Jump to a key catchphrase
Outside the courthouse in Havelock Square, the atmosphere was tense – and silent. A scrum of reporters waited for a first glimpse of Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition and chief of the Workers’ Party (WP).
He had just been convicted, after a 13-day trial, of two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee, an offence under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Singh emerged to a chorus of questions from reporters and the non-stop clicks of more than a dozen cameras.
“I will be running for the general election,” Singh said in response to questions. He has been an MP for Aljunied GRC since 2011.
Singh was fined the maximum of $7,000 for each of his two charges. He intends to appeal against his conviction.
How did he get here? Here’s a look at the case’s major flashpoints through the 13 catchphrases that emerged as testimonies unravelled and arguments clashed.
Who is involved in the trial
About 15 hours
Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock
Close to 13 hours
Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Sivakumar Ramasamy
Mr Jumabhoy
About 8 hours
DPP Ben Mathias Tan
Mr Jumabhoy
About 8 hours
DPP Ramasamy
Mr Jumabhoy
About 30 minutes
DPP Tan
Singh’s other lawyer, Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng
We reported on Singh’s trial from inside the courtroom and transcribed the proceedings live. By the end of the trial, the transcript was 677 pages long.
We trawled through our transcript, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan’s 150-page initial judgment, and more than 350 pages outlining the prosecution’s and defence’s arguments submitted to the court.
These 13 catchphrases stood out.
Look at the top of your screen to see where you are in the storyline as we bring you down the rabbit hole of the case’s evidence through each phrase.
Take it to the grave
Singh’s first charge: He had falsely testified to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that at the end of the Aug 8 meeting, he had wanted Ms Khan to come clean in Parliament at some point.
The prosecution’s case centred on this phrase in a text message Ms Khan sent to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan after leaving Singh’s house that day.
In its closing submissions, the prosecution called the phrase “compelling evidence” that Singh never wanted Ms Khan to clarify the anecdote in Parliament at some point.
In court, Ms Khan said Singh suggested that she take her lie to the grave.
- (Singh) spoke about putting me through the COP, but then said this would probably be something I would have to take to the grave.
- There was no advice on actions to be taken… so I assumed there was nothing I was going to have to do about it.
Singh said no decision was made that day, but he knew the matter had to be clarified.
- We did not come to a landing on what she was supposed to do.
- I was quite sure that this matter would be followed up by the Government… I know how the PAP (People’s Action Party) operates. Whenever there is a chance to fix an opposition MP, or get tough at the opposition, they will jump at the chance.
- I knew the matter would have to be clarified. But because of Ms Khan’s state, I determined it would be better for her to settle herself, and then we would deal with the matter when she was ready.
Singh said that after the meeting, he told Ms Khan to speak to her parents first, since her lie to Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, concerned her personal experience with sexual assault, which her parents did not know about.
Questions posed by the prosecution:
- WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim arrived early for the Aug 8 meeting and found out that Ms Khan’s anecdote was made up. Why didn’t Ms Lim and Singh discuss what needed to be done before Ms Khan arrived, given how serious the matter was?
- Why didn’t the three WP leaders – Singh, Ms Lim and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap – keep written records of the Aug 8 meeting, if it weren’t to bury Ms Khan’s issue?
The prosecution said Singh’s lack of follow-up after the Aug 8 meeting flew in the face of his claim in court that he was “quite sure” the matter would be pursued by the PAP Government.
It called Singh’s explanation – that Ms Khan ought to have come forward – a “flimsy excuse” for his inaction, and noted that he normally took a proactive approach to Ms Khan’s parliamentary work.
Mr Jumabhoy raised these points in Singh’s defence:
- Why didn’t Ms Khan clarify what it was she had to take to the grave?
- Why did Ms Khan tell the COP about her Aug 8 text message only when she testified before it for a third time?
- The judge accepted Ms Khan’s account of the Aug 8 meeting, which was supported by ‘the circumstantial and corroborative evidence’, he said.
