PROSECUTION’S REBUTTAL
Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng and four other Deputy Public Prosecutors appeared for the prosecution.
Mr Tai argued that there was “no basis” for a joint trial of all the charges.
He said that “certain statements made” may cast the prosecution in a negative light and he had to set the record straight.
“We asked for the (Lum Kok Seng) charges to be tried first and OBS charges to be tried consecutively. Two trials. It has been consistent. We have not deviated from this position today,” he added.
On the suggestion that the prosecution wanted to split the charges to have a preview of the defence, Mr Tai said: “With respect to defence if he has a good defence and shows reasonable doubt … he would be acquitted. There is no issue of preview.”
Addressing why the two sets of charges were tendered separately, Mr Tai said the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had only completed investigations into the charges involving Mr Lum after the first set of charges were tendered in court.
“We have a duty to conduct this case in public interest and it is not static duty, it’s ongoing duty, so every time there is a considerable change in facts we need to review and decide what to do next,” said the Deputy Attorney-General.
He added it was “common practice” for the prosecution to proceed with some charges at trial and not others. In the prosecution’s view, the two sets of charges have “no connection” and have different contexts.
“The underlying transactions, in our view, that bring it under (Section) 165 are entirely different,” he said, objecting to a joint trial.
In its submissions, the prosecution said the offences in both sets of charges were committed at different places and at different times, with circumstances “independent of each other” and involving separate relationships and dealings between the giver and Iswaran.
Justice Hoong adjourned the hearing shortly before midday, with parties set to return in the afternoon.
When the hearing resumed, Mr Singh said: “(The prosecution’s) submissions are noteworthy for what he did not say and did not address.”
“Having told the whole world that this is a matter of public interest, why push (the OBS charges) back? That has not been addressed except by my learned friend saying that it is for the prosecution to decide that,” said Mr Singh.
“By swapping, or rather, inserting the (Lum Kok Seng) charges first and pushing OBS back, and given the similarity in features, including state of mind … they are effectively getting a preview of what our defence will be on the OBS charges before they even open the case of the OBS charges, and that turns justice on its head.”
It was not right or fair for the prosecution to get a preview, he said.
He pointed out that the prosecution also said that it might not proceed with the next set of charges, depending on the outcome of the first trial.
This suggests that the prosecution might not proceed with the OBS charges, noted Mr Singh.
Addressing the prosecution’s point on how investigations were ongoing even after Iswaran was first charged, Mr Singh produced a copy of parliament records dated Jan 9, 2024 when Education Minister Chan Chun Sing had replied to Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Hazel Poa’s query on the status of CPIB investigations.
Mr Chan had said then that the CPIB had completed a “robust and thorough” investigation, and the matter was being reviewed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
“I raised this because things do not accord with what was said earlier,” said Mr Singh.
