Prosecutors on 22 July 2025 urged Singapore’s High Court to re-examine the acquittal of two senior executives who had been cleared of bribery charges involving a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) official.
The two men — Pay Teow Heng, director of Tiong Seng Contractors, and Pek Lian Guan, chief executive and chairman of the listed company Tiong Seng Holdings — were acquitted in October 2024 of charges linked to the ex-LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye.
Henry Foo, who was at the centre of the scandal, was jailed for five-and-a-half years in September 2021 after being convicted of accepting S$1.24 million in bribes.
According to prosecutors, 57-year-old Pay gave Foo S$350,000 in 2017 and 2018 to advance Tiong Seng’s interests with the LTA. Pek, aged 60, was accused of abetting Pay in these dealings.
However, District Judge Soh Tze Bian cleared both men after finding significant issues with how the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) obtained their statements.
During the trial, the defence highlighted that an investigating officer admitted he had a “preconceived notion” that Pay had committed an offence.
Another officer used what Judge Soh described as a “cut-and-paste method” to compile a statement from Pek.
As a result, the judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecution presses for de novo review
On Tuesday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh led the prosecution’s team in arguing that the acquittals should not stand.
Loh called for Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to undertake a “de novo” review — a Latin term meaning “anew” — which would allow the High Court to consider the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions without deferring to the lower court’s judgment.
Loh asserted that District Judge Soh failed to perform his judicial duty by not engaging with crucial evidence and by adopting the defence’s written submissions wholesale.
In a hearing that lasted more than three hours, Loh argued, “Given the multitude of failures by the district judge, a de novo review is not merely warranted but necessary to correct the course of justice.”
He claimed the judge rejected the prosecution’s case “with a sweeping statement” and failed to address contradictions in the CPIB statements.
Chief Justice Menon acknowledged that it is not inherently improper for a judge to agree with one side’s arguments.
“A judge may agree with submissions put forth by one side or the other,” said Menon, adding that he had himself seen cases where only one side’s arguments were persuasive.
However, Loh maintained that the problem was not agreement but the failure to engage with the prosecution’s points altogether.
“He copied. He did not refer to our points. He did not even refer to the evidence,” Loh said.
Pay’s legal team from WongPartnership was led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, while Pek’s defence was handled by Drew and Napier’s Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull.
Bull argued that the prosecution’s claims were misleading and that lines were selectively omitted to create the impression that the judge did not apply his mind.
Tan added that the judge was entitled not to quote the prosecution if its submissions were “bereft of arguments”.
Allegations of unfair treatment during CPIB probe
Tan also described what he said were improper tactics by the CPIB during Pay’s questioning.
He claimed Pay was told he was a victim and was assisting in prosecuting Foo, not that he was himself under investigation.
“He wasn’t even told or aware that he was under investigation,” said Tan.
Tan said Pay had arrived at the CPIB at 6am and was questioned until 11pm. He then had to stay overnight at CPIB’s premises and continued giving statements the next day.
Tan said this context showed why the lower court judge might have been critical of the statement-taking process.
Chief Justice Menon noted that while copying arguments word-for-word was “a deplorable practice”, it would not automatically justify overturning a judgment.
He stressed that the decisive question was whether the judge had engaged with the evidence before adopting the arguments.
Chief Justice previously rebuked Soh for copying prosecution’s arguments in 2023 case
This is not the first time Judge Soh’s judicial practice has drawn scrutiny.
In September 2023, Chief Justice Menon reprimanded Soh for lifting large portions of the prosecution’s submissions for his grounds of decision in another case.
Judge Soh retired earlier this year.
Chief Justice Menon has reserved judgment on the prosecution’s application for a de novo review.
Given the complexity and the volume of material, he indicated that he may require another hearing before reaching a final decision.
The post Prosecution seeks High Court review of judge’s acquittal of duo linked to high-profile LTA bribery case appeared first on The Online Citizen.
