Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Wed, 04 Sep 2013 03:41:32 GMT

kevkevkaf — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 03:41:32 GMT

I guess he was no legally corrupt but morally flawed. Laws can only be used to indict someone for breaking the law and cannot be used to fault people for their failing moral compass.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Tue, 03 Sep 2013 03:09:12 GMT

AC_Power — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 03:09:12 GMT

janet_lee88:
AC_Power:
[quote=\"kevkevkaf\"]Personally am keenly anticipating what will happen to NBG... he got away scot free from the corruption trial. Wonder what the civil service will do to him..

Ask to leave the Police Force.

NBG really that innocent?[/quote]In the eye of the law, everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. In this case, since NBG is not found guilty, he has to be deemed innocent.

My stand on this case from the onset, has been the same. He is guilty of misconduct and being unfaithful to his wonderful wife. However, to say that he is corrupted and obtaining sexual gratification from CS, is kind of far fetch.

How are you going to prove that the 4 oral sex are gratifications that NBG received for him to provide privilege information to CS? They are already in an EMA and you can't delink this to prove your corruption case.

He is still answerable to the internal disciplinary board and I believe he will be asked to leave the Police Force.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Mon, 02 Sep 2013 03:01:05 GMT

janet88 — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 03:01:05 GMT

AC_Power:
kevkevkaf:
Personally am keenly anticipating what will happen to NBG... he got away scot free from the corruption trial. Wonder what the civil service will do to him..

Ask to leave the Police Force.

NBG really that innocent?

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Mon, 02 Sep 2013 02:20:23 GMT

AC_Power — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 02:20:23 GMT

kevkevkaf:
Personally am keenly anticipating what will happen to NBG... he got away scot free from the corruption trial. Wonder what the civil service will do to him..

Ask to leave the Police Force.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:40:11 GMT

kevkevkaf — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:40:11 GMT

Personally am keenly anticipating what will happen to NBG… he got away scot free from the corruption trial. Wonder what the civil service will do to him…

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:23:22 GMT

buds — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:23:22 GMT

Ex-SCDF chief Peter Lim dismissed from civil service

Ex-Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) chief Peter Lim, 52, has been dismissed from the civil service, said the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Saturday.

The Straits Times reported that the Public Service Commission made the decision following the conclusion of civil service disciplinary proceedings against Lim.

Earlier in May, Lim was convicted of corruptly obtaining sex from a 49-year-old woman whose engineering company had later bid for a contract from his agency.

He also pleaded guilty to a further seven charges involving two other women who were both working for companies that sold technology to SCDF.

He is now serving a six-month jail term, which commenced in June.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:55:30 GMT

AC_Power — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:55:30 GMT

limlim:

I believe getting the women to appear before the BOI is on a volunteer nature (?).

And, there is no restrictions for the men/women to contact/meetup each other before/during/after the BOI? At least not bounded by the law.

Sure, can have BOI first.. beat all the grass and put the snakes into battle station ready mode.....

With sufficient planning, all the testimonials can be cooked to fit flawlessly making prosecute difficult if not impossible.. BEFORE a trial?

This is a fair point too.

So I guess fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with our procedures but just that those in the system must do their job well.

CPIB should investigate the case, not in view of prosecution, but merely just to find out the facts. If the statements and evidence suggest strongly that they are merely in a relationship and not so much a corruption case, they should put up their findings objectively and make the right recommendation to the AGC.

AGC should then scrutinize their findings and give appropriate guidance and advice to aid in the investigation. If they find that CPIB has done their job well and convince that benefit of doubt should be given to NBG, they should then agree to CPIB and not to proceed with court proceeding but revert back to the home agency for appropriate disciplinary action.

