[2012] SGCA 18

“(a) the actus reus of instigation, that is, “‘active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement’ of the primary offence”: Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34]; and”

“Kiat [2016] 1 SLR 753 at [24]). It is also well-established that abetment under s 12 of the MDA carries the same meaning as in s 107 of the Penal Code (Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [33]).”

“We begin by considering briefly the law relating to abetment. In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 (“Chan Heng Kong”), this Court observed at [33] that the word “abet” in s 12 of the MDA should bear the same meaning as it does in s 107 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Where abetment”

“2012: Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 49 (“Ramalingam”), Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR 1012 (“Quek Hock Lye”) and Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 (“Chan Heng Kong”). At the outset, we stress that none of these three cases concerned differing common in”

“ld Ridzuan and told Ridzuan to deal with [the Child]”. There was no “‘active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement’ of the primary offence”: Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34]. In this context, Ridzuan’s understanding of what Azlin intended by her request to “deal with” th”

“In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18, the Court of Appeal observed at [33], that the word “abet” in s 12 of the MDA should bear the same meaning as it does in s 107 of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). Section 107(1)(b)”

“The word “abets” in s 12 of the MDA bears the same meaning as it does in s 107 of the Penal Code (see Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [33]). Section 107 of the Penal Code reads:”