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

[sadfa]

These articles pointed out something very odd.

Shanmugam got a habit of running his mouth in many things. Why stop suddenly?

The more he n his buddies keep quiet, the more disturbing it is n reflects very poorly on them n their abilities.

[Summerhillt]

Hope Benjamin finds a better place.. One death on the books, hope it is not wasted. Legal procedures when arresting kids can be changed..

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by Summerhillt

Hope Benjamin finds a better place.. One death on the books, hope it is not wasted. Legal procedures when arresting kids can be changed..

Sure wasted one la

Theyre hoping sporeans will just forget.
Like how they forget everything n the cb press will do its best to downplay it.

If cannot forget, they'll say let's move on. And
NOTHING will change.
They'll continue to tekan kids n old folks in interrogation.

[ComplainKing]

When something goes wrong they will usually keep it quiet or play taiji . Where would someone dare to admit it is their fault ? Sad very sad .

[express175]

My question is why do the police assume he is guilty in the first place ? They could have done it discreetly by going to his house etc instead of embarassing and humiliating the 14yr old boy. Why is the law so unfair to guys ?...choosing to believe he is guilty even before investigations are over and treating him like a criminal ?

[SQ2600]

Originally Posted by express175

My question is why do the police assume he is guilty in the first place ? They could have done it discreetly by going to his house etc instead of embarassing and humiliating the 14yr old boy. Why is the law so unfair to guys ?...choosing to believe he is guilty even before investigations are over and treating him like a criminal ?

That's the way the legal system operates here in Singapore. Normally in most criminal cases the suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty except for Sexual Offences cases it is the other way whereby the accused is presumed to be guilty and the onus is on him to prove his innocence. Blame the damned Women's Charter which protects the accuser even if the accusation is false or malicious nature.

I know of many guys who were accused of molest by "victims" while clubbing in local joints. We all know these are false accusations as the "victims" were always willing to drop the case upon payment of a sum of money to settle the case. Better returns than doing FL in the clubs.

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by express175

My question is why do the police assume he is guilty in the first place ? They could have done it discreetly by going to his house etc instead of embarassing and humiliating the 14yr old boy. Why is the law so unfair to guys ?...choosing to believe he is guilty even before investigations are over and treating him like a criminal ?

Go n read my earlier posts la.

They deliberately go to school n not home cos its their plan to separate the parents, who will stir up shit when their boy is taken from them at home. And he will feel better n won't b so lost knowing his parents are waiting for him n supporting him.

And the law practised by these guys are fucked up. Everyone is treated as a scumbag criminal by this 'home team'.

[kuasimi]

13-year-old boy locked up in detention cell with other offenders for alleged molest

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...lleged-molest/

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


By onlinecitizen on February 13, 2016 Letters


The below is a letter sent to TOC for publication. The name of the parent is withheld for privacy of the minor.

After reading the letter from Benjamin Lim’s family on citizen online. I totally understand how they felt and would like to share my story to let Benjamin Lim’s parents know that I admire their strength and courage to speak up.

I’m really sorry that they had to lose a son, in order to have authorities listen to what they had to say.

On 26 February 2014, I had a similar incident happen to me.

At 2.23pm, I received a call on my mobile from my son’s school discipline master informing me that they will be calling the police. They informed me that it was due to an alleged outrage of modesty of a female teacher. I asked the discipline master if it could wait till I got to the school before they did that, and his reply was that they had no control of what the teacher wanted to do which was to call the police.

Later on, when I had a chance to speak to the principal and the discipline master, I asked for an explanation of this, I was told that as the principal of the school it was his job to protect his staff – the teacher. If the job of the school principal, is to protect his adult staff, who protects the 13-year-old child?

At 2.50pm I arrived at the school’s general office and requested to see my son, the Discipline Master came to bring me to a room where my son was. He was being questioned by a police officer and with another police officer taking the statement and three other police officers outside. Unlike Benjamin’s incident, these police officers were all in uniforms and the police cars were marked.

Upon entering the room, I saw my son with his head resting on his arm on the table crying. The amount of tissues next to him showed that he must have been crying quite a bit.

I was told that they were done taking my son’s statement and got him to sign for it in my absence.

If you were a 13-year-old and there were 5-6 police officers present, would you not be afraid and would have admitted to whatever the officers had suggested to you? (especially, when you had no one there to support you?) As an adult, I would be frightened and extremely intimidated let alone a 13-year-old. Why would one require this amount of police officers to pick up a 13-year-old boy from his school in two police cars?

To shorten the story, my son was brought to the police station in the police car handcuffed. ( I had to beg the Investigating officer not to handcuffed him in the school, only when they got into the police car.) After many requests, I was finally allowed to post bail for my son at about 10 pm!! All this while, he was sitting with other offenders in the same cell even though he was only 13 years of age.

These are the facts* that led to the above incident which I managed to find out from my son when we finally made it home.

1.My son was in the school canteen just after school hours at 1.50pm, rushing to buy lunch; he has a history of gastric and thus try to eat as soon as he has the opportunity before he starts to get gastric pains. As there was no queue, in front of the drinks stall, many students were jostling to get to the front to buy their drinks. There was some manoeuvring, slight pushing and shoving, as in any typical canteen scene after school at lunch time, particularly in an all-boys school.

2.As he was jostling his way forward, the said teacher, was walking past (on his right side and just within an arm’s length). At the point, his hand having swung outwards due to the jostling brushed her buttocks accidentally with the back of his hand, because he was holding his wallet in the hand. She turned around and asked him “Do you know what you have done?”

3.My son immediately apologised to the teacher explaining that it was accidental. However, the teacher said, “Even if you are sorry, it is an arrest-able offence, and sorry cannot make up for it.” She then informed him that she was going to report this to his Form Teacher, who subsequently arrived and escorted him to the Discipline Master’s office. Before long, the police arrived, questioned him and arrested my son.

4.When asked why he had confessed to the statement he made, he said it was the manner it was suggested to him, and he didn’t have a choice.

5.Subsequently, My son was given a warning letter for the offence he confessed to. This is after a few months of having to go to the police station to post bail.

Children have to be protected because they have no formal rights


1.Schools need to captain young lives and not put them in jeopardy

2.Schools should not protect staff above pupils, but to treat both fairly.

3.The child will clearly be traumatized socially, and there is bound to be a lot of rebound in terms of re-socializing him. (We had to have a 14-year-old boy’s death to prove this point)

4.There was no proper disciplinary evaluation of both teacher and student before the case was taken to the police?

5.The school did nothing to champion the situation and I think this is something that our education system is unaware of and has no idea how to handle given the climate today where we live in a world of cyber bullying etc.

6.I had written into Ministry of Education (MOE) to seek answers, only to have MOE ask me to give the principal of my son’s school a call. (My son had by that time moved to another school.) It is extremely frustrating to try to explain to a 13-year-old boy, that even though he had done something accidently, by mistake he was not given a chance to be proven innocent, no benefit of a doubt. He lost all his childhood friends in the process of his moving school.

I’m very thankful that with support and conversations with my son he has not taken it as hard as Benjamin Lim. Whether this incident has any long-term repercussions on his relationships in the future is yet to be seen.

Yours truthfully,
A concerned parent

*note – It would be proper to say that’s the account of the son on what transpired instead of being facts of the case.

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

[SIZE="4"][B]13-year-old boy locked up in detention cell with other offenders for alleged molest nlinecitizen/[/url]


By onlinecitizen on February 13, 2016 Letters


The below is a letter sent to TOC for publication. The name of the parent is withheld for privacy of the minor.

After reading the letter from Benjamin Lim’s family on citizen online. I totally understand how they felt and would like to share my story to let Benjamin Lim’s parents know that I admire their strength and courage to speak up.

I’m really sorry that they had to lose a son, in order to have authorities listen to what they had to say.

On 26 February 2014, I had a similar incident happen to me.

At 2.23pm, I received a call on my mobile from my son’s school discipline master informing me that they will be calling the police. They informed me that it was due to an alleged outrage of modesty of a female teacher. I asked the discipline master if it could wait till I got to the school before they did that, and his reply was that they had no control of what the teacher wanted to do which was to call the police.

