WP chief Pritam Singh called to defence in perjury trial

SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh, the chief of the Workers’ Party (WP), has been called to present his defence after a State Court judge determined that the prosecution had established a sufficient case against him.

The trial, which resumed on Tuesday (5 November), after a week-long break, is now in its tenth day, with particular attention on whether Singh, aged 48, would testify.

Mr Singh is contesting two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. The charges relate to testimony he gave to the Committee of Privileges (COP) on 10 and 15 December 2021 concerning a falsehood told by former WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan.

Ms Khan had lied in parliament by claiming she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station. Singh’s charges arise from his testimony to the COP, which was convened to investigate Ms Khan’s conduct.

Singh is accused of lying about what he instructed Ms Khan to do—whether to tell the truth or maintain the lie.

On Tuesday morning, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan ruled that the prosecution’s case was compelling, thus requiring Singh to respond to the two charges.

He delivered a succinct oral judgment addressing the defence’s claims of no case to answer.

The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, concluded its case during the first tranche of hearings in October, presenting four witnesses: Khan, WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, and former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang.

The prosecution did not call its final witness, an investigation officer, as both parties agreed on a set of facts regarding his testimony.

Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, completed the cross-examination of all witnesses, consistently challenging Khan’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements. He also portrayed her as a persistent liar.

The defence indicated it would submit written arguments asserting that there was no case for Singh to answer regarding the first charge but not the second.

Subsequent to the prosecution’s presentation, the defence filed written submissions on 30 October, claiming that Singh had no case to answer for both charges.

Judge Tan instructed both parties to address him on specific wording in the charges. He noted that some phrases used in the allegations against Singh did not appear in the excerpts of his testimony before the COP.

Defence highlights lack of clarity and challenges the evidence presented

In written submissions, the prosecution maintained that the current charges should remain unchanged, urging the court to compel Singh to defend himself, while also suggesting amendments if necessary.

Jumabhoy contended that both charges should be dismissed, as they failed to clearly delineate the questions posed by the Committee of Privileges (COP) or Singh’s alleged falsehoods.

“What the prosecution is essentially doing is conflating what is required for the purpose of the charge with what is required for the elements of the offence,” he added.

Singh’s lawyer asserted that Pritam Singh did not use the words that former Workers’ Party member Raeesah Khan claimed he said to her after her false statement in Parliament in August 2021.

Mr Jumabhoy stated that Singh did not instruct Ms Khan to “take it (the lie) to the grave” or to “continue the narrative,” nor did he indicate that he would not judge her for maintaining the lie.

He insisted that if the prosecution alleges that Singh lied, they must specify the exact question: “This is the question that was asked of you, and this was the false answer you gave” during the Committee of Privileges.

He stressed that the prosecution could not rely on a fragmented collection of statements not directly attributed to Singh.

Jumabhoy contended that the charge of providing a false answer must pertain to a single response to one question, arguing that the prosecution’s “amalgamation” of Singh’s answers to the Committee of Privileges was therefore unacceptable.

Judge Tan then questioned whether the defence meant that answers to necessary follow-up questions could not be combined and interpreted as a response to what is fundamentally the same question.

Mr Jumabhoy affirmed, stating, “Essentially, yes.”

The judge pressed further, asking if “bit responses” or partial answers could be merged and regarded as a single answer to what constitutes “essentially a single question.” Again, Mr Jumabhoy replied in the affirmative.

DAG Ang countered the defence’s position, arguing that summarising Pritam Singh’s answers during the COP does not cause any prejudice or unfairness to him.

DAG Ang highlighted that the defence did not dispute the content of Singh’s statements during the COP.

He noted that the COP had posed questions regarding events on 8 August and 3 October 2021, to which Singh had repeatedly provided his answers, indicating he had not misspoken by accident.

Addressing whether the law stipulates that a false answer must be a singular response to a singular question, DAG Ang clarified that while Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act uses the singular form, the Interpretation Act specifies that words in the singular encompass the plural, and vice versa.

He further explained that the purpose of the charges is to inform the accused of the case they must answer and to guide the court on what must be proven or disproven.

In this instance, DAG Ang asserted, there is no ambiguity regarding the case, as the minutes of evidence attached to the charges are explicit.

Judge Tan affirms sufficiency of prosecution’s case

Judge Tan ultimately concurred with the prosecution, declaring that the charges met the necessary legal standards and did not require amendment.

He instructed Singh to stand and stated, “I find that the prosecution has made out a case against you on the charges on which you are being tried.”

He adds: “There’s some evidence that is not inherently incredible that satisfies each and every element of the charges.”

He informed Singh that he could choose to testify under oath or remain silent.

“I elect to give evidence before the court,” Singh responded.

The second tranche of the trial is set to continue until 13 November.

Allegations against Singh

While being questioned in a public hearing at Parliament House in 2021, Singh is alleged to have falsely testified that:

• At the conclusion of a meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on 8 August 2021, he wanted Ms Khan to clarify in parliament that her story about accompanying a rape victim was untrue.
• During a conversation with Ms Khan on 3 October 2021, he allegedly conveyed that if the matter arose in parliament, she had to clarify that her story was a lie.

The charge sheets, spanning 17 and 20 pages respectively, include excerpts of the transcript from Singh’s exchange with Edwin Tong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, who questioned him before the COP.

Both Singh and Tong are lawyers by profession.

Singh faces up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both for each charge. The Attorney-General’s Chambers has previously indicated that if convicted, the prosecution will seek fines for each charge.

Under the Constitution, any Member of Parliament fined at least S$10,000 or imprisoned for at least one year is disqualified from standing for election.

A sitting MP who faces such penalties would lose their seat, with the disqualification lasting for five years.