Ong Seng Hwee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 10 August 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 208
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 292 of 1998
• Date: 10 August 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1999
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 208
• Defendant Counsel: Mathavan Devadas (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Appellant alleging that long statement made with incomplete caution given, under inducement, threat and promise and in oppressive conditions,Statements,Harbouring,Immigration,Presumption of knowledge,Whether appellant harbouring immigration offenders,ss 57(1)(d), 57(1) (e), 57(7) & 57 (8) Immigration Act (Cap 133),Finding immigration offenders at appellant's premises,Illegal immigrants,Whether appellant employing immigration offenders,Whether statement made involuntarily and hence inadmissible,s 121(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Voluntariness

: The appellant was charged in the district court below for six immigration related offences under ss 57(1)(d) and (e) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) (`the Act`). Three counts were for employing three Indian national immigration offenders and the other three were for harbouring these offenders between the month of March 1998 and 21 April 1998. At the end of the trial below, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to nine months` imprisonment on each charge, two of which were to run consecutively. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. I dismissed his appeal on 29 June 1999 and these are my reasons.

The prosecution case

Scanlink Woodcraft (Scanlink) was a carpentry business operating in a factory building at 362, Paya Lebar Road, [num ]07-01 Singapore (the premises). It was registered as a sole proprietorship in the name of Madam Sim Sai Mui, the appellant`s mother. She testified that she left the management of the business entirely to her son, who is also known as Sunny Ong.

On 21 April 1998 at about 9.15pm police raided the premises and found four Indian nationals there. One of them asked Sergeant Tan Beng Wee, who was part of the raiding party, what they wanted to buy. The three Indian nationals to whom the charges related produced photocopied work permit cards which bore other persons` names and employers other than Scanlink. They could not produce any valid travel documents. The fourth Indian national was only visiting the premises. The other three were subsequently charged and convicted for entering Singapore without a valid pass or permit under s 6(1)(c) of the Act.

The evidence of the immigration offenders

The prosecution called all three immigration offenders, Pandiduray (PW3), Vellaisamy (PW4) and Manickam (PW8), as witnesses. PW3 had been unemployed and was looking for a job. Sometime in March 1998, he was walking along Paya Lebar Road and came to the factory building. He went from door to door looking for work. He met the appellant on the seventh floor and asked him for work. The appellant asked to see his travel documents but PW3 had only a photocopied work permit (P7) bearing the name `Alagan Ganesan` to show him. The appellant looked at it but did not follow up by asking to see PW3`s passport. As instructed, PW3 came back the next morning and the appellant gave him work, which included fixing, painting, and moving furniture. PW3 only worked two or three days a week after either of the other two Indian nationals (PW4 and PW8) informed him that there was work to be done. The appellant instructed PW3 on what work to do and paid him his wages every Saturday at a rate of between $18 to $20 per day.

On about six occasions, PW3 stayed on the premises whenever he had to work overtime. PW3 said that he did not ask for permission to do so but the appellant knew about this because, on one occasion, the appellant woke him up in the morning to start work. PW4 and PW8 also worked for the appellant and slept in the premises, the latter having been given the keys to the premises.

With respect to the other two Indian nationals, PW3 said that they worked at the appellant`s factory together with him, though they had started earlier. PW3 testified that the appellant brought them to other places to work, such as the Serangoon Gardens Country Club (SGCC) and some blocks of flats. At the former location, they painted furniture and doors and carried out parquet tiling with the appellant in supervision most of the time. K Radakrishnan (PW9) was not with them when they worked at the blocks of flats. However, PW3 saw PW9 at SGCC once laying pipes. Finally, PW3 testified that he told the police that the appellant was his employer on arrest and identified him later at the police station.

PW4 came to Singapore sometime in January 1998 and started working for the appellant soon afterwards. He met a foreign Indian man in `Teka` and asked for work, not having eaten for days. The Indian man took him to see the appellant, who told him to report for work the following day. He was asked by the appellant if he had a work permit card. PW4 handed him a photocopied work permit card which bore the name `Adaikappan`. PW4 had also bought the work permit card from `Teka`. The appellant went to his office with the card and returned it to him a little later.

PW4 saw the other two Indian nationals, PW3 and PW8, working there. He was asked to do the same work as the other two and was paid $50 a week every Saturday by the appellant. They were at other worksites such as flats and the SGCC. Day to day instructions for work at the premises or the other worksites were given to them by the appellant, who brought them to the other worksites as well.

