You may remember the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on our former transport minister S. Iswaran, which started about a year ago.

The criminal trial of Iswaran, originally set to begin on 13 Aug in the High Court, has now been pushed back to 10 Sept, according to AGC on 12 Aug.

This was at the request of the defence counsel for Iswaran, which is led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh.

The defence team said that the original dates for the trial had to be pushed back as they were in the middle of an appeal for conditioned statements on all 56 witnesses to be provided to them by the prosecution, and it was unlikely that this matter would be concluded before then.

What are conditioned statements and what do they have to do with this case?

If you’ve studied law before, good for you. For those of us who haven’t, conditioned statements are signed written statements that can be submitted as evidence instead of oral testimony, where the witnesses will speak at a hearing.

Mr Singh had first requested for conditioned statements on 11 Jun , which was dismissed by an assistant registrar in a hearing not disclosed to the public, claiming that his client was singled out and would be “discriminated against”.

On 19 July , Mr Singh made a second attempt to request for such documents, which was also dismissed by a High Court judge, citing a section of the Criminal Procedure Code and claiming that the prosecution had originally wanted to provide them but changed its mind after the defence was granted its application for all charges to be heard in one trial.

Mr Singh had said to the judge that this was to enable them to respond “in a fashion so that Your Honour will know what are the issues that are live in the case”, adding that the materials submitted by the prosecution were insufficient.

The materials include a list of 56 witnesses and their roles, a list of 222 exhibits intended for use in the trial, as well as 1,156 pages worth of documentary evidence. 

We’re no lawyers but that certainly sounds like a lot.

This time, the defence team is seeking a ruling from the Court of Appeal on the same matter.

A quick summary of the charges

Iswaran faces a total of 35 charges, 27 of which relating to obtaining items from property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and another 8 for items obtained from the managing director of Lum-Chang Holdings David Lum.

Some of the items Iswaran allegedly obtained were tickets to the Singapore Formula One Grand Prix, football matches and musical shows, as well as bottles of whiskey, golf clubs and a Brompton bicycle.

Looks like these seemingly normal items were not that normal after all. We’ll be taking notes for the Christmas gift exchange this year.

In Singapore, a person convicted of obtaining a valuable thing as a public servant (yes, that is a thing) could be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both. 

A person convicted of corruptly obtaining gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$100,000, or both.