SINGAPORE – Parliament will wait for former transport minister S. Iswaran’s court case to conclude before deciding if a Committee of Inquiry (COI) is needed, said Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.

She said this in Parliament on Feb 5 in response to a question by Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang), who had asked if a COI was necessary to investigate the matter further to affirm the Government’s stance of keeping the system free of corruption.

Iswaran was arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in July 2023 and released on bail.

He had been instructed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to take leave of absence until CPIB’s investigations were completed.

On Jan 18, he was handed 27 charges, comprising two counts of corruption, 24 counts of obtaining items from someone he had business dealings with as a public servant, and one of obstructing the course of justice.

He is accused of obtaining items such as tickets to musicals and football matches from billionaire hotelier Ong Beng Seng. The value of the items in the 27 charges is worth more than $380,000.

Iswaran’s pre-trial conference is scheduled for March 1.

Ms Indranee said in her speech on Feb 5 that a COI is appointed to look into matters including accidents involving death, serious injury or serious property damage, and incidents that may endanger public safety, public health or the management of a ministry.

Previously reported COIs had investigated incidents such as the SingHealth cyber attack in 2018 and the death of Singapore actor Aloysius Pang while he was on reservist duty in 2019.

Ms Indranee said: “The purpose of a COI is to investigate something with a view of finding out how it happened.

“In this case, the CPIB has investigated the matter. Based on the investigations, the Attorney-General’s Chambers took the view that there is a basis for criminal charges to be brought against Mr Iswaran.

“Determination of criminal offences is a matter for the court, which is currently dealing with the case.”

PM Lee said in a statement on Jan 18 that Iswaran had resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) and would be stepping down as transport minister and West Coast GRC MP.

In his statement to the media on Jan 18, Iswaran maintained his innocence and said he would return his reduced monthly salary of $8,500 a month and the MP allowance he had received since the start of investigations in July 2023.

Ms Indranee reiterated that Iswaran was not suspended as an MP and his MP allowance was not withheld while he was under investigation, as doing so would prejudge the outcome of his case.

She was responding to a question by Mr Henry Kwek (Kebun Baru) about the case.

The issue of suspending Iswaran as an MP was first brought up in Parliament on Sept 19, 2023, when Progress Singapore Party’s Non-Constituency MP Hazel Poa filed a motion to suspend Iswaran as MP so he could no longer receive his annual MP allowance of $192,500 during the ongoing probe.

PAP and Workers’ Party MPs rejected this motion, agreeing there was no basis to do so as the outcome of investigations was not yet known.

At the Sept 19 sitting, Ms Indranee filed a separate motion that called on the House to be firm and fair with any MPs being investigated for possible wrongdoing, and to consider Iswaran’s case when the outcome of the investigations against him was known.

This was passed by Parliament after about two hours of discussion on both motions.

On Feb 5, Ms Indranee said everyone who is alleged to have committed any wrongdoing, including MPs, should be given due process.

“This is why in most parliamentary systems, including the United Kingdom, you’ll see that there is no general practice of suspending a member against whom investigations are ongoing,” she added.

Ms Indranee also highlighted differences between taking or being put on leave of absence (LOA) and being suspended.

She said LOA does not imply wrongdoing, as an MP can apply to take it for various reasons, including illness and overseas travel. But a suspension operates as a sanction or penalty.

Ms Indranee added that, unlike a suspension, Parliament does not decide if an MP is put on LOA.

She said: “The MP can apply for LOA on his or her own accord, or be required by the party to take LOA. Whether or not the party requires the MP to take LOA will depend on the circumstances of each case.”

She added: “If the MP is placed on LOA and is subsequently charged or convicted, it would be the party’s responsibility to ensure that the MP pays back the allowance received during the period, if that is the right thing to do in the circumstances.”