Public Prosecutor v Soo Eng Kheng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 10 September 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 285
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 32982/2012 and DAC 32983/2012
• Year: 2013
• Published date: 12 May 2014
• Hearing Date: 06 May 2013,02 September 2013,17 July 2013,08 May 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor, Lynn Tan
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Peter Ong Lip Cheng (M/s Peter Ong & Raymond Tan)
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 285

District Judge Soh Tze Bian: Charge

The accused person (AP), male/69 years old, who is a Singaporean claimed trial to the following 2 charges, each of which is an offence punishable under Section 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (“PCA”) with a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both: In DAC 32982/2012, the AP, on 20 June 2011 at or about 7.10pm at Kolam Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post, in Singapore, did knowingly give to one Prithpal Singh s/o Bang Singh (PW1), a Police Officer of the Singapore Police Force, false information in a police report relating to the commission by an officer of the National Environment Agency of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In DAC 32982/2012, the AP, on 21 June 2011 between 11.45am and 2.30am at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”), in Singapore, did knowingly give to one Lee Eng Teck Robin (PW3), a Senior Special Investigator of the CPIB, false information in a statement relating to the commission by an officer of the National Environment Agency of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Having considered the written submissions and replies of the parties (which they had been directed by the Court on 2 September 2013 to file by 5 September 2013 and 6 September 2013 respectively) together with the evidence that had been adduced during the trial, which was duly recorded by the digital audio recording and transcription (“DART”) system, I was satisfied that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the AP at the close of the trial. Accordingly, I convicted the AP of the 2 charges preferred against him on 10 September 2013.

Case for the prosecution

The prosecution called the following witnesses to the stand:

S/N	NAME	ROLE	LANGUAGE	MARKED AS
1.	Sgt Prithpal Singh s/o Bang Singh	SPF Police Officer who recorded the AP’s statement given at Kolam Ayer NPP on 20 June 2011	English	PW1
2.	Sgt Tan Kok Leong	SPF Police Officer who interpreted the AP ‘s statement at Kolam Ayer NPP on 20 June 2011	English	PW2
3.	SSI Lee Eng Teck Robin	CPIB Senior Special Investigator who recorded and interpreted the AP’s statement at CPIB on 21 June 2011	English	PW3
4.	Jayakumar s/o Chitharasu	NEA Environmental Health Officer alleged by the AP to have solicited bribe from the AP	English	PW4
5.	Talib Bin Kassim	NEA Environmental Health Executive	Malay	PW5
6.	Thennarasi d/o Silverrajoo	Wife of Jayakumar s/o Chitharasu (PW4)	English	PW6
7.	SSI Bay Chun How	CPIB Senior Special Investigator who recorded the AP’s statement at CPIB on 7 September 2011	English	PW7
8.	Nur Farizzat Bin Zainal Abidin	NEA Environmental Health Officer	English	PW8
9.	SSI Khoo Wei Quan Wilson	CPIB Senior Special Investigator who recorded the AP’s statements at CPIB on 13 and 14 October 2011	English	PW9
10.	SSI Lam Jun Zhi	CPIB Senior Special Investigator who translated the AP’s statements at CPIB on 13 and 14 October 2011	English	PW10

Evidence of prosecution witnesses

The evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses is summarised as follows. (a) PW1’s evidence i In his EIC, PW1 testified that he is a police officer attached to the Central Police Division. He recorded the First Information Report lodged by the AP on 20 June 2011 at 7.10pm (in P1) at the Kolam Ayer NPP after interviewing the AP in Malay for 1.5 hours on the chain of events and confirmed with the AP what he had told PW1. The AP told PW1 that he could not speak English but could speak and understand PW1’s spoken Malay. PW1 consulted one Seah Kah Weng Daniel who was the senior duty IO and was advised to get more details from the AP who came to lodge the police report on 20 June 2011 (which was more than 3 months after the alleged bribe solicited by a NEA officer in March 2011) and whose NEA summons given to and facts as recorded by PW1 disclosed an offence of gratification. PW1 recorded verbatim the contents of the AP’s police report in P1 and read them to the AP in Malay. He also asked his colleague, PW2 to read the AP’s police report in P1 to the AP and seek his confirmation and PW2 told PW1 that the AP agreed to the contents in his police report in P1. PW2’s name was not mentioned in the police report in P1 as an interpreter as the AP could understand Malay and PW1 merely asked PW2 to obtain the AP’s confirmation that he agreed to the contents of his police report in P1 which PW1 had already read to him in Malay. PW1 did not know if PW2 spoke to the AP in Mandarin or dialect. PW1 stated that the AP did not make any changes to the police report in P1 after PW1 and PW2 had read it to him in Malay or Mandarin/dialect respectively and the AP had signed the police report as the informant. As advised by one Seah Kah Weng Daniel, PW1 told the AP to report to the Central Police Divisional HQ with the police report in P1 which the AP did. ii During his XE, PW1 stated that the phrase ‘I was feeling woozy’ (at p.2 in the second para in the second sentence of the AP’s police report in P1) meant that the AP was feeling unwell and light-headed but PW1 could not recall the Malay words used by the AP during the recording of his police report in P1. He had no problem interviewing the AP, taking notes and recording them. As the facts revealed by the AP were sensitive, PW1 took some time to interview him. PW1 had read the police report in P1 in Malay to the AP who agreed with it. But PW1 wanted to be double sure and asked PW2 to obtain the AP’s confirmation that whatever PW1 had recorded in the AP’s police report in P1 was what he had said to PW1, and PW2 did so. PW1 disagreed with the Defence that the AP did not understand or speak Malay as PW1 had asked the AP who said he understood Malay. iii In his RE, PW1 stated that the facts as revealed by the AP to him were sensitive because of his allegation that NEA officer had acted in an improper manner and so PW1 had to ensure that he recorded the facts correctly. iv In his police report in P1, the AP stated as follows:

