Public Prosecutor v Pek Siew Gek and Tang Yudong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan
• Judgment Date: 08 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 290
• Docket Number: DAC 919522/16; DAC 919602/16
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 09 August 2019
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 290
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Gabriel Choong
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Derek Kang
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

District Judge Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan: INTRODUCTION

The two accused persons, Pek Siew Gek (“Pek”) and Tang Yudong (“Tang”) claimed trial to the offence of abetting the obstruction of the course of justice under s 204A read with s 116 of the Penal Code (2008 Rev Ed., Cap 224). The offence was committed on 10 Nov 14 at the premises of King’s International Business School (“KIBS”) located at Block 2, Bukit Merah Central #14-03.

The charges arose from an inspection of KIBS conducted by officers from the Council of Private Education (“CPE”) on 7 Nov 14. Both B1 and B2 were directors of KIBS. They were alleged to have instigated Pan Yoke Ee (“Pan”) into falsely admitting to the CPE inspectors that it was her idea to produce false documents to CPE during an inspection of KIBS. At the material time, Pan was working as an administrative assistant in KIBS.

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS

Sometime in April 2014, CPE received a complaint from the Maritime and Port Authority (“MPA”) that KIBS offered students Diplomas in Maritime Studies (“DMS”) without the need to attend classes or sit for examinations. As part of its investigations into the complaint, CPE officers conducted a surprise inspection of KIBS on 6 Nov 14 to observe if classes were in fact conducted. They found that no lessons were conducted although there were lessons scheduled for that day¹. During the inspection, Pek and Tang were not at KIBS. The officers’ requested that Pan called Pek on her handphone and asked her to return to KIBS. Pan called and spoke to Pek. After that, she informed the officers that Pek was unable to return to the office that afternoon. The CPE officers then told Pan that they would return the next day, 7 Nov 14 at 10.00 am, to speak to Pek. Pan relayed this message to Pek. Later that same evening, Pan met up with Pek and Tang at a coffee shop near KIBS. After that they returned to KIBS to prepare for the inspection the next day. Pan went home after about five hours and after she had completed the tasks assigned to her by Pek. Pek and Tang stayed on in KIBS for seven and a half hours.

On 7 Nov 14, the CPE officers returned and handed a list of 15 names of DMS students who had graduated from KIBS to Pek, and requested for their documents including their examination scripts for inspection. 14 of the names in the list were disclosed in the course of CPE’s investigation into the complaint by MPA. Later on the same day, KIBS submitted 10 falsified examination scripts to CPE. Essentially, Pan had used the examination scripts of other students and cut off the top part of the scripts thereby removing the names from the examination scripts. She then stapled a cover page to the cut examination scripts. The cover page contained the names of the students requested for by CPE. This was done to make it seemed that these examination scripts belonged to the students requested for by CPE.

The ruse was discovered when the CPE officers found strips of cut portions in a drawer in one of the classrooms. They questioned Pan who admitted that the cut strips bore the names of the actual students who had written the examination scripts. She kept quiet when asked whether she had done the cutting. The CPE officers also questioned Pek about the cut examination scripts, and a statement was recorded from her.

On the morning of 10 Nov 14, Pan was informed to present herself at CPE in the afternoon for an interview and for a statement to be recorded. During the interview, when asked about the cut examination scripts, she had initially told the CPE officers that she had cut them on her own accord. When pressed, she confessed that Pek and Tang had asked her to take the blame for cutting the examination scripts. She revealed that Pek had instructed her to cut the examination scripts to make it appear that they were written by the students who were in the CPE list. She had merely followed Pek’s instructions.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution, led by DPP Gabriel Choong, relied primarily on Pan’s testimony. At the material time, she was the administrative assistant at KIBS. She started work at KIBS on 5 Aug 13, while concurrently studying part-time for two diplomas there. She completed her studies in November 2014.

On 6 Nov 14, when CPE conducted their surprise inspection, Pan testified that – No lessons were conducted although lessons were scheduled². She asserted that both Pek and Tang had called in to the school posing as students and/or teachers to cancel the lessons³. They had done this after they had learned that CPE officers were in the school. When she was asked for documents such as the students’ attendance sheets, she falsely informed the CPE officers that she did not have access to these documents. She had done this because Pek had told her that these documents could not be shown to outsiders⁴. After the CPE officers left KIBS, Pan contacted Pek again and on arrangement, Pek, Pan and Tang met at a hawker centre nearby. At this meeting, Pan was bombarded with questions about the surprise inspection. The three then returned to KIBS. At KIBS, inter alia, Pek told Pan to prepare student attendance lists and she then forged signatures of students to fill the lists⁵. Pek and Tang remained in KIBS for seven and a half hours while Pan left for home much earlier.

On the second CPE inspection on 7 Nov 14, Pan testified – When the request for examination scripts were made, Pan immediately saw a problem because the students in the list did not go for examinations. Pan disclosed that it was a practice in KIBS for Pek to offer prospective students the option of not sitting for examinations, and that someone else would do the examinations for them⁶. When Pan consulted Pek about this problem, Pek replied that she would look for examination scripts of other students⁷. When Pan questioned whether this was allowed, Pek replied that this was necessary otherwise KIBS would be in trouble⁸. She then retrieved some examination scripts from her office. These were scripts of other students from past intakes. Pan explained that the examination scripts of present students were kept in cabinets located in the middle of the premises, and not in Pek’s office. Pan noticed that the examination scripts that she received from Pek did not bear the names of the students requested for. When she asked Pek about this, Pek told her to cut the names out. She cautioned Pan to make sure that she was not seen doing this by the CPE officers⁹. Separately, Pan printed cover pages bearing the names of the students requested for. She stapled these cover pages to the cut examination scripts. Pek then marked some of the scripts on the spot, using scores given to a different student as a guide¹⁰. She then wrote the grades on the cover pages in red ink¹¹. CPE subsequently discovered the strips that had been cut inside a drawer. Pan admitted that the cut strips bore the names of the students who had actually taken the examinations. When she was asked if she had cut the strips, she did not reply¹².

When Pan was interviewed and her statement recorded at the CPE office on 10 Nov 14, she testified – Before her interview, Pek had told her to tell CPE that the cutting was her own idea. If Pan agreed to say this, Pek would hire a lawyer to help her in the event of any trouble. Pek also told her that if she did not do this, then they would all be finished¹³. Separately, Tang also told her to tell CPE that the cutting was her own idea. However, he did not make any promises to her¹⁴. Initially, Pan followed what Pek and Tang had asked her to do. She told CPE that it was her idea to cut the examination scripts. Upon further questioning, she eventually admitted that it was not her idea, and that she had done so at Pek’s instructions¹⁵.

Pan also testified on the document dated 5 Dec 14 titled “Statement of KIBS Staff” (Exhibit P12). P12, which she signed, alleged certain improprieties on the part of the CPE officers on 6 Nov 14. Pan disclosed that P12 had in fact been prepared by Pek and it contained several inaccuracies with which Pan did not agree with. She signed P12 because she was told that she could go home after she had signed it. Immediately after she had signed it, she lodged a police report to record her disagreement with the contents in P12.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

Both Pek and Tang were represented by Mr Derek Kang. Pek was the Director of Students Affairs at KIBS. She had joined KIBS as a teacher and shareholder sometime in 2009. She then became the main shareholder in 2010 when two predecessor directors left the school. As Director of Student Affairs, she supervised the day to day operations of the school. She was also on the school’s academic board since 2010. The board approves the assessment structure of the courses run in KIBS, including DMS. Pek was the course co-ordinator of DMS at the material time.

Tang was also a director at KIBS. He joined KIBS as a student and graduated in 2010/2011. One to two years after his graduation, at Pek’s invitation, he became the majority shareholder of KIBS when he invested more than S$100,000 into the school. As a director, he was involved in student recruitment.

With regard to the inspection on 6 Nov 14, Pek and Tang testified – Although there were classes scheduled on that day, one of which she was supposed to teach, these classes had been either rescheduled or merged a week beforehand. This was to allow her to visit the Marsiling area to recruit prospective students. This was why there was no classes held when CPE officers came to inspect. Pek denied calling KIBS posing either as a student or teacher to cancel classes¹⁶. During the seven and a half hours that she was in KIBS on the night of 6 Nov 14, Pek claimed that she had spent the time clearing her backlog of emails, outstanding paperwork, cleaning the premises and making certain that the school documents were in order for the...