The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC)’s decision to drop corruption charges against former transport minister S Iswaran is puzzling, especially given Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which presumes corruption when a public officer receives valuable gifts, placing the burden on the accused to disprove corrupt intent.
Despite Iswaran allegedly accepting over S$384,000 in gifts, the AGC downgraded the charges, citing difficulties in proving corruption.
This decision contrasts with past precedents, such as the 1975 case of Wee Toon Boon, where the court convicted the former minister under similar circumstances.
Wee was sentenced for accepting far less valuable gifts, raising questions about why the presumption under Section 8 of the PCA wasn’t fully tested in Iswaran’s case.
By downgrading the charges, the AGC risks undermining public confidence in the application of Singapore’s anti-corruption laws.
Read more at: www.theonlinec...
--------
Love to see more of such content on our KZitem channel? Help us create more by becoming a member on Patreon!
Join now: Patreon.com/CitizenMediaFund
Subscribe to our KZitem channel: / @theonlinecitizenasia
Follow us on Instagram: / theonlinecitizen
Follow us on Facebook: / theonlinecitizen
Follow us on Telegram: t.me/theonline...
Негізгі бет Why did AGC drop corruption charges against Iswaran despite PCA’s section 8’s presumption clause?
Пікірлер: 119