South-East Asia (Page 1,349)

SINGAPORE: A chief warder at Changi Prison was being escorted back to his body when an con undergoing drug rehab punched him, breaking a facial bone.

On Monday, October 9, Kaliappan Kumarasamy, 51, was given a three-year prison term after admitting guilt to one matter of intentionally harming an employee.

The victim, a 41-year-old agent with the Singapore Prison Service for 19 years, was revealed to the court.

He served as the Cluster B Institution B5 Chief Warder at Changi Prison.

The prey was on duty at Institution B5 on the morning of December 21 of last year. Kaliappan was one of the prisoners who had been allowed to leave their cells so they could receive treatment.

The victim and his brother officers led the prisoners up to their cells at around 9 a.m. & nbsp,

The target approached Kaliappan, and the two of them continued to converse usually as they walked down the hallway to his body, according to the attorney.

The victim made a polite gesture by touching Kaliappan’s top arm as they walked and conversed.

A split second later, Kaliappan violently punched the victim in the face. The target collapsed to the floor.

Kaliappan stood in front of the officer as he was getting up and threw another bite, but it missed.

The sufferer soon activated his conversation system and called for help after realizing he was bleeding from his nose and mouth.

Additional soldiers in the area rushed over right away to assist him. Kaliappan kept adopting a combative position and raising both hands.

Just after one of the soldiers used pepper spray did a group of them manage to subdue him.

The target visited the hospital and was granted a seven-day hospitalization leave. As of March of this year, he had a physical tooth fracture and was still experiencing left physical numbness.

Kaliappan acknowledged assaulting the victim, claiming that he was upset about a distinct argument with another prisoner and an internal investigation that had been conducted against him.

Kaliappan, who had numerous prior convictions dating back to 1986 for offenses like extortion, drug use, desertion, and failing to report for a urine test, was sought three years in prison by the prosecutor.

The only significant sentence, however, came in 2018, when he was found guilty of two matters of deliberately inflicting harm and required to go through mandatory treatment.

According to Deputy Public Prosecutor James Chew, Kaliappan’s crime carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison along with an additional fine or punishment.

He added that protecting line law enforcement officers is of utmost public interest and that the higher prescribed punishment reflects the severity of the offense.

This offense against a prison officer took place inside the prison, and for behavior needs to be discouraged, according to Mr. Chew. Inmates have been informed that they should not also consider touching any prison officers.

He continued by saying that if Kaliappan hadn’t been his years, he may have requested punishment.

The unrepresented Kaliappan begged for mercy in moderation, saying he was” suffering a significant here” and” very, very sorry.” At various points during the hearing, he reacted angrily and physically, and it wasn’t until the judge gave him a firm warning that things started to calm down.

” How far I’ve been suffering, only God will hear.” Every morning, I have been praying. I’m honest about all of my errors. I simply want to leave jail and make a difference in my life. Since my mother passed away in 2021, I’ve been feeling extremely depressed. Through an interpreter, he said,” I don’t want to die in prison.”

Officials must be able to carry out their duties freely, District Judge Sharmila Sripathy noted. She claimed that this was an unprovoked act of unwarranted violence.

According to the judge, Kaliappan’s anger toward the sufferer may be inferred from the fact that he was subdued using pepper spray and a number of officers.

Continue Reading

SINGAPORE: The Chief Justice determined that a reformed upskirter and two individuals who engaged in copying while in college were eligible for admission as activists and lawyers of the Supreme Court, and they have been admitted to the Bar.

For taking upskirt video of a person on public transportation in 2018, Mr. Chester Lee Jun Ming was imprisoned for one month.

During his final semester at the National University of Singapore( NUS ), Mr. Chong Weng Teng” self-plied” by using passages from another research paper he had submitted for a different module.

Ms. Lin Shuang Ju plagiarized another author’s work in an article she wrote for Lexicon, a student legal publication club affiliated with Singapore Management University( SMU ).

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon stated in a decision made public on Monday( Oct 9) that the applicant’s character was the primary consideration in attendance software.

After going over each of their cases, he agreed to let them in after concluding that Mr. Lee had as shown that his character had been changed and that the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Chong and Ms Lin’s cases did not point to deceit or any other character flaw.

The Attorney General, the Law Society of Singapore, and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education determined that the candidates were” fit and proper” for registration based on their personality for all three applications.

