Individuals Charged under Section 165 of Penal Code
Ministry of Home AffairsSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns the number of individuals charged and convicted under Section 165 of the Penal Code from 1965 to 2023 and the rationale for using it versus the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song requested data on conviction rates, average sentencing, and the specific factors influencing prosecutorial decisions. Minister K Shanmugam replied that complete records for the requested period are unavailable and highlighted that legal cases against Ministers are exceedingly rare. He explained that the Attorney-General’s Chambers exercises prosecutorial discretion based on available evidence and facts, typically without publicly disclosing reasons for specific charges. The Minister clarified that the Attorney-General’s Chambers makes these decisions independently based on the unique circumstances of each case.
Transcript
41 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many individuals have been charged under section 165 of the Penal Code from 1965 to 2023; (b) how many are convicted; (c) what is the average (i) fine and (ii) prison sentence; and (d) what are the considerations for charging an individual under section 165 instead of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Mr K Shanmugam: It is not possible to confirm who or how many individuals were charged under section 165 of the Penal Code from 1965 to 2023 because records were not kept for the entire period.
This Parliamentary Question appears to be referencing the charges brought against Mr Iswaran.
First, let me say that cases against Ministers are very rare in Singapore. Since Independence, there have only been three reported instances, involving Mr Wee Toon Boon in 1975, Mr Teh Cheang Wan in 1986 and now Mr Iswaran. Mr Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide as investigations were ongoing.
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) does not generally give reasons in public why a specific charge has been brought, under one provision as opposed to another provision. These are matters of prosecutorial discretion, exercised on the basis of several possible factors, including the evidence available. Thus, if Mr Giam’s real question is why there are charges under section 165 of the Penal Code against Mr Iswaran when there have been no Ministers charged with this offence before, then the direct response is that this is only the second case in 58 years to be brought in Court against a Minister and AGC makes the decision based on the facts of each case.