Lim Tean deems prosecutor’s move ‘absurd’ on dropping 9 charges against Iswaran

Lim Tean,  the leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), criticised prosecutors as ” the height of absurdity”, questioning their decision to drop nine charges against former Singapore Transport Minister S Iswaran.

He questions the rationale behind the prosecutor’s decision and expresses surprise at the swift alteration in the number of charges within two days.

Initially, Iswaran could have faced a total of 36 charges, instead of 27 charges.

As reported by state media CNA, Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng told the court that the other nine charges were not pursued after “considering all the evidence that was in this case”.

Iswaran could have faced 36 charges

On Thursday (18 January), former Transport Minister S Iswaran was charged in the State Courts with  27 offences, including corruption, receiving gratification as a public servant and obstructing justice.

The 61-year-old, who had also tendered his resignation from Parliament and the People’s Action Party (PAP), entered a plea of not guilty to all charges linked to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng.

The court heard that the charges included two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 24 counts related to receiving items from individuals with whom he had business dealings in his capacity as a public servant, and one charge for obstructing the course of justice under the Penal Code.

According to charge sheets, between 2015 and 2022, Iswaran received “valuable things” exceeding S$384,000 (US$285,000) from Ong, the man who brought Formula One to Singapore.

These included tickets to shows, football matches, and multiple editions of the Singapore F1 Grand Prix.

During yesterday’s court session, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, the lead lawyer for Iswaran, raised a significant concern regarding the number of charges.

He informed the judge that on Monday, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had charged his client, S Iswaran, with 36 charges and had taken cautioned statements on all 36 charges.

However, he learned from documents provided by the prosecution that the number of charges had been reduced to 27.

Mr Singh then asked the Chief Prosecutor Tan whether the prosecution intended to proceed with the remaining nine charges.

Chief Prosecutor: nine charges not proceeded after “considering all the evidence that was in this case”

In response, Chief Prosecutor Tan stated that the prosecution had decided not to proceed with the other nine charges after “considering all the evidence that was in this case”.

Mr Singh requested the court to note this decision, expressing his surprise at the swift change in position within two days.

“It would appear that in the matter of two days, a decision has been taken not to proceed with the nine charges,” Mr Singh told the judge.

He questioned the timing of the decision, highlighting the significance of the shift and emphasizing that he assumed a thorough review had taken place before the initial levelling of the nine charges.

“According to my learned friend, that is because they have reviewed all the evidence. But I would have thought, your honour, that the evidence would’ve been reviewed thoroughly before the 36 charges were levelled against my client on Monday. ”

“And so, for now, all I would say is that it is surprising but highly significant that after what I assumed was a thorough review and the levelling of the nine charges, in a matter of two days, there has been a complete change of position. I will say no more about that for now,” said Mr Singh.

Chief Prosecutor Tan responded by explaining that the evidence considered included whatever the accused (Iswaran) had stated in his cautioned statements.

“I think my learned friend will understand that the evidence will include whatever the accused has stated in his cautioned statements. ”

“That’s all I have to say so far. If my learned friend wants to pursue this subsequently we will address it in future.”

Lim Tean: “The height of absurdity”

In his recent Facebook post, Lim Tean said he found the explanation given by Chief Prosecutor Tan, that the decision not to proceed with the nine charges was based on a review of Iswaran’s cautioned statements, to be absurd.

He questioned how the content of Iswaran’s caution statement could lead to such a significant change in the prosecution’s decision.

“They would have decided to charge Iswaran with those 9 charges after reviewing all the statements he gave during investigations. How can those few lines he might have written in his caution statements possibly affect their decision? ”

“What an accused writes in the caution statement is his or her 1st reaction to the charge and may conceivably be relevant at trial.”

He found it laughable that the most senior prosecutor could attribute the decision change to the accused’s caution statements

Lim Tean clarified that he is not wishing for Iswaran to face more charges.

“I understand the ordeal he and his family must be going through and I sincerely wish them well in their fight to clear his name. ”

However, Lim Tean stressed that the Public Prosecutor has a responsibility to explain the withdrawal of the nine charges to the Singapore public.

“The Public Prosecutor has a lot of explaining to do to the Singapore public as to why he withdrew those 9 charges for which they had already charged Iswaran with 2 days before in the CPIB!”

Netizens scrutinizing the swift withdrawal of nine charges within a mere two days

Examining the netizens’ responses to Lim Tean’s Facebook post, several individuals have voiced apprehension regarding the recent turn of events.

The swift withdrawal of nine charges within a mere two days has prompted serious questions, implying a potential lapse in due diligence on the part of the prosecutors.

Furthermore, there is a call for transparency in the legal proceedings surrounding this high-profile case, with some advocating for the disclosure of all charges to the public.

A netizen cautioned that the sudden reversal in withdrawing nine charges within a mere two days not only emphasizes the haphazard nature of the initial charging process but also raises doubts about the thoroughness of the prosecution’s case.

The comment suggests a lack of due diligence on the part of the prosecutor, prompts concerns about whether the charges underwent thorough investigation and substantiation before being presented.

“This hasty retraction not only calls into question the initial basis for the charges but also raises doubts about the competence and judgment of the prosecuting team.”

He also cautioned that the seemingly arbitrary nature of withdrawing charges within such a short timeframe could undermine public confidence and create a perception of capriciousness and inconsistency, potentially diminishing trust in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process.

The comment added that the Prosecutor’s decision may also have broader implications for the accused, the victims, and the administration of justice. For the accused, the sudden dismissal of charges could lead to confusion and scepticism regarding the legitimacy of the remaining charges.

Similarly, victims and their families may experience disillusionment and frustration, feeling that their pursuit of justice has been callously disregarded.

Netizens emphasised the necessity for leaders and subordinates to exceed expectations and avoid suspicion

Another netizen had urged for transparency in the legal proceeding, with a desire to avoid trumped-up charges or those artificially enhanced for a higher penalty.

“In the real world, corruption has many faces and many forms. Some are very obvious like the giving of bribes of money, but it can also be very seemingly innocuous. Like the gift of a good meal or even subtle abuse of power or the gaining of any benefit for any favours and so on.”

The netizen emphasised the responsibility of leaders and their subordinates to uphold a high standard of conduct, “must ensure that they are beyond complaint and beyond even the spectre of suspicion.”

He further stressed a broader moral and ethical perspective, asserting that there is no such thing as a victimless crime and the result of any corruption at any level is a moral and ethical blackmark on our society, legacy, people and every system.

He argued that benefiting oneself, even without an apparent victim, is still a corrupt practice; and warned against justifying unethical behavior based on the actions of others.

“Nothing in life is for free and even if we as the recipient of any “gifts or sweeteners” already open ourselves to the loss of public trust and make ourselves vulnerable to deeper and worse attacks.”

There are also comments expressing hope that throughout the ongoing CPIB investigation and court trial, additional details can be uncovered.

This includes efforts to determine the individuals who might be allegedly involved alongside the ex-minister implicated in the case.