Wang Chin Sing v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: V K Rajah JA
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 215
• Date: 19 November 2008
• Subject Matter: Sections 14(1) and 14(2) Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed),Abetment,Section 14(1)(a)(ii) Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed),Making false statutory declarations,Section 109 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Criminal Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Illegal organ supply,Sentencing,Making false statements to Transplant Ethics Committee,Offences,Appeals
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 228 of 2008
• Published date: 20 November 2008
• Defendant Counsel: Winston Cheng and Jeyendran Jeyapal (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Shashi Nathan and Jansen Lim (Harry Elias Partnership)

19 November 2008

V K Rajah JA:

1 Incidents of organ trafficking are not peculiar to Singapore. The trade is the consequence of a worldwide imbalance between supply and demand. Globally, it has spawned a tangled web of desperate buyers and financially disadvantaged donors often improbably linked together by shady middlemen stealthily operating in “grey areas” outside national legal and ethical frameworks. Syndicates with criminal links are not uncommonly involved. Each such case, involving middlemen, often leaves in its wake a chaotic and challenging multitude of complex ethical, legal and medical problems. That aside, one of the most offensive features of such illegal trades is the exploitation of the donors who are usually financially challenged and poorly educated. Sad to say it has become in some parts of the world the “wages of poverty”.

2 Even if the donors, by dint of good fortune, receive reasonable compensation, almost invariably, no efforts are made to secure them against the future medical difficulties that they may have to confront. The cruel probabilities of such medical difficulties eventually materialising are often not remote. Further, it is also not unimportant to point out that, ironically, even the wealthier buyers (ie, the donees) are not safe from exploitation by these middlemen. As a result of the dire straits they find themselves in, they are often exceptionally vulnerable and readily succumb to the extortionate practices employed by some middlemen.

3 While these middlemen often claim to be providing a useful service to the desperately ill, the truth of the matter is that they are usually purely inspired by unbridled avarice to maximise their financial returns from each transaction. Left unchecked, these middlemen can cause immeasurable harm to the parties involved (particularly the donors) as well as indelibly tarnish the standing of the medical community, which may be (unwittingly) drawn into this intricate web of deceit. Admittedly, the culpability of the middlemen can indeed vary in different matters and the assessment of their conduct ultimately ought to depend on the precise role they have played in procuring the ‘trade’ as well as the actual modalities employed. However, in Singapore as the law now stands, any middleman who seeks to secure for himself any form of commercial advantage has absolutely no legitimate role to play in the process of donor or organ matching and transfer. The Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) (“HOTA”) proscribes such activities.

4 I turn now to the subject offences. The appellant has pleaded guilty to five charges involving contraventions of HOTA (as well as its subsidiary legislation) and the Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed) (“ODA”) read with the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). He has also consented to a further five charges relating to the abetment and making of false statutory declarations and false statements to be taken into account for sentencing purposes. The District Judge imposed consecutive sentences of seven months’ imprisonment for each of the HOTA offences. The sentences of three months’ imprisonment separately imposed for the two ODA offences and a HOTA regulatory offence were ordered to run concurrently. The aggregate sentence of imprisonment to be served by the appellant is 14 months. As the judge has ably summarised the relevant facts I gratefully adopt his narrative. These grounds should therefore be read in conjunction with his judgment; see Wang Chin Sing v PP [2008] SGDC 268). The judge found (at [37]–[58]):

37 … It is apparent that Wang was intimately involved in the two transactions to purchase a kidney from living donors for Tang and Juliana Soh...