| Daily Update of the Pritam Singh Trial – February 17, 2024 |  |
15:45
Judge’s Considerations in Sentencing
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan factored in Pritam Singh’s motive when determining his sentence.
The judge referred to his earlier remarks explaining why Singh initiated a disciplinary panel against Ms. Raeesah Khan—to distance himself from his role in guiding her to maintain the untruth.
“It can be inferred that this is a similar motive to the lies that were made to the Committee of Privileges (COP). In the words of the prosecution, this was to protect his political capital,” Judge Tan stated.
He also noted that Singh had claimed trial, and while that alone was not an aggravating factor, he never recanted his false statements.
The judge emphasized that the resources expended in Singh’s case “cannot be ignored.”
A “major consideration” in sentencing was whether Singh intended or knew that harm would likely arise from his offence.
Judge Tan found that Singh was aware that his false answers to the COP could cause harm.
“The prosecution characterizes what the accused did as ‘to protect his own political capital by throwing Ms. Khan and his own political cadres under the bus,’ and this could have led to Ms. Khan receiving a more serious punishment,” the judge concluded.
15:40
Pritam to Appeal
Shortly after his sentencing, Pritam Singh released a media statement on his Facebook page, announcing that his lawyers will be filing a notice of appeal against both his conviction and sentence.
“I have instructed my legal team to file a notice of appeal and to look into the written judgment in closer detail,” Singh stated.
He also shared that he has made his defence submissions available online, allowing the public to read the arguments presented by his lawyers.
Judge Luke Tan has imposed the maximum fine of S$7,000 on each of the two charges against Singh.
The prosecution had requested the maximum fine, while the defence had argued for a reduced fine of S$4,000 per charge.
Additionally, there is an in-default sentence of one month’s jail per charge if Singh does not pay the fines.
In justifying the maximum fine, Judge Tan stated:
“The court must send a message on the importance of giving truthful information when under oath, and this can be done by imposing the maximum fine, especially in a case such as this.”
15:32
Jail Term Not Warranted: Judge
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan concurred with both the prosecution and defence that a jail term was not warranted in Pritam Singh’s case.
“No actual harm was caused to Ms. Khan, who was essentially the subject matter of the COP’s (Committee of Privileges) inquiry. This is relevant, as Ms. Khan was most likely to be the one most impacted,” said Judge Tan.
He further explained, “Any harm caused to her—if the lie had been believed—she would have been the one suffering the harm.”
15:20
Sentencing Hearing Begins
The sentencing hearing for Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh began at around 3:20 PM in a full courtroom.
Judge Luke Tan reiterated key points raised by the prosecution earlier, including:
- Singh’s position as Leader of the Opposition and WP secretary-general
- How Singh had “thrown Ms. Raeesah Khan under the bus”, potentially exposing her to a harsher punishment
Summarizing the defence’s arguments, the judge noted that Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, emphasized:
- That Singh was not involved in the original lie
- That the maximum fine was not warranted
15:10
What’s at Stake? Singh Returns to Courtroom
Before the court adjourned, the prosecution requested the maximum fine of S$7,000 per charge, arguing that Singh’s offences are “right at the cusp of the threshold” for imprisonment. Meanwhile, the defence argued for a fine of S$4,000 per charge, with Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, stating: “It’s not that he told Ms. Khan to lie. It’s that he never had these thoughts in his mind.”
Under Singapore’s Constitution, an individual is disqualified from standing for election or remaining as an MP if they receive:
- A fine of at least S$10,000, or
- A prison sentence of at least one year.
As an MP for Aljunied GRC, Singh would lose his parliamentary seat if disqualified. This disqualification would last for five years. Legal experts have previously told CNA that Singh’s fate depends on how the Constitution is interpreted. If both charges are considered together as a single offence, the cumulative maximum fine of S$14,000 could lead to his disqualification as an MP and bar him from contesting the next general election, which must be held by November 2025.
Pritam Singh and his lawyers have returned to the courtroom. A court officer reminds the gallery that phones must be on silent mode and that photo-taking or video recording is prohibited. The gallery is now less crowded compared to before the break.
WP MPs Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan have also returned to the State Courts.
12:15
Singh remains inside State Courts complex
By 12:15 PM, most of the public gallery has emptied, but Pritam Singh remains inside the courtroom with his lawyers, alongside Workers’ Party MPs Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan.
