While we suffered significant financial losses due to the fraud, our situation was arguably less dire than that of individuals who may still be in the dark about the deceitful schemes targeting them. The forewarning we had gave us the opportunity to compile the evidence we now hold, casting doubt on the efficacy of Singapore’s oversight and legal bodies, and raising concerns about the veracity of assurances from those at the pinnacle of Singapore’s power structure.
A close friend and former colleague came forward to alert us to a fraudulent scheme aimed at defrauding us, deceiving investors and manipulating stock prices in Singapore. This individual, once a trusted ally, later admitted that in exchange for his complicity in supporting a dubious acquisition, he was offered a significant salary increase of up to 50% and the forgiveness of a shareholder loan surpassing $300,000, despite his awareness of the fraudulent tactics employed against us. Additionally, the authorised representative of a plaintiff aiding us in uncovering the truth was tempted with A$3,500,000 to withdraw his legal claim, which accused a client of the ex-law firm led by the Attorney General, of forgery. Whether similar incentives or threats were employed to gain the cooperation of others, and hinder investigations in Singapore is yet to be determined and might be a contributing factor to the reluctance of the Singaporean authorities to conduct an investigation.
Such disclosures should call for a thorough scrutiny of charges that may be, or have been made against individuals who could potentially damage the image of Singapore’s leadership or those linked to the power structure. This includes figures like Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Suet Fern, Li Shengwu, Lim Tean, Terry Xu and others. It is crucial to entertain the possibility that such allegations, or the evidence presented to either convict or exonerate certain individuals, may be motivated solely by financial incentives or coercion.
The troubling experiences my family has endured at the hands of influential Singaporean figures are not singular, and regrettably, we may not be the last to face such predicaments. I continue to share our ordeal as a cautionary account for those contemplating business or investment endeavors in Singapore. The hazards involve not only the potential swindlers but also the authoritative powers that may harbor them, potentially leaving you defenseless and without recourse."
The presence of untrustworthy individuals is not unique to any one society; however, it is particularly disconcerting when a government, avowedly committed to eradicating corruption, obfuscation, and legal immunity, appears to fall short of these proclaimed ideals.