Thursday, September 27, 2012


Where’s the corruption? That’s the question Singaporeans are asking regarding the corruption trial of former Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief Ng Boon Gay. Three days into the trial of the former top civil servant and confusion is reining throughout the case. I (like most people I know) have been following the case closely via reports and I have to say I am at a loss at the prosecution case.

First off, the prosecutor says Ng is guilty of obtaining sexual gratification from Cecilia Sue in return for furthering the business interests of her then employers Oracle Corporation Singapore and Hitachi Data Systems. Then, at the same time, they agreed that Ng did not put any pressure on the committee who recommended the companies to the CNB.

In its opening statement, the prosecution said that while Ng had at no time influenced or was directly involved in the process of awarding two separate IT contracts worth S$320,000 related to a project Sue was working on, Ng was still guilty because he had "ultimate sign-off approval" on any vendor deals worth up to S$1 million.

Maybe it’s because I’m not a lawyer but how can those statements be correct at the same time? I mean if the case against Ng was that he got sex from Cecilia Sue in return for favors, surely he must had pressured or influenced the committee to pick the company Sue was working for right? I mean if the alleged trysts between Ng and Sue did not lead to Ng using his influence, doesn’t that destroy the prosecution case from the get-go?

Also why didn’t they prepare Cecilia Sue better? She was the star prosecution witness and she had to admit during cross-examination by defence counsel Tan Chee Meng that she has changed her story since her initial statement to the police.I sincerely hope the prosecution is saving arrows in its quiver (it's only 3 days) because if this is the best they got, they are in big trouble. 


Anonymous said...

let us put this way, if someone dont like you or dont want you around, what do you think they will do to you....

Anonymous said...

Ha ha .. I think the prosecution's interpretation of the law is this : "Gay is the boss. He has the ultimate approving authority. He asked Cecilia for oral sex. Cecilia knew she had to comply becos if she doesn't, it COULD jeopardise her biz's chances". As long as it COULD, its corruption. Under Sgp law, the onus is on Gay to prove that he had no corrupt intent. That's why the defense was incredulous - you mean, if I pay for the lunch during our golfing trip, then its corruption becos if I don't pay, you COULD decide you don't like me and not award me the contract? This line of reasoning is too far, isn't it? That's Day One.

But in Day Two, the pendulum swung the other way. Cecilia made it clear that in all 4 cases, Gay pushed her for sexual favors. When your client who's approving authority push you for it, and you know he has approving authority, that qualifies as corruption under Sgp law.

Now in Day 3, the defense laid the case that to begin with, in 2009, they were already in a relationship. Given the SMS she sent, it cannot be that she was "pushed" to give oral sex. If she wasn't pushed, but did it voluntarily, then the defense will have proved there wasn't any corrupt intent.

The case is an eye opener because it shows how broadly "corruption" can be interpreted in Sgp. For Sgp's own sake, I hope the prosecution wins. Becos Sgp has a reputation for being corrupt free and has won virtually all cases it prosecuted. If they lose, and show they did only a half-baked work, it will show they have slackened. Pandora's box will open.

Ghost said...

Bring him to trial and make him a martyr. Seriously, that’s what happening. People are now thinking Ng as a victim. Not an easy thing to do for the former chief of the CNB.
Personally I think the only way the prosecution could win is with new evidence. What they had shown so far has not been impressive.