• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Big flies, little flies, and a mosquito swatter.

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.funkygrad.com/forum/

CORRUPTION IN SINGAPORE: The PAP regime has always said that it runs Singapore in a corrupt free environment. This is true only in as far as rules for the average Singaporean is concerned. There is another set of laws for PAP officials.

THE HPL SAGA -- Part 1: All in the FamiLEE

The Hotel Properties Limited episode that sparked off a political storm in Singapore in 1996 has been buried alive by the PAP. But its ghost will continue to haunt those involved.

It all started when the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) censured a publicly listed property development company called Hotel Property Ltd (HPL) for not seeking shareholders' approval for the sale of some of its condominium developments at a discount price.

Dr Lee Suan Yew, Lee Kuan Yew's younger brother, was on the board of directors of the company. He had purchased a unit in a condominium project developed by HPL called Nassim Jade.

Shareholders of HPL had been grumbling about the way business was conducted in the company especially when it came to dealings with the Lee family. Many of the shareholders were waiting to buy units at the said project. When the launch of the property never came to pass, the shareholders saw red and demanded an explanation.

The stock exchange authorities quickly announced that HPL had breached regulations. One day later, Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, publicly revealed that they too had bought HPL condominiums. The story made headlines and started tongues wagging. The story was then traced back to one Ong Beng Seng, a property tycoon in Singapore, and Managing Director of HPL.

Ong had developed two condominium projects at the choiciest districts of Singapore. One was the abovementioned Nassim Jade situated where opulent and expansive embassies and mansions were located around Nassim Road. The other, Scotts 28, was at the heart of Singapore's shopping and tourist district Scotts Road. Both projects consisted of condominum apartments valued at millions of dollars per unit before the property slump.

More red faces. It was also revealed that not only had Lee Kuan Yew, his brother and his son purchased these apartments, they were offered substantial discounts to boot. The apartments were due to be put on sale on the open market on 17 April 1995. Three days before the official launch, HPL conducted a "soft launch" where a select group of potential customers were invited to have first go at the apartments. This was not exactly an unheard of practice amongst property developers. The problem was that because HPL was a publicly listed company, it had shareholders to account to. Rules under the SES Manual Listing stated that approval had to be sought for transactions involving "connected persons" of the company involved and those persons' associates. The HPL did not seek the permission of its shareholders. Suan Yew, Lee's brother, was a non-executive director of the company.

At the soft launch, Madam Kwa Geok Choo, chose an apartment to buy. She was quoted a price of $3,578,260 (or $1,583 per square foot) for the apartment. This was a seven percent discount on the list price. Buyers at soft launches are usually given only a five percent discount.

Later, Kwa Geok Choo contacted her son, Hsien Loong, and told him of the Nassim Jade apartments upon which he called Aunty Pamelia Lee, wife of Uncle Suan Yew, and said that he and his wife, Ho Ching, were interested in buying the property as well. Aunty Pamelia then later came back to her nephew and offered him an apartment for $3,645,100 a discount of 12 per cent or $437,412 on the asking price. The Deputy Prime Minister accepted the offer.

This was not all. On the Scotts 28 condiminiums, similar offers and purchases were made. Lee Kuan Yew and son bought two more units and paid $2,791,500 and $2,776,400 respectively for them, each bagging a five percent discount.

All in all, Lee Kuan Yew received from HPL a total of $416,252 whilst Lee Junior got $643,185 in discounts. All the purchases amounted to more than $10 million and were carried out without mortgages and loans.

It must be remembered that all this while, decisions of sales and the discounts were carried out at the directors' level which involved Lee Suan Yew. None of the shareholders nor the SES had the slightest idea of what was going on.

And yet, this was just the tip of the iceberg.

It was later found out that Lee Kuan Yew's entire family was in on the purchases. Daughter Lee Wei Ling, a medical doctor in a government hospital; sister Lee Kim Mon; and his two other brothers Freddy and Dennis; Kwa Kim Li, a niece of Lee; and Gloria Lee, Lee's sister in law, all bought the condos at hefty discounts. Wei Ling bought two apartments at Nassim Jade and was reported to have sold one off for a tidy profit. Again, all these transactions were carried out without the approval of the shareholders of HPL.

