SINGAPORE: On 15 August 2025, property tycoon Ong Beng Seng was fined S$30,000 for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case connected to former transport minister S Iswaran.
The 79-year-old Malaysian reportedly paid the fine immediately after sentencing, with his lawyer confirming he would not appeal.
Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng accepted arguments from both the prosecution and defence that judicial mercy was justified.
She imposed the maximum fine available in a district court, instead of the possible three-month jail term.
Judicial mercy is a discretionary power allowing courts to impose more lenient sentences in exceptional cases.
These usually involve medical conditions where imprisonment would significantly heighten risks to the offender’s life.
Judge Lee cautioned against misinterpreting her decision as favouring wealthy offenders with access to better healthcare.
She said the key question was whether incarceration would present a higher risk to life compared to the offender’s current circumstances, regardless of their financial means.
Medical grounds for leniency
Judge Lee said medical evidence showed Ong suffers from advanced multiple myeloma, an incurable cancer of the plasma cells.
Imprisonment would carry “a high and increased risk” of endangering his life, the court heard.
Ong’s condition has caused extensive skeletal damage, leaving him prone to falls and serious infections.
He is immunosuppressed, with a non-healing foot wound and surgically implanted spinal rods that heighten infection risks.
The court noted that any trauma from a fall could result in catastrophic consequences such as paralysis, bleeding due to cancer medication, and even death.
Judge Lee added that even with a medical ward in prison, “unavoidable interactions” with prison staff and a lack of familiar caregivers would significantly increase health risks.
She acknowledged Ong had travelled overseas twice in the past year but said both trips were “carefully managed” with his own medical team, underscoring his fragile condition.
Balancing public interest and humanitarian concerns
The judge said a starting point of 15 weeks’ imprisonment would have been appropriate due to Ong’s lower culpability, as Iswaran initiated the request for Ong to bill him for the Doha trip.
Iswaran received four months’ jail for the related offence.
While the offence was “undoubtedly serious” and warranted condemnation, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was ultimately not hindered in its work.
Ong had maintained proper documentation and made no attempt to hide the five-month delay in billing Iswaran.
Judge Lee said: “On balance, I find that the humanitarian considerations supporting the exercise of judicial mercy ought to prevail in this case.”
Case background
On 4 August, Ong pleaded guilty to one count of abetting Iswaran in obstructing justice.
He admitted to billing Iswaran S$5,700 for a business-class ticket from Doha to Singapore only after CPIB investigators discovered Iswaran’s name on a flight manifest during an unrelated probe.
A second charge — alleging Ong instigated Iswaran to obtain flights and hotel stays despite knowing his official duties related to Ong’s business — was considered during sentencing but not pursued.
Forbes estimated Ong and his wife Christina Ong’s combined net worth at US$1.7 billion in 2024, placing them among Singapore’s wealthiest families.
“a pinch of salt in a big pot of soup”
The fine drew significant online attention, with many calling the amount negligible compared to Ong’s fortune.
On platforms including CNA, The Straits Times, Mothership, and Reddit, some users likened the fine to “S$3 for a billionaire” or “a pinch of salt in a big pot of soup”.
Others suggested Ong’s legal fees likely exceeded the penalty.
One commenter calculated that with a net worth of US$1.7 billion, Ong could afford to pay the fine more than 50,000 times over.
Several netizens argued that fines should scale with an offender’s wealth to ensure meaningful deterrence, suggesting formulas where penalties match a percentage of net worth.
Others questioned why the prosecution agreed with the defence’s judicial mercy application and did not oppose a non-custodial sentence.
Some suggested the investigative and judicial costs of the case exceeded the value of the fine.
Concerns over precedent
Some expressed fears that the ruling might set a precedent for offenders with incurable conditions to avoid jail terms.
Others argued the judge should have imposed symbolic imprisonment, even for a day, to reflect Singapore’s stated zero tolerance for corruption-related offences.
A number of comments stressed that prisons have medical facilities and could transfer inmates to hospitals if necessary, disputing that health concerns should fully preclude incarceration.
Meanwhile, some pointed out that Ong’s conviction was not for corruption but for obstruction of justice.
The post Netizens mock S$30k ‘peanut’ fine after Ong Beng Seng penalised for abetting Iswaran in obstructing justice appeared first on The Online Citizen.
