Bro, I think coolmanks is right in his statement.

According to CJ Yong Pung How’s Judgment in PP v Liew Kim Choo [1997] 3 SLR 699, S146(3) which he called as ‘Deeming Provision’ can be relied by the PP without first clearing S146(1). Hence in other words, it can be relied solely on it own.

CJ states that the offence under s 146(1) constitutes four major elements that must be proved by the PP beyond reasonable doubt:

1st ) the fact that prostitution has taken place;
2nd ) that earnings have been made from that prostitution;
3rd ) that the whole or part of those earnings or the benefit of those earnings have been received by the accused; and
4th ) that the accused received those earnings or their benefit with the knowledge that they were earned through prostitution

The 1st and 2nd Elements are as spelt above and only 3rd and 4th elements worth further detail discussion.

The 3rd Elements - Earnings or benefit thereof must be received by accused
This may be proved by the Accused Person receipt of such earnings, or alternatively that the earnings of prostitution were applied in support of the Accused Person daily living expenses.

CJ also considered the situation where the person charged does not actually receive money but accepts food, clothing and housing provided by the prostitute and paid for out of his or her earnings from prostitution, the issues are more sophisticated. This is because the broad wording of the statute lends itself to the construction that a child or sibling being supported by a prostitute is guilty of the s 146(1) offence. Even more far fetched is the scenario in which the prostitute donates some money each week to the beggar sitting in the corridor of her flat. The beggar is also guilty of the offence, provided he knows the donor to be a prostitute.

The 4th and final element is one of mens rea - Accused’s knowledge
The person receiving the money must know that the money or sustenance he is receiving consists of or is derived from the earnings of prostitution. Thus, a man whose wife prostitutes herself is not guilty of the offence in accepting a gift or meal from his wife unless he knows that she earned the money to purchase the gift or meal from her prostitution.

S146(3)
CJ, in the above case, is of the mind and is prepared to see whether the Accused Person can be convicted on S146(3) alone and he stated that for the deeming provision to take effect, the PP must have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent either

1st) lived with or was habitually in the company of any prostitute or
2nd) exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of any prostitute in such a manner as to show that the respondent aided, abetted or compelled her prostitution with any other person or generally.

CJ read and applied the S146(3) into 2 alternatives for the PP to rely upon.

So in the light of S146(3), I am sorry to say that you are 'deemed' as OKT.