WP’s Pritam Singh found guilty for lying to COP about his role in Raeesah Khan’s case

Worker’s Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh has been found guilty of wilfully making false answers to material questions put to him during his examination by the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021.

Singh went on trial for two charges relating to what he told the COP, which was set up to look into former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan and her untruth in parliament.

On Feb. 17, the judge convicted Singh on both charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

The first is for claiming that he wanted Raeesah Khan to clarify her lie in parliament at some point.

The second is for telling the Committee of Privileges that he had advised Raeesah Khan to come clean in parliament.

The judge found Singh guilty of falsely testifying to the COP 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.

What does this mean for Singh?

Considering Singh's position as the Leader of Opposition, a mentor to Raeesah, and a lawyer who would and should know the implications of his actions, the judge ruled that the maximum fine should be imposed for each charge.

Singh was given the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each charge.

Earlier, the defence had asked for a fine of S$4,000 per offence.

The prosecution sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each charge, and said it would not be pressing for a custodial sentence.

In a statement posted on his social media, Singh said that he instructed his legal team to file a notice of appeal and to look into the written judgement in closer detail.

Details of the judge's decision

First charge

After considering the evidence, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said he found that Singh had falsely answered the COP, in saying he wanted Raeesah to clarify that the anecdote was untrue.

Tan said that in his view, the evidence indicates that what Raeesah said was true and that Singh’s actions strongly indicated that he did not want her to clarify her untruth at some point.

He also noted that Raeesah’s statement was corroborated by statements from Raeesah’s former aide, Loh Pei Ying, during the trial.

Singh told Loh at a meeting on Aug. 20, 2021, that the lie would not come up again before shifting the focus of the meeting to Raeesah’s future performance in parliament.

This suggests that Singh believed the issue would not come up again, corroborated by his statement to the police, in which he said he believed the matter had been resolved.

Tan pointed out that Raeesah’s account of the events was truthful and accurate as nothing was done following the Aug. 8, 2021 meeting.

Tan noted that Singh “took no obvious steps” to get Raeesah to clarify her untruth for almost two months, which was in “sharp contrast” to his anxiety displayed at the Aug. 8 meeting.

In addition, after Raeesah admitted her lie to the other WP leaders, there was no follow-up from Pritam and the other leaders on what to do.

Tan said Raeesah’s message to Loh and her other aide, Yudhishthra Nathan, at 12:14pm after the Aug. 8 meeting further corroborated her account.

Raeesah had sent a message to Loh and Nathan in the car after the meeting ended.

She informed the two that she had discussed her anecdote and another issue with the WP leaders and said via text, “They’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave.”

Tan said the message gave “full weight” to this particular evidence, as the message was sent immediately after the meeting where Singh’s words would have been fresh on Raeesah’s mind as it would have given her an immense sense of relief, which she shared in court.

He also noted that Raeesah had no reason to lie to Loh and Nathan, given her close relationships with them.

Tan rejected the defence’s attempts to discredit Raeesah’s account.

The defence suggested that Raeesah had a “proclivity for lying” and may have lied to Loh and Nathan. However, Tan found no evidence to support this.

The defence also argued that Raeesah gave three different accounts of the Aug. 8 meeting to the COP and in court.

However, Tan noted there was “no real discrepancy” after carefully analysing the COP and court extracts.

Tan said Raeesah’s account was believable while Singh’s was not, as the prosecution pointed out that there are no minutes reflecting Singh’s account where he told Raeesah to speak to her parents before clarifying her untruth.

As such, Tan added that Raeesah’s account was more believable, as her speaking to her parents had nothing to do with what the WP leaders discussed.

Tan also tore into Singh’s evidence of his intention during the Aug. 8, 2021, meeting.

Singh testified that there were steps Raeesah needed to take before the lie could be clarified in parliament.

However, Tan noted that nothing Singh expected Raeesah to do was expressly said.

The judge said it was clear that the “laundry list of actions for Raeesah to be carried out [to clarify the truth] was only in his mind, but never out of his mouth”.

In addition, Singh did not follow up with Raeesah for almost two months regarding the steps she needed to take.

Singh’s lack of action coincided with Raeesah’s testimony that Singh’s position was to take the untruth to the grave, the judge noted.

Tan concluded that Singh was aware that the lie, if exposed, could lead to Raeesah being called up to the COP, which would likely impact WP.

This was indicated by Singh’s message to Raeesah about it being a “bad day in the office”.

Tan agreed that Singh’s remarks about taking it to the grave referred to the untruth and any account to the contrary were “lies” that Singh told.

Second charge

On the second charge, Tan also accepted Raeesah’s account, contrary to what Singh said.

Tan said Singh never intended for Raeesah to clarify the untruth in parliament during the October sitting.

The prosecution argued that there was no way Singh intended for the untruth to be clarified in parliament on Oct. 4, given how there were no preparatory steps taken.

They highlighted that there was no clarificatory statement prepared for or by Raeesah.

This was contrasted with the careful preparations undertaken over more than two weeks from Oct. 12 to 31, 2021, for Raeesah's eventual clarification on Nov. 1, 2021.

Singh also had not prepared himself to do so. He did not follow up with Raeesah to find out whether she had spoken to her parents, nor did he follow up with Loh and Nathan.

Tan stated Singh’s account of the Oct. 3 meeting was uncorroborated and inconsistent with his own evidence.

For instance, Singh did not address the lie with Raeesah Khan after she was challenged by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Oct. 4, 2021, even though the action of not clarifying the lie would have been contrary to what Singh purportedly intended for her to do.

During the trial, Raeesah was questioned about the events of Oct. 4, 2021, when Shanmugam resurfaced Raeesah’s anecdote and she texted Singh, asking: “What should I do?”

In her testimony, she explained that she was “really terrified and didn’t know what to do,” as she had not prepared for the matter to be brought up again.

She also wanted to reaffirm what he had said the day before, she added.

In addition, she checked a blue electronic device while on the podium, hoping to receive a reply from Singh, but none came.

When she was asked why she lied again when Shanmugam questioned her, Raeesah told the court that she was afraid of what happen if she told the truth.

It also seemed to her that from the conversation on Oct. 3, 2021, Singh was supportive of her continuing the lie, she added.

Tan said Singh’s lack of action on Oct. 4, 2021, after Raeesah doubled down on the lie, was consistent with her account that “he won’t judge her”.

Tan also found that Singh only agreed for Raeesah to clarify her lie after meeting with former WP chief Low Thia Khiang.

After the meeting with Low, Singh told Loh and Nathan that the WP would “survive the fallout” if the lie was clarified — a reassurance Low gave them.

It was also after the meeting that Singh gave Raeesah explicit instructions to clarify the lie.

Tan noted that by telling Raeesah he would not judge her, Singh seemed to leave it entirely up to her whether she wanted to tell the truth.

Regarding the WP disciplinary panel, Tan felt it was created to distance Singh from his role of getting Raeesah to clarify the untruth.

Tan found Raeesah Khan to be a credible witness.

Noting that the defence had attempted to impeach Raeesah three times based on discrepancies in her statements, Tan said that he agreed with the prosecutor’s argument that it was an “innocent” one, with any differences being in form rather than function.

Tan added that the discrepancy did not undermine Raeesah’s account of the Aug. 8 meeting or was sufficient grounds for her to be impeached.

As Raeesah was willing to shoulder the whole blame for the matter and always showed respect and reverence for Singh, she had no reason to falsely implicate Singh.

Tan also found that former WP members Loh and Nathan had no reason to lie or falsely implicate Singh.

“In view, they have shown great courage in testifying in court, and they have also left the party where they spent many years,” said Tan, adding that he gave “full weight” to their testimonies.

In the end, Tan said the prosecution had submitted sufficient evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and Singh was convicted on both charges.

Top photo via Mothership