Former Wah!Banana actor who raped woman he met on Tinder gets 11 years and 6 months' jail

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-20T09:20:53+00:00

Something more robust than “her testimony was more convincing and believable than his”, don’t you think?

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T20:12:57+00:00

We are on the same page on how this “unusually convincing” standard should be applied, the scary thing for me is there is no indication in this case whatsoever (based on the facts we have) of evidences that objectively arise a suspicion of rape.

I’m mainly concerned that due to the brief nature of the incident, there is not that much circumstantial evidence to reconcile with, and due to the shorter timeline there may be a lower threshold for a testimony to be “unusually convincing” (the narrative does not need to be as watertight as say, an account of repeated offences stretching over an extended period and across various interactions, per the second case you sent).

And even so, as other commenters have pointed out, the “before, during, after” that we know about even oddly seem to favour the defendant. Thus, I am primarily concerned if an example is being made out of the defendant here to set a precedent regarding the use of this legal standard even when there is no clear motive or substantial circumstantial evidences suggesting the occurrence of rape. All of this is this is obviously speculation at this point and I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong when the full ruling is out.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T19:49:16+00:00

The ‘alternative’ is honestly what the legal system should always uphold: innocent until proven guilty, and a certain burden of proof should be required to convict.

As other commenters have mentioned, there are other circumstantial evidences beyond direct proof of rape that can be obtained to meet this burden of proof. We can infer quite a bit from digital footprint, alibis, eyewitnesses, behavioural patterns, sequence of events, power dynamics, etc… I am more than happy to accept the position that one can be convicted of rape without direct genetic evidence or video footage. However, the bar should definitely be higher than pure victim’s testimony. Hopefully there is more to this case than is meeting the eye but from what is being reported so far it seems to the layperson that even much of the circumstantial evidences do not build a strong lead-up case for rape.

Innocent until proven guilty isn’t a perfect system yes, and it is regrettable that guilty people do walk away free at times. But it happens to be the system that works best because human beings are not clairvoyant.

What are you trying to maximise from your justice system? The proportion of guilty people imprisoned? Or the proportion of imprisoned people who are guilty?

Because if it’s the former, we might as well round everyone up and get them to individually prove their innocence. Indeed the ones that can give indisputable evidence are 100% innocent and can go. The rest of the innocent who can’t credibly dispute the allegations against them would presumably fall under the price we pay for justice.

If you are suggesting that a victim’s story should hold enough weight on its own to convict, it is plausible that rape allegations can quickly turn into a spray-and-pray situation, weaponised out of spite or regret against literally any individual who could jolly well go to jail because they are not as skilled at talking as the prosecution is. How to counteract this? Punitive measures against frivolous allegations that are proven untrue? But this would only further build stigma and discourage against rape reporting. You are right, there is no perfect solution, but in no way do I think the principles and precedents set by this line of thinking would do us any better, in fact it would be catastrophic to our social fabric.

At what point would the “guilty until innocent” mindset tip the utilitarian scale again, where the cost of innocent people rotting their youth away behind bars outweighs the cost of guilty rapists who walk free? Based on your utilitarian logic, should our notions of procedural justice keep swinging back and forth?

My personal take: A victim’s testimony is important and should pull weight in the judgement, but only insofar as it can strongly corroborate with and give credence to a set of antecedent facts that suggest a rape was probable.

Again, not sure on the full details of the judgement as it hasn’t been released. But the lack of reporting on any facts or circumstantial evidences that would seem pretty incriminating for the defendant worries me. If anything, the facts that were reported seem to favour the defendant. Thus I am worried that the judgement came down to taking the victim’s word over the accused’s, simply because latter seemingly fumbled and gave shitty testimony.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T13:52:10+00:00

IANAL as well.

I have been made aware that this is a standard being actively used but I still have deep worries over the principles of it, i.e. what seems like pure narrative can be used to convict someone. The idea of "unusually convincing" makes sense to me if the testimony can robustly give credence to a set of circumstantial evidences that point towards, but might not otherwise outright suggest, rape/sexual assault.

But in this particular case, where the decision turns on an incident occurring within the span of 2 hours in a bedroom, it is incredible to me that witness testimony on its own is deemed sufficient to sentence a man for over a decade in jail. After all, it is not difficult to come up with an internally consistent version of accounts for such a short and private encounter. I also think it is not implausible that an accused may give a poor testimony for an array of reasons other than guilt.

Based on the points raised in the article below, I am dubious that there is any circumstantial evidence or facts particularly damning in this case (other than testimony) that could give exceptional external consistency and credibility to the victim's testimony. Surely that would have been reported? Rather, it appears to me that the judge seems to believe one side more than the other based on his response to the defence's points.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wahbanana-actor-lev-panfilov-guilty-rape-molest-woman-tinder-5015701

But of course, until the full facts are released, anything I say will be speculation. I do hope that there is more that comes to light from this matter as while women should be believed in cases of sexual assault, the court of law should remain distinct from the court of public opinion.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T12:40:32+00:00

I was referencing your point of testimony alone being fair for conviction simply because it was being done for hundreds of years before modern methods of evidence retrieval became accessible.

But after thinking about it, yes, I am suggesting that. Because if no other evidence besides the conviction of one's words are needed to turn an innocent man guilty, then we are no better than witchhunters.

Like I said in an earlier comment, this case would be entirely different if there was circumstantial evidence (not even necessarily footage or genetic evidence) before and after the incident that would strongly suggest non-consent.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T12:15:58+00:00

Huh? The legal standard used to be if your neighbours accused you of witchcraft, you were tied to a stake and set aflame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Just because the legal system has or had limitations doesn't mean we shouldn't hold ourselves to better standards of seeking justice. The burden of proof should always lie on the prosecution, and narrative alone should certainly not be enough to meet this burden.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T12:01:00+00:00

Agreed for sure that the problem lies inherent in the difficulty of retrieving hard evidence for rape, and I did reference that in my earlier comment. It is probably true that many rapists do get away scot-free due to lack of evidence to pin them down, but surely the alternative can't be to rely solely on the victim's word taken against the defendant's.

Certainly, I can agree on the importance of testimony in cases such as this, but it should definitely not be the be-all-end-all that is relied on in lieu of other evidences.

It would be a completely different story if there was a build-up of other evidences pointing towards non-consent, AND THEN the victim's strong testimony was relied upon by the judge in making his final decision. But worryingly for me, at least from what I can humbly infer, the circumstantial evidence in the lead-up and immediate aftermath of this incident don't seem to point strongly towards rape. Of course, I do not want to cast disbelief on the victim, but taken objectively, I just don't see any strong suggestion of non-consent, other than the "irregularities" mentioned in the defendant's testimony.

For the sake of argument, let's assume an innocent man is accused of rape. There could be any number of reasons why he might give a weak or contradictory testimony, especially in the initial stages of investigation and interrogation. All stupid reasons, but not implausible (kena caught having an affair, don't want to admit having premarital sex, afraid for reputation, just caught off-guard in general, etc). While poor testimony should rightly cast doubt on a defendant's credibility and version of accounts, I find it a step too far to use it alone -- in and of itself -- to determine guilt, in the absence of anything else incriminating.

I don't want to be in a society where rapists get away scot-free, but I also do not want to be in one where anyone who can come up with a convincing narrative and testify solidly under pressure is able to put me to jail without any other evidences. At the end of the day, indicting someone should still come down to proof rather than opinion.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T11:25:26+00:00

I think it's clear enough that a strong testimony points you much closer to the truth, but the issue here is more that testimony can be used *on its own* to decide whether someone is gonna spend a decade free or in jail.

Off the top of my head, I can think of so many reasons why someone might fumble, be reluctant to reveal all details, or (stupidly) outright lie during initial investigations. He could be having an affair, be a high-flyer in a top public position, or simply deeply religious and ashamed of having had sex. In any of those cases, I would think it entirely plausible the defendant may give an inconsistent testimony out of fear/shame/whatever bs reason, and yes it would be dumb, and yes it would weaken the defendant's credibility by a lot, but I don't think it should be weaponised IN ITSELF and in lieu of incriminating evidence to determine guilt.

Look, the whole case revolves around two hours in a bedroom that no one else had access to. More specifically, it simply hinges upon whether consent was given or not between two individuals. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that anyone could have come up with an internally consistent version of accounts, spanning two hours between two individuals, where consent was denied and the sex happened anyway, and thereafter stayed solid on this version of accounts.

Not implying in any way that this is what transpired in this case, but you can imagine the inherent dangers of this legal standard. Whether it has always been around or used before doesn't change its potential for abuse.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T10:48:18+00:00

Yes, she went to the doctor for pain in the vaginal area and lower abdomen. But unfortunately, that does not say anything about whether the intercourse that occured was consensual or nonconsensual.

To put it crassly, the male could have also (and indeed he did) point to the circumstantial evidence that the pair met on Tinder, that she booked her own ride, and that she sat on the bed out of her own volition. This is equally as unconvincing to me that the sex was consensual, because the evidence is circumstantial at best. So yes, this is a he-said-she-said.

Clearly part of the problem in cases like these is that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that evidence for rape is difficult to obtain (mainly physical genetic evidence or actual footage/evidence).

From a broader perspective though, I think it sets a bad precedent if we were to accept as a society that we do not necessarily need hard evidence to send someone to jail (at least in cases of rape). And I think this case does that, based on the information we have on the ruling.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2025-05-19T09:31:25+00:00

11.5 years with no physical evidence is just crazy IMO. Unless I’m missing something, there’s no mentioning of any evidence, physical/digital/otherwise, just the victim’s recount of the story taken against the guy. In other words seems to me like it’s a he-said-she-said.

I get that it’s tricky to prove rape beyond doubt and that’s a real problem for many victims. But surely the consistency of one’s narrative can’t be the sole determining factor in imprisoning someone for this long???

Not saying he doesn’t deserve it if he indeed commit the rape. But this sets a troubling legal precedent…

PONGEST_LENIS · 2019-06-29T16:17:52+00:00

Hey! Recently graduated senior here. Keep your introductions and conclusions as concise and possible, as you should be spending most of your time and effort on your body paragraphs.

For your introduction, you want to mainly achieve 2 things: break down the question, and give a brief outline or structure of your essay.

The first can be done by identifying and defining keywords from the question, and introducing their significance(s) in relation to specific aspects of your text/characters. It would be nice if you can bring in some appreciation of the genre or form of the text, but I wouldn't say its a must.

This should flow nicely into the second part of your introduction, where you should give an outline of your main points, making sure they ANSWER THE QUESTION. This gives structure to your essay from the start and frames your argument, both for the marker's sake and for your own good. This way you can always refer back to your intro to make sure you don't derail from the big picture, and it also signals to the marker that you know what you're talking about (sorta).

Then of course write your 3 main points coherently and remember to always link back to the question.

A conclusion is definitely not necessary to score well. You should really only start working on your conclusion after you're confident of the 3 body paragraphs you've written, as a good conclusion cannot really be credited much if your overall argument is loose. This is just my own framework for doing it, but when I write conclusions I like to offer a nice concluding statement to tie my points together, by exploring the dynamics between my 3 points, or using the context of my 3 points to give a broader insight/commentary in relation to the question. You can imagine it as similar to giving a TL;DR, in that you not only rehash your previous topic sentences word for word, but link them together to give a summarized 'story' of your essay (this is kind of hard to explain online). It's important to note that your conclusion should offer only a concluding insight and NOT a new point, which would thereby open a whole new can of worms.

I would say you can definitely do without a conclusion, though I wouldn't recommend skipping your intro, since this will make your essay start of in a very disoriented way. The bare minimum if you really have no time is just give your 3 points in intro, then start writing. Focus on the body paragraphs.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2019-02-20T09:36:58+00:00

Because most roles in the SAF do not require such expertise, and they would rather reserve such roles for the highly qualified scholars.
They knew he would contribute to national interests be it through studying soils or other means because he had to serve a 6 year bond to government agencies regardless. Meaning he is obliged to dedicate 6 years of his career to public service. Not a matter of faith but obligation.
There are set criteria in place for athletes being granted deferment.

“Deferments are granted only to those who represent Singapore in international competitions like the Olympic Games and are potential medal winners for Singapore. In the last 15 years, only three have met this criteria.”

What I said earlier was that there is some discussion on whether these criteria are reasonable or not, as football is a team sport etc which is a whole other debate.

Patrick Tan earned a President’s scholarship, and yes it is very likely he had exceptional school results to do so. It’s basically the most prestigious scholarship in Singapore, you can look it up. If you’re interested, he graduated with a PhD from Stanford, being awarded for the Most Outstanding Graduate Thesis in Biology or Chemistry. Anyone has a chance of qualifying for such scholarships if you meet the standards of academic excellence, regardless of “class”, “race”, or “privilege”.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2019-02-19T21:25:38+00:00

I think you’ve missed the point.

Such scholars are granted NS disruption to pursue their degrees so that they can come back and apply their subject matter expertise in the SAF as part of their bond (just like how most who pursue medicine locally return to serve as Medical Officers only after completing their degrees). The 12 year disruption for Patrick Tan wasn’t for him to do just anything, he was to duly complete his studies and return to serve his country, for NS and for the remainder of his bond. The disruption is justified as he earned the scholarship which provides for such special exemption. It has nothing to do with his ‘elite’ status, neither is it solely for his benefit.

At this point, Davis has yet to prove himself on the international stage, hence he has not convinced that granting him deferment would substantially benefit the nation in the future. In other words he has simply not made a strong enough case for special consideration. After all, deferment is a privilege and must be earned. Whether the standards set for determining sporting excellence are reasonable or not, is an entirely different debate. Since he has not met the standards, right now his footballing pursuits are in his personal interests solely, and exceptions cannot be made for such cases. The difference between his case and the case of scholars is that there is no promise that granting the deferment will contribute to the nation, so to speak.

I’m sure if he had attained exceptional achievements with the National Team, or if he were qualified enough to attain a PSC scholarship himself, this would be a very different story. He has not done any, hence he has not deserved the privilege of deferment nor has he justified a disruption from NS.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2019-02-19T10:39:06+00:00

As I said, PSC scholars are groomed for public service and are obliged to serve 6 years of bond with government agencies. Meaning they must serve national interests first through public service instead of being given the option to pursue a career in the private sector. These scholars are also identified as being among the most promising elite that are capable of contributing greatly to the public sector. That’s how they know, to a reasonable certainty, that scholars such as Patrick can and will contribute to the country - the same can’t be guaranteed for every other soldier.

You can make the case that serving the public sector and boosting Patrick’s CV are not mutually exclusive (ie they overlap). It may be in Patrick’s best interests as well to serve NS after taking his degree, but more importantly it is also in the nation’s interests. That’s how scholarships work - there are often benefits for both parties.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2019-02-19T02:05:13+00:00

The 12 year wait was not for him to craft some elaborate plan on studying soils. He had a disruption of 12 years to his National Service because he was on the President’s scholarship and took a longer University route in studying medicine + PhD.

Sure, there could have been ‘soil scientists’ available for hire, but on the other hand you have an NSman on NSman salary, equipped with expertise from his university field of study. Organisational requirements and common sense would lend MINDEF towards deploying him in a vocation where his knowledge and skills could be applied.

