Ask No Questions and We Tell You No Lies
- Julie O'Connor
- May 8
- 8 min read
What compelled me to write this post was an article by a former chairman of a Singapore law firm who has publicly blown the whistle in support of his young son, who, at such a young age, had shown extraordinary courage in doing the same.
The courage demonstrated by this father and his two sons, is rare, and it matters, especially in a country where whistleblowers are as scarce as hen’s teeth. They are an inspiration, and their example should cause some to reflect, whilst putting others to shame.
The father wrote
“Ultimately, the only meaningful tales are told by those who have been in the jaws of the machinery — who have gone through a crucible moment — and who then choose to dedicate their lives to ensuring these injustices do not happen to others. That is the ill-advised courage I have in calling out the bad actors.”
~Extract from "Reputation-as-a-Service: How Law Firms Become Shields for Criminal Enterprises":
I agree entirely, we must continue to tell our personal stories to ensure the truth is brought to light, and that these injustices are not repeated or buried beneath propaganda, like a minefield waiting for its next victim. We cannot allow ourselves to become part of any machinery that enables a cover-up, or creates villains out of those who speak up.
Before I turn to my own experience, one pitfall that whistleblowers should be especially mindful of in Singapore, if you are seen as a risk to the ruling party and smearing the veneer, you could find yourself with a label affixed. And a portion of the population, blindly believe authority and won't ask questions or seek evidence. You will be guilty as labelled.
When I first spoke up publicly around 2016, I was called deluded and worse. The response was predictable: what I described could not possibly happen in Singapore, a country ranked near the top of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. But the clue is in the name, perception. And perception, with the right messaging and enough control over the narrative, can be carefully constructed.
Then other whistles blew...
Iceberg Research wrote articles titled: "How Singapore’s Regulators have failed Noble’s Investors and Shielded the Fraudsters", "Whistleblowers, beware — the SGX doesn’t care", and referred to "Singapore's regulatory shithole".
Michael Dee, a former MD of Temasek Holdings, wrote, "The SGX and MAS have proven themselves incapable and impotent while greed has blinded the vast array of financial intermediaries who have enabled this tragedy," in relation to the Noble fraud.
Lee Hsien Yang, the youngest son of Lee Kuan Yew, alleged abuse of power and pointed to conflicts of interest at the highest levels.
Despite the gaslighting, being labelled deluded, or accused of acting with malice by those with every reason to protect their own interests, I have never questioned my sanity. The evidence was there in black and white; nothing was imagined. And now others were speaking up about regulators, financial institutions, law firms, and conflicts of interest, echoing the very concerns I had raised.
I have told my story more than once over the past decade, but never in full, because as fomer Temasek MD Michael Dee once described the twists and turns, "it reads like something out of a John Grisham novel". I believe that should be left for my book, when I get around to finishing it.
I'm not a journalist, lawyer or even a good writer, just an Australian housewife (and yes, I know that’s an important role too). But when I saw a conspiracy to defraud my husband unfolding, and a plan to deceive investors in an SGX-listed group, I acted. I asked my husband for power of attorney over the shareholding, because I was not going to stand by and let this be hidden, no matter the wealth or power of those who thought intimidation would silence us.
However, never in a million years did I expect where that decision would take me, and what a roller-coaster ride it would be!
My research led me to having to respond to lawyers, researching legal cases, obtaining company files from the Bahamas, sworn statements of alleged fraud from a Singaporean, and engaging a forensic signature and document examiner to assist in identifying alleged forged signatures. After years of research, I then blew the whistle to the Audit Committee Chairpersons of two listed entities within that SGX-listed group. With the evidence I had provided, another party issued a writ on two subsidiaries of the SGX listed group in relation to allegations of forged signatures and the misappropriation of shares.
The tide turned when the authorised representative of the Plaintiff advised me that attempts by the other side to strike the matter out on time barred failed, and they had to file a defence, with no extension even if an appeal was lodged. But just prior to that deadline....I received a message to call the authorised representative of the plaintiff.
He relayed to me that he had received a call from a person whose name didn't register with me at the time, as I was not au fait with Singapore's political scene. I still remember sitting in a meeting in Perth facing a lawyer from one of the most prominent law firms in Singapore, and the Group Legal Counsel of the SGX-listed group, amongst others.
