Jail for man who conspired with another to bribe MOH agency employee with $18k Paris trip
Chiang Chee Seng was sentenced to 11 weeks' jail on July 21 after he pleaded guilty to a graft charge.
SINGAPORE – Two senior executives of different telecommunication firms
worked together to give a bribe in the form of a Paris trip worth more than $18,000 to an employee of an agency under the Ministry of Health (MOH).
Court documents stated that Chiang Chee Seng, 50, was a senior sales director at Nera Telecommunications when he conspired with Peng Ming, 39, then an account director at Huawei International.
Deputy public prosecutors Eugene Phua and Andre Ong told the court that the pair worked together to bribe Ng Kah Siang, 37, who was then an engineer at Integrated Health Information Systems (IHiS), a wholly owned subsidiary of MOH Holdings.
The DPPs also said that Chiang and Peng committed the offence to advance the business interests of Huawei and Nera with IHiS, now known as Synapxe.
Chiang was sentenced to 11 weeks' jail on July 21 after he pleaded guilty to a graft charge.
The cases involving Peng and Ng, also known as Ronnie, are still pending. All three men are Singaporeans.
The DPPs said that Chiang, who was an account manager in Huawei between July 2016 and October 2018, worked with Peng to introduce Huawei to public healthcare institutions in Singapore.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore 2 workers stranded on gondola dangling outside Raffles City Tower rescued by SCDF
Business Why Singapore and its businesses stand to lose with US tariffs on the region
Business $1.1 billion allocated to three fund managers to boost Singapore stock market: MAS
Singapore Medallions with Singapore Botanic Gardens' iconic landmarks launched to mark milestone-filled year
Life WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim to publish memoir with Epigram Books in 2027
Singapore Proof & Company Spirits closes Singapore distribution business
Singapore Jail, caning for man who held metal rod to cashier's neck in failed robbery attempt
Singapore Fresh charge for woman who harassed nurse during pandemic, created ruckus at lion dance competition
Chiang later moved to Nera but continued to work closely with Peng to secure projects from IHiS and other public healthcare institutions.
In November 2021, Peng found out that IHiS was going to renew a contract linked to a term deal in early 2022 via an open tender.
The deal would allow the public healthcare institutions the option to buy IT equipment and solutions from approved vendors.
The DPPs told the court that the average annual procurement from two earlier contracts was valued at around $22 million in 2020 and 2021.
Ng, as the IHiS project manager in charge of the term deal, was involved in drafting tender specifications.
Peng got to know Ng in November 2021 and offered Ng a visit to Huawei's lab in Singapore to better understand the company's capabilities.
The prosecutors said: 'Ronnie (Ng) instead requested Peng to sponsor him and his wife... an overseas trip in Europe, where Huawei has presence.
'Initially, Ronnie had asked to go to Rome, Italy, but changed his mind to Paris, France. Peng agreed to accommodate Ronnie's request.'
Around this time, Peng introduced Ng to Chiang, who said he wanted to accompany the two men on the Europe trip as he wanted to increase Nera's chances of being a Huawei distributor to win the term deal.
The Paris trip in March 2022 involved nine people, including the three men and their loved ones.
According to court documents, Peng and Chiang did not wish to personally bear the cost of Ng and his wife's travel expenses.
The two men then agreed to falsely declare in a business trip proposal submitted to their respective companies that Ng's wife was an IHiS employee, when she was not, said the DPPs.
The prosecutors added: 'Two months after the Paris trip and just before the tender specifications for the term deal was due to be published, Chiang and Peng received confidential tender documents on the morning of May 10, 2022, which they knew would stand them in a better stead to win the term deal.'
The court papers did not disclose how the offence came to light but the DPPs said that the offenders 'were stopped in their tracks' when the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) arrested all three men the next day, on May 11 that year.
The court heard that Ng surrendered $10,000 to the CPIB on May 14, 2022.
On July 21, defence lawyer Noelle Teoh pleaded for Chiang to be given between six and eight weeks' jail, saying: 'He is acutely aware that a momentary lapse in judgment had placed both his own future and that of his family in jeopardy.'
