Public Prosecutor v Khoo Yong Hak

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 April 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 101
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 127 of 1994
• Date: 13 April 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Seng Kwang Boon (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 101
• Defendant Counsel: Prem Singh (Prem & Associates)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether giving was 'corrupt',Words and Phrases,Corruptly giving gratification,Payment to bus driver as inducement to bring foreign workers to accused's clinic for medical examination,s 5(b)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Statutory offences,Criminal Law,'Corruptly',Payment involving possible breach of ethical code of medical profession,Prevention of Corruption Act

Cur Adv Vult

The respondent, Dr Khoo Yong Hak, was acquitted of ten charges of corruptly giving gratification to one Tan Kheng Leong (PW1) on ten different occasions as inducement to PW1 to bring more foreign workers to Labroy Medical Centre (Labroy) for their pre-employment medical examination under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (the Act). The present appeal was brought by the prosecution against his acquittal.

The brief facts

In the main, the facts were undisputed. PW1 was a bus driver who owned three buses. He drove one of the buses himself and had two employees working for him. Besides fetching students and factory workers, he provided transport services to more than 30 employment agencies. PW1 would pick up the foreign workers recruited by these employment agencies when they arrive at either the Woodlands checkpoint or at Changi Airport and send them to clinics to attend their pre-employment medical examination. Upon the completion of the medical examination, PW1 would send the workers directly to their places of work or living quarters. For each complete assignment, PW1 was paid a fee of between $120 to $150 by the employment agencies.

PW1 explained that there were some agencies which would arrange for the foreign workers to be brought to specific clinics. The others would leave the choice of a clinic to PW1. When specific instructions were given, PW1 would always comply with them. One of the medical clinics that PW1 would bring the foreign workers to was Labroy situated along Keppel Road. Beginning from October 1992, Labroy would pay him $4 for each Thai worker and $2 for each foreign worker who was not Thai brought by him to the clinic for their medical examinations. The respondent`s brother Khoo Yong Ker was in charge of Labroy at the time.

In January 1993, the respondent, a qualified and registered medical practitioner, returned from a course in Australia and started managing Labroy. Khoo Yong Ker became his administrative assistant. Between January to July 1993, the respondent and Khoo Yong Ker continued the practice of paying PW1 each time he brought workers to Labroy. They paid PW1 a total of $6,990 during this period. These payments formed the subject matter of the charges.

PW1 said that in sending the workers to Labroy, he knew that Labroy provided faster services. He also took into account the fact that Labroy was conveniently situated and was close to the SATA X-ray clinic where he had to bring the foreign workers as part of his services. PW1 believed that Labroy paid him the commission because of the competition for business among the clinics in the vicinity. In the circumstances, although he was never told to bring more workers to Labroy, he believed the payments were to encourage him to do so.

PW1 signed payment vouchers upon the receipt of the payments. Some of these were headed `handling and transportation fee`. PW1 did not agree with the suggestion that the payments were for transportation services because he was already paid by the employment agencies for doing so. However, he agreed that when he had a choice as to where to bring the workers, he would provide the clinic with the additional service of delivering payments from the employment agency to the clinic and the medical reports from the clinic to the employment agency. When he did not have a choice as to the clinic, the employment agency would have a prior arrangement with the clinic concerning payments and the collection of the medical reports.

In his defence, the respondent said that the payments were made to PW1 for his help and services to Labroy and were made in respect of every foreign worker brought to the clinic regardless of whether Labroy was specified by the employment agencies. PW1 helped Labroy in the following ways. He organized the workers who came to Labroy and brought them from place to place within the clinic. Moreover, PW1 spoke conversational Thai and was able to act as an informal interpreter. PW1 saved them the need to employ another full time staff. From time to time, PW1 brought the workers to an X-ray clinic other than to SATA when SATA was too busy to handle the foreign workers. Sometimes, PW1 also helped to send the completed medical reports to the employment agencies and to arrange for payments from the employment agencies to Labroy. Except for the last form of service which was admitted, the other matters were not put to PW1.

In cross-examination, the respondent said that Labroy employed 12 persons on a full time basis. Even then, they experienced difficulty in coping with the large numbers of foreign workers. PW1 remained good help. The respondent denied that the payments were intended as an inducement or reward for PW1 to bring more foreign workers to the clinic for their medical examination. He thought it more equitable to pay PW1 on the basis of each worker he brought. The respondent said that he was familiar with the provisions in the ethical code for the medical profession issued by the Singapore Medical Association (the ethical code). However, he denied that he acted wrongly and in breach of any of the provisions in it.

The trial judge`s decision

The trial judge found that the payments were clearly intended as gratification either as an inducement to or reward for PW1 to bring foreign workers to Labroy. From the fact that PW1 was paid on the basis of each foreign worker he brought, it was clear that the payments were intended to induce or reward, even if there was some other reason to pay PW1 as well. The real bone of contention was whether the payments were given `corruptly`. The trial judge found that the payments were not made corruptly and acquitted the respondent. His reasons appear from the records and I shall not set them out. The very same issue was argued as the sole ground of appeal before me.

The appeal

To begin, it is appropriate to set out, as far as possible s 5(b)(i) of the Act which reads:

Any person who shall by himself ...

(b) corruptly give ... to any person whether for the benefit of that person or of another person,

any gratification as an inducement to or reward for ...

(i) any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed; ...

shall be guilty of an offence ... . [Italics mine.]

From a plain reading of the section, it seems clear to me that the adverb `corruptly` inserted innocuously serves to qualify the offence in a...