DEFENCE EXPLAINS WHY GUILTY PLEA COMES ONLY NOW
Defence counsel Davinder Singh began his arguments on sentence by asking the judge to consider what was “the state of play and the complexion of the case” before the prosecution indicated it would no longer be proceeding with the corruption charges.
CPIB commenced investigations in July 2023.
“At that time, my client had been an MP since 1997, and had served as a minister since 2006. It’s important to understand what was being understood at that time as being at the heart of the case against my client,” said Mr Singh.
He cited statements by agencies, multiple news articles about Iswaran’s arrest, and debates in parliament, focusing on the two corruption charges when the bulk of Iswaran’s charges were under Section 165.
Mr Singh read out headlines from the BBC, CNA and The Straits Times, including the titles of liveblogs published on Tuesday morning itself.
“Mr Iswaran’s position from day one has been that the (corruption) charges were baseless. He denied the charges from the very first, and has consistently maintained that position,” said Mr Singh.
“He was put in the position where he had to contest the case against him in light of the (corruption) charges. As your honour will remember, to that end he requested an early trial. He was the accused, yet he was the one who wanted the trial to take place as soon as possible.”
He said it was Iswaran who applied for a joint trial.
“He did not want any delay of the trial of the Ong Beng Seng charges, which included the two (corruption) charges, as he told the court that he was concerned that Mr Ong is 78 and it would be prejudicial and unfair to him, if because of his age or health Mr Ong is unable to testify,” said Mr Singh. “In other words, it was important for him to be acquitted in court in relation to the charges involving Mr Ong Beng Seng, which included the (corruption) charges.”
Mr Singh said his client’s case was understood to be a case involving corruption charges, while the other offences were described as “other offences” or “lesser charges”.
“Why is that relevant?” he asked. “It is relevant because if the reality in Singapore is that – that is how the (corruption) charges are understood, and given how Singaporeans view the (corruption) charges as evidenced by these reports, it was not only reasonable but entirely necessary for my client to contest the (corruption) charges.”
He said that was what Iswaran did until the prosecution amended the charges to charges under Section 165.
“That event, on account of the further representations, changed the complexion of the entire case and of course changed the seriousness of the allegation under the (corruption) charges,” said Mr Singh.
He explained that the disgorgement could not have been made earlier, because it would have impacted on the defence not just on the corruption charges but all other charges and would have “coloured the view taken on those charges”.
Mr Singh said Iswaran recognises it was wrong of him to have accepted the items from the two men under Section 165.
He “readily disclosed” the gifts when first interviewed by CPIB and said they were given to him in the context of his friendships with Mr Ong and Mr Lum.
“Mr Iswaran also considered that although he was not aware of Section 165 of the Penal Code at the material time, he fully understands that ignorance of the law is no excuse,” said Mr Singh.
With the amendment of the charges, Iswaran believes that “it is the right thing to do to accept that what he did was wrong under Section 165”, said the lawyer.
“Mr Iswaran is also very mindful of not wanting the people who he loves the most, his family, to continue to bear the toll of what has happened.”
Iswaran’s wife, who was in the public gallery supporting him, bore no expression on her face as this was said.
Mr Singh argued that the ex-minister’s offences under Section 165 resulted in no harm or minimal harm, with no loss caused as the items were given either as a gift or of the giver’s own accord.
He noted that Iswaran was appointed minister of transport only between May 2021 and January 2024. The contract Mr Lum was interested in was before this period, and LTA did not award any contract to Mr Lum’s companies while Iswaran was transport minister.
Mr Singh also argued that there was no suggestion that Iswaran’s loyalty to the government was ever compromised.
“The fact that there is a prosecution against my client under 165 is the most powerful signal that can be sent,” said Mr Singh. “And if you ask anyone in Singapore, indeed outside Singapore today, about whether that signal has already been sent … the answer is yes!”
He said there was no suggestion that public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the government has been undermined.
“The time that the public learned about these items having been given to my client was the very same moment the government sent the signal that that is unacceptable. So we’re not talking about a case where these gifts have been given, the public is talking about it, it’s eroding trust in the government as it’s being seen as allowed. That’s not the case,” said Mr Singh.
He pointed to Iswaran’s charges and asked where there was any suggestion that the office or power as a minister was used, “much less misused or abused”.
“The public learnt that my client had accepted items at the same time as he was charged, and because he was charged. When the people in the society and the world find out about the items on the day my client is charged and because he is charged, what that does is uphold and send the strongest signal that the government is upholding its longstanding commitment to integrity and honest government. In other words, it will charge one of its own ministers,” said Mr Singh.
Taking issue with the prosecution’s submission that Iswaran was more than a passive acceptor of the gifts, the lawyer said: “No disrespect. I don’t follow this. If you look at the Doha charge, he was asked whether he’d like to go, and he said yes, and he had his reasons for going.”
“He wanted to see how a small city like Doha organises world-class events, which is relevant to Singapore. Where is the active? We need to draw a distinction between the fact that he was a public servant at that time and whether he actually leveraged on it,” said Mr Singh.
He said there was no factual basis for the prosecution to say Iswaran had compromised his position as chief negotiator for the government in terms of the F1 race.
