1 The accused persons, Nagaraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju (“Nagaraju”) and Mookkan Duraipandi (“Mookkan”), were employed by WLK Engineering Pte Ltd ("WLK") as general construction workers. Between June and September 2021, Nagaraju was deployed to a gas pipe laying project at a worksite at Jurong Pier Road. Between 9 October 2020 and January 2021, Mookkan performed work as a rigger and signalman at a worksite along Mountbatten Road. The Prosecution’s case was that Nagaraju and Mookkan had each knowingly submitted a forged card required for the purposes of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2009 Rev Ed) (“WSHA”) to the main contractor, certifying that they were trained to perform the requisite works, when they had not in fact attended any training or assessment in this regard prior to the submissions.

2 Nagaraju thus faced the following charge:

3 Mookkan faced the following charge:

4 The accused persons claimed trial to their respective charges.

5 The main issues at trial were whether Nagaraju and Mookkan had personally submitted the Perform Work in Confined Space Operation (“PWCSO”) and rigger and signalman cards to Sam Lain respectively, with the knowledge that the cards were forged.

6 After carefully evaluating the evidence adduced during the trial, and the submissions of both parties, I found that the Prosecution had proved the charge against each accused beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted each accused on his charge accordingly.

7 Having considered the parties’ submissions on sentence, I imposed an imprisonment term of seven days on each charge.

8 The accused persons filed an appeal against conviction and sentence. The Defence applied for, and I granted, a stay of execution on the accused persons’ imprisonment term.

9 When I delivered my verdict and decision on sentence, I provided oral grounds. These are the full reasons for my decision.

10 A Statement of Agreed Facts (“SOAF”) was tendered pursuant to s 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”). The following facts extracted from the SOAF were undisputed.

11 Nagaraju and Mookkan are citizens of the Republic of India. At all material times, they were employed by WLK as general construction workers.

12 Nagaraju has worked in Singapore since 1999 and has been employed by WLK from 2018 until now. His job scope at WLK comprises general construction work, such as pipe fitting and re-bar works. In late 2021, he was appointed as a lifting supervisor at WLK.

13 In 2021, Nagaraju was deployed to a gas pipe laying project at Jurong Pier Road ("the Jurong Project") under a sub-contract agreement between Sam Lain and WLK. WLK assigned Howlader Md Kamrul Hassan ("Hassan") to supervise its workers at the Jurong Project.

14 From on or about June 2021 to sometime in September 2021, an unidentified Work Safety and Health Officer of Sam Lain (“the WSHO”) enquired of Nagaraju and Hassan whether Nagaraju had completed any training or assessment for performing work in confined spaces. Hassan informed the WSHO that he would provide Nagaraju's “Perform Work in Confined Space Operation” card the following day.

15 The Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”)'s training records (set out at Annex A of the SOAF) showed that Nagaraju did not undergo any training or assessment to perform work in confined space operations at Simply Safety during the period stated on the PWCSO card.

16 Raj Singh s/o Karnail Singh (“Mr Singh”), who was the director of Simply Safety from 2008 to 2023, confirmed that Nagaraju had never attended Simply Safety's PWCSO course or any other training programmes on or around 27 June 2021.

17 Mookkan has been working in Singapore since 2008 and has been employed by WLK from July 2020 until now. At WLK, his role as a general construction worker involved the laying of water pipes at various construction projects.

18 From October 2020 to sometime in January 2021, Mookkan was deployed to the Marina East Desalination Plant project ("the MEDP Project") under a sub-contract agreement between WLK and Sam Lain. The project involved pipe laying from the Joo Seng area to Fort Road. WLK's workers, including Mookkan and Hassan, were deployed to the MEDP Project worksite located along Mountbatten Road to assist with water pipe laying operations.

19 The MOM's Training Records (set out at Annex B to the SOAF) showed that Mookkan did not undergo any training or assessment for the role of rigger and signalman at THTS during the period stated on the rigger and signalman card.

20 Further investigations revealed that THTS was renamed to THT Academy Pte Ltd ("THA") and has been operating under this name since 2017. THTS, and subsequently THA, is an accredited MOM training provider. THA's principal, Lee Kuo Chiang (“Mr Lee”), confirmed that from 2015, THTS, and subsequently THA, had only offered the "WSQ Perform Rigger & Signalman Tasks" as an MOM-accredited course. Neither THTS nor THA had ever offered any course or training programme titled “Rigger and Signalman Course (RSM)” or enrolled Mookkan in any similar training programmes from 24 to 26 January 2020.

21 Investigations also revealed that Hassan left Singapore on 5 February 2022 and has never returned to Singapore since that date (see Annex C to the SOAF).

22 The provisions in the WSHA relevant to the charges are set out below:

23 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Defence made a submission of no case to answer. The Defence’s submissions were broadly similar to those made during closing submissions, which I will examine further in the next sections.

24 The original charges at the close of the Prosecution’s case were as follows:

25 The Defence noted in its no case to answer submissions that the original charges stated that the cards in question were required “under” the WSHA. The Defence argued that the Prosecution had not, in its case, identified any provision in the WSHA or its subsidiary legislation that imposed a requirement for each accused to hold or submit the certificate in question during the periods stated in the charges. ¹

26 In its oral response, the Prosecution’s primary submission was that the cards could also be required “for the purposes of” the WSHA, which was an alternative limb under s 53(c). This was because the statutory schema of the WSHA made clear that “safety and competency training [was] a key component of the overall workplace and safety architecture.” ² For instance, s 12(1), s 12(3)(e), s 14A(1)(a) and s 14A(2) of the WSHA imposed the following duties on employers and principals of workers:

27 Having considered the submissions of the parties, I exercised my discretion under s 128 of the CPC to amend the two charges to replace the phrase “required under” the WSHA with the phrase “required for the purposes of” the WSHA [emphasis added]. ³ The amended charges are set out at [2] and [3] above.

28 In line with s 129(1) of the CPC, the amended charges were read to the accused persons, who confirmed that they maintained their pleas of not guilty and claimed trial to the amended charges. ⁴ The Defence elected to recall the two MOM investigation officers pursuant to s 131 of the CPC, ⁵ and they duly gave evidence.

29 After considering the evidence led by the Prosecution and the submissions of both parties, as well as the evidence of the two recalled witnesses, I found that there was some evidence not inherently incredible that satisfied each and every element of the charge, pursuant to s 230(1)(j) of the CPC. I accordingly called upon the accused persons to enter their defences. ⁶ Both accused persons elected to give evidence in their defence. ⁷

30 For each amended charge under s 53(c) of the WSHA, the Prosecution must prove the following elements:

(a) First, Nagaraju and Mookkan each made use of a certificate by submitting it to Sam Lain. For Nagaraju, this was a PWCSO card in order to perform work in confined spaces at Jurong Pier Road. For Mookkan, this was a rigger and signalman card in order to perform work as a rigger and signalman at a worksite along Mountbatten Road.

