NUS law prof in CPIB probe over exchanging grades for sex

[concern2]

Sun_2010:

Imami:

[quote=\"Way2GO\"]

d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.

Way 哥 knows law de.... Don't play play (although he insists that the only laws he knows is his wife's parents, ie his in laws).

[/quote]So good to have people from various background in KSP! :boogie:

[phtthp]

Way2GO:

d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.

Section 8 of PCA is a presumption section which states :

\"Where in any proceedings against a person under section 5 or 6, it is proved that any gratification has been paid or given to or received by a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body by or from a person or agent of a person who has or seeks to have any dealings with Government or any department thereof or any public body, that gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward as hereinbefore mentioned unless the contrary is proved.\". This effectively shifts the burden to the corrupt offender, who has to prove to the Court that the gratification involved is not given or received corruptly.\"

info source
http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=202

[Just relax]

Yes section 8 shifts the burden of intent from prosecution to accused, and as I had mentioned in my earlier posts, it all boils down to what was the intent of Tey. The prosecution will poke holes into whatever Tey says happened and of course if Ko says they had a relationship then it is for prosecution to suggest that notwithstanding relationship Tey still intended to improve Ko’s grades or tht alternatively Ko intended Tey to improve Ko’s grades.


The other aspect is Tey saying he paid Ko back which is to avoid the "corruptly accepting" aspect of the section, but this cannot really work as he still had sex. So by saying he repaid Ko, he is suggesting that he had no corrupt intent all along, but was stupid to have accepted gifts including having sex and when realized it was foolish decided to pay her back.

[CayennePepper]

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

[winchester]

CayennePepper:

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

looks like for corruption, once got gratification, intent is moot.

the horny prof is screwed either way once he had sex with his student or students. i heard that some of his malaysian students and a malaysian nus colleague ong guan sin went down to court to support him as they thought the sex and abortion with that girl was all made up. sense of denial.

all the support would not change the fact that tey is a wolf.

[pirate]

CayennePepper:

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

First, depends on whether the prosecution can show that the good professor is \"a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body\". Is NUS a \"public body\"?

If no, there is no presumption and prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt there was a corrupt intent, ie the intent was to lead her to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades.

If yes, the professor must rebut the presumption of corruption by showing on a balance of probabilities there was no corrupt intention. Given the admitted relationship and practical impossibility of changing grades, meh... who knows? Just ask yourself, based on the evidence given, is it more likely that the acts on the couch and the gifts were because they were carrying on this ESM, or is more likely that it was because the good professor led her on to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades?
:?

[phtthp]

winchester:

the horny prof is screwed either way once he had sex with his student or students. i heard that some of his malaysian students and a malaysian nus colleague ong guan sin went down to court to support him as they thought the sex and abortion with that girl was all made up. sense of denial.

all the support would not change the fact that tey is a wolf.

as long as Tey committed that act on the red sofa with her, get many Malaysian students and friends support him in court - no use. Unless he is innocent, didn't do it.

then why would DK make up a story about s* and abortion ?
what advantage for her ?

[Just relax]

pirate:

CayennePepper:

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

First, depends on whether the prosecution can show that the good professor is \"a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body\". Is NUS a \"public body\"?

If no, there is no presumption and prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt there was a corrupt intent, ie the intent was to lead her to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades.

If yes, the professor must rebut the presumption of corruption by showing on a balance of probabilities there was no corrupt intention. Given the admitted relationship and practical impossibility of changing grades, meh... who knows? Just ask yourself, based on the evidence given, is it more likely that the acts on the couch and the gifts were because they were carrying on this ESM, or is more likely that it was because the good professor led her on to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades?
:?

I would venture to suggest that NUS is a \"public body\" as it is recognized as Singapore's flagship university and receives financial support from the Govt. Singaporean students also receive financial grants from the Govt. for their tuition fees which means the public finances are being used to support NUS. The (Pro-Chancellor??) also always happens to be the incumbent President of Singapore. I think all these point to NUS being a \"public body\".

[chenwj]

Just relax:

pirate:

[quote=\"CayennePepper\"]Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

First, depends on whether the prosecution can show that the good professor is \"a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body\". Is NUS a \"public body\"?

If no, there is no presumption and prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt there was a corrupt intent, ie the intent was to lead her to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades.

If yes, the professor must rebut the presumption of corruption by showing on a balance of probabilities there was no corrupt intention. Given the admitted relationship and practical impossibility of changing grades, meh... who knows? Just ask yourself, based on the evidence given, is it more likely that the acts on the couch and the gifts were because they were carrying on this ESM, or is more likely that it was because the good professor led her on to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades?
:?

I would venture to suggest that NUS is a \"public body\" as it is recognized as Singapore's flagship university and receives financial support from the Govt. Singaporean students also receive financial grants from the Govt. for their tuition fees which means the public finances are being used to support NUS. The (Pro-Chancellor??) also always happens to be the incumbent President of Singapore. I think all these point to NUS being a \"public body\".[/quote]It was reported that NUS is paying the prof full-salary while he's on suspension. Despite being charged, his law faculty colleagues some are malaysians still went down to give support. I'm not sure how you look at it but I think it's a terrible waste of Singaporeans taxpayers' money. Somehow I believe the prof doesn't just get around with students.

[AC_Power]

Just relax:

You have to be more precise in the 2 elements that you have mentioned.

What the prosecution has to show is the following:
1. That by an objective standard Tey, Ng Boon Gay and the SCDF chief had corruptly received gifts; and
2. That the recipient had a corrupt intent.

For the 1st element, the objective part of corruptly receiving the prosecution must prove and this is easy enough since all 3 men had affairs in the course of work which objectively would be considered corruptly receiving.

For the 2nd element in the case of Ng Boon Gay and SCDF chief there is a presumption of a corrupt intent when a public servant receives a gift in the course of his work. Ng Boon Gay and SCDF chief have the burden of rebutting this presumption.

That is why the Ng Boon Gay Defence has emphasized the relationship of Ng with Cecilia to show that Ng did not have a corrupt intent and that it was simply an affair. It will be the same Defence for the SCDF chief. Otherwise they should not be convicted for simply being unfaithful husbands.

The potions in bold contradict themselves.

The prosecution never have to show or prove that the recipient has a corrupted intent. This intent is automatically presumed to be corrupted once the recipient, being in a position of power and influence, received the gratification. It is then up to the defendant to prove otherwise - like what you have correctly pointed out that in his defense, NBG claimed that they are already in a relationship and therefore the sexual encounters arose from that and not from any corrupted intent as to rebut the presumption.