\n<\/p>\n
During the appeal on Nov 4, Justice Steven Chong questioned both the prosecution – led by Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan – and the lead defence lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, on their respective submissions.<\/p>\n
In his written submissions, Mr Jumabhoy said the case had been “wrongly decided” by the trial judge, that the law was “misapplied” and the facts “misjudged”.<\/p>\n
He said the trial judge accepted “impossibilities” in Ms Khan’s account as “proof” and “conjecture as fact”, ignoring the “plain reality” that Singh “consistently acted with caution, integrity and empathy”.<\/p>\n
“He never told Ms Khan to lie. He never encouraged her to maintain the untruth. He gave her time, reminded her of the seriousness of speaking in parliament, and ultimately required her to come clean – in her own words and by her own hand,” wrote Mr Jumabhoy.<\/p>\n
The prosecution urged the court to dismiss the appeal, saying Singh was seeking a “retrial” instead and that the conviction was “legally and factually sound”.<\/p>\n
They also urged the court to uphold the trial judge’s finding that Singh was not a credible witness, saying Singh was contesting the trial judge’s conclusion that “his own testimony was unreliable and unworthy of belief”.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n