Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh arriving for his trial on Nov 7. - ST
SINGAPORE: Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock on Thursday (Nov 7) sought to poke holes in the credibility and consistency of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s version of events, as the Leader of the Opposition took the stand for the third day in a trial over his alleged lies.
Ang suggested to Singh that he never had in his mind the idea that former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan should clarify her lies in Parliament until Oct 11, 2021.
When Singh intended for Khan to clarify her lies is central to the prosecution’s case as his two charges are for lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that he had, at meetings with her on Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021, wanted her to do so.
Here are the key points from the second day of Singh’s cross-examination:
1. Prosecution: Singh did not intend for Khan to clarify her lie until Oct 11
Ang put it to Singh that he “never had in mind the idea” that Khan would have to clarify her lie to Parliament until Oct 11, 2021.
Singh disagreed with this, saying that he had on Oct 4, 2021.
When asked if he did not intend for her to clarify her lie before that, Singh said he had from Aug 8 that year intended for her to do so.
He said: “From Aug 8 to Oct 4 she had to clarify, after Oct 4 she had to clarify why she lied again.”
Khan first lied to Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, giving a false anecdote about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was purportedly treated insensitively. She repeated her lie on Oct 4 the same year.
Oct 11, 2021, was when Singh met former WP chief Low Thia Khiang and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim to discuss plans for dealing with Khan’s lies.
Ang reiterated points brought up by Low’s testimony on Oct 23, 2024, when Low said he told the WP leaders that a press conference was not the right forum for Khan to admit to her lies, and that Parliament was.
Ang said: “And then lo and behold, on Oct 12 when you meet Ms Khan, you tell her for the first time, ‘Ms Khan, you’ve got to go to Parliament and make a personal statement’, correct?”
Singh agreed that this was the first time he met her and told her she had to make a personal statement.
He disagreed that he did not intend for her to clarify her lie before the Oct 11 meeting with Low.
2. Prosecution clashes with Singh over the meaning of ‘I will not judge you’
Ang pressed Singh on what he meant when he told Khan at a meeting on Oct 3, 2021, that “I will not judge you”, one day before she repeated her lie in Parliament.
Singh and Khan have offered different interpretations in court of what was said then.
In his testimony, 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 said.
Khan testified earlier that she had thought Singh meant he would not judge her for continuing the narrative.
On Nov 7, Ang said: “Mr Singh, let me ask you a couple of questions on logic, okay, which will go to show to a great degree your level of honesty and candour.”
Ang said the phrase “I will not judge you” is, on its own, often used to tell a person it is okay to admit wrongdoing to one.
He said: “So for example, let’s say you don’t want to go to work tomorrow, then you tell your friend, ‘Aiya, I think I’m going to get a medical certificate so I can skip work tomorrow.’ And then your friend says, ‘Okay, go ahead. I won’t judge you.’”
Singh replied with a chuckle: “I’ve never heard that before, but I disagree.”
Ang gave another example: “You want to skip a relative’s birthday party (and you say) ‘I’m gonna make up some excuse, I’m not gonna go’. And your wife says, ‘I won’t judge you’ – that’s how ‘I won’t judge you’ is commonly used, agree?”
“No, I disagree,” said Singh.
Ang then asked if Singh meant that if Khan were to do something correct and good the next day, which is to tell the truth, he would not judge her. Singh agreed with this.
“The truth, Mr Singh, was that you were giving her the go-ahead to do something wrong by telling her to continue the narrative, agree?” Ang asked.
Singh disagreed.
Ang also brought up an Oct 7, 2021, e-mail from Khan where she thanked Singh for not judging her, saying this meant she had taken Singh’s statement that he would not judge her as guidance to continue lying.
He said: “Instead of being afraid that you’ll take her to task, she sends you this e-mail to thank you for ‘caring for me and guiding me without judgment’ – is that your evidence that she did this?”
Singh replied that he did not tell her to continue the narrative.
In response, Ang said: “Mr Singh I would have to put it to you that your evidence is incredible, do you agree?”
Singh disagreed.
3. Prosecution questions Singh on the truth of his statements to the COP
Ang again scrutinised what Singh said in court and to the COP which investigated Ms Khan’s lies.
He asked Singh to clarify if he intended for Khan to come clean in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, whether or not the matter came up that day.
Ang said: “Your version in court is that, if it comes up, she has to clear it up. But not otherwise, correct?”
Singh disagreed, saying: “No that’s not my version, it’s what I’ve said in court but if the matter did not come up, she would have to clarify it.”
Ang asked if Singh meant Khan would have to clarify it on that day even if it were not brought up, or he meant she would have to clarify it some time in the future.
Singh agreed that he meant she would have to deal with it some time in the future.
To this, Ang said: “So she would have to deal with it some time in the future – so that’s one version. Insofar as there is a second version, which is that she has to raise it and tell the truth on Oct 4 whether it comes up or not, that would be false?”
Singh said there is no second version.
Ang made the point that if one were to read the minutes from the COP and come to the view that the second statement was what Singh was telling the COP, this would be a false statement to the COP.
Singh agreed that it would not be what was said.
Ang then said: “It would be a false statement to the COP because you said that’s false.”
Singh said: “Subject to what is actually said in the COP, I would agree.”
Singh had previously contested this reading of his statements to the COP.
4. Prosecution says it is testing Singh’s credibility
Ang asked Singh if there is a difference to him between a clarification and a personal statement, to which Singh said yes.
He then asked Singh what he meant when he said Khan had had an opportunity to admit to her untruth by way of a clarification after a speech by Minister for Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021 – where the minister said Ms Khan’s allegations would be investigated.
Ang said: “Do you mean to say that you thought she could just say ‘Mr Shanmugam, the anecdote I gave on Aug 3 was false’, and then just sit down and wait for further questions from the minister or other MPs?”
Singh replied that he would not know what the subsequent questions would be, but at a minimum Khan would have to share that she inserted herself into the anecdote to make it more believable.
Ang then asked Singh what else he expected Khan to say during her apology. “Let’s be real, Singh, would you agree that if she stood up in Parliament and answered Minister Shanmugam and said she had lied on Aug 3, she would not have been asked many, many clarifications by MPs?”
To this Singh said: “Subject to her replies, I cannot answer that question.”
Ang then said: “I am asking you because you are giving evidence in court now. We are testing your credibility. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. We will make submissions on that.
“We have it on record that you don’t want to answer your question.”
Singh said: “I believe I am answering your question, I don’t know what the PAP MPs would ask.”
5. Prosecution: Singh is changing his evidence as he goes along
Ang also asked Singh about a meeting between Singh, Lim, Khan and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap on Aug 8, 2021.
He asked Singh if the three had discussed Khan’s lie after she left the meeting.
Singh said he could not recall, and did not have that impression.
The prosecution has previously argued that Singh had, at that Aug 8 meeting, been prepared for Khan and the WP leaders to “take (the matter) to the grave”.
Ang added that Lim and Faisal had also told the COP that there was never any such discussion, and asked: “So a serious matter had been revealed to you all, one of your WP MPs lied in Parliament, made an accusation against the police which cannot be substantiated, and the three of you did not discuss what are the next steps that should be taken, is that correct?”
Singh said: “That is correct.”
Asked if the WP leaders never discussed when Khan should correct her lie, Singh said: “Yes, because we believed the nature of the revelation was a deeply, deeply personal one, and our state of mind was to deal with the matter as sensitively as we could.”
Given there was no discussion, who would follow up with Khan on the issue, Ang asked.
Singh said that as secretary-general of the party he took responsibility, and he thought the expectation was that he – as the most senior leader – would follow up.
Ang said: “Yes, of course, you are the secretary-general, but it is not every time that the top person has to do everything.
“So my question to you is, you wouldn’t know because you didn’t discuss with Lim and Faisal who would be following up on this matter?”
Singh said this was correct.
Ang also asked Singh if there were any notes or minutes taken of the meeting, or any e-mails or text messages recording the serious matter discussed. Singh said there were none, as far as he knew.
Ang said: “So there’s no written record at all of this meeting and what was discussed about this lie, correct?”
“Yes, that is correct,” said Singh.
Ang then noted that there were messages and e-mails discussing other issues to do with Ms Khan’s speech, but none to do with her lie.
To this, Singh said it was their instinct not to verbalise it or spread the matter beyond the three of them, as it included the very personal issue of Ms Khan’s own sexual assault – which she revealed to the WP leaders at that meeting.
Ang said: “Meaning that you didn’t want to put it on text or e-mail to Mr Faisal or Ms Lim that this was discussed, that she lied and that she was a sexual assault survivor?”
Singh said the trio did not see any need to.
Ang then asked Singh to clarify if the reason they did not put down information from the meeting was that it was sensitive and they did not want it to spread.
Singh replied: “No, let me be clear. The reason we didn’t talk about it is because all of us understood what was said and there was no need for us to commit to writing what had happened.”
Ang said: “You see, Singh, you are just changing your evidence as we go along... Now you are saying there’s no need to because what’s the point of having it in writing – so what is the truth?”
Singh said in response: “The truth is quite clear if you look at my answers carefully. Originally I had mentioned that we did not take any minutes, there is no written record of the meeting, that is the fact.” - The Straits Times/ANN
