WP chief Pritam Singh leaving the State Courts on Nov 6. - Photo: ST
SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh was accused of contradicting himself in statements to court and a parliamentary committee as he took the stand for the second day in a trial over his alleged lies.
On Wednesday (Nov 6), Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock put it to Singh that he had given contradictory statements about interactions he had with former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan.
Singh had given evidence under questioning from his lawyer Andre Jumabhoy the day before.
The Leader of the Opposition is fighting two charges over lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that he had, on Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021, wanted Khan to clarify her lie to Parliament.
The truth of what happened between the two in the lead up to and aftermath of her lies has become a central point of contention between the prosecution and defence.
Here are the key points from Singh’s cross-examination:
1. Prosecution: What Singh told the COP about Oct 3 meeting with Khan contradicts what he told the court
Ang questioned Singh’s accounts of his expectations of Khan on Oct 4, 2021 – the day she repeated her lie in Parliament.
He said: “I’m putting it to you that it’s contradictory. You have told the court that she doesn’t have to clarify (her lie) if the matter is not raised but at the COP you have told the COP that regardless of whether it’s raised it was very clear that what you told her was that she has to clarify the next day.
“My question is, so which is the truth?”
Singh said the truth was what he said in court.
He said that from his COP replies, it was quite clear that if the matter had come up in Parliament on Oct 4, he would have expected her to clarify the matter. But even if it did not, it would have to be clarified “at some point”, he added.
Singh said in hindsight, it was possible that his words during the COP investigation suggested that Khan would have to come up with a personal statement.
“But at other places in the COP report I make it quite clear that she would have to clarify the statement on Oct 4 if it came up.”
To this, Ang asked again if what Singh told the court was true, and if what he said to the COP was not.
Singh disagreed with this. He said: “I think my frame of mind... was on Oct 3, she would have to clarify.”
Behind this exchange are conflicting accounts of a meeting between Singh and Khan on Oct 3, 2021, one day before she repeated her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
Both parties have offered different interpretations in court of what was said then.
On Nov 5, 2024, Singh said he told Khan to take ownership and responsibility, adding that he would not judge her when he sensed her discomfort. “What I meant by that was, I will not judge you if you take ownership and responsibility,” he added.
Khan testified earlier that she thought Singh meant he would not judge her for continuing the narrative.
Ang also referred Singh to parts of the COP transcripts where Singh had said it was “absolutely” clear he wanted Khan to make a clarification in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, whether or not the issue came up.
He asked: “So if the matter was not brought up on Oct 4, in other words, no one raised this issue about her anecdote again on Oct 4, then she would not have to stand up in Parliament, she could do it at some later point?”
Singh said yes.
Singh also disagreed that his answers to the COP and in court were inconsistent.
He said Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong had asked during the COP: “Even if it (Khan’s lie) doesn’t come up tomorrow, you would still do the same thing?”
Singh said: “And my reply ‘absolutely’ was in reference to ‘the same thing’, and the same thing would be to tell the truth.”
To this Ang said: “So your answer... is only in relation to telling the truth. You’ve ignored Tong’s other part of his question of ‘whether or not it comes up tomorrow’?”
Singh replied: “I think there’s no other interpretation.”
2. Prosecution: Singh was trying to mislead the COP on his role in Khan’s clarification
Ang also questioned Singh about his involvement in clearing a line that Khan added to a statement to Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, and what he had said about this to the COP.
The line was: “I believe that given the topic at hand, consent is imperative, not least to avoid re-victimisation,” referring to getting consent from the purported victim.
Khan’s lie in Parliament on Aug 3 was an anecdote about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was purportedly treated insensitively.
Ang asked Singh if he had drafted the initial clarification, and if Singh had approved the addition.
To this Singh said: “Yes, I recall saying okay.”
Ang said: “You told the COP that ‘she adds another line in that statement, doesn’t check with me and then makes the statement in the House’, that’s not correct, is it?”
Singh disagreed, saying: “When I say ‘doesn’t check with me’, what I meant was that she did not tell me she was going to add to that draft.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan then interjected to ask Singh if what he meant was that Khan had added another line, but did not check with him before doing so, and proceeded to make that statement in Parliament.
“But you’re saying that... somewhere in between ‘doesn’t check with me’ and then ‘makes a statement in the House’, she does check with you whether you are fine with the amendment,” the judge said.
To which Singh replied: “Your rendition would be correct.”
The judge asked why Singh did not say that Khan did check the final statement with him.
Singh said his response to the COP was because he did not have the WhatsApp chats to refer to.
Ang suggested that Singh forgot he had cleared the amended statement with the added line.
Singh disagreed.
Ang then suggested that Singh was trying to give the COP a misleading impression that Khan added the line to her clarification that he had drafted, and read it to the House without checking with him or clearing with him her amendment.
Singh disagreed again.
3. Singh: WP CEC did not need to be informed before Khan came clean
Ang also questioned Singh on his and the WP’s decision to not pressure Khan to come clean in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
Ang asked Singh to clarify if the WP’s top decision-making body – the central executive committee (CEC) – would have to be informed if Khan was going to admit to lying on Oct 5, 2021.
Singh replied: “That did not cross our minds on Oct 4, the more important issue that we were thinking about was why Khan would tell a lie again, and our view was we had to understand that first and the timeline was just too short to have a CEC meeting.”
Ang further asked if Singh agreed that the CEC should be informed in advance if Khan was going to reveal the truth on Oct 5.
Singh said it would depend if that was practically possible given the timelines.
Ang then asked if it was correct to say it was important for the CEC to know what happened and for Khan to tell them before she made a statement in Parliament, because her admission would affect the WP.
Singh replied that in the ordinary course of things, he would agree.
Ang asked Singh to clarify if the reason there was no plan for Khan to come clean was that her revelation to WP leaders of her own sexual assault was very serious, and that Singh was prepared to give her time and space to speak to her parents about it.
Singh agreed.
Ang said: “And it did not cross your mind as something that you were going to pressure her repeatedly, correct?”
“That is correct,” Singh replied.
4. Prosecution questions Singh about meeting with Low
Ang also questioned Singh on his meeting with former WP chief Low Thia Khiang and WP chair Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021 to discuss how to handle the issue.
Low took the stand on Oct 23 as a witness for the prosecution.
Ang asked Singh if the purpose of the meeting was to seek his advice on Khan’s lie, and tell him about the lie and the police’s request to interview her.
Singh agreed on the first two points but said he did not recall the third point, adding later that the main reason for the meeting was different.
Asked if he recalled Lim’s statement that the Government did not know about Khan’s lie as there were many police stations in Singapore, Singh said he did not.
When asked again, he said: “No, I don’t. It was an unremarkable meeting to me.”
Ang also asked Singh multiple questions about what he said to Low on his plans for Khan to come clean to Parliament.
Ang said: “You didn’t tell Low that you’d been waiting since August for her to get back to you about whether she had checked with her parents about the sexual assault, and she hadn’t updated you?”
Singh said the discussion was only about Khan repeating the lie, and he was seeking Low’s advice on how to resolve it.
Ang also asked if by this Singh meant he had told Low that Khan had lied in August and again in October. Singh said he believed so.
Ang then asked if the WP chief had not told Low that Khan had admitted her lie to WP leaders a few days after she said it in Parliament.
Singh agreed, adding that the meeting’s focus was on finding the best way to resolve the issue quickly.
Clarifying once more, Ang said: “You remember this clearly, right? Just to be very clear—you remember clearly that you did not tell Low that you, Sylvia Lim, and (WP vice-chair) Faisal Manap knew about the sexual assault since August.”
Singh said: “I can’t confirm that confidently. I’m not sure.”
5. Singh says Nathan and Loh withheld information from him, are liars
Ang also questioned Singh on his relationship with Khan’s former party aides Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying - who have publicly disagreed with Singh’s handling of Khan’s lies.
He asked Singh if he would describe the pair as “very decent people”, to which Singh replied he did describe them as such during the COP in December 2021.
Ang also asked if Singh worked well with the pair. He replied: “Yeah, they follow instructions.”
Ang then asked if Singh now thought they were both liars after testifying during the trial.
To this Singh said: “I would not say that at this point. But the fact is there was certain information withheld from me that has changed my view of them.”
Ang continued to press this point, saying to Singh: “No, no, no, you’ve been in court. You’ve heard your counsel call them liars?”
Singh replied: “Well with regard to what has transpired in court, yes.”
Ang then asked Singh if he believed either of them had reason to want to damage the WP.
Singh said he did not know, but when asked again if he was aware of any possible reasons, cited how Nathan had in 2019 publicly criticised a speech by Singh on the WP’s stance on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) issues.
Singh said: “It’s not something our members do and that did cause some consternation in the party, so I don’t think it would extend to damage but that’s not commonly how a WP member behaves.”
Ang then asked: “But that’s not damaging the WP, its just a disagreement with your views, correct?”
Singh replied: “That can be handled internally, you don’t publicise it.”
6. Singh says he had “nothing to hide”
Singh was also questioned on his interactions with Nathan and Loh by his lawyer before the cross-examination began.
Jumabhoy asked Singh about a point Loh made during a disciplinary panel convened by the WP on Khan.
Referring to notes on the meeting, Jumabhoy asked Singh about Loh’s first argument.
Singh said the point was made by Loh where she said the party would have some responsibility over what had happened before Nov 1, when Khan admitted to her lie.
Singh said: “I believe she was alluding to the fact that we knew Raeesah had lied from Aug 8, 2021, and then she says that this is something that the COP may ask.”
When asked what his response to this was, Singh said he did not respond because it was something that did not concern him vis a vis what the COP would ask, because he had decided that Khan needed time to settle the issue of her sexual assault.
He said: “I would expect some criticism from that... but these are the decisions one has to make...
“There was nothing really for me to hide... I did not have too much concern about what she was suggesting vis a vis what the COP may ask.” - The Straits Times/ANN
