So ugly

In News Reports on November 21, 2012 at 3:36 am

WARNING: This post is not for children, virgins and saints
I’ve followed the Ng Boon Gay case pretty closely as well as many other court cases involving sex but I can’t recall a time I’ve felt as uncomfortable as today.

The court is already trying to grapple with this question of corrupt intent – and now it has to deal with what is love? Sheesh. If the prosecution is a representative of the State, then I dread to think that the state views trysts in a car as NOT love, not going to a hotel to make out is NOT love, declining overseas trips or dirty weekends is NOT love. Actually, it’s no business of the state…and I certainly hope this view isn’t being perpetuated in schools and civics lessons.

And what’s love got to do with it anyway? It’s an extra-marital affair that’s been going on for some time (according to the defence) or which had stopped (according to the prosecution). They are both adults and it seems like we are watching them in some kind of B-grade teen flick with questions like Do you love me? On a scale of one to 10?

I remember the prosecution making clear that it wasn’t about to police morals, so I guess the prosecution’s defence of its line of questioning is that it was forced to choose this tack to unpick the defence’s case that they were having an affair. I mean, the prosecution even got Ng to define DIY. (If you don’t know already, you shouldn’t be reading this).

It’s all so ugly.

So ugly that I’m beginning to lose sight of what the case is about. I gather the question turns on whether a public servant should receive anything, anything at all, from someone he or his organisation might, or already have, business dealings with. Never mind if nothing actually pans out.

Actually, it sounds like something that should be in some instruction manual for public servants. In any case, whichever way the court rules, I wonder how extensively that manual or code of conduct (so many these days…) would have to be re-written.

  1. This is getting utterly ridiculous! Now it’s beginning to look really foolish.. The whole thing should be thrown out!

  2. One major issue at stake here is this: why was Ng Boon Gay fired before even determining the extent of his guilt in court? Worse, he paid with his job solely on the testimony of one very unreliable witness.

    In this country we don’t pay enough attention to due process and the presumption of innocence. They should have suspended him with full pay, and *then* sue him for compensation later if/when guilt is proven.

    Another thing: what is the CPIB doing? Did they go overboard in pressurising witnesses? Interrogation tapes (if available) should be made available and aired in court, because it’s important to ascertain why her story changed so dramatically midway through the process. The legitimacy of the case hinges on what happened before Cecilia Sue’s fourth or fifth statement (out of 10).

    You are missing the point about the “code of conduct” for civil servants. Go and do it if it helps. But the more fundamental issue is about establishing proper due processes, to protect everyone who ever ends up in a situation like Ng Boon Gay’s.

  3. Not only should one not benefit from his/her position of power, perceived or otherwise. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most obvious) this for me is in the 3-4 point scale.

    Now the Npark bicycle fiasco is a 7-8 point for me. Does the director in question derived any benefit from the transaction directly? Nope, not at all. We all know that the government servant ethical / moral standard is sliding (the LTA ferarri “owner”) and a lot of them is gaming the system.

    The details of their romping is a distraction from addressing the jist of the issue.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: