Live: Pritam found draft of Raeesah’s anecdote ‘scanty’, expected Parliament to press her

The trial of Workers’ Party secretary-general Pritam Singh resumes today (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.

Watch this space as we bring you live updates.

12:35pm

Pritam 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”.

Pritam 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

After being sworn in, Pritam 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

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

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

Pritam 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

Pritam 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