Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh (right) opted to give evidence on Nov 5 after the judge ruled he had a case to answer to for both charges against him. - ST
SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh has opted to give evidence before the court, after Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan on Tuesday (Nov 5) ruled that there is a case for him to answer to both his charges.
The judge’s decision came after Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy made written submissions to throw out the two charges against the Leader of the Opposition over his alleged lies to Parliament’s Committee of Privileges (COP).
The prosecution had wrapped up its case on Oct 24 after calling four witnesses to the stand, including former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan.
On Nov 5, the judge found the prosecution’s case to be sufficiently strong in relation to both charges. Singh was thus asked to present his defence either by taking the stand or choosing to remain silent. He opted to give evidence before the court.
The prosecution’s case is that Singh had on two occasions lied to the COP convened in November 2021 to investigate Khan’s untruth in Parliament.
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 purportedly treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 the same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.
Here are the key points made by the defence and prosecution, and the judge’s remarks on their submissions:
1. On the defence’s claim that the charges are ‘linguistic acrobatics’ and ‘defective’
In arguing that the prosecution had failed to make a case against Singh, Jumabhoy said each charge as currently drafted is “defective” as a matter of law because it does not identify the specific question posed by the COP and the specific answer given in response by Singh that is alleged to be false.
In particular, Singh did not use the words Khan alleged he uttered to her after she lied in Parliament in August 2021, which were to “take it to the grave”, or to “continue the narrative”, the lawyer said.
Jumabhoy added that Singh also did not tell Khan that he would not judge her for continuing the lie. “And for very good reason: Khan and the truth make strange bedfellows. It would defy credibility to rely on her as a witness of truth.”
He also argued that “linguistic acrobatics” is inherent in the two charges Singh is contesting, while he pointed out that the prosecution had relied on an amalgamation of his answers to the COP in claiming that he had given false testimony.
The amalgamation of Singh’s answers to the COP also may be interpreted in several ways, Mr Jumabhoy added. It thus cannot be relied upon to show a clear or deliberate intention by Singh to make a false answer to the COP, he pointed out.
Responding, the prosecution contended that the defence’s claim that the charges “fail from the outset” is surprising and plainly misconceived.
In its written submissions, the prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, argued that it “cannot seriously be the defence’s position” that the charges are vague as to whether the accused did indeed give any answers to the COP.
This is as the relevant extracts of the minutes of evidence annexed to the charges plainly set out the questions posed by the COP and the corresponding answers given by Singh to the COP, it said.
The prosecution also argued that Singh had lied in several different instances of his COP testimony, and that he used different words on different occasions to convey the same answer.
“Hence, it is not only practical but also fair to the accused, that he is required to only answer a single charge setting out the one false answer, which sets out the gist of what the accused said in his testimony to the COP, through answering a series of questions,” it said.
In striking down the defence’s “no case to answer” bid, Judge Tan said the amalgamated approach taken by the prosecution is “sound and consistent” with the requirements of law.
He also agreed with the prosecution that it is only practical and fair to Singh to have to answer to a single charge setting out one false answer, rather than have multiple charges levelled against the accused.
2. On the defence’s claim that evidence for the first charge is ‘inherently incredible’
The defence also made the case that there is no case to answer for the first charge because the “evidence is inherently so incredible that no reasonable person would accept it as being true”.
Jumabhoy said Khan gave three different accounts about what took place on Aug 8, 2021 at Singh’s house when she first told the WP chief, party chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap that she had lied in Parliament on Aug 3 that year.
The first was Khan’s account to the COP on Dec 2, 2021 that the WP leaders’ reaction was that “if I were not to be pressed, then the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative that I began in August”.
The second was her testimony at her third appearance before the COP on Dec 22, 2021, where she was very clear that Singh used the words “take it to the grave” at the Aug 8 meeting.
