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

[kuasimi]

Benjamin Lim’s case would have died down if not for social media, says family


BY TERRY XU ON FEBRUARY 29, 2016 CURRENT AFFAIRS


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...a-says-family/

“If not for social media, especially TOC (The Online Citizen), the case would have died down a long time ago.”, said Mr Lim, father of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim in a thank-you dinner for the TOC editor.

On 26 January, fourteen-year-old Benjamin Lim Jun Hui was found dead at the base of a HDB flat where he lived. Prior to that, five plainclothes police officers showed up at Benjamin’s school on Tuesday morning and took him away for questioning for allegedly outraging the modesty of an 11-year-old girl. Benjamin’s mother was denied access to him for the whole duration of the police interview. (read more)

Media blackout from MSM

Over the past month, a media blackout has been imposed on Benjamin’s story by either mainstream media (MSM) itself or the government. Apart from reiterating what authorities had to say about the case, few media outlets have reported what the family has experienced and even worse so, some have started to whitewash the incident as something unfortunate but legal and justified.

From the family’s point of view, the MSM had reported wrongly on several details of the case and choose to either selectively quoting the father’s words for their reports or putting words in his mouth.

In Mr Lim’s interview over what the family feels after a month since the death of Benjamin, he expressed his thanks to social media for keeping Benjamin’s story alive and keeping the focus of the story on how the authorities handled his son.

Mr Lim truthfully admitted that he had not heard of TOC until it wrote the story for the family and expressed his thanks on behalf of the family, for its initiative to cover the family’s side of the story which gave “maximum attention” to Benjamin’s case so as not to let it be sweep under the carpet. “Without it, justice will never be served,” said Mr Lim

He too expressed his shock on the reality of the media scene in Singapore, saying that he would not have known the ugly side about Singapore’s MSM if not for this unfortunate event.

Outpour of support via open letter

A few days after the incident, Mr Lim decided to pen an open letter in response to speculation of the public due to false reporting by the MSM and trolls in the online forum who were trying to divert attention by speculating that Benjamin was guilty of molestation.

Along with the open letter, the family also created an email address for members of the public to send their letters. The email was hacked into, just a day after it was created, with no explanation from Yahoo. The family was later advised to replace the email with a Gmail account.

Mr Lim thanked TOC for publishing the full unedited version of his letter, ensuring that people read exactly what the family wanted them to know about Benjamin’s case.

According to the emails received by Mr Lim, the open letter convinced many – those whom did not believe TOC’s report nor thought of it as a trustworthy source of information – about the high-handedness of the authorities in dealing with a 14-year-old student.

Mr Lim shared that the family has received well over 1000 emails to show support or to send their condolences. Some were letters to share the grief of the family, some were letters saying that they would support the family in seeking justice and a few nasty letters asking why the family is making their story open to the public and going through to a media outlet like TOC.

There were even emails from Benjamin’s friend who written in to share their memories of him with the family. In one such email, the family was told that Benjamin is the pillar of strength for the National Police Cadet Corp (NPCC) in the school he studied in. The email wrote, “Benjamin was the pillar of strength in his school’s NPCC unit, and he was the person to whom everyone looked up when there was any problem that needed to be resolved”. This comes as a surprise to the family because Benjamin is an introvert at home, compared to his two elder siblings who are more outspoken in mannerism.

Mr Lim says that such information is a form of consolation for the family. “The emails gives us enlightenment, reflection about him (Benjamin) and encouragement. Allowing to know more about my son, than what would I have known myself.”

The family still welcome letters to be sent to them, especially about Benjamin’s life, regardless if it is something positive or negative. “It is good to write to us especially if they knew Benjamin personally”, “Let me know, even if it is negative about my son.” said Mr Lim.

Members of the public who wish to write to the family can do so via this email, [email protected] and the family has since created a memorial page for Benjamin here.

Parliament to talk about “speculations from social media”

The Singapore parliament will convene this afternoon to talk about various issues, and one of which will be on the issues surrounding the death of Benjamin. (read more) Two ministers will also speak at the parliament session to address from the ministerial point of view.

There is no mention about the “selective” reporting by MSM by the MPs in their questions that is to be answered by the Minister of Education and Minister of Home Affairs. Instead, some MPs such as Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Desmond Choo have sought to blame speculations of the case on social media that have kept the story alive for the family.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by sadfa

You keep posting like this nt scared u permanently banned?

If Benjamin's family and social media are pushing the limits just to get some answers, then so should we. This is current affairs, not politics.

If I get banned for posting about this saga, nothing much I can do.

[kuasimi]

TNP apologises to former-editor of TRS over defamatory statements

BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 1, 2016 CURRENT AFFAIRS


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...ry-statements/



The New Paper (TNP), Singapore’s tabloid newspaper has apologised to the former editor of now-defunct social media website, The Real Singapore, Mr Robin Yang for publishing an article that contained statements which are defamatory.

TNP wrote in its apology published on its own newspaper, “In the March 4, 2015 issue of The New Paper, we published an article titled “They own posh unit, says S’porean student”. Mr Robin Yang Kaiheng has informed us that he regards as defamatory, some of the statements in the article that could be understood to mean that he is of dishonest character and/or conducts his business dealings in a manner that lacks probity.

We apologise for any embarrassment or distress caused by the publication of the statements.”

