In an unexpected turn of events, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) reduced the corruption charges against former Transport Minister S Iswaran to lesser offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code just before what would have been a historic trial of a political officeholder.

Iswaran was initially charged in January 2024 for allegedly receiving gifts worth approximately S$384,000 from Ong Beng Seng in exchange for advancing Ong’s business interests, particularly related to the Singapore Grand Prix.

Additional charges followed in March 2024, accusing Iswaran of receiving valuable items—including whisky bottles, golf clubs, and a Brompton bicycle—from David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings.

These items, valued at approximately S$19,000, were linked to Iswaran’s role as Transport Minister, bringing the total value of gifts to over S$400,000 and the total number of charges to 35, including corruption and obstruction of justice.

However, just before the trial was set to begin, the AGC made a significant decision to amend the charges. The more serious corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were reduced to lesser offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which deals with public servants receiving valuable gifts without corrupt intent.

As a result, the corruption charges were effectively removed, and Iswaran pleaded guilty to the revised charges after months of maintaining his innocence.

In its statement to the media on Tuesday, the AGC cited significant challenges in proving the original corruption case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It stated that both Iswaran and businessman Ong Beng Seng would need to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent, posing litigation risks.

While the AGC provided reasons for dropping the charges against Iswaran, it raises an important question: Why did the AGC press corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) not once but twice if these evidentiary challenges were known from the start?

The AGC’s rationale—difficulty in proving corrupt intent—should have been foreseeable when the charges were initially brought forward.

Ong and Iswaran, including Lum, all had a vested interest in denying the allegations, which would make conviction difficult. Nevertheless, the AGC proceeded with the charges twice, only to backtrack on the day of the trial itself, according to the prosecution, when asked in court by Justice Vincent Hoong.

If these concerns of litigation risks were apparent from the outset, why were the charges filed under the more severe PCA in the first place? Was this a mistake?

Apparently not, as Deputy Attorney General Tai Wei Shyong clarified in court that the corruption charges against Iswaran were not withdrawn but amended, and reiterated that there was a strong basis for why they were originally brought.

That begs the question: Why amend the charges then?

This puzzling approach mirrors the AGC’s handling of the Keppel Offshore & Marine (KOM) bribery case, where six senior executives were issued stern warnings but not prosecuted after five years of investigation.

Minister Indranee Rajah explained in Parliament that the AGC and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) faced similar evidentiary difficulties, citing insufficient proof to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The KOM case involved cross-border transactions, which authorities claimed made it difficult to secure witness testimony or documentary evidence that could hold up in court.

Despite a U.S. investigation resulting in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Keppel admitting to the charges against it and a US$422 million fine, the AGC found that references to individual actions in the DPA were insufficient to support prosecution in Singapore.

Foreign witnesses allegedly refused to testify, and key individuals denied knowing that commissions paid were used as bribes.

Ultimately, the AGC issued stern warnings as an “in-between” measure, suggesting that while there was insufficient evidence for prosecution, the individuals involved were not entirely “off the hook.”

The similarities between the Iswaran case and the KOM scandal raise broader questions about the AGC’s consistency in applying its prosecutorial discretion. In both cases, the decisions to scale back or drop charges are said to be due to alleged insufficient evidence after lengthy investigations.

But shouldn’t public prosecutions prioritize ensuring that justice is being sought by allowing the facts to be fully examined in court, even if securing convictions isn’t guaranteed—especially to promote public awareness and reinforce Singapore’s strong zero-tolerance policy on corruption?

In Iswaran’s case, the decision to amend the charges could be seen as a pragmatic move by prosecutors to avoid a lengthy and costly trial with uncertain outcomes. However, for the public, this creates a perception of inconsistency in how different cases are pursued.

This perception is reinforced by the AGC’s decision to prosecute opposition leader Pritam Singh for allegedly lying under oath to a parliamentary committee, relying solely on the testimony of a former Member of Parliament who had confessed to lying.

Why does Singh’s case appear more straightforward to convict than Iswaran’s, without similar evidentiary challenges, when the prosecution primarily relies on verbal testimony? In contrast, in Iswaran’s case, the gifts from Ong and Lum were undeniable and proven, yet the AGC chose to amend the charges due to difficulties in proving corrupt intent.