- Singh’s concern in the immediate aftermath of Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament, ‘juxtaposed against his silence on the next steps to be taken... is striking’, the judge said.
- He added: ‘It can be inferred that the adverse implications on WP, which were considered by the WP leaders at the Aug 8 meeting, set the stage for (Singh) to make the statement... that the (lie) would probably be something that they would have to take to the grave.’
- The judge also said that it did not make sense for Singh to instruct Ms Khan, out of earshot of the other WP leaders, to speak to her parents before they discussed next steps. More likely than not, any instruction would have been given in the presence of all three WP leaders.
I will not judge you
Singh’s second charge: 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.
Singh acknowledged that he had said “I will not judge you”, but disputed the context in which the phrase was used.
- I shared with her that if the matter of the anecdote did come up, she would have to take ownership and responsibility over the issue.
- I followed that up by telling her ‘I will not judge you’, and what I meant by that was, ‘I will not judge you if you take ownership and responsibility’.
This conversation took place at Ms Khan’s house, with no one else within earshot.
Two days earlier, on Oct 1, he had sent an e-mail on parliamentary protocol to all WP MPs.
… how serious it is to be able to back up and defend what you say in Parliament, or risk being hauled up before the Committee of Privileges.
Yours faithfully, Pritam Singh
The prosecution’s first question:
Singh said he said “I will not judge you” to “assuage” Ms Khan, who looked nervous after being told she would have to take ownership and responsibility over her lie.
The prosecution’s second question:
Singh said Ms Khan looked relieved after he said “I will not judge you”. Why would she react that way, since by heeding his advice, she would have to face the Committee of Privileges (COP)?
The defence:
Why would Singh write an e-mail about the serious consequences of making unsubstantiated claims in Parliament, only to tell Ms Khan days later there is no judgment for continuing the narrative?
The prosecution argued that the e-mail was not an attempt to follow up with Ms Khan on the issue. If anything, the e-mail served as a warning and reminder to Ms Khan that unless she maintained the untrue anecdote as agreed, she would have to face the COP, it said.
- Having carefully analysed the evidence, the judge said he would accept Ms Khan’s account as the truth. At the Oct 3 meeting, Singh did not tell her to ‘take ownership and responsibility’, the judge ruled.
- ‘I will not judge you’ was used by Singh to mean that, regardless of what Ms Khan decided to do in relation to her lie at the Oct 4 Parliament sitting, he would not judge her, the judge said. This was also exactly how Ms Khan understood Singh’s words to her, the judge added.
- The judge said Singh’s claim that the Oct 1 e-mail was an attempt to follow up with Ms Khan on the issue is not supported by evidence. The e-mail ‘clearly did not address any lie already told, let alone the specific untruth by Ms Khan’, he said.
What should I do, Pritam?
Ms Khan sent the first message after she was asked to substantiate her lie during the Oct 4 Parliament sitting. By the time Singh replied at 12.45pm, she had doubled down on the lie.
The prosecution:
- Singh knew it was impossible for Ms Khan to clarify the untruth as no preparations were made.
- He did not correct the lie when it was repeated or instruct her to tell the truth immediately.
The defence:
- Why would Ms Khan ask Singh for help if he had, according to her, said the night before that he would not judge her for continuing to lie?
- Ms Khan was not told to lie again – she drew that inference because it was what she wanted to hear.
Singh only spoke to Ms Khan at 11.15pm, more than 10 hours later.
At their meeting, Ms Khan suggested “Perhaps there is another way” – that is, to tell the truth.
Their accounts of Singh’s response differ.
- Ms Khan said he told her “It’s too late for that”.
- Singh said his words were “Look at the choice you’ve made”.
This meeting was referenced at WP’s disciplinary panel proceedings with Ms Khan, during which WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim took note of the following:
The prosecutor asked Singh if he gave Ms Khan the choice of telling the truth in the Oct 3 meeting where he said “I will not judge you”. Singh disagreed.
By “your call”, Singh said he was referring to the fact that he had told Ms Khan to take ownership and responsibility if the matter of her untrue anecdote came up.
“Circumstances behind the lie” was why Singh did not correct the lie as it was repeated on Oct 4, he said.
- The judge said Singh’s words at the DP hearing – that he told Ms Khan that it was her call what she said in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021 – is consistent with Ms Khan’s account that he had told her at the Oct 3 meeting that he would not judge her if she continued the narrative.
- By saying ‘I will not judge you’, Singh was telling Ms Khan that she had a choice whether she wanted to clarify the lie in Parliament, the judge stated.
Pritam would have all the answers
During the trial, Ms Khan was asked why she couldn’t come clean to Parliament on her own, and had to be directed to do the right thing.
And why didn’t she confront Singh and other WP leaders for guiding her to double down on her lie on Oct 4, 2021? Her answer:
She viewed Singh as someone with all the answers.
Given the power dynamic between them, the prosecution argued that it would have been impossible for Ms Khan to ignore Singh’s purported instructions to speak to her parents so the party could deal with the untruth.
Ms Khan was 26 when she contested the 2020 General Election, barely six months after she started volunteering at Singh’s Meet-the-People Sessions, the court heard.
She spoke of a “power imbalance” that made her reluctant to confront party leaders at a WP disciplinary hearing about how they had guided her to stick to her lie. The disciplinary panel, convened to look into her conduct, comprised the three leaders who had advised her.
Asked why she needed a directive to tell the truth to Parliament, Ms Khan said she wanted the leaders to tell her what to do as she was terrified.
But Ms Khan did not ask Singh for advice on Oct 3, 2021.
The defence also pointed out that Ms Khan had defied Singh before, by ignoring his clear instructions given on Aug 3, 2021, to substantiate the untrue anecdote in her parliamentary speech for the WP’s motion on empowering women.
This was the part of the speech that Singh circled and wrote the word “substantiate” against:
Despite that, Ms Khan did not make further tweaks.
The defence argued that it is thus not a stretch to say that she would ignore Singh’s instructions on Aug 8 to speak to her parents, especially when she knew that he would have her clarify the lie in Parliament as soon as she had done so.
- The judge accepted Ms Khan’s explanation that although Singh had written ‘substantiate’, they did not have a conversation about it, and she did not understand the severity of his words. Thus, she did not make any changes to her Aug 3 speech.
- ‘In my view, Ms Khan’s explanation reflected less an attitude of defiance as it did a lack of maturity and experience on her part, being a rookie MP who was giving speeches soon after successfully getting elected into Parliament at her first election attempt,’ he said.
- As a young and inexperienced MP then, Ms Khan was ‘apparently very much open to suggestions made by those around her’, including Singh, whom she revered, the judge added.
If you’re right, then Low Thia Khiang is lying
Singh’s credibility was pitched against former WP chief Low Thia Khiang’s as their accounts of Oct 11, 2021, failed to stack up. Singh had met Mr Low with WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim that day to break the news that Ms Khan had lied.
This courtroom exchange came about as the prosecution entered into evidence six police statements Singh had made, which showed that Mr Low’s evidence ran counter to what Singh previously told the police.
Singh, the defence’s only witness, hadn’t had sight of the police statements since they were taken between Dec 28, 2022, and May 18, 2023.
His lawyers also did not have the chance to study their contents when preparing for the trial.
Singh was presented with the inconsistencies in court.
What Singh told the police:
“We did inform (Mr Low) that Ms Khan would be clarifying the details in Parliament.”
What the police statement said:
Question: At this meeting, was Mr Low told that Ms Khan had confessed to you, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal about the untruth on Aug 8?
Answer: Yes.
The prosecution:
- If Singh was telling the truth about having already decided to ask Ms Khan to clarify the untruth in Parliament, he would have told Mr Low that when they met on Aug 8. Mr Low told the court he came to know of this only in August 2023, almost two years later.
- Mr Low’s evidence was completely unchallenged in court, so it is not open to Singh to contradict or downplay the former WP chief’s account of the Oct 11 meeting.
