It’s the turn of the CNB guy now and I must say his defence is pretty gutsy. Seems he’s admitting to personal indiscretions but not to corruption. So he had an affair; or several liasons but not with the intention of furthering the interests of the woman’s two employers?
You have to read the second ST story on A6 to get more insight on why the defence chose the defence it did: Hitachi Data had dealings with CNB but through a third party. Oracle had no IT-related dealings at the time when Ng Boon Gay was boss. Plot thickens.
I thought BT’s single story was more complete. It noted that the employers were not “direct vendors” of CNB; there’s a business relationship but through an “intermediary”. It actually got the AGC to confirm this too. Also, it noted that the charges didn’t talk about direct vendors, the way they did for the SCDF chief.
So it seems that the case revolves on the fact that when those trysts took place, she happened to be an employee of companies with a business interest in CNB. I guess that’s why Ng Boon Gay’s lawyers called the charges too general; and wants clarifications on how the couple’s action led to any kind of favoritism shown to her two employers. It seems there’s a gap in the chain of events.
A point about words – I wondered why Hitachi Data, one of the employers, was reported saying in ST that it was not aware that it was the subject of investigations. I looked at the other papers and the phrase was “it was not INFORMED”. I think there is a difference. I can’t believe that the company isn’t aware that SOMETHING is being looked into. But if it hasn’t been INFORMED (by the authorities I guess)….
Another point about words – this time in TNP. It made a point of stating that the charges were about fellatio; not oral sex as for the SCDF guy. Hmmm. Don’t know how significant this is. Or even why it had to be pointed out. A bit risque no? Parents, don’t let your kids read TNP, unless you want to be beside them to do some explaining….