Connect with us

Politics

High Court rejects Pritam Singh’s case transfer due to lack of public interest considerations and complexity

The High Court dismissed Pritam Singh’s application to transfer his case from the State Courts, citing no exceptional public interest or legal complexity. Justice Hoo Sheau Peng ruled that the charges involved a factual inquiry, and politicians should not be treated differently from other accused persons.

Published

on

Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party secretary-general Mr Pritam Singh’s attempt to transfer his criminal case from the State Courts to the High Court was rejected on Monday (9 September).

Mr Singh, 48, faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for allegedly providing false testimony before Parliament’s Committee of Privileges (COP) during the inquiry into the conduct of former Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan.

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng dismissed Mr Singh’s application, finding that there were no exceptional public interest considerations to justify transferring the case. She ruled that politicians, like all other accused persons, should be treated equally under the law.

“There is no justification for treating politicians differently from other accused persons,” she stated, adding that such transfers should only occur “in rare and exceptional circumstances.”

Background of the Case

Mr Singh has been a Member of Parliament for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) since 2011 and has served as Leader of the Opposition since 2020.

The charges stem from his testimony during the COP hearings in December 2021, in which he allegedly provided false answers relating to the conduct of Ms Raeesah Khan, who admitted in Parliament to having made untrue claims about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police.

Ms Khan had falsely alleged that a police officer mistreated the victim by making inappropriate remarks about her attire and alcohol consumption. When the truth came to light in November 2021, the COP was formed to investigate the matter, and Mr Singh was called to testify.

In its final report on 10 February 2022, the Committee of Privileges—convened to investigate the lies told by former Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan— found Ms Khan guilty of abusing her parliamentary privilege by lying on 3 August 2021 and repeating the lie on 4 October 2021. It also concluded that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal had been “untruthful in their evidence under oath.”

It recommended that Mr Singh and Workers’ Party vice-chair Faisal Manap be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations.

On 15 February 2022, Parliament voted to refer both Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the Public Prosecutor. At the time, Mr Singh rejected the committee’s findings, claiming that there were “gaps and omissions” in the report that indicated political partisanship.

On 19 March 2024, Mr Singh was charged with two counts of wilfully giving false answers before the COP regarding his interactions with Ms Khan, specifically whether he had advised her to correct her untrue statement. Mr Faisal was issued an advisory to familiarise himself with the conduct expected of Members of Parliament under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Justice Hoo’s Reasoning for the Dismissal

In her judgment, Justice Hoo addressed Mr Singh’s request to transfer his case to the High Court, where he argued that the case held significant public interest and therefore deserved to be heard at a higher level. His legal team had compared his case to that of former Transport Minister Mr S Iswaran, whose case had been transferred to the High Court.

Justice Hoo explained that the key difference between the two cases was the nature of the charges and their potential public impact. Mr Iswaran faces charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which deals with public servants obtaining valuables without proper consideration.

This provision applies to all public servants and has broad implications, as the interpretation of the law could influence how public servants, including ministers and judges, conduct their official duties in the future.

Justice Hoo noted that the wider legal implications of Mr Iswaran’s case warranted a hearing in the High Court to provide necessary guidance on how public servants should avoid transgressing the law.

In contrast, Mr Singh’s charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act involve a factual inquiry into whether he knowingly provided false testimony to the COP.

Justice Hoo emphasized that Mr Singh’s case did not present complex legal questions or have broader public interest implications beyond the specific facts of the case.

“The charges against the applicant merely raise factual issues,” she said. “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.”

Public Interest and Mr Singh’s Political Status

Mr Singh’s legal team also argued that the public interest in his case, due to its relation to parliamentary processes and his role as a political figure, warranted the transfer. They pointed to the significant media coverage of the COP hearings and asserted that the case had implications for parliamentary accountability and the integrity of the legislative process.

Justice Hoo, however, was not persuaded by these arguments.

She noted that while there may be public interest in cases involving high-profile figures, this does not automatically justify a transfer to the High Court.

