Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Liang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shobha G. Nair
• Judgment Date: 24 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGMC 18
• Published date: 03 October 2007
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Insp Leow Teck Wee
• Defendant Counsel: Andy Yeo and Avery Chong

24th July 2007

District Judge Shobha G. Nair

1. The Accused, Wang Jian Liang, was tried on two charges before this court. Having heard the evidence and submissions on these charges, the Accused was convicted on the first charge for an offence punishable under s 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184) and fined $2000. The Accused was acquitted on the second charge for an offence punishable under s 336 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). Dissatisfied with the conviction order, the Accused now appeals. The fine has been paid.

2. The charge (Exhibit P1A):

Name:	Wang Jian Liang, M/45 years
NRIC No:	S 2591793-F
D.O.B.:	11.10.1961
Nationality:	Singapore Citizen

are charged that you on the 13^th day of September 2006 at or about 9.30 am at Block 27 Hazel Park Terrace near Lobby B, Singapore, with intent to cause alarm to one Mohamed Fadil Bin Muhayat, did use insulting behaviour, to wit, by spitting at the said Mohamed Fadil Bin Muhayat, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Chapter 184).

The Undisputed Facts

3. On 13 September 2006, Mr Mohamed Fadil Bin Muhayat, a security officer, was performing his duties at a condominium premises known as Hazel Park Condominium. He was new on the job. More specifically, he had been working for about 2 weeks at the time. The Accused, a Professor with the Faculty of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, was a resident of a unit at Block 27 of the condominium. He had at about 9.30 am parked his car in front of Lobby B of Block 27. This was not designated as a parking lot. At that time however, there was no sign placed by the management of the condominium that it was a ‘wheel-clamp zone’. Fadil noticed the car and proceeded to take its registration number. Whilst doing so, the Accused approached him. There was an exchange of words between parties. Prior to 13 September 2006, parties had never met.

The Prosecution

The testimony of Mohamed Fadil (PW3)

4. Fadil was a protection officer with the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation (CISCO), providing security services at the Hazel Park Condominium. On the day in question, dressed in his CISCO uniform, he was travelling on his bicycle from the clubhouse to the guardhouse when he spotted the Accused’s car in front of Block 27. He got down from his bicycle to check on whether the car belonged to a resident or a visitor. When he established that it belonged to a resident, he took down the number of the vehicle and was about to convey the particulars on his walkie-talkie to an officer at the guardhouse. As he was doing so, the Accused approached from the lobby area and shouted at him. Fadil explained that he was doing what was required of him by management although he acknowledged that it was not a ‘wheel- clamp zone’.

5. According to Fadil, the Accused asked him what he was trying to do. Fadil then explained that he was trying to find out whose car it was, to which the Accused responded “You got nothing better to do?” Fadil said that he tried to explain politely that it was his duty to check on the identity of the owner of the car and inform the said owner to remove the vehicle. It was Fadil’s evidence that the Accused then spat at him - “he spat at me – on my CISCO uniform, on left side of CISCO logo” [note: 1]. He clarified this to mean on the left side of his chest, above the pocket on the uniform [note: 2]. Just before the Accused spat at him, the Accused allegedly scolded Fadil in “vulgar language” [note: 3]. The entire conversation took place in English.

6. Fadil expressed that he felt very angry, ashamed and insulted. He did not retaliate either verbally or physically and returned to where his bicycle was parked. The sequence of events thereafter related to the second charge for which the Accused was acquitted.

7. Fadil stated that he was sure that he was spat at and that the Accused was close to him when he was spat at. He described it as “Just in front of me. Face to face” and went on to describe it as “less than an arm’s length” (about 50-60 cm) [note: 4].

8. Fadil claimed that a resident on the 2^nd level of Block 27 had witnessed what transpired and identified her to be Ms Christine Ho. Fadil then proceeded to the guardhouse where he informed his superior officer, Mr Shahri Alias. Both Shahri and Fadil reported the matter to the condominium manager, Ms Jennifer Peh. Having obtained the approval of the manager, Fadil then returned to the guardhouse with Shahri and the latter made a call to the police.

