'Never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth': Judge finds Pritam Singh guilty of lying to Committee of Privileges
SINGAPORE: Following a lengthy oral judgment that dismantled Pritam Singh's defence, a judge on Monday (Feb 17) pronounced the Leader of the Opposition guilty of two charges of lying toparliament.
In doing so, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said that Singh had "wilfully" lied and that he never wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to clarify the truth about her false claim in parliament about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station.
Singh, 48, was accused of wilfully making two false answers to a Committee of Privileges during its inquiry into Ms Khan's case on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
"The evidence shows at the conclusion of the Aug 8 meeting, the accused 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 the judge.
On Singh's claim that he wanted Ms Khan to speak to her parents first before clarifying her lie in parliament, the judge said he found that to be "uncorroborated and unbelievable".
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.
"NO REASON" FOR KHAN TO LIE IN WHATSAPP MESSAGE: JUDGE
A "very important" piece of evidence that Judge Tan gave "full weight" to was a WhatsApp message sent by Ms Khan to a group chat with former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan after the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, ended.
In the message, Ms Khan told Ms Loh and Nathan that she had discussed her speech on Muslim issues as well as the false anecdote she shared in parliament with party leaders and wrote: "They have agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave".
Judge Tan rejected the defence's attempts to claim that the circumstances surrounding the sending of this message were "suspect".
The discussion would have been fresh in Ms Khan's mind and would have brought her "relief", he said, adding that there was "no reason" for her to lie in the message, given that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were also close to Singh.
Judge Tan also found no reasons to suggest that Ms Khan would lie about one aspect of the discussion but tell the truth about the other aspect – her speech on Muslim issues.
The "most useful" evidence was Singh's lack of action after the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, said the judge.
Singh's lawyers claimed that at the end of the meeting, he told Ms Khan to speak to her parents first while walking out with her, but no one was within earshot when this happened, Judge Tan noted.
"It does not make sense for the accused to have instructed Ms Khan on what to do when they were alone when the purpose of the Aug 8 meeting was to discuss the matter with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal," he added.
There was "nothing secretive or surreptitious" about his instructions to speak to her parents, said the judge, adding that it was more likely that any instructions to Ms Khan would have been given in the presence of all three WP leaders present.
According to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan's testimonies, Singh continued to interact with them after this meeting, but never once spoke to them about Ms Khan clarifying the lie she had made or taking any other steps, Judge Tan said.
This also means that he never asked them about what Ms Khan had done to update her parents so he could take the next step to clarify the lie, he added.
"This was surely something he would have done even if he did not engage Ms Khan directly, seeing that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were not only close friends but also the people assisting Ms Khan in her work as a WP MP, " said the judge.
Even if Singh did tell Ms Khan that she should speak to her parents, Judge Tan said he found it difficult to accept that he also expected her to know about "a whole host of things" she needed to do about the lie – speak to her parents, explain the sexual assault to them, explain why she lied, tell them that the fact she lied was going to become public, and come back to Singh to tell him that she was ready to clarify the matter in parliament.
"None of these things he expected her to do were expressly articulated to Khan any time during the Aug 8 meeting," said Judge Tan.
"(It is) clear at the time his desired laundry list of actions he wanted Ms Khan to take was only in his mind but never out of his mouth."
"NEVER WANTED MS KHAN TO TELL THE TRUTH"
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 Ms Loh and Mr 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.
On Nov 2, 2021, a day after Ms Khan admitted to lying in parliament, the WP announced that it had formed a disciplinary panel to look into her conduct.
The judge noted the prosecution’s arguments that this was done with “great haste” and was “a completely self-serving exercise”.
He also said it was obvious that there was a “real or apparent conflict of interest” that the panel comprised the same three WP leaders who had guided Ms Khan on how to deal with her lie.
There was a real concern that they would not be able to act impartially as their own conduct in the matter would come under scrutiny, and this would not be lost on Singh and Ms Lim, who are lawyers, said the judge.
Singh revealed to the public that he had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 7, 2021, on Dec 2, 2021 – the day Ms Khan and Ms Loh were slated to testify before the COP.
This suggested that Singh was trying to do “damage control” by admitting his awareness of the lie before it could be raised by Ms Khan or Ms Loh, said Judge Tan.
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.
JUDGE ON LOW, LOH AND NATHAN
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, adding that they instead "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth" in this trial.
As for Mr Low Thia Khiang, whom Singh and Ms Lim approached for advice on how to deal with the matter on Oct 11, he is trusted and respected by all those who testified in the trial, as well as Ms Lim.
Judge Tan said it was clear that Mr Low played a "pivotal role" in the ultimate decision for Ms Khan to confess to her lie in Parliament.
Apart from what Singh told Mr Nathan about being “worried” that the government already had evidence of the lie, it may have been Mr Low’s “reassuring words” that the WP would survive any fallout that led to the decision for Ms Khan to clarify the truth, he added.
Judge Tan rapped the defence for "extensive and liberal" references to what Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap said during the COP hearings, noting that these could not be admitted in court since neither were called as witnesses in the trial.
"This backdoor attempt is clearly inadmissible as the out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and are inadmissible," he stressed.
If Ms Lim or Mr Faisal's evidence refuted Ms Khan's account of events, the defence should have called them to testify, he said.
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.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge.
Mr Wong said that the duties of the Leader of the Opposition included leading the opposition to present alternative views in parliament and leading scrutiny of the government. He also noted that Singh was WP's secretary-general and a lawyer.
Singh’s act of giving false testimony to the COP to “protect his own political capital by throwing Ms Khan and his own political cadres under the bus” was therefore “undoubtedly serious and dishonourable”, the prosecutor said.
Singh's offences are "right at the cusp of the threshold" for imprisonment, he added.
The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, asked for a fine of S$4,000 per charge.
Singh had no involvement in the original lie or the fact that Ms Khan chose to tell the lie in the first place, said Mr Jumabhoy.
Asking for that high a fine was "unnecessary", he added.
"It’s not that he told Ms Khan to lie. It’s that he never had these thoughts in his mind," said Mr Jumabhoy.
Parties will return at 3.15pm on Monday for sentencing.
IMO PS's decision to appeal against the conviction is a tactically risky move; if the judge presiding over his appeal hearing ups the severity of the sentence meted to one which sees him thrown behind bars instead of getting exonerated, that would definitively end his political career :|
Indeed, then again I reckon in politics integrity is everything, as party chief he probably won't stand for going into this year's GE with an obvious stain etched on his character. Whether to appeal or not, he's surely being caught between a rock and a hard place. Oh well.
He's singularly focused on destroying Pritam lah. I mean, look at how badly he was humiliated during the COP proceedings then - how can he take it lying down?
Raeesah Khan grilled by Pritam Singh's lawyer, called a 'liar' who tells 'lies non-stop'
SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh's defence on Tuesday (Oct 15) began their cross-examination of former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan, with his lawyer accusing her of repeatedly lying in parliament and to Singh himself.
Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy referred Ms Khan to her anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 and repeatedly called out moments to grill Ms Khan on whether she had been telling the truth.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament twice in 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
Her account led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms Khan revealing the truth in parliament, and the matter was later referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, the 48-year-old secretary-general of WP, is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021 during events after Ms Khan's anecdote.
