District Judge Terence Tay:
Introduction
Left unchecked, corruption is a problem that can spread like a contagion and debilitate the constitution of an orderly society. In Singapore, strong political will and strict enforcement have been instrumental in significantly curbing corruption in both the private and public sectors. However, “we are under no illusions that we have permanently and completely solved the problem. Corruption is driven by human nature and greed.”
The accused persons in the present case, Mr Yee Kok Siong @ Jensen (“Jensen”) and Mr Tan Bee Song @ Edmund @ Ah Tan (“Tan”), had claimed trial to charges of bribery with the nefarious purpose of procuring the wrongful arrest of one Hoon Tian Jie (“Hoon”):
| |
|
| Accused Person | Charge |
| Jensen | That he, sometime in early-July 2016, in the vicinity of Ang Mo Kio Central, Singapore, corruptly offered a gratification of S$4,000 to Tan as an inducement for Tan to render assistance to him in getting one Hoon Tian Jie (“Hoon”) wrongfully arrested by the Police, an offence under section 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, Rev Ed 1993) (the “PCA”) (“JC1”). |
| Tan | (a) That he, sometime in early-July 2016, in the vicinity of Ang Mo Kio Central, Singapore, corruptly agreed to receive a gratification of S$4,000 from Jensen as an inducement for him to render assistance to Jensen in getting Hoon wrongfully arrested by the Police, an offence under section 5(a)(i) of the PCA (“TC1”). (b) That he, on or about 31 July 2016, in Singapore, corruptly offered a gratification of $2,000 to Shukor as a reward for Shukor to do an act in relation to his principal’s affairs, ie. to arrest Hoon, an offence under section 6(b) of the PCA (“TC2”). |
The prescribed punishment for each of the charges was up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or up to $100,000 fine.
At the end of the joint trial of Jensen and Tan, I found that the Prosecution had proved its case against each of them beyond reasonable doubt and I convicted Jensen and Tan of the respective charges against them.
Before Tan was sentenced, he pleaded guilty to a charge that he, on 30 May 2015, having possession of certain information which was obtained in contravention of the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213, Rev Ed 2012) (the “OSA”), communicated the said information to an individual to whom Tan was not authorised to communicate the said information, an offence under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(1)(i) and punishable under section 17(2) of the OSA (“TC3”).
Tan also consented to another charge under section 5(2) and punishable under section 17(2) of the OSA being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.
Both Jensen and Tan have no relevant antecedents.
I sentenced Jensen to 2 months’ imprisonment for JC1 and sentenced Tan globally to 4 months’ imprisonment based on the following individual sentences:
| |
|
| Charge | Sentence |
| TC1 | Two (2) months’ imprisonment |
| TC2 | Three (3) months’ imprisonment* |
| TC3 | One (1) month’s imprisonment* |
| Total | Four (4) month’s imprisonment |
| * Consecutive Sentences |
Jensen and Tan had filed appeals against their convictions and sentences. I allowed their applications for a stay of execution of the sentences and bail pending appeal.
The Prosecution’s evidence
The Prosecution relied on the following witnesses and exhibits to make its case: Witnesses:
| |
|
|
| | Witness | Role |
| PW1 | Mr Shukor Bin Warji (“Shukor”) | A former police officer. |
| PW2 | Mr Goh Keng Seng @ Rhino (“OC Rhino”) | Officer-in-command of the Field Support Squad (“FSS”) within the Investigation Branch of the Central Police Division (the “IB”) |
| PW3 | Ms Yap Ker Sim Aileen (“HI Yap”) | Head of the IB |
| PW4 | Mr Chew Siu Keong (“DHI Chew”) | Deputy Head of the IB |
| PW5 | Mr Lin Jue Hai (“PSI Lin”) | Principal Special Investigator of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”) |
Exhibits: | |
|
| | Exhibit |
| P1 | Handwritten note setting out Hoon’s particulars (the “Handwritten Note”). |
| P2 | Photograph of text correspondence between Tan and OC Rhino on the Whatsapp Messenger mobile communication application (“Whatsapp”). |
| P3 | A statement recorded from Jensen on 28 September 2016 by DHI Chew pursuant to section 27 PCA (“Jensen’s Statement”). |
| P4 | Statement of recorded from Tan on 3 August 2016 by PSI Lin pursuant to section 27 of the PCA (“Tan’s 1stStatement”). |
| P5 | Statement recorded from Tan on 17 August 2016 by PSI Lin pursuant to section 27 of the PCA (“Tan’s 2ndStatement”). |
| P6 | Photograph of note setting out Hoon’s particulars (the “Mobile Phone Note”). |
As Tan had alleged that he had given his statements (ie. Tan’s 1st Statement and Tan’s 2nd Statement) involuntarily as a result of inducement and promise, an ancillary hearing was held to determine the issue.