The testimony of Christine Ho (PW4)

9. Ms Christine Ho (PW4) informed the court that she was cleaning the residence of her parents on the 2^nd level of Block 27 when she heard an argument. This triggered her to approach the window and to look out. She claimed that she saw a well dressed Chinese man who appeared very angry with the security guard whom she identified to be Fadil. She said that Fadil was trying to explain something to the Chinese man who did not seem to want to listen and was seen to be scolding Fadil. She could not recall the words which were spoken.

10. Christine testified that before the Chinese man got into his car, she saw him turn to his side and appeared to have spat at Fadil [note: 5] although she could not see the spit from the position she was standing. When asked by the defence if she saw the Accused spitting on to the ground, she replied in the negative and stated that it was directed towards Fadil. When asked how this was possible when the Accused was not standing in front of Fadil, the witness testified that the Accused turned and spat. The following exchange took place during cross-examination [note: 6]:

Q: You would have noted if there was any vulgarity shouted between the parties or wouldn’t have been able to?

A: I can’t remember exact word, but he was very angry, he scolded him.

Q: You said that when client going to get into his car, he spat on the ground?

A: No. Towards the guard.

Q: Not standing in front of the guard?

A: Near enough. He turned and spat before he went into vehicle. He turned and spat.

Q: Not face to face right?

A: Almost.

Q: It is important to know what was done or not done.

If someone said front to front [counsel demonstrates front to front position] - Was that what happened?

A: He didn’t go in front to spit but he was near enough to spit at him.

Q: Would it be possible then more of a turning motion and spitting on the ground?

A: Repeat.

Q: [Counsel repeats]

A: No not ground. Towards the person.

Q: You did not see the spit.

A: Of course not.

Q: All you saw was a motion.

A: Action. Anything came out. I can’t see.

11. Christine went on to speak of how she observed Fadil move backward and brush something off his shirt [note: 7]. The following was said during cross-examination:

Q : From angle you stood – whether head motion – to ground or person – not clear – wouldn’t it be true? From position you were standing. From higher ground.

A: But I saw the security guard move back and hand action of taking something off with hand (witness demonstrates act of flicking something off left side – upper chest area).

The testimony of Shahri Alias (PW2)

12. Shahri Alias (PW2) was Fadil’s superior officer. He informed the court that Fadil approached him at about 10 am on 13 September 2006 and informed that he was abused by a resident. According to Shahri, Fadil informed him that he was in the process of taking down the plate number of a car parked in a ‘wheel-clamp zone’ for the purpose of ascertaining its owner when a resident approached him. The resident appeared very angry. He told the court that:

“…my officer reported to me that in the process of anger, the vehicle owner did something which is not right which is to spit at him. Once I heard that uniform – where did he spit – on his uniform – I can’t really remember which side – but what I can recall is there was a wet marking”[note: 8].

13. Having heard that a lady on the 2^nd level of the block had seen the incident and that Fadil did not retaliate when spat at, Shahri decided to get the approval of the condominium and operations managers before proceeding to make a call to the police.

The testimony of S/Sgt Lau Soon Cheng (PW1)

14. Sergeant Lau was called by the prosecution merely to admit photographs that he had taken of the scene of the alleged incidents. Having been the first officer at the scene however, he was cross-examined on various areas of relevance.

15. The text of Shari’s message to the police as contained in Exhibit P7 was that “one of the resident [sic] threaten to beat my staff”. Responding to the same, Sgt Lau together with his colleague Sgt Hisham, proceeded to the condominium premises. They parked their car near the guardhouse and met Shahri. Sgt Lau was unable to recall what Shahri informed him although he said that it was along the lines of the message in P7. He informed the court that Fadil was asked to attend at the guardhouse. Fadil had informed him that he was spat at on his uniform. Sgt Lau did not see the spit which he assumed had dried up the time the police arrived. The uniform was not seized.

16. He confirmed that a lady (Christine) approached him and informed that she was a witness to the incident. Apart from the lady having informed him that the Accused should not have driven his car in the manner that he did (pertaining to the second charge), Sgt Lau was unable to say with any clarity what else was said by this lady. He was not able to give the court any information on how she came to be at the scene or who, if anyone, had asked her to meet up with him.

The Defence

17. The Accused spoke of how he had to park his car at the spot shown in various exhibits (see markings in P3, P4 and D5) and rush to his unit on the 18^th level to pick up some medication. Upon his return to the spot some 2 – 3...