Pritam Singh appeal adjourned: Questions over WP chief 'doing nothing' for 8 weeks, what 'I won't judge you' meant

The High Court hearing of Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh's appeal against his conviction on Tuesday (Nov 4) saw exchanges between Justice Steven Chong, defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy and Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Goh Yihan over the Leader of the Opposition's lack of action during a "critical" eight-week period, among others.

The court's decision was eventually adjourned to a later date.

Here are some highlights from the day's proceedings:

Questions over Singh's inaction for 8 weeks

During the morning session, Justice Chong had asked Jumabhoy to address the court on Singh "doing nothing" between Aug 8, 2021 and Oct 3, 2021, following a meeting with then-party member Raeesah Khan at his house.

Justice Chong said if Singh had told Khan that her lies had to be clarified at some point, then it is "unusual" that nothing was done during the "critical" eight-week period. He questioned if this behaviour is consistent with someone who wants to clarify the truth, or someone who was prepared to let the lie be buried.

Jumabhoy said Singh had wanted to give Khan time to settle herself before going to Parliament. He also shared a number of matters that Singh had to handle in September.

Justice Chong said while it cannot be denied that Singh could be busy as a party leader, he questioned if he so busy that he couldn't deal with this "important issue" at all. Jumabhoy maintained that Singh's position was that he was occupied and "lost sight of this".

What 'I will not judge you' meant

Justice Chong and Jumabhoy also debated over the context of how Singh's "I will not judge you" was used.

Justice Chong stated the expression was not uncommon, but typically used when people are doing something that is "not quite right".

Jumabhoy explained that their understanding was that Singh would not "look poorly or disapprove" of her.

Judge Chong also said Singh had told Khan, "Look at the choice you made", after she repeated the lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, and asked Jumabhoy to explain the use of the word "choice", which the latter explained as Singh expressing frustration at what Khan had decided to do.

Khan's statement on taking lie 'to the grave'

During the submissions by the defence, Jumabhoy had also sought to cast doubts on Khan's account of what transpired between herself, Singh and WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap.

This was also when Khan had allegedly agreed to take her lie "to the grave".

Jumabhoy argued that Singh was consistent in his position that Khan would need to clarify her lie and that he did not ask her to take her lie to the grave.

Singh's silence 'speaks volumes': Prosecution

When the trial resumed in the afternoon, DAG Goh countered Jumabhoy's earlier argument about Singh being occupied during the eight-week period that he was unable to follow up with Khan.

He said it was Singh's "failure" to follow up and that the "radio silence [spoke] volumes" as despite being preoccupied, Singh was known to have brought acquaintances on a private tour of his parliamentary office in September.

DAG Goh indicated that Singh also had time to advise Khan on handling reactions from the Muslim community towards her speech on female genital mutilation.

He added that as nothing was said about Khan's lie, it was "natural inference" that there is nothing to follow up at all.

Singh's testimony 'incoherent, inconsistent': Prosecution

The prosecution also put forward key pieces of evidence for each of the two charges against Singh, to which Justice Chong questioned the relevance of some of the evidence provided.

These include Raeesah's aides' "fuzzy" recollection of their conversation with Singh on Aug 10, 2021, and the minutes from WP's disciplinary panel meeting.

They also painted Singh's testimony as being "incoherent" and "inconsistent".

In his closing remarks, DAG Goh expressed hope that the court would "[dismiss] the case in its entirety".

Recapping Singh's defences in five points, Jumabhoy emphasised that while Singh had "wanted to convey" what he intended to Khan, the fact that it was not conveyed does not mean he is guilty.

Justice Chong concluded that the court would reserve judgement and that the parties will be informed when a verdict is ready.

Singh later told the media outside court that he would comment only after judgement is delivered.

[[nid:724837]]

yeo.shuhui@asiaone.com