The law professor implicated in the sex-for-grades case has been found guilty of corruption after a trial that spanned five months, from January to May. He will be sentenced on Wednesday.
SINGAPORE: The law professor implicated in the
sex-for-grades case has been found guilty of corruption after a trial
that spanned five months, from January to May.
He will be sentenced on Wednesday.
Tey Tsun Hang, 42, was convicted of all six counts of corruptly obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student Darinne Ko Wen Hui, in return for giving her better grades between May and July 2010.
Following the verdict, the National University of Singapore (NUS) said it has terminated Tey's employment with immediate effect. It said in a statement that Tey had contravened the conditions of his appointment.
The Dean of NUS Faculty of Law, Simon Chesterman, said that NUS staff and students are expected to behave ethically and responsibly.
The case centred on Tey's relationship with his former student. The defence had argued it was a mutually-loving relationship.
But in a 200-page judgement, Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye listed reasons why it was one-sided and described it as "an illicit relationship laced with corrupt intent".
He said Tey never once mentioned in his statements (to authorities) that he was in love with Ms Ko, nor had he ever referred to her by her name.
Instead, the judge said Tey would use "female student" and even "star prosecution witness" when he referred to her in his cautioned statements.
The judge said Tey only told the court they were in a romantic relationship "as an afterthought".
He noted that in the second tranche of the trial, Tey changed his tune and claimed they were in love.
The judge pointed out that in his email correspondences to Ms Ko, Tey was always "terse" and "sometimes even curt".
Pointing to Tey's Chinese poem and an email on the background of Frederic Chopin to Ms Ko, the judge said: "When he (Tey) did write to Ms Ko, it was an anti-climatic copy-and-paste exercise."
During the three-hour long judgement, Tey was described as not having any "basic decency" as he made Ms Ko pay his expenses for a trip to the United States. At that time, Ms Ko was an exchange student at Duke University and Tey visited her, but only offered to pay his own airfare.
The judge said this happened when the law professor was earning S$225,000 as at February 2010, while Ms Ko was a mere student.
On Ms Ko's pregnancy, the judge said Tey had told her to abort their child when he found out about it.
The court heard that at that time, Ms Ko was in the US and Tey told her to have an abortion there and that he had no money for the operation. She had to pay US$2,000 herself.
And while Ms Ko may have showered him gifts out of love and affection, the judge agreed with the prosecution that the 23-year-old was also trying to get into Tey's good books.
The judge also impeached the key prosecution witness' credibility on the reasons for getting the gifts -- the Monblanc pen, tailored shirts, iPod, as well as the payment of a dinner bill.
He said there were serious discrepancies in these areas between her CPIB statements and testimony.
The judge said she negated the corrupt intent and told the court she gave the gifts without intent to seek special favours. This differed from her first statement to the CPIB.
The judge said he is of the view that Ms Ko's first and second statements to the authorities were reliable and her third was not.
"Sometime after her second statement on 28 April 2012, she realised that her first statement had incriminated herself and exposed her to possible charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"She could be charged as a giver who corruptly gave gratifications to the accused. She then decided to retract the incriminating parts of her statement," said Judge Tan.
But the judge highlighted that it is irrelevant to determine whether Ms Ko had breached the Act, and that the court should instead focus on Tey's corrupt intent.
Previously, Tey had argued that there was no corrupt intent as Ms Ko was an "A" student who did not need him to give her good grades.
But the court found that Tey had great influence over Ms Ko and the status of the two were "clearly disproportionate".
The judge said favouring Ms Ko need not be extreme. It could just mean bumping her grades up slightly from a "B+" to "A-".
In court, two professors were asked of their view of Ms Ko's directed research paper. One said he would give her a "B+" while the other said he would give either an "A-" or an "A". Tey had awarded Ms Ko an "A".
The judge stressed that whether Tey had shown favour to Ms Ko or not was not vital. What was important was that he could influence her grades, and showed her he could, in order to obtain the gifts.
As for anonymous marking practised at NUS to deter corruption and favouritism, the judge said: "The integrity of the anonymous marking system no longer applied to Ms Ko as the accused would have recognised her handwriting, as she had sent him several handwritten love cards.
"When a professor and a student are in a relationship, like in this case, the virtues of anonymous marking no longer existed."
Another point of argument was Tey's claim that he reimbursed Ms Ko for the gifts and dinner bill with a S$2,500 cheque.
But the judge found this to be untrue -- first, because Ms Ko denied unequivocally ever receiving the reimbursement. Second, that if Tey had repaid her, she would have told the court and would have been exonerated of bribing her lecturer.
On Tey's part, the judge said this was the key to proving his innocence, but he did not inform the CPIB of the reimbursement for the gifts.
The judge made it plain that the defence of reimbursement was an "afterthought" as it was "impossible to estimate the cost of dinner at Garibaldi on 21 July, 2012, before it happened".
Judge Tan said: "The accused could simply have produced his bank statements to show his withdrawal of the money (the $2,500 reimbursement), but he chose not to do so.
"As he would have produced his bank statements if they supported his case, it stands to reason that his bank statements would, if produced, be unfavourable to him."
On Tey's mental condition, the judge rejected psychiatrist Dr Tommy Tan's diagnosis that Tey was suffering from acute stress disorder. The judge said it was "unreliable" and "not objective".
In a report dated 2 May, 2013, forensic psychiatrist Dr Bharat Saluja said Tey "does not suffer from any psychotic disorder or any organic brain disorder".
Judge Tan said: "By a process of elimination, since the accused was not suffering from severe brain damage, organic disorders, or chronic and severe psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia, it must stand to reason that the accused was malingering."
The judge said Tey was also "dishonest" not only in court, but also to Ms Ko, CPIB officers and medical experts. He said a "depraved" Tey "clearly took undue advantage" of Ms Ko.
The judge said secrecy and serendipitousness are common characteristics of someone with criminal intent and that "evidence against the accused was overwhelming".
The court also rejected Tey's allegations that his statements to the CPIB were made under duress.
The judge also took into account that Tey had admitted that he breached the university's code of conduct, but continued to hide this from the school.
He also said the university is a public body as it's an instrument to implement government policy. This meant that Tey was a public servant and the presumption of corruption applied to him.
Judge Tan said: "In this case, the presumption of corruption under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act operated against the accused. In other words, he was assumed to have received the gratifications in the six charges as an inducement for showing favour to Ms Ko in his assessment of her academic performance.
"Even without this presumption, there was sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt his corrupt intention and guilty knowledge. For the above reasons, I came to the irresistible conclusion that the accused had the corrupt intention and guilty knowledge in all of the six charges against him."
In mitigation, Tey's lawyer Peter Low asked for a stiff fine. He said if the court had to give a custodial sentence, to make it a short one.
During the hearing, Tey was seen listening intently to the judge as he sat in the dock with his head bowed low.
Once the session was over, Tey was greeted by his supporters, most of whom are his colleagues. They were visibly upset with his conviction and teared when they hugged him.
Tey will be sentenced on Wednesday. He could be jailed up to five years and fined up to S$100,000 on each charge.
He will be sentenced on Wednesday.
Tey Tsun Hang, 42, was convicted of all six counts of corruptly obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student Darinne Ko Wen Hui, in return for giving her better grades between May and July 2010.
Following the verdict, the National University of Singapore (NUS) said it has terminated Tey's employment with immediate effect. It said in a statement that Tey had contravened the conditions of his appointment.
The Dean of NUS Faculty of Law, Simon Chesterman, said that NUS staff and students are expected to behave ethically and responsibly.
The case centred on Tey's relationship with his former student. The defence had argued it was a mutually-loving relationship.
But in a 200-page judgement, Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye listed reasons why it was one-sided and described it as "an illicit relationship laced with corrupt intent".
He said Tey never once mentioned in his statements (to authorities) that he was in love with Ms Ko, nor had he ever referred to her by her name.
Instead, the judge said Tey would use "female student" and even "star prosecution witness" when he referred to her in his cautioned statements.
The judge said Tey only told the court they were in a romantic relationship "as an afterthought".
He noted that in the second tranche of the trial, Tey changed his tune and claimed they were in love.
The judge pointed out that in his email correspondences to Ms Ko, Tey was always "terse" and "sometimes even curt".
Pointing to Tey's Chinese poem and an email on the background of Frederic Chopin to Ms Ko, the judge said: "When he (Tey) did write to Ms Ko, it was an anti-climatic copy-and-paste exercise."
During the three-hour long judgement, Tey was described as not having any "basic decency" as he made Ms Ko pay his expenses for a trip to the United States. At that time, Ms Ko was an exchange student at Duke University and Tey visited her, but only offered to pay his own airfare.
The judge said this happened when the law professor was earning S$225,000 as at February 2010, while Ms Ko was a mere student.
On Ms Ko's pregnancy, the judge said Tey had told her to abort their child when he found out about it.
The court heard that at that time, Ms Ko was in the US and Tey told her to have an abortion there and that he had no money for the operation. She had to pay US$2,000 herself.
And while Ms Ko may have showered him gifts out of love and affection, the judge agreed with the prosecution that the 23-year-old was also trying to get into Tey's good books.
