This real life court drama is becoming a huge joke. And the biggest loser? Cecilia. Should have just cum, I mean, come clean the first time around.
Fifty Shades of Gay will not be coming to a book store near you soon, but you can visit the local courtrooms to witness it live. (Credits to Alvinology.)
After almost 10 months of bullshit (which I have blogged about previously here), former Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) Director Ng Boon Gay, 46, finally broke his silence as he revealed details of what he claimed to be a three-year relationship with former IT executive Cecilia Sue Siew Nang, 36.
To recap, Ng has been charged with four counts of obtaining sexual gratification from Ms Sue between June and December last year. The prosecution’s case is that the oral sex during this period was forced because they had “broken up”.
Describing himself as her “boyfriend” at one point, Ng testified after District Judge Siva Shanmugam ruled that he had a case to answer.
Ng said he did not know why Ms Sue said he forced her, as she was “clearly a willing party”. The four encounters he was charged with “were no different from all other occasions when we had sexual intimacy”, he said. For instance, between August 2010 and July last year, there were several other occasions when they had oral sex, said Ng, which indicated they did not break up during this time.
“It was quite a routine for us to proceed to quiet spots after our dates, meals or drinks, if we had the time, to spend some intimate moments,” he said.
Ng also said both of them would take turns initiating the sexual acts. The acts they engaged in were “completed”, and he was never angry, neither did she display any fear on any of the occasions, he noted and claimed that he and Ms Sue had engaged in oral sex “20 to 30 times” during their extramarital affair, which started between late 2008 and early 2009, when he was the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department and lasted till December last year when Ng was arrested.
Denying that there was ever a “break” in their relationship, Ng said they were physically intimate until Ms Sue became heavily pregnant and “it was not that convenient”, and continued about a month after she had given birth in mid-2010.
The pair got to know each other through a mutual friend at a pub along Tanjong Pagar Road. About two to three months after their first encounter, the pair became physically intimate. According to Ng, the pair had oral sex for the first time in April 2009 at East Coast Park, which was their usual meet-up venue.
On a separate note, Sue said in the statement that she developed “more liking for Boon Gay” after the incident, even though she felt guilty.
But Ms Sue claimed yesterday that the statement was invalid as she made it out of “fear”. She said she also did not want to “implicate anyone” including herself. She added that she subsequently “picked up the courage to adjust my mistake”, and went back to the CPIB to make new statements which she thought would “supersede” the original statement.
In between tears, she said: “I was really very tired.”
Rejecting the defence counsel’s suggestion that she had a consensual sexual relationship with Ng, Ms Sue insisted that she did not have “physical intimacy” with Ng. She said the incident on Dec 20 last year was yet another one where Ng forced her to perform oral sex on him.
Mr Tan also quizzed Ms Sue if she was denying she had sex with Ng because it may “affect custody of your daughter if divorce proceedings are commenced”.
Ms Sue replied that she and her husband “are still living happily together”.
Asked to describe her relationship with Ng, Ms Sue said she first knew him as a customer, then he became a “friend”.
Reading out a series of suggestive text messages that Ms Sue sent to Ng – some sent just days after she claimed that she was forced to perform oral sex on him – Mr Tan questioned Ms Sue whether she sends “dirty” SMSes to friends.
To which, Ms Sue replied: “(Maybe) jokes to pull their leg.”
Referring to a message that Ms Sue sent to Ng, Mr Tan questioned: “Jokes like, ‘Do you DIY?'”
Ms Sue claimed that the message was a “typo”. Pressed on what she understood “DIY” to mean, Ms Sue cited home-fix stores. (Liar. She really meant masturbate. I agree with blogger queen Xiaxue on this tweet.)
On July 2 last year, Ms Sue sent a message to Ng which read: “I could have three hours with you. We had fun”. Hours later, at 1am, she sent another message: “She’s home?”
On Dec 1 last year, Ms Sue also sent a message “M U” – which meant “miss you” – to Ng. When Ng did not reply, Ms Sue sent another message the next day: “You ignore me how how how”.
Ms Sue had alleged that Ng forced her to perform oral sex on him on Dec 2. But on Dec 5, she sent another “miss you” message to Ng. The next day, she sent him two messages, “you ignore me”, and “where’s family day?”
On Dec 14, three days after Ng’s fourth alleged offence, Ms Sue messaged: “sad sad can we turn back the clock?”. Ng replied: “back to Great World City time?”