THE CASE OF MR. LEE

In May 2017, Mr. Lee captured a girl on two upskirt films while riding public transportation. In January 2018, he admitted to insulting a person’s reserve. A second, related charge was also taken into account. He was given the harsh sentence of one month in prison.

Although the crime had occurred six years earlier, the Chief Justice remarked that its seriousness never be overstated.

Someone capable of committing such an offense” will almost always be found to be inadequate for admission as an advocate and solicitor in terms of his character ,” according to Chief Justice Menon. Physical offenses” always and eventually entail a serious violation of the dignity and physical integrity, frequently causing deep-seated trauma.”

However, he discovered that Mr. Lee had” properly reformed his personality” over the previous six years and was” no longer the same person as the person who committed the offense.”

He noted, among other things, that Mr. Lee followed MRT staff’s instructions when he was apprehended, confessed to his wrongdoing to the police, and immediately informed his company of the cost while expressing regret.

Mr. Lee maintained a spotless legal and educational history after being released from prison, according to the Chief Justice.

He continued to work full-time, enrolled in law school, graduated, passed the bar exams, and finished a practice teaching deal.

Additionally, Mr. Lee got character references from two people, including his immediate officer and a former Malaysian prosecutor who claimed to have corrected his character after learning from his errors.

Chief Justice Menon even remarked that Mr. Lee did not attempt to minimize his guilt in any way when he applied for entrance, but rather fully disclosed his offense.

Instead, he acknowledged that his actions were” wrong, despicable, and disrespectful to women ,” and the Chief Justice was convinced that” considerable reformation of his character” had taken place.

Additionally, he said that” nearly all forms of legal punishment are inevitably intended to, and would, have some remedial effect on the offender.”

According to him,” Legal abuse can give an offender the motivation to understand why what they did was bad and to reform themselves to avoid doing the same again.”

It seems reasonable to assume that legal consequence has contributed in some way to an applicant’s character reformation when they have endured it and have kept a clear record for an extended period of time afterward.

Due to all of these factors, Chief Justice Menon determined that Mr. Lee had changed since his offense and was suitable for bar registration.

THE Circumstances OF PLAGIARISM

Mr. Chong, the next person, stole his own job while enrolled in the China and International Economic Law component of the NUS ‘ Faculty of Law during his last quarter.

He reused sections of another study papers he had formerly submitted for a different module when submitting this one.

Such behavior was forbidden by NUS Law’s humane conduct standards and its copying policy.

After the class conducted a copying investigation, Mr. Chong acknowledged his wrongdoing, expressed regret, and stated that he would take any punishment.

In order to postgraduate in 2022, he retaken the unit after receiving zero signs on the paper as a punishment.

According to Chief Justice Menon, this” academic offense” was caused by his ignorance of plagiarism instructions and” his ignorance that theft only involved copying someone else’s work ,” not by a lack of academic unity.

He was discovered to be honest when he self-plied, but really conscious that his actions were against NUS’s rules.

According to Chief Justice Menon, Mr. Chong’s neglect in this instance did not reveal a character flaw.

He emphasized how crucial it was for Mr. Chong to admit his error, express regret for it, and accept the punishment without hesitation right away. Despite the fact that there was no common report, he even fully disclosed his offense in his application for admission to the table.

When a senior lecturer asked the next applicant, Ms. Lin, to write an article on cats trusts for SMU’s Lexicon, she plagiarized the work of another author.

Early in July of this year, the article was published in the Singapore Law Journal, but immediately after, a copying objection was received.

She is accused of plagiarizing a piece written by Mr. Andrew B. F. Carnabuci. In the notes of her post, Ms. Lin had cited Mr. Carnabuci’s content twice.

At a meeting on July 26 of this year, Ms. Lin gave her accounts of what had happened to SMU. Domestic investigations by SMU revealed some evidence of theft in the form of some use of other people’s work without proper attribution.

But, SMU also discovered that by improving identification and editing appropriately, this could be fixed. Ms. Lin apologized to Mr. Carnabuci in a letter, and he accepted her apologies.

The Chief Justice concurred that Ms. Lin’s theft didn’t seem to have involved deception. He took into account her quick apology, which Mr. Carnabuci accepted.

The Chief Justice claimed that the issue with Ms. Lin’s post was that she had paraphrased different concepts from various articles, cited those texts, and synthesized andnbsp, those concepts into an essay on the subject.

This wasn’t appropriate for an intellectual article, even though it might have been suitable for a university assignment. Ms. Lin entirely misunderstood what was expected of an intellectual publication in that regard, he claimed.