- It was the Singapore Police Force’s (SPF) Oct 7 request to interview Ms Khan, and Mr Low’s advice on Oct 11, that set Singh on the path of ensuring that the untruth would be clarified.
Dear Ms Khan,
…
The police would like to interview you on the above matter. Please e-mail me or call me at
Thank you.
Ms Khan forwarded this e-mail to Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, asking for their advice.
None of them responded.
Singh said he didn’t respond as the e-mail was “very frustrating to read”. He also did not think it appropriate for Ms Khan to respond to the police’s request, as he believed that Parliament was the right forum for her to clarify the matter.
- The judge said it was clear that Mr Low played a pivotal role in the ultimate decision for Ms Khan to confess to the lie in Parliament on Nov 1, 2021.
- Pointing out that Mr Low’s evidence was not challenged by the defence, the judge said his credibility was ‘never in doubt’.
- ‘It would not be too much of a stretch to say that Mr Low, more so than anyone else involved in this trial, is a person trusted and respected… apparently even by a prominent person named in the trial, Ms Sylvia Lim, who was not called as a witness,’ he added.
- As Singh subsequently gave evidence that contradicted Mr Low’s, this ‘ironically may have affected (Singh’s) own credibility, rather than taking away anything from Mr Low’s unchallenged account in court’, he added.
Issue of conflict
Mr Low said this in court when asked what was discussed when he met Singh and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021.
The prosecution:
- Was it not an issue of conflict to have the three WP leaders, who knew of Ms Khan’s lie as early as Aug 8 that year, form the disciplinary panel (DP) on Nov 2, 2021, to look into her conduct?
The party’s central executive committee (CEC) voted on Nov 30 that year to expel Ms Khan from the party based on the DP’s findings.
The prosecution’s case is that the DP’s conduct was self-serving and calculated to distance the three leaders – Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – from Ms Khan’s actions as the panel disregarded:
- The three leaders’ guidance to Ms Khan from Aug 8 (read: ‘Take it to the grave’).
- The discussion Singh had with Ms Khan on Oct 3 (read: ‘I will not judge you’).
Mr Low’s testimony suggests that the leaders had pre-judged the DP’s outcome, the prosecution said.
The prosecution said the DP withheld important facts from the CEC, and did not act fairly and impartially.
In building this argument, Mr Ang asked Singh why the panel did not consider several factors in Ms Khan’s case.
One aggravating factor was that Ms Khan had ignored Singh’s advice on Oct 3.
Singh agreed that this was an aggravating factor.
Asked if it was left out because he didn’t want the CEC to know that he spoke to her in private, he disagreed.
Singh also said he did not see Ms Khan’s early confession of her lie as a mitigating factor, as she admitted to it only after being probed.
- No matter which way one looked at it, Judge Tan said, it was obvious that Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were in a position of real, or at least apparent, conflict of interest. This ‘would not have been lost on’ Singh or Ms Lim, who are both qualified lawyers, he remarked.
- The judge also commented on the constant changing of Singh’s stance in relation to the DP’s composition, saying that it reflected an inability on his part to give a ‘coherent and believable’ account in relation to his two charges.
- Particularly, Singh’s insistence on sitting on the DP, despite being well aware of his intimate role in guiding Ms Khan since August 2021, was ‘troubling’, the judge said. It strongly suggested an attempt to conceal Singh’s earlier involvement and knowledge, and lack of action to clarify the untruth, the judge ruled.
Can’t lie, right?
These notes were taken by WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim when Ms Khan met the WP’s disciplinary panel (DP) for a second time.
Singh said that “can’t lie right” referred to him telling Ms Khan on Oct 3 that she should own up if the issue came up in Parliament the next day.
Ms Khan testified that he never said that.
Ms Khan said she felt defeated and betrayed that people she trusted had “kind of turned around and used the DP to criticise me, and to almost pretend” they had not been guiding her from the Aug 8 meeting at Singh’s house.
