Public Prosecutor v Alex Ong Boon Chuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kaur Jasvender
• Judgment Date: 28 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 339
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 907849 of 2016 & Ors
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 19 May 2018
• Hearing Date: 14 February 2017,26 September 2016,13 February 2017,23 May 2017,16 February 2017,29 June 2017,27 September 2016,28 September 2016,15 February 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jiang Ke-Yue (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Chua Eng Hui and Melvin Lin (RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP)
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 339

District Judge Kaur Jasvender:

The accused was tried on five charges of corruptly obtaining gratification under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (“PCA”). The first charge reads as follows:

are charged that you, sometime in July 2010, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, an Assistant Director in the employ of Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd, did corruptly obtain from one Ng Soon Yong, Director of Mecflou Pte Ltd (“Mecflou”), gratification of $1,000 as an inducement for forbearing to show disfavour in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, not delaying progress payments to Mecflou, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

The other four charges were identical save for the time period and the amount of the gratification. The second charge is in August 2010 and the amount is $1,000, the third charge also relates to August 2010 and the amount is $5,000, the fourth charge relates to a day in September/October 2010 and the amount is $16,000 and the fifth charge relates to a day in May 2011 and the amount is $16,000.

I was satisfied that all five charges were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was found guilty and convicted. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 22 weeks’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty of $39,000, in default four weeks’ imprisonment. The execution of the sentence was stayed pending the appeal by the accused against the conviction and sentence.

The Case for the Prosecution

On 31 March 2008, the accused began employment at Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (“RWS”). At the time of the offences, his designation was an Assistant Director. On 1 July 2011, he was promoted to Director, but he resigned shortly after on 3 September 2011. His last day of employment with RWS was on 2 December 2011.

He was the Zone Manager in charge of the construction and installation of the Transformers Ride at Universal Studios Singapore, and his job scope included verifying that the works for the progress claims have been satisfactorily completed.

One of the main contractors of the project was Cyclect Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd (“Cyclect”). Cyclect outsourced the mechanical engineering works for the project to Mecflou Pte Ltd (“Mecflou”), the subcontractor in question. The director in charge of Mecflou is one Ng Soon Yong (“Kenneth”).

Cyclect claimed for work done through progress claims, which included claims for the subcontracted works carried out by Mecflou. Upon approval of the progress claims, RWS paid Cyclect. Mecflou then billed Cyclect to obtain payment for its works.

The statement of the accused’s subordinate, Mack-Even Markus Peter (‘Markus’) who was an Assistant Director for Projects, which was recorded by Special Investigator (‘SI’) Dinie Afiq Bi Musa (‘SI Dinie’) on 7 September 2011 was admitted with the agreement of the parties. The statement was admitted as P4.

By agreement of the parties, a certificate of conviction together with the charges and statement of facts which were admitted by the giver, Kenneth, upon his plea of guilty were admitted as P5.

Evidence of PW1 – Lim Peck Loong Desmond (‘Desmond’)

Desmond took over as the caretaker investigation officer in 2015 from Senior Special Investigator Fong Cheng Wei. He stated that Markus was outside Singapore and he is unable to locate him. He ascertained that Markus entered Singapore on 4 June 2013 and left on 8 June 2013.

Under cross-examination, he stated that no statement was recorded from Donald Maclean, who was the immediate superior of the accused.

Evidence of PW2 – Khoo Ee Boon (‘Mdm Khoo’)

Mdm Khoo joined RWS on 23 January 2007. Between 2010 to September 2012, she was the Senior Vice President of Human Resources (‘HR’). Thereafter, she was assigned other duties. In 2015, she was transferred back to HR.

The three versions of the RWS Code of Conduct were admitted through her; Version 1.0 is dated 20 October 2009 (see P14-1), Version 1.1 is dated 4 July 2011 (see P14-2) and Version 1.2 is dated 6 October 2011 (see P14-3). Mdm Khoo confirmed the Code of Conduct applies to all RWS employees. She said P14-1was sent via email to all employees and posted on RWS’s Intranet. She said a copy is sent annually in October/November as a refresher and employees are asked to acknowledge they have read it and their willingness to comply.