(b) Second, the cards submitted were forged.

(c) Third, at the time Nagaraju and Mookkan submitted their respective cards, each of them knew that his certificate was forged.

(d) Finally, the cards were required for the purposes of the WSHA.

31 Based on the SOAF and the tenor of the evidence at trial, the second element – that the cards were forged – was undisputed. I will thus focus my analysis on the first, third and fourth elements.

32 I move on to the parties’ cases.

33 The Prosecution called seven witnesses at the trial. These were:

(a) Mr Singh, the former director of Simply Safety from 2008 to 2023;

(b) Mr Lee, the principal of THA;

(c) Shanmugan Mugilan (“Mr Shanmugan”), the safety coordinator at Sam Lain;

(d) Debra Isahak, administrator and human resource representative of WLK;

(e) Chen Youren Dexter (“IO Chen”), the recorder of the accused persons’ statements and the MOM investigation officer in charge of the accused persons’ cases;

(f) Subramaniam s/o Palanisamy (“Mr Subramaniam”), the Tamil interpreter for the accused persons’ statements; and

(g) Loh Choo Kiong, another MOM investigation officer who, in the course of his investigations into a separate case, received photocopies of purported cards bearing the names of the accused persons, and forwarded them to IO Chen.

34 The Prosecution’s case in respect of Nagaraju may be summarised as follows.

35 The director of Simply Safety, Mr Singh, confirmed that, based on several identified markers on the card, the PWCSO card was forged. ⁸

36 The Prosecution submitted that Nagaraju knew that the PWCSO card was forged, as he did not attend any training or assessment at Simply Safety or any other training institution for performing work in confined space operations. Despite his assertions at trial that he did attend such courses, this was not supported by the MOM training records at Annex A to the SOAF, which only recorded his attendance at such courses after the period of his offence. Nagaraju further admitted in his statement, Exhibit P6, that he knew the PWCSO card was forged and he did not attend any classes. ⁹

37 Nagaraju also admitted in his statement that he used the PWCSO card on multiple occasions to perform work in confined spaces by submitting the card to the attendant at the confined space worksite itself, even though he knew that it was forged. His allegations at trial that his statement was inaccurately recorded should not be accepted, as they were accurately interpreted by an experienced interpreter, Mr Subramaniam, read back to him, and he was invited to make amendments, additions and deletions to the statement. The Prosecution thus argued that full weight should be accorded to his admissions in his statement. ¹⁰

38 A PWCSO card was required for the purposes of the WSHA. The Jurong Pier Road worksite was a confined space. ¹¹ The broad aim of the WSHA was to ensure safety and health of persons at work, including workers at worksites. WLK and Sam Lain both bore clear and non-delegable statutory responsibilities to ensure that Nagaraju was adequately trained before being assigned to specific duties at their respective worksites. ¹² Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace Safety and Health (Confined Spaces) Regulations 2009 (“Confined Space Regulations”) sets out these obligations as follows: ¹³

39 The Prosecution’s case in relation to Mookkan followed a similar vein.

40 Mr Lee, the principal of THA, confirmed that the rigger and signalman card purportedly issued by THTS was forged, and that THTS/THA had never even offered a training programme known as the “Rigger and Signalman Course”. ¹⁴

41 Mookkan knew that the rigger and signalman card was forged as he did not attend any training or assessment in respect of being a rigger and signalman, whether at THTS or elsewhere, prior to the period of his offence. ¹⁵ Mookkan also admitted in his statement, Exhibit P7, that he was aware that he did not attend class for rigger and signalman and “what [he] did was wrong”.

42 The Prosecution submitted that Mookkan knowingly used the rigger and signalman card on multiple occasions during the period of the offence. Mookkan admitted in his statement that he signed off as a rigger and signalman on multiple occasions whenever the site needed someone who possessed a rigger and signalman card, despite knowing that he never went for any relevant training. ¹⁶ His allegations at trial that his statement was inaccurately recorded should not be accepted for similar reasons set out above. ¹⁷ Furthermore, Mr Shanmugan, the safety coordinator for Sam Lain, testified that he had only issued Mookkan a letter of appointment as rigger and signalman (Exhibit P5) after receiving a copy of Mookkan’s rigger and signalman card on the first day of work. ¹⁸

43 A rigger and signalman card was required for the purposes of the WSHA before Mookkan could be formally appointed and perform work or sign off at the Mountbatten worksite. One of the core purposes of the WSHA was that workers had to receive adequate training and pass safety courses before commencing work. In particular, Regulations 18(2)(a) and 19(2)(a) of the Workplace Safety and Health (Operation of Cranes) Regulations (“Operation of Cranes Regulations”) expressly imposed a statutory obligation on Sam Lain as the principal of the Mountbatten worksite not to appoint Mookkan as a rigger and/or signalman unless he had successfully completed the requisite training course acceptable to the Commissioner of Workplace Safety and Health (“the Commissioner”). ¹⁹ In this regard, the Regulations provide as follows:

44 Nagaraju and Mookkan both testified in their own defence. They also called another defence witness, the director of WLK, Wang Lin (“Mr Wang”).

45 The Defence’s case was that Nagaraju did not know that the PWCSO card was forged during the period stated in the charge, from June to September 2021. He only came to know that the card was forged subsequently – specifically, when he attended a PWCSO course conducted by Greensafe Pte Ltd (“Greensafe”) in November 2021, ²⁰ which was after the period stated in the charge. Even though he appeared to admit in his statement that he was “aware” that the PWCSO card was forged, this answer referred to his knowledge of the forgery at the time of statement recording in April 2022, not during the material period stated in the charge. ²¹

46 Insofar as the Prosecution was relying on Nagaraju’s lack of training to work in confined spaces prior to the period in the charge to establish his knowledge that the card was forged, Nagaraju claimed that he did in fact go for training in confined space work prior to the period of the offences. ²² Even if he did not go for training specifically conducted by Simply Safety (a fact admitted in the SOAF), this did not mean that he knew that the card was forged, as he could not understand the words “Simply Safety” on the card to reflect the training provider’s name. ²³

47  Instead, it was Hassan, his supervisor, who procured the PWCSO card for him. This card was always kept by Hassan and never handed over to Nagaraju. Whenever a safety officer raised the need for certification, Nagaraju referred them to Hassan, who agreed to provide the card. ²⁴ At the Jurong Pier Road worksite, the card was kept by the attendant in a ziplock bag on a tally board at the worksite, similar to that shown in Exhibit D2 (a photograph depicting the present tally board at a worksite, as at 17 August 2026):

Thus, Nagaraju had seen the card in the ziplock bag, but never physically held it.