I have not privy to what has transpired during this case that ended up with NBG being charged. Could it be CPIB is over-zealous to prove NBG is guilty and hence lost the objectivity? Or could it be what I have said previously that they lack the moral courage to take a stand and take the easy way out by recommending to charge so as to leave it to the judge to decide? AGC in this case, can only based on the investigative findings and hence I believe they probably go along with CPIB's recommendation.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:47:01 GMT

AC_Power — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:47:01 GMT

Just relax:

Both in law prof. case and NBG case the women involved clearly had relationships with the men yet appeared to have made statements to the CPIB that caused the element of corruption to surface. Both women testified that they spent many hours at the CPIB when making their statements. And both women claimed that the statements made did not clearly reflect what happened.

Just to add on to this.

When the men and the women declared to be in a relationship and hence definitely not a corruption case is a slippery road that we would not want to take here. Just imagine that if we make this a precedence, all those in power, who are in no need to be offered money to bribe them, can use sex instead. When caught, both parties will just claim that they are deeply in love and then the judge will acquit them. This will have serious implication.

For NBG and Prof Tey, though they both claim to be in sexual relationship, but there is still a significant difference in when the relationship was started.

For NBG and CS, they knew each other and got into sexual relationship way before CS' company became the sub-contractor to a project which NBG signed off, but not initiated, after he took over the helm at CNB. Meaning, it is highly impossible for both NBG or CS to have such foresight that CS bribe him with sex such that in the future, NBG will be able to sign off a project that was initiated by his predecessor.

For Prof Tey and DK, they knew each other and got into sexual relationship when they were both teaching and studying in NUS Law faculty. There is thus a higher chance that DK had offered herself in exchange for better grades as Prof Tey, regardless he did it or not, does have a say in her grades.

Based on the above, I am still of the view that NBG is probably not corrupted but Prof Tey probably is.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:33:23 GMT

limlim — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:33:23 GMT

Just relax:

What would have happened if these women had made their statements at a BOI before an experienced tribunal of a retired judge and senior counsel who by their expertise and training will be able to assess the truthfulness of the women's statements, ask the right questions and get to the truth. All this would not have required the women to spend 10+ hours at a stretch to give their CPIB statements.

I believe getting the women to appear before the BOI is on a volunteer nature (?).

And, there is no restrictions for the men/women to contact/meetup each other before/during/after the BOI? At least not bounded by the law.

Sure, can have BOI first.. beat all the grass and put the snakes into battle station ready mode.....

With sufficient planning, all the testimonials can be cooked to fit flawlessly making prosecute difficult if not impossible.. BEFORE a trial?

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:30:41 GMT

AC_Power — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:30:41 GMT

Just relax:

What would have happened if these women had made their statements at a BOI before an experienced tribunal of a retired judge and senior counsel who by their expertise and training will be able to assess the truthfulness of the women's statements, ask the right questions and get to the truth. All this would not have required the women to spend 10+ hours at a stretch to give their CPIB statements.

I agree generally to what you have said apart from the above.

On what basis have you formed your perception that the tribunal of the BOI is better in assessing the truthfulness of the statements as compared to the investigators in CPIB? The retired judge, senior counsel are definitely more familiar with the legal proceedings and the legislation due to their expertise and experience. However, in terms of detecting deceit, I would expect investigators to have a better expertise in these due to the fact that they have been carrying out investigations throughout their careers while judges and counsels merely look at the findings from these investigators.

If like what you have said is correct, then we can jolly well disband all investigation units in our law enforcement agencies. Once suspect is arrested, just send to the court and let the judges and counsels to decide their guilt or innocence.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:23:41 GMT

Just relax — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:23:41 GMT

limlim:
Just relax:

Don't confuse BOI with criminal trial. BOI is administrative procedure in many civil service organisations around the world to deal with breach of employee code of conduct. It is inquisitorial in nature unlike a criminal trial in Singapore. The powers of BOI are dependent on the rules that create the BOI. My point which you have missed is that the BOI performs its task away from the media so that an innocent person need not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, since such costs cannot be recovered in a criminal trial. There is no media glare and if innocent the matter ends there but if there is some questionable conduct then refer to CPIB to investigate further.

A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.

So then BOI can recommend disciplinary action if appropriate. I don't think employee handbook says cannot have affairs :rotflmao: So see how BOI will deal with situation. How to punish a civil servant for being unfaithful in marriage :idea:
I'm very clear what is the difference between BOI and trial. I'm not sure why you get that wrong impression from. And in fact I have been repeating not only once that trial and BOI is DIFFERENT.

Away from the media, of coz I'm aware of that. But that is not a consideration.

The consideration is if there is any criminal act and whether there is sufficient material evidence to warrant/justify a prosecution. And apparently, there is.

And that is all that matters.

BOI is appropriate if they want to investigate professional misconduct, EMA, or maybe not.. since EMA is not \"wrong doing\" wrt professional conduct and discharge of job duties.

But a trial is appropriate for a corruption charge (with material evidences), as simple as that.

How would you know if there had been, or had been no, BOI before they press charges?

That is where again you have mixed up disciplinary proceedings which will also cover corruption as that is still a breach of civil service code of conduct.

Unfortunately the BOI according to NBG's lawyer after the acquittal had been suspended pending the trial. So that is the defect of the system. Having a BOI 1st can have benefits in dealing with precisely the issues that were uncovered here.

Both in law prof. case and NBG case the women involved clearly had relationships with the men yet appeared to have made statements to the CPIB that caused the element of corruption to surface. Both women testified that they spent many hours at the CPIB when making their statements. And both women claimed that the statements made did not clearly reflect what happened.

What would have happened if these women had made their statements at a BOI before an experienced tribunal of a retired judge and senior counsel who by their expertise and training will be able to assess the truthfulness of the women's statements, ask the right questions and get to the truth. All this would not have required the women to spend 10+ hours at a stretch to give their CPIB statements.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:03:48 GMT

limlim — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:03:48 GMT

Just relax:

Don't confuse BOI with criminal trial. BOI is administrative procedure in many civil service organisations around the world to deal with breach of employee code of conduct. It is inquisitorial in nature unlike a criminal trial in Singapore. The powers of BOI are dependent on the rules that create the BOI. My point which you have missed is that the BOI performs its task away from the media so that an innocent person need not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, since such costs cannot be recovered in a criminal trial. There is no media glare and if innocent the matter ends there but if there is some questionable conduct then refer to CPIB to investigate further.

A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.

So then BOI can recommend disciplinary action if appropriate. I don't think employee handbook says cannot have affairs :rotflmao: So see how BOI will deal with situation. How to punish a civil servant for being unfaithful in marriage :idea:

I'm very clear what is the difference between BOI and trial. I'm not sure why you get that wrong impression from. And in fact I have been repeating not only once that trial and BOI is DIFFERENT.

Away from the media, of coz I'm aware of that. But that is not a consideration.

The consideration is if there is any criminal act and whether there is sufficient material evidence to warrant/justify a prosecution. And apparently, there is.

And that is all that matters.

BOI is appropriate if they want to investigate professional misconduct, EMA, or maybe not.. since EMA is not \"wrong doing\" wrt professional conduct and discharge of job duties.

But a trial is appropriate for a corruption charge (with material evidences), as simple as that.

How would you know if there had been, or had been no, BOI before they press charges?

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:27:40 GMT

limlim — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:27:40 GMT

Just relax:

A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.

Did it explain in the verdict why he is not guilty?

bcoz the witness statement was invalid or bcoz they found that he has no influence on the tender process and there is no contract between CNB and CS company?

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:11:17 GMT

AC_Power — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:11:17 GMT

The only issue with the BOI is this - it can only be convened if no police report is made against NBG for a possible corruption practice. Once there is an official report made, CPIB will have to step in if potentially it is a corruption case.

Therefore, procedurally, there isn’t a choice on whether we should go the BOI way or the CPIB investigation route. Once a report is lodged, it sets the entire machinery into motion.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:56:01 GMT

AC_Power — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:56:01 GMT

pirate:
AC_Power:
It is not about the difference between court and BOI. It's about having the balls to make a stand.

Charge head of CNB and SCDF? You think the call would have been made by anyone lower than Cabinet level? The stand was to sacrifice these two whose conduct was, at the very least, less than totally exemplary. Balls or no balls? That one I don't know.