• 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.
CROSS EXAMINATION A VERBAL REPARTEE
Mr Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Ms Khan was fast-paced, with the lawyer putting questions to her in a rapid-fire manner. Ms Khan, who appeared composed and stoic, often answered "yes" or "no" to the volley of queries.
Referring to Ms Khan's anecdote that she made in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 , Mr Jumabhoy asked her: "You are in fact a liar, right?", to which her reply was "yes I've lied".
He then followed up with: "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?", but Ms Khan denied this.
"I'm not talking (about) in your general life, I'm talking just in relation to the COP, the anecdote, these proceedings," said Mr Jumabhoy.
When asked to clarify what he meant by "non-stop", Mr Jumabhoy referred to specific portions of the anecdote. For example, when Ms Khan had said she had accompanied women to police stations.
After Ms Khan admitted that this statement was not true, Mr Jumabhoy said: "So that’s a lie, I mean that’s a flat-out lie … you can’t be in any doubt that you’ve never accompanied anyone to the police station."
Ms Khan's anecdote, which she stated that the alleged rape victim was 25, and that she had come out crying, were also not true, she admitted in court.
KHAN LIED TO SOMEONE SHE REVERED: DEFENCE
Ms Khan had further lied to Singh in her messages with him after she delivered the anecdote in parliament, according to the defence.
When Singh had asked for more details in relation to the anecdote, Ms Khan had replied that she did not know if she could contact the survivor to come forward.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed out that Ms Khan did not even know the name of the rape victim.
"You couldn't share a name (even if you did know) because you weren't there in the first place," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He then said: "You're adding more facts to support a lie ... So it's a lie heaped upon a lie ... and then it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"
Ms Khan replied "yes" to all these statements.
The defence lawyer continued to point out details in Ms Khan's messages, stating that in one message she had "managed to lie about four times".
"I mean, that's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," he added.
Ms Khan replied: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."
But Mr Jumabhoy rebutted: "You seem to be well thinking enough that you can add (these details)."
Ms Khan responded: "I would think being well thinking is to be coming out with the truth."
Mr Jumabhoy then returned to Singh's messages - the WP chief had asked Ms Khan which organisation had put her in touch with the victim. In her reply, Ms Khan had said she was trying to get more details.
"You say 'I'm trying to get more details'. The last thing you wanted was more details because that would expose the fact you lied," Mr Jumabhoy said, to which Ms Khan responded "yes".
"You’ve told this court that Mr Singh was somebody you looked up to. You revered him. Correct? He was a mentor to you. And he was someone you felt more than capable of just lying (to) outright, yes?"
Ms Khan replied "yes", to which Mr Jumabhoy followed up with: "So that for you is how you treat somebody you revere?"
Ms Khan clarified: "No, but I mean I was really scared at that point and I revered him so much that I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball. And of course I mean I would never do something like that again, but yeah you’re right."
When asked if she had lied only to Singh over the anecdote, Ms Khan said: "Because I made that speech in parliament, I lied to the whole country."
The cross-examination of Ms Khan will resume on Tuesday afternoon after the court's lunch break.
My guess is he got subpoenaed, hence he bo pian must abide accordingly.
In his opening statement, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock said that the prosecution’s witnesses will include former WP chief Low Thia Khiang. Low was informed of Khan’s untrue anecdote to Parliament by Singh and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021.
.......Ang said that “there was simply no way” that Singh intended for Khan’s lies to be clarified when Parliament sat on Oct 4, 2021, as the accused had claimed. This was as no preparatory steps were taken then, compared with after the Oct 11, 2021, meeting that involved Low. At that meeting, Low advised Singh and Khan that the untruth be clarified in Parliament as soon as possible.
Subsequently, Khan underwent “careful preparations” in the lead up to her eventual clarification to Parliament, noted the prosecution.
Pritam Singh hires lawyers to defend against charges of lying in Raeesah Khan case
SINGAPORE — Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh has hired lawyers to defend him against the two charges he faces of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan's case.
Singh, 47, did not turn up in person on Wednesday morning (April 17) for a pre-trial conference in the State Courts — an administrative hearing to prepare the prosecution and the accused for trial.
Pre-trial conferences are usually held in chambers and are inaccessible to the media or the public. They can also be held over Zoom video call.
Singh was newly represented by lawyers Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, who attended the pre-trial conference on his behalf before District Judge Chee Min Ping.
A note in the court's system indicated that the pre-trial conference would be adjourned to May 31, adding that "defence counsel has been recently instructed".
Mr Jumabhoy fronts an eponymous boutique law firm. On his website, he is described as "a dedicated trial lawyer" with experience in criminal and civil law, as well as white-collar crime.
He began his legal career in 2003 as a barrister in London and returned to Singapore in 2011, joining the Attorney-General's Chambers as a Deputy Public Prosecutor.
He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from King's College London in 2002.
When contacted by CNA for a statement, Mr Jumabhoy's law firm confirmed that they were acting for Singh, but said they could not provide other information at this juncture.
The two charges Singh faces allege that he wilfully made a false answer on Dec 10, 2021 and Dec 15, 2021 in the public hearing room at Parliament House.
This was during an inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, centering on the case of Raeesah Khan, who had lied over a sexual assault case and accused the police of mishandling the case.
Singh allegedly testified falsely that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify what she said in Parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, and that he spoke to Ms Khan as he wanted to convey to her that she had to clarify what she said over the same issue.
Singh pleaded not guilty to his charges when he was first charged in court on March 19.
If convicted of lying under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
WP chief Pritam Singh charged with lying to Parliament over Raeesah Khan’s case, pleads not guilty
SINGAPORE – Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh was charged on March 19 with two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee, two years after the police opened investigations into his conduct before the Committee of Privileges.
The committee called Singh as a witness and said later that he had not been truthful during the hearings while under oath. It recommended referring him and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap to the public prosecutor for further investigations with a view to consider criminal proceedings, which Parliament later endorsed.
Standing in the dock on March 19, Singh, who was unrepresented, pleaded not guilty to the two charges under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and claimed trial.
The 47-year-old opposition leader requested a four-week adjournment to engage a lawyer. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for April 17.
Lying in response to questions posed by a parliamentary committee is considered a criminal offence under the Act, and carries a maximum fine of $7,000 and a jail term of up to three years or both.
In response to media queries, an Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) spokesman said it is for the court to decide what the appropriate punishment should be if Singh is found guilty.
The spokesman added that the AGC will be asking the court to impose a fine for each of the charges, if Singh is convicted.
This is based on the “evidence presently available and considering the totality of the circumstances”, the spokesman said.
In a joint statement, the AGC and police also said the prosecution has decided not to charge Mr Faisal for his refusal to answer relevant questions that had been put to him by the committee.
The WP MP was issued an advisory by the police to familiarise himself with conduct expected of MPs under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it.
Singh had arrived at the State Courts at 10.45am, clad in a black suit.
When asked for comment after being charged, he said he would be releasing a statement later. He subsequently said he would continue with all his parliamentary duties and town council responsibilities until the legal process “comes to a complete close”.
