CPIB probe: NUS law student allegedly had sex with Prof
-
I think CPIB is going to get into a lot of hot water soon.
-
can mah
could have requested for menu prices/quotation from a few restorans before deciding where to go for the dinner
so he could have known the agah amt before the dinner
when i plan group dinner oso like tt de wat
-
now is law prof against CPIB
-
law prof is professional...
-
-
CPIB officer tells court Darinne Ko revealed pregnancy, abortion
SINGAPORE: The star witness in the corruption trial of a National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor in a sex-for-grades case revealed that she was pregnant and had an abortion when she was first brought in by Singapore's anti-graft bureau to give her statement.
Mr Bay Chun How, an officer of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), said this in court on Wednesday on day 5 of the trial of Tey Tsun Hang.
Mr Bay said Ms Darinne Ko, who is Tey's ex-student, revealed she was pregnant to the CPIB on April 2, 2012.
He told the court he had returned to the bureau at about 10am that day after making a trip to Tey's house.
He wanted to find out what progress had been made at that time.
That was when he learnt that Ms Ko was already giving information.
Mr Bay, who is the prosecution's seventh witness, said Ms Ko was already cooperating and had confirmed her sexual relationship with Tey, as well as the gifts.
He added that she had told the CPIB about her pregnancy and abortion.
Tey, 41, a former district judge, is accused of six counts of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from Ms Ko between May and July 2010, in exchange for lifting her grades.
Earlier, Tey continued to try to poke holes in the testimony of the prosecution's second witness.
He questioned CPIB officer, Ms Png Chen Chen, who had interrogated Ms Ko.
He asked her about the way Ms Ko was treated during questioning.
Tey's premise is that Ms Png had extracted Ms Ko's statement through inducement, threats and promises.
But the CPIB officer disagreed.
A third prosecution witness, Mdm Lee Swee Khuen, also took the stand.
Mdm Lee is a senior associate director of the Human Resource Department of NUS.
She testified that NUS has a code of conduct, requiring staff to declare gifts as well as conflict of interests.
An issue raised by Tey on January 15 also surfaced during her testimony.
Tey had said he could not afford two forensic tests costing more than S$50,000 to verify handwriting and ink dating on his cheque book entries - as he has been suspended since July last year.
On Wednesday, Mdm Lee told the court that Tey is still receiving his pay every month, even during suspension.
Channel NewsAsia understands that Tey's pay is about S$15,000 a month.
The fourth witness who testified was Ms Eileen Pang, senior associate director of financial services at NUS.
A fifth prosecution witness, Mr Akira Goh of CYC Shanghai Shirt Company, also gave evidence.
- CNA/ck/fa -
first time then kena liao
-
Ex-lovers
TURN COLD IN COURT
It's all business as professor questions former student
PHOTO SHOOT: Defendant in the sex-for-grades trial Tey Tsun Hang outside the subordinate courts yesterday. TNP PICTURES: KEVIN CHNG
KEY WITNESS: Miss Darinne Ko outside the subordinate courts yesterday.
REPORT: CHAI HUNG YIN
THEY were described as lovers. She bought him gifts. She was in awe of him and declared as much.
But if you were in court yesterday, you wouldn't have thought they were even remotely acquainted.
He threw questions at her as part of his cross-examination. She would reply - but she wouldn't look at him.
Miss Darinne Ko Wen Hui, now 23, is the prosecution's star witness.
Yesterday, she half-hid behind her left hand, avoiding eye contact with her former professor at the National University of Singapore's law school, Tey Tsun Hang, 41.
Tey faces six charges of obtaining sexual gratification and gifts from Miss Ko.
Again, Tey donned a lawyer's robe while he represented himself from the dock, complete with a music stand to prop up documents.
Once, when he addressed her as Miss Ko, she didn't respond. He had to repeat himself.
Tey asked Miss Ko to describe what she went through during the recording of statements by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and the deal that was struck with its deputy director of investigations, Mr Teng Khee Fatt.
Miss Ko said that on April 2 last year, she was taken by CPIB officers from her home to their Bukit Merah headquarters at about 6am. But no statement were recorded from her until 9pm.
She was locked in a room. She said from 8am to 7pm, various items were brought into the room.
She was asked by CPIB officers if she had given the items to Tey and the reason for doing so.
She told the court: "I told them because I liked him and we were in a relationship. They refused to believe it."
At this juncture, Tey interjected by saying "just pause it there", to which Miss Ko retorted: "I'm not done yet."
