Opposition leader and WP chief Pritam Singh seeks High Court trial over alleged lies to Parliament

Opposition leader and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh made a bid on Aug 26 to have his upcoming trial transferred to the High Court, citing the case of former transport minister S. Iswaran.

Singh, 48, faces two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee that was convened in November 2021 to look into the lying controversy involving his party’s former MP Raeesah Khan.

A 16-day trial in the State Courts is scheduled to take place between Oct 14 and Nov 13. The trial is slated to be presided over by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan.

On Aug 26, Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, made arguments to High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng in a bid to have the case transferred to the High Court.

He argued that it was “expedient for the ends of justice” for his client’s case to be heard by the High Court. Mr Jumabhoy referred to the case of Iswaran, whose trial was transferred to be heard in the High Court after the prosecution applied to do so on grounds of public interest.

In response, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said there could be no comparison between the two cases, which involve different facts and offences.

He said the only issue in Singh’s case was whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had lied while giving answers to the committee.

“It’s a purely factual inquiry,” said Mr Ang.

Iswaran, 62, faces a total of 35 charges in relation to his dealings with hotel and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, and mainboard-listed Lum Chang Holdings’ managing director David Lum.

Two of the charges are for corruption involving about $166,000, another 32 counts are for obtaining items worth more than $237,000 as a public servant, while one is for obstructing the course of justice.

Mr Jumabhoy said the prosecution’s key consideration in having a High Court judge hear Iswaran’s case was that the section under which he is charged applies to a certain group of individuals, and therefore the decision in that case would impact others.

“We think the same argument applies to us,” said Mr Jumabhoy.

The lawyer argued that the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act extends beyond Singh, and applies to a certain group of people, namely MPs, and the case was “even more impactful than Iswaran’s case”.

Mr Jumabhoy noted that this was the first prosecution of its kind, and a High Court judge would be better placed to hear the matter, although he stressed that this was no criticism of the State Courts.

“This is a singular and unique set of issues that warrants consideration by the High Court,” he said.

In Singh’s affidavit, he asserted that his case would “benefit from the stature of a High Court judge”.

According to him, High Court judges, who have security of tenure, are best placed to hear his case “without being swayed by the political atmospherics that surround his matter”.

Singh also contended in his affidavit that having his case tried in the High Court would enable any appeal to be brought directly to the Court of Appeal, which is typically comprised of three judges.

This would “allow the most senior judges in the land to review the evidence and give finality to the serious allegations” against him, the affidavit stated.

Mr Ang said there is public interest in Iswaran’s case because he faces a slew of charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence for a public servant to obtain items, for free or inadequate payment, from any person connected with his official duties.

The senior counsel noted that this law has wide application, to a group ranging from junior civil servants to permanent secretaries to Supreme Court judges.

Mr Ang said the prosecution had asked for Iswaran’s case to be heard in the High Court because the interpretation of the provision would impact how public servants ought to transact with other people.

These considerations do not apply to Singh’s case, said Mr Ang.

He said it was the norm for politicians to be tried in the lower court, listing past examples such as former minister of state Wee Toon Boon, former MP Phey Yew Kok, and former WP secretary-general J.B. Jeyaretnam.

Mr Ang added that State Courts judges deal with prosecution of new offences all the time.

He also explained that “public interest” refers to what is in the public good, and not the fact that members of the public are interested in a case.

“The public is interested in all types of cases,” he said. He cited the high-profile case over misuse of church funds involving the leaders of City Harvest Church, which did not warrant a transfer to the High Court. 

Mr Ang also noted that Iswaran’s case was transferred to the High Court under Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which gives the prosecution the power to do so.

He told the court that on June 3, Singh’s lawyers wrote to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), asking the prosecution to transfer his case under this provision.

The AGC replied on June 14 to say it was unable to accede to this request.

Mr Ang said that if Singh disagreed with this, the correct process was to apply for a judicial review of the prosecution’s decision.

Instead of doing so, his lawyers filed an application on July 23 to transfer his case under Section 239 of the CPC.

Mr Ang argued that under Section 239, the onus was on Singh to show that he would likely not get a fair trial if his case was heard in the State Courts.

He said Singh’s suggestion that State Court judges might be “swayed” was spurious, and that there was no reason for Singh to have the right to choose the highest court in the land to hear his appeal.

After hearing arguments, Justice Hoo adjourned the case to Sept 9, when she will give her decision.

Singh’s charges stemmed from claims made in Parliament by Ms Khan, then an MP for Sengkang GRC, that she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively.

This was later found to be untrue and, on Nov 1, 2021, Ms Khan admitted to lying in Parliament.

She resigned on Nov 30 that year.

A parliamentary committee that was convened to investigate Ms Khan’s conduct found her guilty of abuse of privilege and recommended that she be fined $35,000.

The committee also recommended referring Singh and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap to the public prosecutor for further investigations.

According to his charges, Singh allegedly gave false answers to the committee’s questions on Dec 10 and 15, 2021.

Mr Faisal was not charged. He was issued an advisory by the police to familiarise himself with conduct expected of MPs and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it.

Lying in response to questions posed by a parliamentary committee is considered a criminal offence under the Act, and carries a maximum fine of $7,000 or a jail term of up to three years, or both.

An AGC spokesman has said that if Singh is convicted, the prosecution will be asking the court to impose a fine for each of his charges.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Pofma correction order for blogger Leong Sze Hian over post on housing grants ADV: [webinar] Third-party releases in Restructuring in the US and Singapore (2 October 2024, 1 Public CPD Point)