Wang Yuming v Public Prosecutor

Choo Han Teck J:

[1] The appellant is a Singapore citizen. He became acquainted with one Wang Yingde (“Wang”), the managing director of Shanghai Construction (Group) General Company (“Shanghai Construction”), in 2003. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges in contravention of s 22(1)(d) read with s 23(1) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A, 1997 Rev Ed) (“EFWA”). 75 other charges were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. He was convicted on the 25 charges, sentenced to two months imprisonment on each charge and was ordered to serve the first six sentences consecutively, thus making the total term of imprisonment twelve months.

[2] The details of the charges were set out in the Statement of Facts as follows —

[3] Counsel for the appellant, Mr Loh Lin Kok, submitted that the sentences were individually harsh because the trial judge had meted out the sentences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A) (“EFMA”) which came into effect on 1 July 2007, replacing the EFWA. Yet, the appellant had been charged under the EFWA. It is not clear if the reference in the grounds below was a typographical error but I would give the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, without criticism of the judge, and review the appropriateness of the sentences on the basis of the EFWA. With regard to the offences in question, the EFMA increased the punishment from $5,000 to $15,000 and imprisonment from six months to twelve months.

[4] Furthermore, counsel submitted that on the principle of the one-transaction rule, the total term of imprisonment was excessive. The prosecution submitted that the offences took place on four different dates and were therefore distinct offences. The dates in question were 24 and 31 January 2007 and, 1 and 2 February 2007. However, the charges taken into consideration for sentencing concerned offences committed in March and April 2007. The criminal activity, not the act, was thus carried out over a period of about three months. The one-transaction principle is thus not relevant but, in view of the nature of the appellant’s involvement in the offences, the totality principle remains relevant. The individual sentences of two months, even under the EFWA, were not manifestly excessive, but they must be considered in totality.

[5] I am also of the view that while the court is at liberty to impose more than two consecutive sentences and may do so in order to apply the totality principle, given the facts of this case and taking his antecedent into account, the appellant should be given only four consecutive sentences. The total term of imprisonment will therefore be eight months.

[6] For the above reasons the sentence of imprisonment was varied from a total of twelve months to eight with effect from 15 April 2011.