4 family members in construction services firm charged over giving bribes to condo, property managers
SINGAPORE: A couple and their two sons in a family construction business were charged in court on Thursday (Jun 26) for allegedly giving bribes to managers of properties, including condominiums.
The four were charged alongside those accused of receiving bribes from them. A total of seven others, most of whom had property management-related roles, received charges.
The four family members are from OCL Building Services, a contractor that provides building construction services for various properties.
Ong Chin Kee, 66, and his wife, Lea Lam Moy, 66, are both directors of OCL, while their sons are OCL project director Jovi Ong Teng Hong, 36, and OCL general manager Jordan Ong Wei How, 30.
The four are said to have conspired to give bribes amounting to S$56,260 (US$44,100) to various people between 2018 and 2022. Each was handed 17 counts of corruption.
The bribes were allegedly in exchange for furthering the business interests of OCL with various condominiums.
Ong Chin Kee is also accused of instigating two others to change their statements to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), said the anti-graft agency on Thursday.
He purportedly also informed two other individuals of an investigation by CPIB against them and OCL.
Ong Chin Kee faces faces four charges for obstructing justice over these alleged offences.
The family of four is represented by Wong Partnership's Tang Shangwei, who indicated that his clients will be contesting the charges. Their cases have been fixed for a pre-trial conference on Jul 24.
OTHERS ACCUSED OF ACCEPTING BRIBES
Five others who were working in condominiums were also charged for allegedly accepting bribes.
Condominium manager Lim Tian Teck, 57, who was from Smart Property Management, and deployed to Citylights and Trevista, purportedly accepted bribes amounting to S$2,600 on four occasions between 2018 and 2019. He was handed four charges of corruption.
Another condominium manager, Theva Sundram, 71, then with Newman & Goh Property Consultants and deployed to The Ladyhill, is said to have accepted bribes totalling S$20,260 on seven occasions between 2019 and 2022. He was slapped with four charges of corruption.
Condominium manager Lim Pei Xiong, 31, who was then with Hilandas Property & Facilities Management, and deployed to Thomson View and The Cotz, allegedly accepted bribes amounting to S$23,500 over four occasions between 2021 and 2022. Lim Pei Xiong, who is Malaysian, faces two charges of graft.
Roberta Mok Yen Kwei, 40, an Oxley Holdings manager deployed to Novotel, Flora Vista and Change Alley Mall, is said to have accepted bribes totalling S$5,000 over four occasions in 2022. She was handed an amalgamated charge of corruption.
Lim Tian Teck, Theva, Lim Pei Xiong and Mok told the court that they will be pleading guilty, and their hearings have been fixed for Aug 7.
A property officer, Azman Abdul Rahim, 61, who was with Knight Frank Estate Management and then deployed to Craig Place, is said to have accepted bribes amounting to S$3,400 over three occasions in 2020. He faces two charges of corruption and will next return to court on Jul 24.
Apart from the nine individuals, two others were charged in relation to the offences.
Ong Chin Sin, 64, the sole proprietor of NY Furnishing & Renovation, was charged for obstructing justice. He is accused of deleting incriminatory messages exchanged between him and Ong Chin Kee. Ong Chin Sin is not related to the family of four.
He is also said to have given S$4,000 in bribes to a senior facilities manager employed by Lasalle College of the Arts, Zulkifli Hussain, over three occasions between 2015 and 2022.
Ong Chin Sin and Zulkifli were each given three counts of graft, while the former also faces a charge of obstruction of justice.
Ong Chin Sin and Zulkifli each had their cases fixed for Jul 24.
