Leader of the Opposition and Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh leaving State Courts on Oct 23. He was accompanied by lawyer Andre Jumabhoy (far left). - ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/ANN): Will Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh take the stand? Will the defence’s bid to impeach the credibility of key witness Raeesah Khan go through?
These are the major developments to watch as the trial resumes on Nov 5.
Singh is contesting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened to look into the lying controversy involving Ms Khan, a former WP MP.
He is accused of giving false answers to the committee’s questions on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
So far, the court has sat for nine out of 16 of the trial’s allocated hearing dates.
Ms Khan, former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, and former WP chief Low Thia Khiang were called to the stand as part of the prosecution’s bid to prove its claim beyond reasonable doubt.
With the prosecution wrapping its case with these four witnesses on Oct 24, the next order of business when the trial sits again would be whether the prosecution has presented a prima facie case so Singh has to answer the charges.
This is the phase where the court decides if the prosecution has presented a sufficiently strong case by putting forward some evidence in support of each element of each charge, said lawyer Sunil Sudheesan.
By now, both prosecution and defence have handed in their written submissions for the judge to consider this, although the defence had stated before the trial adjourned on Oct 24 that it would make submissions for only one charge.
If the court finds that the prosecution’s case lacks evidence to satisfy each and every element of their charges against Singh, the case would be dismissed in the “no case to answer” scenario.
This means that Singh would be acquitted of his charges, and discharged without his defence being called, according to the Singapore courts’ guide on criminal trial procedures.
The trial continues if the court finds the prosecution’s case to be sufficiently strong in relation to any of the charges. This is when Singh would be asked to present his defence.
The Aljunied GRC MP and Leader of the Opposition could do so by either choosing to give evidence from the witness stand under oath, or choosing to remain silent.
That said, either option comes with implications.
An accused who chooses to remain silent is protected from having to be cross-examined.
However, the court, in deciding whether he is guilty or not, will be open to draw inferences from his refusal to give evidence.
They include inferences that may be adverse to him.
The accused will likely lose the case because of these adverse inferences that can be drawn against him, said Mr Sudheesan, who heads the criminal law department of law firm Quahe Woo & Palmer.
If the accused opts to testify, he will likely be cross-examined by the prosecution.
Associate Professor of Law Eugene Tan from the Singapore Management University said: “He will have to be careful not to perjure should he decide to testify in his own defence.”
For each of his present charges 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, Singh could be fined up to $7,000, jailed for up to three years, or be punished with both.
Those accused of perjury, particularly the offence of intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, could be jailed for up to seven years and fined.
Prof Tan pointed out that cross-examination can be demanding and brutal as, unlike the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing, there will be copious rules to be observed.
This would reduce “the latitude to play to the gallery”, he said.
“While Singh knows the case history best, this has to be balanced against statements he made on the matter in the past, such as at the COP hearing and in cautioned statements to the police, and whether he can be scrupulously consistent across all of them,” he added.
Considering all factors, Prof Tan said he would not be surprised if Singh decides not to take the stand.
While there remains the option for Singh’s lawyers to request that the WP chief present written submissions with regard to his testimony instead, the first principles of law suggest that Singh will still have to be cross-examined based on his statements, Prof Tan noted.
“He can’t put his statements in without the opportunity for the public prosecutor to cross-examine him,” he said.
The defence told the court during the hearing on Oct 24 that it would address only the first of Singh’s two charges in the written submissions it would provide by Oct 30, to give the prosecution time to respond by Nov 1, ahead of the hearing on Nov 5.
The first charge alleges that Singh lied to the COP when he said he wanted Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in Parliament after a meeting on Aug 8, 2021, between himself, Ms Khan and WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap.
Ms Khan had, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament about how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively.
She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 that year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1.
Singh’s second charge alleges that he provided false testimony when he said he had, on Oct 3, 2021, asked Ms Khan to come clean about her lie if the issue was brought up in Parliament the next day.
Singh’s lawyers did not explain why it was not making submissions in relation to the second charge.
The court last heard Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan stating that he would leave the prosecution and defence to decide if they want to address the issue of whether this second charge can or should be amended.
The second charge is linked to the defence’s attempt to impeach Ms Khan’s credibility, since the inconsistency raised by Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, relates to her accounts of what took place on Oct 3, 2021.
Ms Khan had told the police on May 12, 2022, that Singh told her on Oct 3, 2021, that “knowing them (the Government), they may bring it up again”, and if her untrue anecdote was brought up in Parliament on Oct 4, he would not judge her if she kept to her lie.
Mr Jumabhoy had highlighted that this is different from what Ms Khan said on the first day of the trial – that Singh had told her on Oct 3 that he did not think the issue would come up again, but that if it did, he would not judge her for continuing with her narrative.
If the defence’s bid is successful, what Ms Khan had said in court would be given less weight by the judge.
Singh is represented by Mr Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, from Mr Jumabhoy’s law firm. Singh’s father, Mr Amarjit Singh, a former district judge, is assisting his legal team.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, a former High Court judge, is leading the prosecution’s team. - The Straits Times/ANN
