WP chief Pritam Singh fails in bid for High Court to hear trial on alleged lies to Parliament

Opposition leader and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh has failed in his attempt to have his upcoming trial heard in the High Court, after he sought to compare his case to that 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.

On Sept 9, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng dismissed Singh’s application for his case to be transferred from the State Courts to the High Court.

She said Singh’s case was different from that of Iswaran and there were no strong public interest considerations in Singh’s case that warranted a departure from the norm.

“Any departure from the usual criminal process carries the risk of undermining public trust and confidence in the administration of justice, as it breeds the perception that special treatment is being accorded to an accused person,” she said.

Justice Hoo added: “All accused persons (including political office-holders and former political office-holders) are to be treated equally. In this case, there is no reason to depart from the ordinary course of justice, which is for the trial to be heard in the State Courts.”

The dismissal of Singh’s applications means that his State Courts trial, which has been slated to be heard over 16 days between Oct 14 and Nov 13, will go on as scheduled.

Singh, who was represented by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, had applied for his case to be transferred to the High Court on grounds that it was “expedient for the ends of justice”.

The prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, objected to his application. 

In her judgment, Justice Hoo said any comparison with Iswaran’s case did not help Singh.

She accepted the prosecution’s arguments that the wide-reaching impact of the subject matter of Iswaran’s trial sets it apart from Singh’s.

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.

These include 32 counts under Section 165 of the Penal Code for obtaining items worth more than $237,000 as a public servant.

The prosecution had applied for Iswaran’s trial to be transferred to the High Court due to strong public interest considerations.

Justice Hoo said the court’s determination of the parameters of Section 165 might impact how all public servants ought to conduct their affairs so that they do not break the law.

In contrast, she said, the issue in Singh’s case was a straightforward factual one, of whether he had wilfully given false answers before the parliamentary committee.

“There are no issues of law of unusual difficulty, no wider implications for the public generally, and no strong public interest considerations that warrant a transfer,” she said.

Justice Hoo noted that Singh’s application was made under Section 239(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

The legal threshold to be met under this provision is high, and a transfer is justified only in rare and exceptional situations, she said.

To date, only two cases, which took place before Singapore’s independence, have been successfully transferred.

She said Singh’s case was not a rare and exceptional situation, and he had failed to establish that a transfer of his case was “expedient for the ends of justice”.

The transfer of Iswaran’s case was made by the prosecution under a different provision – Section 240(2) of the CPC – which did not require such a high threshold to be met.

Justice Hoo also rejected Singh’s argument that a transfer to the High Court would mean a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal, which would “allow the most senior judges in the land to review the evidence and give finality to the serious allegations” against him.

“An applicant cannot earn an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal through a transfer of his case to the High Court,” she said.

She also dealt with certain “ambiguous statements” that Singh had made in his affidavit.

Among other things, Singh said that his case would “benefit from the stature of a High Court Judge”, who would not be “swayed by the political atmospherics that surround this matter”.

Justice Hoo said a high degree of caution must be exercised by any party when making statements of this nature.

“Unsubstantiated allegations have the potential to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, and are not to be condoned.”

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.

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

A spokesman for the Attorney-General’s Chambers 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.

Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 233

Bill to combat digitally manipulated content, deepfakes during elections tabled in Parliament MPs raise concerns over who will foot higher costs from proposed platform workers protection law