Public Prosecutor v Ishwar Singh s/o Jhal Singh
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Danielle Yeow Ping Lin |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] SGDC 142 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Inspector Teo Keng Beng (Prosecuting Officer) |
| Published date | 04 August 2005 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Defendant Counsel | Gurdip Singh (Gurdip and Gill) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Immigration Act,Employing an overstaying foreign national,Accused alleged to have employed an overstaying foreign national and to have deployed him to a restaurant as a dishwasher,Whether employee had misled accused into thinking that he was a Singapore national,Whether accused aware that employee a foreign national and that employee was an illegal overstayer,Whether accused negligent in failing to verify employee's status,Section 57(1)(e) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) |
30 June 2005
District Judge Danielle Yeow Ping Lin:
The charge and appeal
1. This Grounds of Decision arises from an appeal against conviction and sentence.
2. The Accused, Mr Ishwar Singh s/o Jhal Singh, claimed trial before me to the following charge:-
You,
Ishwar Singh s/o Jhal Singh, Male/38 years
NRIC No. S1744749-A
are charged that you, between the 12th day of May 2004 and 20th day of November 2004, at Sushi Tei Restaurant, Takashimaya Shopping Centre located at 391 Orchard Road, Singapore, did employ one Pradeep Ramanayake @ Pradeet Ramanvaynka, Male/29 years, a Sri Lanka national, as a cleaner whom you had reasonable grounds for believing to be a person who had acted in contravention of section 15(1) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 133, by remaining in Singapore after the expiry of the social visit pass, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 133 and punishable under section 57(1)(ii) of the said Act.
3. At the close of the prosecution’s case, I amended the charge by deleting the reference to “@ Pradeet Ramanvaynka”. I was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case on the charge as amended and called upon the Accused to enter into his defence to the charge.
4. At the end of the trial, I found the Accused guilty of the amended charge and sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment.
5. I shall now set out the basis for my decision.
Prosecution’s Case
Pradeep’s surrender and arrest
6. The prosecution led mainly formal evidence from 3 prosecution witnesses by way of conditioned statements by consent. These relate to the surrender and arrest of one Pradeep Ramanayake (“Pradeep”) on 20 November 2004.
Evidence of Kong Min Keong
7. Kong Min Keong, also known as Alan (“Alan”), is an operations manager at the Sushi Tei restaurant at Takashimaya. KSW Services Pte Ltd (“KSW”) was contracted to provide two workers for cleaning and dishwashing services to the restaurant daily, for which KSW was paid $3,200 per month.
8. Alan addressed the Accused as “Roy” and knew that he was KSW’s operations manager. Alan dealt with the Accused and would refer to him any matters concerning the workers, eg performance, staff supply and operational matters. The Accused conducted random checks at the restaurant once or twice a month, and also held briefings and discussions with the staff. The Accused would also check with Alan on whether there were any problems with the workers[1].
9. Sometime between May 2004 and November 2004, the Accused brought Pradeep to the restaurant, and introduced him as “Chandran”, a new dishwasher. When Alan asked the Accused whether he is a legal worker, he was assured that “Chandran is a Singaporean”[2]. When Alan wanted to check the worker’s identity card, a pink identity card was produced to him although he could not recall whether it was the Accused or Pradeep who had done so. He checked the card to see whether it was genuine, compared the photograph against Pradeep and noted that the face looked similar. He did not record the particulars or make a photocopy of the identity card as it was not their practice unless the worker was a work permit holder.
10. Thereafter, he left it to the Accused to brief Pradeep on his work. KSW also deployed another experienced cleaner (a Bangladeshi foreign work permit holder) there, who could provide guidance to new staff.
11. Pradeep worked in the restaurant for about 5 to 6 months until 20 November 2004. On that day, Pradeep informed him that he is an illegal worker and wanted to turn himself in and to return to his country. Pradeep also claimed that KSW had not paid him for a few months and that the Accused had cheated him of his money. Subsequently Alan brought Pradeep to see his operations manager, Bernard Heng, who then informed KSW and subsequently brought Pradeep to the police.
Evidence of Pradeep Ramanayake
12. Pradeep Ramanayake (“Pradeep”), a Sri Lankan national, was the key witness for the prosecution. He testified that he left Sri Lanka and came to Singapore on 26th April 2004. The investigating officer, Senior Staff Sergeant Kelvin Yeo, later clarified that Pradeep entered Singapore on 25th April 2004 and was issued with a social visit pass permitting him to remain in Singapore until 9 May 2004.