A photo of the apology was posted on Facebook by Takagi Ramen Stall on its Facebook page. Ai Takagi, one of the editors of TRS runs the ramen stall.




Takagi Ramen
on Sunday

Letter of apology published on 29/2/2016 by Singapore Press Holdings on 3 of their news platform The New Paper, AsiaOne and STOMP admitting that they published an inaccurate article claiming that our company director Mr Yang cheated his friend's money and went into hiding.

The article is completely unfounded and the source quoted appeared to have been deliberately fabricated by someone to tarnish his reputation. To our knowledge, no such friend/person even existed and it is shocking that the journalist appears to have either fabricated a fictitious person or relied on a source which has fabricated a fictitious person just to deliberately damage someone’s reputation.

Singapore Press Holdings has also given an undisclosed sum of money to Mr Yang as out of court settlement fee.

www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/sorry-10
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/sorry
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/th...n-jungle/sorry


The post wrote, “The article is completely unfounded and was deliberately fabricated to tarnish his reputation.” and said that they have no knowledge of the student claimed by TNP.

In the article by TNP, it was alleged that a Singaporean student hired a private investigator to track Mr Yang due to an alleged business dispute. TNP then reported based on the student’s account that Mr Yang took money from his sister for a business investment and started avoiding the sister after a fallout.

The post further states that the three publications of the Singapore Press Holdings, TNP, AsiaOne and STOMP have admitted to fabricating false information in their article on Mr Yang.

It is said that SPH has given an undisclosed sum of money to Mr Yang as out of court settlement fee.

[sadfa]

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.

Your post is poor. Yawningbread is better. Learn

[kuasimi]

CAN: Statement on the Law Minister’s speech about the death of Benjamin Lim


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...-benjamin-lim/


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 3, 2016 LETTERS


The below is a statement written by the Community Action Network (CAN) in regards to the speech made by the Minister of Law and Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam in Parliament on Tuesday.

In Parliament yesterday, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam spoke at length about the untimely death of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim. During his speech, Mr Shanmugam made repeated allegations that sociopolitical website, The Online Citizen was deliberately inaccurate in its reporting on the case. He accused TOC of organising “a planned, orchestrated campaign using falsehoods”. Mr Shanmugam also expressed surprise at “false” statements made by Law Society President, Mr Thio Shen Yi.

Given the many questions surrounding Benjamin’s apparent suicide, Singaporeans are naturally concerned. We want to know if police followed proper procedure in the handling of a minor. We find it worthwhile to question if things could have been done differently, and if current procedures can be improved.

Benjamin’s case involves pressing questions demanding urgent answers – his parents deserve closure, and Singaporeans need to be reassured that children who are called to assist police in investigations are properly treated. It is a matter of public interest.

The Minister’s focus on TOC and Mr Thio are therefore distracting and unnecessary. TOC has since clarified that it had reached out to the police, and various other ministries for comment. It is understood that no replies were forthcoming. During his speech, Mr Shanmugam accused TOC of using “tactics” to solicit comments from the police. This is a bizarre claim. Should TOC have refrained from trying to ascertain facts?

Mr Shanmugam also cautioned against commenting on the case as a Coroner’s Inquiry is underway. However, we believe a distinction should be drawn between legitimate questions asked in good faith, and discussion aimed at influencing the outcome of the Coroner’s findings. Moreover, we understand the Coroner to be a highly qualified professional, fully capable of carrying out his work without being swayed.

Finally, we note the Minister’s assessment of Benjamin’s alleged offense. We appreciate the careful thought that went into the decision to make public information obtained from CCTV footage. Mr Shanmugam opined that Benjamin would have been let off with a warning. This indicates a presumption of guilt. Given that the boy is dead and will not be able to defend himself in a trial, and in view of the principle that all suspects should be granted the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, we urge the Minister to refrain from making such pronouncements in the future.

[Endorsees: Shelley Thio, Roy Ngerng, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Lynn Lee, and Jolovan Wham from Community Action Network]

The Community Action Network is a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) based in Singapore concerned about freedom of expression, and civil and political rights.

[kuasimi]

MOE on Benjamin Lim’s case and procedures for students under police investigation

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...investigation/


BY SARA YONG ON MARCH 2, 2016 CURRENT AFFAIRS


On 26 January, 14-year-old Benjamin Lim Jun Hui jumped to his death from outside his 14th-floor HDB flat. Earlier that day, he was held under custody by the police for 3 and a half hours at Ang Mo Kio Police Division for the molestation of a girl on 25 January.

In response to questions about the police protocol that was followed in handling Benjamin, Acting Minister for Education, Ng Chee Meng gave a statement yesterday, detailing an 8-step procedure police and staff are to follow that is “not new to our schools”.

School staff will be discreet when bringing the student to meet with the police. They will ensure that no undue attention is drawn to the student.

School leaders will ascertain the student’s physical and emotional well-being before letting the police speak to the student. School leaders will also request that the number of police officers speaking to the student be kept to a minimum.

School staff will request to be present if an initial interview is to be conducted at the school.

Should the police decide to bring the student to a police station for further questioning, the school will request that the police contact one of the student’s parents to inform them the situation and location the student will be brought to. The school will also ensure that the student has something to eat if hungry.

The school will request the student not be handcuffed and be escorted to the police vehicle discreetly. However, the police retain final decision to use handcuffs depending on circumstances.

After the student is released by police, school staff will be in contact with parents of the student to provide support and plan follow-up steps to ensure the well-being of the student.

When the student returns to school, the school will monitor the well-being of the student.

The school will ensure the confidentiality of the student’s identity and the on-going police investigations.

Mr Ng noted that this procedure had been followed in Benjamin’s case but that it would be updated when needed, possibly including “the presence of a school staff as an appropriate adult at the police station”.

It is stated by the Minister of Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam and Mr Ng that Benjamin was not accompanied by parents nor school staff when he was taken by plain clothes police officers from North View Secondary School. He was also unaccompanied when interviewed by a police officer as it is disallowed by existing police protocol.

[kuasimi]

Ministers to talk and answer questions about 14-year-old’s death in Parliament

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...in-parliament/

BY ONLINECITIZEN ON FEBRUARY 27, 2016 CURRENT AFFAIRS


The Parliament will hear questions from Members of Parliament surrounding the issue of the death of a 14-year-old schoolboy, Benjamin Lim who plunged to his death after being investigated by police without the accompaniment of his parents.

Two ministers, Minister of Home Affairs, K. Shanmugam and Acting Education Minister (Schools) Ng Chee Meng are also scheduled to make their ministerial statement on the case; Mr K. Shanmugan to touch on the death of Benjamin Lim and Mr Ng to cover the issue about students under investigation.

On 26 January, fourteen-year-old Benjamin Lim Jun Hui was found dead at the base of a HDB flat where he lived. Prior to that, five plainclothes police officers showed up at Benjamin’s school on Tuesday morning and took him away for questioning for allegedly outraging the modesty of an 11-year-old girl. Benjamin’s mother was denied access to him for the whole duration of police interview.

When they returned home, the school counselor called to inform that Benjamin need not attend the three-day school camp the next day. Shortly after the call, Benjamin locked himself up in his room and plunged to his death. Police has since classified his death as an unnatural death.

A few days later, Singapore Police Force said in a Facebook post that it would be reviewing its procedures on the accompaniment of an appropriate adult to be present during the police interview of a minor.

Over the past month, there have been half-truths said by the school and the police force on many issues which had been discomforting for Benjamin’s family. For example, the duration of the police interview with Benjamin (read more) and the plainclothes police officers at the school, who wore t-shirts with “POLICE” at the back. (read more)

By the time of parliament sitting, both ministers would have kept quiet about the matter for a full month since the death of Benjamin Lim on 26 January. The Online Citizen (TOC) understands from the family that neither of the two have spoken to them in private as well.

Below are the questions filed by Members of Parliament to the two ministers on the case of Benjamin Lim.

Questions to Minister of Home Affairs, K Shanmugam


Dr Tan Wu Meng: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what measures are taken by the Police during the investigation and law enforcement process to safeguard the interests of children and vulnerable young persons who are suspected of, or accused of, committing an offence.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs if he can provide an update on the review of the procedure to allow an appropriate adult to be present when a young person is interviewed by the police and whether more protection can be accorded to young persons during investigations.


Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does the police keep parents or guardians of minors informed regarding interviews, investigation, arrest or custody of their minors; (b) how does the police ensure that minors who are arrested or subject to police interviews are made aware of their legal rights and have adequate and timely legal representation; (c) how do the Ministry and police monitor and ensure compliance with the law, protocols and processes; and (d) whether interviews of minors are recorded on video as part of the pilot scheme to video-record police interviews of accused persons and, if not, why not and when will video recording be extended to minors.


Mr Desmond Choo: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry could have timeously addressed the extensive speculation on social media surrounding the case of the 14-year-old boy who was found dead after being interviewed by the police; and (b) whether there will be a thorough review of police procedures on the interview of vulnerable suspects.


Ms Rahayu Mahzam: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are standard procedures for interviewing and investigating young persons who are suspected or accused of committing an offence and, if so, what is the age guideline and the standard procedures in place; and (b) whether there are standard procedures to keep the parents or guardians of these young persons informed of the legal process.

Mr Christopher de Souza: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what is the reason for the delay in the Ministry’s response to speculation made on social media about the police’s conduct in the case of a 14-year-old boy who had died after having been questioned by the police.

Questions to Minister of Education, Ng Chee Meng

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: To ask the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how do the Ministry and schools keep parents and guardians informed of developments when students are engaged in the law enforcement process; (b) what is being done to monitor and ensure compliance to the protocols put in place to protect minors who are subject to police interviews or investigation; (c) how are these protocols reviewed, updated and improved upon; and (d) how does the Ministry ensure that these protocols are consistent with relevant laws and Singapore’s obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.


Mr Ang Wei Neng: To ask the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) what are the schools’ procedures when the police go to a school to interview a student in relation to a crime and later decide to bring the student to the police station for further questioning.

[kuasimi]

Readers’ input: Football in void decks, Han Hui Hui, Benjamin Lim

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...-benjamin-lim/


BY CARLTON TAN ON FEBRUARY 28, 2016 OPINION


Every week, we highlight some of the best comments. Our aim is to allow readers to see what others have to say, regardless of their position on the issue. We hope to encourage everyone to continue contributing their insights and perspectives.


