SINGAPORE: A route inspector with the National Environment Agency (NEA) who solicited money for his personal use from employees under a cleaning service provider was jailed for 24 weeks on Thursday (May 22).
Ruzdiman Salhan Mohamed Salim, 44, asked for the money from the staff knowing that they would be pressured to give in to the request, as Ruzdiman was the inspector for the routes they cleaned.
Apart from his jail term, Ruzdiman was ordered to pay a penalty of S$2,420 (US$1,900) – the same amount as the bribes he had obtained, according to charge sheets.
He pleaded guilty to five out of 15 charges of corruption, with the remaining taken into consideration for his sentencing.
USED HIS POSITION AS ROUTE INSPECTOR
As a route inspector, Ruzdiman was tasked to inspect routes cleaned by service providers engaged by NEA to clean public areas.
Service providers would provide NEA with their cleaning schedules, and route inspectors were supposed to walk these routes within four hours of a cleaning session to check if the job had been done properly.
Route inspectors were not supposed to tell service providers about their timetables.
If the route had issues, the route inspector would log it in NEA’s system, which would then issue a defect notice. This notice would be sent to the relevant service provider, which would accumulate default points.
Default points translated into monetary damages for the service provider.
One of these service providers was YS Yong Services. The company’s arrangement was such that default points would directly affect the employees’ monthly bonuses.
Between 2017 and 2022, Ruzdiman inspected some regions overseen by YS Yong.
While he used to issue 50 or more default points on a monthly basis, he became more laid back in 2019 and directed YS Yong staff to do inspections for him by asking them for photos of routes he was supposed to walk himself.
He would rely on these photos for his inspection results.
He then got to know three employees in YS Yong – an operations manager, an operations executive, and a cleaning supervisor.
ACCUSED GAVE REASONS FOR LOANS
During a work event some time before May 2019, Ruzdiman struck up a conversation with the operations manager and operations executive, and told them about his personal financial difficulties.
The two were puzzled as Ruzdiman was only a work contact.
Following that encounter, Ruzdiman called the operations manager on May 21, 2019, to ask for a S$1,000 loan, claiming he needed the money for divorce fees and to cover his children’s basic needs.
The operations manager was taken aback and was worried that Ruzdiman would create trouble for her if she rejected his request.
She agreed to lend him S$350.
On Aug 8, 2019, Ruzdiman contacted the operations manager again, this time asking for a S$300 loan to pay off his telco bills. She turned down the request, explaining that she had just given birth and could not spare the money. She was also wary, as Ruzdiman had yet to repay the earlier loan.
On the same day, Ruzdiman called the operations executive to ask for a loan of S$300, citing his divorce proceedings.
The operations executive’s instinct was to reject Ruzdiman, as they were not close, and Ruzdiman was a route inspector.
The man eventually agreed as he did not want trouble from Ruzdiman. He transferred S$300 to Ruzdiman and later on, another SS$50.
On another occasion, Ruzdiman asked the operations executive for S$1,500, but this did not materialise.
In April 2022, Ruzdiman called the cleaning supervisor to ask for a S$2,000 loan, claiming he needed the money to buy Hari Raya clothes for his children. The cleaning supervisor sent Ruzdiman S$200.
The month after, he separately approached both the operations executive and the cleaning supervisor again, this time asking them to be guarantors for a loan he intended to take. Both turned him down.
Ruzdiman initially intended to claim trial but later decided to plead guilty. He was convicted on Wednesday.
On each count of corruption, an offender can be jailed up to five years, or fined up to S$100,000, or both.
CNA has asked NEA whether Ruzdiman is still employed there, and has also contacted the Attorney-General’s Chambers to find out if any action will be taken against the cleaning company employees.
