Singapore Local Gay News [LGBT Related News] (Compiled)

[Guest I think]

14 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

The urine test or others test will determine whether the attendants took drugs or not. There will be only prosecution if drugs were found in the urine. 

 

Those who attended but for whom the outcome of the urine test confirms they didn't take drugs won't be charged. 

 

Attending a sex orgy party (without taking drugs) is not a crime. 

 

Awareness that drugs will be consumed might be present depending on the invitation, flyers or message exchange with the hosts or other participants. 

 

The media reports indicated that there was an invite. I m sure the CNB and police knows the relevant buzz word indicating drugs. 

 

 

 

They can't charge them without first determining first their intentions and contexts surrounding the drug consumptions.

 

I mean, going to the party with the awareness and intention to do drugs and being unaware but succumbed to peer pressure are very different scenarios that cannot be dealt with similarly.

 

Likewise for first time and repeat offenders.

 

If the situation is complex and undeterminable, I think all will be given stern warnings.

 

For someone to be charged in court, the criminal intent has to be very clear.

[singalion]

The 12 August 2023 media article already contradicts what some Guest person claims here: 

 

Quote: 

 

49 men arrested in Sentosa hotel villa after drug raid

12 Aug 2023 10:08AM

 

CNB declined to disclose at which hotel the incident took place. It said investigations into the drug activities of all the suspects are ongoing.

 

=> investigations of all suspects have been initiated by CNB. 

 

 

[Guest I think]

23 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

The urine test or others test will determine whether the attendants took drugs or not. There will be only prosecution if drugs were found in the urine. 

 

Those who attended but for whom the outcome of the urine test confirms they didn't take drugs won't be charged. 

 

Attending a sex orgy party (without taking drugs) is not a crime. 

 

Awareness that drugs will be consumed might be present depending on the invitation, flyers or message exchange with the hosts or other participants. 

 

The media reports indicated that there was an invite. I m sure the CNB and police knows the relevant buzz word indicating drugs. 

 

If the defence will work that attendants weren't aware on drug consumption or drinks were drug laced without their knowledge has to be seen. 

 

That's what the science says:

 

In general, the detection time is longest in hair, followed by urine and oral fluid. Drugs in hair may be detectable for up to 90 days, whereas drugs in urine are generally detectable for one to seven days (or longer in chronic users)

 

Surely, the authories will do various tests on the suspects...

 

Not sure about saliva, but they cannot be charged in court by drug detection in hair. Only urine test can determine that.

 

Otherwise, second hand drugs in the hair of people who walked pass or hung around drug takers causing them to be jailed will be overkill!

[singalion]

8 minutes ago, Guest I think said:

 

They can't charge them without first determining first their intentions and contexts surrounding the drug consumptions.

 

I mean, going to the party with the awareness and intention to do drugs and being unaware but succumbed to peer pressure are very different scenarios that cannot be dealt with similarly.

 

Likewise for first time and repeat offenders.

 

If the situation is complex and undeterminable, I think all will be given stern warnings.

 

For someone to be charged in court, the criminal intent has to be very clear.

 

The drug offences is Singapore work with presumptions. The intention is not relevant. 

 

The assumption of innocence is also reversed, which means the suspected person having consumed drugs must prove his innocence. 

 

 

 

That might be a difficult task or impossible. 

 

Presumptions relating to consumption

Sec 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act stipulates if a controlled drug is found in the tested urine samples of a person, the person is presumed to have consumed that controlled drug, until the contrary is proven.

Quote end. 

 

 

For first time offenders anyhow the law provides a special treatment. Please read at CNB's website. 

 

 

 

[singalion]

6 minutes ago, Guest I think said:

Not sure about saliva, but they cannot be charged in court by drug detection in hair. Only urine test can determine that.

 

Otherwise, second hand drugs in the hair of people who walked pass or hung around drug takers causing them to be jailed will be overkill!

 

Here on the test. The law refers to "or" meaning both test are valid. 

 

 

If a person is suspected of having consumed controlled or specified drugs, that person may be required to provide a urine or hair sample for testing under sec 31(2) and sec 31A.

Failure to provide a sample is an offence

 

[singalion]

22 minutes ago, Guest I think said:

They can't charge them without first determining first their intentions and contexts surrounding the drug consumptions.

 

I mean, going to the party with the awareness and intention to do drugs and being unaware but succumbed to peer pressure are very different scenarios that cannot be dealt with similarly.

 

 

As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed:

 

Quote:

Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption

Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption.

The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it.

Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts.

 

[Guest I think]

35 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

The drug offences is Singapore work with presumptions. The intention is not relevant. 

 

The assumption of innocence is also reversed, which means the suspected person having consumed drugs must prove his innocence. 

 

 

 

That might be a difficult task or impossible. 

