Opposition leader Pritam Singh applies to have case heard in High Court like S Iswaran’s

SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh took to the High Court on Monday morning (Aug 26) to apply to have his case heard there instead of the State Courts, similar to what happened with former transport minister S Iswaran.
Singh, 48, is set to go on trial in October in the State Courts. He faces two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan’s case.
In Iswaran’s case, a State Court judge transferred his case to the High Court after both the defence and prosecution agreed that it should be so.
The prosecution in Singh’s case opposes his application.
Singh’s lawyers, Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, relied on the case of Iswaran in their arguments, saying there was also “strong public interest” for Singh’s case to be heard in the High Court.
This is the first prosecution of its kind, said Mr Jumabhoy.
“This case goes to the very essence of our democracy, and this is not my characterisation,” said the lawyer. He referred to a speech that Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, made in February 2022 to refer Singh’s case to the public prosecutor.
She said: “Fundamentally, the motions are about safeguarding the essence of democracy – our democracy – and preserving its most vital and essential characteristic, which is trust. They are about the need to ensure the integrity of our institutions and Parliament in particular, and about the confidence Singaporeans can have in their elected representatives.”
Mr Jumabhoy said the minister’s “eloquent summary” touches on what is at stake, and said it seems “almost churlish” in such circumstances to say Singh’s case does not warrant a transfer to the High Court.
“In marked contrast, Iswaran’s case seems almost trivial by comparison,” said the lawyer.
He said he was not denigrating the State Courts or attempting to insult the State Courts’ capabilities by providing reasons for why the High Court is better suited to hear the case.
If not, every such application would involve some form of disparagement and leave the application “entirely redundant”, said Mr Jumabhoy.
He said the prosecution appeared to be taking a position that Singh’s application was “offensive” in and of itself, using the term “scandalous” and saying the defence is questioning the integrity and independence of the State Court judges.
“It’s not only the resources that are being brought to bear against what I say is a straightforward application, it’s the tenor of the (prosecution’s) submissions that are troubling,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, who heard the motion, said there seems to be an implication that the State Courts and their judges are “not well-placed to hear this case” because of the nature of the case.
Mr Jumabhoy said the trial judge, whoever he is, will have to grapple with important personalities in the Singapore context, and this is very different from the usual run-of-the-mill cases that come before the court.
He said the defence did not intend to make any implication in relation to the State Court judges.
“I think in fairness to ourselves, if we intended to make that point, we would have come out and said it,” he said.
The prosecution, which Mr Jumabhoy characterised as “something of a star-studded line-up”, comprised a four-member team led by Deputy Attorney-General and Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock.
Mr Ang pointed out that Iswaran’s case was referred to the High Court under a different section.
Singh’s application was made under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the High Court may order the transfer for three reasons: That a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in any State Court, that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or that it is expedient for the ends of justice or is required by the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law to transfer the case.
Mr Ang explained that Singh’s lawyers had written to the prosecution to ask the prosecution to exercise its powers to transfer the case to the High Court.
The prosecution replied to say they were “unable to accede to this request” and did not agree to do so.
At this point, Singh and his lawyers should have applied for a judicial review of the prosecution’s decision, but instead, they filed the criminal motion under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, said Mr Ang.
“There is nothing to be gained in law at least by the applicant relying and referring to Iswaran’s case, said Mr Ang.
“Instead … there are all manner of attempts to refer to Iswaran’s case as if the matter is the case, the facts are analogous, there’s the same level of public interest, etc. and we say this is really a backdoor attempt to review the public prosecutor’s discretion,” said Mr Ang.
He said the prosecution had explained in an affidavit that there was a strong public interest in Iswaran’s case for it to be transferred to the High court.
He said Iswaran faces a slew of charges under Section 165 for obtaining valuables as a public servant, a section that is “of wide application”.
“It applies to all public servants, from the most junior civil servant to permanent secretaries, to ministers to Supreme Court judges,” said Mr Ang.
“So the reason why Mr Iswaran’s case was transferred to the High Court was because of the potential impact the interpretation of that section can have on how public servants should conduct themselves when dealing with members of the public.”
In contrast, these considerations “do not apply at all” to Singh’s case.
“To put it very simply: He took an affirmation before he gave evidence before the COP (Committee of Privileges). He was asked questions, he gave answers, and our view, looking at the evidence, is that he had lied while giving his answers to the COP,” said Mr Ang.
He said the only issue before the judge who hears the case eventually is whether or not the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Singh had, in fact, lied.
“It’s a purely factual inquiry. There’s no rule or interpretation of any statute of rule of law that might arise from that as of general application, other than perhaps – you should not lie when you are under affirmation,” said Mr Ang.
He said Singh was reminding the court of his status as Leader of the Opposition and comparing himself with Iswaran, asking the court to take this into account as one of the reasons why the case should be transferred.
“The fact that Mr Iswaran is a politician, that the applicant is a politician, is completely irrelevant in our consideration as to which court the matter should be heard in,” said Mr Ang.
He said Singh’s definition of “public interest” differed from the prosecution’s understanding of what the term means.
“When the words public interest are used, the applicant is referring to the general interest that members of the public have in the COP proceedings,” said Mr Ang.
“He refers to the fact that there were many views and hits logged through social media channels that aired portions of the COP, and even gives (the) number of YouTube hits alone.”
Mr Ang said there is a “world of difference” between what is in the public interest, and what the public may be interested in.
“With respect, the fact that the general public may be interested in the COP proceedings or what happens to the applicant is completely irrelevant to the court,” said Mr Ang.
He said the public is interested in “all types of cases”, citing the City Harvest Church case, which did not warrant a transfer to the High Court.
For Singh’s application to succeed, he must show that he is not going to secure justice or get a fair trial if his case remains in the State Courts, said the Deputy Attorney-General.
He said Singh has been changing his positions, from the time he set out the factual basis for his application, to his written arguments and the arguments his lawyer made orally in court.
The judge reserved her decision and will deliver it on Sep 9.
The two charges Singh faces allege that he wilfully gave a false answer on Dec 10, 2021, and Dec 15, 2021, in the public hearing room at Parliament House.
This was during an inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, centring on the case of Raeesah Khan, who had lied over a sexual assault case and accused the police of mishandling the case.
Singh allegedly testified falsely that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify what she said in Parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, and that he spoke to Ms Khan as he wanted to convey to her that she had to clarify what she said over the same issue. 
Iswaran faces different charges of obtaining valuables as a public servant, corruption and obstructing justice. His case was transferred to the High Court with the prosecution’s agreement.
According to the public hearing list, Iswaran is next due in the Court of Appeal for a criminal motion on Sep 3, ahead of the tentative dates for his trial on Sep 10.
A criminal motion is an application an accused person or the prosecution makes to the High Court or Court of Appeal in a criminal case. It can include matters of law before a trial starts, or a request to review a decision made by a lower court judge.
Singh is set to go on trial on Oct 14 in the State Courts before Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, but it is unclear if this will still proceed after Monday’s hearing.
If convicted of lying under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
The AGC previously said it would be seeking a fine for each of Singh’s charges if he is convicted.