SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has been found guilty of giving false testimony to a Committee of Privileges (COP) about his handling of Raeesah Khan's lie in parliament.
In a verdict delivered in the State Courts on Monday (Feb 17), Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan convicted Singh of the two charges against him.
Singh, 48, was accused of wilfully making two false answers to the COP during its inquiry into Ms Khan's case on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
The secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP) was charged with falsely testifying that:
On Singh's first charge, Judge Tan said evidence showed that at the end of the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, the position was that Ms Khan's lie would not come up, and that it would be difficult for the government to find out the truth due to the large number of police stations.
At the same time, Singh, who is a "political veteran", was aware that the lie could result in Ms Khan being brought to the COP, he added, noting the former's position as the party's secretary general and Leader of the Opposition.
This evidence shows that at the end of the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, Singh had not wanted Ms Khan to clarify the truth in parliament at some point.
"Any claim he made to the COP to the contrary was a lie he wilfully told," said Judge Tan.
The judge also accepted Ms Khan's version of events relating to Singh's second charge.
"The accused never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in parliament the next day," he said, noting that Singh had said he "would not judge" Ms Khan if she continued the narrative.
"Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied," said Judge Tan, adding that Ms Khan's account was corroborated by the testimonies of former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.
Singh would have known on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan could not clarify the lie without any preparation, said Judge Tan.
Since Singh knew this and "nothing of this sort was even attempted". This reinforced the judge's conclusion that on Oct 3, 2021, Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify her lie the next day, even if the matter came up again.
The disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms Khan had come clean in parliament was to distance the former from his role in guiding her to maintain the untruth, the judge added.
Ms Khan was a reliable witness during the trial. Despite making "clear flaws" by lying in parliament, she showed remorse for her actions, Judge Tan found.
She was also forthcoming with her evidence and did not downplay her role in the matter, said the judge.
While the defence sought to undermine the credibility of both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the judge also noted that he saw nothing to suggest they had lied in court.
This is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
The punishment for each charge is a maximum jail term of three years, a maximum fine of S$7,000 (US$5,200) or both penalties.
Continue reading...
In a verdict delivered in the State Courts on Monday (Feb 17), Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan convicted Singh of the two charges against him.
Singh, 48, was accused of wilfully making two false answers to the COP during its inquiry into Ms Khan's case on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
The secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP) was charged with falsely testifying that:
- At the conclusion of his meeting with Ms Khan and WP members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify at some point in parliament that what she had said about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue; and
- When Singh spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he wanted to convey to Ms Khan that if the issue came up in parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.
On Singh's first charge, Judge Tan said evidence showed that at the end of the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, the position was that Ms Khan's lie would not come up, and that it would be difficult for the government to find out the truth due to the large number of police stations.
At the same time, Singh, who is a "political veteran", was aware that the lie could result in Ms Khan being brought to the COP, he added, noting the former's position as the party's secretary general and Leader of the Opposition.
This evidence shows that at the end of the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, Singh had not wanted Ms Khan to clarify the truth in parliament at some point.
"Any claim he made to the COP to the contrary was a lie he wilfully told," said Judge Tan.
The judge also accepted Ms Khan's version of events relating to Singh's second charge.
"The accused never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in parliament the next day," he said, noting that Singh had said he "would not judge" Ms Khan if she continued the narrative.
"Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied," said Judge Tan, adding that Ms Khan's account was corroborated by the testimonies of former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.
Singh would have known on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan could not clarify the lie without any preparation, said Judge Tan.
Since Singh knew this and "nothing of this sort was even attempted". This reinforced the judge's conclusion that on Oct 3, 2021, Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify her lie the next day, even if the matter came up again.
The disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms Khan had come clean in parliament was to distance the former from his role in guiding her to maintain the untruth, the judge added.
Ms Khan was a reliable witness during the trial. Despite making "clear flaws" by lying in parliament, she showed remorse for her actions, Judge Tan found.
She was also forthcoming with her evidence and did not downplay her role in the matter, said the judge.
While the defence sought to undermine the credibility of both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the judge also noted that he saw nothing to suggest they had lied in court.
This is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
The punishment for each charge is a maximum jail term of three years, a maximum fine of S$7,000 (US$5,200) or both penalties.
Continue reading...