 

Presumptions relating to consumption

Sec 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act stipulates if a controlled drug is found in the tested urine samples of a person, the person is presumed to have consumed that controlled drug, until the contrary is proven.

Quote end. 

 

 

For first time offenders anyhow the law provides a special treatment. Please read at CNB's website. 

 

 

 

The defense will be accidental or unintentional consumption. Drinks were passed around. Some wouldn't know better. Some may be drugged by unscrupulous people who wanted to make them high for sex lol.

 

I think intention for drug consumption, but what you stated more for drug trafficking. I could be wrong.

 

That statuette already included the "unless" part. That means whether to be charged, still depends on intention and contexts of consumption. Otherwise, many people who did not intend to consume drugs, but consumed them unknowingly or accidentally will be charged.

 

Maybe someone drank the spiked drink because of thirst after dancing or orgy, he was in an intoxicated state from alcohol consumption, unaware the drink was spiked and no other drinks were available nearby at that time? 

 

That's why if the intention and contexts are unclear, people are usually given stern warnings.

 

They will apply the law more strictly for repeat offenders, who were already established to have the intent before in prior cases.

 

They will also look at the overall profile of the party attendees, if they have prior criminal records, etc.

 

[Guest I think]

45 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

Here on the test. The law refers to "or" meaning both test are valid. 

 

 

If a person is suspected of having consumed controlled or specified drugs, that person may be required to provide a urine or hair sample for testing under sec 31(2) and sec 31A.

Failure to provide a sample is an offence

 

Yes but to be charged in court requires a positive urine test, the hair test is just for reference and cannot be used to charge in court.

 

Otherwise, marijuana traces in your hair from your buddy blowing smoke in your hair can land you in jail.

[Guest I think]

50 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

Here on the test. The law refers to "or" meaning both test are valid. 

 

 

If a person is suspected of having consumed controlled or specified drugs, that person may be required to provide a urine or hair sample for testing under sec 31(2) and sec 31A.

Failure to provide a sample is an offence

 

They will test your hair if they suspect you took drugs more than 2 weeks ago, but a positive hair test alone cannot be used to charge you in court.

[Guest I think]

1 hour ago, singalion said:

 

As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed:

 

Quote:

Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption

Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption.

The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it.

Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts.

 

Then they need to substantiate their claim of unawareness by demonstrating their trust in that friend beforehand and getting testimonials from people who were shortchanged and know that friend better.

[Guest I think]

1 hour ago, singalion said:

 

As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed:

 

Quote:

Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption

Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption.

The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it.

Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts.

 

Get also testimonials from people who had known you for a very long time and know you very well to expound on the fact that you have always displayed a strong and clear aversion to drugs.

[Guest Know nothing]

5 hours ago, singalion said:

 

As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed:

 

Quote:

Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption

Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption.

The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it.

Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts.

 

wow, you can Google but still know nothing about the realities of what has happened with this case. 

 

i really wonder where this endless need to keep posting to try and prove you are right comes from? 

[Guest Borrrred]

Hmm, interesting debate. If I were the police, I would be more interested in who brought in the drugs in the first place. As for those whose urine are positive, there will be rehab for sure, its the same for those who returned from bkk and tested positive, its sg law. The lucky ones that will be be given stern warnings are those whose urine was tested negative. Moral of the story, avoid such big parties, if really want to, don't drink anything.

[Guest Yucks]

13 hours ago, singalion said:

The 12 August 2023 media article already contradicts what some Guest person claims here: 

 

Quote: 

 

49 men arrested in Sentosa hotel villa after drug raid

12 Aug 2023 10:08AM

 

CNB declined to disclose at which hotel the incident took place. It said investigations into the drug activities of all the suspects are ongoing.

 

=> investigations of all suspects have been initiated by CNB. 

 

 

Yes all were being investigated, that’s of course right? If not, why were they being detained? Fact is most cases are already concluded. No one is down playing the severity, it’s just the truth.

 

You know nothing and like to assume. Just stop posting something that you have no knowledge of.

[singalion]

Fact is that the media did not report on every one each involved in the Covid party, ( = 32 others) but just the two co host, why should the media do it in the Sentosa case?

 

This means the cases of each won't be known. Sure anyone can take the effort and read every judgment from the criminal courts...

 

 

[Guest Know nothing]

10 hours ago, singalion said:

Fact is that the media did not report on every one each involved in the Covid party, ( = 32 others) but just the two co host, why should the media do it in the Sentosa case?

 

This means the cases of each won't be known. Sure anyone can take the effort and read every judgment from the criminal courts...

 

 

still desperately trying to have the last word…. With no actual knowledge 

[Guest Guest]

@singalion If you have no knowledge of a topic and do not have any first hand info, it's better to just keep quiet. You think.....you assume.....it's just making you look real bad.

[Guest Oh...]

