Former transport minister S Iswaran released after serving sentence under home detention
The SPS confirmed that Iswaran's emplacement on the Home Detention Scheme (HDS) has ended.
His release follows several months under the scheme, which allows inmates to reintegrate under supervision.
Iswaran was sentenced on 3 October 2024 to 12 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to five corruption-related charges.
He began serving his sentence on 7 October 2024 and was placed on home detention on 7 February 2025.
According to The Straits Times, his early release came under Singapore's Conditional Remission System (CRS) and HDS, both designed to promote rehabilitation while maintaining strict monitoring protocols.
SPS previously said Iswaran was assessed as suitable for early release due to his low risk of reoffending, good conduct in custody, and strong family support network.
The charges against him included accepting luxury benefits from Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings.
One of the key incidents was a trip to Doha in December 2022, valued at approximately S$20,850 (US$15,500), which was fully paid for by Ong.
Iswaran also faced charges of attempting to obstruct justice when he later reimbursed S$5,700 for a business-class flight initially paid by Ong.
This occurred after learning that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had seized a flight manifest as part of their inquiry.
Although prosecutors initially sought a jail term of six to seven months, the court imposed a 12-month sentence, citing the seriousness of the offences.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Dubai police retrieve stolen diamond worth S$32 million
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The very rare pink diamond was stolen after a diamond dealer was lured into a bogus inspection. DUBAI - The city's police said on Aug 18 they caught three thieves just hours after they stole a precious pink diamond worth US $25 million (S$32 million) . 'The Dubai Police General Command has foiled the theft of a very rare pink diamond, valued at $25 million,' the police said in a statement shared by the United Arab Emirates' official news agency Wam . A diamond trader who had brought the jewel from Europe was lured to a villa by a crime gang under the pretence of a viewing by a potential wealthy client, police said. But the gem was stolen when the diamond dealer arrived for the bogus inspection, the statement added. Within eight hours three people from an unspecified Asian country were arrested 'thanks to the efforts of specialised and field teams, and by using the latest artificial intelligence technologies ', police said. Video footage shared by the Dubai Media Office showed the three men with their faces blurred after their arrest as well as CCTV footage of the gang. Dubai is an important hub for diamond trading. Tightly controlled and policed, the UAE prides itself on its security and stability. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Jobs, infrastructure and homes at the core of Singapore's resilience: Economists Business New online tools by SkillsFuture Singapore help companies plan and curate staff training Singapore LTA, public transport operators join anti-vaping effort with stepped-up enforcement Opinion It's time vaping offences had tougher consequences Life Chinese EV brand Nio to be launched in Singapore in first quarter of 2026 Asia 2 firefighters die in building fire at Osaka's Dotonbori tourist district Singapore Woman hurt after car turns turtle in Upper Thomson accident Singapore Jail for driver of 11-tonne garbage truck that ran over cyclist in Woodlands
Singapore Law Watch
4 hours ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Ong Beng Seng fined $30k in case linked to ex-minister Iswaran after judge cites judicial mercy
Ong Beng Seng fined $30k in case linked to ex-minister Iswaran after judge cites judicial mercy Source: Straits Times Article Date: 18 Aug 2025 Author: Nadine Chua & David Sun Prosecution, defence agreed Ong should have been jailed if not for his ill health. Billionaire property tycoon Ong Beng Seng was fined $30,000 on Aug 15 for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran. Ong, 79, was handed the maximum fine the district court can impose after he had pleaded guilty on Aug 4. When Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng delivered the sentence, Ong looked ahead and did not react. After the hearing ended, he gave a thumbs up to one of his lawyers. Judge Lee agreed with the prosecution and defence that judicial mercy should be exercised in this case due to Ong's ill health. She said: 'Based on the clear and undisputed medical evidence before this court, the accused suffers from advanced multiple myeloma (an incurable cancer of plasma cells), and a sentence of imprisonment would carry a high and increased risk of endangering his life.' Judicial mercy is the discretionary power Singapore's courts