During the more than 10 hours she was in the CPIB room, she tried to sleep whenever she was left alone for half-an-hour to an hour.
She was very tired, she told the court.
Whenever the officers returned to the room, they would wake her up. This occurred throughout the day, she said.
At 7pm, one of the CPIB officers, Ms Png Chen Chen, told Miss Ko that her boss, Mr Teng, wanted to see her. No reasons were given.
She was taken to his office for a meeting that lasted about 21/2 hours, she said.
There, Mr Teng told her that his officers said she was not being cooperative.
She asked him why since she had told them every-thing she knew.
"He said I was not cooperating because the evidence I gave was not making up the elements of the charge against Prof Tey.
"He told me that corruption was a two-sided offence and he could very well decide to charge me, instead."
Indemnity
But if she cooperated, she said Mr Teng would get the prosecution to ask the court to grant her indemnity if the need arose.
But she said "she could not cooperate in his definition of cooperation because my statement wouldn't hold up to cross-examination".
Mr Teng then told her that it was "possible for him to ask the prosecution to solely use my statements without calling me to testify".
If she cooperated, she was told, she would be able to "carry on with my life and begin my career upon graduation", she said.
Miss Ko then gave in to some of Mr Teng's demands, she said.
But she refused to note in the statement that she wanted a favour from Tey "because I didn't acquire any favour from Tey".
She insisted on using the phrase "not showing disfavour".
"I told him (Mr Teng), this did not sit well with me and I did not need any favour from anyone."
She also told Mr Teng that she bought Tey gifts because she liked him and they were in a relationship.
But Mr Teng didn't believe her because "it was not possible for a girl to buy a guy gifts", she said.
He didn't explain to Miss Ko why it wasn't possible to do that.
Instead, Mr Teng suggested she bought Tey gifts to show her favour or not show any disfavour over her grades.
After the meeting with Mr Teng, she was taken back to the same room she was locked in earlier.
She said that she was "tired, scared and anxious since I had a paper due the next day".
She also pleaded with the CPIB to be let out, but was told she wouldn't be allowed out until a statement had been recorded.
Ms Png continued asking her questions.
She said: "She (Ms Png) allowed me to rest my head on the table until she heard footsteps outside and she would ask me to quickly get up."
The recording of the statement took 51/2 hours because Ms Png had to "go and check with her boss whether it was okay".
When Ms Png left the room with a laptop and returned with a printed statement, Miss Ko said she was "still very tired, less scared because now I could probably go as long as I sign it".
Finally, as 2.30am, she signed the statement which was "within the parameters that had been agreed with Mr Teng". she said.
Earlier yesterday morning, the prosecution questioned her about the inconsistencies in her statements to the CPIB and her court testimony.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy dealt with other inconsistencies involving her motivation in giving Tey the gifts - a $740 Mont Blanc pen, two tailor-made shirts valued $236.20 and an iPod Touch worth $160.
These included her paying for a dinner hosted by Tey, the time he called her when her results were released and her motivation in having sex with him.
The dispute over grades
REPORT: RENNIE WHANG and BEN NADARAJAN
DID he ever give you the impression he could shape your future? Did you ever feel he had taken advantage of you in an intimate relationship? Did he ever suggest he could show any favour, or that you should give him an inducement?
Such were the questions asked of Miss Darinne Ko Wen Hui, 23 by her former law professor Tey Tsun Hang, 41 who was referring to himself in the third person.
Eyes averted, in a hushed tone, her reply was the same: "No."
"The case has been dubbed the 'sex-for-grades' trial," he said. "It's only fair for the defendant to prove in open court to vindicate himself as regard the phrase 'for grades,'" he said, referring to himself.
He had Miss Ko's grades written out on large vanguard sheets. These were attached to a standing clipboard as he questioned her.
From year 1, she had apparently "done better in Private Law", receiving an A- in Contact Law and an A+ in Torts. The court earlier heard she was on the Dean's List-in the top 10 per cent of her class-after Year 1, and was approached by three professors for research assistance.
In Year 2, she got three B+s in Property and Company Laws, and Equity and Trusts-"only one (of which) had to do with the miserable defendant," Tey said. The "miserable defendant" was himself.
"I was more interested in commerical law subjects (quite early)," she said.
Internship
All internships she did during the June holidays in her undergraduate years were in insolvency departments, she added.
"I wanted to do insolvency law eventually."
