SO, how did Mr Tan die?

It remains a mystery because the driver, Henry Lee, claims he doesn't know how his friend died and does not want to elaborate on the accident.

Their two friends, both potential eyewitnesses, said they didn't see how the accident occurred.

According to the coroner's report, Lee, the victim, Mr Tan Cheng Chye, and three other friends had gone to the Las Vegas KTV pub along Havelock Road for a drinking and singing session.

This was just after 8pm on 15 Nov 2006.

Both Mr Tan and Lee drove, and had valet-parked their car.

After the drinking session, the group decided to go to Geylang for supper.

Lee was in his Honda Edix, along with two other friends. Mr Tan was last seen to be standing on a stone centre divider.

As Lee was driving his car along the single lane of the car park, he got into an accident with Mr Tan, who was walking towards his car.

Mr Tan, who was found on the ground, was bleeding from his nose and vomiting some white substance.

He died later at the Singapore General Hospital.

According to the coroner's report , there was no visible damage to Lee's car.

There was also no independent eyewitness to the accident.

A police officer at the accident scene told the court that Lee had smelt strongly of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot and his speech slurred.

His face was also flushed and his gait was unsteady.

He admitted that he had been drinking, and a breathalyser test revealed 67 mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, exceeding the legal limit of 35 mg.

The victim's blood alcohol level was higher - 102 mg.

Lee also tried to persuade his friend, Mr Quek Seng Lee, not to tell anyone that he was the driver at the time of the accident, the coroner's report said.

Lee tried to stop Mr Quek from co-operating with the authorities and providing his particulars.

Pathologist George Paul said that it is difficult to show that this was a case of someone being run over, based on the pattern of injuries alone.

'However, looking at the injuries to the chest wall, the limb and rib fractures, it is not remote to judge that the possible explanation for these injuries can be just from a running over of a tire on the chest and upper abdominal region,' he told the court.

Lee chose to remain silent in court.

In returning an open verdict, coroner Victor Yeo said that while no charges have been brought against Lee by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to date, it is clear that he was driving under the influence of alcohol.

'...His conduct subsequent to the accident could be further scrutinised to see if the investigations have been hindered in any way,' he said.

Mr Yeo left it to AGC to decide whether to press charges.

The AGC had charged Lee with drink-driving.

When contacted, the AGC said that in deciding whether to prefer a charge against a person and whether to proceed against him on that charge thereafter, the prosecution carefully considers all the relevant factors in the case.

This includes the type of evidence that is required to prove the charge, the availability of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the severity of the offence and the public interest.

Said a AGC spokesman: 'In this case, none of the witnesses were able to shed any light on how the accident occurred; we were therefore unable to determine whether the accused (Lee) had been negligent.'

This article was first published in The New Paper on Nov 25, 2008.