Overview of the case
A Singapore prison officer and two inmates were sentenced for a corrupt scheme in which bribes were exchanged for smuggling contraband into Changi Prison. The officer, 39-year-old Mohammad Asri Abd Rahim, and 50-year-old inmate Mohamad Yusof Kasim received 10 months’ jail each, with Asri also ordered to pay a penalty of S$3,700. A third participant, 36-year-old inmate Murali Vigneshwaran, was sentenced to four months’ jail on a single charge. The court highlighted the gravity of the abuse of power and the harm done to public trust in the Singapore Prison Service (SPS).
Who was involved and what happened
Asri, who joined SPS in 2012, was responsible for managing inmates in the Changi Prison Complex Institution B4. He was assisted by correctional unit attendants—inmates tasked with housekeeping duties who receive an allowance for basic items. One of these attendants, Yusof Kasim, coordinated with external contacts to pass contraband into the prison in exchange for money.
The scheme unfolded from early 2021 through August 2021 with Asri initially distributing Gabapentin pills to attendants as rewards for their help. In August 2021 Yusof proposed a more formal bribery arrangement involving cash for smuggling contraband items, including lewd photographs, into the facility. Although Asri recognized the illegality at first, he eventually agreed to the arrangement.
The mechanics of the operation
Yusof and associates outside the prison used coded language to relay instructions. The police later described how items were smuggled: pills were concealed in bags inside socks or underwear and carried into the prison over several days, while lewd photos were placed in envelopes within Asri’s uniform pocket during his shifts. The coded terms reportedly used included “ayam” for Asri, “postcards” for lewd photos, “paper” for money, and “visit goods” for Gabapentin pills.
Yusof directed friends outside to pass items to Asri and to reward him with cash or bank transfers. Over the course of the operation, Asri is believed to have received at least S$3,700 in gratification. The scheme persisted until a SPS raid targeted Yusof’s cell, uncovering contraband items including Gabapentin and eventually revealing Asri’s role in smuggling the pills.
Legal context and sentencing
District Judge Ng Cheng Thiam stated that Asri abused his position as a public servant by illegally obtaining gratification while carrying out his duties. The judge noted that rather than reform, the inmates engaged in further wrongdoing and damaged institutional trust in the SPS. He largely concurred with prosecution submissions, but determined that a stiffer sentence was warranted in light of the breach of public trust and the impact on the prison system’s integrity.
Penalties and consequences
Asri and Yusof each received 10 months’ jail for three charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with two additional charges considered in sentencing. Murali received four months’ jail on a separate count. Asri was also ordered to pay a S$3,700 penalty. The SPS confirmed that Asri has been suspended on half pay since February 2023 and will face further disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal, in addition to criminal penalties.
Impact on trust and reform
Prosecutors emphasized that the trio’s actions undermined the integrity of Singapore’s public institutions. The case highlights the ongoing challenges in maintaining strict internal controls within correctional facilities and the need for vigilance against corruption at all levels. The sentencing underscores Singapore’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the welfare and rehabilitation of inmates, including actions designed to protect the safety and dignity of prison staff and inmates alike.
What this signals for the SPS and the public
The court’s decision serves as a clear message that corruption has serious consequences, particularly within the prison system where power differentials can create opportunities for exploitation. The SPS’s response—combining legal action with internal disciplinary measures—reflects a broader emphasis on integrity, accountability, and reform within Singapore’s correctional services.
Conclusion
This case exemplifies how individuals entrusted with authority can abuse it for personal gain, at times rewarding themselves with illicit items and compromising the safety and rehabilitation mission of the prison system. The verdict reinforces the principle that transparency and ethical conduct remain foundational to public service in Singapore.
