Pritam Singh’s trial opens as prosecution argues he guided Raeesah Khan to maintain lie in parliament

SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s trial opened on Monday (Oct 14) with prosecutors setting out the details of their case against the Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general for the first time.
Singh, 48, is accused of lying while being examined before a Committee of Privileges (COP) that was investigating the conduct of former WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan.
He faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for wilfully making two false answers on Dec 10, 2021 and Dec 15, 2021, during the inquiry into Ms Khan’s case.
He is believed to be the first to be prosecuted under this Act.
During a parliamentary debate on Aug 3, 2021, Ms Khan made a speech in which she claimed that she had once accompanied a rape survivor to make a police report, and that the police officer had made comments about the woman’s attire and consumption of alcohol.
She later admitted in parliament on Nov 1, 2021 that this anecdote was a lie. The COP was convened to look into the matter.
While being examined before the COP in the public hearing room at Parliament House in December 2021, Singh is accused of falsely testifying that:
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said the prosecution’s case was that Singh gave false testimony to the COP in order to downplay his responsibility in the matter of Ms Khan’s lying in parliament.
Singh found out that the anecdote was not true in a phone call with Ms Khan on Aug 7, 2021, after which he hung up the phone, according to a statement of facts agreed between the prosecution and defence.
On the first charge concerning the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, Mr Ang argued that Singh was prepared to leave the matter be and guided Ms Khan accordingly.
“The prosecution’s case is that (Singh) said that he did not think that the anecdote would be brought up again and that this was something that all of them would ‘take to the grave’.
“It was clear to Ms Khan then that her party leaders did not want her to clarify the untruth and that she could leave the matter be,” said Mr Ang.
The prosecutor contended that this was consistent with the fact that between Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021, Singh and Ms Khan never discussed her lie again, nor that it ought to be clarified in parliament.
On the second charge concerning the Oct 3, 2021 meeting, Mr Ang argued that Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain the lie if the matter was raised in parliament the next day.
“The prosecution’s case is that (Singh) did not tell Ms Khan that she should clarify the untruth if the issue came up.
“Instead, (Singh) gave the impression to Ms Khan that she could choose to continue with her narrative (i.e. the untruth) and indicated he would not judge her.
“By doing so, (Singh) intentionally guided Ms Khan to continue to maintain the untruth even if the issue came up the next day in parliament,” said Mr Ang.
The prosecutor said that Singh, who is a lawyer by training, had told Ms Khan at the Oct 3, 2021 meeting that he “will not judge” her, by his own account to the COP.
Mr Ang also argued that Singh could not have intended for Ms Khan to clarify the lie in parliament the next day, Oct 4, 2021, as no preparatory steps were taken.
This was in contrast to the careful preparation undertaken over more than two weeks before Ms Khan’s eventual clarification on Nov 1, 2021.
On Monday, the prosecution also revealed that former WP chief Low Thia Khiang, who was the party’s secretary-general from 2001 to 2018, will be one of its witnesses.
As a prosecution witness, Mr Low will provide evidence on the advice he gave to Singh and Ms Lim and the exchange they had during a meeting on Oct 11, 2021.
According to the prosecution, Mr Low advised the two party leaders that Ms Khan should clarify the lie in parliament and apologise as soon as possible.
Ms Khan and two former WP cadres who testified before the COP – Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan – are also slated to be prosecution witnesses.
They are set to testify over the 16 days of trial that have been fixed so far. The trial is being heard at the State Courts before Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan and will run for two weeks in October, with further trial dates in November.
Ms Khan arrived at the State Courts earlier on Monday. WP MPs Gerald Giam, He Ting Ru, Jamus Lim and Louis Chua were also present at the hearing.
Singh’s defence team is led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy with Mr Aristotle Eng.
The prosecution is also relying on WhatsApp messages and emails that Ms Khan exchanged with Singh and other party leaders to support its case.
