14-year-old jumps to his death after unaccompanied police interrogation for Molest

[77guy]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

You are sick in the mind and out of point like countryman. You did not read what the dead boy's family said before commenting.

The dead boy's family said he did not do it and he was coerced to plead guilty by police.


.

U say i am sick...but u think u damn smart?? Which parents will readily admit that their son commit a shameful act of molest especially after he is dead? The boy of coz told his mum he didnt do it...u are so honest to admit every mistake u did when young to ur parents??

Lastly, the boy is out on bail...doesnt mean he wont be charged if he is not dead... i hate sillypore garment n Spf too, but highly doubt they will juz target an innocent boy without any due evidence....

[siralexferguson]

人在做，天在看。who are we do judge?

A precious life had been lost.... All the gods up there will know what to do....

Karma shall prevail....

All deserve a second chance, even if this little boy made a mistake, educate him is more effective..... Not by using force or some threat or pressure on him.....wats the point?
Solve case within 24 hrs and meet kpi? Show and report on crime watch?

Pls be kind and think of others feelings before taking any action....

[77guy]

Originally Posted by 77guy

U say i am sick...but u think u damn smart?? Which parents will readily admit that their son commit a shameful act of molest especially after he is dead? The boy of coz told his mum he didnt do it...u are so honest to admit every mistake u did when young to ur parents??

Lastly, the boy is out on bail...doesnt mean he wont be charged if he is not dead... i hate sillypore garment n Spf too, but highly doubt they will juz target an innocent boy without any due evidence....

Also forget to add if the 11yo victim happens to be related to u or is someone u know, will u still have the same sympathy for the boy?

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by 77guy

U say i am sick...but u think u damn smart?? Which parents will readily admit that their son commit a shameful act of molest especially after he is dead? The boy of coz told his mum he didnt do it...u are so honest to admit every mistake u did when young to ur parents??

Lastly, the boy is out on bail...doesnt mean he wont be charged if he is not dead... i hate sillypore garment n Spf too, but highly doubt they will juz target an innocent boy without any due evidence....

Nobody say SPF and PAP Government targeting the dead boy.

The entire discussion was HOW SPF got the confession from dead boy and the entire process from school to interrogation.

Dead boy was out on bail because of his confession which dead boy's parents said was coerced and false.

He was not charge means he was not charge, why need to mention any IFs? So many IFs, how many will happen?

The default status is innocent until proven guilty by the legal process.

You are sick in the mind because you insisted the dead boy was guilty without any factual evidence.

Are you saying every child by default will lie to parents when making mistakes? You are very lame. Dont you think your logic is too forceful?

Read what the dead boy parents have to say compare to what MOE, SPF and Media said.

If you still insist dead boy was guilty of molest just simply because SPF brought him in for interrogation. Then maybe Singapore is not suitable for you. North Korea, China and ISIS are better places for you to stay because these countries follow your logic on how to determine guilt. Authorities are always right in these countries.

[k-knight]

Sorry to say is that the main talking point of this incident is not abt if the boy is innocent or not.

We just take it as he did it, thr whole saga is how the system should work and how they should be treating a minor. Even if he's guilty, spf should not be interrogating him when he js alone especially kids nowadays in our society. The streetwise level of 14 yo kid is like the level of 9 yo kid in the 80s and 90s..

So imagine when ur taken into the itnerview rm being interrogated by those cops and they are presurrizing you, fucking you telling you that you are a fucking sick bastard to molest a 11yo.. Trust me, those who work with the law will know this is true..

Imagine them doing this to a 9 to 10yo kid, how would u feel....
So chill for the bros out there. Its the system we are talking abt and not if the kid is guilty or not. Furthermore, om is a normal offence in many countries not as if he is a terrorist or killed someone

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by 77guy

Also forget to add if the 11yo victim happens to be related to u or is someone u know, will u still have the same sympathy for the boy?

You still trying to use the card which is age of the molest victim to gain sympathy for MOE, SPF and Media.

This statement shows you already know the dead boy was guilty.

So you are trying to say the dead boy deserve the treatment from SPF , MOE and Media and deserve to die because he alleged molested a 11 year girl.

So SPF, MOE and Media are now tools of justice. An eye for eye.

You are even better than the Singapore Judicial System.

Why even need Courts, Lawyers and Legal System then?

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by k-knight

Sorry to say is that the main talking point of this incident is not abt if the boy is innocent or not.

We just take it as he did it, thr whole saga is how the system should work and how they should be treating a minor. Even if he's guilty, spf should not be interrogating him when he js alone especially kids nowadays in our society. The streetwise level of 14 yo kid is like the level of 9 yo kid in the 80s and 90s..

So imagine when ur taken into the itnerview rm being interrogated by those cops and they are presurrizing you, fucking you telling you that you are a fucking sick bastard to molest a 11yo.. Trust me, those who work with the law will know this is true..

Imagine them doing this to a 9 to 10yo kid, how would u feel....
So chill for the bros out there. Its the system we are talking abt and not if the kid is guilty or not. Furthermore, om is a normal offence in many countries not as if he is a terrorist or killed someone

I am only afraid the perverting of justice comes from the authorities too.

Now the SPF and Government will be specially pressurize to make sure the 11 year old girl and anonymous neighbour keep to their police report and everything they said were the truth.

[kuasimi]

To the 5 policemen and School Principal

http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...l-5296159.html

[kuasimi]

Recent court rulings & police shortcomings show system needs changes


By The Independent -

February 4, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/recent-cour...needs-changes/

https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG



https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/



By: Andrew Loh

In recent years, the actions of the enforcement agencies in Singapore have been called into question not just by the public, but also by the courts.

Such intervention by judges is welcome and is necessary to rein in the authorities’ sometimes over-enthusiastic application of the law.

Calls for the government to relook some of these legal provisions have been made consistently over the years, and in light of the courts’ recent decisions, it is worth looking at these again, and reiterate the need (and urgency) of putting them under the microscope of review.

Access to lawyers

The recent death of a 14-year old student has brought to the fore the need for access to lawyers to be granted to accused persons, and especially juveniles or minors. It is a call which have been made numerous times by various experts, including law professors and presidents of the Law Society, along with opposition political parties.

In brief, allowing accused persons access to lawyers upon arrest is an internationally accepted practice, and Singapore is an anomaly in this, even as it trumpets its first-world status among the developed countries.

It would be entirely repugnant if all that the death of the 14-year old student results in is another piecemeal tweaking of the law which would serve no one. And there is a danger that this would be so, given the police’s statement following the boy’s death – where the authorities said it was reviewing its interview procedures regarding “young persons” and if an “appropriate adult” could be present during such an interview.

This is, as feared, a sign that the authorities are not taking a wider view of things, and will only be doing patchwork to cover holes as and when they appear. In other words, it would be like a dog chasing its own tail.

The police should in fact be reviewing – and eventually allowing – accused persons immediate access to lawyers at the point of arrest.

Rights against self-incrimination

Many Singaporeans may not know that they have a right against self-incrimination. This, in fact, is provided for under the Constitution. The police should, therefore, be required to inform the accused or suspect that he has the right to remain silent, and that he also has a right to counsel.

Parliament should remove any other provisions which currently render such rights useless – such as the vague provisions allowing access to lawyers. Parliament should correct this and insert the word “immediate” into the law, so that there can be no ambiguity as to such rights.

Parliament should also remove provisions which render the right to self incrimination useless, as law professor Ho Hock Lai pointed out in his paper. (See here.) One of these is how an “adverse inference” may be drawn against the accused if he chose to exercise this right to protect himself.

Stern warning

The Singapore High Court has made it patently clear that “warnings” issued by the police are of no consequence in law. In the recent case involving activist Jolovan Wham, who was issued a warning by the police for an event he organised at Hong Lim Park in 2014, High Court judge Woo Bih Li said:

“[In] my view the warning is still no more than an expression of the opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence. It does not bind the recipient. It does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact. Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding and this is not disputed between the parties.”

The police and the AGC should therefore stop issuing such warnings, be they conditional or not. The practice should be that if there is enough evidence, the authorities should charge the suspect. If not, such warning should not be issued as they are not only wholly unfair but also could be ruinous to one’s reputation.

In past cases, the police would issue such “warning” or “stern warning” and this is made known to the media, which would then promptly and prominently report them in their broadcast and print channels.

This is patently unfair and verge on defamation, given that the suspect or accused has not been charged, much less be found guilty by any court.

And as Judge Woo said, only a court of law has the power to pronounce guilt or innocence.

Singapore must adhere to the very basis of all justice systems – that one is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Neither the Singapore Police Force nor the Attorney General’s Chambers should circumvent this principle by issuing warning letters which are then circulated to the media, resulting in a public perception of guilt.

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA)

The CLTPA has been used in recent times to detain several individuals involved in match-fixing. The most notable case in recent times is that of Dan Tan, who had been held under the CLTPA for two years. He was only released in November 2015, after the Court of Appeal found that his detention was “illegal”.

TODAY reported:

“Delivering the 80-page judgment, CJ Menon said the detention was “beyond the scope of the power vested in the Minister, which was to detain persons in the circumstances where activities of a sufficiently serious criminal nature threatened to or did undermine public safety, peace or good order in Singapore”.”

Three other members of his ring were also subsequently released from detention but put under the CLTPA after the courts’ decision on Dan Tan’s case.

The problem with detaining them under the CLTPA is that they are being held without trial, and indefinitely.

According to Channel Newsasia:

“Section 30 of the CLTPA allows for a person to be detained for up to a year if such action is “in the interest of public safety, peace and good order” subject to yearly reviews, which may be extended. The law is typically used against criminals of organised crime and has historically been used against drug kingpins, loansharks and members of secret societies.”

TODAY reported that the Court of Appeal had found Tan’s detention “was unlawful and the Home Affairs Minister had overstepped his powers in locking Tan up without trial.”

Even so, Tan was held for two years without any access to the court to challenge his detention.

The police, however, re-arrested Tan a few days later after his release last November.

It would be good if the authorities could explain what exactly the CLTPA – which was formerly used to detain those involved in criminal gangs, organised crime, and drug trafficking – should be used for; and if there are no other provisions to deal with those such as Dan Tan.

Should they also not be given their fair day in court to defend themselves?

Hong Lim Park no foreigner rule


IN Mr Wham’s case mentioned above, the police had brought him for questioning over the alleged involvement of foreigners in the event at Hong Lim Park. The rule for use of the park prohibits such participation by non-Singaporeans and non-permanent residents. Mr Wham and his co-organiser, Rachel Zeng, had in fact made this rule known to the foreigners who were there.



Still, Mr Wham was hauled up and subsequently issued a “stern warning” for it.



There are many events held at Hong Lim Park to date, and the most notable would be Pink Dot, an annual gathering of pro-LGBT supporters. In the last edition, a reported 26,000 people turned up, with many of them foreigners, decked out in pink and participating enthusiastically in the festivities.



The question then is obvious: why has none of them (or the organiser) been hauled up similarly and questioned by the police?



Should not the enforcement of our laws be consistent and fair? Is it time to remove such stipulations in the rules for the park?


Protection from Harassment Act:


Finally, the High Court in December last year laid down that the “Government” does not constitute a “person” under the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA), and thus the “Government” cannot invoke the Act against a blog site.


Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, in making this ruling, overturned the earlier one by a district court which had ruled in favour of the government.


The Attorney General, representing the government, has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on JC See’s ruling; and the blog site is objecting to the appeal for leave.


Be that as it may, it is worth our time to ponder on what Parliament intended when it instituted the PHA – looking not only at the specific letters of the law but also (perhaps more importantly) the spirit with which that particular law was enacted.


I would argue that, from the readings of the parliamentary debates on the Bill, it is patently clear that the PHA was intended to protect the truly vulnerable from abuse; and not to allow the government or its agencies – which are publicly accountable ones – to use it for its own purpose.



Conclusion


It is time for Singapore to look seriously at some of these practices in its legal and justice system, and improve on them for the benefit of its people and those who practise within the system.



For sure, there are many more such shortcomings or questionable provisions which should be highlighted for possible changes. But for now, these mentioned above should provide some food for thought.

—
Republished with permission from: https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com.

[kuasimi]

Boy’s death – a police review of procedures not enough


https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/20...es-not-enough/



The death of a 14-year old boy now puts the question of access to lawyers for an accused at the doorstep of Parliament.

