SINGAPORE: On Thursday (10 October) at 12:31 PM, train operator SMRT reported a train fault on the East-West Line (EWL), advising passengers to expect an additional 25 minutes of travel time between Outram Park and Queenstown MRT stations towards Joo Koon.

SMRT also announced that free regular bus services were available between Outram Park and Queenstown, assuring passengers that station staff would be on hand to assist those in need.

At 12:55 PM, SMRT advised commuters that due to the train fault, they should add an additional 20 minutes of travel time from Queenstown station to Bugis, heading towards Pasir Ris.

A live check on the train status confirmed that EWL services were delayed.

Commenting on SMRT’s update, one netizen shared that he was on the faulty train, describing the situation.

He mentioned that the train had come to a halt on the tracks en route to Tiong Bahru after leaving Outram Park when the fault occurred.

This train fault occurred just 10 days after the major six-day EWL disruption, which was resolved on 1 October.

SINGAPORE: Alternative party Red Dot United (RDU) called on The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to provide a detailed and public explanation of the rationale behind their amendments to the charges and their sentencing recommendations against former Transport Minister S. Iswaran.

In a statement issued on Thursday (10 October), RDU’s Secretary-General, Ravi Philemon, stressed that this is a matter of significant public interest, compelling the party to raise critical questions about transparency.

He emphasised the need for such clarity to restore public confidence in Singapore’s institutions.

The statement referenced the sentencing of Mr Iswaran to 12 months’ imprisonment for accepting valuable gifts, under Section 165 of the Penal Code.

“We respect the right of Mr Iswaran and his family for privacy as they come to terms with his crime. But it is important to discuss the offences committed and how the case has unfolded over the past 15 months,” said Philemon.

RDU’s call comes on the heels of an earlier statement by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), which also sought greater clarity from the AGC regarding its prosecutorial decisions in the Iswaran case.

Concerns Over Amended Charges

The AGC’s decision to amend the initial charges against Mr Iswaran has raised significant concerns.

Initially, the former minister faced 35 charges, including two under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), for corruption involving over S$400,000 worth of valuable items.

However, days before the trial was set to commence in September 2024, the AGC reduced these to lesser offences under Section 165, drastically lowering the potential penalties.

RDU has questioned why the AGC initially determined that the PCA charges were justified and why this assessment changed as the trial approached.

Philemon asked, “Was there new information that made the original charges untenable, or did the AGC reassess the risks involved in proceeding with a full trial? ”

“The public deserves clarity, especially given the serious nature of the accusations.”

Lenient Sentencing Recommendations

Another point of contention highlighted by RDU is the AGC’s sentencing recommendation.

Despite the extensive nature of Mr Iswaran’s wrongdoing, the AGC recommended a sentence of just six to seven months.

However, Justice Vincent Hoong handed down a 12-month jail term, almost double what was sought by the prosecution.

Philemon remarked, “As a former minister, Mr Iswaran occupied a position of immense responsibility, and his actions not only betrayed public trust but also set a dangerous precedent for how corruption cases involving high-ranking officials are managed.”

“Given this, we urge the AGC to address if it took such a lenient position and whether such considerations are consistent across similar cases,” he added.

Lack of Transparency in Related Cases

RDU also expressed concerns over the status of other individuals named in connection with the case, such as Mr Ong Beng Seng and Mr Lum Kok Seng.

While Mr Ong has since been charged, RDU questioned why it took so long and what criteria the AGC used when deciding whether to pursue charges against associated parties.

“This piecemeal approach to prosecuting such a high-profile case suggests a lack of consistent standards and undermines public confidence in the impartiality of our legal system.,” said Philemon.

Commendation of Judge’s Decision

Despite concerns over the AGC’s actions, RDU praised Justice Vincent Hoong for imposing a sentence that more appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences.

“His decision underscores the importance of accountability and reinforces the need for robust sentencing to reflect the gravity of offences committed by individuals holding high public office,” Philemon added.

RDU stressed that transparency is crucial to upholding good governance, asserting that Singaporeans deserve clear answers on matters that may compromise the integrity of the public service.

The party expressed hope that the authorities would address these concerns and build long-term trust and understanding through enhanced openness.

AGC Cited Evidentiary Risks in Reducing Iswaran’s Corruption Charges

In a statement issued on 24 September, the AGC 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.