Public Prosecutor v Ong Beng Leong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Toh Yung Cheong
• Judgment Date: 09 September 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 215
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2004
• Published date: 24 September 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Winston Cheng and Mr Aaron Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Peter Low, Mr Low Hui Hui and Ms Mimi Oh (Peter Low, Tang and Belinda Ang)
• Citation: [2004] SGDC 215

Judgment

27 July 2004

District Judge Toh Yung Cheong

The Charges

1. The prosecution proceeded against the accused on ten charges under section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241). The first charge states:

“You, Ong Beng Leong, are charged that you, sometime in 2001, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, the Commanding Officer attached to Training Resource Management Centre in the employ of the Singapore Armed Forces, did knowingly use with intent to deceive your principal, namely the said Singapore Armed Forces, a quotation from Precise Development Pte Ltd for Site improvement works at TVMA 8 – (Jalan Melukut and Track 13) Location 6 at a sum of $17,850/-, in respect of which your principal was interested, and which was false and which to your knowledge was intended to mislead your principal and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.”

2. The remaining charges are similar and refer to other quotations.

Background facts

TRMC

3. The accused was the Commanding Officer (“CO”) of the Training Resource Management Centre (“TRMC”) between 1999 to 2001. At the material time he was a Lieutenant-Colonel with the Singapore Armed Forces.

4. The TRMC takes care of the maintenance of training areas and facilities belonging to the Army. The organisation was created in 1999 when the Training Means Branch (“TMB”) merged with parts of other administrative units (loosely referred to as “CCOs” [Camp Commandant’s Office] by the witnesses) that also took care of training areas.

5. TRMC can be broadly divided into three branches. The resources and operations branch deals with the allocation of training areas to units and live-firing and the maintenance branch deals with the maintenance of training areas. They are supported by the Administration and Finance branch.

Background on AORs and Works Orders

6. By way of introduction, I will summarise the procedure used by TRMC to get contractors to perform work in training areas.

7. The first document prepared by TRMC staff for the purpose of work procurement is the Approval of Requirement (AOR). In the context of the present charges, the AOR:

a) Identifies the scope of the work.

b) Provides an estimate of the cost of the work.

c) Indicates that these works have been requested, that such works are necessary and further that there are sufficient funds to pay for the work.

8. After approval is obtained, the next step is to procure the works. It should be noted that as the AOR is merely an internal document, there is no obligation to actually initiate the work if it turns out that funds are needed for more important projects.

9. At the next stage, the contractor who is to perform the work is selected. One method is to call for three quotations and deciding based on these quotations which contractor should be awarded the work. An alternative method is to ask the SAF appointed term contractor to perform the work, in such a situation, there is no need invite three quotations. It is also possible for three quotations to be called before preparation of the AOR and to incorporate the lowest quote into the AOR. If the cost of the work exceeds a certain amount, TRMC cannot go by way of three quotations.

10. A works order will be issued to the contractor who is chosen to carry out the work. The works order is a document addressed to the contractor requesting him to carry out the work and states the price and description of the work. The contractor is supposed to start work only after the works order is issued.

11. After the works are complete, the contractor will usually issue an invoice. The works will then have to be inspected to ensure that they have been completed. After this, payment can be made.

Prosecution’s case

Outline

12. The prosecution’s case is:

a) Ong Chye Tab is the sole proprietor of Sin Hiaptat, a company which performed maintenance work in Army training areas, particularly in the West Zone.

b) TRMC staff, including the accused, would instruct Ong Chye Tab to begin maintenance work even though the Approval of Requirement (AOR) had not been prepared and the Works Order had not been issued.

c) After Ong Chye Tab had completed work, he would submit a quotation for his company together with two forged quotations using the letterheads of two other companies. Sin Hiaptat’s quote was invariably the lowest quote of the three in order to justify them being awarded the contract.

d) The quotations of the other two companies are false as the date is incorrect and the prices are not genuine prices as they had to be higher than Sin Hiaptat’s quote.

e) Based on these quotations, the AOR and Works Order would be prepared by TRMC staff and signed by the accused. As work had been completed, there was no alternative but to award Sin Hiaptat the job.

f) The quotations together with the AOR and Works Order give the misleading impression that they were prepared before work started. The purpose of these documents was to cover up the fact that Ong Chye Tab had been asked to start work even though TRMC did not call for three quotations and there was no paperwork done.

g) That the accused had knowledge of all of this.

