Connect with us

Opinion

Would DSP Jonathan Au Yong have filed a police report if he knew about Iswaran’s offences?

The recent conviction of former Transport Minister Iswaran for accepting more than S$400,000 in gifts raises questions about the criminal defamation case filed by DSP Jonathan Au Yong against The Online Citizen (TOC) in 2018. Would Au Yong have pursued the charges against Terry Xu and Daniel De Costa with the same intensity had he known about Iswaran’s unethical conduct during the same period?

Published

3 hours ago

on

Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Jonathan Au Yong and former Transport Minister Iswaran

The recent sentencing of former Transport Minister Iswaran to 12 months’ imprisonment for accepting gifts during his time in office raises serious questions about the 2018 criminal defamation case filed against me.

Iswaran’s unethical actions—including accepting more than S$400,000 in benefits from businessmen—stand in stark contrast to the image of an untouchable and clean Cabinet that Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Jonathan Au Yong portrayed when he initiated the defamation case against The Online Citizen (TOC).

This defamation case arose from a letter published by TOC on 4 September 2018, which contained the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons.”

DSP Au Yong interpreted this as a direct attack on Cabinet members’ integrity, filed the police report on his own initiative and pursued the case based on the assumption that the Cabinet’s integrity was under attack, leading to criminal defamation charges against me, as TOC’s chief editor, and contributor Daniel De Costa.

However, Iswaran’s unethical behaviour during the same period raises the question: would Au Yong have pursued the case with such intensity had he known about the actions of this senior Cabinet member?

The Filing of the Police Report

Contrary to earlier claims by the Singapore government, it was not the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) that filed the police report in response to the allegedly defamatory letter.

During the trial in 2020, it was revealed that DSP Au Yong had filed the report on his own initiative on 8 October 2018 after receiving a letter from IMDA from then-Director of CID Deputy Commissioner Florence Chua.

This letter, dated 5 October 2018, was not a formal police complaint but a request for the police to follow up on a breach of the Internet Code of Conduct related to TOC’s publication.

DSP Au Yong admitted in court that he took it upon himself to file the police report, believing an offence had been committed.

The complaint he submitted on 8 October mentioned IMDA’s 5 October letter but contained no specific details of defamation or any particular offence.

This vague report and his initiative to file it set the entire criminal defamation investigation in motion.

During cross-examination, my lawyer, Remy Choo, clarified that IMDA had not pursued any further action regarding the letter.

When questioned if it was normal for a police officer to file a report based on limited information, Au Yong responded that it was not unusual for an officer to take such steps based on preliminary information about a potential crime.

Au Yong’s Role in the Investigation

After filing the open-ended police report himself, DSP Au Yong led the investigation.

This included searching my home, seizing my electronic devices and conducting several hours of interviews before ultimately having the case set as having committed criminal defamation against Cabinet members.

Au Yong, a Singapore Police Force scholarship holder and political science graduate, testified that he believed the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” referred specifically to the Singapore Cabinet, rather than other high-level political bodies, such as the Central Executive Committee of the People’s Action Party (PAP).

I had argued that the phrase, in the context of the entire letter, was about the 38 Oxley Road dispute, a high-profile public issue at the time. I had no reason to believe that it referred specifically to Cabinet members, and thus lacked the intent, or mens rea, to commit defamation.

When Mr Choo suggested that the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” could have referred to the PAP leadership rather than the Cabinet, DSP Au Yong dismissed this possibility, arguing that the letter’s references to governance and policy pointed directly to the Cabinet. Au Yong later conceded that the phrase should be understood in its full context.

However, the prosecution—Deputy Public Prosecutors Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir, Senthilkumaran Sabapathy, and Sheryl Yeo—argued that a contextual interpretation of the article clearly imputed corruption to members of the Singapore Cabinet.

They stated that the article made a serious and baseless allegation against the Cabinet, and that both De Costa and I would have known that the imputation would harm the Cabinet’s reputation. The prosecution further contended that neither of us had any cogent basis for the allegation, and that it was evident we had not acted in good faith.

This interpretation set the stage for the criminal charges, portraying the Cabinet as victims of a baseless attack on their integrity.

Ultimately, District Judge Ng Peng Hong sentenced both Daniel De Costa and me to three weeks’ imprisonment. De Costa was also sentenced to three months’ jail for an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, after the judge found the criminal defamation charges to be proven and accordingly convicted us.

Yet, Iswaran’s recent conviction exposes significant flaws in this narrative by the prosecution.

