The members of parliament (MPs) had asked if more information could be provided on the matter, but all Iswaran did was to provide a non-answer, that "investigations had been rigorous and thorough". Obviously too rigorous and thorough for the public to understand, MPs included.
To press the point home, opposition MP Pritam Singh asked for more transparency, such as making public the findings from the Commission of Inquiry (COI). Same request asked by the parents of Shane Todd about their son's demise.
Without replying yes or no to the straight forward request, Iswaran deflected by telling the house that the COI's purpose was not to establish criminal guilt or liability. So if the officers who subdued the inmate had criminal intent to fatally assault him for having earlier kicked a fellow warden, the COI is supposed to turn a blind eye and restrict themselves to focusing on whether bureaucratic procedures were followed to the letter?
The *palmed face* moment came about when the minister said it was not unprecedented nor uncommon for a COI to be discontinued at the state coroner's discretion after the accused had pleaded guilty. Is that the efficient bureaucratic way to sweep matters under the carpet, by arranging for some party to plea guilty or admit liability, when the COI is not supposed to concern itself with matters of criminal guilt or liability? And how many such precedents have occurred in the past, pray tell?
Maybe the government needs a different breed of ministers to win the hearts and minds of the people. This is the same guy who has yet to disclose a single report card on the F-1 night race. Did the country make or lose money on the sweetheart deals with Bernie Ecclestone?