During the trial on Wednesday morning, Andre Jumabhoy, the lawyer representing Pritam Singh, Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, accused prosecution witness Raeesah Khan of repeatedly lying during her cross-examination on Tuesday and sought to impeach her.

Jumabhoy argued that a text message sent by Khan to Singh on 4 October 2021 was “materially contradictory” to the evidence she provided in court.

After Khan was asked to step down from the stand, Jumabhoy formally made an oral application for impeachment. However, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan suggested that Jumabhoy gather more evidence before proceeding. Despite this, Jumabhoy pressed on with the application, claiming that the text message demonstrated a significant discrepancy between Khan’s court testimony and her actions.

In his oral submissions, Jumabhoy argued that the text message showed Khan had acted inconsistently with her testimony. He alleged that this discrepancy undermined her credibility.

However, Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock objected to the impeachment, arguing that the text message aligned with the overall gist of Khan’s testimony.

DAG Ang pointed out that Khan had not received the confirmation she sought from Singh and instead followed his prior advice, maintaining her interpretation of what Singh had allegedly told her during a meeting at her home on 3 October 2021.

Ang further stressed that the court should consider the entire context of the situation, rather than focusing solely on the text message. He argued that relying only on the text would be “completely inappropriate,” asserting, “There is no material discrepancy.” DAG Ang concluded that the grounds for impeachment had not been met.

Ultimately, the judge agreed with the prosecution’s objection and refused the impeachment request.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, reading the agreed statement of facts (SOF), told the counsels that he agreed with the prosecution’s view. He noted that Raeesah Khan’s response to why she did not tell the truth could not be considered in isolation, as there had been prior discussions that provided important context.

The judge also noted there was no dispute that a meeting between Singh and Khan took place on 3 October 2021, as documented in the SOF. Singh had visited Khan at her home, during which he allegedly advised her on how to handle her parliamentary lie about a rape victim’s experience with the police.

It was further revealed that Khan sent Singh a text message on 4 October 2021, asking for further guidance during the parliamentary sitting, where Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam questioned her.

Judge Tan acknowledged that it appeared Khan was specifically confronted by Shanmugam, prompting her to reach out to Singh for reassurance.

The judge ultimately concluded that Khan’s response was consistent with her earlier claims about Singh’s advice. He stated, “I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction.”

In a separate line of questioning, Jumabhoy challenged Khan’s previous testimony that Singh did not require her to tell the truth about her false statements in Parliament.

He raised an email sent by Singh to all Workers’ Party MPs on 1 October 2021, stressing the importance of backing up statements made in Parliament to avoid facing the Committee of Privileges (COP).

In her testimony, Khan claimed that she and Singh did not discuss this email during their meeting on 3 October.

Jumabhoy suggested that Singh’s email highlighted the serious consequences of lying in Parliament, contrasting with Khan’s claim that Singh told her there would be no judgment if she maintained her false account. He argued that any reasonable person would have been confused by these conflicting messages and would have sought further clarification from Singh.

Khan, however, maintained her version of events, testifying that Singh had advised her to “continue with the narrative” during their 3 October meeting. She stated that if Singh had told her to confess, she would have prepared accordingly and told the truth.

Jumabhoy pressed further, questioning whether Khan, as an experienced MP who had been in Parliament for over a year, needed specific instructions to tell the truth.

He emphasized that she did not need a directive to lie, yet claimed she required one to tell the truth. Khan responded that she sought advice from her leaders out of fear and confusion, as she felt overwhelmed by the mistake she had made.

Jumabhoy continued to argue that Khan should have questioned Singh’s advice if she found it vague or inconsistent with his previous email about parliamentary consequences. He pointed out that Khan had texted Singh during the 4 October parliamentary sitting, asking for reassurance when Shanmugam confronted her, suggesting that if Singh had already told her what to do, there was no need for this additional message.

Khan responded that she sought reassurance to confirm Singh still supported her decision to maintain the narrative, even after their discussion the night before.

Despite these arguments, the judge ultimately sided with the prosecution, ruling that there was no material contradiction in Khan’s testimony and denying the impeachment request.

The trial continues, with Singh facing charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, related to lies told by Khan in Parliament in August 2021 about a rape victim’s interaction with the police.

Two men accused in a corruption case involving a former deputy group director of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Henry Foo Yung Thye, were acquitted on 11 October 2024.

The trial judge ruled that the statements taken by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had been unreliable and inaccurate, resulting in the acquittal of Mr Pay Teow Heng, 56, and Mr Pek Lian Guan, 59. Both had been charged in July 2020 for allegedly bribing Foo to secure business advantages for their company, Tiong Seng Contractors.

District Judge Soh Tze Bian issued a detailed 52-page judgment highlighting the procedural flaws in the case.

He emphasized that the conduct of the CPIB officers responsible for recording statements from Mr Pay and Mr Pek raised significant doubts about the reliability of the evidence against the accused. The judge found that the statements obtained from the two men were “inaccurate, unreliable and unsafe” to rely on, leading to their acquittal on all charges.

The accusations against Mr Pay and Mr Pek centred on two counts, each under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Mr Pay, then the director of Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of offering S$350,000 in bribes to Henry Foo on two occasions in 2017 and 2018 to advance the company’s interests with the LTA. Mr Pek, the managing director of Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of aiding Mr Pay in the alleged offences.

On 2 September 2021, Henry Foo was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment for corruption. Additionally, a penalty order of S$1,156,250 (in default, 12 months’ imprisonment) was imposed on him.

Issues with the CPIB Investigation

A key factor in the acquittal was the conduct of two CPIB investigating officers (IOs), Chris Lim and another officer identified only as Jeffrey. According to Judge Soh, their methods of recording statements from the accused demonstrated a lack of objectivity and integrity.

Mr Lim, who recorded Mr Pay’s second statement, admitted during the trial that he had approached the interview with a “preconceived notion” of Mr Pay’s guilt.

Judge Soh criticized Mr Lim’s handling of the statement, noting that he retyped the statement with his own wording after Mr Pay suggested amendments. This action left Mr Pay unable to verify whether his changes were accurately reflected, raising questions about the reliability of the statement.

Similarly, IO Jeffrey’s conduct in recording Mr Pek’s first statement was found to be flawed. The judge noted that Jeffrey had used a “cut-and-paste method” to compile the statement, which included repeated self-incriminating remarks.

The judge remarked that the statement seemed more like a “product of IO Jeffrey’s authorship than an accurate account of what Pek actually communicated.” During cross-examination, Jeffrey admitted that he had crafted the statement to suggest that Mr Pek was the originator of the corrupt scheme.

The judge noted: “By IO Jeffrey’s own admission, he drafted Pek’s first statement with the intention to ‘frame’ Pek, focusing almost exclusively on recording information that supported Pek’s culpability, rather than objectively establishing the facts of the case.”

He stated that these actions by the IOs made it unsafe to rely on the statements as evidence of guilt.

Testimony of Key Witness Henry Foo

Another critical aspect of the judgment involved the testimony of Henry Foo, the former LTA official who received the alleged bribes.

Foo, who was called as a prosecution witness, testified that neither Mr Pay nor Mr Pek had requested any favours in return for the loans they extended to him. He maintained that the loans were offered out of goodwill and friendship, rather than as part of a corrupt arrangement.

Judge Soh noted that the prosecution had failed to challenge or impeach Foo’s credibility, making his testimony more reliable in the eyes of the court.

Furthermore, Foo had testified that he pleaded guilty to the charges against him in 2021 not because he believed in his own guilt, but to avoid the prolonged distress of a trial. Judge Soh rejected the prosecution’s argument that Foo’s guilty plea should be seen as an admission of his own corrupt intent and that of Mr Pay and Mr Pek.

Foo was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison in September 2021 after being found guilty of accepting S$1.24 million in bribes.

His guilty plea, however, did not directly implicate Mr Pay and Mr Pek in corrupt activities, according to the judge’s assessment.

Outcome and Next Steps

Judge Soh concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Mr Pay and Mr Pek beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a result, he ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal for both men, clearing them of all charges.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is currently reviewing the judgment to determine the next course of action, as confirmed by an AGC spokesperson.

Both Mr Pay and Mr Pek had stepped down from their roles at Tiong Seng Holdings after the charges were brought against them in 2020.

Several other individuals, including former directors of other engineering firms, have been sentenced to jail in connection with the corruption scheme involving Henry Foo.