The judge also impeached the key prosecution witness' credibility on the reasons for getting the gifts -- the Monblanc pen, tailored shirts, iPod, as well as the payment of a dinner bill.
He said there were serious discrepancies in these areas between her CPIB statements and testimony.
The judge said she negated the corrupt intent and told the court she gave the gifts without intent to seek special favours. This differed from her first statement to the CPIB.
The judge said he is of the view that Ms Ko's first and second statements to the authorities were reliable and her third was not.
"Sometime after her second statement on 28 April 2012, she realised that her first statement had incriminated herself and exposed her to possible charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"She could be charged as a giver who corruptly gave gratifications to the accused. She then decided to retract the incriminating parts of her statement," said Judge Tan.
But the judge highlighted that it is irrelevant to determine whether Ms Ko had breached the Act, and that the court should instead focus on Tey's corrupt intent.
Previously, Tey had argued that there was no corrupt intent as Ms Ko was an "A" student who did not need him to give her good grades.
But the court found that Tey had great influence over Ms Ko and the status of the two were "clearly disproportionate".
The judge said favouring Ms Ko need not be extreme. It could just mean bumping her grades up slightly from a "B+" to "A-".
In court, two professors were asked of their view of Ms Ko's directed research paper. One said he would give her a "B+" while the other said he would give either an "A-" or an "A". Tey had awarded Ms Ko an "A".
The judge stressed that whether Tey had shown favour to Ms Ko or not was not vital. What was important was that he could influence her grades, and showed her he could, in order to obtain the gifts.
As for anonymous marking practised at NUS to deter corruption and favouritism, the judge said: "The integrity of the anonymous marking system no longer applied to Ms Ko as the accused would have recognised her handwriting, as she had sent him several handwritten love cards.
"When a professor and a student are in a relationship, like in this case, the virtues of anonymous marking no longer existed."
Another point of argument was Tey's claim that he reimbursed Ms Ko for the gifts and dinner bill with a S$2,500 cheque.
But the judge found this to be untrue -- first, because Ms Ko denied unequivocally ever receiving the reimbursement. Second, that if Tey had repaid her, she would have told the court and would have been exonerated of bribing her lecturer.
On Tey's part, the judge said this was the key to proving his innocence, but he did not inform the CPIB of the reimbursement for the gifts.
The judge made it plain that the defence of reimbursement was an "afterthought" as it was "impossible to estimate the cost of dinner at Garibaldi on 21 July, 2012, before it happened".
Judge Tan said: "The accused could simply have produced his bank statements to show his withdrawal of the money (the $2,500 reimbursement), but he chose not to do so.
"As he would have produced his bank statements if they supported his case, it stands to reason that his bank statements would, if produced, be unfavourable to him."
On Tey's mental condition, the judge rejected psychiatrist Dr Tommy Tan's diagnosis that Tey was suffering from acute stress disorder. The judge said it was "unreliable" and "not objective".
In a report dated 2 May, 2013, forensic psychiatrist Dr Bharat Saluja said Tey "does not suffer from any psychotic disorder or any organic brain disorder".
Judge Tan said: "By a process of elimination, since the accused was not suffering from severe brain damage, organic disorders, or chronic and severe psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia, it must stand to reason that the accused was malingering."
The judge said Tey was also "dishonest" not only in court, but also to Ms Ko, CPIB officers and medical experts. He said a "depraved" Tey "clearly took undue advantage" of Ms Ko.
The judge said secrecy and serendipitousness are common characteristics of someone with criminal intent and that "evidence against the accused was overwhelming".
The court also rejected Tey's allegations that his statements to the CPIB were made under duress.
The judge also took into account that Tey had admitted that he breached the university's code of conduct, but continued to hide this from the school.
He also said the university is a public body as it's an instrument to implement government policy. This meant that Tey was a public servant and the presumption of corruption applied to him.
Judge Tan said: "In this case, the presumption of corruption under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act operated against the accused. In other words, he was assumed to have received the gratifications in the six charges as an inducement for showing favour to Ms Ko in his assessment of her academic performance.
"Even without this presumption, there was sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt his corrupt intention and guilty knowledge. For the above reasons, I came to the irresistible conclusion that the accused had the corrupt intention and guilty knowledge in all of the six charges against him."
In mitigation, Tey's lawyer Peter Low asked for a stiff fine. He said if the court had to give a custodial sentence, to make it a short one.
During the hearing, Tey was seen listening intently to the judge as he sat in the dock with his head bowed low.
Once the session was over, Tey was greeted by his supporters, most of whom are his colleagues. They were visibly upset with his conviction and teared when they hugged him.
Tey will be sentenced on Wednesday. He could be jailed up to five years and fined up to S$100,000 on each charge.
- CNA/xq/al