[ValkyrieLenneth]

Foreigners are welcome to molest Singaporeans

Once upon a time, then Chief Justice Yong Pung How - in an appeal that he presided - officially ruled that the starting sentence for all molest cases with no aggravating factors, shall be 9 months jail and 3 strokes of the cane

Chief Justice Yong further elaborated that by "no aggravating factors", he meant the simple touching of non extra-private areas such as thigh, shoulder, back etc.

He made it clear that breasts and genitals are extra-private parts and thus the molest of these areas are to be regarded as aggravating factors which warrants a sentence of GREATER than 9 months jail and GREATER than 3 strokes of the cane.

Moreover, when restraint and struggles are involved, these are aggravating factors automatically, even if breasts are not involved, and thus again warrants a sentence of GREATER than 9 months jail and GREATER than 3 strokes of the cane.

Chief Justice Yong stated clearly that unless there are some mitigating factors, no sentence should be lowered than this guideline. He also made it explicit that being educationally subnormal is not even a mitigating factor!

A ruling by the Chief Justice is binding on lower courts.

So, since his ruling, literally hundreds of Singaporean men have been jailed for 9 months and caned 3 times, for the touching of one woman's thigh, with no restraining of the victim. Even mentally-challenged low IQ educationally-subnormal youth are not spared from the caning! Some even have to appeal to the President to override the ruling of the judges!

But that's for Singaporeans. For foreigners, another different rule applies and they know about it too.


Cambodian youth gets 3 mths
By Khushwant Singh June 18, 2009
CAMBODIAN CHHUON Ratana was sent here by his father to study management in 2006 but he ended up outraging the modesty of two women last May. The 20-year-old was jailed for three months on Thursday. District Judge Jill Tan...

He had pleaded guilty last month to squeezing the breasts of two women at the Arena club in Clarke Quay at 3.30am on May 11 last year. On his way to the toilet, he approached his first victim and asked for her name while holding her shoulders. When she struggled, he grabbed her breasts. The victim sought help from her friends at the club who confronted Ratana.

He initially denied it before saying: 'I did it. So what?'. He then slipped his hand under the brassiere of a second woman and squeezed her breast.

The club bouncers soon appeared but Ratana was not cowed, telling them: 'So what? I am a foreigner.'

So what? So nothing lah! Foreigners are several class above Singaporeans! Contrast what I highlighted in bold red - the difference between Foriegners and Singaporeans.

That's what happened when you vote for the Foreigners' Action Party! (See the 2 min 26 seconds mark of this video)

And oh, by the way, in other old news:

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A Singapore man with a penchant for sniffing women's armpits was sentenced to 14 years in jail and 18 strokes of the cane for molesting his victims, a local newspaper reported Friday.

And still, 66.6% vote for FAP!

You people deserved to be ****ed and molested by foreigners, both figuratively and now literally!

Update: A search on google shows that my view is shared by numerous netizens, some of whom have taken the trouble to dig out relevant past cases! In fact, a new video has even appeared with concrete comparison case by case:

source:
http://young-pap.blogspot.com/2009/0...to-molest.html

[cute wormz]

tats really a angry news..who says foreigners can just come and molest ppl here??

[Sith]

Guys stop voting for FAP. You know it, I know it.

[christmas_]

about that Combodian kid case, he should get caned and longer jail terms

i dont see why foreigners can get a very light punishment while SG citizens have to get a very heavy punishment

[Sith]

They want more foreign talents to come in, by giving a less harsh sentence on foreigners, potential immigrants would not be afraid at the prospect of coming to Singapore to work/live in. Sounds unfair? You bet it is.

[maverick1]

hmm.... i'm not taking the side of PAP or the judge here, but i'm pretty sure that we do not have all the facts of the case. it doesn't seem very wise to impose such an obvious bias in punishment just cause the person is a foreigner. The judge will be easily found out and exposed. At least if i was the judge, i wld use some excuse to impose a lighter sentence......

thus, i believe that not all facts have been presented to us.

[TerZeis]

Originally Posted by maverick

hmm.... i'm not taking the side of PAP or the judge here, but i'm pretty sure that we do not have all the facts of the case. it doesn't seem very wise to impose such an obvious bias in punishment just cause the person is a foreigner. The judge will be easily found out and exposed. At least if i was the judge, i wld use some excuse to impose a lighter sentence......

thus, i believe that not all facts have been presented to us.

even if that is so. it can happen to the local cases as well. they will omit some 'evidence'

there's 1 section that quite some ppl miss out.
*below is just my opinions*
the lawyer actually appealled that because that his father and the other 2 sons are 'spending' money in singapore, and any harsh action from the singapore government will land them in an rather 'unfavorable' position, hence the 3 months.. they even offered to 'punish' him by serving a long stinct in a monastery.

money and power will still rule, and laws are still just 'laws' after all.

*note: i have check the article of Straits Times. dated june 19, "Judge rejects 'monk stint' in lieu of jail"

[kohht]

Wth, come in Singapore and molest =_=

[Jodar]

Originally Posted by maverick

hmm.... i'm not taking the side of PAP or the judge here, but i'm pretty sure that we do not have all the facts of the case. it doesn't seem very wise to impose such an obvious bias in punishment just cause the person is a foreigner. The judge will be easily found out and exposed. At least if i was the judge, i wld use some excuse to impose a lighter sentence......

thus, i believe that not all facts have been presented to us.

Maverick,

If what you are saying is true, then it's reasonable to assume that the judges will try to defend their judgments. Have they done so? I assume that judges are smart and they should realise that misjudgments and biasness in courts will result in public scrutiny. If they are going to give foreign offenders light punishments without having concrete, solid and strong reasons behind it, I'd say that they're foolish.

So I'm safe to assume that he has no strong basis behind his sentencing other than him being biased and not harsh enough. If there is a strong reason behind it, will people still criticise him since he have already justified his actions and defended himself?

I believe that judges should be fair and everyone is equal in court, just like how they sentenced that Australian drug trafficker to death even though the drugs aren't even meant for Singapore. Everyone - commoner, a foreigner, an influential businessman, an elite (ministers, senior civil servants) - is equal and the judges should be impartial. However, I seem to sense that they are beginning to shield the powerful figures especially after the kidney transplant 'scandal'. I may be wrong though.

Oh, take my words with a pinch of salt. It may not be accurate and it certainly isn't targeted towards anybody nor is it meant to degrade the judiciary and/or the ruling party.

[masterboix]

i think they get used to live in their country where by they can squeeze whenever they like.

[vios21]

I once chanced upon a forum on politics where it raises healthy debate/discussion on current affairs in focus.

Maybe this topic will stir justice / re-visitation into this.

[maverick1]

Originally Posted by Jodar

Maverick,

If what you are saying is true, then it's reasonable to assume that the judges will try to defend their judgments. Have they done so? I assume that judges are smart and they should realise that misjudgments and biasness in courts will result in public scrutiny. If they are going to give foreign offenders light punishments without having concrete, solid and strong reasons behind it, I'd say that they're foolish.

So I'm safe to assume that he has no strong basis behind his sentencing other than him being biased and not harsh enough. If there is a strong reason behind it, will people still criticise him since he have already justified his actions and defended himself?

I believe that judges should be fair and everyone is equal in court, just like how they sentenced that Australian drug trafficker to death even though the drugs aren't even meant for Singapore. Everyone - commoner, a foreigner, an influential businessman, an elite (ministers, senior civil servants) - is equal and the judges should be impartial. However, I seem to sense that they are beginning to shield the powerful figures especially after the kidney transplant 'scandal'. I may be wrong though.

Oh, take my words with a pinch of salt. It may not be accurate and it certainly isn't targeted towards anybody nor is it meant to degrade the judiciary and/or the ruling party.

or the judiciary may just not be bothered to defend their sentences?

just playing devil's advocate, i don't agree that just cause they don't defend their decision, necessarily implies that they are biased. the outrage might simply be too insignificant for them to care.

honestly, i don't know but i suppose it is only right for us to demand an explanation for the light sentence given to this person compared to the others. Only then, can we perhaps make a more informed decision on whether it was right or wrong.

[Jodar]

Originally Posted by maverick

or the judiciary may just not be bothered to defend their sentences?

just playing devil's advocate, i don't agree that just cause they don't defend their decision, necessarily implies that they are biased. the outrage might simply be too insignificant for them to care.

honestly, i don't know but i suppose it is only right for us to demand an explanation for the light sentence given to this person compared to the others. Only then, can we perhaps make a more informed decision on whether it was right or wrong.

A judge's responsibility does not only lie in giving a fair judgement - he has to uphold the integrity and the image of the judiciary. I'm sure he is aware of that. Every public scrutiny they receive is likely to cause damage to their reputation. How can they uphold justice and gain the trust of people if their reputation is damaged?

I'm sure that judge is aware of this. If he does not protect his judgement, or do not feel the need to so, or simply cannot defend it since he has no strong reason behind that judgement of his, then I'd say he's a failed judge. I'll be waiting for his reasons.

[haruX]

mai siao siao, scally his parents got not simple background one

[TerZeis]

Originally Posted by Jodar

A judge's responsibility does not only lie in giving a fair judgement - he has to uphold the integrity and the image of the judiciary. I'm sure he is aware of that. Every public scrutiny they receive is likely to cause damage to their reputation. How can they uphold justice and gain the trust of people if their reputation is damaged?

I'm sure that judge is aware of this. If he does not protect his judgement, or do not feel the need to so, or simply cannot defend it since he has no strong reason behind that judgement of his, then I'd say he's a failed judge. I'll be waiting for his reasons.

such matters will be swept under the carpet. just like how United States judges do the job.

[Jodar]

Originally Posted by TerZeis

such matters will be swept under the carpet. just like how United States judges do the job.

That's why they failed. We once pride ourselves with good judges who care not about a person's background but about what the person had done. Are we going to become like them or is this entire issue a misunderstanding? Well, it's difficult to tell until they explain themselves. And if they do not, I think we can all infer that...

[stinky_shawn]

Originally Posted by Jodar

That's why they failed. We once pride ourselves with good judges who care not about a person's background but about what the person had done. Are we going to become like them or is this entire issue a misunderstanding? Well, it's difficult to tell until they explain themselves. And if they do not, I think we can all infer that...

???...i dnt get this at all...the law system here seems to protect the rich....the famous...n nw the FTs....take the numerous cases involving the rich or famous...same case involving a commoner...i doubt the outcome wil be the same....most of the time the rich or famous will get a lighter sentence....wana state a few cases that happened .....but all is said n done...no point...

[~Katz~]

With money you can get a good lawyer and with a good lawyer which can persuaded well, the judge may because of that get pursuaded to give a lighter sentence.

[Jodar]

Originally Posted by ~Katz~

With money you can get a good lawyer and with a good lawyer which can persuaded well, the judge may because of that get pursuaded to give a lighter sentence.

And I thought judges are there to make the best and the rightest judgments. -_-

[iRolly]

-.-" with $$$ there is alot of things you can do