Iswaran is set to face sentencing on 3 October 2024, with the prosecution seeking 6-7 months of imprisonment while Iswaran’s defence is seeking a maximum term of 8 weeks.

Regardless of the sentence, the fundamental question remains: Why did the AGC pursue corruption charges in the first place, only to drop them at the last minute, despite citing evidentiary concerns?

Senior Minister (SM) Lee Hsien Loong’s speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony called for more political margin in the next general election, due in November 2025.

He emphasized the need for stability and the continuation of sound governance. However, this plea seems to overlook the fact that the People’s Action Party (PAP) had won a supermajority with 83 out of 93 seats in Parliament in the General Election 2020, allowing the government to pass laws or even amend the Constitution without significant opposition.

Singaporeans must ask themselves: Is this level of dominance healthy for the country’s democracy, or does it stifle accountability and transparency?

Unchecked Power and Lack of Opposition

With its supermajority, the PAP faces minimal resistance in Parliament, allowing controversial issues to pass with limited scrutiny.

Recent examples include the Keppel corruption charges, ongoing allegations involving former Transport Minister S Iswaran, the appointment of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin despite his inappropriate relationship with a fellow PAP MP, and the Ridout Road rental controversy involving Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan.

These incidents were largely addressed through ministerial statements, leaving the public dissatisfied with the lack of independent investigations or robust debate in Parliament. This raises a critical question: Do Singaporeans want a Parliament where significant issues are handled behind closed doors, without rigorous questioning from an opposition that can offer alternative viewpoints?

Even when PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) raise questions—such as those regarding the implementation of SimplyGo or the S$556 million ERP 2.0 system—their ability to push these concerns is limited by party loyalty. The likelihood of PAP MPs voting against their own party lines remains doubtful, leaving pressing issues under-debated.

The supermajority also enables the PAP to pass bills and amend the Constitution unchallenged.

A prime example is the introduction of the racial provision in the 2017 Presidential Election, which reserved the presidency for a candidate from a specific ethnic group if no one from that group had held the office in the last five terms.

This rule effectively barred Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a popular former PAP MP who nearly won the 2011 Presidential Election, from contesting. Many saw this move as politically motivated, designed to prevent Dr Tan from running again.

Moreover, laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) were passed despite strong opposition from businesses, politicians, and members of the public.

Despite the government’s assurances, one can argue that POFMA has been abused in various instances by ministers, particularly targeting members of civil society and the opposition, reinforcing concerns that a lack of opposition enables the unchecked use of power.

Policy Decisions Without Contestation

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, which SM Lee cited as a tough but necessary move, was justified as essential for future expenses, such as healthcare and social services.

However, at the same time, the PAP supported a S$900 million grant to SPH Media, a media outlet that had enjoyed decades of monopoly on print media and profited from advertising and property investment, along with the decision to build the Founders’ Memorial on prime land at a cost of S$335 million, excluding ongoing maintenance and land costs.

Notably, the late Lee Kuan Yew himself had opposed the idea of such a monument. Many Singaporeans view this as a contradiction—on the one hand, the government argues for the necessity of raising GST to manage future spending, while on the other, it commits significant resources to projects that do not seem to address immediate public needs.

These decisions highlight concerns that the PAP may be engaging in “profligate spending and irresponsible, unsustainable plans”—exactly what SM Lee warned against in the 2015 General Election when he indicated taxes would need to be raised if spending was not carefully managed.

Stronger opposition voices could have played a critical role in contesting such policies, ensuring that financial decisions align with public interests and are made with greater transparency and debate.

Falling Fertility and PAP’s Immigration Solution

SM Lee highlighted Singapore’s economic transformation but overlooked the ongoing demographic crisis. Since he became Prime Minister in 2004, Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has dropped from 1.26 to a historic low of 0.96 in 2023—the first time it has fallen below 1.0.

This means that, on average, Singaporean women are having fewer than one child, a trend that threatens the long-term sustainability of the population. Some fear that the fertility rate may never recover.

Despite this alarming decline, the government has yet to propose a robust plan to reverse the trend. Instead, the PAP has leaned heavily on immigration, bringing in foreign talent to become new citizens. While this may address immediate labour and population shortfalls, it risks creating societal tensions and could erode Singapore’s social fabric.

