Prosecution accepts judicial mercy for cancer-stricken Ong Beng Seng; sentencing set for Aug 15

There is a basis for the Singapore courts to consider judicial mercy in sentencing property tycoon Ong Beng Seng for his involvement in a case linked to former transport minister S Iswaran, prosecutors said on Monday (Aug 4). 

Judicial mercy refers to Singapore courts’ discretionary power to impose more lenient sentences than circumstances would otherwise warrant, recognising exceptional mitigating circumstances including the accused’s medical condition, such as terminal illness or cases where imprisonment would endanger the accused’s life.

The former managing director of Hotel Properties Ltd suffers from an incurable cancer known as advanced multiple myeloma which has damaged his immune system, making him vulnerable to life-threatening infections. Ong also suffers from other complications which further exacerbate his risk of infection and place him at risk of gangrene.

While a custodial sentence of eight weeks’ jail would ordinarily have been appropriate for Ong’s offence, the prosecution accepts that in light of the severity and complexity of his medical conditions, it will not object to Ong being fined only the maximum amount, which would be S$30,000 in this case.

The prosecution noted that Ong’s conditions would “lead to an endangerment of life” if he were to go to jail.

“The accused is seriously immunocompromised in part due to his potent cancer medications which makes him susceptible to life-threatening infections while incarcerated.” 

In its written submissions, the prosecution said: “The accused is also said to suffer from unpredictable and disabling neuromuscular episodes that include sudden cramps that render his legs and hands functionally paralysed.”

The defence’s case

Ong’s legal team includes Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, the chief executive officer of Drew & Napier, and lawyers from Allen & Gledhill led by Senior Counsel Jason Chan. 

The defence argued how Ong’s multiple myeloma is one of the most complex and high risk cases of the disease. 

His condition puts him at a high risk of infection if he is imprisoned. “Mr Ong is now living within a very narrow margin where there is no room for error,” said Bull.

While the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has said in a letter that it can provide an adequate level of care, the medical reports from Ong’s doctors make it clear that this will not be sufficient for the “extraordinarily dire medical condition” that he is in, said Bull.

Currently, Ong’s medical team – comprising specialists – is available to him around the clock, and is able to analyse any medical events given their knowledge of his case. This level of care will not be available in prison, said Bull.

Even if the court does not grant Ong judicial mercy, his medical condition is still a strong mitigating factor for the imposition of a fine over a jail term, said Bull. This is because, unlike Iswaran, there was no pre-meditation and sophistication in Ong’s conduct.

“The starting point must be radically lower,” said Bull, adding that a “stiff fine” will be an appropriate sentence.

Bull added that Ong’s involvement was much less significant than Iswaran’s.

“He did not come up with a plan… He did not make payment. Instead, he received the request from the minister to (issue) the invoice and he simply complied.”

The defence also brought up Ong’s contributions to Singapore society, which include lending his expertise and network when called upon by the public sector to partner, host or invest in events that would elevate Singapore’s international profile and benefit Singaporeans.

The tycoon had also promoted major concerts and cultural events which have transformed Singapore into a regional hub for the arts and entertainment, bringing popular artistes such as One Direction and Coldplay to Singapore, they argued.

However, deputy chief prosecutor Christopher Ong said that in relation to judicial mercy, the court should look only at Ong’s ill health and not other mitigating factors.

These other mitigating factors the defence has cited would only be relevant in reducing the length of imprisonment should Ong receive a jail term.

The offence

Ong, 79, is known as the man who brought the Formula 1 night race to Singapore in 2008. Iswaran had been minister-in-charge of Trade Relations and was the government’s chief negotiator with the Singapore GP on F1-related business matters. 

In December 2022, Ong extended an invitation to Qatar to Iswaran, and the pair flew to Doha on Ong’s private jet. Iswaran then returned to Singapore on a business-class flight. 

The court heard that sometime in May 2023, Ong spoke to Iswaran over the phone and informed him that the flight manifest for the Doha trip had been seized by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the course of its investigations into a separate matter. Iswaran acknowledged this. 

The next day, Ong spoke to Iswaran again by phone. In that call, Iswaran asked Ong to have Singapore GP bill him for the Doha trip-related expenses including the business-class flight to Doha. Ong agreed to this. 

More than two years after the flight, Ong pleaded guilty to one charge of obstructing justice for instructing Singapore GP director Mok Chee Liang, in May 2023, to bill Iswaran for the business-class ticket from Doha to Singapore – an action that would have obstructed the course of justice.

Another charge, for abetting an offence under Section 165, was taken into consideration for Ong’s sentencing. Section 165 prohibits public servants from accepting valuable items for free or inadequate payment from someone connected to business transactions or proceedings they handle.

The charge that was taken into consideration related to flights and a hotel stay. 

Iswaran’s 2022 flight to Doha on Ong’s private jet was worth US$7,700. Ong also made arrangements for a one-night stay at Four Seasons Hotel Doha, valued at S$4,737.63, and offered him a business-class flight from Doha to Singapore worth S$5,700.

Ong had facilitated the abetment of obstruction of justice by alerting Iswaran about the CPIB’s discovery of the flight manifest, the prosecution noted.

Ong’s act of facilitating Iswaran’s payment of the business class flight also had the inevitable effect of potentially insulating not only Iswaran but also himself from investigations and prosecution.

After hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence, Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng, who is presiding over the case, questioned why Ong was able to travel overseas earlier this year despite the travel increasing his exposure to infection. 

Bull acknowledged the risk involved but mentioned how Ong travelled by private jet, which he understood would have reduced the level of contact the hotelier had with people. 

Judge Lee is expected to give her sentence on Aug 15. 

Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

What is judicial mercy, and how does it apply to Ong Beng Seng’s case?: ST explains ADV: Research Position at Centre for Asian Legal Studies