'Never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth': Judge finds Pritam Singh guilty of lying to Committee of Privileges
SINGAPORE: Following a lengthy oral judgment that dismantled Pritam Singh's defence, a judge on Monday (Feb 17) pronounced the Leader of the Opposition guilty of two charges of lying toparliament.
In doing so, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said that Singh had "wilfully" lied and that he never wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to clarify the truth about her false claim in parliament about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station.
Singh, 48, was accused of wilfully making two false answers to a Committee of Privileges during its inquiry into Ms Khan's case on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
"The evidence shows at the conclusion of the Aug 8 meeting, the accused had not wanted Ms Khan to clarify the truth in parliament at some point. Any claim he made to the COP to the contrary was a lie he wilfully told," said the judge.
On Singh's claim that he wanted Ms Khan to speak to her parents first before clarifying her lie in parliament, the judge said he found that to be "uncorroborated and unbelievable".
The secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP) was charged with falsely testifying that:
• At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and
• When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.
On Singh's first charge, Judge Tan said evidence showed that at the end of the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, the position was that Ms Khan's lie would not come up, and that it would be difficult for the government to find out the truth due to the large number of police stations.
At the same time, Singh, who is a "political veteran", was aware that the lie could result in Ms Khan being brought to the COP, he added, noting the former's position as the party's secretary general and Leader of the Opposition.
"NO REASON" FOR KHAN TO LIE IN WHATSAPP MESSAGE: JUDGE
A "very important" piece of evidence that Judge Tan gave "full weight" to was a WhatsApp message sent by Ms Khan to a group chat with former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan after the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, ended.
In the message, Ms Khan told Ms Loh and Nathan that she had discussed her speech on Muslim issues as well as the false anecdote she shared in parliament with party leaders and wrote: "They have agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave".
Judge Tan rejected the defence's attempts to claim that the circumstances surrounding the sending of this message were "suspect".
The discussion would have been fresh in Ms Khan's mind and would have brought her "relief", he said, adding that there was "no reason" for her to lie in the message, given that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were also close to Singh.
Judge Tan also found no reasons to suggest that Ms Khan would lie about one aspect of the discussion but tell the truth about the other aspect – her speech on Muslim issues.
The "most useful" evidence was Singh's lack of action after the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, said the judge.
Singh's lawyers claimed that at the end of the meeting, he told Ms Khan to speak to her parents first while walking out with her, but no one was within earshot when this happened, Judge Tan noted.
"It does not make sense for the accused to have instructed Ms Khan on what to do when they were alone when the purpose of the Aug 8 meeting was to discuss the matter with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal," he added.
There was "nothing secretive or surreptitious" about his instructions to speak to her parents, said the judge, adding that it was more likely that any instructions to Ms Khan would have been given in the presence of all three WP leaders present.
According to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan's testimonies, Singh continued to interact with them after this meeting, but never once spoke to them about Ms Khan clarifying the lie she had made or taking any other steps, Judge Tan said.
This also means that he never asked them about what Ms Khan had done to update her parents so he could take the next step to clarify the lie, he added.
"This was surely something he would have done even if he did not engage Ms Khan directly, seeing that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were not only close friends but also the people assisting Ms Khan in her work as a WP MP, " said the judge.
Even if Singh did tell Ms Khan that she should speak to her parents, Judge Tan said he found it difficult to accept that he also expected her to know about "a whole host of things" she needed to do about the lie – speak to her parents, explain the sexual assault to them, explain why she lied, tell them that the fact she lied was going to become public, and come back to Singh to tell him that she was ready to clarify the matter in parliament.
"None of these things he expected her to do were expressly articulated to Khan any time during the Aug 8 meeting," said Judge Tan.
"(It is) clear at the time his desired laundry list of actions he wanted Ms Khan to take was only in his mind but never out of his mouth."
"NEVER WANTED MS KHAN TO TELL THE TRUTH"
The judge also accepted Ms Khan's version of events relating to Singh's second charge.
