WP Leader Pritam Singh seeks transfer of alleged perjury charges to High Court trial

SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has filed a criminal motion to request his upcoming trial be moved to the High Court, following the precedent set by the recent transfer of former transport minister S Iswaran’s case.

Mr Singh, who is also the Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party (WP), faces charges of lying during a 2021 parliamentary committee inquiry into former MP Raeesah Khan’s statements.

His trial is scheduled to take place from 14 October to 13 November.

On Monday (26 August), Singh’s legal team, led by lawyers Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, argued before Justice Hoo Sheau Peng that the case warrants a High Court review due to its significant public interest, akin to Iswaran’s case.

As reported by state media CNA, the judge has reserved her decision and will announce it on 9 September.

In a separate Facebook post, Mr Singh explained the reasoning behind filing the criminal motion.

He emphasized the broader implications of the court’s interpretation of section 31(q) of the Parliament Act, which could significantly impact how MPs conduct themselves in Parliament and the operations of the Committee of Privileges (COP).

“The class of people covered by section 31(q) of the Parliament Act is far larger that those covered by section 165 of the Penal Code.”

“Whist the Prosecution characterised my case as a “high profile one”, they maintained there were “no significant public interest considerations” necessitating a transfer of the case to the High Court, ” Mr Singh asserted.

In Iswaran’s corruption charges, a State Court judge agreed to transfer the case to the High Court after both parties consented.

On Monday hearing, Mr Singh’s counsel Mr Jumabhoy argued that Singh’s case touches on the very essence of democracy, a perspective he emphasized was not his own but one supported by Minister Indranee Rajah’s February 2022 speech.

Ms Indranee 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 asserted that the minister’s “eloquent summary” illustrated the case’s significance, making it “almost churlish” to deny a High Court transfer.

“In marked contrast, Iswaran’s case seems almost trivial by comparison,” said the lawyer.

Mr Jumabhoy clarified that the defence was not questioning the capabilities of the State Courts but rather arguing that the High Court is better suited for Singh’s case.

Justice Hoo observed that the application implied the State Courts might be inadequate for this case due to its nature.

In response, Jumabhoy noted that the involvement of prominent figures in Singapore renders this case distinct from typical cases.

Prosecution Challenges Singh’s Request for High Court Transfer

The prosecution opposes Singh’s application, arguing that the case does not merit a High Court hearing.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, leading a four-member prosecution team, contends that Singh’s case lacks the exceptional public interest or legal complexity necessary for a High Court review.

Ang pointed out that Iswaran’s case involved potential legal interpretations affecting public servants broadly, which justified its High Court referral.

Iswaran faced multiple charges under Section 165 for obtaining valuables as a public servant, a section with wide application. This made the High Court transfer appropriate due to the potential impact on public servant conduct.

“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, Ang argued that such considerations do not apply to Singh’s case.

“To put it very simply: He took an affirmation before he gave evidence before the COP. ”

“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 stated that the primary issue for the judge in Singh’s case is whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Singh 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.

Ang further explained that Singh’s application was made under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the High Court to order a case transfer for three reasons: if a fair trial cannot be held in the State Courts, if unusual legal questions are likely to arise, or if transferring the case is necessary for justice or required by law.

Mr Ang noted that Singh’s lawyers had requested the prosecution to transfer the case to the High Court, but the prosecution declined.

Instead of seeking a judicial review of this decision, Singh’s legal team chose to file a criminal motion under Section 239.

“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.

“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.

Mr Ang argued that Singh’s interpretation of “public interest” differs from the prosecution’s understanding.

“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.”

“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.