Former Transport Minister S Iswaran was convicted on Tuesday (Sep 24) after pleading guilty to five charges, including four counts of obtaining gifts as a public servant and one of obstructing justice.
The unexpected plea came on the first day of what was set to be a lengthy trial, where Iswaran initially faced a total of 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.
After the charges were presented, Iswaran was asked for his plea.
“Your Honour, I plead guilty,” he responded in court on (Sep 24).
On January 18, 2024, former minister Iswaran released a statement in which he denied all charges and allegations against him. He reiterated the sentiments expressed in his letters to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, stating, “I am innocent and will now focus on clearing my name.”
“I am deeply saddened that I will no longer be serving the residents of West Coast. It has been a privilege to serve them over the past 26 years alongside a very dedicated group of grassroots leaders and activists,” he added.
“These past months have been most difficult for my family and me. I am particularly grateful to my family for their enduring love and their unwavering support.
“My family and I are deeply touched by the continued support, kindness and encouragement of our friends and well-wishers.”
On Monday (Sep 24), Iswaran returned S$380,305.95 (US$294,845) to the state, as Mr. Tai informed the court. Additionally, items such as bottles of whisky and wine, golf clubs, and a Brompton bicycle were confiscated from him.
The prosecution opted to replace the corruption charges with two counts under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which prohibits public servants from accepting or obtaining valuable items from individuals involved with them in an official capacity.
Iswaran’s charges specifically relate to dealings with two prominent business figures: Ong Beng Seng, the owner of F1 rights, and Lum Kok Seng, the head of a construction firm.
The inquiry into Iswaran’s conduct emerged following the discovery of a flight manifest from a private jet owned by Ong, which revealed that Iswaran had traveled to Doha in December 2022 without covering the costs of the trip or his accommodation at the Four Seasons Hotel.
Upon learning that the anti-graft agency had seized the manifest, Iswaran reportedly requested Ong to have the Singapore Grand Prix bill him for the trip.
According to the prosecution, Iswaran received gifts valued at over S$400,000, which included VIP tickets to the Singapore Grand Prix in 2017. Additionally, he sourced whiskies and red wine from Lum without any payment or declaration to the government.
In court, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong underscored the severity of the case, emphasizing the potential erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the government if such acts went unpunished.
He argued that Iswaran was “more than a passive accepter” of the gifts, highlighting the connection between the gifts and his official duties.
The prosecution is seeking a prison term of six to seven months for Iswaran. However, his defense team is advocating for a significantly shorter sentence of no more than eight weeks.
They argued that Iswaran had longstanding friendships with Ong and Lum prior to their professional interactions and that he had been transparent about the gifts when questioned by the anti-graft agency. They also maintained that Iswaran had not acted in a manner that would disadvantage the government or compromise its standing.
Lead lawyer Davinder Singh pointed out that Iswaran had made restitution to the state amounting to over S$380,000, indicating a level of responsibility for his actions.
The sentencing outcome remains pending as the court deliberates on the appropriate consequences for Iswaran’s actions.
SECOND HALF OF COURT HEARING
Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong pointed out that while the prosecution sought a jail term of six to seven months, the defence requested a sentence of no less than eight weeks, according to CNA.
He expressed that a sentencing range framed in terms of weeks would be “entirely at the wrong part of the sentencing range.”
Additionally, he dismissed Mr. Singh’s earlier argument that Iswaran’s offences caused no harm or only minimal harm, emphasizing the significance of public service loyalty.
DAG Tai highlighted that Section 165 serves as a “prophylactic” measure designed to protect the government. He underscored that there is no victim in this case, as the giver of the gift cannot be considered a victim. Instead, he reinforced that the government is owed the highest level of loyalty from public servants.
According to him, it would be erroneous to suggest that the absence of loss felt by the givers should serve as mitigation for the offences committed, stating that any wrongdoing by a public servant under this provision ultimately undermines the public interest.
The prosecution, represented by DAG Tai, countered the defense’s assertion that the gifts were given within the framework of friendship, stating that this should not be viewed as a mitigating factor. DAG Tai emphasized that the closer the social relationship, the more essential it is for an individual to refrain from accepting gifts, as this could imply a compromise of their loyalty to the government.
