Court Cases
Senior Counsel and former PAP MP Alvin Yeo to represent A-G in death row inmates’ suit over prisons’ alleged breach of confidentiality
A legal team led by Senior Counsel and former People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Alvin Yeo is slated to represent the Attorney-General (A-G) in a suit brought by 13 death row inmates’ over the Singapore Prison Services’ alleged breach of confidentiality regarding their privileged information.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday (14 July), lawyer M Ravi of K K Cheng LLC, who represents the inmates, said that WongPartnership — the law firm Mr Yeo is part of — had also represented the A-G in a previous, separate case where the inmates sought pre-action discovery and interrogatories in the High Court.
The pre-action discovery application, which was dismissed by the High Court on 16 March, encompassed those concerning relevant documents such as:
- All letters from the A-G requesting the Changi Prison superintendent to supply copies of the inmates’ correspondence;
- All letters from the Changi Prison superintendent to the A-G with enclosed copies of the inmates’ correspondence; and
- The inmates’ correspondence forwarded by the Changi Prison superintendent to the A-G, “together with any enclosures to that correspondence”.
The inmates also applied for leave to serve pre-action interrogatories against the A-G and the Changi Prison superintendent.
Mr Ravi on 16 January alleged that Deputy A-G Hri Kumar Nair “through his affidavit has disclosed that 13 out of the 22 inmates had their correspondence forwarded to AG’s office”.
“This was done without authorisation and in breach of the Prison Regulations and common law protection,” he added.
Mr Ravi said that he had asked the A-G and the Prison Superintendent for the names of the legal officers or public servants “who came into possession of the subject documents and if they requested these documents”, among other related questions.
Documents sought not relevant and AGC did not request correspondence
In the now-concluded pre-action discovery action stated earlier, counsels for the A-G argued that the inmates’ application should be dismissed in respect of the fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd plaintiffs.
The aforementioned inmates, they said, did not meet the necessary — and high — procedural thresholds, which is to state in an affidavit the grounds of their application and the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings.
Mr Ravi’s first affidavit for the fourth to eighth plaintiffs, the A-G’s counsels argued, only references facts in respect of the first to third plaintiffs.
The said affidavit also speculates that the fourth to eighth plaintiffs may have similar claims, the A-G’s counsels added.
Neither did the first defendant request nor receive “any correspondence sent by and/or to” the fourth, seventh, and eighth plaintiffs, the A-G’s counsels added.
The A-G, said the counsels, also did not request for any correspondence sent by and/or to the fifth and sixth plaintiffs.
“lt is thus simply not enough to speculate and attempt to fish for documents on the back of completely unrelated factual matrices in respect of entirely unrelated parties,” said the A-G’s counsels.
Mr Ravi’s first affidavit for the ninth to 11th plaintiffs did not refer to them. Further, the 12th to 22nd plaintiffs did not have a supporting affidavit, said the A-G’s counsels.
“This is clearly fatal to these Plaintiffs’ claim, because there has not even been an attempt to fulfil the procedural thresholds and safeguard imposed by the Rules of Court,” the counsels argued.
Earlier, the A-G also submitted that the inmates in this action were not able to demonstrate that “the documents sought are at all relevant or necessary to any issue”.
This is because contrary to the inmates’ primary assertion that they cannot begin proceedings in the absence of documents and interrogatories that indicate the identities of the public servants involved, the proceedings will not be commenced against such individuals, but against the A-G “as the legal representative of the Government”.
“ln this regard, there can be no real dispute that relevant “public servants” were acting in official capacities (i.e., as agents of the Government) when they either requested or sent the Plaintiffs’ correspondence.
“There has been no contention by any of the Plaintiffs, nor any evidence led, that any of these “public servants’ had acted in their personal capacities,” said the A-G’s counsels.
True scale of the requests and disclosures in the cases of all prisoners unknown, says M Ravi
Putting forth his case for the same pre-action discovery action mentioned earlier, Mr Ravi submitted before the High Court on 18 January that the A-G had merely put forth a “procedural and legalistic” defence at the expense of “justice and fairness”.
The A-G’s arguments, he argued, did not address whether it is fair for the A-G to obstruct the inmates in this action from initiating proceedings “against public officers who have committed misconduct”.
“Public officers and servants are not immune from the law. In fact, one of the very foundations of the rule of law is that public officers and servants uphold the law,” said Mr Ravi.
The A-G’s counsels, Mr Ravi argued, have “gone to considerable lengths in their submissions to prevent the disclosure” to the inmates of the identities of the relevant public officers, but did not indicate at any stage “why it serves the administration of justice to prevent this disclosure”.
Further, Mr Ravi argued, his clients “have made it abundantly clear that they seek the identities of the persons involved in the wrongdoing” for the purpose of confirming “whether or not they have a cause of action to bring and who might be the proper parties to such potential claims”.
“It is patently obvious that without knowing the identities of the actors involved, and what was disclosed, the Plaintiffs cannot assess their legal remedies or bring any such claims,” he stressed.
Without access to the documents sought, Mr Ravi added, the inmates in this action “would not know whether the documents were legally privileged and thus would not be able to properly frame their complaints as either breaches of legal privilege, breaches of confidentiality, breaches of the Prison Regulations or simply ultra vires”.
Mr Ravi submitted in the hearing before Justice See Kee Oon that any procedural deficiency such as those alleged by the A-G’s counsels “does not nullify the proceedings”.
“If this Court requires those Plaintiffs to serve an affidavit in the same terms as the 1st 2nd, 3rd 5th and 6th Plaintiffs so that the appropriate order can be made, then they will undertake to do so.
“Moreover, there would be nothing to prevent the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, and 19th Plaintiffs from refiling an application if their current application were to be dismissed on this procedural basis,” he said.
Mr Ravi also stressed that the A-G has not denied that “public prosecutors who received such correspondence read all such correspondence”.
There was also no denial of whether such correspondence was retained “when it is quite clear that it should have been destroyed” and “even when it was plainly illegal”, he added.
Mr Ravi also submitted that the A-G had even failed to disclose during the proceedings of Gobi a/l Avedian vs A-G that forwarding prisoners’ personal correspondence to public prosecutors was a frequent occurrence.
He added that the A-G had “misleadingly allowed the Court of Appeal to believe that the disclosures in those two cases were isolated incidents” and was, therefore, an ‘oversight’.
An audit of unauthorised disclosures was carried out by the A-G for only 22 prisoners, of which disclosures were revealed in 13 cases, Mr Ravi noted.
“The true scale of the requests and disclosures in the cases of all prisoners is unknown,” he said.
The hearing on the present suit is slated to take place on 13 September.
Court Cases
AGC announces no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng in Iswaran case
In a statement on 4 October, the Attorney-General’s Chambers announced no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng. This follows the sentencing of former Minister S. Iswaran, who pleaded guilty to five charges, including receiving gifts from Lum such as wine, whisky, and a Brompton T-Line bicycle.
SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced on 4 October 2024 that no charges will be filed against businessman Lum Kok Seng (林國城).
Mr Lum, the managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, had been named in March this year as one of two businessmen involved in a case concerning former transport minister S Iswaran.
The AGC had previously stated that it would take a decision regarding Mr Lum following the conclusion of Iswaran’s case.
On 24 September, Mr Iswaran pleaded guilty to a total of five charges, including receiving luxury items from Mr Lum between November 2021 and November 2022.
The items, allegedly given without any compensation, included several bottles of high-end whisky and wine, expensive golf equipment, and a premium bicycle.
The specific gifts from Mr Lum to Mr Iswaran were detailed as follows:
- Four bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky valued at S$1,084.46
- Fourteen bottles of whisky and wine worth S$3,255.75
- A TaylorMade golf driver valued at S$749
- Two more bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky, priced at S$542.23
- A set of Honma Beres BE-08 Black AQ MX golf clubs worth S$4,420
- A Brompton T Line bicycle worth S$7,907.50
- Two bottles of M&H Elements Sherry Cask whisky worth S$198
- A Scotty Cameron Phantom golf putter and two golf chippers valued at S$800
In total, these gifts amounted to approximately S$18,956.94.
These items were given during a period when Lum Chang Holdings was involved in a contract for construction work at Tanah Merah MRT station.
Attorney-General’s Chambers cites evidentiary risks in reducing Iswaran’s corruption charges
On 3 October, 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.
Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and Mr Lum, 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.
Court Cases
Ong Beng Seng faces two charges linked with Iswaran’s offences, out on S$800k bail
Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng was charged on 4 October with abetting offences in relation to former Minister S Iswaran’s corruption case. Ong, the managing director of Hotel Properties Limited, faces charges under Sections 165 and 204A of Singapore’s Penal Code. His case has been adjourned to 15 November, and he is currently out on S$800,000 bail.
SINGAPORE: Property tycoon and hotelier Ong Beng Seng charged in court on Friday (4 October) with two offences linked to former Transport Minister S Iswaran’s case.
Mr Ong, who serves as Hotel Properties Limited (HPL)’s managing director, faces one count each under Sections 165 and 204A of Singapore’s Penal Code for abetment.
Section 165 pertains to a public servant obtaining valuables from individuals with whom they have an official relationship, while Section 204A deals with obstructing justice.
If found guilty under Section 165, offenders face up to two years in jail, a fine, or both. Abetting such offences carries the same penalties if the crime is committed due to the abetment.
Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to Iswaran.
The defence has requested a six-week adjournment for further instructions from Ong, a motion the prosecution, led by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong, did not oppose.
The case has been rescheduled for a pre-trial conference on 15 November at 9 am.
Ong is currently out on S$800,000 bail and is represented by Aaron Lee from Allen & Gledhill.
The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.
These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.
These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.
Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.
Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.
Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.
On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.
The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.
Ong was arrested by CPIB in July 2023
Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter.
Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.
According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.
CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.
Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.
Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.
In addition to Ong, construction tycoon Lum Kok Seng was also linked to the additional charges filed against Iswaran in March this year.
Iswaran, who became transport minister in 2021, admitted to accepting valuable items worth approximately S$19,000 from Lum, including a Brompton bicycle, luxury wines, and golf equipment.
However, no charges have been publicly announced against Lum.
Controversies surrounding Ong
This is not the first time Ong has found himself embroiled in controversy.
The 1990s saw questions over luxury condominium units sold by his company to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son. The units, part of the Nassim Jade and Scotts 28 condominiums, were allegedly sold at special discounts.
This raised eyebrows due to Ong’s familial links with the Lees – his uncle, Lee Suan Yew, was a director at HPL. Although then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong cleared the Lees of any wrongdoing in 1996, the incident has remained a notable mark on Ong’s business record.
Furthermore, an investigative report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project in 2018 revealed allegations of corruption involving Ong in the leasing of two islands in the Maldives.
The report suggested that HPL had sidestepped Maldivian laws requiring public tender for island leases, instead conducting direct negotiations with Maldivian officials.
It was also alleged that a US$5 million payment made for the lease of Fohtheyo island had been siphoned off through a company associated with friends of the then Maldivian Vice President Ahmed Adeeb. Ong did not respond to these allegations.
Ong, who is the founder of the Singapore-based organization Hotel Properties and a shareholder in many businesses, has a net worth of S$1.7 billion.
Together with his wife Christina, they ranked No. 25 on Forbes’ Singapore’s 50 Richest list, which was published in August 2022.
-
Comments1 week ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments5 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore1 week ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore1 week ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore7 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore1 week ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Major breakdown on East-West Line: SMRT faces third service disruption in a month