Given that there was no precedent, I thought that this in turn afforded the court a good opportunity to lay down what will be a clear decision on what it perceives to be a most serious case in terms of culpability, (compared with) the amount of gifts involved, (and) how (the offence) had arisen,
Having considered the numerous aggravating factors and lack of substantial mitigating factors in the circumstances, it is understandable why the court disagreed with the lower sentencing submissions proposed by prosecution and defence, and imposed a higher sentence in the circumstances,
I believe that Justice Hoong is justified in what he sees as a case to set down as a precedent for deterrence and clear signalling for any future instances,
The focus shifts from the transactional nature of the act to the broader implications of the conduct itself, reinforcing the idea that the mere acceptance of any gift can pose a serious risk to the integrity of any public office,
In theory, if the prosecution feels that the sentence is manifestly excessive, they could also launch an appeal. Again, whilst extremely rare, it has happened before,
Culpability and harm are higher the higher the office,
In this case, the judge noted several aggravating factors, namely the duration of the commission of the offences, the high office held by the accused as well as the trust that was placed under him, which in turn led to the harm that was caused to public interest as well as to public institutions by his actions,
The judge is meant to apply the law and mete out the sentence based on the charges and the facts of the case,
However, the court appears to have considered that Iswaran committed the offences while a high-ranking public servant,
Accused persons typically elect to take a certain course taking into account the prosecution's sentencing position and their likely sentence,
A key difference is that (a corruption offence) does actually require something to be exchanged, even if intangible, whereas a Section 165 offence is made out even if we fall short of that,
Singapore's disgraced former transport minister jailed for 12 months in landmark case
The nation prides itself on its squeaky clean image and lack of corruption,
It was CPIB that discovered the matter through their initial findings and investigations, and they felt that there was a need to interview Minister Iswaran as part of further investigations,
The way we have handled these incidents shows how seriously the PAP takes our responsibility of governing Singapore, and being accountable to parliament and to Singaporeans,
As part of bail conditions, subjects' passports are impounded,
I understand that there is much public interest in this matter,
Our integrity and honesty must never be compromised and only in that way can we do justice and uphold the trust that Singaporeans have given us,
I gave Director CPIB my concurrence on Jul 6, following which the formal investigation began on Jul 11,
The specific details in Minister Iswaran's case follow generally how the civil service would deal with a senior officer in a similar situation,