"The accused never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in parliament the next day," he said, noting that Singh had said he "would not judge" Ms Khan if she continued the narrative.
"Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied," said Judge Tan, adding that Ms Khan's account was corroborated by the testimonies of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
Singh would have known on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan could not clarify the lie without any preparation, said Judge Tan.
Since Singh knew this and "nothing of this sort was even attempted". This reinforced the judge's conclusion that on Oct 3, 2021, Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify her lie the next day, even if the matter came up again.
The disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms Khan had come clean in parliament was to distance the former from his role in guiding her to maintain the untruth, the judge added.
On Nov 2, 2021, a day after Ms Khan admitted to lying in parliament, the WP announced that it had formed a disciplinary panel to look into her conduct.
The judge noted the prosecution’s arguments that this was done with “great haste” and was “a completely self-serving exercise”.
He also said it was obvious that there was a “real or apparent conflict of interest” that the panel comprised the same three WP leaders who had guided Ms Khan on how to deal with her lie.
There was a real concern that they would not be able to act impartially as their own conduct in the matter would come under scrutiny, and this would not be lost on Singh and Ms Lim, who are lawyers, said the judge.
Singh revealed to the public that he had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 7, 2021, on Dec 2, 2021 – the day Ms Khan and Ms Loh were slated to testify before the COP.
This suggested that Singh was trying to do “damage control” by admitting his awareness of the lie before it could be raised by Ms Khan or Ms Loh, said Judge Tan.
Ms Khan was a reliable witness during the trial. Despite making "clear flaws" by lying in parliament, she showed remorse for her actions, Judge Tan found.
She was also forthcoming with her evidence and did not downplay her role in the matter, said the judge.
JUDGE ON LOW, LOH AND NATHAN
While the defence sought to undermine the credibility of both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the judge also noted that he saw nothing to suggest they had lied in court, adding that they instead "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth" in this trial.
As for Mr Low Thia Khiang, whom Singh and Ms Lim approached for advice on how to deal with the matter on Oct 11, he is trusted and respected by all those who testified in the trial, as well as Ms Lim.
Judge Tan said it was clear that Mr Low played a "pivotal role" in the ultimate decision for Ms Khan to confess to her lie in Parliament.
Apart from what Singh told Mr Nathan about being “worried” that the government already had evidence of the lie, it may have been Mr Low’s “reassuring words” that the WP would survive any fallout that led to the decision for Ms Khan to clarify the truth, he added.
Judge Tan rapped the defence for "extensive and liberal" references to what Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap said during the COP hearings, noting that these could not be admitted in court since neither were called as witnesses in the trial.
"This backdoor attempt is clearly inadmissible as the out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and are inadmissible," he stressed.
If Ms Lim or Mr Faisal's evidence refuted Ms Khan's account of events, the defence should have called them to testify, he said.
This is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
The punishment for each charge is a maximum jail term of three years, a maximum fine of S$7,000 (US$5,200) or both penalties.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge.
Mr Wong said that the duties of the Leader of the Opposition included leading the opposition to present alternative views in parliament and leading scrutiny of the government. He also noted that Singh was WP's secretary-general and a lawyer.
Singh’s act of giving false testimony to the COP to “protect his own political capital by throwing Ms Khan and his own political cadres under the bus” was therefore “undoubtedly serious and dishonourable”, the prosecutor said.
Singh's offences are "right at the cusp of the threshold" for imprisonment, he added.
The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, asked for a fine of S$4,000 per charge.
Singh had no involvement in the original lie or the fact that Ms Khan chose to tell the lie in the first place, said Mr Jumabhoy.
Asking for that high a fine was "unnecessary", he added.
"It’s not that he told Ms Khan to lie. It’s that he never had these thoughts in his mind," said Mr Jumabhoy.
Parties will return at 3.15pm on Monday for sentencing.
