1. Singh's unspoken "laundry list" of steps to come clean
Judge Tan said he found it difficult to accept that Singh expected then WP member of parliament Raeesah Khan to know "without discussing with her, the whole host of things that she needed to do to clarify the lie".
"These included: (a) talking to her parents; (b) explaining to them about the sexual assault; (c) explaining to them why she lied; (d) telling them that the fact she lied was going to become public; and (e) coming back to the accused to tell him she is ready to have the matter clarified in parliament."
The judge said none of these steps were "expressly articulated" to Ms Khan at her meeting with Singh on Aug 8, 2021.
"Thus, it is clear that throughout this time, his desired laundry list of actions for Ms Khan to carry out, were in his mind but never out of his mouth."
2. On Singh guiding Ms Khan to maintain her false narrative
"By the Oct 3, 2021 meeting, it would have been patently obvious to the accused that Ms Khan was unable to 'back up and defend' the untrue anecdote," said the judge.
"In following up with a statement that he would not judge her if she continued with the narrative (i.e. continue the lie that she had already told), the accused was, in my view, guiding Ms Khan to refrain from clarifying the untruth, even if it came up in parliament.
"Without saying so explicitly, the accused's guidance was that Ms Khan would not suffer the dire consequences of being hauled before the COP if she were to not clarify the untruth."
3. Lack of ground work for Ms Khan to come clean
Judge Tan said it "beggars belief" that Singh seriously thought Ms Khan could tell the truth in parliament on Oct 4, 2021 "completely without any groundwork done beforehand".
“It appears to me highly improbable that the Leader of the Opposition and secretary-general of the WP would countenance a rookie MP clarifying an untruth in parliament without any preparation of her personal statement whatsoever, and without any form of pre-warning to the WP CEC (central executive committee).”
4. Low Thia Khiang's influence on WP's change of strategy
Former WP secretary-general Mr Low Thia Khiang learnt that Ms Khan had lied at a meeting with Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021. "I said it's not the point whether or not the government can (find) out. If she tells a lie, I think she should apologise," he testified.
The next day, when asked about the change of strategy for Ms Khan to come clean, Singh told party cadres Ms Loh Peiying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan he was worried the government may already know about her lie.
Judge Tan said that quite apart from this, "it may also have been the reassuring words of Mr Low that 'the Workers' Party would survive the sort of falling-out that would follow' that could also have provided the comfort and encouragement for the accused (and his fellow WP leaders) to finally decide to have Ms Khan clarify the lie in parliament".
His view was that "prior to speaking to Mr Low on this date, and obtaining Mr Low's views, it was not the intention of the accused for Ms Khan to clarify the lie in parliament".
5. Singh's motive for disciplinary proceedings against Ms Khan
On Nov 2, 2021, the WP announced that it had formed a disciplinary panel (DP) to look into Ms Khan's conduct on Nov 2, 2021. The DP comprised Singh, WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap.
"No matter which way one looks at it, since these same WP leaders had known about the untruth for several months before Ms Khan's personal statement was made in parliament, and they also, at the very least, did not call her out on it, or disclose it themselves but kept it hidden from the rest of the WP, from parliament, and from the public, it is obvious that they were in a position of real or, at least, apparent conflict of interest," said the judge.
"Hence, there would have been a real concern that they may not be seen to be able to act fairly or impartially when enquiring into Ms Khan’s behaviour, as their own conduct in the affair would also come under scrutiny. This would not have been lost on the accused or Ms Lim who are both qualified lawyers."
He continued: "The accused's troubling insistence on sitting on the DP, despite being well aware of his intimate role in guiding Ms Khan in relation to the managing of the untruth since August 2021, strongly suggests an attempt to conceal his earlier involvement and knowledge, and lack of action to clarify the untruth."
6. Singh's motive for lying to the COP
Judge Tan referred to his earlier findings on Singh's "efforts to cover his own tracks" as the reason why he convened the DP.
"It can be inferred that this is a similar motive for the lies that he made to the COP. In the words of the (deputy public prosecutor), this was to protect his political capital."
7. On Singh's credibility in court
At his trial, Singh gave several different answers when the prosecution asked him whether Ms Khan could respond to an email the police sent her on Oct 7, 2021 to admit her anecdote was false.
"In essence, the accused changed from (a) claiming that he did not believe that Ms Khan could respond to the police's email to clarify that the anecdote was untrue because of an alleged 'separation of powers', to then (b) claiming that she could not respond to the police 'because we hadn't met Ms Khan yet to discuss this'; to then (c) claiming that he was operating under some belief that there was some legal right to ignore the police; to next (d) admitting that there was no legal impediment to Ms Khan responding to the police; and then (e) referring to section 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, before (f) finally admitting that Ms Khan could 'write to anybody (she) want(s)'
"All in all, it is clear that the accused's flip-flopping in court to what is plainly a simple question, shows him to be evasive and unreliable," said the judge.
8. On Ms Khan's credibility as a witness
During the trial, Singh's lawyers attempted to get Ms Khan impeached as a witness, but Judge Tan found her credible.
He said there was "no reason for Ms Khan to falsely implicate the accused as this brought her no benefit when she testified in this court more than three years after the event".
"It also does not appear to be the defence’s case that Ms Khan has any axe to grind with the accused, or that she has any grudge against him, which could have served as a basis for her fabricating an elaborate story against the accused.
"This is especially so as the evidence shows Ms Khan has always displayed respect and even reverence for the accused whom she treated as a mentor."
He added: "I recognise that while she is someone who has displayed clear flaws in lying in parliament and to those around her at the material time, she has subsequently displayed remorse and regret, and has been forthright in this court about her wrongdoing."
9. On the courage of the two former WP cadres who testified
Ms Khan's close confidantes in the party, Ms Loh Peiying and Mr Nathan, provided key evidence that corroborated her account of her meetings with Singh.
"Quite aside from Ms Loh and Mr Nathan having had close interactions with both Ms Khan and the accused prior to this incident, having been long-time WP members up till 2022, and also having been heavily involved and invested in the WP at the material time, there is no reason for either of them to have falsely implicated the accused.
"Instead, in my view, they displayed courage in testifying and speaking the truth in this trial. Both have since left a party where they spent a significant part of their lives as members."
10. On Singh's S$7,000 fine for each charge
"The court must send a message on the importance of giving truthful information when under oath, and this can be done by imposing the maximum fine, especially in a case such as this."
Continue reading...