The Court (District Judge Ms Yu Hui Sann, Wendy) corruptly replaced SOP (the official or usual way that people are expected to do particular things in a company, organization, etc.) with milestones (a stage in a project that can be used to measure progress towards its final goal) with a corrupt intent to prevent the revelation of "deliberate deviations" from SOP committed by Suen (CPS) as "deliberate deviations" from SOP are concrete evidence of corrupt intent to perpetuate CPO-000034-2022 for as long as possible in the name of the law (using a court order) to generate fraudulent counselling fees (paid by public monies) for SSAs.

SOP is more appropriate than milestones in the context of a Court hearing, especially when the matter involves accountability, transparency and adherence to established practices.

Why SOP is more appropriate in a Court Hearing:

1. Clarity and Consistency: SOP outlines clear, consistent procedures that are expected to be followed by individuals or organizations. This ensures predictability and fairness in the Court's assessment.
2. Accountability: SOP serves as a benchmark for evaluating whether the parties involved adhered to the correct processes. Deviations from SOP can be easily identified and scrutinized, making it a crucial tool for accountability.
3. Transparency: SOP provides a well-documented framework that is open to inspection, helping the Court understand the expected steps and whether they were followed.
4. Legal Significance: SOP can act as evidence of proper or improper conduct, making it relevant to determining intent or negligence in a legal dispute.
5. Objective Standard: SOP represents a standard of practice that can be compared against actions taken. It provides an objective foundation for legal arguments, minimizing subjective interpretations.

Why milestones fall short in a Court Hearing:

1. Lack of Specificity: Milestones indicate progress but do not necessarily detail the steps or methods used to achieve them. They lack the granularity needed to assess compliance with expected procedures.
2. Easier to Manipulate: Milestones can be presented as achieved without revealing whether proper processes were followed, potentially concealing deviations or misconduct.
3. Less Relevant for Accountability: Milestones focus on outcomes rather than the processes leading to them. In a Court setting, the "how" (process) is often as important as the "what" (outcome), especially in cases involving corruption.

Besides, judges don't rely on milestones when it comes to the reintegration process and judges should be aware of the SOP for the reintegration process, especially when the Court has previously emphasized moving towards reintegration. If CPS fails to follow the SOP for the reintegration process without providing clear reasons, the judge has the responsibility to ensure that this failure is addressed. The judge's awareness of the SOP allows for informed decisions on whether CPS is adhering to its obligations under the law, and whether any legitimate expectations are being violated.

Even if the CPIB is compromised, Singaporeans maintain a strict zero-tolerance approach towards corruption and No One is Exempted, including judges. Iswaran's corruption case is only the tip of the iceberg - the whole system is CRITICALLY corrupt.