2 Chinese national women vs Singaporean man

[Sdf4786k]

 

duh...waste court time

 

 

https://tdy.sg/30bIwEl

SINGAPORE — The twin sisters who were caught on video causing a ruckus at Simei Green condominium in 2015 had their appeal against their conviction dismissed on Wednesday (July 3).

During the hearing before their appeal was rejected, they put up an impassioned plea to the judge not to treat them differently because they are women from China.

Speaking through a Chinese interpreter, the older of the 51-year-old twins, Tang Bei, told the High Court: “Doesn’t mean that just because I am weaker being a woman, and a woman from China, that I deserve to be hit.”

Last year, the sisters, both Singapore permanent residents, were convicted of causing hurt to security officer Charles Kenneth Bligh, and assaulting and using criminal force on condominium manager Colvin Quek Choon Kiat. They were found guilty after a 21-day trial that spanned more than two years. Tang Bei was fined $2,100 and her sister Tang Lei was fined $2,500.

 

The attack erupted after a dispute over a condominium access card, which saw the twins spitting into Mr Quek’s face, while Tang Lei splashed the contents of a canned drink at him.

Mr Bligh tried to break up the confrontation, but the pair hit him on the right arm and shoulder.

On Wednesday, Tang Bei, who was self-represented, was arguing that Mr Quek had admitted to punching her in a “controlled” manner during the scuffle on April 28, 2015. Mr Quek was not charged.

She also accused the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) of basing their charges on Mr Quek’s account, which was “completely taken out of context and not truthful”.

The manager’s account cannot be believed because he had an intention to chase the twins out after a run-in with her two months ago, during which the man choked and molested her, Tang Bei said.

“After I was hit, molested and insulted for my nationality, I just reacted naturally as a normal human would. And Colvin Quek lifted his hands first. But in the prosecution’s eyes, it was a natural reaction by a normal person,” she added.

A DISORDERLY HEARING THAT WENT OVERTIME

These were the points that the sisters — who were taking turns to make submissions — belaboured throughout their hearing that went overtime, taking up close to four hours although it was scheduled to take three hours at most.

Justice Aedit Abdullah had to issue repeated reminders to them to stick to their main arguments because he had already read their written submissions.

But each time the judge interjected, the twins would insist that they needed to say two to three more sentences, then they would proceed to make a few more points.

Justice Aedit had to cut them off abruptly on many instances. At one point, he ordered the duo to stand up as he rapped them for not listening to commands.

When making submissions, Tang Bei also fixed her gaze on Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) Bhajanvir Singh and Ho Lian-Yi who represented the AGC, prompting Justice Aedit to ask her twice: “Why are you facing them?”

The DPPs avoided making eye contact with her during the proceedings.

At some moments, the hearing turned emotional as well.

Tang Bei said with a raised voice: “Quek was the provoker… He threw the punch because he wanted the situation to deteriorate… When we chose to leave this dangerous place (the management’s office), he followed us out in hope that the situation would escalate.”

She continued: “Quek gave false testimony. That clearly shows he is the real criminal. If not, he doesn’t need to. Is it because I am from China and a woman?”

She earlier testified that Mr Quek had made discriminatory statements at her, including scolding her “F PRCs” in the April incident.

'WE ARE THE TRUE VICTIMS'

Switching to speak in English, Tang Bei cried as she said: “Your Honour, I have lived in Singapore for over 20 years. I never had a criminal record. Now I was molested, choked, punched, but I am in the criminal stand.

“If this incident was told to international media and the rest of the world, it would be seen as a joke. And it would encourage other molesters to set traps (on their victims). Do I not have the basic right to react after I was molested and punched twice?

“I have been innocent all my life, but because I didn’t choose to file a police report…”

Justice Aedit stopped her from continuing, as she had made the point several times about how she was being “benevolent" when she did not report Mr Quek’s alleged molest and choking in February 2015 to the police.

When given yet another chance to speak, Tang Bei said: “We hope that Your Honour would treat us fairly… I believe that Singapore’s law will be fair to everyone, (whether) foreigner or foreigner woman. If the prosecutor and the police can ignore the provocations and actions (Quek) had committed, I believe you can set aside the charges we face.”

She then volunteered her takeaway from the whole ordeal: “The lesson for me is that if I see a molester, I will no longer hesitate to report to the police.”

Asked if she would want a lower sentence, Tang Lei said: “No matter what the sentence, it would be unfair.”

The prosecution argued that the appeal should consider the strength of the evidence adduced. “We have the footage. We have a report that Mr Quek did suffer injuries... In the face of overwhelming evidence, the charges were made out,” DPP Singh said.

THE VERDICT

Justice Aedit opened his verdict by stating that he had "a clear impression of (the twins’) grievances” about how they were treated.

Pointing out that there was considerable interest in the case partly because of their nationality, he said: “I would like to emphasise that the courts in Singapore will determine matters fairly and equally for all persons regardless of nationality, religion, or any (background) of that nature.

“The court does not distinguish between people of different backgrounds. What the court needs to do is to consider the law and the evidence tendered.”

