Chief prosecutor asked to clarify question on public sector governance
Bernard Lim Yong Soon - the man at the centre of the Brompton bikes case. TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — When someone tells calculated lies to a public servant to mislead inquiries into matters of public sector governance, should he be sent to jail if found guilty?
The Public Prosecutor felt this should be the case and had submitted the question to the Court of Appeal in December, after former National Parks Board assistant director Bernard Lim Yong Soon was fined S$5,000 for lying to auditors from the National Development Ministry over the purchase of 26 Brompton bicycles.
But three apex court judges yesterday asked Deputy Chief Prosecutor (DCP) Tan Ken Hwee to frame the question more appropriately before they decide whether to answer it.
The judges, who included Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, felt the meaning of “inquiry” and “public sector governance” needed to be stated more clearly. As it stood, a supervisor questioning a subordinate over excess stationery taken or water wasted by leaving a toilet tap running could be taken as an inquiry, they noted.
“You’re thinking of something serious … but we can’t quite put our finger on it,” said Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang to DCP Tan.
Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin felt the Public Prosecutor, in filing a criminal reference for the apex court to consider, was trying to get a benchmark judgment laid down. But he noted the breadth of the concept of public sector governance, and the fact that false information could be given for various reasons and touch on various matters, some of them trivial. How wise would it be for the apex court to give a judgment that is subject to so many “if’s” and “but’s”, he questioned.
DCP Tan acknowledged there was merit in scoping the question more narrowly, but argued that setting a benchmark for cases of this nature would be useful. In his written submissions, he said public servants must know any attempt to cover up wrongdoing will meet with criminal prosecution that will, on conviction, result in a custodial sentence and not merely a “mild financial penalty”.
The Public Prosecutor has two weeks to resubmit his question, after which the apex court will consider if it is inclined to answer.
Lim, who represented himself yesterday, said he understood the need for clarification of the points raised. He was convicted last June after a trial. Lim appealed against his conviction and the prosecution appealed against the sentence imposed, but High Court judge Tay Yong Kwang dismissed both appeals in November.
