Sex-for-grades trial: A Pen For My Friend

I 'liked' NUS law professor 'as a friend' at that time: Ex-student
Updated 03:01 PM Jan 10, 2013
SINGAPORE - The National University of Singapore law student at the centre of the sex-for-grades corruption trial was the first witness who took to the stand this morning. Ms Darrine Ko told the court that she knew law don, Associate Professor Tey Tsun Hang, well.

This was the reason why she bought a Mont Blanc pen worth S$740 and gave it to Associate Professor Tey. She said that it was a "belated birthday present" and she "liked" Mr Tey "as a friend" during that time.

Associate Professor Tey, a former District Judge, has been charged with six counts of obtaining gratification from his student between May 2010 and June 2010. As his trial began this morning, Associate Professor Tey, 41, sought to conduct his own defence. But Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye rejected this.
 
Instead, the judge ordered defence counsel Peter Low to assist Associate Professor Tey in the trial, but not conduct the cross-examinations. The Prosecution has lined up 14 witnesses for its case. The trial continues later today. AMANDA LEE

Background Behind the NUS Law Sex-for-grade Scandal

Prof Tey Tsun Hang, a National University of Singapore (NUS) professor, faces six corruption charges for allegedly showing favour to his former student, Darinne Ko Wen Hui, between May and July 2010.
 
Prof Tey is the favourite of the current NUS Law School Dean, Prof Simon Chesterman, who also happens to be the son-in-law of Singapore's President Tony Tan. He is also a close associate of various judges and men in the corridors of power that rule. These connections allowed Tey – a Singapore PR and Malaysian –to be appointed as a district judge and state counsel in Singapore.  

Darinne Ko – a ‘pious’ and an extremely ‘devoted’ Christian – initiated contact with Prof Tey and seduced him in exchange for superior grades. In addition to sexual favours, Tey allegedly received from Darinne a Mont Blanc pen worth S$740, two tailor-made shirts valued at S$236.20, an iPod Touch worth S$160 and payment of a bill amounting to S$1,278.60

Alas, Prof Tey didn’t stop at one.

In his first affidavit, it was revealed that Prof Tey had corruptly obtaining sex from three female and two male former students in his Law Faculty office as corrupt gratification from them. The two male students are Xiao Fuhong (萧富宏) and Zhang Weiyang (张伟扬) and the female students are Zhou Yiling (周意玲) and Lin Meiyi (林美仪). 

Despite all these revelations, Prof Tey continued to work and teach on-campus after his first arrest:

Upping the Ante

Fearing he was losing public support, Prof Tey began an online astroturfing campaign in local forum Sammyboy.com to try and rescue his image.
 
Prof Tey also sought the assistance of popular opposition MP Silvia Lim to partner incumbent lawyer Peter Low (you may know him as the Lawyer representing the SMRT Strikers). The decision was purportedly made as Tey was worried about Peter Low’s track record of losing high profile media cases.

Mysteriously, Sylvia Lim has dropped out of the case, and Tey has discharged the services of Peter Low in order to represent himself. The reasons for these numerous changes are unknown at his point. But the SHS is watching this case closely and will update whenever possible.

Latest Update

Yahoo has reported that Darinne Ko lost her virginity to Prof Tey and the report has listed down the cost of the items which Prof Tey had obtained from Darinne Ko.
 
------------------------------------------------
Note from SHS editor: The SHS is seeking photos or steamy court room details. If you have any updates on this case, you can email me directly at sghallofshame@gmail.com. SHS ensures confidentially of all information received.
------------------------------------------------

What were our Members of Parliament thinking?

Some weeks ago, while I was looking up MP Chen Show-Mao’s email on the Parliament of Singapore website (I wanted to ask him about the SMU Handa Centre which he had not replied my email till today) and I noticed that some MPs were using Gmail, Yahoo or Hotmail accounts as their corresponding email.

I was telling myself that this cannot be right. We all know that when we sign on to such services, we are giving up some of our privacy, and allowing these companies to track our activities, location and even allowing them to read our emails. While others are suing Google forbreach of such privacy, our Members of Parliament are using it as if it is a secure service provided by our government. Google was even charged by US FederalTrade Commission for illicit monitoring of Apple owners. I wonder what were these MPs thinking when they signed up for foreign controlled emails accounts, and using it to correspond with each other on national issues, concerns of their residents, and possibly national policies that are in the pipeline. This had been happening probably for years and I wonder if the Ministry in-charge of cyber security had even raised such concerns to them. Or does no one dare to advise MPs?

In any case, such email services are not that secure as it seems. In 2009, an article in globalpolitican touched on the security lapses of Gmail.

It would be common sense that each MP should be given a secure email account where its servers are located within the country. The current practice is akin to a company allowing the contract cleaners access to all levels and rooms within its building, while applying restriction on the access to its own employees. It just does not make any sense trusting outsiders more than someone you are employing. Anyone with common sense would know that it is much easier to investigate into a security breach only if evidences are within your reach. So if there is a security breach on one of the MPs’ email, how can the authorities investigate? Write to Google, Microsoft or Yahoo, asking for information? The same people who were probably also checking your emails for you even before you had read it?

For those interested, these are the list of MPs who are using foreign controlled email accounts.

 

Is SPF barking on the wrong tree?

I am impressed by Singapore Police Force's (SPF) efficiency in apprehending a 13-years old Indian boy who posted a bomb-threat against Marina Bay IR. Although every sensible adult would doubt that the boy has the ablilty or means to carry out the act, an investigation is necessary since a police report had been made. The poor boy could be fined up to $100,000 and/or jailed up to five years if convicted.

On the other hand, there is a Singaporean Muslim, Mohd Alias Abdullah, who had been posting and asking how to make home-made bombs since 2011 but nothing had happened to him. Until today, he is still posting in the comfort of his home.

I'm sure an adult would definitely has more ability and knowledge to construct a bomb than a 13-year old. A bomb going off in Marina Bay IR or anywhere else in tiny Singapore would create the same level of chaos. So why is there no action against him?

If one were to look at his other postings, this guy is a trouble-maker and has no qualms in making his issue public. Maybe that is why the police had to ponder for so long how to act against him for fear of repercussion. Just a few hours before I posted this article, this guy actually offered to sell a pair of handcuff online which is clearly an offence in Singapore.

 

Today is also the 1st day of school and I wonder if the teachers in Si Ling Primary is having a hard time dealing with him. This Mohd Alias apparently went ahead in designing his own school uniform for his daughter and wants MOE to approve it!

So if SPF needs his particulars, I do not think it would be hard to find. Just check this police report made by him and you can go knocking on his door (There were postings that he was selling his flat sometime ago so he may not be staying in Yishun anymore).

 If that is not enough, this is his facebook page.

(Editor's note: Mohd Alias, if you are reading this, which I'm sure you eventually will. Stop being a nuisance and complaining about everything and linking it to religion. You had registered your daughter into a secular school knowingly of its school rules and attire, then you turn around and say it is anti-islam? Muslims have Madrasah which you did not bother or try hard enough to ensure her entry so stop trying to blame others for your lack of effort. At least Muslim have Madrasah whereas I do not think Sikh have the same entitlement.)