Barriers installed to discourage football in HDB void deck (Feb 25)

What an uncaring spirit. So instead of coming up with a solution to the noise etc, they created another set of problems causing unhappiness to other residents. By putting up the metal barricades they are essentially blocking up a space that could be put to good use. Don’t point fingers at other RCs with similar barricades. That’s lame.

— Jenny Quek

If you are not appalled at the thought process behind this and other ludicrous ideas to stop activities that are deemed a “nuisance”, then you have to wonder where we are as a society.

Instead of teaching kids the importance of being civic minded and not play too loudly or aggressively lest they cause incidents to happen, or too late into the evening, we take the easiest and laziest of options and just completely obliterate kids from playing.

Un-freaking-believable.

— Rudy Kipidap

New BTO do not even have tables and chairs below void desk. Old folks can’t even have a game of chess below their flats anymore.

— Janet Lee

Honestly, kids should be allowed to play football in HDB void decks. It was so common in the 1980s. Only things they have to look out for are the elderly, young children, and maintain a moderate noise level. These games usually last 30 mins anyway, and they’re good for kids to let loose and bond. If you’re arguing about other sport venues, they can be intimidating for amateurs. Basketball courts are for basketballers. Badminton courts are for badminton players and maybe sepak takraw. And some kids just don’t mix well with others, so that one street soccer court isn’t enough. Please remove such barriers. I’d prefer putting up with a little noise than seeing them smoking, forming stupid gangs, and surfing Facebook on their phones.

— Jackie Helena Gay

Discouraging soccer playing in HDB void deck goes way back to the 70s and 80s where proper signages were always up on the walls. Why does it take Town Councils 30-40 years of patience and ingenuity to come up with such a hard-handed “solution” to a problem that has existed for decades (if we even consider that as a problem)? As we become more developed and affluent, we have also become less tolerant and less forgiving. Sad.

— Chionh Chye Kit

FIDH: Singapore needs to drop charges against Hong Lim Park protestors (Feb 23)

Would the Singapore govt listen to the recommendation from FIDH?

How did the Singapore delegation respond to the UPR meeting held in Geneva on 27 Jan 2016?

Read this: “The government delegation responded by justifying the severe restrictions on the exercise of this right with the need to ensure “society’s need for order and stability.”

It would be easier to change the govt [to one managed by a non-PAPy party, or to a coalition govt]than to expect this govt to listen to recommendations from human rights international organizations.

To have a change in govt, Singaporeans have to VETO out the PAP.

— Richard Woo

FIDH is the oldest and the most out of date org. By international standard it actually means US standard,. It was not too long ago that the Us was condemning Singapore about violations of human rights. Singapore never did anything as bad as rendition, water boarding and all the other things its constitution describes as cruel and unusual.

We blindly follow orgs such as FIDH at our own peril

— Eugenetan

Honestly HHH is indeed a public nuisance with the rubbish she blurts. Honestly if she is representative for the kind of opposition we get, than I would rather stick with existing monsters

— Tim Lee

But blurting rubbish shouldn’t be a crime.

I don’t care what opposition gets in… to a certain extent. I don’t listen to HHH, but if she didn’t become infamous, that’s good enough for me. The priority, from my perspective, is to remove the 2/3 majority.

— Lobo_arisen

Ministers to talk and answer questions about 14-year-old’s death in Parliament (Feb 27)

More fundamental question:

What is the logic behind questioning a minor without legal representation or accompaniment by an adult? How does it affect investigations in anyway?

The first part of the question on being questioned without legal representation is also applicable to adults as the police need not wait for your lawyer to turn up to question you. That is that you can even afford one. Which brings us the the question of why legal assistance is not made more available or even, dare I say, a right everyone should be entitled to.

— Jake Tan

It is never too late to admit and apologize to the public unintentional lapses and mistakes as long as they are corrected.

However, if the presentations are to justify and ignore public sentiment, public trusts and confidence in offices will be lost.

— Kit Houbu John

Questions about Benjamin Lim’s case, Home Affairs Minister and SPF cannot answer (Feb 23)

Refuse to answer and cannot answer is 2 different things.

— Jeffrey Tan

That we cannot determine because no refusal to reply is given. In the police’s own logic, refusal to reply or silence is admittance of guilt. – Terry

“In accordance to section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused person has the right to remain silent after the notice is read out to him. However, an adverse inference may be drawn from such silence. In other words, the police may infer guilt from his refusal to give a statement.”

– The Online Citizen

You get that troubling feeling that perhaps senior bureaucrats or politicians don’t think there is anything wrong here. Perhaps they feel that this would be a slippery slope to give in to a public outcry. Or maybe they think that it is more important to let police intimidate.. erm interrogate.. erm interview.. suspects so they can close investigations quickly without the burden of evidence?

Until they say something, we are free to speculate. I think it’s because Benjamin Lim is a nobody, just another “nobody” in a long list of “nobodys” in a city that wants to pride itself in being a safe, secure, and efficient country.

— Syed Munir

[kuasimi]

Editorial: Response to speech on TOC by Home Affairs and Law Minister

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...-law-minister/


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 2, 2016 LETTERS



In Parliament on Tuesday, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam described The Online Citizen (TOC)’s investigation into the death of teenager, Benjamin Lim, as a “planned, orchestrated campaign using falsehoods”. (Link to Ministerial statement)

We would like to respond to some of the points highlighted by the Minister.

