Chan Mei Yoong Letticia v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 92
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 283 of 2001
• Date: 30 April 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Quek Mong Hua and Julian Tay Wei Loong (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 92
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Appellant charged with employing immigration offender,Whether trial judge's finding of illegal entry against weight of evidence,Employment of immigrant,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether sentence of 12 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive,Immigrant as prosecution witness testifying to legal entry,Illegal entry,Illegal immigrant,Employment of immigration offender,Whether appellant exercised due diligence to ascertain validity of work permit,Testimonial of appellant's good character,Immigration,Conviction for illegal entry,Employment,Appellant challenging credibility of prosecution witnesses,s 57(1)(e) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed),Sentencing,Whether appellate court should overturn findings,Prosecution witnesses testifying appellant employer of illegal immigrant,Courts and Jurisdiction,Whether testimonial of assistance,Evidence,Whether appellant employer of immigrant,Jurisdiction,Whether trial judge's finding that appellant employer against weight of evidence,ss 6(1)(c), 57(1)(e), 57(1)(ii), 57(9), 57(10) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed),Appellate,Arrest of immigrant possessing no valid travel documents,Whether prosecution discharged burden of proving illegal entry of immigrant,Findings of fact by trial judge,Penalties,Weight of evidence,Whether court should overturn trial judge's assessment of witnesses' credibility

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The appellant, Chan Mei Yong Letticia was charged with an offence under s 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, Cap 133 ("the Act") and punishable under s 57(1)(ii) thereof for employing one Kamruzman @ Farouk, an immigration offender. The district judge convicted her of the charge and sentenced her to 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant has appealed against her conviction and sentence.

The undisputed facts

2. The appellant was the managing director of a company known as Yuen Catering Services Pte Ltd ("Yuen Catering"), which operated a restaurant along Upper East Coast Road. Previously, she had been a chef at Goodwood Park Hotel from 1985 to about 1994. In the course of her work as a chef, she got to know a subordinate, Rosalind Yeo Good Lian ("Rosalind") with whom she became good friends.

3. In 1998, the appellant was introduced to one Mr Teo Hock Seng ("Mr Teo"), the managing director of Komoco Holdings Pte Ltd ("Komoco") by a friend, Margaret Chong Yin Fun ("Margaret") who worked as a sales manager at Komoco. Mr Teo offered the appellant the opportunity to operate a canteen at Komoco’s premises situated at 253, Alexandra Road, Komoco Property Building ("the canteen").

4. Subsequently, the appellant met Rosalind by chance at the carpark of Goodwood Park Hotel. Rosalind told the appellant that she was unhappy working at the hotel and wanted a change of environment. The appellant informed her of the opportunity to operate a canteen business at Komoco.

5. In due course, a licence was obtained by Yuen Catering to run the canteen at Komoco. In or about October 1998, the canteen commenced its operations, with both Chinese and Muslim food being available. Rosalind was working at the canteen right from the beginning. In January 1999, the appellant started working at the canteen as a cook for the Chinese food and remained until 19 October 2000. A Muslim cook, Jamaldin Miah Bin Brahim Miah ("Jamal") was hired sometime in December 1999. During the period from October 1999 to 19 October 2000 one Kamruzman @ Farouk ("Farouk"), a Bangladeshi, was working at the canteen as a cleaner. He was arrested on 19 October 2000 by officers from the Ministry of Manpower when he was found without valid travel documents. He pleaded guilty and was convicted of the charge of entering into Singapore illegally, in contravention of s 6(1)(c) of the Act. A sentence of one month’s imprisonment and four strokes of the cane was imposed on him and he had since served the sentence.

The case for the prosecution

6. It is the prosecution’s case that the appellant was the owner or operator of the canteen and that she had employed Farouk, an immigration offender, without ever having seen either a passport or a genuine work permit.

7. During the trial, Farouk testified that he had gone to the canteen on a Friday in the afternoon at about 2-3 pm, though he could not remember exactly which date it was, to enquire about a job advertised in the newspaper. When he arrived, Rosalind was at the cash counter and asked him to take a seat first, as she was busy. When she was free, she came over to where he was seated and queried whether he knew what the job was about. Then Rosalind went into the kitchen to call the appellant. Both the appellant and Rosalind were present at the interview even though it was the appellant who did most of the talking. The appellant asked Farouk whether he had a work permit, to which he replied ‘yes’. After the interview, the appellant told Farouk to leave behind his contact number and that she would call him if she needed him. The following Monday, Farouk received a page asking him to go down to the canteen. When he arrived, he reported to Rosalind, who confirmed that someone had paged him to go to work and directed him to the kitchen. On the same day, he showed a photocopy of a work permit to Rosalind who took down some particulars. This work permit was not shown to the appellant. He further testified that it was the appellant who told him that his salary was to be $900 a month and about his duties which involved cutting the vegetables, washing the dishes and cleaning the canteen at the end of every working day. She was also the one who later raised his salary to $1000 a month. In his opinion, the appellant was the person in charge of the canteen. She would be at the canteen from 8.00 – 8.30 am in the morning to about 3 – 3.30 pm in the afternoon. In many matters pertaining to work, she was to be approached. In fact, he had seen Rosalind approaching the appellant several times for instructions. He considered Rosalind the manager who tended to the cash counter and dealt with workers’ salaries.

