Quote:
Originally Posted by funboi
Her WP is for working as waitress but she didn't work that job since day 1 arrive. So if they wana dig then MOM have to investigate whether her employer or agency report their worker MIA since day 1 or not. 
Basically this is one of the common tactics use by "SPCA". They wait the guy come out then show say they from SPCA. Ask if there's any animal abuse there.  Then the animal lover stun mah.  And confess say he feeded the animal  then SPCA proceed to check the status. 
But the news very funny cuz they found not 1 but 2 inside and then most suay is another animal lover came.  SPCA welcome him with open arms and probably interview him. |
It's very interesting that in this case, only one lady was brought to court, but her customer as well as a 2nd lady + 2nd customer seemed to have been let off.
Today's news article explains:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...court-12811008
Quote:
"The procurement of sex services is not illegal," said Mr Chooi. "Prostitution is in fact legal in Singapore. The nuance is in the prohibitions surrounding this."
"This has always been an inherent tension in our legislation. For example, pimping or living off the earnings of a prostitute, running a brothel, forcing someone into prostitution and trafficking women and girls for the purposes of prostitution are all illegal under the Women's Charter," he said, adding that businesses offering massage services must be licensed under the Massage Establishments Act.
"This explains why (Cheng) was not charged for sex work. Of course, a separate offence may be made out if she had entered Singapore based on a work permit or employment pass that they would be doing other work, but this would be an immigration or employment offence, not a sex offence," he said.
Cheng had come to Singapore on a work permit for a waitressing job, but never went for this job, the court heard.
Mr Chooi said the procurement of sex services in itself is not illegal, but if the customers knew that the provider of such services would have to breach safe-distancing regulations in order to provide them, they would arguably have committed an offence of abetment.
|
FLs being independent operators, can't be found guilty of pimping or trafficking and all that. It's a willing buyer-willing selller situation. And it's interesting they could not pin an immigration or employment offence on the 2nd FL in the condo - which means could be a PR or not a typical work pass holder?
But at the end of the day, they have the cover-all "in the public interest" whether to prosecute or not, and also AGC discretionary powers.