A local company, whose subsidiary is aiming to become Singapore’s fourth telco, has been fined $300,000 for signing an unauthorised agreement to sell the Sports Hub’s telecommunications system to another company.

The Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), the sector’s regulator, said Consistel breached its licensing obligations by failing to seek the regulator’s approval before signing the sale agreement, and submitting false information to IDA.

The authority has also filed a police report against Consistel over the latter’s alleged offence.

Announcing the fine yesterday, Ms Aileen Chia, IDA’s director- general of telecoms and post, said the Sports Hub is “a building of national significance”.

Consistel is the exclusive host of the Sports Hub’s wireless systems, including 3G and 4G equipment.

In the first arrangement of its kind here, it leases the use of the equipment to the three local mobile operators: Singtel, StarHub and M1.

Consistel’s system is critical to connections throughout the 35ha facility, including event venue and retail spaces.

So it is the IDA’s duty to scrutinise any change of ownership to protect the public’s interest, said Ms Chia.

In October 2013, Consistel entered into an agreement to transfer ownership of its equipment at the national sporting venue to Consistel Sprint, a joint venture with its investor Asia Networks.

The value of the deal was not disclosed.

It applied for approval from the IDA only in June 2014.

Consistel also submitted false documents, which the IDA said was “a deliberate act” to mislead the authority into thinking the sale agreement had yet to be signed.

The IDA started investigating after receiving a tip-off from directors at Consistel Sprint in January this year.

It declined to elaborate further.

It is also not clear if the asset in question has been transferred to Consistel Sprint.

Ms Chia said Consistel’s actions constitute “the most serious instance” of “grave misconduct” by a telecommunications licensee.

She added that the fine was meant to serve as a reminder to all licensees to act with “integrity, honesty and transparency”.

Mr Terence Tan, a lawyer at Alpha Law advising on corporate matters, said: “If the allegation of falsification of information is true, it may constitute an offence under the Penal Code.

“If false information is submitted with planning and premeditation, it makes the offence more serious.”

Analysts said the news could not have come at a worse time for the company, whose unit OMGTel is a candidate to operate Singapore’s fourth telco.

Mr Ramakrishna Maruvada, a telecoms researcher from Daiwa Capital Markets, said potential mobile entrants already face significant barriers, chiefly financing.

“Now more odds are stacked against Consistel,” he added.

Potential mobile entrants must submit their applications to the IDA by Sept 1.

The regulator will consider, among other things, the applicants’ track records before allowing them to participate in the upcoming auction for 4G airwaves.

Mr Ong Sing Jye, Consistel’s managing director, said it takes the IDA’s findings seriously and has commenced an internal review. He added: “We are considering all options, which includes appealing.”

OMGTel said it is pushing ahead with its plans to become the fourth telco.

Its chief executive officer Michael DeNoma said: “OMGTel has a broad, international set of investors coming together for… delivering breakthrough subscriber offerings.”

This article was first published on August 16, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam has rapped the British High Commission here for urging countries, including Singapore, to abolish the offence of scandalising the judiciary – and accused it of improperly trying to influence parliamentary debate.

He said it was “quite astonishing” that the British High Commission should try to give Singapore advice to follow Britain in abolishing its laws on scandalising the judiciary, and questioned if the commission was aware of the facts that led to Britain’s own decision to scrap them.

Singapore today is in a different position from Britain when it did so in 2013, he said.

“We are upholding standards that have gone down in Britain; standards which have gone down, and have led to a loss of respect and coarsening of society.”

The British High Commission told Reuters last Friday that Britain “will continue to urge Singapore and all countries which retain ‘Scandalising the Judiciary’ to abolish it”.

Mr Shanmugam said Britain had to abolish the offence three years ago because its judiciary had “lost the deferential respect it used to enjoy”, as evidenced by plentiful online material hurling abuse at the judges.

“The offence had limited symbolic value, as everyone was scandalising the court anyway. It was happening frequently, and was rarely prosecuted.”

And while the offence was also “in principle an infringement of freedom of expression” – a basic right under the European Convention on Human Rights – the key reason for abolishing it was that the court’s standing was already damaged in the public’s view, said Mr Shanmugam.

Such damaged reputation has affected the British judiciary and its work, said the minister, quoting from a 2014 survey of all serving and salaried judges there.

Nearly two in three had said members of the judiciary there were less respected by society compared to a decade ago, and more than half felt the way they were portrayed in the media, and public misunderstanding of the judiciary were factors driving this change. Falling judicial morale has also made it harder for Britain to recruit and retain judges, especially senior ones.

But Singapore does not have this problem as it tries to retain the prestige of the judiciary, keeps it well-resourced, protects it from being scandalised, and ensures its judges are paid properly, said Mr Shanmugam.

“We are in a healthy, good and enviable position, and we are not about to short-change our judiciary,” he said. “We are not struggling, or swimming against the tide of public opinion, as Britain was.”

