Pritam Singh’s perjury trial concludes; Verdict expected on 17 February 2025

SINGAPORE: The perjury trial of Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has concluded, with both the prosecution completing its high-stakes cross-examination and the defence wrapping up its re-examination on Friday (8 November).

The court has been adjourned until 17 February 2025, when Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan is expected to deliver the verdict in Singh’s case.

The prosecution and defence have until 13 Jan 2025, to file their closing submissions.

Originally scheduled to continue until 13 Nov, the trial concluded earlier when defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy informed Judge Tan that the defence would rest its case and would not call any further witnesses.

The trial has spanned 13 days so far, beginning on 14 Oct. The first tranche concluded on 24 Oct, and proceedings resumed on 5 Nov.

Jumabhoy had previously submitted written submissions on 30 October, arguing that Singh had no case to answer for both charges.

During the first tranche, Jumabhoy cross-examined all witnesses, challenging former WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements and portraying her as a persistent liar.

Despite the defence’s claims of ambiguity and challenges to the evidence, Judge Tan found the prosecution’s case compelling, leading Singh to present his defence on 5 Nov after the judge determined the prosecution had established a sufficient case against him.

Singh, 48, faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, alleging that he provided misleading information to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021 about his guidance to Khan regarding her parliamentary lie.

The charges stem from Singh’s statements to the COP that he had urged Khan to clarify her false claim on 8 August 2021 and later directed her on 3 October 2021 to take ownership if it resurfaced in Parliament.

Prosecution Debates Admissibility of Police Statements

Friday’s proceedings opened with a debate between the defence and prosecution on the admissibility of five police statements Singh provided in December 2022.

Jumabhoy argued that the prosecution had unfairly characterised certain responses in these statements.

In response, DAG Ang asserted, “The police statements were provided by Mr Singh under no coercion, and the record is clear.”

Judge Luke Tan commented that if Singh believed any statements were being misrepresented, he could clarify them directly during his testimony.

After further debate, Judge Tan indicated he would permit questions on the statements, assuring Jumabhoy that objections could be raised on a question-by-question basis if needed.

Prosecution Presses Singh on Alleged Inconsistencies Regarding Raeesah Khan and Loh Pei Ying

When Singh returned to the stand, DAG Ang resumed by probing alleged inconsistencies in his testimony, focusing on his understanding of Khan’s situation and when he learned of Loh Pei Ying’s involvement with the COP.

Singh had initially testified on 7 November that he knew on 29 November 2021 that Loh would be called to testify.

However, a police statement from Singh suggested he was uncertain of Loh’s involvement at that time.

DAG Ang pressed, “Mr Singh, you told the court that on November 29, you realised Loh would be giving evidence. But in your earlier police statement, you indicated you didn’t think she would be called. Isn’t this inconsistent?”

Singh responded, “It was an honest oversight,” explaining that reviewing the COP materials had refreshed his recollection.

“My statement in court was given with the benefit of hindsight,” he added.

The exchange continued with DAG Ang challenging Singh’s account.

“So, Mr Singh, are you suggesting that the inconsistency was merely a memory lapse?”

“Yes, Mr Ang. At the time of my police statement, I was going by memory. Reviewing the materials later clarified my understanding,” Singh explained.

DAG Ang challenged this reasoning, saying, “This inconsistency is significant. You can’t just attribute it to memory.”

Singh replied, “Respectfully, I believe my testimony reflects my best recollection given the different contexts.”

Singh’s Explanation on Delayed Guidance to Khan After Repeated Falsehood

DAG Ang next questioned Singh’s handling of Khan’s lie, particularly why he delayed advising her to correct her statement following her repeated falsehood on 4 October.

Highlighting Singh’s compassionate approach, DAG Ang inquired, “Mr Singh, if your intention was for her to come clean, why didn’t you press her immediately after 4 October?”

Singh reiterated, “It was due to Ms Khan’s personal situation. I wanted to give her space to process it.”

DAG Ang responded, “Isn’t it true that you didn’t push her because you had decided to keep it within the party?”

“No, that’s not accurate,” Singh replied, adding, “My approach was about balancing the need for truth with her circumstances.”

