Iswaran claims he was unaware of 'veiled gratification' in gifts from businessmen

Davinder Singh, defending ex-PAP Minister Iswaran, argues his client was unaware of the "veiled gratification" behind gifts from Ong Beng Seng & Lum Kok Seng as he highlights Iswaran's awareness of the Ministers' Code of Conduct.

Yee Loon8 May 2024

Comments

SINGAPORE: Davinder Singh, the defence lawyer for former PAP Minister S Iswaran, argued that his client was unaware or suspicious of the fact that gifts from property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and construction firm boss Lum Kok Seng constituted "veiled gratification."

"He was dealing with very, very dear and close friends," Mr Singh told the court during the hearing to argue for a joint trial of all Iswaran's charges on Wednesday (8 May).

"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."

During the hearing, Mr Singh highlighted that Iswaran's state of mind during the alleged offences was informed by his awareness of the Ministers' Code of Conduct.

Lawyer: Iswaran aware of the Ministers' Code of Conduct

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 prohibited from accepting gifts from family or personal friends in a "genuinely personal capacity".

Iswaran, aged 61, attended the High Court hearing on Wednesday, accompanied by his legal team from Davinder Singh Chambers, comprising Mr Singh, Mr Navin Thevar, and Mr Rajvinder Singh.

Their efforts culminated in a successful application to consolidate all charges into a single trial, a decision supported by a High Court judge who found merit in their arguments.

Before Justice Vincent Hoong, Davinder Singh contested the prosecution's decision to pursue separate trials and delay charges involving Mr Ong, despite the initial scheduling of trial dates for this specific set of charges.

Singh argued for the consolidation of both sets of charges due to their similar features.

Presently, trial dates are set for August and September 2024.

However, the prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, advocates for trying the charges related to Mr Lum before those related to Mr Ong.

The prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, is asking for the charges in relation to Mr Lum to be tried first, then the charges in relation to Mr Ong.

Iswaran, initially facing 27 charges on 18 January and subsequently given eight more charges on 25 March, is confronted with a total of 35 charges concerning items valued at approximately S$400,000.

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

These allegations involve the corrupt receipt of over S$166,000 (US$122,418) worth of flights, hotel accommodations, and tickets to events, allegedly in exchange for promoting 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 charges.

He had also tendered his resignation from Parliament and the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Notably, neither Mr Ong nor Mr Lum have been charged in relation to these allegations.

Judge approves Iswaran's request for a joint trial

Iswaran's defence counsel Mr Singh emphasized that this would mark the first occasion for the Singapore courts to address Section 165 offences.

"(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."

He stated that the defence's contention would revolve around the argument that Section 165 does not encompass situations where gifts are exchanged due to friendship.

Mr Singh further argued that separate trials would subject Iswaran to prolonged stress, especially between the conclusion of the trial related to charges concerning Mr Lum and the subsequent trial involving charges concerning Mr Ong.

He suggested that the prosecution's preference for trying the charges involving MrnLum first was to gain insight into Iswaran's defence strategy for the charges related to Mr Ong.

However, Deputy Attorney-General Tai rebuffed Mr Singh's suggestion, contending that the decision for two trials stemmed from the failure to meet the legal criteria for a joint trial.

He highlighted the common occurrence of consecutive trials and asserted that the charges were distinct and independent, lacking factual connection.

Tai elaborated that the charges related to Mr. Lum pertained to the acceptance of items like whisky and wine, while those related to Mr. Ong involved entirely different items.

Additionally, he underscored differences in the contexts of the charges, with one set linked to a construction contract between Lum Chang and the Land Transport Authority, and the other predominantly associated with Formula 1 contracts between race promoter Singapore GP and the Singapore Tourism Board.

“Not only are the facts in issue for the Ong Beng Seng charges entirely irrelevant for the David Lum charges, the background facts and witnesses of fact for the two sets of charges are distinct.”

Despite the defence's and prosecution's arguments, Justice Hoong approved Iswaran's request for a joint trial.

The judge deemed the Section 165 charges against both Mr Ong and Mr Lum legally identical, arising from Iswaran's duties as a public servant.

He reasoned that differences in the givers, items, and witnesses did not signify factual dissimilarity, fulfilling the legal requirement for the charges to constitute "a series of offences of the same or a similar character."