ABOUT WANTING MS KHAN TO SPEAK TO HER PARENTS
Justice Chong also questioned the lawyer on his point that Singh’s position after the Aug 8 meeting was for Ms Khan to speak to her parents about her sexual assault, and that was why he did not do anything in the interim until Oct 3, 2021.
He pointed out that, when the decision was eventually made for Ms Khan to come clean, Singh did not know whether Ms Khan had spoken to her parents.
“It does cut against his case, that the condition precedent was the reason why he didn’t pursue the matter with Ms Khan,” said Justice Chong.
“You see, Mr Jumabhoy, this is an appeal. My task, and your task, is to persuade me that the findings made by the district judge were against the weight of the evidence or just inherently unreliable.”
Mr Jumabhoy agreed that when Singh met Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, “there was no questioning” of Ms Khan on whether she had spoken to her parents.
The judge interjected: “In fact, I would say right up to Nov 1 (2021), even when her personal statement was made (confessing the lie). Even before the preparation was done of the personal statement, Mr Singh still didn’t know whether Ms Khan had spoken to her parents.”
Mr Jumabhoy said that by then, the situation had “dramatically changed” because Ms Khan had doubled down on her lie.
“I WON’T JUDGE YOU”
On the phrase “I won’t judge you”, which Singh said to Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, a day before parliament sat again and a day before she doubled down on her lie, Justice Chong said the phrase was “not a term of art”.
He said this was not an uncommon expression.
“Typically, you will say ‘I will not judge you’ in a context where the person is doing something which is not quite right,” said Justice Chong.
“But if you don’t want to do the right thing, I will not judge you. It will be odd to say – I will not judge you, in the context where the person is going to do the right thing.”
The judge then asked Mr Jumabhoy if he found that Singh did tell Ms Khan to take the lie to the grave, then would it not logically follow that the phrase “I will not judge you”, in the context of that finding, could only mean “I will not judge you if you continue to maintain the narrative”.
At this, the defence lawyer was quiet for a bit before accepting that it would be logical.
Justice Chong also questioned the defence’s case that Singh had told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, in no uncertain terms that if the matter came up in parliament, she had to come clean and clarify the untruth by taking ownership and responsibility.
He said there was “no choice” in this, but if so, why did Singh say in the disciplinary proceedings recorded on Nov 29, 2021, that he said “it’s her call”.
“And how do you explain that Mr Singh also said … ‘look at the choices you’ve made’. So how do you explain these words? If the decision was made that you have to come clean, it’s no longer your choice,” said Justice Chong.
Explaining the record of WP’s disciplinary proceedings where Singh was recorded by Ms Sylvia Lim to say “it was your call” to Ms Khan, Mr Jumabhoy said the notes were taken by Ms Lim and these were “not Mr Singh’s choice of words”.
“So how do you expect me to intervene to say, yeah, I agree with you, that Ms Lim recorded it wrongly?” asked the judge.
Mr Jumabhoy responded that he was not pointing to just one aspect, but that if a person reads the judgment convicting Singh “comprehensively”, there are “whole aspects” the judge does not deal with.
“No, the significance, Mr Jumabhoy, is – to say it’s your choice, your call, cuts against the case that – I told you, if it is raised in parliament, you have to clarify the untruth. No choice. It cannot be your call anymore,” said the judge.
After Mr Jumabhoy concluded his submissions, Justice Chong told Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan that he would need to address why the second charge was framed in that way.
When the hearing broke for lunch, Singh went across the road to attend parliament.