Shareholders' anger. News was leaking out about the Lee family's purchases of the HPL condominiums and the shareholders were getting increasingly alarmed and disgruntled. When pressure was brought to bear on the management, HPL decided to belatedly seek the approval of its shareholders a full eleven months later.

The SES had no choice but to issue a statement censuring HPL for the breach of regulations. It noted that some of the discounts given to directors and their relatives in respect of the Nassim Jade units were higher than those given to non-related buyers and that the publicly listed companies have a duty to obtain the best price so as to maximise the return to its shareholders.

Unanswered questions. In spite of this, there was no investigation nor inquiry, merely a censure for the company. Meanwhile, Lee Suan Yew quietly resigned as a director with HPL.

To date, many questions remain unanswered:
1. Who made the decisions to sell the apartments at such discounts to the Lee family?
2. Who authorised Pamelia Lee to sell the units to her relatives?
3. How many more relatives or friends, apart from those readily identifiable, bought the units through such connections?
4. Why did Ong Beng Seng, owner of HPL, offer the units, and presumably the discounts, to the Lee family?
5. Why was there no enquiry into Lee Suan Yew's involvement in affair?

THE HPL SAGA -- Part 2: THE BIG COVER-UP. (I cannot find it)
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
<h2 class="date-header">Sunday, January 4, 2009</h2>
<div class="post hentry">
<a name="8423546417601597736"></a>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<a href="http://young-pap.blogspot.com/2009/01/we-have-been-brought-up-to-be-frugal.html">Frugal your Lao Bu CCB</a>
</h3>
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content">
<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCYFZhvaRI/AAAAAAAAAWg/ZUiA1MsRZXc/s1600-h/c.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 220px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCYFZhvaRI/AAAAAAAAAWg/ZUiA1MsRZXc/s320/c.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287393181052135698" border="0"></a>Frugal living at home amid lush greenery<br>'Suffering and deprivation is good for the soul.'<br>- Mrs Lee Kuan Yew<br></div><br><br>In Jan 2009, Lee Wei Ling, daughter of Lee Kuan Yew, lectured Singaporeans in the latest of her long series of letters to the Straits Times:<br><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">...reconsider our priorities in life.<br><br>...I still find it hard to believe that there are people carrying handbags that cost more than thrice the monthly income of a bus driver, and many more times that of the foreign worker labouring in the hot sun risking his life to construct luxury condominiums he will never have a chance to live in.<br><br>...as I view the crass materialism around me, I am reminded of what my mother once told me: 'Suffering and deprivation is good for the soul.'<br><br>My family is not poor, but we have been brought up to be frugal.<br><br>...if one is blinded by materialism, there would be no end to wanting and hankering. After the Ferrari, what next? An Aston Martin? After the Hermes Birkin handbag, what can one upgrade to?<br><br>Neither an Aston Martin nor an Hermes Birkin can make us truly happy or contented. They are like dust, a fog obscuring the true meaning of life, and can be blown away in the twinkling of an eye.</span></blockquote><br><br>In 1995, the same Lee Wei Ling bought a posh condominium in Orchard Road called Scott 28, at a jaw-dropping 20%-discounted price, in an exclusive private sale only open to "certain" selected individuals i.e. before general sale is opened to the public.<br><br>Her uncle Lee Suan Yew, brother of Lee Kuan Yew, was a director of the developer, Hotel Property Ltd (HPL), a public listed company.<br><br>She bought unit 18-05 on 17/10/1995 at the deeply-discounted price of $2,761,300 and sold it barely 6 months later on 27/3/96.<br><br>I hope in her next letter to the Straits Times, she can enlighten Singaporeans:<br><ul><li>How much did she make from this sale, while living a frugal life in her parent's home?</li><br><li>Did she find it hard to believe that she had bought a free-hold prime land property that she won't be living in, which cost more than a million times "the monthly income of the foreign worker who laboured in the hot sun risking his life to construct [her] luxury condominiums [which] he will never have a chance to live in"?</li><br><li>Was she "blinded by materialism? After [Scott 28], what next? [Nassim Jade condominium?] After [Nassim Jade], what can [she] upgrade to? [Istana?]"