Later on, when I had a chance to speak to the principal and the discipline master, I asked for an explanation of this, I was told that as the principal of the school it was his job to protect his staff – the teacher. If the job of the school principal, is to protect his adult staff, who protects the 13-year-old child?

At 2.50pm I arrived at the school’s general office and requested to see my son, the Discipline Master came to bring me to a room where my son was. He was being questioned by a police officer and with another police officer taking the statement and three other police officers outside. Unlike Benjamin’s incident, these police officers were all in uniforms and the police cars were marked.

Upon entering the room, I saw my son with his head resting on his arm on the table crying. The amount of tissues next to him showed that he must have been crying quite a bit.

I was told that they were done taking my son’s statement and got him to sign for it in my absence.

If you were a 13-year-old and there were 5-6 police officers present, would you not be afraid and would have admitted to whatever the officers had suggested to you? (especially, when you had no one there to support you?) As an adult, I would be frightened and extremely intimidated let alone a 13-year-old. Why would one require this amount of police officers to pick up a 13-year-old boy from his school in two police cars?

To shorten the story, my son was brought to the police station in the police car handcuffed. ( I had to beg the Investigating officer not to handcuffed him in the school, only when they got into the police car.) After many requests, I was finally allowed to post bail for my son at about 10 pm!! All this while, he was sitting with other offenders in the same cell even though he was only 13 years of age.

These are the facts* that led to the above incident which I managed to find out from my son when we finally made it home.

1.My son was in the school canteen just after school hours at 1.50pm, rushing to buy lunch; he has a history of gastric and thus try to eat as soon as he has the opportunity before he starts to get gastric pains. As there was no queue, in front of the drinks stall, many students were jostling to get to the front to buy their drinks. There was some manoeuvring, slight pushing and shoving, as in any typical canteen scene after school at lunch time, particularly in an all-boys school.

2.As he was jostling his way forward, the said teacher, was walking past (on his right side and just within an arm’s length). At the point, his hand having swung outwards due to the jostling brushed her buttocks accidentally with the back of his hand, because he was holding his wallet in the hand. She turned around and asked him “Do you know what you have done?”

3.My son immediately apologised to the teacher explaining that it was accidental. However, the teacher said, “Even if you are sorry, it is an arrest-able offence, and sorry cannot make up for it.” She then informed him that she was going to report this to his Form Teacher, who subsequently arrived and escorted him to the Discipline Master’s office. Before long, the police arrived, questioned him and arrested my son.

4.When asked why he had confessed to the statement he made, he said it was the manner it was suggested to him, and he didn’t have a choice.

5.Subsequently, My son was given a warning letter for the offence he confessed to. This is after a few months of having to go to the police station to post bail.

Children have to be protected because they have no formal rights
1.Schools need to captain young lives and not put them in jeopardy

2.Schools should not protect staff above pupils, but to treat both fairly.

3.The child will clearly be traumatized socially, and there is bound to be a lot of rebound in terms of re-socializing him. (We had to have a 14-year-old boy’s death to prove this point)

4.There was no proper disciplinary evaluation of both teacher and student before the case was taken to the police?

5.The school did nothing to champion the situation and I think this is something that our education system is unaware of and has no idea how to handle given the climate today where we live in a world of cyber bullying etc.

6.I had written into Ministry of Education (MOE) to seek answers, only to have MOE ask me to give the principal of my son’s school a call. (My son had by that time moved to another school.) It is extremely frustrating to try to explain to a 13-year-old boy, that even though he had done something accidently, by mistake he was not given a chance to be proven innocent, no benefit of a doubt. He lost all his childhood friends in the process of his moving school.

I’m very thankful that with support and conversations with my son he has not taken it as hard as Benjamin Lim. Whether this incident has any long-term repercussions on his relationships in the future is yet to be seen.

Yours truthfully,
A concerned parent

*note – It would be proper to say that’s the account of the son on what transpired instead of being facts of the case.

Knn what you doing back here?
You stir up so much shit, you're going to b banned Haha

[curry_mutu_man]

Originally Posted by express175

My question is why do the police assume he is guilty in the first place ? They could have done it discreetly by going to his house etc instead of embarassing and humiliating the 14yr old boy. Why is the law so unfair to guys ?...choosing to believe he is guilty even before investigations are over and treating him like a criminal ?

and also my question to you is why do you want to create clone(S) to brain wash Singaporean to vote against our hardworking govt ???


our strong Sing currency will drop and our beautiful well organized country will be in chaos if our hardworking honest govt is toppled by unscrupulous unethical irresponsible and dishonest opposition parties and the foreign media like you guys always making false accusation(S) against our honest govt !!!


the most horrendous thing is poison internet pests like you all lurking at all forum(S) and PRIVATE social media 24/7 365 days telling lie and poisoning the mind of Singaporean(S) to vote against our honest govt !!!

my dear fellow Singaporeans, the foreign media and the dishonest opposition parties are out to destroy our stable country, please beware !!!

[curry_mutu_man]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

13-year-old boy locked up in detention cell with other offenders for alleged molest

By onlinecitizen on February 13, 2016 Letters

The below is a letter sent to TOC for publication. The name of the parent is withheld for privacy of the minor.

and also my question to you is why do you want to create clone(S) to brain wash Singaporean to vote against our hardworking govt ???


our strong Sing currency will drop and our beautiful well organized country will be in chaos if our hardworking honest govt is toppled by unscrupulous unethical irresponsible and dishonest opposition parties and the foreign media like you guys always making false accusation(S) against our honest govt !!!


the most horrendous thing is poison internet pests like you all lurking at all forum(S) and PRIVATE social media 24/7 365 days telling lie and poisoning the mind of Singaporean(S) to vote against our honest govt !!!

my dear fellow Singaporeans, the foreign media and the dishonest opposition parties are out to destroy our stable country, please beware !!!

[curry_mutu_man]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

13-year-old boy locked up in detention cell with other offenders for alleged molest

eh clone king, you not tired of writing and posting I also tired of reading


are you a fugitive ???


if not then what is your ulterior motive ???

[kuasimi]

Dr Ang Yong Guan on Benjamin Lim’s death: In a genuinely democratic society his death would be be hotly debated


By The Independent - February 18, 2016

https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


http://theindependent.sg/dr-ang-yong...hotly-debated/




By: Dr Ang Yong Guan

Reflection on 14 year old Benjamin Lim who committed suicide on 26 January 2016 after he was arrested by 5 plainclothes policemen and interrogated for 3 hours: Policemen, like soldiers, take orders from their ground officers.

These ground leaders must have the right values like empathy and compassion whilst exercising authority at the same time. Exercising authority in an appropriate dose (not 100-0, or 99-1, etc, but say 51-49). How to do it?

Just visualise this: if Benjamin Lim were my son or brother or close friend, would I want 5 plainclothes policemen to go to his school? Would I interrogate him for 3 hours and regard this outraging of modesty of a 11 year old girl equal to that of a rape, a robbery or a murder?

Would I adopt a 100-0, top down approach or will I apply a 51-49 relationship where I am still in control (51) and exert authority with Benjamin (at 49 position) cooperating with me comfortably.

Have we been habitually taking cues from the top echelon in society (who are so used to adopt a 100-0, or 90-10 or even 80-20 approach) that we have forgotten about a more appropriate, humane, compassionate 51-49 approach?

Let us strive towards a more graceful society where relationship is more 51-49 or 50-50 (in the case of some equal relationship) than 100-0 or 99-1?

Finally, in another perhaps more genuinely democratic society, this topic will be hotly debated publicly over television, radio and newspaper so that lessons can quickly be learnt to prevent another such incident from happening.

—
Republished from Dr Ang Yong Guan’s Facebook page ‘Simplifying Psychiatry‘.


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...080 070103373

[kuasimi]

Death of 14-year-old after police interrogation prompts Law Society to study investigation protocols for young suspects

By The Independent - February 16, 2016

https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


http://theindependent.sg/death-of-14...oung-suspects/





The case of the 14-year-old boy who committed suicide after police interrogation has prompted the Law Society of Singapore to set-up a special committee to look at investigation protocols for young suspects.

Mr Wendell Wong, Director of Dispute Resolution of the law firm Drew & Napier and co-chairman of Law Society’s criminal law practice committee, chairs the special committee. The special committee will engage the Ministry of Home Affairs and Attorney- General’s Chambers.

“The recent tragic case of 14-year-old Benjamin has highlighted the issue of investigation protocols, especially in the case of young offenders or suspects,” Mr Wong said.

Others in the 10-men committee include lawyers Amolat Singh, Suresh Damodara, Satwant Singh, Peter Ong and associate law professor Chan Wing Cheong.

The Appropriate Adult scheme should be extended to minors under 16 years of age said Mr Peter Ong.

The Committee which has not met yet, has to wait for the Coroner’s Inquiry to establish the facts of the case. But “there is a lot of public interest and a lot of disquiet in this case,” said Mr Amolat Singh.

[kuasimi]

Hedging in Wonderland: The politics of persuading the PAP


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...ading-the-pap/


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


BY CARLTON TAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2016 COMMENTARIES


Thio Shen Yi’s write-up in the law gazette contains so much hedging, I almost thought I was Carlton in Wonderland for a moment. Still, he’s not wrong. For a small country our government is one slow (to put it nicely) creature.

Overplay your hand and you get ignored. Play nice and maybe you’ll get something done. Play too nice and you get something useless done. (And in rare cases, be too much of a nuisance and you end up like Francis Seow.)

In TOC’s report, I left out the bits where he hedges his position (or in other words, makes exceptions and clarifications to nuance his position) because, let’s be honest, who really cares for that? Nonetheless, it’s quite telling.

He avoids saying the right to immediate counsel is a constitutional right which is certainly wise because that argument would never fly; our Supreme Court judges are a bit like Antonin Scalia–adverse to judicial activism. In any case, Singapore doesn’t have the same kind of hallowed tradition of revering the constitution that America does. Ours was hastily pieced together with all the bits Lee Kuan Yew liked in 1965. And with a gazillion amendments between then and now, ours is one of the most tortured constitutions ever. So no, the constitutional route is not the way to go.

He also avoids getting dragged into a debate over the successes and failures of the criminal justice systems in the four countries he raises. This may be because it’s hard to prove this case either way, or because evidence of the abundance or absence of wrongful convictions in Singapore is just sorely lacking. Really, how do you tell if someone is wrongfully convicted unless the conviction is overturned? And if convictions are never overturned because, well, even coerced statements are admissible, what then? So no, relying entirely on comparisons with other countries is not the card to play either.

And of course, there’s the part where he settles for early instead of immediate access to counsel. I guess you take what you can get. So instead of 48 hours alone with the police, maybe the suspect only has to spend a few. Better make sure the police inform him of his right to counsel though.

Finally, there’s that oblique call to action at the end which appears to be directed to the Bar but which, I think, is really a message to the government. It’s quite clever actually. The true scholar-gentleman is always politically correct and adept at the art of face-saving.

The entire piece is a condemnation of the current criminal justice system, yet at the end, he says we need to restore trust in the system, and he says it isn’t perfect but it’s largely fair and transparent and generates just outcomes.

Yup, who have I heard this from before? Sounds like the PAP, no? It’s always about the system. Always about generating something (Singapore’s a machine, didn’t you know?). And always about fairness (hooray for meritocracy).

That’s precisely why it has to be an oblique reference. One that reminds them of what they believe in and sets them straight without putting them on the defensive.

But maybe all that is just nonsensical speculation. Whatever the case, Thio Shen Yi is certainly right about one thing. It’s time to fast forward the discussion and reboot our thinking. We’ve been stuck rehashing the same old arguments about the need to allow the police to investigate without being hampered by lawyers. As Mr Thio pointed out, and as countless other papers have, that argument is (to put it nicely) unsound.

Not everything that smells of liberalism is bad. Forget about the scenes in American TV legal dramas where some judge yells something about fruits from a poisonous tree and throws out all the evidence because someone wasn’t read his rights. That’s not Thio’s proposal here. His is for us to consider how other countries have done it and ask if we can strike a better balance. I think we can. Benjamin probably would too. Alas, he no longer has a say. Or does he?