AGC says Donald Low's Facebook post on Pritam Singh’s trial was in contempt of court

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has said that a Facebook post by academic Donald Low on 18 October 2024 was in contempt of court, as it prejudged issues in the ongoing trial of opposition leader Pritam Singh. In a statement released on 19 October 2024, the AGC announced that it is reviewing whether further action against Mr Low will be necessary. His comments pertained to evidence discussed in the State Courts regarding Mr Singh’s alleged dishonesty in his testimony before a parliamentary committee. Mr Singh, the Workers' Party (WP) chief, is currently on trial for allegedly lying to a Committee of Privileges (COP) about his response after learning that former WP MP Raeesah Khan had lied in parliament. The committee was convened to investigate Ms Khan's false statements, which she made while addressing the issue of sexual assault in August 2021. Mr Low’s Facebook post, which has since been removed, prompted a response from MP Rahayu Mahzam, who is a member of the COP and currently serves as the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information, and Health. In her own Facebook post, Ms Rahayu claimed that Low’s post had made “serious” and “wholly untrue” allegations against her in relation to the committee’s handling of Ms Khan's case. She described these comments as defamatory and stated her intention to take legal action. However, the specifics of what in Low's post was allegedly defamatory were not publicly revealed. The AGC confirmed it requested Mr Low to remove his post. “AGC is considering whether further action is necessary,” it stated, emphasising the importance of refraining from public commentary that could interfere with court proceedings. The agency warned that comments which question the credibility of witnesses or assess the guilt of the accused risk prejudicing ongoing legal cases, potentially amounting to contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious offence in Singapore and can be invoked when individuals or parties make public statements that could influence the outcomes of ongoing legal proceedings. The AGC reminded the public that the role of the court is to impartially judge such issues without external pressure or public influence. In response to the AGC’s demand  to take down his Oct 18 Facebook post, Mr Low removed the post and posted a public apology on Facebook on 19 October. He acknowledged that his earlier post had violated legal boundaries by prejudging matters under judicial consideration. He wrote, “I now understand that on 18 October 2024, I had published a Facebook post which prejudged issues in the pending Court proceedings in Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh (SC-902079-2024), and that such prejudgment prejudiced, interfered with, or posed a real risk of prejudice to or interference with, the course of the pending Court proceedings. I apologise to the Court, and I have taken down my offending Facebook post. I undertake not to publish any post or statement again to the same or similar effect.”

In light of Ms Rahayu’s claim that the Facebook post also contained false and defamatory allegations against her, Low issued a separate apology addressing her concerns. He wrote, “I, Donald Low, on or around 18 October 2024, made false allegations on my Facebook page in relation to Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Minister of State, Ministry of Digital Development and Information & Ministry of Health that wrongly impugn her character and integrity. I undertake not to make any further statements on these matters, or to make any allegations to the same or similar effect, in any manner whatsoever.”
As of now, neither Ms Rahayu nor Mr Low have disclosed the specific details of the alleged defamatory statements made in the original post. Low’s removed Facebook post questioned the reliability of the COP’s conclusions, particularly in light of Loh’s testimony about the redactions. In her court testimony, Loh explained that she redacted a portion of Nathan’s message because it “does not look good on him,” a decision that sparked questions about whether this action may have influenced the accuracy of the COP’s conclusions. Loh also stated in court that both MP Rahayu Mahzam and a senior parliamentary staff member had reviewed the WhatsApp messages with her before the redaction. Loh testified, “The entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Rahayu Mahzam, who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone. They agreed it should be redacted.” However, she emphasised that the final decision to redact the message was hers, saying, “This redaction is mine,” though she added that she believed Rahayu was fully aware of the content of the message and the reason for its redaction.