Defence called, Pritam takes the stand: Here’s what went down on Day 10 of the trial

The trial of Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh resumed on Nov. 5.

Singh opted to testify, after the judge called for him to present his defence.

The defence said it does not intend to call other witnesses at this stage.

Here are our live updates from Nov. 5 in court.

5:15pm: Court adjourned

The trial will resume on Nov. 6, 2024, with Singh expected to continue taking the witness stand.

5pm: Singh says he wasn’t worried about COP, didn’t expect Raeesah to lie to them

After the Committee of Privileges (COP) was announced, ex-WP cadre Loh Pei Ying voiced concerns to Singh about what Raeesah Khan would say there.

Her concern was that Raeesah would be able to say “whatever she wants”, Singh recalled.

Asked if he shared Loh’s concerns, Singh said he did not.

“There was nothing for me to be afraid of, whatever she said at the Committee of Privileges,” he said.

He added that they — the Workers’ Party leaders — had “never told her to do anything wrong”.

Reiterating that he did not tell Raeesah to take the lie to the grave, Singh said he intended to just tell the truth.

He expected questions about his knowledge of Raeesah’s lie, but did not think they would be difficult to answer, he said.

“We never expected her to lie to the COP about what transpired on Aug. 8 and Oct. 3,” he said.

4:50pm: No need to make preparations for clarifying lie, says Singh

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy brought up Raeesah Khan's former aides’ testimony that no preparations had been made previously regarding a statement, and that Raeesah would not have been able to come clean as a result.

Singh disagreed. He said that “the only thing Ms Khan had to do was to tell the truth in parliament”.

He also denied that there was any need for preparations for Raeesah to come clean.

In the event of follow-up questions at the planned Nov. 1, 2021 confession, Singh said he instructed her “simply to tell the truth”.

“I didn’t think one could script this any more than what could have been done by way of the personal statement,” he said.

Previously, Raeesah's former aide Loh Pei Ying testified that there was “no way” Raeesah could have told the truth herself in parliament on Oct. 4, 2021, without preparations.

“This lie is obviously going to be a shock to everyone. If she were to come up and just say ‘Yeah, I lied about it’, it would be very, very foolish of her to just go up and do that without the party,” she said.

She added that going into such a situation alone, without the knowledge of the party’s central executive committee and preparations for crisis communications, would have been “unthinkable”.

4:35pm: Singh says Raeesah’s aides 'weren’t keen' on her admitting her lie

After a short break, lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asked about his conversations with Raeesah Khan’s former aides, Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.

Both were former Workers’ Party cadres who previously testified in court as prosecution witnesses.

Loh and Nathan had requested a meeting with Singh on Oct. 12, 2021, a day after Singh and Sylvia Lim met ex-WP chief Low Thia Khiang.

They “weren’t keen” on Raeesah admitting the truth, Singh recalled. Nathan, in particular, suggested that they continue the lie.

Singh said he thought this was very strange and rejected it. Tripling down on the lie by “manufacturing some facts”, he said, was “a ridiculous suggestion”.

Singh also said that earlier that day, he and Lim had met up with Raeesah.

Raeesah seemed equally averse to admitting to her lie, and initially did not want to clarify it, Singh said.

In response, Lim — who typically “doesn’t raise her voice very much” — raised her voice at Raeesah, telling her she could not keep lying.

They subsequently agreed that Raeesah would draft the statement, and share it with Singh when it was ready.

3:50pm: Singh says 'sensitive & gentle' approach made things worse

Singh recalled that after the Oct. 4, 2021 parliament sitting when Raeesah Khan lied for the second time, she appeared “in a daze”.

She told Singh that there could be another way — to tell the truth. He replied “quite angrily”, to “look at the choice [she’d] made”.

He says he decided to take on a different approach with Raeesah, as his “sensitive and gentle” approach had made things worse.

On why he didn’t get Raeesah to clarify her lie at the next day’s sitting, Singh said he did not have enough time to settle the issue with Raeesah.

He also wanted to find out why she had lied again, he said. As such, he decided not to rush and to “take [his] time” to look at her clarification statement.

3:30pm: Singh was ‘incredibly disappointed’ when Raeesah lied again in parliament, says he’d told her to take responsibility

Singh said it was on Oct. 3, 2021, that it “clicked” for him that he would have to share his views with Raeesah, and warn her that the issue may come up at the next parliamentary sitting.

During a roughly 30-minute meeting at her house, Singh told her that the matter might come up.

If it did, she would have to “take ownership and responsibility”, Singh recounted saying at the time.

“In my view, those words were clear that she had to tell the truth…the lie was told by Raeesah and the onus was on her to clarify the lie in parliament.”

