Pritam Singh appeal: Credibility of witnesses in the spotlight as WP chief appeals against conviction

Immediately after the meeting, Ms Khan had texted her aides – Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan – that the WP leaders had agreed she should take her lie to the grave.

Mr Jumabhoy said Ms Khan had given three different accounts of the meeting before the COP and at Singh’s trial, including one instance when there was no suggestion that Singh had asked her to take the lie to the grave.

“Everyone can see that there are differences, and to pretend that there is no difference does a disservice,” Mr Jumabhoy said.

The judge countered that the fact that Ms Khan might not have used the phrase “take it to the grave” consistently in the three versions did not mean it was not said.

Justice Chong asked the defence to explain why Singh appeared to be “doing nothing” to help Ms Khan come clean between Aug 8, 2021, and their second meeting on Oct 3, 2021.

Mr Jumabhoy said Singh’s position was that, at some point, Ms Khan would need to clarify the lie.

The defence counsel said Singh’s inaction was due to there being more pressing matters to deal with at that time, including an important Bill the House was going to discuss on Oct 4, as well as other party matters and personal issues involving his children.

The judge noted that there was “a complete absence of any discussion” during those eight weeks, and questioned if Singh was so busy that he did not deal with this pressing matter of an MP’s lie in Parliament.

Mr Jumabhoy also sought to show that Ms Khan and her aides were inconsistent witnesses. He pointed to how Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had asked Ms Khan to continue with her lie, and later made false justifications to redact these messages after they were tendered to the COP as evidence.

In contrast, Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan told the court that Singh’s inaction and the multiple pieces of corroborative evidence – Ms Khan’s message, as well as Ms Loh’s and Mr Nathan’s evidence – showed that the WP chief never intended for Ms Khan to clarify her lie in Parliament.

“This radio silence speaks volumes… the fact that he did not follow up must lead to the natural inference that there was nothing to follow up at all,” he said.

At his trial, Singh himself had acknowledged that he had said “I will not judge you” to Ms Khan, but disputed the context in which the phrase was used.

This conversation took place at Ms Khan’s house on Oct 3, 2021, with no one else within earshot.

Ms Khan took the statement to mean Singh would not judge her for continuing the narrative in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021. Singh’s position was that he told Ms Khan that he would not judge her, and that she “would have to take ownership and responsibility” in coming clean.

Justice Chong said the question is what this meant “to two intelligent, well-educated persons”. “This is not a term of art,” he said, referring to a phrase with a specialised meaning within a profession.

“It will be odd to say ‘I will not judge you’ when the context is that the person is going to do the right thing. That is how I would objectively judge those words,” said the judge.

Mr Jumabhoy replied that it was not quite as clear-cut as the judge had made it seem and argued that the statement could be interpreted either way.

DAG Goh said there were five key pieces of evidence corroborating the second charge, just as there was in relation to the first charge.

Among other things, Ms Khan had, on Oct 7, 2021, e-mailed the WP leaders to thank them for guiding her without judgment, and Singh had not taken any action when Ms Khan doubled down on the lie on Oct 4, he noted. Ms Lim had also recorded Singh saying at a WP disciplinary hearing in November 2021 that it was Ms Khan’s call as to what to do about her lie.

Earlier in the day, the judge asked the defence why Singh had not confronted Ms Khan about repeating the lie on Oct 4, which would have been a normal reaction to a matter like this with political repercussions.

Mr Jumabhoy replied that “shouting, screaming, losing your temper is not going to change the situation”, and said it was the defence’s case that Singh had on Oct 3 told Ms Khan that she had to come clean if the matter came up in Parliament.

DAG Goh said that by Singh’s own evidence, he did not castigate Ms Khan for repeating the lie on Oct 4, which was inconsistent with someone who had told her she needed to clarify the issue that day.

In written submissions to Justice Chong, the prosecution said the defence had “raised an unfocused scattershot of overlapping complaints, amounting to a total of 61 grounds of appeal”.

The trial judge who convicted Singh had conducted a scrupulous trial, accurately evaluated the evidence, and applied the law correctly, it added.

“His findings that (Singh) wilfully gave false answers to the COP – in essence, that (he) lied to cover up his role in advising a fellow MP to conceal a lie – are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence,” said the prosecution.

In the defence’s written submissions, Mr Jumabhoy said the convictions against Singh were “built on a foundation of unspoken words, unsupported assumptions, and the shifting testimonies of discredited and incredible witnesses”.

He said Ms Khan’s account was the sole foundation of both charges, even though she was “evasive under cross-examination and, when she was cornered, fabricated completely fantastical evidence which, for reasons unfathomable, the (trial judge) accepted as true”.

The charges against Singh “rested on a patchwork of words, loosely stitched together, retrofitted into a narrative that (Singh) himself never gave”, he added.

Speaking to a clutch of reporters outside the High Court after the hearing, Singh said he would comment on his case only after a judgment was made.

“Let’s allow the court to review the submissions and the arguments that were made by the defence, and of course the prosecution,” he said.