Under Tey, Miss Ko got a B+ for Equity and Trusts - a compulsory subject - when they first got to know each other in 2010.
She was assigned to it, she said.
"I don't think it's possible for him (to bring me into the course conducted by him)."
For a Personal Property Law course with Tey from August to November 2011, she got a B.
Tey produced her examination script for the subject yesterday.
"Any secret code or message on the script between you and the defendant?" he asked.
"No," she replied.
She also confirmed there were no allegations from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau that Tey attempted to get gifts or persuade her to have sex during this period.
In that same semester, Tey awarded her an A for a Directed Research Paper on International insolvency, which he addressed.
"Did you at any point...suspect that the grade A was a reward or return from the defendant?" he asked in court. She denied this.
He then presented her with five files containing the background research she did for him.
"Bearing in mind that the prosecution does not believe the grades were tampered with, is this really relevant?" Deputy Public Prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy asked of the thick files.
Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye allowed cross-examination on the files, but had questions for Tey: "What's your intent? That tremendous amount of work goes into it?"
That, and to enlighten the court on the process of research, Tey said Material in the files, it turned out; were on five separate research topics, completed before Miss Ko started on her 8,000-word thesis.
Miss Ko went on to do a Directed Research on cross border insolvency under a different professor, again scoring an A.
She didn't ever submit background research material to the other professor, she said.
Asked if Tey allowed her an easier journey in Directed Research, she said: "They were different, I don't know how to compare."
Still, Tey had argued - Miss Ko had done three subjects on corporate insolvency with three As, and all three professors who taught insolvency at the law school had graded her in these.
He also argued he sought to bar Miss Ko from taking a course he offered in January last year, even though she signed up for it.
It was on International and Comparative Insolvency Law. His concern was possible overlap between this course and her Directed Research under him.
He claimed he had an e-mail from him to the faculty administration proving this.
"Would you agree with the defendant, if there's possibility of overlap...there will be possibility of unfair advantage to a student to do both?" he asked, also noting she wouldn't have known if there was an overlap.
"Yes," she said.
Exchange between accused, witness
Tey Tsun Hang was cross-examining his former student Darinne Ko yesterday on her preference for choosing to take courses in commercial law.
Tey: Would you agree with me that you had discovered your interest and strength quite early, by Year 2, to be a commercial. law specialist?Miss Ko: I wouldn't think specialist, but I was more interested in these subjects.
Tey: You will eventually be one (a specialist) and your confidence will carry you far.
Later, Tey went back to this line of questioning regarding Miss Ko's choice of taking a research paper on corporate insolvency, which was supervised-by him.
Tey: So you had three subjects in corporate insolvency, over three consecutive semesters, three As, three different professors... You had always intended to specialise in corporate insolvency.
Miss Ko: I was always interested in insolvency.
Tey: There were only three professors who could do corporate insolvency?
Miss Ko: Yes.
Tey: Was there anyone else at the faculty with whom you could do another elective on corporate insolvency?
Miss Ko: I don't believe so.
Tey: Neither the defendant (himself).
Tey asked Miss Ko to read out several portions of the amended statement she made to the Corrupt Practices lnvestigation Bureau on May 4 1ast year.
As he went paragraph by paragraph, asking Miss Ko to read out in court the changes she had asked for, Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye finally cut him off, saying: "Professor Tey, it might be more useful for your cross examination if you asked questions rather than asking her to read.
"Because we can all read."
ABOUT THE CASE
MUCH of yesterday's cross-examination of prosecution witness Darinne Ko concerned the gifts she had given her law professor Tey Tsun Hang, who is on trial now for corruption.
Tey, 41, faces six charges of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex. The gifts included a Montblanc peri, two tailored shirts and payment for a group dinner. The sex on two occasions took place in his office.
The pen - engraved with "Tsun Hang" and with "TH" engraved on its pouch - was produced in court yesterday. Miss Ko confirmed she had asked for the engravings and that these indicated affection.
While Miss Ko had previously indicated that she got him the fountain pen as a replacement for one which went missing, he produced the "missing" Sheaffer pen.
Said Miss Ko:."I vividly remember...he said it held special meaning because it was the pen which he used for his BCL (Bachelor of Civil Law) exams in Oxford, and obtained a first class."
Tey put it to Miss Ko that he had never suggested he had lost his pen. She disagreed.
Tey also referred to an e-mail which he claimed he sent to a third party to ask about the pen's cost.
In addition, he said the two shirts came stitched with his name.
Tey is arguing his own case with the assistance of his solicitor Peter Low.
He will continue questioning Miss Ko today.lhe prosecution will also get to re-examine her testimony after he is done.
News, The New Paper, Tuesday January 15 2013, Pg 2-3
-
the more the details revealed... the uglier it gets...
-
And suddenly I tot that I was watching some taiwan drama~
-
going in circles now.........
-
going in circles??
-
NUS prof Tey questions CPIB officer in "trial within a trial"
SINGAPORE: The law professor on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case is cross-examining an anti-graft officer on the admissibility of one of six statements -- in what is called a "trial within a trial".
Tey Tsun Hang is questioning Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Chief Special Investigator Bay Chun How to prove his case that the statement given to CPIB was made under duress.
If he can prove this, Tey will be able to argue that the evidence cannot be admitted in court. This would weaken the prosecution's case.
Five other statements of Tey's are being disputed. Two were recorded by CPIB officer Wilson Khoo and three by Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt.
They are expected to take the stand in the "trial within a trial".
Tey, 41, faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko, between May and July 2010, in exchange for lifting her grades.
-CNA/ac -
PREGNANCY SHOCKER, INTERVIEW DRAMA
TEARS
GIDDINESS,
PREGNANCYCPIB officer tells court that Darinne Ko told bureau about abortion, and that ambulance had to be called for Tey during interview
IN COURT: Mr Bay Chun How, chief special investigator with the Conupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), testified yesterday in court as the prosecution's first Witness in the trial within a trial. This is to determine the admissibility of six statements that Tey made to the CPIB last year.
DONE FOR THE DAY: Law professor Tey Tsun Hang outside court yesterday.
TNP PICTURES:
GAVIN FOOREPORT: RENNIE WHANG
IT SOUNDED like an innocuous question to a witness.
But the reply from Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) chief special investigator Bay Chun How contained a bombshell - Miss Darinne Ko Wen Hui had told CPIB that she was pregnant and had an abortion.
The 23-year-old is the prosecution's star witness against law professor Tey Tsun Hang. 41, wbo is accused of corruptly receiving gifts and sex from her in exchange for grades in 2010, when she was his student at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
The revelation came as Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Kok Shu-En was questioning Mr Bay, who had been tasked with interviewing Tey.
Mr Bay spoke of reporting to the Operations Room at CPIB at 9.50am to find our the progress of investigations
and the room number Tey was in.DPP Kok asked: "What did you find out at this stage?"
Mr Bay replied: "I found out out (Miss Ko) was already cooperating with the investigations that confirmed sexual relationship, gifts, and had told about her pregnancy and abortion."
On hearing this, Tey looked down, seeming to sigh.
Nothing more was made of the matter, as DPP Kok asked what had happened next
"We proceeded to interview Tey," Mr Bay said, going on to talk about Tey's conditions during the interview.
Mr Bay, who has been with the CPIB for 12 years, was called to the stand yeSterday as the prosecution's first witness in a trial within the sex-for-grades trial.
It concerns the admissibility of the six statements Tey had made to the CPIB between April and May last year.
Whether they can be admitted as evidence depends on whether he is found to have made them under any threat, inducement or promise.
The court heard that Mr Bay met three colleagues at Tey's Choa Chu Kang North home on April 2 last year at 6.15am to take Tey and his wife to the CPIB.
A woman who said she was Tey's mother said he had left for work and his wife was not in town.
Other officers later took Tey to the CPIB.
Mr Bay said Tey was "frank, forthright, helpful" in discussing his background and career at his l0.12am
interview. ·"But when I told him about the allegation (of sex and gifts from students in return for better grades), there was silence," he said.
"He looked down at his tie and when he lifted up his head, I could see his eyes were red and tearing."
Don't scare the elderly
After the interview, Tey was taken to his house to retrieve some of the gifts. .
"(He) was concerned the search would scare his parents at home. I told him that if he cooperates, we will try not to alarm the eldedy," Mr Bay said.
(His response was) that he would cooperate."
They spent half an hour there before returned to the CPIB, where Mr Bay again tried to interview Tey.
"I did not manage to do so...(Tey) was sobbing and not responding to my questions."
Instead, they went to Tey's office. stopping by his home again as they had left behind the iPod, one of Miss Ko's alleged giftS.
Back at the CPIB, Tey was having a rest break at about 7.20pm when he told Mr Bay he was giddy and felt like vomiting. He complained of chest pains.
Mr Bay told Tey he would arrange for an ambulance if Tey decided to call for one. Two officer's remained in Tey's room to observe him.
At 8.05pm, the officers told him Tey had vomited and wanted medical attention.
Mr Bay went into his room and saw him holding a plastic bag, "trying to vomit something into the bag".
"I told him that I can arrange an ambulance, but he would have to pay the cost."
Ambulance
Tey agreed, and Mr Bay called 1777 for a non-emergency ambulance.
As the operator of 1777 said it would take 45 minutes, he called 995 instead.
"I thought...I'm not a medical officer so I didn't want to take the risk," Mr Bay told the court.
Tey was taken by ambulance, accompanied by another officer, to Alexandra Hospital at about 8.45pm. Two more officers followed the ambulance.
At 11.25pm, an officer told Mr Bay the doctor had found nothing wrong with Tey.
Mr Bay said: "However, his physical discomfort had changed to a mental issue."
Tey was warded for this and the officers were recalled, he added
Mr Bay said that when he went to the hospital the next morning, he found out from a doctor that Tey had said he had claustrophobia after being kept for hours in a small room, and that he could be discharged once the ward doctor cleared him.
The next day, the hospital called Mr Bay to say Tey would be discharged soon. ,
Two officers were sent, but one called later to say that Tey was unable to complete his discharge papers.
Mr Bay told the court: "(He was) unable to fill up his name, IC number and address."
The ward doctor decided to keep Tey warded another day, he said.
Mr Bay said he Was told at 1pm the next day, April 5, that Tey would be discharged soon, but he decided Tey could leave the hospital of his own accord and wait out his medical certificate (MC).
But Tey called at 2pm, insisting on going to the CPffi to give a statement and asked if Mr Bay couid send a car to pick him up.
Mr Bay said: "(My response was) if it's your decision to come down on your own, you have to make your own waydown."
When Tey showed up at the CPIB, he was still clad in his hospital pyjamas.
"(He) said he had vomited and dirtied his clothes," said Mr Bay.
As he took Tey' s statement in his office, nobody else entered the room except at one occasion, he added
"He mentioned the pair of shoes he was wearing were also gifts from students, then. I called (Mr Wilson Khoo) to come in to seize the pair of shoes and put it in the evidence bag."
Asked if Tey left the CPIB without shoes, Mr Bay said: "I...return(ed) him another pair of shoes which he produced to me during the search at his office but was confirmed by (Miss Ko) to be the wrong pair."
After three hours and 25 minutes of having his statement recorded, Tey was moved to the interview room as he had wanted to speak to CPIB assistant director Teng
Khee Fatt, Mr Bay said.DPP Kok then asked Mr Bay if any threat or inducement was made during the recmding of the statement
Mr Bay replied promptly: "No threats, inducement or promise. Because I know he is ex-DPP, ex-Judge. So, no."
Shirt surprise
Shirts submitted as evidence weren't tailored at
witness' shopNOT OURS: Mr Akira Goh, the sales mamiger at CYC Shanghai Shirt Co, said that none of Tey's shirts that were shown to him were made at the shop.
POD CAST: Mr De Costa Desmond Max, the man who sold the iPod Touch to Miss Darinne Ko.
REPORT: CHAI HUNG YIN
HE WAS on the witness stand to confirm evidence tendered in court.
What he said when shown the evidence stunned the court into deep silence for a few moments.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Yau Pui Man seemed to be taken aback.
National University of Singapore law professor Tey Tsun Hang's mouth hung open before he quickly tried to suppress a smile.
Tey is accused of corruptly receiving gifts and sex from his former student, Miss Darinne Ko Wen Hui, in exchange for grades.
Among the gifts were two shirts made at CYC Shangbai Shirt Co worth a total of$236.20.
Yesterday, its sales manager, Mr Akita Goh, was shown four shirts belonging to Tey.
DPP Yau had made it clear that Tey had asked for the shirts to be tendered as evidence.
After inspecting each shirt individually, Mr Goh made a surprising revelation - none of the four shirts was tailored at his shop.
He sajd: "We don't have such material in our shop. The buttons are different and underneath the shirt, should have the order number and the year of ordering."
The order number and year of ordering are located at the bottom placket of each shirt.The shirts are a light blue long-sleeve shirt, a checkered shirt, a batik Shirt and a pink striped shirt.
In Mr Goh's conditioned statement, he produced receipts showing Miss Ko paid for the two shirts tailored for Tey using her credit card on June 22, 2010.
He said each customer has a unique customer identification number, regardless of who pays for the items.
While the shirts presented in court as evidence have turned out not to be the shirts in question, it is not disputed that Miss Ko had paid for two shirts at CYC for Tey.
iPod Touch
The man who sold an iPod Touch to Miss Ko also took the stand yesterday.
Mr De Costa Desmond Max, a navy weapons supervisor with the Republic of Singapore Navy, advertised the iPod for sale on an online forum.
Miss Ko responded to his advertisement and he met her at an arcade in May 2010.
During Tey's cross-examination, Mr De Costa said she had haggled the price down from $180 to $160. He also said that it didn't come with a warranty.
When Tey cross-examined Miss Ko previously, he asked her whether the iPod Touch was a second-hand purchase.
She replied: "I don't think so. It was purchased on an audio forum but people on forums usually sell their new stuff because they have multiple items of the same nature."
She couldn't remember whether the iPod came with a warranty.
Two NUS staff also testified yesterday.
Ms Lee Swee Khuen, the senior associate director at the Office of Human Resource. told the court that Tey was suspended from the university with full pay.
The New Paper understands that Tey earns slightly more than $15,000 a month in basic pay.
Ms Lee.said that Tey had not declared to the university any personal interests, activities or personal relationships that may affect his professional duties.
Tey also did not disclose any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest that involved him, she said in her conditioned statement.
Under NUS' code of conduct, all staff members should not allow personal relationships to affect professional relationships.
They should also avoid situations which may require them to supervise or assess a stUdent with whom they have, or have had, a personal or other significant relationship.
Ms Eileen Pang Ee lin, the senior associate director at the Office of Financial Services, said that Tey had not reported receipt of any gifts to the university.
She agreed with Tey' s suggestion that if a staff member had received a gift but failed to declare it, the person is subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
News The New Paper, Thursday, January 17 2013, Pg 2-3
-
"On Wednesday, Mdm Lee told the court that Tey is still receiving his pay every month, even during suspension."
suspended still got pay ah?!
" Mr De Costa Desmond Max, a navy weapons supervisor with the Republic of Singapore Navy, advertised the iPod for sale on an online forum."
he must be thinking " wah lan suay i sell pple ipod touch also kanna summoned to court for questioning. kns." -
NUS law prof couldn't remember own name in hospital: CPIB officer
SINGAPORE: The law professor defending himself in his corruption trial could not remember his name, identity card number and address on the day he was supposed to be discharged from hospital.
The prosecution's 8th witness, Mr Wilson Khoo of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), revealed this in court on Friday morning.
He said the accused, Tey Tsun Hang, was overheard telling the staff at Alexandra Hospital while he was getting discharged on April 4, 2012.
Tey, 41, was admitted to the hospital on April 2 -- the day he was at the CPIB for questioning. During his time there, Tey felt unwell and was sent to the hospital by ambulance.
He was to be discharged two days later but while making arrangements to do so, one of the doctors declared that he was not ready to leave hospital care.
Mr Khoo told the court that Tey appeared unexpectedly at the CPIB the next day on April 5, ready to give his statement.
During the interview, Mr Khoo said Tey asked him to let him know about the bribes he allegedly received, as well as what he had allegedly done in exchange for them.
Mr Khoo said he told Tey that he was the one who was giving the statement and asked Tey to say whatever he could recall.
Previously, Tey had claimed that CPIB investigator Bay Chun How showed him a list with the names of students and the gifts they purportedly gave. He said Mr Bay, who took the stand on Thursday, had asked him to confirm the names of the students and gifts.
However, Mr Bay disagreed.
Tey, a former district judge, faces allegations that he corruptly obtained gratification in the form of gifts and sex from a former student, Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui, who is now 23, in return for lifting her grades.
He allegedly committed the offences between May and July 2010.
-CNA/ac -
NUS law prof challenges CPIB officer in sex-for-grades trial
SINGAPORE: The law professor on trial for corruption in a sex-for-grades case on Thursday cross-examined an anti-graft officer on the admissibility of one of six statements. The procedure is also known as a "trial within a trial".
Tey Tsun Hang challenged Bay Chun How to prove his case that his statement given to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was made under duress.
If he can prove this, he will able to argue that the evidence cannot be admitted in court and this would weaken the prosecution's case.
On the sixth day of the closely-watched trial, several allegations were made against CPIB officer Bay Chun How, who recorded one of six of Tey's statements.
Tey had been picked up by Mr Bay on 2 April last year to help with investigations, but he became ill and was said to be vomiting.
Tey was sent to Alexandra Hospital in an ambulance.
Tey has charged that Mr Bay had been eager to haul him back to the CPIB on 5 April, to record a statement, even though he was still on medical leave.
But the senior officer pointed out that it was Tey who "insisted on giving (the) statement".
Later, when re-examined by the prosecution on whether he had asked how Tey was feeling during the interview, Mr Bay said: "No. He looked fine, clear-headed."
During the interrogation, Tey, a former district judge, said he showed Mr Bay his medication, but was still forced to make a confession. Mr Bay firmly denied this.
At one point in time, Tey claimed that Mr Bay threatened to place his wife under arrest. Mr Bay disagreed.
Tey's other allegations include Mr Bay swearing at him and placing him in a "very cold interrogation cell" on 2 April. Mr Bay denied having sworn at Tey.
As for the interrogation cell, he said: "The air-con controller was mounted on the wall for you to adjust."
During prosecution's re-examination, Mr Bay also shed light on the time when Tey fell ill.
He told the court his colleague reported to him that Tey was vomiting. "I was expecting to see pale face, bad content on the floor, vomit, but I saw none of those," said Mr Bay.
Prosecutor Kok Shu-En asked: "So what did you see?"
"I saw the accused holding on to a clear plastic bag and trying to vomit something into the bag. The bag had only a few mouthfuls of saliva inside," said Mr Bay.
Mr Bay also told the court on the day when Tey was sent to the hospital, the paramedics who came to pick him up were grumbling.
He said Tey had insisted on being wheeled out to the ambulance, despite being mobile.
Several times during the hearing, the Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye would remind Tey to focus when it seemed like he was deviating from the purpose of showing the court that his statement is inadmissible.
Tey's repetitive questioning and the fact that Mr Bay did not answer questions directly also slowed down the pace of the trial.
Five other statements of Tey are being disputed.
Two were recorded by CPIB officer Wilson Khoo, who testified in court as the prosecution's eighth witness on Thursday.
The remaining three were recorded by CPIB Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt.
Tey faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko, between May and July in 2010, in exchange for giving her better grades.
- CNA/xq -
if cannot be law prof liao can go be actor
-
got blowjob mah?
-
NUS law prof may not be as ill as he claimed to be: CPIB officer
SINGAPORE: There was a constant war of words between Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) officer Wilson Khoo and Tey Tsun Hang on the seventh day of the trial, during the accused's cross-examination of the witness.
Tey, 41, faces allegations that he corruptly obtained gifts and sex from a former student, Ms Darinne Ko Wen Hui, in return for giving her better grades.
One area of contention was whether Tey was indeed ill on 2 April last year.
Tey was admitted to hospital on the day he was at the CPIB for questioning.
Tey had felt unwell and was sent to hospital by ambulance.
In Mr Khoo's diary entry, he wrote the doctor treating Tey was unable to diagnose any medical condition.
Tey accused Mr Khoo of making it sound like "he was play-acting", "trying to fool CPIB officers" and "trying to bamboozle them".
But the witness retorted this was what the doctor told him.
Tey fired back, saying he will prove in due course that the doctor had diagnosed him with "altered mental status" upon hospitalisation.
During the hearing, Mr Khoo said on 4 April, when Tey was to be discharged from the hospital, he could not remember his name, identity card number and address.
He said Tey was overheard saying this to the staff at Alexandra Hospital while he was getting discharged on 4 April 2012.
While making arrangements to do so, one of the doctors tested Tey's condition and declared that he was not ready to leave hospital care.
Another point of argument - Tey was "overly cooperative" in giving statement to CPIB on 5 April.
Mr Khoo testified that Tey appeared unexpectedly at the CPIB, and insisted on giving his statement.
During the interview, Mr Khoo said Tey repeatedly asked the officer to note the dates of gratification and favours he had received.
He also asked Mr Khoo to tell him what he had allegedly done in exchange for them.
"No accused person would be so actively volunteering such information," said Mr Khoo.
Tey shot back, asking Mr Khoo if he would give CPIB ideas "so that he could be charged with more charges of corruption?".
To which, the witness said: "Yes, your honour. Absolutely!"
Previously, Tey had claimed that CPIB investigator Bay Chun How showed him a list with the names of students and the gifts they purportedly gave.
He said Mr Bay, who took the stand on Thursday, had asked him to confirm the names of the students and gifts. But Mr Bay disagreed.
Heated exchanges also took place between the two over the time taken to record Tey's statements.
Mr Khoo recorded two of Tey's statements. One was made on 5 April and the other, 10 April.
The earlier statement, comprising five pages, took some three hours to record while the other four-page statement took two hours 15 minutes.
Tey then made the point that the recordings of a few pages should not take that long, unless there was selective recording and constant badgering by Mr Khoo to give confessions deemed satisfactory to them.
But Mr Khoo said time was taken to interview Tey and the duration also included time taken for Tey to read the recordings before printing.
Another contention was the words "corrupt intent".
Mr Khoo had said Tey had insisted on using those words in his confession.
This drew Tey's rebuttal: "So the defendant insisted so that he will end up in Changi (prison)?"
Mr Khoo immediately replied: "Yes. He insisted."
During the cross-examination, Tey pointed out that there were several similar entries in not just Mr Khoo's investigation diary, but Mr Bay's as well.
The former district judge pointed to entry number 6 made in Mr Khoo's diary on 2 April 2012, saying it is "word-for-word", exactly the same as Mr Bay's entry number 12.
He noted that the words "items seized sealed in the bag by me" were used in both entries, describing the same event.
In the end, Mr Khoo ascertained that he was the one who sealed the bag.
Tey also charged that CPIB officers had used expletives on him and pressured him into making confessions. These were all denied by Mr Khoo.
Towards the last half hour of the morning's proceedings, Tey sprang a surprise during his cross-examination of Mr Khoo.
He showed the witness a receipt of a psychiatric consultation with Dr Tommy Tan, and said Dr Tan will be called to the stand.
This was met with strong objection by lead prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy, who pointed out that Mr Khoo was not in a position to answer questions pertaining to Dr Tan.
He added: "If the defence wishes to call an expert witness, especially one who they have told us they are not calling, they should have at the very least informed us if they had changed their mind and before calling their witness. Bearing in mind he's an expert, they should produce a report so that we can instruct an expert if necessary."
But Tey rebutted - saying that the prosecution had not been willing to disclose information and provide material to the defence.
This prompted Mr Jumabhoy to say: "I resent the suggestion that the prosecution have not complied with its obligations in respect of disclosure.
"We have, from the very outset way back in August 2012, been serving material on this accused. He has been in receipt of the list of witnesses which have been updated, yes, but at each stage that they have been updated, he has been in receipt of that list."
The DPP went on to say that Tey has known the list of prosecution witnesses two weeks before the trial, which he said, "as a matter of law, is more than he (Tey) has a right to expect".
Mr Jumabhoy then said the accused has not been straight with the court.
He said: "It's clear from what has happened that this accused has not been straight with the prosecution and certainly not straight with the court. It rings somewhat hollow for him to be suggesting on 18 January that the decision to call Tommy Tan was taken only after hearing Mr Wilson Khoo's evidence."
In the end, Tey said he would serve the relevant information to the prosecution.
- CNA/xq -
got more drama?
this tey sibei jialat.
should charge him life imprisonment.
-
we need more details on how they goabout with their affairs. u know, the action part
-
wah lao...
quick get mediacorpse to make a drama~~
-
Drama brain-juices time :Anybody feel that everything would be undone for what Tey's did and all the criminals Tey pulled off the streets would be released ?
-
"It's so shameful", says NUS professor Tey
SINGAPORE: The NUS law professor defending himself in the sex-for-grades corruption trial kept saying "it's so shameful" on the day he was picked up by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) last year.
CPIB officer, Mr Michael Oh, told the court on Monday that Tey Tsun Hang, with his head hung low, was sobbing in the interview room on 2 April 2012.
Mr Oh, the prosecution's 9th witness, also gave an account of the events leading to Tey's hospitalisation the same day.
When it was Tey's turn to cross-examine the witness, Tey said he had no questions.
He told the court that 2nd of April was too traumatising and that he did not recognise the witness.
He did the same thing for the prosecution's 10th witness, Mr Raymond Wee, who is also a CPIB officer.
The prosecution's 11th witness, CPIB investigator Thomas Cheo, also gave his account of his interaction with Tey during the investigation.
Tey, 41, faces allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko, in return for giving her better grades between May and July 2010.
- CNA/al