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

[99099]

I felt that as Mr and Mrs Lim have lots to blame. As parents they had failed.

[kuasimi]

Benjamin Lim suicide: of video and subjudice
Published 3 March 2016 law, crime, court cases , politics and government


https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...and-subjudice/



In his statement to Parliament on the 26 January 2016 death by apparent suicide of Benjamin Lim, law minister K Shanmugam referred extensively to video evidence when he presented what he called the facts. He said that closed-circuit television (CCTV) had captured the teenager making a detour to another block in the neighbourhood when coming home from school, and following a girl into a lift. Then he mentioned that CCTV within the lift provided evidence “showing what happened” without elaborating what exactly it showed.

Indeed, it is now commonplace to see video cameras in many places in Singapore.

But the police themselves, which Shanmugam was so eager to defend, have resisted video-taping their interrogations. One would have thought that the high-stakes nature of a police interrogation would be precisely the kind of situation where priority should be placed on investing in such equipment. People can be jailed or even executed (perhaps wrongly) based on whatever transpires there.

Several times over the years, there have been calls to videotape police interviews. In the wake of Benjamin Lim’s death, these have been repeated. Having such a record and making them public would have resolved two of the many controversies about this case:

whether the boy was intimidated by the interrogating officer;
whether he was offered food and drink through the three-and-a-half hours he was at the police station.
Shanmugam simply wants us to take him at his word.

We should never take politicians at their word, least of all those who believe that ordinary citizens should be watched wherever they go, but they and and their police officers should never have to suffer similar scrutiny.





Sub judice


I don’t know how exactly this meme began because Shanmugam was not reported by the mainstream news stories to have used this term. Probably it was lawyer M Ravi who first raised this in a social media post. Ravi was commenting on how Shanmugam appeared to be telling commentators to shut up over the Benjamin Lim case, with the implied threat of a sub judice charge. Ravi might have been reading the subtext of Shanmugam’s words — not totally off-the-mark, in my view — rather than quoting the minister.

On my Facebook wall, others have pointed out that the case is not before the courts. They have a point. There may be a coroner’s inquiry, but from what I see surfing the web, sub judice usually kicks in only when someone has been charged and a hearing date set. In this case, no one has been charged.

More important than arguing this technicality, we need to examine the very concept and appropriateness of sub judice law.

Firstly, I think this law only exists in common law jurisdictions such as England, Ireland, Australia, Singapore, India — countries that have inherited the English legal system, while European (civil law) countries have no equivalent law. And there was a reason for it. The English legal system was characterised by jury trials, where ordinary people were selected to decide on the guilt or innocence of accused persons. Jurors are not trained lawyers; they may be more easily confused by reportage and commentary outside the courtroom.

Singapore no longer has jury trials. In other words, the circumstances that justify a sub judice law are no longer extant.

We cannot on one hand boast (as this government is wont to do) that Singapore has high calibre judges, thus high standards in the administration of justice, while on the other hand imply, through the continued reliance on a sub judice law, that judges are feeble of mind and easily susceptible to being influenced by opinionated commentary. The judges either know what they are doing or not.

I found an interesting mention in a 2007 blog by McGarr Solicitors relating to the distinction between jury and non-jury trials:

In 1994 the [Irish] Law Reform Commission suggested; “€œThe Commission, with the exception of the President, is satisfied that it would be unduly restrictive to extend the operation of the sub judice rule to appellate proceedings, which are invariably decided by non-jury courts.”€

Unduly restrictive, because the rule contradicts the human right to freedom of expression. We must require strong justification before that human right is circumscribed, and I would argue that since we have abolished jury trials, that justification is no more.

But of course this won’t be the first time our government uses a law that has outlived its original intent to silence opponents and shield themselves from criticism.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by 99099

I felt that as Mr and Mrs Lim have lots to blame. As parents they had failed.

There are two schools of thought in Benjamin's case.

One is Government and PAP supporters stance which was Benjamin himself and his family are to be blame for his own suicide. Suicide itself is legally a crime in Singapore.

The other thought was school and SPF contributed largely to Benjamin's depression and cause him to commit suicide.

Who is right or wrong?

Nobody will ever know because Benjamin is dead and the PAP Government has a history of not admitting to anything that embarasses themselves.

Whatever Ministers said or Benjamin's family said, both sides need to show evidence.

