Trackback from Here's why name the man but not the woman...:

I've got a feeling someone just simply try (too hard) to make the Straits Times look bad. But that attempt failed miserably....

Anonymous Coward: "Why name the man but not the woman?"

The woman cannot be name because the boy is still underage. But in the latter case the gal is already 16 this year.

double standard..

eh boy ! you know how damn strong is SIngapores WOMAN's CHARTER or not!
dont anyhow play play...

It's clear the relationship between the adult and the minor in each case is different. :)

It isn't a double standard. If you name the woman, people will probably be able to figure out which school she was in. Obviously then, the victim could be identified.... denying him the right to privacy

The 32-year-old woman, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the boy, was produced in a district court last month.

doesn't this sentence explain everything?

wow, what a non-issue..

The woman cannot be named ?? why ?
Its not like she is his mother or something what !
Most likely she is already suspended.
The only potental damage will be the name of the school.
Most teachers do not only have one class.
The identity of the boy is just one of a hundred boys she taught.
Those who thinks that keeping her identity secret is a "non issue" are idiots.
There IS a double standard here.

one of a hundred boys... i think it is likely that people who are in the school/know the school can guess the name of the victim. anyway, iirc, in prev cases where the offender is a male teacher and victim female, they also don't name the male.

I agree it is a case of double standards in favor of women. If not, how come the names of a principal and another male teacher were revealed in similar cases in the past? Even when they were wrongly accused?

Or maybe this female teacher is someone who has many strings to pull.

Its far more likely that the woman wasn't named just to ease scrutiny on the Ministry of Education, rather than a double standard. Are you sure that the names were released before the court passed its ruling?

In any case, should an alleged sex offender really be used to show the perceived inequality in the system?

Are you sure that the names weren't released before the court passed its ruling?

Trackback from Where Bears Roam Free: Same offence, different gender, different treatment:

Remember Mr Ding, ex-teacher from ACS? Not only his name was mentioned, his face was splashed all over the newspaper. And he was finally acquitted. No consideration to the boy victims then?...

Sexual predators should be named (as are all criminal defendants) unless there's a countervailing consideration. It appears that here the boy's anonymity could be threatened by naming the female perpetrator; but otherwise it's not a distinction that makes any sense.

There's no indication that female defendants in general are not being named, though.

And in response to one of the earlier commentors: I can't for the life of me see what the Woman's Charter has to say about women who commit sexual assault. Have you actually read it? You do know, I hope, that - aside from the provision of economic maintenance for wives by husbands, which I agree should be changed to a gender-neutral version - just about every provision in it is simply removing previously existing anti-woman legislation? The reason why a special Woman's Charter is needed to do that is - funnily enough - that laws worsening women's position relative to men existed prior to that. The idea that (spousal maintenance excepted) the Woman's Charter gives any special privileges to women can only be sustained if you're completely ignorant about it.

There is a big difference between a sexual predator and an alleged sexual predator.

Furthermore the societal fear of sexual predators is akin to a moral panic; there isn't a good reason why they should be treated differently from normal criminals. And to think we have a Yellow Ribbon campaign too.

The idea behind the yellow ribbon is to make sure that we throw them behind bars first before we forgive them.

Do you think sexual criminals are treated the same as other criminals?

Even prisoners put them at the bottom of the heap.

See also: Megan's Law

Wouldn't it make more sense then, to compare this case with Mr Ding's in the first place? Showing how an innocent man got dragged through the system would provide a stronger case against the apparent discrepancies.

In the future, this case will be continually referenced to as it is "first case of its kind". Obviously, this point must have played a major role in the decision to publish one name and not another.

I don't follow you.

All criminal DEFENDANTS (i.e. whether innocent or guilty) are currently named in the interests of a public trial. They are anonymised only where there is a competing interest (for example, a person who may be a victim of a particularly intrusive crime for which victims are typically stigmatised may be identified from their naming). This has nothing to do with the moral quality of sexual predators or alleged sexual predators.

Yes, I got confused somewhere.

A longer comment I left at Where Bears Roam Free:

"Defendants are routinely named in most criminal cases (whether for sexual assault or otherwise), although false accusations can take place in any sort of offence (wehther sexual assault or otherwise). The reporting of the fact of your accusation may have embarrassing consequences (whether or not sexual assault is involved) but that is something that we generally accept as part of the price of a transparent legal system. Hence we name those who are prosecuted (and acquitted) for violent assault, theft, fraud etc. To me the question is straightforwardly whether there is any countervailing interest (for instance, in protecting the victim) for not naming the perpetrator.

In these two cases, naming the woman could lead to identification of the victim, whereas naming the man doesn't really. (I don't understand how the address would identify the victim since there's no reason to believe she lived there).

You've cited an earlier case where the man was named despite the possiblity that this would identify his victims. That certainly strikes me as unacceptable, but more because it jeopardised the victims rather than because it's evidence of a more general 'double standard'. There is routinely reporting of incest cases, for instance, where the male perpetrator is anonymised - which makes yoru example seem more like a one-off than anything else."

Think that more of us should turn up at the courts wearing kangaroo T shirts. Then we'll see how many of us they can prosecute.

Well, if all Slaves go AWOL at the same time they can't do anything either.

Where bear roam free need traffic please visit

it's very obviously also because she's a teacher and that makes it so much easier to trace back to the identity of the girl as well as her other students.

Mr Ding is a teacher too! And they named him!

Let's not jump to conclusions. Maybe they are not being sexist. Maybe they are just homophobic. You name the faggot teacher so that the faggot students in the faggot school can suffer.

Huh? All along I thought that the student was a male. You mean a female teacher did it with a female student? An all-girls school?

Wow, this is no joke. Many of those schools are super elite ones. No wonder we are desperate for babies.

Ok...I digress.

No no no. Mr Ding case (not any of the 2 cases mentioned in the main article) involved a male teacher molesting boys. So that was male on male action.

The female teacher case was with a boy.

Lucky boy I say.

Correction: lest I get into trouble. Mr Ding was a male teacher accused but later acquitted of molesting his male students.