The committee’s recommendation for Singh to be referred to the public prosecutor came after it investigated Ms Khan for lying in Parliament.
This was later found to be untrue, and Ms Khan eventually told Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, that she had been sexually assaulted herself and had heard about the victim’s experience at a support group session.
Aiyah Pritam almost confirm + chop will get to stay on as LOTO and MP🥳
But legal experts who spoke to The Straits Times said it was very unlikely that Singh would be disqualified, which would also preclude him from standing in the next general election, due by November 2025.
This is partly because Singh is unlikely to be looking at jail time, they noted.
.......Constitutional law expert Kevin Tan, an adjunct professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) School of Law, said Article 45(1)(e)(i) of the Constitution refers to a single offence, and not separate offences.
This means that even if Singh was sentenced to the maximum fine of $7,000 for each of the two offences he was charged with, he would not meet the threshold to be disqualified.
The point of the $10,000 threshold is to indicate the seriousness of an offence for a person to be deemed unfit as an MP, and thus, it would not make sense if cumulative offences with lower fines can trigger disqualification, he said.
Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap to face further probe, Raeesah Khan fined S$35,000 after Parliament agrees with COP recommendations
SINGAPORE: Former Workers’ Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan will be fined for lying in Parliament, while party leaders Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap will be referred to the public prosecutor after the House voted on Tuesday (Feb 15) to proceed with recommendations made by the Committee of Privileges (COP).
This came after a debate on two motions filed by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah, which lasted more than four hours.
The first motion was split into two parts after she clarified with the Workers' Party that it would support some parts of it.
The first part comprised taking note of the COP's report and agreeing with its findings that Ms Khan was guilty of abusing parliamentary privilege by lying twice in Parliament on Aug 3. It also said she should be fined S$25,000 for this. All MPs agreed with the motion.
The second part was on Ms Khan being fined S$10,000 for repeating the lie on Oct 4. A majority of MPs agreed with the motion, although WP members stood to register their dissent to this, as did the Progress Singapore Party's Non-Constituency MPs.
SECOND MOTION ALSO PASSED
The second motion on the COP's recommendation that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal be referred to the public prosecutor was also voted in two parts.
The first part was that offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the COP.
The COP said in its final report on Feb 10 that it was “satisfied” that Mr Singh, who is WP chief and Leader of the Opposition, had liedwhile giving evidence under oath, which could amount to perjury.
Mr Faisal should also be investigated for his “refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee”, which could constitute contempt of Parliament, it said.
The second part of the motion involved agreeing with the COP’s recommendations to defer any sanctions on the two and party chairman Sylvia Lim for their roles in Ms Khan’s lies, until any investigations and criminal proceedings against Mr Singh have been concluded.
All MPs agreed with both parts of the second motion, except for WP members who stood to register their dissent.
UNKNOWNS MOVING FORWARD
Mr Singh said in a Facebook post on Feb 10 that he and Mr Faisal would continue their work as per normal until matters were resolved. But there were still “a number of unknowns”, he said.
“These include the eventual decision of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, the intervening time before the matter goes to trial, the eventual verdict and any sentence meted out, and the prospect of both Faisal and I losing our parliamentary seats and stepping down as Members of Parliament if either of us is fined $2,000 or more.”
The outcome in Parliament marks the latest development in the saga, stretching back to when Ms Khan first told the lie in August. After repeating the lie in October, she confessed in November that she had not been truthful about the account. She resigned from the WP and as an MP on Nov 30.
COP proceedings gathered pace in December, with the panel having 15 meetings lasting more than 35 hours in total. The panel is chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, and comprises six other People's Action Party MPs and WP MP Dennis Tan.
It also held an additional 31 hours of hearings, in which it heard oral evidence from nine witnesses. The committee also produced six special reports and a final report of more than 1,180 pages to Parliament.
I would be surprised if this rubber-stamp parliament didn't wholeheartedly concur with the recommendations put forth by Pinky's minions. Time to crucify the opposition, with extreme prejudice.
When you can't run the country properly, you need distractions. Fixing the opposition is an easy way to achieve that. The mainstream propaganda machinery will make sure of it. ;)
COP proposes fine of S$35,000 for Raeesah Khan, further investigation into WP leaders Pritam Singh, Faisal Manap
SINGAPORE: The Committee of Privileges (COP) has recommended that former Workers' Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan be fined S$35,000 for lying in Parliament.
It also proposed that WP secretary-general Pritam Singh and vice-chair Faisal Manap, both Aljunied GRC MPs, be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations.
The COP, in its final report on Thursday (Feb 10), said that it has found Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege for telling an untruth in the House on Aug 3, and then repeating it on Oct 4.
Ms Khan had lied about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station in an anecdote which alleged that the police had mishandled the case. She said that she did so because she did not want to reveal that she had heard the anecdote in a support group, which she had attended as a survivor of sexual assault.
She subsequently resigned as an MP and from the WP.
After hearings and deliberations by the Committee over the last two months, the final report said: "The Committee considers that Ms Khan had acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the House in making serious allegation against the Police in Parliament, that was untrue in some parts, and was unsubstantiated."
The report said from Aug 8 onwards however, Ms Khan was acting under the guidance of three senior WP leaders, to "keep to the untruth", and on Oct 3 she was given further guidance by Mr Singh to continue lying.
The leaders refer to Mr Singh, Mr Faisal and WP chair Sylvia Lim.
"(Ms Khan) was therefore not solely responsible for repeating the Untruth on 4 Oct, in Parliament. But she nevertheless cannot be completely absolved from liability either for repeating the Untruth. She remains liable," said the report.
"She came clean, on 1 Nov, after she was told to do so, by Mr Singh and Ms Lim (on 12 Oct)."
KHAN'S FINE
The amount of S$35,000 is a combination of two fines - S$25,000 for the untruth on Aug 3, which she has to "take full and sole responsibility for", and S$10,000 for repeating the lie on Oct 4.
The smaller amount takes into account the "substantial mitigating factor" that Ms Khan was acting on the orders of WP leadership after Aug 8, said the report. The COP has also considered that Ms Khan has resigned from Parliament and confessed to WP leaders on Aug 8.
"Her conduct and evidence show that if she had been advised on 8 Aug, to come clean, she would have done so," said the report.
It added that the Committee recognises that "her mental health has been unfairly and publicly attacked, in particular, by Mr Singh".
Repeating an untruth should carry a higher penalty, but a lower amount has been recommended because of these mitigating circumstances, the Committee said.
CONDUCT OF WP LEADERS
As the COP's findings raise questions about the conduct of the three WP leaders, the Committee also recommended that Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor, for further investigations, "with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted in respect of his conduct before the Committee".
Mr Faisal will also be investigated for his refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee, and consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.
The report said that in reaching its findings, it was "satisfied" that the WP leaders who testified had lied in their evidence.
"We are satisfied that Mr Singh (and to a lesser extent, Mr Faisal and Ms Lim), have been untruthful in their evidence, under oath, to this Committee. This may amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence," it said.
"LACK OF DOCUMENTS"
The Committee concluded that the three senior WP leaders "did not produce any contemporaneous evidence" to support their version of the disputed facts.
