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.
Sexual violence and misconduct are far more prevalent than we realize. Due to the intimate nature of these incidents, there are usually no witnesses other than the perpetrators and victims, making prosecution incredibly challenging. It often boils down to a 'he said, she said' situation, pitting one person's testimony against another's. Sadly, many victims cannot bear the emotional trauma of testifying against their perpetrators in court, leading them to suffer in silence.
In the U.S., only 1 in 3 cases are ever reported to the police, and merely 3% of perpetrators end up in jail. This staggering statistic suggests that for every Larry Nassar, there are likely 32 perpetrators walking free.
In Singapore, approximately 20% of sexual harassment and assault cases result in prosecution, with only 13% leading to convictions. This means that even in Singapore, for every perpetrator brought to justice, there are 7 evading consequences.
That's why we have to rely on institutions to have proper procedures to deter sexual offenders: having a "zero-tolerance policy", especially in educational institutes is both paramount and elementary!
After Monica Baey's outcry for a stronger punishment against sexual misconduct on campus, Minister of Law Mr. Shanmugum vowed for "no free pass". In his parliament statement (2022), of 37 sexual misconduct cases being reported to the Police, only 5% received No-Further-Actions (NFAs), and 40% received a warning of some sort, and 40% were prosecuted.
So why did AGC repeatedly give NFAs in V's case?
Let me remind you this incident took place 1) during COVID; 2) done by a teacher against a student (power position), 3) against a minor, 4) has 2 SAS reports which are corroborated by the Superintendent, under oath; and 5) has a clear psychiatric damage.
Why?!