https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-ong-beng-seng-fined-094500516.html
Fri, 15 August 2025 at 5:45 pm SGT·4-min read
Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng leaving the State Courts on Aug 15.
SINGAPORE – Tycoon Ong Beng Seng would have been jailed for abetting the obstruction of justice in the case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran, were it not for his medical condition.
As Ong, 79, suffers from advanced multiple myeloma, a rare form of blood cancer, imprisonment would risk endangering his life.
So, on Aug 15, the court exercised judicial mercy and Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng handed him a fine of $30,000 which is the maximum the district court could impose for the offence.
Here are the key points of her judgment.
This was done after the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had seized a flight manifest for Ong’s private jet.
Judge Lee said this was undoubtedly serious.
Ong’s other charge, which was taken into consideration for sentencing, was for abetting Mr Iswaran, who was then a public servant, in obtaining gifts.
These included a flight on Ong’s private plane from Singapore to Doha worth about $10,400, a one-night stay in Four Seasons Hotel Doha worth about $4,700, and the $5,700 business class flight from Doha to Singapore.
This offence also warranted condemnation, said Judge Lee, and ran the risk of damaging the trust and integrity of public institutions.
The prosecution and defence had agreed that were it not for Ong’s ill health, he should have been jailed.
The judge noted that in Mr Iswaran’s case, the High Court had found the appropriate starting sentence for the related obstruction of justice charge to be 18 weeks.
But because Mr Iswaran had been the one to ask for the bill, Ong’s culpability was lower.
Judge Lee found the appropriate starting sentence would have been 15 weeks’ jail.
The prosecution previously submitted that, were it not for his ill health, 12 weeks’ jail would have been appropriate if Ong had claimed trial, with a reduction to eight weeks’ jail for an early plea of guilt.
Ong Beng Seng was fined $30,000 on Aug 15 for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran.
The founder of Singapore-based organisation Hotel Properties Limited is known to have brought in Formula One (F1) to Singapore in 2008.
The judge said his character and contributions, however significant, were at best a neutral factor in sentencing. She said they provided no basis for any reduction in sentence.
She said both journeys were carefully managed to minimise health risks through private aviation, which significantly reduced exposure to infections compared with commercial travel.
The second journey, which was to consult a professor in the United States, involved several stops along the way.
Judge Lee said this demonstrated Ong’s medical fragility and his inability to endure a direct flight, underscoring the gravity of his condition.
She said: “One may consider it unfair that an offender who can afford a higher standard of healthcare is better positioned to avoid imprisonment than a less privileged offender.
“This view is misguided and misconstrues the court’s focus. The critical question is not whether an offender may receive a lower standard of healthcare in prison, but whether imprisonment would create heightened risks to the offender’s life.”
Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng had considered Ong’s character and contributions to Singapore that were raised by the defence.
She noted it would be insufficient for an offender to merely show he was ill, and two things needed to be determined.
The first was whether imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering his life.
The second was whether that risk would be significantly enhanced in prison.
She concluded that the medical evidence showed that imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering Ong’s life, given his serious medical conditions.
In particular, she noted his incurable cancer, vulnerability to infections and susceptibility to falls.
She said: “The risk of infections would increase significantly due to unavoidable interactions with rotating shifts of prison officers and medical staff, thereby expanding his exposure to potential pathogens.
“The risk of falls would likewise be significantly heightened, as the accused would face disorientation in an unfamiliar environment and different routines, without the assistance of his usual caregivers, who understand his specific needs.”
Judge Lee said that while the Singapore Prison Service had an adequate healthcare system to manage inmates, this did not address the enhanced risks of potentially fatal infections and falls. In the event of an incident, his survival cannot be guaranteed, she noted.
She said: “I am satisfied that the circumstances in this case are exceptional and meet the high threshold for the grant of judicial mercy.”
Why was Ong Beng Seng fined instead of jailed? Key points from the case
David SunFri, 15 August 2025 at 5:45 pm SGT·4-min read
Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng leaving the State Courts on Aug 15.
SINGAPORE – Tycoon Ong Beng Seng would have been jailed for abetting the obstruction of justice in the case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran, were it not for his medical condition.
