Public Prosecutor v Chiam Heng Hsien
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Eric Tin Keng Seng |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] SGDC 125 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Published date | 08 June 2004 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Appellant in person |
| Defendant Counsel | Peter Liew Yu Ming (National Environment Agency) |
| Citation | [2004] SGDC 125 |
20 May 2004
District Judge Eric Tin:
1 This is an appeal against conviction and sentence by Mr Chiam Heng Hsien (Chiam), who claimed trial to the following charge (exhibit P1A):
“You…are charged that you on 21st of August 2003 at about 3.28 p.m., being the occupier of the residential premises at No. 9 Jalan Kelawar, Singapore, did fail to comply with Paragraph I, Items (1),(2),(3) and (4) of the Order issued under Section 17(1) of the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act (Cap. 59) which was served at you (sic) on 9th of April 2002 and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 23(a) of the aforesaid Act.”
2 After a 3-day trial, I convicted him of the offence and sentenced him to a fine of $12,000. I now give my reasons.
Prosecution’s Case
3 The prosecution relied on 3 witnesses, all environmental health officers of the National Environment Agency (NEA).
4 Mr C Raja (PW1) testified that he visited 9 Jalan Kelawar (the premises) on 1 April 2002 upon receiving a complaint that the premises was a potential mosquito breeding ground. On that day, he met Chiam. He asked if Chiam was the occupier or owner. Chiam informed PW1 that his mother was the owner but he would attend to PW1. PW1 inspected the compound and found discarded containers, plastic sheets, and overgrown vegetation. He informed Chiam of the potential breeding grounds and told Chiam that he would serve him an order for certain items to be complied with. According to PW1, Chiam kept quiet.
5 On 9 April 2002, PW1 returned to the premises and served Chiam an order signed by an Assistant Commissioner of Public Health. PW1 retained the carbon copy (exhibit P3). PW1 also gave Chiam a pamphlet (exhibit P2). Chiam acknowledged the order by signing at the bottom of the copy. The order was addressed to “Mr Chiam Heng Hsien” as “Owner/Occupier” of 9 Jalan Kelawar, Singapore 249250. The relevant parts of the order read:
“I. As your premises have been found to be favourable to the propagation and harbouring of vectors, you are hereby directed under Section 18 of the CONTROL OF VECTORS AND PESTICIDES ACT 1998 to carry out the following measures within 7 days from the date of service of the Order: -
1) Ensure that there is no stagnation of water on the ground, canvas or plastic sheet, in drains, roof-tops, roof gutters, manhole covers and other structures;
2) Collect and dispose of all unwanted water-bearing receptacles and, at all times, keep all other unused water-bearing receptacles in a manner that will prevent them from holding water;
3) Remove all collection of water from plastic and canvas sheets daily;
4) Cut and properly clear all vegetation, weeds, grasses, shrubs, bushes and other undergrowth and collect and dispose of all such cleared materials;
II. You are required to continue all measures specified in paragraph I herein until such time as anything in your premises is no longer favourable to the propagation/harbouring of vectors.”
6 PW1 then re-inspected the premises 14 days later on 23 April 2002. PW1 was however still of the view that there were a lot of potential mosquito breeding habitat in the premises. He advised Chiam to drain off the containers and remove the unwanted receptacles. Subsequently, PW1 did not re-inspect the premises as he and his team were re-deployed to tackle a dengue outbreak elsewhere. PW1 also claimed that the NEA did not take enforcement action earlier because of a departmental policy to take a “soft approach” against those who failed to comply with the order.
7 Mr Michael (PW2) testified that he first went to 9 Jalan Kelawar on 29 May 2003 after receiving a complaint of rodent and mosquito nuisance a day before. He and his officers did not manage to enter the premises on that occasion. He then made a few calls over the next few days based on Chiam’s contact number but failed to reach Chiam. On 16 June 2003, he finally managed to arrange to meet Chiam at the premises the next day through a woman who claimed to be Chiam’s wife.
8 On 17 June 2003 at about 2 pm, PW2 inspected the premises in Chiam’s presence. He saw many containers like pails, plastic containers, earthen jars, canvas sheets, plastic sheets, overgrown vegetation, and garden refuse. The containers were left exposed. He observed water collected in the containers. He informed Chiam that the various water-bearing receptacles had the potential to breed mosquitoes. After that inspection, PW2 prepared a warning letter against Chiam. The original letter, dated 26 Jun 2003 and signed by PW2’s manager, was sent to Chiam and PW2 retained the carbon copy (exhibit P4). Paragraphs 2 and 4 of this letter, which were relevant, stated that:
“2 We noted that you have not complied with the Order served on you on 9 Apr 02 and the following irregularities were observed:
i) Overgrown vegetation were not cut and properly cleared;
ii) Dry leaves and branches were found to be scattered on the ground; and
iii) Unwanted articles including water bearing receptacles were placed in the open.