“Confidentiality”

First, the Minister said Benjamin’s family wanted privacy. He said that out of respect for the family, his ministry had refrained from commenting on the case until now. They also wanted to protect the alleged victim.

TOC spoke to Benjamin’s father, Mr Lim, after the parliamentary session today (1 March). This is what he told us:

“The confidentiality that I want is for our family, for our identity to be kept confidential to better protect my two school going children. Whether the media report on the case, we have no question except that we urge the reports must reflect the truth”

Police attired in shirts with the words “Police”

The Minister took particular issue with an article published by TOC on 5 February this year.

Titled “Student said plainclothes officers at school wore t-shirts with “police” at its back.”, the piece contradicted a police statement asserting that the officers who went to Benjamin’s school were in plain clothes.

The article was written after we spoke with a Ms Mary Anne Pereira. She had posted a comment on the Singapore Police Force (SPF)’s Facebook (FB) page.

We did not just take Ms Mary Anne Pereira’s post from the SPF FB page. We made the additional effort to reach out to Ms Pereira to verify what she said through messaging her on FB.

Ms Pereira told us that her son, who is attending Benjamin’s school, had seen men with the word “POLICE” on the back of their t-shirts on the day Benjamin was taken away. We reported what she told us, and made clear that the information was provided by a student at Benjamin’s school. We also said that Ms Pereira informed us she was aware that the school was affiliated to a community-based police subdivision, and that she wasn’t certain if some members of that subdivision might have been at the school at the time. (Link to article)

Prior to publishing the article, we reached out to the police, Mr Shanmugum, and other officials for comment. However, we did not receive any reply.


We are thus puzzled as to why Mr Shanmugum would label the article “dishonest”. We understand that Ms Pereira has since retracted her statement, but at the time of publication, there was no indication that she had made a mistake.

Until the Parliamentary session today, no official from either the Home Affairs or Law Ministry attempted to clarify the matter with TOC. Neither did the police or any government official instruct us to take down the article.

We would have run any updates, facts or clarifications the Home Affairs or Law Ministry would have provided us with.

“Orchestrated Campaign” by TOC

The Minister said today that the overall narrative and impression conveyed by TOC’s articles are that:

The police were lying;
The police intimidated Benjamin
The police put pressure on Benjamin to confess to a crime that he did not commit.

In all, TOC published a total of 25 articles related to Benjamin’s case and discussion on police procedures. Only four were written in-house. The rest were letters and opinion pieces contributed by members of the public. Benjamin’s story triggered a strong reaction among our readers. This is evident in the number of submissions we received following the first article.

TOC prides itself on being an open platform. We welcome contributions and have very little control over what the public choose to write about. In Benjamin’s case, questions were raised, and people wanted answers. Their reactions were spontaneous. It was hardly an “orchestrated campaign”.

Had the police, Home Affairs or Law Ministries, or anyone from the government written to TOC or responded to our requests for comment, we would have been happy to present their views too. Mr Shanmugum has chosen to characterise our efforts at reaching out as “tactics” to get the police to comment on Benjamin’s case. This is not correct. We believe in giving all sides a chance to speak. Soliciting answers to pressing questions isn’t a “tactic”. It is merely journalism.

Finally, we would like to point out that “inaccuracies” are not the same as “falsehoods”. Given the dearth of information available to us, it is natural that some of our reports were not fully accurate. It would have been clear from our articles that the story was still developing as we were yet to be in possession of the full facts, and we were doing our best to do so with the information we had. We are happy to correct any mistakes we might have made in our articles. However, the word ”falsehoods” implies a deliberate attempt to mislead. TOC rejects any such suggestion.

List of articles

Reports

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

What MSM reported wrongly about case involving the death of 14-year-old student

Student said plainclothes at school wore T-shirts with “Police” at its back

Benjamin Lim’s case would have died down if not for social media, says family

Personal accounts highlight systematic issue with police procedure and practices

Questions about Benjamin Lim’s case, Home Affairs Minister and SPF cannot answer

Ministers to talk and answer questions about 14-year-old death in parliament

Police to review procedures on police interview with minors

Review on system, not just about Benjamin’s death, Law Society’s president

MOE: Schools obligated to cooperate with police and not stand in the way of law
14-year-old’s death spurs a mother to speak up on son’s similar experience

Statements
CAN: Special safeguards needed for criminal cases involving minors
AWARE: Statement on the rights of minors in criminal investigations
SDP: Minister’s silence on Benjamin Lim’s suicide troubling

Commentaries and Letters

Where is the compassion?

Uneven playing field of Singapore politics and law, a cause for concern for every citizen

Militia-like-mentality renders any individual helpless feaful and forsaken in the eyes of the law

Experience with the police after being locked up at the station twice

Open letter from Benjamin’s family to clarify what transpired on 26 January

Father with dementia forced to confess to an offence by police

Benjamin’s death out of the mouth of ministers

COI needs to be held to determine level of accountability of police

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

Re-examine the role of school counsellors in criminal investigation of students.

