Public Prosecutor v Koh Siong Wee Ivan and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Victor Yeo Khee Eng
• Judgment Date: 04 February 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 22
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No 923572 of 2018 and 55 Others, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9112-2021-01, District Arrest Case No 923475 of 2018 and 55 Others, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9113-2021-01 and 9113-2021-02
• Year: 2022
• Published date: 16 February 2022
• Hearing Date: 19 November 2020,10 March 2021,29 April 2021,08 March 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Suhas Malhotra, DPP Magdalene Huang and DPP Andre Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Tan Hee Joek (Tan See Swan & Co.),Mr Wilson Foo and Mr Leonard Terence Cheng (Trident Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory Offences,Prevention of Corruption Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Penalties
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 22

Principal District Judge Victor Yeo Khee Eng: Introduction

The two accused persons, Koh Siong Wee Ivan (“Koh”) and Low Pok Woen (“Low”) each faced a total of 56 charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PCA”), Chapter 241. This consisted of 51 charges under section 6(a) PCA and 5 charges under section 5(a)(ii) PCA for Koh, and 51 charges under section 6(b) PCA and 5 charges under section 5(b)(ii) PCA for Low respectively.

Both of them pleaded guilty to 20 charges each, which consisted of 18 charges under section 6(a) and section 6(b) PCA, and 2 charges under section 5(a)(ii) and section 5(b)(ii) PCA respectively. Upon their conviction, the accused persons further admitted and consented for the remaining 36 charges to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The total amount of gratification involved for the proceeded charges amounted to $493,035.15. The total amount of gratification involved for all the charges, including the TIC charges, amounted to S$595,230.77.

The Charges

The charges against Koh and Low were similarly framed, save that Koh was named as the recipient of the gratification, while Low was named as the giver of the gratification. The table of summary of the proceeded charges are as follows:

For easy reference, the respective 1st and 52nd proceeded charges for Koh and Low are reproduced below:

1st charge - DAC-923572-2018 (Koh)

are charged that you, on or about 4 November 2005, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Manager of the National Library Board, did corruptly obtain, from one Low Pok Woen, gratification, namely a sum of $20,000, as reward for doing an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, advancing the business interests of Low Pok Woen with the National Library Board, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

52nd DAC-923623-2018 (Koh)

are charged that you, on or about 4 November 2005, in Singapore, did corruptly receive, from one Low Pok Woen, gratification for one Lee Tsu Tsuan Vernon, namely a sum of $2,000, as inducement to one Lee Tsu Tuan Vernon, an officer of a public body, to wit, a Senior Librarian of the National Library Board, to do acts to advance Low Pok Woen’s business interests with the National Library Board, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

The 1st and 52nd proceeded charges for Low read as follows:

1st charge - DAC-923475-2018 (Low)

are charged that you, on or about 4 November 2005, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification, namely a sum of $20,000, to an agent, to wit, one Koh Siong Wee, a Manager of the National Library Board, as reward for doing an act in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, advancing your business interests with the National Library Board, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

52nd charge - DAC-923526-2018 (Low)

are charged that you, on or about 4 November 2005, in Singapore, did corruptly give to one Koh Siong Wee gratification for the benefit of one Lee Tsu Tsuan Vernon, namely a sum of $2,000, as inducement to one Lee Tsu Tsuan Vernon, an officer of a public body, to wit, a Senior Librarian of the National Library Board, to advance your business interests with the National Library Board, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(b)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

Koh was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 52 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty in the sum of $229,000/-. Low was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.

The Prosecution has appealed against the sentences imposed on both accused persons. Low has appealed against the sentence imposed on him. There was no appeal from Koh. I now set out the reasons for the sentences imposed.

The Joint Statement of Facts (JSOF)

