Public Prosecutor v Har Su Meng

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date15 July 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] SGHC 191
Date15 July 1997
Subject MatterPrevention of Corruption Act,Corruption,Statutory offences,s 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Whether gratification reward for favours done,Criminal Law,Gratification in the form of loan,Relevant principles applicable
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 333 of 1996
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselPrabhakaran N Nair (Ong Tan & Nair)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselWong Keen Oon (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
The charge

The respondent was charged in the district court as follows:

You, Har Su Meng, male, 35 years, NRIC No S 1472301C are charged that you, on or about 23 July 1995, at Jalan Rumah Tinggi, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, the Purchasing Manager, in the employ of Advanced Systems Automation Pte Ltd, did corruptly accept for yourself from one Hum Chee Peng, a Director of Solution Technology Pte Ltd, a gratification in the form of a loan of $5,000 in order to purchase shares in the said Solution Technology Pte Ltd, issued to the name of your mother-in-law, one Tan Sock Eng, as a reward for doing an act in relation to your principal`s affairs, namely, for assisting in the issue of purchase orders for the making of `Kemet` control box and panel box to Solution Technology Pte Ltd, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).



The respondent was originally charged with corruptly accepting a gratification in the form of five thousand shares worth $5,000 in Solution Technology Pte Ltd (`STPL`).
It was also initially alleged that this gratification was a reward for the respondent subcontracting the manufacturing of certain products to STPL. Subsequently, as the trial continued, the prosecution invited the court to amend the charge, on the basis that the facts of the case did not support the original charge as framed. The district judge agreed and amended the charge to reflect the prosecution`s version of the facts of the case. At the end of the trial, he acquitted the respondent. The prosecution appealed against the learned judge`s decision. I dismissed the appeal and I now give my reasons

The facts

The respondent joined Advanced Systems Automation Pte Ltd (`ASA`) in 1991 as an engineer. In November 1993, he was appointed the Purchasing Manager of ASA, having being transferred from the Production Department. This appointment was to last until 23 November 1995, whereby he was then transferred back to the Production Department. It was explained that ASA had a policy of rotation amongst its employees. The respondent has since resigned from ASA on 2 February 1996, after the CPIB commenced investigations against him.

ASA was and has been at all material times a company which specialises in the making of automated moulding machines for semi conductor industries.
The company also subcontracted work to local companies. One such company was STPL.

ASA did not subcontract work to STPL from the very beginning of its operation.
Before STPL became a subcontractor of ASA`s operations, it`s main subcontractor was another company known as Interlink Pte Ltd (`Interlink`). However, Interlink subsequently withdrew and closed down its Singapore operations in early 1995. It was then that ASA decided to appoint STPL as its subcontractors. It was not made clear whether ASA had only one subcontractor all this while. What was not in dispute however was that STPL was the exclusive subcontractor of ASA for a period of time from April 1995 onwards. Unfortunately, no details were given as to when this exclusive subcontractorship came to an end.

During the time when STPL was the subcontractor of ASA, it was involved in the making of control boxes called the `Kemet` boxes.
However, this later changed and from April 1995 onwards, STPL began producing model `808S` boxes for ASA.

In the present appeal, the crux of the allegation against the respondent was that he obtained a gratification from a Mr Hum Chee Peng (`Hum`) who at that material time was a director of STPL.
It is therefore pertinent to note the circumstances in which Hum came to know the respondent and the state of affairs that followed subsequently.

Hum was originally a major shareholder and director of STPL.
According to his evidence, he started off STPL by himself. STPL was originally set up to provide engineering services for the industrial and controlled automation market. When STPL was first incorporated as a company, all the issued shares were held by him and his wife. It was only until sometime in 1995 that he relinquished all his shares in STPL. His wife, on the other hand, continued to hold a substantial amount of shares in the company.

Hum testified that he started to have business dealings with ASA sometime in the later part of 1994.
Initially, STPL was to sell certain products to the engineering personnel of ASA. ASA later informed Hum about the production of the control boxes. Hum was asked if STPL would be interested in producing `Kemet` boxes. It was then that Hum was introduced to the respondent, who was the Purchasing Manager at that time. According to Hum, he was asked by the respondent to tender for this subcontract by submitting a quote for the manufacturing of these boxes. Hum denied that he knew the respondent before then. This was the first time they had met.

Hum duly submitted a quote for the production of such boxes.
The original quote was at $5,000 per box. After some negotiation, it was reduced to $4,000 per box. ASA then decided to award the subcontract to STPL.

Initially, all went well.
Sometime in April 1995, ASA then decided to make `808S` boxes. As such, STPL was switched from making `Kemet` boxes to `808S` boxes. The quote for this subcontract was increased to $5,000 per box.

While STPL was still involved in the making of `Kemet` boxes before the switch, it began to experience a number of disruptions.
Apparently, ASA was giving STPL a lot of last minute orders and this made it difficult for STPL to plan the distribution of its manpower. This resulted in unprofitability for STPL. Hum therefore asked the respondent to give STPL more advanced notice and the possibility of blanket orders. The respondent promised that he would speak to the management of ASA about this. Thereafter, things began to improve and STPL was given more warning as to the orders for the boxes.

