SINGAPORE: Following the sentencing of former Transport Minister Iswaran to 12 months in jail by Singapore’s court, the alternative party Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has issued a statement expressing concern over the ruling.

In a statement released at noon on 3 October, Ms Hazel Poa, Secretary-General of the PSP, noted that Mr Iswaran, who is also a former Member of Parliament from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), was sentenced for four counts of obtaining gifts as a public servant under Section 165 of the Penal Code 1871, and one count of obstructing justice under Section 204A of the same code.

Ms Poa, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, stated that, given the high level of public interest in this case, the PSP looks forward to receiving greater clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) regarding its prosecutorial decisions at the appropriate juncture.

On the morning of 3 October, the court granted Iswaran’s request to surrender himself at 4 p.m. on 7 October to begin serving his sentence.

However, his lead lawyer, Davinder Singh, indicated that the start of the sentence could be delayed depending on “instructions,” hinting at the possibility of an appeal.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, while holding public office.

These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties.

The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The AGC in an explanation cited substantial evidentiary risks in proving the original corruption charges, which involved  Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng.

The AGC noted that proving the original corruption charges under PCA would have been difficult due to the involvement of both Iswaran and Ong as primary parties.

Both would have had to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent.

The AGC explained that “there are two primary parties to the transactions, and both would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.” This made securing a conviction for corruption highly uncertain.

In light of these risks, the AGC amended the charges to offenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a lower evidentiary threshold and a reduced maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

According to AGC, the amendment was made to ensure a fair and just outcome while considering public interest.

Former Transport Minister Iswaran has been sentenced to 12 months in jail after pleading guilty to four amended charges under Section 165 of Singapore’s Penal Code and one charge of obstructing the course of justice under Section 204A(a) of the Penal Code.

Previously, the prosecution sought a jail term of six to seven months, while the defence requested that Iswaran’s aggregate sentence not exceed eight weeks.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, while holding public office. These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September 2024 from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties. The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran’s defence team argued that his guilty plea followed the amendment of the charges and suggested that this change altered the “complexion” of the case.

However, Justice Vincent Hoong, in delivering his judgement on Thursday (3 Oct), rejected this argument, noting that Iswaran had consistently denied the charges and only pleaded guilty after the amendments were made. The court ruled that his decision to plead guilty did not demonstrate sufficient remorse, particularly given his earlier public statements professing innocence.

The judge also dismissed several of the defence’s mitigating arguments. Among them was the claim that Ong, the businessman who had offered Iswaran private jet travel and other benefits, would have incurred the costs regardless of Iswaran’s involvement.

Justice Hoong ruled that the central issue was Iswaran’s acceptance of these benefits while knowing that Ong had business interests connected to Iswaran’s official role as minister and chairman of the Formula 1 (F1) steering committee. This, the judge said, compromised the integrity of public office.

The court further rejected the argument that Iswaran’s public service and contributions to Singapore should weigh in his favour during sentencing.

Justice Hoong described these as “neutral” factors in this context, emphasising the importance of general deterrence in cases involving high-ranking officials. “Holders of high office set the tone for public servants and must be expected to avoid any perception of influence by pecuniary benefits,” the judge said.

Iswaran had pleaded guilty to obtaining gifts such as a private flight to Doha from Ong, taken while on urgent personal leave.

Although Iswaran’s lawyers argued that the absence of financial detriment to Ong should mitigate his culpability, the court rejected this. Justice Hoong stated that the focus should remain on the harm caused to public institutions and the need for general deterrence.

Furthermore, the defence’s claim that Iswaran had distributed the F1 tickets he received to friends and family, rather than selling them, was also rejected.

The judge ruled that the improper use of these tickets, which Iswaran had obtained by virtue of his official connection to Ong, was damaging to the integrity of public office.

Justice Hoong emphasised that general deterrence remained a central consideration in the sentencing of public servants who commit such offences.

“The lack of prevalence of such offences may be a sign of healthy governance processes, but it cannot detract from the courts’ responsibility to signal their disapproval of such conduct,” he said.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165, which covers public servants who receive valuable gifts in connection with their official duties.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) cited litigation risks in proving the original corruption charges as a reason for amending them, but did not suggest that the case itself lacked merit.