Pritam on NUS voyeur case: We should thank the 'mob' for making us look in the mirror
SINGAPORE — If those who reacted to the “light punishments” meted out to the perpetrator in the National University of Singapore (NUS) peeping Tom case are a “mob”, people should thank them for “making us look at ourselves in the mirror”, said Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh on Monday (29 April).
In a post on his Facebook page, the WP secretary-general said he found it “disconcerting and even unacceptable” that some had called the NUS students and Singaporeans who spoke out against the penalties slapped on 23-year-old undergraduate Nicholas Lim a “mob”.
“If they are a mob, we should thank the collective mob for making us look at ourselves in the mirror and question whether the approach to dealing with sex crimes and misdemeanours by tertiary students is appropriate,” said the 42-year-old in his post.
Lim had been caught for filming fellow student Monica Baey, 23, while she was showering on campus. Baey later went on Instagram to express her disappointment at the perceived light punishments Lim faced, which included being given a conditional warning by the police, being suspended for a semester and being barred from entering student dormitories.
Her complaints subsequently went viral, leading many to criticise NUS and the authorities for their handling of the matter. NUS has since said that it will review its policies with regard to sexual offences committed by students on campus.
Police actions ‘rational and reasonable’
Referring to a Straits Times article on the case, Singh said he was not surprised that “many trained in law found the Police's explanation of why some offenders are treated more harshly than others, rational and reasonable”.
Noting that proportionality is a central feature of criminal law, he added that the Attorney-General has to determine an appropriate punishment for an offender based on the “totality of the facts and circumstances”.
“Aggravation matters. Premeditation matters. Remorse matters. Foolishness and stupidity as opposed to criminal intent matters. The impact of the crime on the victim matters,” said Singh.
“These, amongst others, including society’s mores are relevant considerations and they will continue to be relevant regardless what NUS' review committee decides on its approach to sex crimes on campus.”
Case highlights ‘lack of civic participation’
Singh also observed how Baey’s case highlighted the “lack of civic participation and organisation in Singapore” given that she alone stood up to speak about the matter.
“Organisation and participation are a central feature of citizenship... We cannot leave it for someone else to stand up and make a difference. All of us must play our part,” he said.
He warned that “change will be slow” if people are too scared or apathetic to organise themselves to deal with social issues or if they find it sufficient to merely “contribute ‘online’”.
Singh also noted that Parliament is set to debate the Criminal Law Reform Bill – which proposes an extensive review of the Penal Code – on 6 May.
“Whole buckets of amendments and new offences, including sexual offences such as voyeurism are being proposed. The Workers' Party will speak on this Bill, and the other two up for debate – POFMA and the Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill,” he said, referring to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).
Related stories:
Over 300 NUS students issue letter to criticise town hall meeting on sexual harassment
NUS hears students’ grievances on sexual misconduct issue, promises immediate change
NUS voyeur can be rehabilitated, prosecution would ruin his future: police
Ong Ye Kung concerned over ‘manifestly inadequate’ penalties in NUS sexual misconduct case
