Former SCDF and CNB chiefs arrested
-
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. -
Just relax:
Did it explain in the verdict why he is not guilty?
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.
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? -
Just relax:
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.
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:
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? -
limlim:
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.
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.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:
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?
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. -
Just relax:
I agree generally to what you have said apart from the above.
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.
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. -
Just relax:
I believe getting the women to appear before the BOI is on a volunteer nature (?).
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.
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? -
Just relax:
Just to add on to this.
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.
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. -
limlim:
This is a fair point too.
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?
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. -
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. -
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…
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
