1. Singh’s implicit “laundry list” of ways to come clear
Judge Tan said he had trouble accepting the fact that Singh had anticipated Raeesah Khan to understand “without talking to her about the numerous things she needed to do to define the lie” ( in his opinion ).
” 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”.
None of these ways, according to the judge, were “expressly articulated” to Ms. Khan at her conference with Singh on August 8, 2021.
Therefore, it is obvious that throughout this period, his desired cleaning roster of activities for Ms. Khan were in his head but not left his mouth.
2. On Singh assisting Ms. Khan in keeping her misleading tale.
” By the Oct 3, 2021 meet, it would have been clearly evident to the accused that Ms Khan was unable to ‘ back up and support’ the unfounded anecdote”, said the judge.
The accused was, in my opinion, directing Ms Khan to refrain from clarifying the untruth, even if it came up in parliament by following up with a statement that he would not judge her if she continued to tell the narrative ( i .e., continue the lie she had already told ).
The accused’s advice was that Ms. Khan do not suffer the severe effects of being hauled before the COP if she did not clarify the untruth, the accused said without saying but directly.
3. Absence of foundational research for Ms. Khan to address.
Judge Tan questioned Singh’s “beggars opinion” that she genuinely believed Ms. Khan could speak the truth before Parliament on October 4, 2021 without any prior investigation.
It seems highly unlikely that the WP’s leader of the opposition and its secretary-general would accept a quarterback MP’s request to clarify an untrue statement in parliament without any prep or pre-warning to the WP CEC (central executive council ).
4. Low Thia Khiang’s effect on WP’s change of plan
Mr. Low Thia Khiang, the original WP secretary-general, learned that Ms. Khan had lied during a conference with Singh and Sylvia Lim on October 11, 2021. I stated that it’s not important whether or not the government can ( find ) out. If she tells a rest, I think she really sorry, “he testified.
When questioned about the change of plan for Ms Khan’s admission of truth the following day, Singh told group functionaries Ms Loh Peiying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan he was concerned the government might already be aware of her lying.
Judge Tan stated that, in addition to this,” the Workers ‘ Party would survive the kind of falling-out that would follow,” which could have comforted the accused ( and his fellow WP leaders ) and influenced them to ultimately choose to have Ms. Khan clarify the lie in parliament.
His view was that” earlier to speaking to Mr Low on this day, and obtaining Mr Low’s opinions, it was not the purpose of the accused for Ms Khan to understand the rest in congress”.
5. Singh’s motive for administrative 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 head Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap.
” No matter which way one looks at it, since these identical WordPress leaders had known about the untruth for many months before Ms Khan’s personalized 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 clear that they were in a position of true or, at least, obvious conflict of interest,” said the judge.
There would therefore be a real concern that they might not be able to conduct themselves fairly or impartially when conducting an investigation into Ms. Khan’s behavior because their own behavior in the case would also be subject to scrutiny. This would not have been lost on the accused or Ms. Lim, both of whom are experienced attorneys.
He continued,” The accused’s troubling insistence on sitting on the DP strongly suggests an attempt to conceal his earlier involvement and knowledge, and lack of action to clarify the untruth, despite being well aware of his intimate role in guiding Ms. Khan in relation to the managing of the untruth since August 2021.
6. Singh’s motive for lying to the COP
Judge Tan cited earlier studies on Singh’s “efforts to cover his own tracks” as the justification for convening the DP.
It can be inferred that this is a similar motivation to the lies he told the COP. In the words of the ( deputy public prosecutor ), this was to protect his political capital.”
7. On Singh’s credibility in court
When the prosecution inquired about Ms. Khan’s ability to respond to an email the police sent her on October 7, 2021, Singh gave a number of different responses at his trial when the prosecution asked him whether she could accept the fact that her anecdote was false.
The accused changed from ( a ) claiming that he did not believe Ms Khan could respond to the police’s email to clarify that the anecdote was untrue because of an alleged “diversity of powers,” to ( b ) claiming that he was acting under the illusion that there was some legal right to ignore the police, to ( c ) claiming that he was operating under the falsehood that she could not ignore the police, to ( d ) referring to section 5 of the Parliament
” 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 claimed that there was” no reason for Ms. Khan to falsely implicate the accused because it provided no benefit to her when she testified in this court more than three years after the incident.”
Additionally, it does not appear to be the defense’s case that Ms. Khan has an axe to grind with the accused or that she harbors resentments toward him, which could have allowed her to fabricate an elaborate story against the accused.
The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Khan has always shown respect and even reverence for the accused, whom she treated as a mentor, which is especially true.
He continued,” I acknowledge that she has repeatedly shown regret and remorse, and has been forthright in this court about her wrongdoing, even though she has clearly shown flaws in lying in parliament and to those around her.”
9. On the bravery of the two former WP cadres who testified.
Ms. Loh Peiying and Mr. Nathan, Ms. Ms. Khan’s close party aides, provided important supporting evidence that supported her account of her encounters with Singh.
There is no reason for either of them to have falsely implicated the accused, aside from Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan having had close relationships with both Ms. Khan and the accused prior to this incident, having been long-time WP members up until 2022, and also having been heavily invested in and involved in the WP at the time.
” 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 sizable portion of their lives as members.
10. On Singh’s S$ 7, 000 fine for each charge
The court must convey the importance of providing accurate information when under oath, and this can be done by imposing the maximum fine, especially in a situation like this.