Iswaran’s Conviction and Its Impact

The conviction of Iswaran for accepting gifts from businessmen Ong Beng Seng and David Lum during the period in question exposes a critical flaw in the narrative that the TOC letter unjustly attacked the Cabinet’s integrity.

Iswaran’s unethical conduct undermines the notion that the Cabinet was beyond reproach and raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the defamation charges brought against me and Daniel De Costa.

Iswaran’s actions were far from minor. The court found that he had accepted more than S$400,000 worth of benefits, including private flights and premium event tickets, from businessmen with vested interests.

In particular, his dealings with Ong, which began as early as 2015, continued when TOC’s article was published in 2018 and carried on throughout the trial of the defamation charges against me.

The specific items Iswaran received from Ong during this period of time include:

  • Around November 2015
    • Two tickets to the show Thriller worth about £200 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Two tickets to the show The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time worth about £270 from Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Two tickets to the football match for West Ham United FC v Everton FC (Boleyn Ground) worth about £468 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings UK
    • Two tickets to the football match for Arsenal FC v Tottenham Hotspur FC (Emirates) worth about £550 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

    In September 2016

    • Ten Green Room tickets to the 2016 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$42,265 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

    In September 2017

    • Ten Green Room tickets to the 2017 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$42,265 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP
    • Five Boardwalk tickets to the 2017 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$40,000 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

    Around December 2017

    • Four tickets to the show Book of Mormon worth about £540 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the football match of Chelsea FC v Southampton FC (Stamford Bridge) worth about £700 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the shows Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Part 2, worth about £1,000 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the football match for Arsenal FC v Liverpool FC (Emirates) worth about £1,100 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the show Kinky Boots worth about £300 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

    In September 2018

    • Six Twenty3 tickets to the 2018 Singapore Formula Grand Prix worth about S$13,193.10 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP
    • Thirteen general admission tickets to the 2018 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$16,744 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

    Around December 2018

    • Four tickets to the show The Play That Goes Wrong worth about £380 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the show School of Rock worth about £560 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the football match for Chelsea FC v Manchester City FC worth at least £120 from Mr Ong

    Around June 2019

    • Four tickets to the show Hamilton worth about £400 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the show Waitress worth about £524 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Four tickets to the show Betrayal worth about £1,080 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

    Around September 2019

    • Six Green Room tickets to the 2019 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$26,643 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP
    • Sixteen general admission tickets to the 2019 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$20,608 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

    Around December 2021

    • Two tickets for the show Back to the Future worth about £449 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
    • Two tickets to the show Romeo & Juliet worth about £250 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

Therefore, while I was being prosecuted for allegedly defaming the Cabinet, one of its most senior members was engaging in unethical behaviour that severely damaged public trust.

The 2023 Appeal and Clarification

In 2023, the courts re-evaluated the defamation case and reduced the severity of the charges.

The court ruled that the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” did not accuse individual Cabinet members of corruption but rather implied incompetence for allowing corruption to occur under their leadership.

This significantly lessened the gravity of the defamation charges, as the imputation was no longer a direct attack on personal integrity. Consequently, my original sentence of three weeks’ imprisonment was commuted to a fine of S$8,000.

The judgment acknowledged that while the imputation still carried reputational harm, it did not strike at the core of the Cabinet’s integrity as the prosecution had originally argued.

This reduction in the defamatory statement’s meaning is especially relevant now, given what we know about Iswaran’s misconduct. His unethical actions cast doubt on the assumption that the Cabinet was beyond reproach, especially considering their failure to prevent corruption under their leadership.

Even though Iswaran has been convicted of lesser offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code, the public prosecutors have argued that the corruption charges against him were not dropped but instead amended.

The Problem with Criminal Defamation

Moreover, the use of criminal defamation is deeply problematic.

In a civil defamation case, Iswaran would have been required to testify as one of the alleged victims of defamation.

If he had denied corrupt acts under oath, the revelations of his unethical behaviour would have left him vulnerable to perjury charges.

But under criminal defamation, the alleged victims of defamation are not required to testify for the alleged falsehoods in court, shielding them from scrutiny, leaving me and my lawyers without recourse to challenge the claims.

When DSP Au Yong filed the police report against TOC, he testified that he believed the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” referred to the Singapore Cabinet, a conclusion he reached based on the context of the letter and its criticism of the PAP leadership.

But today, we know that at least one high-ranking Cabinet member was guilty of unethical behaviour.

Had DSP Au Yong been aware of Iswaran’s conduct—accepting gifts while chairing the Formula 1 steering committee, accepting personal benefits from businessmen connected to his official duties—would he have pursued the same line of action against TOC?

