SINGAPORE: S Iswaran, a former transport minister, turned up at the High Court on Friday ( Jul 5 ) to request that the prosecution turn over all of the witness statements it intends to call at the trial. His criminal trial for accepting gifts is looming.
The attorneys for Iswaran, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, had previously attempted to rebuttal one time during a hearing held in June that was not common, but they made a second try in a legal revision on Friday.
A group of lawyers, led by Deputy Attorney- General Tai Wei Shyong, objected clearly to Mr Singh’s event, saying the military has been changing its place.
Iswaran, a 62- year- ancient Singaporean, faces a full of 35 charges comprising 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a common slave, two counts of bribery and one of obstructing justice.
These involve his connections with home magnate Ong Beng Seng and managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings, Mr. Lum Kok Seng.
Instead of two separate trials, Iswaran’s attorneys, Mr. Singh, Mr. Navin Thevar, Mr. Rajvinder Singh, Ms. Sumedha Madhusudhanan, and Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni, fought to have each of them heard in one test.
The professionals for Davinder Singh Chambers had formerly testified to the High Court that Iswaran had been dealing with “very, really dear and near friends” between the two people and that they had not been aware that the presents were “veiled pleasure.”
When Iswaran was first officially charged in January, he had already stated his intention to demand test from the get-go and enter a not-guilty plea.
MY Customer IS SINGLED OUT, WHY?
Mr. Singh spent time trying to persuade Justice Vincent Hoong to give his obtain and require the trial to release all witness claims.
Mr. Singh argued that his client was entitled to the prosecution’s facts and evidence supporting the allegations, as well as the statements he made, and that the prosecution did not have the authority to decide what to share. He cited Section 214 ( 1 )( d ) from the Criminal Procedure Code.
Based on the inconsequential information the trial provided, Mr. Singh questioned how he would proceed with the defense situation.
The prosecutor said,” The whole point of pre-trial discovery is to react in a way that your honor knows what the problems are in the case.”
” And then your honor can determine whether or not you do bring an undesirable assumption under what circumstances.” But you ca n’t even do that, if they do n’t give us the statements. In other words, they can on their own avert an undesirable assumption, and prevent my ability to object to their evidence”, said Mr Singh.
” Why is the trial doing this”? he asked. Why is my customer being ignored? And so that he would face discrimination because he would be denied what everyone else gets”?
Mr. Singh claimed that nothing about this problem has” travel up in a vacuum.” He claimed that Iswaran was first accused of crimes against Mr. Ong when both sides were arguing about timelines, but the trial “decided to reverse the way they were going to sue this case” by reversing Mr. Ong’s position and focusing on Mr. Lum in the end.
You’ll recall that at the hearing, we complained that the way they were conducting the trial suggested they wanted it to proceed in a manner that would lead to Ong Beng Seng’s case being heard, whether it be acquitted or found guilty, or both, while Ong Beng Seng’s case is still unsettled, said Mr. Singh. We even drew your attention to his health issues, and you have acknowledged that as a potential prejudicence to us.
The defense claimed that the trial was prepared to give the defense conditional statements when they wanted to start Mr. Lum’s case second.  ,
However, the prosecution asserted for the first time that they were not required to give conditioned statements after the defense’s request for all charges to be heard up in a single trial.
Which implies that they would not actually give us the evidence against David Lum, the attorney said. ” But clearly, they did n’t want to share the evidence with us for all other witnesses, including Ong Beng Seng. This implies that if they were going to lead dental data for 55 witnesses, this test will go on for weeks, months, weeks, and weeks into the following season, and in my humble opinion, I’m not even sure it will be done the first year.
According to Mr. Singh, the inference that can be drawn is that the prosecution developed the concept of not disclosing contingent statements because it was unable to “pushing the Ong Beng Seng charges away away from some indeterminate date.”
PROSECUTION TO RESPOND
Responding on behalf of the team of prosecutors, Chief Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng, Mr. Christopher Ong, Mr. Jiang Ke-Yue, Mr. Kelvin Chong, and Sarah Siaw, Senior Counsel Tai, Mr. Singh allegedly put words in the mouth of the prosecution during his more than two hours of testimony.
” This is unfair… I do n’t agree with more than half of what he said. He has been paraphrasing or completely mischaracterizing what we said, Mr. Tai said, requesting time to review the evidence before responding at 3 p.m.
On Friday at 3 p.m., Justice Hoong decided to end the case.
Iswaran resigned from his government positions two days before he was charged for the first time in court. Prior to the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau ( CPIB ), he had been given a leave of absence.
If convicted of obtaining a valuable thing as a public servant, Iswaran can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.
He faces sentences of up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to S$ 100, 000, or both if found guilty of corruptly obtaining gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
If convicted of obstructing justice, he can be jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.