Durai deleted evidence from computer, didn't reveal settlement offer
By Ansley Ng, TODAY Posted: 09 January 2007 1011 hrs
It was July 13, 2005, the night before T T Durai was to step down as the chief of the National Kidney Foundation. Still, the man reputed to be a workaholic, was busy in his office at the charity's Kim Keat headquarters.
But this was no ordinary evening.
Amid the rumblings that were gathering pace across the island over his handsome remuneration and the shadow of the investigation that was to follow, Durai was cleaning up traces of "a fraud that he perpetrated".
"He sat through the night deleting items from his computer and destroying documents in the office," Senior Counsel K Shanmugam said on the opening day of a civil suit.
The NKF hopes to recover some $12 million allegedly wasted on benefits, salaries and failed contracts from Durai and several Board members.
Others dragged into the case are former chairman Richard Yong, former treasurer Loo Say San and Mr Durai's enigmatic friend and business associate Pharis Aboobacker.
"They were going out of their way to hide it, including deleting items from their computers," said Mr Shanmugam, who is representing the NKF.
He painted the picture of one man manipulating an organisation along with his "cronies" on the board - a suggestion that offended the defendants' counsel. Once his "cronies" offered him an eight-month bonus which he modestly slashed to a "mere" $25,000.
Mr Shanmugam spoke of a man who flew first-class and brazenly lied to his executive committee about it. A man who did not want the NKF to be governed either by the Ministry of Health or by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS).
Above all, he spoke of a man who would do anything to get his own way.
At the heart of the matter was Durai's dispute with the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) which eventually resulted in the court case that led to his ouster.
"SPH had made a very reasonable offer to pay damages and give an apology," said Mr Shanmugam revealed.
But Durai was spoiling for a fight. He did not mention the SPH offer to the exco.
He claimed lawyers had told him that NKF had a very good case. "This was inaccurate," said Mr Shanmugam.
A lawyer had also warned of risk if the case against SPH was pursued. Again, Durai did not reveal this.
In fact, he said that SPH had filed its defence when in truth it was asking for more time to come up with a settlement.
To this, the chairman, Mr Yong, responded by proposing that Durai's legal costs in the SPH action be borne by NKF.
Mr Shanmugam also touched on Durai's manipulation of the media.
When there were reports on a code to make charities more accountable, NKF staff were asked to "ghost-write" letters against the move.
In an email sent to her colleagues, NKF's deputy director of communications Michelle Ang wrote: "Just got off the phone with Mr Durai. We'll need to pump out some letters to send to each of three (news)papers on the recommended IPC code ... The letters must sound real ... The letters - three a day - should go out to the media. We'll need a sustained campaign, so it's all hands on deck."
As Mr Shanmugam spelt out his case, Durai sat impassively, flanked by his son, Yong and Loo.
The courtroom itself presented a strange sight, with stacks of files in shelves lined up behind Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon. Much of this huge body of evidence is expected to come up for discussion.
As for Mr Shanmugam, he has barely waded through 40 pages of his 90-page opening statement.
CRONIES OR ...
(It began when Mr Shanmugam repeatedly referred to Durai's co-defendants as his "cronies".)
Chia Boon Teck (for Loo and Yong): I let it go once, I let it go twice, but until this court makes a finding of fact, that the defendant directors are cronies, may I ask my learned friend to stop labelling them as such?
Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon: I think it's a fair point. The gentlemen in question are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. I am not suggesting that you intend anything else.
K Shanmugam (for NKF): Yes sir, if I put it this way, my understanding of the duty of counsel in an opening is to state the case that he intends to prove. This is the case that I intend to prove.
JC Menon: Yes.
Mr Shanmugam: As long as I don't put it any higher than what I reasonably intend to prove, I am entitled to call them cronies.
JC Menon: I think we can avoid the use of these terms at this stage.
Mr Shanmugam: I will use a longer form of words every time I refer to them - the people who completely abdicated their responsibility and behaved completely dishonourably - I will say that every time.
JC Menon: Yes.
(Eventually, Mr Shanmugam referred to them as Durai's "special friends") - TODAY/st
It was July 13, 2005, the night before T T Durai was to step down as the chief of the National Kidney Foundation. Still, the man reputed to be a workaholic, was busy in his office at the charity's Kim Keat headquarters.
But this was no ordinary evening.
Amid the rumblings that were gathering pace across the island over his handsome remuneration and the shadow of the investigation that was to follow, Durai was cleaning up traces of "a fraud that he perpetrated".
"He sat through the night deleting items from his computer and destroying documents in the office," Senior Counsel K Shanmugam said on the opening day of a civil suit.
The NKF hopes to recover some $12 million allegedly wasted on benefits, salaries and failed contracts from Durai and several Board members.
Others dragged into the case are former chairman Richard Yong, former treasurer Loo Say San and Mr Durai's enigmatic friend and business associate Pharis Aboobacker.
"They were going out of their way to hide it, including deleting items from their computers," said Mr Shanmugam, who is representing the NKF.
He painted the picture of one man manipulating an organisation along with his "cronies" on the board - a suggestion that offended the defendants' counsel. Once his "cronies" offered him an eight-month bonus which he modestly slashed to a "mere" $25,000.
Mr Shanmugam spoke of a man who flew first-class and brazenly lied to his executive committee about it. A man who did not want the NKF to be governed either by the Ministry of Health or by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS).
Above all, he spoke of a man who would do anything to get his own way.
At the heart of the matter was Durai's dispute with the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) which eventually resulted in the court case that led to his ouster.
"SPH had made a very reasonable offer to pay damages and give an apology," said Mr Shanmugam revealed.
But Durai was spoiling for a fight. He did not mention the SPH offer to the exco.
He claimed lawyers had told him that NKF had a very good case. "This was inaccurate," said Mr Shanmugam.
A lawyer had also warned of risk if the case against SPH was pursued. Again, Durai did not reveal this.
In fact, he said that SPH had filed its defence when in truth it was asking for more time to come up with a settlement.
To this, the chairman, Mr Yong, responded by proposing that Durai's legal costs in the SPH action be borne by NKF.
Mr Shanmugam also touched on Durai's manipulation of the media.
When there were reports on a code to make charities more accountable, NKF staff were asked to "ghost-write" letters against the move.
In an email sent to her colleagues, NKF's deputy director of communications Michelle Ang wrote: "Just got off the phone with Mr Durai. We'll need to pump out some letters to send to each of three (news)papers on the recommended IPC code ... The letters must sound real ... The letters - three a day - should go out to the media. We'll need a sustained campaign, so it's all hands on deck."
As Mr Shanmugam spelt out his case, Durai sat impassively, flanked by his son, Yong and Loo.
The courtroom itself presented a strange sight, with stacks of files in shelves lined up behind Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon. Much of this huge body of evidence is expected to come up for discussion.
As for Mr Shanmugam, he has barely waded through 40 pages of his 90-page opening statement.
CRONIES OR ...
(It began when Mr Shanmugam repeatedly referred to Durai's co-defendants as his "cronies".)
Chia Boon Teck (for Loo and Yong): I let it go once, I let it go twice, but until this court makes a finding of fact, that the defendant directors are cronies, may I ask my learned friend to stop labelling them as such?
Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon: I think it's a fair point. The gentlemen in question are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. I am not suggesting that you intend anything else.
K Shanmugam (for NKF): Yes sir, if I put it this way, my understanding of the duty of counsel in an opening is to state the case that he intends to prove. This is the case that I intend to prove.
JC Menon: Yes.
Mr Shanmugam: As long as I don't put it any higher than what I reasonably intend to prove, I am entitled to call them cronies.
JC Menon: I think we can avoid the use of these terms at this stage.
Mr Shanmugam: I will use a longer form of words every time I refer to them - the people who completely abdicated their responsibility and behaved completely dishonourably - I will say that every time.
JC Menon: Yes.
(Eventually, Mr Shanmugam referred to them as Durai's "special friends") - TODAY/st
posted by khimsiu at 11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home