A director-general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ( MFA ) took to the High Court on Tuesday ( October 1 ) to file an appeal against his one-week jail sentence for defrauding the ministry about his use of diplomatic bags.
Gilbert Oh Hin Kwan, 45, was facing a charge of providing false data to a common servant in April.  ,
He had lied to his better about the fact that, among other things, the pleasure pieces that were discovered in a political bag had been sent to his superior.
In fact, the pieces and other products belonged to Oh’s companion in China. As a personal favor, Oh agreed to assist with the shipment from China to Singapore and requested assistance from an inadvertent MFA official working at the Beijing embassy via the political bag support.
The colleague ended up carrying the package in his luggage on a flight from China to Singapore in January 2023 because the diplomatic bag service was suspended at the time, and Changi Airport’s Immigration and Checkpoints Authority ( ICA ) officers screened the luggage, causing the police and MFA to launch inquiries.
Both the prosecution and the defense had only asked for charges in the lower judge.  ,
Oh’s then lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan of Withers KhattarWong, asked for a fine of less than S$ 5, 000 ( US$ 3, 880 ), while the prosecution asked for S$ 6, 000 to S$ 9, 000.
District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz, but, found that prison may be given and imposed a year’s prison on Oh.
She claimed that because Oh’s goal was to destroy MFA’s interior investigations into his conduct, the offence could damage the public service as a whole and MFA’s reputation.  ,
He was likewise a high-ranking people slave seeking to undermine investigations, which means potential damage to the public curiosity was more marked, said the district judge.
On Tuesday, Oh appealed against his prison term and asked for a great instead, with a new set of doctors led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng from WongPartnership.
Mr. Tan questioned the prosecution’s alleged altercation, asking why they had initially requested a fine but then wanted the sentence upheld.
He inquired as to what had changed that led to the prosecution’s” 180-degree change.”
He provided words from the prosecution, claiming that there was an arrangement that if Oh pleaded guilty, he would be given a good.
Mr. Tan requested that the court uphold the lawyer’s unique punishment request for a great and forgo the “manifestly extreme” one-week jail term, claiming that the district judge had “failed to properly understand the facts before her and exercised her discretion contrary to principle or law.”
In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Pei Wei rejected the notion that Oh’s appeal relied on the plea present and the lawyer’s unique punishment place.  ,
She claimed that she needed to get the additional previously exchanged letters because Mr. Tan was only just starting to argue this point.
According to Ms. Tan, it was obvious that Oh had always wanted to enter a guilty plea, according to the earlier defense lawyer’s arguments.
She continued, noting that the trial was “precluded from defending the city judge’s punishment decision when that decision was ) legally sound and fairly defensible even though the prosecution had never sought a prison term in the first instance.
Justice Dedar Singh Gill, who heard the charm claims, instructed both parties to explain their interpretations of the more words to the attorney.
He put the case on hold until a later date.
Oh, who was grim-faced throughout most of the reading, remains out on bail pending charm.
Prior to the hearing, he had recently told MFA he had resigned, but his request could not be processed due to the nature of his case.
Giving false information to a common servant could result in jail time for up to two years, a great, or both.