While addressing Parliament regarding the sentencing framework review for sexual and hurt cases yesterday, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam cited three cases that sparked much public discussion.

"There was a public sense that the sentences were not adequate.

"Questions were asked (if there was) more leniency because of the educational qualifications of some of the offenders," the minister said.

CASE 1: TERENCE SIOW KAI YUAN

In September 2019, Siow, then a student at the National University of Singapore (NUS), was given 21 months of supervised probation for molesting a woman on an MRT train in September 2018 when he was 22.

A probation report found that Siow had "good academic performance in school" and highlighted "his potential to excel in life".

However, the prosecution appealed successfully against probation, and the High Court sentenced Siow to two weeks' imprisonment in April last year.

"(In) our view, that was appropriate," said Mr Shanmugam.

CASE 2: YIN ZI QIN

The 22-year-old NUS dentistry student tried to strangle his former girlfriend at her house in May 2019, and pressed his thumb against her eye after she rejec-ted him.

Yin was sentenced last July to a short detention order of 12 days and 80 hours of community service. He was also given a day reporting order for five months.

Offenders under a day reporting order have to report to a centre for monitoring and counselling, as well as undergo rehabilitation.

Mr Shanmugam noted that the sentence in this case was deci-ded in accordance with the law at the time.

Had the acts been committed on or after Jan 1 last year - when provisions were made to the Penal Code to stiffen some penalties - he would have likely been charged under the new provisions.

The offence would have been voluntarily causing hurt to a victim with whom he was in an intimate or close relationship.

"He would have been liable for up to twice the maximum penalty for voluntarily causing hurt, meaning up to six years' jail, $10,000 fine, or both," he added.

Yin would then have not been eligible for community-based sentences, which are generally available only for offences with a maximum imprisonment term of no more than three years.

CASE 3: HOON QI TONG

The former Singapore Management University student was sentenced to a short detention order of 14 days and 130 hours of community service after he used his mobile phone to film a woman in the toilet while on an internship in September 2017. Those given a short detention order are put behind bars for a short time but will not have a criminal record after their release.

The sentence was upheld by the High Court after the prosecution appealed.

Mr Shanmugam said that the offence was committed before the Penal Code amendments came into force last year, when such acts were usually prosecuted under insulting the modesty of a woman.

The offence was then punishable with up to one year's imprisonment, fine, or both.

It is different now, he said, with the introduction of a specific offence of voyeurism, which carries a penalty of two years' jail or fine.

"There is now also the possibility of caning," the minister said.

He added that the Attorney-General's Chambers will also, in general, object to probation or community-based sentences being imposed in cases involving voyeurism.

"Offenders who commit such offences cannot expect to be treated leniently," Mr Shanmugam stressed.