Public Prosecutor v Wong Tiew Yong and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kow Keng Siong
• Judgment Date: 28 May 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGDC 116
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 06 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Low Cheong Yeow (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira & Partners),K. Sivaratnam (S Ratnam & Associates)
• Citation: [2003] SGDC 116

The charges & the appeal

1. This Judgement arises from appeals filed on 5 May 2003 against conviction and sentence.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd Accused – Mr Wong Tiew Yong (Wong) and Mr Karrupiah Subramaniam (Subramanium) respectively – were originally tried before me on 2 cheating charges each under section 420 r/w 109 of the Penal Code. In essence, these charges alleged that they had instigated one Kong Keng Shiong (Kong) to falsely represent to Changi International Airport Services (Pte) Ltd (CIAS) that he had performed official work for 2 periods – viz (a) 30 June to 18 July 1998, and (b) 30 July to 9 August 1998 – and thereby dishonestly induced CIAS to pay Kong excess salaries for these periods.

3. At all material times:

a. Wong was the Director of the CIAS Auxiliary Police (CIAS Police),

b. Subramaniam was an auxiliary police inspector and Officer-in-Charge (OC) of the Task Force, a section within the CIAS Police, and

c. Kong was an auxiliary police constable in the Task Force.

4. At the end of the trial, I found that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. Kong was rostered to perform duties at the CIAS Police for the material periods;

b. He however did not report for work and had instead accompanied Wong on the latter’s 2 personal trips to China during the material periods;

c. Kong did not apply leave to go on these 2 trips; and

d. The 2 Accused persons had instigated Kong to go on the 2 trips without applying for leave. Subramaniam had separately instigated Kong to falsely state in his pocket book that he was at work during the material periods.

5. I was however not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the requisite mens rea to support the cheating offences had been established.

6. Nonetheless, the totality of the evidence was clearly sufficient to support convictions on lesser charges of the 2 Accused persons having exhibited ‘conduct to the prejudice and good discipline order’ as members of the CIAS Auxiliary Police. Pursuant to section 163 of the CPC and after having obtained the requisite sanctions, I accordingly altered the existing cheating charges to 2 charges under reg. 6 read with reg. 10 of the Auxiliary Police Regulations against each of them. I convicted both Accused persons on these charges after allowing them the opportunity (a) to recall and examine witnesses: section 167 CPC, and (b) to make further submissions.

7. I eventually sentenced each of the Accused persons to 2 weeks’ imprisonment on each charge, both to run concurrently.

8. Both Accused persons are dissatisfied with my decision and had appealed against their convictions and sentences. They are presently on bail pending appeal.

9. There is no doubt that on the facts I have found, the ingredients of reg. 6 offence are satisfied. Since the Prosecution did not appeal against my decision to acquit on the cheating charges and substitute lesser charges under the Auxiliary Police Regulations, this Judgement will principally deal with my findings of fact.

Undisputed facts[1]

10. As Director of CIAS Police, Wong was responsible for (a) efficiently providing reliable aviation and airport security services to CIAS, the airlines, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and other customers, as well as (b) preventing and suppressing crimes within Changi airport.

11. As OC Task Force, Subramaniam’s duties included (a) deploying Task Force officers for investigations, anti-crime rounds and spot checks; and (b) monitoring his officers’ performance.[2]

12. In 1998, wong made 3 personal and unofficial trips to China. These were:

a. in February (February trip);

b. from 30 June to 18 July (June trip); and

c. from 30 July to 9 August (July trip).

13. Kong accompanied Wong on these 3 trips.

a. For the February trip, Kong was on medical leave, which lasted from late August 1997 to April 1998.[3]

b. During the periods of the June and July trips, Kong was supposed to perform afternoon shift duty work at the CIAS Police.[4] He went on the June and July trips without applying for leave – 14 days (June trip) and 7 days (July trip).[5]

14. Because CIAS was unaware of Kong’ absence from work during the periods of the June and July trips, it paid the latter his full monthly salary of $1,118.34 (ie $51.62 daily) in August and September 1998 without any deductions. If CIAS had known of the true state of affairs, it would have deducted:

a. $722.68 from Kong’s August salary (on account of 14 days’ absence from work during the June trip), and

b. $361.34 from Kong’s September salary (on account of 7 days’ absence from work during the July trip).

Material facts in dispute

15. According to the Prosecution,

a. Both Accused persons had instructed Kong (i) to accompany Wong on the June and July trips, and (ii) to go on these trips without applying leave.

b. Subramaniam had separately told Kong to falsely record in his pocket book that he was working at Changi Airport during the periods of these trips.

16. Both Accused persons flatly denied the Prosecution’s contentions.

a. Wong claimed that he brought Kong on the 2 unofficial trips because the latter had represented that he was already on leave / medical leave at the material times.

b. Subramaniam, on the other hand, alleged that Wong led him to believe that the June and July trips were official trips, and that he (Wong) would take care of the arrangements. It did not occur to Subramaniam that Kong had to apply for leave as leave was not required for official trips.

Prosecution’s evidence

Kong Keng Shiong

17. The crux of the Prosecution’s case rested on Kong’s testimony.

18. Circumstances of the February trip – According to Kong, he first came to know about the February trip while on medical leave in Malaysia. At the material time, Kong (who represented Singapore and Malaysia in Taekwando competitions) was recuperating from a leg injury arising from a Taekwando competition. Goh Ban Peng (Goh), a Task Force colleague, phoned him to inform that Wong wanted him (Kong) to return to Singapore to accompany him on an overseas trip.[6] Goh disclosed that Wong was going to meet a girl called Qin Qin and wanted a bodyguard to show that he was an important person.[7]

19. Kong was not keen on the trip, which he regarded as an unofficial assignment. He was uneasy about making such a trip while on hospitalisation leave.[8] When Kong expressed his unwillingness, Goh advised him that it was Wong’s idea, and that his career would be affected if he did not go.[9] Goh added that Wong wanted to train him up.[10] Kong eventually agreed to go after Goh convinced him that complying with Wong’s instructions was part of his duties.[11]

20. Goh advised Kong to keep Subramaniam informed about the trip.[12] Kong decided to do so because the latter was his OC, and also so that someone would know should anything happen to him in China.[13] Before leaving Singapore, Kong phoned Subramaniam and informed that he was accompanying Wong to China on an assignment at the latter’s request.[14] During the phone conversation, Kong intimated his unhappiness in going on the trip because of the expenses he had incurred. Subramaniam advised him against declining Wong’s invitation for the good of his career, but should instead use the trip to gain experience. During the conversation, Kong did not reveal the purpose of the trip as he had been told to keep that confidential.[15]

21. According to Kong, he complied with Wong’s instructions for the sake of his job. Wong was the top man in CIAS Police and he was afraid that non-compliance with the former’s request would affect his job. Kong was prepared to comply with Wong’s instructions as long as they did not involve ‘clear-cut criminal activities’ such as murder, stealing and robbery.[16] Kong did not give his family any detail about the trip because he did not want them to worry.[17]

22. During the trip, Wong met with local police officers and airport security officers.[18] It was not clear from Kong’s evidence whether Wong did in fact meet up with Qin Qin as well.

23. Kong testified that Wong was a demanding boss and he (Kong) suffered during the trip. As a result of the harsh treatment he received, Kong called Subramaniam and Goh to obtain their advice.[19] During the conversation with Subramaniam, Kong did not disclose what Wong and him were then doing in China.

24. Circumstances of the June trip – Wong approached Kong about the June trip a few days before the departure. Wong told him that his girlfriend in China had cheated him by having a boyfriend there. Wong wanted to go there and clarify the matter, but was concerned that he might do something wrong as he was emotionally unstable. Wong therefore wanted Kong to be his bodyguard during the trip.[20] Wong informed Kong that he need not apply for leave to go on the trip, and that he (Wong) would speak to Subramaniam about the matter.[21] Although he was unwilling to go, Kong did not inform Wong his true sentiments.[22]

25. After Wong had spoken to Kong, Subramaniam called him into his office. The OC told Kong that he was required to be his Wong’s bodyguard during a China trip. When Kong expressed his unwillingness in going, Subramaniam advised that he should comply with the instructions for the sake of his career. Subramaniam also told Kong that he need not apply for leave to go on the trip, but had to update his pocket book as though he was on duty for the relevant period.[23]

26. On a separate occasion shortly before the June trip, Subramaniam asked Kong about the Wong’s purpose in going to China. Despite Wong’s earlier caution to keep the purpose of the trip confidential, Kong told Subramaniam that the Director had some problems with a girl there.[24] Kong did this because he assumed that Subramaniam already knew of Wong’s problems with the Chinese girl. This assumption arose from the fact that a few days before the June trip, some Task Force colleagues had gossiped and joked about Wong’s affairs with the girl in the...