NUS law prof challenges CPIB officer in sex-for-grades trial
By Claire Huang | Posted: 17 January 2013 2159 hrs
SINGAPORE: The law professor on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case on Thursday cross-examined an anti-graft officer on the admissibility of one of six statements. The procedure is also known as a "trial within a trial".
Tey Tsun Hang challenged Bay Chun How to prove his case that his statement given to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was made under duress.
If he can prove this, he will able to argue that the evidence cannot be admitted in court and this would weaken the prosecution's case.
On the sixth day of the closely-watched trial, several allegations were made against CPIB officer Bay Chun How, who recorded one of six of Tey's statements.
Tey had been picked up by Mr Bay on 2 April last year to help with investigations, but he became ill and was said to be vomiting.
Tey was sent to Alexandra Hospital in an ambulance.
Tey has charged that Mr Bay had been eager to haul him back to the CPIB on 5 April, to record a statement, even though he was still on medical leave.
But the senior officer pointed out that it was Tey who "insisted on giving (the) statement".
Later, when re-examined by the prosecution on whether he had asked how Tey was feeling during the interview, Mr Bay said: "No. He looked fine, clear-headed."
During the interrogation, Tey, a former district judge, said he showed Mr Bay his medication, but was still forced to make a confession. Mr Bay firmly denied this.
At one point in time, Tey claimed that Mr Bay threatened to place his wife under arrest. Mr Bay disagreed.
Tey's other allegations include Mr Bay swearing at him and placing him in a "very cold interrogation cell" on 2 April. Mr Bay denied having sworn at Tey.
As for the interrogation cell, he said: "The air-con controller was mounted on the wall for you to adjust."
During prosecution's re-examination, Mr Bay also shed light on the time when Tey fell ill.
He told the court his colleague reported to him that Tey was vomiting. "I was expecting to see pale face, bad content on the floor, vomit, but I saw none of those," said Mr Bay.
Prosecutor Kok Shu-En asked: "So what did you see?"
"I saw the accused holding on to a clear plastic bag and trying to vomit something into the bag. The bag had only a few mouthfuls of saliva inside," said Mr Bay.
Mr Bay also told the court on the day when Tey was sent to the hospital, the paramedics who came to pick him up were grumbling.
He said Tey had insisted on being wheeled out to the ambulance, despite being mobile.
Several times during the hearing, the Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye would remind Tey to focus when it seemed like he was deviating from the purpose of showing the court that his statement is inadmissible.
Tey's repetitive questioning and the fact that Mr Bay did not answer questions directly also slowed down the pace of the trial.
Five other statements of Tey are being disputed.
Two were recorded by CPIB officer Wilson Khoo, who testified in court as the prosecution's eighth witness on Thursday.
The remaining three were recorded by CPIB Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt.
Tey faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko, between May and July in 2010, in exchange for giving her better grades.
- CNA/xq
- wong chee tat :)
Monday, January 21, 2013
NUS law prof couldn't remember own name in hospital: CPIB officer
NUS law prof couldn't remember own name in hospital: CPIB officer
By Claire Huang | Posted: 18 January 2013 1410 hrs
SINGAPORE: The law professor defending himself in his corruption trial could not remember his name, identity card number and address on the day he was supposed to be discharged from hospital.
The prosecution's 8th witness, Mr Wilson Khoo of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), revealed this in court on Friday morning.
He said the accused, Tey Tsun Hang, was overheard telling the staff at Alexandra Hospital while he was getting discharged on April 4, 2012.
Tey, 41, was admitted to the hospital on April 2 -- the day he was at the CPIB for questioning. During his time there, Tey felt unwell and was sent to the hospital by ambulance.
He was to be discharged two days later but while making arrangements to do so, one of the doctors declared that he was not ready to leave hospital care.
Mr Khoo told the court that Tey appeared unexpectedly at the CPIB the next day on April 5, ready to give his statement.
During the interview, Mr Khoo said Tey had asked him to let him know about the bribes he had allegedly received, as well as what he had allegedly done in exchange for them.
Mr Khoo said he told Tey that he was the one who was giving the statement and asked Tey to say whatever he could recall.
Previously, Tey had claimed that CPIB investigator Bay Chun How had showed him a list with the names of students and the gifts they purportedly gave. He said Mr Bay, who took the stand on Thursday, had asked him to confirm the names of the students and gifts.
However, Mr Bay had denied this.
Tey, a former district judge, faces allegations that he corruptly obtained gratification in the form of gifts and sex from a former student, Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui, who is now 23, in return for lifting her grades.
He allegedly committed the offences between May and July 2010.
