1 00:00:03,519 --> 00:00:05,860 Speaker 1: You're listening to AC N A podcast? 2 00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:12,049 Speaker 2: Hi, everyone. This is Christina Flying Solo for this episode, 3 00:00:12,189 --> 00:00:14,960 Speaker 2: Steven is on a filming trip so he's not here 4 00:00:14,970 --> 00:00:18,259 Speaker 2: when the biggest news of the week broke, which is 5 00:00:18,270 --> 00:00:22,440 Speaker 2: the sentencing of former transport minister is Swan. Judge Vincent 6 00:00:22,450 --> 00:00:26,870 Speaker 2: Hong handed down a 12 month sentence. Today. The East 7 00:00:26,909 --> 00:00:30,610 Speaker 2: Warn case dominated headlines for more than a year after 8 00:00:30,620 --> 00:00:32,590 Speaker 2: it was announced that he was going 9 00:00:32,672 --> 00:00:36,601 Speaker 2: going to be investigated for corruption. Now the last time 10 00:00:36,611 --> 00:00:39,431 Speaker 2: a minister was tainted with the specter of corruption was 11 00:00:39,442 --> 00:00:44,091 Speaker 2: back in 1986 when National Development Minister Tai Cheng Wan 12 00:00:44,101 --> 00:00:48,290 Speaker 2: was investigated for accepting bribes in that incident. He took 13 00:00:48,301 --> 00:00:52,312 Speaker 2: his own life before he was charged. Now this time 14 00:00:52,321 --> 00:00:54,771 Speaker 2: at the time of his charging is Warren was a 15 00:00:54,782 --> 00:00:56,411 Speaker 2: P A veteran. He 16 00:00:56,675 --> 00:01:01,535 Speaker 2: important portfolios like trade and transport. So to talk to 17 00:01:01,546 --> 00:01:04,966 Speaker 2: me about this very big story in the studio is 18 00:01:04,975 --> 00:01:09,146 Speaker 2: my colleague from the digital desk, senior journalist Koh Wan Ting, 19 00:01:09,316 --> 00:01:12,646 Speaker 2: together with two other reporters wing has been covering the 20 00:01:12,694 --> 00:01:15,045 Speaker 2: East Warn case and I'm keen to get a bit 21 00:01:15,055 --> 00:01:17,746 Speaker 2: of the behind the scenes details on what it's like 22 00:01:17,755 --> 00:01:20,195 Speaker 2: to cover the biggest case in a while. 23 00:01:23,699 --> 00:01:26,870 Speaker 2: Welcome to the podcast Wing. Hi, Christina. OK. W I 24 00:01:26,879 --> 00:01:29,419 Speaker 2: was watching your updates like it was a nail biting 25 00:01:29,430 --> 00:01:32,889 Speaker 2: saga when you were posting for our live blog. Now 26 00:01:32,900 --> 00:01:37,279 Speaker 2: safe to say everyone was surprised when the sentence landed. 27 00:01:37,290 --> 00:01:39,669 Speaker 2: I remember you were saying, oh my. So tell me 28 00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:42,349 Speaker 2: a little bit more to the lead up of that sentencing, 29 00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:45,239 Speaker 2: which of course everyone was there for the key things 30 00:01:45,250 --> 00:01:45,360 Speaker 2: that 31 00:01:45,462 --> 00:01:50,742 Speaker 2: judge said before he handed out the sentence. So Justice 32 00:01:50,752 --> 00:01:53,333 Speaker 2: Vincent Hong said that he had considered the submissions by 33 00:01:53,343 --> 00:01:55,752 Speaker 2: both the prosecution and the defense. And he also laid 34 00:01:55,763 --> 00:01:59,002 Speaker 2: out the aggravating factors and the motivating factors that were 35 00:01:59,013 --> 00:02:01,152 Speaker 2: put out by the prosecution. And the defense in the 36 00:02:01,163 --> 00:02:05,182 Speaker 2: previous hearing, when Israel pleaded guilty, the prosecution asked for 37 00:02:05,193 --> 00:02:07,233 Speaker 2: about 6 to 7 months and the 38 00:02:07,346 --> 00:02:09,785 Speaker 2: defense asked for no more than eight weeks. And then 39 00:02:09,796 --> 00:02:11,766 Speaker 2: in the end, justice Hong said that he couldn't agree 40 00:02:11,776 --> 00:02:13,975 Speaker 2: on both positions and he said he would impose a 41 00:02:13,985 --> 00:02:16,576 Speaker 2: sentence that was higher than both. And that was when 42 00:02:16,585 --> 00:02:19,555 Speaker 2: we were really surprised because it doesn't usually happen in 43 00:02:19,565 --> 00:02:21,505 Speaker 2: the cases that I've covered, go into a little bit 44 00:02:21,516 --> 00:02:24,766 Speaker 2: of the reasons that he laid out why he couldn't 45 00:02:25,016 --> 00:02:29,085 Speaker 2: stick with either the upper end of what the prosecution wanted, 46 00:02:29,429 --> 00:02:31,789 Speaker 2: know what the defense asked for. Right. So he said 47 00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:35,149 Speaker 2: that it would have been manifestly inadequate. Yes, he said 48 00:02:35,160 --> 00:02:38,919 Speaker 2: that it would be manifestly inadequate. Also, considering the aggravating 49 00:02:38,929 --> 00:02:41,779 Speaker 2: factors of the case, such as the total duration of 50 00:02:41,788 --> 00:02:44,538 Speaker 2: is war's offending in the high office that he occupied 51 00:02:44,550 --> 00:02:46,779 Speaker 2: because he was a minister and he was the chairman 52 00:02:46,788 --> 00:02:49,160 Speaker 2: of the F one steering committee at the time as well. 53 00:02:49,169 --> 00:02:51,910 Speaker 2: And Justice Hong said that it wouldn't be remedied by 54 00:02:51,919 --> 00:02:52,940 Speaker 2: his disgorgement, 55 00:02:53,462 --> 00:02:57,621 Speaker 2: that means him paying back the money doesn't take away 56 00:02:57,632 --> 00:03:00,352 Speaker 2: the fact that he did all of these things and 57 00:03:00,361 --> 00:03:04,492 Speaker 2: he harmed public interest because he had brought some reputational 58 00:03:04,501 --> 00:03:09,060 Speaker 2: damage to the government in general. What was the mood 59 00:03:09,072 --> 00:03:12,602 Speaker 2: like in the courtroom when this was announced when the 60 00:03:12,611 --> 00:03:15,492 Speaker 2: judge gave his sentence? I wasn't in the courtroom per se. 61 00:03:15,501 --> 00:03:16,561 Speaker 2: So I was in a separate 62 00:03:16,813 --> 00:03:19,494 Speaker 2: media room where we had a live stream of the proceedings, 63 00:03:19,684 --> 00:03:22,293 Speaker 2: but even in the media room, we could feel it 64 00:03:22,304 --> 00:03:24,643 Speaker 2: was very tense. So we would just hang on to 65 00:03:24,654 --> 00:03:27,972 Speaker 2: every word the judge was saying. And when he said 66 00:03:27,983 --> 00:03:29,843 Speaker 2: that the sentence would be in excess of what the 67 00:03:29,854 --> 00:03:32,123 Speaker 2: prosecution and the defense asked what we were like who? 68 00:03:33,014 --> 00:03:35,473 Speaker 2: So it was a surprising kind of events for us 69 00:03:35,604 --> 00:03:38,964 Speaker 2: when you spoke to lawyers after this, what are some 70 00:03:38,973 --> 00:03:40,253 Speaker 2: of the common reactions? 71 00:03:40,356 --> 00:03:43,145 Speaker 2: We've been getting one of the lawyers I spoke to 72 00:03:43,156 --> 00:03:46,695 Speaker 2: actually said that he wasn't surprised by the severity of 73 00:03:46,705 --> 00:03:49,335 Speaker 2: the sentence per se, but he was more surprised by 74 00:03:49,345 --> 00:03:52,395 Speaker 2: how much in excess the judge imposed, you know, compared 75 00:03:52,406 --> 00:03:54,595 Speaker 2: to what the prosecution asked for the judge imposed five 76 00:03:54,606 --> 00:03:57,136 Speaker 2: more months of jail. That's right. But this lawyer that 77 00:03:57,145 --> 00:04:00,046 Speaker 2: I spoke to said that the judge was definitely justified 78 00:04:00,055 --> 00:04:02,815 Speaker 2: what he did because of all the aggravating factors that 79 00:04:02,826 --> 00:04:08,186 Speaker 2: he laid out. Ok. This is actually not the