S Iswaran, Section 165 of the Penal Code and corruption within the Singapore civil service
- chooijy
- Oct 3, 2024
- 2 min read
Updated: Dec 10, 2024
The investigation into Singapore's former transport minister S Iswaran was first publicised in 2023. In a case of many firsts, it took some unexpected twists and turns before coming to an abrupt end in October 2024, when Iswaran pleaded guilty to the charges against him and was sentenced in the High Court by the Honourable Justice Vincent Hoong. No appeal was filed.
This was an extremely rare prosecution under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which reads:-
Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing, without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted, or about to be transacted, by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
Speaking to TODAY, Chooi Jing Yen said it appears that offences under Section 165 are “easier to prove” because the prosecution does not need to prove that a benefit was in exchange for the receiver agreeing to do something, as compared to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960.
Next, the case took a turn when Iswaran's lawyers brought a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal relating to how much material the Prosecution could be obliged to provide to the Defence ahead of trial, as part of the criminal case disclosure process under the Criminal Procdure Code 2010. This was unsuccesful. The judgment of the Court of Appeal can be accessed here:-
Finally, the much-anticipated trial did not take place as Iswaran pleaded guilty on the first day. The Prosecution sought a jail sentence of 6-7 months while the Defence argued for no more than 8 weeks' imprisonment. The Judge meted out a sentence of 12 months' jail. This was "unusual, but happens once in a while."
Speaking to CNA, Chooi Jing Yen elaborated:-
The judge is meant to apply the law and mete out the sentence based on the charges and the facts of the case. He is not bound by what parties submit. He is entitled to take the view that in any one case, the upper limit submitted by the prosecution is too low, or the lower limit submitted by the defence is too high.
The prosecution has discretion only in terms of what charges are preferred. Once this discretion is exercised and the accused is convicted, the judge is meant to be assisted by the prosecution and defence in the sentencing exercise, but is not bound to accept those arguments.
The Honourable Justice Vincent Hoong has released his full written judgment explaining the sentences meted out, which can be perused here:-
