\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh returned to court on Nov 4 to <\/p>\n appeal against the conviction and sentence<\/p>\n <\/a> meted out to him in February for lying to a parliamentary committee. <\/p>\n The hearing opened with defence counsel Andre Jumabhoy arguing that the case boiled down to which witnesses were believed by the trial judge, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan. Mr Jumabhoy said he hoped to persuade High Court Justice Steven Chong that the trial judge had \u201cignored crucial pieces of evidence\u201d in convicting Singh. <\/p>\n The prosecution, on the other hand, highlighted multiple pieces of corroborative evidence for each of the two charges, including the WP chief\u2019s inaction for two months after he and other party leaders found out about former MP Raeesah Khan\u2019s <\/p>\n untruth to Parliament<\/p>\n <\/a>. <\/p>\n Singh had in February been found guilty of the two charges, which related to him knowingly giving false evidence to the Committee of Privileges (COP) about two meetings he had with Ms Khan on Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021. <\/p>\n Justice Chong said the appeal turned on two key statements Singh had made. The first was him telling Ms Khan to take her lie \u201cto the grave\u201d at the Aug 8 meeting, and the second was Singh telling her at the Oct 3 meeting that he would not judge her. <\/p>\n Here are four key points from the defence, and four from the prosecution: <\/p>\n Mr Jumabhoy cast doubts on the veracity of Ms Khan\u2019s account of the Aug 8, 2021, meeting between herself and WP leaders Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap \u2013 the meeting at which it was allegedly agreed that Ms Khan would take her lie \u201cto the grave\u201d. <\/p>\n The lawyer said Ms Khan had given three different accounts of the meeting before the COP and at Singh\u2019s trial, including one instance when there was no suggestion that Singh had asked her to take the lie to the grave. <\/p>\n \u201cEveryone can see that there are differences, and to pretend that there\u2019s no difference does a disservice,\u201d Mr Jumabhoy said. <\/p>\n He argued that Singh, on the other hand, was consistent with what was said during the meeting at his house on Aug 8, 2021 \u2013 which was that at some point Ms Khan \u201cwould need to clarify the lie\u201d. <\/p>\n Justice Chong replied that Ms Khan might not have used the phrase consistently in the three versions, but that does not mean it was not said. <\/p>\n The defence cannot ignore the text message that Ms Khan sent to her then aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan immediately after the Aug 8, 2021, meeting. The message stated that WP leaders had agreed the best course of action was to take the information to the grave. <\/p>\n Mr Jumabhoy also noted that the defence had attempted to <\/p>\n impeach Ms Khan\u2019s credibility<\/p>\n <\/a> during the earlier trial, in relation to a separate set of inconsistencies as to why she lied again on Oct 4, 2021. <\/p>\n Judge Tan had ruled that Ms Khan\u2019s credit was not impeached. <\/p>\n Justice Chong and Mr Jumabhoy also had an exchange about the context in which Singh said the words \u201cI will not judge you\u201d to Ms Khan. <\/p>\n This related to the second charge against Singh: that he had falsely testified to the COP that when he spoke to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he had wanted to convey to her that she had to come clean about her lie if it came up in Parliament the next day. <\/p>\n At his trial, Singh had acknowledged that he had said \u201cI will not judge you\u201d, but disputed the context in which the phrase was used. <\/p>\n This conversation took place at Ms Khan\u2019s house, with no one else within earshot. <\/p>\n The judge noted that after Ms Khan repeated her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, Singh had told Ms Khan: \u201cLook at the choice you made.\u201d <\/p>\n Justice Chong asked Mr Jumabhoy how he would explain Singh\u2019s use of the word \u201cchoice\u201d. \u201cHe said \u2018look at the choice you made\u2019, not \u2018the mess you made\u2019,\u201d the judge noted. <\/p>\n Mr Jumabhoy replied that Singh was expressing his frustration at Ms Khan for repeating the lie. \u201cHe (Singh) was frustrated because it was inconsistent with what he told her on Oct 3,\u201d said Mr Jumabhoy. <\/p>\n The expression \u201cI will not judge you\u201d takes into account \u201cresponsibility\u201d, Mr Jumabhoy added. <\/p>\n In return, Justice Chong said the expression is not uncommon, and is typically used when someone is doing something not quite right. <\/p>\n \u201cIt will be odd to say \u2018I will not judge you\u2019 when the context is that the person is going to do the right thing. That is how I would objectively judge those words,\u201d said the judge. <\/p>\n To this, Mr Jumabhoy replied: \u201cIt\u2019s not quite as clear-cut as Your Honour made it seem. It could be either way.\u201d <\/p>\n Mr Jumabhoy also attempted to characterise Ms Khan and her aides as inconsistent witnesses, and recounted their actions. <\/p>\n He also questioned whether Ms Khan was telling the truth in a key piece of evidence \u2013 the \u201ctake it to the grave\u201d text message that she sent to the two WP aides, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan \u2013 immediately after her meeting with WP leaders on Aug 8, 2021. <\/p>\n It was \u201cinteresting\u201d that the trio had a Zoom meeting on Aug 7, a day before Ms Khan\u2019s meeting with Singh, said Mr Jumabhoy. <\/p>\n He also questioned why the \u201ctake it to the grave\u201d element was missing from another text exchange on the matter between Ms Khan and Ms Loh two days later. <\/p>\n Through a series of messages exchanged between Ms Khan and the aides in early October 2021, Mr Jumabhoy argued that they were nudging her to operate in a grey area about her lie. \u201cThe flavour that the messages give is that they weren\u2019t keen for Ms Khan to tell the truth, and they were advising her on various ways to avoid confessing that she\u2019d lied,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n The defence lawyer also recounted that Mr Nathan had given untrue reasons for certain redactions to WhatsApp messages provided to the COP. <\/p>\n \u201cThey were redacted because they were telling her to continue to lie, not to come clean,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n Justice Chong asked the defence to explain why Singh appeared to be \u201cdoing nothing\u201d about the lie between Aug 8, 2021, and Oct 3, 2021. <\/p>\n He said that if Singh\u2019s position was that Ms Khan had to come clean at some point, steps would have been taken during this \u201ccritical\u201d eight-week period. <\/p>\n Ms Khan had confessed her lie to the party\u2019s leaders at a meeting at Singh\u2019s house on Aug 8. On Oct 3, the day before a Parliament sitting, Singh and his wife had visited Ms Khan at her home. <\/p>\n The judge questioned if this behaviour is consistent with someone who wanted the truth to be clarified, or someone who was prepared to let the lie be buried. <\/p>\n Mr Jumabhoy said that Singh described Ms Khan\u2019s lie as an \u201cearth-shattering discovery\u201d that \u201cinvolved an incident of significant personal detriment (and to the party)\u201d. <\/p>\n