TODAYonline

Day’s jail, $17k fine

Judge exercises judicial mercyin first case against organ buyer

Leong Wee Keat

weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg

AT PRECISELY 2.30pm, retail magnate Tang Wee Sung rose from his seat in the dock to learnhis fate.

He stood unaided for 30 minutes, showing no emotion as he listened to District Judge Ng Peng Hong — along with 50 others who packed the courtroom, including: his family, friends, major retailers, the media and lawyers curious to hear the landmark judgment in Singapore’s first case against an organ buyer.

As the clock struck three, Mr Tang, whose already-flagging health has deteriorated in recent weeks, moved for the first time when he asked a policeman if he could sit down.

It was another 10 minutes before his punishment was pronounced: A day’s jail and a $17,000 fine for offences relating to his attempt to buy a kidney as replacement for his failed one.

Later outside Subordinate Court 3, after the former executive chairman of CK Tang was led away, family and friends expressed both relief and anguish. Former classmate Keith Chua said: “I’m thankful that the sentence took into consideration his health.”

But an emotional Dr Jannie Tay, president of the Singapore Retailers Association, felt otherwise. Citing Mr Tang’s work in developing the retailindustry, she said: “Why should he be jailed at all? ... For the last three years, he was very sick, and was waiting for this (kidney) match. He’s done everything he could, he’s been a good man, he’s not hurt anyone.”

Mr Tang’s separation from his loved ones was short — he was released at around 5.45pm. Walking :out of Queenstown Remand Prison, he showed no emotion, only pausing to wave at his family who had waited outside for an hour.

Asked by reporters how he felt, Mr Tang replied “I feel fine”, before he was whisked away in a waiting Audi.

Weight of culpability

In the preceding weeks, there had been much speculation over whether Mr Tang, who suffers from end-stage renal failure, would be jailed. Earlier this year, he had offered a middleman $300,000 for a kidney, but the deal was found out by theauthorities before the transplant from an Indonesian donor could proceed.

One of the charges to which Mr Tang admitted guilt — that of falsely declaring that his niece’s brother-in-law had married the aunt of his would-be kidney donor — carries a mandatory jail term, up to a maximum of three years.

But exercising the doctrine of “judicial mercy”, Judge Ng in his 40-minute judgment yesterday dwelt on “the very exceptional circumstances” of Mr Tang’s extreme ill-health.

“Incarceration itself would most likely have very much harsher consequences for him than what is intended for the ordinary offender,” he said, while stressing that the offences were “serious” and the sentence should reflect that.

Three medical reports cited by defence lawyers Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull and Mr Tan Hee Joek had emphasised Mr Tang’s “difficult daily regimen” . The latest, dated two weeks ago, indicated Mr Tang had to undergo more intense dialysis, with each treatment extended by an hour.

Judge Ng said Mr Tang’s conduct “may give rise to Singapore being a hub for illegal organ trading”.

“At the same time, I acknowledge that the weight of culpability in this case lies not with the desperate and dying, but more with the dealers or middlemen who seek to profit from the desperation of the poor, as well as the desperation of the terminally ill,” he said.

Noting how society’s disapproval is mainly focused on the brokers who profit from illicit organ trading, the judge said the need for retributive justice should as such be reserved for these middlemen.

Specifically, on the charge of breaching the Human Organ Transplant Act by arranging to buy a kidney, he fined Mr Tang $7,000 — taking into account that “desperation to save his life” was the main motive behind the retailer’s action, the fact he did not receive a transplant, and other mitigating factors.

For making a false statutory declaration, Mr Tang was jailed a day and fined $10,000.

Some may be inclined to view this as setting a precedent for future cases against organ buyers. Might future offenders also raise the defence of judicial mercy, in the hope of getting away with a light sentence?

When asked, criminal lawyer Sunil Sudheesan warned that Mr Tang’s case could be a “one-off scenario” and the one-day jail term should not be viewed as a sentencing precedent.

“Among the factors to consider are whether the person was actively shopping for body parts and the role the buyer played in the saga,” he added.