SINGAPORE: Sentencing for former Transport Minister S Iswaran has been adjourned to 3 October, following his guilty plea to five charges.
During the hearing today (24 September), Justice Vincent Hoong extended Iswaran’s bail and scheduled the sentencing for 10:00 AM on 3 October, seeking more time to deliberate on the arguments presented by both sides.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, called for a jail term of six to seven months.
Iswaran has pleaded guilty to four charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which prohibits public servants from accepting valuable items from individuals involved in transactions they oversee, and one charge of obstruction of justice.
Thirty other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.
During the hearing, the prosecution outlined the serious nature of the offences, emphasising that Iswaran had accepted gifts while serving as Transport Minister.
These gifts included 10 green room tickets to the 2017 Singapore F1 Grand Prix, valued at S$42,265, and a flight on businessman Ong Beng Seng’s private jet, along with related luxury accommodation and travel benefits amounting to S$20,908.03.
The prosecution asked for four months’ imprisonment for the F1 tickets charge and three months for the private jet and luxury accommodations. Additional charges involved valuable items from David Lum, director of Lum Chang Holdings, including whisky, wine, and a Brompton bicycle.
The prosecution acknowledged no contracts between Lum’s firm and the government had been affected but sought one month’s imprisonment for each of these charges.
The most severe charge was obstruction of justice, for which the prosecution sought two months’ imprisonment.
This charge stemmed from Iswaran’s efforts to obstruct an investigation by repaying S$5,700 for a business class flight to Doha, linked to his dealings with Singapore GP.
The prosecution recommended that the sentences for three charges—relating to the F1 tickets, whisky, and obstruction of justice—run consecutively, totaling seven months of imprisonment.
Mitigation Plea by Defence
Iswaran’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, argued for a more lenient sentence, suggesting eight weeks of imprisonment in total. He contended that Iswaran, previously accused of corruption, chose to plead guilty after the charges were amended, removing corruption allegations.
Singh emphasized that the former minister accepted responsibility for his actions, acknowledging that receiving gifts from Ong and Lum was wrong under the law, even though Iswaran had not been aware of Section 165 at the time.
Singh rejected the prosecution’s claims that Iswaran had abused his office, stating there was no evidence of any harm caused to government contracts or operations due to the gifts.
He highlighted that Iswaran’s actions did not compromise his loyalty to the government, and his friendship with the gift-givers did not justify harsher sentencing.
Instead, Singh argued that Iswaran should face a sentence of no more than one to five weeks per charge, and proposed that only three of the charges—relating to the F1 tickets, whisky, and obstruction—be served consecutively, resulting in a maximum of eight weeks’ imprisonment.
Deliberation on Sentencing
Justice Hoong noted that there have been no prior decisions under Section 165 in Singapore, complicating the sentencing process.
He instructed both the prosecution and defence to refer to a similar case decided in Malaysian federal court, and submit arguments by Thursday (26 Sept) on how the sentencing in that case might influence Iswaran’s case.
The prosecution argued that Iswaran’s actions, as a senior public servant, could undermine public confidence in government impartiality if left unchecked.
Tai emphasised that Iswaran had repeatedly accepted gifts over a prolonged period, warning that failure to adequately punish such conduct would signal tolerance for misconduct.
The defence countered, stating that no harm was done to government contracts and that charging Iswaran under Section 165 alone was a strong enough deterrent.
Singh highlighted that the gifts were exchanged within the context of personal friendships and lacked premeditation, suggesting that Iswaran did not exploit his position for personal gain.
