25-1-2024 (SINGAPORE) Former Transport Minister S Iswaran faced charges of corruption and multiple offenses last week, leaving many questioning why his alleged accomplice, billionaire hotelier Ong Beng Seng, was not simultaneously charged despite being implicated in almost all 27 charges.
Iswaran is accused of receiving items exceeding S$384,000 (US$287,000) from Ong, including Singapore F1 Grand Prix tickets and an all-expenses-paid trip to Doha, allegedly in exchange for advancing Ong’s business interests.
Both individuals were arrested on July 11 last year and investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) addressed media queries, clarifying that decisions regarding Ong’s prosecution would be made post-Iswaran trial, following the presentation of evidence in court.
Prosecutorial Discretion
Legal experts and lawyers shed light on the AGC’s approach, emphasizing prosecutorial discretion as a fundamental factor. According to Mr. Alexander Woon, a law lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, the attorney-general’s discretionary powers allow flexibility in deciding when to bring charges. However, this discretion must be exercised responsibly, prioritizing public interest and due process.
Various Considerations
Legal professionals revealed that charging accused parties at different times is not uncommon. Nicolas Tang, Managing Director of Farallon Law, highlighted that withholding charges could encourage cooperation from some individuals, aiding the conviction of already charged parties. This approach is particularly relevant in corruption cases where witnesses’ testimonies are crucial.
Associate Professor Mervyn Cheong from the National University of Singapore (NUS) emphasized the need to focus on the accused’s intention, suggesting that charging multiple parties might complicate the case unnecessarily.
Defence Implications
Lawyers expressed differing opinions on whether simultaneous charging benefits defence counsel. While some argue for a “complete picture” when all parties are charged, others suggest sequential prosecutions may offer strategic advantages, especially if earlier charges fail.
Prosecution Depending on Ong’s Cooperation
Questions arose regarding the delay in Ong’s prosecution, with speculation that the AGC may be assessing the tycoon’s cooperation. Mr. Tang suggested that charging Ong simultaneously with Iswaran might hinder cooperation, potentially resulting in less evidence for Iswaran’s case. Balancing priorities and considering public interest are key factors in the AGC’s decision-making process.
Legal Perspectives on Iswaran’s Case
Iswaran faces charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with a presumption of corruption due to his former Cabinet minister position. Assoc Prof Cheong highlighted that Iswaran bears the burden of proving he did not corruptly obtain gratification.
Criminal lawyer Adrian Wee questioned the need to wait for Iswaran’s case to conclude before deciding on Ong’s charges. Wee argued that corruption involves mutual participation, and Ong’s testimony in Iswaran’s trial could be crucial, challenging the necessity of the delay.
