Ong Beng Seng's sentencing to return court on 15 Aug; prosecution and defence agree on judicial mercy

SINGAPORE: Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng has reserved sentencing in the case of property tycoon Ong Beng Seng to 15 August, after Ong pleaded guilty on 4 August 2025 to a charge linked to former Singapore transport minister S Iswaran. The defence successfully requested an extension of Ong’s bail, which remains set at S$800,000. Both parties will return for sentencing at 2.30pm on 15 August. In court, Deputy Chief Prosecutor (DCP) Christopher Ong confirmed that both prosecution and defence agreed the court should consider judicial mercy — a discretionary power to impose a more lenient sentence in light of exceptional circumstances. The defence argued for a fine instead of jail, citing Ong’s life-threatening health conditions. DCP Ong said the prosecution accepted there was a basis for judicial mercy but asked the court to determine whether Ong’s illness should reduce the sentence. Ordinarily, Ong’s offence would attract a jail term starting at 12 weeks, reduced to eight weeks for his early guilty plea. The defence’s view was nine weeks, reduced to six. However, the court must weigh Ong’s incurable medical condition — advanced multiple myeloma — which severely compromises his immune system, making him prone to infections. Earlier, Ong, aged 79, admitted to abetting Iswaran in obstructing the course of justice by helping him in paying S$5,700 (US$4,480) for a business class ticket from Doha to Singapore. The payment was delayed by months and only surfaced when the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found Iswaran’s name on the manifest while probing another matter. A second charge, for instigating Iswaran to obtain flights and a hotel stay while knowing his official role related to Ong’s business, was taken into consideration for sentencing. The hearing on 4 August began later than planned after two false fire alarms forced the court to stand down. Proceedings, set for 9.30am, resumed around 10.20am. The prosecution team included DCP Ong and Deputy Public Prosecutors Sarah Siaw, Kelvin Chong and Goh Qi Shuen. Ong was represented by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull and Adam Maniam from Drew & Napier, with Senior Counsel Jason Chan, Lee Bik Wei and Cheryl Chong from Allen & Gledhill. DCP Ong highlighted three aggravating factors: the obstruction of serious investigations involving a sitting minister; Ong’s pivotal role in alerting Iswaran about the CPIB probe; and Ong’s own implication in the investigation. Despite this, DCP Ong said Ong’s culpability was lower than Iswaran’s, who acted with premeditation to avoid scrutiny. Bull, leading Ong’s defence, opened mitigation by detailing Ong’s severe health issues. He described Ong’s multiple myeloma as “incurable” and “life-threatening”, adding that it makes Ong highly vulnerable to fatal infections. The defence stressed that Ong’s condition is tightly managed at home, but prison would severely increase his health risks. Ong suffers from peripheral vascular disease in both feet and a non-healing toe wound, posing risks of infection and gangrene. His compromised spine, supported by a metal rod, increases the risk of infection and serious injury if he falls — which remains a daily threat. Bull argued that prison conditions would expose Ong to more pathogens and delays in specialised treatment. Unlike his present arrangement, any complication in prison would first need public hospital referrals, losing crucial time. “He is living within a very narrow margin where there is no room for error,” Bull told the court.

Judge questions overseas travel while defence cites private jet safeguards

Judge Lee then further questioned why Ong, despite his fragile health, had been allowed to travel overseas several times while on bail. She noted that such travel increased his exposure to infections and raised the risk of falls and other injuries. In response, Cavinder Bull explained that Ong had travelled exclusively by private jet, which significantly reduced contact with others and allowed for a controlled environment, unlike prison conditions. “And so when — I have not experienced it myself, your honour — but I understand that when one travels by private jet, there is far less contact with people. Naturally, the number of people on board is controlled,” Bull argued. The defence also cited three letters from the Singapore Prison Service (SPS), which described its healthcare as “adequate”. Bull contended, however, that a standard level of care would not meet Ong’s complex medical requirements. He emphasised that SPS characterised its healthcare as “comparable” to public hospitals, but this fell short of the dedicated specialist care Ong currently receives under daily monitoring.

Call for a “stiff fine” instead of jail

Bull pressed the court to impose only a stiff fine, arguing Ong’s serious condition justified a full discount from a custodial term. He also cited Ong’s advanced age, clean record, and consistent cooperation with authorities. Bull noted that Ong had significantly contributed to Singapore’s global reputation by bringing the Formula One race to Marina Bay and promoting major concerts, including shows by Coldplay, One Direction, and Michael Jackson.

Comparing Ong’s and Iswaran’s roles

Bull contrasted Ong’s role to Iswaran’s, describing Iswaran as the “prime mover” who initiated the obstruction. Ong’s involvement, he said, was momentary and should not be seen on the same level. “The culpability of Ong is no more than half of Iswaran’s,” Bull told the court. Bull cited past cases where courts applied judicial mercy to impose lighter sentences when serious health conditions were present. He argued that Ong’s medical risks justified similar treatment. DCP Ong countered that an expert cited by the defence had described “typical prison conditions” based on US systems and might not accurately represent Singapore’s facilities. However, DCP Ong did not dispute that Ong’s condition should be central in weighing the appropriateness of jail.