Clarifying “Primary Participant” and Singh’s Decision-Making

During questioning, Singh described himself as a “primary participant” in the matter, explaining that he did not view others, like Loh, as directly involved.

DAG Ang pressed Singh on the meaning of “primary participant” and why he didn’t believe Loh or others would be contacted by the COP.

“Mr Singh, you yourself were contacted by the COP in early November, yet you said you didn’t expect Loh to be involved,” DAG Ang queried.

“How did you distinguish your role from theirs?”

Singh replied, “I believed my role was central as I was directly responsible for the decisions around handling Ms Khan’s falsehood.”

Judge Tan intervened, asking, “Mr Singh, you described yourself as a ‘primary participant’ because of your involvement. Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Ms Loh if she received an email from the COP?”

Singh answered, “It was my interpretation at the time, Your Honour. I didn’t see her as directly involved in the lie itself.”

Exchange Over Meeting with Former WP Chief Low Thia Khiang

DAG Ang addressed Singh’s account of an 11 October 2021 meeting with WP chair Sylvia Lim and former WP chief Low Thia Khiang.

During his testimony, Low had stated he was not informed that Singh and Lim had decided Khan would clarify her lie in Parliament, which DAG Ang suggested contradicted Singh’s prior account.

“Mr Singh,” DAG Ang began, “Mr Low testified that no one told him of any intention for Ms Khan to clarify the statement. Yet in your police statement, you claim you did inform him on 11 October.”

“That is my recollection, and that’s what I told the police,” Singh replied.

“Are you suggesting Mr Low is mistaken?” DAG Ang asked pointedly.

Singh answered, “I believe it’s a difference in memory. I’m not saying he lied.”

DAG Ang pressed on, “So, either Mr Low has a very different memory or, as you’re suggesting, he’s mistaken. Which is it?”

Singh replied, “I’m confident in my recollection. I don’t believe either of us lied.”

DAG Ang continued, “But if you’re sticking to your version, then are you not implying Mr Low’s memory of events is incorrect?”

Singh clarified, “It may simply be a matter of differing memories, Mr Ang.”

Closing Statements and Final Cross-Examination

As the cross-examination drew to a close, DAG Ang summarised key points of the prosecution’s case, challenging Singh’s consistency and intent in his guidance to Khan.

Line by line, he recapped Singh’s statements, asking Singh to confirm or refute each point.

Judge Tan concluded by asking if the defence planned to call more witnesses.

Jumabhoy replied, “I will cross that bridge after lunch,” leaving the possibility open.

Singh Elaborates on Decision for Personal Statement and Timing of Khan’s Disclosure

Singh explained to DAG Ang that, given Ms Khan’s continued falsehood, a simple clarification would not have sufficed, and she would have needed to issue a personal statement.

Responding to his lawyer, Singh stated that on 4 Oct, it could have been a straightforward matter of telling Parliament that the anecdote she shared on 3 Aug was untrue.

However, after doubling down on her lie on 4 Oct, a brief clarification was no longer possible.

Singh felt that a personal statement was necessary, including an explanation for why she had lied.

Jumabhoy asked Singh to read Section 5 of the Parliament Act, which states, “There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, committee of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament.”

Singh then explained how he “applied” this law in handling Khan’s false anecdote and why she did not immediately speak to the police.

Jumabhoy then concluded his brief re-examination by addressing several points: when the Workers’ Party’s central executive committee became aware that party leaders knew of Ms Khan’s lie early on, whether Singh initially believed the matter would be resolved on 3 Aug 2021, and the issue of separation of powers, which Singh cited as the reason Ms Khan did not immediately speak to the police.

The discussion also covered Ms Khan’s departure from the party. Singh noted that forming the disciplinary panel had been suggested by Mr Low.

Court Adjourned Until 17 Feb 2025 for Verdict in Singh’s Case

With the re-examination complete, Singh left the stand, and no other defence witnesses were called.

Singh’s legal team consists of Andre Darius Jumabhoy, Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, Rannika Kaur and Singh’s father, Amarjit Singh, a former district judge.

Meanwhile, the prosecution is led by Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock, a former High Court judge, alongside Deputy Public Prosecutors Sivakumar Ramasamy, Tan Ben Mathias, and Lu Huiyi.

Prosecution team led by DAG Ang Cheng Hock