only 80 00:04:08,195 --> 00:04:09,766 Speaker 2: twist in this tale. 81 00:04:10,339 --> 00:04:12,570 Speaker 2: So let's go back to the case when it first 82 00:04:12,580 --> 00:04:15,279 Speaker 2: went to court, you guys were expecting a trial and 83 00:04:15,289 --> 00:04:17,630 Speaker 2: then you were told e it's going to be done 84 00:04:17,640 --> 00:04:19,409 Speaker 2: and dusted in one day. Tell me a little bit 85 00:04:19,420 --> 00:04:21,989 Speaker 2: about that one. That was definitely a shocker for all 86 00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:24,950 Speaker 2: of us journalists in the media room. So I remember 87 00:04:24,959 --> 00:04:28,070 Speaker 2: that we all turned up quite early to report voices 88 00:04:28,079 --> 00:04:29,540 Speaker 2: on the ground. You know, a number of people who 89 00:04:29,549 --> 00:04:31,919 Speaker 2: queued up from as early as I think 6 a.m. 90 00:04:31,940 --> 00:04:33,859 Speaker 2: we waited for the case to start at 10 a.m. 91 00:04:33,869 --> 00:04:35,750 Speaker 2: We were all prepped. So for myself, I even brought 92 00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:36,220 Speaker 2: an extension 93 00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:39,220 Speaker 2: to the media room anticipating a long day of trial 94 00:04:39,230 --> 00:04:41,230 Speaker 2: and maybe three more days of trial because it was 95 00:04:41,238 --> 00:04:45,119 Speaker 2: slated from September 24th to September 27th. So we were 96 00:04:45,130 --> 00:04:47,540 Speaker 2: all prepared to stay in court the whole day. We 97 00:04:47,549 --> 00:04:51,039 Speaker 2: even prepare our own lunches and then suddenly the wining goes, 98 00:04:51,049 --> 00:04:52,849 Speaker 2: is my client is prepared to take a certain course 99 00:04:52,859 --> 00:04:55,339 Speaker 2: of action and the reporters just looked at each other 100 00:04:55,350 --> 00:04:57,940 Speaker 2: and like he's going to plead guilty OK, tell me 101 00:04:57,950 --> 00:05:01,928 Speaker 2: a little bit more about being able to communicate quickly 102 00:05:01,940 --> 00:05:02,579 Speaker 2: what's happening 103 00:05:02,690 --> 00:05:06,579 Speaker 2: in court and then sending back the information to base 104 00:05:06,589 --> 00:05:09,339 Speaker 2: and then your editors going through your stuff. What are 105 00:05:09,350 --> 00:05:11,868 Speaker 2: the key things that you guys need to be careful about? 106 00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:14,480 Speaker 2: So it always helps to be prepared for the cases. 107 00:05:14,488 --> 00:05:17,130 Speaker 2: So to be well versed with the charges what they 108 00:05:17,140 --> 00:05:19,649 Speaker 2: are and the timeline of the events and when they 109 00:05:19,660 --> 00:05:21,890 Speaker 2: happen before you go into the case so that you 110 00:05:21,899 --> 00:05:24,059 Speaker 2: have all this background knowledge, they can pull out when 111 00:05:24,070 --> 00:05:26,359 Speaker 2: you are dealing with a court case that's proceeding really fast. 112 00:05:26,470 --> 00:05:28,029 Speaker 2: But it also helps that I have a whole team 113 00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:28,789 Speaker 2: backing me up. 114 00:05:29,079 --> 00:05:31,579 Speaker 2: So I had a colleague who was in court transcribing, 115 00:05:31,589 --> 00:05:34,299 Speaker 2: what actually happened. Word for word verbatim. I was the 116 00:05:34,309 --> 00:05:36,899 Speaker 2: one who was taking all that and summarizing it into 117 00:05:36,910 --> 00:05:40,428 Speaker 2: digestible pieces for our life blog. I think a lot 118 00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:43,678 Speaker 2: of people don't realize actually it's quite stressful to be 119 00:05:43,690 --> 00:05:45,390 Speaker 2: in a media scrum. Tell me a bit more about 120 00:05:45,399 --> 00:05:47,850 Speaker 2: that apart from getting up really early to speak to 121 00:05:47,859 --> 00:05:50,000 Speaker 2: the first person of the queue, which is what my 122 00:05:50,010 --> 00:05:52,670 Speaker 2: colleague did. You have to be prepared that you be 123 00:05:52,678 --> 00:05:54,779 Speaker 2: jostled a lot on the ground where you're taking photos 124 00:05:54,790 --> 00:05:56,299 Speaker 2: or where you're trying to ask questions 125 00:05:56,575 --> 00:05:58,795 Speaker 2: or when you're trying to just get a video or 126 00:05:58,803 --> 00:06:01,904 Speaker 2: proper shoot of the people walking in. And we also 127 00:06:01,915 --> 00:06:03,635 Speaker 2: have to look out for, you know, not just this one, 128 00:06:03,774 --> 00:06:05,674 Speaker 2: we wanted to look out for his lawyers, we want 129 00:06:05,684 --> 00:06:08,084 Speaker 2: to look out for his wife as well and they 130 00:06:08,095 --> 00:06:10,683 Speaker 2: could be entering the court from different places as well 131 00:06:10,695 --> 00:06:13,394 Speaker 2: because there are two entrances, there's the main entrance and 132 00:06:13,404 --> 00:06:15,714 Speaker 2: there's the basement entrance, which is quite a walk away. 133 00:06:15,725 --> 00:06:17,575 Speaker 2: So if he decides to go to one and not 134 00:06:17,584 --> 00:06:18,924 Speaker 2: the other, you will have missed him. 135 00:06:19,350 --> 00:06:21,440 Speaker 2: So you have to be prepared for all these scenarios 136 00:06:21,450 --> 00:06:25,440 Speaker 2: as well. It's a definitely a different day in the office, right? Yeah, 137 00:06:25,450 --> 00:06:27,000 Speaker 2: I mean, it's not every day. You see a high 138 00:06:27,010 --> 00:06:30,380 Speaker 2: profile case involving a minister who is at the wrong 139 00:06:30,390 --> 00:06:33,420 Speaker 2: side of the law. Adrenaline is one thing but just 140 00:06:33,428 --> 00:06:36,329 Speaker 2: knowing how to report life is a whole new experience. Ok? 141 00:06:36,339 --> 00:06:38,779 Speaker 2: Thank you. One thing for coming. Thank you Chris. 142 00:06:42,529 --> 00:06:45,149 Speaker 2: It was a surprise like much of this case from 143 00:06:45,160 --> 00:06:49,390 Speaker 2: the start from amended charges to se Warren pleading guilty 144 00:06:49,399 --> 00:06:52,589 Speaker 2: to a one year sentence. We want to get the 145 00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:55,549 Speaker 2: help of lawyer Sunil Sadan to break down a bit 146 00:06:55,559 --> 00:06:58,029 Speaker 2: of what happened in court this morning. We are recording 147 00:06:58,309 --> 00:07:01,760 Speaker 2: in the afternoon. Welcome to deep dive, Sunil, quick reaction 148 00:07:01,769 --> 00:07:04,220 Speaker 2: on the sentencing. This is the thing that was interesting 149 00:07:04,230 --> 00:07:07,170 Speaker 2: to us. The prosecution had asked for between 6 to 150 00:07:07,178 --> 00:07:10,739 Speaker 2: 7 months in jail defense asked for a maximum of 151 00:07:10,750 --> 00:07:15,369 Speaker 2: eight weeks and Justice Hong landed on one year which 152 00:07:15,380 --> 00:07:17,809 Speaker 2: was quite surprising, I have to admit, I was a 153 00:07:17,820 --> 00:07:18,540 Speaker 2: bit surprised 154 00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:21,980 Speaker 2: Justice Hong set out his reasons for it. Now, first, 155 00:07:21,989 --> 00:07:25,540 Speaker 2: is it normal for sentences to be higher than what 156 00:07:25,549 --> 00:07:29,420 Speaker 2: both defense and prosecution asked for bearing in mind? By 157 00:07:29,429 --> 00:07:32,339 Speaker 2: the way, that section 165 the maximum is two years. 