Prosecution throws up 3 scenarios of liaison

It says the pair had affair from 2009 to 2010, and that Sue lied in court

Three versions of the relationship between Ng Boon Gay and Ms Cecilia Sue were presented in court on Monday by the prosecution, as it sought to show that its key witness had been lying on the stand.

1. Ng and Ms Sue had been in an intimate sexual relationship from 2009 until the end of last year.

2. Ng and Ms Sue had been in a consensual sexual relationship from 2009 until September or October 2010.

3. The pair had never been in any intimate or sexual relationship.

Which was true?

The prosecution's stand is that Version 2 is the true scenario. The defence's arguments so far point to Version 1.

Ms Sue has vigorously maintained in court that it is Version 3 - even though statements she had given to graft investigators point to the contrary.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Ken Hwee sketched out the three scenarios to Ms Sue after he made the shock move of applying to the court to disregard parts of her oral testimony and instead replace them with what she had said in five Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) statements. He also asked to cross-examine her.

His move came towards the end of yesterday's proceedings, when he was re-examining Ms Sue after the defence lawyer had finished cross-examining her.

Ng, 46, the former director of the Central Narcotics Bureau, is said to have received gratification from IT manager Sue four times, in the form of oral sex, between July and December last year.

This was in exchange for using his influence to help her further the business interests of her former employers Hitachi Data Systems and Oracle.

It has been the prosecution's case that he had forced her to perform the acts. The defence's case is that the acts were performed in the context of a long-running intimate relationship.

But during four days of cross-examination, Ms Sue, 36, denied any sexual relationship with Ng. She said earlier statements she gave to investigators about being intimate with him were made because she was, among other things, tired, stressed and scared of Ng.

On Monday, the prosecution applied to the court to throw out that part of her oral testimony in which she denied intimacy with Ng. Instead, it wants to replace it with the version of events she had given in the five statements made to the CPIB recorded between Dec 20 last year and May 3 this year.

Defence counsel Tan Chee Meng objected strongly to the application, charging that it would be unfair to his client if allowed.

He applied for Ms Sue to leave the courtroom. He then argued that the prosecution should have asked Ms Sue the questions about her relationship with Ng during its turn at the start of her testimony, and not attempt to repair "damage done to the case by seeking to treat Ms Sue as a hostile prosecution witness".

A hostile witness is one who deviates from prior statements made to law enforcement officers and gives evidence favouring the accused person.