Pritam Singh’s appeal: Defence argues trial judge ‘ignored’ crucial evidence in convicting WP chief

He said this was not an uncommon expression.

“Typically, you will say ‘I will not judge you’ in a context where the person is doing something which is not quite right,” said Justice Chong.

“But if you don’t want to do the right thing, I will not judge you. It will be odd to say – I will not judge you, in the context where the person is going to do the right thing.”

The judge then asked Mr Jumabhoy if he found that Singh did tell Ms Khan to take the lie to the grave, then would it not logically follow that the phrase “I will not judge you”, in the context of that finding, could only mean “I will not judge you if you continue to maintain the narrative”.

At this, the defence lawyer was quiet for a bit before accepting that it would be logical.

Justice Chong also questioned the defence’s case that Singh had told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, in no uncertain terms that if the matter came up in parliament, she had to come clean and clarify the untruth by taking ownership and responsibility.

He said there was “no choice” in this, but if so, why did Singh say in the disciplinary proceedings recorded on Nov 29, 2021, that he said “it’s her call”.

“And how do you explain that Mr Singh also said … ‘look at the choices you’ve made’. So how do you explain these words? If the decision was made that you have to come clean, it’s no longer your choice,” said Justice Chong.

Explaining the record of WP’s disciplinary proceedings where Singh was recorded by Ms Sylvia Lim to say “it was your call” to Ms Khan, Mr Jumabhoy said the notes were taken by Ms Lim and these were “not Mr Singh’s choice of words”.

“So how do you expect me to intervene to say, yeah, I agree with you, that Ms Lim recorded it wrongly?” asked the judge.

Mr Jumabhoy responded that he was not pointing to just one aspect, but that if a person reads the judgment convicting Singh “comprehensively”, there are “whole aspects” the judge does not deal with.

“No, the significance, Mr Jumabhoy, is – to say it’s your choice, your call, cuts against the case that – I told you, if it is raised in parliament, you have to clarify the untruth. No choice. It cannot be your call anymore,” said the judge.

After Mr Jumabhoy concluded his submissions, Justice Chong told Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan that he would need to address why the second charge was framed in that way.

When the hearing broke for lunch, Singh went across the road to attend parliament.

The hearing resumes on Tuesday afternoon with the prosecution beginning their submissions.

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.