AFTER former minister S Iswaran pleaded guilty to five charges – not including corruption – on Tuesday (Sep 24), the sentencing hearing was adjourned that afternoon.
Justice Vincent Hoong will give his sentencing decision on Oct 3. He asked for time to deliberate the arguments from both parties.
The prosecution is seeking a total of six to seven months of imprisonment, while the defence is asking for a total of eight weeks’ jail instead.
Iswaran had earlier faced one charge of obstruction of justice; two charges of corruption; and 32 charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code. Section 165 prohibits a public servant from accepting any valuable thing with zero or inadequate consideration, from someone connected to any proceedings or business transactions that he or she handles.
But at the start of the trial on Tuesday, the court heard that the prosecution would be proceeding on four charges under Section 165 and one charge of obstruction of justice. The prosecution applied for the other charges to be taken into consideration for sentencing.
After an adjournment for the charges to be read to Iswaran, court resumed and he pleaded guilty to all five charges. The judge accepted his plea and convicted him of the charges.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Both sides presented their arguments for the sentencing decision before the hearing was adjourned till Oct 3.
Noting that there have been no reported decisions under Section 165 in Singapore, Justice Hoong asked the lawyers on both sides to refer to a similar case in Malaysian federal court – Mohd Khir bin Toyo v Public Prosecutor in 2015 – and provide submissions by Thursday on how the sentencing in that case might apply to this one.
The Malaysian case involved an ex-chief minister and his acceptance of a property for a consideration which he knew to be inadequate from a person who he knew had connection with his official function.
The prosecution’s proposals
Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong said the prosecution considered three factors in its sentencing proposals: that Iswaran was a public servant at the time of the offences; that he obtained “valuable things” for no consideration; and that he knew that the givers were involved in business transactions related to his official functions as a minister.
Tai argued that with a minister repeatedly obtaining gifts over a long term, public confidence and the impartiality of the government will be severely undermined.
“Not punishing such an act will send a signal that such acts are to be tolerated,” he said. “By repeatedly obtaining gifts, he is signalling that he is amenable to such patronage at the expense of the integrity of the office.”
The prosecution proposed four months’ imprisonment for the charge of obtaining 10 green room tickets to the 2017 Singapore F1 Grand Prix, with a value of S$42,265, from billionaire hotel and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng.
Another charge – amended from an earlier corruption charge – was for obtaining a flight on Ong’s private jet, one night’s stay at the Four Seasons Doha hotel and a business class flight for a total of S$20,908.03.
For this, the prosecution said three months’ imprisonment “would be appropriate” considering the lower value.
Two other charges relate to dealings with David Lum, director of mainboard-listed Lum Chang Holdings: obtaining 14 bottles of whisky and wine with a total value of S$3,255.75, as well as a Brompton bicycle valued at S$7,907.50.
For these, the prosecution acknowledged that Iswaran did not interfere in contracts involving Lum. But as Transport Minister then, Iswaran was still in breach of Section 165 – and such conduct, if allowed to continue, would damage the public interest.
The prosecution suggested one month of imprisonment for each of these two charges, considering the low financial value and the “attenuated business relationship” between Lum’s company and the government.
For obstruction of justice, the prosecution sought two months’ imprisonment, due to the “serious” nature of the obstruction of investigations. This charge relates to a repayment of S$5,700 made to Singapore GP for a business class flight ticket to Doha.
The prosecution asked for the jail terms for three of the charges – relating to the green room tickets, whisky and obstruction of justice – to be run consecutively, for a total of seven months’ imprisonment.
Iswaran’s mitigation
In his mitigation plea, Iswaran’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, said that Iswaran was intent to defend himself chiefly as he was being accused of corruption, and the public’s perception – based on media reports – was that this was primarily a graft case.
“He was put in a position where he had to contest the case against him in light of the charges (under the Prevention of Corruption Act),” said Singh.
Now that the prosecution has amended the corruption charges, this changes the complexion of the entire case, said Singh.
In light of this, the ex-minister chose to plead guilty as he believed it was the right thing to do and recognised it was wrong, under the law, for him to accept the gifts from Ong and Lum.
Although Iswaran was not aware of Section 165 of the Penal Code when he made the offences, he fully recognises that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that the law does not accept friendship with the givers of the gifts as a defence, said Singh.
Singh argued that Iswaran ought to be sentenced for not more than one to five weeks’ jail for each of the charges.
He asked for a total of eight weeks’ jail, with the Section 165 charges relating to the F1 tickets, whisky and wine, as well as the obstruction of justice charge, to run consecutively.
He stressed that Iswaran’s receiving of the gifts from Ong did not have any effect or result in contracts being structured to the disadvantage of the government.
As for the Lum charges, he argued that Iswaran did not do anything to disadvantage the government, nor did he intervene in any issues relating to Lum’s contracts with the government.
Singh rejected the prosecution’s argument that Iswaran’s acts were an abuse of his power and office. He argued that there was no evidence that obtaining the gifts resulted in his loyalty to the government being compromised.
Charging Iswaran under Section 165 was itself “the most powerful signal” that can be sent to deter such offences, he added.
Singh further argued that the gifts were received in the context of the former minister’s friendship with the two men and there was no premeditation involved in the offences.
Responding to Singh’s arguments after the lunch break, the prosecution said that the defence’s proposal of no more than eight weeks of jail time is “far too low” and will send the wrong signal.
“General deterrence is not obtained simply by prosecuting someone,” Tai said, adding that the sentence itself sends a “tremendously important signal” to the public.
