George Yang, Author at Goody Feed

Ever since the Instagram Stories of Monica Baey went viral, there has been a series of questions: Why was the perpetrator’s punishment so lenient? Why wasn’t he charged? What about the rumours that he had “powerful” parents which allegedly led to a “special treatment”? Lest you’ve no idea what’s going on, here’s a brief recap: girl showered in NUS hall, guy filmed girl showered and guy was let go by writing an apology letter and a one-semester ban. Well, let’s just say that as the days unfolded, more facts are unfolded as well. First, for a start: the university’s punishment. Consistent Punishment for Same Offence If you’re read our previous article (see lah, ask you download our app and come in daily, you don’t want), you’d know that there has been a number of similar offences committed by other perpetrators, with some even more serious. However, in most of the cases, the punishments meted out by the university were about the same: it’s usually a suspension (either one or two semesters), an apology letter to be written and a ban from halls. In other words, there were no "special treatment" whatsoever; which of course led to people petitioning for a change. And the school heard the cries; they have formed a committee to look at the disciplinary framework, and would be holding a closed-door town hall meeting with NUS students and staff. Education Minister Ong Ye Kung also weighed in the issue, claiming “the penalties NUS applied were manifestly inadequate in the recent sexual misconduct case.” Now that the part about university is done with, how about the part from the authorities, since it’s an criminal act? SPF Responds This afternoon, the Singapore Police Force has responded to the case since it’s gone…outrageously viral. If you can’t read, here’s what is written: POLICE MEDIA STATEMENT There have been public discussions regarding the 12-month conditional warning given to a 23-year-old male National University of Singapore (NUS) undergraduate who had committed criminal trespass and insulted the modesty of a female undergraduate at the NUS. There are two factors (which are both inter-related and yet separate): the first relates to rules to ensure that premises like NUS provide a safe environment, and the second relates to criminal prosecution. On the first, Police understand that NUS is reviewing its rules, on how such conduct is to be treated. On the second issue: Police and AGC understand public concerns, on ensuring that our laws and enforcement provide sufficient protection for potential victims, and sufficient deterrence against would-be offenders. That is the approach that Police and AGC take. In deciding whether to recommend prosecution for a criminal offence, a number of factors are considered by Police in each case, including the age of the accused, the likelihood of reoffending/rehabilitation, the extent of remorse shown, whether there are aggravating factors (for example, like circulation of the offending images). In this case, the accused was assessed to have a high likelihood of rehabilitation, and was remorseful. There were also additional factors relating to his conduct which were relevant, such as the absence of other obscene materials in any of his devices. A prosecution, with a possible jail sentence, will, likely ruin his entire future, with a permanent criminal record. Taking into account these factors, he was given a conditional warning, which means that if he commits any other criminal offence within 12 months, he will be liable to be prosecuted for both this current offence and the subsequent other offence. He will then likely face a jail sentence. Our criminal justice system seeks to temper punishment and deterrence, with giving offenders a second chance to reform, based on assessment of the relevant factors. The approach in this case is consistent with the approach taken in other cases. There have been a number of similar cases, where such conditional warnings have been given. Where other relevant factors are involved, for example, a prior criminal record, premeditation to evade detection, there will often be a prosecution. Allegations that the man was not prosecuted because he has influential parents are untrue - the Police and AGC did not consider his parents' background. Such factors are irrelevant considerations. It is unfortunate that such untruths have been put out. The man’s parents have agreed for it to be disclosed that his father is a driver in the public transport sector and his mother is a housewife. The Police are also aware of comparisons being made between this case and a 2015 case involving a 23-year-old man who was charged and sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment for filming a woman showering at Republic Polytechnic (RP). The accused in the RP case had committed multiple criminal trespass offences, taken deliberate action to avoid detection by covering up the CCTVs in the vicinity and covering his face with a towel, and did not own up voluntarily but was arrested following Police investigations to track him down. He was a former student of RP and had committed the offences over a period of four months. As such, the Police, in consultation with the AGC, prosecuted him in court. The facts in that case are quite different. I don’t know about you, but here in Singapore, it’s almost important to influence the authorities even if you’re as powerful as Thanos, and this latest reveal would have at least solidified that. The perpetrator’s father is a driver in the public transport sector and the mother is a housewife. If that is considered “powerful”, then they either have a few colourful stones and a glove…or it’s something else. So, Who Spoken About “Powerful Parents”? There is no smoke without fire, so how did that allegation come about? According to Black Dot Research, a Singapore-based market and social research company, they did a fact check and they concluded that the allegation is unproven: firstly, the person who said that had used an Instagram handle that didn’t exist, and the profile picture of the Instagram account was of a Taiwan lady—which has a different name altogether. The moral of the story? Don’t choose to believe a story simply because it’s interesting. That’s how fake news gets its ammo.

George Yang

SPF Responds to NUS Voyeur Saga: The Perpetrator’s Parents Aren’t ‘Powerful’

Punishments Meted Out for Previous Similar ‘Peeping Tom’ Offences in NUS...

10 Facts About the Sri Lanka Bomb Blasts That Are Known...

Oreo Ice-Cream Bar Now Available in Some Indie Supermarkets

Bubble Tea Toast Now in Eighteen Chefs & Here’s a Review...

Haters Claimed Nas Daily’s Meetup Has Less People Than Reported; Nas...

4 Times When S’poreans Thought the World Was Ending But We’re...

Guy Allegedly Filmed Girl in Shower in NUS & Was Asked...

Shilin Market’s Queue to Enter Isn’t the Main Issue; It’s the...

Apple Daily Allegedly Paid Driver SGD$260K for Andy Hui Scandal Video...