The lawyer from Gloria James-Civetta & Co law firm added that her client had suffered from months of insomnia and frequent emotional breakdowns.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
The Chic Home: Mother-daughter apartment in Meyer Road
Find out what's new on ST website and app. SINGAPORE – Ms Lynn Ng chose Mr Dennis Cheok, founder and creative director of UPSTRS_, to design her home after many months of following the local firm's work. Ms Ng, who works in finance and did not give her age, lives in an 883 sq ft two-bedroom condominium in Meyer Road. She shares the home with her daughter Tessa Liew, a 24-year-old law graduate. 'I wanted a separate and standalone walk-in closet, which I do not mind sharing with Tessa. I also wanted Dennis to work with a new sofa I had acquired,' says Ms Ng. The home's size and layout were challenging to work around, but proved to be opportunities in disguise for Mr Cheok. For one thing, the private lift lobby was small, dark and claustrophobic, and did not have enough space for the owner's shoes. The designer replaced the foyer's solid timber door with a slatted timber screen. PHOTO: WONG WEILIANG To resolve this, Mr Cheok built full-height concealed shoe closets along two walls of the foyer. By removing the solid timber door separating the foyer from the rest of the home and replacing it with a slatted timber sliding screen, daylight from the living area can filter through to the vestibule without sacrificing privacy. The living and dining areas are the social spaces that form the heart of the home. Taking pride of place is a Gallotti&Radice Audrey Sofa from Singapore retailer Marquis QSquare. The sofa's gentle arc echoes the curved profile of the balcony beside the living area. The home owner requested a round dining table to encourage connection and conversation. PHOTO: WONG WEILIANG Ms Ng requested a round dining table to encourage connection and conversation. Suspended overhead is a pendant lamp from IIII, with a twisted LED profile covered with semi-transparent fabric for a moire effect. The living and dining areas are her favourite hangouts in the home. These are also where her friends gather when they come over. This was part of Mr Cheok's design intent, he says. 'We planned the living and dining spaces to be open and seamless to encourage an uninterrupted and organic flow. A small group of friends can gather and shift between the living area and dining table, while a larger group can fill this space and engage in conversations across both spaces unobstructed.' Along the walkway leading to the two bedrooms, a row of half-windows lines one wall. This custom-designed brise soleil lets natural light into the previously dark corridor. Detailing it as a casement window allows the screen to swing open for service access to the air-conditioner ledge. Custom-designed half-windows let natural light into a dark corridor. PHOTO: WONG WEILIANG After exploring various iterations of the layout, Ms Ng and Mr Cheok agreed on a galley-style walk-in wardrobe that connects the two bedrooms. Ms Liew's bed is elevated on a platform, with a desk at the corner that overlooks the neighbourhood. Decked out in a similar light wood palette is her mother's bedroom, designed as a cosy and restful retreat. The owner's bedroom is decked out in a light wood palette. PHOTO: WONG WEILIANG The design and construction took three to four months, while the renovations took another four and cost about $200,000. Mother and daughter moved into their renovated home in July 2024.
