Prosecution urges High Court to reopen acquittal of Tiong Seng executives in LTA bribery case

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, former director of Tiong Seng Contractors, and Pek Lian Guan, former chief executive of Tiong Seng Holdings — were acquitted in October 2024 of charges linked to ex-LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye.

Henry Foo, who was at the centre of the corruption scandal, was jailed for five-and-a-half years in September 2021 after being convicted of accepting S$1.24 million in bribes.

Prosecutors alleged that 57-year-old Pay gave Foo S$350,000 in 2017 and 2018 to advance Tiong Seng’s interests with the LTA, while 60-year-old Pek abetted the offences.

District Judge Soh Tze Bian cleared both men after raising concerns about how the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) obtained their statements.

The defence had highlighted that an investigating officer admitted he had a “preconceived notion” that Pay was guilty, while another officer used a “cut-and-paste method” to compile Pek’s statement. Judge Soh ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prosecution presses for full review

Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh led the appeal, calling for Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to conduct a de novo (fresh) review, allowing the High Court to reassess all evidence independently.

Loh argued that the district judge had “failed to perform his judicial duty” by adopting the defence’s submissions wholesale and ignoring crucial prosecution evidence.

“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,” Loh said during the three-hour hearing.

Chief Justice Menon noted that it is not improper for a judge to agree with one side’s submissions, but stressed the key issue was whether the judge had meaningfully engaged with the evidence before doing so.

Loh maintained that Judge Soh “copied without engaging,” adding, “He did not even refer to the evidence.”

Defence rejects claims of misconduct

Pay was represented by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng of WongPartnership, while Pek was defended by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull of Drew & Napier.

Bull said the prosecution had misrepresented facts by selectively omitting lines from the judgment. Tan argued that Judge Soh was entitled to disregard the prosecution’s submissions if they were “bereft of arguments.”

Tan also criticised CPIB’s handling of Pay’s interrogation, alleging that his client was misled into believing he was assisting investigators rather than being under investigation himself.

“He wasn’t even told he was under investigation,” Tan said, describing how Pay was questioned from 6am to 11pm and made to stay overnight before continuing the next day.

Past criticism of Judge Soh

Chief Justice Menon acknowledged that copying arguments word-for-word was “a deplorable practice,” but said it did not automatically invalidate a judgment unless the judge failed to engage with the case facts.

This is not the first time Judge Soh’s methods have faced scrutiny. In September 2023, Chief Justice Menon rebuked him for reproducing large portions of prosecution arguments in another case. Judge Soh has since retired.

Menon has reserved judgment on whether to grant the prosecution’s request for a de novo review, saying he may require another hearing given the complexity of the case.