8. Rosalind gave evidence of her duties at the canteen, which involved fronting the cash counter and sometimes serving food. She was also responsible for taking stock and ordering through suppliers. Her responsibilities, however, did not involve any hiring or firing of staff. The agreement with the appellant initially with respect to the canteen business was that Rosalind was to have a salary of $2000 and a 50%-50% profit sharing arrangement. Her employer was Yuen Catering and she received CPF contributions. Although Rosalind considered herself a part-owner of the canteen at the beginning, subsequently, she found that she was not a part-owner as she did not have the final say and the appellant had to be consulted for her approval on matters pertaining to the canteen. The vegetable and meat suppliers had to be approved by the appellant. Two employees were dismissed at the direction of the appellant. Advertisements for workers were also put up in accordance with the appellant’s wishes. Rosalind further testified that, when Jamal came looking for work in response to an advertisement, Rosalind had to interview him because the appellant was busy in the kitchen. When Jamal had asked for a higher salary than that of the previous Muslim cook, Rosalind had to go to the kitchen and ask the appellant, who agreed to pay the higher salary.

9. According to Rosalind, the staff at Komoco would pay using coupons while non-staff had to pay in cash. She would collect the coupons, compile them, put up a claim and pass them to the accounts department of Komoco so that they could make a cheque payment to Yuen Catering. As for the cash, she would collect it and keep it until the end of every month, before doing up the accounts and statements and passing the cash to the appellant. The $800 she collected every month from the Muslim stall at the canteen for use of premises and cleaning services would be put in monthly accounts and given to the appellant. Subsequently, the handling of accounts was taken over by the appellant.

10. On the day that Farouk approached her for a job, she had asked him whether he knew what he was supposed to do in the job. When she asked him for his IC and he replied that he was not a local, she went to look for the appellant who later interviewed him. After the interview, she was informed by the appellant that Farouk would be hired. Rosalind could not recall whether Farouk showed her any documents on the day he reported for work. Nevertheless, she recalled that she had seen a photocopied work permit sometime in October 2000. At that time, the appellant wanted her to check on Farouk’s work permit. Rosalind took down particulars and asked for his agent’s telephone number. She tried calling his agent several times but to no avail. Before she could follow up on the matter, Farouk was arrested on 19 October 2000.

11. Mr Teo confirmed that, as far as the company was concerned, the operator of the canteen was the appellant. He would deal with the appellant if there were complaints about food quality and service. In the early stages of the canteen’s operations, he would go there regularly to see if everything was in order. The appellant introduced him to Rosalind and told him that Rosalind was to be in charge if she was not around. Fortunately, the appellant was around most of the time. As operations went on, he checked with the appellant as to how the canteen was doing as he did not want them to be out of pocket. When the appellant informed him that a lot of staff were not using the canteen, he and the appellant decided to give food coupons to the staff to encourage them to eat at the canteen. Payments were to be made out by cheque by Komoco to Yuen Catering in exchange for the coupons.

12. Two other prosecution witnesses were the officers from the Ministry of Manpower who arrested Farouk, Mr Chang Kwee Huan ("Mr Chang") and Mr Law Boon Seng ("Mr Law"). On the day of the arrest, when the two officers were at the canteen, Farouk had identified the appellant as his boss. When they asked for the owner/operator of the canteen, the appellant stepped forward and identified herself as such. When asked whether Farouk was her worker, she replied that he was. Mr Chang rejected the suggestion that they had asked merely for a representative of Yuen Catering. Mr Law could not recall whether the phrase ‘licensed operator’ was used that day but recalled clearly that he had used either the term ‘owner’ or ‘operator’. Upon the officers’ request to see the particulars of Farouk, the appellant had instructed Rosalind to get the relevant clear folder for the information.

13. The prosecution also relied on two statements of the appellant recorded by Sgt Chua Ban Kheng ("Sgt Chua"). The first was a long statement recorded on 23 October 2000 and 21 February 2001 pursuant to s121 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the statement, the appellant acknowledged herself to be the "assigned operator" of the canteen and that she had employed Rosalind as her canteen manager and Farouk as her cleaner. Her cautioned statement recorded on 21 March 2001 read as follows :

I am sorry for committing the offence. I should have check the worker myself than to rely on my assistance to do it. I know that I was wrong and hope for...