Former Singapore transport minister S Iswaran, now serving a 12-month prison sentence, has been placed in a single-man cell due to concerns for his safety and security.

The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) confirmed this arrangement following an assessment upon his arrival. The decision was made to reduce potential risks associated with placing him in a shared cell with other inmates.

SPS explained that Iswaran’s cell measures 6.9 square metres and includes basic toilet facilities.

He has been provided with a straw mat and two blankets for sleeping, similar to other inmates.

Despite the public interest in his case, SPS has clarified that Iswaran is subject to the same prison rules and regulations as any other inmate.

Inmates are routinely subjected to a safety, security, and medical assessment upon their admission.

During this process, all personal belongings are collected for safekeeping, and inmates undergo searches for contraband before being examined by a Prison Medical Officer. Basic necessities, such as toiletries and clothing, are provided to all inmates, including Iswaran.

While single-man cells are used when safety or security concerns are present, most prison cells in Singapore can accommodate up to four or eight inmates, depending on each prisoner’s assessed risk level and needs.

SPS also noted that inmates with serious medical conditions are placed in specialised medical units, but in Iswaran’s case, the use of a single cell was strictly related to security concerns.

Like other inmates, Iswaran is allowed contact with his family, including two visits per month—one of which may be face-to-face—and the option to send up to four electronic letters. These arrangements help maintain prisoners’ social ties while they serve their sentences.

My reflection: Comparing single and shared prison cells

When I first entered prison in 2022 for the criminal defamation of cabinet members for corruption—oh, the irony—I was placed in a single-man cell for nine days, not for safety or security reasons, but due to COVID-19 isolation protocols designed to prevent the spread of infection.

Following this period, I was moved into a four-man cell with another two other inmates for the remainder of my sentence. My experience in both types of cells gave me a clear understanding of their differences in terms of comfort and practical living conditions.

The single cell I was placed in during isolation was around 6.9 square metres, including toilet facilities.

The space was small, with just a straw mat and two blankets (rolled up as a pillow) for sleeping.

While the living conditions were basic, the fact that I had the cell to myself allowed for a degree of privacy. Having a toilet to myself, for example, meant I didn’t need to coordinate its use with others, which made day-to-day living simpler.

After my isolation ended, I was moved into a four-man cell. The shared cell, at about 10 square metres, provided far less space per person. Each inmate had around 2.5 to 3.3 square metres, and it quickly became clear that living in a shared space required constant coordination.

With four men in a confined space, managing access to basic facilities like the toilet and shower became more complicated. Inmates had to be mindful of each other’s schedules and needs, as the cell was too small for everyone to use these facilities simultaneously.

In the shared cell, sleeping arrangements were also more restricted. With limited space, inmates sometimes had to sleep in close proximity, often side by side.

In the three-man configuration, each inmate could sleep side by side, and the spot near the door was considered the best because a slight breeze could enter through a small opening. However, the spot closest to the toilet was less desirable due to the odours and frequent disturbances when others needed to use it.

In a four-man configuration, the situation became even more cramped. With the additional person, inmates would have to adjust their sleeping positions so that everyone could fit. While you still can sleep side by side, most inmates would choose to sleep with their feet positioned near someone else’s head.

Another significant difference between the two settings was the temperature and air circulation. In the shared cell, with multiple bodies in such a small space and no air conditioning, the room could become quite warm.

Most of us would take off our shirts to cope with the heat during the day, though we had to dress appropriately for the guards’ roll calls. In the single cell, managing the heat was easier, as I could take more frequent showers and cool down without having to consider the impact on others.

The lack of privacy and space in the shared cell made everyday tasks more challenging. Inmates had to coordinate and time their activities to ensure everyone had access to the limited facilities. Bathing also had to be managed carefully to avoid splashing water onto others, as the confined space made it difficult to avoid disturbing cellmates.

In contrast, the nine days I spent in the single-man cell, though solitary, allowed me to maintain more control over my personal space and routine. I could use the toilet, shower, and move around without needing to consider the schedules or preferences of others. While being isolated might seem undesirable, the absence of conflict and the ability to manage my own space made the single cell experience far more manageable.

Although some claim online that solitary confinement drives people crazy, inmates like Iswaran—unlike those on death row—are permitted one hour outside their cell each day and, on some days, yard time, except on Sundays. If religious activities are conducted, inmates are also allowed time outside to participate.

While there is a limit on how many letters an inmate can send out, there is apparently no limit on how many people can send letters to him via the tablet, which he does not need to share in a single cell. Iswaran could have someone regularly send him electronic letters to stay updated on events outside.

In summary, the single-man cell, though basic and isolated, provided a level of comfort that the shared cell could not. The additional space, privacy, and control over daily activities in the single cell made it a preferable option.

While living with others in a shared cell required constant compromise and coordination, the solitary nature of the single cell simplified the challenges of prison life.

Based on my experience, the single cell offered a more practical and comfortable environment for coping with the conditions of imprisonment.

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.