The case of former Transport Minister S Iswaran is the most recent case involving criminal offences in a public service context that seems to vindicate the maxim: to whom much is given, much will be expected.
S Iswaran was originally charged, amongst other things, under section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (“PCA”). However, on the doorstep of trial, the charges were amended by the Attorney-Generals’ Chambers to charges under section 165 of the Penal Code (“PC”).
Section 165 PC makes it an offence for a public servant to accept anything of value, without payment or with inadequate payment, from any person with whom they are involved in an official capacity. This section applies broadly to all public servants as defined in Section 21(1) PC.
Justice Vincent Hoong in the High Court passed a 1-year sentence, nearly doubling the 6 to 7 months’ sentence sought by the Prosecution, grounding his decision in the high standards of honesty and accountability for public servants.
The S Iswaran case is not an outlier. In another recent sentencing decision, albeit involving a different set of offences, a sentencing Judge in the State Courts of Singapore exceeded the sentencing request of the Prosecution in a case involving a civil servant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (“MFA”).
Gilbert Oh was charged under Section 182 of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”) for providing false information to a public servant. As a Director-General at the MFA, Oh misused the diplomatic bag service to deliver luxury watches from China to Singapore for a friend. Diplomatic bags, protected by diplomatic immunity, are meant for official correspondence and items between the ministry and its overseas offices.
When the package was discovered by immigration officers and the MFA was informed, Oh lied, claiming the watches belonged to his father to avoid disciplinary action. This lie was intended to mislead the Deputy Secretary of MFA into discontinuing internal investigations. Oh eventually confessed in a second statement to CPIB.
Despite both Prosecution and Defence submitting that the appropriate sentence should be a fine, District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz sentenced Oh to one week’s imprisonment. In arriving at her decision, DJ Sripathy-Shanaz emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of internal investigations undertaken by public institutions. She held: “[t]hey serve as a critical mechanism for detecting, addressing and preventing misconduct within the various institutions that comprise the Public Service”.
Oh’s sentence is under appeal.
Corruption offences and the “public service premium”
In the context of corruption offences, corruption in the public sector attracts higher sentences than in the private sector both by legislative design and sentence due to the distinct public interest in maintaining the integrity of public administration.
For public sector corruption, the overarching sentencing consideration is the distinct public interest in eradicating corruption in the ranks of public servants upon whom the smooth administration and functioning of the State are dependent.
In the case of private sector corruption, the public interest is in maintaining the private sector’s reputation for being corruption free and that the efficient operation of the market is not disrupted.
The higher range of sentences for public sector corruption vis-à-vis private sector corruption bears this out.
Sections 5 and 6 PCA provide that the applicable punishment for private sector corruption is a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
Section 7 PCA provides that the applicable punishment for public sector corruption is a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment term not exceeding 7 years or to both.
High Standards of Honesty and Accountability for Public Servants
Public sector corruption cases form a small portion of the CPIB’s annual investigations. In 2022, four public sector officers were prosecuted for offences investigated by the CPIB. The higher sentences for public sector corruption reflect the policy reasons behind maintaining public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of government. Generally, the higher the office held by the offender, the greater the culpability and sentence, acknowledging their potential influence over significant transactions and the public interest.
Key Contacts: Remy Choo Zheng Xi; Chua Shi Jie (Matthew)