$400,000 is less than a peanut

SINGAPORE: In the latest of surprise moves made in the criminal case of former transport minister S Iswaran, a High Court judge imposed a jail term that was longer than what the prosecution and defence sought.

The jail term of 12 months was about six times the eight weeks sought by Iswaran's top legal team, and almost twice the six to seven months submitted by the prosecution, which was fronted by no less than a Deputy Attorney-General.... CNA

Is $400k a big sum of money? If you belong to the super talent or super rich class, it is really nothing, not even the size of a peanut. So why so much hooha about $400k? But for the ordinary HDB millionaires, not many would have $400k in their savings, many would not even have $10k in their savings. So this is a matter of relativity.  And this is exactly what happened during the hearing in court, the severity as perceived by the prosecutors and the defence lawyers. And their positions must have made the judge squirmed in his chair when their proposals of a few months or a few weeks jail would be deemed necessary.

In a court deliberation, both the prosecution and defence counsels were expected to put up sound arguments, legally and factually, to assist the judge in making his decision. In this base, both thought the case was not that serious. The judge was thus put in a very awkward position to raise the jail sentence much about the proposals of the two sides. He was not in a good position to play the moderator or middle man to placate both sides. It was him alone that would be the focus of attention, to unilaterally ignored the positions of the prosecutors and defence lawyers. In a way, he was made to look like the bad guy in some quarters, and the hero in different quarters.

Below are some reactions to Justice Vincent Hoong's unexpected decision in a CNA article. The prosecutors and the defence lawyers probably thought they had it all worked out during the pre trail meetings, and both sides were quite happy with their chosen positions. Little would they expect the judge to totally reject their pleasant dreams.

 

'On Justice Vincent Hoong meting out a sentence longer than what both sides had sought, Mr Chooi Jing Yen said this "is unusual, but happens once in a while".

"The judge is meant to apply the law and mete out the sentence based on the charges and the facts of the case," he said....'

Oooh, the sentences were based on the charges and the facts of the case. This seems to say that the judge, prosecutors and defence lawyers totally disagree in their understanding of the charges and the facts of the case and how to apply the law.

'However, Mr Yeo - a former judicial officer and deputy public prosecutor - felt that the judge's decision was justified....

He added that it was not usual for a judge to impose a sentence higher than what parties had asked for, and that the court in this case was clearly indicating its serious view of the offence....'

This statement is another way of saying the proposals by the prosecutors and defence lawyers were unjustified. Agree? And also, they did not see the seriousness of the offence, which the judge clearly understood.

'Mr Melvin Loh, a senior lecturer of Law Programmes at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, noted the aggravating factors in this case.

"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 in him, which in turn led to the great harm that was caused to public interest as well as to public institutions by his actions," noted Mr Loh....' (Bold was by me).

Melvin Loh actually summed up what the judge's reasoning and thinking. And below was what was reported in the media.

'Justice Vincent Hoong delivered his sentencing remarks in a 40-minute session, dismissing several of the defence's arguments and stating in an unexpected turn that both the sentences sought by the prosecution and defence were "manifestly inadequate"....(Bold was highlighted by me).

Justice Hoong said it is about the damage to the trust in public institutions, if there is a perception that public servants could be swayed by offers of valuable items.

"Persons who hold public office are conferred status and power by virtue of such office for the purpose of serving the public interest, and the obtaining of gifts from persons who have a connection with a public servant's official duties is an abuse of such power," he said.'

The key issues were public office, status and power of office and public interest. Abuse of public office and power, the higher the position, the more serious is the offence. That must be the case.

What do you think?