Public Prosecutor v Md Shahjahan Khan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Low Wee Ping
• Judgment Date: 02 July 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 240
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC 5821of 2011 and others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 131/2012/01
• Published date: 13 July 2012
• Year: 2012
• Hearing Date: 31 May 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms. Zuraidah Mahat, Mr. Amias Lum and Ms. Regina, from the MOM,
• Defendant Counsel: Mr. S. K. Kumar
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 240

District Judge Low Wee Ping: Summary

The accused, Md Shahjahan Khan, was 48 years old. He was a Singapore Permanent Resident. When he committed the offences, he was operating the business of a company called Osem Namas Pte Ltd. The accused was also an undischarged bankrupt.

The accused pleaded guilty to the following 14 charges:- MAC 5821 to 5832 of 2011 - 12 charges (exhibits C1 to C12) for “intentionally aiding one Quek Thiam Huat to make a false statement to the Controller of Work Passes of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)” - under s 22(1)(d) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A) (EFMA); and MAC 5839 and 5841of 2011 - 2 charges (exhibits C19 and C21) for “making a false statement to an employment inspector of MOM” - under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA.

I sentenced the accused to the following:- On MAC 5821 to 5832 of 2011 - 12 charges for “intentionally aiding one Quek Thiam Huat to make a false statement to the Controller of Work Passes of MOM” - under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA - 2 months’ imprisonment on each charge; On MAC 5839 and 5841of 2011 - 2 charges for “making a false statement to an employment inspector of MOM” - under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA - 2 weeks’ imprisonment on each charge; The sentences in MAC 5821 and 5839 were ordered to run consecutively; and The total sentence was, therefore - 2 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.

On 13 June 2012, the accused filed a notice of appealed against the above sentences imposed.

The primary issue raised by the accused at his mitigation was - that he was suffering from a heart illness and was “unfit to undergo a jail term”.

Defence counsel

The accused was represented by defence counsel, Mr. S. K. Kumar.

Prosecutors

The prosecutors were Ms. Zuraidah Mahat, Mr. Amias Lum and Ms. Regina, from the MOM.

7 charges taken into consideration

The accused also admitted to the following 7 charges, and agreed to the charges being considered for the purpose of sentencing:- 6 charges for “intentionally aiding one Quek Thiam Huat to make a false statement to the Controller of Work Passes of MOM” - under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA; and 1 charge for “making a false statement to an employment inspector of MOM” - under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA.

The facts

The accused also admitted to the following statement of facts (PS1):- 1 The accused is one Md Shahjahan Khan (male/ 48 years old) (Date of Birth: 1 Jan 1964) (NRIC No: XXX) (Singapore PR) of Apt Blk 719 Woodlands Ave 6 #10-628 Singapore 730719. During the material period, he operated the daily business operations of one Osem Namas Pte. Ltd. (UEN No: 200905111K) with the registered address located at 1 Sophia Road #03-35 Peace Centre Singapore 228149 (“the company”). From 18 Aug 2009 to the present, the sole director of the company is one Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) (NRIC No: XXX). During the material period, the accused was also an undischarged bankrupt. 2 On 04 Jun 2010, Sivasamy Kesavan, an investigating officer of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), conducted investigations into possible infringement of the laws relating to the employment of foreign employees at the said company. Facts relating to MAC Nos. 5821 – 5832/ 2011 (1st to 12th charges) 3 Investigations revealed that the accused had abetted by intentionally aiding the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) to make statements to the Controller of Work Passes, which the accused knew was false in a material particular, in the Application for a Work Permit forms submitted to the Work Pass Division for the following foreign employees:-

