Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor

On 3 August 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan, a Workers' Party (WP) Member of Parliament, told Parliament an anecdote about accompanying a rape victim to a police station; it was undisputed that the anecdote was untrue. The appellant, Pritam Singh, WP Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition, learned on 7 August 2021 that it was false. On 8 August 2021 he met Ms Khan with two other WP leaders, Ms Lim and Mr Manap. Shortly after the meeting, Ms Khan messaged two WP cadres, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, that the leaders had agreed the best thing was to take the information to the grave. On 3 October 2021, the eve of a sitting, the appellant visited Ms Khan and told her "I will not judge you". On 4 October 2021 she repeated the lie in Parliament when the Minister for Home Affairs asked for details. After the police sought an interview and the appellant and Ms Lim consulted former Secretary-General Mr Low on 11 October 2021, Ms Khan admitted the lie in Parliament on 1 November 2021. She later resigned.

Before the Committee of Privileges in December 2021, the appellant testified that at the end of the 8 August meeting he wanted Ms Khan to clarify the lie at some point, and that on 3 October he wanted to convey that she had to clarify it if it came up. A District Judge convicted him on two charges of wilfully making false answers under s 31(q) read with s 36(1)(b) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, and fined him $7,000 on each charge. He appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9023 of 2025/01.

1. Whether the charges were defective for being framed on the gist of several answers to the Committee rather than a single question and answer.
2. Whether the "unusually convincing" standard applied to Ms Khan's evidence.
3. Whether the appellant told Ms Khan on 8 August 2021 to take the lie to the grave, so that his answer behind the first charge was false.
4. Whether, by saying "I will not judge you" on 3 October 2021, the appellant meant he would not judge her for maintaining the lie, so that his answer behind the second charge was false.

On the charges, the singular wording of s 31(q) includes the plural under the Interpretation Act. Several answers that convey the same false answer in substance may support one charge, which is fairer to an accused than a charge for each repetition, and the appellant knew the case he had to meet.

On the standard, the convictions did not rest on Ms Khan's word alone but on contemporaneous messages, other witnesses and the appellant's own conduct, so the heightened standard did not apply. In any event the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was met.

On the first charge, Ms Khan's unchallenged evidence was that Ms Lim said at the meeting the issue probably would not come up again, and the appellant did not disagree. The 12.41pm message, sent minutes after the meeting, strongly corroborated her. There was no reason for her to lie to her colleagues, and the theory that she, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan conspired was never put to them and had no factual basis. Differences among her accounts were not material. The appellant then did nothing about the lie for about two months while dealing with her other parliamentary work. His explanation that he was waiting for her to speak to her parents was an afterthought, as he never asked whether she had.

On the second charge, "I will not judge you" ordinarily reassures someone about to do something objectionable. The appellant's own words at the party's disciplinary panel, that he told her "it was your call", showed he had given her a choice. He did not react to her 7 October email thanking the leaders for guidance "without judgement", did not tell Mr Low she had defied any instruction, and began intense preparations for a clarification only after 11 October. Mr Nathan's message of 23 November 2021, asking what had happened to "I won't judge you", corroborated the account given to him and Ms Loh on 12 October. The alleged discrepancies with Ms Khan's police statement were innocent and immaterial.

The High Court, with Steven Chong JCA sitting, dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions on both charges. It found the convictions supported by the evidence even though it disagreed with the District Judge on some peripheral points.