26th Jan 2014
To: The Public Prosecutor Attorney-General’s Chambers
Dear Sir/Mdm RE:
Re-appeal to take Immediate Action Against Mr Goh Nric No: S25XXXXXX
My name is Mr Chua and it is with a heavy heart that I am writing this to lodge a formal report against the traffic police. My reasons for lodging a report against Mr Ting can be credited to the following points.
1. The Traffic Police has failed to investigate the report comprehensively, leaving no stones unturned. The report concerned is the one which I have filed against Mr Goh pertaining to the offense of beating a Traffic Light Camera at the Junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road transpiring on 16/6/2011. For your reference, the Traffic Report number for the case is 113029596512
2. Due to the complexity of this case, I would like to provide you with some background information that may, hopefully, facilitate your understanding in this matter. The parties who were complicit in this report were namely, Mr Goh (the mastermind who orchestrated the entire illicit affair) and Mr Ong, who was Mr Goh’s accomplice in this matter.
3. When Mr Goh was slapped with the summon of 12 demerits points from the traffic police for the offence of beating the traffic light camera at the junction of lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road, he had initially approached me to make a request that I would become his scapegoat in this matter to which I had flatly rejected him. This can be credited to the fact that he had a history of 3 counts of traffic offences which had accumulated to a total demerit point of 28 prior to this. Should he accept the deserved punishment of 12 demerits points for flouting the vested traffic rules, he would have accumulated a total of 40 demerits points within a short span of 3 or so months.
4. Fearing the possibility that his driving license may be revoked and my blunt repudiation of his unlawful request, he decided to search for another willing scapegoat to take the rap for him. The scapegoat was Mr Ong. He had confided in me that he needed a lump sum of $800 SGD to bribe the Mr Ong into carrying the offence for him. However, his request for $800 SGD was again, rebuffed by me as I did not approve of his actions that would translate into a downright transgression of Singapore law and order. Hence, he responded to my rebuff by surreptitiously taking out the sum of money from our partnership earnings.
5. When I realized his misdeed, I had confronted him immediately which elicited a response of sheer amusement as he pontificate me with his biased, unilateral claim that Singapore law enforcers were a bunch of “inefficient”, “inept” and “waste of the tax payer’s moneys” which I found utterly reprehensible and repugnant as a fellow Singapore Citizen. Following which he had boasted that his strategy of using a scapegoat to take the blame for him was a immaculate , cleared eye calculation on his part and the law enforcer can only “watch on helplessly” as he continues with his actions that demonstrates his outright rejection and contempt for the Singapore law.
6. To aggravate and exasperate matters, the vehicle involved ( GQ129XX) was registered on the Singapore roads as a company vehicle. Lawfully Speaking, no third party should be allowed to utilize the company’s vehicle for his their own selfish purposes. This draws our attention to a point of doubt where Mr Ong, who was never a company’s personnel, is taking the rap for Mr Goh’s offences. However, Mr Goh has refuted this claim by claiming that Mr Ong was a “temporary worker” hired by him as the fusillade of jobs during that period was overwhelming to the extent that our 2 man partnership could not handle them.
7. I would like to highlight the flagrant fact that the claim which Mr Goh had asserted was nothing but a fallacious sophistry and chicanery. First and Foremost, I had no antecedent knowledge of a person named Mr Ong until Mr Goh revealed to me that Mr Ong was a scapegoat who had accepted his largess to willingly take the rap for him. Secondly. Mr Ong was also never given any formal letter of employment by the company during that period of time. In other words, the company was never cognizant of a worker named “Mr Ong” and had never employed Mr Ong before. Hence, Mr Ong should not be authorized to drive the company vehicle, much less be registered as the sole malefactor of the traffic offense.
8. Moreover, I can testify to the fact that Mr Goh was indeed the driver of the company vehicle (GQ129XX). This is attributed to the company’s modulus operandi where both vehicles are sent as a pair of worker to the customer’s residence. Therefore, I was there to witness Mr Goh’s action of contravening the traffic rules by beating the traffic light at the junction of Lavender & Serangoon/Jalan Besar Road. I am willing to testify in court if needed.
9. I have reported this to the traffic police countless times. However, my claims were greeted with sweeping statements of blunt rejections. This would draw me to question the raison d’etre for the traffic police. To my understanding, the traffic polices are the law enforcers responsible for ensuring the safety of our roads and to bring all transgressor to justice, thus ensuring that justice has been served along with the safety of our road which would expedite and promote the daily road users convenience and more critical, the safety of all road users. By condoning such an action that violates the sanctity of the law and order established by the relevant authorities, the kind of message that the traffic police are doling out to me does nothing but exacerbate my feelings that justice was not served and obstruction of justice would go unscathed and free from the long arms of the justice.
