Iswaran Reportedly Didn’t Know Gifts Received Were “Veiled Gratification”

Iswaran made his way to the High Court once again yesterday (8 May) to request for a joint trial for his two sets of charges.

But why?

First Set of Charges

On 18 January 2024, former Transport Minister S Iswaran was charged in court with 27 charges, including corruption (two charges), obtaining valuables as a public servant (24 charges), and obstructing justice (one charge).

24 of his 27 charges are connected to Iswaran allegedly accepting more than $166,000 worth of gifts with no consideration from Malaysian businessman Ong Beng Seng, with the first incident being when Iswaran accepted a pair of tickets to the show Thriller from Mr Ong in 2015.

Iswaran allegedly accepted gifts such as tickets to shows and matches, hotel stays, and flights from Mr Ong from November 2015 to December 2022.

To know more about this set of charges, watch the video below.

Second Set of Charges

On 25 March 2024, Iswaran was handed another eight charges, not connected to Mr Ong.

Iswaran is alleged to have received gifts worth nearly $19,000 from construction firm boss Lum Kok Seng, including a set of Honma Beres BE-08 Black AQ MX golf clubs, a Brompton T Line bicycle, and various bottles of alcohol.

Like Pritam Singh, who delivered his iconic “Why do you normally come to the States Court?” line before someone fell down, Iswaran also delivered a one-liner… and someone fell down.

Want to know more about this set of charges and what Iswaran said? Watch the video below to find out.

Why You’re Hearing About S Iswaran Again

No, the reason you’re hearing about Iswaran again isn’t that he got handed another set of charges, or that his trial has started.

He already has his hands full with the first two sets.

This time, you’re hearing about Iswaran because he applied to have all his charges heard in the same trial, so he won’t have to face separate trials for each set of charges.

Application For A Joint Trial

Iswaran appeared in the High Court on 8 May for a hearing to argue for a joint trial of all his charges. He was represented by Mr Davinder Singh, Mr Navin Thevar, and Mr Rajvinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers.

During the hearing, Mr Davinder Singh set out the timeline of court events after Iswaran was first charged in January.

Speaking to Justice Vincent Hoong, who is also set to be the trial judge, Mr Davinder Singh said that tentative trial dates had been set for the first set of charges – which he referred to as the OBS charges, in August and September, before Iswaran was given the second set of charges involving Mr Lum.

According to Mr Singh, the prosecution had sought to “push off” the first set of charges.

However, the defence objected to having the second set of charges heard first (the Lum Kok Seng charges) and asked for all 35 charges to be heard together in a joint trial.

“In truth, the OBS trial hadn’t been fixed, what the prosecution was and is today seeking is to push off the OBS trial and to use the dates that have been allocated for the OBS charges, for the (Mr Lum) charges,” Mr Singh said.

He added that “that cannot happen unless the prosecution satisfies you that there is reasonable cause for that.”

According to the lawyer, the prosecution has not shown reasonable cause. Mr Singh also said that the prosecution’s claim of resource constraints was “extraordinary”.

You’d realise how “extraordinary” this claim is when you realise that the prosecution had more lawyers than the defence did.

Mr Singh also pointed out that the issue had not emerged when the trial dates were set for the first 27 charges.

Mr Singh suggested that the prosecution wanted separate trials so as to have a “preview” of the defence and argued that having resource constraints was “not a good basis” to adjourn a trial, as his client has been waiting for his day in court.

As to why the charges should be heard in a joint trial, Mr Singh said that the charges had “similar features”, and said that Iswaran had a total of 32 charges of obtaining valuables as a public servant.

“(A grand total of 32 charges) all invoking a section which has never, to my knowledge, been invoked in Singapore courts. This is going to be the first time the Singapore courts are dealing with (Section) 165, its ingredients and what defence is available,” said Mr Singh.

He also said this was a matter of public interest.

Section 165 makes it an offence for a public servant to accept or obtain any valuable thing, for free or for inadequate payment, from any person connected with his official duties.

To Iswaran, The Gifts Were Just That – Gifts

With this hearing, we get to know something new.

Mr Singh said Iswaran did not know or suspect that gifts from Mr Ong and Mr Lum were “veiled gratification”.

“He was dealing with very, very dear and close friends,” said Mr Singh.

Mr Singh also said that during the alleged offences, Iswaran had been aware of the Minister’s Code of Conduct. Under the code, ministers are not prevented from accepting gifts from family or personal friends in a “genuinely personal capacity”.

Life would be pretty sad for ministers without this code. Imagine it’s your birthday and you can’t receive anything from your friends and even your family just because you’re a minister.

So, because of this code, Iswaran would technically not be in the wrong if all the gifts from Mr Ong and Mr Lum were given in a “genuinely personal capacity”.

Mr Singh said the defence will be contending that Section 165 does not “catch” cases where gifts were given because of friendship.

Prosecution Argues Against Joint Trial

During the hearing, the prosecution comprised six individuals, including Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng and four other Deputy Public Prosecutors.

Reason For Two Separate Trials

Mr Tai said that the prosecution had the prerogative to decide which charges to proceed on in criminal proceedings.

To explain why the two sets of charges were tendered separately, he said the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had only completed investigations into the charges involving Mr Lum after the first set of charges were tendered in court.

When the first set of charges was tendered on 18 January, investigations on the second set of charges were still ongoing.

After the additional charges were tendered later on, the prosecution then decided to proceed with those first, pushing the first set of charges back.

Argument Against A Joint Trial

Mr Tai said that “certain statements made” may cast the prosecution in a negative light and he had to set the record straight.

“We asked for the (second set of) charges to be tried first and OBS charges to be tried consecutively. Two trials. It has been consistent. We have not deviated from this position today,” said Mr Tai.

Rebutting the defence, he said that the legal criteria for a joint trial had not been met.

Mr Tai said the only way to proceed with a joint trial would be if Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code was satisfied.

Section 133 states that when a person is accused of two or more offences, the person may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of those offences, if the offences are the same or similar.

With regards to the defence’s claim that the prosecution wanted to split the charges to have a preview of the defence, Mr Tai argued: “With respect to defence, if he has a good defence and shows reasonable doubt … he would be acquitted. There is no issue of preview.”

“Common Practice” To Proceed With Some Charges

“We have a duty to conduct this case in public interest and it is not static duty, it’s ongoing duty, so every time there is a considerable change in facts we need to review and decide what to do next,” said Mr Tai.

Mr Tai also mentioned it was “common practice” for the prosecution to proceed with some charges at trial and not others.

The prosecution believes the two sets of charges have “no connection” and have different contexts, and hence should be heard in separate trials.

“The underlying transactions, in our view, that bring it under (Section) 165 are entirely different,” Mr Tai said.

The prosecution said the offences in both sets of charges were committed at different places and at different times, with circumstances “independent of each other” and involving separate relationships and dealings between the giver and Iswaran.

Defence Argues Back

“(The prosecution’s) submissions are noteworthy for what he did not say and did not address,” said Mr Singh.

“Having told the whole world that this is a matter of public interest, why push (the OBS charges) back? That has not been addressed except by my learned friend saying that it is for the prosecution to decide that,” he continued.

Mr Singh argued that by inserting the second set of charges first and pushing the OBS charges back, considering the similarity in features as well as state of mind, the prosecution will “effectively (get) a preview of what (their) defence will be on the OBS charges before they even open the case of the OBS charges, and that turns justice on its head.”

He added that it was not right or fair for the prosecution to get a preview.

Mr Singh also pointed out that the prosecution also said that it might not proceed with the next set of charges, depending on the outcome of the first trial.

In response to the prosecution’s point on how investigations were ongoing even after Iswaran was first charged, Mr Singh produced a copy of parliament records dated 9 January 2024, when Education Minister Chan Chun Sing had replied to Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Hazel Poa’s query on the status of CPIB investigations.

Mr Chan had said then that the CPIB had completed a “robust and thorough” investigation, and the matter was being reviewed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

“I raised this because things do not accord with what was said earlier,” said Mr Singh.

Joint Trial Has Been Granted

At the end of the full-day hearing, Iswaran succeeded in his application for a joint trial.

Justice Hoong outlined two main issues: Whether the application for a joint trial was within the sole prerogative of the prosecution, and whether the charges were similar enough to be heard jointly.

He found that the application for a joint trial was not solely within the prosecution’s prerogative.

Justice Hoong also determined that the Section 165 charges across both sets of charges were “legally identical”, and allegedly arose out of Iswaran’s duties as a public servant.

He also noted that Mr Singh confirmed that Iswaran’s state of mind across both sets was also “materially similar”.

Adding on, the judge said that the fact that both sets of charges involve different givers, items received, or witnesses, did not indicate that they were factually dissimilar, noting that the court was concerned with a wider similarity.

It’s like saying even though you cheated on two different exams in different subjects, the bottom line is that you still cheated. It doesn’t matter when the cheating occurred, what the subject was, or who saw you cheating.

Justice Hoong said the legal requirement for the charges to be “a series of offences of the same or a similar character” was satisfied.

“For completeness, if I have to consider the prejudice that would be occasioned to (Iswaran with a separate trial), I would find that (he) raised reasonable concerns, including time, expense, and pressure with two separate trials which would inevitably arise,” the judge added.

The hearing finally concluded seven hours after it started (with a break in the middle), and Iswaran said to the media: “Thank you for coming everyone, sorry it’s been a very long day.”