8-5-2024 (SINGAPORE) In a riveting courtroom drama, the legal counsel representing former Transport Minister S Iswaran vehemently denied allegations that his client knowingly accepted gifts as a form of veiled gratification. The High Court hearing on Wednesday (May 8) witnessed a spirited defence as Iswaran’s lawyer, Davinder Singh, contended that the embattled ex-minister harboured no suspicions regarding the true motives behind the gifts bestowed upon him by property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and construction magnate Lum Kok Seng.
“He was dealing with very, very dear and close friends,” Singh asserted, underscoring the long-standing personal bonds that Iswaran shared with the two individuals. “His state of mind at that time was that not only was he dealing with close friends, he had no idea at all that there was any… he had no knowledge or suspicion that the gifts were offered as veiled gratification.”
Iswaran, 61, made a resolute appearance in the High Court on Wednesday, flanked by his formidable legal team comprising Singh, Navin Thevar, and Rajvinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers. The proceedings centred around the former minister’s successful bid to have all charges levelled against him consolidated into a single, comprehensive trial.
The 61-year-old’s legal woes commenced on January 18 when he was slapped with 27 charges, followed by an additional eight charges on March 25. The initial set of allegations comprised 24 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice. Among the more damning accusations was the alleged acceptance of over S$166,000 (US$122,418) worth of flights, hotel stays, and event tickets in exchange for advancing the business interests of Ong Beng Seng.
The second tranche of charges levelled against Iswaran accused him of obtaining valuables worth nearly S$19,000 from Lum Kok Seng, the managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings. Iswaran has maintained his innocence, pleading not guilty to all charges, while Ong and Lum have yet to be formally charged.
In his opening remarks, Singh meticulously outlined the chronology of court events following his client’s initial indictment in January. He revealed that tentative trial dates for the first 27 charges, dubbed the “OBS charges,” had been scheduled for August and September, prior to the introduction of the second set of charges involving Lum.
Singh contended that the prosecution had sought to “push off” the first set of charges, a move that the defence vehemently opposed, insisting instead on a consolidated trial encompassing all charges. “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 (Lum Kok Seng) charges. That cannot happen unless the prosecution satisfies you that there is reasonable cause for that,” Singh asserted, addressing Justice Vincent Hoong, the presiding judge.
The defence counsel further accused the prosecution of failing to establish reasonable cause, dismissing their claims of resource constraints as “extraordinary.” Singh pointed out that the prosecution boasted a larger legal team than the defence and questioned why such concerns had not arisen during the initial scheduling of trial dates for the first set of charges.
Moreover, Singh suggested that the prosecution’s true motive might be to gain a “preview” of the defence’s strategy, a proposition he deemed inherently unfair.
Underscoring the gravity of the case, Singh highlighted that the charges invoked Section 165, a provision that has never before been invoked in Singapore’s courts. “This is going to be the first time the Singapore courts are dealing with (Section) 165, its ingredients and what defence is available,” he argued, framing the case as a matter of public interest.
Singh also emphasized that Iswaran had been fully cognizant of the Ministers’ Code of Conduct, which permits ministers to accept gifts from family or personal friends in a “genuinely personal capacity.”
In a robust rebuttal, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng, and four other Deputy Public Prosecutors refuted Singh’s assertions, arguing that there was “no basis” for a joint trial of all charges. Tai rejected the notion that the prosecution sought a preview of the defence, stating, “With respect to defence if he has a good defence and shows reasonable doubt… he would be acquitted. There is no issue of preview.”
Tai clarified that the decision to tender the charges separately stemmed from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s (CPIB) ongoing investigations into the charges involving Lum, which concluded after the initial charges were filed. He maintained that the two sets of charges were unconnected, involving distinct contexts and underlying transactions.
As the hearing stretched into the afternoon, Singh remained steadfast, chastising the prosecution for failing to address why the OBS charges were being “pushed back.” He reiterated his concerns about the prosecution gaining an unfair advantage by potentially previewing the defence’s strategy, asserting, “That turns justice on its head.”
In a surprising twist, Singh produced parliamentary records from January 9, 2024, wherein Education Minister Chan Chun Sing had stated that the CPIB had completed a “robust and thorough” investigation into the matter, contradicting the prosecution’s claims of ongoing inquiries.
Ultimately, Justice Hoong ruled in favour of a joint trial, finding that the application was not solely within the prosecution’s purview. He determined that the charges under Section 165 were “legally identical” across both sets, and Iswaran’s state of mind was “materially similar.” Acknowledging the potential prejudice to Iswaran stemming from separate trials, including the time, expense, and pressure, Justice Hoong granted the defence’s request.
As Iswaran departed the courthouse after a gruelling seven-hour hearing, he offered a brief statement to the assembled media, “Thank you for coming everyone, sorry it’s been a very long day,” before declining further comment on the outcome.
