THE Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) did not disclose that Transport Minister S Iswaran had been arrested in its statement on Jul 12, as it wanted to first establish more facts on the case, said Education Minister Chan Chun Sing in Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 2).

Chan, who is also the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, added that the standard practice for law enforcement agencies is to not disclose the names of persons being investigated or arrested, given that this may prejudice a person.

“The impression that he has done wrong will be there, even if subsequent investigations do not result in any charge being brought against him,” he said.

Chan was answering questions from Members of Parliament (MPs) on CPIB’s probe involving Iswaran. In all, 18 were filed on the matter.

CPIB had announced on Jul 12 that Iswaran was assisting the authorities with investigations, without providing further details. It was later revealed that the minister and billionaire hotelier Ong Beng Seng had both been arrested on Jul 11 and then released on bail.

In his reply, Chan said law enforcement agencies assess operational considerations – including preserving the integrity of evidence, protecting the confidentiality of the investigation, and avoiding impact on other related parties – when deciding what information to reveal.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

That is why Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s initial statements took reference from CPIB’s initial press release on Jul 12. This was the “proper thing to do”, because ministers should not reveal more than what law enforcement agencies are prepared to disclose, said Chan. “While ministers do have the final decision-making power, they will usually take the advice of the law enforcement agency.”

When CPIB confirmed on Jul 14 that both Iswaran and Ong had been arrested, investigations had been ongoing for three days and the agency had obtained more facts, said Chan. Hotel Properties Limited had also announced then that CPIB had issued Ong a notice of arrest.

CPIB thus decided that it would be “appropriate” then to confirm that the pair had been arrested.

Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai and Workers’ Party MP Louis Chua asked whether all CPIB investigations required the prime minister’s concurrence, and if the agency was obliged to seek the prime minister’s approval to open probes.

Responding, Chan said while CPIB reports directly to the prime minister, it is “functionally independent” and does not need the prime minister’s go-ahead to run an investigation. “In this case, it kept the prime minister informed and sought his concurrence to initiate formal investigations of Minister Iswaran because the investigations concerned a cabinet minister,” he added.

If the prime minister refuses to give consent, the Constitution gives the director of CPIB leeway to go directly to the president for it.

Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim asked if CPIB’s reporting line could be extended beyond one branch of government, be it by involving the judiciary or by forming a select committee, as other countries have done.

To this, PM Lee said the solution to having greater safeguards was not to be found by instituting more checks and balances, but “in honest people with integrity, conviction and courage to make the system work”.

Asked why Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan were allowed to continue with their duties while being investigated by CPIB on the Ridout Road issue, Chan said the “crucial difference” was that the two ministers had asked for an independent probe, and PM Lee had tasked the CPIB to conduct it.

PM Lee also had no reason to believe that the pair had committed wrongdoing, so he saw no need to put them on a leave of absence. But he could have asked them to go on leave if evidence that emerged during the investigations warranted it, said Chan.

In contrast, in the case involving Iswaran, CPIB had come across some information concerning him while investigating a separate matter, and then decided to look further into it. PM Lee’s assessment was that it was necessary to suspend Iswaran from his official duties during the probe.

Acknowledging Singaporeans’ concerns about the matter, Chan said more details on the investigation will be made public in due course, and that the House and the public ought to give CPIB the “time and space they need to do their work”.

Reduced salary

In a separate statement, PM Lee told the House that Iswaran has been interdicted from duty with a reduced monthly salary of S$8,500 until further notice. The move draws reference from the current civil service practice of halving the individual’s salary, subject to a ceiling and a floor, until the matter is resolved.

There was no rule or precedent on how to do this in the case of a political office holder, given that such incidents are rare. “But this was my decision as prime minister, because the political contexts for a minister and a civil servant being investigated and interdicted are different,” said PM Lee.

Progress Singapore Party MP Hazel Poa asked why Iswaran was not placed on no-pay leave instead. PM Lee replied that in addition to doing the right thing by the government and taxpayers, he also had to be fair to Iswaran; while the investigation was not a minor matter, the minister had yet to be convicted or charged.

“Is it fair for me to say: ‘Your pay goes to zero’? I think it is not... So I decided on this number S$8,500 because it is much less than half-pay,” he said. “I think we have to go on principles rather than ‘whatever we do, anything you can do, I can do stronger’. I think that would not be a wise approach today.”

The Public Service Division said that, as of this year, the benchmark for a minister’s monthly salary stands at S$55,000, or S$1.1 million a year.

Workers’ Party MP Dennis Tan asked if the interdiction factored in the minister’s pay and MP’s allowance. PM Lee clarified that Iswaran’s allowance as an MP had not been interdicted. “If you want to do that, Parliament has to move a motion to interdict the MP as an MP, and Parliament has not done that,” he said. This has not been done in previous cases either.

Chan added that the MP’s allowance is withheld when an MP is suspended from the service of Parliament, if a motion is moved to remove the member.