Later, Singh is spotted at a café within the State Courts complex.
Meanwhile, Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan leave the court building together.
As they exit, reporters swarm them, prompting Mr. Tan to comment: “We are here to support Pritam … We will wait for the outcome.”
12:10
Sentencing adjourned to Monday afternoon
Judge Tan states that he will review the case further before delivering his sentencing decision.
Parties are scheduled to return at 3:15 PM on Monday for the sentencing.
12:01
Defence argues against maximum fine, asks for S$4,000 per charge
Addressing Judge Tan on sentencing, Pritam Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, objected to the prosecution’s request for the maximum fine, arguing that it was unnecessary to pitch the penalty at the “top of the bracket.”
“Mr. Singh had no involvement in the original lie or in Ms. Khan’s decision to tell the lie in the first place. Pitching it at the top of the bracket, we say, is unnecessary,” Mr. Jumabhoy states.
Judge Tan then asked whether there should be any correlation between the penalty Ms. Khan received from the Committee of Privileges (COP) and what was being sought in court.
Mr. Jumabhoy responded “no,” arguing that Ms. Khan took an oath as an MP and chose “of her own volition” to lie before Parliament.
On this point, DCP Wong Woon Kwong also weighed in, stating that the punishment provisions in both cases are quite different.
11:48
Singh lied to protect his own political capital: Prosecution
In seeking the maximum fine for Pritam Singh on both charges, the prosecution emphasizes his position as Leader of the Opposition.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong highlights that Singh is also the secretary-general of the Workers’ Party and a lawyer.
“Singh lied to the Committee of Privileges to protect his own political capital by throwing Ms. Raeesah Khan and his own political cadres under the bus,” says Mr. Wong.
The prosecutor further states that Singh doubled down on his lie in court and has shown no remorse.
However, the prosecution does not seek a jail term, as Singh’s actions did not cause “appreciable harm”.
Mr. Wong argues that imposing the maximum fine would send a strong message on the importance of giving truthful evidence while under affirmation or oath.
11:46
Singh found guilty on both charges
After a two-hour verdict, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan convicted Pritam Singh on both charges.
The court then moved on to sentencing submissions, with Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong requesting the maximum fine of S$7,000 per charge.
DCP Wong also noted that Singh’s case marks the first conviction under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
11:40
Judge on former WP chief Low Thia Khiang as a witness
Judge Tan highlights that Mr. Low Thia Khiang, more than anyone else involved in the trial, was trusted and respected not only by those who testified but also by others in the Workers’ Party.
The judge emphasizes that Mr. Low played a pivotal role in the ultimate decision for Ms. Raeesah Khan to confess her lie.
“As Mr. Low was not challenged, his credibility was never in doubt,” Judge Tan states.
11:33
Proceedings resume
The session has resumed. At 11:33 AM, Judge Tan remarks, “Just have a couple more pages to go,” as he continues delivering his oral judgment.
11:27
Break in proceedings
A camera feed in the spillover room for media coverage of the trial has stopped working, prompting Judge Tan to call for a short break to resolve the technical issue.
Around half of the spectators in the public gallery have left, including Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam.
Meanwhile, WP MP Dennis Tan has remained in the courtroom.
11:20
Judge on Ms Khan’s reliability as a witness
“Assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the accused, I start by making clear that this is not a trial simply involving one person’s words against another,” says Judge Tan.
He refers to the defence’s three applications to impeach Ms. Raeesah Khan’s credibility as a witness, which were made at various points during the trial.
The defence highlighted discrepancies in Ms. Khan’s testimonies and evidence. However, Judge Tan finds these discrepancies to be “innocent” and concludes that they do not undermine her overall credibility.
While the defence argued that Ms. Khan was a habitual liar, it did not claim that she had “an axe to grind” with Singh or held any grudges against him.
In fact, Ms. Khan testified that she felt respect and reverence for Singh, whom she regarded as a mentor, the judge notes.
“Ms. Khan has acknowledged her flaws in lying in Parliament and to those around her. She later displayed remorse and regret and was forthcoming in her evidence. There was no evidence she tried to downplay her role,” Judge Tan states.
11:15
Judge summarises findings for second charge
Judge Tan states that the evidence shows Singh was aware on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms. Raeesah Khan’s anecdote might come up in Parliament the next day.
“Nevertheless, he may still have been labouring under the belief that the government could not find out so easily,” notes Judge Tan.
The judge highlights that Singh would have known that it was not possible for Ms. Khan to clarify the lie without any preparation.
“Because he knew this and nothing of this sort was even attempted, this evidence reinforced my conclusion that on Oct 3, the accused never wanted Ms. Khan to clarify her lie on Oct 4, even if the matter came up again,” Judge Tan states.
Additionally, the judge finds that the disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms. Khan admitted to lying in Parliament was an attempt to distance himself from his role in guiding her to maintain the falsehood.
11:15
Judge summarises findings for second charge
Judge Tan states that the evidence shows Singh was aware on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms. Raeesah Khan’s anecdote might come up in Parliament the next day.
“Nevertheless, he may still have been labouring under the belief that the government could not find out so easily,” notes Judge Tan.
The judge highlights that Singh would have known that it was not possible for Ms. Khan to clarify the lie without any preparation.
“Because he knew this and nothing of this sort was even attempted, this evidence reinforced my conclusion that on Oct 3, the accused never wanted Ms. Khan to clarify her lie on Oct 4, even if the matter came up again,” Judge Tan states.
Additionally, the judge finds that the disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms. Khan admitted to lying in Parliament was an attempt to distance himself from his role in guiding her to maintain the falsehood.
11:08
Singh only agreed to clarify lie after meeting Low Thia Khiang: Judge
Judge Tan states that Singh only decided that Ms. Raeesah Khan should come clean after the Parliament sitting on Oct 4, 2021.
“In my view, this is due to subsequent events that transpired, including the Oct 7 email from the police to Ms. Khan, and perhaps more importantly, after advice from Mr. Low,” says Judge Tan.
On Oct 11, 2021, Singh and Ms. Sylvia Lim sought the views of former WP chief Low Thia Khiang before instructing Ms. Khan to prepare a personal statement clarifying the lie in Parliament, the judge notes.
“Quite apart from the fear they expressed … it may have been the (reassuring) words from Mr. Low that WP will survive the fallout that will follow, that they finally decided to have Ms. Khan clarify,” Judge Tan adds.
11:08
Singh only agreed to clarify lie after meeting Low Thia Khiang: Judge
Judge Tan states that Singh only decided that Ms. Raeesah Khan should come clean after the Parliament sitting on Oct 4, 2021.
“In my view, this is due to subsequent events that transpired, including the Oct 7 email from the police to Ms. Khan, and perhaps more importantly, after advice from Mr. Low,” says Judge Tan.
On Oct 11, 2021, Singh and Ms. Sylvia Lim sought the views of former WP chief Low Thia Khiang before instructing Ms. Khan to prepare a personal statement clarifying the lie in Parliament, the judge notes.
“Quite apart from the fear they expressed … it may have been the (reassuring) words from Mr. Low that WP will survive the fallout that will follow, that they finally decided to have Ms. Khan clarify,” Judge Tan adds.
11:00
Singh’s behaviour in court shows he never wanted Khan to clarify lie
During the Oct 4, 2021 Parliament sitting, when Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam challenged Ms. Raeesah Khan about her anecdote, Singh did not respond to her WhatsApp messages for help.
He also did not question why she failed to clarify her lie when the issue arose or why she doubled down on her statement.
Judge Tan highlights the stark contrast between Singh’s actions on Oct 4 and his response on Aug 7, when he drafted a response for Ms. Khan, insisted she deliver it before Parliament ended, and even alerted the Deputy Speaker about the issue.
On Oct 4, Singh met with Ms. Khan and Ms. Sylvia Lim in his Parliament office. However, Judge Tan notes that Singh did not show anger or castigate Ms. Khan for failing to tell the truth, despite her acting in “clear defiance” of what he allegedly instructed her to do the day before.
The judge concludes that Singh’s behaviour after Ms. Khan doubled down on her lie aligns with him telling her earlier that he would not judge her if she continued the narrative.
10:54
Testimony “not corroborated”
Singh claimed that on Oct 3, 2021, his position was that Ms. Raeesah Khan should clarify her lie if the issue came up in Parliament the next day.
However, Judge Tan states that Singh’s testimony was not corroborated and contradicted parts of his own evidence.
He points out that Singh’s court position was that after the Aug 8 meeting, he was waiting for Ms. Khan to tell him that she had spoken to her parents and was ready to tell the truth.
