S Iswaran case: Twists, turns, jail time and a media scrum

Former transport minister S Iswaran was handed a one year sentence by Judge Vincent Hoong on five charges, including obtaining gifts as a public servant. Why did he get more than what the prosecution asked for?
Head of criminal law at Quahe Woo and Palmer, Sunil Sudheesan, explains the rare move. Plus, Crispina Robert gets a firsthand account from senior journalist Koh Wan Ting who covered the court proceedings.
Here’s an excerpt of the conversation:
Sunil Sudheesan:
We know that (Section) 165 (of the Penal Code) is part of the suite of offences to deal with protection against corruption, but 165 doesn’t suggest any corruption to begin with. It suggests a conflict of interest. But conflict of interest doesn’t jump straight to corruption.
Crispina Robert:
Explain to my listeners what needs to be quite clear cut corruption. 
Sunil:
Clear cut corruption is the giving of a favour in exchange for the gift. 
Crispina:
So for example, if I bought you a meal …
Sunil:
… and you get a contract to build a road in return. That’s the absurd scenario, of course.
Crispina:
But it’s this idea of quid pro quo, right? 
Sunil:
Precisely. There has to be a meeting of the minds an exchange of favours, if you would and there has to be something done to the detriment of your principle. 
So for example, let’s say building the road. I have five bids that come in. Your bid is actually the second lowest, I should be giving to the lowest bid but then I remember that nice makan (meal) you gave me,  so maybe the second lowest bid can get the deal instead. 
So that means that my principle is deprived of the ability of getting the lowest bid. This is assuming that all five are equal quality. So in that scenario, because of the detriment suffered by the principle, because of the favour given, that’s clear cut corruption.
Crispina:
Just to follow up, in the eyes of the ordinary man, they may not see a real difference between Section 165 and corruption because as far as they can see, and based on what the judge has said, Iswaran did damage the reputation of the government.
Sunil:
Let me put it in a slightly different way.
So that incites a level of emotion. And it runs afoul of the law, so therefore a custodial sentence is necessary. 

Find more episodes of Deep Dive here.
A new episode of Deep Dive drops every Friday. Follow the podcast on Apple or Spotify for the latest updates.
Have a great topic for us? Drop the team an email at cnapodcasts [at] mediacorp.com.sg