Connect with us

Current Affairs

警方回应莫汉被移交马国事件 惟仍有疑惑待厘清

Published

on

公民莫汉五年前被移交马来西亚执法机构,经历逾四个月“无妄之灾”。本社在上月17日即已致函相关单位和部门,以核实详情,时隔一月后,警方终于对此事发表声明;警方称逮捕过程符合法律架构,不过,当局的澄清,仍有待进一步厘清。

现年50岁的莫汉(Mohan Rajangam),在2015年被20名警察在其工作地点逮捕,在没有向其家人透露任何下落,以及没有新加坡警察部队或驻马的新加坡高级专员署采取后续行动下,被送到马来西亚滞留了四个月。

在马国获释后,他还必须两度自掏腰包购买返回新加坡的飞机票。当他首次登上飞机回国时,被发现逾期居留,以致被当地移民局扣留、缴交罚款后,不得不再买过一张返国机票。

事实上,如果执法单位能够在事前,再三确认他并没有涉及谋杀案件,或者验证他的护照,证明他在谋杀案发生期间并没有离开新加坡,那么他或许根本不需要经历这个无妄之灾。

然而,新加坡警方作出的澄清,仍有一些问题待厘清。

新加坡警方于1月17日所做出的澄清内容,包括了:

  1. 在2015年1月,当局认定莫汉和马国的帮派成员维持着定期联系。
  2. 马国皇家警察指莫汉涉嫌参与马国帮派毒品行动,及窝藏参与柔佛州枪战的团伙成员后,向新加坡警方寻求协助,当局在2015年3月21日逮捕莫汉。
  3. 当局是以涉嫌毒品行动及帮派有关罪行,将莫汉逮捕。
  4. 当局依据《滥用毒品法》,对莫汉的房子展开搜查行动。
  5. 马国皇家警察部队针对于2015年3月2日在马国槟城发生的谋杀案,取得马国法庭发出的逮捕令。
  6. 根据《刑事程序法》121条,逮捕令需获得推事首肯。
  7. 当局指出,莫汉是被移交给马国皇家警察部队,而并非根据《引渡法》进行,而且警方只是在2015年3月23日将莫汉的监护权移交给马国警察。
  8. 当局指出,莫汉被扣留的时段不超过48小时。
  9. 当局指出,当警方于2015年3月21日搜查莫汉的房子时,莫汉的家属也在现场。
  10. 当局于2015年3月23日将莫汉移交给马国警方时,和莫汉的兄弟联系,并提供了调查官的详细联系资料。
  11. 马国警方调查了谋杀案后,莫汉于2015年7月15日获释。

未否认或进一步澄清的部分

不过,对于以下莫汉曾作出的说法,警方暂未否认或作出进一步澄清:

  1. 莫汉在其工作地点,遭到20余名警员逮捕。
  2. 莫汉曾遭受口头恶待。
  3. 当局在莫汉被拘留期间,并没有在中央肃毒局和私会党取缔组中,发现有关莫汉的记录,在莫汉房子的搜查也一无所获。
  4. 在莫汉被移交给马国警方之前,并未获得寻求律师协助的机会。
  5. 新加坡警方在拘留期间,并没有提供任何陈述。
  6. 莫汉告诉警方和法院,马国槟城谋杀案发生期间,他身在新加坡,他被扣留的护照是最好的证据。

    莫汉展示其护照,并指槟城谋杀案发生期间,他身在新加坡,护照就是最好的证据。

  7. 在将莫汉转交给马国警方之前,当局是否考虑到莫汉的安全?
  8. 莫汉在马国被拘留至获释期间,警方是否做出任何更进或后续行动?
  9. 莫汉被移交给马国警方之后,当局是否告知莫汉家属,他被拘留期间被安置在何处?
  10. 莫汉必须自己购买回国机票。
  11. 莫汉因为在马国逾期滞留,且没有签证而被罚款,而是因为新加坡警方将其监护权交给马国警方,才导致他逾期滞留。
  12. 莫汉被逮捕和扣留了四个月,导致他失去工作。

    莫汉展示他被扣留在马国期间,公司发出的解雇函件。

  13. 在被扣留了四个月后,基于身体状况不佳,莫汉必须进行手术。

    获释后,莫汉身体状况出问题,必须接受手术。

  14. 当局领走、甚至丢失了莫汉的身份证,却要莫汉因为身份证被弄丢而报警立案,莫汉还得自掏腰包更新身份证。

莫汉回应新加坡警方声明

针对新加坡警察部队的声明,莫汉不满地指出:

  1. 当局在逮捕莫汉、将他移交给马国警方并且被扣留期间,都没有告知逮捕原因。
  2. 针对当局表示有联系莫汉兄弟,但是莫汉表示当局说谎,因为莫汉的兄弟当时身在新西兰,该名兄弟也表示没有接到警方的联系。
  3. 莫汉表示,他并没有向当局所说般,出租自己的房子。
  4. 他承认认识一名帮派成员,但是该名帮派成员已经在新加坡工作了30年,是在莫汉当经理期间,认识了这名担任管理员的帮派成员。他也表示,这名帮派成员,只是他所认识的百余名马国员工中的一人。
  5. 莫汉并没有接获谋杀案的调查,却被带到槟城参与一项和他无关的罪案调查。当有人发现他不需要出现在该处后,就将他释放了。
  6. 莫汉表示,他有可能在无人知晓的情况下,在马国死去,只是幸运的,马国友人发现这项错误并将他释放了。

疑点所在

在此事件中,令人倍感困惑的事实,包括了:

  1. 在新加坡警察部队被移交给马国警方之前,据马来西亚新闻报导,马国警方已于3月23日逮捕了槟城谋杀案的嫌疑犯,其中一人更因为被发现持有谋杀武器而认罪。
  2. 新加坡警察部队声称,莫汉是在接受了谋杀案调查后获释,但是槟城警方的正式文件显示,莫汉是因为与其无关的私会党事件被迫接受调查,并且依据马国《内部安全法令》而被扣留在马国长达28天。然而,这并没法解释为何莫汉会被扣留至7月16日。
  3. 当局指莫汉是于7月15日获释,但是莫汉却表示是于7月16日才获得释放。他向网络公民展示了,是在获释当天购买的机票。马国警方也在7月16日归还莫汉的护照。
  4. 莫汉是因为被指涉嫌柔佛州的枪战而被逮捕,后来却因为完全不同的指控,而被转交给马国警方,请问这到底是如何运作的?
  5. 新加坡警方于2015年对驻马新加坡专员署指出,莫汉在槟城被指控,惟事实上,莫汉并没有面对任何指控。

截止今日,并没有任何部长针对上述事项做出回答。

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

on

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending