SINGAPORE — The lawyer of a former Ang Mo Kio Town Council (AMKTC) general manager who is on trial for taking bribes on Thursday (Nov 15) sought to uncover gaps in the prosecution's prime witness’ knowledge of the alleged corrupt dealings.

During the hearing on Thursday, lawyer Melanie Ho — who is representing the accused, Wong Chee Meng — quizzed Mr Tay Eng Chuan on several issues, as she continued her cross-examination of the business partner of company director Chia Sin Lan. 

This included S$20,000 that Chia told him to remit to Wong’s mistress, Ms Xu Hongmei, in China; the mobile phone that Wong used to contact his mistress; and Chia’s son, who worked at AMKTC as a property officer.

It emerged that Mr Tay did not know Ms Xu had returned S$10,000 to Chia. He was not sure if Chia and Ms Xu used the mobile phone on occasions, or if Chia’s son found out about a job opening at AMTKC from Wong.

Wong, 58, is accused of taking bribes of more than S$107,000, mostly from Chia, 62, to advance the business interest of 19-ANC Enterprise and 19-NS2 Enterprise with the town council.

Chia is the director of both companies, which handle general building, repairs and redecoration works for town councils as part of their business.

Mr Tay is a shareholder of 19-NS2, and maintained the cash flow records for the firm.

Earlier this week, Mr Tay testified that in June 2015, Chia got him to remit S$20,000 to Chia’s supplier in China, Mr David Gan, who would pass the sum to Ms Xu for her house renovations.

On Thursday, Mr Tay said that this remittance was “an alternate form of bribery” to him. Ms Ho then asked him whether he thought it constituted bribery if Ms Xu returned part or all of the S$20,000.

Mr Tay replied in Mandarin through a translator: “If she returned the partial or full sum, whether this constitutes bribery, I think this would not be bribery, it’s a loan.”

Ms Ho then asked if he was aware that Ms Xu had returned S$10,000 to Chia on April 28, 2016. Mr Tay said that he did not have a record or impression of this.

The lawyer also questioned him over the mobile phone Wong allegedly used to make calls to Ms Xu in China.

Mr Tay earlier testified that he got his foreman, Mr Ng Fook Meng, to register for the mobile phone line. Mr Ng would pay the monthly bills before claiming the expenses from Mr Tay. He also said that Chia initially told him it was for his personal use, but later revealed that Wong was using it.

Ms Ho asked Mr Tay if he knew that both Wong and Chia used the phone to reach their respective contacts when they were in China, and that Ms Xu also occasionally used the phone when she was in Singapore.

Mr Tay replied that he was not sure.

Ms Ho also asked if he knew Wong had approached some friends to look out for job openings for his daughter-in-law Stella Le Thi Hien. Chia later found work for her at a subcontractor of 19-ANC, before she ended up working at 19-ANC.

At around the same time that Wong sought help for Ms Le, Chia similarly asked Wong whether there were job openings for his son, Ms Ho claimed.

The lawyer asked if Mr Tay knew that Chia’s son was appointed a property officer at AMKTC from August 2015 to end-2016 “through the proper process”, after Wong told him about the job opening.

Mr Tay said he only knew Chia’s son was working as a property officer at the town council when the son began work there.

The trial continues on Friday.