This was despite them being specifically asked by the Committee to produce all documents related to any discussion, instruction, inquiry or communication relating to the untruth spoken by Ms Khan in Parliament.
They were also asked for any discussion, instruction, inquiry or communication on Ms Khan’s Nov 1 personal explanation, when she admitted that she had lied.
The report said: "The lack of documents raises questions. If they had intended that the truth be told, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some emails, or documentation. But there was not a shred of objectively verifiable, contemporaneous evidence which supports the position taken by the 3 Senior WP leaders."
In contrast, Ms Khan and Ms Loh have produced evidence, including their WhatsApp exchanges, that "independently and contemporaneously corroborate their actions at the material time".
The COP had heard evidence from Ms Khan's assistants Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, who had corroborated Ms Khan's account.
Faisal Manap testifies that WP's top leaders knew about Raeesah Khan's lie but kept it from others in party: Privileges committee
SINGAPORE — Workers’ Party (MP) vice-chair Faisal Manap has testified to Parliament's Committee of Privileges that the opposition party’s top three leaders had known for months that former WP MP Raeesah Khan had lied to the House on Aug 3 and repeated the untruth on Oct 4, but they did not reveal this to the rest of the leadership or its cadres.
On Saturday (Dec 11), the committee released its second report on the hearings into the matter. According to minutes of the committee's meetings, it would call on the three WP top leaders — Mr Faisal, WP chief Pritam Singh, WP chairman Sylvia Lim — to give evidence. Ms Raeesah's erstwhile fellow Sengkang GRC MP, Associate Professor Jamus Lim, would also be asked to testify.
Mr Singh had given evidence on Friday. The report released on Saturday comprised a summary of the evidence provided by Mr Faisal, who testified on Thursday.
According to the report, Mr Faisal said he had two meetings with Mr Singh and Ms Lim before his hearing with the Committee of Privileges. However, the Aljunied GRC MP repeatedly refused to give details of what they discussed, as well as the materials which Mr Singh and Ms Lim had brought to the meetings.
The committee pointed out in its report that Mr Faisal "brought a note with him to the hearing". "He said that he had prepared it, to remind himself of the sequence of what had happened," the committee's report stated.
The committee is investigating Ms Raeesah’s conduct after she admitted on Nov 1 that she had lied in Parliament over a claim she made to the House on Aug 3 that she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively.
Ms Raeesah resigned from WP and as an MP on Nov 30.
The committee had released an earlier report on Dec 3 that contained testimony from Ms Raeesah saying she had been told by WP's top three leaders to stick to the lie she had made in Parliament.
She had also testified under oath that she was told by the leaders that if she and the party could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie.
According to the report issued by the committee on Saturday, Mr Faisal testified that Ms Raeesah had a meeting on Aug 8 with Mr Singh, Ms Lim and himself where she confessed that she lied during her parliamentary speech on Aug 3.
But the three leaders did not react to her confession because they had been overwhelmed after she told them that she had been sexually assaulted as a student in Australia when she was 18 years old.
Since that meeting, he did not ask any questions or had any discussions about the lie, the report said.
It added: “In short, he told the (Committee of Privileges) that he was not involved in anything relating to the untruth.”
The committee's report noted that Mr Faisal accepted that it was bad to lie to Parliament.
“He agreed that it was equally wrong to allow a lie to carry on in Parliament. He also agreed that if one knew of a true fact which would correct a deception on Parliament, keeping quiet would also be a problem, and could possibly amount to an offence,” said the report.
It added: “Mr Faisal agreed that after he became aware of (Ms Raeesah’s) lie, it would have been logical for him to have asked questions about (Ms Raeesah's) intention to clarify the lie, at various points in the events that transpired.”
Conflicting accounts in Raeesah Khan saga open 'can of worms'; Workers' Party must limit damage, say analysts
SINGAPORE: The conflicting accounts of what happened after Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament about a sexual assault case have opened a can of worms that reveal divisions in the Workers' Party (WP), said political analysts, adding that the matter has raised questions about the party's credibility.
On one end, Ms Khan told the Committee of Privileges that senior WP leaders had advised her to "continue with the narrative" after finding out about her lie, as well as “directed her not to respond to the police”.
These were among the revelations published on Friday (Dec 3) in a special report from the committee, chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, which heard evidence over two days from Ms Khan and three WP members.
WP chief Pritam Singh, however, said at a press conference on Thursday that Ms Khan repeated the lie in Parliament in October - two months after she first alleged that the sexual assault case was mishandled by police - despite being asked to clarify the matter.
CREDIBILITY OF WP IN QUESTION: ANALYSTS
The competing accounts have sowed "uncertainty, confusion and perplexity in the Singaporean domestic populace, particularly the supporters of the Workers' Party", said Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, Senior International Affairs Analyst at Solaris Strategies Singapore.
"It appears we have only seen the political trailer, with the full movie yet to be aired," he told CNA on Saturday.
"One other implication is that the Workers' Party was not able to prevent their dirty linen from being aired in public despite there being experienced leaders in their party ranks."
Political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Dr Felix Tan said the entire saga will "inevitably affect the credibility of the party and its leadership", with differing accounts leading to unnecessary speculation and detriment to the party both in the short and long term.
Ms Nydia Ngiow, senior director of public policy consultancy BowerGroupAsia, said that the Committee of Privileges' report has "definitely opened a can of worms as it relates to the WP, attributing even greater responsibility to the WP leadership than previously thought".
"This issue clearly shows a party divided and each new layer that has been unveiled potentially erodes trust that WP built from their members and constituents even further," she added.
Ms Khan's account of events raises even more questions about WP's credibility, she said, "particularly since what Pritam conveyed during the press conference on Dec 2 did not seem to portray a complete picture of the communications between the party leadership and Raeesah".
"Her account portrays the WP leadership as one that not only shirks away from taking tough and decisive actions in stemming issues before they escalate but more importantly, appears to condone dishonesty - raising serious questions about the competency of the party’s leaders, especially when they are looking to establish themselves as a trusted alternative within the opposition," she added.
Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University (SMU) Eugene Tan said the party will need to "fully cooperate" with the Committee of Privileges' probe and put their account in the public domain beyond what was stated at their press conference.
They will also need to rebut the evidence provided so far, which is "damning for the WP leadership", said Assoc Prof Tan. "It has the makings of a scandal which hints at lies by the WP leadership. This 'Liarsgate' is potentially damaging to all in WP."
He added that the party has to urgently and persuasively correct the narrative that is now in the public domain or face political consequences that are "too severe to even contemplate".
Following that meeting, she texted her secretarial assistant and a WP volunteer: “I just met Pritam, Sylvia and Faisal... they’ve agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave.”
My money says she is also lying about Pritam and gang instigating her to shush up "forever"; I wouldn't be surprised if this vindictive, conniving cunt wanted to bring down the entire WP with her.
WATCH: Former Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan has given evidence to the Committee of Privileges that she had been told by WP leaders to stick to a lie she had made in Parliament on Aug 3.
She also testified under oath that she was told by the leaders — WP chief Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap — that if she and the party could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie.
Miss Loh Pei Ying comes across as being far more level-headed and articulate; it therefore befuddles me as to how Khan was fielded rather than someone like herself in last year's GE. Oh wait, I guess having a rich daddy helped oodles. :P
'Never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth': Judge finds Pritam Singh guilty of lying to Committee of Privileges
SINGAPORE: Following a lengthy oral judgment that dismantled Pritam Singh's defence, a judge on Monday (Feb 17) pronounced the Leader of the Opposition guilty of two charges of lying to parliament.
In doing so, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said that Singh had "wilfully" lied and that he never wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to clarify the truth about her false claim in parliament about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station.
Singh, 48, was accused of wilfully making two false answers to a Committee of Privileges during its inquiry into Ms Khan's case on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
"The evidence shows at the conclusion of the Aug 8 meeting, the accused 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 the judge.
On Singh's claim that he wanted Ms Khan to speak to her parents first before clarifying her lie in parliament, the judge said he found that to be "uncorroborated and unbelievable".
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.
"NO REASON" FOR KHAN TO LIE IN WHATSAPP MESSAGE: JUDGE
A "very important" piece of evidence that Judge Tan gave "full weight" to was a WhatsApp message sent by Ms Khan to a group chat with former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan after the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, ended.
In the message, Ms Khan told Ms Loh and Nathan that she had discussed her speech on Muslim issues as well as the false anecdote she shared in parliament with party leaders and wrote: "They have agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave".
Judge Tan rejected the defence's attempts to claim that the circumstances surrounding the sending of this message were "suspect".
The discussion would have been fresh in Ms Khan's mind and would have brought her "relief", he said, adding that there was "no reason" for her to lie in the message, given that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were also close to Singh.
Judge Tan also found no reasons to suggest that Ms Khan would lie about one aspect of the discussion but tell the truth about the other aspect – her speech on Muslim issues.
The "most useful" evidence was Singh's lack of action after the Aug 8, 2021 meeting, said the judge.
Singh's lawyers claimed that at the end of the meeting, he told Ms Khan to speak to her parents first while walking out with her, but no one was within earshot when this happened, Judge Tan noted.
"It does not make sense for the accused to have instructed Ms Khan on what to do when they were alone when the purpose of the Aug 8 meeting was to discuss the matter with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal," he added.
There was "nothing secretive or surreptitious" about his instructions to speak to her parents, said the judge, adding that it was more likely that any instructions to Ms Khan would have been given in the presence of all three WP leaders present.
According to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan's testimonies, Singh continued to interact with them after this meeting, but never once spoke to them about Ms Khan clarifying the lie she had made or taking any other steps, Judge Tan said.
This also means that he never asked them about what Ms Khan had done to update her parents so he could take the next step to clarify the lie, he added.
"This was surely something he would have done even if he did not engage Ms Khan directly, seeing that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were not only close friends but also the people assisting Ms Khan in her work as a WP MP, " said the judge.
Even if Singh did tell Ms Khan that she should speak to her parents, Judge Tan said he found it difficult to accept that he also expected her to know about "a whole host of things" she needed to do about the lie – speak to her parents, explain the sexual assault to them, explain why she lied, tell them that the fact she lied was going to become public, and come back to Singh to tell him that she was ready to clarify the matter in parliament.
"None of these things he expected her to do were expressly articulated to Khan any time during the Aug 8 meeting," said Judge Tan.
"(It is) clear at the time his desired laundry list of actions he wanted Ms Khan to take was only in his mind but never out of his mouth."
"NEVER WANTED MS KHAN TO TELL THE TRUTH"
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 Ms Loh and Mr 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.
On Nov 2, 2021, a day after Ms Khan admitted to lying in parliament, the WP announced that it had formed a disciplinary panel to look into her conduct.
The judge noted the prosecution’s arguments that this was done with “great haste” and was “a completely self-serving exercise”.
He also said it was obvious that there was a “real or apparent conflict of interest” that the panel comprised the same three WP leaders who had guided Ms Khan on how to deal with her lie.
There was a real concern that they would not be able to act impartially as their own conduct in the matter would come under scrutiny, and this would not be lost on Singh and Ms Lim, who are lawyers, said the judge.
Singh revealed to the public that he had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 7, 2021, on Dec 2, 2021 – the day Ms Khan and Ms Loh were slated to testify before the COP.
This suggested that Singh was trying to do “damage control” by admitting his awareness of the lie before it could be raised by Ms Khan or Ms Loh, said Judge Tan.
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.
JUDGE ON LOW, LOH AND NATHAN
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, adding that they instead "displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth" in this trial.
As for Mr Low Thia Khiang, whom Singh and Ms Lim approached for advice on how to deal with the matter on Oct 11, he is trusted and respected by all those who testified in the trial, as well as Ms Lim.
Judge Tan said it was clear that Mr Low played a "pivotal role" in the ultimate decision for Ms Khan to confess to her lie in Parliament.
Apart from what Singh told Mr Nathan about being “worried” that the government already had evidence of the lie, it may have been Mr Low’s “reassuring words” that the WP would survive any fallout that led to the decision for Ms Khan to clarify the truth, he added.
Judge Tan rapped the defence for "extensive and liberal" references to what Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap said during the COP hearings, noting that these could not be admitted in court since neither were called as witnesses in the trial.
"This backdoor attempt is clearly inadmissible as the out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and are inadmissible," he stressed.
If Ms Lim or Mr Faisal's evidence refuted Ms Khan's account of events, the defence should have called them to testify, he said.
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.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge.
Mr Wong said that the duties of the Leader of the Opposition included leading the opposition to present alternative views in parliament and leading scrutiny of the government. He also noted that Singh was WP's secretary-general and a lawyer.
Singh’s act of giving false testimony to the COP to “protect his own political capital by throwing Ms Khan and his own political cadres under the bus” was therefore “undoubtedly serious and dishonourable”, the prosecutor said.
Singh's offences are "right at the cusp of the threshold" for imprisonment, he added.
The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, asked for a fine of S$4,000 per charge.
Singh had no involvement in the original lie or the fact that Ms Khan chose to tell the lie in the first place, said Mr Jumabhoy.
Asking for that high a fine was "unnecessary", he added.
"It’s not that he told Ms Khan to lie. It’s that he never had these thoughts in his mind," said Mr Jumabhoy.
Parties will return at 3.15pm on Monday for sentencing.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pritam-singh-trial-verdict-court-case-raeesah-khan-wp-4937961
Raeesah Khan grilled by Pritam Singh's lawyer, called a 'liar' who tells 'lies non-stop'
SINGAPORE: Pritam Singh's defence on Tuesday (Oct 15) began their cross-examination of former Workers' Party (WP) member Raeesah Khan, with his lawyer accusing her of repeatedly lying in parliament and to Singh himself.
Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy referred Ms Khan to her anecdote in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 and repeatedly called out moments to grill Ms Khan on whether she had been telling the truth.
Ms Khan had lied in parliament twice in 2021 about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman's attire and consumption of alcohol.
Her account led to a series of events which ultimately resulted in Ms Khan revealing the truth in parliament, and the matter was later referred to a Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry.
Singh, the 48-year-old secretary-general of WP, is accused of making two lies before the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021 during events after Ms Khan's anecdote.
• 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.
CROSS EXAMINATION A VERBAL REPARTEE
Mr Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Ms Khan was fast-paced, with the lawyer putting questions to her in a rapid-fire manner. Ms Khan, who appeared composed and stoic, often answered "yes" or "no" to the volley of queries.
Referring to Ms Khan's anecdote that she made in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 , Mr Jumabhoy asked her: "You are in fact a liar, right?", to which her reply was "yes I've lied".
He then followed up with: "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?", but Ms Khan denied this.
"I'm not talking (about) in your general life, I'm talking just in relation to the COP, the anecdote, these proceedings," said Mr Jumabhoy.
When asked to clarify what he meant by "non-stop", Mr Jumabhoy referred to specific portions of the anecdote. For example, when Ms Khan had said she had accompanied women to police stations.
After Ms Khan admitted that this statement was not true, Mr Jumabhoy said: "So that’s a lie, I mean that’s a flat-out lie … you can’t be in any doubt that you’ve never accompanied anyone to the police station."
Ms Khan's anecdote, which she stated that the alleged rape victim was 25, and that she had come out crying, were also not true, she admitted in court.
KHAN LIED TO SOMEONE SHE REVERED: DEFENCE
Ms Khan had further lied to Singh in her messages with him after she delivered the anecdote in parliament, according to the defence.
When Singh had asked for more details in relation to the anecdote, Ms Khan had replied that she did not know if she could contact the survivor to come forward.
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed out that Ms Khan did not even know the name of the rape victim.
"You couldn't share a name (even if you did know) because you weren't there in the first place," said Mr Jumabhoy.
He then said: "You're adding more facts to support a lie ... So it's a lie heaped upon a lie ... and then it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"
Ms Khan replied "yes" to all these statements.
The defence lawyer continued to point out details in Ms Khan's messages, stating that in one message she had "managed to lie about four times".
"I mean, that's pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination," he added.
Ms Khan replied: "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."
But Mr Jumabhoy rebutted: "You seem to be well thinking enough that you can add (these details)."
Ms Khan responded: "I would think being well thinking is to be coming out with the truth."
Mr Jumabhoy then returned to Singh's messages - the WP chief had asked Ms Khan which organisation had put her in touch with the victim. In her reply, Ms Khan had said she was trying to get more details.
"You say 'I'm trying to get more details'. The last thing you wanted was more details because that would expose the fact you lied," Mr Jumabhoy said, to which Ms Khan responded "yes".
After a series of similar questions, Mr Jumabhoy repeated what Ms Khan had told the court about her respect for Singh during the prosecution's questioning on Monday.
"You’ve told this court that Mr Singh was somebody you looked up to. You revered him. Correct? He was a mentor to you. And he was someone you felt more than capable of just lying (to) outright, yes?"
Ms Khan replied "yes", to which Mr Jumabhoy followed up with: "So that for you is how you treat somebody you revere?"
Ms Khan clarified: "No, but I mean I was really scared at that point and I revered him so much that I was so scared of disappointing him, I just let it snowball. And of course I mean I would never do something like that again, but yeah you’re right."
When asked if she had lied only to Singh over the anecdote, Ms Khan said: "Because I made that speech in parliament, I lied to the whole country."
The cross-examination of Ms Khan will resume on Tuesday afternoon after the court's lunch break.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/raeesah-khan-pritam-singh-trial-lawyer-andre-jumabhoy-workers-party-4678986
Pritam Singh hires lawyers to defend against charges of lying in Raeesah Khan case
SINGAPORE — Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh has hired lawyers to defend him against the two charges he faces of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan's case.
Singh, 47, did not turn up in person on Wednesday morning (April 17) for a pre-trial conference in the State Courts — an administrative hearing to prepare the prosecution and the accused for trial.
Pre-trial conferences are usually held in chambers and are inaccessible to the media or the public. They can also be held over Zoom video call.
Singh was newly represented by lawyers Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, who attended the pre-trial conference on his behalf before District Judge Chee Min Ping.
A note in the court's system indicated that the pre-trial conference would be adjourned to May 31, adding that "defence counsel has been recently instructed".
Mr Jumabhoy fronts an eponymous boutique law firm. On his website, he is described as "a dedicated trial lawyer" with experience in criminal and civil law, as well as white-collar crime.
He began his legal career in 2003 as a barrister in London and returned to Singapore in 2011, joining the Attorney-General's Chambers as a Deputy Public Prosecutor.
He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from King's College London in 2002.
When contacted by CNA for a statement, Mr Jumabhoy's law firm confirmed that they were acting for Singh, but said they could not provide other information at this juncture.
The two charges Singh faces allege that he wilfully made a false answer on Dec 10, 2021 and Dec 15, 2021 in the public hearing room at Parliament House.
This was during an inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, centering on the case of Raeesah Khan, who had lied over a sexual assault case and accused the police of mishandling the case.
Singh allegedly testified falsely that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify what she said in Parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, and that he spoke to Ms Khan as he wanted to convey to her that she had to clarify what she said over the same issue.
Singh pleaded not guilty to his charges when he was first charged in court on March 19.
If convicted of lying under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pritam-singh-hires-lawyers-defend-against-charges-lying-raeesah-khan-case-2405371
WP chief Pritam Singh charged with lying to Parliament over Raeesah Khan’s case, pleads not guilty
SINGAPORE – Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh was charged on March 19 with two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee, two years after the police opened investigations into his conduct before the Committee of Privileges.
The charges relate to his testimony before the committee, which had been convened in November 2021 to look into a lying controversy involving his party’s former MP Raeesah Khan.
The committee called Singh as a witness and said later that he had not been truthful during the hearings while under oath. It recommended referring him and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap to the public prosecutor for further investigations with a view to consider criminal proceedings, which Parliament later endorsed.
Standing in the dock on March 19, Singh, who was unrepresented, pleaded not guilty to the two charges under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and claimed trial.
The 47-year-old opposition leader requested a four-week adjournment to engage a lawyer. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for April 17.
Lying in response to questions posed by a parliamentary committee is considered a criminal offence under the Act, and carries a maximum fine of $7,000 and a jail term of up to three years or both.
In response to media queries, an Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) spokesman said it is for the court to decide what the appropriate punishment should be if Singh is found guilty.
The spokesman added that the AGC will be asking the court to impose a fine for each of the charges, if Singh is convicted.
This is based on the “evidence presently available and considering the totality of the circumstances”, the spokesman said.
In a joint statement, the AGC and police also said the prosecution has decided not to charge Mr Faisal for his refusal to answer relevant questions that had been put to him by the committee.
The WP MP was issued an advisory by the police to familiarise himself with conduct expected of MPs under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it.
Singh had arrived at the State Courts at 10.45am, clad in a black suit.
When asked for comment after being charged, he said he would be releasing a statement later. He subsequently said he would continue with all his parliamentary duties and town council responsibilities until the legal process “comes to a complete close”.
The committee’s recommendation for Singh to be referred to the public prosecutor came after it investigated Ms Khan for lying in Parliament.
During a debate on empowering women on Aug 3, 2021, Ms Khan, then an MP for Sengkang GRC, had claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim again in the House on Oct 4, 2021.
This was later found to be untrue, and Ms Khan eventually told Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, that she had been sexually assaulted herself and had heard about the victim’s experience at a support group session.
She resigned from the WP and her parliamentary seat on Nov 30, 2021.
More at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-chief-pritam-singh-under-police-probe-over-ex-mp-raeesah-khan-s-lying-case-arrives-at-court
Is PAP playing dirty again?
Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap to face further probe, Raeesah Khan fined S$35,000 after Parliament agrees with COP recommendations
SINGAPORE: Former Workers’ Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan will be fined for lying in Parliament, while party leaders Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap will be referred to the public prosecutor after the House voted on Tuesday (Feb 15) to proceed with recommendations made by the Committee of Privileges (COP).
This came after a debate on two motions filed by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah, which lasted more than four hours.
The first motion was split into two parts after she clarified with the Workers' Party that it would support some parts of it.
The first part comprised taking note of the COP's report and agreeing with its findings that Ms Khan was guilty of abusing parliamentary privilege by lying twice in Parliament on Aug 3. It also said she should be fined S$25,000 for this. All MPs agreed with the motion.
The second part was on Ms Khan being fined S$10,000 for repeating the lie on Oct 4. A majority of MPs agreed with the motion, although WP members stood to register their dissent to this, as did the Progress Singapore Party's Non-Constituency MPs.
SECOND MOTION ALSO PASSED
The second motion on the COP's recommendation that Mr Singh and Mr Faisal be referred to the public prosecutor was also voted in two parts.
The first part was that offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may have been committed before the COP.
The COP said in its final report on Feb 10 that it was “satisfied” that Mr Singh, who is WP chief and Leader of the Opposition, had lied while giving evidence under oath, which could amount to perjury.
Mr Faisal should also be investigated for his “refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee”, which could constitute contempt of Parliament, it said.
The second part of the motion involved agreeing with the COP’s recommendations to defer any sanctions on the two and party chairman Sylvia Lim for their roles in Ms Khan’s lies, until any investigations and criminal proceedings against Mr Singh have been concluded.
All MPs agreed with both parts of the second motion, except for WP members who stood to register their dissent.
UNKNOWNS MOVING FORWARD
Mr Singh said in a Facebook post on Feb 10 that he and Mr Faisal would continue their work as per normal until matters were resolved. But there were still “a number of unknowns”, he said.
“These include the eventual decision of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, the intervening time before the matter goes to trial, the eventual verdict and any sentence meted out, and the prospect of both Faisal and I losing our parliamentary seats and stepping down as Members of Parliament if either of us is fined $2,000 or more.”
The outcome in Parliament marks the latest development in the saga, stretching back to when Ms Khan first told the lie in August. After repeating the lie in October, she confessed in November that she had not been truthful about the account. She resigned from the WP and as an MP on Nov 30.
COP proceedings gathered pace in December, with the panel having 15 meetings lasting more than 35 hours in total. The panel is chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, and comprises six other People's Action Party MPs and WP MP Dennis Tan.
It also held an additional 31 hours of hearings, in which it heard oral evidence from nine witnesses. The committee also produced six special reports and a final report of more than 1,180 pages to Parliament.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/cop-raeesah-khan-pritam-singh-faisal-manap-wp-parliament-vote-2499941
😕😕😕
PAP's true agenda has finally come to the fore.
COP proposes fine of S$35,000 for Raeesah Khan, further investigation into WP leaders Pritam Singh, Faisal Manap
SINGAPORE: The Committee of Privileges (COP) has recommended that former Workers' Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan be fined S$35,000 for lying in Parliament.
It also proposed that WP secretary-general Pritam Singh and vice-chair Faisal Manap, both Aljunied GRC MPs, be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations.
The COP, in its final report on Thursday (Feb 10), said that it has found Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege for telling an untruth in the House on Aug 3, and then repeating it on Oct 4.
Ms Khan had lied about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station in an anecdote which alleged that the police had mishandled the case. She said that she did so because she did not want to reveal that she had heard the anecdote in a support group, which she had attended as a survivor of sexual assault.
She subsequently resigned as an MP and from the WP.
After hearings and deliberations by the Committee over the last two months, the final report said: "The Committee considers that Ms Khan had acted with disregard for the dignity and decorum of the House in making serious allegation against the Police in Parliament, that was untrue in some parts, and was unsubstantiated."
The report said from Aug 8 onwards however, Ms Khan was acting under the guidance of three senior WP leaders, to "keep to the untruth", and on Oct 3 she was given further guidance by Mr Singh to continue lying.
The leaders refer to Mr Singh, Mr Faisal and WP chair Sylvia Lim.
"(Ms Khan) was therefore not solely responsible for repeating the Untruth on 4 Oct, in Parliament. But she nevertheless cannot be completely absolved from liability either for repeating the Untruth. She remains liable," said the report.
"She came clean, on 1 Nov, after she was told to do so, by Mr Singh and Ms Lim (on 12 Oct)."
KHAN'S FINE
The amount of S$35,000 is a combination of two fines - S$25,000 for the untruth on Aug 3, which she has to "take full and sole responsibility for", and S$10,000 for repeating the lie on Oct 4.
The smaller amount takes into account the "substantial mitigating factor" that Ms Khan was acting on the orders of WP leadership after Aug 8, said the report. The COP has also considered that Ms Khan has resigned from Parliament and confessed to WP leaders on Aug 8.
"Her conduct and evidence show that if she had been advised on 8 Aug, to come clean, she would have done so," said the report.
It added that the Committee recognises that "her mental health has been unfairly and publicly attacked, in particular, by Mr Singh".
Repeating an untruth should carry a higher penalty, but a lower amount has been recommended because of these mitigating circumstances, the Committee said.
CONDUCT OF WP LEADERS
As the COP's findings raise questions about the conduct of the three WP leaders, the Committee also recommended that Mr Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor, for further investigations, "with a view to considering if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted in respect of his conduct before the Committee".
Mr Faisal will also be investigated for his refusal to answer relevant questions put by the Committee, and consider if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted.
The report said that in reaching its findings, it was "satisfied" that the WP leaders who testified had lied in their evidence.
"We are satisfied that Mr Singh (and to a lesser extent, Mr Faisal and Ms Lim), have been untruthful in their evidence, under oath, to this Committee. This may amount to perjury, a serious criminal offence," it said.
"LACK OF DOCUMENTS"
The Committee concluded that the three senior WP leaders "did not produce any contemporaneous evidence" to support their version of the disputed facts.
This was despite them being specifically asked by the Committee to produce all documents related to any discussion, instruction, inquiry or communication relating to the untruth spoken by Ms Khan in Parliament.
They were also asked for any discussion, instruction, inquiry or communication on Ms Khan’s Nov 1 personal explanation, when she admitted that she had lied.
The report said: "The lack of documents raises questions. If they had intended that the truth be told, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some emails, or documentation. But there was not a shred of objectively verifiable, contemporaneous evidence which supports the position taken by the 3 Senior WP leaders."
