DPP Paul Chia threatened me in private

[Ng Kai Hoe Raymond]

I was a key defence witness in the case of PP vs Lim Chin Yen. Ms Lim Chin Yen was charged late last year. This trial started late 2007, and is scheduled to end on 20 June 2008. I testified as a defence witness on 24-25 April 2008. This trial has lasted for so long because there are over 23 prosecution witnesses & 2 defence witnesses (1 witness being the accused herself).

On 27 May 2007 2:00pm (before accused was formally charged), I was invited to talk with DPP Paul Chia at the Attorney-General's Chambers's Financial & Securities Offences Office. CAO Chia Siew Joo was also present at the meeting & she was the officer responsible for the invitation. In that fateful meeting, DPP Paul Chia told me things which I deem to be threatening in nature.

He wanted me to provide evidence against the accused. Given that I did not think that she is guilty of anything, I refused to do so as there is no evidence against the accused.

The following is what DPP Paul Chia told me;

DPP Paul Chia, "Mr Yap (accused's husband) & his wife (accused) can hire the best lawyer money can buy, but you cannot. So it is better for you to assist me in my case against them"

Note : At that point of time when this was spoken, I felt that he was telling me that I would be charged if I did not help him. In my mind, I was telling myself that if I were charged, I would defend myself in court.

I seriously never expected to be threatened by DPP Paul Chia. However, I decided to stay true to what I think to be truthful. I felt that I had a duty to my country and I would not allow a threat to lessen the loyalty and duty I have for my country. I told him that I would tell the truth in court.

DPP Paul Chia, "This case cannot be settled peacefully, the 2 of them will definitely be charged"

Note : As this was spoken, I was thinking to myself, "Is this how a law enforcement officer performs his duties? Why is he so personal in the case he handles?". I felt the words "cannot be settled peacefully" a non professional term that should not have been used in a formal discussion with a potential witness (prosecution or defence).

It felt like DPP Paul Chia had a personal vendetta versus Ms Lim Chin Yen.

DPP Paul Chia, "In this case, your name will be mentioned in court, and if there is anything mentioned in court that is detrimental to you, you may be charged. So do you have any facts that you can offer now before you get into trouble?"

Note : Another mention at a potential charge on me to get me to distort evidence & facts in favour of DPP Paul Chia's charge on Ms Lim Chin Yen. I noticed that in the whole conversation, DPP Paul Chia already assumed that the accused was guilty, and assumed that everyone else would agree so.

The context of the whole discussion was really about to get more "evidence" to confirm his suspicion. It was not to investigate on what was the truth. Besides, what was DPP Paul Chia doing? Investigation was not within the job scope of a Deputy Public Prosecutor!

Raymond Ng, "Why are you not recording my statement word for word, but only doing it selectively?"

DPP Paul Chia, "I record whatever I like to record"

Note : He conveniently skipped through my factual descriptions and recorded only the things he deemed important. DPP Paul Chia's response to me was in my opinion gangster like. In my opinion, I was asking a legitimate request, whether my statements were wholly and completely recorded. In return, I got a gangster like response.

Raymond Ng, "Why am I not required to sign and acknowledge any of the statements I made here?"

DPP Paul Chia, "I am a Deputy Public Prosecutor, I am empowered by the state to be able to take oral statements without requiring your acknowledgments. Whatever I say of what you said to me would count in court"

Note : I was really perturbed by this statement. This actually encouraged me to send an email to DPP Paul Chia & CAO Chia Siew Joo to detail the things that were discussed.

I tend to believe that if I were threatened before the trial, I would expect the other prosecution witnesses may have been threatened too.

The fact that there are 23 prosecution witnesses is astounding when you consider that there are only 2 defence witnesses - if you minus off the accused as a witness, there is only 1 defence witness in this case - me.

I was very concerned and worried over this case. If I had succumbed to the threat, the defence would be left with no witness at all! The repurcussions of that would have been astounding - she may be convicted as a result.

The defence counsel of the case, Mr Spencer Gwee, told me in private, "If the accused gets acquited, half of it is due to my testimony as a defence witness". I was not prepared to allow another innocent citizen to take the blame which she was not guilty for.

I have decided to take this public only now because I did not want this to adversely affect the trial. I also never had a chance to present this fact when I was testifying. I did not want to affect the judge's evaluation of my evidence - I do not want to present myself as a vengeful witness. I also do not want anyone to be victimized by such methods as well.

--
Raymond Ng