Untangling Singapore's Web of Conflicts and Cover-ups - The Tan Kheng Yeow Case
In October 2020, charges were brought against two individuals under the Securities and Futures Act and Penal Code: Mr. Tan Kheng Yeow (referred to as Mr. Tan KY) and Mr. Tan Chun Yong (referred to as Mr. Tan CY).
By April 2023, Tan CY had been sentenced to 30 months in jail. However, the status of Tan KY's case remains uncertain.
My inquiry arises from concerns raised that Tan KY may have also been involved in a plan to defraud my family, to manipulate a SGX share price, and deceive investors a couple of years earlier than this latest alleged offence. His earlier alleged transgressions never came to light because subsequently, a well-connected associate of Tan KY, who was a 'client' of Government Linked DBS and politically connected law firm Allen & Gledhill, offered A$3.5M to protect himself and by association Tan KY. The funds were to be routed through a Hong Kong account, in exchange for retracting a writ which implicated the client in a pattern of alleged fraud. This agreement also involved parties surrendering their evidence and withdrawing the complaints which had been made to DBS, SGX, and other entities. I don't know how else to describe it but a cover-up.
Was Tan KY also a Client of Allen & Gledhill and DBS?
Documents including two DBS letters, and an option deed supposedly drafted by the prestigious Singapore law firm Allen & Gledhill were used in the conspiracy to defraud. Notably, at the time, Allen & Gledhill was led by the current Attorney General.
Screenshots below reveal Tan KY's signature on the option deed, witnessed by himself, along with pre-prepared cancellation notices lacking dates and witness signatures. The documents support the claim made that Tan KY never intended to exercise the option deed, and they were part of a plan to defraud, and to manipulate a share price.
A draft DBS letter suggests that someone within DBS knew of the use of Tan KY in the transaction of concern, and had requested a copy of that dodgy option deed.
The current status of Tan KY's case is unclear, as unlike his partner in crime, there is no information provided regarding any legal proceedings against him beyond the initial charges in October 2020. Unless I missed it when sleeping of course.
If Tan KY was indeed a client of DBS and Allen & Gledhill, which are both politically connected entities, it raises questions about their knowledge of his involvement in any potentially fraudulent activities? I believe that DBS and Allen & Gledhill were aware that Tan KY was not going to be the purchaser of Strategic Marine, which raises concerns over the discrepancy between their awareness and their actions. This misalignment alone should warrant further investigation into the roles of staff at each company, and the potential complicity of Tan KY and his associate in a fraudulent scheme, and to mislead investors.
Asian Sentinel
When the editor of Asian Sentinel, a publication now blocked in Singapore, inquired about my claims, the DBS Board enlisted Wong Partnership who would publicly falsely accuse me of acting out of malice, and I believe attempted to intimidate the editor of Asian Sentinel. Despite the current unavailability of this article to Singaporeans, it's crucial to point out that the Managing Partner of Wong Partnership serves on the board of the banking regulator Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), alongside the Attorney General. The Attorney General was not only Head of Allen & Gledhill at the time of the events above, but was also the Prime Minister's legal counsel. The Deputy Prime Minister currently chairs the MAS board.
While the Prime Minister professes zero tolerance for corruption, that no cover-ups are allowed and assures accountability for all, the Singapore Police have declined to investigate my allegations, citing advice from the Attorney General's Chambers. Given the Attorney General's personal conflict of interest and the Second Minister of Law's possible involvement as legal representative of Tan KY's associate at the time, any decision taken by the Attorney General's Chambers or the Singapore Police in determining whether to investigate their former client and Tan KY would be completely inappropriate.
The Prime Minister's Office may not have noted these conflicts of interest when it requested that the Singapore Police REVIEW its earlier ASSESSMENT of insufficient evidence to INVESTIGATE. But of course it is well aware now.
Whether concerns are raised by a foreigner or a Singaporean should be irrelevant. When a bank's legal department can stipulate what subject matter cannot be included in a whistleblower submission, that bank cannot investigate itself.
When two partners in charged of the bank's audit step down after being asked to investigate, the bank cannot investigate itself.
When the bank's board appoints a law firm whose managing partner sits on the board of the banking regulator, the banking regulator cannot investigate.
Upholding integrity within institutions is crucial for societal trust and stability, as we have seen recently in the case involving the UK Post Office. Individuals with the courage to stand up against wrongdoing play a vital role in maintaining accountability and transparency.
It's essential for Singapore's ruling party not to just talk about, but to demonstrate a commitment to investigating allegations of conflicts and fraud thoroughly and transparently to uphold the integrity of the system and regain public trust if it's been compromised. Whether it will or not is a matter for PM Lee Hsien Loong and his party to determine. If they condone conflicts and institutional cover-ups which will ultimately lead to a two-tier legal and justice system, then all decisions taken will become questionable!
