The months-long trial of Pritam Singh, the 48-year-old Secretary General of the Workers’ Party and Leader of the Opposition in Singapore Parliament, has resulted in his conviction today. He has 14 days to file an appeal once the sentencing is done.
During the course of today’s verdict hearing, the judge said that Singh had “wilfully” lied to the parliamentary Committee of Privileges.
This case is Singapore’s first prosecution under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Singh now faces a maximum sentence of 3 years in jail and a fine of SGD 7,000 on each of the two charges of lying against him. These two prison terms may run concurrently or consecutively, depending on the judge’s decision.
This morning, following the start of the hearing at the Singapore State Courts at 9.30am, the initial remarks of Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan had indicated that Singh was heading for a conviction.
The judge had begun today by asking both parties — prosecution and defence — for any last remarks. Both sides said that they had nothing to add. The trial had been wrapped up on November 8, 2024.
According to live reporting by CNA, the judge said that he accepted the version of former MP Raeesah Khan about a meeting between herself, Singh, and other Workers’ Party members (Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap) on August 8, 2021.
This meeting took place nearly a week after Khan made a false claim in Parliament about accompanying a rape victim to file a police complaint and about supposed remarks by the police officer on the victim’s clothes and drinking. She did not admit until November 1 of the same year that she had lied in Parliament.
In the subsequent Committee of Privileges inquiry into the matter, Singh testified that he had asked Khan, on two separate occasions, to come clean about her lie. However, Khan told the court during this trial that Singh had seemed “supportive” of her maintaining the lie.
This case of Public Prosecution versus Pritam Singh is about what he told the Committee of Privileges. The two statements made by Singh during the COP inquiry are as follows:
● Singh met Khan and other Workers’ Party members (Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap) on August 8, 2021, shortly after Khan made her claim about the rape victim during a parliamentary debate. Singh asked Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that her claim was untrue.
● Singh spoke to Khan on October 3, 2021, when he asked her to clarify that her claim about the rape victim was a lie, if the issue came up in parliament the next day.
Analysing the evidence and the statements, Judge Luke Tan said, “The accused’s actions subsequently in response to this end at and after the Aug 8 meeting to Ms Khan’s admission of the untruth were strongly indicative that the accused did not want Ms Khan to clarify the untruth at some point.”
The judge said a few minutes later, regarding the first charge against Singh, “The evidence shows [that] 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.”
As the judge continued going over the evidence before giving the final verdict, he rejected various statements made by Pritam Singh.
Singh had told the court that he had wanted Khan to speak to her parents before admitting to her lie. The judge said, “I find this to be uncorroborated and unbelievable.”
The legal team representing Singh had positioned Khan as a person who lied often. The judge said that there was no evidence to prove this.
The second charge against Singh related to what he told the Committee of Privileges regarding his discussion with Khan on October 3, 2021, about what she should do in Parliament on October 4, if pressed to give more details about the rape survivor claim. He told the committee that had he asked Khan to admit to the lie. She told the court that Singh had indicated he supported her lie.
Analysing evidence and testimonies related to this charge, Judge Tan said that he accepted the version given by Khan, and not the version presented by Singh. “The accused [Singh] never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in parliament the next day,” he said.
The judge added, “Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied. Ms Khan’s account was corroborated by the testimonies of former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.”
Khan had maintained her lie on October 4, when pressed for more details by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam. According to live court coverage by The Straits Times, referring to this, the judge said, “[Singh] did not show any anger or castigate Ms Khan for not telling the truth, despite her clearly acting in defiance of what he told her the day before… All in all, the accused’s lack of action on Oct 4 and Oct 5 after Ms Khan repeatedly doubled down on the lie in Parliament was consistent with Ms Khan’s account that he had told her he would not judge her if she continued the narrative.”