[kuasimi]

BENJAMIN LIM'S FATHER: CALLOUS SCH COUNSELLOR DID NOT CARE ABOUT MY SON'S WELL-BEING

Submitted by farhan on Thu, 03/03/2016 - 10:36am

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/art...ons-well-being





The father of Benjamin Lim has disputed the facts laid out by MOE and Acting Minister for Education Ng Chee Meng. He claims that the school counsellor did not call his wife to check on Benjamin Lim's well-being. Instead, Benjamin's father said that the counsellor merely informed his wife that after a school meeting, Benjamin would be excluded from the school camp.

Before his wife could ask any further questions, the counsellor had hung up. Throughout their conversation, there was no questions asked about Benjamin and zero questions about Benjamin's well-being.

In response to the grieving father's latest comments against MOE, the Ministry declined to comment further as the matter is now subject to a Coroner's Inquiry but empathised with the family in this time of grief.

[kuasimi]

GILBERT GOH: 5 PROTOCOL PROCEDURES THAT THE POLICE SHOULD REVIEW AFTER BENJAMIN LIM'S SUICIDE

Submitted by farhan on Thu, 03/03/2016 - 12:19pm

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/art...n-lims-suicide





1. Minors should be handed over to MSF and not police - the tragic death of 14-year-old Benjamin shows that minors are been subjected to alot of stress when they are handcuffed at school and brought for questioning alone in the police station. The parents were also not kept informed.

When I was interrogated last year for 6 hours at Bedok police station, I was terrified days before the interrogation and could not sleep for a few nights. What more a minor? Minors who are suspected of committing a crime in school must be handled by MSF or MOE and the parents to be kept informed of what's happening. They are too young to be subjected to our police style of interrogation. The current protocol of no adult-accompaniment must be over-hauled so our minors are protected and proper legal access accorded.

2. Lawyers must be present - I was shocked that during any police interrogation no lawyers are allowed to be present. When asked why is this so, the response was that its procedural.

We were interrogated by the police who will determine whether we are to be charged in court or even haul to jail and we can't even have proper legal access? Certain things we say or any responses to questions asked by the police can be used as evidence in court and God knows how many people are being incriminated because of this crucial lack of legal advice. We can only engage a lawyer to defend us in open court trial but isn't this too late?

3. No video recording - there is no recording of the whole interrogation process and though the Interrogation Officer (IO) records down everything we say, its still his words use against mine in the end if there is a dispute. There is no video recording to back up what the IO asks or transpire in the interrogation room. Moreover, I have to sign the interrogation sheet on the spot and if not its a criminal offence!

To his credit, my IO went through each written statement thoroughly and even changed the wording when I insisted. However, after 6 hours of intense interrogation, you don't want to go through each sentence in detail and moreover you won't know whether what you say will hurt you in the future as there is no proper legal guidance.

4. Stop all 4-man police harassment of individuals at MRT and other public places - we saw too often a group of 4 to 6 police officers surrounding a poor suspicious individual who is spotted with long hair or simply have a shaggy outlook. This kind of open demeaning harassment should immediately stop. One should not pre-judge a person just because he looks untidy or dirty.

5. Stop issuing meaningless police warning to activists and dissidents - many activists were given written warning letters by the police after interrogation. They were not charge in court openly nor given the free-to-go sign.

Though the police assures us that we will not be penalised in future for any cases held against us, it is uncomfortable to know that you have something held in the police record which has ambiguous unclear connotation. If we are found guilty please charge us in court so we can properly defend ourselves. But if we are innocent, please let us off so we can held our heads high. A written warning is not something we are proud to have in our police record.

Gilbert Goh

[99099]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

There are two schools of thought in Benjamin's case.

One is Government and PAP supporters stance which was Benjamin himself and his family are to be blame for his own suicide. Suicide itself is legally a crime in Singapore.

The other thought was school and SPF contributed largely to Benjamin's depression and cause him to commit suicide.

Who is right or wrong?

Nobody will ever know because Benjamin is dead and the PAP Government has a history of not admitting to anything that embarasses themselves.

Whatever Ministers said or Benjamin's family said, both sides need to show evidence.

Let it rest since he has 2 more children.

Nobody can say who is right or wrong. First a molest case was investigated. If Police did not investigate then how to face the victim in this case.

Easy to say anything using keyboard but we are not the party involved.

[kuasimi]

SHANMUGAM SHOULD NOT BLAME OTHERS FOR HIS OWN TARDY ACTIONS ON BENJAMIN'S CASE
HOME / 2016 » MARCH » 2


http://yoursdp.org/news/shanmugam_sh...016-03-02-6106


Singapore Democrats

It is unfortunate that Minister for Law K Shanmugam has blamed The Online Citizen and the Law Society for the Benjamin Lim saga.