-CNA/ac
- wong chee tat :)
By Claire Huang | Posted: 18 January 2013 1410 hrs
SINGAPORE: The law professor defending himself in his corruption trial could not remember his name, identity card number and address on the day he was supposed to be discharged from hospital.
The prosecution's 8th witness, Mr Wilson Khoo of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), revealed this in court on Friday morning.
He said the accused, Tey Tsun Hang, was overheard telling the staff at Alexandra Hospital while he was getting discharged on April 4, 2012.
Tey, 41, was admitted to the hospital on April 2 -- the day he was at the CPIB for questioning. During his time there, Tey felt unwell and was sent to the hospital by ambulance.
He was to be discharged two days later but while making arrangements to do so, one of the doctors declared that he was not ready to leave hospital care.
Mr Khoo told the court that Tey appeared unexpectedly at the CPIB the next day on April 5, ready to give his statement.
During the interview, Mr Khoo said Tey had asked him to let him know about the bribes he had allegedly received, as well as what he had allegedly done in exchange for them.
Mr Khoo said he told Tey that he was the one who was giving the statement and asked Tey to say whatever he could recall.
Previously, Tey had claimed that CPIB investigator Bay Chun How had showed him a list with the names of students and the gifts they purportedly gave. He said Mr Bay, who took the stand on Thursday, had asked him to confirm the names of the students and gifts.
However, Mr Bay had denied this.
Tey, a former district judge, faces allegations that he corruptly obtained gratification in the form of gifts and sex from a former student, Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui, who is now 23, in return for lifting her grades.
He allegedly committed the offences between May and July 2010.
-CNA/ac
- wong chee tat :)
NUS law prof may not be as ill as he claimed to be: CPIB officer
NUS law prof may not be as ill as he claimed to be: CPIB officer
By Claire Huang | Posted: 18 January 2013 2237 hrs
SINGAPORE: There was a constant war of words between Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) officer Wilson Khoo and Tey Tsun Hang on the seventh day of the trial, during the accused's cross-examination of the witness.
Tey, 41, faces allegations that he corruptly obtained gifts and sex from a former student, Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui, in return for giving her better grades.
One area of contention was whether Tey was indeed ill on 2 April last year.
Tey was admitted to hospital on the day he was at the CPIB for questioning.
Tey had felt unwell and was sent to hospital by ambulance.
In Mr Khoo's diary entry, he wrote the doctor treating Tey was unable to diagnose any medical condition.
Tey accused Mr Khoo of making it sound like "he was play-acting", "trying to fool CPIB officers" and "trying to bamboozle them".
But the witness retorted this was what the doctor told him.
Tey fired back, saying he will prove in due course that the doctor had diagnosed him with "altered mental status" upon hospitalisation.
During the hearing, Mr Khoo said on 4 April, when Tey was to be discharged from the hospital, he could not remember his name, identity card number and address.
He said Tey was overheard saying this to the staff at Alexandra Hospital while he was getting discharged on 4 April 2012.
While making arrangements to do so, one of the doctors tested Tey's condition and declared that he was not ready to leave hospital care.
Another point of argument - Tey was "overly cooperative" in giving statement to CPIB on 5 April.
Mr Khoo testified that Tey appeared unexpectedly at the CPIB, and insisted on giving his statement.
During the interview, Mr Khoo said Tey repeatedly asked the officer to note the dates of gratification and favours he had received.
He also asked Mr Khoo to tell him what he had allegedly done in exchange for them.
"No accused person would be so actively volunteering such information," said Mr Khoo.
Tey shot back, asking Mr Khoo if he would give CPIB ideas "so that he could be charged with more charges of corruption?".
To which, the witness said: "Yes, your honour. Absolutely!"
Previously, Tey had claimed that CPIB investigator Bay Chun How showed him a list with the names of students and the gifts they purportedly gave.
He said Mr Bay, who took the stand on Thursday, had asked him to confirm the names of the students and gifts. But Mr Bay disagreed.
Heated exchanges also took place between the two over the time taken to record Tey's statements.
Mr Khoo recorded two of Tey's statements. One was made on 5 April and the other, 10 April.
The earlier statement, comprising five pages, took some three hours to record while the other four-page statement took two hours 15 minutes.
Tey then made the point that the recordings of a few pages should not take that long, unless there was selective recording and constant badgering by Mr Khoo to give confessions deemed satisfactory to them.
But Mr Khoo said time was taken to interview Tey and the duration also included time taken for Tey to read the recordings before printing.
Another contention was the words "corrupt intent".
Mr Khoo had said Tey had insisted on using those words in his confession.
This drew Tey's rebuttal: "So the defendant insisted so that he will end up in Changi (prison)?"
Mr Khoo immediately replied: "Yes. He insisted."
During the cross-examination, Tey pointed out that there were several similar entries in not just Mr Khoo's investigation diary, but Mr Bay's as well.
The former district judge pointed to entry number 6 made in Mr Khoo's diary on 2 April 2012, saying it is "word-for-word", exactly the same as Mr Bay's entry number 12.
He noted that the words "items seized sealed in the bag by me" were used in both entries, describing the same event.
In the end, Mr Khoo ascertained that he was the one who sealed the bag.
Tey also charged that CPIB officers had used expletives on him and pressured him into making confessions. These were all denied by Mr Khoo.
Towards the last half hour of the morning's proceedings, Tey sprang a surprise during his cross-examination of Mr Khoo.
He showed the witness a receipt of a psychiatric consultation with Dr Tommy Tan, and said Dr Tan will be called to the stand.
This was met with strong objection by lead prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy, who pointed out that Mr Khoo was not in a position to answer questions pertaining to Dr Tan.
He added: "If the defence wishes to call an expert witness, especially one who they have told us they are not calling, they should have at the very least informed us if they had changed their mind and before calling their witness. Bearing in mind he's an expert, they should produce a report so that we can instruct an expert if necessary."
But Tey rebutted - saying that the prosecution had not been willing to disclose information and provide material to the defence.
This prompted Mr Jumabhoy to say: "I resent the suggestion that the prosecution have not complied with its obligations in respect of disclosure.
"We have, from the very outset way back in August 2012, been serving material on this accused. He has been in receipt of the list of witnesses which have been updated, yes, but at each stage that they have been updated, he has been in receipt of that list."
The DPP went on to say that Tey has known the list of prosecution witnesses two weeks before the trial, which he said, "as a matter of law, is more than he (Tey) has a right to expect".
Mr Jumabhoy then said the accused has not been straight with the court.
He said: "It's clear from what has happened that this accused has not been straight with the prosecution and certainly not straight with the court. It rings somewhat hollow for him to be suggesting on 18 January that the decision to call Tommy Tan was taken only after hearing Mr Wilson Khoo's evidence."
In the end, Tey said he would serve the relevant information to the prosecution.
- CNA/xq
- wong chee tat :)
By Claire Huang | Posted: 18 January 2013 2237 hrs
SINGAPORE: There was a constant war of words between Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) officer Wilson Khoo and Tey Tsun Hang on the seventh day of the trial, during the accused's cross-examination of the witness.
Tey, 41, faces allegations that he corruptly obtained gifts and sex from a former student, Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui, in return for giving her better grades.
One area of contention was whether Tey was indeed ill on 2 April last year.
Tey was admitted to hospital on the day he was at the CPIB for questioning.
Tey had felt unwell and was sent to hospital by ambulance.
In Mr Khoo's diary entry, he wrote the doctor treating Tey was unable to diagnose any medical condition.
Tey accused Mr Khoo of making it sound like "he was play-acting", "trying to fool CPIB officers" and "trying to bamboozle them".
But the witness retorted this was what the doctor told him.
Tey fired back, saying he will prove in due course that the doctor had diagnosed him with "altered mental status" upon hospitalisation.
During the hearing, Mr Khoo said on 4 April, when Tey was to be discharged from the hospital, he could not remember his name, identity card number and address.
He said Tey was overheard saying this to the staff at Alexandra Hospital while he was getting discharged on 4 April 2012.
While making arrangements to do so, one of the doctors tested Tey's condition and declared that he was not ready to leave hospital care.
Another point of argument - Tey was "overly cooperative" in giving statement to CPIB on 5 April.
Mr Khoo testified that Tey appeared unexpectedly at the CPIB, and insisted on giving his statement.
During the interview, Mr Khoo said Tey repeatedly asked the officer to note the dates of gratification and favours he had received.
He also asked Mr Khoo to tell him what he had allegedly done in exchange for them.
"No accused person would be so actively volunteering such information," said Mr Khoo.
Tey shot back, asking Mr Khoo if he would give CPIB ideas "so that he could be charged with more charges of corruption?".
To which, the witness said: "Yes, your honour. Absolutely!"
Previously, Tey had claimed that CPIB investigator Bay Chun How showed him a list with the names of students and the gifts they purportedly gave.
He said Mr Bay, who took the stand on Thursday, had asked him to confirm the names of the students and gifts. But Mr Bay disagreed.
Heated exchanges also took place between the two over the time taken to record Tey's statements.
Mr Khoo recorded two of Tey's statements. One was made on 5 April and the other, 10 April.
The earlier statement, comprising five pages, took some three hours to record while the other four-page statement took two hours 15 minutes.
Tey then made the point that the recordings of a few pages should not take that long, unless there was selective recording and constant badgering by Mr Khoo to give confessions deemed satisfactory to them.
But Mr Khoo said time was taken to interview Tey and the duration also included time taken for Tey to read the recordings before printing.
Another contention was the words "corrupt intent".
Mr Khoo had said Tey had insisted on using those words in his confession.
This drew Tey's rebuttal: "So the defendant insisted so that he will end up in Changi (prison)?"
Mr Khoo immediately replied: "Yes. He insisted."
During the cross-examination, Tey pointed out that there were several similar entries in not just Mr Khoo's investigation diary, but Mr Bay's as well.
The former district judge pointed to entry number 6 made in Mr Khoo's diary on 2 April 2012, saying it is "word-for-word", exactly the same as Mr Bay's entry number 12.
He noted that the words "items seized sealed in the bag by me" were used in both entries, describing the same event.
In the end, Mr Khoo ascertained that he was the one who sealed the bag.
Tey also charged that CPIB officers had used expletives on him and pressured him into making confessions. These were all denied by Mr Khoo.
Towards the last half hour of the morning's proceedings, Tey sprang a surprise during his cross-examination of Mr Khoo.
He showed the witness a receipt of a psychiatric consultation with Dr Tommy Tan, and said Dr Tan will be called to the stand.
This was met with strong objection by lead prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy, who pointed out that Mr Khoo was not in a position to answer questions pertaining to Dr Tan.
He added: "If the defence wishes to call an expert witness, especially one who they have told us they are not calling, they should have at the very least informed us if they had changed their mind and before calling their witness. Bearing in mind he's an expert, they should produce a report so that we can instruct an expert if necessary."
But Tey rebutted - saying that the prosecution had not been willing to disclose information and provide material to the defence.
This prompted Mr Jumabhoy to say: "I resent the suggestion that the prosecution have not complied with its obligations in respect of disclosure.
"We have, from the very outset way back in August 2012, been serving material on this accused. He has been in receipt of the list of witnesses which have been updated, yes, but at each stage that they have been updated, he has been in receipt of that list."
The DPP went on to say that Tey has known the list of prosecution witnesses two weeks before the trial, which he said, "as a matter of law, is more than he (Tey) has a right to expect".
Mr Jumabhoy then said the accused has not been straight with the court.
He said: "It's clear from what has happened that this accused has not been straight with the prosecution and certainly not straight with the court. It rings somewhat hollow for him to be suggesting on 18 January that the decision to call Tommy Tan was taken only after hearing Mr Wilson Khoo's evidence."
In the end, Tey said he would serve the relevant information to the prosecution.
- CNA/xq
- wong chee tat :)
NUS prof Tey questions CPIB officer in "trial within a trial"
NUS prof Tey questions CPIB officer in "trial within a trial"
By Claire Huang | Posted: 17 January 2013 1125 hrs
SINGAPORE: The law professor on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case is cross-examining an anti-graft officer on the admissibility of one of six statements -- in what is called a "trial within a trial".
Tey Tsun Hang is questioning Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Chief Special Investigator Bay Chun How to prove his case that the statement given to CPIB was made under duress.
If he can prove this, Tey will be able to argue that the evidence cannot be admitted in court. This would weaken the prosecution's case.
Five other statements of Tey's are being disputed. Two were recorded by CPIB officer Wilson Khoo and three by Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt.
They are expected to take the stand in the "trial within a trial".
Tey, 41, faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko, between May and July 2010, in exchange for lifting her grades.
-CNA/ac
- wong chee tat :)
By Claire Huang | Posted: 17 January 2013 1125 hrs
SINGAPORE: The law professor on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case is cross-examining an anti-graft officer on the admissibility of one of six statements -- in what is called a "trial within a trial".
Tey Tsun Hang is questioning Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Chief Special Investigator Bay Chun How to prove his case that the statement given to CPIB was made under duress.
If he can prove this, Tey will be able to argue that the evidence cannot be admitted in court. This would weaken the prosecution's case.
Five other statements of Tey's are being disputed. Two were recorded by CPIB officer Wilson Khoo and three by Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt.
They are expected to take the stand in the "trial within a trial".
Tey, 41, faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko, between May and July 2010, in exchange for lifting her grades.
-CNA/ac
- wong chee tat :)
More than S$8.3b disbursed in tax rebates to encourage procreation
More than S$8.3b disbursed in tax rebates to encourage procreation
By Imelda Saad | Posted: 20 January 2013 1802 hrs
SINGAPORE: The government last year gave out more than S$8.3 billion in tax rebates and reliefs aimed at encouraging procreation in the Year of Assessment 2012.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore also told Channel NewsAsia that more than 850,000 working mums and dads enjoyed such tax breaks in 2012.
Thirty-six-year-old assistant marketing manager Lum Sook Fong collected nearly S$27,000 in child tax reliefs last year.
Together with other rebates, the working mother of two ended up not paying any taxes to the government at all.
Madam Lum said: "I know there should be some kind of relief but exactly what amount, I didn't know until I get the statement, so I was kind of surprised because the amount is quite substantial."
Currently, there are three kinds of rebate and reliefs aimed at supporting working mums with children.
They are: Parenthood Tax Rebate of up to S$20,000 per child; the Qualifying/Handicapped Child Reliefs; and the Working Mother Child Relief.
Both the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Qualifying/Handicapped Child Relief can be claimed by both mums and dads.
Sums worked out by tax consultant Ernst & Young show that working mums earning about S$94,500 to S$351,000 a year don't have to pay any taxes after taking into account the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mother Child Relief, and other tax breaks like the Foreign Maid Levy Relief.
This applies to a Singaporean tax payer aged 55 and below, married, with three children.
There are various monetary incentives to support families, including cash gifts like the Baby Bonus.
Those Channel NewsAsia spoke to say while such incentives can ease the financial burden of bringing up baby, money isn't everything.
It may encourage those who already have children to have more but it may not change the minds of couples who don't want any children in the first place.
Joni Ong, president of advocacy group I Love Children said: "I agree that money is useful but money isn't everything. I believe if you love children and you want to have children to complete your family, no matter how much money is there or not there, you will proceed to have the babies anyway."
Experts said what is needed is a supportive environment at home and at work, among other things.
"For my case, I would think it would be useful as well if the Baby Bonus is higher because what we have, could only tied us for the first few years. After that, I have to start paying cash for their childcare," said Madam Lum.
She added: "Another part is also the family support like maybe having grandparents to be there to take care of the kids. As a working mum, I would say that the environment is very important and also the work-life balance that we have."
- CNA/fa
- wong chee tat :)
By Imelda Saad | Posted: 20 January 2013 1802 hrs
SINGAPORE: The government last year gave out more than S$8.3 billion in tax rebates and reliefs aimed at encouraging procreation in the Year of Assessment 2012.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore also told Channel NewsAsia that more than 850,000 working mums and dads enjoyed such tax breaks in 2012.
Thirty-six-year-old assistant marketing manager Lum Sook Fong collected nearly S$27,000 in child tax reliefs last year.
Together with other rebates, the working mother of two ended up not paying any taxes to the government at all.
Madam Lum said: "I know there should be some kind of relief but exactly what amount, I didn't know until I get the statement, so I was kind of surprised because the amount is quite substantial."
Currently, there are three kinds of rebate and reliefs aimed at supporting working mums with children.
They are: Parenthood Tax Rebate of up to S$20,000 per child; the Qualifying/Handicapped Child Reliefs; and the Working Mother Child Relief.
Both the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Qualifying/Handicapped Child Relief can be claimed by both mums and dads.
Sums worked out by tax consultant Ernst & Young show that working mums earning about S$94,500 to S$351,000 a year don't have to pay any taxes after taking into account the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mother Child Relief, and other tax breaks like the Foreign Maid Levy Relief.
This applies to a Singaporean tax payer aged 55 and below, married, with three children.
There are various monetary incentives to support families, including cash gifts like the Baby Bonus.
Those Channel NewsAsia spoke to say while such incentives can ease the financial burden of bringing up baby, money isn't everything.
It may encourage those who already have children to have more but it may not change the minds of couples who don't want any children in the first place.
Joni Ong, president of advocacy group I Love Children said: "I agree that money is useful but money isn't everything. I believe if you love children and you want to have children to complete your family, no matter how much money is there or not there, you will proceed to have the babies anyway."
Experts said what is needed is a supportive environment at home and at work, among other things.
"For my case, I would think it would be useful as well if the Baby Bonus is higher because what we have, could only tied us for the first few years. After that, I have to start paying cash for their childcare," said Madam Lum.
She added: "Another part is also the family support like maybe having grandparents to be there to take care of the kids. As a working mum, I would say that the environment is very important and also the work-life balance that we have."
- CNA/fa
- wong chee tat :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)