Song Meng Choon Andrew v PP: Corruption & Visit Pass Abuse

Song Meng Choon Andrew appealed against the sentence imposed by the district judge for two charges under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Andrew, the owner of a karaoke pub, had corruptly given gratification to Philibert Tng Hai Swee to arrange illegal extensions of Visit Passes for his Filipino hostesses. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence manifestly excessive, and reduced the sentence to six weeks' imprisonment per charge, to run consecutively, resulting in a global term of 12 weeks' imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed; sentence reduced.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Song Meng Choon Andrew appeals his sentence for corruption related to facilitating illegal extensions of Visit Passes for foreign hostesses.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedLost
Asoka Markandu of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sanjiv Vaswani of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Song Meng Choon AndrewAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Asoka MarkanduAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sanjiv VaswaniAttorney-General’s Chambers
Calvin LiangTan Kok Quan Partnership
Geraint KangTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Appellant owned Bonski Karaoke Pub.
  2. Appellant employed Filipino females on Visit Passes as hostesses.
  3. Appellant arranged for hostesses to perform "U-Turns" to extend Visit Passes.
  4. Philibert facilitated the "U-Turns" and bribed an ICA officer.
  5. Appellant paid Philibert for arranging the "U-Turns".
  6. Appellant knew Philibert would use some money to bribe an ICA contact.
  7. Appellant deducted "U-Turn" costs from hostesses' salaries.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Song Meng Choon Andrew v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 229 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 180

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mustaffa became acquainted with a Filipino female.
Appellant arranged with Philibert for Sally and Charity to perform “U-Turns”.
Philibert drove Sally and Charity to Johor, Malaysia and back to Singapore.
Philibert drove Alyn and Janice to Johor.
Philibert fetched Alyn and Janice from Johor Bahru and returned to Singapore.
CPIB received information about ICA officers assisting foreigners to perform “U-Turns”.
Appellant was charged.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Corruption
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant had corruptly given gratification but reduced the sentence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Corruptly giving gratification
      • Bribery of public official
  2. Sentencing
    • Outcome: The court found the original sentence manifestly excessive and reduced it.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Manifestly excessive sentence
      • Inordinate delay in prosecution
      • Totality principle

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Corruption

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Corruption Offences

11. Industries

  • Hospitality
  • Entertainment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng ThorUnknownYes[2011] 4 SLR 217SingaporeCited for the public service rationale in corruption cases.
Public Prosecutor v Ong Chin HuatDistrict CourtYes[2008] SGDC 76SingaporeCited as a relevant case for determining the appropriate sentence.
Public Prosecutor v UIUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the principles of appellate intervention in sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon LoongUnknownYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 611SingaporeCited for the definition of manifestly excessive sentence.
Chan Wing Seng v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 721SingaporeCited for the definition of 'corruptly' in s 5(b)(i) of the PCA.
PP v Khoo Yong HakUnknownYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited for considering some of the English statutory provisions.
Kannan s/o Kunjiraman v PPUnknownYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 294SingaporeCited for the example of A gives $5,000 to B to assault C.
Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa RomelHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 117SingaporeCited for the historical context of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Public Prosecutor v Marzuki bin AhmadUnknownYes[2014] 4 SLR 623SingaporeCited for the factors to take into account when sentencing an offender under s 6(a) of the PCA.
Sim Gek Yong v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 185SingaporeCited for the principle that the court cannot consider a graver charge when sentencing.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 523SingaporeCited for the principle that the appellant can only be punished for the offence with which he was charged and of which he was convicted.
Chan Kum Hong Randy v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1019SingaporeCited for the principle of inordinate delay in prosecution.
Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited for the principle that a guilty plea is a factor that the court takes into account in mitigation as evidence of remorse.
Meeran bin Mydin v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 522SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kian Meng WinstonDistrict CourtYes[2009] SGDC 426SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Public Prosecutor v Yeoh Hock LamDistrict CourtYes[2001] SGDC 212SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Public Prosecutor v Weng Yong YiDistrict CourtYes[2007] SGDC 160SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Chin GeeDistrict CourtYes[2009] SGDC 229SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Public Prosecutor v Howe Jee TianHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 587SingaporeCited as a relevant sentencing precedent.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited for an analytical framework in deciding when to order concurrent or consecutive sentences.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 5(b)(i)Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act s 6Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • U-Turn
  • Visit Pass
  • Gratification
  • Corruption
  • Hostess
  • ICA
  • CPIB

15.2 Keywords

  • Corruption
  • Visit Pass
  • U-Turn
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Sentence
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act95
Sentencing70
Offences60
Criminal Law50
Criminal Procedure40
Visit Pass40
Penal Code30
Immigration Offences30
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Corruption
  • Sentencing