WP chief Pritam Singh’s verdict expected on Feb 17

A district court is set to rule on Feb 17 whether Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh lied to a parliamentary committee.

Singh, who is Leader of the Opposition, is contesting two charges for allegedly lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP). The COP was convened in November 2021 to look into the lying controversy involving former WP MP Raeesah Khan.

If found guilty, Singh faces for each charge a maximum fine of $7,000, a jail term of up to three years, or both.

But with sentencing likely taking place at a later date should Singh be convicted, a question mark would remain over his political future.

The Constitution states that a person could be disqualified as an MP if he is jailed for at least one year, or fined at least $10,000. It does not say if fines could be compounded. 

The Attorney-General’s Chambers has indicated it would be seeking only a fine for both charges if he is convicted.

Legal experts earlier told The Straits Times it is very unlikely that Singh would be disqualified and be barred from standing in the upcoming general election.

The prosecution’s case is that Singh had, at meetings with Ms Khan on Aug 8 and Oct 3 in 2021, told her to maintain a lie she had originally told in Parliament on Aug 3 that year about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively.

However, Singh told the COP that at those meetings, he had asked Ms Khan to clarify her untruth to the House. In attempting to downplay his responsibility in her untruth, he gave false testimony to the COP, said the prosecution.

During the high-profile trial which spanned 13 days across October and November 2024, the prosecution called four witnesses – including Ms Khan and former WP chief Low Thia Khiang – to show that Singh had, at the two meetings, told Ms Khan to keep to her lie.

The witnesses’ testimony and Ms Khan’s messages to two close confidants immediately following the Aug 8 meeting – that Singh and other WP leaders had told her to take her lie “to the grave” – showed that Singh had lied to the COP, argued the prosecution.

Singh’s recollection of a meeting with Mr Low differed from evidence that the former WP chief provided in his short appearance in court, prompting the prosecution to ask who was telling a lie.

Prosecutors made the case that Singh told Ms Khan to clarify her lie only on Oct 12, and preparations were made thereafter for her to come clean to Parliament.

Singh denied telling Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and said he intended for Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in Parliament after their Aug 8 meeting but wanted to give her time to deal with the matter.

He told the court he had set out to be “sensitive and gentle” towards Ms Khan, since the lie was connected to her personal experience with sexual assault and her parents had not known about the assault.

He also denied telling Ms Khan at their Oct 3 meeting that she could continue her narrative if she was not pressed on it in Parliament the next day.

The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, argued that Ms Khan made that inference as it was what she wanted to hear, as she was terrified of the consequences of admitting she had lied.

During cross-examination, the defence sought to paint Ms Khan as a habitual liar, and made several bids to impeach her credibility as a witness.

Only one application was allowed by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, and his ruling on it would impact how much weight the court gives to Ms Khan’s testimony.

The defence also cast doubt on the veracity of testimony provided by two former WP cadres – Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan – by showing they had met to discuss the evidence they would give ahead of the COP’s hearings, among other things.

This is the first time in post-independence Singapore that a person has been prosecuted under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which makes it an offence to lie in response to questions posed by Parliament or its committee.

Constitutional law expert Kevin Tan noted that the point of the $10,000 disqualification threshold is to indicate the seriousness of an offence for a person to be deemed unfit as an MP. 

It would not make sense if cumulative offences with lower fines can trigger disqualification, the adjunct professor at the NUS Faculty of Law said.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Lessons from a couple’s dispute over their 16 properties X subsidiary sues US media watchdog in Singapore following lawsuits in US, Ireland