Benjamin committed suicide on 26 January 2016. Did it have to take five full weeks for the Minister to address the issue? Contrast this to another case where a 4-year-old boy had fallen through a grille-less open window to his death. This happened on 6 October 2015. On 15 October 2015, Mr Shanmugam published a post on his Facebook, commiserating with the boy's family and lambasting the contractor for not doing his job.

Why could the Minister not have responded sooner in Benjamin's case especially since it was his Ministry – the Ministry of Home Affairs – at which many questions were directed.

Unfortunately, Mr Shanmugam chose to remain silent despite widespread calls from the public for him to address the incident and it was his protracted silence that irked the public and fueled speculation over what happened that fateful day when the boy committed suicide.

Mr Shanmugam said that it was out of respect for the Lim family that the government did not make any statements. This does not make sense as Mr Shanmugam was very quick off the mark over the incident where the 4-year-old boy fell through the window. Besides, Benjamin's family had issued a public statement questioning the state's actions.

If not for TOC's and the Law Society's statements – the SDP had also issued a statement (here) – the pressure for the government to address the matter would not have been as intense.

In any matter that is of public interest, the people have every right not just to know about the facts of a case but to also have it in a timely manner. The fact that there was such a delay in the government's response over the Benjamin Lim episode is unacceptable. To blame other parties for its tardiness is even more reprehensible.

One is reminded of the Mas Selamat escape in which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong remained silent over the matter for an inappropriate amount of time despite intense public anger over the debacle. At such times, it is incumbent upon political leaders to step forward expeditiously and provide the public with answers.

In the present the case, there are still questions that need to be answered:

Was it absolutely necessary to dispatch 5 police officers to bring in a boy for questioning?

Will suspects, especially if they are young persons, be allowed to be accompanied by counsel or other appropriate persons?

Will an independent investigation be carried out into how Benjamin Lim was treated while under police custody?

Mr Shanmugam must remember that the most important thing here is that a young life is gone and a family has lost a loved one. Steps, not finger-pointing, have to be taken to ensure that this never happens again.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by 99099

Let it rest since he has 2 more children.

Nobody can say who is right or wrong. First a molest case was investigated. If Police did not investigate then how to face the victim in this case.

Easy to say anything using keyboard but we are not the party involved.

Nobody is saying Benjamin is guilty or not about the molest but the School/SPF vs Benjamin Suicide is a separate case.

If Benjamin is guilty of molest then charge him to give justice to the girl.
But his suicide case need to be handled separately to give justice to Benjamin and his family.
If School/SPF did not contribute to Benjamin's suicide then clearing it up will give justice to the school and SPF.

Benjamin's family already explained they will not let it rest but the Government wants to let it rest.

Benjamin's family does not trust Singapore Media to accurately report their feelings of injustice thus turn to only TOC.

Benjamin's family is free to pursue such cases which happen in many countries. They want media privacy but want their story to be told publicly.

Some countries have great platforms and great systems to pursue personal injustices against the Government, some countries do not.

Let us see the outcome. Maybe some new laws will be created if this became a landmark case between The People vs Government. It will help future Singaporeans.

[sadfa]

Knn I thot you banned. How come can come bk?

And I notice yr tone changed.
Haha scared liao hor

[kuasimi]

SDP PARENTS-CEC MEMBERS CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO BENJAMIN LIM'S CASE
HOME / 2016 » MARCH » 3


http://yoursdp.org/news/sdp_parents_...016-03-03-6107


Singapore Democrats

As parents of school-going children, we have been following Benjamin Lim's case very closely. What happened to Benjamin is tragic. There are many answers the Ministry of Education owes to parents regarding the issue.

First, shouldn't schools be the safest place for our children to be in when they are away from home? Why did the school hand over one of its students to the police without his parents' or school official's presence?

Second, schools have the responsibility to make sure children's well-being are their top priority, even when faced with demands and pressure from the police.

In Benjamin's case, the school could have asked a school counsellor to accompany him to the police station. Even if the police did not allow anyone else to ride in the police vehicle with Benjamin, the school should have sent someone to drive separately to the police station and let Benjamin know that he was not alone.

This is the whole problem with Singapore where most of us do not know our rights or question the limits of the authorities' powers.

Third, there was a school camp the following day which Benjamin was to attend. Students generally like attending these camps and there is no reason to believe that Benjamin was not looking forward to it. According to the family, however, the school called right after Benjamin left the police investigation to inform his mother that he will be excluded from the camp.

If this account is true, why did the school decide to exclude Benjamin from the school camp and add to his already depressed state of mind?

Already as a 14-year-old child facing five police officers without the presence of any familiar adult is very daunting. We will never know what went on in Benjamin's mind when he decided to end his life that day, but his suicide is a wake up call to us.