If convicted of corruption, a person can be jailed up to five years, and fined up to S$100,000 or both.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Commentary: Singaporeans, we need to pump the brakes on our bubble tea obsession
SINGAPORE: If you saw weekend queues at Changi Airport this June, don't blame immigrations just yet. The more plausible culprit: Popular Malaysian boba brand Tealive's first and only Singapore outlet, freshly opened at Terminal 3. With Tealive's arrival, we are one of the rare airports in the world with nine bubble tea brands, including HeyTea, Chicha San Chen, Naixue, Koi, LiHo, TP Tea, amps tea and iTea. Sounds like a lot of pearls per square metre, but not once you leave the airport. Just two years ago, Tampines was dubbed Singapore's 'bubble tea capital', with 21 bubble tea shops within a 500m radius. As of 2022, we had more than 60 bubble tea brands in Singapore – and new entrants are still pouring in. Besides Tealive, China's 8,000-outlet-strong chain ChaPanda will also be arriving on our shores soon. With over 60 brands offering upwards of 30 drinks each, the bubble tea maths is mind-boggling. Even for a single ingredient like brown sugar, we have brown sugar milk tea, brown sugar pearls, a variant with cream cheese, one with cheese brulee and another with just fresh milk, no tea. As thousands of boba variants take up more and more space on our little red dot, have we finally reached bubble tea oversaturation in Singapore? INSIDE THE BOBA ECONOMY Bubble tea is a guilty pleasure of mine too, so I totally get it. We love it because it marries two of our familiar indulgences: the comforting taste of kopitiam milk tea and the illicit chew we've missed since the sale of gum was banned in 1992 – all wrapped in an Instagram-ready cup. Barely anyone anticipated bubble tea to have this kind of cultural impact when the drink first came to our shores – also in 1992, served in cocktail glasses from a cafe at Marina Square. As the tea-dessert hybrid evolved to its current takeaway format, it quickly spread across the island and overtook even our ubiquitous milk tea. By 2002, there were more than 5,000 shops in Singapore. But just a year later, the market reached oversaturation and the bubble burst, leading boba shops to shutter all across the island. In those days, it seemed as if bubble tea had all the makings of a fleeting fad. Who would've thought it would evolve into the multi-billion-dollar micro-industry it is today? Few food trends can boast such longevity and multigenerational appeal. It's not just Gen Zers who are hooked – millennials and Gen X were the same, particularly in their youth. Bubble tea's characteristic combination of caffeine, sugar and chewable pearls is not the only reason for this timeless love affair. After the first market bubble pop in 2003, the beverage reinvented itself by tapping into Starbucks' winning formula of offering extreme customisation options. The second wave of brands such as Koi The and Gong Cha began offering sugar and ice customisation around 2007. Ten years later, Tiger Sugar and LiHo introduced newfangled toppings like brown sugar and cheese foam. More recently, speciality teas – fruit tea and premium or single origin leaves – has emerged as a key consumer draw. Today, most major brands put Starbucks to shame with their personalisation options: Multiple tea options, five tiers of sugar levels, three tiers of temperature variation, and as many as 10 different toppings, including pearls, aloe, konjac, collagen jelly, ice cream – adding up to hundreds of different possible combinations and permutations per brand. As consumerism becomes increasingly intertwined with self-expression, this level of customisation transformed the beverage into a lifestyle choice, an expression of individuality, and vibe signalling, especially for young people. ARE WE BECOMING A BUBBLE TEA NATION? While I understand the value of such customisation, I do wonder if we're taking it a tad too far. These days, if you are not a regular bubble tea drinker with default preferences, it can take a minute or two to even order a single drink. I sometimes find myself in boba limbo, struggling to make five different decisions for a single beverage. Do I swop out pearls for aloe or collagen jelly? What about ice cream? My chronic indecision aside, do these minor tweaks really matter, or are brands just too caught up in the ingredients arms race? Blindfolded, could the average consumer tell the difference between golden bubble pearls, red sugar pearls and pink cactus pearls, or differentiate between single-estate oolong and regular oolong, especially when mixed with milk and starchy pearls? Even the more distinguishable seasonal launches feel somewhat forced – LiHO's Salted-Egg Lava Brown Sugar Milk in 2018, Takagi Ramen's Chilli-Crab Matcha Macchiato in 2022, and Gong Cha's Century-Egg and Salted Egg special in 2024. Wouldn't we rather just enjoy these flavour trends with crabs or congee, rather than in a cup of sugar and milk? To a certain extent, these options were introduced to create brand differentiation, especially with multiple brands often competing against each other in close quarters. But when bubble tea takes over so much of Singapore's prime retail space, it inadvertently transforms our food culture, crowding out other cuisine richer in both nutrients as well as historical and cultural significance. Moreover, many regular boba drinkers are youths. Many brands appeal to this demographic with cute mascots – Koi's BB Bear, Mixue's Snow King and ChaPanda's Ding Ding Cat – as well as tie-ins with toy brand. Gong Cha recently collaborated with Pop Mart to launch Pino Jelly themed drinks, including packaging and merchandise. Partly persuaded by the fun and hype, some parents are also starting their kids on these caffeinated beverages younger than they otherwise would – a friend of mine offers her primary school kids bubble tea on a semi-regular basis. Paediatricians warn that there is no safe caffeine dose for children under the age of 12. How will these daily habits impact Singapore's children, tweens and teens as they come of age? I am by no means arguing for a boba ban – like all indulgences, bubble tea has its place in our diverse food nation. But rather than hurtling towards our 2,000th boba variation, perhaps it's time to pump the brakes on this obsession. Why not leave some stomach and retail space for other heartier – and healthier – food instead?
