The prosecution is set to appeal the acquittal of two men, Mr Pay Teow Heng and Mr Pek Lian Guan, who had been charged in connection with bribery involving a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) director.

The two men were acquitted last Friday, 11 October 2024, after a judge highlighted issues with the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s (CPIB) handling of their statements.

Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) filed the appeal on Monday following its earlier indication that it was reviewing the court’s judgement.

According to Channel News Asia’s report, AGC had stated it would assess the case before determining its next steps. The acquittal stemmed from findings that the CPIB’s statement-taking process had been flawed.

Both men were originally charged in July 2020. Mr Pek, 59, was the CEO and chairman of Tiong Seng Holdings, a construction firm, and Mr Pay, 56, was a director at Tiong Seng Contractors.

They faced charges related to alleged bribes given to former LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye, who had been accused of accepting bribes to advance the business interests of various companies.

The court heard that Mr Pay had allegedly given S$350,000 (US$267,000) to Mr Foo over two separate occasions in 2017 and 2018.

The prosecution argued that these payments were intended to secure LTA contracts for Tiong Seng. Mr Pek was charged with abetting Mr Pay in the alleged bribery scheme.

The trial focused heavily on the conduct of CPIB officers during the investigation.

Two key officers, identified as Mr Chris Lim and Jeffrey, were called to testify regarding the statements they took from Mr Pay and Mr Pek, respectively. District Judge Soh Tze Bian ultimately ruled that these statements were “inaccurate” and “unreliable,” leading to the acquittal.

Judge Soh criticised the conduct of the CPIB officers, particularly their methods in recording the statements of the accused. He noted that Mr Lim, who recorded Mr Pay’s second statement, had approached the investigation with a “preconceived notion” that Mr Pay was guilty of an offence.

The judge found that Mr Lim had selectively recorded information that could be construed as incriminating while omitting exculpatory evidence, leading to what he described as a “blatant disregard for the truth.”

In the case of Mr Pek, Judge Soh found that the officer identified as Jeffrey had employed a “cut-and-paste” approach to compile his statement. This method resulted in repeated self-incriminating remarks being included in Mr Pek’s statement.

The judge concluded that these remarks were not a faithful representation of what Mr Pek had actually said, raising serious questions about the accuracy of the statement.

The judge’s verdict highlighted the importance of proper investigative processes and the duty of law enforcement to maintain integrity when recording statements.

He stated that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus, acquitted both men.

The acquittal came after months of legal proceedings and scrutiny of the CPIB’s conduct during its investigation.

The case has sparked concerns over investigative practices within the CPIB, particularly in high-profile corruption cases.

In an ongoing trial involving Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh, Rahayu Mahzam, a Singapore Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the Committee of Privileges (COP) overseeing the matter of Raeesah Khan’s conduct in Parliament in November 2021, has been named in connection with a controversial redaction of a key message.

As a COP member, Rahayu was responsible for reviewing evidence related to Khan’s parliamentary lie, which ultimately led to Khan’s resignation and a S$35,000 fine.

Rahayu’s involvement in the review process was disclosed during the cross-examination of Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre member and assistant to ex-WP MP Raeesah Khan.

Loh, testifying for the prosecution, was questioned about her role in editing messages from a group chat involving herself, Khan, and Yudhishthra Nathan, a WP cadre member.

A message from Nathan, dated 12 October 2021, suggested withholding details about Khan’s fabricated rape anecdote, which she had shared in Parliament. The message read: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts abt her age accurate.”

Under cross-examination by Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, Loh admitted to deliberately redacting this message before submitting the document to the COP.

She initially claimed the redaction was because the message related to another MP, but when pressed by Jumabhoy, she conceded that this was a “bare-faced lie.”

In response to Jumabhoy’s line of questioning about whether the redaction was intended to “hide information” or preserve the integrity of Nathan, herself, or Khan, Loh responded, “I wouldn’t say that,” but later admitted to hiding the comment, saying, “I hid this comment, yes,” and confirming that Nathan’s suggestion was to “just lie about it some more.”

Loh also revealed during the trial that Rahayu had been involved in the redaction process.

When Jumabhoy accused Loh of dishonesty for arbitrarily redacting messages and providing false reasons for the redactions, she requested to explain the process to the court.

According to Loh, she had worked closely with Rahayu and a senior parliamentary staff member for three hours, reviewing WhatsApp messages that were intended for submission to the COP.

Loh testified, “The entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Rahayu Mahzam, who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone. They agreed it should be redacted.”

Although Loh acknowledged that the final decision to redact the message was hers, she believed Rahayu was fully aware of the content of the message and the rationale for its redaction.

Loh explained that her primary reason for redacting the message was to prevent Nathan from facing public backlash, saying, “I didn’t want him to be attacked for his comment.”

Jumabhoy, during cross-examination, suggested that Loh had redacted the message to preserve the group’s credibility, asserting that the redaction was “to preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity” and that the message gave a “bad impression.”

Loh agreed that the message “doesn’t look good on him,” but clarified that her intention was to protect Nathan from scrutiny, not to interfere with the COP investigation.

Another critical point discussed in court was an exchange between Loh and Khan on 7 October 2021, in which Loh suggested that Khan gather stories from other sexual assault survivors to support her point in Parliament.

The defence suggested this was an attempt to cover Khan’s lie with other stories. Loh explained, “It was a grey area between not lying anymore but still supporting police investigations,” adding that this would allow Khan to “avoid lying again but still address her original point in Parliament.”

When questioned by the judge, she confirmed that the idea was not to obstruct the investigation into Khan’s anecdote, but rather to support broader investigations into how sexual assault victims are treated.

The trial has also explored Loh’s memory of an August 10 meeting with Singh. She initially testified that Singh had nodded during their conversation about whether the issue of Khan’s lie would arise again in Parliament.

However, she later clarified that Singh had actually shaken his head. “My memory is fuzzy,” she explained, and added that they “avoided talking about it explicitly” during their brief exchange.

Another important moment in the trial was the discussion of a message from Khan on 8 August 2021, in which she said she had been told to “take the information to the grave.”

Loh testified that she first saw the message at the time, but it only “fully registered” with her on 29 November, when she was preparing for the COP inquiry. She admitted that she had been distracted when the message first came through, focusing instead on a subsequent message from Khan.

Singh is currently contesting charges that he misled the COP about his actions after learning that Khan had lied in Parliament.