'Never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth': Judge finds Pritam Singh guilty of lying to Committee of Privileges
SINGAPORE: Following a lengthy oral judgment that dismantled Pritam Singh's defence, a judge on Monday (Feb 17) pronounced the Leader of the Opposition guilty of two charges of lying to parliament.
In doing so, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said that Singh had "wilfully" lied and that he never wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to clarify the truth about her false claim in parliament about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station.
Singh, 48, was accused of wilfully making two false answers to a Committee of Privileges during its inquiry into Ms Khan's case on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
"The evidence shows at the conclusion of the Aug 8 meeting, the accused had not wanted Ms Khan to clarify the truth in parliament at some point. Any claim he made to the COP to the contrary was a lie he wilfully told," said the judge.
On Singh's claim that he wanted Ms Khan to speak to her parents first before clarifying her lie in parliament, the judge said he found that to be "uncorroborated and unbelievable".
The secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP) was charged with falsely testifying that:
• At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and
• When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.
On Singh's first charge, Judge Tan said evidence showed that at the end of the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, the position was that Ms Khan's lie would not come up, and that it would be difficult for the government to find out the truth due to the large number of police stations.
At the same time, Singh, who is a "political veteran", was aware that the lie could result in Ms Khan being brought to the COP, he added, noting the former's position as the party's secretary general and Leader of the Opposition.
"NO REASON" FOR KHAN TO LIE IN WHATSAPP MESSAGE: JUDGE
A "very important" piece of evidence that Judge Tan gave "full weight" to was a WhatsApp message sent by Ms Khan to a group chat with former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan after the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, ended.
In the message, Ms Khan told Ms Loh and Nathan that she had discussed her speech on Muslim issues as well as the false anecdote she shared in parliament with party leaders and wrote: "They have agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave".
Judge Tan rejected the defence's attempts to claim that the circumstances surrounding the sending of this message were "suspect".
The discussion would have been fresh in Ms Khan's mind and would have brought her "relief", he said, adding that there was "no reason" for her to lie in the message, given that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were also close to Singh.
Judge Tan also found no reasons to suggest that Ms Khan would lie about one aspect of the discussion but tell the truth about the other aspect – her speech on Muslim issues.
The "most useful" evidence was Singh's lack of action after the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, said the judge.
Singh's lawyers claimed that at the end of the meeting, he told Ms Khan to speak to her parents first while walking out with her, but no one was within earshot when this happened, Judge Tan noted.
"It does not make sense for the accused to have instructed Ms Khan on what to do when they were alone when the purpose of the Aug 8 meeting was to discuss the matter with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal," he added.
There was "nothing secretive or surreptitious" about his instructions to speak to her parents, said the judge, adding that it was more likely that any instructions to Ms Khan would have been given in the presence of all three WP leaders present.
According to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan's testimonies, Singh continued to interact with them after this meeting, but never once spoke to them about Ms Khan clarifying the lie she had made or taking any other steps, Judge Tan said.
This also means that he never asked them about what Ms Khan had done to update her parents so he could take the next step to clarify the lie, he added.
"This was surely something he would have done even if he did not engage Ms Khan directly, seeing that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were not only close friends but also the people assisting Ms Khan in her work as a WP MP, " said the judge.
Even if Singh did tell Ms Khan that she should speak to her parents, Judge Tan said he found it difficult to accept that he also expected her to know about "a whole host of things" she needed to do about the lie – speak to her parents, explain the sexual assault to them, explain why she lied, tell them that the fact she lied was going to become public, and come back to Singh to tell him that she was ready to clarify the matter in parliament.
"None of these things he expected her to do were expressly articulated to Khan any time during the Aug 8 meeting," said Judge Tan.
"(It is) clear at the time his desired laundry list of actions he wanted Ms Khan to take was only in his mind but never out of his mouth."
"NEVER WANTED MS KHAN TO TELL THE TRUTH"
The judge also accepted Ms Khan's version of events relating to Singh's second charge.
"The accused never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in parliament the next day," he said, noting that Singh had said he "would not judge" Ms Khan if she continued the narrative.
"Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied," said Judge Tan, adding that Ms Khan's account was corroborated by the testimonies of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
Singh would have known on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan could not clarify the lie without any preparation, said Judge Tan.
Since Singh knew this and "nothing of this sort was even attempted". This reinforced the judge's conclusion that on Oct 3, 2021, Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify her lie the next day, even if the matter came up again.
The disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms Khan had come clean in parliament was to distance the former from his role in guiding her to maintain the untruth, the judge added.
On Nov 2, 2021, a day after Ms Khan admitted to lying in parliament, the WP announced that it had formed a disciplinary panel to look into her conduct.
The judge noted the prosecution’s arguments that this was done with “great haste” and was “a completely self-serving exercise”.
He also said it was obvious that there was a “real or apparent conflict of interest” that the panel comprised the same three WP leaders who had guided Ms Khan on how to deal with her lie.
There was a real concern that they would not be able to act impartially as their own conduct in the matter would come under scrutiny, and this would not be lost on Singh and Ms Lim, who are lawyers, said the judge.
Singh revealed to the public that he had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 7, 2021, on Dec 2, 2021 – the day Ms Khan and Ms Loh were slated to testify before the COP.
This suggested that Singh was trying to do “damage control” by admitting his awareness of the lie before it could be raised by Ms Khan or Ms Loh, said Judge Tan.
Ms Khan was a reliable witness during the trial. Despite making "clear flaws" by lying in parliament, she showed remorse for her actions, Judge Tan found.
She was also forthcoming with her evidence and did not downplay her role in the matter, said the judge.
JUDGE ON LOW, LOH AND NATHAN
While the defence sought to undermine the credibility of both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the judge also noted that he saw nothing to suggest they had lied in court, adding that they instead "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth" in this trial.
As for Mr Low Thia Khiang, whom Singh and Ms Lim approached for advice on how to deal with the matter on Oct 11, he is trusted and respected by all those who testified in the trial, as well as Ms Lim.
Judge Tan said it was clear that Mr Low played a "pivotal role" in the ultimate decision for Ms Khan to confess to her lie in Parliament.
Apart from what Singh told Mr Nathan about being “worried” that the government already had evidence of the lie, it may have been Mr Low’s “reassuring words” that the WP would survive any fallout that led to the decision for Ms Khan to clarify the truth, he added.
Judge Tan rapped the defence for "extensive and liberal" references to what Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap said during the COP hearings, noting that these could not be admitted in court since neither were called as witnesses in the trial.
"This backdoor attempt is clearly inadmissible as the out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and are inadmissible," he stressed.
If Ms Lim or Mr Faisal's evidence refuted Ms Khan's account of events, the defence should have called them to testify, he said.
This is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
The punishment for each charge is a maximum jail term of three years, a maximum fine of S$7,000 (US$5,200) or both penalties.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge.
Mr Wong said that the duties of the Leader of the Opposition included leading the opposition to present alternative views in parliament and leading scrutiny of the government. He also noted that Singh was WP's secretary-general and a lawyer.
Singh’s act of giving false testimony to the COP to “protect his own political capital by throwing Ms Khan and his own political cadres under the bus” was therefore “undoubtedly serious and dishonourable”, the prosecutor said.
Singh's offences are "right at the cusp of the threshold" for imprisonment, he added.
The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, asked for a fine of S$4,000 per charge.
Singh had no involvement in the original lie or the fact that Ms Khan chose to tell the lie in the first place, said Mr Jumabhoy.
Asking for that high a fine was "unnecessary", he added.
"It’s not that he told Ms Khan to lie. It’s that he never had these thoughts in his mind," said Mr Jumabhoy.
Parties will return at 3.15pm on Monday for sentencing.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pritam-singh-trial-verdict-court-case-raeesah-khan-wp-4937961