In a social media post dated 11 May 2025, Ho Ching — the former Chief Executive of Temasek Holdings and spouse of former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — defended the involvement of ministers in a series of private dinners that included Fujian-born businessman Su Haijin, who was later convicted of money laundering.
Her comments, shared on Facebook, came in response to public scrutiny of several ministers photographed with Su and other guests at private meals organised by businessman Sam Goi, widely known as the “Popiah King”.
Netizens reacted critically to Ho’s post, questioning the integrity and transparency of the ministers involved, and raising concerns over whether such dinners had been declared as gifts.
Ministers Ong Ye Kung, Chee Hong Tat, and NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng were each photographed at separate dinners with Su between 2020 and 2022.
Su, a Fujian-born Cypriot national, was arrested on 15 August 2023 during a major anti-money laundering operation. He was subsequently convicted and deported to Cambodia on 28 May 2024.
Ho Ching defends dinner attendees, says no one knew of Su’s crimes at the time
In her post, Ho cited Sam Goi’s clarification that the dinners complied with prevailing COVID-19 regulations at the time.
Goi stated that the dinners took place on 19 November 2020, 1 May 2021, and 10 May 2022. He added that he had personally paid for all the meals.
According to Ho, these were not secretive gatherings but dinners held at established restaurants.
She argued that such venues would have ensured compliance with safe distancing measures.
“Dinner with Chee Hong Tat on 19 Nov 2020; Dinner with NCM on 1 May 2021; Dinner with OYK on 10 May 2022,” Ho listed.
She noted that the Labour Day dinner in 2021 fell within the social gathering limit of eight persons, making it legally compliant.
Ho further contended that the attendees likely had no knowledge of Su’s criminal involvement at the time.
“If anyone at the dinner — other than Su Haijin himself — had known about his money laundering activities, surely they would not have invited him, nor attended a dinner involving him, right?”
“Even after someone has been convicted and served their sentence — whether through fines or imprisonment — we should not ostracise them, right?” she added.
Ho asserted that society should extend compassion to convicted individuals who have paid their dues.
“We should always offer someone who has fallen a second chance,” she wrote.
While acknowledging that crimes such as murder or child abuse may be more difficult to forgive, she called for fairness and compassion when dealing with non-violent offences.
“So let’s not act holier than thou over a dinner meeting,” she said.
Ethical concerns about gifts and accountability
However, netizens pushed back strongly against Ho Ching’s defence, with many shifting the debate towards issues of transparency and accountability.
A recurring concern was the lack of clarity over whether the ministers had declared the dinners as gifts — a requirement for political office holders.
One Facebook user argued that while money laundering may not appear as brutal as violent crimes, the proceeds could stem from deeply harmful activities, making it inappropriate to speak of forgiveness without acknowledging the potential victims.
In a further defence, Ho argued that no one — not even banks or property agents — had known about Su’s alleged criminal links before the 2023 crackdown.
“Do we expect our politicians to be clairvoyants too?” she asked.
She listed that Su was accepted by reputable banks, companies, and landlords, none of whom flagged his activities before the arrests.
The FB user further questioned the prudence of ministers attending privately hosted dinners paid for by wealthy businessmen, even if no laws or COVID-19 rules were broken.
He pointed out that lavish dinners can be costly — sometimes more than concert or football match tickets — and should be declared as gifts if not paid for personally.
The user stressed the importance of transparency to guard against potential conflicts of interest or corruption, even when no illegality is apparent.
Another comment added that the issue isn’t whether ministers knew about Su Haijin’s background, but whether they properly declared such expensive dinners, especially since it was claimed that the host had footed the bill.
Netizens question calls for leniency, demand accountability and clarity over dinner links
Some netizens challenged Ho Ching’s post by arguing that money laundering is not just any crime, but one that often supports or stems from serious and despicable criminal activities, making it unfit for calls of leniency.
One comment criticised her for appearing naive and urged her to consult experts to understand the organised and deliberate nature of money laundering syndicates.
Others questioned the relationship between Sam Goi and Su Haijin, and whether the dinners were arranged for benign reasons or driven by undisclosed motives.
Some users highlighted perceived double standards in compassion, questioning why empathy is extended to criminals rather than to hardworking citizens like teachers.
Ministers faced scrutiny over Su Haijin dinner saga
In a statement issued on 9 May, businessman Sam Goi clarified the timeline of private dinners involving himself, Su Haijin, and several Cabinet ministers.
The dinners were held at Tong Le Private Dining in OUE Tower, TungLok Signatures at Orchard Rendezvous Hotel, and Teochew Restaurant Huat Kee in Orange Grove Road.
However, according to The Straits Times, when asked, a spokesperson for Mr Goi declined to explain why Su had been invited to the dinners.
The ministers involved have denied having any personal or professional relationship with Su.
On 6 May, press secretaries for Ong Ye Kung and Chee Hong Tat issued a joint statement explaining that both ministers attended the dinners at the invitation of a friend. The statement reiterated that neither of them knew Su personally.
Ng Chee Meng, who narrowly retained Jalan Kayu SMC in the recent general election, also addressed the issue.
He confirmed his attendance at one of the dinners, stating that it was part of his duty to engage with business leaders as NTUC chief.
Ng added that he had not had any interaction with Su since the latter was charged with money laundering.
The incident has raised questions about the propriety of the ministers’ attendance, particularly as Goi confirmed he had organised and paid for the dinners.
Under Singapore’s Public Service Code of Conduct, any gift or benefit exceeding S$50 must be declared. In addition, the PAP’s 2020 Rules of Prudence advise Members of Parliament to avoid accepting hospitality that could suggest obligation or undue influence.
“Gift hampers on festive occasions, dinners and entertainment, and personal favours big and small are just some of the countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obligated to them,” wrote former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
As of publication, it remains unclear whether the ministers declared the dinners, as required under civil service rules. Media queries were sent to Ong and Chee on 6 May seeking clarification, but no response has been received.
The post Netizens challenge Ho Ching’s defence of ministers’ dinners with Su Haijin, cite integrity concerns appeared first on The Online Citizen.
