ICA issues warning to tycoon Ong Beng Seng, PR status will not be revoked.

[batman1]

Thought OBS would’ve been put in a cold freezing room with the Police IO scaring him into saying yes although OBS is a sickly old man

So it’s an invitation for tea and small talk where after OBS says yes, coffee, tea and polar curry pie and sugar rolls are microwaved and served piping hot

Life is unfair.When u are wealthy it will make a difference how u are treated. 555

 

[nabeifuckpap]

Life is unfair.When u are wealthy it will make a difference how u are treated. 555

PAP white horse system must be destroyed

 

[Yuletide]

PAP has become soft on corruption when their own people are involved

 

[batman1]

PAP has become soft on corruption when their own people are involved

Double standards.1 for miw n wealthy elites and 1 for low ses sinkees.

 

[Iceberg]

Singapore is behaving like one of those SIA girls that he fucks overnight and leaves a few thousand on bed in morning.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

ICA’s warning to Ong Beng Seng raises questions over unequal treatment in PR revocations - The Online Citizen​

The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority’s decision to issue only a warning to Ong Beng Seng, despite his conviction for a serious offence, has raised questions over fairness—especially as others have lost PR status for less.

Published

on

10 November 2025
The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority’s (ICA) decision to allow Ong Beng Seng to retain his permanent resident (PR) status has come under increasing scrutiny, with critics pointing to stark inconsistencies in how Singapore treats PRs convicted of offences.

On 10 November 2025, ICA confirmed that Ong would not have his PR revoked, and would instead be issued a formal letter of warning. The statement noted that any future adverse conduct could lead to revocation of his residency status.

Serious offence, lenient outcome—due to illness

In August 2025, Ong, 79, pleaded guilty to abetting the obstruction of justice under Section 204A of the Penal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

The court found that Ong had arranged for a belated billing of a S$5,700 business-class flight taken by then-Transport Minister S Iswaran from Doha to Singapore. This was intended to obscure the source of the benefit and was discovered during a wider probe by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

Though the maximum sentence included imprisonment, Ong was fined S$30,000. The relatively light sentence was not a reflection of the offence’s severity but was imposed after the court accepted that his advanced multiple myeloma—a life-threatening cancer first diagnosed in 2020—rendered a custodial sentence inappropriate.

Charge of corruption taken into consideration

More notably, a second charge—under Section 165 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code—was taken into consideration during sentencing. This charge involved Ong abetting a public servant (Iswaran) in obtaining two flights and hotel accommodation worth S$20,848.03, for no consideration.

The charge aligns with offences involving gratification to public servants, a category of corruption-related crimes treated with particular seriousness in Singapore’s legal framework.

While not proceeded with formally, the court considered this charge in sentencing, indicating that Ong’s conduct spanned more than one offence, and that elements of corruption were present.

Disparities with past PR revocations

The decision not to revoke Ong’s PR, despite the conviction and gravity of the case, appears at odds with how ICA has handled previous cases involving PRs.

In 2021, Chong Tet Choe lost his PR status after being convicted of breaching COVID-19 Stay-Home Notice regulations. His sentence was two weeks’ imprisonment—far less serious than the potential penalties faced by Ong.

Another prominent case was that of Huang Jing and his wife, whose PRs were cancelled in 2017 after he was found to have acted on behalf of a foreign government. While the case raised national security concerns, it did not involve a court conviction. Yet, their PR statuses were revoked outright.

These examples underscore a potential inconsistency in enforcement: lesser offences, or even unprosecuted cases, have led to loss of residency, while Ong retained his despite both a conviction and a corruption-related charge being considered.

Wider implications of the Iswaran case

The seriousness of Ong’s conduct is further underscored by how the court viewed the actions of S Iswaran—the public servant who received the benefits from Ong.

Although prosecutors sought a jail term of six to seven months and proceeded on a reduced number of charges, the court ultimately imposed a higher sentence than requested. This decision signals the judiciary’s view that the offences warranted a stronger penalty than even the prosecution had considered appropriate.

Given that Ong was directly involved in the same transaction through which Iswaran received the gifts, the court’s position reinforces the gravity of Ong’s role—making ICA’s leniency all the more difficult to justify.

ICA’s explanation: Sparse and unsatisfactory?

In its short statement on 10 November, ICA said to the media:

“The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has reviewed the permanent resident status of Ong Beng Seng, and will not revoke his PR status. Instead, he has been issued a letter of warning to put him on notice that any future adverse conduct will render him liable for revocation of his PR status.”

This lack of detailed reasoning stands in contrast to previous statements where ICA outlined the basis for revocation, often citing public interest, regulatory breaches, or undesirable conduct.

Structured discretion or unequal application?

In Parliament earlier in September this year, Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam said that ICA’s decisions are guided by a structured framework that assesses the offence’s nature and severity, the individual’s family ties in Singapore, and contributions to society.

Ong’s decades-long presence in Singapore and substantial economic contributions—including his role in bringing the Formula 1 Grand Prix to the country—are often cited in his favour.

However, these factors should not outweigh the public interest in maintaining a consistent and impartial legal-immigration regime. Allowing prominent individuals to remain despite serious offences may set troubling precedents and erode public trust.

A test of public confidence in equal justice

The Ong Beng Seng case touches on a deeper issue: whether all individuals—regardless of wealth, health or status—are treated equally before the law and under immigration policy.

Where lesser-known PRs have faced severe consequences for minor infractions, the public perception of selective leniency in high-profile cases threatens to undermine the core values Singapore espouses: impartiality, meritocracy, and the rule of law.

Unless addressed with greater transparency and consistency, such outcomes risk creating a two-tier system—one for the well-connected, and another for everyone else.

Share this:

 

[Yuletide]

Rich elites are PAP pets.

 

[Yumiko]

PAP has become soft on corruption when their own people are involved

Yes indeed