Monday, 29 April 2019

Q&A: The case of Samuel Seow beating up his staff

I have been asked by quite a few of you to do a post about the Samuel Seow case in Singapore and so by popular request here it is at last. In case you're reading this and you're not familiar with what has happened in Singapore, here it is: a six and a half minute video has appeared on Youtube showing Singaporean lawyer Samuel Seow beating up two female members of staff in a violent rampage in his office. It is a clear case of assault, however, mysteriously one of the female members of staff who made a police report has since withdrew her complaint against Seow despite the CCTV footage clearly showing that Seow had assaulted her. Now this has huge implications for Seow because not only is he potentially facing criminal charges for assault which can lead to a jail sentence of up to two years and/or a fine (as per section 350 and 351) of the penal code - but more to the point, even if Seow does get away with a fine of a few thousand dollars, a criminal conviction will spell the end of his legal career as he would most probably be disbarred by the Law Society of Singapore given how high profile this case has become. Well, my first reaction was anger when I watched the video, that was why I didn't do this post until now as my readers would want more than an angry rant from me. So I have waited, calmed down and crafted a Q&A style piece to address some of the questions I have been asked about the case.
What happens when lawyers break the law?

Q: Why did the female member of staff who was assaulted withdraw her complaint to the police? She should press charges so this bastard can be thrown in jail - he should be locked away for years and caned! 

Good question. We don't know why she did so but I have a few theories which I shall classify as carrot vs stick. A carrot is an incentive to make someone what you want them to do, a stick is the opposite to coerce them to do the same thing but ultimately you get the same result at the end of the day. There could have been a carrot, a stick or perhaps even a combination of both. The most common carrot used in this case is an "out of court settlement", otherwise known as a bribe or hush money. Seow could have offered the woman in question a lot of money to withdraw the police complaint she made in order to make this case go away - everyone has their price, everyone can be bought. Maybe this woman needs the money to pay off her mortgage or to take care of her children's education, perhaps it is such a big sum of money it would mean that she could buy the house of her dreams. I need to point out that this is completely legal of course and as long as both parties can reach an agreement for a settlement out of court, then the police would not get involved. I think this is a plausible theory in this case because she voluntarily withdrew her complaint despite having a rather strong case against Seow - did she simply settle out of court? Possibly, probably. Seow may have lost his temper but no, he isn't stupid enough to go to court thinking that he even has half a leg to stand on with video evidence like this?

Q: Can you explain what form the 'stick' would take in this case please? 

The other theory I have is the stick theory: the woman who made the police report is threatened that she would lose her job if she goes through with this police report. Maybe she has done something wrong in the past and she is blackmailed, "if you go through with this, I will expose what you have done back in 2014 and you'll get into a lot of trouble". We all have skeletons in our closets and it may not even be something illegal, just something she would rather keep in the closet. She also seems like a fairly junior member of staff, Seow may have threatened her that even if she quits her job, she will never work in another law firm (or in Singapore ever again because she would have a reputation to be a troublemaker - he could even threaten to tell every law firm who approaches him for a reference that she was an incompetent nightmare to deal with. Short of leaving Singapore or choosing to work in a completely different industry, she may have been under a lot of pressure to withdraw her complaint. Furthermore, we don't quite know what is going on in her mind. From the outside, we want her to get justice, we want to see Seow thrown in jail and hopefully caned many times Michael Fay style (sorry to get your hopes up, caning is usually not administered in such assault cases). But it is possible that this is already a very troubled woman and if she has other mental health issues, it wouldn't take much of a stick to make her crumble under pressure. Allow me to use an episode I went through some years back as an example.
Back in 2011 when I was a lot younger, I did a commercial for famous beer brand in London but there was a dispute over the pay. The casting brief was only sent to a small number of agents in London but they couldn't find the right people for the ad - the creative agency had been very specific about the mix of ethnic backgrounds plus certain dance skills required.  So one of the agencies who got hold of the casting brief (let's call them XYZ agency) contacted my agent and asked if she had someone who fit the bill and she sent myself and this other guy Andre to the casting. Because Andre and I both had the right skills and looked the part, we got the part in the ad and it was all fine until it was time to get paid. Now XYZ agency deduced 20% of the pay, then passed 80% of it to my agent who then took another 20%, leaving me with 64% of the money. I wasn't happy with that as it was illegal what they did: so I sought legal advice through Equity on what was the standard procedure in such a case where there were two agencies involved in the casting process and the reply was simple, "they are only entitled to take 20% maximum and 80% of the money must be given to the artiste, how they share that 20% is up to them but it is illegal of them to take 36% between them and we are happy to support you if you wish to take legal action against them." I'm the kind of person who would never back down from an argument, so I accepted their help and Equity's lawyer contacted XYZ agency with an ultimatum: contact us to resolve this or we will see you in court. Needless to say, XYZ agency wasn't happy about it. Equity's lawyers wanted XYZ to surrender all deductions they made to my agent, before negotiating how to share the 20% between them to ensure that I got my 80%.

Now what happened next was interesting: the manager from XYZ agency (let's call her Susan) contacted both Andre and I and threatened us with legal action, saying that we had no right to question their decision to take 20% of our earnings. Susan claimed that I didn't know the law and that her father was a lawyer, this was a fight I was going to lose. She claimed that even if I won this case, she was very well connected and she would make sure I would never work in the industry again. So I called her bluff - I said, "yeah so your father is a law, well my father is a judge and he would have your father disbarred before the end of today for colluding to intimidate a witness. I read law in Balliol college Oxford, I'm from a very influential family and I will make sure your agency is out of business before the end of the year. So are you going to play ball or do I have to get my father involved?" And she stammered, "do you know who I am?" And I replied, "yes I do, in fact I've done my research and there's so much dirt I have dug up on you. If you want to play dirty, you really should have covered your tracks a bit better in the past and not made so many enemies. You have quite a reputation Susan. Right now it is just about the money but if you want to make this personal, then you have far more to lose than I do - you should be careful whom you pick a fight with. Never pick a fight when you have that much to lose. Didn't your father teach you anything? Is that because you were just too darn bloody stupid to become a lawyer like him then? Go on go run to daddy for help, you'll need it Susan. I suggest you go speak to your father now because he's smarter than you."
Do you want to play 'call my bluff' with me?

