 |
17:28
Court adjourned to allow Pritam time to review police statements
Court is adjourned after a lengthy discussion on a series of statements that Pritam Singh submitted to the police in August 2022.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says he wants to refer to five police statements made by Singh.
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy cuts in to say that the defence has not seen these statements. He asks for time to read them, and also for Singh to familiarise himself with their contents.
DAG Ang says he is not sure why it would be necessary for Singh to read the statements in their entirety, adding that Singh will only need to refer to small sections of the statements.
Mr Jumabhoy argues that not giving Singh time to read these is prejudicial to his case.
After some back and forth over whether it is necessary to review the statements, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan decides to stand down the hearing to give the defence time to look through the statements.
He reminds Singh that he is not allowed to discuss the evidence with anyone, including his lawyers. Singh agrees.
The judge says: “You are a lawyer also, so I trust you know what I mean.”
17:15
Prosecution points out alleged inconsistencies between Pritam’s police statement and his court evidence
After a short break, the trial resumes with Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock bringing up Pritam Singh’s police statement.
On Dec 28, 2022, Singh is said to have told the police in a statement that in his mind, “the matter had been resolved” after Leader of the House Indranee Rajah said in Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, that MPs have to substantiate what they say.
Citing this, DAG Ang points out that Singh had earlier disagreed when asked in court whether he was under the impression that the matter had been resolved.
Disagreeing, Singh says that on Aug 3, 2021, itself, he thought the matter would no longer be brought up again because he assumed that Ms Khan’s anecdote, and her short clarification in Parliament on the same day, was true.
But his position changed after Ms Khan dithered on giving more information and he got to know that the anecdote was not true in the subsequent days, adds Singh.
DAG Ang suggests that on Aug 8, 2021, the day the Workers’ Party leaders met Ms Raeesah Khan, Singh was “operating under the impression that the matter would not be raised again”, and that was why his “guidance to her was that the matter should be taken to the grave”.
DAG Ang also adds that since the Government did not raise the issue any more until Oct 4, 2021, there was nothing to change Singh’s mind about whether it would be brought up.
Singh disagrees and says: “From the Government, no. But from Ms Khan, yes.”
16:36
Pritam, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap aligned evidence before COP hearings: Prosecution
Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap met up twice for about two to three hours each time before they appeared in front of the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock suggests the three must have discussed the widely published testimonies of Ms Raeesah Khan, Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, who had gone to the COP hearing earlier. He suggests the three Workers’ Party (WP) leaders “helped each other check the chronology of events”.
Singh disagrees.
DAG Ang says they discussed anything they might have missed out in what Mr Nathan and Ms Loh had told the COP.
Singh disagrees.
DAG Ang says: “I suggest to you, Mr Singh, that you must have studied carefully what Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan told the COP.”
Singh disagrees, before recanting: “I am sure the matter of Yudhishthra’s and Pei Ying’s evidence would have been discussed.”
DAG Ang asks: “So the previous answer you gave me twice, that was false?”
Singh says: “To the extent of my clarification, yes, correct.”
DAG Ang then suggests that the three WP leaders met to discuss the evidence given by Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan so as to align their accounts to the COP.
They were “get(ting) their stories straight” ahead of their hearings, he says.
Singh disagrees.
16:34
WP press conference was timed for party leaders to reveal knowledge of lie before COP hearings: Prosecution
The prosecution zooms in on the timing of the Workers’ Party (WP) press conference on Dec 2, which took place just before the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing on Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie on the same day.
The press conference was arranged 36 hours earlier on Nov 30, a day after Pritam Singh learned that Ms Khan and her former secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying would be giving evidence at the COP hearing.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock suggests that given this, Singh was aware the details about when the WP leaders learnt about the lie could be disclosed.
Singh agrees, and says: “We had no concern about that.”
The press conference was the first time that Singh had revealed to the public and the WP central executive committee (CEC) that he, WP chair Sylvia Lim and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap knew about Ms Khan’s lie shortly after she said it in Parliament.
Pointing this out, DAG Ang says: “And the reason you did this is because you wanted to make sure that the WP and you announced this fact before it could be raised by Ms Loh or Ms Khan at the COP.”
Singh disagrees, adding that the matter did not come up earlier because the WP leaders had met the CEC openly and it was free for anyone and Ms Khan to raise anything related to the matter.
“It wasn’t something we were concerned about,” says Singh.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan then has a short exchange with Singh about whether there was any form of communication, before the press conference, to let other CEC members know about the WP leaders’ knowledge of the lie.
“There was no deliberate conversation to that effect. You are correct,” Singh says.
“No deliberate meaning what? Inadvertent?” the judge asks.
“We didn’t talk about it, it didn’t come up, or I don’t recall it coming up at the CEC meeting,” Singh says.
“So you didn’t tell. That’s what you mean. You didn’t communicate,” the judge says.
“I did not communicate,” Singh says.
16:05
Why was Raeesah’s performance as an MP brought up at disciplinary panel?
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock notes that the disciplinary panel discussed Ms Raeesah Khan’s performance as an MP, including whether she got along with her teammates in Sengkang GRC. He asks what this has to do with Ms Khan’s lies.
Pritam Singh says after Ms Khan admitted to her lie in Parliament on Nov 1, there was a lot of unhappiness among his party members, with some complaining about her.
“At some point, Ms (Sylvia) Lim and I said, ‘Look, we don’t want this all to be informal,’” Singh says. He adds that it was better for party members to address their concerns directly with the disciplinary panel, rather than having them make comments online.
DAG Ang asks if the panel’s terms of reference were expanded to include looking into Ms Khan’s general conduct and performance.
Singh says no. He says it was not a new term of reference, but “about channelling the feedback in an appropriate manner”.
DAG Ang says this feedback had nothing to do with Ms Khan’s lies.
Singh: “We don’t know that. At that point, we didn’t know.”
DAG Ang: “I’m sorry, you didn’t know?”
Singh: “At that point, we didn’t know if the feedback was also going to cover what (Ms Khan) had done on Aug 3 and Oct 4.”
DAG Ang: “The truth is, Mr Singh, you wanted as many complaints as possible to be brought to the disciplinary panel, because you and Ms Lim already decided that the end result is that she’s going to be expelled, correct?”
Singh: “That’s not true.”
DAG Ang: “And that’s why you unilaterally expanded the terms of reference to include matters which the central executive committee had not agreed on, correct?”
Singh: “I disagree.”
15:57
‘Your evidence defies logic,’ prosecution tells Pritam
Pritam Singh says that one of the reasons why he did not think it would be an issue for the three Workers’ Party leaders to form the disciplinary panel was due to them already being aware of her past sexual assault.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks: “If the concern is so much about whether (Ms Raeesah Khan) is comfortable sharing the details of her sexual assault, you could have asked her, right?
“Look, the disciplinary panel will be formed, three people will be sitting on the panel – not us – are you comfortable giving them the details? You could have asked Ms Khan that, right?”
Singh says he could have done so if that thought had crossed his mind.
“But it didn’t cross my mind at all, and I’m also not sure whether that’s normal or natural.”
He says it does not “sound natural” to tell the person – the subject of the disciplinary panel – the issues that were going to be looked into.
DAG Ang asks again if it would be “abnormal” to ask Ms Khan if she had a problem sharing details of her sexual assault, should other party members have formed the panel.
Singh says: “In those circumstances, I believe it was.”
DAG Ang replies: “I would have to suggest to you, Mr Singh, that your evidence defies logic. Do you agree?”
Singh disagrees.
15:56
Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim didn’t discuss potential conflict of interest
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if he and Ms Sylvia Lim had discussed whether it was proper for them to sit on the disciplinary panel.
Singh says no. “Instinctively, we did not feel we were in a position of conflict. I speak for myself, I did not feel I was in a position of conflict.”
DAG Ang says: “This was despite the fact that both of you are lawyers and should be acutely aware of such issues such as conflict and pre-judgment, right?”
Singh says again that they had not seen it as a conflict; it never occurred to them.
DAG Ang again asks if there was no back and forth between the two trained lawyers about whether it was appropriate for them and Mr Faisal Manap to be on the panel.
Singh says: “That’s right, we don’t normally have back-and-forths like that.”
15:54
Prosecution pokes more holes at Pritam’s involvement in disciplinary panel
Continuing on whether there was a potential conflict of interest for the Workers’ Party leaders to be on the disciplinary panel, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says Pritam Singh was privy to information that would have gone towards deciding how seriously Ms Raeesah Khan would have to be punished.
First, Singh was aware that Ms Khan had “dragged her feet” about speaking to her parents and getting back to him on the lie, and this was an aggravating factor, DAG Ang says.
Second, Singh himself had not followed up with Ms Khan about the matter, in August and September 2021, and had admitted that he should have been more proactive.
Citing these, DAG Ang says they would have been aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding on how the party should have dealt with her.
“And you did not think that because you were privy to these two matters, you should not sit on the disciplinary panel?” DAG Ang asks.
Singh agrees that these factors would have influenced the punishment Ms Khan should deserve, but says the thought did not cross his mind that he should not sit on the disciplinary panel.
15:36
Prosecution asks why WP leaders who had discussed plans to expel Raeesah sat on disciplinary panel
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if he thought that it was acceptable for the Workers’ Party (WP) leaders to sit on the disciplinary panel if they had thought of expelling Ms Raeesah Khan.
DAG Ang brings up the Oct 11, 2021, meeting between Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang. Mr Low had earlier in the trial said Ms Lim had talked about a plan to expel Ms Khan.
Singh clarifies: “There was never a question of expelling Ms Khan on Nov 2, when the disciplinary panel was formed.”
“Listen to my question,” says DAG Ang. “You felt that despite having expressed that view (of expelling Ms Khan) to Mr Low, there was no problem with you sitting on the disciplinary panel. Am I right?”
Singh replies forcefully: “No, you’re wrong.”
He repeats that “that there was no question” of Ms Khan being expelled when the disciplinary panel was set up.
DAG Ang again repeats his question, asking Singh if he feels that it was “fine for (him) on Nov 2 to accept an appointment” to sit on the panel.
Singh says: “Yes, I felt it was fine for me to sit.”
DAG Ang asks: “You didn’t feel there was any pre-judgment on your part?”
Singh says: “No, I didn’t.”
DAG Ang continues: “You didn’t feel the need to tell the WP central executive committee on Nov 2 that you had already told Mr Low that the plan was for Ms Khan to be expelled?”
Singh replies: “No, because there was no such plan.”
15:32
You should not be a judge in your own cause: Prosecution tells Pritam
The prosecution suggests that there was a conflict of interest when Workers’ Party (WP) leaders sat on the disciplinary panel against Raeesah Khan.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says a disciplinary panel functions similarly to a disciplinary tribunal.
“So whether or not it’s a disciplinary panel or a disciplinary tribunal, or a judge hearing the matter, they comply with the rule that you should not be a judge in your own cause, correct?” DAG Ang asks Singh, to which he agrees.
DAG Ang adds: “As a lawyer, you should know this. This is fundamental, that (anyone) who has an interest or a personal stake in the matter should not be hearing the matter.”
Singh disagrees, and says that this was due to the issue of Ms Khan’s past sexual assault.
He had earlier told DAG Ang that WP leaders did not want too many people to know that she had been sexually assaulted to protect her.
But DAG Ang says it was Singh who revealed Ms Khan’s experience in his testimony at the Committee of Privileges sitting in December 2021.
Pressed further, Singh agrees with DAG Ang that ordinarily, there would be a potential conflict of interest, but maintains that the leaders made such an arrangement to limit the number of people who would know about Ms Khan’s experience.
Singh says: “It was just a way we wanted to protect her, actually.”
15:28
Pritam revealed details of Raeesah Khan’s sexual assault to ‘all of Singapore’: Prosecution
Pritam Singh says Workers’ Party leaders – himself, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, who all learnt of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie on Aug 8, 2021 – instinctively did not want to let the information of Ms Khan’s past sexual assault go beyond too many people.
It was in the interest of protecting her that the trio were the ones on the disciplinary panel that was formed on Nov 2, he adds.
But Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says the information about Ms Khan being a sexual assault survivor had already been revealed on Nov 1, when she made a personal statement in Parliament.
Singh replies that a disciplinary tribunal has the power to “go further into (the sexual assault) to find out whether that is true in the first place”, and subject Ms Khan to further probes.
He adds: “In this case, the fact that she was raped wasn’t public information.”
DAG Ang then says: “Yes… until you said it to the Committee of Privileges (COP), to the whole of Singapore, correct?
“And it was essential that you used that word, correct?”
To this, Singh says the COP had wanted to know what happened and what words were used. He adds that it was important for the COP to understand his frame of mind and why he decided on the “more sympathetic and gentle approach” to handle the matter.
DAG Ang then asks: “You couldn’t have told the COP, ‘you know, she suffered very serious sexual assault which I do not want to go into the details’? You couldn’t have said that?”
Singh replies: “I determined that I would just tell them exactly what word was used.”
And DAG Ang says: “Yes, that’s your level of concern for her.”
15:12
Pritam is asked about disciplinary panel and judging Raeesah
The hearing resumes with Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock focusing on the matter of whether or not Pritam Singh had judged Ms Raeesah Khan.
Bringing up an exchange between former Workers’ Party cadre Yudhishthra Nathan and defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy earlier in the trial, DAG Ang quotes Mr Jumabhoy’s remark that by forming a disciplinary panel, Singh was “literally judging” Ms Raeesah Khan.
DAG Ang then asks Singh if he agrees with what Mr Jumabhoy had said.
Singh says he agrees to the extent that the WP leaders had to “form an understanding of the matter to a deeper extent, specifically with regard to the reason she lied”.
DAG Ang then says that the disciplinary panel will function “like a judge”, to which Singh says he disagrees.
Changing tack, DAG Ang suggests that the disciplinary panel functions like a disciplinary tribunal convened to look into professional misconduct by lawyers.
Singh disagrees saying that a panel is “completely different” from a tribunal as the “situations are completely different” in some ways.
He explains that the panel was looking into a party political issue which dealt with a matter of sexual assault.
13:05
Prosecution points out WP leaders did not reveal their knowledge of Raeesah’s lie
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock takes Pritam Singh through all the times that Singh did not reveal the party leaders’ awareness of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie since Aug 8, 2021.
Singh did not tell former Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang on Oct 11, 2021; the central executive committee – where Mr Low also sits – on Oct 29, 2021; or include it in Ms Khan’s statement to Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, which he vetted. It was also not mentioned in the WP statement posted to Facebook on Nov 1.
Singh agrees.
DAG Ang then asks for a lunch break.
12:57
Prosecution says Pritam’s testimony is ‘puzzling’
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock notes that Pritam Singh said he had told Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 3, 2021, that he would not judge her if she were to come clean in Parliament the next day.
Ms Khan ended up not heeding Singh’s advice, says DAG Ang. He asks Singh: “So the part about not judging her is no longer relevant, correct?”
Singh agrees.
DAG Ang then points out that eight days later on Oct 12, 2021, Singh had told former Workers’ Party (WP) cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan that he would not judge Ms Khan.
Singh explains that both Ms Loh and Mr Nathan seemed not to be keen about Ms Khan telling the truth, so he “impressed upon them that this decision had already been made – that we had spoken to Raeesah and this is what we were going to do”.
DAG Ang then says Singh’s evidence is “puzzling”.
He then suggests that the “only way (Singh’s) evidence makes any sense” is if the WP chief had on Oct 3, 2021, told Ms Khan that he would not judge her should she maintain the lie, and recounted that on Oct 12, 2021, to the then WP cadres.
Singh disagrees.
DAG Ang says if either Ms Low or Mr Nathan had provided any evidence that Singh had made it clear to them that he would not judge Ms Khan for continuing the lie, it would mean that they were lying in court.
Singh agrees.
DAG Ang asks: “These are the ‘very decent people’ that you have described to the Committee of Privileges (COP) right?”
Singh agrees, but adds that Ms Loh had admitted she had lied to the COP.
Earlier in the trial on Oct 17, Ms Loh said she had redacted a message from Mr Nathan while submitting evidence to the COP, under the pretence that it was unrelated to the case.
12:49
Prosecution says Pritam wants to conceal his involvement by stopping Raeesah from responding to the police
The prosecution makes the point that the real reason why Pritam Singh did not want Ms Raeesah Khan to tell the police about her lie and stop investigations was to prevent his involvement in prolonging the lie since Aug 8, 2021.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says: “I suggest to you that you knew from knowing Ms Khan, the way she was, that if she went to the police station for an interview, everything about your involvement since Aug 8 would be revealed.”
“Do you agree?” he says, adding that what Singh had told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, would also be revealed.
Singh says no, and asks: “So what if it was revealed?”
DAG Ang says: “Mr Singh, this is a cross-examination, right? Please don’t ask me any questions unless it’s to ask me to clarify a question.”
12:45
First time Pritam explicitly tells Raeesah to come clean is after meeting with Low Thia Khiang
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock recaps the sequence of events from Oct 4, 2021, onwards, noting that there were no explicit instructions by Pritam Singh and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim for Ms Raeesah Khan to come clean from then until Oct 10.
He adds that there was also nothing in writing to Ms Khan asking her to address the matter in Parliament.
“Then lo and behold, on Oct 12 when you meet Ms Khan, you tell her for the first time ‘Ms Khan, you got to go to Parliament and make a personal statement’, correct?” he asks.
DAG Ang says this came after Singh and Ms Lim met Mr Low Thia Khiang to discuss the issue on Oct 12.
Singh agrees that was the first time he met Ms Khan and told her to make a statement in Parliament.
DAG Ang then says: “Mr Singh, I would have to put it to you that all the way until Oct 11, you never had in mind the idea that Ms Khan would have to clarify the untruth in Parliament. Agree or disagree?”
Singh replies: “I disagree. I had it on the Oct 4.”
12:22
Prosecution pokes hole in Pritam’s testimony on whether Raeesah should respond to the police
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock questions Pritam Singh on why the “separation of powers” stopped Ms Raeesah Khan from admitting the lie to the police after they opened investigations into her case on Oct 7, 2021, when Singh had texted Ms Khan to “write in formally” to the police before he learnt of her lie.
Singh had just testified that he did not tell Ms Khan to immediately come clean to the police after they requested to interview her because “if something happens in Parliament and someone asks for details, those details should be provided in Parliament”.
DAG Ang then refers to the text message Singh had sent Ms Khan on Aug 3, 2021, right after she was pressed for details in Parliament about her false anecdote.
Singh, who did not know Ms Khan was lying at the time, had texted her: “We should write in formally to the police to address this matter.”
DAG Ang asks: “So a Workers’ Party MP had been asked for details, and your… direction to Ms Khan was that she should write to the police to answer by giving those details.”
He adds that this shows that in Singh’s mind, there was nothing wrong at all with providing information requested by an MP in Parliament to the police or a public agency.
Singh says the circumstances were different. After Ms Khan doubled down on her lie, he believed there would have to be an extended explanation in Parliament.
