Former Transport Minister S. Iswaran’s actions have “significantly affected” the government’s reputation, argued the prosecution during a Supreme Court hearing on 24 September.
Iswaran’s defence lawyer countered that the acceptance of gifts caused little to no damage, emphasising that no third parties suffered any losses as a result.
Zero Tolerance for Corruption: An Uncompromising Stance
Previously, Iswaran faced 35 charges, two of which were corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
The two charges were amended to offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence for a public servant to accept anything of value without payment or with inadequate payment from any person with whom he is involved in an official capacity.
The prosecution stated that they would proceed on five charges: four under Section 165 of the Penal Code and one charge of obstruction of justice.
Iswaran’s defence lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, had earlier stated that Iswaran “will be taking a certain course of action” in light of the charges not proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Subsequently, Iswaran was read his charges and rose to publicly announce his guilty plea.
His lawyer confirmed that his client was indeed pleading guilty.
Some observers believe the plea appears to be a strategic manoeuvre to mitigate damage and avoid a protracted legal battle.
The reduction of charges from the stringent PCA to the comparatively lenient Section 165 raises concerns.
The PCA is designed to tackle corruption head-on, while Section 165 deals with public servants receiving valuables without adequate consideration. This downgrade isn’t just a legal technicality; it feels like a calculated move to soften the consequences.
If zero tolerance truly means zero compromise, why allow for leniency that seems to undercut the severity of the original charges?
The prosecution’s position is clear: Iswaran’s actions have undermined public trust and, by extension, the integrity of the government.
Singapore vs Other Countries’ Stance on Corruption
Compared to other countries where corruption is more commonplace, Singapore stands out for its strict enforcement and high ethical standards.
For instance, in the United Kingdom, political figures have faced ethical scrutiny over accepting donations and gifts, yet often navigate these issues with varying degrees of accountability.
The UK’s Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has been criticised for receiving free corporate football tickets, luxury accommodations, and substantial donations.
Sir Keir defended receiving free corporate tickets and luxury accommodations by emphasising transparency and adherence to rules. However, discrepancies arose when it was revealed that certain expenses were not initially declared in detail, such as the £16,200 donation for clothes that was later updated in the register.
Similarly, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was granted a £2 million flat for a personal holiday by a Labour donor, raising questions about the transparency and adequacy of declarations.
Despite these controversies, the repercussions in the UK have often been less severe compared to the swift and stringent actions seen in Singapore.
In Malaysia, while similar gifts may be legal if declared, they often raise ethical concerns, but the enforcement and public perception can vary widely, sometimes resulting in minimal consequences for high-profile individuals.
The stark contrast underscores Singapore’s unique position with its zero-tolerance policy, highlighting the severity and uncompromising nature of its approach to corruption.
Some might contend that accepting the guilty plea and recommending a custodial sentence of six to seven months demonstrates the system’s effectiveness.
However, true accountability would involve facing all original charges and undergoing a thorough trial to fully examine the extent of wrongdoing.
Settling for a plea bargain that reduces penalties could be seen as a compromise that doesn’t fully align with the nation’s uncompromising stance.
Background
Initially facing 35 charges—two of which were corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)—Iswaran pleaded guilty to only five. This substantial reduction raises questions about the integrity of the legal process.
The two original charges were amended to offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which prohibits public servants from accepting anything of value without payment or with inadequate payment from any person with whom they are involved in an official capacity.
The prosecution stated that they would proceed with five charges: four under Section 165 of the Penal Code and one charge of obstruction of justice.
Regarding the charge of obstruction of justice, Iswaran admitted to repaying S$5,700 to Singapore GP Pte Ltd. This amount covered the cost of his business class ticket for a December 11 flight from Doha to Singapore, which he had taken at Ong Beng Seng’s expense through Singapore GP.
The remaining 30 charges will be considered for sentencing purposes.
Previous Charges of Corruption
Initially, the first corruption charge against Iswaran alleged that he corruptly obtained gratification worth S$145,434 from property tycoon Ong Beng Seng in exchange for advancing Ong’s business interests related to a contract between Singapore GP and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB).
Iswaran was also previously accused of corruptly obtaining:
- 10 Green Room tickets (worth approximately S$48,150)
- Eight tickets to the F1 venue Twenty3 (worth about S$56,068)
- 32 general admission tickets (worth S$41,216) to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix in September 2022.
The second corruption charge alleged that Iswaran corruptly obtained gratification from Ong in exchange for advancing his business interests concerning a contract with a public body over the Singapore GP-STB facilitation agreement, as well as a proposal for a contract with STB to establish the ABBA Voyage virtual concert in Singapore. This allegedly occurred in December 2022.
According to the charge sheets, Iswaran allegedly took an outbound flight on Ong’s private plane from Singapore to Doha worth approximately S$10,410.40. He also received a one-night stay at the Four Seasons Doha, valued at about S$4,737.63, and a business class flight from Doha to Singapore, worth around S$5,700, from Ong through Singapore GP Pte Ltd.
