Iswaran did not know gifts from Ong Beng Seng, Lum Kok Seng were 'veiled gratification', says lawyer

SINGAPORE: Former Transport Minister S Iswaran did not know or suspect that gifts from property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and construction firm boss Lum Kok Seng were "veiled gratification", his lawyer said on Wednesday (May 8).

"He was dealing with very, very dear and close friends," said defence lawyer Davinder Singh during a court hearing to argue for a joint trial of all his charges.

"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, attended the hearing in the High Court on Wednesday. He was represented by Mr Singh, Mr Navin Thevar and Mr Rajvinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers.

He succeeded in his application to have all charges heard in the same trial, with a High Court judge agreeing with his arguments. 

Iswaran was first handed 27 charges on Jan 18 and given another eight charges on Mar 25.

The first set of charges comprises 24 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two of corruption and one of obstructing justice.

These include corruptly receiving more than S$166,000 (US$122,418) worth of flights, hotel stays and tickets to events in exchange for advancing the business interests of Mr Ong. 

In the second set of charges, Iswaran is accused of obtaining valuables worth nearly S$19,000 from Mr Lum Kok Seng, the managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings.

Iswaran has pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Mr Ong and Mr Lum have not been charged.

DEFENCE OPENS HEARING

Opening the hearing, Mr Singh set out the timeline of court events after his client was charged in January.

He told Justice Vincent Hoong - also set to be the trial judge - that tentative trial dates had been set for the first 27 charges – which he referred to as the OBS charges – in August and September, before Iswaran was given the second set of charges involving Mr Lum.

The prosecution had sought to "push off" the first set of charges, Mr Singh said. 

But the defence objected to having the second set of charges heard first and asked for all the charges to be heard together.

"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," Mr Singh said. 

Mr Singh added that the prosecution has not shown reasonable cause and that its claim of resource constraints was "extraordinary".

He pointed out that the prosecution had more lawyers than the defence did and that the issue had not cropped up when the trial dates were set for the first set of charges. 

He also suggested that the prosecution wanted separate trials so as to have a "preview" of the defence. 

Mr Singh argued that having resource constraints was "not a good basis" to adjourn a trial, as his client has been waiting for his day in court. 

The lawyer said that the charges should be heard in a joint trial due to "similar features" in the charges. He also pointed out that his client had a total of 32 charges of obtaining valuables as a public servant.

"(A grand total of 32 charges) all invoking a section which has never, to my knowledge, been invoked in Singapore courts. This is going to be the first time the Singapore courts are dealing with (Section) 165, its ingredients and what defence is available," said Mr Singh. 

This was a matter of public interest, he argued.  

On his client's state of mind during the alleged offences, Mr Singh pointed out that Iswaran had been aware of the Ministers' Code of Conduct. Under the code, ministers are not prevented from accepting gifts from family or personal friends in a "genuinely personal capacity". 

PROSECUTION'S REBUTTAL 

Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng and four other Deputy Public Prosecutors appeared for the prosecution. 

Mr Tai argued that there was "no basis" for a joint trial of all the charges.

He said that "certain statements made" may cast the prosecution in a negative light and he had to set the record straight. 

"We asked for the (Lum Kok Seng) charges to be tried first and OBS charges to be tried consecutively. Two trials. It has been consistent. We have not deviated from this position today," he added.

He rejected Mr Singh's claim that the prosecution had sought to “push off” the OBS charges, arguing that the defence had been aware early on of the possibility of further charges. 

“Even at the first criminal case disclosure conference, everyone knew there was (a) possibility of further charges and while trial dates were given, these were tentative because the defence wanted an early trial and we wanted to accommodate (their dates)," Mr Tai said.

A criminal case disclosure conference is a formal system in which both sides disclose information about the case to facilitate the trial. 

On the suggestion that the prosecution wanted to split the charges to have a preview of the defence, Mr Tai said: "With respect to defence if he has a good defence and shows reasonable doubt ... he would be acquitted. There is no issue of preview." 

Addressing why the two sets of charges were tendered separately, Mr Tai said the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had only completed investigations into the charges involving Mr Lum after the first set of charges were tendered in court. 

"We have a duty to conduct this case in public interest and it is not static duty, it's ongoing duty, so every time there is a considerable change in facts we need to review and decide what to do next," said the Deputy Attorney-General.  

He added it was "common practice" for the prosecution to proceed with some charges at trial and not others. In the prosecution's view, the two sets of charges have "no connection" and have different contexts. 

"The underlying transactions, in our view, that bring it under (Section) 165 are entirely different," he said, objecting to a joint trial.

In its submissions, the prosecution said the offences in both sets of charges were committed at different places and at different times, with circumstances "independent of each other" and involving separate relationships and dealings between the giver and Iswaran. 

On the defence's point about the prosecution alleging a lack of resources, Mr Tai said this was in the specific context of a concurrent trial, where a team of Deputy Public Prosecutors would be involved in both trials.

"The same team of Deputy Public Prosecutors would have difficulty dealing with (concurrent trials)… by the way, I think (the) defence have the same position, there would be a resource difficulty for both sides. It is not about how many Deputy Public Prosecutor (the Attorney-General's Chambers) has, that really wasn’t the issue.” 

Justice Hoong adjourned the hearing shortly before midday, with parties set to return in the afternoon.

When the hearing resumed, Mr Singh said: "(The prosecution's) submissions are noteworthy for what he did not say and did not address."

"Having told the whole world that this is a matter of public interest, why push (the OBS charges) back? That has not been addressed except by my learned friend saying that it is for the prosecution to decide that," said Mr Singh.

"By swapping, or rather, inserting the (Lum Kok Seng) charges first and pushing OBS back, and given the similarity in features, including state of mind ... they are effectively getting a preview of what our defence will be on the OBS charges before they even open the case of the OBS charges,  and that turns justice on its head." 

It was not right or fair for the prosecution to get a preview, he said. 

He pointed out that the prosecution also said that it might not proceed with the next set of charges, depending on the outcome of the first trial.

This suggests that the prosecution might not proceed with the OBS charges, noted Mr Singh. 

Addressing the prosecution's point on how investigations were ongoing even after Iswaran was first charged, Mr Singh produced a copy of parliament records dated Jan 9, 2024 when Education Minister Chan Chun Sing had replied to Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Hazel Poa's query on the status of CPIB investigations. 

Mr Chan had said then that the CPIB had completed a "robust and thorough" investigation, and the matter was being reviewed by the Attorney-General's Chambers. 

"I raised this because things do not accord with what was said earlier," said Mr Singh.

JUDGE'S DECISION 

Justice Hoong outlined two main issues: Whether the application for a joint trial was within the sole prerogative of the prosecution, and whether the charges were similar enough to be heard jointly. 

He found that the application for a joint trial was not just within the prosecution's prerogative. 

On the second issue, Justice Hoong determined that the Section 165 charges across both sets of charges were "legally identical". 

He noted that Mr Singh confirmed that Iswaran's state of mind across both sets was also "materially similar".  

That both sets of charges involve different givers, items received or witnesses did not indicate that they were factually dissimilar, the judge said, adding that the court was concerned with a wider similarity.

"For completeness, if I have to consider the prejudice that would be occasioned to (Iswaran with a separate trial), I would find that (he) raised reasonable concerns, including time, expense, and pressure with two separate trials which would inevitably arise," Justice Hoong. 

Leaving court more than seven hours after the start of his hearing, Iswaran told a media scrum, "Thank you for coming everyone, sorry it's been a very long day."

He declined to comment on the outcome of his hearing.