On day four of the sex for contracts trials, Ms Cecilia Sue maintained that she did not have an intimate relationship nor had sexual intercourse with former CNB chief Ng Boon Gay
Ng is facing four charges of corruption. He allegedly received sexual gratification from Ms Sue in exchange for helping her company’s contract bids for CNB; Miss Sue worked for Hitachi and Oracle Corporation.
Ng’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng referred to various statements which Ms Sue had given to Corruption Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to point out various contradictions between what she was telling the court and what she had told CPIB.
Read also:Did ex-CNB chief and Cecilia Sue have sexual intercourse?
Referring to the latest statement given in May 2012, he read out this paragraph: “When I was pregnant in the first quarter of 2010 I asked Boon Gay what if the child was his. At that time I felt Boon Gay was an irresponsible man because he did not show respect and did not comfort me either. He broke my heart. It was then I decided to end the relationship.”
Miss Sue had earlier told the court she was not truthful to the CPIB when giving this statement in May 2012.
She said that she was frightened and confused, and that she also feared Ng because he was well connected. She claimed that she was afraid that he might get someone to put drugs in her bag.
“How can I report him to the police, who will believe me?” she asked.
She added that her oral testimony in court is the truth and apologised for the various discrepancies in her statements.
Read also:Cecilia Sue’s “naughty” text messages to former CNB chief
Discrepancies related in other statements were brought up by Mr Tan this morning, it dealt with various questions: whether Miss Sue had contemplated divorcing her husband to be with Ng, and if she had enjoyed some of her sexual encounters with him.
In yet another statement read out in court, Mr Tan noted that Miss Sue had told CPIB officers that she liked Ng enough to be “willing” to engage in sexual acts with him.
Miss Sue said that she could not recall the details of her statements given to CPIB, she added that she did not “scrutinise” the details.
Court was adjourned for lunch and resumed at 2.30pm.
For more on today's trial click here.
For a pictorial summary of the case, click here.