Pritam Singh goes on trial on Monday: What’s the case about and what’s at stake?

SINGAPORE: Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh is set to go on trial on Monday (Oct 14) over alleged lies he made before a Committee of Privileges when being examined over Ms Raeesah Khan’s case in the first prosecution of its kind.
Ms Khan was a Workers’ Party (WP) member and a Member of Parliament for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency when she made a speech during a parliamentary debate on Aug 3, 2021.
She claimed that she had once accompanied a rape victim to make a police report, and that the police officer had made comments about the victim’s dressing and consumption of alcohol.
Ms Khan later admitted in parliament on Nov 1, 2021, that this anecdote was a lie.
The Committee of Privileges (COP) was convened to investigate Ms Khan’s conduct, and Singh was called up to give evidence before the committee over three days in December 2021.
In the committee’s report, it found that Singh had lied on affirmation and parliament referred the matter to the public prosecutor, which charged Singh in March.
Khan later resigned from WP and as an MP, and was given a S$35,000 (US$26,750) fine on the COP’s recommendations.
Singh, 48, faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for wilfully making two false answers on Dec 10 and Dec 15 in 2021 during the inquiry into Ms Khan’s case.
He is believed to be the first to be prosecuted under the said Act.
While being examined before the COP in the public hearing room at Parliament House, Singh is accused of falsely testifying that:
The charge sheets are 17 and 20 pages long respectively as they contain extracts of the transcript between Singh and Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong, who was questioning Singh. Both men are lawyers themselves.
The trial will be heard in the State Courts before District Judge Luke Tan, who is the Deputy Principal District Judge of the Criminal Courts cluster at the State Courts.
The trial will run for two weeks in October, with further trial dates in November.
Judge Tan is a veteran judge with many years under his belt, and was previously a prosecutor. He has handled a variety of criminal cases ranging from maid abuse to violent crime and has been known to question both prosecutors and defence counsel on their submissions, tossing cases back to them for further arguments or clarifications.
A recent notable case he handled was that of former lawyer M Ravi, sentencing the human rights lawyer to jail for criminal offences for the first time, largely rejecting the defence’s call to place mitigating weight on Ravi’s well-known bipolar disorder.
Singh’s trial will be heard in the State Courts as Singh failed to have his case transferred to the High Court, after he compared his case with that of former transport minister S Iswaran. 
The latter had his case transferred to the High Court on the prosecution’s application, for “strong public interest considerations”. He was sentenced to a year’s jail on Oct 3.
Justice Hoo Sheau Peng gave several reasons for not transferring Singh’s case to the High Court, including that Singh had failed to show that a transfer is “expedient for the ends of justice”.
To depart from the usual criminal process could undermine public trust and confidence in the administration of justice, as it “breeds the perception that special treatment is being accorded to an accused person”.
Justice Hoo emphasised that Singh’s case “is different” from Iswaran’s, and any comparison “does not assist” Singh.
She said the COP’s inquiry and its findings “will not take centre stage in the court proceedings”.
The COP, when recommending the matter to be referred to the public prosecutor, said the court would be able to “look at the matter afresh”, said Justice Hoo.
Therefore, the COP’s inquiry process, its recommendations and findings are not the subject matter of the trial, and its observations and findings are not binding on the court, said Justice Hoo.
She agreed with the prosecution at the time that the issue to be determined by the court “appears to be a straightforward factual one” of whether Singh had wilfully given false answers before the COP.
Singh hired Mr Andre Jumabhoy from his eponymous boutique law firm early on in proceedings, along with his subordinate Mr Aristotle Eng.
Mr Jumabhoy obtained his Bachelor of Laws from King’s College London in 2002 and began his legal career as a barrister there.
He returned to Singapore in 2011, joining the Attorney-General’s Chambers as a Deputy Public Prosecutor.
As prosecutor, he handled crimes like murder drug trafficking and financial crimes such as corruption and fraud involving public officials, prosecuting Tey Tsun Hang, a former law professor in a case the media dubbed the “sex-for-grades” trial.
On the prosecution’s side, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock is expected to lead the charge.
Mr Ang was appointed DAG in 2022, resigning as a judge to take on the appointment. Before this, he was a partner in one of Singapore’s top law firms, Allen & Gledhill, handling civil and commercial litigation and other disputes.
He was appointed senior counsel in 2009 and chairs the Singapore Academy of Law’s Professional Affairs and Membership Committee.
A total of 16 days have been slated for the trial so far.
A trial typically begins with the prosecution setting out any agreed statement of facts – a document with facts agreed on by prosecution and defence, to distil the triable issues to be focused on.
If there is no agreement, the prosecutors will open the trial by reading out their opening statement. This contains an overview of their case against the accused person, how they intend to prove their case and the list of witnesses or exhibits they intend to produce.
The prosecution will then call its witnesses in turn. The witnesses will each be cross-examined by the defence after being examined by the prosecution.
After the prosecution closes its case, if the judge finds a case is made out for the defence to answer, it will call on the accused to testify. If Singh chooses to testify, he will open the defence’s case as its first witness, with the same process of examination and cross-examination, except this time with the prosecution doing the latter.
CNA checked with Singh’s lawyers if the father of two daughters intended to testify, and if the lawyers could provide their list of defence witnesses, but the lawyers said they were “unable to share such information at this time”.
While no word has been given officially so far on the expected witnesses for Singh’s trial, it is likely that those involved in the inquiry before the COP could be called.
The obvious name is Ms Khan herself. Individuals specifically named in charge sheets – including WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim and WP member Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap – could also be tapped as witnesses.
Others such as former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and ex-cadres Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and Ms Loh Peiying, who testified before the COP, are also potential witnesses.
The penalties Singh faces are a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has previously said that the prosecution will seek a fine for each charge if Singh is convicted.
Under the Constitution, anyone fined at least S$10,000 or jailed for at least a year is disqualified from standing for election to become a Member of Parliament.
A sitting MP who receives such penalties will lose their seat.
The disqualification lasts for five years.
Experts previously told CNA that the outcome for Singh depends on the reading of the Constitution.
If both charges are taken together to be an offence, the cumulative maximum fine of S$14,000 could disqualify him as an MP and from standing in the next election.