atans1

2 must reads: NUS voyeurism balls-up

In Public Administration on 25/04/2019 at 11:13 am

Or is it cock-up?

Sorry. Can’t help the flippancy. What happened is really black comedy at it’s blackest. After the police, AGC and NUS washed their hands (OK sort of) over a voyeur (Maybe taking the attitude “From poor family; must pang chance.”?), the unhappy victim got the voyeur crucified on the day the Christ was crucified or thereabouts.

If the system fails her, she cannot be expected to behave like a meek and mild lamb, can she? Power to her for having the balls to demand publicly that she gets her retribution. Note I said “retribution”, not “justice”.

Here’s a link to a very good commentary on the perspective that the police, AGC and NUS missed: a damning indictment of their failure to understand how gals feel.

Commentary: Here’s what zero tolerance towards sexual misconduct looks like

The NUS voyeurism incident offers lessons for all education institutions, says AWARE Executive Director Corinna Lim.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/nus-sexual-misconduct-zero-tolerance-toilet-filming-monica-baey-11472002

Even better is this comment from someone who seems to know how prosecutorial discretion works in practice. What he says bring back memories of the days when the then head of Crime section in the AGC and I chatted about the role of his team. Where he is wrong, is the person making the decision is supervised and the head of the crime division has to sign-off.

Heng Choy Yuen

I agree with the contents of your article. But the OVER-dependence on protocols and routine thinking may become too dogmatic. Here’s why I say so …. the RESULT of any interview by counsellors, investigations led by the SPF depends on whose desk the case file lands inside the AGC. He/she at AGC is the one who decides whether the legal process stops at his/her desk or be sent for arraignment. Due to the peculiar nature of sex-related and sexual crimes (stealing underwear, peeping tom, filming videos, physical outrgae of modesty, rape), sometimes a less-experienced AGC legal officer may make an error of judgement, not due to lack of factual evidence but simply because the analysis of cases involving sexual crimes require a deeper and thorough understanding beyond what is written in the Penal Code and statutes. Yes, there are more than sufficient precedents to guide towards a judgement (from 2015-2018 there were reportedly 20 cases of sexual misconduct handled by NUS alone) but I think in MIss Baey’s case, the person at AGC charged with deciding the punishment of MIss Baey’s offender perhaps made an error of judgement – by showing leniency (protecting the offender’s future) by itself is not ‘wrong’ when weighed against the evidence and facts gathered – but the ‘high probability of being remorseful” is an ASSESSMENT, not a fact. THe AGC officer in this case should have also considered a more potent FACT backed up by global research on the mental health of sex crimes victims – the FACT that Miss Baey, along with countless victims of similar sex crimes, will live with her mental trauma, fears and anguish. In all probability for the rest of her life. No amount of remorse, a single letter of apology can erase the mental scarring that has already occurred. Therefore while it is commendable to show leniency for ‘remorseful first-time offenders’, the LIFE-LONG irreversible mental damage on the victims of sexual misconduct MUST be prioritised – the victim had no say but … the perpetrator (unless mentally ill) made a wilful, perhaps even premeditated, decision. He was also reportedly under the influence of alcohol but how drunk he was we do not know …. so how does a drunk man summon enough soberness to go from cubicle to cubicle (captured on CCTV) ostensibly to film a naked woman bathing? Obviously his vision was not impaired by alcohol in making his directorial debut …. Isn’t it ironical that the efforts by the law enforcement authorities and NUS to show leniency just so the offender’s future is not destroyed, is producing the very opposite aftermath? Did they anticipate that their ‘merciful’ punishments would generate such public uproar and media attention? A few days ago, Great Eastern put the perp (who was working there) on suspension, but he chose to resign. But while he may recover some semblance of normalcy say after 4-5 years, the mental trauma he caused to MIss Baey is etched in her memory perhaps forever. THAT is a LESSON no victim would ever want.
(Emphasis mine)
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: