Ohana Singapore accused of Sexual Communications with Minors
Ohana Singapore, an influencer management company which claims to have the “the largest active database of influencers in Singapore”, has been hit with accusations of, amongst other things, sexual communications with minors.
Through 2 videos, which have since been removed by TikTok, almost 50 screenshots of communications between Ohana Singapore and some girls have been published. The screenshots disclose 5 broad categories of allegations:-
- Sexual communications with a young woman;
- Paying money in exchange for nude photos from a young woman;
- Sending photos of his penis to a young woman;
- Touching a women’s buttocks twice during a pool party; and
- Taking photos and videos of someone without their consent.
The Law on Sexual Communications with Minors in Singapore
Before we turn to the allegations, it is worth setting out what the legal position in Singapore appears to be.
This is important, especially as Ohana Singapore’s response to the allegations is to deny them and asking people to “just let the police investigate the matter”.
Depending on the age of the woman involved in the accusations, there are several provisions of the Penal Code 1871 which may be engaged here.
In relation to sexual communications, Sections 376EB and 376EC are relevant.
If the victim is aged 16 and below, the fact that there was sexual communications, in and of itself, is an offence. It does not matter that the victim responds, as someone aged below 16 is legally incapable of consent.
If the victim is aged between 16 and 18 at the material time, then, pursuant to Section 376EC of the Penal Code, it must also be established that the victim was in an “exploitative relationship” with the accused person.
What is an Exploitative Relationship in the Eyes of the Law?
The legal definition of an exploitative relationship is set out at Section 377CA. Whether a relationship amounts to one that is exploitative in the eyes of the law is a fact-specific exercise that turns on the factors like the age difference between parties, the nature of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised by the accused person over the minor.
The Law on Sexual Grooming with Minors in Singapore
Sections 376E and 376EA of the Penal Code govern sexual grooming in Singapore.
Pursuant to the definition, an act where an accused person meets or attempts to meet a victim for the purposes of, for example, a nude photoshoot, may constitute sexual grooming.
Similar to Section 376EC, if the victim here is aged between 16 and 18, an additional element of the parties being in an exploitative relationship needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Law on Sexual Images and ‘Sexting’
Sections 376ED and EE criminalise the act of causing a victim aged below 16 or 18 to view a sexual image.
Here, if an accused persons sends photographs of his genitals and/or sexual acts to a victim, it may constitute an offence.
As the laws on outrage of modesty, set out at Sections 354 and 354A of the Penal Code, are well established and known to the general public, we will not elaborate on them.
Relevant Provisions from the Children and Young Persons Act 1993
Section 8 of the Children and Yong Persons Act 1993 criminalises the sexual exploitation of children and young persons.
Notably, as seen in the highlighted portion of the provision, there need not be actual sexual exploitation as an attempt is also criminalised.
Who runs Ohana Singapore?
In an article from September 2018, RICE Media writer Grace Yeoh describes SG Insta Babes, a controversial page which was run by the same man behind Ohana Singapore, in the following terms:-
SgInstaBabes has gained national notoriety for being a community of scantily clad, conventionally attractive Singaporean girls, termed by many as ‘xiao mei meis’. Usually in their mid teens to early twenties, these girls tend to be Chinese and petite.
As such, they receive an inordinate amount of lewd male attention, despite being neither models nor influencers.
Looking at Ohana Singapore’s Instagram feed today, more than 4 years after Grace’s article was published, it is safe to say that her description is evergreen.
As Glennice points out in the comment below, SG Insta Babes had its own set of issues and controversies not too long ago.
In 2018, the man behind SG Insta Babes and Ohana Singapore was called out by Xiaxue. Some photos of Xiaxue’s posts about him are appended below, and you may read about the full incident via this Mothership article.
When the latest slew of allegations surfaced, Wee Kiat drew attention to the various allegations he faced in the span of his eventful career.
Screenshots relating to alleged sexual communications with a woman aged below 18
The following screenshots are between a whistleblower who was allegedly aged 16 and Ohana Singapore.
As evidenced by the conversation above, whoever told the young woman that she has 2 more years until she starts an OnlyFans account was aware that the woman represented herself to be aged below 16 at the material time.
Based on the screenshots, there were at least 3 occassions where money was exchanged in consideration for receiving sexual images from the young woman.
The person sending the messages also expresses concern over how the young woman would explain the inflow of money.
When addressing these PayLah screenshots, Ohana tried to turn the attention to who the money was wired to. When Wake Up Singapore asked him about this, he explained that he suspected that the name of the receipient would be the name of someone other than the “girl he’s supposedly defending”.
However, this is not inconsistent with the victim’s own explanation. The victim did state, in her messages to Ohana, that she asked 3rd parties to transfer the money to her so as to disguise the payments as her friends paying her back the monies they owe her.
Another portion of the conversation worth highlighting is how Ohana Singapore asked the young woman if she would be interested in a nude photoshoot.
The rest of the screenshots from this conversation may be found below.
Screenshots where Ohana Singapore asked another minor to post more bikini photos
These 3 screenshots are from a conversation between Ohana Singapore and another minor.
As seen in the next image, Ohana Singapore told the minor that her follower count was dropping as she was not posting enough Bikini photos.
Other screenshots relating to alleged outrage of modesty and taking photos without consent
The next set of allegations, which Ohana Singapore referred to as ‘trivial matters’ in an Instagram story that was shortly deleted, relate to accusations of outrage of modesty, inappropriate behaviour at shoots, and taking photos of people without their consent.
This woman accused the man behind Ohana Singapore of touching her buttocks twice during a pool party. When he was asked to “fuck off”, he passed off his actions as a joke.
Another woman described Wee Kiat as “nothing but a creep” who pressures models to do things that they may not be comfortable with.
The next 2 screenshots show Ohana Singapore inviting another woman to his place even after the woman made it clear that she was in a relationship.
The final set of allegations relate to an incident where Ohana Singapore had taken photos and/or videos of a woman without her consent. Ohana Singapore then guilt-tripped the woman for making him re-edit the video, and tried to justify the supposed legality of his actions (we will come to that shortly).
The legal position on Voyuerism
Although it is a commonly parroted misconception that taking unsolicited pictures of someone in public settings is legal, that may not be the case after the amendments to s 377BB of the Penal Code in 2019. The reality is a little more nuanced.
Voyuerism is criminalised by section 377BB of the Penal Code, which was amended in 2019. As you can see above, sections 377B(4) and 377B(5) may potentially capture the man’s actions. There is no longer a requirement for a “private act” to be recorded, or for the victim’s breasts, genitals or buttocks to be exposed. Even if they are covered, it appears that an offence still may be made out. The key criterion is whether the recording captures the said body parts or underwear where they would not otherwise be visible.
Take a scenario where one takes pictures/videos of a victim without their consent. Through the recording, the person is able to see the victim’s genitalia (whether covered or exposed). Without the recording, the body parts or underwear would not be entirely visible. The offender also knows or has reason to believe that the victim does not consent.
Be that as it may, we think the main point here should not be pointing out that it may be illegal. It would be a sad day where our innate sense of what is right and just is guided solely by the letter of the law. There are some things that are just plain wrong, and we do not need the law to tell us that. Taking unsolicited pictures of people is one such thing.
Ohana Singapore’s Public Responses
Since the allegations surfaced, Ohana Singapore has been engaging with users in the comments section of the videos.
It also appears that the comments section of their posts have been limited.
Lai Wee Kiat distances himself from conversation with victim who he paid for nudes
We reached out to Ohana Singapore for a response and they have asked that we “consider removing our post” after reading their Instagram stories. They added that “I get it that I have a very damaged past. But it has affected me way more than it should have.”
He also claimed that the “whole thing is made up”.
I don’t know my accuser personally. I just know that he’s a tiktoker probably looking for the next viral topic.
And accusing me of sexual allegations will always go viral, because of my previous allegations.
I’ve have not seen those conversations before. I don’t know if they are legit. I don’t know if it even involves a girl. Like, I have zero clue.
Lai Wee Kiat admits that “Johnson” messages are him
When pressed, Wee Kiat admitted that the screenshots where the name “Johnson” could be seen belonged to him.
Based on Lai Wee Kiat’s admission that the “Johnson” messages were sent by him, the following messages, where he admitted to the victim that he deleted all their prior messages, is also likely to be him.
My telegram name is “Johnson”, so anyone could have saved a random number as “Ohana sg”.
According to the victim, Wee Kiat deleted the messages for both sides soon after the first video containing the allegations relating to the nude photographs and sexual communications was published.
Further down these “Johnson” messages, Wee Kiat agreed that he should “stop texting minors”.
He also made reference to a comment by Ohana Singapore, which referenced the victim, in the following message.
“I’m as horny as the next guy”
In a series of Instagram stories posted after 10.00am on 5 November 2022, Lai Wee Kiat asked people to have “doubts in everything I’ve said” and said that he was “as horny as the next guy”.
In a bizarre move, he also polled his followers on whether they would “let go of his past” if he voluntarily admitted to the allegations.
The 2 videos through which these allegations surfaced may be accessed here and here.
The laws that existed in 2018 relating to sexual communications with minors are not the same as the laws that exist today following the amendments to the Penal Code. The new laws are more robust and comprehensive.
It is troubling that this man who is facing numerous allegations has access to many young and impressionable influencers. We hope the authorities will investigate this matter swiftly and get to the bottom of it.
Since you have made it to the end of the article, follow Wake Up Singapore on Telegram!