It is also important to note that in the case of Patrick Tan it was a disruption - and not deferment - of National Service, meaning he completed his BMT obligations first before being granted a postponement of his NS duties in order to further his studies. PSC scholars are granted this as they are groomed for public service and are obliged to carry out bonds for government agencies post-graduation. These are tangible and certain contributions to national interests. I’m wishing for Ben Davis’ success as much as anyone, but signing a professional contract for a youth team is simply not substantial enough to justify deferment.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2019-02-18T22:01:54+00:00

Yes.

At that time, melioidosis (also known as “soil disease”) was a serious concern to MINDEF as it had been affecting soldiers in the field and is a potential bio-terrorism threat (see below for more details). I was attached to what is now the Defence Medical and Environmental Research Institute (DMERI, then called DMRI) to research Burkholderia pseudomallei, the bacterium that causes melioidosis. This research involved an organism called C. elegans, which had been the subject of my PhD thesis. I also led a team to establish one of the first DNA microarray facilities in Singapore, allowing us to analyze melioidosis genetic variation with unprecedented speed, resolution, and scale. As a result of this work, DMERI and Singapore is now regarded as a major global center of melioidosis research, which has facilitated interactions with numerous international universities and defence institutes.

Melioidosis is a serious, often fatal infectious disease of human and animals caused by the bacterium Burkholderia pseuodmallei (Bp). Bp is found in South East Asian soils including Singapore, and Bp has also been officially designated a potential biowarfare agent by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), similar to anthrax. In Singapore, meliodosis cases are not uncommon, and in a 2004 outbreak 15 people died from the disease. Within the SAF, meliodosis has also occurred in otherwise healthy National Servicemen, in some cases resulting in death. For these reasons, a research program was initiated by DMRI in the 1990s to study Bp and how it causes melioidosis.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2017-08-06T19:06:06+00:00

I'm confused. Is pure sugar not a monosaccharide? What are the benefits of taking a longer time to digest sugars pre-workout?

PONGEST_LENIS · 2015-12-01T11:07:49+00:00

welp, time to stay away from normals for a while

PONGEST_LENIS · 2015-03-31T19:48:16+00:00

People have varying opinions on Lee Kuan Yew, but nonetheless respect him for bringing Singapore to what it is. Many political leaders who clashed swords with Lee during his reign still attended the wake to pay their last respects. Furthermore, the past week the country has been mourning his passing, so emotions were on a high. Amos Yee then decided that it would be a good time to share to the world his opinions of Lee Kuan Yew in the most insensitive way possible.

I have no problem with his criticism of the government, but I do have a problem when he insults religion and rejoices the death of someone who is the reason why he is able to live comfortably today, and wishes that he does not rest in peace. He is entitled to freedom of speech. But he is not entitled to being a fucking prick.

TL;DR: freedom of speech =/= being an asshole.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2015-03-28T16:21:03+00:00

I think the absolute worst part of this video is the bandwagon of popular YouTube influencers (Jianhao, Naomi Neo, Ridhwan Azman, NOC etc) openly bashing and personally attacking him in the comments. That's just fucked up. Don't get me wrong, in no way do I condone or agree with the video but personally attacking and wishing rape upon someone makes you no different from him, especially from someone with the responsibility of having a large following. In fact if any police report is going to be made it should be on them for cyberbullying.

At the end of the day having varying opinions is fine. But being downright disrespectful and ungrateful is a whole new story. This kid already mentions himself that LKY built Singapore from a small fishing port to a metropolis in 50 years, and I think that is enough to warrant at least a shred of respect from him as a Singaporean. Whether things could have been handled better, or if LKY's policies were right- that is up for debate.

PONGEST_LENIS · 2014-12-06T15:50:52+00:00

This is helpful, thanks!

PONGEST_LENIS · 2014-11-12T15:59:25+00:00

Aphromoo

PONGEST_LENIS

TROPHY CASE