Blog

FORMER transport minister S Iswaran was sentenced on Thursday (Oct 3) to 12 months’ jail, after pleading guilty on Sep 24 to five charges: four for obtaining valuable items from those with whom he had official dealings, and one for obstruction of justice.

This was more than what both sides had asked for. The prosecution had previously made a case for six to seven months’ jail, while the defence sought eight weeks.

Both parties’ proposals for the jail term were “manifestly inadequate”, said Justice Vincent Hoong.

He began the sentencing hearing by stressing that trust and confidence in public institutions are the bedrock of effective governance.

“This can all too easily be undermined by the appearance that an individual public servant has fallen below standards of integrity and accountability,” he said.

The sentencing sets a precedent for a provision that has not been used in Singapore since independence: Section 165 of the Penal Code, which prohibits a public servant from accepting or obtaining anything of value for free or inadequate payment, from any person with whom they are involved in an official capacity.

For the four charges under Section 165, Justice Hoong decided on six months’ jail for obtaining Formula One (F1) tickets; three months and three weeks for accepting flights and a hotel stay; two months for receiving 14 bottles of alcohol; and three months for accepting a Brompton bicycle.

For obstruction of justice, the sentence was four months’ jail. The sentences for the F1 tickets, alcohol and obstruction of justice are to run consecutively.

The defence asked for the sentence to commence on Monday, Oct 7. Iswaran will surrender himself at 4 pm at the State Courts, subject to any applications that will be made, said his lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh.

The defence has 14 days to appeal the sentence, should they choose to do so.

Considerations

Justice Hoong emphasised that for an offence to be made out under Section 165, the receiver of gifts need not have provided quid pro quo, nor does there need to be proof that the offender acted with corrupt intent.

As Section 165 aims to safeguard the integrity of public institutions and the public interest, general deterrence takes centre stage in sentencing, he said – disagreeing with the defence’s submission that it has limited relevance.

The mere perception that the offender is under the influence of the giver is of paramount harm, he said. The value of items obtained is only one of the indicators of the level of harm caused, and is relevant in sentencing “insofar as it is sufficiently significant as to indicate a higher level of damage to public interest”.

Even if there was no evidence that Iswaran had exercised influence in business transactions between the gift givers and the government, his culpability cannot be considered low given his experience and standing as a minister, said Justice Hoong.

Two charges were of obtaining from Ong Beng Seng – property tycoon and chairman of F1 race promoter Singapore GP – hospitality suite tickets for the 2017 Singapore F1 race, as well as flights and a hotel stay in Doha.

For these, Justice Hoong considered that Iswaran was in a position to wield influence, as then chair of the F1 steering committee and a minister; and that he acted with deliberation in requesting the tickets and taking urgent leave for the Doha trip. He decided that Iswaran’s culpability here was moderate.

Two other charges related to acquiring 14 bottles of wine and whisky as well as a Brompton bike from managing director of mainboard-listed construction company Lum Chang Holdings, David Lum.

Here, Justice Hoong said that Iswaran’s culpability was heightened by his critical role as transport minister. Still, for these gifts, Iswaran’s culpability was low as there was no evidence that he acted with premeditation or deliberation in accepting these.

The ex-minister had repaid Singapore GP for the business class flight, leading to the charge of obstructing justice. On this, Justice Hoong said Iswaran had acted with deliberation and premeditation in firstly asking Singapore GP to bill him, then making payment for the flight, knowing that this would make an investigation less likely.

The wish to avoid investigation is a grave culpability-increasing factor, he added.

Thirty other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing. These charges reveal the scale, extent and repetition of Iswaran’s offences over a significant duration of time, said Justice Hoong.

Arguments for mitigation

One argument that the defence had made in mitigation was that Iswaran had voluntarily disgorged his gains. But Justice Hoong said on Thursday that this is unlikely to remedy the damage done to public trust in institutions.

The mitigating value is low as this was not done at an earlier stage, he said, noting that Iswaran previously rejected the charges as false and expressed belief that he would be acquitted.

As for another mitigation argument that Iswaran had pleaded guilty, Justice Hoong noted that this was only done after several charges were amended from more serious corruption charges to Section 165 charges instead.

The defence had claimed that Iswaran did not plead guilty earlier because he was chiefly concerned about the corruption charges. Justice Hoong disagreed, saying that Iswaran could have claimed trial for those while pleading guilty to the Section 165 charges.

Instead, Iswaran decided to claim trial for all the charges, applied for them to be taken together and made multiple attempts to acquire witness statements.

“In my view, the accused, having made the tactical choices which he did at the initial stages of the proceedings, must stand by the consequences of those choices,” said Justice Hoong.

Iswaran’s contributions to Singapore were seen as a neutral factor in sentencing.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers said on Sep 24 that it would soon take a decision in respect of Ong, who has yet to face charges.

Earlier arguments

On Sep 24, the prosecution had considered three factors in its sentencing proposals: that Iswaran was a public servant when the offences were committed; that he obtained “valuable things” for no consideration; and that he knew the givers were involved in business transactions related to his official functions as a minister.

In the defence’s mitigation plea, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh said Iswaran recognised that his ignorance of the law was no excuse and admitted to his wrongs in accepting the gifts.

But these actions did not disadvantage the government, and there is no evidence that they resulted in his loyalty to the government being compromised, Singh said.

The defence lawyer argued that charging Iswaran was in itself a powerful signal to deter such offences. But the prosecution said this was not enough for deterrence, and that the sentence sends an important signal to the public.