The boy, a secondary three student, had apparently committed suicide after being interviewed by the police for an alleged offence of “molestation”. That was the offence he is deemed to have committed, according to the police statement released on 1 February 2016. (See here.)

The police also said that it “will review and address” the issue of whether “to allow an appropriate adult to be present when a young person is interviewed.”

First, let us be clear about one thing: no one knows exactly why the boy took his own life. Any suggestions on the reasons are at best speculation at this point in time, given that police investigations are still ongoing; and that eventually the coroner would also have to weigh in on the matter.

So, let us hold off on the finger pointing, especially that directed at the police. It would be most unfair to lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the police officers involved.

Second, there have been suggestions that the offence of molest is a non-seizable (arrestable) one. This point was raised seemingly to cast blame on the police officers who had reportedly arrested the boy in his school. (According to news reports, the boy was later released on bail.)

This too is inaccurate.

“Molest” is equated with the offence of outrage of modesty, and depending on the definition or the actual act of offence, it can be an arrestable offence.

The Singapore Legal Advice website explains:

“The use of the term “outrage of modesty” originates from section 354 of the Penal Code which criminalises the offence of the “assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty“. The use of criminal force is a key element.”

And further:

“As for what it means to actually outrage someone’s modesty, there appears to be no easy answer to this question. The Penal Code does not expressly define ‘modesty’. This may be partly because views about what constitutes an outrage to modesty may vary over time and according to the context in which the incident occurs, as well as the race or religion of the victim.”

And importantly, even if an offence is non-seizable, it does not mean the police cannot arrest the perpetrator:

“For non-arrestable offences, the police cannot make any arrests without a warrant.”

In other words, for non-arrestable offences, the police can arrest you provided they have a warrant to do so.

Now, those are two points about the specific case of the boy.

Let us now turn to the third point, which some have raised – that of allowing an accused access to lawyers or legal counsel.

The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) has, the last few years, been consistently calling for such access to be granted.

In his speech at the opening of the legal year in January, LawSoc president, senior counsel Thio Shen Yi, repeated the call.

SC Thio said such a right “is itself a manifestation of the rule of law.”

In Singapore, however, such a right is not one of immediate access upon arrest. Instead, it is to be given only “within a reasonable time”, as the Court of Appeal (CA) reinforced in May 2014. The CA said this was “settled law” and dismissed the application made by lawyers M Ravi and Eugene Thuraisingam for access to their client, James Raj.

“The practical application of “reasonable” is fraught with ambiguity, there is inherent elasticity in the idea,” SC Thio said in his speech.

While the police must be allowed to do their jobs effectively, this must be balanced against the rights of an accused, the senior counsel added.

“[An] accused may be detained for days, or even weeks, without access to a lawyer,” he said. “We need to re-evaluate whether this is fair or desirable. From the Bar’s perspective, the aspiration is access to counsel sooner, rather than later. It is a positive externality, its availability encourages public respect for our Criminal Justice System, and its absence, doubt in its fairness. In this, we are all stakeholders.”

You can read the transcripts of his speech here.

SC Thio, however, is not the only one making the call.

In a 2013 paper, titled “The Privilege against Self-incrimination and Right of Access to a Lawyer: A Comparative Assessment”, law professor Ho Hock Lai of the Law Faculty at the National University of Singapore, made the same points.

Prof Ho compared the practice in Singapore and elsewhere in the world, and highlighted the deficiencies in the former.

For example, he said that unlike in other countries where the police must inform the accused of his right to counsel at the point of arrest, such a thing is not required of police officers here.

“In Singapore, the right to a lawyer is constitutionally entrenched,” Prof Ho wrote. “But, as the constitutional provision has come to be interpreted, the accused need not be informed of this right and he has no right to exercise it immediately upon arrest.”

Prof Ho also said that the law in Singapore provides for the right against self-incrimination, where an accused can remain silent. However, if he does so, an adverse inference may be deduced against him in court or during his trial.

He explained:

“In determining what counts as a “reasonable” period, the protection of the accused, his need for legal advice and the importance of the right against self-incrimination are not ranked as highly as they should be and as they are under internationally respected standards.”

It is well worth reading Prof Ho’s paper. Click here.

