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

Politics

Dr Tan Cheng Bock questions S$335 million Founders’ Memorial cost, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s stance

Dr Tan Cheng Bock has raised concerns over the S$335 million cost of Singapore’s Founders’ Memorial, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s opposition to monuments and suggesting the funds could be better used for healthcare. The memorial, slated for completion by 2028, faces rising costs, with the estimated cost not including operating or land costs.

Published

on

On 14 September, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, former People’s Action Party (PAP) MP and founder of the Progress Singapore Party, publicly expressed concerns over the estimated S$335 million cost for the Founders’ Memorial.

In a detailed Facebook post, he questioned the necessity of such an extravagant expenditure and referred to the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s known opposition to monuments in his honour.

Dr Tan highlighted a poignant moment from Lee Kuan Yew’s eulogy, delivered by his grandson, Li Shengwu, on 29 March 2015.

Li recalled how, when it was once suggested that a monument be built for him, Lee Kuan Yew had responded, “Remember Ozymandias.” This reference was to a sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley about Ramses II, in which a traveler encounters the ruins of a once-grand statue in the desert. The statue bore the inscription: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!” But nothing else remained of the empire.

Li Shengwu reflected that his grandfather’s remark underscored his belief that if Singapore failed, a monument would be useless, and if it thrived, a monument would be unnecessary.

“His legacy is not cold stone, but a living nation. We could no more forget him than we could forget the sky,” Li said, adding that Lee Kuan Yew’s enduring contribution lay in the strong institutions he built, which persist beyond the individual and ensure Singapore’s stability.

In his post, Dr Tan echoed these sentiments, questioning whether spending S$335 million on a memorial aligned with the founding leaders’ values.

He suggested that the funds might be better spent addressing pressing national issues, particularly healthcare, as Singapore’s population continues to age. Dr Tan, who served for decades as a practising doctor, called for investments in a home care system, noting that such a move would reduce the strain on hospitals while improving the well-being of the elderly.

The estimated S$335 million figure was revealed during a Parliamentary session on 9 September 2023, in response to a question posed by Louis Chua, a Workers’ Party MP for Sengkang GRC. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong provided the cost breakdown, explaining that the figure covers construction, the fit-out of exhibition galleries, a viewing gallery, an outdoor amphitheatre, family spaces, amenities, and a five-hectare outdoor garden.

Mr Tong added that the final operating costs for the memorial are still being worked out alongside the development of operational plans.

Notably, Mr Tong’s disclosure did not include land costs.

Lee Hsien Yang, son of the late Lee Kuan Yew, also responded to Dr Tan’s post, pointing out that the five-hectare site in Bay East Garden could significantly increase the overall cost.

He noted that a nearby plot of land at Marina Gardens Crescent, measuring about 1.5 hectares, was tendered earlier in 2023 but rejected for a bid of S$984 per square foot, deemed too low by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Based on this price, the value of the land for the Founders’ Memorial could exceed S$500 million, pushing the overall cost of the project even higher.

The Founders’ Memorial, initially slated for completion in 2025 to coincide with Singapore’s 60th birthday, is now expected to open by the end of 2028. The project was delayed due to extensive infrastructural work at its Bay East Garden location and disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The twin two-storey buildings, designed by Kengo Kuma & Associates and Singapore’s K2LD Architects, will house an integrated gallery and public gardens, intended to serve as a space for reflection on Singapore’s past and inspiration for the future.

While Minister Tong emphasized that the memorial aims to capture the spirit of the nation and foster unity, Dr Tan urged that the focus should remain on practical solutions for Singapore’s future. He argued that a simpler, more humble memorial would be more in line with the founding leaders’ values, allowing the remainder of the funds to be redirected toward initiatives that benefit the nation’s aging population.

Continue Reading

Labour

Jamus Lim argues why Jobseeker Support Scheme is the PAP’s version of unemployment insurance

In a Facebook post, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim rejected PAP’s claim that the JSS isn’t unemployment insurance. He explained WP’s redundancy insurance plan, emphasizing shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government. While noting concerns about dependency, he argued these fears are exaggerated, stressing a balanced support approach.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Associate Professor Jamus Lim, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, has offered his take on the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS), which he describes as the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) equivalent of unemployment insurance.

The JSS, unveiled with more details during Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally speech on 18 August, has sparked comparisons with the Workers’ Party’s own long-standing proposal for redundancy insurance (RI), first introduced in its 2006 manifesto.

In a 12 September Facebook post, Assoc Prof Lim emphasised that the WP had been advocating for a redundancy insurance scheme for almost two decades, providing substantial details on it in their 2016 policy paper.

“We’ve been thinking about the issue for a while now,” Lim stated, adding that the WP’s proposal has been part of global best practices for advanced economies for nearly a century.

Assoc Prof Lim dismissed the PAP’s argument that the JSS is not unemployment insurance.

He pointed out that the differences the PAP cites—such as JSS being tied to job-seeking conditions and funded from general revenue rather than payroll taxes—are inconsequential.

“Tax revenue is fungible, so it all comes from the people anyway,” Assoc Prof Lim explained.

He argued that funding the scheme from general revenue might even make it less equitable, as it could potentially shift the burden onto non-workers to subsidise workers.

The Workers’ Party’s version of redundancy insurance, Assoc Prof Lim highlighted, envisioned a shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government to ensure fairness and sustainability.

“We do believe in tripartism,” he remarked, underscoring that society should bear the responsibility for protecting its workers.

One of the central points in Assoc Prof Lim’s critique was that tying financial support to job-seeking efforts is standard in unemployment schemes globally, including in Singapore.

Assoc Prof Lim Addresses Concerns of Dependency, Calling Them Overblown

He acknowledged concerns that such a scheme might lead to dependency, but deemed these fears exaggerated.

“Most people, even in the West, do find value and meaning in some form of work,” he noted.

In discussing the design of unemployment insurance systems, Assoc Prof Lim pointed to the importance of balancing the duration of support with the amount provided.

While too long a tenure or too large a payout could discourage a return to the workforce and allow skills to erode, too little would leave workers struggling to cover household expenses during critical periods.

The WP’s redundancy insurance proposal included a payout of 40% of the last drawn income for up to six months, which Lim described as a “solid-but-not-excessively-generous” sum.

Although this amount is lower than what is typically found in advanced economies, and the duration is shorter than the OECD average of one year, he highlighted that it reflects Singapore’s shorter unemployment spells of around two months.

Assoc Prof Lim also suggested the introduction of greater flexibility in accessing redundancy insurance funds.

By allowing the unemployed to “front-load” their payouts, households would have more breathing room to adjust their expenses during difficult transitions.

With the JSS set to be debated in Parliament, Assoc Prof Lim reaffirmed the Workers’ Party’s commitment to advocating for expanded safety nets for Singapore’s workers.

“Whether you call it JSS or RI or something else, expanding the safety net for our workers is something that the Workers’ Party will always be fighting for,” he concluded.

Continue Reading

Trending