Independent Singapore
5 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
SFA investigates after diners ingest plastic pieces in durian dessert that they thought was crushed ice
SINGAPORE: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has begun investigations after a pair of friends discovered hard plastic pieces in their durian snow ice dessert from popular dessert chain Mei Heong Yuen Dessert. The incident took place on 11 June. One of the friends, Jes, told citizen journalism site Stomp that they initially mistook the sharp fragments for crushed ice. 'We encountered small pieces of hard objects, but swallowed them at first, thinking they were crushed ice,' she said, 'However, when we came across a particular hard piece, we realised it was actually hard plastic!' Alarmed, the pair brought the issue to the attention of the restaurant's staff. They requested that the remaining durian purée be filtered in their presence and recorded the process on video. The filtering apparently revealed even more pieces of plastic embedded in the dessert. Jes attempted to escalate the matter, asking to speak with the outlet's manager. However, her call went unanswered. She and her friend then contacted the brand's main outlet in Chinatown. 'The owner answered the call and claimed it was impossible for them to be plastic. She offered a replacement, exchange, or refund,' Jes recounted, 'We explained to her the seriousness of the situation, but she still brushed it off and said she would ask the staff for photos and send the dessert down to her to investigate.' The next day, instead of receiving the promised follow-up from the manager, Jes received a voice message from a staff member who insisted there could not have been any plastic in the durian purée. Jes said that when she called back to express her concerns, the owner became hostile. 'She pushed the responsibility to her supplier and claimed the durian was not grown by her,' Jes said, 'We told her we would report the case to the authorities for investigation and she guilt-tripped us by asking if we wanted to see her die.' SFA has confirmed that it is currently investigating the matter. The government agency told Stomp: 'Food safety is a joint responsibility. While SFA puts in place and enforces the regulatory measures, food operators must play their part by adhering to good food hygiene and preparation practices.' See also Netizen: Man who posed as landlord assaulted my wife and child Consumers who encounter potential food safety lapses are encouraged to report such cases directly to the agency through their online feedback form at
Independent Singapore
5 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
Neighbour caught on video vandalising altar in Woodlands; family claims years of harassment
SINGAPORE: A man has been caught on camera vandalising a neighbour's altar and attempting to damage a security camera in Woodlands. The video, posted by Facebook user Cailyn Yumi on June 22, shows a man banging aggressively on the gate of a residential unit before reaching up in an apparent attempt to tamper with the home's security camera. Moments later, he turns and smashes a Chinese altar placed along the parapet to the ground. The footage has since gone viral. In her post, Cailyn expressed frustration at what she perceives as inaction by authorities, stating: 'We are deeply frustrated and disappointed that the police are not taking this situation seriously. Our neighbour, a man who lives directly below us, has been harassing my mother repeatedly, especially when she's home alone.' According to Cailyn, tensions between her family and the downstairs neighbour have been simmering for more than five years. While past disputes were usually defused following police involvement, this recent incident marks a troubling escalation. In comments to citizen journalism platform Stomp, Cailyn said her mother was performing routine household chores when the man allegedly confronted her, tossing out religious items, banging on doors and windows, and damaging the family's security system. She also revealed that her family has been the subject of multiple accusations from neighbours, including claims of egg-throwing and noise disturbances, all of which, she says, have been disproved by CCTV footage. Cailyn believes the source of the noise complaints may actually be a separate unit located above theirs, but the confusion has resulted in her family bearing the brunt of community backlash. Other accusations levelled against her mother include spraying insect repellent and pouring water out the window, which Cailyn denies. Instead, she points to the downstairs neighbour, who she alleges smokes and cooks near their window, sending smoke and oil fumes into their home. 'This causes smoke and oil to reach our hanging laundry and enter my parents' room, making them cough badly,' she explained. Attempts to address the situation diplomatically were reportedly met with denial. 'I politely asked the neighbour to smoke inside instead of near the window, but he denied smoking, saying he had cancer. However, on June 22, when he came up and damaged our property, I saw him smoking with no issue,' she said. The family has also been blamed for a curry stain found in the lobby. 'The only so-called 'evidence' presented was a photograph of the curry stain, with no clear link to my mother's involvement. This leads us to believe the incident may have been staged to deliberately defame her.' Cailyn added that the same man had made false reports to Shin Min Daily News earlier this year, and that tensions have only worsened. In a separate altercation, she claims a neighbour's son showed up at their door in a hostile manner, banging on it and attempting to force open their digital lock, which was later found damaged. Despite the severity of these incidents, the family did not escalate the matter or seek compensation at the time. 'There seems to be a pattern where a group of neighbours are unfairly singling out my mother for various disturbances without credible evidence,' Cailyn said, 'Noise can come from many units at different times. There is no proof that my mother is the source.' She also shared additional footage online, including a clip of the same man splashing water in front of her unit. She told Stomp, 'There are indications they track her routine — when she wakes and sleeps — and deliberately make disruptive noises at those times. This behaviour amounts to targeted harassment.' Cailyn is calling for an end to the 'false accusations' and is urging neighbours to back up complaints with verifiable evidence. 'My family and I are committed to maintaining a peaceful and respectful environment within our residence and expect the same from our neighbours,' she said. The police have confirmed that reports have been filed and investigations are ongoing.