It worked, the next morning, Susan's father transferred the money I was owed and that was the end of the matter. I got my full 80% and Susan was instructed to liaise with my agent to reach an agreement about sharing the 20%. What I found out though is that Andre (being younger and more naive) crumbled under pressure and he pleaded with Susan, "it was Alex who was causing all the trouble, this had nothing to do with me. I never complained." I realized that after I had called her bluff, she called Andre, vented her anger on him and screamed a lot of abuse at him. And Andre just took her abuse - it wasn't even about the money, Susan hated losing and as angry she was with me, her father stepped in and nipped it in the bud by coughing up the money, thus effectively stopping the case from ever reaching the court. So Susan went for the stick approach with her threats and to be fair, that works with some people like Andre who are too naive to know his rights and too nervous to take her on in a fight, whilst it wouldn't work with others like me who would call her bluff. Of course I lied when I called her bluff - my father wasn't a judge, I didn't go to Oxford, I didn't come from an influential family, all that was complete bullshit - I didn't have any dirt on her either. Whilst she was lying to me I thought let's see who has better acting skills if you want to play "call my bluff". I tried hard to persuade Andre to do what I did but he adamantly refused as he was genuinely scared of Susan. The bottom line is that if you don't stand up to people like Susan, then you will be bullied - even bullies know how to pick their targets carefully. Oh and sure enough, by 2014, Susan's company went bankrupt and did close down after having lost two court cases - even her daddy couldn't help her.

Q: Regardless of whether it was a carrot or a stick, the matter seemed to have been resolved when both the woman and Seow had withdrawn their complaint to the police. Why would the CCTV video be leaked only now? 

Well just look at the number of people involved in the video - there were several members of staff involved and my guess is that everyone in that video hates Seow and has plenty of motivation to leak that video - it is not necessarily the women who were attacked who leaked the video. The person who leaked the video may not even have appeared in the video. Seow has already made many enemies along the way over the years, so I would like to introduce the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Oh yeah, I've discovered this through many years of nasty office politics. So here's my theory: the existence of the CCTV footage is a closely guarded secret, the incident in question took place over a year ago. Of course, someone at Seow's firm (let's call this person "AB") has kept a copy of it knowing that he can use it as currency for a rainy day, should the need ever arise to destroy Seow's reputation. The case may become ancient history if too much time passes, so this person goes to one of Seow's enemies (let's call him "CD") and offers to share the video at a price. Upon seeing the incriminating nature of the video, CD decides that he would be delighted to pay for the video to be released to the wonderful world of social media and so he pays AB a large sum of money in order to get the video. Perhaps AB has been abused by Seow in other ways during his employment at the firm or perhaps AB is simply desperate for some money to buy a new car or pay off his mortgage. Either way, Seow has failed to secure AB's loyalty and so the video becomes merely a commodity to be traded for monetary gain. AB doesn't give a shit what happens next, he already has been paid by CD. Oh you'll be amazed at how people know how to monetize opportunities like that.
Office politics 101: don't make enemies at work

Q: What would you like to happen next to Seow then? 

I know what I would like to see but it is hard to say what will happen because a lot of it will depend on whether or not the police will reopen the case against Seow for assault. I think that they should because that decision would depend on whether or not Seow is still a danger to the public and the answer is of course he is a danger to the public, given that he has already been involved in so many cases of assault already. We only know of the times when he has been caught - what about the cases which have happened behind close door? No, people like him need to face justice because he is clearly not sorry for what he has done - he thinks that he is a victim of circumstances, he claims that he is very stressed from being so successful in running three firms and he has even made a police report against the person who has leaked the CCTV video. He is unrepentant and that could easily lead him to escalate by attacking someone else - be it at work or at home, or even a random stranger. He is operating without impunity - he seems to think that he can beat up members of his family or his staff without anyone daring to complain against him, that somehow the laws regardless assault don't apply to him because he feels so justified in his actions. Well, I say an example needs to be made of him - he needs to be arrested, face trial and spend a very long time in jail where he would get beaten up in his cell on a daily basis. He should be stripped of his law license now and be made to lose his business. That's what I would like to happen.

Q: Okay fine, but what do you think will actually happen? What is the likely outcome? 

Again, I can only compare this to other cases in Singapore in the past. Allow me to introduce exhibit A: Mr Anton Casey. Anton Casey was a British expat who was living in Singapore - his crime was a lot less severe that Seow's. Goodness me, when you compare the two and what happened! Back in January 2014, Casey made a few really offensive comments about poor people in Singapore and taxi drivers on Facebook - his tasteless posts were circulated and he quickly became public enemy number one mostly because of the colour of his skin. Hey, this entitled Angmoh is making fun of poor Singaporeans, but no one could have predicted the avalanche of public anger directed at him after those remarks went viral in a way that was unprecedented. It wasn't just in social media circles in Singapore - the story crossed over into the mainstream media and it was being reported as far away as in places like Australia and the UK and it just kept spreading like wildfire - Casey was trending on Twitter. Things got really serious when Casey's employer Crossinvest decided to fire him in light of the increasing attention from the media; his family then literally got on a plane and fled to Perth, Australia because they decided to lie low for a while. I was shocked at how far this went as it was just some idiot saying something stupid on the internet - I thought that the whole thing was going to just blow over in a few days when Singaporeans found something else to be angry about on social media, but they actually did literally hound Anton Casey (and his family) out of Singapore, not before getting a groveling apology from Casey as a parting gesture. So the Singaporeans got what they wanted in the end and they were delighted in this victory over Anton Casey and that taught us all never to underestimated the power of social media in Singapore. But Casey was an employee who could be fired: hence let's compare this to a case where the boss company similar to Seow's position is guilty of abuse.
So let's move on to exhibit B: Encore E-Services. Back in May 2013, a video surfaced on social media of a Alan Lee the director of a Singaporean company called Encore eServices beating up an employee Calvin Chan - but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Lee had been "employing" Chan he had beaten up in the video for 3 years but paying him about S$500 a month which was what an intern would receive. It was truly a clusterfuck situation - if not for the fact that the video had been released to social media by another intern in the company, then who knows how much longer Chan would have been underpaid, overworked and beaten up on a regular basis at work. You could see what was going on in Chan's head in this interview: he clearly suffered from very low self-esteem and didn't dare to speak up for himself when he was abused. It took the intervention of others including a colleague, a cousin and his parents before he left the company - a police report was made and eventually Lee was jailed for 10 days. I am amazed that happened because I would have expected Lee to have settled with the Chan family out of court (like I said, everyone has their price - it is just money), but clearly they wanted justice but under the Singaporean justice system, Lee was let off with a slap on the wrist with such a short sentence. His business still exists today and feel free to contact them by email and remind Alan Lee that the netizens of Singapore still haven't forgiven him and that we hope he was gangbanged in the showers every night whilst he was in prison. But at the very least, even if the sentence was too short, at least Lee was hauled through the justice system and punished - albeit too lightly and his business didn't collapse because he wasn't dependent on local Singaporean clients, but had clients around the world in places like Africa as he was offering a rather niche service in IT.

Now let's look at exhibit C: this is a far more recent case, one that is still ongoing. NUS student Monica Baey was filmed by student Nicholas Lim Jun Kai - for this act of voyeurism, he was given a one-term suspension, a 12-month conditional sentence, a stern warning and ordered to make a written apology to the victim. Many felt that he was let off very lightly because a similar case back in 2000, Koh Chit Joo was jailed for 3 weeks for a very similar offence. I believe that Lim was let off too easily and that he should have been at least sent to jail for a short spell and he should have been suspended from NUS. Two petitions with over 21,000 signatures together are asking both NUS and the police to punish Lim - NUS didn't suspend him and allowed him to continue his studies there and the police basically let him off with a slap on the wrist. He was even allowed to secure a job at Great Eastern Life - though this was the only part of the story that restored my faith in humanity. There was a huge public uproar against Great Eastern Life and they subsequently caved in to public pressure: “We are aware of the recent incident involving Nicholas Lim, a Great Eastern financial representative. He has been placed on immediate suspension and has since submitted his resignation. Great Eastern strongly disapproves of any inappropriate conduct by our financial representatives and will not hesitate to take the necessary action.” Under the circumstances, Lim decided to jump by resigning before he was officially dismissed. So yes, this does have similarities to what happened to Anton Casey when his employer Crossinvest caved in under public pressure following an outcry on social media but it leaves me with little faith in the Singaporean justice system and NUS. 
I hope that Nicholas Lim would be rendered unemployable after the way his pictures have been splashed all over social media as a pervert and sexual predator. I must add though that Great Eastern Life is an insurance company and in their statement, they referred to Lim as a "financial representative" rather than an employee. Allow me to translate that into plain English for you: Lim didn't get a good job there, far from it. He was selling insurance policies for them (usually in this case, life insurance) and it is a nasty job because very few people want to buy such life insurance products - you pay a lot in monthly premiums and only see the benefits if something truly horrible happens to you. It is a hard sell to say the least, I'd much rather be selling expensive luxury products that people desire. Lim would have had to approach all his friends and family in the first instance to try to make a few sales; if his friends and family felt sorry for him, they would buy from him not because they needed the insurance but because they wanted to help him. Great Eastern Life does have more complex corporate insurance products for companies but they wouldn't let a newbie sell those, not before the newbie has proven himself to be a really good salesman in having generated loads of sales from life (and other personal) insurance policies in the first instance. So before you netizens celebrate having hounded Lim out of his job at Great Eastern Life, allow me to give you a dose of reality please: Lim had a really shitty job to begin with and he was never going to be able to sell enough anyway to stay there, not after his conviction with a reputation as a sexual predator and pervert. Companies like that hire a lot of sales staff on a trial basis and then gets rid those fail to meet their sales targets within a set period. You guys merely hastened the inevitable in this case; but it makes it harder for Lim to find a new job.
Q: Can Seow manipulate everyone to make this go away once again? 

Well, it has become clear from exhibits A, B and C that whilst you can use pressure from social media to force a company to fire someone, there's much less you can do if he is the boss of the company and in the case of Seow, that's exactly the case. But in Seow's case, he runs the following companies: Beam Artistes, Samuel Seow Law Corporation (a media entertainment law firm) and it is unclear which the third company is. He claims to manage three companies but I can't find any mention of that on his Linkedin profile. And here's the thing: lawyers are not meant to be nice people, they are meant to be ruthless when it comes to defending you in court. I know a lawyer in London (let's call him William) who makes a good living out of defending people who are clearly guilty of some of the most horrific crimes: his clients pay William good money in order to get a light sentence, guilty of a lesser charge (eg. aggravated assault as opposed to attempted murder) or even in some cases, a 'not guilty' verdict. Oh and William makes a lot of money doing this, he is crazy rich - you should see his penthouse suite. It is a grim but lucrative business - any concept of fairness or justice goes out of the window when you step into the murky world of law and it is not about being nice, it is not a popularity contest. It is all about manipulating people within the system from the judge to the other party's legal team to the witnesses to the journalists reporting on the case, to get them to do exactly what you want by any means necessary. And I hate to say this, but even if you don't like Seow and what he does, I can see that he is good at manipulating people.

Take the example of the woman who was hit in the video who was reveled to be his niece - in the video we see a vicious and sustained attack on the young lady. Yet after she withdraw her complaint to the police, she wrote in a press release that her actions were "misguided" and stated that her uncle "remains an important mentor and benefactor to me". Yeah right. As with family members like that, who needs enemies - as discussed earlier, she was manipulated be it via a carrot or a stick, possibly both. Looking at the video, it feels unreal that she could come up with words like that. But then again, there are loads of women around the world who suffered from 'battered wife' syndrome and they stay in toxic, abusive relationships with men who regularly beat them up. These women are manipulated into having such low self-esteem that they actually believe that it is their fault to provoke their partner and that they deserve the punishment they get. I have to point out that the term 'battered wife' is somewhat misleading as it implies that only women suffer from this condition when it is clear that in exhibit B, the case involving Calvin Chan - Chan clearly suffers from battered wife syndrome and he is a man with very low self-esteem, that was why he didn't dare to speak up when abused and it took the intervention of others to rescue him from his horrific abuse. So whilst Seow can manipulate everyone from his niece to his staff to even the police and the Law Society of Singapore to get the outcome he wants, it is clear that this time, he simply cannot convince public opinion in social media that he is innocent, that he is a victim rather than a monster that needs to be thrown in jail for his actions. I'd like to see him try, so go on then Seow, let's see you try to manipulate public opinion now!
Can Seow manipulate public opinion now?

Q: Is the police compelled to take action in light of the video even if the women who got beaten remain silent? 

It depends - this is a sliding scale and it is up to the police to decide when they need to intervene. If a husband and wife were to have a noisy argument in the privacy of their home, then the police are likely to look the other way. But if the wife is beaten up as a result of that altercation, then the police will have to make a judgement call about the safety of the woman: has a crime been committed? If they do not intervene, would the violence escalate and if the woman in danger? So if the woman ends up in hospital with broken bones but refuses to make an official complaint against her husband, would the police then stand back and say, "well she said she fell down the stairs, so we don't need to investigate." At what stage do you say, "regardless of whether or not the woman dares to speak up, we need to arrest the man who attacked her." Do you wait till the husband actually murders the wife before you arrest him for murder? So whilst it is common for such cases to be settled out of court via a carrot (ie. a bribe, let's call it what it is - anyone can be bought at the right price) but if the victim is silenced using a stick, then the attacker has committed even more crimes and has to spend an even longer time in jail. The police need to at least reopen the case to try to find out how it was resolved between the assailant and the victim because if the victim was silenced using threats, blackmail and further violence, then goodness me, then Seow needs to be thrown in jail as soon as possible as he is clearly a danger to society. If the police are competent, then they need to investigate to find out the truth about why the victims withdrew their complaints.

Q: Wait, so you mean criminals can commit crimes then just avoid facing justice by bribing the victims?

Well in some cases, yes. The criminal justice system has limited resources and if it is clear that both parties have reached a satisfactory resolution involving some kind of compensation, then the police will probably close the case and move on. It also really depends on what the victims want: if they will derive satisfaction from seeing their attacker spend a long time in jail, then they will press for a prosecution. But if they have little faith in the system that could take a very long time and incur hefty legal fees (without any guarantee of getting the outcome they want), then they may feel that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - especially if they are offered a very large amount of money to settle the case quickly out of court. Sometimes their financial situation may compel them to just take the large amount of money on the table because they have other pressing needs to deal with and trying to get justice would have to be sacrificed. So even after all that is conducted, the police should still monitor the situation and continue their investigations - they need to ascertain whether or not there is any potential danger to the public (or any other parties in particular) if they do not take any action to persecute the accused. So in Seow's case, he has already had a number of women lodge complaints against him and then mysteriously withdraw their complaints - there is a pattern to his behaviour. He regularly beats the women up and then using either a carrot or a stick (or both), coerces and/or persuades them to withdraw the complaint.
How is Seow going to get out of this situation?

Q: What can we do via social media to target Seow then to stick it to him? 

I'm glad you asked. Now remember my lawyer friend William in London? Now the price he pays for defending some of the scumbags of society is that he keeps a very low profile - he once got a rapist acquitted over a technicality which rendered a vital part of the evidence inadmissible in court, that led to the case collapsing and the eventual acquittal. The rape victim then attempted suicide over what happened, there was such an uproar over what happened as the rapist was 100% guilty and William received many death threats - he had to go into hiding for a while and has since kept a very low profile. You won't find him on any kind of social media or press release, he doesn't crave any kind of publicity. Seow on the other hand works as a lawyer in the entertainment industry so he loves nothing more than social media to try to show the world how glamorous and wonderful his life is - he attends many events and shouts about it on social media. Obviously he is after positive feedback so you can give him the opposite there by flooding such posts with negative feedback about what he has done to his staff. So let's start with Youtube: if you do a search for 'Samuel Seow' on Youtube, you are going to see quite a few copies of that famous CCTV video of him assaulting his female members of staff in his office and you're going to see him speaking at events. Now the videos of him speaking at the events are not uploaded by him - they are uploaded by the people who hosted the events so they're not going to censor whatever you're going to say about Seow there (plenty of comments have already appeared in the last few days), so go ahead and tell Seow exactly what you think about him on those videos in the comments section since he can't remove or censor your comments. He has his own Youtube channel too but he can and probably will delete your comments there in due course.

And then of course, there's Instagram but he probably controls those accounts - so if you leave hateful comments there, then he is probably going to delete them and block you. But what if enough people target him on Instagram, then what you may force him to do is to suspend his account and disappear for a while until the public anger against him dies down. Making him delete your hateful comments will at least frustrate him into realizing that whilst he may be good at manipulating people (hey he does it for a living), he is still completely powerless to change public opinion about you. So, his here's the link for Seow's personal Instragram accounthere's the link for his law firm's Instagram account and here's the link for Beam Artiste's Instagram account. Seow is also on Twitter, here's his Twitter account - feel free to tweet about him and let him know how you feel about him. Furthermore, he is also on Facebook - here's his personal Facebook account and his law firm's Facebook account since to be offline, given the amount of hate mail it has received. It was online a few days ago when I checked but it has gone offline today.  Nonetheless, the Beam Artiste Facebook page is still active, so I suggest you either redirect your hate mail there or to Samuel Seow's personal Facebook account. Finally, there is his Linkedin account as well. Hey, all of these links are in the public domain and Seow has put them there himself. Then on top of that, there's all the discussions on news websites where you're encouraged to leave a comment and discuss the news story. I've done the research for you, now I need you guys please to get online and give him hell. Frustrate the hell out of him, he thinks he can control everything but show him that he just cannot control public opinion.
Seow seems to think he is innocent in spite of the evidence.

Q: Can overwhelming negative media coverage adversely affect his business? 

Yes it can in some ways but not in others. Let's look at exhibit D, Sun Ho's music career. After the fiasco that landed her husband Kong Hee in jail, Sun Ho's music career was effectively over because of the overwhelming negative publicity associated with her music. The fact is Sun Ho's music career depended on her having fans who liked her music and if you were to look at the music video for 'Kill Bill' on Youtube, there are 687 likes and 8,300 dislikes and if you need a good laugh, scroll down and read the comments section (there are 1,824 comments) where the viewers ridiculed the song. And the funniest part of it was that this was on Sun Ho's own Youtube channel SunmusicTV - yet she didn't even bother censoring or deleting the negative comments as she was probably too busy dealing with the law suit that landed her husband in jail. Yeah, that was hilarious. Sun Ho has since kept a very low profile and she is still active on Instagram, but practically every post now is about her work at City Harvest Church which is a far cry from when she was trying to have a career as a singer. Yeah, it does seem having her husband sent to jail for a long time has made a huge impact on her life. Could Seow lose his clients at his law firm because of all the negative publicity associated with this current episode? I don't know - unlike Sun Ho, his career is not dependent on people liking him and what he does, it is completely dependent on him being manipulative and cunning as a lawyer (as in the case of William in London). As for Beam Artiste, whether or not his artistes stick with that agency or seek a different agent would depend far more on how well he has treated them so far, whether or not the agency has found them good work rather than what the public actually thinks now.
Q: If you could give Seow some advice, what would it be? 

Wow, you're asking me to give advice to someone I really hate? Okay, I shall try to be objective and do what William does - he may defend murderers and rapists in court, but for him it is just a job, a function that he performs for money. He doesn't actually like a lot of the people he defends, they have committed some horrific crimes but he is just doing his job in defending them in court. So even I can try to give someone like Seow advice when he finds himself in this kind of situation. Heck, I have even done a piece on what kind of PR advice I would have given Sun Ho. Given that Seow is too arrogant to take anyone's advice, I am quite happy to make the following points knowing he won't listen to me (especially after everything I've written here thus far). Right now, I think that Seow is in an echo chamber - he is tuning out anyone who isn't agreeing with him and only choosing to listen to those who are 100% supportive of him. It is the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. This reflects in the kind of language he has used in his most recent press release - it is not that he is stupid, he has a different problem: he is refusing to see things from other people's perspectives and considers that his perspective of the world is the only valid one - a classic sign of Asperger's syndrome. So even if he isn't plain stupid, I'm sure if he's willing to be honest with himself, if he is simply willing to actually listen to what people are saying about him and give their opinions some respect, then he'll find a way to figure this out but until he's willing to acknowledge the gravity of the situation, he's no closer to resolving it. Surely you know the famous saying - when in a hole, stop digging?
Q: What the hell is going on in Seow's head then? 

Allow me to go through some of the things he has said in his latest press release to explain just what is going on in Seow's head. Seow claims that he is unsure what the people who have leaked the video are trying to achieve. Like come on, really? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Seow obviously has made many enemies - just look at the way he treats his own staff in his company and the way he behaves when he loses his temper. When he can't get his way, he lashes out and hits women. There's probably a very long list of people who fucking hate his guts and want to see harm being done to his business and reputation following the leak of this video - and guess what? The fact that we're talking about it now means that the person who leaked the video has achieved his/her objective. This shows us how delusional Seow is - like is he totally oblivious to the fact that many people hate him? Have any of the people who hounded Anton Casey out of Singapore actually met him? No, but did that stop them from hating Casey? Clearly not. Seow is public enemy number one in Singapore right now and somehow, he is still totally oblivious to the fact that people hate him. That's shocking. It goes to show that Seow is vain - he's probably thinking, "but I'm so perfect, I'm so smart, I'm so handsome, I'm so wonderful - why would anyone in the world have any reason to hate me unless they're jealous of just how perfect, smart, handsome and wonderful I am?" The fact is there are a lot of angry, bitter and frustrated people out there just looking for someone to project their hatred onto - you don't want to become the object they vent their anger on.

