SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on Monday (Sep 9) failed in his bid to have his case heard in High Court.
Singh, 48, faces two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan's case.
Trial dates had been fixed for him in the State Courts in October before Deputy Principal Judge Luke Tan.
However, seven weeks before the trial was slated to begin, Singh turned to the High Court with his lawyers and asked to have his case heard there instead, comparing it to the case of former transport minister S Iswaran.
Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng argued that there was “strong public interest” for the case, which is the first of its kind, to be heard in the High Court.
They quoted a speech by Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, and said the case goes to “the very essence of our democracy”.
They also argued that Singh's case is potentially more impactful than Iswaran's - the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which Singh was charged under, extends beyond Singh and applies to Members of Parliament.
Iswaran’s case had been transferred to the High Court with the prosecution's agreement.
The prosecution opposed Singh’s application, saying Iswaran’s case had been referred to the High Court under a different section and that this was “a backdoor attempt to review the public prosecutor’s discretion”.
Deputy Attorney-General and Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock explained the rationale for Iswaran’s case being transferred to High Court - the bulk of the charges he faces, under Section 165 for obtaining valuables as a public servant, applies widely to all public servants, including ministers and judges.
Iswaran’s case thus potentially impacts how public servants should conduct themselves when dealing with members of the public.
In contrast, Singh’s case is “a purely factual inquiry” - whether he lied or not, the prosecution argued.
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.
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 (US$5,300), or both per charge.
The AGC previously said it would be seeking a fine for each of Singh's charges if he is convicted.
Continue reading...
Singh, 48, faces two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan's case.
Trial dates had been fixed for him in the State Courts in October before Deputy Principal Judge Luke Tan.
However, seven weeks before the trial was slated to begin, Singh turned to the High Court with his lawyers and asked to have his case heard there instead, comparing it to the case of former transport minister S Iswaran.
Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng argued that there was “strong public interest” for the case, which is the first of its kind, to be heard in the High Court.
They quoted a speech by Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, and said the case goes to “the very essence of our democracy”.
They also argued that Singh's case is potentially more impactful than Iswaran's - the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which Singh was charged under, extends beyond Singh and applies to Members of Parliament.
Iswaran’s case had been transferred to the High Court with the prosecution's agreement.
The prosecution opposed Singh’s application, saying Iswaran’s case had been referred to the High Court under a different section and that this was “a backdoor attempt to review the public prosecutor’s discretion”.
Deputy Attorney-General and Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock explained the rationale for Iswaran’s case being transferred to High Court - the bulk of the charges he faces, under Section 165 for obtaining valuables as a public servant, applies widely to all public servants, including ministers and judges.
Iswaran’s case thus potentially impacts how public servants should conduct themselves when dealing with members of the public.
In contrast, Singh’s case is “a purely factual inquiry” - whether he lied or not, the prosecution argued.
SINGH’S CHARGES
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.
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 (US$5,300), or both per charge.
The AGC previously said it would be seeking a fine for each of Singh's charges if he is convicted.
Continue reading...