Justice Aedit then said he is not persuaded that there was enough evidence to overturn what the trial judge had ruled, nor was there any valid area of law contested.

As for Tang Bei’s defence that she was being provoked into action, the judge ruled that none of those were “grave and sudden” that could justify her reaction.

He also said that the perceptions of others involved in the case are “matters not before me”.

“(They) would involve the prosecutors’ discretion,” he added. “All I can do is to determine if the charges were made out.” 

He then said: “I commend you for putting in the effort (to pursue the case).”

ABOUT THE CASE

Sometime before Feb 25, 2015: Mr Quek’s first encounter with Tang Bei, after he was alerted by condo security that she did not have a resident’s pass and had been tailgating others through the condo’s side gate.

Feb 25, 2015: Tang Bei and Mr Quek go to the condo’s management office to apply for an access card, but she cannot provide her documents. As Mr Quek will not return her the S$100 she just gave him to process the card, she lifts the flap of the counter in the office and presses her body against Mr Quek. To stop her advance, Mr Quek places one hand on Tang Bei’s neck. Tang then hits Mr Quek on his head a few times before she leaves, threatening to sue him for molestation. Mr Quek makes a police report.

April 28, 2015: The twins’ scuffle, later captured in a video that goes viral, breaks out when Tang Bei goes to the office to collect her pass, after being alerted that it is ready. A condominium employee calls the police in the midst of the incident.

May 2015: The twins are arrested and later charged.

November 2016: Tang Bei files a civil suit against Mr Quek, seeking S$50,000 in damages from the condominium manager and his employer for alleged battery, harassment and breach of confidence. Tang Lei similarly files a suit, seeking S$5,000 in damages for alleged harassment by Mr Quek. The suits are dismissed.

July 2018: Tang Lei and Tang Bei are convicted of the charges laid against them.

Aug 28, 2018: Tang Lei, who faced one more charge than her sister, is fined S$2,500. Tang Bei is fined S$2,100. The twins then file an appeal against their convictions and sentences.

April 25, 2019: A day before their appeals are scheduled to be heard, they file a criminal motion seeking leave to adduce further evidence before the High Court. A scheduled hearing is adjourned for submissions to be made.

July 3, 2019: The court hears the twins’ applications. Their criminal motion is denied, and their appeal dismissed.

 

 

both were lucky the PR was not revoked.

 

Anyway, we need the investment. Else the city will come to a halt.

[Mkl22]

both were lucky the PR was not revoked.

 

Anyway, we need the investment. Else the city will come to a halt.

I bet they dare not do the same if it was in a Chinese court.

[Staff69]

Wait till you see, how they behave when ica cancel their PR, that's when the real show begins

[Ct3833]

both were lucky the PR was not revoked.

 

Anyway, we need the investment. Else the city will come to a halt.

Agree but not fully. We need investment but we should welcome investors selectively, those who do not respect us should go home, we should not trade our pride for money, at least not for now yet

[Evillusion]

Agree but not fully. We need investment but we should welcome investors selectively, those who do not respect us should go home, we should not trade our pride for money, at least not for now yet

their investments actually drives our housing price upwards...

[Staff69]

If not for the 2011 tiny slap on pap hands...more foreign turds would have gotten PR

 

 

 

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/rapid-growth-singapores-immigrant-population-brings-policy-challenges

 

 

 

But now, it's quietly opening up again. in part, we are to blame for the low birth rates here

Edited July 4, 2019 by Staff69

[Watwheels]

Sia suay ownself. If the rest of the world see this saga they would also cringe.

 

Pukes. Still have the cheek to cry molest. Cringe. Puke. Puke somore.

 

Troublemakers. It's exactly their behaviour that others despise their kind and they dont even realised it. Tailgating lah, aggressive confrontation, bullying, using gender as leverage, wasting court's time, no shame whatsoever. It's amazing the judge didnt charge them for contempt and throw them in jail. 4 hours of listening to the women yaking. Talk about good patience.

[Kopites]

deleted

Edited July 4, 2019 by Kopites

[Kopites]

which leg acupuncture shop are they working at now? my feet alot of death skin.

 

still pending for cpf withdrawal in few years

Edited July 4, 2019 by Kopites

[RH1667]

I hope the court made them pay for the appeal session besides the fine. i think the fine should be at least doubled since the appeal failed. 

[Victor68]

To me,  all 3 ( the man and the 2 women) are at fault.

 

No wind No Current (translate in Chinese please, Hanyu Pinyin - Wu Feng Bu Qi Lang), they are just provoking each other to start with !

 

Waste of time and resource, really.

I believe that guy is a service provider whilst the ladies are his clients. Therefore, the service provider has no choice but to 'entertain' the clients by responding. Otherwise he is out of his job.

 

I also believe he has difficulties dealing with them previously and therefore set up video to capture what happen as a protection. He would have excuse himself if he could but quite obvious this is not possible. Ultimately, in any situation, there should be recourse and nobody should take law into their own hands. The minute you lay a hand or be abusive, you are already wrong. If you visit BCA office at Jurong, you will notice the sign big big telling you not to abuse their staff. Why? I think more public awareness should be given on such abuse.