It was Ms. Lin’s second time publishing an educational article, and because it lacked publishability, it was gradually retracted.

Chief Justice Menon admitted her to the club because there was no evidence of deception in the situation.

Continue Reading

SINGAPORE: In order to obtain an employment pass, a foreign businessman falsely claimed that he would be working for the local company in front of the Ministry of & nbsp, Manpower ( MOM ).

In actuality, he had no intention of working for the business. Instead, the purpose of the pass was to make his stay in Singapore legitimate so that he could eventually obtain permanent residency and Singaporean citizenship in exchange for a” investment” in the business worth S 360 000 ( US$ 263 000 ).

Chinese national Zhang Qingqiao, 37, was given a four-week prison term on Monday( Oct. 9 ) for one count of making an untrue declaration to the Controller of Work Passes.

He had denied the accusation, but at the end of the test, he was found guilty.

Zhang was a seasoned entrepreneur who started investing in 2012 while still in China, according to the jury.

His long-term goal was to relocate his entire household to Singapore and establish themselves there, finally obtaining citizenship and permanent residency in Singapore.

Zhang met Wang Jue, also known as Jess, around July 2019 while he was pursuing a Marketing in Singapore.

Zhang’s defense claims that Wang continued a dishonest investment plan. & nbsp,

Zhang made the decision to” invest” S$ 360,000 in MW Dynamics after meeting Wang. This came after he turned down a$ 2 million investment plan that would have allowed him to obtain PR status in three years.

He would acquire an employment pass from the business as part of the program, where he would receive a monthly income of S$ 10,000.

He had allegedly receive the S$ 360,000 back through his salary after three years, and he wouldn’t have to do any work or give a review to the business.

Even though he had no plans to work for MW Dynamics, the judge noted that the goal of this” zero-returns” investment was to obtain an employment pass with the company in order to justify his stay in Singapore.

In accordance with the plan, Zhang signed and gave the Controller of Work Passes a resolution requesting an employment go in September 2019.

He stated on the application that he would be working as a business growth director for MW Dynamics and earning S$ 10,000 per month.

The program was given the go-ahead.

Zhang’s punishment comes after another Foreign nation, Yu Huajie, was sentenced to seven days in prison for comparable offenses. It is unclear how the wrongdoings were discovered.

When Wang applied for an career move, he had a similar experience.

Zhang’s defense group claimed Wang was a survivor who had been duped during the trial and pointed the finger at Wang.

The defense’s attempt to place the entire blame on ( Wang ), according to the judge,” did not persuade him.”

While defense attorneys Mr. Sunil Sudheesan and Ms. Joyce Khoo of Quahe Woo & amp, Palmer, requested a fine, the prosecution sought four to six weeks in jail for Zhang.

JUDGE’S COMMENTS

According to the information, according to Principal District Judge Victor Yeo, Zhang entered into the investment in order to obtain an employment pass and was aware from the beginning that he was not required to work for the business.

His claims that he didn’t read, write, or speak English and trusted Wang with the employment pass application were” unconvincing ,” according to Judge Yeo, who is an experienced entrepreneur who can consult with his attorney about investments.

The 18-month-long deception immediately violated MOM’s policy for issuing like passes.

According to the prosecutor, it also has an impact on immigration legislation.

The defense had argued that this situation was distinct from normal Employment of Foreign Manpower Act circumstances, which frequently involve accidental employers who break the law in order to make money, or false or forged qualifications. & nbsp,

However, Judge Yeo claimed that Zhang had given MW Dynamics a sizable sum of money, so the defense’s claim that the wrongdoing company in this case had certainly benefited financially would not be entirely accurate.

Zhang could have easily obtained an employment pass through his home business, just as his family had done, according to Mr. Sudheesan.

Judge Yeo, but, stated that he could not offer this much weight. It was” pure speculation ,” to start. Zhang had chosen this way, which required a fake pronouncement, even if he was successful in other ways to obtain PR status or citizenship.

Zhang’s family is” very settled” in Singapore, so Judge Yeo added that he could not give much weight to the possibility of imprisonment or an access ban.

He said,” I do not consider this to be a very relevant consideration.”

Zhang wants to challenge his judgment and word.

Wang was potentially face criminal charges for assisting Zhang with his work go program, according to the court’s justifications for convicting Zhang.

Zhang could have been imprisoned for up to two years, fined as much as Mho$ 20,000, or both for submitting a false application for an employment pass on his resolution form.

Continue Reading