Mr Jumabhoy said Ms Khan did not point out to the WP leaders at the DP hearing that they had told her to continue the lie. She also did not mention being told to take the lie to the grave, or Singh’s purported instruction for her to continue the narrative.
Ms Khan said she did not tell the DP about Singh’s Oct 3 remark that he would not judge her, because she assumed that they knew.
- The judge agreed with the prosecution that Singh’s justification that Ms Khan was an MP and would know that she could not lie in Parliament ‘does not hold water’.
- He said it was difficult to accept that Singh expected Ms Khan to know, without discussing with her, the host of things she needed to do to clarify the lie, such as talking to her parents and explaining to them why she lied.
- Noting that Singh himself accepted that it was only in his mind that he knew the matter would have to be clarified, the judge said: ‘It is clear that his desired laundry list of actions for Ms Khan to carry out were in his mind, but never out of his mouth.’
And he gets off scot-free?
This excerpt was from a WhatsApp conversation between Ms Khan, Mr Nathan and Ms Loh on Nov 13, 2021.
Mr Nathan explained his reaction:
In the same conversation, he brought up the implications of revealing that Singh had prior knowledge of Ms Khan’s lie:
Mr Nathan had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 7, 2021.
The first conversation she had with them about the lie started like this:
Ms Khan said the 7.13pm message was her expressing that Singh could suggest a solution that would avoid her having to publicly own up about her mistake, or that he wouldn’t tell anyone.
She told the court she was concerned about having to go public about her experience with sexual assault.
As for their knowledge of the phrase “I will not judge you”, Mr Nathan and Ms Loh said they heard it from Singh himself when they met him at his house on Oct 12.
Mr Nathan referenced Singh’s “I will not judge you” remark again in replying to a Nov 23, 2021, text from Singh to Ms Khan, which she forwarded to their chat group. In it, the WP chief said Ms Khan made the decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote on Oct 4.
Mr Nathan said this in court:
- The shock Mr Nathan expressed in his Nov 23 text exchange with Ms Loh and Ms Khan corroborated his court testimony, the judge said.
- The shock was over Singh now making it seem as if Ms Khan was the sole person involved in the decision to stick to the untruth in Parliament, the judge noted.
- This was even though Singh had disclosed to Mr Nathan and Ms Loh at the Oct 12 meeting that he had told Ms Khan that he would not judge her if she continued with the lie if the matter came up in Parliament on Oct 4, he said.
Logical if I were a robot
Singh said he was determined to take a gentler approach when dealing with Ms Khan’s mistake since it was entwined with her experience with rape, and not just any other sort of sexual assault. This was why he did not try to find out why Ms Khan lied again at the Oct 4 Parliament sitting, or tell her off.
Singh said Ms Khan was not in a state for him to have a conversation with her after she doubled down.
The prosecutor pointed out that Singh had shown himself capable of being firm with Ms Khan, and asked why this was an exception.
Singh said he did not believe that coming down hard on Ms Khan would be productive. She had, at one point, suggested that she could tell the truth, he noted.
But Singh accepted that he should have moved faster. He said he changed his approach afterwards as he realised that the sensitive approach “had actually made things worse” and put the party’s reputation at stake.
On Oct 12, WP leaders gave specific instructions for Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in Parliament.
Singh said this was done because Ms Khan did not want to clarify the lie, and not because the police had sent her a letter on Oct 7.
The defence said in its submissions that Singh’s inaction after the Aug 8 meeting was a “totally human response that anyone would have when they are told by another that they had been sexually assaulted” and that it was “more important to show Ms Khan empathy and compassion”.
It is “not unreasonable nor does it point towards an ulterior motive” that Singh was prepared to give Ms Khan time to deal with the matter with her family first, the defence added.
- Disagreeing with the defence’s arguments, Judge Tan pointed out that there was nothing to show that Singh’s inaction was motivated by such concerns or that there was a need to give Ms Khan additional time to deal with her assault.