Finally, SC Thio said “[the] need for Counsel is amplified given that an accused can be convicted on the evidence of their confession alone, even if they subsequently recant.”

“The trial should not start at the police station. We do not believe that early access to counsel will preclude an effective and fair investigation. They are not trade- offs.”

He added, “Investigating authorities must therefore audit their mind-sets periodically. To the extent that the reluctance to allow quicker access to Counsel is predicated on a worldview that lawyers are unethical or may hinder or obstruct an effective investigation; that assumption must change.”

So, while it is all very well that the police is now reviewing its procedure vis a vis police interviews of accused persons, it is the law itself which should be made explicitly clear – to grant immediate access to accused persons at the point of arrest and that such a right be made known to the accused.

The courts have no power to change laws, but only to interpret them. And the CA has upheld earlier court decisions that immediate access to lawyers is not a constitutional right.

This runs counter to international standards and practice, and is also fraught with inconsistencies (as pointed out by prof Ho and others), with rights – such as the one against self-incrimination – rendered useless by other provisions.

Parliament should change this, in light of what has happened not only to the 14-year old student, but also what had happened to 16-year old Amos Yee (who was held in remand for a total of 50 days, in both Changi Prison and at the Institute of Mental Health), James Raj and many others, in fact.

While a review of police procedures during an interview is welcome, it is however not enough.

The change must be substantive and in the law.

Singapore should catch up to international standards in granting such rights to its citizens.

It is time for Parliament to heed the call and to act on this.

*Post-script: Do note that the police’s review is only limited to an accused who is a “young person”, and only on whether “an appropriate adult” should be allowed to be present during an interview. There is no mention of access to lawyers or legal counsels. The right to access to counsel should, in fact, be extended to all.

[k-knight]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

You still trying to use the card which is age of the molest victim.

This statement shows you already know the dead boy was guilty.

So you are trying to say the dead boy deserve the treatment from SPF , MOE and Media and deserve to die because he alleged molested a 11 year girl.

So SPF, MOE and Media are now tools of justice. An eye for eye.

You are even better than the Singapore Judicial System.

Why even need Courts, Lawyers and Legal System then?

Yap agreed. Seems that Sg, schools already find the boy guilty even before the investigation process. (School already kick the boy out of their school camp upon this interrogation)

If the girl is a 15 or 16 yo teenager, i will still believe the boy might hv molested her. But the qn now falls into the stand that does a 11yo girl knows what is molesting? When I was young, I always thought that a simple touch is consider a molest. Especially if she is only 11yo, people in her sch will always jest saying touching is molesting. The boy might hv accidentally touched her and she thinks that is a molest. Even if she tells the story to her parents and they deem as molest and bring her to the police is not as accurate as well..

Bottomline is the whole system sucks, the police are given too much power. Some might argue that police in the 70s are corrupted and nowadays everything is transparent.
Please!!!!! Now police seems to be above the law, it is only transparent on the outside. It is rotting in the inside, put it simply, its SPF ( Singapore PAP Force)

[kuasimi]

[TOC NEWS] Open letter from Benjamin’s family to clarify what transpired on 26 January


http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...y-5296236.html

[kuasimi]

Will SPF make an episode of Crimewatch about 14 year old Benjamin?

http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...n-5296414.html

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/



The email for Benjamin's family has been terminated for no apparent reason. The father said that he was replying the emails halfway at about 7pm before he was informed that he was signed out from the account. He tried logging back into the account but was told that the email account no longer exist.

Therefore, the family is forced to create another email account to receive emails from friends and members of public. The new account is [email protected]

If you have sent them any email, please do resend the email. The family intends to print out and collect the letters to show the overwhelming support to Benjamin.


TOC has sent an enquiry to Yahoo for its statement on how an email account can be terminated in the said circumstances.

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

Will SPF make an episode of Crimewatch about 14 year old Benjamin?

http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...n-5296414.html

Haha.

If they do that, it'll be the biggest load of bs garbage propaganda since they make those movie n musical portraying old man as handsome garang well loved guy married to Sharon au. But we all know ....

They might as well get that piece of shit bootlicker jack neo as special director so they can smear Benjamin to the max n show io getting Benjamin hot milo n Benjamin breaking Down, crying n confessing n io hugging Benjamin n consoling him n promising to take care of him.