Pritam Singh to testify in trial after judge calls on him to make his defence

SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh has been asked to make his defence after a State Court judge ruled that the prosecution has made out a sufficient case against him. 
The trial resumed on Tuesday (Nov 5) after a break of more than a week, with all eyes on whether Singh, 48, would take the stand. Singh told the court that he would be giving evidence in his defence. 
The Leader of the Opposition faces two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee that was set up to look into the conduct of former party member Raeesah Khan, who had lied in parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station. 
Singh is accused of falsely testifying to the Committee of Privileges on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021. 
The first charge alleged that he lied when he said he wanted Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in parliament, when the two met on Aug 8, 2021, along with WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.
The second charge alleged that he gave false answers to the parliamentary committee when he said that he told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, to clarify her story about the rape survivor if the issue came up in parliament the next day.
On Tuesday morning, before a full court, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said that he found the prosecution’s case to be sufficiently strong and called on Singh to answer to his two charges. 
He delivered a brief oral judgment dealing with the defence’s submissions of no case to answer. 
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, had wrapped up its case within nine days during the first tranche of hearings in October.
Four witnesses had testified for the prosecution – Ms Khan herself, WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, and former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang. The prosecution did not call to the stand its last witness, an investigation officer, as both sides had agreed to a set of facts relating to him. 
The defence, led by lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, also completed its cross-examination of each witness. Mr Jumabhoy had repeatedly sought to impeach Ms Khan’s credibility by pointing out inconsistencies in her evidence. He also characterised the former WP member as a liar who told lies “non-stop”. 
On the two WP cadres, Mr Jumabhoy has sought to poke holes in their testimonies by pointing out contradictions in their evidence. 
At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence said it would file written submissions arguing that there was no case for the defence to answer for the first charge but not the second charge. It later filed written submissions arguing that Singh has no case to answer for both charges. 
Judge Tan had also asked both sides to address him about the allegations against Singh. He noted that some words in the charges could not be found in excerpts of Singh’s exchange before the COP.
In its written submissions, the prosecution said that there was no need for the present charges to be amended, and asked the court to call on Singh for his defence. However, it proposed amendments should the court feel the need to amend the charges. 
At the opening of the trial on Tuesday, Judge Tan said that he had read the submissions by both sides and asked if they had anything to add.  
Mr Jumabhoy replied that he wanted to address cases that had been submitted by the prosecution.
The defence lawyer also took issue with how the prosecution had “amalgamated” a set of questions in its charges.
He said this went against “a plain and unambiguous reading” of Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act – the section which Singh’s charges are under – which uses the singular word “question”. 
Referring to the cases referenced by the prosecution, Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that the wording of Section 31(q) – which states that an offender must have “wilfully make a false answer to any question” – was narrow. 
“It is for this reason that we say both charges against Mr Singh must necessarily fail,” Mr Jumabhoy argued.
“They do not set out the question and they do not set out the false answer given to that question … what the prosecution (is) essentially doing, is conflating what is required for the purposes of the charge with what is required for the elements of the offence.”
He added that the amalgamated answers fell short of what was required of the prosecution to prove, as the prosecution was simply relying on what would be inferred from these answers. 
“The fact of the matter is that in relation to the charge, he never gave that answer at all,” he said. 
After some clarification queries from the judge, Mr Jumabhoy said that part answers or a lack of answers given by a person questioned would “fall foul” of the statute. 
But Judge Tan then pointed out that a person can deliberately give part answers throughout and not be caught by the statute. 
Mr Jumabhoy replied that that was a “pretty extreme position” of a person “trying to wriggle around the statute”.
Responding to the oral arguments in court, Mr Ang disagreed that Section 31(q) involved only one question and one answer.
“My learned friend has made … issue about what he calls the amalgamated answer or what we describe as the gist of what Mr Singh had said at the COP.
“In a sense, for the first charge at least, there’s a bit of irony to that, because as your honour has noted, in their submission, they do not deny that that’s exactly what he was trying to tell the COP.”
While Mr Jumabhoy’s complaint was that the words do not appear specifically in one answer, Mr Singh’s words were clear from the transcripts of the minutes of evidence annexed to the charge, Mr Ang said. 
After both sides made their arguments in court, Judge Tan delivered his brief judgment on whether the defence had a case to answer, adding that a full version would be available in due course. 
The judge agreed with the prosecution that the current charges satisfied the requirements and that no amendments were necessary. On the first charge, he said it gave sufficient notice to Singh on what he was charged with, while the second charge set out Singh’s answers in gist. 
Judge Tan also found that all elements of the charges had been made out for the defence to be called. 
The judge told Singh: “I find the prosecution has made out a case against you on the charges on which you are being tried. There is some evidence not inherently incredible that satisfies each charge.”
He added that Singh could choose to give evidence in the witness box or remain silent, but warned that the court may otherwise draw inferences against him. The WP leader replied that he understood and chose to give evidence. 
Singh will be questioned by Mr Jumabhoy before he undergoes cross-examination by the prosecution. 
The defence will conduct its re-examination before Singh is released as a witness. The defence may then call other witnesses to the stand, if any.
The second tranche of the trial is slated to go on until Nov 13. 
For each charge, Singh faces a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both.