The appellant gave PW4 permission to sleep at the premises every night. PW3 and PW8 also slept at the premises. The appellant gave him the key to the premises and would wake them up for work every morning when he came there at about 8 am. Finally, PW4 testified that the appellant had come to the police station where they were detained and showed the police a photocopy of their work permits, identifying them as his employees.

In a similar fashion, Manickam (PW8) was roaming around Geylang sometime in February 1998 when he was approached by one `Ah Goon` who asked if he wanted work. PW8 was brought to the appellant`s factory and waited outside while `Ah Goon` went in to speak to someone. PW8 was then able to start work the next day at the premises. One or two days after he started, a man named `Ah Seng` asked to see PW8`s work permit. PW8 showed him a forged work permit. The appellant also asked to be shown one. PW8 promised to do so but eventually did not as `Ah Seng` had already seen it.

The appellant generally gave him instructions on work and paid him his wages. PW3 and PW4 also worked there with him. The latter was already there when he arrived and PW3 appeared a few days later. He stayed at the premises overnight for around a week whenever he had overtime work and asked the appellant for permission. He could not understand the appellant`s response but stayed nonetheless. The appellant likewise woke him up in the morning whenever he stayed over and had seen him sleep over on about two occasions. PW8 said that PW3 also stayed over whenever he had overtime work to do.

K Radakrishnan (PW9)

PW9 said he had known the appellant for about ten years as a friend. He was also engaged to carry out plumbing and general works at the appellant`s worksites as a sub-contractor. In December 1997, PW9 did some plumbing work for the appellant at SGCC, but was there for only a day. He remembered PW3 being there assisting him. There was another assignment in Sengkang in April 1998. The appellant instructed PW4 and PW8 to assist him in order to complete the work on time and paid them. On a separate note, PW9 also stated that he paid the appellant $500 a month since November 1997 to store his tools in the premises.

At a coffeeshop sometime between April and June 1998, the appellant informed PW9 of the arrest of the three Indian nationals and asked for his help. PW9 agreed and the appellant said he would give him some typewritten documents to sign. The appellant subsequently gave him several documents to sign on three or four different occasions and he did so around the time the appellant was charged in court for the present offences. These documents comprised:

(a) a sub-tenancy agreement dated 22 November 1997 between the appellant and PW9, which allowed him to store his tools and equipment in the premises and required him to be responsible for the movements of his own workers (P10);

(b) a letter of request dated 28 November 1997 from PW9 to the appellant seeking the latter`s assistance in paying PW9`s workers directly and granting them cash advances up to a limit of $80 per week for food (P11);

(c) a note dated 30 November 1997 signed by PW9 indicating his acceptance of a SGCC sub-contract providing labour for `general works` for a consideration of $12,500 payable by instalments and beginning 2 December 1997 (P12);

(d) eight payment vouchers for payments made to PW9 as a sub-contractor of the appellant, six of which were stated to be for the SGCC project (P13 to P20); and

(e) a statutory declaration signed by PW9 dated 22 June 1998, to the effect that PW3, PW4 and PW8 were his foreign workers and that he had rented part of Scanlink Woodcraft`s premises for the storage of tools and materials at a rental of $500 per month (P21).

PW9 explained that he was an alcoholic. His drinking bouts would begin in the morning and they would affect his memory. He was drunk at the time he signed the documents, did not read their contents nor knew why he signed them. He asked the appellant what they were for and the latter replied that they were just a formality. He denied that he had ever made a request as indicated in P11, that he was ever awarded the sub-contract as acknowledged in P12 or that he had ever received the amounts as indicated in the payment vouchers.

He wrote the contents of P21 on the instructions of the appellant, though he was not forced to do so. The contents were false. He explained that he did so because the appellant assured him that it only involved a fine which he need not worry about. He thus made the statutory declaration because he wanted to help the appellant as a friend and did not expect any adverse consequences.

SSgt Lim Chong Hoe

SSgt Lim Chong Hoe (`SSgt Lim`), the investigating officer, arrested the appellant in the early hours of the morning of 22 May 1998. The appellant was kept in the lock-up and statements were taken from him the next day. He was released on bail between 7pm and 8pm. The appellant telephoned him later that evening at about 11.15pm and told him that he wanted to make additions to the long statement which he had given to SSgt Abdul Razak that morning. SSgt Lim told him to write to the Head of Investigations at Geylang Police...