It may be cold comfort for some, but some molesters do get justice served on them - albeit a few. In such cases, it is usually very difficult for the victim to claim against the violator, as it’s usually a person’s words against another. Many a times, the violator gets away scot-free because there is simply insufficient evidence. At the same time, it may be a shameful thing that not many victims will want to make public - doing which may risk them being labelled, particularly from people who thinks that it takes 2 hands to clap. These group of people will probably feel that girls who are raped probably deserve it.

A recent post from a local blogger drew flames from many netizens, who copied and pasted the post in forums such as the SammyBoy and CNA forums. While some have expressed sympathy for the victim, many have called her names and insinuated that she deserved what she got. After all, she “only got touched” and not raped. One blogger has also noted that these are signs of deterioriation in the moral of the society - where people think that it’s the victim’s fault for leading the violator on.

If there’s any lesson to learn from, it’s probably to avoid putting oneself in a compromising position. While the victim may not necessarily “deserve it”, having herself (or himself) in vulnerable positions will only put her (or him) at a disadvantage. Claiming justice may be a tedious process - and some times difficult. This may even result in the violator claiming defamation against the victim. As for the molester in the article below, there were sufficient victims (sad to say that) and hence, evidence, against him to put him away for a long while.

A MOLESTER who preyed on more than 20 young girls and women in the Marsiling and Woodlands areas was packed off to jail for 14 years and ordered to be given 18 strokes of the cane on Thursday.

Mohammed Ismail Ariffin, 36, unemployed, pleaded guilty last month to 10 charges of outrage of modesty, aggravated molestation and insulting modesty between September 2006 and February this year.

His victims were between nine and 53.

A Community Court heard that Ismail, who suffered from mild mental retardation, would either touch the victim’s buttocks or smell their armpits to release himself.

The offences were committed at HDB lifts, staircase landings and even in the victims’ homes.

He was arrested on Feb 12. Fourteen other charges were taken into consideration.

His lawyer, Mr Noor Mohamed Marican, assigned by the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, said his behaviour was not normal.

Ismail, he said, was suffering from the adverse influence of taking Romilar pills - used mostly to suppress coughs.

Pleading for leniency, he urged Community Court judge James Leong not to impose a long sentence on Ismail but to send him for medical treatment and rehabilitative programme.

Ismail has previous convictions since 1991 for drug- and sexual-related offences. In 1996, he was givne six years and six strokes for aggravated molestation.

Judge Leong sentenced him to 14 years’ preventive detention and caning.  

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

I am surprised on how quickly the police admitted that the SOPs were not followed in the recent escape attempt by the 2 detainees, although I won’t know if they will take 4 hours to report the incident if they did manage to escape successfully. Then again, it’s easy to just blame the police officer (although I’d have to admit that it really reeks of negligence). Speaking of which, I wonder if any NS personnel is actually posted to the prison services? Or are they limited to just the armed forces, police force (excluding prison services) and SCDF?

Anyway, I am a little surprised that the Mas Selamat escape didn’t serve much as a wake-up call. If that didn’t, I wonder what will. Hmm…

A BREACH in procedure allowed two detainees to make an escape bid from the lock-up at the Subordinate Courts on Wednesday, said police, which will carry out a probe to see if there was any negligence involving the officers.

Although the two men were re-arrested swiftly after their dash to freedom, the lunchtime breakout attempt will again raise questions about complacency and readiness levels within the security forces, coming so soon after the escape of terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari in late February.

Commissioner of Police Khoo Boon Hui said in a statement issued at midnight: ‘We have a proper system to manage persons-in-custody. Though our officers have arrested the two men expeditiously, I am treating the matter seriously and have directed CID to investigate into the escape, including whether there was any negligence involving the officers.

‘Actions will be taken against those found to have not carried out their duties properly.’

The flight to freedom for the escaped detainees was short-lived. One of them did not make it out of the court building. He apparently tripped and fell near the security checkpoint at the court entrance and was pinned down by three uniformed officers and brought back to the lock-up.

The other man managed to get as far as the driveway of the nearby Furama Hotel about 100m away after leaping over a rope barrier and dashing out of the building, with a pack of security guards and cops in hot pursuit. He was caught and brought back to custody.

Police said the duo had appeared in Court on Wednesday’s morning for separate charges related to robbery with hurt. They were brought back to the lock-up to be transferred to the Queenstown Remand Prison and were placed in the same cell.

At about 1.45pm, a police officer opened the cell gate to give water to one of the men who had asked for it.

On opening the gate, the two men seized the opportunity to attack the officer and charged out. They continued to assault the police officer violently, punching and kicking him in the face and stomach, said the police statement.