48 Nagaraju’s position was therefore that he had never used the card by submitting the card to anyone. He only signed the log in and log out sheets to enter the confined space to work. ²⁵ His purported admission in his statement that he used the PWCSO card “30 to 40 times” referred to the number of occasions in which he worked in a confined space, not his repeated physical presentations of the card. ²⁶ This was corroborated by Mr Wang who said that Hassan was the one who submitted the certificates when Sam Lain required them, and that he had never seen Nagaraju submit the card to anyone. ²⁷

49 Finally, the certificate was not required for the purposes of the WSHA. The Defence argued that it could not be assumed that every pipe-laying project necessarily qualified as a confined space operation, and that the pipe-laying work in question would need to have the hazardous characteristics set out in Regulation 2 of the Confined Spaces Regulations. ²⁸

50 Similarly, the Defence’s case was that Mookkan did not know that the rigger and signalman card was forged. This was because Hassan, his supervisor, as well as his company, handled all the certificates and paperwork. Hassan had never passed the rigger and signalman card to him, and he had never even seen the card before. Even though he accepted that he had not attended a rigger and signalman course, this did not, by itself, prove that he knew the card was forged. ²⁹

51 It followed that Mookkan’s position was that he had never personally submitted the forged rigger and signalman card to Sam Lain, given that he had never seen or received it in the first place. ³⁰ He only signed off on the document recording his role as a rigger and signalman, and performed his assigned work as a rigger and signalman. ³¹ Mookkan’s account was supported by the evidence of Mr Shanmugan, who could not remember whether it was Mookkan or Hassan who submitted the card. Mr Shanmugan described the documents being gathered and submitted collectively, sometimes by a worker volunteering to collect them from all the other workers, but was unable to say definitively who submitted the card to him. ³²

52 As for his admission in his statement that Hassan “gave [him] the card” and he “used the [rigger and signalman] card to perform rigger & signalman work”, Mookkan’s explanation was that he only admitted to doing rigger and signalman work, and knew nothing about the forged card or the submission thereof. IO Chen also did not clarify whether Mookkan submitted the card personally, whether it had been submitted on his behalf by another person. ³³ His admission that “what [he] did was wrong” referred to the fact that he did not attend classes for rigger and signalman but still performed the work, and not to his submission of the forged card. The Defence thus urged the court to “examine P7 beyond its literal wording”. ³⁴

53 Although both parties called various witnesses in the course of the trial, it was evident that the Prosecution’s case relied heavily on the accused persons’ admissions in Exhibits P6 and P7, which are Nagaraju’s and Mookkan’s statements respectively. The Defence’s case also focused heavily on the proper meaning to be attributed to these statements. As such, I considered it necessary to first set out my findings in relation to the reliability of these statements.

54 I first note that these statements were admitted into evidence without any challenges to voluntariness. ³⁵ No allegations of threat, inducement, promise or oppression were made by the Defence.

55 I turn to the accuracy of the statements recorded. Based on the testimony of Mr Subramaniam, the Tamil interpreter, testimony which remained unshaken during cross-examination, he had no issues understanding either accused, and they had no difficulty understanding him. The accused persons accepted this. ³⁶ The statements also recorded that the accused persons were able to converse well in Tamil and that it was a language which they fully understood. ³⁷ The entire statement was read back to each accused person sentence by sentence. ³⁸ The accused persons were asked whether they wanted to amend anything in the statement after the statements were read back to them. ³⁹ Amendments made to the statement were interpreted to them. ⁴⁰ As for the Defence's oral closing submissions that the amendments made to the statements were minor, and could have been made by IO Chen or Mr Subramaniam instead of the accused persons, this did not detract from the fact that the accused persons were given the opportunity to make amendments, and they both said they had nothing further to add. ⁴¹ The accused persons signed on the statements. The statements contained a confirmation that the statement was true and correct to the best of their knowledge and beliefs. ⁴² Each of them initially admitted during cross-examination that the contents of the statements were true (although they subsequently tried to resile from these admissions). ⁴³ Despite the Defence’s challenges during cross-examination, Mr Subramaniam was clear that the key terms such as “use”, “submit” and “forged” were accurately translated into the Tamil language. ⁴⁴ As such, I saw no ground to doubt the accuracy of the statements recorded.

56 The Defence’s main challenge in its closing submissions was, in my assessment, the correct interpretation of what was recorded in the statements. ⁴⁵ With this in mind, I turn to the case law governing how accused persons’ statements should be interpreted, before applying the law to the specific issues raised by the Defence about the interpretation of the statements later in my analysis.

57 In Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor [2022] 2 SLR 778 (“Chong Hoon Cheong”) at [70], the Court of Appeal set out the proper approach to be adopted in interpreting statements made by an accused person.

58 The first step is to determine the precise content of the statement that the accused person had made. In the appropriate case, there may be a need to consider whether a written statement, in all of the circumstances including a potential language barrier, properly records what the accused person had said at the material time.

59 The second step is to determine the intended meaning of the statement. Here, the court is concerned with the subjective intention of the statement-maker at the time the statement was made. The inquiry is not directed at whether the statement maker currently intends to stand by what he said earlier, but at what the court thinks he meant by what he said at the time he made the statement. Although this is an inquiry into the accused person’s subjective intention in making the statement, the exercise of interpretation will necessarily be undertaken from an objective perspective, taking into account the accused person’s circumstances, and the words used to convey his intended meaning.

60 If there is a reasonable doubt as to the answer in either step, then the court should not rely on that statement in determining whether the parties have successfully proved their cases on the applicable standards of proof. That is, if there is a reasonable doubt as to either what the accused person actually stated or what the accused person intended to mean when he made such statement, the court should not place any weight on that statement, simply because it cannot be satisfied as to what was in fact said or meant.

61 I turn to explain my decision in relation to Nagaraju’s charge by analysing the evidence undergirding each element of the offence.

62 In my assessment, a proper interpretation of Nagaraju’s statement based on the Chong Hoon Cheong approach made it abundantly clear that Hassan gave him the PWCSO card, which he used by submitting it to Sam Lain whenever it was required for work in confined spaces at the Jurong Pier Road worksite. I will now set out the relevant portions of his statement:

First admission ⁴⁶

63 At the first step of the Chong Hoon Cheong approach, I was satisfied that the statement properly recorded what Nagaraju had said at the material time. As set out at [55] above, there were no difficulties in Nagaraju understanding Mr Subramaniam’s Tamil translation, and vice versa. The statement was read back to him and the statement, including the key terms, were accurately translated. He was invited to make amendments, and amendments were read back to him.

64 At the second step, I found that the intended meaning of the words used at the time he made the statement, objectively assessed, was clear that Nagaraju had used the card by submitting it to the attendant at the Sam Lain worksite:

(a) First, the WSHO at Sam Lain asked whether he had any PWCSO certificate or card in order to work in confined spaces. This referred to the worksite at which he was deployed, which involved a gas pipe laying project at the Jurong Bird Park. Hassan gave Nagaraju the PWCSO card (shown at Annex A and extracted above) the next day.

(b) Nagaraju personally used the PWCSO card, a copy of which was shown in Annex A, to perform confined space works. At trial, he further confirmed that the image of the card at Annex A was a copy of the physical card which he saw at the confined space worksite. ⁴⁷

(c) He used the card 30-40 times for a period of three to four months starting from June 2021.

(d) He did so by doing two things: personally submitting the card to the attendant at the confined space worksite and signing in and out through log sheet.

(e) Hassan subsequently took back the card that he gave to Nagaraju in October or November 2021. The only reason Nagaraju would have said that Hassan “took back” the card was because Hassan gave it to him in the first place. When he was specifically queried by Defence Counsel, Nagaraju provided no logical explanation as to why he stated in his statement that Hassan “took back” the card when his position at trial was that he never received the card from Hassan in the first place. ⁴⁸

Second admission ⁴⁹

65 Nagaraju once again specifically confirmed, in response to IO Chen’s direct question, that he submitted the card, a copy of which was shown in Annex A, to the worksite at Jurong Bird Park for gas pipe laying, whenever he had to perform work in confined spaces.

Third admission ⁵⁰

66 Nagaraju’s third admission was similar, repeating that he used the certificate for confined space work for gas pipe laying.

Fourth admission ⁵¹

67 The fourth admission must be read in the context of the previous admissions. Nagaraju confirmed that Hassan gave him the physical PWCSO card, which was what he submitted to the attendant at the worksite (see first to third admissions). In that context, his admission that what he did was wrong clearly referred to the act of submitting the forged card for confined space work, when he knew that he had been properly trained.

68 The Defence’s case was that Hassan never handed the PWCSO card to Nagaraju. Hassan instead kept the card in a ziplock bag on the tally board at the worksite, and took it back at the end of the day. ⁵² Accordingly, Nagaraju had seen the card in the ziplock bag, but never physically held or personally submitted the card to anyone. ⁵³ When he said in his statement that he “used the PWCSO card…for about 30 to 40 times”, he meant that he signed the log in and log out sheets to enter the confined space to work. He was allowed entry to the worksite based on the card that was kept on the tally board. ⁵⁴

69 However, this was not a plausible interpretation of the admissions in his statement set out above, but instead directly contradicted them. Nagaraju plainly stated that Hassan did hand over the card to him. The statement was also clear that “each time [Nagaraju] used the PWCSO card, [he] had to submit the card to the attendant at the confined space worksite itself” [emphasis added], not just sign in and out of the log sheet.

70 Furthermore, there was no mention of keeping of the card on the tally board at the worksite in his statement, despite the fact that he was invited to raise his defence when asked an open-ended question, “What do you have to say?”. ⁵⁵ Nagaraju was also allowed to make amendments at the end of the statement recording, and he confirmed that he had nothing further to add. This defence was only raised belatedly at trial.

71 There was no reason to doubt that the statement properly recorded what Nagaraju had said. I agreed with the Prosecution that the specific and repeated admissions in his statement were “unequivocal”, and the objective meaning of what Nagaraju had subjectively intended was plain. The belated attempt to attribute blame entirely to Hassan, who had already left the country prior to the commencement of trial, was a convenient and self-serving afterthought that did not cohere with the contents of his statement.

72 The Defence argued that Nagaraju’s assertion that he had never submitted the PWCSO card to Sam Lain, and that Hassan was the one who did so, was corroborated by Mr Wang. Mr Wang testified that Hassan was the one who submitted the certificates when Sam Lain required them, and that he had never seen Nagaraju submit the card to anyone. ⁵⁶

73 I considered Mr Wang to be an honest witness overall. However, I did not find his evidence to be particularly useful. This was because he admitted that he was only occasionally at the worksite. He would go to the toolbox meetings at most once a week, sometimes once a fortnight or once every three weeks, and stayed for only about 10 minutes each time. ⁵⁷ Accordingly, his observations as to who submitted or did not submit the card were less reliable than Nagaraju’s own admissions in his statement.

74 It was undisputed that the PWCSO card was forged as Nagaraju never attended any training at Simply Safety, the training provider listed on the PWCSO card in question. ⁵⁸ Mr Singh, the director of Simply Safety at the time of the charge, also testified that the card was forged, because of a missing line in its logo, an incomplete course title, a different signature style, formatting issues, missing or incorrect information, and grammatical errors on the card. ⁵⁹ The main area of contention was whether Nagaraju knew that the card was forged, which I will analyse in the next section.

75 Having considered the evidence, I found that at the time Nagaraju submitted the PWCSO card, he knew that the card was forged. This was because he was aware that he did not attend any training or assessment at Simply Safety for performing work in confined space operations, or indeed any other training by other training providers, before undertaking the relevant work from June to September 2021.

76 Based on Annex A to the SOAF, the MOM training records for Nagaraju, he had only attended training and assessment for performing work in confined space operations on 14 November 2021 and 27 April 2025, which were after the period in the charge. IO Chen also confirmed that Nagaraju had not received any training in relation to the same. ⁶⁰

77 When Nagaraju was specifically asked in his statement about the training/course certifications that he had obtained, he listed the following courses: ⁶¹  

None of the courses were for PWCSO prior to the period listed in the charge.

78 This is also consistent with Nagaraju’s own admissions in his statement, in which he stated that he did not attend any classes for PWCSO, was aware the PWCSO card was forged, but did not question Hassan about the forged card as he was afraid of getting into trouble: ⁶²

79 Since Nagaraju knew that he had not attended any training for PWCSO, he would not have received any certification or card accrediting him as trained for such works. This is especially evident given his evidence during re-examination that, in the ordinary course, he would receive a card certifying competence only after attending training and assessment in that course: ⁶³

80 It necessarily followed that Nagaraju must have known that any card he submitted certifying him adequately trained for performing works in confined spaces – including a card bearing the name of the training provider Simply Safety – had to be forged. He admitted as much during cross-examination: ⁶⁴

81 Notwithstanding the fact that the training courses Nagaraju listed in his statement, set out at [77] above, did not include any PWCSO courses attended prior to June 2021, he curiously added later in his statement that he had “attended confined space courses since 2002”. ⁶⁵ At trial, he elaborated that he had attended PWCSO courses four to five times prior to June 2021. ⁶⁶

82 However, this version of events contradicted MOM’s records (at Annex A to the SOAF) which showed that he only attended two PWCSO courses on 14 November 2021 and 27 April 2025, both of which were after the material period in the charge. When cross-examined on this, he pointed to an entry in the records which stated that he attended a course known as “SOC (Manhole) for Workers” on 15 November 2002, which he claimed was the same as a PWCSO course. ⁶⁷ Even if the “SOC (Manhole) for Workers” course was equivalent to the PWCSO course (for which there was no evidence led), I noted that the date of expiry of that certification was 7 December 2005, almost 16 years prior to the period listed in the charge. There were no other objective records of him attending any confined space training courses.

