WP chief Pritam Singh’s appeal: Judge to deliver verdict on Dec 4

[SINGAPORE] Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh will learn on Dec 4 if his appeal against conviction on two charges of lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) is successful.

The appeal hearing was held on Nov 4, with lawyers for the Leader of the Opposition arguing that the trial judge had “ignored crucial pieces of evidence” in convicting Singh of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.

Singh was convicted on Feb 17 and fined $14,000 for lying to the COP about the role that he had played in advising former MP Raeesah Khan to conceal an untruth to Parliament.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan ruled that Singh had wilfully lied to the COP about how he dealt with the untruth, with evidence showing that Singh “never wanted Ms Khan to clarify (her) lie” and had “direct and intimate involvement” in nudging her to continue to lie.

Singh’s appeal was heard in the High Court, with Justice Steven Chong presiding.

At the appeal hearing, defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy called into question Khan’s credibility, arguing that she had provided different accounts of a meeting that took place on Aug 8, 2021.

Khan said that at the meeting, she confessed to WP leaders – Singh, chairwoman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap – that she had lied about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station when she recounted the incident in a speech in Parliament on Aug 3, 2021.

She later repeated the false claim before the House on Oct 4 that year.

Khan, who was then a Sengkang GRC MP, said that after the meeting at Singh’s home, she immediately texted her aides – Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan – and told them that the WP leaders had agreed she should take her lie to the grave.

At the appeal hearing, Jumabhoy cast doubts on the veracity of Khan’s account of the meeting at Singh’s home.

He said Khan had given three different accounts when recounting details of the meeting to the COP and later at Singh’s trial, including one instance when there was no suggestion that Singh had asked her to take the lie to the grave.

Jumabhoy said Singh was consistent with what was said during the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, which was that at some point Khan “would need to clarify the lie”.

Justice Chong replied that Khan might not have used the phrase consistently in the three versions, but that does not mean it was not said.

He added that the defence cannot ignore the text message that Khan sent to her then aides, which stated that WP leaders had agreed the best course of action was to take the information to the grave.

The judge also asked the defence to explain why Singh appeared to be “doing nothing” to help Khan come clean between Aug 8, 2021, and their second meeting on Oct 3 that year.

He said that if Singh’s position was that Khan had to come clean at some point, steps would have been taken during this “critical” eight-week period.

The defence counsel said Singh did not act because he had more pressing matters to deal with at the time, including an important Bill the House was going to discuss on Oct 4, 2021.

Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan argued that Singh’s inaction, and the multiple pieces of corroborative evidence including Khan’s message, as well as Loh’s and Nathan’s evidence, showed that the WP chief never intended for Khan to clarify her lie in Parliament.

“This radio silence speaks volumes... the fact that he did not follow up must lead to the natural inference that there was nothing to follow up at all,” he said. THE STRAITS TIMES