreign talented drug user, Mcdonalds staff/part time dancer where got revoke PR one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted November 18, 2019 Report Share Posted November 18, 2019 Now is sg desperate for PRs, not the reverse. Don't misunderstand. mate69 1 Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Earth Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 Drama queens who almost cost his bfs life, should be jailed. Anyway such irresponsible wont get true happiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight_87 Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 24 minutes ago, Guest Earth said: Drama queens who almost cost his bfs life, should be jailed. Anyway such irresponsible wont get true happiness. But they are back together. The bf has forgiven him 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Whyliddat Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 He looks awful for a 34yo though. Wonder what's his life threatening condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rubber Ball Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 He might be offered a citizenship now that he has PR. Anyhow, he doesn't look like my type of person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innocentguy Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 McDonald employee can get PR status ar? Openly saying got male partner somemore. Salute him ,boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toilet Paper Roller Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, Innocentguy said: McDonald employee can get PR status ar? Openly saying got male partner somemore. Salute him ,boy. Only happen in Singapore, no where in the world will regard him as foreigner talent to be accorded such priviledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 2 hours ago, Guest Whyliddat said: He looks awful for a 34yo though. Wonder what's his life threatening condition. High forehead? Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest onion cutter Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 7 hours ago, Innocentguy said: McDonald employee can get PR status ar? Openly saying got male partner somemore. Salute him ,boy. He can work as a Marketing Manager/ Logistics Manager, Supply Chain Manager in the Head Office of Mc Donalds. Not every employee at Mc Donald will be a french fries and burger meat cook... or onion cutter... Just use a bit of fantasy or have some thought... ok. the news said: Kwee works at McDonald’s as a guest experience leader... whatever that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 Guest Experience Leader You Make It Great! Great Service, Great Hospitality. At McDonald’s, every customer is unique and so is the way they want to be delighted. We are passionate about bringing smiles to customers and creating Feel Good Moments for everyone. If you’re passionate about great service and hospitality, you’re going to be great here! As a Guest Experience Leader, you will Serve as the Hospitality Expert/Lead in the restaurant Deliver exceptional in-store Feel Good experience at all times Implement and execute Service Centric and Family Marketing initiatives and programmes Exceed guest expectations by creating Feel Good Moments and turning them to lasting memories We are looking for people who Have at least 1-2 years of relevant customer service experience Are confident and friendly, with a strong desire to connect and serve guests in a personable way Are strong communicators who listen to guests’ needs and concerns Act with initiative and are proactive in resolving customers’ concerns Are open to working shift hours, weekends and public holidays Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innocentguy Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 23 minutes ago, Guest onion cutter said: He can work as a Marketing Manager/ Logistics Manager, Supply Chain Manager in the Head Office of Mc Donalds. Not every employee at Mc Donald will be a french fries and burger meat cook... or onion cutter... Just use a bit of fantasy or have some thought... ok. the news said: Kwee works at McDonald’s as a guest experience leader... whatever that is. I see i see. Thanks for the explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Watever Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 Drama queens as Guest Experienced Leader !!!??? 😳😲😱 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 4licle Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 11 hours ago, fab said: High forehead? That’s a high 5head, not 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aiyoyo Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 Not sure why there is a need for the press to name the partner who is innocent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wayang Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 9 hours ago, Guest Watever said: Drama queens as Guest Experienced Leader !!!??? 😳😲😱 He will act as an unsatisfied customer to stir up a drama when ordering food at the counter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts