SINGAPORE: A High Court judge on Thursday (Dec 4) dismissed an appeal by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh against his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee.
Justice Steven Chong said the lower court judge's decision to convict Singh on both charges was supported by the evidence.
He said the conviction was sound even though he did not agree with the trial judge's assessment of some aspects of the evidence.
He found that Singh did not intend for Ms Khan to clarify her lie for at least two months after he found out about it.
"The appellant was confronted with an inconvenient truth," said Justice Chong. "A sitting MP from his party had told an untruth - an unsolicited lie."
He added that Singh "was hoping he did not have to deal with he untruth", and that it was for this reason that the Workers' Party (WP) leaders were examining issues such as whether the untruth would be raised again in parliament and whether the government would be able to discover it.
Justice Chong said the WP leaders were essentially "engaged in an exercise of risk management and/or damage control".
He thanked both sides for their submissions, saying the appeal was conducted "very fairly" and in "the best traditions of the Bar", and allowed Singh time to pay his fine.
Singh, 49, had claimed trial to two charges of lying to the committee of privileges in relation to a false anecdote told by former party member Raeesah Khan.
She had claimed in Parliament that she had gone to a police station with a rape victim, later doubling down on the lie when questioned by Minister K Shanmugam, before confessing to it a few months after her original lie.
Singh was later charged over allegedly false answers he gave the committee of privileges which was looking into Ms Khan's conduct.
He was convicted and sentenced to a total fine of S$14,000 (US$10,700). The fine, at S$7,000 per charge, did not disqualify him from being a member of parliament as it did not meet the threshold for disqualification.
The Elections Department said after his sentencing that disqualification is based on the sentence for a single offence. The threshold for disqualification is at least a year's jail, or a fine of at least S$10,000 per offence.
The closely covered trial included testimonies by Ms Khan, her former aides and WP stalwart Low Thia Khiang.
The trial judge found that the evidence showed that Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify the untruth, and that his lack of guidance on how to do so was consistent with his lack of desire for it to happen.
He also found that Singh was not a credible witness, while Ms Khan and her aides "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth", despite the defence's attempt to undermine their credibility.
During the appeal, Singh's lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, sought to overturn the conviction while the prosecution urged the court to dismiss the appeal as the conviction was sound.
Mr Jumabhoy said the trial judge accepted "impossibilities" in Ms Khan's account as "proof" and "conjecture as fact", ignoring the "plain reality" that Singh "consistently acted with caution, integrity and empathy".
The penalties for the charges of wilfully making false answers to questions material to the subject of inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
Continue reading...
Justice Steven Chong said the lower court judge's decision to convict Singh on both charges was supported by the evidence.
He said the conviction was sound even though he did not agree with the trial judge's assessment of some aspects of the evidence.
He found that Singh did not intend for Ms Khan to clarify her lie for at least two months after he found out about it.
"The appellant was confronted with an inconvenient truth," said Justice Chong. "A sitting MP from his party had told an untruth - an unsolicited lie."
He added that Singh "was hoping he did not have to deal with he untruth", and that it was for this reason that the Workers' Party (WP) leaders were examining issues such as whether the untruth would be raised again in parliament and whether the government would be able to discover it.
Justice Chong said the WP leaders were essentially "engaged in an exercise of risk management and/or damage control".
He thanked both sides for their submissions, saying the appeal was conducted "very fairly" and in "the best traditions of the Bar", and allowed Singh time to pay his fine.
Singh, 49, had claimed trial to two charges of lying to the committee of privileges in relation to a false anecdote told by former party member Raeesah Khan.
She had claimed in Parliament that she had gone to a police station with a rape victim, later doubling down on the lie when questioned by Minister K Shanmugam, before confessing to it a few months after her original lie.
Singh was later charged over allegedly false answers he gave the committee of privileges which was looking into Ms Khan's conduct.
He was convicted and sentenced to a total fine of S$14,000 (US$10,700). The fine, at S$7,000 per charge, did not disqualify him from being a member of parliament as it did not meet the threshold for disqualification.
The Elections Department said after his sentencing that disqualification is based on the sentence for a single offence. The threshold for disqualification is at least a year's jail, or a fine of at least S$10,000 per offence.
The closely covered trial included testimonies by Ms Khan, her former aides and WP stalwart Low Thia Khiang.
The trial judge found that the evidence showed that Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify the untruth, and that his lack of guidance on how to do so was consistent with his lack of desire for it to happen.
He also found that Singh was not a credible witness, while Ms Khan and her aides "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth", despite the defence's attempt to undermine their credibility.
During the appeal, Singh's lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, sought to overturn the conviction while the prosecution urged the court to dismiss the appeal as the conviction was sound.
Mr Jumabhoy said the trial judge accepted "impossibilities" in Ms Khan's account as "proof" and "conjecture as fact", ignoring the "plain reality" that Singh "consistently acted with caution, integrity and empathy".
The penalties for the charges of wilfully making false answers to questions material to the subject of inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
Continue reading...