Seow also said that audio and video clips that have been released were "edited". That seems highly unlikely but you can't make a claim like that unless you're prepared to release the original copy of the "unedited" CCTV footage of the same day. And if someone has the CGI skills to edit the video to make Seow look like a little punk ass bitch in the video, then this skilled video editor should be in Hollywood working on the latest feature film in the Marvel movies series rather than editing the CCTV footage in Seow's office. For a lawyer who is supposedly good at his job, Seow has really come up with some really poor defence statements in his own case. And here's where he made a huge mistake: he wrote, "I hope to find closure with this issue soon, so I can move on with my life". Oh man, this is a serious face-palm moment. He is using the language of a victim - you don't get to use such language when you're the asshole who has caused all this trouble in the first place! This goes to show that he genuinely believes that he is indeed the victim in all of this despite the fact that we have video evidence of him beating up two female members of staff in his office. Hey, I'm not a lawyer but when a man beats up a woman, the woman is the victim and the man is the assailant - not the other way around. That's a pretty basic order of things that Seow simply cannot understand. Yes, I know he sees himself as the victim but the public doesn't and insists that he is indeed the assailant who needs to face consequences for his criminal actions - despite the fact that he isn't stupid, he is so full of himself he can't reconcile his vision of the world and how the rest of the world views his actions - that's a classic sign of autism and Asperger's syndrome. He is just so out of touch with reality.
I could go on but this piece is long enough as it is and I'm sure you guys will have some questions and comments on the case. I'll wait to hear what you guys have to say about it and then possibly follow up with a part 2. I can't wait to hear your thoughts and let me know how people in Singapore feel about this story. Have you ever met someone like Seow then? Did this story surprise you or did you just roll your eyes? Leave a comment below please and many thanks for reading. 

40 comments:

  1. Just to clarify, if a simple slap is made, that is only assault, and most offenders don't go to jail. There are exceptions of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh but TTan, you're merely judging him on what was caught on camera - we saw him strike the younger woman several times (rather than just one slap) plus he pushed the other woman to the ground. What else has he done which was not caught on camera? What was caught on camera this time was just the tip of the iceberg - if you seized the CCTV for that office for the last year, just how many incidents of assault do you think we will find Seow committing on tape?

      But if he's smart enough he would have destroyed all the evidence already to cover his tracks - but nonetheless, this one did get out, so it shows he is not as careful as you think.

      Delete
    2. Let's put it this way - if the police catch you with a small amount of cocaine, do you think that they will charge you for having that small amount of cocaine or will they search your car, your house, your office, your parents' house etc to see if you have a much bigger amount of drugs stashed away? When it comes to investigating crime, this kind of evidence usually suggests that there's far more criminal activity that needs to be investigated. You're treating this as if this is just an isolated incident when I am saying that Seow is capable of beating up women and assaulting people on a daily basis (and plenty of other criminal activities) and this is just the only time he is caught on camera doing so.

      Delete
  2. In the case of Monica Baey, and Nicholas Lim, my thinking is voyeurism can be an indication of a mental illness arising from stress or other adverse situations. Secondly the argument that voyeuristic acts cause psychological harm to their victims is just conveniently used to say that although there is no physical harm but it torments the mind. I like to ask is it more tormenting to endure stress of abuse over a long period, or for a short period of maybe a few days knowing you have been filmed, and how long do you think this will bother you? I will also like to say females in Singapore are actually very lucky, policies in Singapore are quite in their advantages, they cannot be caned supposedly for being weaker, no National Service, a strong women association in aware, family divorce law that is in their favours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, there are loads of people who experience a lot of stress, trauma and other forms of conditions that can result in mental health issues - but it is still no fucking excuse to become a voyeur and go peep at a woman showering, much less film her. It's no fucking excuse, I wanted to see Nicholas Lim thrown in jail and caned with his future destroyed. I have zero sympathy, I want him to be punished.

      And if females in Singapore are so protected as you claim, then Monica Baey wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. NUS tolerates perverts like Nicholas Lim - how's that for women's rights? The whole situation is seriously fucked up.

      Delete
  3. Hi LIFT, I remember that only recently voyeurism will be made a criminal offence in UK. For a long time, it was or maybe still is not. When I said females in Singapore are well protected, I was referring to the policies in place. Now marital rape in Singapore will be criminalised too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you are wrong - the law has been updated recently to deal specifically with certain forms of voyeurism such as upskirting, the use of a mobile phone to take a photo up a woman's skirt. But previous to that, any kind of violation of a woman through voyeurism was dealt with under the sexual offences act which underwent a major update in 2003 and before that in 1956 and before 1956, they had a whole lot of other laws which they reorganized and put in a group together under the sexual offences act. So you read a piece of news that said that they have made more specific provisions to deal with upskirting, but if you dared to peep at a woman showering 20 years ago, you would be arrested for sure.

      Please don't read one piece of news, not understand it then completely jump to the wrong conclusion. You only make a fool of yourself when someone tells you that you're completely wrong. That's the kind of shit idiots like my parents do. So if you're not sure, this is what you should have done instead, simply engage me with a question, "Alex, I read that upskirting has made the headlines in the UK recently and that your government has made new laws to deal with that kind of voyeurism to tackle that kind of crime - what happened before that, given that mobile phones with cameras and indeed voyeurism have been around for many years before 2019?"

      No, instead you made a fool of yourself by assuming that voyeurism was legal in the UK prior to 2019 - which is completely false and wrong, because you read a short article, didn't understand it and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Geez. What is wrong with you.

      Delete
  4. Yes I made a mistake, I am sorry, up skirting is only made a criminal offence, but it has been an offence way before UK illegalized, I have assumed that voyeurism is legal because I vaguely remember the news a long time back. My point is to make the case that Singapore women are generally well protected, and in a gender inequality survey, Singapore has less gender equality than many countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, you're still somewhat technically wrong - upskirting has always been illegal but in making specific laws to deal with it that paves the way for more effective prosecution enabling the police to charge offenders and ensure that they do face the maximum sentence when found guilty. This is merely the law evolving to fit the technology that we use - 30 years ago, there were few if any laws relating to cyber/internet related crimes and today, the law makers are struggling to keep up. Our world is changing and the laws that govern our world have to keep changing, evolving and keep up with all these changes. So hats off to the government for trying to make more specific laws to keep up with the world in a time when everyone has a mobile phone - but for you to look at this new law and assume that voyeurism was legal in the UK is just totally wrong because it just isn't true. Voyeurism has always been illegal and was dealt with under the sexual offences act - we already had laws to deal with it for decades.