The police could show more compassion and finesse in dealing with teenagers

[kuasimi]

Uneven playing field of Singapore politics and law, a cause for concern to every citizen

BY ONLINECITIZEN ON FEBRUARY 3, 2016 LETTERS

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...every-citizen/


The below is a letter submitted to The Online Citizen

By Sum Wee Lee

I refer to the ongoing saga of the most unfortunate loss of a secondary 3 student after being interviewed and possibly, coerced by the State’s police into making a confession without any Guardian or Counsel around to dispense advise. More so when an individual is under 18 years of age.

I would like to share a perspective I observed while exiting Bugis MRT last Wednesday at about 9.30pm. I witnessed 6 policemen rounding up a skinny middle-aged Chinese guy for no apparent reason. They then proceeded to restraint him to the parapet ledge near the Station Control and begin to search him. All these were done in plain sight of the curious onlooking public. I felt compelled to take a video or at least a photo of the manner which the incident transpired but was spotted by 1 of the policemen who threatened to seize my phone and detain me citing the “public order act”.

Now puzzled, I wonder what really constitutes a “public order” incident as I merely wanted to generate photographic evidence to present to the public service commission and ask them if they agreed that police be rendered such extensive powers to humiliate a member of the public under the guise of security. As it turned out, there was nothing and the man was freed grudgingly.

The current uneven playing field of our politics and law should be a cause for concern to every citizen. Today its Benjamin, tomorrow, it might be your Jimmy, John or Joseph a brother, cousin or even classmate. I felt it’s compulsory that the “public order act” be scrutinized in light of Benjamin’s death as far too much power is given to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) without any justification and abuses to the system will become more rampant as the government turns to the “war on terror” as the basis for such powers which is a different case and context altogether.

I distinctively remembered then NCMP Ms Sylvia Lim opposing the “public order bill“, which she felt “will actually become the source of public order problems”. Remember, the more oppressive a regime, the more violent it shall be overthrown. E.g. Myanmar and soon to be neighboring Malaysia, not to mention the “Arab Spring”.

I hope society as a whole together with our honorable members of Parliament will in coming weeks, search their conscience and ask if this was what the voters had in mind when they mandated the ruling party to govern with such autocratic and iron fist that is now extended even to our ignorant youths and minors. We must press MHA to come clean on Benjamin’s needless death and not allow them to hide under the shroud of “Official Secret Act (OSA)” which must be torn down by us sooner or later.

[kuasimi]

Minister Shanmugam is just shielding the government from criticisms: Alex Au
By The Independent - March 3, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/minister-sh...cisms-alex-au/


Socio-political commentator, Alex Au, has written a scathing commentary pointing to Law and Home Affair Minister’s extensive reference to video evidence in his Ministerial Speech on Benjamin Lim’s case, contrasting it with the police’s reluctance to video-tape its interrogations.

“He (Mr Shanmugam) 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.”

Mr Au commented that since people can be jailed or even executed (sometimes wrongly) just based on whatever transpires in such police interrogations, it is important for the Government to invest in video-recording devices.

Suggesting that Singaporeans should not believe the words of politicians like the Law and Home Affairs Minister’s, Mr Au said that a video-recording would have factually resolved if Benjamin Lim was intimidated during the interrogation, and also if he was offered food.

“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.”
police cameraPointing to the principle of sub-judice which the Minister had referred to in his speech, Mr Au said that it was more appropriate in a legal system of jury trials, where ordinary people were selected to decide on the guilt or innocence of accused persons.

Jurors are not trained lawyers and therefore, they may be more easily confused by reportage and commentary outside the courtroom, he said. And since Singapore no longer has jury trials there is no justification for the sub-judice law here, Mr Au argued.

“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.”

Mr Au further suggested that the Singapore government was using the sub judice law, which has outlived its original intent, to silence opponents and shield themselves from criticism.

—
Read Mr Au’s blog post HERE.

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

[kuasimi]

Shouldn’t Minister Shanmugam be more focused on resolving cause of Benjamin’s death than on dealing with errant media?
By The Independent - March 3, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/shouldnt-mi...-errant-media/


By: Ghui

The furor caused by the untimely death of teenager Benjamin Lim looks set to continue as Minister Shanmugam appears to take The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of the Law Society, Thio Shen Yi to task.

In his somewhat reactionary speech, Minister Shanmugam comes across as rather defensive and in my humble opinion, needlessly so. The fact that the public have become so involved by this tragedy should surely come as no surprise.

Singapore is a small country that by and large enjoys a peaceful way of life. The tragic demise of a minor by his own hand is one that will keenly be felt across all spectrums of society. While the death is regretful, shouldn’t the Minister be heartened by the camaraderie and unity that Singaporeans have displayed? Clearly, we care deeply for one of our own.

Secondly, doubt has been cast on the professional standards of both the education sector and the police department. This query would have arisen whether or not TOC had reported on it. The fact that the police had visited the school and questioned Lim was something that was reported across many media outlets and social media websites.

The subsequent suicide was also something that was widely reported. Perhaps TOC garnered the most readership and online response but is this because TOC is reporting falsehoods or is it symptomatic of the public’s desire to seek clarity and transparency?

For the avoidance of doubt, I abhor any semblance of rumour mongering and the incitement of fear, but can the reporting by TOC in this unfortunate incident be construed as such? Based on what I have seen, I would think not.

