Draft:Ong Mingwee case

• Comment: Many of the sources are poor such as opinion pieces and sites like Aware.org and salt&light (neither which mentions the case so cannot be used to support anything). The Business Times article only briefly mentions Mingwee. Other sources are primary (court documents, interviews/statements by those involved, etc.) which cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Hey, thanks for the article. You'll need more references (see WP:RSP for a guide to sources) to prove notability. Also, please use in-line citations. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

---

I disagree that my article contains original research and opinions. In my article, I have listed out both sides of the argument, opinions from people such as Members of Parliament and netizens, and did not pick any side. I already clearly stated that "Some called for XXX, while others believed YYY". I did not associate any opinion with myself. I used newspaper articles as my sources, which should qualify as reliable secondary sources. As such, I will resubmit the draft.

Ong Mingwee is a man in Singapore who was acquitted of rape. Initially convicted of rape by a district judge in 2011, he was acquitted upon his appeal in which he hired renowned criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan. His case has been notable in gender equality debates in Singapore on both sides, being brought up on a regular basis in discussions about sexual crimes.

Trials

In the early hours of 12 February 2009, Ong had met a woman at Zouk and brought the woman to his home where they had sexual intercourse. The woman had sexual intercourse with Ong before leaving the following morning.

In this case, the point of contention was about whether the woman was capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. There was no doubt that Ong did not physically force the woman into intercourse but it was alleged to be rape as the woman might be intoxicated by alcohol which would make her incapable of consent. Ong was convicted of rape by a district judge in 2011 but appealed the conviction and after being turned down by three lawyers, managed to hire one of Singapore's most renowned criminal lawyers Subhas Anandan as his lawyer. After the High Court judge found that there was reasonable doubt about whether the woman had consented to sexual intercourse, and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, Ong was acquitted by the High Court in 2011. In a publicly accessible judgment, the presiding High Court judge Justice Quentin Loh outlined how he found the lack of numerous crucial pieces of evidence from the woman "troubling".

Ong mentioned that in the three years before Ong's acquittal, he "lived in hell". He had to disguise himself in fear of being recognised as the man who was convicted of rape. Ong, who had been a former poster boy for international clothing brand Crocodile, finally walked out of court a free man. For the past three years, he had to only leave his home at night and disguise himself by wearing a cap and sporting "stupid looks" like an unflattering hairstyle. Ong's appeal lawyer Anandan would later die of heart failure in 2015 at the age of 67, following which Ong expressed his gratitude to Anandan for helping him clear his name, saying that Anandan was his "only hope, (his) last source, to help prove (his) innocence".

Effects of case

Netizens and several Members of Parliament, in particular Nominated Member of Parliament Raj Joshua Thomas questioned the need to publicize Ong's name as it was detrimental to his reputation even if he would be later found innocent. In Raj's opinion, accused persons should only be named after they have been convicted and exhausted all avenues of appeal. The publication of accused persons' names before their conviction had been the case for several other alleged sexual crimes in the future. Some even called for the accuser's name to be publicized as well because there would be no accountability for false accusers otherwise, while others pointed out that this would be bad as if a victim was actually raped but was unable to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, their identity would be exposed and they would be vilified as a false accuser. The complainant's inability to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily mean that the accusation had a malicious intent.

This was a controversial case in Singapore for gender equality activists. For rape or sexual assault victims, even if they had actually been raped or sexually assaulted they may be afraid that they would not be able to prove their case of rape beyond reasonable doubt. For people who have been accused, their reputation suffers from the accusation and the effects may possibly last even if they are acquitted by court as members of the public may continue to judge the formerly accused and deem them as criminals.