Looking back at the phrase — according to what the court described — today, one would probably consider that it was closer to the truth than the authorities were willing to admit.

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
9 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Is there democracy in Singapore?

Opinion: A recent article by The Straits Times on a survey by the NUS Institute of Policy Studies claims Singaporeans feel the country is more democratic now. However, democracy has been eroded, with the government favoring Big Business over the people. True democracy requires freedom and transparency, not control.

Published

2 days ago

on

5 October 2024

By

by Foong Swee Fong

Last week, The Straits Times published an article on a survey done by the NUS Institute of Policy Studies: “Singaporeans feel country more democratic now than a decade ago, show support for system: Poll”.

I hope Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, view it as propaganda than as a serious study of the state of democracy in Singapore. Otherwise, life will be even more oppressive in the future.

The article completely destroys the meaning of democracy. It shamelessly list the pertinent characteristics of Singapore and says Singaporeans view them as signs of a healthy democracy:

“…their understanding of the concept is nuanced, with a stronger emphasis on substantive aspects, such as having necessities like food, clothes and shelter for all. They also deem it important to democracy that people choose government leaders in free and fair elections, that the government ensures law and order, and that politics is clean and free of corruption.”

These are basic requirements expected of any government, whether democratic or not. To suggest that Singaporeans equate them to democracy is either a reflection of their ignorance or an insult to their intelligence.

It also claims that Singaporeans “placed less emphasis on political-civil rights, such as the freedom to protest or express political views openly.”

It is more likely that Singaporeans refrain from, rather than “place less emphasis”, on protesting and expressing their political views, because, doing so can get them into trouble with the law or being marginalized economically.

Nonetheless, these rights are fundamental in ensuring that governments serve the public good. An enlightened government will view them as feedback; an unenlightened and corrupt one will feel threatened and suppress them.

The article then quotes SMU Associate Professor Eugene Tan, “….. the one-party dominant system has allowed the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) government to socialise Singaporeans to its conception of what democracy is or ought to be, as well as the desired outcomes and how politics ought to be practised.”

His observation is accurate, but he should have added that the government imposing its view of what democracy ought to be and how politics ought to be practiced, and what ought to be the outcome, is not democracy, but dictatorship.

The word democracy has been so badly abused that it has lost its meaning. By definition, democracy is government by the people, for the people. So, the policies of a democratic government have to benefit the majority rather than the minority.

In that sense, Singapore has not become more democratic in the last decade, or since Independence. On the contrary, it has become less democratic.
In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, Singaporeans were concerned about jobs and housing. The government listened and delivered. Policies were crafted to benefit the majority and in that sense, there was a modicum of democracy.

But since the turn of the millennium, people have been concerned about foreigners stealing their lunch and the high cost of living.

Not only did the government not listen, but has brought in even more foreign workers so that the population is now at its highest ever, despite Singaporeans not reproducing sufficiently.

Furthermore, rather than reducing the cost of living, the government has increased GST, drastically increased the price of public housing, helped Big Pharma charge exorbitant prices in the name of protecting intellectual property rights thereby increasing the cost of medical care, allowed certain businesses to chase up COE premiums unfairly, allowed oligopolies to thrive so that they can charge high prices with impunity, and crammed more than 6 million people into our small island, thereby chasing up the cost of essentials.

Did the government listen to the people?

No, instead it has pursued policies contrary to what the people want, favoring Big Business and a small group of people, while the majority continue to struggle.
This is not democracy, but plutocracy – government by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

The important characteristic of a true democracy is that the people are free and independent, not being subjected to oppressive forces controlling their lives, despite living together in a body politic.

Despite Singapore being more developed now than the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, the people are more, and not less, dependent on the government, with it controlling almost every aspect of society. It has increased its power over the people, thereby reducing their freedom.

If the government is sincere about promoting democracy, then it should stop trying to control every aspect of society, but let the people manage them; promote transparency and awareness by institutionalizing the Free Press Act and Freedom of Information Act; let the people provide feedback openly by institutionalizing the Freedom of Expression Act and the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Act; and most importantly, the prime minister and his cabinet should listen to parliament and not the other way round, as parliament is the elected representative of the people.

But the relentless effort to suppress democracy has been so successful and complete, that I fear the majority will never know what it means to be free, for the foreseeable future.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Singapore’s property market becoming a “casino”

Opinion: By rejecting underpriced bids like those for Jurong Lake District, Singapore is sending a clear message: speculative behavior from developers won’t be tolerated. This firm stance is crucial to ensuring corporate responsibility and protecting the long-term health of the economy.

