Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Calvin Cheng has drawn attention to two key problems with the outcome of the case of the National University of Singapore undergrad molester who avoided a jail sentence because of his "potential to excel in life".

In case you haven't heard about it, you can read about it here:

https://mothership.sg/2019/09/singapore-crime-nus-molest-good-grades/?utm_source=tele

The news of the case triggered significant outrage among Singaporeans online, as well as a petition expressing anger that Siow wasn't jailed:

But Cheng raised a couple of refreshing, and also troubling, points about the outcome of this case.

1) Should academic results represent potential?

The first thing Cheng observed is the fact that Singapore's judicial system is not the only one that considers the impact of a criminal record on young offenders.

He cited the Brock Turner case in the U.S., recently back in the spotlight after his victim, Chanel Miller, released a book and identified herself after four years of being known as "Emily Doe".

"The question is whether academic results should be used to decide potential," he continued.

Also raising the example of Charles and Keith founder Charles Wong, who went from having three O-Level passes to being worth almost a billion dollars today, Cheng said there is an increasingly weak correlation between academic results and success in life.

"If we truly believe that we have a meritocracy that looks beyond grades, then the judiciary needs to keep up too. No more taking academic excellence into consideration when considering probation."

Cheng's post received numerous interactions from commenters.

One asked if "potential" also applies to that outside of the academic arena:

A commenter raised a pertinent counterpoint that academic excellence is a rough gauge of success, which at times might be the only tool available:

2) When should compounding offences be allowed?

In his post, Cheng also suggested that molest should no longer be a compoundable crime.

Compounding a case allows an accused to avoid getting charged in court by offering his or her alleged victim financial compensation.

However, he pointed out that this is based on an "archaic principle" and has no place in a modern legal system.

"It is based on an archaic principle that a woman’s dignity can be bought off by financial compensation. [It has no] place in modern jurisprudence."

You can read Cheng's full post below:

NUS Student put on probation for molest

We are not the only country with a judicial system that considers whether first-time young offenders are suitable for probation. Our judiciary is also not the only one that takes into account a young offenders ‘potential’ to decide whether to leave him/her with a criminal record.

That’s fine.

The question is whether academic results should be used to decide potential. (Again, we are not the only country that does this. Look up Stanford undergrad Brock Turner’s case.).

In this day and age, the correlation between academic results and success in life is weak, and gets weaker. Who is to say that the ITE chap will not grow up to become a successful tech entrepreneur. Charles Wong of Charles and Keith only has 3 O-level passes. He is worth almost a billion dollars today.

If we truly believe that we have a meritocracy that looks beyond grades, then the judiciary needs to keep up too.

No more taking academic excellence into consideration when considering probation.

N.B. And another thing. Molest should no longer be a compoundable crime. (It means the molestor is given the option to financially compensate the victims to avoid being charged ). It is based on an archaic principle that a woman’s dignity can be bought off by financial compensation. No place in modern jurisprudence.

Top images via Cheng's Facebook page, and Terence Siow's Facebook page.