While the Police officer was down on the floor, they made their way to a gate at the exit of the lock-up. They then pressed a buzzer to indicate for the gate to be opened.

Officer did not follow procedure
‘According to procedure, the police officer responding to the buzzer should verify the identity of the person via the CCTV before opening the gate. He failed to do so,’ said the statement.

‘He opened the gate without checking, thereby enabling the two men to make their way through a stairwell leading to the ground floor public area of the Subordinate Courts.’

An alert was raised and police officers were immediately deployed to seal off all exits.

Within 10 minutes of the escape, police officers spotted both escapees at the lobby and managed to subdue one of them just before the main entrance. The other tried to dash out of the Subordinate Courts. He was arrested after a short chase.

For voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant, the two men may be jailed up to seven years, fined, and caned.

They will also be charged for escape from legal custody, which carries a jail term of up to two years and fine, if convicted.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

I read the article slightly amused at how people will pay for something that they have not seen. I had been house-hunting recently, and I know that there’s no way I am going to pay deposit for some place that I have not seen. There’s too much risk involved - like whether there’s going to be da er long banging on my door (look out for traces or drops of red paint, or if the place has been newly painted), or whether there’s going to be leaky pipes (look out for fresh paint too), or if it’s going to be noisy (go there a few times at different times of the day). Of course, that’s a little exaggerated, but hey, I’m going to be staying here for quite a while, won’t I?

In short, don’t go for rushed deals, no matter how genuine (or how pissed) the person looks. Looks can be deceiving at many times and you may end up losing more than you gain. I should know it better now. Anyway, here’s something that you should look out for, courtesy of Mr Eric Cheng, Executive Director of HSR Property Group:

THINKING of renting a flat? To avoid falling prey to a rental scam, Mr Eric Cheng, executive director of HSR property group, suggests that tenants:

View the flat first to ensure it is in good condition.

Check that the landlord is the rightful owner by asking to see the conservancy charges bill.

Pay the deposit with a cheque and only after collecting the key personally. It will be easier to prove that payment was made.

Move in as soon as possible.

Engage a housing agent. Most established agencies refund deposits if anything goes wrong.

Of course, it’s entirely up to you if you’d like to hire a housing agent - since it usually entails a commission. However, do weigh the pros and cons and determine which is better for you. Oh, bring a friend along so that you can get a second opinion - and perhaps work on a back-out plan if the landlord or agent gets too pushy. =)

WITHOUT viewing the flat to be rented, 11 people handed over hundreds of dollars each in cash deposits to the owner of a Commonwealth Drive HDB flat, in exchange for a set of keys.

But when they turned up at the three-room flat, they found it locked. None of the keys worked and the landlord could no longer be contacted.

The 11 victims, six of whom are foreigners, lost $8,250 in total.

On Tuesday evening, police arrested a 46-year-old unemployed man. If found guilty of cheating, he could be jailed up to seven years and fined.

Police believe the first tenant was cheated in March, and that there are more victims who have not come forward.

Housing agents and prospective tenants would respond to newspaper advertisements offering the suspect’s flat for rent.

 He would meet the potential tenant, usually at a shopping centre, and hand over photocopies of documents including his identification card, as well as a set of two keys.

Making an excuse that he was in a rush, he would suggest that the tenant view the unit himself. Just before leaving, he would ask for a cash deposit ranging from $150 to $3,000.

Interior designer Rainer Lew, 36, was one of the 11 who handed over his money. He had met the man on Monday, a day before the suspect was nabbed.

‘I gave him $300 as a deposit. He didn’t strike me as suspicious. He even showed me his identity card which had an address that matched the unit he was renting out,’ said Mr Lew.

But when he visited the flat later, the gate was chained and padlocked. The door, which was unlocked, opened to show an unfurnished flat.

Police believe the man had an accomplice as he would sometimes meet his victims accompanied by another man whom he referred to as his brother.

They said they are closing in on this second man, and urged prospective tenants to be careful before putting down a deposit.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

Disclaimer: If you are reading this from ping.sg, the title *is misleading*! This post is really about a photo studio named “Naughty  by nature” and how they apparently coerced people into paying for their makeover photos. Alice wrote a post on it here some time in March 2008. Now, I’d try to be objective about the whole thing.

I received calls from them previously saying that there’s a free makeover of sorts. I didn’t go eventually because… I get paid to get my photos taken (sniggers a little), but that isn’t the main point. The main point is that people will have to know that there’s hardly any free lunch these days.  Of course, the ones mentioned here is not counted because they are really free. The idea behind such calls is really to get people to go down, get their pictures taken and they may not get the pictures they want because the main objective is really to sell it to them. Well, they might get one or two not-too-bad but perhaps not-too-nice looking pictures, but… that’s what you get for free, I guess. So, that’s on the end of the consumers.

