SINGAPORE: On Tuesday ( Sept 24 ), former transport minister S Iswaran entered a plea of guilty to a number of amended charges, the first day of what was initially anticipated to be a protracted trial that would last several months.
The 62-year-old , pleaded innocent to five fees, after saying for weeks he had been contesting the circumstance to clear his name.
The Attorney General’s Chambers ( AGC ) stated in a statement that it had agreed to amend the original charges brought against Iswaran under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA ) after the day-long court hearing.
Given that there are two main parties to the transactions and that both parties would have an interest in denying fraud in the transactions, it decided to do so after considering the legal risks involved in proving them at trial beyond a sensible doubt.
AGC even considered whether the article would result in a just and reasonable goal that is in line with the public’s attention.  ,  ,
Two of the original charges were filed under the PCA, but the prosecution switched to those expenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which forbids all public employees from obtaining anything useful from someone who works for them in a formal power.
Iswaran entered a guilty plea to two additional counts under this area, as well as one count of obstructing the fairness system. Additionally, he acknowledged that he has received another 30 criminal charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which will be considered for imprisonment.
What were his original costs?
The former transport minister was charged with obstructing the course of justice in addition to the 24 charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code and one of obstructing the flow of justice at the start of January under Section 6 ( a ) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA ).  ,
The PCA is Singapore’s major anti-corruption policy, which is complemented by additional rules that deal with associated aspects of wrongdoing – including the Penal Code.
In trade for advancing Ong Beng Seng’s business interests between Singapore Grand Prix and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), according to the Act’s first two unique allegations, Iswaran” dishonestly” obtained these items from the property tycoon in exchange for the proceeds of that transaction.  ,
At the time, Mr. Ong held the majority stake in Singapore GP.
According to the two allegations, he allegedly received pleasure from Mr. Ong in the form of Singapore GP reservations for S$ 145, 434.
Additionally, he was accused of taking a$ 10,410,0 flight from Singapore to Doha on Mr. Ong’s private plane.  ,
He also allegedly received one evening’s remain in the Four Seasons Doha, for S$ 4, 737.63, and a business class trip from Doha to Singapore fair S$ 5, 700, in December 2022. Both were through Mr Ong’s firm, Singapore GP.
In addition to the agreement’s and request for a contract with STB, these were allegedly intended to advance Mr. Ong’s business interests.
What were the amended costs?
Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong announced that the prosecution would alter the allegations and remove the two fraud allegations with two counts under Section 165 of the Penal Code at the start of what was intended to be Iswaran’s tryout at 10am on Tuesday.
In the first amended charge under Section 165, Iswaran was charged with obtaining from Mr Ong,” for no consideration”, 10 Green Room tickets ( worth S$ 48, 150 ), eight Twenty3 tickets ( worth S$ 56, 068 ) and 32 general admission tickets ( worth S$ 41, 216 ) for the 2022 Singapore F1 Grand Prix in September 2022.
In the second amended charge under Section 165, Iswaran was charged with obtaining from Mr Ong, again” for no consideration”, a private jet flight to Qatar ( worth about S$ 10, 410 ), a night’s stay in Four Seasons Doha ( worth about S$ 4, 737 ), and a business class flight from Doha to Singapore ( worth about S$ 5, 700 ) in December 2022.
The amended allegations also state that Iswaran was aware that Mr. Ong, through Singapore GP, was concerned about how the Singapore Tourism Board (STB ) and Singapore GP handled the Singapore F1 Grand Prix in the years 2022 and 2028, and that this was related to Iswaran’s official duties as F1 Steering Committee minister and chairman.
What’s the difference?
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam stated in 2022 that the government would consider whether offences listed in Sections 161 to 165 of the Penal Code could be transferred to PCA in place of that policy.
In response to a question in a Parliamentary Question, Mr. Shanmugam added that Sections 161 to 165 are more focused on addressing the various forms of bribery and the taking of bribes by public servants than Sections 161 to 165.
As such,” there is utility in retaining these Penal Code offences, which, together with the PCA and other related laws, provide a comprehensive set of legislative levers for corruption control”, he said.
Why did the prosecution request this, exactly?
The prosecution has “unfettered discretion” to amend or proceed with whatever charges it deems fit, and they do this guided by what public interest or public good requires, said Mr Cory Wong, director at Invictus Law Corporation.  ,
He added that the prosecution would need to take into account any issues with the prosecution’s use of state resources and how to proceed with any prosecution.  ,
” It may have been that there were some changes to the state of the evidence or the witnesses, or that the prosecution’s most recent re-evaluation of the resources to be expended had now shifted in favor of revising the plead guilty offer,” said Mr. Wong.  ,