Public Prosecutor v Howe Jee Tian

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 October 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 329
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 2 of 1998
• Date: 01 October 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1998
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 329
• Defendant Counsel: Sant Singh and Jayapal Seshadri (Wee Tay & Lim)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Statutory offences,Gratification given to procure persons willing to 'take the rap' for illegal foreign workers,Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Whether accused corruptly givinggratification s 5(b)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Criminal Law

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

Introduction

1.This appeal is against an acquittal of the respondent of ten charges under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) (Cap 214) and one charge of giving a false statement under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

2. The charge

Charges `P1A` to `P10A`:

You, Howe Jee Tian M/46 years, NRIC No: S0313106H are charged that you,

DAC 8859/97 (`P1A`) on a day in July 1995,

DAC 8860/97 (`P2A`) on a day in August 1995,

DAC 8861/97 (`P3A`) on a day in September 1995,

DAC 8862/97 (`P4A`) on a day in October 1995,

DAC 8863/97 (`P5A`) on a day in November 1995,

DAC 8864/97 (`P6A`) on a day in December 1995,

DAC 8865/97 (`P7A`) on a day in January 1996,

DAC 8866/97 (`P8A`) on a day in February 1996,

DAC 8867/97 (`P9A`) on a day in March 1996,

DAC 8868/97 (`P10A`) on a day in April 1996,

in Singapore, did corruptly give to one Gay Ping Eng a gratification of a sum of $900 as an inducement for him to recommend persons, namely, proprietors or partners of registered local businesses who were prepared to act as a front for sub-contractors awarded work by Hongplast General Contractors Pte Ltd and to assume liability for offences under the Immigration Act and the Employment of Foreign Workers Act on behalf of the said sub-contractors in the event that the said sub-contractors were found to have employed foreign workers contrary to the said Acts, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

3.Charge `P11` (the acquittal for this charge is not appealed against):

DAC 8869/97

are charged that you, on a day in February 1996, at 35 Selegie Road #05-03 Parklane Shopping Mall, Singapore, did corruptly give a gratification in the form of a loan of $2,000 to one Chong Ngee Sen as his reward for agreeing to act as a front for sub-contractors awarded work by Hongplast General Contractors Pte Ltd and to assume liability for offences under the Immigration Act and the Employment of Foreign Workers Act on behalf of the said sub-contractors in the event that the said sub-contractors were found to have employed foreign workers contrary to the said acts, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

4.Charge `P12A`:

PS 678/97

are charged that you, on 3 June 1996 at the Ministry of Labour, Havelock Road, Singapore, did give to a public servant, one Tang Li Shang, an Employment Inspector of the said Ministry, information contained in your statement, to wit,

(6) sometime in June 1995, the said company has awarded part of the carpentry work to one San Soo Lee Building Construction. I would liase with Chong Ngee Sen regarding the project work.

the actual contract was signed on the 20.6.95 Chong Ngee Sen was supposed to engage his own workers and supervisors for the project work.

which you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely that you would thereby cause such public servant to use her lawful power to lay a Magistrate`s complaint which caused the said Chong Ngee Sen to be charged for the illegal employment of one Kee King Ping, which she ought not have done if the true state of facts respecting which such information was given were known by her, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

5. The background

The respondent was a director of Hongplast General Contractors Pte Ltd (Hongplast) which was incorporated in 1987. He was in charge of office administration and liased with main contractors and clients. Hongplast dealt in formwork, reinforcement of steel bars and concreting works. While some of these works were subcontracted out to various subcontractors who employed their own workers, Hongplast also employed its own workers to carry out the works.

6.In June 1995, Hongplast contracted with Nakano Corporation (Nakano) to undertake formwork at the Merchant Court Hotel worksite at Teochew Street (the worksite). Hongplast gave an undertaking to be contractually responsible for any illegal workers of its subcontractors in which Nakano had the right to terminate the contract if illegal workers were employed by Hongplast or its subcontractors at the worksite.

