Everything You Need to Know About The NParks Manager Who Threatened Supplier For $10K Bribe

Last Updated on 2023-04-01 , 8:28 pm

For those among us who have experience with planning festivals, you’re probably familiar with how much effort goes into procuring the logistics.

However, for most of us, it probably doesn’t involve contacting a supplier directly to imply how much to bid so that they can secure the contract.

But that’s what NParks manager Lee Choon Ping did when he decided to reach out to a supplier after he was told to find around 10,000 hats for a garden festival.

After realising that the event would not require that many hats due to the presence of leftovers from a previous event, he even tried to get the supplier to issue a refund to his personal account.

Lee, 49, also tried to threaten the supplier by telling him that he might end up in jail if he tried to refund NParks directly.

And that’s not all.

When his actions were discovered through a probe by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), he was also found to have taken multiple upskirt photos of women.

Just yesterday (29 March), Lee, a Singaporean, pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to obtain corrupt gratification, one count of cheating, and two counts of insulting the modesty of a woman.

He was then sentenced to 11 months in jail.

Seven similar charges of insulting modesty were also taken into consideration during sentencing.

Here’s everything you need to know about the case.

What Happened: Lee’s Role

Based on court documents, Lee held the role of a manager in NParks Community in Bloom (CIB), a scheme to encourage gardening among local residents.

As such, he was supposed to be responsible for putting together activities, as well as training and managing volunteers.

He was also selected as the person responsible for the initiative’s inventory stock take and would sometimes be asked to obtain logistics.

During the latter, he would be the suppliers’ point of contact.

Already Had Leftover Hats but Still Told Supervisor to Order 10,000 Hats

NParks had previously purchased 10,000 gardener’s hats from SBM Easi Trade, a company that sells items such as souvenirs, corporate gifts and events merchandise.

This tender was in 2016, and Lee was the point of contact back then.

Of the 10,000 hats, 2,000 ended up not being used and became leftovers.

A few years later, Lee suggested to his supervisor in September 2019 that he order 10,000 hats for an upcoming event in August 2022.

This was even though Lee was aware of the 2,000 leftover hats from NParks’ previous purchase.

Contacted SBM After Uploading Invitation to Quote

After being approved to do so, Lee uploaded the invitation to quote on the government procurement website.

He then decided to contact Jota Tan Beng Khoon, the sole owner of SBM.

Lee had told him that the bidding was a “price war” this time round, implying that Mr Tan should offer a price as low as possible during his quote in order to secure the contract.

Afterwards, SBM placed a bid of $23,300 and was able to beat five other vendors to supply the hats.

Found Out Afterwards that There Were Even More Leftover Hats but Did Not Report

During a subsequent stocktake, Lee found out that there were actually 5,000 leftover hats from the previous event, not 2,000.

However, even though he was supposed to report the matter to NParks based on their protocol, he chose not to do so.

Instead, Lee simply told Mr Tan to obtain 5,000 hats from SBM’s supplier.

Court documents also showed that Mr Tan had simply thought that Lee asked him to do so in order to stagger the delivery into two batches of 5,000 hats each.

Told Supplier to Transfer Refund to His Personal Account

After instructing Mr Tan to order 5,000 hats, Lee notified him to deliver the 5,000 hats to NParks when the pair met up in person.

At the same time, he also told Mr Tan to transfer $10,000 into his personal account as a refund for the remaining 5,000 hats.

However, Lee changed his mind afterwards and told Mr Tan to pay him $10,000 personally in the form of $1,000 notes during the same meeting.

On the other hand, Mr Tan ultimately decided to go against Lee and chose not to refund the money into his personal account.

He also told Lee he wanted to fulfil the entire purchase contract he had signed with NParks.

Helped Supplier Evade Penalty and Allowed Supplier to be Paid Early

After signing the contract, NParks had set 13 March as the deadline for SBM to deliver their hats.

However, SBM experienced supply delays, prompting Mr Tan to tell Lee on 9 March that the hats would be delivered late.

Mr Tan also indicated his willingness to pay the penalty incurred for the delayed delivery.

Despite this, Lee responded two days later and told Mr Tan that the penalty “would not benefit NParks” and that it would also mean that the payment to SMB would be delayed.