So negative urine test = stern warning

 

First time positive urine test = rehab

 

Second time positive = jail?

 

That's their current playback?

[Guest Oh...]

Just now, Guest Oh... said:

So negative urine test = stern warning

 

First time positive urine test = rehab

 

Second time positive = jail?

 

That's their current playback?

*playbook

[singalion]

Man with mpox symptoms breached quarantine, gets jail

During quarantine, the man had four visitors within about 14 hours.

 

CNA 23 Jul 2024

 

 

SINGAPORE: Despite being placed under quarantine for being a close contact of a mpox case, a man breached the terms of his quarantine by having four men over separately for intimate relations within about half a day.

 

He developed symptoms of mpox - an infectious disease that spread from Africa to other parts of the world in an outbreak in May 2022, including Singapore.

 

The diseases was previously known as "monkeypox" and the term was phased out by the World Health Organization in November 2022.

 

After testing positive for mpox following a rash on his thigh, the man was isolated at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) and taken to a hotel to be isolated.

 

However, he left the hotel and a search party was sent out for him.

 

Kelvin Low Zi Jian, a 27-year-old Malaysian man, was sentenced to 14 weeks' jail on Monday (Jul 22) for his actions.

 

He pleaded guilty to three counts under the Infectious Diseases Act for breaching his quarantine or isolation terms, with another five charges taken into consideration.

 

THE 2022 MPOX OUTBREAK

The court heard that mpox mainly occurred in Africa before 2022.

 

It is typically a self-limiting and mild illness, but vulnerable people like pregnant women, young children or immunocompromised people can suffer serious complications or even death.

 

Symptoms include a skin rash, fever, headache and body aches and swollen lymph nodes.

 

Since an outbreak in May 2022, mpox cases and clusters have been reported in various countries including Singapore.

In July 2022, the WHO declared the ongoing outbreak of mpox to be a public health emergency of international concern.

 

Mpox can spread between humans through bodily fluids, skin lesions or internal mucosal surfaces like the mouth or throat. The virus can also spread from animals to humans.

 

According to the prosecution, data suggests that the mode of transmission in the 2022 outbreak was predominantly via close physical or prolonged contact, and most cases were identified in people who reported intimate and sexual contact with infected people.

 

"Persons engaging in high-risk sexual behaviour, such as having multiple or casual sexual partners, are most at risk of infection in the context of the 2022 outbreak," said the prosecutor.

 

Because of the 2022 outbreak, mpox was listed in Singapore's Infectious Diseases Act from June 2022.

LOW'S CASE

On Aug 3, 2022, Low received a message from the Ministry of Health (MOH) identifying him as a close contact of a mpox case.

 

A member of MOH's Health Alert Task Group called Low to ask if he could serve his quarantine at home, and Low confirmed that he was staying alone.

 

The MOH representative told Low that he could be quarantined at home, but he could not leave the unit and could not have any visitors.

 

If the rubbish chute was outside his unit, he could throw away his trash only after midnight.

 

Low acknowledged the conditions. He had previously told the Health Alert Task Group that he had a rash on his left knee, and added during the call that he was unsure if the rash was a symptom of mpox.

 

That same night, an electronic quarantine order was issued to Low via SMS, informing him to remain isolated at the unit in an enclosed room from Aug 3, 2022 to Aug 15, 2022.

 

The order stated that Low must not leave his home for any reason, including buying groceries or going for a walk, and that he must not have any visitors.

 

It stated that non-compliance with any of the conditions was an offence.

 

Soon after receiving the order, Low went on a dating application and reconnected with a person named in court documents only as A1.

 

A1 visited Low's unit that night and they kissed and caressed for about 15 minutes.

 

After he left, another man, named as A2, arrived at Low's unit. Low had been dating A2 for about four months, and A2 went over on Low's request.

 

They chatted before being intimate. After about one-and-a-half hours, they left the unit and went to a nearby petrol kiosk.

 

Low did not tell A2 that he was under an electronic quarantine order, and A2 would not have visited if he had known about it, the court heard.

 

That same night, Low texted another man, A3. They knew each other through Telegram in mid-July 2022 when A3 messaged Low about a shirt Low was selling.

 

Low asked A3 if he still wanted to buy the shirt. He offered to pay for A3's private-hire ride to Low's home.

 

A3 agreed and arrived at Low's home at about 12.46am on Aug 4, 2022.

 

Low proposed having sex and A3 left the unit at about 7am, after about six-and-a-half hours there.

 

About three hours later, a fourth man, named as A5, visited Low. They talked, hugged and kissed and A5 left after about 1 hour and 40 minutes.

 

After he left, A3 returned to the unit to retrieve his belongings.

 

TESTED POSITIVE FOR MPOX

The next day, on Aug 5, 2022, Low noticed he had a rash on his right thigh. Suspecting he had mpox, he reported it to MOH officials and was taken to NCID for testing.