If what you are saying is true, it is then very wrong about our system.

The Cabinet should in no way has a say in this. If we allow them to have a say, ie to sacrifice these two, in other cases, they can also have a say on not to charge someone as well. Do we want this?

My ideal state of affairs is this, CPIB investigate independently. Based on their findings, they recommend the course of action to the AGC who would advise on the legal aspect and see if their recommendation is sound. If the decision taken is to charge them, the Minister for Home Affairs should then be informed (FOR HIS INFORMATION ONLY) so that he can prepare for press enquiry etc. IN NO WAY must he influences the outcome.

If you are right that Cabinet is involved in this, God Bless Singapore. Having the Cabinet exerting influence over a criminal proceeding is worse then our top dogs getting sexual gratification from the vendors.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:35:52 GMT

3Boys — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:35:52 GMT

Just relax:
limlim:
[quote=\"AC_Power\"]

Is it really necessary for the judge to confirm that it is an EMA and not a corruption? Is the judge the wisest man of all such that only he can tell the difference between an EMA and a corruption and hence a court trial is needed?
No lah.. aiyo.. I got mention in the other post mah..

There are differences between a court and BOI.. and these differences can have big impact on uncovering the truth.

of coz, before he is charged in court, there have to be material evidences sufficient for the prosecution to decide to proceed.

If depend on BOI alone, maybe the truth wouldn't see the light at all.

Don't confuse BOI with criminal trial. BOI is administrative procedure in many civil service organisations around the world to deal with breach of employee code of conduct. It is inquisitorial in nature unlike a criminal trial in Singapore. The powers of BOI are dependent on the rules that create the BOI. My point which you have missed is that the BOI performs its task away from the media so that an innocent person need not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself, since such costs cannot be recovered in a criminal trial. There is no media glare and if innocent the matter ends there but if there is some questionable conduct then refer to CPIB to investigate further.

A BOI would have easily uncovered the same thing as the NBG trial which is a man and a woman having an affair. It would also have uncovered that NBG had no control of tender process. It would have uncovered that CS's company has no contract with CNB and none awarded.

So then BOI can recommend disciplinary action if appropriate. I don't think employee handbook says cannot have affairs :rotflmao: So see how BOI will deal with situation. How to punish a civil servant for being unfaithful in marriage :idea:[/quote]Precisely what I have been trying to tell limlim, who continues to conflate the role of investigation/BOI with that of prosecution. Should one use the prosecutorial process as a fact-finding mission? And potentially do harm to the accused?

I really can't see the logic of that line of thinking, other than just being plain voyeuristic and blood-thirsty.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:27:34 GMT

pirate — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:27:34 GMT

AC_Power:
It is not about the difference between court and BOI. It's about having the balls to make a stand.

Charge head of CNB and SCDF? You think the call would have been made by anyone lower than Cabinet level? The stand was to sacrifice these two whose conduct was, at the very least, less than totally exemplary. Balls or no balls? That one I don't know.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:28:54 GMT

AC_Power — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:28:54 GMT

limlim:
AC_Power:

Is it really necessary for the judge to confirm that it is an EMA and not a corruption? Is the judge the wisest man of all such that only he can tell the difference between an EMA and a corruption and hence a court trial is needed?
No lah.. aiyo.. I got mention in the other post mah..

There are differences between a court and BOI.. and these differences can have big impact on uncovering the truth.

of coz, before he is charged in court, there have to be material evidences sufficient for the prosecution to decide to proceed.

If depend on BOI alone, maybe the truth wouldn't see the light at all.

I also got mention in other post.

It is not about the difference between court and BOI. It's about having the balls to make a stand.

After their investigation, don't tell me none of the top men has a doubt in the mind that NBG and CS are purely lovers and then put up a case to AGC not be proceed with criminal charges but to refer back to MHA for disciplinary action against NBG?