7.On 29 February 1996, Kee King Ping (Kee), an illegal Malaysian worker, was killed in an industrial accident while working for Hongplast at the worksite. On 3 June 1996, one Chong Ngee Sen (Chong) gave a statement to Ms Tang Li Shang of the Labour Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour that his sole proprietorship firm San Soo Lee Building Construction (San Soo Lee) which was Hongplast`s subcontractor had employed Kee without a valid work permit. The respondent also gave a statement on 3 June 1996 to Ms Tang Li Shang to the effect that San Soo Lee was Hongplast`s sub-contractor and Kee`s employer.

8. The allegations

It was alleged that the respondent had corruptly made payments to one Roland Gay or Gay Ping Eng (Gay) of a sum of $900 per month from July 1995 to April 1996 for Gay to recommend registered Singapore business firms to Hongplast for them to take the blame on behalf of Hongplast`s subcontractors in the event these subcontractors were found to have employed illegal workers. Gay recommended Chong to Hongplast for this purpose.

9. The respondent`s evidence

The respondent made six statements to the CPIB which contained the following admissions: (a). The respondent paid Gay $900 per month to recommend registered Singapore businesses to Hongplast for them to take the blame on behalf of Hongplast`s subcontractors in the event that the subcontractors were found to have employed illegal workers.

(b). The respondent subcontracted formwork at the worksite to Kee together with San Soo Lee so that if Kee were found to have employed any illegal workers or was an illegal worker himself, San Soo Lee could be held responsible.

10. Gay`s evidence

Gay`s statements to CPIB essentially stated that he met Kee through a friend and it was arranged that Chong would sign a subcontract with Hongplast to `take the rap` for any illegal workers hired by Kee or if Kee was an illegal worker himself. Pursuant to this, Chong signed the subcontract with Hongplast and was paid $800 per month by Gay. Subsequently, when Kee died in the industrial accident, Chong went to the Ministry of Labour to admit that Kee was his worker. Chong was paid a `reward` of $500 for this.

11. Chong`s evidence

Chong gave evidence that he was introduced to the `Tua Peh Kong` (scapegoat) business in May 1993 by Gay whereby Chong would be the scapegoat for construction companies that had employed illegal workers, by going to court in their place to admit to the offence in the event they were arrested. Pursuant to this scapegoat arrangement, Chong would sign a sham subcontract with the construction company that would subsequently be used to support his admission.

12.At the court below, Chong testified that his registered local business never did any actual subcontract works nor did they employ any worker to do so. In addition, the dates on the sham subcontracts would usually be backdated a few months from the actual date of signing so that it would appear as though Chong`s companies had subcontracted works from the construction companies for sometime.

13.In order to allay any suspicions that the Ministry of Labour might have that he was a professional scapegoat, Chong registered a few businesses to sign the sham subcontracts with the different construction companies.

14.Chong would be paid $800 per month as a commission for being the scapegoat until the project work ended or when the illegal worker was arrested. Chong was also paid an additional $500 reward for every illegal worker arrested.

15.Gay was the agent between Chong and the construction company. Gay would introduce Chong to the boss of construction companies who wanted to procure scapegoat services like Chong`s. Payments would come from the construction companies through Gay.

16.Chong`s evidence in regards to Hongplast specifically was as follows. Gay asked Chong whether he wanted to be the scapegoat for Hongplast. Chong agreed and a sham contract was signed between Hongplast and San Soo Lee. Chong would be (and was indeed paid) the usual $800 per month if the illegal workers were not arrested. Gay also asked Chong to sign some blank payment vouchers which were receipts to show that Hongplast had paid him money for the subcontract works that San Soo Lee was supposed to have done. In this way, it would appear as though Chong had paid salaries to the workers every month for the subcontract work done. In fact, he never did.

17.Chong also testified that he did not know the contents of the sham subcontract signed by him nor was any oral agreement made with the respondent to enter into a subcontract to do form work.

18.On 29 February 1996, the day Kee died, Gay told Chong...