SINGAPORE — Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on Monday (Aug 26) applied to the High Court to have his case heard there instead of the State Courts where it is due to be held in October.

Lawyers for Singh, 48, the Workers' Party chief said there was "a strong public interest" in the case, in which Singh is accused of lying to a Committee of Privileges (COP) in Parliament over the saga of ex-Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan.

The lawyers pointed to the recent transfer to the High Court of a corruption case against ex-transport minister S Iswaran to support their argument for Singh's case to be also moved across.

At the application on Monday, Singh was represented by Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, from the former's eponymous law firm. 

After a hearing that ran for about two hours and 20 minutes, High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng reserved her judgement until Sept 9. 

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST TRANSFER

Iswaran faces 35 charges mostly related to alleged bribery and corruption involving property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and construction company boss Lum Kok Seng.

On Feb 8 this year, the prosecution in Iswaran’s case applied for the case to be transferred to the High Court due to the strong public interest in the matter.

Iswaran’s defence said that it did not disagree with the request, but in turn asked if the prosecution would be agreeable to an "early" trial. Under the agreement of the prosecution and the defence, they agreed to transfer his case to the High Court. 

The trial for Iswaran is set to begin on Sept 10. 

In supporting a similar transfer, Mr Jumabhoy argued that Singh’s case is “even more impactful” than Iswaran’s case and Singh’s case would “benefit from the stature of a High Court Judge”.

He added that having his case tried at High Court would enable any appeal to be brought directly to the Court of Appeal. 

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, leading a team of lawyers representing the prosecution, opposed the application by arguing that the defence is comparing two unrelated cases and calling Iswaran’s case “entirely irrelevant” to Singh’s. 

Mr Ang also said that he found the implication that Singh should be “less likely” to get justice at the State Courts to be troubling. 

Singh faces two charges of giving false answers to the COP on Dec 10, 2021, and Dec 15, 2021, and pleaded not guilty to them on March 19. 

The charges came more than two years after the COP found that Singh had been untruthful under oath during its hearings into former WP member Raeesah Khan over lies she told in the House in 2021.

Singh, who is an MP for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), appeared in court in person and appeared to be taking notes during the proceedings.

PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE 'SPECTRE OF THE COP'

Mr Jumabhoy argued since Singh’s and Iswaran’s cases are of “public interest” and they were charged when they were both politicians they should be afforded the same treatment. 

“What we have done is look at the handling of Iswaran’s matter and ask why that is not done for us,” he said. 

“To interpret otherwise, runs the risk of creating a law for them and a law for us,” he added.

He argued that saying the High Court is “better suited” does not “denigrate the State Courts”. 

“It is not an attempt to insult the capabilities of the State Courts,” he said. Rather, there is no case that bears a similar history and this case is “unique” and has a “singular set of issues”. 

He also said that “the spectre of the COP looms large”, noting that the witnesses called to give evidence in the case are similar to those who did so at COP.

He said that given that the trial will be a “carbon copy” of the COP trial with the same persons called to the witness stand, the trial judge is going to have to “grapple” with these important "personalities".

This meant that the case is very different from the usual cases that come before the State Courts and thus "more beneficial" for the High Court to hear this matter, said Mr Jumabhoy. 

PROSECUTION’S ARGUMENT 

In reference to Iswaran's case, Mr Ang said there is “strong public interest”  for the case to be transferred as there were “a number of charges” under Section 165 of the Penal Code that can be of “wide application”. 

Section 165 of the Penal Code forbids public servants from obtaining any valuable thing — for zero or inadequate consideration — from someone involved in any proceeding or business that is transacted by said public servants.

He continued saying that the transfer of Iswaran’s case to the High Court was the potential impact of those charges and it “in fact impacts all public servants”.

In Mr Singh’s case, those same considerations do not apply at all and are “completely inapplicable”, said Mr Ang. 

He said that Singh took an affirmation before the COP and allegedly “lied” and that his case is a “purely factual inquiry”. 

“You should not lie under any affirmation or before any tribunal,” Mr Ang said.

On how Singh's case would benefit from being tried by a High Court, Mr Ang said that the allegation that the State Court judges may be “swayed by the political atmospherics” and may find it difficult to arrive at any findings which depart from the COP’s finding is “spurious”. 

“(The applicant) questions the integrity and independence of our State Court judges, who have all taken oaths to administer the law without fear or favour. Such an argument must be rejected outright.”

When it came to public interest, Mr Ang said that defence’s definition of public interest is “flawed” and that he conflated “public interest” with “media interest”.

“There is a world of difference in what the public may be interested in,” said Mr Ang. He said the defence's move to cite the number of views on YouTube of the videos of the COP proceedings cannot be taken to constitute “public interest”. 

He added that there is public interest involved in the majority, if not all, of our criminal offences. The State Courts often hear criminal cases, which have high profile accused persons, and which attract plenty of media attention.

“It would be inappropriate to have regard to the intensity of media interest as a basis or reason for transferring this matter to the High Court.”

Mr Ang added that the “only commonality” between Singh and Iswaran’s case is that they were charged around the same time.

For any conviction of lying under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, a person could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$7,000, or both per charge.