158 00:07:32,350 --> 00:07:35,779 Speaker 2: The answer is no. Usually when it comes to plea 159 00:07:35,790 --> 00:07:40,619 Speaker 2: arguments and sentencing arguments and all that judges usually take 160 00:07:40,630 --> 00:07:42,859 Speaker 2: what the prosecution say as probably the upper limit. 161 00:07:43,433 --> 00:07:47,083 Speaker 2: There have been occasions obviously, when judges have gone beyond 162 00:07:47,092 --> 00:07:51,523 Speaker 2: the limit, if they think the case calls for that 163 00:07:51,532 --> 00:07:54,863 Speaker 2: kind of messaging to be sent to the public. So 164 00:07:54,872 --> 00:07:58,342 Speaker 2: the recent case I can think about is DJ Sharmila 165 00:07:58,352 --> 00:08:03,303 Speaker 2: who in the M fa watch the diplomacy. That's right. 166 00:08:03,312 --> 00:08:06,863 Speaker 2: So in that case, she gave one week in jail, 167 00:08:07,276 --> 00:08:12,805 Speaker 2: prosecution and defense both asked for fines. So lawyers were 168 00:08:12,816 --> 00:08:15,765 Speaker 2: changed in the arguments are going on on appeal now 169 00:08:15,776 --> 00:08:19,496 Speaker 2: before justice did sing. So it does happen, but it's 170 00:08:19,506 --> 00:08:22,376 Speaker 2: not normal, it's not normal. We seldom see it. And 171 00:08:22,385 --> 00:08:25,015 Speaker 2: when we do, usually as defense lawyers were quite heartbroken. 172 00:08:25,575 --> 00:08:28,635 Speaker 2: So Mr David Singh would have been quite heartbroken. He's 173 00:08:28,645 --> 00:08:30,545 Speaker 2: the top lawyer and he's a tough cookie. 174 00:08:31,250 --> 00:08:35,219 Speaker 2: Second justice H mentioned that sticking to this range, what 175 00:08:35,229 --> 00:08:40,390 Speaker 2: they both suggested would have been quote unquote, manifestly inadequate. Now, 176 00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:43,479 Speaker 2: he laid out the key reasons. There are two main 177 00:08:43,489 --> 00:08:48,039 Speaker 2: parts to this, right. Basically, he said that the mitigating factors, 178 00:08:48,049 --> 00:08:51,260 Speaker 2: the amounts were small, there was no victim in this 179 00:08:51,270 --> 00:08:56,359 Speaker 2: et cetera were not strong, but the culpability factor was 180 00:08:56,369 --> 00:08:58,950 Speaker 2: much stronger. The fact that he was such a senior 181 00:08:58,960 --> 00:09:00,239 Speaker 2: member of government, 182 00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:03,780 Speaker 2: the higher the office, the higher the culpability in this 183 00:09:03,789 --> 00:09:10,000 Speaker 2: particular case. Ultimately, there was no evidence of corruption. That 184 00:09:10,010 --> 00:09:15,049 Speaker 2: means there was no overt favor shown by Mr Iswaran 185 00:09:15,239 --> 00:09:18,400 Speaker 2: to any of the persons involved. It came down to 186 00:09:18,409 --> 00:09:23,488 Speaker 2: section 165 which guards against the creation of the conflict 187 00:09:23,500 --> 00:09:25,978 Speaker 2: of interest a little bit. So 188 00:09:26,460 --> 00:09:29,369 Speaker 2: if you have a business relationship with the public servant, 189 00:09:29,630 --> 00:09:33,770 Speaker 2: the public servant cannot receive gifts because once the public 190 00:09:33,780 --> 00:09:39,359 Speaker 2: servant receives gifts, he may feel obliged. So is that 191 00:09:39,369 --> 00:09:43,700 Speaker 2: creation of that perhaps obligation that creates the conflict of interest? 192 00:09:43,710 --> 00:09:47,750 Speaker 2: So 165 was meant to if you would guide the 193 00:09:47,760 --> 00:09:51,440 Speaker 2: behavior of civil servants, which is why it's broad. That's right. 