His lawyer is arguing that Choo had "derived absolutely no personal benefit" from the $8,400 that went to an assistant coach who moonlighted at Fuhua Secondary School from 2001 to 2003. Never mind if it was Choo who devised a convoluted way to make the Fuhua principal make payment to the coach. A similar logic was applied in the case when Action Information Management (A.I.M.) finagled the Town Council software deal and the MND Review Team declared that "there was no misuse or loss of public moneys in the transaction." Teo Ho Pin and Chandra Das can sit pretty because there was no money trail leading to their personal accounts, but "personal benefit" can be interpreted in many ways.
In the instance of law professor Tey Tsun Han, personal benefit includes receiving several gifts from his student, which included a limited edition Montblanc pen and tailored shirts. The guy has just been convicted of six counts of corruptly obtaining gratification. And if Tey had so much as obtained extra egg for his order of kway teow, you can bet he will be slammed with one more count of corruption.
Choo would be foolish to assume the court of public opinion would rule in his favour, the position taken by Mr and Mrs Todd after they walked out of the coroner's inquiry on their son's mysterious death. After all, Choo did lose his MP position in 1999 after pleading guilty to a charge of abetting his brother-in-law to cheat a finance company in 1990. And he did make the racist joke in parliament: "One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around." By today's standards, he should be in court for sedition.