Let us make sure that no child ever goes through what Benjamin had to go through. This can only be achieved when an independent Commission of Inquiry is set up to determine exactly the events of his arrest and his treatment while he was under police custody. The current system does not afford adequate protection of minors.

We owe it to Benjamin and his grieving family to seek justice for a son and brother lost.

Jaslyn Go
Jufri Salim
Bryan Lim
Mansura Sajahan
Members
Central Executive Committee
Singapore Democratic Party

[kuasimi]

MR LIM'S CONTRADICTION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT A SERIOUS MATTER
HOME / 2016 » MARCH » 3

http://yoursdp.org/news/mr_lim_39_s_...016-03-03-6108



Singapore Democrats

The SDP notes with concern the discrepancy between the accounts of Acting Minister for Education Ng Chee Meng and Benjamin Lim's family regarding the telephone call between the school and Benjamin's mother.

The Straits Times reported Mr Ng telling Parliament that a school counselor had called Benjamin's mother and that both school and parent had agreed that her son should not attend the school camp:

“Regarding the school camp, Mr Ng said a school counsellor had called Benjamin's mother later in the day to check on the student's well-being.

The counsellor also discussed with Benjamin's mother if it would be better for Benjamin to remain with his family during this difficult period, said Mr Ng.

'His mother agreed and hence it was decided that Benjamin would stay at home,' he said. 'Throughout the conversation, the school's motivation was to care for Benjamin's well-being.'

However, Benjamin's father has now refuted Mr Ng's account saying, according to Today's report:

“When the school’s counsellor called Benjamin’s mother at 4.13pm, he merely informed her that the school had a meeting, and Benjamin will be excluded from the camp. Before the mother can ask any further questions, (he hung up),” Mr Lim said. “(In) the entire conversation...there were no questions asked about (Benjamin) at all...zero questions about (his) well-being.”

This is a serious matter. Did the Minister, in his review of the incident, contact, or directed his Ministry's officials to contact, the Lim family to find out what transpired in the telephone conversation between the school and Benjamin's mother?

If he did, what were his findings?

If he did not, why didn't he? Is it not Mr Ng's responsibility as a Minister to do everything he can to get to the bottom of a very tragic incident involving a student and one of his schools? If the Minister did not get the side of the family's story, why did he not say in Parliament that the school's account had yet to be corroborated by the Lim family?

It is regrettable that Mr Ng presented only the school's side of the story. Benjamin's father's refutation of his Parliament statement must be addressed. It must be emphasised that the ultimate intent of this episode is to ensure that such an incident does not recur.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by sadfa

Knn I thot you banned. How come can come bk?

And I notice yr tone changed.
Haha scared liao hor

My tone did not change.

All along I only wanted to know the process from school to police interrogation and how did interrogation got Benjamin's confession. This was regardless Benjamin was guilty or not. I was not interested in political sideshows.

[kuasimi]

Benjamin Lim’s father disputes school’s actions


http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...n-teens-school


BY
CLIFFORD LEE

PUBLISHED: 8:57 PM, MARCH 2, 2016

UPDATED: 12:41 AM, MARCH 3, 2016


SINGAPORE — Although a school counsellor had called his wife that day, the father of Benjamin Lim said the call was not to check on their son’s well-being.

Neither was there a discussion between the counsellor and his wife on whether it would be better for Benjamin to skip a school camp starting the following day so he could be with his family, the father added.


Mr Lim was disputing the actions taken by his son’s school before the 14-year-old fell to his death on Jan 26 as set out by Acting Minister for Education (Schools) Ng Chee Meng in Parliament on Tuesday (March 1).

“When the school’s counsellor called Benjamin’s mother at 4.13pm, he merely informed her that the school had a meeting, and Benjamin will be excluded from the camp. Before the mother can ask any further questions, (he hung up),” Mr Lim said. “(In) the entire conversation ... there were no questions asked about (Benjamin) at all ... zero questions about (his) well-being.”

The telephone conversation happened after Benjamin had been taken from his school to Ang Mo Kio Police Division for questioning over a molestation he allegedly committed the previous day. Benjamin was found dead at the foot of his block at 4.20pm.

Asked for comments on Mr Lim’s response, a Ministry of Education spokesperson said: “We empathise with Benjamin’s parents in their time of grief. The account given by the Minister in Parliament was based on the facts as we know them at this stage.”

The spokesperson added: “As Benjamin’s death will be properly inquired into at the coming Coroner’s Inquiry, the ministry will not be making any further comments at this juncture.”

