Public Prosecutor v Yee Cheung Wai Philip

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Toh Yung Cheong
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 127
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 June 2007
• Year: 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Robert Tan (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Derek Kang (Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
• Citation: [2007] SGDC 127

26 April 2007 Judgment reserved.

District Judge Toh Yung Cheong

1 The accused claimed trial to the following charge of employing an immigration offender:

You Philip Yee Cheung Wai are charged that you, from March 2005 to the 16^th day of November 2005 in Singapore, did employ one Gulam, male 35 years old, FIN No. G90302614-M, Bangladeshi National, as a renovation worker and he being a person who had acted in contravention of Section 6(1) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 133, and whom you had reasonable grounds for believing to be a person who had acted in contravention of section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 133 and punishable under Section 57(1)(ii) of the same Act.

2 On 16 April 2007, I delivered a brief oral judgment outlining the reasons for my decision. I now reproduce these reasons.

Prosecution’s case

3 The prosecution’s case centred around the evidence of:

(a) PW2 Gulam, the immigration offender.

(b) PW1 William Thern, a former manager of Farrer Court Condominium.

(c) PW3 Mdm Seah Whee Siam, the person who had admitted to harbouring PW2 Gulam in her Farrer Court Condominium Unit.

4 Basically, PW2 Gulam testified that he worked for the accused in Farrer Court, PW1 William Thern testified that he saw PW2 working in Farrer Court and saw him with the accused, and PW3 Mdm Seah testified that she had seen PW2 working in Farrer Court and allowed him to stay in her flat because PW2 was the accused’s worker.

5 In addition, the prosecution called the following witnesses to round off its case:

(a) PW4 Ang Soon Hiang, a foreman with Pools Construction Pte Ltd, to testify about the his work Badal Ansal Ali, since PW2 Gulam was found in possession of a photocopied work permit belonging to the said Badal.

(b) PW5 Cher Hiang Meng Charles, an officer with the Ministry of Manpower who testified that the accused had never sent in an online request for screening of a work permit.

(c) PW6 Sgt Ho Bee Kiat, the investigation officer, to testify that PW2 Gulam had brought her around Farrer Court to show her the pedestrian walkway that he claimed he constructed for the accusd.

Evidence of PW2 Gulam

6 PW2 Gulam [note: 1] was arrested by the police on 16 November 2005 at Farrer Court Court Condominium, Blk 151D #25-15. He had no identification documents save for a photocopied work permit (exhibit P13) in the name of Badal Ansal Ali.

7 According to PW2, he first arrived in Singapore in February or March 2005. [note: 2] He was introduced by a Bangladeshi agent to one Mr Lim at Geylang who gave him a photocopied work permit. Mr Lim brought PW2 to Apartment #25-15 in Farrer Court where they met an old lady. Mr Lim had a conversation with her and thereafter, Mr Lim showed PW2 to a small room [note: 3] . PW2 observed that the flat had been subdivided into 17 to 18 makeshift rooms. Beofre Mr Lim left, he told PW2 to call a handphone number 90910099. PW2 did so and spoke to the accused Philip Yee. He asked the accused if he could arrange work and the accused asked him to go to the void deck of Blk 151 Farrer Court.

8 The next morning, the accused went to the void deck and met the accused who was with 5 other Bangladeshi workers. He could not understand the accused well but one of the other workers spoke to him and told him that he would receive salary twice a month and his salary was either $50 or $35, depending on whether he did a good job. Subsequently, the workers brought PW2 to a storeroom where they took some tools and started work. Prior to starting work, he received no training [note: 4] and back in Bangladesh, he had only worked as a farmer [note: 5] . He was also given a blue coloured t-shirt as workclothes. Subsequently, he was given a white coloured t-shirt with blue wordings.

9 Initially, the other workers were the ones that gave him instructions. Subsequently, the accused gave him instructions directly. Some of the jobs he did were painting, casting cement, welding and pipe cutting. PW2 did work not only in the public areas of the condominium but also renovations inside flats. PW2 claimed that he was only a worker and had never been promoted to a supervisory role [note: 6] . The accused also worked outside Farrer Court. He even helped to renovate the accused’s home by fixing the water heater, changing the lights and painting it. In addition, he also helped to renovate the accused’s girlfriend’s home. [note: 7]

10 PW2 was aware that the other Bangladeshi workers employed by the accused were staying illegally in Singapore[note: 8] . As PW2 was a hard worker, he had a good working relationship with the accused . Sometimes the accused would even bring PW2 to a nearby coffeeshop to buy him coffee or tea and also increased his salary from $35 to $50 per day[note: 9] .

