Chew Ming Hui, Author at Goody Feed

Still remember the two charges faced by Pritam Singh for allegedly lying to a parliamentary committee? The opposition leader's trial is scheduled for next month. However, he has since requested that his case be heard in the High Court instead of the State Courts. Here's why. TLDR: The Charges Faced by Pritam Singh But before we demystify why exactly Singh is making it a point to transfer his case up to the High Court, let's jog our memory of what exactly are the charges against Singh, for the benefit of those who don't remember. This goes back to 2021 — back in the good old days when you could work from home, zuobo all day, and perhaps find an extra pocket of time to get up to speed with the Raeesah Khan case. Yes, the Raeesah Khan case — remember when the Sengkang GRC MP lied in Parliament and resigned after admitting to lying in Parliament? The two charges currently faced by Singh are in connection to the Raeesah Khan fiasco. You see, a parliamentary committee had to be convened to look into the whole fiasco, which not only implicated Khan herself but also her "towkays", including Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap. The parliamentary committee later recommended referring Singh and Manap to the public prosecutor for further investigations. Eventually, while Manap was not charged, Singh was charged for allegedly giving false answers to the parliamentary committee's questions. If Singh is found guilty of both charges against him for lying in response to questions posed by a parliamentary committee, he might be fined up to $7,000, jailed for up to three years, or both. However, if Singh is convicted, the prosecution will ask the court to impose a fine for each of Singh's charges. So, for two charges, maximum $14,000 fine in total lor. The two charges against Singh were initially scheduled to be heard in a 16-day trial in the State Courts between 14 October and 13 November. However, Singh has requested that his case be heard in the High Court instead. And no, it's not because the Funan Mall car park, which is nearer to the High Court than the State Courts, is easier to park. Why Pritam Singh Wants His Case to be Heard in the High Court Instead of the State Courts So, if not for the nearer car park at Funan Mall, then why the High Court in particular? On Monday (26 August), Singh's lawyer, Mr Andrew Jumabhoy, shed more light on why — he made a few arguments to High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng for why the case should be transferred to the High Court. There appear to be three key reasons why Singh wants his case transferred to the High Court — and one of them has to do with the Iswaran case. Huh? Iswaran again? Is it because F1 coming up? No, they're not bringing up the Iswaran case because F1 is coming up, but because the Iswaran case was one instance where a case was transferred from the State Courts to the High Court — Singh is now using the Iswaran case as a comparison to show why his case should also be transferred to the High Court. The first reason furnished by Singh as to why his case should be heard in the High Court instead of the State Courts was rooted in the idea of public interest. You see, Iswaran's case was transferred to the High Court on the grounds of public interest. Specifically, since the section under which Iswaran was charged applies to a certain class of individuals, any decision issued by the courts would have quite an impact on this class of individuals. Thus, the public interest element. And no, we're not talking about public interest as in your ah ma and ah gong being interested in the case. The public interest here has more to do with how the public will be affected by this case. Now, Singh argues that the class of people who would be affected by decisions issued by the courts as to the section which Singh was charged under, is even broader than that in the Iswaran case. Thus, there's an even stronger public interest element. "Beyond criminalizing the conduct of MPs, Parliament’s powers under this section have real implications for ordinary members of the public, who can be summoned before the Committee of Privileges or any other Committee to that end," Singh added in his Facebook post. Then what about the other reasons why Singh wants his case heard in the High Court? Well, the second reason has to do with political atmospherics, and the third reason looks like a mix of expertise and expediency. On the second reason — Singh's lawyer noted that the current prosecution against Singh was the first of its kind, and a High Court judge would be better placed to hear the matter due to the judges' security of tenure — this means that the judges are better placed to hear the case without being "swayed" by the political atmospherics surrounding the case, according to Singh. But of course, Singh's lawyer also emphasised that this was not meant to be a criticism of the State Courts. Last, moving to the third reason — if Singh has his case tried in the High Court, any appeal he seeks to bring would be brought directly to the Court of Appeal, meaning that the most senior judges in the land will review the evidence and give finality to the allegations. Why the Prosecution Does Not Think Pritam Singh's Case Should be Transferred to the High Court On the other hand, the Prosecution is of the position that there is no need for Singh's case to be heard in the High Court. First, the Prosecution emphasised that there was a world of difference between Singh's and Iswaran's cases. And yes, the difference has a bit to do with F1. Pfft. Can stop thinking about F1? Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said that there could be no comparison between Singh's and Iswaran's cases, given that both cases involve very different facts and offences. For example, Singh has nothing to do with F1. (Sorry, I can't stop thinking about F1...) And in any event, Singh's case is nowhere near the complexity of Iswaran's case — in Singh's case, the only issue was whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Singh lied while giving answers to the parliamentary committee. Second, zooming in a little more on the idea of public interest, Mr Ang shared that the reason why Iswaran's case attracted public interest was because the eventual decision issued by the courts would impact how public servants ought to transact with other people. Mr Ang contended that such considerations do not apply to Singh's case. Last, Mr Ang also emphasised that State Court judges deal with with prosecution of new offences all the time, and Singh's suggestion that State Court judges might be "swayed" was spurious. He also added that it was the norm for politicians to be tried in the State Courts rather than the High Court. Further, Mr Ang also stated that there was no reason for Singh to have the right to choose the Court of Appeal, the highest court of the land, to hear his appeal. The case has been adjourned to 9 September, when Justice Hoo will give her decision on whether Singh may have his case transferred to the High Court. So, what do you think?