10. From merely parsing through the traffic police’s sweeping replies to me to date, I found myself flashing on the image that the traffic police are trying their best to paper over this equivocal and flagitious case as it may be a stymied, complex issue to them. Instead of pulling the plug on Mr Goh, the traffic police seem to display scant interest in the case and condoning Mr Goh’s painfully obvious display of perfidy. As a whistle blower, I feel that such a cold response to my report was completely unwarranted and I am deeply rankled by this incident as it has resulted in me losing some faith and pride in the stringent and efficient judicial system that Singaporeans have took pride in. It is because of a highly competent and efficient judicial system that Singapore has in its arsenal that allows Singapore to be a prosperous state as it is today, to the extent of being famed worldwide and reputed to the “4 Asian dragons” in our region. Without law and order maintained by the judicial system, such a scenario would have never been plausible at all.
11. Lastly, I would like to draw to the attention that Traffic Police have accepted the “he says…and she says…” in accepting Mr Ong 12 Points and fine and has omitted and err in the further investigation for requesting the necessary documentation such as the Company’s Employment Letter, CPF Statement or WDA (Singapore Workforce Development Agency) to call for the verification of Mr Ong employment of the said company as this GQ129XX is registered under a company styled: “iRepair XXXXXXX and in LTA’s letter dated 18 December 2012 had also clearly stated in paragraph 2: “Please note that vehicles owned by this company are to be used solely for the Company business. There shall be no personal use of the vehicles (including commuting to and from work) or usage by another company. Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be in violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”
12. However, Your learned ASP Mike Ting from Traffic Police had argued with me on 20th Jan 2014 while meeting him at TP HQ at Ubi (Room 6) at about 9.30am in my above paragraph 11 that in the LTA’s letter stated: “There shall be no personal use of the vehicles…” What “if” consent is given? And ASP continue to challenge on the “What types of action is LTA going to take and what enforcement actions is LTA going to take for the: “…Such unauthorized use shall be considered to be violation and subjected to Enforcement actions.”
13. I immediately quoted this phase: “There shall be no drinking of alcohol while driving under the Laws!” Can you, Sir, please enlightened me what “if” consent is given here by the ASP and see what will Your Patrolling Officer(s) says to me then? I had also quoted a Taxi and Police Car in my explanations to Your learned ASP Mike Ting that it do require a Vocational License to drive a Taxi and ONLY authorized Police Officer(s) is/are allowed to drive a Police Car and here there cannot be a “if” or consent is given, then anyone can drive a Taxi or Police Car and similarly to that of a company registered vehicle. I am also at the same time implying that then anyone also can come forward to admit those Traffic Offences.
14. As this complain is revolving in the bribery for Mr Goh paying someone (Mr Ong) and providing false information’s and declarations and also Mr Goh driving license is the heart of this undisclosed 12 Points and if it were to be added on to his (Mr Goh) existing 28 Points then most probably his driving license will be revoked and that his conviction on 1st August 2012 would not be just a $800 fine and 4 months suspension of driving!
15. During Mr Goh driving license suspension period by the Court, I had also reported the matter to IO M/s Cecelia Neo at Traffic Police that on somewhere October 2012, Mr Goh did drove the said GQ129XX from a service road at Blk 303 Sengkang into the Loading/Unloading Bay while I had stopped him in doing so and he had refused and continue saying: “Who see it…and who see it to me”! 16. I am also referring to a ACRA’s letter dated 3 Jan 2013 that from my complain and the ACRA Investigation Report revealed in Paragraph 2: “We have conducted our inquiry into the matter. We have verified that Mr Goh is currently working for Comfort XXXXX…” and paragraph 3 had also again revealed that Mr Goh is using the iRepair company vehicle for another company namely Comfort as such Mr Goh had time and again disregarded in the LTA rules & regulations for that GQ129XX
17. I would also like to addressed on the company’s vehicle governed by the LTA rules and regulations as “if” GQ129XX is a van liked what ASP Mike Ting on the issue of “what if consent is given?” then I would be buying a PA plate van instead rather than a GQ plate as COE and car price is different by almost half (50%) and do u think LTA would allowed it? This is because each license plate is of a certain usage and also the differences between insurance coverage matters in it should an accident occurred.
18. Lastly, I wish to state that I have already fulfilled myself as a Precedent Partner responsibilities and being a dutiful citizen in reporting this matter to the extent of being threatened by Mr Goh for wanting to break my hand or leg and also I have make a Police Report and laid a Magistrate Complain about Mr Goh behavior and Our Laws cannot allow such person to go scot free In lights of the above, I earnestly implore the Attorney-General Chamber of Singapore would look into this case instead of brushing it off to see to that justice will be served and the due punishment will be meted out to the recalcitrant offenders. I hope to hear a reply from you soon.
Mr Chua HP: 97604825