DAG Ang says if Singh had thought the truth must be clarified in Parliament, there would have been no legal obstacle to telling Ms Khan to reply to the police so they could “stop running around like headless chickens”.
Singh disagrees.
12:21
Couldn’t Raeesah Khan have told the police to stop their work: Prosecution asks Pritam Singh
The cross-examination resumes after a 25-minute break.
The prosecution moves on to why Pritam Singh did not direct Ms Raeesah Khan to write to the police to tell them the anecdote was untrue, after they sent her an e-mail in October 2021 to ask her to attend an interview. Ms Khan had forwarded the e-mail to Singh and the other party leaders.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says Singh could have asked Ms Khan to inform the police that they can stop their investigation, and that she would address the issue in Parliament.
Singh says that in his point of view, he did not believe she could have done that.
Elaborating, he says: “The matter was raised in Parliament and Ms Khan should clear the matter in Parliament. This is arising from how we as opposition MPs take the separation of powers schema quite seriously.”
DAG Ang then suggests that Ms Khan could have just responded to the police on Oct 7 or 8 to “just say ‘stop whatever work you were doing’”, then address the matter in Parliament later.
Singh replies that this was not a consideration at the material time.
He says while there was no legal impediment to do so, as an opposition MP, he believed in the separation of powers of the executive, judiciary and legislation, and so “what happened in Parliament ought to be addressed in Parliament”.
DAG Ang then asks: “So as opposition MPs, if something happens in Parliament, and someone asks for details, you should provide those details in Parliament?”
Singh says: “That is correct.”
11:43
Prosecution questions why Pritam didn’t press Raeesah to come clean although she appeared ‘normal’ as an MP
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if he felt that between August and September 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan appeared “normal” as she performed her MP duties.
Singh, who earlier said Ms Khan had conducted estate walks and filed parliamentary questions, says: “Arising from what had happened, I think it was in her interest to do so, yes.”
DAG Ang replies: “Oh, she was pretending to be normal. Is that what you’re saying?”
Singh says: “I’m not saying that, but having made a major slip-up or a boo-boo on Aug 3, I think it was in her interest to make sure to pull up her socks.”
DAG Ang then asks Singh if it did not occur to him to approach Ms Khan about the lie during this period.
Singh replies: “I accept that should have been something I ought to have done.”
DAG Ang continues: “Did you think that if you asked her, she would just faint or collapse or something like that?”
Singh says that he did not, but thought that Ms Khan, as a responsible MP, would take the initiative to speak to him regarding the unresolved matter when she was ready.
DAG Ang then suggests that Singh’s “lack of action” from August to September 2021 and the absence of a discussion with fellow leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap are “consistent with the fact that the issue had been buried”.
Singh disagrees.
11:37
No record of lie from Aug 8 meeting between Raeesah Khan and WP leaders
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if there are written records of the Aug 8, 2021, meeting between himself, Ms Raeesah Khan, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap. It is during this meeting that Ms Khan confesses her lie to the leaders and is allegedly told to take it to the grave.
Singh says no.
DAG Ang then points out that there are e-mails and text messages about Ms Khan’s comments on Muslim issues, but none to discuss the lie.
Singh says: “Yes, it didn’t help that we also included a very personal matter (in the meeting) that was something that Ms Khan had shared with us. And our instinct was not to vocalise it and spread it beyond the three of us as well.”
DAG Ang asks: “Meaning that you didn’t want to put it in text or e-mail to Faisal Manap or Sylvia Lim that this was discussed, that she lied and that she was a sexual assault survivor?”
Singh says they did not see any need to do so.
DAG Ang asks if Singh did not want to put the issue down in writing because of sensitivity.
Singh says: “No, let me be clear. The reason we didn’t talk about it is that all of us understood what was said and there was no need for us to commit to writing what had happened.”
DAG Ang then says Singh is changing his evidence and asks him what the truth is.
“The truth is quite clear if you look at my answer carefully,” Singh says. “Originally, I had mentioned that we did not take any minutes, there is no written record of the meeting, that is the fact.”
DAG Ang asks if he thought that Ms Lim or Mr Faisal would have forwarded this sensitive information if it had been in writing.
Singh disagrees. He says: “If you put something in writing and you put it out there, it could be sent accidentally to anyone, it could be sent, it would be on the record somewhere, it would be on the cloud. I’m not sure whether that is something; how we would want to handle deeply personal information that Ms Khan had shared with us.”
DAG says there was nothing stopping Singh from saying in writing that the issue has been discussed and he would follow up on it, while leaving out the personal details.
Singh: “That would be correct, but that’s not how we operate.”
DAG Ang: “So if the four of you – the three of you and Ms Khan – all deny it, there would be no record of this meeting and what was discussed, right?”
Singh: “If there are no minutes, yes. But everybody would know what the truth is.”
11:31
Pritam says WP leaders did not discuss Raeesah’s lie after meeting on Aug 8, 2021
Pritam Singh says that after the Aug 8, 2021, meeting at his house, he did not discuss the lie privately with fellow Workers’ Party leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap.
Singh says the leaders felt the nature of the revelation was a “deeply, deeply personal one”, and that their state of mind was to deal with the matter with as much sensitivity as they could.
DAG Ang replies: “How would you know that’s the state of mind of Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap when you didn’t discuss it with them? You could tell from their eyes?”
Singh says: “I read the room, and all of us were in deep shock.”
DAG Ang presses on with his questioning. Singh agrees that he did not know if Ms Lim or Mr Faisal felt the same regarding the matter – that Ms Khan would speak with her parents and then the leaders, and when she was ready, she would correct her lie in Parliament.
DAG Ang then asks if there was a discussion on who should follow up with Ms Khan on the matter of her lie.
Singh says: “As the secretary-general of the party, I take responsibility for that… I think the expectation was that I would follow up.”
He later adds that it was a “natural conclusion” that he would be the one to follow up on the matter, as he held the most senior appointment among the trio.
DAG Ang asks: “You didn’t tell Ms Lim or Mr Faisal that you were going to take on this matter?”
Singh replies: “No, I did not.”
11:30
Pritam told Raeesah to talk to her parents, expected her to know she would have to come clean
Still on the Aug 8, 2021, meeting when Ms Raeesah Khan came clean to Workers’ Party leaders Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap, the prosecution questions Singh on what exactly the trio had said to Ms Khan.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks if Singh had “articulated out loud” that Ms Khan had to correct her lie in Parliament.
Singh says no, but “distinctly recalls” telling Ms Khan to tell her parents about her past sexual assault. He says again that he believed the lie could be clarified in Parliament in the future.
DAG Ang asks if just by saying “please talk to your parents”, Singh expected Ms Khan to know that she was expected to come clean in Parliament at some point.
Singh says essentially yes, because she is an MP who would know that “you cannot lie in Parliament”.
11:29
Prosecution grills Pritam Singh on why he and Sylvia Lim didn’t discuss what to do after they both knew about the lie
The questions move on to the meeting between the Workers’ Party (WP) leaders and Ms Raeesah Khan on Aug 8, 2021, a day after Pritam Singh learnt about her lie in Parliament.
The meeting was held at Singh’s house, and Singh says WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim had arrived first, and he informed her about the lie before Ms Khan and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap joined them.
After Ms Lim is informed, all she says is why would Ms Khan do that, and the two do not discuss the matter, Singh says.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock presses Singh about this lack of discussion, and asks: “So while waiting for Ms Khan to arrive at the house, both you and Ms Lim sat there looking at each other mutely, not discussing what needs to be done. Is that your evidence?”
Singh says that at that point, he knew only that Ms Khan had admitted to lying, and not why she lied. He adds: “We wanted to find out why she lied.”
DAG Ang then counters that Singh already knew on Aug 7, the day before, that a lie had been uttered in Parliament by a WP MP.
“You knew it was a serious thing. You knew that the lie cannot stand on record. You knew that a lie had to be corrected in Parliament,” he says.
He asks Singh why the information he already knew was not enough for him to make a decision that Ms Khan would have to set the record straight in Parliament.
Singh replies that any clarification would have to come after he found out what the lie was about.
He adds: “The thought that crossed my mind was, why would she tell a lie, why would she lie about something that is so… that is neither here nor there.”
This prompts DAG Ang to ask: “Oh, so if she had some great reason, there’s no need to clarify in Parliament?”
Singh says: “No, I’m not saying that.
“I would have to find out more about the lie before I take a position.”
11:03
Prosecution says Pritam’s evidence is ‘incredible’ and ‘utterly contrary’
An Oct 7, 2021, e-mail sent by Ms Raeesah Khan to the Workers’ Party leaders, informing them that the police had requested an interview with her, is being read out by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock.
In the e-mail, Ms Khan had also said: “Thanks for listening to me, for caring for me and for guiding me through this without judgment.”
DAG Ang notes that Pritam Singh did not reply to Ms Khan’s e-mail and asks if it is because she had followed his guidance to continue with the narrative.
He also asks if Ms Khan was thanking Singh for “not judging her” after she stuck to her lie on Oct 4.
Singh disagrees and says: “I didn’t reply to this e-mail because it was very frustrating to read it considering what she had done on Oct 4.”
He adds that he was focused on having to guide her to make a clarification with a personal statement.
DAG Ang suggests that if Singh did ask Ms Khan to come clean, she would have known that he would “take her to task” after she doubled down on her lie on Oct 4.
“And 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’,” he says.
Singh replies: “I didn’t tell her to continue the narrative.”
DAG Ang says: “Mr Singh, I would have to put it to you that your evidence is incredible. Do you agree?”