She was referred to clause 2 on ‘Conflict of Interest’ and sub-clauses 2.1 titled ‘Interest of the company’ and 2.3 on ‘Financial Indebtedness’, and she confirmed that there was no disclosure by the accused pursuant to these clauses which read:

Interest of the company

All team members are expected to always act in the best interests of the Company.

Conflict of Interest arises when the personal or professional interests of a team member may interfere or appear to interfere with the best interests of the Company. Conflict of Interest situations may be actual, potential or perceived.

A team member must not knowingly permit any business decisions to be influenced by, or perceived as being influenced by, his or her own personal conflicting interests. Decisions on Company related matters must be made solely based on business and/or commercial considerations.

Any Conflict of Interest, whether actual, potential or perceived, must be disclosed to the team member’s supervisor at the earliest reasonable instance. To protect his or her own professional integrity, a team member may be requested to abstain from the discussion or decision making process of a transaction in which he or she may appear to have a personal interest.

Financial Indebtedness

Team members are expected to maintain sound personal financial conditions and avoid unnecessary or excessive financial indebtedness.

Team members should be mindful that financial indebtedness may result in situations which may compromise their professional judgement and prevent them from carrying out their responsibilities in the best interests of the Company.

With this in mind, team members are expected to report any adverse financial indebtedness situations to their supervisors and to Human Resources and Training Department….

In response to the learned DPP’s questions about RWS’s stand on the accused obtaining loans from a sub-contractor, she gave the following answers¹: Q: Coming to the facts of this case, when Alex Ong, or rather the investigations revealed that when Alex Ong was employed by RWS, he obtained loans from a sub-contractor that was involved in the project that he was in charge of. In particular, Alex Ong was in charge of approving progress payments for this contractor’s work. Now, what would RWS stand be---or, maybe, the first question I should ask is, was RWS aware of this? A: The Human Resource Department is not aware of the loan. Q: And what would RWS stand be in relation to the obtaining of loans from a sub-contractor which he has dealings with for work? A: It would be a conflict of interest and, therefore, we would take steps to prevent any conflicting situation. Q: Who would the HR Department have consulted with to ascertain the appropriate mitigation measures? A: We would consult with the head of Projects to determine which area is being conflicted and it is for the---for the project department to propose course of action to prevent any risk of conflict of interest. Q: And by head of Projects, you mean Michael Chin? A: That’s right.

Under cross-examination, she stated there was no record of the accused having acknowledged the Code of Conduct. She agreed the accused’s duty of disclosure was to his immediate supervisor who would in turn have to inform HR. She also agreed that the accused was an above average performer.

She stated that Donald Maclean became the accused’s supervisor on 10 August 2010. After he resigned, Michael Chin took over as the supervisor temporarily between 1 October 2011 to 18 October 2011. Thereafter, Richard Waterhouse was appointed.

Evidence of PW3 – Chin Yong Kok Michael (‘Michael Chin’)

Michael Chin was with RWS between April 2007 and January 2012. He was the Executive Vice-President and the head of project development.

He testified the accused initially worked as part of the team on the WaterWorld attraction and subsequently the Transformers Ride attraction. For the Transformers Ride attraction, there were project managers from Universal Parks & Resorts, USA (‘UPR’) to assist. He said the local RWS team was responsible for the building in which the ride is housed and the installation of the ride and show portions.

He stated that Cyclect was the local contractor responsible for providing the manpower resources and the mechanical and electrical (‘M&E’) works for the Transformers Ride. He confirmed Mecflou was Cyclect’s sub-contractor, and was in charge of the mechanical engineering works. He confirmed there was an independent quantity survey (‘QS’) firm, DLS/KPK, which was the consultant. He said the QS was required to ensure the scope of work was done and the payments were properly accounted for.

Asked who from RWS dealt with the contractors, he said the person in charge was the accused as he was the project manager, and he was assisted by engineers. He elaborated on the accused’s responsibilities as follows²: Q: What was the scope of his responsibility? A: As a project manager, you are responsible to deliver the project. “Delivery” meaning: A, completing it on time within budget as best as you can; and obviously to the quality standards expected from the group---from the company. Q: And how will he ensure the quality standards expected by the company? A: That’s where the engineers and the site supervisors, they have to check to make sure that the specifications are met. And as a project person, you would also take it on yourself to check and also ensure that the standards are met. Q: Since in...