The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) recently withdrew corruption charges against former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran, citing challenges in prosecution.
The AGC explained that proving corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) would be difficult, particularly as both Iswaran and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng (OBS) would likely avoid implicating themselves.
This explanation is perplexing, particularly when considering the legal framework provided under Section 8 of the PCA, which mirrors the presumption of guilt often applied in drug trafficking cases.
Under the PCA, once a public official accepts any form of gratification, corruption is presumed unless the official can prove otherwise.
This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused, much like in drug trafficking cases, where possession of a certain quantity of drugs triggers a presumption of trafficking, as detailed in Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).
Former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reaffirmed Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption in Parliament in August last year, saying, “We firmly believe that to maintain an honest political system and for the people to continue to trust the PAP, we must deal with issues transparently.”
“Therefore, when anyone, including Ministers or MPs, are involved in corruption or illegal behaviour, there is zero tolerance, and we will investigate fully. If the investigation finds that there was no wrongdoing or conflict of interest, the matter would be closed and those involved exonerated. If the investigation shows that there is misconduct, they would be dealt with the full force of the law.”
The PCA’s Section 8 is a cornerstone of this zero-tolerance policy. It ensures that public officials who receive any form of gratification must rebut the presumption of corruption, placing the burden of proof on them.
This provision is highlighted on the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) website under the heading “Ensuring Incorruptibility of the Public Service”, where it states: “The PCA also provides for a presumption where any gratification given or received by a person in the employment of the Government or of a public body is deemed corrupt.”
“The burden of proof to rebut the presumption lies with the person. In addition, public officers are expected to report any case where gratification is offered, accepted or demanded.” This demonstrates how integral Section 8 is to safeguarding the integrity of Singapore’s public service, underscoring its role as a key pillar in the country’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption.”
Yet, the AGC did not appear to place much, if any, emphasis on Section 8 when dealing with Iswaran’s case, despite this provision being a powerful legal tool designed to combat corruption.
This omission becomes more striking when experienced lawyers highlight that it is very difficult to rebut a presumption at law, especially in cases involving the PCA.
It is rare for the defense to successfully challenge such presumptions, making it puzzling why Section 8 was not given more importance in this prosecution.
Corruption vs. Drug Trafficking: Legal Parallels
Section 8 of the PCA operates in a similar fashion to drug trafficking cases under the MDA. In both instances, the law presumes guilt once certain thresholds are met—gratification in corruption cases, and possession in drug trafficking cases.
In Iswaran’s case, the AGC initially charged him under Section 6(a) of the PCA, which should have triggered the presumption of corruption under Section 8. However, the charges were later downgraded to Section 165 of the Penal Code, which deals with public officials accepting gifts without requiring proof of corrupt intent, and carries significantly lighter penalties.
The AGC’s reasoning for withdrawing the PCA charges—that both Iswaran and Ong might deny allegations of corruption—is juvenile and preposterous.
When the AGC decided to prosecute Iswaran, it must have been fully aware that both parties would deny the charges.
In fact, this denial is precisely why the PCA’s Section 8 exists: to shift the burden of proof onto the accused, making it their responsibility to disprove the presumption of corruption.
By claiming that a denial of guilt from both parties would complicate prosecution, the AGC’s justification becomes nonsensical. It is inconceivable that this was not anticipated at the start, making the decision to drop the charges difficult to justify.
To illustrate how the presumption of guilt is applied in drug trafficking cases, we can look at the 2018 Court of Appeal ruling in Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor.
The court noted that once possession of a certain quantity of drugs is established, the presumption of trafficking applies, shifting the burden to the accused to prove otherwise.
The judgment emphasized that “it was incumbent on [Zainal] to adduce evidence to raise a reasonable doubt” and that mere denials or weak explanations are insufficient to discharge this presumption.
Without credible evidence to counter the presumption, the court ruled that the accused was rightly convicted.
This demonstrates that once the presumption of guilt is triggered, the defense must provide substantial evidence to rebut it—something seldom successfully achieved.
The Decision to Downgrade to Section 165: A Simpler but Less Severe Offence
Downgrading the charges to Section 165 of the Penal Code, a provision used for the first time in Singapore’s 153-year legal history since the Penal Code was introduced in 1871, further complicates public understanding of this case.
Section 165 focuses on the act of a public servant accepting valuable items from individuals connected to their official duties without needing to prove corrupt intent.
Although the charges against Iswaran under this section are easier to prove than corruption under the PCA, the offence carries significantly lighter penalties. The law targets improper acceptance of gifts, but without the severity or focus on corrupt intent seen in the PCA.
This shift towards a lesser charge under Section 165 is seen as lenient, especially given the nature of the allegations.
While the AGC cited “litigation risks” in pursuing the PCA charges, the downgrade effectively softens the seriousness of the offence. Iswaran now faces a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 165, compared to the seven years possible under the PCA.
However, the prosecution has indicated that they will be seeking a sentence of 6-7 months for the four amended charges under Section 165, and one charge under Section 204A for obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
This raises further questions about whether public trust and justice are being adequately served. This approach contrasts sharply with Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance, especially considering the case of Wee Toon Boon, who was handed a six-month sentence simply for accepting roofing worth S$3,500.
In Iswaran’s case, the gifts allegedly received were far more extravagant—S$384,000 in gifts from Ong Beng Seng, and S$18,920.94 from David Lum.
The comparatively lenient sentence being sought, despite the substantial value of the gifts and the scope of the allegations, underscores a disconnect between the rhetoric of zero tolerance and the actions taken in this case.
This discrepancy is all the more striking when placed beside Wee’s case, where a much smaller gift led to a sentence of six months.
Public’s expectation on transparency and accountability
At its core, the public expects transparency and accountability, especially in cases involving senior public officials like Iswaran.
The decision to withdraw stronger corruption charges, particularly when Section 8 of the PCA could have been invoked, risks eroding public confidence in Singapore’s administration of justice.
When a senior public official is implicated in a corruption case, the public expects rigorous legal standards to apply, particularly given the strong anti-corruption stance that Singapore is known for.
The zero-tolerance approach to corruption in Singapore is founded on clear and consistent application of the law.
The AGC’s decision to downgrade corruption charges against S Iswaran, despite the legal mechanisms available under Section 8 of the PCA, contrasts starkly with how the law handles drug trafficking cases under the MDA.
Both legal frameworks share the goal of combating severe societal issues, and both rely on presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the accused when possession or gratification is established.
By downgrading the charges to a simpler offence under Section 165, the AGC risks undermining the consistency and integrity of Singapore’s legal system, raising questions about whether justice was truly served in this case.