In a phone interview with TODAY, Mr Lim also said that Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam had rightly pointed out in Parliament on Tuesday that his family wants privacy, in so far as it concerns keeping their names and photos from being published in the media.

“We don’t want to be identified for one very simple reason — because we are just ordinary citizens; we don’t want to be in the spotlight; we feel uncomfortable,” he said. “Other than that, about the case, we have no intention to keep mum about it.”

Mr Lim said that after his son’s death, there have been people going to their flat and following his daughter, wanting to speak to her about the case. “This got us very worried, because the thing is I already lost a son, and now it’s affecting my two other children,” he added.

[kuasimi]

COMMENT: Rights and responsibilities in Benjamin Lim case

P N Balji

3 March 2016


https://sg.news.yahoo.com/benjamin-l...091553293.html


The most reasonable, thoughtful and purposeful remark to come out of Parliament during Home Minister K Shanmugam’s statement on Benjamin Lim’s death belonged to a People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament.

Jessica Tan asked politely but firmly: “In situations where it’s very emotive and very sensitive, while I totally understand your stance of handling the information very carefully…is there a way to share at least some information with online news sites?”

That goes to the heart of an issue that has put the spotlight on how children should be investigated, The Online Citizen’s (TOC’s) journalism practices and the government’s attitude towards news portals.

Shanmugam responded like a lawyer would. There were issues of sub judice, contempt of court and the privacy of Benjamin’s family, he said.

The MP should have stood up to ask a follow-up question: “I see your point. But what made the Minister change his mind?”

Alas, our Parliament hardly sees follow-up questions, and an opportunity was lost to probe the Minister’s thinking on the 35-day wait to bring the circumstances leading to Benjamin’s death to the public’s attention.

So why did the Police not reply to TOC? The answer lies in the kind of socio-political site that TOC is and how the government views it as a news platform.

The government does not see TOC as a “friendly” website like, for example, The Straits Times. It is one of a couple of websites that has not had an interview with a Minister, yet another indication of where TOC stands in the government’s popularity scales.

In 2011, it was gazetted as a political organisation, meaning it cannot receive foreign money and has to declare all donations. In 2015 alone, the government asked it to take down three articles, one of which was an interview with a man whose company sued the Defence Ministry for allegedly usurping its patent for a mobile emergency medical station.

There were other factors at play. TOC is not what it was many years ago. It lost a number of its editors, which effectively removed the extra eyes that a newsroom needs to help the editor make important and responsible decisions.

Today, it is a one-man show with Chief Editor Terry Xu running the operations single-handedly. That is an impossible task, especially for a site that has made robust reporting its mission in life and in a country where the government has hardly changed its media policy, some aspects of which belong to an era which many concerned citizens would frown upon.

Then there was the sudden entry of a number of news websites, which seemed to have deeper pockets, with an immediate eye on covering the 2015 general elections in a way that both the mainstream media and TOC won’t do.

This muddied the waters somewhat with TOC seen to be losing the readership traction that it once enjoyed.

Chief Editor Xu was thrown into this helpless situation. No people, no money and a drop in people getting excited by its stories.

He had two options: reinvent its reportage or continue to bang on with its editorial approach.

The Benjamin Lim case shows that Xu chose the latter and is now under intense scrutiny for its reportage.

Those who have gone through the hothouse of journalism will tell you that TOC’s reliance on one source for a story is a slippery slope to trouble.

The least that the government could have done was to reply to TOC by saying that it was premature to give a statement because of legal issues and a concern for the welfare of the Benjamin family. Or gone one step further to clarify points that it had established.

That way the authorities would have been on a much higher moral ground when it trained its guns on TOC.

Should TOC have held the story or done more work on it?

I asked an online news editor what the journalist would have done if she was in a similar situation. After some toing and froing, she said she would have held the story.

Xu should have done that and done more work to establish some of the facts of the case. And the government should have tried to engage TOC with some kind of response, which is what it would have done with the mainstream media and some other news platforms.

News outlets have the right to publish stories but also have a responsibility to make sure that its information is accurate.

The government has the right to remain silent but has the responsibility to respond to news organisations.

All said and done, one sad fact remains. A young life was cruelly crushed and the 14-year-old’s family will continue to live in sorrow and pain for a long, long time. Let us not forget this as we continue to discuss the Benjamin Lim saga.

P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist who is the former chief editor of TODAY newspaper, and a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

My tone did not change.

All along I only wanted to know the process from school to police interrogation and how did interrogation got Benjamin's confession. This was regardless Benjamin was guilty or not. I was not interested in political sideshows.

You keep posting like this nt scared u permanently banned?