Mr Wang Chin Sing had been engaged by Mr Tang Wee Sung and Ms Juliana Soh to source and purchase kidneys from living donors. Mr Wang Chin Sing was paid SGD 300,000 (approximately USD 237,125) consideration from Mr Tang Wee Sung, an amount five-times the amount paid by Ms Juliana Soh.
The first living donor was an Indonesian man named T. He had worked as a garbage collector in Indonesia for which he received slightly less than SGN 140 (approximately USD 110) per month. He had lost his job in January 2008 and was facing financial difficulties.[Lit Cheng Lee, ‘Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing’ (2008) 9 Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 265, 288] He was identified as a potential donor and agreed to enter into the transaction to sell his kidney to Juliana Soh. For the purpose of participating as a living donor, T. made a false declaration that Juliana Soh was his adopted mother and that he would not be paid any money for the donation of his kidney. He underwent a successful transplant operation in March 2008 and one of his kidneys was transplanted to Juliana Soh. After the operation, T. was paid a sum of SGN 29,290 (approximately USD 23,150) and returned to Indonesia.
In May of 2008, T. was again contacted for the purpose of accompanying another Indonesian man, S.D., to Singapore for a transplant operation. T. was paid SGN 3200 (approximately USD 2,530) to act as the liaison between Mr Wang Chin Sing and S.D. S.D. had worked as a labourer and was earning around SGN 120 (approximately USD 95) per month. He had also lost his job in January and was desperate for money.[Lit Cheng Lee, ‘Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing’ (2008) 9 Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 265, 289.] He was offered around SGN 23,700 (approximately USD 18,737) to sell his kidney to Mr Tang Wee Sung, to which he agreed.
In June 2008, S.D. flew into Singapore where he met T. and Wang Chin Sing at Changi International Airport. He was then brought to an apartment where he stayed with T. At Wang Chin Sing’s directions, S.D. participated in the requisite psychological and medical tests and other preparatory procedures to the transplant. S.D. also made a false declaration that Mr Tang Wee Sung was a distant relative and that he would not be paid for the donation. Both of the donors (S.D. and T.) were, in reality, unrelated to and had never met Mr Tang Wee Sung or Ms Juliana Soh.
On 29 May 2008, a police report was lodged with Bukit Merah East Neighbourhood Police Centre based on information received by the Ministry of Health. This information alerted police that blood samples from multiple foreign nationals had been sent to Singapore for the purposes of cross matching against the blood sample of Mr Tang Wee Sung. Consequently, the transaction between Mr Tang Wee Sung, Mr Wang Chin Sing and S.D. was uncovered by police before the transplant operation could take place.[Lit Cheng Lee, ‘Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing’ (2008) 9 Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 265, 289]
IndonesiaSingapore1st Instance:
Court: District Court
Date of decision: 4 September 2008
Reference: Public Prosecutor v Wang Chin Sing [2008] SGDC 268
Mr Wang Chin Sing pleaded guilty to five charges involving contraventions of the Human Organ and Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005, Rev Ed) and the Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001, Rev Ed) read with the Penal Code (Cap 244, 1985, Rev Ed).
In assessing the level of culpability, District Judge Ng Peng Hong emphasised the active role of middleman or ‘broker’ played by Mr Wang Chin Sing in organising and executing the transactions.(para.54) It was held that:
-Mr Wang Chin Sing was intimately involved in the two transactions (para.37) involving the purchase of kidneys from living donors for Mr Tang Wee Sung (Singaporean) and Ms Juliana Soh (Indonesian).
-This role went beyond that of a mere medical concierge who facilitated the transactions or a mere host or caretaker.(para.37)
-The agreed fee paid by Mr Tang Wee Sung was S$300,000, five times that paid by Ms Juliana Soh. This was an obvious exploitation of Mr Tang Wee Sung’s terminal illness as well as of the desperation of the poor, the donors.(para.39)
-Mr Wang Chin Sing instigated and coached both donors into making false statutory declarations before a Commissioner for Oaths.(para.57) Mr Wang Chin Sing also taught one donor to make a false statement in an application for the written authorisation of the Transplant Ethics Committee.(para.58).
Decision: The District Judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 months imprisonment. Mr Wang Chin Sing was granted S$60,000 bail pending an appeal.
2nd Instance:
Court: Supreme Court of Singapore (High Court)
Date of decision: 19 November 2008
Reference: Wang Chin Sing v Public Prosecutor 2008 SGHC 215; 2009 1 SLR(R) 870
This case was an appeal brought by Mr Wang Chin Sing against the sentence imposed by the District Judge in Public Prosecutor v Wang Chin Sing [2008] SGDC 268. The appeal was dismissed.
Held:
- The culpability of the ‘middlemen’ in cases of organ trafficking can vary according to the circumstances of the case and such culpability should ultimately depend upon the precise role played in procuring the organ trade.(para.3)
- On the facts, the sentence imposed by the District Judge was amply justified.
On the facts, the sentence imposed by the District Judge was amply justified." In his reasoning, V K Rajah JA condemned the role of the ‘shady middlemen’ who engage in the exploitation often financially challenged and poorly educated donors for their own financial gain. Under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005, Rev Ed) there is no legitimate role to play in the process of donor and organ matching and transfer for people who seek to secure from it a commercial advantage.(para.3) V K Rajah JA also emphasised the primary sentencing consideration as being general deterrence and not retribution. Sentences must firmly deter other individuals from contemplating acting as middlemen in organ-trading. As such, the role played by the middleman should be accorded prominence as a matter of sentencing policy.(para.6) The aggregate sentence imposed by the District Judge sufficiently and appropriately articulated this message that trafficking will not be tolerated in Singapore.(para.6)
Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) s. 14(1) read with s. 14(2)
Supreme Court of Singapore (High Court)
Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman Damanik and Another [2008] SGDC 175.
Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Chin Sing [2008] SGDC 268.
Wang Chin Sing v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGHC 215 (19 November 2008).
Lee, Lit Cheng ‘Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing’ (2008) 9 Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 265.
Lim, Charles Aeng Cheng, ‘Life and Death: A Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000-2010’ (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 850.
Tan, Paul ‘Judicial Mercy and its Limits: Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262’ (2009) 9(1) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 185.
This was the first instance in Singapore of the illegal purchase of human organs and the prosecution of parties involved in such a transaction under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed).[Charles Aeng Cheng Lim, ‘Life and Death: A Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000-2010’ (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 850, 866]
Although the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) seeks to protect the donor and recipient from exploitation by ‘unscrupulous middlemen’, the Act does not make a distinction in regards to criminal culpability or punishment, between the various parties to a transaction for the purchase of organs.[Paul Tan, ‘Judicial Mercy and its Limits: Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262’ (2009) 9(1) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 185, 189] Consequently, Mr Wang Chin Sing (middleman and broker), Mr Tang Wee Sung (purchaser and donee), S.D. (seller and donor) and T. (seller and donor) were all prosecuted.
Mr Tang Wee Sung [Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262.] was convicted of a charge under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) section 14(1) read with section 14(2). He was also convicted of a charge under Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed) section 14(1)(a)(ii). A third charge under Human Organ Transplant Regulations 2004 (S 213/2004) regulation 8 was also taken into account. He was sentenced to one day’s imprisonment and fined S$7000. The District Judge Ng Peng Hong took into account the exceptional circumstances of ill health and found that it would be inexpedient to impose a long custodial sentence.[See generally Paul Tan, ‘Judicial Mercy and its Limits: Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262’ (2009) 9(1) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 185]
S.D. [Public Prosecutor v S.D. and Another [2008] SGDC 175] was convicted of entering into an arrangement to supply a kidney for valuable consideration under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) section 14(1) read with section 14(2). He was also charged with making false statutory declarations under the Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed). Two charges under the Human Organ Transplant Regulations 2004 (S 213/2004) regulation 8 were also taken into account in sentencing. S.D. was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment and fined S$1000. He was unable to pay the fine and was consequently imprisoned for another week.[Charles Aeng Cheng Lim, ‘Life and Death: A Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000-2010 (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 850, 866-867]
T. [Public Prosecutor v S.D. and Another [2008] SGDC 175] was similarly charged and convicted under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) for the sale of his kidney to Juliana Soh. He was also charged under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) section 14(1) read with section 14(2) and read with the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) section 109 for abetting S.D. in the arrangement to sell his Kidney to Mr Tang Wee Sung. This last charge was taken into account in sentencing. T. was sentenced to three months imprisonment and fined S$2000. In the case of both S.D. and T., District Judge Bala Reddy took into account the fact that they had been approached and exploited by a syndicate to sell their organs.[Public Prosecutor v S.D. and Another [2008] SGDC 175]
From the cases which arise out of this incident of organ-trading, it appears that a regime under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) punishes the very people it seeks to protect— financial vulnerable donors and desperate recipients.[Paul Tan, ‘Judicial Mercy and its Limits: Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262’ (2009) 9(1) Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 185, 189]
There exists a large disparity between the high number of people who suffer organ failure in Singapore and the number of available donors. Consequently, public debate was sparked following these cases and to address this, four key amendments [The Human Organ Transplant Act (Amendment) Bill 2009, passed on 24 March 2009] were made to Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) in early 2009. These included first, removing the prohibition against harvesting the organs of a dead person above the age of 60 years in order to widen the pool of organ donors. Second, arrangements between paired living donors were allowed. Third, the amendment allowed donors to be reimbursed of costs and expenses incurred by participating as a living donor. Last the penalties for intermediaries in organ-trading, such as Wang Chin Sing, were increased.[Charles Aeng Cheng Lim, ‘Life and Death: A Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000-2010’ (2010) 22 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 850, 868].