Low Boon Pin v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Corine Ng Teng Teng
• Judgment Date: 25 June 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGMC 28
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2001
• Citation: [2001] SGMC 28
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Charge

1 The accused pleaded guilty to one charge under Section 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The charge read as follows:

"You,

LOW BOON PIN

M/42, S2171707-Z

are charged that you, on the 31^st day of December 1998 at HDB Woodlands Branch Office, Singapore, did give to a public servant one Ismail Fahmi Bin Asnawi, a Technical Officer of the Housing Development Board attached to the Woodlands Branch Office, information contained in your letter of confirmation, to wit,

" Ref: Blk 682B Woodland Drive 62, #14-67 Renovation Work

I Low Boon Pin of Sentosa Co is the sub-contractor for How Reno and Deco to renovation the above units.

Jobs

1. Construct sink support with tiles
2. Construct cooking stove with tiles
3. Construct 50mm base of kitchen
4. Install sliding window at yard
5. Replace 12 pcs ceramic tiles

which you knew to be false knowing it likely that you would thereby cause such public servant to be lenient towards you by classifying your act as a minor infringement under the HDB Renovation Contractor’s Scheme instead of a major infringement, which the said public servant ought not have done if the true state of facts respecting which the said information was given were known to him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224".

2 I convicted the accused as charged and sentenced him to two (2) weeks imprisonment. The accused being dissatisfied with my decision, has appealed against my sentence and is currently on bail pending the appeal.

The Admitted Facts

3 The facts showed that the Accused, a HDB licensed contractor with HDB, had applied for a renovation permit on behalf of How Reno & Deco from HDB to renovate Blk 682B, Woodlands Drive 62, #14-67 ("the Flat"). How Reno & Deco could not do so as it is not a HDB licensed contractor.

4 All was undetected until the complaint of Yeo Teck Cher (the Flat owner). When first called up by HDB to explain, the Accused produced some official receipts which did not conclusively show that he was the contractor who carried out the renovation works. On a 2^nd interview with by HDB, the Accused wrote the note which is the subject matter of the charge stating that he was the sub-contractor of How Reno & Dcor for certain works. Following this note, the accused was let off with a penalty of $1,000 and the suspension of his license was lifted on the same day after the Accused paid the penalty.

5 However, in his statement to the CPIB, he admitted that he had lied in his note and that How Deco & Reno was in fact the one who did all the renovation works at the Flat. He claimed he lied as he was afraid that his renovation license would be suspended.

6 HDB has confirmed that if the renovation work of any flat was not carried out by the person named under the renovation permit but by another, it will amount to an assignment of the license. This is punishable with a fine of $3,000 and debarment of 3 years for the named contractor from registration under the Renovation Contractor’s Scheme.

The Mitigation

7 In his written mitigation, Counsel for the Accused stated the following succinct points:

1. The Accused had been a licensed HDB contractor since 1982 and admits...