In contrast, Ms Khan and Ms Loh have produced evidence, including their WhatsApp exchanges, that "independently and contemporaneously corroborate their actions at the material time".
The COP had heard evidence from Ms Khan's assistants Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, who had corroborated Ms Khan's account.
More at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wp-workers-party-raeesah-khan-pritam-singh-cop-parliament-privileges-2490276
Faisal Manap testifies that WP's top leaders knew about Raeesah Khan's lie but kept it from others in party: Privileges committee
SINGAPORE — Workers’ Party (MP) vice-chair Faisal Manap has testified to Parliament's Committee of Privileges that the opposition party’s top three leaders had known for months that former WP MP Raeesah Khan had lied to the House on Aug 3 and repeated the untruth on Oct 4, but they did not reveal this to the rest of the leadership or its cadres.
On Saturday (Dec 11), the committee released its second report on the hearings into the matter. According to minutes of the committee's meetings, it would call on the three WP top leaders — Mr Faisal, WP chief Pritam Singh, WP chairman Sylvia Lim — to give evidence. Ms Raeesah's erstwhile fellow Sengkang GRC MP, Associate Professor Jamus Lim, would also be asked to testify.
Mr Singh had given evidence on Friday. The report released on Saturday comprised a summary of the evidence provided by Mr Faisal, who testified on Thursday.
According to the report, Mr Faisal said he had two meetings with Mr Singh and Ms Lim before his hearing with the Committee of Privileges. However, the Aljunied GRC MP repeatedly refused to give details of what they discussed, as well as the materials which Mr Singh and Ms Lim had brought to the meetings.
The committee pointed out in its report that Mr Faisal "brought a note with him to the hearing". "He said that he had prepared it, to remind himself of the sequence of what had happened," the committee's report stated.
The committee is investigating Ms Raeesah’s conduct after she admitted on Nov 1 that she had lied in Parliament over a claim she made to the House on Aug 3 that she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively.
Ms Raeesah resigned from WP and as an MP on Nov 30.
The committee had released an earlier report on Dec 3 that contained testimony from Ms Raeesah saying she had been told by WP's top three leaders to stick to the lie she had made in Parliament.
She had also testified under oath that she was told by the leaders that if she and the party could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie.
According to the report issued by the committee on Saturday, Mr Faisal testified that Ms Raeesah had a meeting on Aug 8 with Mr Singh, Ms Lim and himself where she confessed that she lied during her parliamentary speech on Aug 3.
But the three leaders did not react to her confession because they had been overwhelmed after she told them that she had been sexually assaulted as a student in Australia when she was 18 years old.
Since that meeting, he did not ask any questions or had any discussions about the lie, the report said.
It added: “In short, he told the (Committee of Privileges) that he was not involved in anything relating to the untruth.”
The committee's report noted that Mr Faisal accepted that it was bad to lie to Parliament.
“He agreed that it was equally wrong to allow a lie to carry on in Parliament. He also agreed that if one knew of a true fact which would correct a deception on Parliament, keeping quiet would also be a problem, and could possibly amount to an offence,” said the report.
It added: “Mr Faisal agreed that after he became aware of (Ms Raeesah’s) lie, it would have been logical for him to have asked questions about (Ms Raeesah's) intention to clarify the lie, at various points in the events that transpired.”
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/faisal-manap-testifies-wps-top-leaders-knew-about-raeesah-khans-lie-kept-it-others-party-privileges-committee-1768806
VERY STRANGE INDEED.
PAP is hitting the reset button once more. :P
Raj Singh also super buay song Pinocchio Khan liao:
Conflicting accounts in Raeesah Khan saga open 'can of worms'; Workers' Party must limit damage, say analysts
SINGAPORE: The conflicting accounts of what happened after Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament about a sexual assault case have opened a can of worms that reveal divisions in the Workers' Party (WP), said political analysts, adding that the matter has raised questions about the party's credibility.
On one end, Ms Khan told the Committee of Privileges that senior WP leaders had advised her to "continue with the narrative" after finding out about her lie, as well as “directed her not to respond to the police”.
These were among the revelations published on Friday (Dec 3) in a special report from the committee, chaired by Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, which heard evidence over two days from Ms Khan and three WP members.
WP chief Pritam Singh, however, said at a press conference on Thursday that Ms Khan repeated the lie in Parliament in October - two months after she first alleged that the sexual assault case was mishandled by police - despite being asked to clarify the matter.
CREDIBILITY OF WP IN QUESTION: ANALYSTS
The competing accounts have sowed "uncertainty, confusion and perplexity in the Singaporean domestic populace, particularly the supporters of the Workers' Party", said Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, Senior International Affairs Analyst at Solaris Strategies Singapore.
"It appears we have only seen the political trailer, with the full movie yet to be aired," he told CNA on Saturday.
"One other implication is that the Workers' Party was not able to prevent their dirty linen from being aired in public despite there being experienced leaders in their party ranks."
Political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Dr Felix Tan said the entire saga will "inevitably affect the credibility of the party and its leadership", with differing accounts leading to unnecessary speculation and detriment to the party both in the short and long term.
Ms Nydia Ngiow, senior director of public policy consultancy BowerGroupAsia, said that the Committee of Privileges' report has "definitely opened a can of worms as it relates to the WP, attributing even greater responsibility to the WP leadership than previously thought".
"This issue clearly shows a party divided and each new layer that has been unveiled potentially erodes trust that WP built from their members and constituents even further," she added.
Ms Khan's account of events raises even more questions about WP's credibility, she said, "particularly since what Pritam conveyed during the press conference on Dec 2 did not seem to portray a complete picture of the communications between the party leadership and Raeesah".
"Her account portrays the WP leadership as one that not only shirks away from taking tough and decisive actions in stemming issues before they escalate but more importantly, appears to condone dishonesty - raising serious questions about the competency of the party’s leaders, especially when they are looking to establish themselves as a trusted alternative within the opposition," she added.
Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University (SMU) Eugene Tan said the party will need to "fully cooperate" with the Committee of Privileges' probe and put their account in the public domain beyond what was stated at their press conference.
They will also need to rebut the evidence provided so far, which is "damning for the WP leadership", said Assoc Prof Tan. "It has the makings of a scandal which hints at lies by the WP leadership. This 'Liarsgate' is potentially damaging to all in WP."
He added that the party has to urgently and persuasively correct the narrative that is now in the public domain or face political consequences that are "too severe to even contemplate".
A lot more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/raeesah-khan-conflicting-accounts-workers-party-credibility-pritam-singh-analysts-2358471
RK's shifting stories aka lies:
Shin Min Daily News headlines: Workers' Party's worst crisis in 20 years
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/workers-party-leaders-told-raeesah-khan-to-stick-to-the-lie-she-had-told
My money says she is also lying about Pritam and gang instigating her to shush up "forever"; I wouldn't be surprised if this vindictive, conniving cunt wanted to bring down the entire WP with her.
WATCH: Former Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan has given evidence to the Committee of Privileges that she had been told by WP leaders to stick to a lie she had made in Parliament on Aug 3.
She also testified under oath that she was told by the leaders — WP chief Pritam Singh, chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap — that if she and the party could get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie.