My Exchange Banner

create your own banner at mybannermaker.com!
Copy this code to your website to display this banner!

Outright online bookkeeping for just $9.99 / mo!

Monday, October 1, 2012

AdilanClub: If we had sex, it would have been rape

Sulaiman Kamal | 1:54 PM | | Best Blogger Tips

Do You Like This Story?

AdilanClub:Breaking news, is the best for news

She told the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) last year about her sexual tryst with ex-Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) director Ng Boon Gay at a Great World City apartment.

But the woman at the centre of Singapore's biggest sex-corruption case involving a top civil servant insisted in court on Thursday that they never had sex.

Ms Cecilia Sue Siew Nang, 36, the star witness in the sex-for-contracts case against Ng, said he had tried to force himself on her in the apartment.

But she had fought him off and they did not have sex, because if they had, "it would have been rape".

>Link Info : General Issues - Sex-For-Contracts
Quality advertising. Big traffic. Increase sales. Promote your website. Advertise your product to shoppers.

Ng faces four counts of corruptly obtaining oral sex from Ms Sue, then a senior sales manager at Oracle Corporation Singapore, between July and December last year.

In a case that has gripped the nation, Ms Sue took the witness stand on Wednesday and gave graphic details of how Ng forced her to give him oral sex in a car at different carparks on four occasions.

Continuing her testimony on Thursday, the married mother of one said the fifth assault at Great World City happened in 2009 and that Ng was naked at the time.

But Ng's lawyer, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, shot down her claims, saying that she had earlier told the authorities they had consensual sex and she had also sent Ng intimate text messages.

Just friends?

So which story is true?

Ms Sue has always maintained that she never had sex with Ng and that they were just friends.

But on Thursday, Mr Tan sought to punch holes in her testimony.

He pointed out that based on telephone records between Ms Sue and Ng, they were more than just friends.

Ms Sue had claimed she was disgusted when Ng had forced her to perform oral sex on him for the fourth and last time on Dec 9 last year at a carpark at the Singapore General Hospital.

Yet five days after that alleged attack, Mr Tan said Ms Sue had sent a WhatsApp message to Ng which read: "Sad, sad, can we turn back the clock?"

Said Mr Tan: "You were disgusted, yet you want to turn back the clock."

The lawyer then told the packed courtroom, with all 32 seats in the gallery occupied, that Ng's response to her message was: "Back to the Great World City time."

Mr Tan asked Ms Sue what had happened at Great World City.

She said they were supposed to meet for coffee at Great World City when Ng took her up to a serviced apartment, which he had rented for his mother.

In the apartment, Ng had forced himself on her, Ms Sue told the court.

"He hugged me from behind. I tried to break free. I was very shocked at the time," she said.

"I tried to hit on some of the chairs, thinking they would break. Everything happened so fast and I just wanted to get out of the place.

"I was shocked to see that he was undressing himself. And that's when I quickly ran off."

Mr Tan asked her twice if they had sexual intercourse.

Her reply each time was: "No."

She added: "If it had been, it would have been rape."

Mr Tan then highlighted the discrepancies between what she had just told the court and in her first statement to CPIB on Dec 20 last year about the incident.

In her statement, she said that Ng had taken her to the serviced apartment, where he hugged and kissed her and began undressing himself.

"We ended up in the bedroom. I was still clothed while Boon Gay was naked on the bed," she added in her statement.

Ms Sue said that they then had sex on the bed, adding: "But it was very fast, he did not ejaculate into me."

She said she performed oral sex on Ng as he lay on the bed, and went to the bathroom to clean up.

Ms Sue told the court that she had not been truthful in her statement to CPIB.

Addressing District Judge Siva Shanmugam, she said: "Your Honour, I admit that was the first time I was brought into CPIB for interview.

"I was confused and so tired because I had no sleep. I didn't know what they asked there, and I just wanted to get over it, not to implicate anybody, even myself."

Ms Sue said it was only after some thought that she realised she had to clarify her situation with Ng and be truthful.

She said that was why there were discrepancies in her statement.

She told the court: "And what I say today is the truth, nothing but the whole truth."

Mr Tan noted that Ms Sue had given eight other statements to CPIB after that, spending 38 hours in all for the nine statements.

He asked if she had at any time clarified the Great World City incident.

Ms Sue said: "It wasn't mentioned. (Officers) didn't ask, so no clarification."

As was the case on Wednesday, she broke down several times while addressing the court.

Mr Tan also took issue with her testimony that day, when she had graphically described how Ng had forced her head down to his crotch on four occasions to make her perform oral sex on him.

Yet Ms Sue had sent Ng intimate text messages days after the alleged attacks, Mr Tan said on Thursday.

He asked Ms Sue if she recognised the number that she had texted to.

She said she would not know unless she actually dialled it.

But Mr Tan said it was the number she had been calling "ever so often" between 2009 and 2011.

One of those messages read: "Do you DIY?"

DIY, typo?

Ms Sue said it was a typo error.

This led to a long exchange as Mr Tan tried to probe her as to what she had meant.

Ms Sue then said: "I know of this Home Fix store, it's a DIY store."

Mr Tan: "Is that what you mean when you ask someone Do you DIY? Do you do it yourself, Home Fix store?"

Ms Sue: "Your Honour, I've already said it's a typo error."

Mr Tan: "Let's go to another message."

Another SMS from Ms Sue to Ng, at 1am, read: "I could have spent three hours with you. We had fun."

Yet another SMS read: "She's home?"

Mr Tan asked Ms Sue who was the "she" she was referring to.

She replied: "I don't know."

This drew guffaws from the gallery.

Mr Tan asked: "Are you feigning ignorance?"

Ms Sue said she could not remember and added: "She could be the wife, or something."

Mr Tan asked: "Why does it concern you whether a friend's wife is at home at 1am?"

She replied: "Precisely, I don't know. Sometimes you send it too fast, and you send it to the wrong person."

On Wednesday, Ms Sue said that Ng had forced her to perform oral sex on him on Dec 2 last year, in a carpark at Mount Faber.

Yesterday, Mr Tan noted that three days later, on Dec 5, she had texted Ng: "M u".

What does that mean, he asked?

She said: "In my context? 'Miss you'."

Mr Tan read the rest of the message: "Miss you. You ignored me. How, how, how?"

He added: "Ms Sue, from the SMSes that you sent, it's more than just (a) normal relationship."

He stressed to the court that Dec 5 was important as she had made claims about being attacked by Ng on Dec 2.

Mr Tan added: "And this is a lady who misses her alleged abuser."

Ms Sue asked Mr Tan if he knew what she was going through.

He said: "So, after the alleged incident when you were forced to give oral sex, you send an SMS, 'Miss you'."

Mr Tan wasn't done. He highlighted how on Dec 6, Ms Sue had texted Ng: "With her?"

He asked who "her" was.

Ms Sue said it was the wife.

The trial continues on Friday, with Ms Sue continuing her testimony.

If convicted, Ng can be fined up to $100,000 or jailed up to five years on each charge.


Post a Comment

Recent Comments

Blogger Gadgets