When Raeesah appeared “nervous and uncomfortable”, he added that he would not “judge” her.

“What I meant by that was, ‘I will not judge you if you take ownership and responsibility’,” he emphasised.

He added that at the parliament sitting on Oct. 4, 2021, when she reiterated her untruth, he was “incredibly disappointed”.

It had been an opportunity to clarify her untruth, but it was clear that Raeesah wanted to embellish the point she made in her speech, Singh said.

Asked why he did not reply to the message Raeesah sent him before reiterating her untruth — “What should I do Pritam?” — Singh said that he did not see the message.

He was busy listening to what law minister K Shanmugam was saying, he explained.

3:20pm: Singh says he was busy with other things after Raeesah confessed lie to him, but knew issue was not yet resolved

The line of questioning moved to Singh’s frame of mind between Raeesah Khan’s admission of her untruth, and her public confession on Nov. 1.

While he reiterated that he knew the lie would have to be clarified, Singh said that Raeesah did not take any steps to clarify the matter.

She was down with shingles following their meeting, he said.

At the time, Singh was also “occupied” with other issues, including the upcoming debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA).

His attention was instead on FICA as the Workers’ Party had determined that they would be opposing the bill and proposing amendments, and in view of the public interest in the matter, he said.

Singh added that he was also occupied with other matters, such as his usual town council and party matters.

With a chuckle, he added that he was searching for a second-choice primary school for his daughter, who had not gotten her first choice.

Despite being preoccupied with other matters, Singh said he knew in the back of his mind that he had not not resolved the issue with Raeesah.

He also thought that the other MPs “would not let the matter rest”, that he knew that it was something that could come up, and that Raeesah would have to clarify if it did.

When he remembered this, he sent the email to the WP MPs warning them about raising unsubstantiated issues in Parliament.

“This was directed at Raeesah. This was the start of this process in my mind, to let [her] know that this issue was still not settled,” he said.

“[But] it was a busy period for me, and my focus was on these matters in parliament.”

3pm: Singh says he 'knows how the PAP operates', didn't tell Raeesah to take lie to the grave

Singh resumed answering questions after the break, this time focusing on his conversations with Raeesah Khan following the lie in Parliament.

He said she had come across as “quite defensive" when he asked about her progress with finding the victim she mentioned in her anecdote.

When Raeesah subsequently confessed her lie on Aug. 7, 2021, he was “very unhappy” and “very upset”, Singh said.

But on the next day, when they met with the Workers’ Party leaders, she was “very fragile” and “very emotional”, admitting that she had been sexually assaulted at age 18.

As a result, no decision was made on the issue then. Singh said he merely reminded her to speak to her parents about her assault, and said that they would speak about the matter later on.

Singh told the court that because of her state, he wanted her to deal with the matter “when she was ready”.

But he was “quite sure” that the government would follow up on the issue, and he did not tell her to take the lie to the grave, he said.

“I know how the PAP operates. Whenever there’s a chance to fix an opposition MP, or get tough with the opposition, they will jump at the chance,” he explained.

However, he did not tell her that the untruth had to be clarified then, he said.

12:35pm: Singh found draft of Raeesah’s anecdote ‘scanty’, expected Parliament to press her

Singh thought the details that Raeesah Khan initially shared in her anecdote about the sexual assault survivor were “scanty”, he told the court.

He also believed that without enough facts, “the assumption would be that [the anecdote] was made up”.

Singh explained that in preparation for speeches made by Workers’ Party MPs, he would typically eye the drafts and identify any parts that could be “pounced upon by the PAP MPs”, or viewed as contradictory or problematic.

In this case, as he expected someone from Parliament to press her for more details, he circled the anecdote and wrote “substantiate”.

He said he felt that the details shared were “scanty”, and she would have to further explain the details she was highlighting.

He did not have any follow-up discussion with Raeesah about his note to her.

After she gave the speech in Parliament on Aug. 3, she was asked for more details, and he texted her saying that he “had a feeling this would happen”.

He clarified that Raeesah had not made any edits to the draft, despite his comment to “substantiate” it.

Singh said he also met her later to instruct her to clarify the anecdote, and reiterated that the details were too “scanty” and that “the assumption would be that it was made up”.

When Raeesah asked if someone with “experience” could come forward following her speech in Parliament, Singh refused.

He told her to “square away the issue like a responsible MP should”.

This is because it is typical that MPs make clarifications in the course of parliamentary speeches, he explained.

“Any responsible MP would just reply to the questions,” Singh said.

The defence said it does not intend to call other witnesses at this stage.

Court has adjourned for a lunch break and proceedings will resume at 2:30pm.

12pm: Singh recalls 1st meetings with Raeesah Khan & sensing ‘potential’ as WP candidate

After being sworn in, Singh began his testimony by answering questions posed by lawyer Andre Jumabhoy.

He spoke about his MP duties and his relationship with Raeesah Khan.

Singh met Raeesah in early 2019 through a Meet-the-People session. She was subsequently deployed to be a case writer for the GRC.

Over the course of the year, Singh observed that she was empathetic, listened intently to residents and their problems, and displayed patience when dealing with them.

These, he felt, were “positive traits” for anyone who wanted to enter the public service as an MP.

As she met the requirements to be a Workers’ Party MP, and he sensed “some potential there”, Singh asked Raeesah if she was keen on becoming a candidate for the upcoming General Election.

She agreed.

11am: Singh to take the stand as judge calls for defence

After a review of both the defence’s submission and prosecution’s response, Justice Luke Tan rejected the defence’s application of “no case to answer”, and called for the defence.

This means that the judge has found the prosecution's case to be sufficiently strong for the accused to answer the charges, according to the Singapore courts website.

He gave Singh the choice of testifying in his own defence, or opting to remain silent and not give evidence.

“Your honour, I understood what you said, I would like to enter the witness box,” Singh said.

This means that Singh will take the stand and testify against the charges.

The judge also concluded that no amendments to the charges are necessary.

Singh did not indicate that he was confused by the current charges, nor that the charges were unfair to him, Tan said.

The first charge “clearly, accurately, and succinctly” sets out Singh’s answer to the Committee of Privileges, which was allegedly untrue, he said.

The second charge sets out Singh’s claim of his stance on the matter “in gist” as well, the judge said.

10:30am: Singh gave ‘incomplete’, ‘half’ answers to COP: Prosecution

Referring to how Singh did not give specific false answers to certain questions posed by the COP, defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy said that the failure to answer questions means the onus is on the examiner to ask direct follow-up questions, otherwise the person being questioned could find his answers being taken out of context.

Appearing unconvinced, Justice Luke Tan said “it takes two hands to clap”.

The onus falls on both the questioner and the questioned party to come up with an answer to a single question, he said.

The defence argued that it shouldn’t be the case that the prosecution ends up “stitching together parts of [the] answer”.

But Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock pointed out that Singh made “half”, “incomplete” answers to the Committee of Privileges.

The answers “were repeated so many times” that the falsehood could only be inferred as “wilfully” given, he said.

The gist of all Singh’s answers, Ang said, was that Singh lied about wanting Raeesah Khan to come clean.

The prosecution has also set out a number of amendments to make the charges more precise.

But adding a “so-called summary or gist…does not make the charge bad at all,” Ang said.

10:15am: Singh's defence argues 'no case to answer' on both charges, saying lie must be given 'deliberately'

Singh’s defence team is now arguing that the prosecution has not made out a sufficiently strong case to answer for both charges against Singh.

Previously, defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy told the judge they intended to apply for “no case to answer” for only the first charge.

Reading out the defence’s submissions on Nov. 5, Jumabhoy said that the charges against Singh are based on lies that Singh did not explicitly say.

“The lie must be given deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertently,” he said.

He called the prosecution’s position “a patchwork of statements” that did not amount to a false answer.

As such, both charges “must necessarily fail”, he said.

9:09am: Singh arrives at State Courts

Singh arrived at the State Courts at around 9:09am.

He was accompanied by his lawyers.

Background

"No case to answer"

Previously, Singh’s lawyers said they intended to file a submission arguing that there is no case for the defence to answer on the first charge.

If successful, the judge may decide to dismiss the first charge and proceed only on the second charge.

The court may also decide to alter the charge, or frame a new charge.

Singh’s team would have had to make their submissions by Oct. 30.

What are the charges against Singh?

Singh faces two charges of lying to parliament.

In the first charge, he is alleged to have falsely testified that, at the conclusion of an Aug. 8, 2021 meeting with Raeesah Khan, WP Chair Sylvia Lim, and Faisal Manap, he wanted Raeesah to at some point clarify in parliament that she had lied about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station on Aug. 3, 2021.

In the second charge, he is alleged to have falsely testified on Dec. 10, 2021 and Dec. 15, 2021 that when he spoke to Raeesah on Oct. 3, 2021, he wanted her to admit to having lied to parliament on Aug 3, 2021 about having accompanied a rape victim to a police station, if this issue were to come up in parliament on Oct 4, 2021.

The trial is scheduled to run until Nov. 13, 2024.

If convicted, Singh faces a penalty of up to S$7,000 for each of the two charges, and/or a jail term of up to three years.

Top photo by Reuben Nathan