I believe that they do not want to make this call and took the easier way out - charge NGB in court and let the judge decide.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:19:06 GMT

AC_Power — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:19:06 GMT

Nebbermind:
Actually I'm not convinced regarding the part that PL leaked info on the tender. Afaik, it's quite common practice to ask for specifications and prices way before a tender is called so they can gather the specs to compare and draft the product specifications/performance. They also need to know the prices so they can put up a budget for the tender. They may call in suppliers for demo and presentation to understand the products especially those uncommon ones.

In this case, it seemed like pang also did not know of the detailed requirements prior to the tender.

So if the persecution is going in that direction, it's really quite weak.

I do not think that prosecution meant to portray it as a leak. It is more to highlight to the judge that PL had revealed that into to her to show that he has authority over this procurement.

You are right to say that before tender, it is common to sound out the vendor on the rough pricing to plan for budget. In my course of work, I have provided such before. It is also made known to me that my quote is in no way official and they are just enquiring for budget planning. An open tender will shortly follow if they can push through the project and thereafter, I will be invited to submit our bid if we are keen. I do believe they will not just be sounding me out.

However, the difference here is that the disclosure is made quite overboard and there is no sex, free gifts, free lunches or entertainment that I have provided prior to them seeking an estimate costing.

Unlike NBG's case which all the while I maintain that he and CS is more a EMA then a corruption, I cannot say the same for PL.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT

Nebbermind — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:03:59 GMT

Actually I’m not convinced regarding the part that PL leaked info on the tender. Afaik, it’s quite common practice to ask for specifications and prices way before a tender is called so they can gather the specs to compare and draft the product specifications/performance. They also need to know the prices so they can put up a budget for the tender. They may call in suppliers for demo and presentation to understand the products especially those uncommon ones.

In this case, it seemed like pang also did not know of the detailed requirements prior to the tender.

So if the persecution is going in that direction, it’s really quite weak.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:49:07 GMT

octoberbaby — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:49:07 GMT

EMA happened in many places. Only time will tell. With advance technology, these people who want to play with EMA fire, very stupid. They should know their actions/conversation can be recorded, screenshots, etc. ‘Sins will find you out’.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:19:01 GMT

Just relax — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:19:01 GMT

limlim:
AC_Power:

Is it really necessary for the judge to confirm that it is an EMA and not a corruption? Is the judge the wisest man of all such that only he can tell the difference between an EMA and a corruption and hence a court trial is needed?
No lah.. aiyo.. I got mention in the other post mah..

There are differences between a court and BOI.. and these differences can have big impact on uncovering the truth.

of coz, before he is charged in court, there have to be material evidences sufficient for the prosecution to decide to proceed.

If depend on BOI alone, maybe the truth wouldn't see the light at all.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:45:49 GMT

limlim — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:45:49 GMT

AC_Power:

Is it really necessary for the judge to confirm that it is an EMA and not a corruption? Is the judge the wisest man of all such that only he can tell the difference between an EMA and a corruption and hence a court trial is needed?

No lah.. aiyo.. I got mention in the other post mah..

There are differences between a court and BOI.. and these differences can have big impact on uncovering the truth.

of coz, before he is charged in court, there have to be material evidences sufficient for the prosecution to decide to proceed.

If depend on BOI alone, maybe the truth wouldn't see the light at all.

Reply to Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:27:45 GMT

AC_Power — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:27:45 GMT

limlim:

I NEVER said that. Don't anyhow shoot hor.

Corruption is the grounds of prosecution.

As it happens, it was EMA and not corruption. However, before the trial, it was not known if it is corruption OR EMA. Hence need to trial.

The fact it, he got exposed to the media bcoz of his dealings with the women which give raise to possible conflict of interest. Is it not his own doing that lead him to the current state of affairs? That he deals with the women in a way that arose suspicion and that he did not declare it when it is his job nature that requires him to declare.

Is it really necessary for the judge to confirm that it is an EMA and not a corruption? Is the judge the wisest man of all such that only he can tell the difference between an EMA and a corruption and hence a court trial is needed?

I do agree with you though, by declaring his relationship with CS would have saved him lots of money.