DEFENCE ANSWERS WHY GUILTY PLEAS ONLY NOW.
Before the trial indicated it would no more get proceeding with the bribery charges, defense counsel Davinder Singh asked the judge to take into account what was” the state of play and the color of the case” before he indicated that he would no longer be proceeding with the corruption charges.
CPIB began conducting studies in July 2023.
” At that time, my customer had been an MP since 1997, and had served as a minister since 2006. It’s crucial to comprehend what was being interpreted as being at the heart of the case against my client at the time,” said Mr. Singh.
He cited claims by companies, many news reports about Iswaran’s imprisonment, and debates in parliament, focusing on the two corruption costs when the bulk of Iswaran’s costs were under Section 165.
Mr. Singh read out the headlines from The Straits Times, CNA, and the BBC, as well as the names of the liveblogs that were published on Tuesday night.
” Mr Iswaran’s position from day one has been that the ( corruption ) charges were baseless. He denied the charges from the very first, and has consistently maintained that placement”, said Mr Singh.
” He was put in the position where he had to contest the case against him in light of the ( corruption ) charges. As your dignity will recollect, to that end he requested an early test. He was the one who wanted the test to start as soon as possible, despite the fact that he was the accused.
He claimed Iswaran was the one who requested a combined test.
According to Mr. Singh,” He did not want the trial of the Ong Beng Seng charges, which included the two ( corruption ) charges, to be delayed because he claimed it would be unfair and prejudicial to him because Mr. Ong is 78 and that it would be unfair to him if Mr. Ong is unable to testify because of his age or health,” he said. ” In other words, it was important for him to be acquitted in court in relation to the charges involving Mr Ong Beng Seng, which included the ( corruption ) charges”.
Mr Singh said his lawyer’s case was understood to be a case involving bribery charges, while the other crimes were described as “other crimes” or “lesser fees”.
” Why is that pertinent”? he asked. ” It is relevant because if the reality in Singapore is that- that is how the ( corruption ) charges are understood, and given how Singaporeans view the ( corruption ) charges as evidenced by these reports, it was not only reasonable but entirely necessary for my client to contest the ( corruption ) charges”.
He claimed that Iswaran did that until the trial changed the allegations to those made under Section 165.
” That event, on account of the further representations, changed the complexion of the entire case and of course changed the seriousness of the allegation under the ( corruption ) charges”, said Mr Singh.
He explained that the disgorgement could not have been done sooner because it would have” colored the view taken on those charges” and would have had an impact on the defense on all other expenses as well.
According to Mr. Singh, Part 165 allows him to acknowledge that accepting the things from the two men was bad.
When CPIB initially interviewed him, he claimed that the gifts were given to him as a result of his friends with Mr. Ong and Mr. Lum.
Mr. Iswaran also argued that while he was unaware of Segment 165 of the Penal Code at the time, he entirely comprehends that being ignorant of the law is a justification, according to Mr. Singh.
Iswaran believes that accepting that what he did was wrong under Section 165 is the right thing to do, according to the attorney, who supported the act of the costs.
Mr. Iswaran is also conscious of not allowing his home, the people he loves the most, to continue to bear the brunt of what has happened.
Iswaran’s woman, who was in the open exhibition supporting him, bore no expression on her face as this was said.
Mr. Singh argued that the ex-minister’s crimes under Section 165 resulted in no harm or little hurt, with no loss of revenue as a result of the products being given either as a gift or on the giver’s own authority.
He noted that Iswaran’s appointment as the transport minister was merely effective between May 2021 and January 2024. Before this time, Mr. Lum had an interest in the agreement that he was interested in, and LTA did no honor any contracts to his companies while Iswaran was the transport minister.
Additionally, Mr. Singh argued that there was no evidence that Iswaran’s commitment to the government was always questioned.
The most effective message that can be sent is” the fact that there is a prosecutors against my client under 165,” said Mr. Singh. ” And if you ask someone in Singapore, however outside Singapore nowadays, about whether that transmission has already been sent… the answer is indeed”!
He claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that the public’s trust in the government’s fairness and integrity has been eroded.
” The authorities sent the message that that is undesirable the time the government learned about these things having been given to my customer.” Therefore, we’re not talking about a situation where these items have been given; instead, the general public is discussing it. It’s eroded trust in the government as it is perceived as permissible. That’s not the event”, said Mr Singh.
He cited Iswaran’s accusations and inquired where there was evidence that the minister’s department or authority had been used, “much less misused or abused.”
” The people became aware that my customer had accepted the goods both while he was being charged and because of that.” When the people in the society and the earth learn about the things my customer is charged with on the day of his arrest and because of him, what does that do is uphold and deliver the strongest indication that the state is upholding its historic commitment to honesty and integrity. In other words, it may cost one of its own ministries”, said Mr Singh.
Taking problem with the prosecution’s submission that Iswaran was more than a quiet receiver of the products, the prosecutor said:” No contempt. I do n’t follow this. If you look at the Doha charge, he was asked whether he’d like to go, and he said yes, and he had his reasons for going”.
” He wanted to see how a small city like Doha organises world-class events, which is relevant to Singapore. Where is the active? He was a public servant at the time, and whether or not he actually capitalized on it, according to Mr. Singh.
He claimed that Iswaran’s claim that he had compromised his position as the government’s chief negotiator in terms of the F1 race had no factual support for the prosecution.