During a parliament sitting on Oct 4, 2021, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam made a statement in which he asked Ms Khan for more details so that her claim about the police mishandling a sexual assault case could be investigated.
According to the prosecution, while the minister was speaking, Ms Khan sent Singh a message asking for guidance, writing: “What should I do, Pritam”. Both were in the chamber of parliament at the time.
Singh did not respond to Ms Khan’s message until after she had replied to the minister, saying that she could not provide further details because of confidentiality but confirming her anecdote again.
Singh then replied to Ms Khan asking her to speak after the parliament sitting. They met at about 11.15pm that evening with Ms Lim, chair of the WP.
According to the prosecution, Singh and Ms Lim advised Ms Khan to get legal advice, but neither asked Ms Khan why she had lied again, nor told her that she had to clarify the lie.
“Ms Khan, however, told them that perhaps there was another way – to tell the truth. The prosecution’s case is that (Singh) told her it was too late for that,” argued Mr Ang.
On Oct 7, 2021, the police sent Ms Khan an email requesting to interview her about her anecdote. Ms Khan forwarded this email to Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, and asked them for advice.
According to the prosecution, Ms Khan did not receive a reply from the party leaders, and up until Oct 11, 2021, none of them instructed Ms Khan to clarify her lie with the police or in parliament.
At a meeting on Oct 12, 2021, Singh and Ms Lim explained to Ms Khan that the issue of the anecdote would not go away, and she should clarify the lie in parliament, according to the prosecution.
From then until Oct 31, 2021, she prepared several drafts of her clarificatory statement, in consultation with Singh, Ms Lim and her aides Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
The prosecution’s opening statement also detailed internal disciplinary proceedings that the WP undertook in relation to Ms Khan’s conduct.
An urgent meeting of the WP’s central executive committee (CEC) took place on Oct 29, 2021 to inform CEC members of the clarification Ms Khan was going to make.
Mr Ang told the court that the CEC was not informed that Singh had known about the lie “from as early as” Aug 7, 2021, nor that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were informed on Aug 8, 2021, nor that Singh and Ms Khan met on Oct 3, 2021 to discuss what to do about the lie.
After Ms Khan delivered her clarification in parliament on Nov 1, 2021, Mr Low contacted Singh and recommended that the WP form a disciplinary panel to look into the matter, said the prosecutor.
A disciplinary panel comprising Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal was convened on Nov 2, 2021, and met Ms Khan as well as WP members.
At one such meeting, several WP members, including prosecution witnesses Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, raised their concern that the panel itself had to take responsibility for “the way they had guided Ms Khan in the matter”, Mr Ang said.
On Nov 30, 2021, Ms Khan informed Singh of her intention to resign as a WP member and MP. The CEC met again and ultimately voted to expel Ms Khan from the party if she did not resign.
The WP held a press conference on Dec 2, 2021 – the first day that the COP was hearing oral evidence from witnesses including Ms Khan and Ms Loh.
“(Singh) would have known that his own role in the matter would have been revealed by Ms Khan and/or Ms Loh when they testified before the COP,” said Mr Ang.
At this press conference, Singh stated publicly for the first time that the WP had known about Ms Khan’s lie about a week after she first told the anecdote of the sexual assault case in parliament.
The penalties Singh faces are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000 (US$5,360), or both per charge.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers had previously said that the prosecution would seek a fine for each charge if Singh is convicted.
Under the Constitution, anyone fined at least S$10,000 or jailed for at least a year is disqualified from standing for election to become an MP.
A sitting MP who receives such penalties will lose their seat. The disqualification lasts for five years.
Experts previously told CNA that the outcome for Singh depends on the reading of the Constitution.
If both charges are taken together to be an offence, the cumulative maximum fine of S$14,000 could disqualify him as an MP and from standing in the next election.
After admitting to her lie, Ms Khan resigned from the WP and as an MP, and was given a S$35,000 fine on the COP’s recommendations.
The trial continues, with Ms Khan set to take the stand on Monday.