</li><br><li>Is the money she made from this private purchase "like dust, a fog obscuring the true meaning of life, and can be blown away in the twinkling of an eye"?<br></li></ul><br>Her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, did not participate in that property speculation. He also did not write high-sounding moral letters to the Straits Times to teach Singaporeans how to live frugally. Like his sister, he was "been brought up to be frugal", but he probably believed that actions speak louder than words. So, he simply let his quiet actions demonstrate to all Singaporeans the goodness of "suffering and deprivation" that his mother had so painstakingly taught them:<br><br>His quiet suffering in his frugal house:<br><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCRtRJkXlI/AAAAAAAAAWI/ekf7POA87ws/s1600-h/lhyHome1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 256px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCRtRJkXlI/AAAAAAAAAWI/ekf7POA87ws/s320/lhyHome1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287386169416638034" border="0"></a><br>His silent deprivation in his frugal dining room:<br><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCRtQwcL8I/AAAAAAAAAWQ/TnkufCM2yK0/s1600-h/lhyHome2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 256px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCRtQwcL8I/AAAAAAAAAWQ/TnkufCM2yK0/s320/lhyHome2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287386169311244226" border="0"></a><br>His tiny frugal kitchen inspired by his mother's words:<br><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCRtvh3_pI/AAAAAAAAAWY/RA4CQfuL8E0/s1600-h/lhyHome3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 256px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ca42JW5J3oU/SWCRtvh3_pI/AAAAAAAAAWY/RA4CQfuL8E0/s320/lhyHome3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287386177571651218" border="0"></a><br><br>Oh, Mrs Lee Kuan Yew, together with her husband, also bought a unit (Unit 20-5, directly 2 floors above her daughter's unit) at, again, a 20% discounted price of $2,791,500.<br><br>And so did her niece, Kwa Kim Li!<br><br>And so did a lawyer, Andrew Ang, working in her law firm!<br><br>Is this her way of teaching her entire family that "suffering and deprivation is good for the soul."<br><br><br>Lee Hsien Loong also bought a 12-20% discounted property from the company. Together with his father, he was summoned to the office of then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (in Goh's word (slightly paraphrased) "I told them to come to my office"), and told by then Finance Minister Richard Hu to return the equivalence of the discount that they had received.<br><br>In Parliament:<br><ul><li>Mr. Lee Kuan Yew said he did no wrong, but he and his son would return the discount nevertheless. </li><li>He also conveyed to Singaporeans that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">his angry wife had told him that Singaporeans were ungrateful to him</span>. </li></ul><br>Ong Beng Seng, the developer, was told by Lee that he may be charged for attempting to bribe Lee! Ong, a businessman, must have been very happy to sell 10+ properties at 20% discount costing him millions of dollars to Lee's extended family! He must have done so without any influence/order from his director Lee Suan Yew.<br><br>Anyhow, Lee Suan Yew left the Board of Directors of the developer company quietly shortly thereafter.<br><br>Koh Seng Beng - the MAS manager who reported to Richard Hu that the public was getting discontented with the huge discount - was transferred out of MAS soon.<br><br>Richard Hu resigned and left politics.<br><br>Goh Chok Tong is no longer the Prime Minister.<br><br>Lai Kew Chai, high court judge and good friend of Lee Kuan Yew, also brought a 20% discounted property. He sentenced Tang Liang Hong - the man who exposed that the Hotel Property purchases were not limited to just Lee and his son, but involved the extended family on both sides- to bankruptcy. He died soon thereafter in his 60s.<br><br>Mrs Lee Kuan Yew is now near brain-dead and has been so for the past 6 months.<br><br>The rest of the extended family are still alive. Some, even take it to be their responsibility to write regularly to the newspaper to eschew the virtue of frugality!<br><br>You can <a href="http://www.tangtalk.com/index-eng.htm">view the list of their deeply-discounted purchases here (click on "HPL Purchasers Schedules")</a>.</div></div>
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm


<ul><ul><p><b><font face="Helvetica,Arial"><font color="#ff0000"><font size="+2">Unauthorised
persons inside polling stations: Attorney General's letter
<hr width="100%"></font></font><tt>Text of a letter from Singapore's attorney
general to law minister S. Jayakumar on the presence of unauthorised persons
inside polling stations. The minister summarised the attorney general's
opinion when he replied to a query in parliament from non-constituency
MP and Workers' Party chief J. B. Jeyaretnam July 30. </tt></font></b></p>

<p><b><tt><font face="Helvetica,Arial">The Workers' Party had complained
to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General
(NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on
Polling Day. </font></tt></b></p>

<p><b><tt><font face="Helvetica,Arial">But the Public Prosecutor recently
advised the police that the PAP leaders had not broken the law. </font></tt></b></p>
</ul>
</ul>

<ul>
<ul>
<p>21 Jul 97 </p>

<p>Prof S Jayakumar<br>
Minister for Law</p>

<p><b><font color="#ff0000"><font size="-1">PRESENCE OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
INSIDE POLLING STATIONS</font></font></b></p>

<p>On 14 July l997, THE Workers' Party issued a press release expressing
"amazement" that the public prosecutor had advised police that
no offence was disclosed in the reports made by it leaders against the
prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and Dr S Vasoo that they
had been present inside polling stations when they were not candidates
for the relevant constituencies. The Workers' Party queried why such conduct
was not an offence under paragraph (d) or (e) of section 82(1) of the Parliamentary
Elections Act.</p>

<p>2. On 15 July 1997, the Singapore Democratic Party also called on the
attorney general to explain his "truly befuddling" decision and
to state clearly if it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter
polling stations.</p>

<p>3. You have asked me for my formal opinion on the question raised in
these two statements. My opinion is set out below.</p>

<p><b><font color="#ff0000">Opinion</font></b></p>

<p>4. The question is whether it is an offence under the Parliamentary
Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling
station.</p>

<p>5. For this purpose, the authorised persons are the candidates, the
polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer, and persons
authorised in writing by the returning officer, the police officers on
duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station; see
section 39 (4) of the Act (quoted below)</p>

<p><b><font color="#ff0000">Activities Outside Polling Stations</font></b></p>

<p>6. The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be considered
are sections 82 (1)(d) and 82 (1)(e). These provisions were enacted m 1959
pursuant to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal
or Undesirable Practices at Elections, Cmd 7 of 1968 (hereinafter called
"the Elias Report)"</p>

<p>7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside
any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry
to the polling station to cast his vote".</p>

<p>8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not
come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have
entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only
those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this
section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their
votes.</p>

<p>9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that - </p>

<p>"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a
radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."</p>

<p>10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling
station can be sad to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling
station". The answer to this question will also answer any question
on loitering inside a polling station.</p>

<p>11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be
within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must
have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter.
The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200
metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated
in the diagrams in the Appendix.<i> (Editor's note: Diagrams not available).
</i></p>

<p>12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision.
The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public
place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling
station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity
of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include
loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.</p>

<p>13. There is no ambiguity in section 82 (1)(e). If the legislature had
intended to make it an offence for unauthorised persons to wait or loiter
inside a polling station, it could have easily provided for it. It did
not. The mischief that section 82 (1)(e) is intended to address is found
in paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. It reads:</p>

<p>"In order to prevent voters being made subject to my form of undue
influence or harassment at the approaches to polling stations, we recommend
that it should be made an offence for any person to establish any desk
or table near the entrance to any polling station, or to wait outside any
polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry
into the polling station to cast his vote; and that it should be an offence
for any person to loiter in any street or public place within a radius
of 200 yards of any polling station on polling day ."</p>

<p>14 . Paragraph 99 of the Elias Report appears under the heading "Activity
OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS". The Commission of Inquiry was addressing
the possibility of voters being subject to undue influence and harassment
as they approach the polling stations. There is therefore no doubt whatever
that this provision was never intended to cover any activity inside the
polling station as there would be officials and election agents in attendance.</p>

<p>15. The legislative history makes the provision so clear that it is
not even necessary to consider the application of an established principle
of interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal provision should, whenever
possible, be resolved favour of the accused.</p>