From what I am given to understand, TOC had very early on in the process written to both the Minister and the police force to seek their version of events. For any reporting to be balanced, both sides of the story have to be inquired into and TOC did attempt to do that. Can it be held against them if the Minister’s office and the police force remained silent?

Is the Minister suggesting that in the face of official silence TOC is not permitted to report? Surely that contradicts the need for there to be checks and balances in the government? In the recent reshuffle of the electoral system, PM Lee himself acknowledged the need for there to be alternative voices thereby implying that some semblance of checks and balances is required.

Surely, TOC’s reporting on a public interest matter is an extension of that principle?

Now, it would be a very different matter if TOC had made no attempt to seek clarification from the relevant government departments. But from what I can see, that attempt was indeed made.

Besides, it would appear that the very people who are affected by this tragedy are appreciative of TOC’s actions.

Based on my interactions with fellow Singaporeans, it would appear that many do not know their rights or what the correct procedure in these situations is. Social media and TOC’s publicising of these questions is leading people to discuss these issues more deeply and to seek rectification where necessary.

Surely, this is a good thing. Singaporeans have frequently been accused of being apathetic and “stone”. Lively debates and being engaged on issues that affect the country is surely a good way to counteract that accusation?

Most Singaporeans understand that mistakes will be made. No country is perfect and no one is perfect. I think the bigger issue is how the government deals with crises and mistakes as they arise. The issue that caused the biggest concern would appear to be the apparent silence that the government maintained in the face of a national tragedy.

Why is TOC being singled out for keeping the matter alive? Surely now that the government has broken its silence, the message should be reassurance to the public as to the government’s commitment to resolving the issue as opposed to taking TOC to task?

Now, I cannot establish whether or not TOC has reported falsehoods. Based on what I can see, I would think not and if it did, it was not deliberate. However, even if it did indeed report falsehoods, is now the right time to take it to task? Would the more pressing issue not be to reassure the public that such an incident will not be repeated?

Similarly, I cannot conclusively say that Lim had taken his life as a result of police actions. But based on the information released so far, he was a good student who was looking forward to a school outing. Nothing untoward was reported and the only thing out of the ordinary that happened to him was the police interrogation. To assume that his suicide may have had something to do with police interaction is then not beyond the pale? TOC is certainly not the only entity or person to have made that assumption.

I understand the Minister’s concerns to ensure that reports do not make matters worse but respectfully, I do not think that this is the right time to come across as more concerned about media wrongdoing over the resolution of what caused this boy’s suicide.

To tackle the alleged misbehavior of the press now dilutes the Minister’s concern and may at worst, come across as an attempt by the government to distract the public from potential police or education sector mismanagement.

The government has remained silent over this for over a month. Now that they are opening up, priority should be given to informing the public on what steps and measures have been taken to investigate the matter. Dealing with errant media can perhaps come after Benjamin Lim’s death and the cause of it have been conclusively resolved.

[kuasimi]

Was TODAY’s report on Benjamin Lim in contempt of the Sub Judice principle?
By The Independent - March 2, 2016

http://theindependent.sg/was-todays-...ice-principle/





In his Ministerial Speech yesterday on Benjamin Lim’s death, Minister for Law and Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, made the following comments regarding the Sub Judice principle:

“Once the Coroner announces his findings, both facts and conclusion, then people can offer their criticisms, viewpoints, comments on what the Police did, what my ministry did, or did not do. That is the official version of the facts, after people are cross-examined on the stand.

Sub Judice principles set out what can and cannot be said when a Court hearing or Inquiry, is pending. The various pronouncements, suggestions, statements which imply, allege that five officers interviewed him, that the Police intimidated, pressured Benjamin, into wrongly admitting to guilt. And that these must have been amongst the reasons why he probably committed suicide. These allegations possibly infringe the principles of Sub Judice, apart from being highly improper at this stage prior to the Coroner’s Inquiry. The Coroner decides on the scope of his Inquiry based on the Coroner’s Act. Some of these issues may be raised at or become relevant at the Inquiry. […]

The law is as follows: The Rules of Sub Judice generally preclude discussions which may prejudice proceedings but public officials like myself can make statements, if they believe it to be necessary in the public interest, even if there is a hearing pending.

I have myself commented on some occasions in the past, when a case is pending. When I have done so, I had carefully considered the legal position, and kept within the principles of Sub Judice. TOC and some others have ignored the pending Coroner’s inquiry, and have made wild allegations in this matter. It is in the public interest that we clarify the position. As to what happens to those people who have made those allegations, I would prefer not to comment today.”

TODAY, the broadsheet, interviewed the parents of Benjamin Lim today with regards to the Acting Education Minister (Schools), Ng Chee Meng’s Ministerial Statement on the death of the 14-year-old.

Mr Ng had said in his Speech that:

“The Principal also gave instructions to the school counsellor to give Benjamin’s mother a call on the same day to check on Benjamin’s well-being. […]

As such, when the school counsellor called Benjamin’s mother on the afternoon of 26 January to check on Benjamin’s well-being, the counsellor also raised with Benjamin’s mother if it would be better for Benjamin to remain with his family during this difficult period. His mother agreed and hence it was decided that Benjamin would stay at home.”

Mr Lim disputed the Education Minister’s version of events and reportedly said:

“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 newspaper also reported that it asked the Ministry of Education for comments on Mr Lim’s response and that a Ministry of Education’s 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. 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.”

