In 2014, Harpreet Singh Nehal SC, then a Senior Counsel at Cavenagh Law LLP, and two unnamed colleagues found themselves at the center of an ethical storm and was at risk of being disbarred if found guilty.

Tasked with defending Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala in a Singapore trial over a near-billion-dollar trust dispute — Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA v Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala — they prepared five witnesses in Sydney.

Their methods, including group sessions, were standard for complex litigation, involving affidavit reviews, mock cross-examinations, and error corrections, with safeguards like barring witnesses from commenting on each other’s testimony.

What triggered the investigation

Trouble brewed when a 14-page “script” surfaced mid-trial in 2017, prompting High Court Justice Quentin Loh to question the testimony’s integrity, likening it to coaching banned in England’s case R v Momodou.

The Attorney-General launched a disciplinary probe, but in May 2018, the tribunal exonerated Harpreet and his colleagues.

The decision rested on multiple grounds: the 2010 ethics code lacked clear rules against group preparation, no evidence showed misconduct, and their approach was deemed acceptable at the time.

Harpreet: Where do you hide your face?

Harpreet’s entanglement, detailed in a 2024 JOM article, was a “trial by fire.”

He recalled the 2017 allegations nearly unraveling his career: “When I first heard it, I cooped myself up in my apartment for three full days. ‘Because where do you hide your face?’”

A guilty verdict could have meant disbarment, but after a year-long process, the tribunal found the charges baseless, fully vindicating him and his team.

Why were the lawyers cleared?

The tribunal’s reasoning, per Jeffrey Pinsler SC’s 2018 analysis in the Singapore Academy of Law Journal, was layered:

• No clear rules: The LP(PC)R 2010 didn’t ban group preparation or define its limits, with “no express law or consensus” against it (para 6.1.1).
• No misconduct: Safeguards minimized influence, and the D-3 script wasn’t tied to the lawyers (paras 6.2.4, 6.3.1).
• Legitimate practice: Group sessions, common in complex cases, could enhance accuracy—e.g., jogging memory (para 6.2.7)—with little evidence overlap reducing risks (para 6.2.6).
• No malice: Absent intent to deceive, charges under the Legal Profession Act were “wholly unjustified” (para 21).

Later, the Court of Appeal (2018 SGCA 16) cautioned against group preparation as an evidentiary concern, not a retroactive ethical rule, reinforcing the regulatory gap’s role in their clearance.

No ethical breach, but...

The findings suggest their clearance hinged largely on a regulatory void, raising urgent questions about morality, legality, and the need for reform in Singapore’s legal ethics framework.

Legality cleared them, but morality lingers.

Ethically, the case teeters on a knife’s edge. Group preparation risks memory contamination — a psychological reality — yet it’s a tool used globally, from Australia’s sanctioned conferences to the U.S.’s liberal rehearsals.

Harpreet’s team likely aimed for accuracy, not manipulation, and their safeguards suggest good faith.

Still, the “script” and judicial unease cast shadows: perception matters. Practices blurring witness independence, even unintentionally, chip at justice’s foundation.

In 2014, Singapore’s Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2010 offered no specific guidance on witness preparation, let alone group sessions.

The tribunal noted the gap, observing no express prohibition or professional consensus against their methods.

Ethics can falter not from malice, but from the absence of clarity.

The Compania saga reveals a profession navigating murky waters without a compass.

The lawyers’ exoneration wasn’t a triumph of ethics but a symptom of a system unprepared for modern litigation’s complexities.

Pinsler’s call for explicit rules in the 2015 ethics code rings truer today — guidelines defining permissible preparation, mandating transparency, and guarding against contamination could have preempted this mess.

So, were they ethical? Yes, given the context, but with a caveat: ethics demands more than legal compliance.

Clear rules would protect practitioners from retroactive scrutiny and ensure testimony’s integrity.

Until then, cases like the one Harpreet Singh was involved in will linger as cautionary tales — proof that in the absence of clarity, even the well-intentioned tread a fine line.

Ethically, the case remains a gray zone — legally permissible, yet morally debatable.

Oracle announced last week (Mar 21) that it secured a significant contract with Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) to provide an **Oracle Cloud services for the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). The Digital and Intelligence Service will also partner with Oracle to accelerate AI deployment for military missions.

In the same month, OCBC announced a partnership with Oracle to shift its finance operations to the cloud.