<p><b><font color="#ff0000">Activities Inside Polling Stations</font></b></p>

<p>16 Activities inside polling stations were made subject to a different
regime under the Act. Section 39(4) provides that -</p>

<p>"the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall
regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude
all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate,
the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning
Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed
at the polling station."</p>

<p>17. Under section 39(7), any person who misconducts himself in the polling
station, or fails to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer may
be removed from the polling station by a police officer acting under the
orders of the presiding officer. If an unauthorised person refuses to leave
the polling station when told to do so by the public officer, he commits
an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public
servant in the discharge of his duty.</p>

<p>18. There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes
governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election
day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives
rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph
99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which
stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast,
the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating
voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the
polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the
Act.</p>

<p>19. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections
Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence
within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only
wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any
offence under the Act.</p>

<p>20. You are at liberty to publish this opinion.</p>

<div align="right"><p><b><i><font size="-1">Signed: <br>
Chan Sek Keong <br>
Attorney General.</font></i></b></p></div></ul></ul>
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Dec 8, 2009
Cop jailed over mobile escort
By Elena Chong, Courts Correspondent


AFTER providing a mobile escort to a friend's wedding, a Traffic Police Department cop instructed his subordinates to make false entries in their police patrol log sheets.

Station inspector Aziz Osman, 50, was jailed for two weeks on Tuesday for providing the mobile escort.

Aziz, who has since retired, was also fined a total of $1,500 for instructing the two to provide a mobile escort to Mr John Hooi Tuck Sung, now 39, at his wedding five years ago, and going to Taiwan for a promotional event of Pirelli Tyres without the approval of his department.

The court heard that he failed to reimburse the sponsors for the airfare, meals and accommodation for the April 2004 trip. Six other charges were taken into consideration.

Mr Vijay Kumar told District Judge Liew Thiam Leng that his client, who has more than 30 years' service and commendations to his name, was all along prepared to pay for the Taiwan trip but Mr Hooi kept postponing it. Mr Hooi was then marketing manager of Pirelli Asia, owned by an Italian company.

Under the Police Force Act, Aziz could have been fined up to $500 and/or jailed for up to three months on each of the five proceeded charges.
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Dec 8, 2009
Jailed for helping immigrant
By Elena Chong


A MAN who conspired with another to sneak an illegal immigrant out of Singapore was jailed for 28 months on Tuesday.

Chua Kim Hai, 54, admitted to ferrying Chen Chunfeng alias Huang Mei Ying, 36, in a motorised sampan to a fish farm in Lim Chu Kang to enable her to transfer to another speedboat to leave for Malaysia illegally on Aug 9.

A man known as Ah Wei promised to pay him $400 for the job.

But before Chua and the Chinese national could reach the Second Link bridge where she was to have transferred to a Malaysian speedboat, they were arrested at the fish farm by officers from the Police Coast Guard.

Chua, who has rape convictions in 1995, could have been jailed for up to five years. He escaped caning because of his age.
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Dec 8, 2009
Jailed for sexual bid
By Elena Chong

Kohhuichong-wongkwaichow.jpg

Koh Hui Chong, 43, had earlier pleaded guilty to attempting to get the sexual bribe from a 44-year-old woman. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW


A FORMER National Environment support officer who tried to get sexual favours from a teen smoker's mother was jailed for four months on Tuesday.

Koh Hui Chong, 43, had earlier pleaded guilty to attempting to get the sexual bribe from a 44-year-old woman in return for not taking action against her then 15-year-old son for underage smoking on May 6 last year.

Investigation showed that a week earlier, he had seen a schoolboy smoking at a playground and suspected that he was an underage smoker. He told the teen that he would be booked for underage smoking, and asked for his parents' contact details. The boy gave him a false number.

Koh approached the boy's school to get contact information of the teen's parents even though he had no authority to do so.

He later contacted the boy's mother and tried to get sexual favours from her in return for not taking action against the boy.

Koh, who is married with a daughter, could have been fined up to $100,000 and/or jailed for up to five years for corruption.
 
Top