By chance, sometime after the abovementioned improvements to the orders, Hum met the respondent along the corridor on ASA`s premises.
Hum thanked the respondent for this help as the orders seemed to be getting better. The respondent jokingly replied in Hokkien `Lu beh hiau choh`. Hum took this to mean that the respondent wanted some favours in return, although he also admitted this was a harmless remark commonly made and gave no further thought about it.

In June 1995, less than three weeks after this chance meeting, Hum dropped into ASA to see the respondent.
No specific reasons were given for this meeting, although Hum did say that it was something to do with the prototype of the boxes. Hum recounted the meeting. He stated that they started off by discussing the subcontract STPL had with ASA. The conversation then strayed towards Hum`s business. The respondent was interested about his business and wanted to know what it was like to run a business which was his own. He also indicated his interest in venturing into his own business and wondered if he could be considered for a shareholding in STPL, with a view to eventually setting up a business on his own. All this while, no mention was made at all as to any help, if any, that the respondent might have given to STPL for the award of the subcontracts. Hum agreed to give some thought to this request, after the respondent indicated his wish to be considered for a 10% shareholding in STPL. As Hum told the respondent, he could not make the decision and had to consult his partners. However, Hum admitted in cross-examination that he did remember the respondent`s remarks along the corridor of ASA when the respondent made this request. He thought that perhaps this was the help the respondent needed. But he did qualify this by saying that he was under the impression the respondent was thinking more about his future in ASA than anything else.

At this same material time, Hum was also in serious negotiations with three other individuals to buy over his shares and some of his wife`s shares in STPL.
These three individuals were Ong Hee Seng (`Ong`), Wong Chew Pheng (`Wong`) and Gan Cheong Cheng (`Gan`). Ong, Wong and Gan subsequently successfully bought over all the shares of Hum and a portion of his wife`s shares.

After the respondent made his request, Hum approached Gan, who was then leading the team of new shareholders, to discuss about the respondent`s interest in joining STPL as a shareholder.
Hum told Gan that the respondent was sourcing for work opportunities should he decide to leave ASA. As such, Hum suggested that perhaps STPL could assist the respondent should he eventually decide to come out on his own.

The respondent and Hum had no other contact after that meeting.
It was not until July 1995, after the completion of the sale of Hum and his wife`s shareholding to the three new shareholders, that Hum got back to the respondent and confirmed that his request to become a shareholder in STPL had been approved. However, as matters were not finalised yet, the respondent was told that the shares would only be issued at a later date.

A few days later, towards the end of July 1995, Hum paged the respondent.
The purpose of this was to convey to the respondent that the share certificate would be issued in due course and to request payment of $10,000 for the shares. It was at this juncture that the respondent suddenly indicated that he did not have sufficient funds to cover this amount. As such, the respondent suggested that he would pay $5,000 first for the shares, which amounted to half of the requested payment. As to the other half of the amount, he asked that Hum lend him this amount so as to complete the purchase for the shares. Hum agreed without hesitation.

The payment for the shares was completed at another date.
As Hum recalled, he had paged the respondent asking for the collection of the money and was asked to meet up at Rumah Tinggi. At the meeting place, the respondent passed Hum a cheque which was folded up. Hum put the cheque into his pocket. He did not look at it....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Abril 1998
    ...guilty knowledge The principles for s 6(a) are well-established. In Tan Tze Chye v PP [1997] 1 SLR 134 (and adopted in PP v Har Su Meng [1997] 3 SLR 332 ), I highlighted the four elements which the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt before an offence under s 6(a) could be made......
  • Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 Septiembre 2000
    ...v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 806; [1995] 3 SLR 341 (folld) PP v Abdul Rashid [1993] 2 SLR (R) 848; [1993] 3 SLR 794 (folld) PP v Har Su Meng [1997] 2 SLR (R) 511; [1997] 3 SLR 332 (refd) PP v Heah Lian Khin [2000] 2 SLR (R) 745; [2000] 3 SLR 609 (folld) PP v Low Tiong Choon [1998] 2 SLR (R) 119; [......
  • Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 Enero 1998
    ...(Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593 (refd) PP v Ang Soon Huat [1990] 2 SLR (R) 246; [1990] SLR 915 (refd) PP v Har Su Meng [1997] 2 SLR (R) 511; [1997] 3 SLR 332 (refd) PP v Khoo Yong Hak [1995] 1 SLR (R) 769; [1995] 2 SLR 283 (refd) PP v Mazlan bin Maidun [1992] 3 SLR (R) 968; [1993]......
  • Abdul Rashid s/o Syed Ibrahim & Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 13 Agosto 2001
    ...they did was corrupt by the ordinary and objective standard: Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP [1998] 2 SLR 592 @ para 32; PP v Har Su Meng [1997] 3 SLR 332. In deciding on this issue, the Court has to consider whether the accused knew that he ought not to have accepted/given the gratification. P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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