Next, I’m going to talk about their tactics. If you are aware of the tactics used by slimming centers, you’d be familiar with psychological warfare tactics. I read that in some slimming centers, they strip you down to your birthday bathing suit and start commenting on how fat/ugly/wrinkled/unsightly* you are and start recommending you their products. Same theory, I guess, except that, according to the article, the studio probably tell you how nice you look and how wasteful it will be for the pictures to be deleted PERMANENTLY. Of course, there’s a chance that the pictures will be deleted but not cleared from the rubbish bin. So, it’s really psychological. However, if it’s true that the customers were prevented from leaving the place unless they purchase something, then technically, it’s unlawful because the studio will be detaining the customers by force. Then again, nothing can stop you from forcing and pushing your way out if you really want to. The customers are probably just pai seh lah.

Now, is it fair for the studio to deploy such free-photoshoot tactics to lure people into it. Well, I’d say it’s a fair game. Just like California Fitness. They call you up, tell you that there’s something free, then you’d have to prepare to lose some hours and perhaps some money. If you have skin as thick as a rhino, then you can just tell them with a straight face that you’d just want the free stuffs. Of course, service may be compromise, but hey, it’s a free lunch, isn’t it? =)

Have you been “nature by nature”-d?

* delete where applicable

THEY were promised free makeovers and photo shoots. Instead, the customers of a photo studio in Circular Road said that they were pressured into buying packages that cost up to $4,000.

The hard-sell from studio Naughty by Nature sparked dozens of complaints to Singapore’s consumer watchdog and eventually landed the company in court.

Yesterday, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) said that the company had agreed to change its sales pitch earlier this year.

Last September, Naughty by Nature had been temporarily barred by a district court from pushing pricey photo packages, Case said in a press release.

The consumer group had applied for the injunction after receiving 63 complaints about Naughty by Nature between 2005 and 2007, said Case executive director Seah Seng Choon.

Most of the complaints had been filed by women.

Mr Seah said that Naughty by Nature’s employees had once refused to let a customer leave the studio without buying a photo set. After staying for about four hours, the customer bought a package for about $3,000.

The customers got freebies, such as two photographs, only after they agreed to buy a package.

Co-owner of Naughty by Nature Bupendra Ramason defended his company’s sales pitch and said that the unhappy customers were in the minority.

‘I think they were shy people who were uncomfortable with our sales strategies. Most of our customers are families and we don’t have any problems with them,’ he said.

He added that, since the injunction, the studio has tried its best to abide by Case’s requests.

For example, sales presentations are now limited to only an hour when dealing with female customers.

The employees also give the two free photographs to the customers before the sales presentation.

Mr Ramason, 41, set up the studio in Circular Road in 2004 with business partner Raoul Martin Fenianos. He currently employs 90 staff members, of whom nine are full-time photographers.

A check on online forums and blogs showed that there were many customers who were unhappy with Naughty By Nature’s sales strategies.

One, 42-year-old Tan Ngiap Heng, told the Straits Times about being pressured to buy a $1,000 book of photographs after taking part in a photo shoot two years ago.

‘I felt that I was being blackmailed psychologically because they told me they would delete my photos immediately if I decided not to buy the package,’ he said.

He did not buy the package and subsequently made a complaint to Case.

Mr Ramason said that business had not been affected by the bad publicity.

Case and Naughty by Nature have agreed to settle disputes with the unhappy customers through an arbitration session chaired by a neutral third party.  

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

2 detainees tried to do a Selamat by trying to escape from the custody at the courts yesterday. Fortunately for the police (but unfortunately for them), their freedom was shortlived. They were quickly taken back into custody and no one (well, except the poor policeman who opened the door to the cell) was hurt. According to the article, there seemed to be some form of negligence at the part of the police officer who opened the gate without looking at the CCTV. Police investigations are underway, but with the incident of Selamat’s escape still lingering in the air, it’s unlikely anyone will just get away with a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps it’s about time someone start looking into the SOPs? As for the detainee who assaulted the police officer, well, I guess that means more jail time for him. I wish them all the best in there.

TWO detainees escaped from custody at the Subordinate Courts yesterday at around lunchtime. But their flight to freedom was short-lived.

One man did not make it out of the building.

The half-dressed heavyset man apparently tripped and fell near the security checkpoint at the entrance of the court, where visitors are screened. Three uniformed officers pinned him down and he was back in custody.

The other man, who was of medium build and had a goatee, leapt over a rope barrier and dashed out of the building with a posse of security guards and cops in pursuit.

He got as far as the driveway of the nearby Furama Hotel, about 100m away, before he was taken down by a baton-wielding guard, said an eyewitness.

He was escorted back to the courts surrounded by more than 10 uniformed officers.

He was wearing the standard white T-shirt and brown trousers issued to remand prisoners. The other man, who was shirtless, wore similar trousers.

According to eyewitnesses, both men, who appeared to be in their 30s or 40s, were not handcuffed when they tried to escape.

In a statement last night, the police said the two men had appeared in court in the morning for separate charges related to robbery with hurt. They were brought back to the lock-up to be transferred to the Queenstown Remand Prison and were placed in the same cell.

At about 1.45pm, a police officer opened the cell gate to give water to one of the men at his request. As he opened the gate, the two men seized the opportunity to attack the officer and charged out, said the police statement.

They continued to assault the officer violently, punching and kicking him in the face and stomach. While he was down on the floor, they made their way to a gate at the exit of the lock-up.

They then pressed a buzzer for the gate to be opened.

According to procedure, the police officer responding to the buzzer should verify the identity of the person via the CCTV before opening the gate.

‘He failed to do so. He opened the gate without checking, thereby enabling the two men to make their way through a stairwell leading to the ground floor public area of the Subordinate Courts’, added the statement.

All the action was over in about 10 minutes, just before 2pm, and the public was not in danger, according to the police.

This is the second escape bid from the Subordinate Courts recently.

Last September, two men who were handcuffed together, slipped out from a ground-level courtroom. They ran up the stairs before falling 10m to the seventh-floor corridor.

One of them broke his hip, while the other hurt his right pubic area and had other injuries.

They were sentenced to jail and caning for various offences, including robbery with hurt and escape from legal custody.

Yesterday, the Commissioner of Police, Mr Khoo Boon Hui, said: ‘We have a proper system to manage persons-in-custody. Though our officers have arrested the two men expeditiously, I am treating the matter seriously and have directed CID to investigate the escape, including whether there was any negligence involving the officers. Action will be taken against those found to have not carried out their duties properly.’

For voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant, the two men may be imprisoned up to seven years, fined and/or caned. They also face charges for the escape attempt. If convicted, they may be imprisoned up to two years and fined.

selinal@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

Property prices have finally come down and this probably marks some signs of slowing down - not too good for those who bought or invested the properties earlier on (although I’d think that it’s probably be less heartaching for genuine buyers), but probably good news for people who are shopping around. Rental rates will probably be following suit, which is just about time since I would need to move out before the end of this year.

But hey, you know what? Bank interest rates have went up - which some how seems to me like 2 forces acting in equilibrium! Darn! do the banks know how to make full use of opportunities or what? They are really not giving the buyers any breathing space, are they? I hope the banks are not quoting “increase oil prices” as a reason for them to jack up their interest rates. =)

Anyway, with the uncertainty in the economy and a recession looming (although many will either flatly deny it or think that we are already in one), it’s probably only those with ready cash that will be able to make use of this opportunity. It’s no wonder that the rich get richer and the poor… well, just remains just as poor, if not poorer - that’s assuming that people are buying these properties as investments.

 GOOD news for homebuyers: The prices of some new developments are finally starting to come down.

At least two new projects have been tagged with prices below what they were expected to fetch just months ago.

This may be because developers are faced with no sign of improvement in the cooling property market, consultants say.

They may be choosing to move units by making their projects more affordable rather than continuing to wait out the gloomy sentiment.

One example is Dakota Residences in Dakota Crescent, a 99-year leasehold project by Ho Bee Investment and NTUC Choice Homes.

Sales of its 348 units will start next Saturday at an average of about $950 per sq ft (psf) - below the $1,000 psf to $1,100 psf that Ho Bee had previously targeted.

This means a 1,300 sq ft three-bedroom unit would cost about $1.24 million, down from as much as $1.43 million previously.

‘After the land cost and building cost, the break-even price is actually almost $900 psf,’ said a property agent, who asked not to be named.

The Straits Times understands that about 120 units will be released in the first phase, and prices may go up by at least 5 per cent for the remaining units, depending on demand.

For now, the two- and three-bedroom units that face away from Geylang River are said to cost $950 psf to $970 psf, while the bigger four-bedroom units facing the river will go for $1,000 psf.

City Developments’ (CDL) Shelford Suites in Shelford Road has also started previews for its 77 units at about $1,600 psf on average.

Market watchers said this was lower than expected, as two units were sold in March for $1,869 psf and $1,905 psf.

Shelford Suites’ launch had been delayed for months as CDL waited for sentiment to improve.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008