Not wrong to have relationship with student: law prof in sex-for-grades trial

Not wrong to have relationship with student: law prof in sex-for-grades trial

    By Claire Huang
    POSTED: 17 Apr 2013 11:12 PM
  
Tey Tsun Hang on Wednesday said he did not think it was wrong for him to have a relationship with a student.

SINGAPORE: The law professor defending himself in a sex-for-grades corruption trial on Wednesday said he did not think it was wrong for him to have a relationship with a student.

Tey Tsun Hang, 41, is defending himself against six counts of corruptly obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his then-student Darinne Ko Wen Hui, 23, between May and July 2010 in return for lifting her grades.

Tey on Wednesday told the court that he did not see anything wrong with him continuing to teach Ms Ko, even though their relationship ended in late 2010.

He however admitted that he failed to declare the relationship and gifts to the National University of Singapore (NUS), as required by the university's code of conduct.

Lead prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy then charged that Tey tried to conceal the relationship and gifts from NUS so that he could continue teaching Ms Ko.

Tey denied this, saying that he tried to stop Ms Ko from enrolling in one of his courses after their relationship ended.

Ms Ko enrolled in a course taught by Tey in 2011.

Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that by that point time, Tey had already taught Ms Ko two other subjects.

"Two out of three courses isn't bad, is it Mr Tey?" said the prosecutor, to which Tey replied: "If you are saying I advantaged her in the two courses, the results show that she was not."

Another point of contention was the payment for gifts.

Ms Ko allegedly gave Tey a Frederic Chopin edition Mont Blanc pen, two CYC tailored shirts, and an iPod. She also paid for a group dinner hosted by Tey at an Italian restaurant. The items and dinner amounted to about S$2,415.

During the first tranche of the trial in January this year, Tey said he issued a cheque amounting to S$2,500 in July 2010 before Ms Ko left for an overseas study stint.

However when Ms Ko testified in January, she said no such cheque was given to her.

Tey then said that he made the cheque out to Ms Ko but she refused to accept it, leading him to pay her in cash.

Ms Ko however also denied receiving the cash.

On Wednesday, when asked if he found it odd that Ms Ko denied ever receiving the cheque and cash, Tey said his "heart sank" when he heard her answer.

Tey also told the court on Wednesday that he was aware and concerned that Ms Ko was earning only a small allowance from her internships and thus wanted to pay her back for the gifts she had bought, as well as the dinner for which she paid.

Tey said he did an estimate before the dinner took place as he wanted to reimburse Ms Ko before she left Singapore. Ms Ko was to leave the country on 3 August 2010.

This prompted the prosecution to ask why Tey did not pay for the Mont Blanc pen and the tailored shirts first; Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that by 15 June, 2010, Tey knew the cost of the pen but did not pay her.

Tey replied saying that it was because he did not want to sully their relationship by talking about money.

Mr Jumabhoy however pointed out that on 22 June 2010, while the pair was at the tailor's, Tey could have offered to pay for Ms Ko's shirts but he did not.

Tey explained that he had, at the back of his mind, wanted to pay Ms Ko back for the pen and shirts.

However he added that it was "not nice" to reimburse Ms Ko item by item so he decided to work out the cost of the dinner and issue a cheque for all the gifts.

Tey said he innocently thought to reimburse her in one sitting, which was why he made out the S$2,500 cheque to her.

Another point of contention in court on Wednesday was a revelation by the defence, who said that Ms Ko had asked for Tey to reimburse her S$1,000 upon returning from her overseas stint in 2011. Ms Ko did so after requests from her mother, said Tey.

This lead the prosecution to stress that it was the first time the court heard Ms Ko's mother wanted S$1,000 from Tey, and that it was very different from Ms Ko's court testimony.

Ms Ko had previously testified that Tey did not pay her for the gifts or dinner. The dinner was hosted by Tey but by late 2010 the pair had broken up.

Tey on Wednesday said he paid Ms Ko as he did not want "to quibble" over it.

This led Mr Jumabhoy to point out that Tey "should be aggrieved", adding that nowhere in his statements did Tey ever mention such an important point, which could clear him of the charges.

"But this is an important point!" said Mr Jumabhoy. "The basis for saying 'I'm not corrupt' is 'I have paid back every penny'.”

The prosecutor also pointed out that if Tey's account is accurate, the law professor had gone over and beyond by paying Ms Ko the S$1,000.

This lead Tey to explain again that he did not want to quibble over money.

The prosecution's case is that Tey never paid Ms Ko for any of the gifts nor the dinner.

Ms Ko was saddled with an unpaid bill for six months for a dinner hosted by Tey before she sought reimbursement in early 2011, said the prosecution.

Tey disagreed.

After lunch, the trial was adjourned for about an hour after it started as Tey was sick and had to see a doctor.

The trial continues.

- CNA/jc

- wong chee tat :)