Was TODAY’s report in contempt of the Sub Judice principle?

[kuasimi]

LawSoc President Thio responds to Minister Shanmugam, while ex-NMP Calvin Cheng calls for Thio’s head
By The Independent - March 2, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/lawsoc-pres...or-thios-head/





Besides the socio-political publication, The Online Citizen, Mr K Shanmugam in his Ministerial Speech on the death of Benjamin Lim, also singled out the President of The Law Society of Singapore, Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC.

The Law and Home Affairs Minister alleged that Mr Thio made public statements which “effectively imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation”. The Minister argued that Mr Thio’s facts were wrong, and that as a lawyer he should have taken his cue from expert evidence and assessments from psychologists.

Mr Thio has responded to the accusations by the Minister in a statement to Yahoo Singapore. He said, “there was no intention to imply that Benjamin’s tragic death was caused by police intimidation. In fact, the article specifically states that we will never know why Benjamin took his life that day.”






He further told reporters of the website that the focus of the Law Gazette message was that the criminal justice system should provide quick access to counsel, especially for the more vulnerable members of the public.

Former Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Calvin Cheng, however, has called for the President of the Law Society to step down for bringing the society into disrepute. He made the comment in Mr Shanmugam’s Facebook post of his Ministerial speech.

When other commenters pointed out that Mr Cheng should be more measured with his words especially since he is a member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC), he drew the MLC further into the controversy by saying that as a member of the Council, he urged the commenters to be media literate and “not believe the falsehoods spread by TOC and their fans.”

“TOC is a well known rumour monger and a disseminator of falsehoods. Please improve your media literacy skills,” he added.

[kuasimi]

In Benjamin’s case, Shanmugam is worse than Khaw at public relations
By The Independent - March 2, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/in-benjamin...lic-relations/


By Howard Lee

Before you decide that Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan got off to a bad start this year in Parliament, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam might have just beaten him to it.

While Khaw was busy heaping it on commuters about their impatience with a six-minute extension to the downtown line, lamenting about his inability to handle a Twitter flame-war, and generally confusing train disruptions with longer travel routes, Shanmugam appeared to have decided that neither of his Ministries had the capacity to respond to The Online Citizen’s alleged “orchestrated campaign of falsehoods” about the death of 14 year-old Benjamin Lim, instead suggesting that sub-judice charges might be in order.

Lim had fallen to his death from his home after the police have interviewed him about an alleged molestation offence. The incident has prompted a public outcry and even Lim’s parents decided to issue their own public statement on the matter.

If the Minister now wishes to claim sub-judice, he is nearly a month short of being timely, let alone say anything that demonstrates “respect for Benjamin’s family” or what “a matter of public interest” means.

To begin with, Shanmugam claimed that the 20-odd articles TOC published on the case contained insinuations that the police were lying to the public and had intimidated Lim. He also reserved similar words for Law Society president Thio Shen Yi.

But insinuations cannot stand in for accusation. If anything, public interest in the matter was less about the police not doing their jobs, but the fact that they were perhaps doing too much. Greater public interest revolved around whether police procedure was executed at the expense of good sense, in which the Ministry of Education also drew some flak for doing far too little to protect Lim.

Comparatively, MOE’s response was a little timelier, and while hardly sufficient in quieting public anger, did effectively acknowledge the concern that many parents might have following this incident: Will MOE exercise a duty of care to protect the children entrusted to them?

Does the Home Team understand what all the public interest was about? Why then, blame the public for demanding answers?

And Shanmugam’s latest response to that same public interest in Parliament was hardly assuring. In the court of public judgement, it might in fact come across as dripping of double standards. Wait for the Coroner’s Inquiry, or risk sub-judice. But as a public figure, I can continue speaking because “public confidence in the police must be maintained”.

Would the head of the police force be the most credible voice when defending public confidence in the police? What weight does it have in dispelling any perceived police wrong doing? How big is the cone of silence? Can we even utter a word of concern?

In addition, we now have another dilemma to consider: Why are questions about police action in this case sub-judice? The coroner’s inquiry, by definition, would very likely deal with Lim’s cause of death. Will it also look into what happened during the time he was in police custody? If not, why would views that supposedly shake “public confidence in the police” be an issue here?

No answers to these, and many other questions. If anything, Shanmugam’s most affirmative statement is this: “I have asked my Ministry to study how the police and other institutions can respond in future to such falsehoods.”

The response could really have been a lot simpler and more transparent. There is no need for any elaborate study or strategies of response.

“We are aware of rumours circulating online about the death of Benjamin Lim. We would like to, first and foremost, convey our sympathies to the family of Benjamin for this tragedy. We assure them that we will leave no stone unturned in the Coroner’s Inquiry, any police wrong-doing will be dealt with justly, and a thorough review of police procedures will be done if necessary. Meanwhile, we would like to call on the public to remain calm and wait for the verdict before drawing any premature conclusions. We would also like to request that TOC and the Law Gazette publish this statement.”

Concern, action, perspective. Crisis communications 101. The best way to put out a fire is probably not to stand quietly by and let it burn out, but to quickly remove any flammable material around it. Wouldn’t direct and honest engagement be a lot more productive and efficient?