Low Boon Pin v Public Prosecutor

CourtMagistrates' Court (Singapore)
JudgeCorine Ng Teng Teng
Judgment Date25 June 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] SGMC 28
Citation[2001] SGMC 28
Publication Date19 September 2003



The Charge

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



M/42, S2171707-Z

are charged that you, on the 31st 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.


  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 2nd 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT