Public Prosecutor v Lim Beng Cheok

[1] The accused Lim Beng Cheok (“Lim”), also known as Philip Lim, faced a total of 56 charges under s 377 and 377A of the Penal Code and one charge under the Films Act (Cap 107). The prosecution proceeded with ten charges i.e five charges of voluntarily having carnal intercourse against the order of nature under s 377 Penal Code and five charges of committing an act of gross indecency with a male person under s 377A of the Penal Code. The offences under these ten charges are in respect of five boys aged 13 to 15 at the time of the offences and span over one year from December 2000 to February 2002. I will refer to the five boys as Ong, Sim, Chua, Hong and Goh.

[2] At the time of the offences, Lim was a mathematics tutor who gave tuition from his home at Ang Mo Kio.

[3] The circumstances as to how the five victims were introduced to Lim were similar. The parents of the five victims received word that Lim was an effective mathematics tutor. They were weak in their grasp of mathematics and their parents were concerned about this. Lim was engaged to tutor the five victims. He was trusted for his tuition methods. Some of the victims, like other students, had at some point of time either resided with him at the flat or would stay over at his flat on occasions, usually just prior to the school examination. Lim provided meals and lodging for them. He was a stern and demanding tutor who would not hesitate to resort to corporal punishment to enforce discipline and exact obedience from his students.

[4] The offences came to light because a psychologist in Ong’s school was informed by his form teacher that there had been a noticeable deterioration in Ong’s attitude towards his mother and schoolwork and Ong had run away from home. It was in the third counselling session with Ong and after probing that the psychologist discovered that Lim had sexually abused Ong and other boys.

[5] Lim pleaded guilty to the ten charges and was convicted accordingly. He consented to the remaining 47 charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

[6] Mr Lee Teck Leng, Counsel for Lim, submitted that good character was a mitigating factor, citing two cases. In Melvani v Public Prosecutor [1969-1971] SLR 464, Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin (as he then was) said that “good character is always a circumstance which a court ought to consider in assessing sentence”. In Siah Ooi Choe v Public Prosecutor [1988] SLR 402, L P Thean J (as he then was) had taken into account the background of the appellant’s character and his contribution to society and the country.

[7] Mr Imran Hamid for the prosecution, relied on Chan Mei Yoong Letticia v Public Prosecutor [2002] 2 SLR 465 to submit that good character should not have any effect on sentencing in the case before me.

[8] However, I noted that in Letticia’s case, the offence was one under the Immigration Act (Cap 133). That may be why the impressive testimonial of the good character of the accused there failed to mitigate the benchmark sentence.

[9] On the question of good character and contribution to society, Mr Lee presented an impressive array of testimonials i.e 87 from Lim’s former students and eight from his former students’ parents. In addition, there was a testimonial from the Management Committee of Kwang Im Tng Buddhist Temple at Balestier Road. Some of the persons who wrote the testimonials appeared to be aware of the nature of the charges which Lim was facing. Moreover, some of those who had given testimonials were present in court on the day when submissions on sentencing were made.

[10] I will cite from a few of the testimonials as that will give a better perspective of the beneficial effect Lim had had on many of his students:

[11] The impact on the victims is set out in the Statement of Facts which includes the report of Dr Cai Yiming of the Child Guidance Clinic of the Institute of Health on each of the victims. Dr Cai is Senior Consultant and the Head of the Clinic.

[12] In the Statement of Facts, it is stated that Ong had confided to the school counsellor his concern about contracting sexually transmitted diseases. He was also afraid that he might be labelled as “gay”. He was confused and felt partly to blame as he felt good during the acts. He was hesitant to go to the police.

[13] During the examination by Dr Cai, Ong was co-operative and forthcoming.

[14] As a result of the sexual abuse, Ong blamed his stepfather and mother (“his parents”) for sending him for tuition under Lim. He hated his parents. He also blamed Lim for giving him horrible times as he felt shameful that the events had surfaced. However, he had no intrusive memory or flashback. Dr Cai recommended continued counselling for one year as Ong had a lot of anger and hate against his parents.

[15] Dr Cai described Sim as friendly and co-operative.

[16] Sim had not dared to say “no” to Lim nor tell his own parents as he was afraid of the spiritual power of Lim whom he believed was a disciple of “Tua Peh Kong”.

[17] Sim felt guilty. He felt abused sexually and considered himself no longer a virgin. Memories of Lim kept coming to his mind and he was worried that Lim might harm his family. He had nightmares about Lim coming to kill his parents and him. However, I noted that Dr Cai’s report did not allege that any specific threat had been made by Lim against Sim.

[18] Dr Cai concluded that Sim had signs and symptoms of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. For this, counselling was recommended for at least the next one year.

[19] Dr Cai said that Chua appeared shy and embarrassed about what had happened to him. Nevertheless, he was co-operative and forthcoming. Sometime in June or July 2000, Lim had asked him if he had ever watched pornography before and touched his private part. This was in Lim’s room (in Lim’s flat). Chua was a bit scared and Lim told him to calm down. From then on, Lim helped him and they masturbated each other and performed mutual oral sex.

[20] Chua said he did enjoy the acts and Lim did not use any threat or force on him. However, he did not tell anyone as he was embarrassed. He had no signs and symptoms of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[21] Hong also appeared shy and embarrassed about what had happened. Nevertheless, he was co-operative and forthcoming during his session with Dr Cai.

[22] Hong was still grateful to Lim and had a high regard for him as a tutor and his teaching methods.

[23] It was sometime in the middle of 2001 when Lim asked Hong to let another boy have a look at his penis. He obliged out of deference to Lim and also to satisfy the curiosity of the other boy. This went on with Lim helping Hong to masturbate and this progressed to mutual masturbation. There was no oral sex between them. Hong was not at ease at first but Lim gave a veiled threat of cutting him off emotionally and he gave in. As a result, he had a bit of self-blame as he did not reject outright the advance of Lim.

[24] After the police stepped in to investigate, Hong felt embarrassed and worried that others might know about his past activities. He had some difficulty facing his parents, friends and teachers initially but he was all right now. He had no signs and symptoms of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[25] Mr Lee also submitted that Hong’s brother also wrote a testimonial for Lim stating, “His kindness is something I will not be able to repay”.

[26] During Dr Cai’s examination, Goh was in a relaxed and cheerful mood. He was also forthcoming and co-operative.

[27] In November 2001, Lim had hugged Goh and kissed his cheek lightly, progressing to touching his private part. Later, Lim helped him to masturbate a few times. Once or twice, he masturbated Lim, under Lim’s direction.

[28] Goh was shocked at first and Lim told him not to tell anyone. Goh was worried that should he disclose to his parents, his parents might stop his tuition and his results in Mathematics might drop. He was quite happy with the tuition under the accused as his results in Mathematics improved significantly. He still held Lim in high esteem as a tutor.

[29] Goh did not have recurrent thoughts or intrusive memories of these events and had no signs and symptoms of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[30] Mr Lee also submitted that Goh had visited Lim in remand with the permission of his parents.

[31] The prosecution relied on reports of Dr Kenneth Koh of the Institute of Mental Health, Woodbridge Hospital. Dr Koh is the Registrar of Department of Forensic Psychiatry. In his report dated 27 August 2002, Dr Koh said that Lim came from a family of ten siblings whom he hardly kept in contact with. His tuition was to male students in secondary school as he claimed to have had bad experiences with female students who cried when he scolded them.

[32] Lim was a homosexual and his first sexual encounter was while he was doing National Service.

[33] I note from the report that Lim had admitted to sexual activity, similar to those for which he was being charged, with previous students. However, Lim could not remember exactly when and with how many. During the hearing before me, Mr Lee was instructed that the previous occasions happened two or three times a long time ago and comprised masturbation.

[34] During examination by Dr Koh, Lim was calm although worried about the sentence he would receive. Lim was coherent and did not display any psychotic symptoms or anything which would suggest a major mood disorder.

[35] Dr Koh was of the opinion that Lim has paedophilia (sexually attracted to males).

[36] In his second report dated 27 November 2002, Dr Koh was of the view that there was a high rate of recidivism, relying on statistics from the British Journal of Criminology. He was of the opinion that Lim posed a danger to young boys.

[37] The defence obtained an opinion from Dr Tian Choong Sing of The Psychotherapy Clinic for Adults and Children (Ang & Kong). Prior to entering into private practice, Dr Tian was working at the Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health and was its Senior Registrar. Dr Tian said that Lim was spontaneous and co-operative. There was no psychotic features. In his conclusion, he said:

[38] In his response dated 3 March 2003, Dr Koh was of the view that the many testimonials describing Lim to be resourceful in acquiring aid for his students and organising his boys to do charity work appeared to contradict Dr Tian’s description of Lim as being naïve.

[39] As for Dr Tian’s view that the acts were not premeditated, Dr Koh said that the liaisons were not chance encounters between strangers. Lim had time to develop trust and to assert his authority over the victims. There was thus no need for trickery, violence or threats. The mentor-tutee relationship demanded a certain amount of obedience on the part of the students. Dr Koh maintained that there was a high rate of recidivism and said that the fact that Lim faced 56 charges was evidence of a repeated pattern of behaviour. He also pointed out that Lim appeared to be aware of his sexual problem but did not seek treatment. Dr Koh was prepared to agree that Lim was a good tutor and character builder and Lim may have been of good character in many respects. However, one aspect of Lim was grossly aberrant.

[40] On the facts before me, the most helpful case on sentencing under s 377 of the Penal Code was that of Adam bin Darsin v Public Prosecutor [2001] 2 SLR 412. There, the accused was also charged under s 377 for committing fellatio on his victims. He pleaded guilty to eight charges in respect of eight victims, with 15 other similar charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. L P Thean JA (as he then was), delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, considered three forms of unnatural carnal intercourse under s 377 and was of the view that:

Thean JA implied that where the accused coerced or cajoled a victim to perform fellatio on him, this would be of intermediate gravity.

[41] There, Thean JA said in para 23:

[42] I hasten to stress that all three forms of unnatural carnal intercourse are offences not to be taken lightly and the point about performing fellatio on a victim being the least serious is only relative to the other two forms of unnatural carnal intercourse.

[43] Of the 56 charges faced by Lim:

[44] Of the 11 charges under s 377:

[45] Of the 45 charges under s 377A:

[46] The ten charges which Lim pleaded guilty to was a mixture of the above acts, but excluding the one stated in para 45(b) above.

[47] Mr Lee sought to distinguish the case of Adam bin Darsin and relied on Public Prosecutor v Raymond Pok [2003] SGHC 18, a decision by Justice Tay Yong Kwang where Tay J sentenced the accused to two years’ imprisonment for each charge under s 377 Penal Code involving fellatio by the victim on the accused there. Mr Lee sought to persuade me that I should use that sentence as a guide because in Pok’s case, the acts were consensual as in the case before me whereas in Adam’s case they were not consensual.

[48] Having said that, Mr Lee conceded that a sentence of two years’ imprisonment would not be appropriate in view of the relationship of trust. He suggested three years’ imprisonment instead and, if three years was too low, he then suggested it should not exceed four years’ per charge under s 377.

[49] For the offences under s 377A, Mr Lee submitted that I should be guided by a sentence of nine months which was the sentence eventually imposed in Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor [1997] 3 SLR 278 for an outrage of modesty under s 354 Penal Code. Mr Lee submitted that the offences under s 377A were akin to offences under s 354 and the prosecution had proceeded under s 377A instead because consent under that provision was not a defence whereas under s 354, it was.

[50] As regards the question of consecutive sentences, Mr Lee referred to what Thean JA had said in the case of Adam bin Darsin:

[51] Mr Lee concluded his submission by saying that the total years of imprisonment should be significantly less than 20 years and submitted that a total sentence of ten to twelve years would serve the ends of justice and would be a sufficient deterrent. Anything more would be crushing and not in proportion to the overall gravity of the conduct of Lim.

[52] On the other hand, Mr Hamid submitted that Lim had abused his position of trust and authority and the trust placed on him by the students’ parents. In some cases, he was their surrogate parent. For example, Lim had told Ong’s mother that Ong had to be tutored daily from Monday to Sunday and because of the time taken to travel to and fro, Ong eventually stayed at Lim’s flat with Ong’s mother visiting Ong twice a week. Likewise Hong also eventually stayed at Lim’s flat.

[53] Mr Hamid also submitted that Lim’s use of corporal punishment and veiled threats to kick the victims out of the tuition group enhanced his influence over them.

[54] Mr Hamid submitted that the fact that the victims feared, trusted and respected Lim obviated the need for Lim to resort to violence, overt threats and trickery. Lim had subtly manipulated the victims to do what he wanted them to do and what Lim had done was to corrupt his victims morally. Lim was merely giving excuses when he had alleged that he was trying to “educate” the victims and make them “more open minded”. This was Lim’s way of getting his victims to engage in his perversions.

[55] Mr Hamid submitted that Lim knew his own perverse inclination but did not seek treatment. He submitted that Lim was a danger to young boys and the numerous charges were evidence of a repeated pattern of behaviour. He also pointed out that even Dr Tian’s report recognised the risk of recidivism and that is why Dr Tian had said that if there was proper therapy, the risk of recidivism can be significantly reduced.

[56] Mr Hamid relied on, inter alia, Donald Walters [1994] 15 Cr App R(S) 690 in which Judge J, in the Court of Appeal, said:

[57] I was of the view that although the facts in Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR 801 were different from those before me, certain statements by Chief Justice Yong Pung How were also apposite.

[58] At paras 21, 25(1) and 34, Yong CJ said:

[59] In relation to the specific charges, Mr Hamid said that in the case of Adam bin Darsin, the Court of Appeal had suggested that a court should start off with five years’ imprisonment for acts of fellatio on the victim. As the offences included acts where Lim received fellatio, Mr Hamid submitted that the sentence for such offences should go beyond five years. However, Mr Lee pointed out that in the case of Adam bin Darsin, the accused faced 23 charges under s 377 as opposed to the 11 which Lim was facing.

[60] On s 377A, Mr Hamid used the case of Lim Hock Hin Kelvin as a guide and submitted that a sentence of one year’s imprisonment was appropriate.

[61] Mr Hamid submitted that the case before me was more aggravating than in the case of Adam bin Darsin as Lim was in a position of trust and authority. Calling for a deterrent sentence, Mr Hamid submitted that the aggregate term of imprisonment ought to exceed the 20 years imposed in the case of Adam bin Darsin.

[62] Lim is an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, he is extraordinary both in the positive and in the perverse sense.

[63] I accepted that the tremendous beneficial influence Lim had had on the lives of many of his students was a strong mitigating factor.

[64] On the other hand, Lim was in a position of authority and a relationship of trust. Lim was trusted by both the parents of the victims and by the victims themselves. The reason why no physical force was used was because he systematically exploited his position of authority and trust The fact that, generally, his students looked to him as their mentor was, in my view, not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.

[65] I also found Lim’s explanation that he was helping the victims to be open-minded when he engaged in the offences, unacceptable. He had taken advantage of them to satisfy his depraved nature. The sentence to be passed should reflect public abhorrence of behaviour of this kind in the circumstances of the case.

[66] As regards the risk of recidivism, I had considered the reports of Dr Kenneth Koh and Dr Tian Choong Sing.

[67] I also noted that Lim had no prior conviction and Mr Lee had informed me that Lim was undergoing treatment. Furthermore, as Lim had been able to instil discipline in his students, I was of the view that there was a fair chance that he would be able to do likewise for himself so as to refrain from ever abusing male children again, especially since he had become aware of the severity of the punishment for such offences.

[68] In the circumstances, I sentenced the accused Lim Beng Cheok as follows:

[69] The sentences for the 9 , 27 and 31 charges were to run consecutively from the date of remand i.e 2 August 2002. The sentences for the remaining seven charges were to run concurrently with the consecutive sentences. The aggregate term of imprisonment was 18 years.

[70] I would add that in the circumstances of the case, the totality of the charges on which Lim was convicted as well as the remaining charges being taken into consideration, I did not think any useful purpose would be served in ordering different sentences for offences of fellatio upon the victim and offences for instructing the victim to perform fellatio on him.