He added: “Did the British High Commissioner know these facts when the advice was offered? If the High Commissioner knew the facts, then that does not speak well of them because we are not in the position Britain found itself in.”

Mr Shanmugam said that when Singapore’s Foreign Ministry asked why the British High Commission made the remarks, High Commissioner Scott Wightman said it was a reply by his press officer to Reuters’ query, and was not specific to Singapore.

Said Mr Shanmugam: “With the deepest respect to the High Commissioner, one can only say there is considerable disingenuity in that answer. If you want to intervene and make a comment, then at least have the courage of your conviction and not beat a hasty retreat at the first question.” He added: “Did the British High Commission see fit to make such comments to the Australians? To the New Zealanders? To the Irish? They also criminalise scandalising the court.”

When contacted, the British High Commission declined further comment.

This article was first published on Aug 16, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

A 37-year-old man was on Monday (Aug 15) charged with the murder of his wife in Yishun.

Mohamad Jonit Adnan is accused of causing the death of Ms Sri Idayu Ghazali, 29, at about 9pm on Saturday at Block 342B, Yishun Ring Road.

The charge of murder with intention, which carries the mandatory death penalty, was read out to Jonit in Malay by a court interpreter.

District Judge Christopher Goh granted the police prosecutor’s request to remand Jonit for a week at Central Police Division, with permission to be taken out for investigations.

Clad in a red polo T-shirt, Jonit showed little expression in the dock and nodded his head as the judge spoke.

He did not have a lawyer.

The case will be mentioned again next Monday (Aug 22).

It is not known how Jonit carried out the killing.

According to The New Paper, Ms Sri Idayu was a clerk who moved into the flat about a year ago with her family, including two daughters, her parents, her sister and a maid.

Neighbours reportedly heard loud quarelling from the unit at about 8pm on Saturday and then, loud piercing screams, followed by silence.

In a statement on Sunday, the police said they received a call for help at about 9pm on Saturday.

Officers found Ms Sri Idayu injured and she was taken to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital where she was pronounced dead at about 4.30am on Sunday.

This article was first published on Aug 16, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

With his trial drawing to a close, a former tour guide accused of criminal breach of trust is considering for a second time if he should throw in the towel.

Yang Yin’s lawyer, Mr Irving Choh, told reporters yesterday his client is thinking about whether to plead guilty or continue to fight the charges against him. Yang had asked to meet his lawyer after the cross examination yesterday.

This is not the first time the 42-year-old, charged with allegedly misappropriating $1.1 million from widow Chung Khin Chun, is wavering in his defence. He first indicated that he wanted to enter a guilty plea on July 8, the fifth day of the trial. But three weeks later, he told the court that he had changed his mind as he had more evidence to show.

Tussle over widow’s $40m assets turns ugly

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The Straits Times, Madam Hedy Mok, Lianhe Wanbao, Madam Chang Phie Chin, Court Documents

Yesterday, Yang also asked Deputy Presiding Judge of the State Courts Jennifer Marie if he could leave Changi Prison to accumulate more evidence for his case.

“I just want Your Honour to approve my request because I wish to leave Changi Prison and see if I can find more evidence,” said Yang, who has been in remand since October 2014 after being denied bail.

Judge Marie rejected his requestand said if Yang needed more evidence, his lawyer could advise him.

Doctors at the Changi Medical Complex had also certified he was well enough to proceed with the trial, she said. The judge had adjourned the hearing on Aug 5 for Yang to be examined by doctors. The Chinese national had wanted to stop testifying, saying he was stressed and physically and emotionally unwell.

The medical examination, however, showed that while he was suffering from acute stress disorder, he was well enough to take the stand.

Midway through cross-examination by the prosecution yesterday, Yang was seen rocking back and forth.

The prosecution continued to point out inconsistencies in his statements over the money he had allegedly siphoned from the 89-year-old widow – $500,000 in 2010 and $600,000 in 2012.

Yang said in court yesterday that $500,000 was transferred to his father’s account in China in order to pay debts incurred for his grandmother’s medical bills. She died in 2008, Yang said.

Tussle over widow’s $40m assets: A look at Madam Chung’s bungalow

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The Straits Times, Raymond Tan

The prosecution, however, charged that this was a “fabrication” and produced a receipt dated March 1, 2010, which showed that Yang had used $500,000 to buy a painting of a horse by Chinese artist Xu Beihong. Yang had mentioned the painting in his police statements, but later told the court it was a cover-up.

He said he did not buy the painting, but said he did only because Madam Chung wanted to avoid jealousy in case relatives found out large sums of money were given to him.

In May, Yang pleaded guilty to 120 other charges, most of which involved falsification of receipts to make it appear that a business he set up was real.

The trial continues today.

This article was first published on Aug 16, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.