……

4 The accused had instructed the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) to sign on the said applications, which contained clause 8 stating that the Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts used by the company only included CPF contributions made to persons actively employed by the said company, when the accused knew this statement was false. The accused was aware that the company’s CPF accounts were used by the Controller to determine the company’s local workforce strength, and consequently, the company’s foreign workforce entitlement. The accused also knew that the declarations made were false in a material particular when the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) signed and submitted the said forms to MOM. Subsequently, all the 12 applications for subjects B1 to B12 were approved by the Work Pass Division (WPD) of MOM. B1 to B12 then arrived in Singapore to commence employment with the company. The accused sent B1 to B12 to work on construction related projects secured by the accused for the company. 5 Investigations further revealed that a total of 7 Singaporeans received CPF contributions from the company between August 2009 and March 2010. Out of the 7 Singaporeans who received CPF contributions, 6 of them were never employed by the company. The CPF contributions were made into their accounts with the aim of inflating the company’s foreign employee entitlement so as to obtain work passes for the said foreign employees, which the company might not otherwise have been entitled to. 6 MOM determines the number of foreign employees that an employer is entitled to employ by the strength of his local workforce, which is reflected by the number of employees to whom the employer pays CPF contributions. The declaration in clause 8 is a material consideration in MOM’s decision to grant work permits pursuant to the submitted applications. WPD had confirmed that had they known, at the time the 12 applications were submitted to them, that not all the local employees receiving CPF contributions from the company were in fact actively employed by it, WPD would not have approved the applications. WPD also confirmed that all the 12 applications would have been rejected as the company did not have sufficient foreign employee entitlement at the time these applications were submitted to WPD. Accordingly, the false statements vis-à-vis clause 8 in all the 12 applications, were material in nature. Facts relating to MAC No. 5839/ 2011 (19th charge) 7 Investigations also revealed that on 22 Dec 2010, at the Employment Inspectorate of MOM located at 120 Kim Seng Road Singapore 239436, the accused made a statement to an employment inspector, one Sivasamy Kesavan (NRIC No: S0029759C), which the accused knew was false in a material particular. The accused had falsely stated that he did not know anything about the operations of the company, and that the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) was fully running the said company. 8 According to investigations, sometime in Aug 2009, the accused had approached the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) to register as a director of the company in exchange for a payment of $6000 for one year, and thereafter a monthly payment of $450. In fact, the accused was the sole person running the daily business operations of the company, including making the decisions on the employment of foreign employees and making CPF contributions to local employees. The accused also instructed the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) to sign the work permit application forms for foreign employees. Facts relating to MAC Nos. 5841/ 2011 (21st charge) 9 Investigations also revealed that on 22 Dec 2010, at the Employment Inspectorate of MOM located at 120 Kim Seng Road Singapore 239436, the accused made a statement to the employment inspector, Sivasamy Kesavan, which the accused knew was false in a material particular. The accused had falsely stated that he did not ask the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) to pass 6 salary vouchers dated 5 Nov 2009, 5 Dec 2009, 5 Jan 2010, 5 Feb 2010, 5 Mar 2010 and 5 Apr 2010 to one Lim Teck Kiong (NRIC No: S7810901G) for him to sign and give to the investigating officer. 10 According to investigations, the said Lim Teck Kiong was one of the Singaporeans who had received CPF contributions from the company when he was never employed by the company. The accused had instructed the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) to pass the 6 salary vouchers to the said Lim Teck Kiong for the latter to sign and give to the investigating officer. Pursuant to the accused’s instructions, the said Quek Thiam Huat (Guo Tianfa) met the said Lim Teck Kiong on 2 Jun 2010 and handed over the 6 salary vouchers, which the said Lim Teck Kiong signed. The 6 salary vouchers stated that the company had paid the said Lim Teck Kiong a sum of $604 in cash every month from Nov 2009 to Apr 2010, after deducting CPF contribution of $96 from a monthly salary of $700. In fact, the said Lim Teck Kiong did not receive the said $604 in salary for the said months as he was never employed by the company. According to the CPF Board, the said Lim Teck Kiong had received $198 in CPF contribution from the said company every month from Nov 2009 to Apr 2010. The 6 salary vouchers were subsequently handed over to employment inspector Sivasamy Kesavan in the course of investigations. 11 The accused has therefore committed 12 offences under section 22(1)(d) read with section 23(1) and 2 offences under section 22(1)(d) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A) and is therefore charged accordingly. 12 In this matter, no action was...