83 As earlier mentioned, Nagaraju’s assertion that he attended PWCSO training prior to June 2021 was also not mentioned when he was specifically asked in his statement an open-ended question about the safety and health trainings/courses certifications he had obtained (see [77] above). When questioned about this at trial, he eventually conceded that he did not know how to explain the omission. ⁶⁸

84 Another plank of Nagaraju’s defence was that he only discovered that the PWCSO card was forged in November 2021, when he attended the PWCSO course provided by Greensafe. ⁶⁹ Even though he appeared to admit in his statement that he was “aware” that the PWCSO card was forged, this answer referred to his knowledge of the forgery at the time of statement recording in April 2022, not during the material period stated in the charge.

85 This position was put both to IO Chen and Mr Subramaniam in cross-examination. When IO Chen was asked whether he distinguished between the state of Nagaraju’s knowledge as at the period listed in the charge, and the time of statement recording, IO Chen clarified that he did not refer to any specific time period, because his focus was on whether Nagaraju had obtained the PWCSO card by going for legitimate classes, or did not attend any classes. Nagaraju’s response was that he knew that it was forged because he did not attend any class, but still used the forged card. ⁷⁰ In other words, since Nagaraju knew that he did not attend any training, he must have known that the card was forged at the time he used the card.

86 When Mr Subramaniam was asked whether Nagaraju had in fact told Mr Subramaniam in Tamil that Nagaraju only found out that the card was forged after the period listed in the charge, and that the statement had been recorded in the manner set out in Exhibit P6 due to a mistranslation, Mr Subramaniam denied this. Mr Subramaniam maintained that P6 accurately represented what Nagaraju had told him, and that had Nagaraju said otherwise, Mr Subramaniam would have interpreted this portion of the statement accordingly. ⁷¹

87 The defence thus found no support in Nagaraju's clear admissions in his statement. The statement made no mention that Nagaraju’s knowledge of the forgery only arose in November 2021. Instead, a plain reading of the statement showed that Nagaraju was narrating events that happened during the period stated in the charge at the Jurong Bird Park worksite, such as the WSHO from Sam Lain asking him for his PWCSO card to work in confined spaces. It was in that context that Nagaraju stated that was aware that the PWCSO card was forged, because he never attended any PWCSO classes. Despite this, he used the forged card that Hassan gave to him to perform work in confined spaces, conduct which he admitted was wrong.

88 The argument premised on what the Defence termed the “unresolved timing of the knowledge described in P6” ⁷² was contrived and overcomplicated what was in fact a straightforward matter. It was evidently an afterthought, constructed to distance Nagaraju from the incriminating portions of his statement.

89 Nagaraju was deployed to a gas pipe laying project at Jurong Pier Road in 2021. ⁷³ Even though the Defence attempted to argue that it could not be assumed that every pipe-laying project necessarily qualified as a confined space operation, in my assessment, it was in substance undisputed that the Jurong Pier Road worksite was a confined space.

90 In this regard, Regulation 2 of the Confined Spaces Regulations defines a confined space as follows:

91 It was apparent to me that work in a gas pipe satisfied the definition of confined space, as either dangerous gases were present with the attendant risks, or the supply of air was inadequate or likely to become inadequate for sustaining life.

92 Even putting aside a commonsensical understanding of a gas pipe as a confined space, Nagaraju himself accepted in his statement that the work took place in a confined space. He said that the WSHO at Sam Lain asked him for the PWCSO card for work in confined spaces, and he submitted the (forged) card to the attendant “at the confined space worksite itself” [emphasis added]. ⁷⁴

93 Nagaraju also accepted multiple times during the trial, whether expressly or implicitly in response to questions framed by his counsel, that the gas pipe laying project represented a confined space that he worked in. ⁷⁵ I set out some examples below:

94 I accepted the Prosecution’s submission that the statutory schema of the WSHA required employers and principals to ensure that their workers received adequate training and had the necessary expertise to carry out the work they were engaged to do. This encompassed a duty to ensure that such workers have obtained the necessary certificates in order to carry out that work (see s 12(1), s 12(3)(e), s 14A(1) and s 14A(2) of the WSHA set out at [26] above, which I set out again below for ease of reference):

95 In the specific context of confined space works, Regulation 21(1) of the Confined Spaces Regulations – a subsidiary legislation under the WSHA – imposes an obligation on the responsible party (such as WLK and/or Sam Lain) to ensure that any person working in a confined space has first received adequate safety and health training. This training must familiarise the worker with the hazards associated with such entry or work, and the precautions to be observed.

96 As such, a PWCSO card was required for the purposes of the WSHA, to ensure the health and safety of persons deployed to work in confined spaces. This was because a PWCSO card represented a physical certification that the person working in confined spaces had received the adequate safety and health training.

97 I turn to explain my decision in respect of Mookkan’s charge.

98 As with Nagaraju, a plain reading of Mookkan’s statement made it evident that Hassan gave him the rigger and signalman card, which he used by submitting it to Sam Lain whenever it was required for him to work as a rigger and signalman at the Mountbatten Road worksite. In Exhibit P7, Mookkan made the following admissions:

First admission ⁷⁶

99 The first admission was clear in its intended meaning. Mookkan stated that Hassan gave him the physical rigger and signalman card. Mookkan again confirmed this later in his statement: ⁷⁷

100 Hassan did not say anything about what to do with the card, but Mookkan was aware that he might have to sign off as a rigger and signalman if the worksite needed one. He thus signed off as a rigger and signalman on multiple occasions whenever the site needed someone who possessed the rigger and signalman card. Mookkan further confirmed at trial that the reference to the worksite at the “Geylang area” was the Mountbatten Road worksite stated in the charge. ⁷⁸

Second admission ⁷⁹

101 Given the above unequivocal admissions, which left no room for doubt, I found no merit in the Defence’s submission that IO Chen might not have further defined the terms “submit” or “use”, or clarified whether Mookkan submitted the card himself or whether someone submitted it on his behalf. ⁸¹ Mookkan was specifically asked if he submitted the rigger and signalman card, to which he responded that he did submit the requisite card at the worksite listed in the charge.