What took place is hard to describe. It felt like a badly scripted bad cop, good cop routine. The lawyer explained to me that if that writ was made public the following week, there would be fireworks in Singapore. From the tone, I don't think he meant the celebratory kind. I told him I was not afraid and willing to attend court as a witness, as I had uncovered the evidence. I then wrote to the person at the centre of my complaint that evening and told him that I would not be intimidated.
The next day, the authorised representative of the Plaintiff advised that he had been offered A$3.5 million to withdraw the writ. A writ which although material in nature, had not been disclosed to the market by the SGX listed group. The authorised representative of the Plaintiff described his meeting and explained that my husband and I could also financially benefit if I provided letters to retract the complaints I had made to DBS, SGX, the Audit Committee, and anyone else I had made complaints to. I also had to agree to hand over all the evidence, which would include the two sworn statements, two DBS letters, and any other evidence I held in soft or hard copy. I was told if we didn't accept this offer, we would have to go alone up against the establishment. At that time, I had no idea who or what the establishment was.
Being overseas and nursing my mum through terminal cancer, I agreed. Albeit I still believe that we should never have been put in that position. But when it became clear that the funds were not to be paid directly to us in Australia and instead were to be paid into a purported charity account in Hong Kong and then directed to us after I had provided the letters of retraction and handed over the evidence, that didn't sit well with me at all. Were company funds being used to pay us off? Was the money trail purposely structured to conceal?
After having been told to instruct the Audit Committee Chairperson to “sit on her hands” and not request independent auditors from the SGX, I then upset the apple cart when I went back to her and asked that she do just that.
What followed was telling. Both Audit Committee Chairpersons would go on to step down, along with several other board members. Apparently, their replacements then took six months to learn, through the conflicted Group Legal Counsel, that my concerns had already been “investigated” and quietly closed. It was as predictable as it was disappointing. None of this was disclosed to the market, either prior or after what once had been a billion-dollar group, collapsed. That didn't surprise me either.
It later became obvious to me what the reference to the establishment was.
The individual I blew the whistle on was not just an influential client of a government-linked bank, he sat on the SGX Listings Advisory Committee. He was a Public Medal recipient and had been a donor to an entity linked to Singapore's ruling party. The head of the law firm representing him, represented the then Prime Minister; and would later become Attorney-General. Another lawyer involved was a PAP MP who would go on to become Minister of Law. The firm’s former head later joined the board of MAS, the banking regulator, alongside the head of the firm that represented the DBS board. The same firm that accused me of acting with malice.
I am not alleging wrongdoing by any of these individuals, aside from the client. But when roles and relationships intersect so extensively, I believe conflicts are inevitable. That alone should have been sufficient to justify an independent investigation of my allegations. Because when the Attorney-General, the Minister for Law, and even the Minister for Home Affairs share professional ties as former colleagues from the same law firm, the question is whether independence can reasonably be assured.
Despite these conflicts, the response has been the same: “insufficient evidence.” And yet, this is evidence someone was paying A$3.5 million to keep hidden rather than subject it to scrutiny in court. This raises the question of what, exactly, would ever be considered sufficient in cases where conflicts are present?
When the only independent Singapore journalist, who is now in exile in Taiwan, is being slapped with POFMAs right left and centre, and forced to take out $11K ads in Singapore's state-sponsored press to correct his allegedly false statements to suit the state's narrative, what hope is there for truth and justice in Singapore?
It’s all well and good for people to shout from the sidelines that Terry Xu needs to be more careful, that he should check his facts. But until you are in the arena, financially constrained, trying to uncover information from an establishment that is not known for transparency, you have no real idea what he is up against. Sometimes the only way to get at the truth is to poke the bear. Afterall, handling uncomfortable questions should not be an inconvenience, but part of the job description for those entrusted with million-dollar roles.
Unless journalists like Terry Xu are supported, protected, and able to give voice to those who cannot speak, I believe the news in Singapore will be shaped not by truth, but by permission, defined by what the establishment wants you to know, not what you need to know. It will be one-sided, where villains are cast, heroes are crowned, and the narrative is carefully managed.
I expected honesty. But if that only appears when another whistleblower dares to speak, what does that say about the system itself? Because when no one is willing to lift the rug, or ask the questions that matter, the ending is already written: No questions to answer, no POFMA required!
Comments