Defence and prosecution prepare for significant developments as the trial resumes.
SINGAPORE – A pivotal question in the ongoing trial of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh is whether he will take the stand as the defence moves to impeach the credibility of key witness Raeesah Khan. The trial, which resumes on Nov 5, continues to attract significant attention.
Singh faces two charges of allegedly lying to a parliamentary committee during hearings related to the scandal involving former WP MP Raeesah Khan. The committee was formed after Khan admitted in November 2021 that she had fabricated a claim during a parliamentary session.
The trial, which has completed nine of its 16 scheduled sessions, will first determine if the prosecution has made a strong enough case. Should the court decide in favor of the prosecution, Singh would need to present his defence, possibly under oath. Opting to remain silent could lead to adverse inferences against him.
The charges Singh faces, under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, could result in fines up to $7,000, three years in prison, or both if he is found guilty. The outcome may hinge on whether Singh testifies, facing potential cross-examination and the challenge of maintaining consistency with previous statements made to the Committee of Privileges and police.
Background and Trial Developments
Khan’s initial claim in August 2021 described accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, where insensitive treatment was alleged. This narrative was repeated in October before Khan admitted to its falsity in November 2021. Singh’s charges pertain to his alleged directions to Khan about handling her statement.
The trial has seen testimony from several key figures, including former WP chief Low Thia Khiang and WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan. The defence aims to question the reliability of Khan’s statements, citing discrepancies between her accounts to police and in court.
Legal Strategy and Implications
Law expert Eugene Tan notes that if Singh chooses to testify, he risks potential inconsistencies being highlighted under cross-examination. However, choosing not to take the stand could lead to inferences that may not favor his case. The defence, led by lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, has so far only focused on the first charge, leaving questions about the second unresolved.
The prosecution is led by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, with Singh’s legal team supported by his father, former district judge Amarjit Singh.