Third admission ⁸²

102 Mookkan again confirmed that he used the rigger and signalman card to perform the rigger and signalman work. Read in conjunction with the second admission, the manner in which he “used” the card was by submitting it at the Mountbatten Road worksite.

103 I now deal with Mookkan’s defence in relation to this element, the broad tenets of which were as follows:

(a) Hassan and/or WLK handled all the submissions of documentation at the worksite. Hassan never handed over the physical rigger and signalman card to Mookkan and Mookkan had thus never even seen the card. ⁸³

(b) Consequently, he did not personally submit the rigger and signalman card at the worksite during the period stated in the charge from 9 October 2020 to sometime in January 2021. ⁸⁴

104 The fundamental issue with Mookkan’s defence was that it was, in the Defence’s own words, in “direct factual conflict” ⁸⁵ with the version of events in his statement. To recapitulate, in his statement, Mookkan admitted that he was given the rigger and signalman card by Hassan, and that he used the card by personally submitting it at the worksite whenever it was required (see [98]-[102] above).

105 When questioned about the diametrically different account in his statement, Mookkan acknowledged the discrepancies but maintained his narrative at trial, claiming not to know why his statement recorded the exact opposite. ⁸⁶ He insisted that all he admitted to IO Chen was that he did perform work as a rigger and signalman, and nothing more. ⁸⁷

106 This response was illogical. There was no dispute that the statement was recorded in Tamil, a language Mookkan fully understood, that it was read back and interpreted to him. Mookkan himself acknowledged this to his counsel immediately after providing his response to the discrepancies. ⁸⁸ There was therefore no reason for him not to correct the record if he did not agree with the contents of the statement. I also did not accept Mookkan’s belated claim, when pointedly asked, that “the interview went on for 4 hours, [my] mindset was very different”. ⁸⁹

107 The Defence must itself have recognised the insurmountable hurdle of Mookkan’s incriminating confessions in his statements, when it inexplicably asked the Court to “examine P7 beyond its literal wording” [emphasis added]. ⁹⁰ Such a submission went against the grain of the proper approach on how to interpret an accused person’s statement, as set out in Chong Hoon Cheong, a case that the Defence itselfcited. ⁹¹ Instead, after I considered the words used in Mookkan’s statement, read in context, with no inaccuracies due to translation, I concluded that the statement must be taken to mean exactly what it recorded. Consequently, I did not accept Mookkan’s account at trial, which directly contradicted the statement. Like with Nagaraju, I found his account to be self-serving. It downplayed his actual role in the offence, and conveniently cast all the blame on Hassan, who had left Singapore prior to the commencement of trial.

108 The Defence’s next argument was that Mookkan’s assertion of never having submitted the rigger and signalman card was supported by the evidence of the safety coordinator at Sam Lain, Mr Shanmugan.

109 Mr Shanmugan testified that before a letter of appointment such as that in Exhibit P5 was issued to workers like Mookkan to work as a rigger and signalman, the worker would need to produce his work permit, a rigger and signalman card and a construction safety orientation course card. ⁹² However, during cross-examination, Mr Shanmugan said that he could not recall whether, in the present case, Mookkan, Hassan or someone else had submitted the rigger and signalman card to him. ⁹³ He also raised the possibility that one of the workers in the group would volunteer to collect the relevant documents from all the other workers, and hand them over to him collectively before he issued the letter of appointment. ⁹⁴ In re-examination, he said he did not remember ever collecting any documents from Hassan, but also did not specifically remember who handed over Mookkan’s rigger and signalman card to him. ⁹⁵

110 I accepted that Mr Shanmugan’s evidence did not directly incriminate Mookkan as the person who submitted the rigger and signalman card. However, this was because he could not recall who had submitted the card to him. His testimony was therefore equivocal at best – it neither positively supported the Defence's case that Mookkan had not submitted the card, nor did it contradict Mookkan's express admissions in his statement that he was the one who had submitted it to Sam Lain. Furthermore, Mr Shanmugan's evidence left open the possibility that Mookkan could have submitted the card to him, whether directly or through a worker who had collected the requisite cards from the other workers.

111 It was undisputed that the rigger and signalman card was forged as Mookkan never attended any training at THTS, the issuer of the card. ⁹⁶ Mr Lee, the principal of THTS/THA, testified that the card was forged, because his company never provided such a course in the first place, because the MOM had transitioned to a Workforce Skills Qualification framework and the “Rigger and Signalman Course” ceased to exist in Singapore by the period listed in the charge. ⁹⁷

112 The dispute was whether Mookkan knew that the rigger and signalman card was forged, which I shall now turn to.

113 I first noted that it was undisputed that Mookkan never attended any rigger and signalman classes conducted by THTS between 9 October 2020 and January 2021. ⁹⁸

114 Based on the MOM’s records at Annex B to the SOAF, Mookkan never attended any rigger and signalman class conducted by any training provider until 3 April 2022, which was after the period stated in the charge. Mookkan also admitted to this at trial. ⁹⁹

115 When he was asked in his statement to list the safety and health training/courses certifications he had obtained, he also did not list any rigger and signalman course attended: ¹⁰⁰

116 Mookkan even accepted at trial that he worked as a rigger and signalman without the proper and relevant training to do so. ¹⁰¹

117 Given that Mookkan admitted to never attending any rigger and signalman course and thus not being properly trained for the job, he must have known that any rigger and signalman card in his name was forged. The reason was a simple one: he must know that there could not have been a legitimate card in his name certifying his competence to work as a rigger and signalman if he had never gone for any training and assessment for the same.

118 Mookkan claimed that he had not admitted that the card was forged. According to him, his only admission was that he signed off on a document recording his role as a rigger and signalman, and performed the assigned work. ¹⁰² On this basis, he argued that when he admitted that “what [he] did was wrong”, he was referring to having worked as a rigger and signalman, without attending the requisite class, and not to any knowledge that the card was forged. ¹⁰³

119 I found no merit in this characterisation. As I concluded in the preceding section, Mookkan’s admitted awareness that he had not undergone any training for working as a rigger and signalman must necessarily entail a confession that he knew that any card in his name certifying his competence thereof was forged. He could not possibly have admitted to wrongdoing purely for performing work. The admission was only explicable if he knew that the card was forged, precisely because he knew he never attended any training. ¹⁰⁴

120 Mookkan further argued that he only found out that the rigger and signalman card was forged when he went for his rigger and signalman course in 2022. ¹⁰⁵ The Defence therefore argued that IO Chen, in Mookkan’s statement, did not distinguish between what Mookkan knew during the period in the charge, and what he knew at the time of the statement recording in April 2022. ¹⁰⁶

121 The argument advanced for Mookkan was remarkably similar to that made for Nagaraju – down to the timing of when Mookkan discovered that the card was forged (ie, at the subsequent actual training attended). For the same reasons as set out at [87]-[88] above, I dismissed the argument as contrived and a blatant afterthought.