The third was her testimony before the court on Singh’s response to her admission that she had lied in Parliament. She said Singh listened, was maybe “like, a bit upset over the situation” and spoke about putting her before the COP. He then said “this would probably be something that we would have to take to the grave”.
After listing these out, Jumabhoy said there is an obvious difference between retaining the narrative if not pressed, and taking the lie to the grave.
The suggestion to take the lie to the grave is fundamentally different from not volunteering the truth, he added.
Jumabhoy also argued the text message that Khan had sent former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan after the Aug 8 meeting ended – which contained the line “they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave” – should be “treated with utmost circumspect”.
This is given that it was sent by a person who has proven herself quite capable of lying to Singh and her friends via text message, he said.
In response, the prosecution said Ms Khan’s evidence in relation to the Aug 8 meeting “remains clear and credible” despite the defence’s attempt to cast doubt.
It said the defence had ignored the fact that, during cross-examination, Khan disagreed that both accounts were different and explained that during the Aug 8 conversation with the WP leaders, their assumption was that the untruth wouldn’t come up, so they would take it to the grave.
“It has never been Khan’s evidence, whether at the COP or in this court, that she had been advised at the Aug 8 meeting to tell the truth if the issue came up,” the prosecution said.
The prosecution added that Khan’s evidence is that she and the WP leaders simply did not discuss that possibility at the meeting - the first time she received guidance on what to do if pressed was at another meeting on Oct 3, 2021, when Singh told her he would not judge her for continuing the narrative.
The prosecution also called it “perplexing” that the defence has argued the phrase “take (it) to the grave” is capable of meaning different things, and that it is unreliable to rely on Khan’s interpretation of the phrase without referring to what Singh meant by the phrase.
It said the defence had earlier claimed that Singh did not say such a phrase at the Aug 8 meeting, but now appears to have taken a less categorical position on this claim.
“If the accused’s position is that he meant something else by the phrase, then it is for the accused to state so from the witness box,” it added.
The prosecution said there is no reason for Khan to have lied to Loh and Nathan on the “take to the grave” issue, since she had already come clean to the cadres and party leaders then about her lie to Parliament.
In addition, Khan would have known any lie “would have unravelled almost immediately” since she was aware that Loh and Nathan were meeting Singh on Aug 10, 2021.
This demonstrates that Khan’s text message is reliable evidence of what transpired at the Aug 8 meeting, it stated.
Judge Tan said the court is satisfied of the requirements to call Singh to testify in relation to the interpretation of the WP chief’s answers to the COP and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that, including as to whether his allegedly false answer was made willfully.
3. Judge should ‘keep an open mind’ before trial concludes, urged prosecution
The prosecution, in its written submissions, urged the judge to “keep an open mind” as to the accuracy of the evidence of any of the witnesses before the trial concludes.
This is as the task of evaluating evidence should be performed only at the conclusion of the trial, and not at the present stage of the proceedings, said the prosecution.
In order for the defence to be called at the close of the prosecution’s case, it only has to establish that there is “some evidence, not inherently incredible”, which satisfies each and every element of the charges, the prosecution pointed out, citing case law.
This is different from the ultimate question at the conclusion of trial, which is whether every element of the offence has been established “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the prosecution stressed.
In the meantime, the court should only disregard evidence adduced by the prosecution where it “has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it,” it said.
Judge Tan, in spelling out his decision, said the threshold that the prosecution has to meet at the close of its case “must be distinguished from the ultimate question at the end of the trial”.
“If credibility is merely shaken, there remains a case to answer,” the judge added.
After laying these out, Judge Tan said: “All in all, for both charges, I am of the view that the requirements for the accused to enter his defence for both charges has been met.
Singh was then asked to stand to answer for whether he wants to give evidence under oath and be cross-examined by the prosecution, or remain silent and allow the court to draw inferences from his refusal to give evidence.
His response was: “Your Honour, I’ve understood what you have said. I elect to give evidence before the court.” - The Straits Times/ANN