- The fact was that Ms Khan never sought or asked for time to speak to her parents, which is something that she surely would have done had she had such a need or concern, the judge said.
- From his view, the real issue was that Singh ‘displayed a total lack of interest and action’ after the Aug 8 meeting. This was completely contrary to his proactive approach and attitude towards Ms Khan immediately after she told the untrue anecdote in Parliament on Aug 3 that year, he noted.
- In the judge’s words: ‘There was nothing to preclude the accused from following up with Ms Khan to check on her well-being, or for him to check with Ms Loh or Mr Nathan, who were both close to Ms Khan, about her progress or situation to inform her parents. But the fact is that the accused did nothing.’
‘Lao hong biscuit’
Ms Loh and Mr Nathan told the WP’s disciplinary panel that Ms Khan should not be kicked out of the party, but also spoke poorly of her, including describing her as “lao hong”.
The judge intervened.
When Mr Jumabhoy asked Ms Loh why she did not want Ms Khan expelled from the party despite thinking poorly of her, Ms Loh said she was merely giving her “honest, unfiltered candid opinion”.
Mr Jumabhoy then brought up a text message from Nov 10, 2021, showing that Ms Loh was concerned that it would be difficult for WP to control what Ms Khan says if she is “cut loose” from the party. She also said she was “extremely concerned” that Mr Nathan and herself would be accused of conspiring with Ms Khan to contain her lies.
In contrast, Singh testified that he was not concerned about Ms Khan “cutting loose” or making allegations about him.
- Judge Tan saw nothing in the evidence to suggest that Ms Loh or Mr Nathan had lied in this court at this trial.
- While the judge did not make direct reference to Ms Loh’s ‘lao hong’ remark, he said the two former cadres had been upfront in relation to their roles and shortcomings.
- Instead, it was Singh’s accounts which the judge found to be inconsistent with the facts or ‘simply unbelievable’.
Delete and redact
Ms Loh admitted under oath that she had lied about why she redacted an Oct 12 message from Mr Nathan before turning over her chat records to the Committee of Privileges (COP).
She had originally said the message contained a comment about an MP unrelated to the hearings.
But the real reason was that it “does not look good” for Mr Nathan.
Ms Loh said she was concerned that it would affect WP support at the next general election.
Here’s the redacted message:
The defence argued that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan’s evidence could not be believed, as they were desperately attempting to implicate Singh to provide cover for their own conduct.
The prosecution’s case was “essentially that of a proven liar and her two friends”, it said in its closing submissions.
Mr Jumabhoy argued that these messages were a clear indication that the former cadres had intended for Ms Khan to continue lying.
During the Oct 5 Parliament sitting, a day after Ms Khan doubled down, the trio had discussed how there were “no grounds” for her to be hauled to the COP.
Ms Khan also sent this text on Oct 5.
Ms Khan was praising people who apparently failed to give her proper advice, Mr Jumabhoy said.
When Mr Jumabhoy asked why Ms Loh did not tell Ms Khan to come clean, Ms Loh said she was merely laying out options.
Ms Loh also said she was trying to help Ms Khan operate in a grey area – an area “between not lying any more but still supporting police investigations”.
The prosecution argued that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan should be believed as they were trusted long-time WP loyalists who had given evidence to the COP and court at “great personal cost”.
It is telling that Singh did not call WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim or vice-chairman Faisal Manap to corroborate his account in court, it added.
- Full weight was given to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan’s evidence. Ms Loh and Mr Nathan ‘somewhat redeemed themselves’ in respect of their earlier, more questionable conduct and advice to Ms Khan, the judge said.
- Ms Loh was frank in admitting that the reason she gave for the redaction was not true, even ‘manipulative’. Her honesty and candour about her misbehaviour ‘only served to fortify her credibility in relation to the evidence she gave here’.
- While the defence made much of the fact that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had deleted messages from their phones, the deletions stemmed more from a fear that their phones may have been hacked, rather than wanting to conceal their roles and actions.
- Any suggestion that the former cadres had colluded against Singh by giving false testimony in court was not substantiated by any real evidence from the defence.
- Since the defence had chosen not to call either Ms Lim or Mr Faisal, their accounts were not tested. The WP leaders’ words outside of the court, which the defence relied upon, were thus of ‘no assistance to the defence’, the judge also said. The defence’s ‘backdoor attempt’ to slip evidence through is clearly impermissible, he added.
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire
While Mr Nathan was called out for switching answers and Ms Khan was accused of telling lies non-stop, Singh was called out for not being honest and “changing evidence again”, evoking several deja vu moments. The prosecution also reused the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire trope and asked Singh for his “final answer”.
The television game show was first referenced in the trial when Mr Jumabhoy was cross-examining Mr Nathan on whether he had wanted Ms Khan to lie some more when he and Ms Loh met Singh on Oct 12, 2021.
Earlier, Mr Nathan indicated that he could not recall if he suggested a way for Ms Khan to lie some more at the meeting. But when Judge Tan asked, Mr Nathan said he remembered saying that she could “clarify” the age of the sexual assault victim who was mentioned in the false anecdote.
Mr Ang later took a leaf out of Mr Jumabhoy’s book when he questioned Singh about whether the WP leaders – WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim, vice-chairman Faisal Manap and Singh himself – should not have sat on the party’s disciplinary panel looking into Ms Khan’s conduct if there was conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest.
The same three leaders had known about Ms Khan’s lie as early as Aug 8, 2021.
- The constant changing of Singh’s stance when questioned about the issue of conflict of interest reflected an ‘inability to give a coherent and believable account in relation to both the charges faced by him’, the judge said.
- For the court to be convinced that Mr Nathan or Ms Loh were trying to falsely implicate Singh, the judge said the defence must first show the existence of a plausible motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely incriminate Singh, but he identified none in this case.
Impeach
Mr Jumabhoy’s cross-examination zeroed in on contradictions between Ms Khan’s court testimony and her statements to the police, as well as her evidence to the Committee of Privileges.
He tried to impeach Ms Khan’s credibility, meaning she had to step out of the courtroom multiple times as he built his arguments for these applications.
But the judge rejected all the applications. He ruled that most of the alleged discrepancies identified were either not discrepancies or were not serious enough to concern the charges at hand, barring one which Ms Khan managed to “adequately explain” in court, making it a non-issue.
An impeachment challenges the credibility of a witness. This is typically done by using the witness’ previous statements to contradict the witness’ evidence in court.
At Singh’s trial, the prosecution said that impeachment “is a process which is not lightly gone into”, and that there must be serious material contradictions that go to the crux of the charge.
An impeachment bid succeeds if the witness cannot give a valid or believable explanation for a contradiction.
The one impeachment application that the court was considering more deeply was over a detail of the Oct 3 meeting. In Ms Khan’s police statement, she said Singh had told her the anecdote might come up the next day. In court, she said Singh had told her he did not think it would come up.
Here are the relevant portions from Ms Khan’s police statement, recorded on May 12, 2022. They are both recounts of the same conversation.
In court, Ms Khan said she was “saying the same thing in different ways”, though she acknowledged that she could see the difference.
In their closing submissions, prosecutors said the discrepancy was “plainly innocent”, and “neither calls into question (Ms Khan’s) general credit nor undermines her account of the Oct 3 meeting”.
“The law is clear that innocent discrepancies must be distinguished from deliberate lies,” the prosecution added.
- The judge agreed with the prosecution that the discrepancy was an innocent one, and did not allow the discrepancy to undermine Ms Khan’s account of the Oct 3 meeting.
- It was more a difference in form rather than substance, since in neither her police statement nor her court evidence did she claim that the accused had told her the anecdote would definitely not come up.
- All in all, he found Ms Khan to be a credible witness in court, saying that although she displayed ‘clear flaws’ in lying in Parliament and to those around her back in 2021, she displayed remorse and regret, and was forthright about her wrongdoing in court.