Singh disagrees.
DAG continues: “It’s utterly contrary to how both you and her behaved during this material time. Do you agree?”
Singh disagrees.
10:53
‘If she does something correct and good… you will not judge her?’: Prosecution
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock puts it to Pritam Singh that the phrase “I will not judge you” is often used when someone is about to admit something bad.
Singh disagrees.
“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,” DAG Ang says.
He gives the example of someone wanting to skip work the next day: “Then you tell your friend ‘Aiyah, I think I’m going to get an MC so I can skip work tomorrow’, and then your friend will say ‘Okay, go ahead, I won’t judge you’.”
Singh folds his arms and disagrees.
DAG Ang gives another example of someone making up an excuse to skip a relative’s birthday: His wife might say “I won’t judge you”.
“That is how ‘I won’t judge you’ is commonly used, agree?” asks DAG Ang.
Singh disagrees.
DAG Ang asks: “So your evidence is that if she does something correct and good tomorrow, which is to tell the truth, you will not judge her?”
Singh says: “That’s right.”
10:51
Judge seeks clarification over Pritam Singh’s ‘I will not judge you’ statement
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan interjected at one point during the cross-examination to clarify the context in which Pritam Singh told Ms Raeesah Khan “I will not judge you”.
Singh says he believed Ms Khan was concerned when she was asked to take ownership and responsibility of her lie, so telling her that he would not judge her was an attempt to assuage her so she would tell the truth.
He adds that people tend to form a negative opinion of those who lie, but if she tells the truth, he will not judge her for her lie.
The judge asks if Singh was speaking on behalf of others as well, to which Singh said no.
“You are saying that she looked relieved that you, as secretary-general of the party, would not form a negative opinion of her?” the judge asks.
“That’s right,” says Singh.
10:50
Prosecution presses Pritam on why Raeesah would ‘look relieved’ if he had told her to come clean on Oct 3, 2021
Pritam Singh agrees when Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks if he had on Oct 3, 2021, told Ms Raeesah Khan to come clean the next day by saying “I will not judge you”.
DAG Ang asks: “So you’re saying that you were telling her to tell the truth tomorrow, she knows she’s going to the Committee of Privileges (COP), and she looks visibly relieved.
“‘Oh, thank God, I’m going to the COP!’ She’s thinking that!”
After a pause, Singh says that DAG Ang is missing a point. Singh says that he had told Ms Khan that he would not judge her after she “looked a bit uncomfortable”.
After his words, Ms Khan looked relieved, continues Singh. “And I took that to understand that she understood what I was saying.”
After several back-and-forths along the same line of questioning, DAG Ang asks: “Wasn’t it the truth, Mr Singh, that you told Ms Khan: ‘Continue the narrative, I will not judge you.’
“And she was relieved, because she knew then that she doesn’t have to admit a lie in Parliament, and she was not being exposed to be sent to the COP. Isn’t that the truth?”
Singh disagrees, and says that if he had wanted her to continue the lie, it would be easier if he had not sent the Oct 1, 2021, e-mail to Workers’ Party MPs or visited her on Oct 3.
10:42
Prosecution says Pritam Singh’s accounts of Oct 3, 2021, conflicting
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock thumps the rostrum as he questions Pritam Singh’s accounts of what he expected Ms Raeesah Khan to do in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, following his meeting with her the day before.
The prosecutor asks: “If it (the lie) didn’t come up, she wouldn’t have to clarify on Oct 4?”
Singh agrees.
DAG Ang raises his voice, saying: “So if it doesn’t come up, obviously she doesn’t have to say anything, according to what you said.”
Singh agrees again: “That is correct. She would have to deal with it some time in the future.”
“Okay, so that’s one version,” DAG Ang says. “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?”
He is referring to an answer Singh gave to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021 that could be interpreted as Singh intending for Ms Khan to tell the truth on Oct 4, whether or not the matter was raised in Parliament.
Singh says: “Because I didn’t address that part in my message to her on Oct 3.”
DAG Ang responds: “No, no, is it false or not?”
Singh: “Yeah, it’s not true. There’s no second version.”
DAG Ang then says: “So if we read the COP minutes and come to the view that that’s what you were telling the COP, that would be a false statement to the COP, correct?”
Singh says: “It would not be what was said, that’s right.”
This is what was said at the COP:
10:29
No difference between clarification and personal statement: Prosecution
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock argues that there is no difference between Pritam Singh’s definition of a clarification and a personal statement to be made by Ms Raeesah Khan.
Citing a document containing Ms Khan’s statement that was read in Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, to clarify her lie, DAG Ang says that the statement explained four things: that she had lied on Aug 3, the circumstances as to why she lied, her admission of wrongdoing, and an apology to the police.
He also notes that the statement did not even mention she had repeated the lie on Oct 4, 2021.
Singh says this was because it was obvious she had lied again on Oct 4, and everyone would have known.