Documents

13. There are several key exhibits that both parties made extensive reference to during the trial and in their submissions. Chief amongst these are nine bundles of documents admitted as exhibits P68 to P76 respectively. For ease of reference, I will summarise their contents here:

14. Exhibits P68 is a bundle of documents totalling eight pages which relate to DAC48307/03 (the first charge). The documents in P68 are:

a) P68-1 is a quotation from Sin Hiaptat and P68-2 to P68-3 are two quotations from two other companies which are allegedly forged.

b) P68-4 and P68-5 is a two page document known as an ‘Approval of Requirement’ (AOR) which the accused signed.

c) P68-6 is a works order which the accused signed.

d) P68-7 is an invoice issued by Sin Hiaptat

e) P68-8 is a copy of a map showing the purported location of the works done.

15. The other eight bundles of documents, P69 to P76 also contain three quotations, an Approval of Requirement, a works order, an invoice, and a map. The following table shows the link between these bundles of documents and the charges

	Exhibit	Charge(s)	Location	Signatures appearing on the respective AORs
1	P68 (P68-1 to P68-8)	DAC 48307/03	Jln Melukut and Track 13 Location 6	Patrick Chua Kat Boon It The accused
2	P69 (P69-1 to P69-8)	DAC 48308/03	Jln Melukut and Track 13 Location 4	Patrick Chua Kat Boon It The accused
3	P70 (P70-1 to P70-8)	DAC 48309/03	Jln Melukut and Track 13 Location 2	Patrick Chua Kat Boon It The accused
4	P71 (P71-1 to P71-8)	DAC 48310/03	Jln Melukut and Track 13 Location 3	Patrick Chua Kat Boon It The accused
5	P72 (P72-1 to P72-8)	DAC 48311/03	Jln Melukut and Track 13 Location 1	Patrick Chua Kat Boon It The accused
6	P73 (P73-1 to P73-8)	DAC 48312/03	Jln Melukut and Track 13 Location 5	Patrick Chua Kat Boon It The accused
7	P74 (P74-1 to P74-8)	DAC 48313/03	Foot of FOFO Hill	Leong Kwok Hong Kat Boon It The accused
8	P75 (P75-1 to P75-8)	DAC 48314/03 DAC 48315/03	Temple Hill to the Broken Bridge	Leong Kwok Hong Jeff Koh The accused
9	P76 (P76-1 to P76-8)	DAC 48316/03	Foot of Temple Hill	Leong Kwok Hong Jeff Koh The accused

Prosecution’s evidence

16. The prosecution’s evidence can be divided into two parts. The first group of witnesses are those witnesses that were not involved in the works relating to P68 to P76. The second group of witnesses are the witnesses who dealt with the accused and were familiar with the work in question. I will deal with each of these groups of witnesses in turn.

Evidence of Neo Wee Beng (PW1) and Peh Soon Li (PW2)

17. Neo Wee Beng from Gin Huat Company and Peh Soon Li from Precise Development Pte Ltd gave evidence that the quotations bearing their company letterheads in P68 to P76 were not prepared by their companies.

Evidence of Khoo Swee Im (PW3)

18. Khoo Swee Im (“Khoo”) was working as a secretary for Sin Hiaptat at the material times. In the course of her work in 2001, Ong Chye Tab instructed her to prepare quotations for works done for the army. She admitted to preparing the quotations that form the subject matter of the charges, namely the quotations found in P68 to P76.

19. For each piece of work, she would prepare one quotation with Sin Hiaptat’s letterhead and two other quotations using the letterheads of two other companies. At the time she prepared the quotations, she had been informed by Ong Chye Tab that work had already been done; therefore, it was necessary for Sin Hiaptat’s quotation to have the lowest price. Khoo did not obtain the consent of any of the other companies before using their letterheads. In addition, the quotations were backdated[1].

20. After the quotations were submitted, Khoo would subsequently receive a works order. Upon receipt of the works order, she would issue an invoice.

Evidence of Joanne Low (PW5)

21. Joanne Low is Head (Operations) of the Budget Section in G5 Army. Her scope of work includes the operations costs and budget of the entire army. In particular, she is in charge of the operations cost votes held by G6 Army and TRMC.

22. She explained that the procedure for processing infrastructure work requests in the army is governed by GS Planning Directive Number 3 of 2000 (exhibit P77) and that P77 applied to the works that formed the subject matter of the charge.

23. The thrust of her evidence was that the procedures adopted in the preparation of the Approval of Requirements and Works Orders in relation to the works that form the subject matter of the charge did not comply with P77. For works costing between $5,001 and $20,000, TRMC was supposed to obtain a cost estimate from DSTA BI (Defence Science and Technology...