Principal of top school under investigation for hiring prost

[cnimed]

Oh your previous post has disappeared. I rest my case.

[iRabbit]

And I’m referring to the underaged prostitute in question. Are we referring to the same one?


And I’m wondering why was the 16yr old boy in the Anthony Ler’s case found guilty where else this 17yr old gal is seen to be well protected by the law. Please don’t try to throw any more red herrings cos I’m not saying that she should serve the same sentence as manslaughter/murder. Just something befitting her crime.

Agree, or should I go read up more?

[cnimed]

The herrings are not from me. She did not commit a crime by Singapore law. As an underaged individual, she receives protection from the court. Of course it’s up to u whether or not u want to read up some more, though I think perhaps what some of u want is to for the law to be reconsidered in cases such as this.

[iRabbit]

That’s precisely what I’m questioning. Why is she so well protected by the LAW where else that 16 yr old boy didn’t? It doesn’t sit right by me cos I totally don’t think she deserving of that kind of privilege.


I rest my case.

Btw I apologize for the brashness in my reply cos this case really irks me.

[limlim]

FQW:

Prostitution is not a crime; but underaged prostitution is. And underaged prostitution is what we're talking about here. So am I right to say that this is a crime now?

whether it is a crime depends whether the law has provision for it.

For e.g. selling chewing gum is illegal, but buying is not.

If the law states that a <18yo provides sexual service is illegal, than it is illegal. if it is not defined by the law, then, it may not be illegal. But procuring sexual service from <18yo is defined by the law as illegal.

So, it is not necessary that both parties involved in a transaction must have the same liability.

Refer to the same example of sale & purchase of chewing gum to see why this can happen.

[LOLMum]

limlim:

FQW:

Prostitution is not a crime; but underaged prostitution is. And underaged prostitution is what we're talking about here. So am I right to say that this is a crime now?

whether it is a crime depends whether the law has provision for it.

For e.g. selling chewing gum is illegal, but buying is not.
.

Likewise, a customer forcing himself on a hooker is called RAPE! Doesn't matter the job scope.

[cool_hi]

In my opinion, the obvious difference betw this case & anthony Ler’s case, is that, KILLING someone(for whatever reasons, be it you were manipulated or not),is very OBVIOUSLY wrong!! Even killing or torturing an animal is OBVIOUSLY wrong…no argument on this…

But our law have to ‘protect’ underaged girls from prostitution, because they MAY be FORCED by pimps/due to forced situations(e.g. some immoral parents may force them to prostitution to help pay gambling debts etc)…
& they may be too young, & do not know how to protect themselves, or do not dare to fight for themselves…emotionally, they may not be able to handle the situations…for e.g. they may be ‘told’ or ‘taught’ by pimps that since u already let 1 person do it once, might as well just do it many times…?
& for a young girl, they may be confused & thus fall into the traps & got made used of by pimps??!!
Of course, in this case, this girl may not be in this cartegory…there is an obvious grey area for this kind of underage prostitution…
unlike Anthony Ler’s case, even if the teenagers are underaged,
IT IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG TO KILL!!
EVEN a young child of say ,5 years old know that,killing or torturing an animal is wrong,right??
BUT should we change the law that protect young girls, just because of this girl??
If young girls are not protected by laws, can u imagine how the immoral pimps will target & prey on young girls, & lure them, or even con them & force them into this trade?? obvious reasons: being young, they should be easier to manipulate+control…& precisely why the laws are in existence to protect them…or worst, I can imagine, S’pore may become not safe, coz our daughters may be kidnapped by pimps??
JMHO…

[24hr-mum]

any unofficial rpt on whos the underaged prostitute?

[phtthp]

24hr-mum:

anyunofficial rpt on whos the underaged prostitute?

did Subhas tell reporters when is he going to summon her to Subordinate court ? gag order says can't disclose her name. But public curious can see her live in person that day, court room fully packed. Not enough seats, can stand around or lean against the wall.

maybe she comes wearing a veil cover her face ?
reporters, camera men waiting for her entrance, all get ready their camera on standby to zoom in on her. When she enter, commotion uproar from public. Judge then use the hammer and knock hard on the judgement table, \"Quiet! Maintain Silence Please! Defence lawyer (Subhas for some of the 48 clients), you may proceed ! \"

Then Subhas step forward issue court order: \"Miss, can you please remove your veil, so that we can see you properly ?\"
grilling session begin . :nailbite:
very embarassing questions can be asked ...

who knows ... maybe her parents / care takers from young may be called in for questioning, by Subhas.

[janet88]

24hr-mum:

any unofficial rpt on whos the underaged prostitute?

How is it possible to keep her identity a secret when Mr Subhas questions her ? Unless she is allowed to wear those clothes like the women in Middle East...interesting. She will be grilled like barbecue fish by those men's lawyers.