Channel News Asia (CNA) recently published an article citing legal experts who framed the 12-month sentence handed to former Transport Minister S Iswaran as “unusual,” highlighting how rare it is for judges to impose sentences exceeding the recommendations of both the prosecution and defence.

While CNA accurately reflected the legal principle that judges have the discretion to apply their own sentencing decisions, the report downplays a clear emerging trend: harsher-than-requested sentences are becoming increasingly common in high-profile cases involving establishment figures.

In fact, two significant cases not mentioned by CNA—those of Gilbert Oh Hin Kwan and Karl Liew—further illustrate that this phenomenon is not an anomaly but part of a broader judicial pattern.

These rulings suggest that the courts are increasingly sending a strong message to public servants and influential figures, reinforcing the need for accountability and deterrence.

Justice Vincent Hoong, who presided over Iswaran’s case, underscored this point by noting the broader harm caused by breaches of trust in high-level public office.

The rationale behind the sentencing in Iswaran’s case was centred on general deterrence and the need to maintain public trust.

Justice Hoong pointed out that public servants, especially those in high office, must uphold integrity due to the potential damage their actions can cause to the reputation of public institutions. By imposing a sentence that exceeded the prosecution’s recommendation, the court sent a clear message that any breach of trust in public office will be met with firm consequences.

A Pattern Hidden in Plain Sight

CNA’s emphasis on the “unusual” nature of Iswaran’s sentence draws attention to the exceptional use of judicial discretion.

Mr Chooi Jing Yen, a lawyer quoted in the article, acknowledged that while it’s uncommon for judges to go beyond what the prosecution requests, they have the legal right to do so when they deem it necessary based on the facts of the case. He also noted that judges are not bound by the recommendations presented in court and can choose a higher sentence if they believe it better serves justice.

However, what CNA and its quoted lawyers failed to consider are two additional cases involving establishment figures: Gilbert Oh and Karl Liew.

Both received sentences that exceeded prosecution and defence recommendations, showing that while such judicial decisions may be rare in the general sense, they are increasingly common in cases where the prosecution’s recommendations seem mild in comparison to the alleged offences.

In Gilbert Oh’s case, the court imposed a one-week jail term despite both the prosecution and defence agreeing on a fine. Oh, a former Director-General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), had misused his official position to illegally transport luxury items and lied about it.

District Judge Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz noted that his role as a high-ranking public servant exacerbated the potential harm to public trust in the MFA, particularly since his actions could have disrupted the ministry’s internal investigations.

Similarly, Karl Liew, the son of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, received a custodial sentence of two weeks for providing false testimony during the infamous Parti Liyani case, despite both sides calling for a fine of S$5,000—essentially a slap on the wrist for an individual living in a mansion worth tens of millions.

Furthermore, just like Iswaran, Karl’s charge of s193 for intentionally giving false evidence was amended to a lesser charge of s182 during the hearing. No explanation was given for why the prosecution changed its charge against Karl.

District Judge Eugene Teo said he could not agree that Karl’s actions should be met with only a fine and pointed out that the prosecution’s submissions read like mitigation, which the Defence repeated wholesale in their own submissions.

These examples, not highlighted by CNA, clearly show a judicial pattern of imposing harsher sentences in cases where the prosecution has recommended relatively lenient penalties. The fact that these cases were not discussed in CNA’s article weakens its argument that such sentencing decisions are rare anomalies.

Justice Hoong’s Position in Iswaran’s Sentencing

It is also important to examine the stance taken by Justice Vincent Hoong in his sentencing of Iswaran.

Justice Hoong, in determining the appropriate punishment, carefully considered the positions presented by both the prosecution and the defence. However, he ultimately decided to deviate from their recommendations, citing the need for a more appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case.

In his judgment, Justice Hoong referenced the High Court decision in Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor [2016] 4 SLR 1288, which emphasised that sentencing is ultimately the responsibility of the court.

As noted in Janardana, while the prosecution and defence are expected to assist the court with their submissions, neither side’s recommendation should be viewed as binding.

Justice Hoong highlighted that “the Prosecution’s submissions on sentence is not, and should not be regarded as, the upper limit of the sentence that may be meted out.” Similarly, the defence’s proposal should not be seen as the minimum sentence.

Applying this principle to the case at hand, Justice Hoong determined that a sentence exceeding the proposals from both sides was necessary.

He argued that adopting either the prosecution’s or the defence’s recommendations would result in “a manifestly inadequate sentence.” By citing the gravity of the offence and its impact on public trust, he concluded that the 12-month jail term was more appropriate in ensuring justice was served.

What CNA’s Framing Misses

By presenting these harsher sentences as rare occurrences, CNA’s report misses an important point: when it comes to cases involving the establishment or public servants, the courts seem increasingly inclined to reject both the defence’s and prosecution’s recommendations in favour of harsher penalties. This approach may reflect a heightened awareness of public perception and a broader goal of protecting institutional integrity.

CNA’s article also fails to address why the prosecution in such cases tends to propose comparatively lenient sentences.

In Iswaran’s case, for instance, the prosecution sought a jail term of six to seven months, which, given the nature of the offence, some might argue was on the lower end of the sentencing spectrum.

The same can be said for the prosecution’s stance in the cases of Oh and Karl, where they initially recommended a fine.

This raises questions about whether the prosecution’s recommendations are, at times, shaped by the status of the accused, thereby creating an environment where the court feels compelled to impose a harsher sentence to correct for perceived leniency.

To be clear, this is not to allege prosecutorial bias or intent to shield establishment figures. However, the pattern of harsher sentences in these cases cannot be ignored, especially when viewed alongside the relatively modest proposals from both the defence and prosecution.

Growing Scrutiny on Sentencing Practices

The emergence of this trend also aligns with a broader public demand for transparency and fairness in sentencing, especially for individuals in positions of power.

Cases involving public officials are closely watched by the public, and any leniency shown in sentencing could be perceived as a double standard for those in high office compared to ordinary citizens. This is particularly important in a society like Singapore, where trust in public institutions is a cornerstone of governance.

By consistently imposing sentences beyond what is recommended, the courts appear to be responding to this societal demand for accountability. The message is clear: breaches of public trust, especially by those in the highest echelons, will not be tolerated.