Afterwards, he requested Mr Tan to issue a delivery order that was dated to be before the delivery date.

Before this, Lee had also instructed Mr Tan to send a delivery order in February showing that half of the hats from SBM had been delivered.

Of course, no hats from the “first half of delivery” were actually delivered.

Lee then signed both documents and submitted them to the senior manager of NParks CIB.

He also attached an image of the leftover hats from 2016, prompting the senior manager to believe that SBM had completed the delivery of all 10,000 hats.

This caused the senior manager to approve the payment of 10,000 hats to SBM on 13 March 2020, even though SBM only delivered 5,000 hats almost half a month later on 26 March.

Lee Contacted Supplier Again, Supplier Offered Loan Instead

After SBM received the payment, Lee reached out to Mr Tan on 16 April of the same year to request that Mr Tan hand over $10,000 for the 5,000 hats that SBM did not deliver to NParks.

Mr Tan declined Lee’s request again and told him that he wanted to fulfil the full contract by supplying NParks with all 10,000 hats.

However, Mr Tan offered Lee a personal loan of $3,000 for reasons that were not publicised in court documents.

Told Supplier that He Would Go to Jail

After Mr Tan brought up the possibility of a loan, Lee chose not to take Mr Tan up on his offer.

He even told him that he would reject the 5,000 hats that were delivered on 26 March if Mr Tan did not pay him $8,000.

However, Mr Tan refused to comply with Lee’s terms. Instead, he suggested that he return half of the money issued by NParks for the contract back to NParks.

Court documents then showed that Lee had told Mr Tan that he would go to jail if he tried to return NParks the money.

Two weeks later, on 30 April, Mr Tan issued a credit note payable to NParks and sent it to Lee.

The credit note was worth half of the original purchase contract between NParks and SBM.

However, Lee did not do anything to process the credit note.

Accused Also Took Upskirt Photos

And that’s not all.

According to court documents, the authorities found out that Lee had upskirt photos after seizing his hard disk to assist with investigations.

Three of the photographs were taken with Lee’s phone after he saw two female students wearing skirts during an open house event that he had attended with his daughter on 7 March 2019.

He took another upskirt photo of a woman whom he did not know around a month later as he thought that the woman, who was wearing a short skirt, was attractive.

Court documents also showed that for the charges taken into consideration, the victims of five of those counts were Lee’s colleagues at NParks’ office.

Another count was against a separate woman who was commuting on the MRT.

DPP: Mr Tan Kept Rejecting Lee’s Bribes, but Lee Kept Insisting

In court, Deputy Public Prosecutor Victoria Ting pointed out that Lee was the one who started trying to bribe Mr Tan.

Additionally, Lee had continuously tried to get Mr Tan to accept his bribes despite the latter constantly rejecting them.

Apart from that, DPP Ting also mentioned that Lee had abused the trust that NParks put in him.

This was shown through how he asked to order more hats than required, how he tricked his senior manager into believing that the delivery was completed by using a photo of existing hats, as well as how he constructed an “opportunity for him to profit” by asking SBM to deliver 5,000 hats instead of 10,000.

As such, she sought at least ten months and eight weeks’ imprisonment for Lee based on all of his proceeded charges.

Defence Lawyers: An “Unfortunate Aberration”

On the other hand, defence lawyers Sunil Sudheesan and Joyce Khoo sought six months’  imprisonment with an additional six to seven weeks’ jail and a fine.

They said that their client’s wrongdoings were an “unfortunate aberration” and that he had a clean record prior to this.

Additionally, they brought up how refunds were processed, meaning that NParks did not actually suffer any losses in the end.

District Judge’s Comments

In all, District Judge Kenneth Chin expressed support for the prosecution’s sentencing position and emphasised how Lee had tried to seek “illegal gratification” from Mr Tan several times.

Apart from that, the fact that Lee had threatened Mr Tan with his position was a significant culpability-enhancing factor.

As for how he deceived his senior manager, Judge Chin commented that his acts were premeditated as he used photos of the leftover hats.

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

For committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Lee could have faced a maximum jail term of seven years, a maximum fine of $100,000 or both.

He could have also faced another ten years in jail and a fine for cheating.

As for each count of insulting the modesty of a woman, Lee could be sentenced to jail for up to a year, fined, or both.