Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 November 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 253
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eric Tin Keng Seng and Sheryl Loh Xin Ling (Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 3 of 2016
• Date: 18 November 2016
• Hearing Date: 23 August 2016
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences Against Public Servants,Benchmark Sentences,Offences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Published date: 23 November 2016
• Defendant Counsel: Benny Tan Zhi Peng as young amicus curiae.,Tan Ken Hwee, G Kannan, Grace Lim and Navin Naidu (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 253
• Year: 2016

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

Section 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2012 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) criminalises the giving of information to a public servant which one “knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, or to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him”. This offence can be committed in a wide range of situations for a wide range of purposes. A passenger who lies to the traffic police that he was the driver of the car to protect an intoxicated friend who was driving, a father who lies to a school principal about his home address to get his child into primary school, or a public servant who lies to his boss at work to conceal certain errors he made, may all be found guilty of an offence under s 182 of the Penal Code (“s 182”).

Thus, to define the interest that the offence was intended to protect is difficult. The interests at stake vary across the wide range of different possible situations. Nevertheless, it may generally be said that at the heart of the offence lies the harm that would be caused from lying to a public servant (as opposed to any other ordinary person) because of the unique powers and duties that a public servant generally has – as the provision specifies, the offender must intend or know that his false information will likely cause the public servant to misuse his lawful powers or act in breach of his duties as a public servant.

This appeal concerns an ex-school principal who pleaded guilty to an offence under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code 1985”) for falsely telling his Cluster Superintendent that he was not having an extra-marital affair with a school vendor. The district judge (“the DJ”) meted out a sentence of four weeks’ imprisonment, and the appellant appeals against his sentence on the basis that the DJ erred in fact and law, and that the sentence is manifestly excessive. This appeal gives us the opportunity to provide some guidance on the correct approach to sentencing s 182 offences, which hopefully will help lower courts in dealing with the myriad of factual situations that come before them, and enable a greater degree of consistency in sentencing. We appointed a young amicus curiae, Mr Benny Tan Zhi Peng (“the amicus”), to address us on the appropriate sentencing guidelines for offences under s 182 of the Penal Code. We were greatly assisted by his written brief and would like to record our gratitude.

Background facts

Mr Koh Yong Chiah (“the Appellant”) is a 61-year-old male Singapore citizen who was a principal at four different schools from 1995 to 2012 and a Cluster Superintendent for three months in 1999, where he supervised school principals.¹ Specifically, from 1999 to 2002, he was the principal of the Chinese High School (“CHS”)²; from January 2003 to December 2009, he was the principal of Jurong Junior College (“JJC”) ³; and from December 2009 to September 2012, he was the principal of River Valley High School (“RVHS”) ⁴.

He became acquainted with one Loke Wai Lin Ivy (“Ivy”) in 2000, when Ivy approached CHS with a view to getting the school to participate in a community service project in China.⁵ At that time, Ivy was working at the Television Corporation of Singapore.⁶ But since 2005, she incorporated and became the director and majority shareholder of Education Architects 21 Pte Ltd and Education Incorporation Pte Ltd (“Ivy’s Companies”)⁷, both of which provide education-related services including the organising of overseas learning journeys, conference management and assorted logistical services⁸.

The Appellant and Ivy developed a sexual relationship and their first sexual encounter was during a CHS community service trip to Lijiang, China in March 2001.⁹ This sexual relationship lasted up to and including the period that the Appellant was the principal of RVHS.

The procurement process for school contracts

As principal of the various schools, the Appellant was on a panel that approved contracts awarded by his school to vendors.¹⁰ The teaching staff would prepare the specifications for an Invitation to Quote, outlining the goods and services required, evaluate the bids received from vendors and recommend the preferred bid to the Quotation Approval Panel (“QAP”).¹¹ The QAP would approve the bid if they agreed with the recommendations and thereafter, the contract would be awarded to the vendor.¹² In JJC, the Appellant was one of three persons on the QAP, and in RVHS, the Appellant was one of two persons on the QAP.¹³

From May to November 2005, as principal of JJC and a member of its QAP, the Appellant signed off on six contracts with a total value of $162,491.25 to Ivy’s Companies.¹⁴