194 00:09:51,450 --> 00:09:53,299 Speaker 2: So this 165 essentially 195 00:09:53,513 --> 00:09:58,973 Speaker 2: captures that idea that it's about integrity. It's about incorruptibility, 196 00:09:58,982 --> 00:10:02,773 Speaker 2: it's about the position you inhabit. Right. Totally right. And 197 00:10:02,872 --> 00:10:07,213 Speaker 2: it deals with persons who have existing business relationships. The 198 00:10:07,223 --> 00:10:10,023 Speaker 2: case was supposed to go to trial. And then on 199 00:10:10,033 --> 00:10:12,942 Speaker 2: that day, that was a kind of a twist as 200 00:10:12,953 --> 00:10:17,612 Speaker 2: well when the charges were amended and he pleaded guilty. 201 00:10:17,822 --> 00:10:20,492 Speaker 2: So there's a big difference between corruption 202 00:10:21,306 --> 00:10:26,085 Speaker 2: and accepting gifts under section 165. So let me deal 203 00:10:26,096 --> 00:10:29,366 Speaker 2: with two things first, number one, it was a twist 204 00:10:29,375 --> 00:10:31,366 Speaker 2: only to those who didn't know, what do you mean 205 00:10:31,375 --> 00:10:34,556 Speaker 2: by that? That means in the negotiation process, they were 206 00:10:34,565 --> 00:10:36,546 Speaker 2: going to court to fight for statements and all that 207 00:10:36,556 --> 00:10:39,494 Speaker 2: kind of stuff. But the parallel route was being run 208 00:10:39,505 --> 00:10:42,125 Speaker 2: as well, which is can we do a deal in 209 00:10:42,135 --> 00:10:45,166 Speaker 2: terms of sentence or in terms of the deal is normal, 210 00:10:45,176 --> 00:10:47,466 Speaker 2: perfectly normal. We do it all the time. 211 00:10:47,919 --> 00:10:49,789 Speaker 2: You will be surprised in a number of cases that 212 00:10:49,799 --> 00:10:53,210 Speaker 2: crack on the first day, that means it gets resolved 213 00:10:53,219 --> 00:10:55,579 Speaker 2: on the first day, which is what happened here. That's right. 214 00:10:55,590 --> 00:10:57,848 Speaker 2: People on the inside would know already and clearly they 215 00:10:57,859 --> 00:11:00,380 Speaker 2: knew because they were preparing with all the mitigation arguments 216 00:11:00,390 --> 00:11:04,409 Speaker 2: really right and sentencing arguments. So this was something known 217 00:11:04,419 --> 00:11:08,228 Speaker 2: to everybody with the parties like your defense and your prosecution. 218 00:11:08,325 --> 00:11:11,445 Speaker 2: That's right. The second thing you talked about was no 219 00:11:11,455 --> 00:11:14,744 Speaker 2: corruption in this case. OK. So that's significant to me, 220 00:11:14,755 --> 00:11:17,905 Speaker 2: we know that 165 is part of the suite of 221 00:11:17,914 --> 00:11:24,025 Speaker 2: offenses to deal with protection against corruption. But 165 doesn't 222 00:11:24,034 --> 00:11:27,994 Speaker 2: suggest any corruption to begin with. It suggests a conflict 223 00:11:28,005 --> 00:11:32,114 Speaker 2: of interest but conflict of interest doesn't jump straight to corruption. Ok? 224 00:11:32,125 --> 00:11:35,955 Speaker 2: But explain to my listeners what needs to be quite 225 00:11:35,965 --> 00:11:37,184 Speaker 2: clear cut corruption, 226 00:11:37,719 --> 00:11:40,900 Speaker 2: clear cut, corruption is the giving of a favor in 227 00:11:40,909 --> 00:11:45,419 Speaker 2: exchange for the gift. That's clear cut. So for example, 228 00:11:45,789 --> 00:11:48,849 Speaker 2: if I bought you a meal and you get a 229 00:11:48,859 --> 00:11:53,020 Speaker 2: contract to build a road in return. Right? That's clear cut. 230 00:11:53,030 --> 00:11:56,460 Speaker 2: That's the absurd scenario, of course. But it's this idea 231 00:11:56,469 --> 00:11:59,059 Speaker 2: of quid pro quo. Right. Precisely. There has to be 232 00:11:59,070 --> 00:12:00,488 Speaker 2: a meeting of the minds. 