Just a day earlier (Mar 20), a user with the moniker "rose87168" posted on a hacking forum purportedly selling 6 million records extracted from Oracle Cloud's servers. The data included sensitive information such as encrypted credentials for authentication and other private keys of approximately 140K tenants.

It was the dubbed the biggest supply chain hack of 2025. The hacker claimed that the breach occurred 40 days ago in late February.

Hacker demanded ransom from Oracle in February 2025

A month before the hack, the hacker contacted Oracle with a demand for more than 200 million dollars in crypto coins.

Oracle refused to comply.

The hacker is currently coercing affected companies and organizations to pay for data removal, increasing financial and reputational risks.

Oracle initially denied the breach but investigations show leak is real

"There has been no breach of Oracle Cloud. The published credentials are not for the Oracle Cloud. No Oracle Cloud customers experienced a breach or lost any data," the company told BleepingComputer shortly after news organizations reported on the hack.

On Tuesday (Mar 25), the hacker shared a 10,000-line sample to further substantiate their claims. The sample alone contains data from 1,500+ unique organisations, indicating a significant breach.

The dataset includes a substantial number of personal email addresses, likely due to organisations allowing SSO-based authentication for their users and customers.

DSTA, OCBC among organisations listed in the data leak

Fathership has identified dsta.gov.sg and ocbc.com as being listed in the data leak. Even if the entity do not use Oracle as the primary cloud, if someone tried Oracle at some point, even as a trial use, the domain might be present in the list shared by the hacker.

The authenticity of the hack is debated. Some analysts question the hacker’s inability to decrypt the data, suggesting it might be outdated (e.g., from 2022 backups) or exaggerated.

As of now, it’s unresolved, with Oracle standing by its denial and the cybersecurity community urging affected organizations to rotate credentials, monitor systems, and engage Oracle for clarification.

Harpreet Nehal Singh, a Senior Counsel and a relatively new face in Singapore’s Workers’ Party (WP), has been steadily gaining attention as a potential figure in the party’s future.

His prominence, however, appears to owe as much to his own efforts as to any formal endorsement from the WP leadership.

Recent coverage by JOM, a local media platform conveniently helmed by Harpreet's editor-in-chief buddy Sudhir Vadaketh, has been churning out glowing profiles about Harpreet and deploying sponsored ads on social media to prop up the lawyer's image.

Harpreet recruited by Leon Perera directly

Harpreet’s entry into the WP traces back to Leon Perera, a former MP who resigned in 2023 after a publicized affair with party member Nicole Seah.

But Perera’s departure was far from amicable.

Sources indicate he left on strained terms with WP Secretary-General Pritam Singh, with the two allgedly no longer on speaking terms following the scandal and its fallout.

Pritam's trust issues post-Raeesah Khan

According to those familiar with WP dynamics, Harpreet has struggled to gain the trust of Pritam Singh and the party’s core leadership.

The lingering association with Perera, combined with the acrimonious circumstances of his exit, appears to have left Harpreet on the periphery of the WP’s inner circle.

Without the backing of Pritam — who has led the party since 2018 and remains its public face ahead of GE2025 — Harpreet has reportedly turned to his own resources to build his profile.

Harpreet is building his legacy, on his own terms

Harpreet's legal background and personal stature have fueled efforts to position himself as a credible voice, with JOM’s relentless cheerleading painting him as a rising star, whether the WP likes it or not.

This self-driven push has not gone unnoticed.

Some within the party view Harpreet’s reliance on external platforms like JOM as a sign of ambition, a bid to establish himself as a contender in a post-Pritam era.

Pritam, despite his recent conviction in February 2025 for lying to a parliamentary committee, retains firm control of the WP and has signaled his intent to lead it into the next election. His leadership has emphasized unity and resilience, leaving little room for speculation about succession—at least publicly.

Harpreet’s independent profiling, however, suggests he’s not content to wait in the wings.

Warming up to WP leadership

The WP has been tight-lipped about internal matters, and Harpreet’s appearances alongside figures like Sylvia Lim and Pritam at party events project an image of cohesion.

Yet, the lack of integration into Pritam’s trusted circle hints at underlying tensions.

“Harpreet’s got the skills, but he’s not one of Pritam’s people,” one observer close to the party noted. “Leon’s baggage didn’t help, and now he’s having to prove himself on his own terms.”

For now, Harpreet’s trajectory remains a subplot in the WP’s broader story.

With GE2025 approaching, the party is focused on strengthening its slate, and Harpreet’s legal expertise and public presence could still make him a valuable asset — provided he bridges the gap with the leadership.

Singapore’s General Election is due by November 2025, and the Workers’ Party (WP) is hyping itself like it's ready to take over.

They’ve already got 10 seats—Aljunied, Sengkang, and Hougang—and now they’re eyeing more, like Marine Parade, East Coast, Tampines, and Pasir Ris-Punggol. With new faces popping up and a fancy Senior Counsel named Harpreet Singh joining the crew, people are buzzing about a “blue wave.”

But beyond the cheerleading, their track record’s a mess. Should we really give these folks a bigger mic? Let’s dig in.

WP has been on a winning streak

WP knows how to pull off a victory. In 2011, Chen Show Mao helped them snag Aljunied GRC, shocking the PAP.

In 2020, Jamus Lim’s charm won Sengkang with that “warm my cockles” moment we’re still quoting.

Now, Harpreet Singh Nehal—big-deal lawyer turned WP newbie—might be their next star. Spotted in Marine Parade, he’s got the resume to turn heads (think courtroom boss meets grassroots warrior).

Other parties like PAP and PSP are also bringing newbies, but WP’s crew feels like they’re ready to connect—think less suits, more “I get you” energy.

Four more GRCs? They pulled 50.49% in contested seats last time, and the east—full of stressed-out families—might bite. But winning’s one thing; delivering’s another.

Upcoming heroes or a brewing hot mess?

Here’s the tea: WP’s got baggage.

Jamus Lim’s a charmer, but his woke rants on inequality sound like a uni lecture—great for TikTok, less for heartlanders who just want cheaper chicken rice.

Pritam Singh, their leader, just got fined $14,000 for lying to a parliamentary committee about Raeesah Khan. That's a red flag and it’s not a great look for the Leader of the Opposition.

And 2023’s Leon Perera-Nicole Seah affair drama? More soap opera than serious vibes.

These aren’t one-off flubs; they’re a pattern of sloppy judgment. WP’s not the PAP’s well-oiled tank—they’re more like a rickety scooter.

So, should WP get more power?

If WP scores big—say, 20+ seats with wins like 59% in Aljunied, 52% in Sengkang, and 51% in a couple eastern GRCs—it’s less about them being flawless and more about the electorate wanting change. Skyrocketing costs, housing stress, young people over it—WP’s tapping that. Harpreet could be the boost they need, but their ideas have to shine brighter than their slip-ups.

They’re loud about fairness, but can they run the show without tripping over themselves? Parliament might get spicier, but it could also get sloppier.

The bottom line

WP’s got some wins and big talk, but their shine’s fading fast. New faces like Harpreet can’t hide the cracks—shaky delivery, sketchy leaders, and scandals that won’t quit. Their manifesto’s fine, but it’s not worth the chaos they drag in.

Root for them if you’re over PAP’s rule, but don’t expect miracles—just more noise.

In a disturbing case of voyeurism and child exploitation, a 32-year-old Singaporean man, Alfred Ee Sung Chong, was sentenced to two years in prison and three strokes of the cane on March 25, 2025.

Ee had been secretly recording upskirt videos of unsuspecting victims in public using his mobile phone, a crime spree that began in June 2019. His arrest in July 2021 also uncovered a stash of child pornography on his electronic devices.

Ee's criminal activities came to light after he recorded a video of an unidentified victim's undergarment on an escalator at an MRT station in June 2019.

He continued his offenses, targeting another woman on an MRT train in October of that year, capturing her exposed buttocks beneath her shorts.

Between August 2020 and January 2021, he recorded videos of six more unidentified individuals, focusing on their buttocks or genital areas in public spaces like escalators.

The police were tipped off on July 17, 2021, and after reviewing CCTV footage, apprehended Ee ten days later.

A search of his devices revealed 140 videos and 1,770 images of children in sexual poses or acts, material he admitted to downloading from the internet and dark web for personal gratification.

Ee pleaded guilty to charges of voyeurism, insulting a woman’s modesty, and possessing child abuse material.

Following his sentencing, Ee’s bail was set at $20,000, with his prison term scheduled to begin on April 11, 2025.