The case of the philandering professor
So Tey Tsun Hang’s case has been postponed to mid-December because the courts agreed that he needed time to prepare. Good for Tey. Seems to me he does need the stuff he asked for, like the transcripts of the students he was said to have “upgraded’’. And those medical reports on the day of his CPIB interrogation. Seems that the former district judge didn’t realise he had to apply to the district judge for the kind of information he wanted. Guess he will get it right this time. This case is too juicy for words. Who are the four other ex-students (including a man) besides the one in the case cited? And what about those allegations that he confessed under duress, in his hospital garb, while on psychoactive drugs and in a “mentally altered state’’? Doesn’t look good for the CPIB’s interrogation techniques. I mean, I know an interrogation isn’t supposed to be comfortable…but….?
The case of the woman in love
In love – or not? That’s what Cecilia Sue seemed to have told investigators of the CNB director’s case. But she also contradicted herself as well when she said Ng Boon Gay had helped her secure a contract. The whole case is puzzling with the prosecutor acknowledging that Ng didn’t interfere in the procurement process. So it seems a case of sexual harassment? That he forced her into having sex or she was “compelled’’to do so because she was afraid of pissing off this very important man? And she was compelled to do so only four times despite a relationship that stretched back to 2009? I tend to agree with defence lawyer Tan Chee Meng description of the prosecution taking a blunderbuss approach. How is Ng supposed to prove his innocence like this? Divorce his wife and marry the woman?
The case of the two other women
So the prosecution is proceeding with one charge and one woman first against the SCDF chief. I read ST and had to be wondering why the other two women who have been publicly named weren’t getting hauled up too. ST reported that the charges against them had been “stood down’’ – not withdrawn. I wish journalists would realised not all readers would understand what this phrase means and why this happened. Today reported that it was probably because they wanted to get the clearest cut charge out of the way first so things won’t get complicated. Then the other women would be grilled too. Phew! For a moment there, I thought everyone has done those women a big injustice – I mean they’ve been named and all that….
The case of the “biased’’ doctors
This was in The Sunday Times. It’s about how the courts ticked off the Singapore Medical Council for “picking on’’ (my words) one aesthetic doctor even though guidelines on aesthetic medicine hadn’t even been issued. What about the rest of the doctors who practise beauty medicine then? The interesting thing is that the charges against the doctor was brought to the SMC’s attention by the Ministry of Health. Sort of begs the question why MOH accused her, and only her, of practising non-evidence based medicine in November 2007, before those guidelines were introduced the following year. And the SMC sat in judgement only LAST YEAR. By the way, wasn’t the SMC supposed to have changed its disciplinary processes in the meantime? By getting a lawyer on board the panel or something? Didn’t work?