Published

3 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

by Jasmine Lim

A Troubling Trend of Speculative Bids

Singapore has always been a beacon of responsible governance, and its recent decision to reject the underpriced bid for the Jurong Lake District (JLD) mega site exemplifies this commitment to long-term stability. At S$640 per square foot per plot ratio (psf ppr), the sole bid fell well below the anticipated range of S$900 to S$1,000 psf ppr (Business Times, Sep 13, 2024).

Yet, this incident is not unique and it raises a troubling question: Are some property developers acting like market gamblers rather than responsible businesses?

In the case of JLD, strategic partnership was formed among the five major players—CapitaLand Development, City Developments Ltd (CDL), Frasers Property, Mitsubishi Estate and Mitsui Fudosan (Asia), and was it a consequent outcome that resulted in limited competition that encouraged speculative underpricing?

Another recent example is the Media Circle site, where a Frasers Property-led consortium offered a bid of S$461 psf ppr—significantly below market expectations of S$650 to S$1,100 psf ppr (Business Times, Sep 19, 2024).

This bid wasn’t just low—it was almost recklessly so. When companies start to treat the market like a casino, underpricing in hopes of getting a “bargain,” it disrupts market dynamics and generates unnecessary uncertainty.

Market analysts have observed that speculative underbidding can depress overall market confidence, causing unnecessary volatility and eroding the value of strategic assets (Cohen & Han, 2020).

In fact, observations have consistently shown that speculative actions—whether through inflated bids or aggressive underpricing—create chaos in real estate markets.

Such behaviour leads to unpredictable price swings, erodes investor confidence, and has far-reaching effects on the wider economy.

So, when companies like Frasers Property, owned by Thailand’s TCC Group, engage in such repeated speculative actions of recent land bids, it raises serious concerns about their commitment to Singapore’s long-term economic health.

Will Developers Win This Game?

Governments around the world play a crucial role in shaping the property market, especially in times of uncertainty.

In fact, academic studies frequently highlight the importance of government oversight in preventing property bubbles and market crashes. When speculative behaviour takes hold, prices can spiral out of control—leading to a boom-and-bust cycle that benefits no one in the long run.

Singapore’s firm stance in the JLD tender echoes these findings and reinforces its long-held principles of responsible governance. After all, losses in land revenue, which could otherwise be invested in infrastructure improvements, translate into more welfare losses for the whole city (Today, Jan 15, 2020).

By rejecting the underpriced bid in the case of JLD, the government is ensuring that the property market remains stable and secure for both developers and residents.

A healthy property market doesn’t just benefit developers; it supports a healthy property sector, maintains investor confidence, and ultimately strengthens the fabric of society. The government’s move is a critical reminder that land, especially in land-scarce Singapore, should be developed with care and foresight.

Is there a Need for Corporate Responsibility?

It’s understandable that businesses are driven by profits, but there’s a fine line between profit-driven strategies and reckless market manipulation.

When large companies act in ways that destabilize the local property market, it becomes clear that corporate responsibility is being overlooked. They need to realize that their actions don’t just affect their bottom line—they affect the country’s economic stability and the property sector dynamism.

In a rapidly evolving global economy, the government’s role is more critical than ever. Without strong regulatory oversight, speculative behaviour could easily spiral out of control, leading to a housing crisis or economic downturn.

By setting firm boundaries, the Singapore government is leading by example, ensuring that our markets remain stable, resilient, and beneficial for all—residents, businesses, and investors alike.

Singapore Government’s “Over-Invention” An Unwelcomed Move?

Singapore’s approach to land and urban development is a model for the rest of the world. By staying true to its principles of responsible governance, the government has managed to build a property market that is resilient in the face of global economic uncertainty. This is a lesson other nations can learn from—how to balance growth with stability.

At the same time, the government’s decision to reject punting low land bid underscores a growing need for companies to act responsibly.

Academic research shows that unchecked speculative actions in real estate markets have historically led to devastating consequences—from property bubbles to economic crashes (Kindleberger & Aliber, 2011).

We must not let Singapore fall into this trap. Instead, we must continue to hold both local and foreign companies accountable for their actions, ensuring that their pursuit of profits aligns with the broader interests of our nation.

Singapore’s strength lies in its ability to balance free-market efficiency with firm regulatory oversight, and will this series of decisions to reject low land bids prove that we are still on the right path for Singapore’s long-term prosperity?

Continue Reading

Trending