After some back and forth between the prosecution and Singh, DAG Ang says: “So in substance, the content of what she said in the personal statement on Nov 1 is no different from what you would have expected her to say if she clarified the lie on Oct 4, agree?”
He adds that Singh could have easily told Ms Khan to tell the truth in Parliament on Oct 5 since she would have been expected to say the same thing anyway in her statement on Nov 1.
Singh disagrees on both counts.
DAG Ang then says that based on what Singh had said in court, there was no difference between a clarification and a personal statement in terms of content.
He adds that the truth of the matter was that Singh did not tell Ms Khan to correct the untruth on Oct 4 when he met her on the evening of Oct 3.
“I disagree. I did. I told her that if the matter came up, she would have to take ownership and responsibility,” says Singh.
DAG Ang then says that “if it is true that all you wanted her to say (was)… simply these four things, you could have told her to just say it on Oct 5 because eventually, she just said that on Nov 1”.
Singh disagrees and says that there was not enough time to prepare Ms Khan for an apology by Oct 5 after she had doubled down on the false anecdote the day before.
10:22
‘Why don’t you just answer the question first?’: Judge
Judge Luke Tan cuts in to mediate a testy exchange between Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock and Pritam Singh over what the Leader of the Opposition expected Ms Raeesah Khan to say in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
After DAG Ang raises his voice at Singh while asking him to answer the question again, the judge interjects: “Mr Singh, maybe we do it this way, you’re familiar with cross-examination, generally the questions asked are directed as yes/no answers.
“Why don’t you just answer the question first and then explain, then it will be faster that way.”
Singh says: “I accept, your honour. I will keep that in mind.”
10:11
Prosecution says it is ‘testing Pritam’s credibility’, suggests that the WP chief is not ‘frank and candid’
Pritam Singh says he cannot answer Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock’s question on whether he thought Ms Raeesah Khan would be asked many follow-up questions by MPs if she had come clean in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
DAG Ang says: “I’m 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 the question.”
Singh tells DAG Ang that he believes he has answered the prosecution’s question. “I don’t know what the PAP MPs would ask,” he adds.
DAG Ang then asks Singh if he agrees that if Ms Khan had confessed her lie on Oct 4, she would have been asked the reason she told the lie. He also asks if Singh agrees that he had expected Ms Khan to come clean that day.
Singh agrees on both counts.
DAG Ang asks if the truth that Singh expected Ms Khan to share did not reveal that she was also a victim of sexual assault.
Singh replies that he “cannot predict what the nature of exchanges would have been”, but would have expected Ms Khan to tell the truth that she did not accompany the victim to the police station.
DAG Ang then says: “I would suggest to you, Mr Singh, that you are not being frank and candid with the court by not agreeing with me that you expected (Ms Khan) to tell the full version of what she told you on Aug 8 to explain why she lied on Aug 3.”
Singh disagrees. DAG Ang says: “That’s fine. I mean, I expect you to (disagree).”
10:06
What would Raeesah Khan’s Oct 4 clarification have looked like?
Still on the topic of the difference between a clarification and a personal statement, the prosecution asks Pritam Singh what Ms Raeesah Khan’s clarification would have been if she had admitted her lie on Oct 4, 2021, after Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam asked her for more details about her anecdote.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Singh: “Do you mean to say that – please give us an honest answer – do you mean to say that you thought she could say that, ‘Mr Shanmugam, the anecdote that I gave on Aug 3 was false,’ and then just sit down and wait for further questions from the minister and other MPs?”
Singh says he does not know what the further questions may have been, but adds that Ms Khan would, at a minimum, have to clarify that she had “inserted herself in the anecdote to make it more believable”, and explain why she had lied on Aug 3.
He says he would have expected her to tell “the essence of the truth”.
DAG Ang drills down on this, and asks Singh if Ms Khan would have been expected to explain that she was a survivor of sexual assault herself and had heard the anecdote at a survivors’ support group.
Singh disagrees, saying that he did not know if Ms Khan would go into the full details of what happened to her.
He adds that Ms Khan did not want to reveal her experience and that he was not sure if it would have been necessary for her to share it in her clarification.
To this, DAG Ang asks if Singh expects that MPs would not have asked Ms Khan many clarifications if she stood up and admitted she lied.
“Let’s be real, Mr Singh,” says DAG Ang.
Singh replies: “I cannot answer that question.”
09:45
Clarification v statement
Cross-examination resumes with Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock questioning Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh (below) on the difference between a clarification and a personal statement.
Singh has testified that at his meeting with Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 3, 2021, before she doubled down on her lie the next day, he was of the view that there was “no impediment” to her “clarifying” her lie in Parliament on Oct 4 if it were raised.
But after the lie was repeated, Singh says a clarification would no longer suffice and she would have to make a personal statement in Parliament.
In his mind, there was a difference between a clarification and a personal statement, says Singh.
