SINGAPORE: On Tuesday (3 September), former transport minister S Iswaran’s third attempt to compel the prosecution to provide all witness statements to the defence was unsuccessful.
The 62-year-old former minister from the People’s Action Party sought permission to refer two related legal questions of public interest to the Court of Appeal: whether the prosecution is required to include witness statements as part of its case, and whether the court can order the prosecution to do so.
According to the CPC, the prosecution must serve the defense with its case before the trial begins. This includes conditioned statements that the prosecution intends to admit at trial—written statements admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.
The prosecution interpreted this to mean it only needs to provide conditioned statements of witnesses it plans to admit at trial.
However, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and his team contended that the prosecution should also provide all forms of witness statements, including “draft statements,” that it intends to use.
In dismissing Iswaran’s bid, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Woo Bih Li and Justice Steven Chong determined that the questions raised by the defense did not constitute questions of public interest law.
As reported by CNA, during the hearing, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Steven Chong expressed difficulty in understanding Mr Davinder Singh’s arguments. Justice Chong questioned the admissibility of draft statements, stating that it is impossible to intend to admit such drafts.
Both justices repeatedly indicated they were struggling to follow Mr Singh’s interpretation of Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Chief Justice Menon challenged Mr Singh’s reading, suggesting that it would require the prosecution to include all witness statements—whether signed or in draft form—when filing their case, even if the prosecution did not currently intend to use them at trial.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon questioned whether Mr. Singh’s interpretation required the inclusion of all conceivable evidence, regardless of its relevance at the time of filing.
Mr Singh agreed, explaining that the intention to admit evidence can be formed or withdrawn at any time. He argued that the law should not depend on when the prosecution decides to form that intention.
Mr Singh recalled that on 2 April, the prosecution asked the defence to consent to conditioned statements being filed without allowing them to see those statements first.
“So our position was – you can show us those statements before you ask us to consent. When we took that position, that we are entitled to see them before we would agree or not they changed their position and said we are not filing conditioned statements. ”
“So whatever one might make out of that, the point is intention is a moving target,” said Mr Singh.
Chief Justice Menon acknowledged Mr Singh’s points but expressed concern that the language of Section 214(1)(d) of the statute is not flexible or a “moving target.”
“The language of the statute was chosen by the parliament and it constrains what the court can order, ” Chief Justice told Mr Singh.
“And to be honest with you, Mr Singh, if I can cut to the chase, I think the contentions you are putting forward on the interpretation of Section 214(1)(d), I’m struggling to see how we can sustain those contentions within the language of 214.”
He also questioned where the statutory basis could be found to support the broader scope of discovery that Mr. Singh was advocating for.
Mr Singh then argued that his client has fewer rights under the current criminal disclosure regime, which replaced the previous committal hearing provisions.
He suggested that his client now has less access to the prosecution’s evidence.
However, Justice Steven Chong countered that this argument was “not a realistic one”, noting that the prosecution would disadvantage itself by not admitting certain statements.
Chief Justice Menon further pointed out that Mr Singh was essentially asking the court to effectively craft a discovery regime” similar to what existed under the old committal hearings, which is problematic because Parliament had not addressed it.
He clarified that Parliament intended for the new criminal disclosure regime, outlined in Section 214, to specify what the prosecution must provide to the defense, including only the statements the prosecution intends to admit at trial.
Trial for former Transport Minister S Iswaran to begin on September 10
Mr Iswaran was last in open court in July, where he lost his bid to compel the prosecution to make available to the defence all statements by prosecution witnesses.
The former PAP Member for Parliament for West Coast GRC faces a total of 35 charges. These include 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice.
The charges are linked to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings.
The charges against Iswaran involve alleged dealings with Mr Ong, including the receipt of various items such as tickets to the Singapore Formula One (F1) Grand Prix, football matches, and musical shows in Britain.
Mr Ong, credited with bringing the F1 race to Singapore, is also the chairman of race promoter Singapore GP. The prosecution alleges that these transactions, worth approximately S$218,058.95, were influenced by Iswaran’s role as Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee.
Additionally, Iswaran is accused of receiving valuable items such as bottles of whisky, golf clubs, and a Brompton bicycle from Mr Lum, with a combined value of approximately S$18,956.94.
These items were allegedly received while Mr Lum was overseeing the T315 contract, which involved addition and alteration works to the Tanah Merah Station and viaducts under Lum Chang Building Contractors and the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
Mr Iswaran’s trial is scheduled to commence on 10 September.
If convicted of obtaining valuable items as a public servant, Iswaran could face a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine, or both.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for corruptly obtaining gratification could result in a sentence of up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to S$100,000, or both.
Additionally, if convicted of obstructing justice, Iswaran could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison, a fine, or both.
