SINGAPORE — Touted as the star witness in the sex-for-contracts trial, Ms Cecilia Sue Siew Nang provided “two contrasting versions of facts”, which meant one had to contain “untruths”, a judge said yesterday.

“Effectively, she has been untruthful to both the court and the law enforcement agency,” District Judge Siva Shanmugam added, as he ruled that it would be “unsafe” to accept any part of Ms Sue’s oral testimony on any contentious matter which was not independently corroborated by other evidence.

Former Central Narcotics Bureau Director Ng Boon Gay, 46, was yesterday acquitted of four corruption charges of allegedly obtaining oral sex from Ms Sue in exchange for helping to further the business interests of her employers.

Devoting almost a third of his 31-page oral judgment to Ms Sue’s evidence, the judge found her explanations for the numerous material discrepancies to be “unconvincing”.

For example, Ms Sue testified in court that she never had a sexual relationship with Mr Ng and that the four occasions of oral sex were forced on her by Mr Ng. But Ms Sue had told the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) that the cases of oral sex were in the context of a sexual relationship.

Ms Sue then explained that at the time she gave her statements to the CPIB, she was tired, stressed and frightened during the interviews.

“I found Ms Sue’s explanations for the discrepancies touching on the relationship to be inadequate,” the judge said. “She had provided graphic details of the sexual encounters she had with the accused in her statements.

“Her claims that she was tired, stressed and frightened, even if true, would not satisfactorily account for the wide divergence in her evidence.”

And if Ms Sue’s post-CPIB statements were to be believed, it would “render a picture” of Mr Ng “being a bully” who forced Ms Sue to repeatedly perform fellatio against her will, the judge said.

But he noted that Ms Sue had messaged Mr Ng “M u”, which she explained meant “miss you”, three days after Mr Ng had purportedly forced her to perform oral sex.

“Evidence of exchange of numerous other messages and the regular late night phone conversations between them would suggest an existing relationship leading to the irresistible inference that the accused (Mr Ng) could not have forced himself on Ms Sue,” said the judge.

Although the prosecution attempted to mitigate Ms Sue’s denial of a relationship over concerns for her marriage, the judge felt that this was “indicative of a disturbing propensity on Ms Sue’s part to be untruthful when her own interests are called into question”.

Under the Penal Code, anyone who intentionally gives false evidence at any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used at any stage of a judicial proceeding can be jailed up to seven years and fined.

Asked whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers will be taking action against Ms Sue, a spokesperson said: “The prosecution will study the District Judge’s grounds of decision and assess what the appropriate next course of action should be.”