New Paper
4 hours ago
- New Paper
'Should CDC vouchers be per pax or per household?': Scheme sparks debate on fairness
A new batch of Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers was rolled out in May, with Singaporean households receiving an additional $500 to help with daily expenses. But public response to the long-running scheme has been mixed, sparking renewed debate online over whether its distribution model is fair and effective. While many households welcomed the payouts amid rising costs, others argued that the current system, which allocates vouchers per household, disadvantages larger families. A Reddit post by Dizzy_Boysenberry499 in May titled "Opinion: CDC vouchers should be per pax and not per household" quickly gained traction on r/singapore, garnering over 1,400 upvotes and more than 300 comments. This was before the announcement that the one-off SG60 vouchers - meant to recognise all Singaporeans' contributions in the nation's 60th year of independence - would be given to individuals in July. These vouchers are also usable at all CDC voucher-accepting merchants. Netizens express scepticism "Imagine if a household has 5 people living in one address. This household is taking up less 'space' and yet they are being 'punished' because they get less voucher support per capita," wrote Dizzy_Boysenberry499. Redditor Auph agreed: "We vote as individuals, not by households. CDC vouchers should also be given to individuals, not by households. It doesn't make sense when $500 is shared among five house members vs $500 shared by a married couple." Some users went further, suggesting that wealthier households should receive less, and that financial assistance should be more targeted. "People that are doing well actually don't need it as much as the less well off," commented Redditor Ok_Set4063. Netizen CommieBird agreed: "This can't be emphasised enough. I'm okay with the principle of distributing vouchers and GST relief to those who need it the most. "Eventually the tax revenue has to come from somewhere, and the government shouldn't be building a society reliant on handouts." Questions were also raised about the long-term sustainability of the scheme. Some view it as a symptomatic response to the larger issue of rising costs of living, without actively preventing costs from skyrocketing further. Netizen ZaroPauper asked: "How sustainable is this voucher handout scheme that's touted to be a long-term plan?" "These vouchers are a band aid and lack proper targeting mechanisms," added Redditor ceddya. "No one's saying we should rush it, but I don't see why we can't have more discussion around other ways, like wealth taxes or making our income tax more progressive, to address the funding gap." Responsive measures are timely and effective Others, however, had a more positive take. Some defended the payouts as timely support that helps alleviate immediate pressure from inflation and strengthens local businesses. One user, InspiroHymm, suggested that the CDC vouchers are in fact a long-term measure to curb cost of living, by funnelling more money into the economy. "People always say 'do something permanent about cost of living'. In modern economics the only permanent measure is economic (GDP) growth, which boosts wage growth." "There is value in using band aids, especially when the source of the wound is by and large out of your control," quipped Reddit user vecspace. Government's decisions are for the benefit of Singaporeans In a press release issued on April 15, the Ministry of Finance announced that each household will receive $800 in CDC vouchers in FY2025 - $500 in May and $300 in January 2026 - on top of the $300 disbursed in January 2025. At the scheme's launch event in May, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was committed to helping Singaporeans cope with rising costs. He also addressed concerns about sustainability and such financial assistance as temporary measures. "I assure all of you that this is not a one-off exercise. The Government will provide the help for as long as it is needed. "We want to make sure that when we spend more, we are doing it for the benefit of Singaporeans, but the spending is also sustainable over the medium to longer term."
CNA
7 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: As cyber threats grow, Singapore walks a careful line on identifying state actors
SINGAPORE: The recent disclosure that a cyber threat group, identified as UNC3886, was attacking critical infrastructure in Singapore took many by surprise. The announcement was made by Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam during a speech at the 10th anniversary of the country's Cyber Security Agency (CSA) last Friday (Jul 18). He warned that Singapore was actively dealing with a "highly sophisticated threat actor" capable of conducting espionage and 'major disruption to Singapore and Singaporeans'. UNC3886 has been described by Google-owned cybersecurity company Mandiant as a group with a China nexus. Understandably, the Chinese embassy in Singapore was dissatisfied that UNC3886 was described as being linked to China. One question that may intrigue readers more was why the minister did not link UNC3886 to a particular country. Was this a perfunctory attempt to publicly attribute a cyber threat, or was it a policy decision by Singapore based on careful strategic calculations? In his announcement, it was apparent that Mr Shanmugam deliberately focused on only naming the threat group, rather than directly pointing to any country. When he was asked the following day about UNC3886's alleged links to China, he said this was "speculative". "What Mandiant does is what Mandiant does ... Who they (UNC3886) are linked to and how they operate is not something I want to go into," he said. TECHNICAL VS POLITICAL ATTRIBUTION Past cases suggest that when it comes to cyberattacks, Singapore prefers technical attribution over political attribution. The former is based on forensic evidence of tactics, while the latter is based on intelligence to name and shame a country. Without direct state attribution, it is often the media and analysts who examine potential links and broader implications as part of their reporting and analysis. For example, when Singapore telecommunications company Singtel disclosed a malware attack in November 2024, it was a Bloomberg report that attributed it to Volt Typhoon, a group allegedly sponsored by China. Similarly, when Singapore blocked roughly 100 social media accounts for circulating disinformation in July 2024, including those linked to a right-wing group created by former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon, it made no mention of the United States. During peacetime, technical attribution offers a more pragmatic way to deter cyber threats. Cyberspace is a complex environment, and non-state threat groups, which may or may not act on the behest of a state, are the dominant actors there. This method allows authorities to expose threat groups without directly shaming the country from which they may be operating. Arguably, not shaming the country where the threat group operates from could risk emboldening future attacks and invite scrutiny from security partners who expect transparency. More importantly, it may make public education about the seriousness of cyber threats more challenging. The public may not understand the full context, for example, of the motivation or geopolitical implications of an attack. WHY NAMING WITHOUT SHAMING While Singapore avoids attributing cyber threats to specific states, naming and shaming is the preferred approach for many Western countries and some of their Asian allies, particularly those that view China as a preeminent threat. For countries not directly involved in adversarial relations or those that pursue a foreign policy of non-alignment, it may be more prudent to deter cyber threats without exacerbating geopolitical animosity. The cost of escalation may be too high a risk to bear. Moreover, it remains debatable whether naming and shaming helps to curb cyber threats in a meaningful way. In Singapore's context, there could also be other plausible strategic considerations. First, Singapore is a cosmopolitan country made up of locally born citizens, naturalised citizens and foreigners. Social cohesion is the glue that keeps its people together and maintains communal harmony. Publicly identifying another country as a threat carries the risk of fuelling racism and xenophobia, including Sinophobia. For example, in 2021, the fear that the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) posed a threat to the livelihood of citizens raised the ugly head of xenophobia. Second, there is an observable trend in which Western cybersecurity companies often attribute cyber threat groups to China following incidents involving Western digital networks. Even if there is forensic evidence to link these groups to China, these companies often hold contracts with the US government, creating both commercial and political incentives to focus blame on China. If Singapore is seen as endorsing these companies' attributions, it risks making the impression that Singapore has shifted its foreign policy of non-alignment and is siding with the US in the strategic rivalry with China, which involves cyber contestation. Third, while Singapore and China may have differing views on certain issues, both countries at the political level are keen to deepen their bilateral relations. During an official visit to Beijing in September 2024, Singapore Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan described Singapore-China relations as a 'very bright spot' in a more volatile and less predictable world. Such a world is even less black and white, and similar to dealing with the US tariff threat, countries must find a balance between resisting compulsion and promoting cooperation. It is prudent not to let one issue define the overall state of bilateral relations. Furthermore, Singapore is a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and China is a dialogue partner of ASEAN. One essential area where ASEAN and China are cooperating is the signing of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) 3.0 in October 2025, aimed at building economic resilience. ASEAN countries, therefore, need to consider both national and regional interests. In the same vein, the overall state of bilateral relations - as well as factors such as motivation, attack impact and international law - would determine how Singapore responds to cyber threats originating from other countries. The world is witnessing a growing militarisation of cyberspace where countries in the West, Middle East and Asia are developing military cyber capabilities. Some may be more willing to conduct offensive cyber operations if their interests with Singapore diverge. WHEN NAMING MIGHT BE NECESSARY However, these considerations do not necessarily preclude non-aligned countries like Singapore from naming and shaming any country as a cyber threat actor should the situation justify it. A careful examination of what constitutes Singapore's most vital national interests may provide insight into how and when such a shift in posture might occur. Plausible scenarios could include external military threats operating in both physical and cyberspace domains, as well as a cyberattack that is not for espionage purposes but creates a disruptive impact that endangers the lives of people in Singapore. For example, imagine a scenario where Singapore faces military coercion and concurrently a cyberattack by a state-linked threat actor that shuts down the digital infrastructure and electrical systems of hospitals nationwide, resulting in deaths. These are extreme scenarios that, hopefully, Singapore will never have to deal with but must prepare for in the unlikely event that they occur.