11 As PW2 was residing in Farrer Court, he claimed that he did not need to change for a security pass at the guardroom unlike the other Bangladeshi workers[note: 10] . During cross-examination, he clarified that he did in fact exchange his photocopied work permit for a security pass during the first three to four months[note: 11] .

12 When PW2 started work, the covered walkway project for Farrer Court had already begun. When he was detained, he claimed that work on the walkway was still ongoing[note: 12] and that in fact, on the day of his arrest, he had been doing some painting work on the walkway[note: 13] . However, he changed his evidence during cross-examination and claimed that work on the walkway started four to five months after he started working for the accused[note: 14] .

13 PW2 would work seven days a week except for some Sundays. If the weather was bad, they would stop work. PW2 was paid on the 5^th and 20^th of each month. The first time, he received $350 and the second time he received more than $400. He would always receive his salary directly from the accused.

14 PW2 recognised PW1 Thern as a condominium manager working for the management office. However, he had never had any work-related conversations with him. At most, PW2 would exchange pleasantries with PW1 Thern. As for the managers that preceded William Thern, PW2 said he did not know any of them[note: 15] .

15 After PW2 was released from prison, he tried to call the accused but the accused told him not to call any more. As the accused owed PW2 some outstanding salary, PW2 called one of the other Bangladeshi workers employed by the accused, one Osman. Osman subsequently handed him $350 and said that it was from the accused[note: 16] . Osman also told him not to call the accused any more.

16 During cross-examination, PW2 gave evidence of additional meetings after he was released from prison. In particular, he claimed he met the accused the day after he was released in prison though this was never mentioned in his examination-in-chief.

17 About six months later, the accused called PW2 and informed him that he had been called up by police officers. The accused asked when PW2 was leaving Singapore and PW2 replied that he did not know. The accused then asked PW2 to keep him informed.

18 On 30 July 2006, PW2 called the accused and informed him that his departure date was fixed for 4 August. The accused was happy and subsequently called him on a few occasions. PW2 met the accused at Serangoon Road, shook his hand and told him that on 4 August, the accused or one of his men wold accompany him to the airpot and then give him $3,000. The accused told PW2 that he had worked for him for a long period and if PW2 left Singapore, the authorities could not impose a fine on the accused. However, the following day, PW2 was informed by the immigration office that he would not be allowed to leave the country.

19 On 1 August 2006, the accused called PW2 and PW2 revealed that he would not be leaving Singapore. The following day, the accused came to PW2’s flat at Commonwealth Drive with three other persons. The accused asked him to get into the accused’s lorry but PW2 refused and threatened to call the police. The accused grabbed PW2’s hands and told him “don’t kill me.” PW2 started to walk towards a police post and the accused left.

Evidence of PW1 William Thern Liak Meng

20 PW1 William Thern Liak Meng (“William Thern”) was an estate manager for Farrer Court Condominium between 2 August 2004 and 1 April 2006. His duties included overseeing the maintenance, housekeeping, and security of the Condominium.

21 According to William Thern, after he started work at Farrer Court, he became aware of a resolution passed earlier by the Management Committee (“MC”) to erect covered walkways to the residents’ blocks. However, the works for this project only started in 2004 (prior to August 2004) and the accused’s company, World Tiger, was engaged to carry out this project. World Tiger was the only company engaged to work on this project. The walkway project ended in November 2004. William Thern claimed that in 2005, the accused did not carry out any further work on the walkway and was not given any project in 2005.[note: 17] In fact, he was able to give details of the major projects in 2005 and the names of the contractors given those project.

22 William Thern observed that the accused had four to five Bangladeshi workers. William Thern recognised PW2 as one of them. As William Thern’s actual observations of PW2 are critical, I will list them out:

(a) During the construction stage, William Thern did a walkabout and inspected the progress of the work. PW2 was present though his exact role or presence was not explained[note: 18] .

(b) He called PW2 the foreman of the project.

(c) He always saw PW2 wearing a World Tiger T-shirt[note: 19] .

(d) He did not see PW2 speaking to the accused in Farrer Court very often, only between two to seven times[note: 20] .

(e) When William Thern was asked who PW2 was working for he answered:

Q: Did you establish who this Badal was working for?

A: To my best knowledge, he worked...