Navigating conflicts of interest within Singapore's power circles is like manoeuvring through a minefield. The erosion of public trust seen in recent years appears to stem from the perception that no one—except perhaps God, who, let's face it, isn't exactly scrutinizing Singapore’s elite—truly remains independent enough to handle cases involving the country’s leadership or well-connected elites. History reveals that conflicts of interest often lie at the heart of scandals, and in Singapore, these conflicts likely breed more distrust than the supposed falsehoods POFMA was designed to address.
Regarding the infamous POFMA, among the many who shared the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) post on August 6, 2024, my LinkedIn share, with just one like, was singled out as the poster child for the POFMA Direction. TJC authored the article I shared, and I had no reason to doubt its accuracy—after all, it's their area of expertise. Yet, TJC was pressured by a POFMA Direction into declaring their post contained false statements, despite their belief otherwise, just to avoid legal trouble. Now, TJC has issued a rebuttal reaffirming their original article. This, in my view, is why POFMA is losing credibility—forcing people to admit guilt under legal threat is like expecting Parti Liyani to publicly confess to theft before trial, despite as we now know, the evidence proving otherwise.
But perhaps this latest POFMA, coupled with the grand unveiling of my new media title, "self-styled whistleblower," and DBS lawyers falsely accusing me of acting with malice, was all designed to discredit me and cast doubt on the whistles I’ve blown about non-disclosures, misleading disclosures, hush money, forgery allegations, impotent regulators, and conflicted lawyers and financial institutions, among other things.
But I'm not breaking new ground as a so-called whistleblower being discredited. This has been a familiar playbook in the lead up to other Singapore scandals, which have included but are not limited to:
City Harvest Church $50M Scandal
The City Harvest Church whistleblower Roland Poon fought for over a decade and was forced at great expense into a public apology.
Noble Group Fraud
Arnaud Vagner of Iceberg Research was the whistleblower in the Noble Group fraud, who inspired the headlines, “Whistleblowers, beware — the SGX doesn’t care”
Lee Hsien Yang Allegations of Abuse of Power
In my opinion, Lee Hsien Yang became one of the most prominent whistleblowers after he publicly alleged abuse of power and conflicts of interest within Singapore’s upper echelons. But what followed was arguably not a transparent, independent investigation, but an assault not just on his credibility, but also on that of his wife, Lee Suet Fern, and his son, Li Shengwu.
Lee Suet Fern
Lee Suet Fern’s reputation was dragged through the mud, despite no apparent concerns being raised at Probate by either Lee Hsien Loong or his then-lawyer, Lucien Wong in relation to the involvement or purported actions of Lee Suet Fern. A leading Queen’s Counsel would declare it “legally unsound” and a “serious error” for the Court of Three Judges to find Lee Suet Fern guilty of professional misconduct. And Singapore's top chancery lawyer, TPB Menon, described as an honest man and a man of integrity by Tommy Koh, wrote scathing criticism of the judgement of the Court of Three Judges in his memoirs.
Li Shengwu
Then while the Law Minister stated that he "cannot see how putting up a Facebook post poses a real risk of prejudicing proceedings, unless you're the Prime Minister with a million followers and everybody reads what you say," Li Shengwu was pursued to the US by the AGC for years over a comment made in a private Facebook post to friends—despite similar sentiments having been repeatedly published by Freedom House, which stated "The government’s consistent success in court cases that have direct implications for its agenda has cast serious doubt on judicial independence. The problem is particularly evident in defamation cases and lawsuits against government opponents."
Parti Liyani
Indonesian maid Parti Liyani could have exposed her well-connected, elite former employers for violating Ministry of Manpower rules. But they struck first, building a case against her on flimsy, false evidence, accusing Parti of theft. Initially convicted and sentenced to jail, Parti fought a four-year battle for justice. In his judgment, Justice Chan Seng Onn noted that there was "reason to believe" the Liew family took a "pre-emptive first step" by suddenly terminating her employment, hoping she wouldn't have time to report them. He also declared the convictions were “unsafe” due to the presence of an “improper motive.”
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
The newest candidate for the whistleblower-turned-scapegoat club seems to be Kenneth Jeyaretnam, who dared to expose the conflicts of interest in the Ridout rentals saga. And at the rate things are going, he might soon join the growing list of prominent Singaporeans exiled for raising their heads!
Conflicts of interest within the upper echelons are a significant concern, as evidenced by the backlash over appointing the former Prime Minister’s personal lawyer as Attorney General (AG), despite his involvement in the Oxley saga and Lee Kuan Yew’s Will. Such decisions, including the appointment of the former Deputy AG, have only deepened public skepticism about the AGC’s ability to act independently when the Government or the Prime Minister has a stake in the outcome. The public outrage over the naming and shaming of Lee Hsien Yang and his wife in Parliament, with accusations of absconding, further underscores how these conflicts resonate with the public. It’s no secret that Lee Hsien Yang accused his estranged brother, the then Prime Minister, of abuse of power. Adding to the concern is the fact that the majority in Parliament are subordinates of the former Prime Minister.
Then there was the perceived conflict of interest when PAP/MP Edwin Tong, defended Pastor Kong Hee in the City Harvest Church fraud case, and the Attorney General's perceived conflict in the controversial case of Indonesian maid Parti Liyani.
Conflicts of interest were not only raised as concerns in the Ridout rental saga, but they also spilled over into the investigation which followed. Then we saw Lee Hsien Yang sued for defamation by two Senior Government Ministers, with the Attorney-General's Chambers and the POFMA Office purportedly assessing Kenneth Jeyaretnam's comments on the Ridout Road rentals to see if "any further action should be taken".
The outrage over the Noble Group fraud and the Keppel bribery scandal was driven by a widespread perception that the fraudsters were shielded from accountability. Now, we’re witnessing a similar scenario unfold—this time with conflicted parties within the upper echelons and government-related entities refusing to investigate serious allegations involving the billion-dollar defunct EZRA Holdings Group. Forgery, non-disclosures, misleading disclosures, insider trading, conspiracy to manipulate share prices, financial inducements to withdraw undisclosed legal action—these are grave issues that demand scrutiny. The excuse of "insufficient evidence" is unacceptable when conflicts of interest are at play. Singaporean and international investors, bondholders, and creditors deserve better. When a public official recuses themselves, it's crucial that they have no influence over the process. Yet, in this case, a recused individual has still been able to assign the matter to a peer or subordinate, undermining the very impartiality that recusal is supposed to ensure.
This lack of trust isn't just about Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Suet Fern, Li Shengwu, Parti Liyani, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, or the many others who have found themselves on the wrong side of the fence. It's about whether Singapore's system has the independent checks and balances necessary to prevent exploitation, especially when politically connected companies or powerful individuals are involved. If investigations can be shut down or limited under the guise of "lack of evidence," or through discrediting and intimidating those who dare to speak out, what’s stopping the powerful from fabricating evidence to crush adversaries or abusing laws like POFMA? We've already seen these dangers in the Parti Liyani case and what some see as the persecution of Lee Hsien Yang and his family, forcing them, like others, into self-imposed exile.
In a system, where one could argue that power and influence can shield the well-connected, true accountability must go beyond lip service or supposedly independent reviews led by conflicted parties. Prime Minister Wong and his colleagues need to face the stark reality: public trust is eroding not because of those who dare to speak out, but because of a system critics fear may be abused to protect friends or persecute foes. The frequent use of POFMA to silence dissent and force retractions only deepens the very mistrust it seeks to quell when it appears as a one-sided weapon. Until Singapore Inc. embraces genuine transparency and impartial investigations, especially when conflicts of interest are involved, the erosion of public confidence will persist. If the authorities continue to avoid confronting these issues, they will only deepen the credibility crisis already casting a long shadow over the nation's institutions.
In my opinion, the real cowards aren’t those who speak out and are driven into exile by fear of persecution. That title belongs to the sycophants, the bootlickers, and the spineless who turn a blind eye to injustice to protect their own handsomely buttered bread.
Julie O’Connor
Hitting a Brick Wall - Banking Secrecy, Legal Privilege and a Conspiracy to Defraud (bankingonthetruth.com)
Comments