Police Investigation Into the Perjury of Lily Kong, President of SMU
25 February 2022
I have been very troubled by the perjury committed by NUS witnesses in Court which happened during the trial of Suit 667.
A lawyer agreed to look at the documents which prove that Lily Kong committed perjury. After looking at the documents, the lawyer, who gave me his advice pro bono (free of charge) agreed with me that the evidence of Lily Kong's own written words in her own email proves that Lily Kong lied in Court and committed perjury. The lawyer suggested that I should make a police report about Lily Kong's perjury, because perjury is a serious crime in Singapore.
I recently made the police report on Monday, 14 February 2022. This was just after recent news reports have repeatedly reported how our political leaders have reminded us that perjury is a very serious crime, and that perjurers must be referred to the Public Prosecutor for criminal prosecution.
See the police report here:
Needless to say, I had a right to expect that the police would diligently follow up on my police report about Lily Kong's perjury, in view of the fact that perjury is a serious criminal offence in Singapore under Section 191 and Section 193 of the Penal Code. Section 193 provides that perjury can be punished with a sentence of imprisonment for up to seven years in prison. It is essential that perjurers be brought to justice and punished because perjury can undermine the integrity of our judicial system, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
So I was very shocked when the police sergeant, who helped me lodge the police report about Lily Kong's perjury, told me that he had called the Investigating Officer ("IO") assigned to my police report and that the IO's conclusion, based on the facts he told her over the phone, was that there was no offence disclosed. The police sergeant explained that this means that there would not be an investigation into my report. He further told me that I would have to call the IO to talk to her as there was nothing he could do. Although I had brought documentary evidence to support my police report regarding Lily Kong's perjury, the police did not take the documentation from me.
On Wednesday, 16 February 2022, IO Rafidah called me and referred to Section 204A while I referred her to Sections 191 and 193 of the Penal Code. (Section 204A may also apply to Lily Kong's perjury, but Sections 191 and 193 definitely apply.) However, she said that my police report was not closed, and she promised to go through my police report and to call me back by next Monday morning.
On Monday afternoon, 21 February 2022, another police officer called me. He had apparently spent time reviewing my police report. In fact he told me that he had already read through the written Court Judgment for Suit 667 (which is 303 paragraphs in length). He also told me that he was legally trained.
The police officer began to question me about details that are not directly related to my police report about Lily Kong's perjury, but which are instead related to my lawsuit against NUS which he said he had read about in the written Court judgment for Suit 667. I pointed out to him that Lily Kong's perjury must be evaluated by looking at the contradictions between Lily Kong's court testimony made under oath versus Lily Kong's own written words in contemporaneous emails that she sent at the material time.
The police officer also referred to an "appeal." This is absurd, because I had made a police report concerning a serious crime (perjury), which is not an "appeal" in any sense of the word. I had clearly explained to the police officer that Lily Kong's crime of perjury can only be properly evaluated by examining the clear contradictions between what Lily Kong said under oath and the evidence of what Lily Kong wrote in the contemporaneous emails that Lily Kong sent at the material time, especially the email that Lily Kong sent to Tan Chorh Chuan on 2 September 2006.
One point that the police officer brought up was that it is usually the judge who refers an offence of perjury to the police. I explained to the officer that Lily Kong had successfully deceived the judge by her perjury, to the extent that the judge was therefore unaware of the perjury. Otherwise the judge would have mentioned the credibility of the witnesses, or referred to the perjury, in his Judgment, but there was no such mention of either perjury or credibility anywhere in the 303-paragraphs of the written Judgment.
Of course, it would be unthinkable and impossible that any judge in Singapore could be aware of perjury being committed in his or her courtroom but yet deliberately "turn a blind eye" to the perjury and ignore it. No judge in Singapore would deliberately do such a thing. Therefore, is is obvious that Lily Kong's perjury deceived the judge to the point that the judge was totally oblivious to the perjury; he did not realise that Lily Kong had committed perjury, and the judge unwittingly failed to grasp the fact that Lily Kong had committed perjury. This should be compared with the case of Ms Parti Liyani, in which a Singapore District Judge was deceived by perjury to the point that the District Judge convicted an innocent person of a crime and sentenced her to prison. Obviously, that District Judge did not report the perjury to the police, and that District Judge was unable to report the perjury to the police, because that District Judge did not even realise that she had been deceived by perjury.
By the same token, the police officers who are supposed to investigate my police report against Lily Kong, should not be surprised that the judge in my case failed to report Lily Kong's perjury, because it would have been impossible for the judge in my case to report Lily Kong's perjury, since the judge in my case was totally deceived by (and completely oblivious to) Lily Kong's perjury. Since the written Judgment in my case is itself the product (at least in part) of Lily Kong's deception of the Court by means of perjury, it would be absurd to expect that the written Judgment would actually show that the judge realised that Lily Kong committed perjury (and, of course, the judge did not realise that).
I am going back to the Rochor Police Station this afternoon to see the police officer and provide my police statement. I hope the police and the Attorney General's Chambers will take my police report seriously.
Perjury is a serious offence, because judges base their fact finding, decisions and verdicts on statements made under oath on the assumption that those statements are truthful. An important lynchpin of the justice system is based on witnesses in Court speaking the truth, hence the solemn ritual in which each witness at trial takes an oath to tell the truth at the beginning of the cross-examination process on the witness stand. One lie, one distortion of fact, one omission to tell the truth, could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice. Someone else's life may be destroyed because of perjured evidence. For example, NUS is now bankrupting me, based on a Court Judgment that is clearly "unsafe" and "doubtful" because it is clearly "tainted" with Lily Kong's perjury. That is why perjury is a serious offence against the state, and that is why perjury should be taken seriously if committed, to build public trust and confidence in our judicial system.
All Singaporeans should be outraged by the fact that Lily Kong has managed to get away scot-free with lying in Court and committing perjury during the trial of Suit 667. Perjury is a serious crime, pursuant to Sections 191 and 193 of the Penal Code; yet Lily Kong has managed to get away scot-free, and she has been allowed to continue to hold public office as President of Singapore Management University and as a Member of the Public Service Commission ("PSC"), with total impunity, as if she is "above the law" in Singapore. Meanwhile, NUS is currently bankrupting me, based on a Court judgment that is "tainted" with Lily Kong's perjury.