Defamation Suit In Progress

[khunking]

POST BAG Allegations questioned

• Published: 18/04/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

<!-- end headergroup --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> tweetmeme_url = window.location; tweetmeme_service = 'digg.com'; tweetmeme_source = "BPopinion"; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://tweetmeme.com/i/scripts/button.js"></SCRIPT><IFRAME height=61 src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/button.js?url=http%3A//www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/36232/allegations-questioned&style=normal&source=BPopinion&service=digg.com" frameBorder=0 width=50 scrolling=no></IFRAME>
<!-- end tweetmeme_button --><SCRIPT src="http://widgets.fbshare.me/files/fbshare.js"></SCRIPT>
<!-- end facebook-wall -->
<!-- end main-sns -->
<!-- end heading-panel -->In reference to the Bangkok Post articles published on March 28, "Catching a ruthless mangda" and "Candy's special customers: the bribe-taking, sex hungry policemen".
The articles alleged that ''Candy'' had bribed the police, accused our officers of stealing handphones, cash and valuables and abusing their position to obtain free sex during raids. Our investigations have revealed these allegations to be completely baseless and unsubstantiated.
The facts are as follows: Our officers were not involved in any such activity and the evidence showed clearly that the allegations did not involve officers from the Singapore Police Force. Instead, in the incidents cited, other than the three men who were arrested on March 16, 2010, for an offence under the Women's Charter, one auxiliary police officer and three private security officers are also currently assisting in ongoing police investigations. Auxiliary police officers are employed by private security firms and do not represent officers from the Singapore Police Force.
As the articles cast aspersions on the integrity of the Singapore Police Force, we ask that your newspaper publish this letter.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director, Media Relations
Public Affairs Department
Singapore Police Force​