Singapore Indian-origin Opposition Leader Seeks High Court Trial Over Alleged Lies to Parliament

Singapore: Singapore’s Indian-origin leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has applied to have his case heard in the High Court instead of the State Courts.

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.

Khan has resigned from Parliament.

He applied to have the case heard in the High Court on Monday, according to a Channel News Asia report.

Singh's lawyers, Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, relied on the case of former transport minister S. Iswaran which has been rescheduled for hearing in the High Court next month.

Citing the Iswaran case, the lawyers said in the arguments that 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, the Channel cited Jumabhoy as having said.

"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." 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.

The lawyer 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 Ang.

"There is nothing to be gained in law at least by the applicant relying and referring to Iswaran's case, said 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 Ang.