Embedded Files
I've written to Minister of Law of Singapore, asking for a written reply on latest perjury evidence I've submitted to AGC. Stay tuned.
How to Molest a child and get Paid!
SUMMARY
My daughter, a minor at the time, was sexually harassed by a teaching assistant (TA) at the Singapore American School (SAS) on March 3, 2021. The TA put his bare arm on her bare thigh for about 20 seconds. This took place during Singapore COVID restrictions.
Since then, SAS has engaged in a number of cover-ups and attempted to silence the victim and her family. The TA lied to the police during their Outrage of Modesty (OM) investigation to avoid prosecution. He was not suspended by SAS during the entire six-month criminal investigation.
In August, 2021, I made the incident known through an online petition asking for "zero tolerance policy" in SAS, I got 250 signatures in 2 weeks. The TA, whom I have never met, filed a POHA lawsuit against me for "online harassment." This silenced all comments and dissents from the SAS community. In March 2023, a Singapore judge ruled that my petition website "harassed" the TA and awarded him SGD$10,000. It was only through the POHA proceedings, did I discover that TA and his lawyers provided false evidence to the OM investigations to get away.
If uncontested, the POHA ruling sets a dangerous legal precedent in Singapore for sexual offenders: you can lie to a criminal investigation and you sue to silence the victim and their families, and you might as well get paid!
If you are outraged by this story, please share it, leave a comment or donate to a GOFUNDME campaign here!
On Mar 3, 2021, my daughter (V) – a minor at the time – was sexually harassed by a teaching assistant (TA) in the Singapore American School (SAS). When she was the only student in the ceramics room, he approached, offering to help her to center the clay. When she tried to stand up and gave him the seat, he told her to remain seated, and then proceeded by putting his bare right arm on her bare left thigh for about 20 seconds. She was shocked but was restrained in her seat. He was also breathing heavily next to her, which made her very uncomfortable. This took place when Singapore was under strict COVID restrictions where 1 meter distance was strictly enforced. Why did he do that?!
We reported the incident immediately to SAS. What happened shocked us:
After 7 weeks of internal investigation, SAS provided two reports, confirming critical facts that “physical contact had occurred between (his) right arm and (her) left thigh”, “such contact, regardless of duration, would have made a student feel uncomfortable” and “this type of contact should not occur and is preventable”.
SAS confirmed the staff had taken “Child Safeguard training”. SAS had clear Sexual Harassment HR definitions, and the information corroborated in their own reports undeniably led to the conclusion that this was a case of sexual harassment. However, bafflingly, they reached the opposite conclusion: that this incident was NOT sexual harassment.
Frustrated with SAS’s investigation, V filed a Police report for “Outrage of Modesty” (OM, or molestation in Singapore) on May 1, 2021. After we informed SAS that a Police report had been filed, SAS still refused to suspend the TA. He remained on campus during the entire six-month Police criminal investigation and is still employed by SAS.
Then, SAS engaged in a number of cover-ups, trying to silence the victim, her family & dissents from SAS community:
They hired an outside law firm (TSMP) to do an “independent investigation”, after the Police report had been filed. TSMP didn’t interview V and was asked to investigate “inappropriate behavior”, of which SAS didn’t have any definition. After the TSMP report was ready, SAS tried to have our family sign a Non-Disclosure Undertaking (NDU). We refused to sign the NDU believing other parents & students have the right to know how such cases are handled.
On August 2, 2021, I published a petition website advocating for a "zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment" in SAS. The petition gained significant traction, garnering 250 signatures from the SAS community within two weeks. Faced with public outrage, SAS Superintendent Mr. Thomas Boasberg released a truncated version of the TSMP investigation report to the SAS community. In this report, the TA lied, and his statements contradicted both the two SAS investigation reports and V’s written statement.
The publicly released TSMP report omitted the entire Annex B, which included the victim’s written statement and both SAS investigation reports confirming the physical contact. When I raised the issue with SAS, they provided a Table of Contents for Annex B. This revealed that TSMP hadn't even been provided with SAS’s HR Definition for Sexual Harassment.
One petitioner highlighted a parallel cover-up involving a rape incident in Denver Public Schools, where Mr. Boasberg had been the Superintendent.
On August 12, 2021, a Mr. Zulkifri Bin Mohammed Monsor filed a POHA (Protection Against Online Harassment) lawsuit against me, alleging that my petition website had “harassed him”. Mr. Monsor is THE TA who has sexually harassed my daughter. I had never met Mr. Monsor and didn't even know his name's spelling. My petition site addressed SAS’ HR policy, referring to him as "a TA", and all names were redacted, so this daring but odd lawsuit surprised me. Since I was in Singapore then, I took down the petition site to comply with the Court order.
Singapore has stringent laws against molestation, and we sought legal advice from three different law firms. Based on my daughter's statement, descriptions, and SAS reports, all experts unequivocally asserted that this incident constituted a clear violation of Outrage of Modesty (OM), especially considering it occurred on campus, involved a minor, and transpired during COVID restrictions, with a clear psychiatric impact on her. However, from October 2021 to April 2022, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) informed us of their decisions of “No Further Action (NFA)” in their OM criminal investigation, without even issuing a warning. This outcome was perplexing, given the public statistics released by the Minister of Law in May 2022, indicating that only 5% of OM cases resulted in NFAs, with the majority receiving warnings or facing prosecution. I was left wondering: what happened?
In early December, 2021, Mr. Monsor offered to settle the POHA lawsuit against me if I will pay him SGD $20K, and permanently took down the petition site, and never talked about the case. I refused, and opted for a trial.
During the POHA legal proceedings, I uncovered a shocking revelation: Mr. Monsor and his legal team presented false evidence during a criminal investigation. This fabricated evidence was forced to be presented in the POHA trial to demonstrate Mr. Monsor's exoneration from the OM case.
At the end of March 2023, District Judge D. Ho issued her ruling. Astonishingly, she deemed my Petition site in violation of POHA and ordered Mr. Monsor to be awarded SGD$10,000 for "as compensation/damages for the injury to feelings." (??!!) This verdict has established a distressing precedent within the Singaporean legal system: it suggests that individuals can perpetrate harm against a child, deceive a criminal investigation, silence victims and their families, and still receive compensation. Allowing this verdict to go uncontested would establish a perilous legal precedent, affecting future victims of sexual misconduct in Singapore.
Therefore, I am now sharing my story here from the United States.
On this website, I will unveil files, petition comments, affidavits, and legal evidence that someone vigorously attempted to keep confidential. Who is behind this cover-up? Please read on!
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse