Wong Tiew Yong and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 28 August 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 191
• Date: 28 August 2003
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Findings of fact,Factors to consider when applying "clang of the prison gates" principle,Principles applicable in appeal against findings of fact,Appeal,Sentencing practice Application of "clang of the prison gates" principle,Taking account of contributions of appellant in sentencing,Sentencing practice,Sentencing
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeals Nos 77 and
• Published date: 03 October 2003
• Defendant Counsel: K Sivaratnam (S Ratnam & Associates),Edwin San (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Subhas Anandan and Melanie Ho (Harry Elias Partnership)

1 This was an appeal against the decision of the district judge when he convicted the two appellants on two counts each for having exhibited ‘conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline’ as members of the CIAS Auxiliary Police. Such conduct is an offence under Regulation 6(c) of the Auxiliary Police Regulations (Cap 235) and is punishable under Regulation 10 of the said Regulations. The appellants were each sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment on each charge and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal was brought against conviction and sentence. At the end of the hearing before me, I dismissed the appeals against conviction and allowed the appeals against sentence. I now give my reasons.

Charges

2 The charges against the appellants read as follows:

1. DAC 47844/2002

You, Wong Tiew Yong, M/54 yrs NRIC No. S1049798A Director of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, are charged with exhibiting conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to wit, you sometime from June 1998 to July 1998 at the Changi Airport, did instigate one Kong Keng Shiong, an auxiliary police officer with the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to absent himself from duty from 30 June 1998 to 18 July 1998 without leave or good cause, and you have thereby committed an offence under Regulation 6(c) of the Auxiliary Police Regulations punishable under Regulation 10(1) of the said Regulations.

1. DAC 47845/2002

You, Wong Tiew Yong, M/54 yrs NRIC No. S1049798A Director of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, are charged with exhibiting conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to wit, you sometime from July 1998 to August 1998 at the Changi Airport, did instigate one Kong Keng Shiong, an auxiliary police officer with the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to absent himself from duty from 30 July 1998 to 9 August 1998 without leave or good cause, and you have thereby committed an offence under Regulation 6(c) of the Auxiliary Police Regulations punishable under Regulation 10(1) of the said Regulations.

1. DAC 47842/2002

You, Karuppiah Subramaniam, M/44 yrs NRIC No. S1298462A Inspector of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, are charged with exhibiting conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to wit, you sometime from June 1998 to July 1998 at the Changi Airport, did instigate one Kong Keng Shiong, an auxiliary police officer with the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to absent himself from duty from 30 June 1998 to 18 July 1998 without leave or good cause, and you have thereby committed an offence under Regulation 6(c) of the Auxiliary Police Regulations punishable under Regulation 10(1) of the said Regulations.

1. DAC 47843/2002

You, Karuppiah Subramaniam, M/44 yrs NRIC No. S1298462A Inspector of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, are charged with exhibiting conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to wit, you sometime from July 1998 to August 1998 at the Changi Airport, did instigate one Kong Keng Shiong, an auxiliary police officer with the Changi Airport Services Auxiliary Police Force, to absent himself from duty from 30 July 1998 to 9 August 1998 without leave or good cause, and you have thereby committed an offence under Regulation 6(c) of the Auxiliary Police Regulations punishable under Regulation 10(1) of the said Regulations.

Background facts

3 The first appellant was Wong Tiew Yong (“Wong”), the Director of CIAS Auxiliary Police Force (“CIAS Police”). The second appellant was Karuppiah Subramaniam (“Subramaniam”), an Inspector and the Officer-In-Charge (“OC”) of the Task Force of CIAS Police. In 1998, Wong made three unofficial trips to China. These trips were in February 1998 (“February trip”), from 30 June 1998 to 18 July 1998 (“June trip”) and from 30 July 1998 to 9 August 1998 (“July trip”). On each of these trips, Kong Keng Shiong (“Kong”), then a Malaysian police constable attached to the Task Force of CIAS Police, accompanied Wong.

4 Kong was on medical leave from August 1997 to April 1998 when he went on the February trip. As for the June and July trips, Kong was supposed to have performed afternoon shift duty work at the CIAS Police. Instead, he went on the June and July trips without applying for leave of 14 days and seven days respectively. As CIAS Police was unaware of Kong’s absence from work during the June and July trips, Kong was paid his full monthly salary of $1,118.34 in August and September 1998.

5 At trial, the prosecution contended that both Wong and Subramaniam had instructed Kong (i) to accompany Wong on the June and July trips and (ii) to go on these trips without applying for leave. Additionally, the prosecution claimed that Subramaniam had separately told Kong to falsely record in his pocket book that he was working at CIAS Police during the period of the June and July trips. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on Kong’s testimony.

Prosecution’s version of the facts

The February trip

6 Kong testified that he first came to know about the February trip while on medical leave in Malaysia. Goh Ban Peng (“Goh”), a task force colleague, had phoned to inform him that Wong wanted Kong to accompany him on a trip to China. Goh revealed that Wong was going to meet a girl called Qin Qin in China and wanted Kong to act as his bodyguard. It was Wong’s desire to show Qin Qin that he was an important person. When Kong expressed his unwillingness, Goh convinced him by stating that the arrangement was Wong’s idea. Goh added that if Kong were not to go, his career would be adversely affected. As such, Kong agreed to follow Wong on the February trip.

7 Before Kong left for the trip, he informed Subramaniam that he was accompanying Wong to China on an assignment at Wong’s request. During this conversation, Kong did not reveal the purpose of the February trip, as he had been told by Wong to keep it confidential. Kong complied with Wong’s instructions because Wong was the top man in CIAS Police. Kong was therefore afraid that any non-compliance with Wong’s request would indeed adversely affect his career.

The June trip

8 Wong informed Kong about the June trip while they were in a car. Wong told Kong that his girlfriend in China had cheated him. As such, Wong wanted to go to China to clarify the matter. Wong stated that he wanted Kong to accompany him on this trip to act as his bodyguard in China. Wong also informed Kong that he was not required to apply for leave to go on this trip, adding that he would speak to Subramaniam about the matter. After this, Subramaniam called Kong to his office and told Kong that he was required to be Wong’s bodyguard during a China trip. Subramaniam also advised Kong that he should comply with Wong’s instructions for the sake of his career. Subramaniam then informed Kong that he was not required to apply for leave to go on the trip, adding that Kong was required to update his pocket book as though he was on duty for the relevant period.

9 Shortly before the June trip, Subramaniam asked Kong about Wong’s purpose in going to China. Despite Wong’s earlier caution to keep the purpose of the trip confidential, Kong told Subramaniam that Wong had some problems with a girl there. Kong testified that he assumed Subramaniam already knew of Wong’s problems with the Chinese girl, as some task force colleagues and Subramaniam had gossiped and joked in the canteen about Wong’s affair with the girl. Kong added that Subramaniam had also brought up the topic about the girl after the February trip. When Kong returned to Singapore after the June trip, Subramaniam reminded Kong to update his pocket book to reflect that he was at work with CIAS Police during the relevant period. Kong complied with Subramaniam’s instructions.

The July trip

10 After the June trip, Wong told Kong that he needed to return to China to look up some friends. He wanted Kong to accompany him on the trip as a bodyguard. Wong again informed Kong that he was not required to apply for leave and that he would speak to Subramaniam about the matter. After this conversation, Subramaniam informed Kong that Wong required his company on a China trip. Subramaniam added that Kong was not required to apply for leave for the July trip and that he should update his pocket book to reflect that he was performing afternoon shift duty during the period he was in China. After returning to Singapore, Kong filled up his pocket book in accordance with Subramaniam’s instructions.

11 Kong also testified that at the material times, neither Wong nor Subramaniam informed him whether the June and July trips were official. Kong was only told that they were overseas assignments. Kong, however, knew that the trips were to attend to Wong’s private affairs. Kong admitted that he should have applied for leave to go on such trips but had failed to do so because Wong and Subramaniam had given instructions to the contrary. Kong could also not fathom that what Wong had done was ‘illegal’, as he was given to understand that Wong was entitled to bring an orderly on his overseas trips because of his status.

Appellants’ version of the facts

12 Both Wong and Subramaniam denied the prosecution’s contentions. Wong claimed that he brought Kong on the three China trips as a Mandarin interpreter and not a bodyguard. He testified that Kong knew that the trips were unofficial and that he had only brought Kong along because Goh was not available. As for the June trip, Wong claimed that Kong had represented that he was still on medical leave at that time, but was nevertheless keen on going. Before the July trip, Wong claimed that he bumped into Kong at the CIAS Police premises when the...