Judge rules Singapore Workers’ party chief Pritam Singh has case to answer

Here are the key points made by the defence and prosecution, and the judge’s remarks on their submissions:

1. Defence: Charges are ‘linguistic acrobatics’ and ‘defective’

In arguing that the prosecution failed to make a case against Singh, Mr 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 by Singh that is alleged to be false.

In particular, Singh did not use the words Ms 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.

He added that Singh did not tell Ms Khan that he would not judge her for continuing the lie. “And for very good reason: Ms 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” are inherent in both charges, and that the prosecution relied on an amalgamation of Singh’s answers to the COP in making its claims.

This amalgamation may be interpreted in several ways, and cannot be relied on to show a clear or deliberate intention by Singh to make a false answer to the COP, Mr Jumabhoy added.

But the prosecution said the defence’s claim that its 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 because the relevant evidence annexed to the charges plainly sets out the COP’s questions and Singh’s answers, it said.

The prosecution also argued that Singh lied in different instances of his COP testimony, and used different words on different occasions to convey the same answer.

“It is not only practical but also fair to the accused, that he is required to answer only 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 prosecution’s approach is “sound and consistent” with legal requirements.

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. Defence: Evidence for first charge is ‘inherently incredible’

The defence said evidence for the first charge is “inherently so incredible that no reasonable person would accept it as being true”.

Mr Jumabhoy said Ms Khan gave three accounts of a meeting on Aug 8, 2021, when she told the WP chief, party chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap that she had lied in Parliament on Aug 3.

These accounts were given during her COP appearances and testimony before the court, he said.

The first was Ms 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”.

Listing these, Mr 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.

He also said that an Aug 8 text message from Ms Khan to WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan – where she said “they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave” – should be “treated with utmost circumspect”.

It was sent by a person who has proven herself quite capable of lying to Singh and her friends via text message, he said.

The prosecution responded that Ms Khan’s evidence in relation to the Aug 8 meeting “remains clear and credible” despite the defence’s attempt to cast doubt.

It noted that Ms Khan had disagreed that the accounts were different and said that during the Aug 8 meeting, the WP leaders’ assumption was that the untruth would not come up, so they would take it to the grave.

“It has never been Ms 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,” it said.

It added that Ms Khan’s evidence was that she and the WP leaders 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 said part of the defence’s argument was “perplexing”. The defence had argued that “take (it) to the grave” can have different meanings, and that it is unreliable to rely on Ms Khan’s interpretation of the phrase without also referring to what Singh meant.

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,” the prosecution said.

The prosecution said there was no reason for Ms Khan to lie to the two WP cadres about being told to take her lie to the grave, since she had already come clean to them and party leaders about her lie to Parliament.

Ms Khan would have known any lie “would have unravelled almost immediately” since she knew the cadres were meeting Singh on Aug 10, 2021, it added.

This demonstrates that Ms Khan’s text message was reliable evidence of what transpired at the Aug 8 meeting, it stated.

Judge Tan said the court was satisfied of the requirements to call Singh to testify in relation to the interpretation of his answers to the COP and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that, including whether his allegedly false answer was made wilfully.

3. Prosecution: Judge should ‘keep an open mind’ before trial concludes

The prosecution, in its written submissions, urged the judge to “keep an open mind” as to the accuracy of the evidence of any witness before the trial concludes.

The evaluation of evidence should be done only at the end of the trial, not at its present stage, it said.

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 said.

The court should disregard evidence cited by the prosecution only 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.

In spelling out his decision, Judge Tan reiterated the prosecution’s points, including the fact that the threshold that the prosecution has to meet at the close of its case must be carefully distinguished from the ultimate question at the end of the trial.

Citing case law, he noted that there remains a case to answer “if credibility is merely shaken” at the end of the prosecution case.

Judge Tan added: “All in all, for both charges, I am of the view that the requirements for the accused to enter his defence for both charges have been met.”

Asked to give evidence under oath and be cross-examined by the prosecution, or remain silent and allow the court to draw inferences from this decision, Singh said he will give evidence.

He said: “Your Honour, I’ve understood what you have said. I elect to give evidence before the court.”

4. Judge rules that Singh’s charges do not need to be amended

At any time before a judgment is given, the court may alter a charge or frame a new charge, whether in substitution for or in addition to the existing charge. Singh’s case is no exception.

At the last hearing on Oct 24, Judge Tan requested for clarity regarding the basis for Singh’s first charge, while he left it to the parties to decide if they want to address the issue of whether the second charge can or should be amended.

While the defence took the position that both of Singh’s charges were “defective”, the prosecution acted on the judge’s request by arguing that there was no need to amend the charges.

The prosecution reasoned that Singh had not taken the position that he did not understand the case that he has to meet, or that he was in doubt or confused by the charges or their respective annexures, where the relevant extracts of the minutes of evidence from the COP were appended.

Rather, Singh’s position regarding the Aug 8 meeting and the Oct 3 meeting was “quite clear” from the cross-examination questions by the defence to the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution argued. “Accordingly, it would appear that there is no need to amend the charges,” it added.

The prosecution further argued that it would be “unwieldy” to include all instances of Singh’s false evidence to the COP verbatim in the main text of the charges, pointing out that they spanned at least 15 pages for each charge.

The judge subsequently ruled that no amendments to both the charges would be necessary, as he was satisfied that the charges give Singh sufficient notice of what he is charged with.

The judge said he found no prejudice and unfairness in the charges handed to Singh. He added that the prosecution has “correctly pointed out” that Singh has not indicated that he does not understand the case he has to meet, or that he is in doubt or confused by the current charges or their respective annexures.