She reiterated that all accused persons should be treated equally, regardless of their political standing, and emphasized that Parliament had entrusted the State Courts with jurisdiction over offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Furthermore, Justice Hoo pointed out that while the case might attract media attention, this does not equate to strong public interest concerns that would merit a transfer. She stressed that the State Courts routinely handle cases involving significant public interest and prominent figures, and there was no reason why Mr Singh’s case should be treated differently.

Mr Singh’s Comparison to Mr Iswaran’s Case

A central part of Mr Singh’s application was the comparison to Mr Iswaran’s case. Mr Singh’s lawyers argued that if Mr Iswaran’s case could be transferred to the High Court due to public interest, then his own case, which involves issues related to parliamentary integrity, should be treated similarly.

Justice Hoo rejected this comparison, explaining that the legal principles governing the two cases were fundamentally different. Mr Iswaran’s case involves the interpretation of Section 165 of the Penal Code, which has wider implications for public servants across Singapore. The court’s interpretation in Mr Iswaran’s case could provide guidance on how public servants should conduct their affairs to avoid breaching the law.

In contrast, Mr Singh’s case involves the narrower issue of whether he provided false testimony to the COP. Justice Hoo stressed that this was primarily a factual inquiry and did not raise broader legal questions or have a significant impact on public servants beyond Parliament. “There are no issues of law of unusual difficulty,” she said, “and no wider implications for the public generally.”

Justice Hoo concluded that Mr Singh’s case did not meet the high threshold required for a transfer to the High Court. She emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial system by treating all accused persons equally, regardless of their status or political standing. “Any departure from the usual criminal process carries the risk of undermining public trust and confidence in the administration of justice,” she said.

With the application dismissed, Mr Singh’s trial will proceed in the State Courts as scheduled on 14 October 2024. If convicted, Mr Singh could face up to three years in prison, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both for each charge.

His trial is set to proceed in the State Courts, starting 14 October 2024.

Continue Reading
8 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population

SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan criticised Ho Ching’s claim that Singapore could support a population of 8 to 10 million through effective city planning. In a video message, he expressed scepticism about the push for population growth, citing adverse effects like rising living costs and mental health issues. Dr Chee argued that smaller populations can thrive, referencing Scandinavian countries that excelled internationally and produced Nobel laureates.

Published

on

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), slammed Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s spouse, Ho Ching, for her assertion that Singapore could accommodate 8 to 10 million people with proper city planning and land reclamation.

In a video message published on 1 October, Dr Chee expressed strong scepticism regarding the narrative of increasing the population, highlighting that the current surge past the 6 million mark had been largely driven by the influx of foreigners, which led to several adverse consequences.

He further highlighted that smaller populations were not inherently negative, drawing examples from some Scandinavian countries that had flourished on the international stage despite their smaller populations and had even produced Nobel Prize laureates.

Ho Ching expressed confidence that with proper city planning, Singapore could accommodate up to 8-10 million people

Last Friday (27 September), in a Facebook post, Madam Ho, who was also the former CEO of Temasek Holdings, highlighted the growing demand for caregivers as the population aged and the need for workers to sustain sectors like construction and engineering, particularly as the workforce shrank due to lower birth rates.

“As we have less children, we need more people from elsewhere to join us to keep this city functioning, from repairing train tracks through the night to serving patients in hospitals through the night. ”

Dr Chee Highlights Risks of Population Growth

In response, Dr Chee recalled his experience of being reprimanded by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the last General Election for raising concerns about the implications of a rapidly growing population.

He questioned why Madam Ho, who shared similar views, had not faced the same scrutiny.

In his video, Dr Chee articulated several concerns regarding the proposed increase in population, highlighting the potential negative impacts, including increased demand for food, housing, and transportation, which would result in a significant rise in living costs.

With a larger population, Dr Chee pointed out that more flats, roads, hospitals, and public transportation would need to be constructed, which would ultimately require higher taxes and fees to maintain the necessary infrastructure.

The SDP leader emphasized that an influx of residents would intensify competition for jobs, exerting downward pressure on wages and potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Dr Chee further expressed concern over the environmental degradation that would accompany population growth, citing the recent clearing of forests for housing and industrial developments, including Tengah and Kranji Forests.

Dr Chee questioned the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with a growing population, referencing the persistent issues with the MRT system, including breakdowns and safety hazards.

He highlighted the toll that congestion and overpopulation take on the mental health of Singaporeans, noting a rise in reported mental health challenges.

“All this while the ministers live in secluded and luxurious bunglows and villas, far from the madding crowd which we are subjected to every single day.”

“So, when Ho Ching says that we can accommodate up to 10 million people, I’d like to ask her, where and what type of house she lives in?”

Dr Chee Argues for Innovative Economic Solutions Over Traditional Urban Expansion

Regarding the ruling government’s persistent push to increase Singapore’s population to what he considered “unhealthy levels,” Dr Chee suggested that the PAP lacked viable alternatives for fostering economic growth.

He implied that the government resorted to traditional methods of expansion, such as construction and urban development.

He highlighted that the government is fixated on physically expanding the city—“digging, pouring concrete, and erecting structures”—to sustain GDP growth.

This approach, he argued, creates an illusion that Singapore remains a productive economic hub, despite potential downsides.

Dr Chee Advocates for the Value of Smaller Populations: Cites Political Freedom as Key to Innovation and Success

Dr Chee further contended that a smaller population did not necessarily hinder a nation’s success.

He cited several Scandinavian countries and Taiwan, emphasising their global brands and innovations despite their relatively small populations.

Dr Chee connected the success of these nations to their political freedoms, arguing that the ability to think and express oneself freely fostered innovation and societal progress.

He contrasted this with Singapore, where he claimed that the government controlled media and stifled freedom of expression.

He criticised the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for its centralised control and for limiting the potential of Singaporeans. Dr Chee used the metaphor of a “grotesque monkey” clinging to the nation, suggesting that the PAP hindered progress and growth.

Dr Chee emphasised that the quality of a population—its talent, energy, and potential—was far more important than its size.

He suggested that Singapore possessed the necessary attributes to succeed on a global scale but was held back by the current political landscape.

He urged Singaporeans to engage in critical thinking rather than passively accepting government narratives.

Dr Chee advocated for a more mature and sophisticated approach to governance and civic engagement, encouraging citizens to take an active role in shaping their society.

Continue Reading

Court Cases

PSP seeks greater clarity from AGC on prosecutorial decisions against ex-minister Iswaran

Following former Transport Minister Iswaran’s sentencing to 12 months in jail on 3 October, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) issued a statement expressing its anticipation for clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers regarding prosecutorial decisions, given the high public interest. On 24 September, the AGC cited litigation risks in amending Iswaran’s charges but affirmed the case’s merit.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Following the sentencing of former Transport Minister Iswaran to 12 months in jail by Singapore’s court, the alternative party Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has issued a statement expressing concern over the ruling.

In a statement released at noon on 3 October, Ms Hazel Poa, Secretary-General of the PSP, noted that Mr Iswaran, who is also a former Member of Parliament from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), was sentenced for four counts of obtaining gifts as a public servant under Section 165 of the Penal Code 1871, and one count of obstructing justice under Section 204A of the same code.

Ms Poa, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, stated that, given the high level of public interest in this case, the PSP looks forward to receiving greater clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) regarding its prosecutorial decisions at the appropriate juncture.

On the morning of 3 October, the court granted Iswaran’s request to surrender himself at 4 p.m. on 7 October to begin serving his sentence.

However, his lead lawyer, Davinder Singh, indicated that the start of the sentence could be delayed depending on “instructions,” hinting at the possibility of an appeal.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, while holding public office.

These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties.

The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The AGC in an explanation cited substantial evidentiary risks in proving the original corruption charges, which involved  Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng.

The AGC noted that proving the original corruption charges under PCA would have been difficult due to the involvement of both Iswaran and Ong as primary parties.

Both would have had to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent.

The AGC explained that “there are two primary parties to the transactions, and both would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.” This made securing a conviction for corruption highly uncertain.

In light of these risks, the AGC amended the charges to offenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a lower evidentiary threshold and a reduced maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

According to AGC, the amendment was made to ensure a fair and just outcome while considering public interest.

Continue Reading

Trending