13. He was accompanied on the flight by a fellow Sri Lankan, one Mahesh, known to him as an employment agent, whose present whereabouts was unknown. Mahesh claimed to be able to help Pradeep find employment in Singapore on a work permit. In Sri Lanka, Mahesh took photocopies of his certificates to get the necessary permits processed. Pradeep paid Mahesh $5000 for this arrangement after arriving in Singapore. At Mahesh’s request, Pradeep handed his passport to Mahesh to be shown to the prospective employer.
14. Subsequently, on 12 May 2005, Mahesh took Pradeep to the office of KSW, near Malay Village, where he met the Accused, called “Roy”, who was the manager of the company. He also noticed a “fair and fat” Chinese man and some Bangladeshis in the office. Mahesh later told him that the Chinese man is called “Steven” and is the boss. According to Pradeep, Accused had also addressed Mahesh as Ajit.
15. The Accused spoke to him in English and asked whether he could speak English and whether he had worked in a restaurant before. Pradeep responded in the affirmative. The Accused did not say anything else or ask him any details. The Chinese man also asked him if he could speak English.
16. The Accused and Mahesh then left the room to talk. When they returned, they told him that he would be paid $1000 per month. He heard Roy speaking to Mahesh in English, which he was able to understand. Mahesh in turn conveyed the same to him in Sinhalese, that he would be paid on the 5th of each month for the cleaning work. He overheard the fair, fat man mention “Taka, Taka”. Thereafter Roy drove him to Sushi Tei restaurant in Takashimaya Shopping Centre together with one Bangladeshi worker. Mahesh stayed behind and did not leave with them.
17. While in the car, after the Bangladeshi worker alighted, the Accused gave him a piece of paper containing a name “Chandran Thanabalan”, age and some house numbers[3] and told him to memorise the information. The Accused told him to work under that name without any fear. If anyone asked, he was to reply that he’s a Singaporean. The Accused also told him that there are others working like him under them. Pradeep was instructed that if anyone starts discussing about army training or anything, he was to speak about it without any fear. The Accused also showed him a Singapore Identity Card in the car and said that this was the identity card that is to be given to him for him to work[4].
18. At the restaurant, the Accused spoke to Alan and showed him the identity card. Thereafter, the Accused passed the identity card to Pradeep and told him to give it to Mahesh but did not say when he was to do so. The Accused proceeded to show him where he had to work and instructed him on his duties. The Accused had earlier given him a blue company uniform which was in the car and instructed him to wear the T-shirt when working. The T-shirts were printed with the initials “KSW” (P7). Before leaving, the Accused gave Pradeep his name-card (P6) and asked Pradeep to contact him if he encountered any problems.
19. Two days later, Mahesh came to Takashimaya and took away the identity card. When Pradeep enquired about the work permit, he was told that the processing of the permit would take some time. Pradeep knew that the social visit pass had expired by then but was reassured by Mahesh that his passport was with the boss and that it will be attended to. From then on, Pradeep worked at Sushi Tei, Takashimaya, from 10 am to 10.30 pm daily until he surrendered to the police on 20 Nov 2004.
20. Pradeep was not paid the promised salary in full nor was he paid on the 5th of the month. He was paid on seven occasions. He would contact the Accused and also Mahesh about his salary and would be instructed to meet at a particular point around Takashimaya where he would receive his salary in cash. Mahesh paid him on the first 3 or 4 months. In the first month, he only received $200. The Accused paid him in the latter part. Pradeep had to make several calls to either the Accused or Mahesh to request for payment. Sometimes, he was only paid $300 per month. When he queried about his salary, he was told that the Labour Department had to be paid and that was deducted from his salary.
21. Pradeep surrendered himself as he was not paid the promised salary, nor issued with a work permit as promised. He wanted to return to Sri Lanka. Prior to that, he asked the Accused for his salary but the Accused only gave him $250. When he asked for the balance, the Accused promised to pay him on the 15th of the month but later delayed payment again. He then surrendered himself as an illegal overstayer on 20 November 2004.
22. Pradeep also testified as to two events which took place after his release from prison and detention. The first incident took place sometime between 15 and 20 February 2005 when he saw Mahesh at Serangoon. Mahesh denied taking the money due to Pradeep and claimed that it was the Accused who had taken the money. Mahesh said that the Accused was prepared to pay him $5000 and to send Pradeep back without anyone’s knowledge. An argument ensued when Pradeep did not agree. Pradeep informed the investigating officer, SSGgt Kelvin Yeo, of this encounter on 21 February 2005.
23. Subsequently, on 15 March 2005, the Accused approached him at his workplace at the SPC station in Balestier. The Accused offered him $5000 to leave Singapore. Pradeep refused. Upon hearing this, the Accused told him to pretend not to recognize him when called as a witness in Court. Pradeep did not agree saying that he had already identified the Accused. Before he could inform SSSgt Kelvin Yeo of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial