“NEVER WANTED MS KHAN TO TELL THE TRUTH”
The judge also accepted Ms Khan’s version of events relating to Singh’s second charge.
“The accused never wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth if the issue came up in parliament the next day,” he said, noting that Singh had said he “would not judge” Ms Khan if she continued the narrative.
“Nothing was done in preparation for her to disclose in parliament on Oct 4, 2021, that she had lied,” said Judge Tan, adding that Ms Khan’s account was corroborated by the testimonies of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan.
Singh would have known on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan could not clarify the lie without any preparation, said Judge Tan.
Since Singh knew this and “nothing of this sort was even attempted”. This reinforced the judge’s conclusion that on Oct 3, 2021, Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify her lie the next day, even if the matter came up again.
The disciplinary panel hearing initiated by Singh after Ms Khan had come clean in parliament was to distance the former from his role in guiding her to maintain the untruth, the judge added.
On Nov 2, 2021, a day after Ms Khan admitted to lying in parliament, the WP announced that it had formed a disciplinary panel to look into her conduct.
The judge noted the prosecution’s arguments that this was done with “great haste” and was “a completely self-serving exercise”.
He also said it was obvious that there was a “real or apparent conflict of interest” that the panel comprised the same three WP leaders who had guided Ms Khan on how to deal with her lie.
There was a real concern that they would not be able to act impartially as their own conduct in the matter would come under scrutiny, and this would not be lost on Singh and Ms Lim, who are lawyers, said the judge.
Singh revealed to the public that he had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 7, 2021, on Dec 2, 2021 – the day Ms Khan and Ms Loh were slated to testify before the COP.
This suggested that Singh was trying to do “damage control” by admitting his awareness of the lie before it could be raised by Ms Khan or Ms Loh, said Judge Tan.
Ms Khan was a reliable witness during the trial. Despite making “clear flaws” by lying in parliament, she showed remorse for her actions, Judge Tan found.
She was also forthcoming with her evidence and did not downplay her role in the matter, said the judge.
JUDGE ON LOW, LOH AND NATHAN
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.
As for Mr Low Thia Khiang, whom Singh and Ms Lim approached for advice on how to deal with the matter on Oct 11, he is trusted and respected by all those who testified in the trial, as well as Ms Lim.
Judge Tan said it was clear that Mr Low played a “pivotal role” in the ultimate decision for Ms Khan to confess to her lie in Parliament.
Apart from what Singh told Mr Nathan about being “worried” that the government already had evidence of the lie, it may have been Mr Low’s “reassuring words” that the WP would survive any fallout that led to the decision for Ms Khan to clarify the truth, he added.
Judge Tan rapped the defence for “extensive and liberal” references to what Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap said during the COP hearings, noting that these could not be admitted in court since neither were called as witnesses in the trial.
“This backdoor attempt is clearly inadmissible as the out-of-court accounts constitute hearsay and are inadmissible,” he stressed.
If Ms Lim or Mr Faisal’s evidence refuted Ms Khan’s account of events, the defence should have called them to testify, he said.
This is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
The punishment for each charge is a maximum jail term of three years, a maximum fine of S$7,000 (US$5,200) or both penalties.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for Singh on each charge.
Mr Wong said that the duties of the Leader of the Opposition included leading the opposition to present alternative views in parliament and leading scrutiny of the government. He also noted that Singh was WP’s secretary-general and a lawyer.
Singh’s act of giving false testimony to the COP to “protect his own political capital by throwing Ms Khan and his own political cadres under the bus” was therefore “undoubtedly serious and dishonourable”, the prosecutor said.
Singh’s offences are “right at the cusp of the threshold” for imprisonment, he added.
The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, asked for a fine of S$4,000 per charge.
Singh had no involvement in the original lie or the fact that Ms Khan chose to tell the lie in the first place, said Mr Jumabhoy.
Asking for that high a fine was “unnecessary”, he added.
“It’s not that he told Ms Khan to lie. It’s that he never had these thoughts in his mind,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
Parties will return at 3.15pm on Monday for sentencing.
