Public Prosecutor v Tan Boon Chian and Liew Beng Huat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Carol Ling Feng Yong
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGDC 16
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 929986/2018 and DAC 929980/2018, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9256-2019-01, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9257-2019-01
• Published date: 14 February 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 15 January 2019,03 July 2019,11 July 2019,23 May 2019,24 May 2019,22 October 2019,10 July 2019,22 May 2019,09 July 2019,14 January 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Gail Wong/Amanda Han, Deputy Public Prosecutors
• Defendant Counsel: Mr P.O Ram/Choo Si Sen/Ms Choo Yean Lin, Defence Counsels,Mr Leon Koh, Defence Counsel
• Citation: [2020] SGDC 16

District Judge Carol Ling Feng Yong: CHARGES

The Accused persons were tried jointly.

Accused Tan Boon Chian (hereafter “Tan”) claimed trial to the following charge:

DAC 929986/2018

“You, between 4 th December 2017 and 8 th December 2017, in Singapore, did knowingly receive payment of SGD$250/- from one CYT, in connection with the actual sexual exploitation of a child, namely CYT, male/then 16 years old (DOB: 23 April 2001), who was a trafficked victim at the material time, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 6(1) punishable under section 6(2)(a) of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 2014.”

Accused Liew Beng Huat (hereafter “Liew”) claimed trial to this charge:

DAC 929980/2019

“ You, between 4th December 2017 and 8th December 2017, in Singapore, did knowingly received payment of SGD$90, from one Tan Boon Chian, in connection with the actual sexual exploitation of a child, namely CYT, male/then 16 years old (DOB:23 April 2001), who was a trafficked victim at the material time, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 6(1) punishable under section 6(2) of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 2014.”

At the conclusion of the trial, I acquitted both the Accused persons of their respective charges. The Prosecution is dissatisfied with the acquittal.

BACKGROUND FACTS

These facts, mostly adduced from Tan himself, set the background for this case¹.

Tan was the owner of a brothel, located at 79A Rowell Road. From about March 2015 when he took over the business from one “Ong Ah”, until 8 Dec 2017 (the date on which the brothel was raided), he ran the business of a brothel at the said location. The opening hours of the brothel were from 6 pm to 1 am and the premises were not used for any other purposes. At all other times of the day, it would be locked.

Tan’s brothel was used by Thai male prostitutes. Since Ong Ah’s time, it had always been Thai male prostitutes (also known as “ladyboys²”) using the brothel. Each Thai prostitute paid Tan $50 a day to use the place for prostitution. A plastic bag would be passed around the prostitutes gathered at 79A Rowell Road daily, who would each put $50 into the plastic bag. This plastic bag would eventually be handed over to Tan.

One “Ah Boy” helped Tan with the brothel operations at 79A Rowell Road for a salary of $70 a day. Ah Boy had previously worked for Ong Ah and he simply continued his duties after Tan had taken over 79A Rowell Road. Ah Boy’s duties included collecting $50 from each of the prostitutes, supervising the cleaning of the place at the end of the opening hours, alerting the prostitutes when the police came, settling disputes with customers³. It is the Prosecution’s case that after Ah Boy ceased working for Tan, Liew helped Tan with the tasks in the brothel and was paid $30 a day.

It was at this brothel at 79A Rowell Road that 16 year-old CYT was working as a male prostitute when the brothel was raided on 8 December 2017.

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

It is not disputed that at the time when CYT was working as a male prostitute at 79A Rowell Road, he was merely 16 years old (Date of Birth: 23 April 2001⁴). Being under the age of 18, CYT was a “child”, as defined in section 2 of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act (“PHTA”).

PW1’s evidence

PW1 CYT testified that he first arrived in Singapore by bus on 4 December 2017. This was his first time to Singapore. He came to Singapore to work - to provide “sex service” which included “oral sex”, “kissing”, “oral kissing”⁵.

CYT got the idea to come to Singapore to work as a sex worker when he was in Thailand. He testified that back in Thailand, a male friend of his, one “Oom” had told him that if he (CYT) came to Singapore to work as a sex worker, he (CYT) would be able to get a lot of money. CYT described Oom as a “ladyboy” – a male who wants to become a female.

CYT then made the decision to come to Singapore to work as a sex worker. It is his evidence that Oom “arranged everything”⁶ for him; took a photocopy of his passport, told him to go to the bus-station to take the bus⁷, under the instructions of one “Maebo”. CYT understood from Oom that he would be working under the said Maebo; that he came under Maebo’s contract, which meant that he would have to pay Maebo S$1,000 from what he earned from providing sexual services and for giving him the chance to work⁸. According to CYT, Maebo also gave Oom the number of the person CYT was to contact when he arrived in Singapore. There was no doubt that that the purpose of CYT’s trip to Singapore on 4 December 2017 was to provide sexual services.