Many question whether the reliance on immigration is a convenient alternative to addressing the complex issues driving low fertility, such as high housing costs, long working hours, and the lack of family-friendly policies.

The economic transformation touted by SM Lee is also questionable. More Singaporeans are opting to retire in Malaysia, driven by the escalating cost of living and declining standard of living in Singapore.

A recent survey by Singlife found that more than two in five Singaporeans believe they will never achieve financial freedom. The poll, part of Singlife’s second Financial Freedom Index, reveals significant concerns about the financial future of Singaporeans and permanent residents.

According to the survey, 44% of respondents doubt they will ever reach financial freedom, citing major obstacles such as insufficient income (53%), unforeseen expenses (38%), job insecurity (32%), and debt repayment burdens (28%). These factors have contributed to a drop in the overall Financial Freedom Index score, which fell from 60 in 2023 to 58 out of 100 in 2024.

Leadership Stagnation and Groupthink

A deeper issue lies in the leadership culture within the PAP, as highlighted by former Economic Development Board Chairman Philip Yeo in his biography, who warned of a government suffering from “Eunuch Disease.”

He suggested that leadership within the government lacks creativity and boldness, with a focus more on maintaining stability and avoiding risk than on embracing innovation.

This risk-averse culture is exacerbated by the PAP’s long-standing dominance, which has made changes in leadership or policy direction seem almost impossible.

Civil servants, aware of the PAP’s entrenched power, may feel apprehensive about challenging their political appointees, fearing the consequences for their high-paying positions.

The late Ngiam Tong Dow, one of Singapore’s pioneering civil servants, pointed out this issue, observing that ministers hesitate to speak out or challenge the leadership due to the risk of losing their million-dollar salaries.

“In the early days, Lim Kim San and Goh Keng Swee worked night and day, and they were truly dedicated. I don’t know whether Lee Kuan Yew will agree, but it started going downhill when we started to raise ministers’ salaries… aligning them with the top ten,” said Mr Ngiam.

When political power is concentrated, as it is now, bold ideas are less likely to emerge, and groupthink becomes entrenched. Singapore’s challenges—rising inequality, environmental sustainability, and economic restructuring—require innovative solutions that go beyond the status quo.

The GRC System, Electoral Boundaries, and Political Representation

Another aspect of Singapore’s political system that enables the PAP’s dominance is the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system and the way electoral boundaries are drawn.

While the GRC system was designed to ensure minority representation, it has also allowed lesser-known politicians to “sneak” into Parliament on the coattails of senior ministers.

Candidates like Ong Ye Kung, Desmond Choo, and Koh Poh Koon—who lost in previous General Elections—have entered Parliament through the GRC system and risen to political appointments without facing strong electoral competition as individual candidates.

Additionally, concerns about the fairness of the electoral boundaries review process have been raised. Members of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) are top civil servants appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Historically, the committee has included key figures such as the Secretary to the Cabinet (often the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary), the CEOs of the Housing and Development Board and the Singapore Land Authority, the Chief Statistician, and the Head of the Elections Department, who reports directly to the Prime Minister.

Given this composition, it is reasonable to question whether the committee operates independently of the Prime Minister’s influence or is swayed by the political objectives of the ruling party.

In response to suggestions to review this process, Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing reiterated during the Progress Singapore Party’s parliamentary motion in August 2024 that the EBRC operates in the interest of voters, not political parties.

However, critics point out that the lack of transparency in the boundary-drawing process raises concerns, especially when considering the comments of the late Mr Ngiam and Mr Yeo, who noted how the system has become more entrenched in recent years.

Is a Blank Cheque for the PAP Healthy for Singapore?

Returning to SM Lee’s speech, he emphasized the need for political stability to ensure good governance. However, his request for more political space must be weighed against the risks of granting the PAP further unchecked control.

As LKY himself acknowledged, “There will come a time when eventually the public will say, look, let’s try the other side.”

That time may be approaching. Singaporeans must decide whether giving the PAP another supermajority, essentially a blank cheque, will result in the betterment of the country or if a stronger opposition is necessary to challenge policies, scrutinize decisions, and offer alternative solutions.