‘On the 12/03/2011, 1 was selling ‘mua chi’ near BIk 66 Geylang Bahru, near to the Food Centre. At about 1715 hrs, a subject, P1, who appeared to be Malay approached me, showed me a pass and told me that I was not allowed to sell there. On the 13/03/2011, at about 1720hrs I was again selling at the same area. The same subject approached me again, showed me a pass and told me I was not allowed to sell there.

The subject then told me in Malay to give him $200/- and he would not disturb me. I then informed him I had no money in broken Malay. He then informed me to meet him near the temple where a lot of people prayed and near a hawker centre but did not tell me the exact location. He told me to meet him at 1500hrs the following Saturday, the 19/03/201l. On these 2 occasions, the subject was alone.

On the 19/03/2011, at about 1530hrs, I went to near Guan Yin Temple located near Waterloo Street as I thought that is the place he wanted to meet me. When I reached there I could not find him. As such I left.

On the 23/03/2011 at about 1300hrs, when I was selling ‘mua chi’ at near Circuit Rd, the said subject came with 2 people. All subjects appeared to be Malay. They approached me and P1 showed his pass and asked for my NRIC in Malay. The subjects then started taking the food products which I was selling. I then hit P1 and the police was called. I was then arrested. I was injured during the scuffle with the subjects. I would like to add that I know these subjects are NEA officers.

I was interviewed by an IO from Bedok Police Division. I did not tell him about P1 asking me for money as I was feeling woozy and I forgot. On 06/042011, the IO informed me that there was nothing and if they would call me in the event of anything. On the 20/06/2011, I was sent a summon, NEA02088672011 by mail. As such I decided to report to police about the matter of P1 asking me for money.’ (emphasis mine)

(b) PW2’s evidence i PW2 testified in his EIC that he is a police officer attached to the Central Police Division. He could speak English, Mandarin and Hokkien. He was not directly involved in the recording of the police report in P1 which he recognised as a case about some bribery incident as he was told of this report about 2 years ago and recently by the CPIB IO. But he cannot recognise the face of the person who made the report. He tried to assist and explain the report in P1 to the informant (i.e. the AP) in simple Mandarin and Hokkien as he was at the NPC and saw PW1 trying to explain the same to the AP simple Malay. He heard Malay conversation between the AP and PW1 although PW2 did not understand Malay. He read 2 or 3 lines in the police report in P1 each time to the AP in Hokkien who nodded his head that he understood what PW2 had read. PW2 stated that he would not have moved on to read the next lines of the police report in P1 to the AP if the AP did not understand what was read to him. He could not recall if the AP had asked to make any changes to the report. There was no XE of PW2 by the Defence. (c) PW3’s evidence i In his EIC, PW3 testified that he is a CPIB investigator who spoke English, Mandarin and Hokkien. He recorded the AP’s statement dated 21/6/2011 in P2. He started recording at 1145 hours and ended at 1445 hours with a lunch break between 1 and 2 pm. He had received a call from Police ‘A’ Division about the AP’s complaint that a NEA officer had tried to ask him for money in return for not arresting him for illegal hawking. He went to fetch the AP from his Geylang Bahru flat to the CPIB to understand exactly what his complaint was about. PW3 explained section 27 of the...