En route to Singapore from Hat Yai, Thailand, CYT got acquainted with three other Thai ladyboys on the bus and upon talking with them, he came to know that the three of them also came under the contract of Maebo. The terms of their contract were similar to CYT’s. The purpose of their visit to Singapore, as was CYT’s, was to provide sexual services. However, at immigration, CYT only received a social visit pas of 7 days whereas the other ladyboys received a social visit pass of 1 month.

When the bus from Hat Yai arrived in Golden Mile, Singapore, they all alighted. CYT testified that he did not have to call the person whose contact Oom had given him. One of the three ladyboys whom CYT met on the bus had made the phone call. As CYT understood it, it was a phone call made for somebody to come to fetch them from Golden Mile to the hotel⁹. Subsequently, the four of them, including CYT, were met at Golden Mile by two other Thai ladyboys, named “Micky” and “Beer”. Thereafter, the group travelled by taxi to the hotel¹⁰ where they checked-in.

CYT testified that he started work the very day that he arrived in Singapore i.e. 4 December 2017. When informed by his “senior friends” that work was to begin, he walked with them from the hotel to the 79A Rowell Road, in batches of three, as instructed by the older ladyboys¹¹.

At the brothel, CYT changed into his bikini; he purchased condoms, tissue and K-Y (a lubricant) from the store next to the brothel with the help of the senior ladyboys since he could not speak English. These items would be brought over to the brothel from the store as CYT was told that they were not allowed to go out of the brothel lest the police would catch them. CYT testified that he personally observed Tan putting a phone at the recess area of the door¹² inside 79A Rowell Road. If there were police, the phone would ring and the white door would be closed. Once the area was clear of police, the white door would be opened¹³.

From the day he arrived in Singapore on 4 December 2017, CYT prostituted himself at the brothel at 79A Rowell Road. He started work at about 530pm or 630 pm daily and ended work only at about 1 am the next morning. With the other Thai ladyboys, he would sit behind the metal gate and wait for potential customers. He provided penetrative sexual services, including oral and anal sex to customers for money. CYT worked at the brothel until 8th December 2017 when the brothel was raided¹⁴.

Specific Roles of Tan (“Ah Boss”) and Liew (“Ah Ker”)

In court, CYT recognised both the Accused persons. He identified Tan as “Ah Boss” and Liew as “Ah Ker”, as told to him. CYT testified that he was told by his “senior friends” that both these persons will help them to “look after the place and look out for police and clients”¹⁵. CYT also testified that he paid $50 each day, either to Ah Boss or Ah Ker and he had paid a total of $250 for the period of 4-8 December 2017, including the day that he was arrested¹⁶. A plastic bag would be passed round the ladyboys who would each put $50 inside.

After work at the brothel each day, CYT and the rest of the ladyboys would either walk back in batches of three or take in a taxi¹⁷. When they walked back to the hotel, Ah Boss would ride a bicycle ahead of them, to ensure there was no police and that it was clear to walk. Ah Boss would gesture by hand to indicate that it was “clear of policeman”. ¹⁸

As for Ah Ker, apart from collecting the fee of $50 from the ladyboys, it was CYT’s evidence that during the 5 days when he was working at the brothel, Ah Ker would be looking out for police and helping them to look for customers. He would also be the one who would bring them to clean the place, supervised the cleaning of the rooms¹⁹ and sometimes provided food for the ladyboys²⁰.

Credibility of PW1 - CYT

Having heard CYT’s evidence and observed him in the giving of his evidence, I find him to be an honest witness; giving a clear and coherent account of why and how he came to work in Singapore, as well as the details of his work in Singapore. He was forthright as a witness even under cross-examination, readily agreeing that nobody had forced him to come to Singapore to work as a sex worker; that he had voluntarily applied for his own passport, entered into the contract with Maebo and bought his own bus ticket to Singapore²¹. He candidly admitted that he had made the decision because he needed the money for his (sex-change) operation²². Even when describing the roles that Tan and Liew played viz-a-viz the brothel, its operations and the ladyboys, CYT was straightforward in his account, with no tendency to exaggerate the roles played by either of the Accused persons. I find CYT to be a wholly credible witness and I accept his evidence. I was satisfied that it contained the truth relating to why and how he came to Singapore to work as a prostitute, and his work at the brothel after he arrived.

In addition, material portions of CYT’s evidence in relation to his work at the brothel, the roles of Tan and Liew and how the ladyboys were organised at the brothel, were consistent with the testimonies of PW2 Thanaphol Thuraphra and PW3 Chutisara Chaikham. Both of them worked at the brothel at 79A Rowell Road with CYT in the same period of time. PW2...