Iswaran's jail sentence signals Singapore's stance on integrity, good ...

Updated

Oct 04, 2024, 10:04 AM

Published

Oct 03, 2024, 09:59 PM

SINGAPORE – The sentencing of former transport minister S. Iswaran to one year in jail – almost double what the prosecution asked for – sends a strong signal that there is no compromise when it comes to conduct and integrity, said analysts.

While the jail term surprised some who have been following the case, legal experts noted that it is not unheard of for the courts to mete out harsher punishment where deemed appropriate.

In sentencing Iswaran, Justice Vincent Hoong had said the requests of both the prosecution and defence were “manifestly inadequate”. The prosecution had sought six to seven months’ jail, while Iswaran’s lawyers argued for no more than eight weeks.

Iswaran had on Sept 24 admitted to one charge of obstruction of justice and four charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code, including obtaining valuable items from businessman Ong Beng Seng while in his official capacity.

It is established law in Singapore that a sentencing judge is not bound by the submitted sentence, said Assistant Professor Benny Tan, who teaches law at the National University of Singapore.

A recent example was the case of Karl Liew, the son of Changi Airport Group’s former chairman Liew Mun Leong, who was hauled to court for lying under oath in the case involving his family’s former maid. District Judge Eugene Teo sentenced Liew to two weeks in jail, instead of the maximum fine of $5,000 sought by both the prosecution and defence.

Singapore Management University’s Associate Professor Eugene Tan, who teaches law, said Iswaran’s sentence showed that the court “placed a premium on maintaining the integrity of the public sector”. The court is not bound by the parties’ submissions on sentencing, even if both sides are aligned, he added.

Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) law lecturer Alexander Joseph Woon said Iswaran’s case is “encouraging evidence” that law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and the courts here are not afraid to go after prominent and powerful individuals.

“Deterrence is necessary for those who can’t, or won’t, absorb (the strong culture of integrity already present in the public service),” he said.

However, Mr Woon noted that deterrence alone may not be enough. The stronger safeguard against abuse is to ensure that the public service continues to reinforce its culture of integrity and transparency, he said.

“As with any other type of offence, if people cease to see such conduct as wrongful, it will be an uphill task for the justice system to address the issue because of the increase in volume of infractions,” he added.

Former Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) director Soh Kee Hean made the point that it cannot be said that the prosecution was overly lenient in its sentencing recommendation as there was no precedent to consider.

Iswaran is the first to be prosecuted under Section 165 of the Penal Code in post-independent Singapore.

The 12-month sentence should, rather, be seen as the judge setting a benchmark for future cases, said Associate Professor Soh, who teaches criminal investigation, public safety and security at SUSS.

This benchmark is based on Justice Hoong’s belief that there is a higher bar for people in high leadership positions, said Prof Soh, who was CPIB director from 2005 to 2010.

Agreeing with the position taken, he said people in high leadership positions “must really set the tone from the top and walk the talk”, adding that leaders who don’t conduct themselves properly “don’t really have moral authority over their staff and other people”.

People working under them will take it that “that is the way they can also behave and follow suit”, causing misconduct in the public service to proliferate, he added.

Dr Gillian Koh, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, said the case sends an important signal that there will be “no compromise to good governance” in Singapore.

This is particularly important given the country’s standing as a global business hub, she said, adding: “The notions of fair play, integrity and decision-making on the basis of merit must continue to be our calling card.”

Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption could be seen by how Iswaran’s actions opened up the former minister to a criminal offence, Dr Koh added.

The saga also showed that allegations are properly investigated, with due process carried out. She said: “Venality must not become systemic or endemic.”

Iswaran’s charging and sentencing reinforce Singapore’s strong stance when it comes to integrity, and is what makes the country extraordinary, she said.

This ethic of integrity has to be reinforced among citizens, businessmen, those in government and across all political parties in Singapore, she stressed.

Experts acknowledged that the ruling by Justice Hoong on Iswaran’s case might cause some anxiety among public servants and the business community.

There may be concern about how they should carry themselves going forward, but some renewed clarity on the guidelines or the rules of conduct, in particular surrounding gifts, would help to abate it, they added.

Prof Soh said the public service could refresh these rules so that public servants know where the boundaries are.

“We do need the public service and business community to work in partnership, especially in this modern economy,” he said, citing issues such as permits, licensing and economic policies as areas the two have to work together on.

The reminder on rules will also be useful for the business community to take note of as they also do not want to cross any lines, he added.

“Otherwise, it keeps everybody at arm’s length. But you also need human relationships between government and the business community, which is an important driver for economic development. We don’t want some of the good practices that we have to be rolled back as a result,” he said.

While Prof Eugene Tan agreed that both sides must be able to work well together, he said dealing with others at arm’s length “is and must be” the established norm in the public sector, and the two were not mutually exclusive.

“Valuable gifts have no place where public sector decision-making is concerned. That has always been clear. If gifts are needed to ‘lubricate’ dealings, we are on our way down where incorruptibility is concerned,” he said.

Where gifts are unavoidable, there are clear rules on what then needs to be done by way of declaration, he stressed.

In response to queries from The Straits Times, a Public Service Division (PSD) spokeswoman said there are clear rules in the public service’s code of conduct on acceptance of gifts.

These are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain relevant, she added.

“Officers must not ask for gifts, especially when they are in a position to influence or affect any decision involving the other party,” she said.

“Officers must not accept any gift offered to them on account of their official position or their official work. If it is not possible to decline or impractical to do so, they must then declare and account for it according to established processes.”

PSD also has a system involving various channels to ensure the rules are known and observed, the spokeswoman said. This includes on-boarding of new entrants, annual declarations and quizzes, incorporation into milestone programmes and regular service-wide reminders.

These help officers understand not just the letter of the rule, but also the spirit behind it, she said.

On the political front, analysts generally felt that the sentencing would not make a long-term dent in the People’s Action Party’s image. 

Independent political observer Felix Tan said: “The drama surrounding S. Iswaran was initially fodder for gossip and speculations, but that has abated considerably.”

Prof Eugene Tan agreed, adding that the ruling party’s stance against corruption is well-known and longstanding.