As Ong, 79, suffers from advanced multiple myeloma, a rare form of blood cancer, imprisonment would risk endangering his life.
So, on Aug 15, the court exercised judicial mercy and Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng handed him a fine of $30,000 which is the maximum the district court could impose for the offence.
Here are the key points of her judgment.
Should have been jailed
Ong had abetted the obstruction of justice by Mr S. Iswaran in making payment of $5,700 for a business flight ticket for a Dec 11, 2022, flight from Doha to Singapore.This was done after the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had seized a flight manifest for Ong’s private jet.
Judge Lee said this was undoubtedly serious.
Ong’s other charge, which was taken into consideration for sentencing, was for abetting Mr Iswaran, who was then a public servant, in obtaining gifts.
These included a flight on Ong’s private plane from Singapore to Doha worth about $10,400, a one-night stay in Four Seasons Hotel Doha worth about $4,700, and the $5,700 business class flight from Doha to Singapore.
This offence also warranted condemnation, said Judge Lee, and ran the risk of damaging the trust and integrity of public institutions.
The prosecution and defence had agreed that were it not for Ong’s ill health, he should have been jailed.
The judge noted that in Mr Iswaran’s case, the High Court had found the appropriate starting sentence for the related obstruction of justice charge to be 18 weeks.
But because Mr Iswaran had been the one to ask for the bill, Ong’s culpability was lower.
Judge Lee found the appropriate starting sentence would have been 15 weeks’ jail.
The prosecution previously submitted that, were it not for his ill health, 12 weeks’ jail would have been appropriate if Ong had claimed trial, with a reduction to eight weeks’ jail for an early plea of guilt.
Ong Beng Seng was fined $30,000 on Aug 15 for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran.
Character and contributions
Judge Lee had also considered Ong’s character and contributions to Singapore that were raised by the defence.The founder of Singapore-based organisation Hotel Properties Limited is known to have brought in Formula One (F1) to Singapore in 2008.
The judge said his character and contributions, however significant, were at best a neutral factor in sentencing. She said they provided no basis for any reduction in sentence.
Overseas trips
Judge Lee said she also considered the two overseas trips Ong had taken in October-November 2024 and April-May 2025.She said both journeys were carefully managed to minimise health risks through private aviation, which significantly reduced exposure to infections compared with commercial travel.
The second journey, which was to consult a professor in the United States, involved several stops along the way.
Judge Lee said this demonstrated Ong’s medical fragility and his inability to endure a direct flight, underscoring the gravity of his condition.
She said: “One may consider it unfair that an offender who can afford a higher standard of healthcare is better positioned to avoid imprisonment than a less privileged offender.
“This view is misguided and misconstrues the court’s focus. The critical question is not whether an offender may receive a lower standard of healthcare in prison, but whether imprisonment would create heightened risks to the offender’s life.”
Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng had considered Ong’s character and contributions to Singapore that were raised by the defence.
Judicial mercy
The crux of her judgment was on how Ong’s medical condition would affect the appropriate sentence, and whether judicial mercy should be exercised in this case.She noted it would be insufficient for an offender to merely show he was ill, and two things needed to be determined.
The first was whether imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering his life.
The second was whether that risk would be significantly enhanced in prison.
She concluded that the medical evidence showed that imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering Ong’s life, given his serious medical conditions.
In particular, she noted his incurable cancer, vulnerability to infections and susceptibility to falls.
She said: “The risk of infections would increase significantly due to unavoidable interactions with rotating shifts of prison officers and medical staff, thereby expanding his exposure to potential pathogens.
“The risk of falls would likewise be significantly heightened, as the accused would face disorientation in an unfamiliar environment and different routines, without the assistance of his usual caregivers, who understand his specific needs.”
Judge Lee said that while the Singapore Prison Service had an adequate healthcare system to manage inmates, this did not address the enhanced risks of potentially fatal infections and falls. In the event of an incident, his survival cannot be guaranteed, she noted.
She said: “I am satisfied that the circumstances in this case are exceptional and meet the high threshold for the grant of judicial mercy.”