233 00:12:00,900 --> 00:12:03,070 Speaker 2: There has to be an exchange of favors if you 234 00:12:03,080 --> 00:12:06,929 Speaker 2: would and there has to be something done to the 235 00:12:06,940 --> 00:12:13,289 Speaker 2: detriment of your principle. So for example, let's say building 236 00:12:13,299 --> 00:12:16,429 Speaker 2: the road, right? I have five bids that come in, 237 00:12:16,450 --> 00:12:20,150 Speaker 2: your bid is actually the second lowest I should be 238 00:12:20,159 --> 00:12:23,079 Speaker 2: giving to the lowest bid, for example. But then I 239 00:12:23,090 --> 00:12:26,159 Speaker 2: remember that nice Makan you gave me. So maybe the 240 00:12:26,169 --> 00:12:29,000 Speaker 2: second lowest bid can get the deal instead. 241 00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:32,419 Speaker 2: So that means that my principal is deprived of the 242 00:12:32,429 --> 00:12:35,989 Speaker 2: ability of getting the lowest bid. This is assuming that 243 00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:39,799 Speaker 2: all five are equal quality. So in that scenario, because 244 00:12:39,809 --> 00:12:43,640 Speaker 2: of the detriment suffered by the principal because of the 245 00:12:43,650 --> 00:12:47,229 Speaker 2: favor given, right, that's clear cut corruption just to follow 246 00:12:47,239 --> 00:12:49,169 Speaker 2: up in the eyes of the ordinary man, 247 00:12:49,979 --> 00:12:53,608 Speaker 2: they may not see a real difference between section 165 248 00:12:53,619 --> 00:12:57,468 Speaker 2: and corruption because as far as they can see and 249 00:12:57,479 --> 00:13:01,039 Speaker 2: based on what the judge has said, Mr Iswaran did 250 00:13:01,049 --> 00:13:03,760 Speaker 2: damage the reputation of the government. Let's put it in 251 00:13:03,770 --> 00:13:06,409 Speaker 2: a slightly different way. Members of the public will be 252 00:13:06,419 --> 00:13:10,530 Speaker 2: angry that ministers are taking gifts and then then rightfully 253 00:13:10,539 --> 00:13:13,809 Speaker 2: so you're in such a position, you're getting paid well already. Yeah, 254 00:13:13,820 --> 00:13:16,640 Speaker 2: and you're still taking this kind of gifts from people 255 00:13:16,909 --> 00:13:20,900 Speaker 2: you have business relationships with so that incites a level 256 00:13:20,909 --> 00:13:25,380 Speaker 2: of emotion. Obviously, it runs afoul of the law. So therefore, 257 00:13:25,390 --> 00:13:28,500 Speaker 2: a custodial sentence is necessary. This is one of the 258 00:13:28,510 --> 00:13:31,909 Speaker 2: biggest cases, right? Just looking at the judgment, for example, 259 00:13:31,919 --> 00:13:34,848 Speaker 2: what's very clear to you. It's very clear that the 260 00:13:34,859 --> 00:13:38,210 Speaker 2: court will come down hard on public servants. The issue 261 00:13:38,219 --> 00:13:41,789 Speaker 2: that is up for discussion now is is very straightforward. 262 00:13:41,799 --> 00:13:43,049 Speaker 2: When you're a minister 263 00:13:43,460 --> 00:13:46,210 Speaker 2: and you are taking gifts from people, you are dealing 264 00:13:46,219 --> 00:13:48,039 Speaker 2: with business relationships. 265 00:13:49,099 --> 00:13:53,169 Speaker 2: The nuance of business relationships will be good to scope 266 00:13:53,179 --> 00:13:56,460 Speaker 2: out sometime in the future. The nuance of what is 267 00:13:56,469 --> 00:14:00,119 Speaker 2: a public servant and how lines are to be drawn 268 00:14:00,530 --> 00:14:02,960 Speaker 2: the way this whole thing has played out. It does 269 00:14:02,969 --> 00:14:06,270 Speaker 2: feel like a cautionary tale. So thank you for coming. 270 00:14:06,280 --> 00:14:09,559 Speaker 2: Thank you to the team as well. Janani Johari Tiffany, 271 00:14:09,789 --> 00:14:13,349 Speaker 2: Joan Chan Sa Wen to Yan Yan and sound mixing 272 00:14:13,359 --> 00:14:15,900 Speaker 2: is by Ken Delbridge. Thank you everyone. See you next 273 00:14:15,909 --> 00:14:17,909 Speaker 2: week when Steve and I will be back.