But the judge finds this claim difficult to believe, noting that on Oct 3, 2021, Singh visited Ms. Khan at her house and greeted her parents.
At that point, Singh did not ask if she had spoken to them, Judge Tan highlights.
“He could hardly have forgotten that her talking to her parents was a prerequisite,” the judge adds.
10:46
Judge on Pritam Singh’s second charge
Singh’s second charge concerns his testimony to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that when he spoke to Ms. Raeesah Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he had intended to tell her that if the issue arose in Parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying a rape victim was false.
Judge Tan states that he accepts Ms. Khan’s version of events.
“The accused never wanted Ms. Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in Parliament the next day,” he says, finding that Singh instead told her he would not judge her if she continued the narrative.
“Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied,” Judge Tan adds, noting that Ms. Khan’s account was corroborated by former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.
The judge also highlights how during an Oct 12, 2021 meeting, Mr. Nathan had asked Singh why there was a change in the party’s strategy, as WP now wanted Ms. Khan to come clean.
Meanwhile, outside the State Courts, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim has left the building.
When asked where he was going and if he had any comments, he remained silent and shook his head.
10:35
Judge’s conclusion on first charge
The evidence indicates that at the end of the Aug 8 meeting, the understanding was that Ms. Raeesah Khan’s lie would not be revisited, and it would be difficult for the government to uncover the truth due to the large number of police stations, says Judge Tan.
At the same time, Singh was aware that the falsehood could lead to Ms. Khan being brought before the Committee of Privileges (COP).
“Moreover, the accused was a political veteran who was the secretary-general of WP and the Leader of the Opposition,” Judge Tan remarks.
He concludes: “The evidence shows that 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.”
10:34
Not believable that Singh would require Khan to speak to her parents first: Judge
Ms. Raeesah Khan had informed Workers’ Party leaders that her parents were unaware she was a victim of sexual assault.
Neither Ms. Sylvia Lim nor Mr. Faisal Manap had urged her to speak to her parents, Judge Tan notes.
Ms. Khan also stated that she never planned to tell her parents and had no intention for them to learn about the specifics.
Ironically, her parents only found out because Singh had shared the details with the Committee of Privileges.
“This aspect of her explanation was believable. In my view, her account is certainly more believable than the accused’s version that she should first speak to her parents before they even started discussing what they should do,” says Judge Tan.
He adds that how Ms. Khan spoke to her parents had no bearing on how the Workers’ Party should have handled the issue.
10:29
Judge rejects Singh’s testimony that he told Khan to speak to her parents first
Singh had testified in court that he wanted Ms. Raeesah Khan to speak to her parents before clarifying her false statement in Parliament.
However, Judge Tan finds his testimony unconvincing.
“I find this to be uncorroborated and unbelievable,” says the judge, noting that no one else was within earshot when Singh allegedly gave this instruction to Ms. Khan.
Judge Tan further states, “It does not make sense for the accused to have instructed Ms. Khan on what to do when they were alone, given that the purpose of the Aug 8 meeting was to discuss the matter with Ms. Sylvia Lim and Mr. Faisal Manap.”
He emphasizes that Singh’s claim made “no sense,” especially since Singh had arranged for Ms. Khan to meet the three WP leaders in person to confess she had lied.
“Surely, if it was important enough for Ms. Khan to meet the three leaders face-to-face to admit she had lied, Singh would have felt it necessary for other leaders to be involved in the discussion about what she should do,” the judge remarks.
10:22
Judge rejects defence’s attempt to discredit Khan
Singh’s defence team, led by Mr. Andre Jumabhoy, attempted to portray Ms. Raeesah Khan as a habitual liar with a tendency to fabricate stories.
The defence argued that if she could lie in Parliament, she could also have lied about the WP leaders agreeing to “take the matter to the grave.”
However, Judge Tan states that there was no evidence to support this claim.
The defence also contended that Ms. Khan had given three different accounts of what Singh told her at the Aug 8 meeting—to the Committee of Privileges and in court.
After analyzing relevant extracts and court transcripts, Judge Tan concludes that there was “no real discrepancy.”
All three accounts were consistent in conveying that those present at the meeting would not proactively clarify the untruth, the judge affirms.
10:13
Reminder: What is Singh accused of?
Pritam Singh is accused of falsely testifying during the Committee of Privileges hearings in December 2021 regarding two key points:
That at the conclusion of a meeting on Aug 8, 2021, involving Ms. Raeesah Khan, Ms. Sylvia Lim, and Mr. Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, he had wanted Ms. Khan to clarify in Parliament at some point that her statement about accompanying a rape victim to a police station was untrue.
That when he spoke to Ms. Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he intended to convey that if the issue arose in Parliament the next day, she had to clarify that her story about accompanying the rape victim was a lie.
10:05
Khan’s account supported by evidence: Judge
Judge Tan states that Ms. Raeesah Khan’s account is backed by evidence, including text messages and discussions with former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, as well as former WP chief Low Thia Khiang.
He also highlights Singh’s inaction for nearly two months.
“Nothing was done by the accused after the Aug 8 meeting,” says Judge Tan, noting that no steps were taken to ensure Ms. Khan came clean about her lie.
This, the judge says, stands “in sharp contrast” to the anxiety Singh displayed after Ms. Khan told the anecdote in Parliament and the pressure he placed on her until she admitted the falsehood on Aug 7.
“Yet, after Ms. Khan admitted to other WP leaders that she had lied, there was absolutely no follow-up from the accused.”
Judge Tan concludes, “This could only be because the accused had mentioned this was ‘probably something we should take to the grave’.”
10:00
Judge elaborates on Singh’s actions after Aug 8 meeting
Concerned about the fallout from Ms. Khan’s speech in Parliament on Aug 7, 2021, Singh remarked that it was, politically speaking, “a bad day for the Workers’ Party,” says Judge Tan.
Following that, Singh persistently pressed Ms. Khan until she admitted that her anecdote was untrue, the judge notes.
Judge Tan recalls that Singh had also discussed the issue in a meeting with WP leaders, during which he appeared “anxious” about the fallout. However, the judge finds it “striking” that Singh remained silent on the next steps the party should take.
The “adverse consequences” for WP, which had been deliberated by its leaders at the Aug 8 meeting, set the stage for Singh to make the statement that the lie was “probably something they have to take to the grave,” the judge adds.
09:49
Judge accepts Raeesah Khan’s account of Aug 8 meeting
Regarding Singh’s first charge, Judge Tan states that the key issue is whether, at the conclusion of the Aug 8 meeting, Singh had wanted Ms. Khan to clarify in Parliament at some point that her anecdote was untrue.
After reviewing the details, Judge Tan concludes that he accepts Ms. Khan’s account of what transpired during the Aug 8 meeting.
“The accused’s actions subsequently, in response to this end at and after the Aug 8 meeting to Ms. Khan’s admission of the untruth, were strongly indicative that the accused did not want Ms. Khan to clarify the untruth at some point,” the judge adds.
09:46
Judge delivering oral judgment
“This case starts with a lie being told in Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, by Member of Parliament Ms. Raeesah Khan from the Workers’ Party,” says Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan as he begins delivering his oral judgment.
The judge is now outlining the background of the case involving Pritam Singh.
Singh faces two charges of wilfully providing false answers to the Committee of Privileges on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, during an inquiry into the false statement made in Parliament by Ms. Khan.
Judge Tan highlights that the central issue in dispute is whether Singh’s answers were indeed false.
The courtroom remains silent, with all attention fixed on his words.
09:39
Judge asks for last remarks before verdict
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan states that he has reviewed the “comprehensive” submissions from both sides and invites any final remarks before delivering the verdict.
Both the prosecution and defense decline to add anything further.
09:30
Singh expected to speak to the media
Pritam Singh is expected to address the media outside the State Courts after the court proceedings conclude. A team from the Workers’ Party is seen setting up to record his remarks.
09:13
Media Frenzy
Clad in Workers’ Party blue, Pritam Singh makes his way up the main staircase to the court entrance, surrounded by media personnel.
“You look like you’re in high spirits,” a journalist remarks.
“You think so?” Singh replies, as camera lights flash.
09:10
Pritam Singh arrives
A surge of activity as Pritam Singh arrives at around 9:08 AM, accompanied by his lawyers.
He is immediately surrounded as cameras flash. When asked if he is confident, he responds, “Let’s see what the verdict is.”
08:55
Awaiting Pritam Singh’s arrival
Anticipation grows outside the State Courts as over 40 members of the media stand ready with cameras and phones, awaiting Pritam Singh’s arrival.
08:41
Workers’ Party MPs arrive