have to give a more lenient sentence because of exceptional mitigating circumstances. Judge Lee noted the offences committed by Ong in this case were undoubtedly serious, as the charge he admitted to involved conduct likely to obstruct the course of justice. Ong's second charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts was taken into consideration during sentencing. Had Ong's medical condition been absent, the appropriate sentence would have been three months' jail, Judge Lee said. The prosecution had earlier acknowledged that while eight weeks' imprisonment would ordinarily be warranted in this case, it did not object to a fine for Ong as jail time would result in an increased risk of endangering his life. Ong's lawyer, Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, had argued that his client's medical condition had destroyed parts of bone in his skeletal system. Ong was diagnosed with advanced multiple myeloma in 2020. Imprisoning him would thus dramatically increase life-threatening risks for him, said Mr Bull. On Aug 15, Ong arrived at the State Courts flanked by his lawyers and security team. It sparked a media frenzy, but Ong did not speak to reporters as he walked towards the entrance of the building. The hearing began at around 2.30pm and ended in 30 minutes, after which Ong was seen signing what appeared to be a cheque book. He left the State Courts at around 3.25pm without speaking to the media. Those convicted of abetment of obstruction of justice can be jailed for up to seven years, fined or both. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the district court can impose a maximum fine of $30,000 for the offence. The offence In December 2022, Ong, credited with bringing Formula 1 racing to Singapore, asked Mr Iswaran if the then minister would like to join him on a trip to Qatar to watch the World Cup. Ong told Mr Iswaran he would be his guest, travelling on his private jet. The businessman added that he would take care of all of Mr Iswaran's expenses for the trip, including his hotel accommodation. Mr Iswaran accepted the offer. On Dec 10, 2022, he travelled to Doha, Qatar, on Ong's private jet, with the flight valued at around US$7,700 (S$10,410.40, as stated in court documents). Mr Iswaran checked into the Four Seasons Hotel, which cost $4,737.63 for a one-night stay. After one night in Doha, he returned to Singapore on a business-class flight valued at $5,700. Singapore GP – which Ong was the majority shareholder of – paid for the hotel stay and flight. How Ong's actions came to light In May 2023, while the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was investigating a separate matter relating to Ong's associates, it came across the flight manifest of the outbound flight on Ong's private jet that Mr Iswaran took to Doha. On May 18, Ong was informed by his associates that CPIB had seized the flight manifest that had details of the Doha trip. Ong told Mr Iswaran about this over the phone. Mr Iswaran asked Ong to have Singapore GP bill him for the Doha trip, including the flight to Singapore on Dec 11, 2022. Ong agreed and had Singapore GP director Mok Chee Liang arrange the payment, and told Mr Mok to keep proper records of this. On May 24, 2023, Mr Mok e-mailed Mr Iswaran's personal assistant with an invoice for the flight from Doha to Singapore. Mr Iswaran then issued a cheque for $5,700 to Singapore GP, which the prosecution said had a tendency to obstruct the course of justice, as it made it less likely that he would be investigated by CPIB in relation to the Doha trip. The prosecution said Ong also knew that Mr Iswaran's act of paying for the flight from Doha to Singapore was likely to obstruct the course of justice. On Oct 3, 2024, Mr Iswaran was sentenced to 12 months' jail after he pleaded guilty to five charges, including four over obtaining valuable items as a public servant. Health conditions Ong's lawyers said he suffered from a 'devastating cocktail of medical problems'. These include: Advanced multiple myeloma, a cancer that affects white blood cells, which are crucial to the body's immune response. Ong was diagnosed in 2020. A hollowed-out spinal vertebrae caused by the cancer. A radiology photo of this was shown to the court. A metal rod inserted in the spine, which could become infected. 'Intractable and relentless' diarrhoea, which puts him at risk of hypotension and acute kidney injury. Peripheral vascular disease of both feet, with a non-healing toe wound that places him at risk of infection and gangrene. Risk of falls that could result in permanent disability or life-threatening injury. Why was Ong Beng Seng fined instead of jailed? Key points from the case Tycoon Ong Beng Seng would have been jailed for abetting the obstruction of justice in the case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran, were it not for his medical condition. As Ong, 79, suffers from advanced multiple myeloma, a rare form of blood cancer, imprisonment would risk endangering his life. So, on Aug 15, the court exercised judicial mercy and Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng handed him a fine of $30,000 which is the maximum the district court could impose for the offence. Here are the key points of her judgment. Should have been jailed Ong had abetted the obstruction of justice by Mr S. Iswaran in making payment of $5,700 for a business flight ticket for a Dec 11, 2022, flight from Doha to Singapore. This was done after the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had seized a flight manifest for Ong's private jet. Judge Lee said this was undoubtedly serious. Ong's other charge, which was taken into consideration for sentencing, was for abetting Mr Iswaran, who was then a public servant, in obtaining gifts. These included a flight on Ong's private plane from Singapore to Doha worth about $10,400, a one-night stay in Four Seasons Hotel Doha worth about $4,700, and the $5,700 business class flight from Doha to Singapore. This offence also warranted condemnation, said Judge Lee, and ran the risk of damaging the trust and integrity of public institutions. The prosecution and defence had agreed that were it not for Ong's ill health, he should have been jailed. The judge noted that in Mr Iswaran's case, the High Court had found the appropriate starting sentence for the related obstruction of justice charge to be 18 weeks. But because Mr Iswaran had been the one to ask for the bill, Ong's culpability was lower. Judge Lee found the appropriate starting sentence would have been 15 weeks' jail. The prosecution previously submitted that, were it not for his ill health, 12 weeks' jail would have been appropriate if Ong had claimed trial, with a reduction to eight weeks' jail for an early plea of guilt. Character and contributions Judge Lee had also considered Ong's character and contributions to Singapore that were raised by the defence. The founder of Singapore-based organisation Hotel Properties Limited is known to have brought in Formula One (F1) to Singapore in 2008. The judge said his character and contributions, however significant, were at best a neutral factor in sentencing. She said they provided no basis for any reduction in sentence. Overseas trips Judge Lee said she also considered the two overseas trips Ong had taken in October-November 2024 and April-May 2025. She said both journeys were carefully managed to minimise health risks through private aviation, which significantly reduced exposure to infections compared with commercial travel. The second journey, which was to consult a professor in the United States, involved several stops along the way. Judge Lee said this demonstrated Ong's medical fragility and his inability to endure a direct flight, underscoring the gravity of his condition. She said: 'One may consider it unfair that an offender who can afford a higher standard of healthcare is better positioned to avoid imprisonment than a less privileged offender. 'This view is misguided and misconstrues the court's focus. The critical question is not whether an offender may receive a lower standard of healthcare in prison, but whether imprisonment would create heightened risks to the offender's life.' Judicial mercy The crux of her judgment was on how Ong's medical condition would affect the appropriate sentence, and whether judicial mercy should be exercised in this case. She noted it would be insufficient for an offender to merely show he was ill, and two things needed to be determined. The first was whether imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering his life. The second was whether that risk would be significantly enhanced in prison. She concluded that the medical evidence showed that imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering Ong's life, given his serious medical conditions. In particular, she noted his incurable cancer, vulnerability to infections and susceptibility to falls. She said: 'The risk of infections would increase significantly due to unavoidable interactions with rotating shifts of prison officers and medical staff, thereby expanding his exposure to potential pathogens. 'The risk of falls would likewise be significantly heightened, as the accused would face disorientation in an unfamiliar environment and different routines, without the assistance of his usual caregivers, who understand his specific needs.' Judge Lee said that while the Singapore Prison Service had an adequate healthcare system to manage inmates, this did not address the enhanced risks of potentially fatal infections and falls. In the event of an incident, his survival cannot be guaranteed, she noted. She said: 'I am satisfied that the circumstances in this case are exceptional and meet the high threshold for the grant of judicial mercy.' Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
CNA
6 hours ago
- CNA
COLUMN - Can Zuckerberg duck deposition in Meta privacy class action?
August 18 :Mark Zuckerberg has better things to do than sit for a deposition. Or so lawyers for Meta Platforms suggest in a pending petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, objecting to the billionaire CEO being forced to give testimony in a proposed privacy class action. The company invokes a controversial principle known as the apex doctrine to claim Zuckerberg should be spared the hot seat, arguing that he has no "unique" knowledge of the case, and plaintiffs' lawyers could get the same information from lower-level Meta employees. Plaintiffs want to question the CEO about allegations that Meta obtained private health information from millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent via its Pixel tracking tool. The claims echo those in a class action by users of fertility tracking app Flo Health, where a San Francisco jury on August 1 found Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Damages are yet to be determined, but as I previously noted, the total could be huge. In June, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi and gave the plaintiffs a green light to depose Zuckerberg. However, the judge limited the session to a maximum of three hours and narrowed the scope of allowable questions to center on a consent decree Meta entered into with the Federal Trade Commission involving the Flo app and Zuckerberg's role as a final decisionmaker on privacy-related matters. A Meta spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. The company in court papers has denied wrongdoing in both cases. Plaintiffs' lawyers from Gibbs Mura declined to comment for this column. Defense counsel from Latham & Watkins and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in July asked the 9th Circuit for a writ of mandamus to nix the deposition, calling it 'a critically important issue of first impression' for the San Francisco-based court. Mandamus is a 'drastic and extraordinary' request, plaintiffs' lawyers say, arguing that the trial court judge in allowing the deposition committed no clear error to justify such relief. But defense counsel say there's a larger issue at stake than a one-off deposition. Multi-billion-dollar companies like Meta face scores of lawsuits, and their leaders have "uniquely crucial and demanding job duties, as well as limited time," they wrote. That makes being called to testify especially burdensome. District courts within the sprawling 9th Circuit are 'deeply divided' on exactly when and how to properly apply the apex doctrine, Meta lawyers said in asking for appellate guidance. Indeed, spats over deposing CEOs have arisen regularly in court within the 9th Circuit and beyond in cases involving companies including Microsoft, Tesla, Uber, and Alphabet. In some instances, execs were let off the hook, while others were compelled to sit for depositions. Such demands can be more about harassment than a legitimate need for information, the Meta lawyers claim, arguing that deposition testimony is only justified if the executive has unique, first-hand knowledge that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Here, they assert, the bid to depose Zuckerberg is 'a ploy to increase the burdens of this litigation and obtain perceived leverage." Plaintiffs' lawyers counter that state and federal procedural rules already allow subpoenaed witnesses to contest demands for their testimony. There should be 'no special dispensation from civil discovery for corporate executives simply because of their status as titans of industry,' wrote lawyers from Gibbs Mura; Simmons Hanly Conroy; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kiesel Law; and Terrell Marshall Law Group. The underlying litigation began in 2022, when plaintiffs alleged Meta violated a federal wiretap law and a California privacy law, as well as its own contractual promises governing user privacy on Facebook, my Reuters colleague Jonathan Stempel reported. According to the complaint, Meta Pixel - an internet analytics tool that Meta makes available to website developers - provided sensitive information about users' health to Meta when they logged into patient portals where it had been installed, enabling Meta to make money from targeted advertising. Meta in court papers has responded that it should not be held liable if certain healthcare providers allegedly misused Pixel, 'a publicly available tool that Meta did not implement or configure on the providers' websites.' Plaintiffs' lawyers, in justifying their request to question Zuckerberg, argue that from the start he's been implicated in the case. 'He had personal knowledge of Meta's intent to receive this information,' they allege, 'and he knew about and played a key role in Meta's collection of sensitive health data.' The appeals court has not indicated when it will rule on the petition, but Meta lawyers notified the district court that Zuckerberg's deposition may proceed this month in Palo Alto if the 9th Circuit denies its mandamus petition by August 21.