122 As explained at [94] above, the statutory schema of the WSHA required employers and principals to ensure that their workers received adequate training and had the necessary expertise to carry out the work they were engaged to do. This encompassed a duty to ensure that such workers had obtained the necessary certificates in order to carry out that work.

123 It was undisputed that from 9 October 2020 to sometime in January 2021, Mookkan was deployed to a project along Mountbatten Road. ¹⁰⁷ Mookkan also continually admitted during the trial that he performed work as a rigger and signalman at that worksite. ¹⁰⁸

124 In the specific context of rigger and signalman works, Regulations 18(2)(a) and 19(2)(a) of the Operation of Cranes Regulations, a subsidiary legislation under the WSHA, required the responsible person (such as WLK and/or Sam Lain) to ensure that a person has successfully completed a training course acceptable to the Commissioner to equip him to be a rigger and signalman before appointing the person in such a role:

125 A rigger and signalman card was required for the purposes of the WSHA, to ensure the health and safety of a person appointed as a rigger and signalman. This was because a rigger and signalman card represented a physical certification that the person so appointed had received adequate safety and health training. I did not understand the Defence to seriously dispute this.

126 During oral closing submissions on 21 October 2026, the Defence raised an alternative defence for the first time, which was that even if the Court found that the accused persons did submit the forged cards in question, they did so under a mistake of fact, which operated as a defence under s 79 of the Penal Code 1871. Specifically, they submitted the forged cards because they believed in good faith that they had to do what Hassan asked them to do.

127 Section 79 of the Penal Code states:

128 The burden was on the accused to establish this defence on a balance of probabilities. His burden was to show that “by reason of a mistake of fact” he “in good faith” believed himself to be “justified by law” to do what he did: Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 1015 (“Pram Nair”) at [110], citing Public Prosecutor v Teo Eng Chan and others [1987] SLR(R) 567 at [26], affirmed in Asep Ardiansyah v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 74 at [45].

129 In the present cases, the accused persons had no basis for relying on the defence of mistake of fact. In the first place, the fundamental flaw with this argument was that it was not clear to me what mistake of fact the Defence relied on. The belief that “they had to do what Hassan asked them to do” could not possibly constitute a mistake of fact. This was in contrast to, for example, a mistaken factual belief that the victim had consented to a sexual act, in the context of sexual offences such as that in Pram Nair.

130 In any event, the accused persons both clearly admitted in their statements that “what [they] did was wrong”. ¹⁰⁹ In light of these admissions, they could not “in good faith” have believed themselves to be “justified by law” to submit the cards, which they knew to be forged, to Sam Lain, having never received any training in the work they did. In my assessment, this eleventh-hour attempt to raise an alternative defence was doomed to fail at the outset.

131 Central to the Prosecution’s case were the statements of Nagaraju and Mookkan, which specifically admitted to the disputed elements of the charges. The statements were recorded voluntarily and accurately, and I placed full weight on them. The Defence employed various inventive methods in attempts to dissociate the accused persons from their recurrent, specific and unequivocal admissions. However, none of these arguments withstood scrutiny.

132 I thus found that the Prosecution had proven the charge against Nagaraju and Mookkan respectively beyond a reasonable doubt, and convicted each accused person of his charge accordingly.

133 I now turn to the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

134 Each charge under s 53(c) of the WSHA is punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.

135 Both accused persons were untraced.

136 The Prosecution submitted for a custodial sentence of 10 to 14 days’ imprisonment for each accused person. ¹¹⁰

137 The Prosecution highlighted that deterrence was the predominant sentencing consideration in cases like the present, which carried significant public safety considerations (Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 (“Law Aik Meng”) at [24]). In the present cases, the accused persons’ conduct affected public safety at their respective workplaces. The offences were also difficult to detect. ¹¹¹

138 In the absence of a High Court sentencing framework for offences under s 53(c) of the WSHA, the Prosecution urged the Court to consider the harm and culpability of the accused persons, based on the factors identified in Public Prosecutor v Shivasanker S [2024] SGDC 82 (“Shivasanker”), in the context of s 53(b) of the WSHA. Shivasanker recognised the guidance provided in Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor [2017] 3 SLR 447. ¹¹²

139 In terms of harm, the Prosecution submitted that while no actual harm eventuated, the potential harm was high. This was because untrained workers performing confined space works faced significant safety hazards, including oxygen deficiency, fire and explosion, toxic atmosphere and engulfment. Untrained workers performing rigger and signalman works also ran the risk of failing to coordinate lifting operations safely, communicate effectively with the crane operator, or identify unsafe lifting practices and hazards associated with lifting operations, thereby exposing themselves and others in the team to the accidents and risks associated with such works. ¹¹³

140 In terms of culpability, the Prosecution highlighted the following in arguing that the accused persons’ culpability should be pegged as medium: ¹¹⁴

(a) Both accused persons knew that the cards they submitted were forged.

(b) They were aware that they would not have been allowed to perform work in confined spaces and as a rigger and signalman if they were unable to provide proof of adequate training to Sam Lain.

(c) The nature of their deception was difficult to detect.

(d) In reliance on the forged card, they performed the requisite works and exposed both themselves and other workers to potential safety hazards.

(e) They used the certificates for a period of four months each.

141 The Defence sought the maximum fine of $5,000 to be imposed on each accused, which it argued would be sufficient to punish and deter them. ¹¹⁵

142 The Defence pointed out that the accused persons’ roles were limited, which made them less culpable than offenders who produced or supplied false credentials to others. It was Hassan who supervised the workers, coordinated safety and arranged training. Hassan was also the one who procured the cards and gave them to the accused persons. The accused persons’ knowing use of the cards were out of fear of losing their work permit if they did not follow Hassan’s instructions. On this point, the Defence highlighted the case of Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879 (“Zhao Zhipeng”) as authority for the proposition that employment dependence and pressure could reduce the culpability of offenders. ¹¹⁶

143 The Defence also submitted that both accused persons had substantial work experience, and no injury or death was alleged to have resulted from either offence. There was thus no actual harm. Moreover, both accused persons went for genuine courses shortly after the period of the charges. ¹¹⁷ As for potential harm, the Defence argued that there was no evidence led at trial as to specifically what kind of work the accused persons engaged in, save for broad allegations that Nagaraju performed confined space work and Mookkan performed works as a rigger and signalman. Without the specifications, the Defence claimed that there could not be a finding of potential harm.