The Appellant’s false statement

In November 2005, the Ministry of Education’s (“MOE”) Director General of Education (“DGE”) received an anonymous complaint alleging that the Appellant was having an affair with Ivy and that they behaved inappropriately on school premises and on overseas school trips.¹⁵ The DGE instructed the Appellant’s Cluster Superintendent, Ms Chia Ban Tin (“Ms Chia”), to interview the Appellant.¹⁶ Ms Chia first inquired into Ivy’s background and found out that she was the director of a company which was a service provider of JJC.¹⁷

On 24 November 2005, Ms Chia interviewed the Appellant. She asked him whether he had an affair with Ivy. The Appellant falsely stated to Ms Chia, a public servant, that he was not having an affair with Ivy, information he knew to be false.¹⁸ Ms Chia then reminded the Appellant about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the procurement process and advised the Appellant against any personal involvement with Ivy, whose company was bidding for contracts and providing services to JJC.¹⁹ The Appellant acknowledged that he understood her advice. This false statement is the subject of the first and only proceeded charge against the Appellant, which the Appellant pleaded guilty to. It states:

You, Koh Yong Chiah... are charged that you, on 24 November 2005, in Singapore, being a Principal of Jurong Junior College (“JJC”), did give false information orally to a public servant, namely one Chia Ban Tin (“Chia”), a Cluster Superintendent of the Ministry of Education, who was tasked to assess the truth of an anonymous complaint lodged against you alleging misconduct in having an affair with one Loke Wai Lin (“Loke”), a Director of Education Architects 21 Pte Ltd, a service provider of JJC, to wit, by falsely stating that you were not having an affair with Loke, which information you knew to be false, knowing it likely that you would thereby cause Chia to do an act, namely submit a report to the Director General of Education that there was no such misconduct on your part, which Chia, as a public servant, ought not to do if the true state of facts respecting which such information was given were known to her, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 182 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (1985 Rev Ed).

Following the interview, Ms Chia submitted a report to the DGE stating that the Appellant had denied having an inappropriate relationship with Ivy. The Appellant’s false statement led Ms Chia to omit to inform the DGE that the Appellant was involved in a sexual relationship with Ivy.²⁰ The Appellant knew it was likely that, after the interview, Ms Chia would inform the DGE that the Appellant denied being involved in an extra-marital affair with Ivy. Further, a day after the interview, the Appellant called and spoke to the DGE about the allegations levelled against him.²¹

If the Appellant had been truthful, MOE would have ensured that he was no longer allowed to approve contracts awarded to Ivy’s Companies. The Appellant may also have been subject to disciplinary proceedings.²²

Award of contracts following the Appellant’s false statement

After the 24 November 2005 interview, the Appellant continued to sign off on contracts awarded to Ivy’s Companies.²³ As principal of JJC, he approved another 48 contracts to Ivy’s Companies.²⁴ As principal of RVHS, he approved 39 contracts to Ivy’s Companies.²⁵ Between 2005 and 2012, as a member of the QAP of JJC and RVHS, the Appellant approved $3.2m worth of contracts awarded to Ivy’s Companies.²⁶ Further, during this period, the Appellant would sometimes help Ivy amend some of the details of the itinerary or quotations before she submitted her bid to JJC and RVHS.²⁷ Specifically, in September 2012, the Appellant vetted Ivy’s quotation in relation to a study trip to Japan and advised her on how to negotiate the contract with the JJC staff; nevertheless, the contract was eventually awarded to another vendor based on the recommendation of the QAP.²⁸

On 23 March 2012, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”) received information that the Appellant was suspected of being involved in corrupt dealings with Ivy and that there was impropriety in the procurement processes given his relationship with Ivy.²⁹ During the investigations, on 18 December 2012, the Appellant falsely told a Chief Special Investigator of CPIB that his first sexual contact with Ivy was in 2006 (when it was in fact in 2001). This false statement is the subject of the second charge against the Appellant under s 28(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed), which the Appellant has consented to have taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purposes of sentencing. The Appellant was not eventually charged with corruption or any further offence relating to his role in approving contracts to Ivy’s Companies.

The DJ’s decision

As mentioned, the DJ sentenced the Appellant to...