Public Prosecutor v Tang Eng Peng Alan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 161
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 341 of 1994
• Date: 10 July 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1995
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Keen Onn (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 161
• Defendant Counsel: Palaniappan Sundararaj and N Sreenivasan (Derrick Ravi & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether presumption of corruption properly raised,ss 6(a) & 8 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Respondent an army officer,Whether presumption successfully rebutted,Person who provided loan having dealings with army,Prevention of Corruption Act,Statutory offences,Corruptly obtaining a loan,Criminal Law

The respondent was charged under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (the Act) as follows:

You, Tang Eng Peng, Alan, M/39 yrs NRIC No 1715212/B are charged that you, on or about 8 January 1994 at about 8pm, at Blk 18 Khatib Camp, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, the chairman of the canteen committee of the 24th Singapore Artillery Battalion of the Singapore Armed Forces, did corruptly obtain from one Quah Kim Peng for yourself gratification in the form of a loan of $5,000 as a reward for showing favour to the said Quah Kim Peng in relation to your principal`s affairs by giving to the said Quah Kim Peng information in the month of November relating to the tender of a stall in Blk 18 Khatib Camp, to wit, as to whether the existing stallholder would be reselected, the constitution of the interview panel and what to say during the interview, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

At the conclusion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted by the trial judge. I allowed the prosecution`s appeal against his acquittal at the end of the hearing of the appeal. These are my reasons for doing so.

The facts

In the main, the facts were undisputed. In late October or early November 1993, the Singapore Armed Forces (the SAF) invited public tenders for the canteen stalls at all its camps. At that time, Quah Kim Peng (Quah) was running a canteen stall at the Amoy Quee Camp. He decided to submit a tender for the drinks stall at the canteen at Blk 18 Khatib Camp (the canteen). The canteen was in the charge of the 24th Singapore Artillery Battalion (the unit). The respondent was a warrant officer of the unit. He was also the chairman of the canteen committee in charge of the canteen.

Quah was concerned about his chances of winning the tender for the drinks stall at the canteen. At and around the time of the tender, Quah contacted the respondent three times by paging for him. Quah was able to do so because he had been acquainted with the respondent for several years. They met at the Amoy Quee Camp where the unit was previously stationed.

On each occasion, the respondent responded by calling Quah. In the course of the telephone conversations, the respondent answered questions asked by Quah and thus divulged certain information. There was some dispute as to the exact information and advice given. According to Quah, when Quah asked the respondent whether the existing stallholder at the canteen would be retained, the respondent replied that there had been many complaints against the existing stallholder and it was intended that he be replaced. Quah admitted that he had heard rumours to the same effect. The respondent also told Quah that he would be asked during an interview whether he would be interested in running the mess and that he should answer that he was. Lastly, Quah was informed that the interview panel would consist of officers from the unit. Quah found the information and help given to him beneficial.

After Quah had submitted his tender, he was interviewed by an evaluation board in November 1993. The evaluation board consisted of a few officers from the unit together with the respondent who was its chairman. Quah was awarded the highest score in his category by the evaluation board and was successful in his tender for the drinks stall.

On 3 January 1994, Quah commenced business at the canteen. The respondent brought the SAF canteen contract (the contract) to Quah for him to sign on 4 January 1994. Then, the respondent took the contract away as it had not been executed by the SAF. On 6 January 1994, the respondent approached Quah for a loan of $10,000. It was the first time the respondent had asked Quah for a loan. Although they were merely acquaintances, Quah felt obliged to accede to the request for two reasons. First, he had received some help from the respondent. Secondly, the respondent feared that the contract would not be signed by the SAF if he were to refuse the loan. In the event, he agreed to lend the respondent $5,000. To do so, he had to withdraw $5,000 from a fixed deposit account he held jointly with his wife. On 8 January 1994, he handed the money to the respondent. At his request, the respondent gave him a postdated cheque for $5,000. The dates of these events were disputed.

Major Tan Kok Heng, the then commanding officer of the unit and the adviser to the canteen committee testified that it was improper for the respondent as the chairman of the canteen committee to have had several private conversations with Quah, to give Quah information as to the constitution of the interview board and to advise Quah what to say during the interview.

In his defence, the respondent said that the loan was bona fide and was totally unconnected with the provision of information. The respondent claimed that he had known Quah for more than ten years. They were more than mere acquaintances; they were quite close friends. He admitted having provided some, but not all, the information to Quah. The respondent did not offer additional information apart from answering questions posed by Quah. In any case, the information provided was known to Quah and was inconsequential.

Towards the end of February, his brother in Malaysia asked him for a loan. The respondent did not have any money because he had just renovated his new home. Several other people he had asked refused to help. In the end, he turned to Quah. He had never borrowed money from Quah before. At and around the time of the loan transaction, the respondent did not mention the contract or the provision of...