//The case represents another witch hunt by CPIB and the DPP who would take on this case on the believe that people in high positions of power would misuse their power. There are ample cases current and historical of such 'percieved conflicts', there is no shortage of where to start.
I can hardly believe that Ng Boon Gay would want to use his power to influence the process - what is the dollar benefit to Cecilia Sue? I would say Ng and Cecilia wanted their share of sex outside marriage and this public affair is beyond their wildest dreams.
Ng Boon Gay is already a man with his back to the wall. He has no choice but to tell the truth. Using a bit of intellect, one would know where Ng comes from.
On the other hand, what is most ridiculous are taxpayers funding CPIB and DPP's salaries.
DPP points to Ng's failure to clarify work relation with Sue
In not doing so, he deliberately gave impression he had power to influence tender process to her advantage. -ST
Leonard Lim and Tham Yuen-c
Sat, Nov 24, 2012
The Straits Times
SINGAPORE - Former top cop Ng Boon Gay should have made it absolutely clear to Ms Cecilia Sue that he would excuse himself from tender approvals if her company was involved, the prosecution charged on Wednesday.
In not doing so, he deliberately left her with the impression that as Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief, he had the power to influence the tender process to her advantage.
The four occasions he had asked for oral sex from Ms Sue last year in exchange for furthering the business interests of her IT firms were framed in this context, said Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Tan Ken Hwee.
Ms Sue, said the DPP, had also believed that Ng's rank as senior assistant commissioner of police meant he was important and well-connected.
"You knew that by continuing to give her the impression that you could influence business opportunities of Hitachi Data Systems and Oracle, she would not reject you when you asked her for (oral sex)," DPP Tan said.
Ng disagreed with this and other similar assertions which arose in the final moments of yesterday's cross-examination.
The 46-year-old said he had told Ms Sue several times, when the topic cropped up in their chats, that he would leave IT matters to the IT department in CNB.
He had also continued to maintain in court that he would not grant business favours to her on account of their intimate relationship.
But the prosecution tried to cast doubt on exactly how strongly Ng felt about this, referring to phone messages Ms Sue sent on Dec 14 last year while he was in Macau.
Then, Ms Sue had joined Oracle just for a few weeks and, on discovering her role in the company, sent a text message to Ng.
"I know you don't want to be viewed to have work relation with me, and the same goes for me," she texted. "But I really have to engage you for work. So how?"
When she did not get a reply from Ng after 10 minutes, the IT sales manager sent a message that said: "Silence".
About two hours later that night, he had still not replied, and she sent him a question mark, followed shortly by "nvm then". This was shorthand for "never mind then".
Ng replied only at 1pm the next day with a solitary "Hi".
DPP Tan asked Ng why he was able to reply within minutes to messages from Ms Sue earlier on Dec 14, yet was so silent on the work issue.
