Legislation prof Tey cross-examines ex-student Ko – 14Jan2013

SINGAPORE: The National College of Singapore (NUS) legislation teacher on test for corruption in a sex-for-grades looked for to challenge his graduate as he cross-examined her on Monday.

Tey Tsun Hang, 41, is implicated of acquiring satisfaction in the kind of presents as well as sex, for raising 23-year-old Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui’s qualities.

When Ms Ko took the stand, Tey examined her in a mild way.

She informed the court that Tey did not assure any kind of favour in her scholastic efficiency.

The 23-year-old stated Tey had actually never ever provided her any kind of perception that he was somebody that can affect or form her future, academically or career-wise.

When asked if she ever before really felt made use of by Tey, she stated “no”.

Ms Ko additionally disregarded pointers that she attempted to reward Tey right into providing her great qualities.

She offered an account of the conditions resulting in the recording as well as her recommendation of her very first declaration made on 2 April 2012.

Ms Ko stated she was taken by 2 police officers from the Corrupt Practices Examination Bureau (CPIB), at concerning 7am or 8am throughout the exam duration.

She stated she was robbed of rest, really felt frightened as well as nervous, as well as was questioned till concerning 7pm prior to she was offered see CPIB’s replacement supervisor, Teng Khee Fatt.

She stated the taping police officer had actually informed Mr Teng she had actually been uncooperative.

Mr Teng, she stated, informed her that the proof she offered the CPIB was “not constructing the aspects of the fee versus Tey”.

Throughout their two-and-a-half-hour discussion, she stated Mr Teng informed her that corruption is a two-sided offense which indemnity can be provided if the requirement emerged.

She additionally stated Mr Teng had actually desired her to create that she had actually provided the presents due to the fact that she desired “favour” from Tey however she rejected.

Both after that suggested concerning the terms to be made use of as well as ultimately decided on words “excessive bias”, which she took as “treating her unjustly”.

“I was a little much more comfy keeping that concession despite the fact that it was still not an exact representation of truth state of events,” stated Ms Ko.

When asked by Tey what truth state of events were, Ms Ko stated: “I just got Prof Tey the presents due to the fact that I liked him as well as we remained in a connection.”

Yet Mr Teng really did not purchase this solution, she stated.

Ms Ko stated he informed her that it was not feasible for a woman to purchase an individual presents.

She stated Mr Teng additionally urged that the reason she got those presents was to make sure that Tey would certainly reveal her favour vis-a-vis her qualities.

Ms Ko stated she was informed she was not enabled to go residence till the CPIB videotaped a declaration from her.

When asked if the declaration was exact, Ms Ko stated it had not been.

She stated the error referred to her inspiration for bathing Tey with presents.

Previously in the day, the prosecution underwent the impeached components of the declarations as well as proof given by Ms Ko.

The court listened to that Ms Ko additionally took 3 business bankruptcy topics over 3 successive terms.

The previous area court was attempting to make the factor that Ms Ko had a rate of interest in bankruptcy legislation from the start. He attempted to reveal there were just 3 teachers that used bankruptcy electives at NUS, so she would certainly wind up in his course at some time in time.

He additionally attempted to reveal that her qualities in bankruptcy were usually great.

Tey’s interrogation additionally discussed the components Ms Ko enlisted in as well as the qualities she obtained.

When asked if there was any person else she can have done one more optional on business bankruptcy with, Ms Ko stated she did not think so.

This clarified why she took numerous components consisting of residential property legislation, firm legislation, in addition to equity as well as depend on. Tey additionally showed equity as well as depend on. She got B+ for all 3 components.

Ms Ko indicated that the equity as well as depend on course was appointed to her.

When asked if she was looking for a favour from Tey by asking him to be her manager for her thesis on bankruptcy, Ms Ko emphatically turned down the suggestion.

In the last hr prior to the test was adjourned, the Montblanc pen concerned ultimately showed up in court as proof.

Tey mentioned that in her CPIB declaration, Ms Ko stated he had actually shed his ink pen, which caused her acquiring him a $740 Montblanc pen, that was the Frederic Chopin version, as his belated birthday celebration present.

Tey informed her she had “remembered mistakenly” which his initial ink pen had actually been located. He confessed his allegedly “shed” pen as proof.

Yet Ms Ko clarified that she just learnt through Tey that he had actually shed an ink pen as well as did not recognize if he certainly had the pen.

Tey after that promptly stated: “The accused does not look for responsible you. The accused just intends to inform this ethical court that he had actually never ever shed his Sheaffer ink pen, which can certainly be mapped back to some two decades back.”

Material had actually been trimmed because of message limitation, pls see listed below web link for complete material: