Three factors that will determine this are citizens’ faith in the legal process, the PAP credibility in upholding its standards of probity, and the continued efficacy of the national integrity system Singapore and its people are defined by

. . . . .

Former Transport Minister S. Iswaran was sentenced to a year’s jail on Oct 3 under a law that seeks to ensure that public servants are not susceptible to influence through the receipt of material benefits from parties that have interests in government dealings.

Presenting his decision after S. Iswaran admitted to obtaining gifts worth more than $400,000 over seven years from people whose firms had close connections with his official duties, Justice Vincent Hoong provided three reasons for sentencing in excess of the six or seven months sought by the prosecution.

He cited these as aggravating factors: the seven long years in which the actions were carried out; Iswaran’s higher culpability as he was no mere public servant but a minister in government; and, the overall harm his actions inflicted on public interest and trust in public institutions.

Iswaran’s counsel has indicated that his client reserves the right to appeal the sentence. While it is important to wait and learn if there will indeed be an appeal, the judge’s decision provides a significant statement that will matter in the court of public opinion.

The question is how this will affect the political fortunes of the People’s Action Party (PAP). In power since 1959, this is a party whose legitimacy has been founded on its ability to deliver successful development without compromising on the rule of law and integrity in government.

The enduring political effect of this case and its outcome will turn on three related factors.

The Legal Process and Citizens’ Responsibility

First, the extent to which the public believes the matter was prosecuted without fear or favour. This will, in turn, depend on its grasp of how that legal process works especially when the Attorney-General’s Chambers amended the two charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and decided to take 30 charges against Iswaran under Section 165 of the Penal Code into consideration in his sentencing. When he stood before the court, Mr Iswaran pleaded guilty to five charges of receiving items of value as a public servant under the latter.

We have to rely on academics and well-regarded professionals in the field to provide dispassionate explanations of due process and the operations of the prosecution as they are normally conducted to confirm if this case followed that norm.

There is no doubt that there will be elements in Singapore and the online space who will want to trade in suggestions that the process had been less than scrupulous.

These need to be engaged with and addressed openly and rationally; not in ways that lead to greater skepticism.

It will be important for citizens to see it as our responsibility to level-up our understanding of such legal processes, the facts and the truth of this case, to inform our political position on these important governance questions.

The Political Factor and the PAP’s Role

Second, the political effect will depend on the public’s assessment of how the PAP, as the ruling party that has written the book on what integrity and good governance in Singapore means, has handled this matter.

It is only to be expected that the public continues to look askance at this case in the months ahead. This is in spite of how the senior leadership of the PAP has continued to emphasise that it maintains a zero-tolerance approach to any hint of venality.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had said on July 12 last year that nothing would be swept under the carpet even if it was embarrassing or damaging to the PAP and the government. He reiterated this on 3 October when the sentence was delivered.

The public does hold the PAP to a higher standard. This is not unreasonable and it is not an expectation that is only unique to Singapore.

In post-election surveys conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies, respondents typically rank three qualities as most important in selecting their political leaders — efficiency, empathy, and honesty.

In other surveys on how Singaporeans define their political system as such the Asian Barometer Survey series, the qualities of “politics being clean and free of corruption” and “government ensures there is law and order” are central. This is as it should be.

Since the PAP government has put in place many measures to keep the system clean, including high salaries for top civil servants and politicians, the public understands that that there is no excuse whatsoever for people with decision-making powers to skew policies and programmes to favour any stakeholder or even act in ways that suggest this will happen.

Singaporeans also do not make a distinction between personal and public ethics; they are also not likely to excuse it wherever it takes place – in Singapore or abroad. It is expected that how politicians conduct themselves in private and public must be aligned and the legitimate right to exercise power is very much associated with this ethic of honesty; not just the vote. Hints of compromise will do damage to the party brand.

Here, the responsibility lies with the PAP to repeat — and repeat again — its stance on honesty, integrity and probity, engaging the discussion on all the niggling doubts the public might have about it and anyone involved, to restore faith in its character where that has been lost.

The Governance System — Its Integrity and Our Identity

Third, the political effect of this case and its eventual outcome will also depend on whether the public thinks the matter signifies that Singapore’s system of national integrity works. Upholding the system has to start at the top, with leaders in all the domains across Singapore. Can big fish argue their way out of misdeeds and get off the hook?

Clearly, the system still has a strong deterrent effect against corruption. By most accounts, Singapore ranks well in integrity on international rankings for corruption such as Transparency International. But as we say in Singapore, “low crime doesn’t mean no crime”. So, the question is what happens when there is failure?

The Iswaran case demonstrates amply that the system of enforcement will kick in. Due process will take over and investigations will be carried out. Government, state and legal institutions, and the presidential system provide several levels of checks on integrity.

This matter been an important signal — that there will be no compromise to good governance.

As Singapore is a global business hub, notions of fair play, of decisions made on the basis of merit, transparency, accountability and rule of law must continue to be our calling card. When there is failure, is there due recompense and recovery? The key stakeholders in the political system and economy must be convinced that the answer is an unqualified “yes”.

There have been several teachable moments of what is permitted and what is not in the national discourse; how our anti-corruption system works; but also how this can be improved. The system’s efficacy is what makes Singapore extraordinary. It is our unique value proposition not only to international business but for our own self-respect as a country.

This ethic of integrity must be reinforced from generation to generation among citizens, business folk and of course, government; to locals and sojourners; to Singapore firms here and operating elsewhere; multinational enterprises based here; and global concerns, yes, even the F1 Grand Prix that stages its race here every September.

Ultimately, the political impact of this case rests on how it makes Singaporeans feel about who we are.

Many will agree that a strong signal is required in this case and any that follows, within an evenly applied rule of law, so that national standards of probity are maintained.

Eventually, they will vote for people and parties that will do that, that deserve their trust, or have restored it.

 

Gillian Koh is senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.