Let's start by answering: not likely, at least not under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He may, however lose on some counts, as Singapore's ex-minister is also facing charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code.
The former is more serious and carries heavier penalties as it targets the exchange of favours - i.e. getting a bribe for doing something beneficial for the donor. Prosecution may find it hard to prove, especially given the paltry value of the "bribes".
The news is not all good for Iswaran, since under Section 8 of PCA it is presumed that any gratification received had a corrupt intent unless otherwise proved.
That said, this seems more like a hurdle than a dead end, since I wouldn't expect it to be hard to prove that receiving tickets to Formula 1 was not payment for favours made for the billionaire organising the event.
So, far these allegations sound comically absurd and, frankly speaking, are an insult to common sense.
That said, the prosecution has likely decided to stack as many even remotely likely charges as it could, leaving it to the court to give its verdict.
But that might be its undoing - and here's why.
Section 165 of the Penal Code is broader and the former minister will have more explaining to do, as the law here penalises any gratification received from a counterpart who may have professional dealings with the recipient – even if no favours are granted (or even were meant to be).
Just don't do it – that's it. If you do, you're committing a crime.
However, the factor determining guilt will be the proximity of any interactions of Ong Beng Seng with the MoT (or MCI and MTI, in relevant years) during or around the period when Iswaran received the tickets.
The thing is, both sections he's charged under are somewhat contradictory and if the former is defeated so may be the latter.
Since the charges under Section 6 allege the promotion of OBS interests in two contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board – which is a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade & Industry NOT Transport – but do not mention any specific deal that the Ministry of Transport was involved in, it indirectly suggests that anything that Iswaran would be liable for under Section 165 doesn't qualify either, if there was nothing that OBS could obtain from him directly during or around that time.
UPDATE: Iswaran was also the minister of Trade and Industry between 2015 and 2018, however one of the contracts reportedly involved bringing ABBA's virtual concert tour to Singapore, which only launched in 2021 and both charges under Section 6 date to 2022.
It's quite illogical to allege that OBS paid Iswaran to influence a different part of the government and yet did not receive any preferential treatment, if it were needed, from the Ministry of Transport.
Because if this were to be the case, then Iswaran should have been charged under Section 6 for any such deal between OBS and MoT as well. But he was not.
It would be really absurd if there was indeed any activity between OBS and the Ministry of Transport that would qualify the gifts as falling under Section 165 and yet did not lead to charges against Iswaran for actively promoting OBS interests in the matters that he had direct influence over as minister.
And if there were no dealings between the Malaysian billionaire and the ministry, then Iswaran would not be guilty under Section 165 as well.
There's a reason these specific laws are separate. One is targeting conscious, deliberate corruption and the other outlaws behaviour that may put a civil servant in a compromised position, even if they did not intend to do anything corrupt.
Alleging both at the same time looks bizarre – especially if you're trying to level the heavier charges due to actions carried out in the part of the government that Iswaran had no or limited control over.
I don't know what specific evidence CPIB has collected but it looks to me that the prosecution is going to have to work really hard to make sense of its charges because, as it is, they appear to contradict each other.
