Jail for ex-DSTA employee who shared confidential information with electrical firm manager

SINGAPORE – An employee of the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) committed offences under the Official Secrets Act when he shared confidential information with an electrical firm project manager.

At the time of the offences, Hsu Yee Chern, 52, was a project manager at DSTA – a statutory board under the Ministry of Defence (Mindef).

Among other things, he had shared with Tan Kian Meng from John Holland Electrical & Service (JHES)

information linked to the budget of a DSTA-managed project

, which JHES later tendered for.

In the end, DSTA did not award the project to the company. Hsu, who has since resigned from the agency, was sentenced to four weeks’ jail on July 2.

He had pleaded guilty to two charges under the Act, while the case involving Tan, 47, is pending.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ronnie Ang told the court that DSTA’s tasks included managing the design, development and maintenance of defence infrastructure for Mindef.

DSTA was also responsible for the procurement process involving external vendors’ contracts. This included sourcing for vendors and evaluating their bids.

As a DSTA employee, Hsu was involved in evaluating bids or tenders from vendors such as JHES, which specialises in generator and electricity supply installation and maintenance, said the DPP.

Hsu and Tan first got to know each other in 2014 when JHES was working on a construction project for DSTA at Pulau Tekong.

At Tan’s invitation, the two men continued to meet each other for meals and drinks after the project was completed in 2015, the court heard.

This was because Tan wanted to maintain a good working relationship with Hsu, said DPP Ang.

The court heard that Hsu later became involved in a DSTA-managed project involving the renovation of a Stagmont Camp office building in Stagmont Road, near Teck Whye Crescent.

The DPP said that on or around March 12, 2019, Tan initiated a discussion with Hsu over text messages on the requirements of the project.

Due to his position, Hsu had confidential information that DSTA’s budget for the project was a few million dollars.

The prosecutor added: “During the said discussion over text messages, Tan sought advice from Hsu on the specifics of the Stagmont project’s tender requirements.

“In reply, Hsu advised Tan not to quote more than (a certain amount) in its tender... and in so doing Hsu had communicated directly the budget information to Tan.”

JHES later tendered for the Stagmont project and submitted a quotation for an amount lower than what was stated in the budget.

After the close of the tender submissions, Tan asked Hsu over text messages on or around April 5, 2019, for updates on DSTA’s evaluation of the tenders linked to the project.

Without revealing details, DPP Ang said that Hsu then communicated the evaluation information directly over text messages to Tan. 

The prosecutor told the court: “Hsu did not tell Tan that JHES would have a chance to advance to the tender interview stage.

“After receiving the evaluation information, Tan knew that if JHES were given a chance to advance to the tender interview stage, he could use the information to improve JHES’ chances of securing the... project, as he could prepare a response to justify JHES’ low tender price at the interview.”

JHES ultimately did not advance to the tender interview stage and DSTA did not award the Stagmont project to it.

Court documents stated that between February 2020 and January 2022, Hsu attended at least five dinners with Tan and other JHES employees, with each session costing between some $300 and around $1,400.

DPP Ang added: “Hsu was aware that under DSTA’s policies, he must avoid being placed in a position where there could be potential conflict of interest, and not be overly friendly with vendors outside of work or in his personal capacity.

“In particular, Hsu knew that he should decline treats from vendors, and if it were not possible to decline, he should declare those meals to DSTA.”

The offences came to light on or around Nov 21, 2022, when an unnamed whistleblower told DSTA about Hsu’s close relationship with JHES employees, including Tan.

The following month, DSTA referred the whistleblower’s complaint to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Hsu and Tan were charged in court in 2024.

Hsu was represented by lawyers Sunil Sudheesan and Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer, who pleaded for their client to be given either a fine of around $4,000 or about a week behind bars.

The lawyers also stated in court documents that Hsu did not gain any personal benefit from his offences.

In a statement on July 2, DSTA said that Hsu was earlier suspended after it referred the case to CPIB for an investigation.

A DSTA spokesperson said: “(We expect) all officers to maintain high standards of integrity and professionalism, and (do) not tolerate any misconduct that could undermine the integrity of the procurement system.”