Additionally, the prosecution contested the defense’s claim regarding Iswaran’s low level of culpability, highlighting the total value of the items received and the extended timeframe over which the offenses were committed.
In response to the defense’s argument regarding Iswaran’s contributions to Singapore, Deputy Attorney-General Tai acknowledged, “I will not deny that he has made contributions … but this should not carry high mitigating weight.”
He said that the significance of these contributions must be weighed against two critical factors: the manner in which the Section 165 offenses were committed in the context of his position as a minister and the extent to which his actions have harmed the government’s reputation.
DAG Tai remarked that an individual who is “trusted by others but takes advantage of this trust can be said to have breached the trust placed in him by society,” highlighting that this breach compounds the gravity of the crime committed.
The prosecution and defense have differing views on the sentencing discount relevant to Iswaran’s guilty plea. DAG Tai stated, “I think a lot of (the) strengths of the argument about the (guilty plea) reduction banks on this idea that the Section 165 charges were very closely connected to (corruption) charges.” He asserted that the accused had the option to plead guilty to the Section 165 charges while contesting the corruption charges, noting that the charges concerning Mr. Lum Kok Seng were not related to the corruption allegations.
WRAP UP
Iswaran’s charges were reduced from initial corruption charges to lesser offenses under Section 165 earlier in the day. In addition to the five charges he pleaded guilty to, another 30 charges are currently being taken into consideration for sentencing.
DAG Tai expressed that it is essential for the court to convey a message and establish the proper benchmark regarding the severity of the punishment, considering the number of charges and Iswaran’s role. The defense’s suggested sentence of no more than eight weeks is “far too low” and would convey “entirely the wrong signal,” stated DAG Tai, who reaffirmed the prosecution’s recommended sentence of six to seven months’ imprisonment.
The Deputy Attorney-General sought to clarify a point before the court recessed for lunch. Mr. Tai referenced a transcript from the court proceedings, challenging a statement made by Mr. Singh, which suggested that it was crucial for Iswaran to be acquitted in court. Mr. Tai emphasized, “I must say that… there is no acquittal of the (corruption) charges. We did not withdraw the charges; they were amended. There’s no conviction, but there was no acquittal.”
Mr. Singh appeared taken aback and contended that he never implied there was an acquittal. The two engaged in a back-and-forth exchange that continued for an extended period until Justice Vincent Hoong intervened. The judge remarked, “I think the position is this – the defence thought the allegations were baseless, the prosecution thought it had basis to bring the charges. I don’t think any dispute can be made as to that.”
In his response, Mr. Singh underscored that his mitigation was framed solely from his client’s perspective. He further challenged the Deputy Attorney-General to pinpoint any instance where he claimed to believe the prosecution’s corruption charges were baseless.
With consideration for the case ahead of him, Justice Hoong announced that sentencing would be postponed until October 3, indicating he required more time to deliberate on the matter.
BAIL EXTENDED
Sentencing has been postponed to October 3 at 10am for Iswaran. His bail has been extended.
In concluding the hearing, Justice Hoong expressed gratitude to both the defense and prosecution for their arguments and stated that he would require additional time to deliberate on Iswaran’s sentence.
Observing that there was no documented ruling on Section 165, the judge requested further submissions by Thursday.
FIRST REACTION
“Not appropriate” to say more
Iswaran addressed reporters outside the High Court following the hearing, according to CNA report.
“As you know, my lawyers have stated the position clearly, and as you’re well aware, the matter is now sub judice,” he said.
“So it’s not appropriate for me to say anything more. I just want to thank all of you for coming. And let’s see how it goes,” he added.
He did not answer questions regarding his plea of guilty, despite having previously stated that he would contest the case at trial.
Iswaran exited the High Court after admitting guilt to five charges: four under Section 165 and one for obstructing justice.
Image via facebook
- Foreign Traveler Arrested After Returning to S’pore for Shop Theft at Changi Airport
- Man Accused Of Deflating Tyres Of Seven Cars Using Green Beans
- Man 37, Jailed for Moderating P*rnography Websites
- Hawker’s Honesty Shines as He Returns Erroneous $90 Refund to Customer
- Three Youths Arrested for Theft of 2 Rental Cars From Carpark Located in Upper Serangoon Road