144 The Defence highlighted the case of Public Prosecutor v Goh Kee Cher [2023] SGDC 88 (“Goh Kee Cher”) as a relevant precedent. In that case, the court imposed the maximum fine of $5,000 for an offence under s 53(c) of the WSHA, with one similar charge taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The Defence recognised that while that case could be distinguished, it still provided support for the proposition that the maximum fine could meet the need for deterrence. The same sentence was justified in the present cases because of Hassan’s role, the accused persons’ fear of losing their jobs, and their subsequent genuine training, which reduced the need for specific deterrence. ¹¹⁸

145 Finally, the Defence highlighted the accused persons’ personal mitigating circumstances. Nagaraju was the sole breadwinner of his family. His wife was a homemaker. He had two children in full-time education and an elderly mother who was reported to have early-stage throat cancer, for which financial constraints limited her treatment to oral medication. His father passed away in 2017. Mookkan was also the sole breadwinner in his family, comprising his wife, three sons and his elderly mother. Both accused persons were conscientious employees at WLK, whom the companies wished to retain. ¹¹⁹

146 I considered that deterrence was the key sentencing principle in offences of this nature, as they affected public safety (Law Aik Meng at [24(d)]). The submission of forged certificates certifying competence, when no such training was done, circumvented the very legislative structure in the WSHA designed to protect workers like the accused persons from risks arising from hazardous activities they were engaged in at their workplaces.

147 In the absence of a High Court framework for offences under s 53(c) of the WSHA, I examined the offence-specific harm and culpability factors in the present cases. This was based on the factors identified in Shivasanker, which I found to be equally applicable to s 53(c) of the WSHA.

148 In relation to harm, both parties were aligned on the position that there was no evidence of any actual harm resulting from the submission of the forged cards. However, potential harm was high because each accused used the cards they submitted to perform work in confined spaces and as a rigger and signalman respectively, when they were not trained for such works prior to the periods stated in the charges. In doing so, they exposed themselves and others at the worksite to accidents and risks associated with such works on multiple occasions when they used the forged cards. It was fortuitous that such risks did not materialise in their cases.

149 I did not agree with the Defence’s curious argument that because there was no evidence at trial as to what work each accused person actually did at the worksites, potential harm could not arise. The converse was in fact true. Nagaraju testified that he performed work in a confined space, namely, the pipe-laying project at Jurong Pier Road. Mookkan was clear that he worked as a rigger and signalman, in a team of several workers from WLK, which included several riggers and a lifting supervisor. ¹²⁰ The hazards associated with their work, as identified by the Prosecution, evidently existed. If the harm had materialised, these could potentially lead to death or serious injury, which meant that potential harm should be considered high (see Mao Xuezhong v Public Prosecutor [2020] 5 SLR 580 at [64(a)(i)]). The fact that the accused persons went for legitimate training after the period stated in the charges, but before the commencement of MOM investigations, was irrelevant. It did not diminish the potential harm that existed because they were not trained at the time they performed the works.

150 In relation to culpability, I considered that the accused persons’ culpability to be on the lower end:

(a) The accused persons’ role was in the submission of the forged cards at the worksites in question. They were not involved in the procurement or handing over of the cards, which were likely handled by Hassan.

(b) They did so for a period of four months each. Nagaraju admitted to doing so “30 to 40 times” across the period. ¹²¹ Mookkan admitted to doing so on “multiple occasions” whenever the site needed someone who possessed the rigger and signalman card. ¹²²

(c) In terms of motive, I accepted that both accused persons submitted the cards not to gain any financial advantage, but merely followed Hassan’s instructions, out of fear of their work permits being cancelled if they did not obey Hassan, and getting sent back to India. ¹²³ I also considered that as general workers, they might have found it more difficult to directly voice their concerns to the management of the company, such as to Mr Wang. In relation to this, I noted that the High Court in Zhao Zhipeng at [37] had opined that “persons who act out of pure self-interest and greed [would] rarely be treated with much sympathy; conversely, those who [were] motivated by fear [would] usually be found to be less blameworthy.” I agreed with the Prosecution that the accused persons’ fear of Hassan in the present cases was perhaps not to the extent of the appellant’s fear of his manager, Wang Xin, in Zhao Zhipeng. In that case, the High Court found that Wang Xin used his dominion over the appellant to exert pressure on him to act in a certain manner, and that the appellant’s livelihood in Singapore depended almost entirely on him. He also lived in Wang Xin’s apartment and was far away from his usual support networks, making him feel an understandable sense of isolation and fear of antagonising Wang Xin. Nevertheless, I found that the accused persons’ motive for offending, which was primarily out of fear of losing their jobs because of disobedience to their direct supervisor, to be lower than someone who had acted out of greed or financial gain.

151 To be clear, I did not consider that the accused persons’ attendance at legitimate courses after the period stated in the charges in any way reduced their culpability. At the time they submitted the cards, they knew that they did not attend the requisite training, yet had performed the hazardous works on multiple occasions. The fact that WLK sent them for actual courses after that could not possibly reduce their culpability at the time of their offences.

152 Finally, I deal with the precedent cited by the Defence, Goh Kee Cher, for which the maximum fine of $5,000 was imposed. The circumstances in Goh Kee Cher were very different. In that case, the offender’s company had sent him for a lifting supervisors safety course. Unbeknownst to the company, the training provider was not a MOM-accredited training provider for the course. The course lasted only one day and there was no proper assessment conducted at the end of the course. The offender in that case only submitted the certificate on one occasion and performed his role as a lifting supervisor for one or two days, as he was removed from his role within two days when the contractor had suspicions about the certificate.

153 The District Judge (“DJ”) found that the potential harm was not high in that case because the certificate was not required for the works in question, as the works did not have to be handled by certified workers. The DJ thus pegged the potential harm at a lower level than cases where the false certificate was actually required for the works to be carried out, because in those cases, the lack of a certificate would necessarily reflect an incompetency on the part of the offender, insofar as the requirements under the WSHA were concerned (at [33]-[35]).

154 In the present cases, I had found that the certificates were required for the confined space and rigger and signalman works respectively. The submissions were also done on multiple occasions across the four months. The potential harm was therefore high. In addition, neither accused went for any training at all, and knew that they did not undergo such training. This could be contrasted to the offender in Goh Kee Cher who in fact went for the training arranged by his company, which turned out to be illegitimate. As such, the Defence's submission of the maximum fine to also be imposed on the accused persons in the present cases could not be justified.

155 With this in mind, I was of the view that the custodial threshold was crossed and imposed a short custodial sentence of seven days' imprisonment on each accused.

156 For the reasons above, I convicted Nagaraju and Mookkan of their respective charges. I found that all the elements of the charges were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. None of the defences withstood scrutiny. After considering the sentencing submissions, I imposed a short custodial sentence of seven days’ imprisonment on each of them. In my view, this was a fair and appropriate sentence, having regard to the potential harm and the culpability of the accused persons.

157 Both accused persons are presently on bail pending appeal.