The Joint Statement of Facts (JSOF) which both accused persons admitted to without qualification are as follows: I. THE ACCUSED 1 The first accused is Koh Siong Wee Ivan (“Koh”), a male 50-year-old Singapore citizen (DOB: 5 February 1970) (NRIC: XXX). Koh was employed by the NLB on 6 October 2003 as Manager, Product Development. At the material time (i.e. between 2005 and 2010), Koh was a Manager in NLB’s Digital Library Services Department (subsequently known as Digital Resource Services Department). 2 Between 2001 and 2009, Koh was also the sole director of a company, Speedcuts Pte Ltd (“Speedcuts”). Speedcuts provided hair cutting services. 3 The second accused is Low Pok Woen (“Low”), a male 51-year-old Singapore citizen (DOB: 23 October 1968) (NRIC: XXX). He was also known as Daniel. At the material time (i.e. between 2005 and 2010), Low was a director and shareholder of the following companies: a. Database Resource Services Pte Ltd (“DRSPL”); b. JCD Crossmedia Pte Ltd (“JCD”); and c. W3.XS Pte Ltd (“W3”). 4 All of the above three companies were in the business of providing digital content, e.g. digital databases, electronic books (“e-books”) and electronic comics (“e-comics”) to the National Library Board (“NLB”). 5 Between 2001 and 2005, Low was an employee of Speedcuts. II. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT 6 On 21 February 2014, one Loy Wee Ing, the Senior Assistant Director of NLB lodged a police report (Report No. A/20140221/2137) informing that Low’s companies may have committed fraud and falsification of document in the course of its supply of digital content to NLB since 2005. He also informed that Koh was either involved in or had supervised NLB’s procurements from Low’s companies. 7 The Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”) of Singapore therefore commenced investigation into Low’s companies. CAD eventually took no further action in respect of the alleged forgery and falsification of documents offences. However, in January 2016, the case was referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”) for investigation by CAD. III. THE NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD 8 NLB is a statutory board established under the National Library Board Act (Cap 197, 2014 Rev Ed). NLB reports to the Ministry of Communications and Information. 9 NLB manages the National Library, 26 public libraries and the National Archives. Its functions include: a. to establish libraries and to promote reading and encourage learning through the use of libraries; b. to provide a repository for library materials published in Singapore that are deposited with and preserved by the NLB under what is referred to as legal deposit; c. to acquire a comprehensive collection of library materials including online materials relating to Singapore and its people; d. to compile and maintain a national union catalogue and a national bibliography; e. to provide a repository of archives of national or historical significance and to facilitate access to these archives; and f. to record, preserve and disseminate the history of Singapore through oral history.¹ 10 At the material time, the NLB was categorised into two groups – (a) the Public Library Group (who were responsible for the public libraries under NLB’s purview); and (b) the Reference Library Group (who were responsible for the National Library and reference libraries under NLB’s purview). Both groups operated distinctly under the NLB. 11 Sometime around 2004 or 2005, there was a strategic move within NLB towards digitalisation. Digitalisation refers to maintaining of informative digital databases, procuring of electronic resources such as e-books and e-comics and microfilming of old books. The digital databases, e-book and e-comics maintained by NLB can be accessed online by NLB members. 12 The NLB’s Digital Resources Services Department (“DRS”) was formed and tasked to champion this strategic move. DRS was responsible for identifying suitable electronic resources, as well as procuring those resources, on behalf of the whole of NLB. Buddharaju Lakshmi Narayana Raju (“Raju”) was appointed as Director of the DRS; he was the first-in-command within DRS. 13 Sometime in 2005, Koh was appointed as a Manager in DRS. He was the second-in-command within DRS. As the second-in-command of DRS, he reported only to Raju. Amongst other duties, Koh oversaw DRS’ human resources, budget and administrative matters. 14 At the material time, all employees and staff of NLB, including Koh, signed a Statement of Commitment agreeing to be bound to the NLB’s Code of Ethics and Conduct. Amongst other responsibilities, employees and staff of NLB, including Koh, were dutybound to take reasonable steps to avoid and disclose any conflict of interest. NLB employees and staff, including Koh, were also not permitted to make improper use of inside information or one’s authority in order to gain a benefit. They were required at all times to uphold NLB’s values and in the integrity and good reputation of NLB. IV. THE NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD’S PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR DIGITAL RESOURCES 15 At the material time, the process for the procurement digital resources in NLB was as follows: a. Under Koh’s supervision, DRS librarians searched for suitable digital resources for NLB to acquire. Their duties included sourcing for vendors who supplied the said resources. b. When a potential resource was identified and shortlisted, DRS was required to seek the input of librarians from the Public Library Group and the Reference Library Group. The librarians in these groups would decide on whether the shortlisted resource was suitable for NLB to acquire in accordance with their internal pre-decided set of requirements and guidelines (the “Priority List”) and provide their recommendations accordingly. c. If the shortlisted resource was found to be suitable by the Public Library...