……
4 Please rectify the above irregularities listed in para 2 above in two (2) weeks’ time from the date of this letter, failing which enforcement action will be taken against you for not complying the Order (sic) that was served to you (sic) on 9 Apr 02.”
9 Some weeks later, on 21 August 2003, PW2 re-inspected the premises in Chiam’s presence. He took some photographs (exhibits P1P to P10P) to illustrate what he observed:
a. Exhibit P1P: Crevice on a water tub (marked “a”) and water collected on top of a plastic container (marked “b”);
b. Exhibit P2P: A plastic sheet (marked “a”) and water collected on the top covers of plastic containers (marked “b” and “c”);
c. Exhibit P3P: Water collected on the top cover of a plastic container (marked “a”) and in a flower pot (marked “b”), and overgrown vegetation (marked “c”);
d. Exhibit P4P: Water collected in a plastic container (marked “a”) and on the top cover of a plastic container (marked “b”);
e. Exhibit P5P: Water in the earthen jar (marked “a”) and the pail (marked “b”);
f. Exhibit P6P: Overgrown vegetation (marked “a”) and uncleared garden waste (marked “b”);
g. Exhibit P7P: Water collected in a hanging flower pot (marked “b”);
h. Exhibit P8P: Water collected on a canvas sheet (marked “a”);
i Exhibit P9P: Water collected in 4 flower pots (marked “a”, “b”, “c” and “d”); and
j. Exhibit P10P: Overgrown vegetation in premises (marked “a”).
10 During this inspection, PW2 informed Chiam that the water-bearing receptacles could breed mosquitoes. But Chiam insisted that the receptacles were placed in the open and were not potential breeding grounds. He also disagreed with PW2 that the overgrown vegetation could harbour mosquitoes. As a result, on 28 August 2003, Chiam was served with a notice to attend court for failure to comply with the order.
11 Mr Mohd Abdul Rahman (PW3) essentially confirmed that he accompanied PW2 to inspect the premises on 21 August 2003. He however had limited recollection of that inspection. PW3 could recall seeing receptacles with water collection although he could not be sure how many there were.
Close of Prosecution’s Case
12 At the close of the prosecution’s case, the charge was amended to state that the order was issued under s 18(1) of the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act (1999 Rev Ed) to reflect the law as it stood on 9 April 2002. This was also borne out in the order P3, which referred to s 18. Save for the re-numbering, there was no change in substance. After I explained this technical amendment to Chiam, he maintained his plea of not guilty. He then made a brief submission of no case to answer, and the prosecution replied. Applying the test in Haw Tua Taw v PP
Defence’s Case
13 The nub of Chiam’s defence was that he was not the occupier of the premises, and that he had in any event complied with all the directions in the order. As a corollary of his defence, he alleged that all the prosecution witnesses had perjured to implicate him because of some higher order. He also suggested that this prosecution was mounted because some of his “important” neighbours had complained about the premises.
14 Chiam testified that at the material time, he was staying at 145 Killiney Road (also known as Mitre Hotel) which was part of his own property. He said that 9 Jalan Kelawar was his mother’s house. According to him, before his mother passed away in end 2002, his wife used to stay at the premises to look after his mother. Chiam would visit them practically everyday. Since his mother’s demise, his wife and one of his daughters occupied the premises.
15 Chiam said he could not recall having met PW1 on 1 April 2002. He could only recall that he met PW1 on 9 April 2002 when the order and pamphlet were served on him. He was unsure if PW1 inspected the premises then. Chiam then wrote to the Minister within 3 days as he felt that the order was serious and unjustified. However, Chiam did not produce a copy of this letter in court as “It was so long ago”. He claimed that there was no reply from the Minister and he did not make any enquiry as PW1 returned to re-inspect the premises 2 weeks later around 23 April 2002. Nothing came out of that re-inspection, and the next time Chiam saw PW1 again was during this trial. Chiam said that his wife and mother were in the premises on 9 and 23 April 2002.
16 Chiam could recall first meeting PW2 some time on 17 June 2003 at the premises. PW2 was looking for mosquito breeding. According to Chiam, PW2 advised him to put marble slabs on pieces of wood instead of on the ground. Chiam reasoned that to do so would leave a gap for rats to enter the premises. PW2 then asked him about the leaves, pointing out that some of the vegetation had grown outside the fence. Chiam said he then...
To continue reading
Request your trial