- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 16,314
- Points
- 113
MFA director-general loses appeal against jail term over use of diplomatic bag service
MFA director-general Gilbert Oh Hin Kwan will serve a one-week jail term after a High Court judge upheld the lower court's sentence.
Gilbert Oh Hin Kwan (left) at the State Courts on Apr 26, 2024. (File photo: CNA/Raydza Rahman)
Koh Wan Ting
10 Feb 2025 12:12PM (Updated: 10 Feb 2025 01:25PM)
SINGAPORE: A Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) director-general who was given a week's jail for lying over the use of a diplomatic bag service saw his appeal against the sentence dismissed on Monday (Feb 10).
Gilbert Oh Hin Kwan, 46, pleaded guilty last April to giving false information to a public servant after lying to his superior that luxury watches and other items found in a package belonged to his father.
Delivering his decision on the appeal in a brief hearing on Monday (Feb 10), Justice Dedar Singh Gill upheld the lower court's sentence, saying that the district judge had analysed the facts and case law accurately.
Oh, who appeared in the dock, was expressionless as the decision was read out.
His lawyers from WongPartnership, led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, said Oh was ready to commence his jail term on Monday, but asked for his client to surrender himself half an hour after proceedings.
Justice Gill gave Oh 15 minutes to speak to family and friends who were present in court.
Oh had sought to use the diplomatic bag service to convey watches and other items from China to Singapore. The items belonged to Oh's friend in China, and Oh had agreed to help take them to Singapore as a personal favour.
Diplomatic bags are used to send documents or items for official use. Under the Vienna Convention, they cannot be opened or detained.
Oh had an unwitting colleague help convey the package via the diplomatic bag service on a flight from China to Singapore in January 2023.
The colleague ended up carrying the package in his luggage as the diplomatic bag service was suspended at that point, and the package was discovered subsequently.
Worried that his career progression might be derailed by potential disciplinary action, Oh told MFA that the watches belonged to his father, believing that the MFA would be more lenient than if he told the truth.
After Oh pleaded guilty in the State Courts, he was sentenced to a week's jail by a district judge, despite both the prosecution and Oh's lawyer asking for fines.
District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz had said that among other reasons, the offence risked diminishing the credibility of MFA and the public service as a whole, and that Oh had been a high-ranking public servant seeking to subvert investigations.
ARGUMENTS UPON APPEAL
Oh sought to appeal against his sentence in the High Court in October last year, where the prosecution argued for the jail term to be upheld.Oh's lawyers argued for the jail term to be set aside and questioned the prosecution's change in stance from a fine to a jail term.
The lawyers said the prosecution's position on appeal was inconsistent with its original plea agreement, in which it agreed to propose a fine of S$6,000 (US$4,400) to S$9,000. The court should accord due weight to the prosecution's position "at first instance", the lawyers argued.
They also argued that a one-week jail term was "manifestly excessive" and that the district judge had failed to properly appreciate the facts before her.
The district judge had wrongly concluded that potential harm had arisen from Oh's false statement, and erred in her analysis of aggravating factors which led to her imposing a jail term, the lawyers said.
In response, the prosecution said that the one-week jail term was not manifestly excessive, and added that while it had not sought a jail term in the lower court proceedings, it could still defend the district judge's sentence if it was legally sound.
Proceedings were adjourned after Justice Gill asked the prosecution to produce letters exchanged between the prosecution and the defence relevant to Oh's plea of guilt.
COURT NOT PARTY TO PLEA AGREEMENT
In his full decision issued on Monday, Justice Gill rejected Oh's argument that the court should accord due weight to the prosecution's sentencing position at first instance.The judge said that Oh did not cite anything to support his arguments, and furthermore that plea agreements were between the prosecution and defence, and did not include the court.
The judge also found that Oh's argument went against the position that sentencing was within the court's purview.
"The appellant’s argument would impermissibly fetter the discretion of the court," added the judge, who noted that Oh did not dispute the legal position in a reference case, that "sentencing is a matter for the court and it is ultimately for the court to assess what sentence will be just in the circumstances".
Justice Gill also agreed with the district judge's assessment of the potential harm from Oh's offence.
Oh's lie sought to prevent the MFA from discovering the true circumstances surrounding the seizure of the watches, and, by extension, "the true nature of his attempted misuse of the diplomatic bag service", said Justice Gill.
The true nature of his attempted misuse could have gone undetected, with the potential to "impinge on trust in Singapore’s international relationships if such misuse was allowed to remain undetected", said the High Court judge. He also agreed with the lower court's finding that Oh's culpability was high.
In previous proceedings, the court heard that Oh had offered his resignation, but that this could not be processed while his case was ongoing. CNA has reached out to MFA for an update.
The penalty for giving false information to a public servant is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
