SINGAPORE: A protracted legal battle royale was expected, but the much-anticipated trial of former minister S Iswaran ended almost as quickly as it began on Tuesday (Sep 24). It was an unexpected twist, perhaps even anti-climactic.
He pleaded guilty to four Penal Code Section 165 charges (for taking gifts as a public servant from someone with whom he has an official business relationship) and one charge for the obstruction of justice. Sentencing will take place on Oct 3.
It is very likely that a plea bargain was proposed and negotiated. It does not matter which party initiated it – ultimately, both parties agreed to it.
The Public Prosecutor (PP) exercised its prosecutorial discretion, a constitutional power, to amend two charges originally under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Related:
Iswaran pleads guilty: Key moments from graft probe to trial DID THE PROSECUTION GO EASY ON ISWARAN?However, it would be erroneous to conclude that the PP has gone easy on the former Member of Parliament (MP) by proceeding with fewer charges (five, down from 35) and less severe offences (amended from the PCA to Section 165 Penal Code charges. Far from it. The PP’s arguments in court do not point to a change of heart.
For example, the PP (and the government) regard Section 165 Penal Code as a corruption offence, serving a more targeted purpose of ensuring that public servants do not put themselves in a position of conflict of interest knowingly or otherwise in the course of their official duties. Iswaran, however, took the position that in pleading guilty to Section 165 Penal Code charges, he was not pleading guilty to any corruption offence.
Although both sides disagree vehemently on whether Section 165 of the Penal Code is an offence of corruption, Iswaran’s guilty plea to the amended charges suggests that each side largely secured what they sought.
For the PP, the guilty plea removes the uncertainty of whether a conviction can be secured, given the more onerous evidential burden under the PCA to prove the receiver agreed to do something that benefits the giver. Iswaran pleaded guilty to obtaining items, such as F1 hospitality suite tickets, a private jet flight and a hotel stay “for no consideration” under the amended charges.
In criminal prosecutions, the PP acts in the public interest and this includes not securing a conviction at all costs. With about 70 hearing days scheduled originally, the abrupt end to the case also saves significant public resources while holding the accused accountable for his actions.
Related:
CNA Explains: Why did the prosecution amend the charges brought against Iswaran? 
Snap Insight: Iswaran criminal charges underscore Singapore’s zero tolerance against corruption For Iswaran, he will likely be subjected to a lower sentence than if he had contested the original set of charges and lost. The PP determinedly made the case for 6 to 7 months’ jail while the defence strenuously argued for no more than 8 weeks, if a jail term is warranted.
The High Court will decide what is the appropriate penalty, taking into consideration Iswaran’s degree of culpability, the abuse of trust while holding high public office, and mitigating factors such as the disgorgement of the gifts and entering a guilty plea at the outset of the trial.
The court will also take into consideration the 30 other charges in sentencing. Iswaran consented to this for the purposes of sentencing. He is considered to have admitted to these charges even though he is not convicted of them.
MORE POLITICS THAN LAW?Neither is this is a case of both sides to trying to conclude the matter hastily. With the current Parliament having less than 11 months left of its five-year term, segments of the online sphere speculated that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is concerned that a lengthy trial will not help its election cause and suck the oxygen out of its campaign.
Even if one or both parties may want the matter to be disposed of quickly, they have no influence or control over it. Either or both parties may file appeals on the penalty after the Oct 3 sentencing, so this case will continue to make the headlines next year.
Had the prosecution been driven by political considerationshoya88, it would have agreed to a minimal custodial sentence to avoid an appeal.
Sketch of Iswaran at the High Court on Sep 24, 2024. (Image: CNA/Nathan Magindren)