Tay Kok Poh Ronnie v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 21 October 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 244
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 222/94/01
• Date: 21 October 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Anwarul Haque and Yoga Sharmini Yogarajah (Haridass Ho & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 244
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy and Lim Yew Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Section 122(6) statement,Criminal Law,Statements,Whether conviction justified,s 6(b) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Corruption,Statutory offences,Failure to deny allegation,Allegation already denied in s 121 statement,Whether adverse inference to be drawn,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

The appellant was the managing director of Perita Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd (Perita). He was tried together in a joint trial in the district court with one Chua Kim Soon (Chua). Chua was a technical officer employed by the Public Utilities Board (PUB).

The charge against the appellant was as follows:

You, ... Ronnie Tay Kok Poh ... are charged that you, on or about 13 July 1993 at No 102 Depot Road, Singapore, did corruptly give through one Goh Joo Siang a gratification of a sum of $100 (Dollars One Hundred only) to an agent, namely, Chua Kim Soon, a technical officer in the employ of the Public Utilities Board, Singapore, as a reward to the said Chua Kim Soon for doing an act in relation to his principal`s affairs, namely, inspecting your electrical installation works undertaken by Perita Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd at 102 Depot Road, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

Chua was charged with corruptly receiving the $100. On 13 August 1994, both the appellant and Chua were convicted. The appellant appealed against this decision.

The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 11 May 1994. However, the appellant had in the meantime filed Crim M 9/95 for the admission of further evidence. This was heard first. After hearing both counsel for the appellant and the DPP, I granted the motion as I was concerned that there might be a risk of injustice if it was not allowed. The case was then remitted back to the district judge to record the further evidence. After this was done on 17 and 18 July 1995, the case came back up again before me on 10 October 1995. I allowed the appellant`s appeal after having heard counsel for the appellant and the DPP. I now give my reasons.

The evidence at the trial

Although the prosecution called a number of witnesses in the joint trial, only the testimony of one witness implicated the appellant in any way. This witness was Alex Koh (Koh). Koh was a supervisor employed by Perita at the relevant time. He resigned about a month before giving evidence in the trial. The other main prosecution witness, Goh Joo Siang (Goh), did not implicate the appellant in any way. Hence, so far as the prosecution`s case against the appellant was concerned, Koh`s evidence was crucial.

Koh was employed by Perita about four years before the trial. In 1992, he became a supervisor. His responsibility was to supervise the works carried out and to attend meetings. Presumably, some of these meetings were site meetings.

In July 1993, Perita carried out installation and electrical works at a site at Depot Road (the site). Before handing over the works to the owner, there was to be a PUB inspection. Koh testified that he was told by the appellant to attend the testing. Koh told the court that on the day of the testing, he spoke to the appellant in the appellant`s office at Henderson Road. On that occasion, the appellant handed to Koh two $50 notes. The appellant told him to hand the notes over to Goh to give to the testing officer. Koh then went to the site for the testing. When the inspection was almost complete, he handed the money to Goh. This was done in the electrical room. He told Goh that `the chief asked me to hand the money to him to be handed to the tester.`

During cross-examination by the appellant`s counsel, Koh denied that his position was a senior one with heavy responsibilities. He could not remember when exactly the incident in which he handed the money over to Goh took place. He could only say it was in July 1993. He also could not remember at which part of the day the incident occurred. However, he could remember that, on that day, he went to Perita`s office at about 8am. There, the appellant told him to go to the appellant`s office, where the alleged incident occurred. At that time, only the two of them were in the office. Koh testified that he was not told the reason why the appellant gave him the $100, nor did he ask. He gave the money to Goh in the switch room. He reaffirmed that he told Goh that, `My employer instructed me to hand over the money to him.`

Cross-examined by Chua`s counsel, Koh said that the appellant did not tell him the name of the tester when the appellant handed the money to him. Koh could not remember if he knew who the tester would be. However, he admitted that he had met Chua before. He repeated his allegation that he told Goh that his employer asked him to hand the money over to Goh to be handed to the tester. He could not remember who made the arrangements for the inspection. Koh admitted, when asked if he knew that it was an offence to give money to a public officer, that, `More or less I know a little.` Nevertheless, he said that he did it because he was instructed by his employer to do so. However, when asked whether he would rob a bank if his employer told him to do so, he said he would not. The other parts of Koh`s evidence related to Chua and were not relevant to this appeal.

Goh, on the other hand, said that he had been an employee of Perita for about three years. On the day in question, Koh pushed some money to him and pointed at Chua. He understood this to mean that Koh wanted him to hand the money over to Chua. He took the money and gave it to Chua, who took it without saying anything. He was not told by Koh what the money was for and he did not ask Koh. Furthermore, when Koh pushed the money to him no word was spoken by Koh. On this, he was quite adamant. He did not know who made the arrangements for the inspection. The inspection was sometime in the afternoon.

Goh admitted that though he was paid a fixed salary by Perita, he was also paid according to the amount of work done. By this he meant that he had the authority to employ more workers if the need arose. Perita would pay Goh by cheque. He would then pay the workers in cash. He was unable to say if he was a subcontractor. However, he admitted that he made some money out of this arrangement, meaning that he kept the balance of the money given to him. The rest of his evidence related to Chua and was likewise irrelevant to this appeal.

The appellant`s evidence was that Goh was a subcontractor of Perita`s. Goh was paid according to the amount of work done. All the workers were Goh`s workers and were paid directly by Goh. The appellant had no say as to the amount to be paid to Goh`s workers. Koh was the project coordinator and the supervisor for the Depot Road project. The project was under his charge. Koh attended all the site meetings and coordinated with authorities like the PUB. This included inspections and testings. On 13 July 1993, he was not at his office at all. In the morning, he was at a worksite in Marine Parade. He was unable to identify the worksite at the trial. In the afternoon, he called one of his staff, Low Peng Hong (Low) to meet him at the car park of his office. From there, they went to a tender show-around at the World Trade Centre. The show-around was at 2.30pm. After collecting tender documents at the Port of Singapore Authority at Alexandra Road, the appellant went for a game of golf at the Jurong Country Club. He was never in his office on 13 July 1993. He did not see Koh that day.

Under cross-examination, he testified that he stood by the contents of the various statements he had made to the CPIB. He affirmed that the contents of those statements were true and that he had maintained his innocence all along. The only statement formally admitted by the prosecution at this stage was the appellant`s s 122(6) statement made on 16 March 1994. In it the appellant said that he had nothing to say to the charge. The appellant admitted that, at the time the s 122(6) statement was made, he had been told that Koh had made the allegation against him that he had given Koh $100. He explained that he said that he had nothing to say, because, in his mind, he thought the officers wanted him to admit to the charge.

The appellant said that, on the morning of 13 July, he was at a project site at Marine Parade, next to the NTUC Supermarket. He went there directly from home. He could not remember whom he met there, but it was most probably people from the main contractors. He was there the whole morning. He met with Low at around 2pm that day. He said that Koh was a senior staff member. He admitted that there were terms in the contract in relation to the Depot Road site for liquidated damages for late completion. However, he disagreed that Perita would necessarily have to pay them if there was a delay. This would depend on whom the fault for the delay could be attributed to.

The appellant did not have a written contract with Goh for each project. Remuneration was calculated by measurement of the amount of work done. He was paid fortnightly. The supervisor of the project would check the work. Goh was not liable for liquidated damages if the work was not done properly. However, he might not get any further jobs. Perita paid CPF contributions in respect of Goh. This was done because Goh was a self-employed person and he wanted Perita to pay CPF contributions on his behalf for his Medisave. The amount paid was refunded by Goh to Perita. The appellant denied that all the payments made to Goh was for the purpose of engaging workers on behalf of Perita. Cross-examined by Chua`s counsel, the appellant said that he did not know, on 13 July 1993, that the site inspection at Depot Road would be carried out that day. He also did not know then who attended the inspection, either from his office or from the PUB.

Low testified that he arrived at Perita`s office before 9am on 13 July 1993. He did not remember seeing the appellant in the office. The appellant was not in the office when Low arrived. The lights in the appellant`s office were off. He remembered the day clearly because the site show-around that day was the first that he had ever been to with the appellant. The appellant had told him that they would be going for a...