A director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ( MFA ) received a week’s jail time for lying about using a diplomatic bag service, and his appeal against the sentence was dismissed on Monday ( Feb 10 ).
Gilbert Oh Hin Kwan, 46, admitted guilt next April  to lying to his better about the ownership of his father and other items that were discovered in a package to a public servant.
Justice Dedar Singh Gill upheld the lower court’s word by delivering his charm in a simple hearing on Monday, claiming that the district judge had carefully considered the case law and the details.  ,
As the selection was read over, Oh, who appeared in the port, did not speak.  ,  ,
His attorneys from WongPartnership, led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, said Oh was set to begin his prison term on Monday, but asked for his customer to sacrifice himself half an hour after trials.
Justice Gill gave Oh 15 days to address members of the family and friends who were present in court.  ,
Oh hoped to transfer watches and other products from China to Singapore using the political case service. The things belonged to Oh’s companion in China, and Oh had agreed to assist in moving them to Singapore as a favor.  ,
When sending documents or items for standard use, political carriers are used. Under the Vienna Convention, they may get opened or detained.
Oh, in January 2023, an inadvertent partner assisted in the delivery of the offer via the political bag support on a flight from China to Singapore.  ,
The partner ended up carrying the offer in his luggage because it was later discovered that the political bag service had been suspended.  ,
Oh told MFA that the timepieces belonged to his father, and that he was concerned that any possible disciplinary action had derail his career transition because he believed the MFA would be more liberal than if he told the truth.  ,
A district judge sentenced Oh to a week in jail after the defendants ‘ pleas were accepted in the State Courts, despite the prosecution’s and Oh’s lawyer’s requests for sanctions.
According to District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz, Oh had been a high-ranking people slave trying to subvert examinations, among other things, the crime had the potential to damage the credibility of MFA and the entire public services.  ,
Claims UPON APPEAL ,
Oh filed an appeal against his word in the High Court in October of last year, where the prosecutors argued for the upholding of the prison term.  ,
The lawyer’s switch from a good to a jail term was questioned by Oh’s attorneys, who argued for the prison term to be overturned.
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 may alignment due weight to the lawyer’s placement “at first example”, the lawyers argued.  ,
A one-week prison expression was “manifestly overwhelming,” according to them, and the district judge had neglected to properly consider the circumstances presented to her.
The district judge erred in her examination of aggravating factors that led to her imposing a prison term and made a mistaken conclusion that a possible harm had been caused by Oh’s false statement, according to the attorneys.  ,
In reaction, the prosecution said that the one-week jail term was not clearly increased, and added that while it had never sought a jail term in the lower court proceedings, it could still support the district judge’s sentence if it was constitutionally sound.  ,
After Justice Gill requested the trial to create letters that had been exchanged between Oh’s guilty plea and the defense, the proceedings were adjourned.  ,
COURT NOT PARTY TO PLEA AGREEMENT
Justice Gill refuted Oh’s claim that the court does give the prosecution’s sentencing position at first instance due consideration in his whole decision issued on Monday.
The prosecutor alleged that Oh did not identify any evidence to back up his claims, and that the judge was not a part of the plea agreements between the prosecution and the defense.  ,
Additionally, the judge determined that Oh’s debate was in opposition to the idea that punishment was within the purview of the court.  ,
The prosecutor argued that” the appellant’s explanation did unlawfully encircle the discretion of the judge,” noting that Oh did not contest the legality of a research case and that” sentence is a matter for the court and it is ultimately up to the court to determine what sentence will be just in the circumstances.”  ,
Justice Gill also concurred that the city judge’s assessment of the potential harm caused by Oh’s offence was correct.  ,
Justice Gill claimed that Oh’s lying sought to stop the MFA from learning the true character of his intended use of the political bag service and the conditions surrounding the arrest of the watches.  ,
The true essence of his , attempted abuse may have gone undetected, with the ability to “impinge on confidence in Singapore’s global relationships if for abuse was allowed to remain unchecked”, said the High Court judge. He also endorsed the lower court’s assertion that Oh was highly responsible.
In response to CNA’s queries, the MFA said that Oh is still an officer but on no-pay leave.
After the court case is over,” MFA takes a serious view of any misconduct by our officers,” according to a spokesperson.  ,
Giving false information to a public servant could result in both a fine or two-year prison sentences.