 

He was confirmed to have mpox that afternoon and was isolated before being taken to Village Hotel Albert Court.

 

He was told to isolate there, receiving a phone call about it and another electronic order. The order stated that he had to be isolated in the hotel room until MOH gave him a memo that he could cease isolation.

 

Low acknowledged the order and signed it. MOH caught wind of Low's breaches of quarantine, with officials from the Health Alert Task Group heading down to the hotel on Aug 8, 2022 to issue Low a warning letter.

 

However, Low refused to sign the warning letter and the officials left.

 

About 15 minutes after the officials left, Low breached his isolation order and left the hotel.

 

The officials and hotel employees searched for Low, and the police were activated to find him.

 

When contacted, Low said he would return to the hotel. A hotel employee chanced upon Low at 4.30pm and scolded him, saying there was a search party out for him.

 

Low had been walking outside for over an hour, with a mask on, before returning to the hotel, where the police interviewed him.

 

During investigations, Low admitted that he had met A2 and A3 to have sex and discuss his personal problems. A2 and A3 did not contract mpox, but A3 was placed under quarantine because he visited Low.

 

The prosecutor sought 26 weeks' jail for Low, saying he had engaged in physically intimate acts with his visitors, which was particularly risky given that mpox is spread through physical contact.

 

By engaging in those acts without telling them he had been quarantined, Low had "robbed them of the opportunity to decline and protect themselves", said the prosecutor.

 

She said the visitors faced a "real risk" given that Low later tested positive for mpox, but acknowledged that it was not confirmed at the time he had visitors over.

 

MITIGATION

Defence lawyer Ms Shehzhadee Abdul Rahman from Shehzhadee Law Corporation sought a fine or not more than three weeks' jail instead.

 

She said her client was in Singapore on a work permit and has been working here for the past six years.

 

He was orphaned at the age of 17 after his father died and relocated to Singapore temporarily to work and provide for his family in Malaysia, said Ms Shehzhadee.

 

She said mpox was "practically unheard of in Singapore" at the time and it was not as widely reported or understood.

 

The case is unprecedented in terms of quarantine order offences for mpox, said the lawyer, asking for the sentence to be "carefully calibrated" as mpox causes significantly less harm than COVID-19.

 

Recent cases of breaching quarantine orders have been linked to COVID-19, which is categorised as a dangerous infectious disease, while mpox is a regular infectious disease.

 

Citing a report by MOH and NCID, Ms Shehzhadee said there were only 21 reported mpox cases in Singapore between May 2022 and Jan 17, 2023, and no more than 76 deaths worldwide.

 

The lawyer added that her client had left the hotel room as he was experiencing panic attacks from being isolated for two days and the thought of criminal proceedings.

 

He left the room to "clear his head and regulate his breathing" and returned to it, said the lawyer.

 

Low will begin his jail term after completing an unrelated imprisonment term of one year for a drug offence.

 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/monkeypox-mpox-symptoms-man-breach-quarantine-jail-4498066

[singalion]

 

Man charged over touching women inappropriately at Sentosa; others face separate molestation charges

JUL 18, 2024, 

 

...

 

The third senior citizen, Gerald Chai Meng Seng, 63, is accused of molesting a 16-year-old boy inside a toilet cubicle at Delta Swimming Complex in Tiong Bahru Road on May 9 at around 1.45pm.

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

On 7/24/2024 at 11:50 PM, singalion said:

 

Man charged over touching women inappropriately at Sentosa; others face separate molestation charges

JUL 18, 2024, 

 

...

 

The third senior citizen, Gerald Chai Meng Seng, 63, is accused of molesting a 16-year-old boy inside a toilet cubicle at Delta Swimming Complex in Tiong Bahru Road on May 9 at around 1.45pm.

 

So old. Like grandfather molesting grandson like that.

[thickhead79]

SINGAPORE - He was just 17 years old in May 2021 when he started using his mobile phone to record images of male victims in public toilets.

By December that year, he had captured 97 images of 28 unidentified victims before he was caught red-handed by one of the victims and arrested.

The offender, now 20, was sentenced to 18 months’ probation on Aug 22 after he pleaded guilty to two voyeurism charges.

According to the prosecution, he did not target specific victims, and had “recorded the images to experience the thrill of doing so”.

[singalion]

Shop theft problem persists in first half of 2024; more outrage of modesty cases at shopping centres

Aug 23, 2024

 

...

 

Voyeurism cases increased from 229 cases to 257 cases, with the top three locations also being residential premises (78 cases), shopping complexes (44 cases) and the public transport network (27 cases).

A worrying trend was noticed at sports and swimming complexes, with 11 voyeurism cases in the first half 2024, as compared to one case during the same period in 2023.

 

 

Better watch out here!