      Delete
    2. Let's compare this to another law that was created to keep up with modern technology - the UK has made huge efforts in protecting vulnerable people like the elderly against internet fraud when we are all using internet banking and doing so many transactions online: from buying a plane ticket to paying our bills to shopping for gifts online - we do so many transactions online and of course, with it comes internet fraud that targets for example, the elderly and the gullible.

      So are you going to look at a piece of UK legislation designed to deal with internet fraud and assume therefore that before this came along, all forms of fraud and theft were completely legal in the UK? Of course not. That would be completely illogical to make that kind of conclusion - even if someone committed internet fraud prior to there being specific laws to deal with internet fraud, a judge would still find an existing law to deal with crimes pertaining to theft and fraud to charge the criminal, in order to make sure that criminals are dealt with and justice is served.

      LR, seriously, you're illogical in the way you look at one piece of news and completely jump to a crazy conclusion ten thousand miles away. I don't expect you to be a legal expert, I just hope you would ask a question and get clarification instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion.

      Delete
  5. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-is-top-asian-nation-for-gender-equality-un-report

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but that's only in Asia where women have always suffered a lot of discrimination - you need to compare Singapore to countries in the West, then you realize how messed up the situation is.

      Delete
  6. And right or wrong is not absolute, it depends on societal values, I do not know my history well, but probably a long time back voyeurism may not have been outlawed. Right or wrong is socially conditioned, it may be considered illegal to use profanities at work, but shouting at subordinates are allowed, this also caused harm mentally if one has low self esteem, but this is not a criminal offence in Singapore, they go for mediation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do not know how the law works. Good fucking grief. Voyeurism has always been illegal. That is the law - it is just a question of whether or not justice is served, that depends on the police and justice system at the time.

      I can't stress this enough - you really have no fucking clue how laws work.

      Delete
  7. I am not sure about the status of women in West. But Singapore has at least outlawed up skirting earlier than UK. It shows that Singapore policies are generally quite protective of women from this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're wrong again.

      Allow me to explain.

      I have an ice cream maker in my kitchen, a lovely housewarming gift from my sister in law who knows my love of ice cream.

      It is big and heavy and I'm sure if I hit someone on the head with it, I could kill the person. But wait, there's no specific law in the UK concerning killing someone with an ice cream maker, does that mean that I would get away scott-free on that technicality? Of course not. If I did kill someone by hitting him on the head with an ice cream maker, I would still be arrested for murder or manslaughter as that is still a crime in the UK.

      Likewise, upskirting was never legal in the UK. The sexual offences act has plenty of different charges that a judge can use for an offender who is caught upskirting with or without this latest update to the law.

      Listen, you really have no freaking clue how laws work. I could teach you - but I suggest you do some research and reading before jumping to the wrong conclusion again and again. I'm getting tired of having to correct you every time you jump to the wrong conclusion again.

      Delete
  8. We can also debate what constitutes right or wrong. Voyeurism I believe may be quite rampant in the past, but there is less outcry because social media was non existent. It seems that NUS Monica case got blown out of proportion due to media reporting?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am neutral in the case of voyeurism, and I am honest about my male vulnerability of primitive desires that I have certain voyeuristic thoughts which I did not act out. It is illegal in current social norms, but I feel there is really little real harm caused. Apology if my views are offensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you feel there is little real harm done for you to peer through my bedroom-window or change-room or wherever I am for you to take a peek at my glory? You are a PERVERT and a sociopath! Ewwwww! You need therapy.

      Delete
    2. Well Di, I agree with you.

      Some people really only see the world through their own eyes and refuse to even consider how another person (such as a WOMAN) may have a totally different take on the issue.

      Trust me, I grew up with the most autistic parents in the world and I have grown accustomed to this kind of bullshit. LR is guilty of that - he is seeing the issue entirely through his own eyes, thinking that the only opinion that matters is his which is of course, bullshit. If you go through life like that, thinking that only your opinion matters and nobody else's does, then you're really going to alienate people and get into a lot of trouble.

      Delete
  10. Dear Lift, sorry for my hasty conclusions on the laws pertaining to voyeurism in UK. My point of using this to say that Singapore laws are quite protective of women, looking at family divorce laws, women usually get alimony and custody, there is a strong women rights advocacy group AWARE in Singapore. With regards to voyeurism, I need to admit my stance was partly due to my vulnerability in it too. I have the temptations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good grief. If you wanna have sex, then find a willing party to fuck the night away with. If you can't find a girlfriend, then pay a prostitute who will fuck the night away with you at the right price. But the moment you cross the line and outrage the modesty of a woman who doesn't give consent, that's it - you're going to jail for a very long time.

      Don't expect any sympathy from me. Your views are very offensive cos you're extremely selfish - you just think about your own gratification instead of the victim. You're sick and twisted. I put my foot down and say that your opinion isn't valid and if you do ever cross the line and commit a crime, I want them to throw you in jail for a very long time.

      Delete
  11. That is why I said I did not act out but there is a natural tendency for guys, biologically wired.

    ReplyDelete
  12. https://www.quora.com/What-is-right-and-what-is-wrong-in-life-1/answer/Jahnu-Das?ch=3&share=062c6e08&srid=3u4NZ

    ReplyDelete
  13. You have your own social conditioning but I am just being honest with my views, and thinking. I hope you can suspend judgment for a while. Do you agree men are biologically wired to have such thoughts, and to have needs? I am coming from the point that I have these impulses and I believe most have but they keep it in check. I know it is illegal, and the social views are without consent it is wrong, you are causing harm...Is it wrong to be honest with my views, and I do not have rights to be open with my thoughts without being judged harshly and I have not attacked anyone verbally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not being a prude when it comes to sex - that's why I have specifically told you to go visit a prostitute to fuck the night away once you've agreed on a price.

      You need to learn and understand the importance of consent when it comes to sex with women. By all means, have loads of sex if you can find women who will consent to have sex with you. But the moment you cross the line and venture into non-consensual sexual activities, then you will get into big trouble with the law. Why can't you just find a consenting party for you to have sex with? It's just money, pay for a prostitute if you must.

      Delete
    2. OK.i understand your point that without consent it is wrong. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. If you wish to have a sex life, I say, please go ahead, you're an adult you can do whatever you want as long as it is all consensual and not against the law. Nobody is telling you that you can't have sex, I'm merely pointing out the vital difference consent makes in this case. I reiterate, you're 100% free to go ahead and have a vibrant sex life for all I care - you're an adult after all.

      Delete
  14. I am not saying about raping, I am talking about the natural tendencies to be attracted to women, and to have such fantasies thoughts. Is it wrong to have such biological impulses?

    ReplyDelete
  15. While feelings of aggression, the impulse to exert one’s will on another person and other negative behaviors are part of the daily life experience of virtually every human being, we have also evolved the ability to check those impulses

    ReplyDelete
  16. http://time.com/5053976/men-sexual-harassment-evolution-natural-selection/?amp=true

    ReplyDelete
  17. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-47902522
    Previously, brit police did not care about upskirting n ignored it. See BBC article above. If you are wearing underwear, then they would tell you too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was shocked, the only manly actions in that video were initiated by the lady with orange hair that stood up to such a pathetic worm.
    Good article, I usually have a short attention span but read the entire thing following many of the links & that is pretty unusual.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I will apologise for offending people with my views, and to emphasize, even though I have these views, I have not such voyeuristic behaviours or tendencies. I just could not understand the harm caused to voyeuristic victims. is it similar to being long term bullied which I have experiences?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, I'm sure you've not done anything illegal before and you're not like Nicholas Lim, no one is accusing you of that. But allow me to explain to you why you caused such offence in the first place.

      Imagine you have two people in a room, one Chinese and one white and the white person decides to tell a racist joke that makes fun of Chinese people - the Chinese person then says, "you have just caused offence, I think that joke is not funny, I am very offended." The white person then turns around and says, "I just can't understand why you're upset by it. It is just a joke, why or how has it harmed you?"

      In that simple example, the white person doesn't get to decide when his joke has gone too far because it is a racist joke that made fun of Chinese people - if it was a tasteful, funny, witty joke that the Chinese person actually found funny despite the fact that his culture is at the center of that joke, then fair enough, they can have a laugh together. But if the Chinese person takes offence, then the white person has badly misjudged the situation and has misfired. So in this case, the Chinese person gets to pass judgement whether or not the joke is acceptable or not - not the white person. The same principle would apply if we reversed the situation: if the Chinese person had decided to tell a joke about white people.

      Now in this case, we have established that you're male and we're talking about the Monica Baey case. You're a man for crying out aloud - I can't make this any clearer:

      YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT HARM HAS BEEN CAUSED TO MONICA BAEY OR OTHER VICTIMS OF VOYEURISM BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PENIS.

      Which part of that do you not understand? You're a man. You have to shut the fuck up and let women have their say. Your opinion doesn't count. Your opinion isn't valid. You have to learn to shut up and listen for a change for crying out aloud. This is because you're not able to understand how a woman feels when she is violated like that.

      OK How about this: how can I help you with this aspect of empathy? Imagine this: would you allow yourself to be filmed totally naked whilst showering and allow the person who filmed you to upload that video to multiple gay porn sites - thus allowing millions of viewers around the world to watch you on those gay porn sites, all this without your consent? How would that make you feel?

      Geez. You're as bad as my parents when it comes to being so autistic you can't understand another person's POV. Let me guess, you're single. You don't know how to relate to women so no woman would want to become your girlfriend. You have A LOT to work on when it comes to your extremely poor social skills.

      Delete
    2. Follow up: https://limpehft.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-are-singaporean-men-struggling-with.html this was written specifically with LR Singapore in mind.

      Delete
  20. Alex, based on what I know of Samuel Seow personally, via that Manhunt pageant or contest when I was in it and could not withdraw, he is actually not a very easy person to deal with. His reputation in the legal side of the entertainment scene is in fact one of someone who is capable of curticu down people to size, or smithereens, depending on his agenda. Think, he told us about how some contestant's sexy video of himself pleasuring himself online got online, and how they 'cleaned up the mess' for him (basically, think of it as 'you get harassed by someone, we threaten or assassinate that threat for you' so as to clear the pageant of the drag that it is smeared with). Get this picture of what he is capable of, and you will know how he is as a person morally.

    My gay friend in secondary school is extremely insistent that Samuel Seow is a repressed homosexual due to Catholic beliefs, and just by looking at Samuel Seow's effeminate personality, it is very hard to believe his claim and insistence in public that he is straight. That only feeds into the repression theory of that friend that repressed sexual desires and their due frustration emerge in the form of deeply suppressed anger issues. Well, i rest my case. He is just a dodgy person.

    In his talent agency, he is hardly a nice person. Screaming, shouting, and I'll treatment seem to be norms in the way he treats others. I am not surprised though if he gets off scot-free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds spot on! Esp the repressed homosexual part!!!

      Delete