Pritam Singh faces trial for allegedly lying in Singapore’s Parliament.
On October 16, 2024, during the third day of Pritam Singh’s trial, defense lawyer Andre Jumabhoy continued his cross-examination of prosecution witness Raeesah Khan. The exchanges focused on Khan’s previous statements made in Parliament and her motivations for those claims. Jumabhoy questioned Khan’s recollections, suggesting inconsistencies in her testimony about the timeline and discussions surrounding the disputed incident. He challenged her on whether there was any pressure from Singh to fabricate or alter her story. Khan responded by defending her previous assertions while acknowledging the complexities of the situation. The cross-examination highlighted differing interpretations of the events in question.
The trial of Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party (WP) chief, continued on October 16, 2024, marking the third day of proceedings. Singh, 48, is facing two charges of lying in parliament before a Committee of Privileges (COP) convened in 2021 to investigate a false anecdote recounted by former WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan. The case has garnered significant public interest, as it involves allegations of dishonesty within Singapore’s political establishment and has potential implications for the credibility of the country’s opposition party.
The charges stem from an incident where Raeesah Khan, during a parliamentary debate on August 3, 2021, falsely claimed to have accompanied a rape victim to a police station. According to her story, a police officer had allegedly made insensitive remarks regarding the victim’s attire and alcohol consumption. The anecdote later proved to be untrue, and Khan subsequently admitted to lying in parliament. The COP was set up to probe the circumstances surrounding her false statements and any involvement by WP leaders, including Singh, in influencing Khan’s actions.
Raeesah Khan, who is the prosecution’s first witness, has already testified that she maintained her false narrative on multiple occasions due to what she perceived as directions or signals from Singh and other party leaders. She suggested that Singh’s statements and behavior created an environment where she felt compelled to continue with the fabricated account, rather than retracting it and admitting the truth earlier. However, Singh’s defense has countered this assertion, arguing that there was no explicit directive for her to lie and that Khan’s actions were ultimately her own responsibility.
Key Exchanges During Cross-Examination
On the third day of the trial, defense lawyer Andre Jumabhoy resumed cross-examining Raeesah Khan, focusing on the communications between her and Singh following her initial lie in parliament. Jumabhoy’s questioning sought to highlight inconsistencies in Khan’s recollections and to challenge the idea that Singh or other party leaders explicitly instructed her to lie or maintain the false narrative.
Email and Communication Analysis
One of the key exchanges centered around an email that had been sent to Khan. Jumabhoy asked about the email’s contents, specifically referencing a part where “serious consequences” were mentioned. He pointed out that while Singh had talked about the gravity of the situation, he had also purportedly told Khan that there was no judgment on whether she should continue the narrative. told you there’s no judgment, any reasonable person would’ve said – what on earth are you talking about.”
Khan responded by questioning Singh’s approach to the situation, suggesting that if he had genuinely wanted her to come clean, he would have taken more proactive steps, such as requesting additional preparation before her next parliamentary appearance. She claimed that Singh had simply advised her to “continue the narrative” and reassured her, saying, “I won’t judge you,” which left her uncertain about the proper course of action.
Directive to Tell the Truth
Jumabhoy also scrutinized Khan’s assertion that there was no clear directive from Singh instructing her to tell the truth. He challenged her position, stating that Khan did not need explicit instructions to lie in parliament or when discussing the matter with friends. “You don’t need a directive to lie when you lied in parliament. This line of questioning aimed to emphasize that the decision to fabricate the story was independently made by Khan, and any suggestion that Singh was responsible for her subsequent actions was tenuous.
Implications for Singh’s Defense
The defense’s strategy appears focused on discrediting Khan’s testimony by illustrating inconsistencies in her account and casting doubt on the extent of Singh’s involvement in her decision-making process. By emphasizing that Singh did not explicitly instruct her to continue lying, the defense aims to show that Khan acted on her own volition, driven by personal motivations or misunderstandings rather than any directive from WP leaders.
The outcome of the trial could have significant ramifications for Pritam Singh’s political career and the Workers’ Party as a whole. If Singh is found guilty of lying to the COP or misleading parliament, it could undermine public confidence in his leadership and damage the party’s reputation, potentially affecting its standing in future elections. As the trial continues, the defense will likely seek to further challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, while the prosecution will aim to solidify its case that Singh was complicit in perpetuating Khan’s falsehood.