Tjhin Thian Po v Public Prosecutor

Tjhin Thian Po, also known as Paulus Tannos, was arrested in Singapore on 17 January 2025 on an extradition request from Indonesia concerning his alleged involvement in a corruption scheme linked to a government procurement initiative known as the e-KTP project. He was in remand awaiting committal proceedings in the State Courts under the Extradition Act 1968. Earlier challenges had failed: a bail application on health grounds was dismissed in Paulus Tannos v The State [2025] 5 SLR 620, and an application for permission to seek prerogative orders and review of detention was dismissed in Paulus Tannos v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 118.

In Originating Application No 431 of 2026, which he described as a judicial review application and brought in person, he challenged two documents in the request: an Indonesian "Surat Perintah Penangkapan" and an English "Arrest Warrant". He argued that the Indonesian term denotes only temporary apprehension for investigation rather than detention, that no authenticated translation accompanied the Indonesian document, and that the signatory, a Vice Chairman of the KPK, lacked authority under Indonesian law. He sought bail as a "special case", disclosure of documents relating to his suspect status and the warrant, and permission to rely on Indonesian expert evidence. The Public Prosecutor opposed all of this.

1. Whether the application was procedurally irregular and could properly be characterised as judicial review.
2. Whether the complaints about the translation and the signatory's authority, taken at their highest, could support the reliefs sought.
3. Whether bail, disclosure and leave to adduce Indonesian expert evidence should be granted.

On procedure, bail under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 must be sought by criminal revision or criminal motion, not a civil originating application, and the High Court's bail jurisdiction is revisionary. The application was also not truly judicial review: no permission was sought under the Rules of Court 2021 and no prerogative or public law remedy was claimed. Using the language of judicial review did not change its character, and the court stressed that proper procedure is not mere red tape.

On the complaints, the applicant himself was unsure whether the English document was even a translation of the Indonesian one. Certified translations are not looked behind without a proper evidential basis. The court accepted there may be a distinction under Indonesian law between the two terms, but made no finding on translation or authority, as these were matters of Indonesian law for the committal court.

On the reliefs, bail for a fugitive is available only in three limited situations, none of which applied; there is no "special case" category, and he offered no medical evidence beyond his age. The material documents had already been disclosed, and Singapore courts are not concerned with the sufficiency of the requesting state's evidence. The respondent already had a translation expert whose evidence was not shown to be unreliable, and expert questions belonged in the committal proceedings. On costs, the court saw some possibility that the application was meant to delay extradition but could not so conclude on the evidence.

The court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis, declining the request for indemnity costs.