The ancillary hearing
Tan’s allegations
The main thrusts of Tan’s allegations centred on the statement recording process:
| |
|
| In relation to Tan’s 1st Statement: |
| A | And a while later at around 15 minutes to 20 minutes, he returned back to the room whereby together with another officer---male officer. |
| Q | Who is this male officer? |
| A | As I really couldn’t recall and I could recall that this male officer is roughly around 35 to 40 plus years old. And I remember that he’s quite fierce. He was---he was standing at the side of the table whereby IO Lin was just in front of me. And again, he asked me what do I---what do I have done with Shukor this time around. So I told him that Shukor is my ex-colleague and, uh, so far we have done nothing. So the standing officer did ask me, “So last few day did you all met up?” I told him that, “Well, we did met up for some chit-chatting at Shukor house apartment roadside. From there I---I---I told the officer that, “Well, it just a chit-chatting and---and---and---and just asked about one another self-being.” So at one point of time, the I---IO---standing IO was quite angry at me and saying that, “Why are you beating up---around the bush?” Then used 4-letter word on me and asking me to tell the truth. I told them---I told him---I told both of the officer that well, what I’m telling is the truth. Then after that, the standing IO was angry and was using 4-letter word on me, saying that, “Well, you and Shukor are friends and colleagues---ex-colleagues. If there’s a money involved, it’s not---not, uh---not, uh, big---big issue.” So from there I did told him that, “Well, Shukor did wanted to borrow some money from me few days ago.” And just coincidentally, I---I passed by his house and went there to meet him for some chit-chat. And then a while later, the IO---standing IO left the room and I continued to give my statement. |
| Q | What after---after the---what you call the standing IO left the room? Can you tell the Court what happened? |
| A | I continued to give my statement for a few hours and at one point of time, I did---ask IO Lin that---I did told IO Lin that I’m hungry and, uh, what time will the dinner serve? And IO Lin told me that, uh, “Well, you---you---you finish up the statement and, uh, the dinner will serve later.” So roughly, it take around an hour later, my dinner was served. |
| Q | After dinner was served, what happened? |
| A | After dinner was served, I continued to give statement. Continued my statement, IO Lin continued to record my statement and I think it last another 2, 3 hours again. And when the statement conclude, IO Lin went out the room and come back with the hard copy of the statement together with my phone. |
| Q | What happened thereafter? |
| A | IO Lin asked me to read the statement. As I was too tired and too stressed out, I have browsed the statement and just signed the statement. I did not make any amendments on the statement. |
| Q | Why not? |
| A | As I’m too tired to read. |
| In relation to Tan’s 2nd Statement: |
| A | I wanted to amend the statement on paragraph 14. However, uh, IO Lin did told me that, “Well, that is not serious and, uh, do not need to amend.” As such I did not amend and, uh, he continued to---to record the statement from me. |
| Q | With the subject matter of the amending, how many times did you ask IO Lin to amend? |
| A | What I could recall is that I---I have asked more than 1 time. |
| Q | And to the best of your recollection, what did he say to you about your request to amend? |
| A | He told me that this is not serious and---and---and---and do not need to amend. |
| Q | Eventually in the 2nd statement, the further statement, what were or what was the amendment? |
| A | I couldn’t recall, Your Honour. |
| Q | And the particular part that you wanted to amend in paragraph 14, was it amended? |
| A | It was not amended, Your Honour. |
The Prosecution’s evidence
The Prosecution called PSI Lin and DHI Chew as witnesses for the ancillary hearing.
According to PSI Lin, there was no other investigation officer in the interview room (the “Unknown IO”) throughout the recording of Tan’s 1st Statement and there was nothing to suggest that Tan was not fit to give the statement.
Based on PSI Lin’s detailed account of the chronology of events from Tan’s arrest to the recording of Tan’s 1st Statement, nothing of significance happened that could suggest the application of any threat, inducement or promise:
| |
|
|
| Date/Time | Event |
| 03.08.2016 @ 6:30 am | PSI Lin and his colleague, one Station Inspector Yuvaraj (“SI Yuvaraj”), arrived at Tan’s home. PSI Lin and SI Yuvaraj allowed Tan to wash up and change his clothes, and retrieve his passport from his car. Thereafter, they brought Tan to the CPIB in a staff car. According to PSI Lin, Tan was calm, cooperative but did
|
...
