Pritam Singh’s appeal on Nov 4: A look back at how he was found guilty of lying to a parliamentary committee

When Singh’s lawyer Mr Jumabhoy cross-examined Ms Khan on the stand, he called her a “liar” who tells lies “non-stop”.

On Oct 17, 2024, when Ms Khan’s former secretarial assistant Ms Loh took the stand, she talked about her unhappiness at how the issue was handled, as well as how Singh knew about the lies early on.

When grilled by Mr Jumabhoy, she admitted that she also had lied during the committee’s probe by hiding a message from party member Mr Nathan. Mr Nathan has suggested that they should continue lying.

It was also during her cross-examination that Ms Loh admitted calling Ms Khan “naive” and like a “lao hong biscuit”. The Hokkien term, that literally translates as “leak air” but can refer to something stale or gone soft, later went viral.

When it was Mr Nathan’s turn on the stand, he shared about how he felt there was a “witch hunt” launched against Ms Khan to “kick her out” of the party, while Singh was getting off “scot-free”. 

On cross-examination by Mr Jumabhoy, Mr Nathan admitted to wanting Ms Raeesah Khan to lie more as the party did not have a “suitable plan” for coming clean.

On Oct 23, 2024, former WP chief’s Mr Low Thia Khiang’s took the stand as a prosecution witness for 20 minutes, where he testified how he had advised WP leaders that Khan should apologise in parliament.

He later told reporters outside the court that voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not, describing Singh as “a good politician” who is a “capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans”.

Singh testified in his own defence, but called no further witnesses.

He testified that he had difficulty understanding why Ms Khan was crying after being asked to clarify her rape anecdote, and shared about how he first met her and how she came to be selected as a candidate for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency in the 2020 General Election.

He also refuted the claims made by Ms Khan that he had told her to take the issue to the grave and explained the context behind his words “I will not judge you” to Ms Khan.

Ms Khan had said that this meant he would not judge her if she retained her narrative, which she took to mean the lie. However, Singh said he meant that he would not judge her if she took ownership and responsibility of what she did.

In his testimony, Singh said he felt shocked when Ms Khan shared with him and the WP leaders that she was raped at a younger age, how he was “very unhappy” with Ms Khan when he first learnt that she had lied in Parliament, and “incredibly disappointed” when she repeated the lie.

He locked horns with then-Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock when Mr Ang cross-examined him, charging that Singh had guided Ms Khan to maintain the untruth.

THE VERDICT

In his oral judgement, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan found that the evidence showed that Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify the anecdote.

He said that Singh’s lack of guidance to Ms Khan on how to clarify the lie was consistent with his lack of desire for him to do so.

He found it difficult to accept that Singh expected Ms Khan to know, without discussing with her, the whole host of things she needed to do to clarify the lie.

Judge Tan disagreed with the defence that Singh’s inaction was a “totally human response that anyone would have when they are told by another that they had been sexually assaulted”, and that it was more important to show Ms Khan empathy and compassion.

“Not only was there nothing to show that (Singh’s) inaction was motivated by such concerns or that there was a need to give her additional time to ‘recover’ or ‘get over her assault’ (something which happened many years before and for which she was already seeing a therapist), the fact was that Ms Khan never sought or asked for time to speak to her parents, which is something that she surely would have done had she such a need or concern,” said Judge Tan.

While there was nothing to preclude Singh from following up with Ms Khan to check on her well-being on her progress or situation, the fact is that Singh “did nothing”, the judge said.

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.

In his verdict, the judge also rapped the defence on their “backdoor attempt” to admit accounts of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal despite choosing not to call either of them as a witness for the trial.

“This backdoor attempt is clearly impermissible, as their out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence for this trial,” said the judge.

He added that if the defence had wanted either of the then-WP leaders’ accounts to be used to corroborate Singh’s account, then they should have called them to testify under oath in the same process the prosecution witnesses were subjected to.

All of them were called to testify and the defence had the opportunity to challenge their accounts and “pose sometimes difficult and even embarrassing questions to them”, noted the judge.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge, while Mr Jumabhoy asked for S$4,000 per charge.

The judge went with the prosecution’s suggested sentence, agreeing that a jail term was not warranted since “no appreciable harm” was caused to Ms Khan.

Singh told the media outside the State Courts after the hearing that the verdict was “disappointing” but that he would appeal both the conviction and sentence.

Asked about the possibility that he might be forced to consider stepping down, Mr Singh replied that the need was for him “to step up, not step down”.

In the May 2025 elections, WP maintained its wins over Aljunied GRC, Sengkang GRC and Hougang SMC.

Singh was successfully re-elected as a Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, with a vote share of 59.71 per cent.

The penalties for the charges of wilfully making false answers to questions material to the subject of inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.