Skip Navigation Links
23 Apr 2019
National University of Singapore
Feedback View - 681
Peeping tom incident

Someone said.
For the NUS case, perhaps the public authorities can make clear what is its difference from the case in which another man has been sentenced to jail doing the same deed.
If the deeds committed are dissimilar in criminal nature then the authorities are the ones, not any university, to reveal this to public since it has been quite a sensational news recently.

Here are my views.

I read the newspaper report on this matter.

NUS said that report had been lodged with the police. If the police had acted on the report, the case would have gone to court and, if found guilty, the sentence would be similar.

However, the police decided to give a "conditional warning". This meant that the case has to go to NUS to deal according to its regulations.

The Education Minister had asked NUS to review its regulations and impose stiffer penalties. This matter will have to take its course.

However, to be fair to NUS, we cannot expect them to behave like a court. They have other priorities to handle (different from the court). They must conduct their affairs in the manner that they deem to be appropriate (including now deciding on increasing the penalty).

I read another report that Great Eastern Life has suspended the offender, who was recruited recently as its agent, for this past conduct (which occurred before he joined Great Eastern). It looks like his future in Singapore is destroyed.

I do not know this young man personally, but I am sure that he and his parents will be greatly distressed by this matter (just as the girl victim was distressed). It is a heavy price to pay for a mischievous and unwise act.

Tan Kin Lian


Agree: 24  Disagree: 21  Vote  Comment (0)