| Daily Update of the Pritam Singh Trial – November 6, 2024 |
18:18
Court is adjourned
The trial of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh will resume tomorrow.
18:17
‘I’m sad to say, but I have to suggest… that you’re not being very honest’, prosecution tells Pritam
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock repeats what Pritam Singh told the court, that the moment Ms Raeesah Khan doubled down on her lie, whether or not she had told her parents of her past sexual assault “was no longer relevant”.
Singh says that is correct – it was no longer a condition for Ms Khan coming clean.
He adds that it was no longer relevant after Oct 4, 2021, as the issue then was for Ms Khan to come up with a statement.
DAG Ang then says that Singh had told the Committee of Privileges (COP) something else.
When asked during the COP hearing why he had not urged Ms Khan to admit to her lie in Parliament on Oct 5, 2021, Singh had said it was because she had not told her parents, the DAG says.
Singh says: “I mean that was one factor why she could not say it.”
DAG Ang says: “Mr Singh, this is what you were telling the COP.”
Singh says that “other things were also said” and it was not relevant to her confession on Nov 1, 2021.
DAG Ang says: “No, Mr Singh, we’re talking about after she repeated her lie. You made it very clear to the court just now that it is no longer an issue; this condition is no longer relevant.
“Alright, Mr Singh, I’m sad to say, but I have to suggest to you that you’re not being very honest in your evidence.”
Singh replies: “I disagree.”
DAG Ang then asks Singh if what he told the court is contradicted by his evidence to the COP.
Disagreeing, Singh says: “The passages (of evidence given to the COP) refer to clarifying the lie on the day itself or on Oct 5, but when I said in court that the condition precedent is now not important any more, it’s with regard to her coming out with the truth on Nov 1.”
18:03
Pritam didn’t tell Low Thia Khiang that WP leaders had been aware of Raeesah’s lie since August 2021
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock continues asking Pritam Singh about his Oct 11, 2021, meeting with former Workers’ Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang, along with WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim.
Referring to Mr Low’s testimony in court, DAG Ang notes that Mr Low had told Singh and Ms Lim during the meeting that Ms Khan should clarify her untruth in Parliament, since that was where she told the lie.
“So during this meeting, you didn’t pipe in to say that ‘Mr Low, I already wanted to bring her to Parliament so that she can clarify’? You didn’t say that, right?” DAG Ang asks.
“And you didn’t tell Mr Low: I’ve been waiting and waiting for her to come back to me, to tell me whether she had checked with her parents about the sexual assault since August, and she hasn’t come back to me.”
To this, Singh says he did not, as the discussion with Mr Low was about Ms Khan having doubled down on the lie and how to resolve that.
When asked, Singh also says that to the best of his recollection, he did not tell Mr Low that he, Ms Lim and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap had already known about Ms Khan’s lie a few days after she uttered it in Parliament.
He adds that “the issue was to inquire what is the correct way to resolve this issue expeditiously”.
Mr Low had said earlier in court that he found out only in August 2023 that the WP leaders had been aware of Ms Khan’s lie since August 2021.
Later, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan asks Singh how Mr Low was told at the Oct 11, 2021, meeting that Ms Khan had doubled down on her lie.
To this, Singh says that Mr Low would have been informed that “this was the case of an MP lying again, so he would have known that she would have lied once, and was now lying again”.
Probed further on how Mr Low would have known, Singh says he cannot recall whether he or Ms Lim had told Mr Low.
He also says he does not recall if Mr Low asked him when the WP leaders found out about the lie.
17:21
Meeting with Low Thia Khiang on Oct 11 was ‘unremarkable’: Pritam
The agenda of Pritam Singh’s Oct 11, 2021, meeting with former Workers’ Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang, as well as WP chair Sylvia Lim, was the next topic examined.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Singh a series of questions about the meeting, to which Singh mostly says he disagrees or does not remember.
Asked if the reason for the meeting included telling Mr Low of the police’s request to interview Ms Raeesah Khan, Singh disagrees.
Asked if one of the reasons for the meeting was to discuss Ms Khan’s expulsion, Singh also disagrees.
When DAG Ang says that Mr Low had given evidence of that, Singh says: “I don’t believe Mr Low’s evidence, if I recall correctly, was of expulsion and having a press conference after that. I think the issue was different.”
DAG Ang then asks Singh if Mr Low had asked Ms Lim whether the Government already knew about the untruth. When Mr Low testified before the court in the earlier tranche of the hearing, he had said that Ms Lim told him during the meeting that the Government did not know, and that it was not easy to know because there were many police stations in Singapore.
Singh says he does not recall that.
“So you don’t recall that at the meeting,” says DAG Ang.
Singh replies: “No, I don’t. It was an unremarkable meeting to me.”
17:21
WP leaders kept knowledge of lie from central executive committee because it was ‘private and personal’: Pritam
The Workers’ Party central executive committee (CEC) were not told that Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap had known about Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie since Aug 8, 2021. They only found out during Pritam Singh’s press conference on Dec 2 that year.
Singh says party leaders kept the information from the CEC as it was considered a “quite private and personal” matter, on account of Ms Khan’s past sexual assault.
“As leaders of the party, we decided to deal with it at our level,” adds Singh.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks: “Was it not possible to say that, okay, she lied, I’m telling you she lied on Aug 3; as for the details, it’s private and confidential… Was that out of the question?”
Singh says: “I think it would beg the question (of) why it’s private and confidential.”
17:14
‘I should have moved with her faster’: Pritam Singh on dealing with Raeesah Khan’s lie
Moving on to another point, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock notes how promptly Workers’ Party (WP) leaders acted to address concerns about Ms Raeesah Khan’s comments in Parliament on Aug 2, 2021, on female genital cutting and polygamy.
Singh and Ms Khan had both said in court that the issue had caused controversy within the Muslim community.
On questioning, Singh tells the court that the WP leaders met on Aug 8 to discuss the controversy and decided it was necessary to come up with a statement which would be posted on Ms Khan’s Facebook page.
Singh agrees with DAG Ang that he had instructed Ms Khan to draft a statement and run it by WP vice-chair Faisal Manap and that “everything was done super quickly on the afternoon of Aug 8”.
DAG Ang says: “So this was an issue which was of importance to clarify because there had been a lot of comments about what she said online… And it was important that she clarify this ASAP (as soon as possible)?”
Singh agrees.
DAG Ang then compares this with how Singh dealt with Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament.
He says: “But the untruth that she spoke in Parliament on Aug 3 is also just as important correct?”
DAG Ang adds: “It’s important because she has made some unfounded allegations against the police, correct?”
Singh answers yes to both questions.
DAG Ang then adds: “But it was not serious enough for you to follow up from Aug 8 onwards to make sure that she had told her parents, she’s got to come back to you and clear it up as soon as possible?”
Singh says he should have spoken to Ms Khan and checked if she had spoken to her parents, so that she could have made a clarification on the record earlier.
He adds that he also said this during the Committee of Privileges hearings.
“As I shared, this was something I should have moved on faster. Yes, I agree,” he tells the court.
17:02
Pritam presumed on Oct 3 that Raeesah had told her parents about her past sexual assault
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock presses Pritam Singh on whether on Oct 3, 2021, he believed Ms Raeesah Khan had told her parents about being sexually assaulted in the past. He had previously testified that it was necessary for her to do so before admitting to her lie in Parliament.
Singh says Ms Khan did not tell him she had spoken to her parents on Oct 3 and he had not asked. He presumed she had spoken to them because she did not say anything after he told her to “take ownership and responsibility” for her lie, says Singh.
DAG Ang asks: “Oh, so even though you didn’t ask her whether the condition precedent had been met, by her silence, you thought she had cleared the issue with her parents by the third of October?”
Singh says yes.
Ms Khan doubled down on her lie on Oct 4. DAG Ang says the matter of her informing her parents would not have been an issue when Parliament sat again on Oct 5, which would have afforded her a chance to clarify the untruth.
Singh says he thought the condition of informing her parents first had been satisfied but her doubling down caused him to wonder if it really had.
It made him doubt if Ms Khan had told her parents, Singh adds.
DAG Ang asks if he was confused after hearing her double down.
“I wasn’t confused, I was disappointed that she hadn’t clarified the matter,” Singh says.
16:50
Pritam Singh’s view of Loh Pei Ying, Yudhishthra Nathan changed after testimonies in court
Pritam Singh is asked about former WP cadre members Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, who were both called up to testify earlier in the trial.
When prompted by the prosecution, Singh says that he would describe the pair as “good” and “very decent” people, but agrees that he now seems them are “liars” after what transpired in court.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock reads back to Singh how he had described the pair when he was questioned during the Committee of Privileges hearing in 2021.
Among some of the things Singh had said was that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were good people who worked hard for the WP.
Singh tells the court he had known Ms Loh for 10 years, and Mr Nathan for about six to seven years, and that he was not as close to Mr Nathan as he was to Ms Loh as she was his former secretarial assistant.
He also says that he worked well with them as “they follow instructions”.
Asked if he thinks they are both liars now, Singh says:“I would not say that at this point. But the fact that there was certain information withheld from me has changed my view of them.”
DAG Ang then tells Singh that his lawyer Andre Jumabhoy had described the pair as liars.
To this, Singh replies: “Well, with regard to what has transpired in court, yes.”
Singh was also asked if he knew whether Ms Loh or Mr Nathan would have any reason to damage the WP’s reputation.
He first says he does not know, then recounts an episode when Mr Nathan publicly contradicted him on social media, after he spoke about the WP’s stand on LGBTQ issues at a university.
He adds that such matters can be handled internally and should not be publicised.
Asked if he saw the incident as a reason for Mr Nathan to come to court to “lie”, Mr Singh says no.
But he adds: “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.”
16:37
Meeting with ex-WP cadres on Oct 10: Did the untruth come up, and if Singh gave them instructions
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if he was aware that former WP cadres Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Natha knew about the untruth when he met them on Aug 10.
Singh says: “Yes, it was quite apparent.”
DAG Ang also asks if both knew that Ms Khan was a sexual assault survivor. Singh says yes.
Singh says he does not recall if the issue came up because Ms Loh raised the fact that Ms Khan had lied and he acknowledged that he knew this. He adds that the untruth did not come up “explicitly”.
When pressed on whether the truth did come up at the meeting, Singh says: “Hard to say yes or no, because the fact that Pei Ying was talking about the propensity of sexual assault survivors to lie, suggested to me that by virtue of saying that, yes, the matter came up.”
DAG Ang then asks if Singh had instructed both ex-cadres to follow up with Ms Khan to check if she had spoken to her parents.
Singh says he would follow up with Ms Khan himself.
DAG asks: “And here are two of your WP cadre members, and you as Sec-Gen knew that Ms Khan had lied on 3 Aug and you were meeting with two of your young cadre members who also knew that Ms Khan lied on 3 Aug, and you didn’t think that there was a need to tell them that ok, Ms Khan will clarify the untruth in Parliament at some point, right?”
Singh reiterates: “No, I did not tell them.”
16:29
Pritam’s Oct 1 e-mail to WP MPs was his way of telling Raeesah that her lie had not been resolved
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock and Pritam Singh debate on the Oct 1, 2021, e-mail that Singh sent to Workers’ Party MPs.
In the e-mail, he referenced an excerpt in the Hansard report, which he said “restates how serious it is to be able to back up and defend what you say in Parliament, or risk being hauled up before the Committee of Privileges (COP)”.
Singh says in court that the e-mail was sent “in relation” to the lie Ms Raeesah Khan first told on Aug 3, 2021.
DAG Ang asks: “The truth is, Mr Singh, this was a general e-mail, correct?”
Singh disagrees.
DAG Ang then refers to an exchange between Singh and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong during the 2021 COP hearing, where Singh said the e-mail was a “general e-mail to all the MPs”.
Singh then says: “It’s a general e-mail because it’s addressed to everyone but it’s more than that as well.”
DAG Ang asks: “But it’s not about the lie, correct?”
Singh says the e-mail is “closely related’ to the lie.
DAG Ang then says: “Well, a few moments ago, you said it’s about the lie, and now you’re trying to distance yourself from it by saying it’s closely related to the lie…”
Singh replies: “I think that’s a rather pedantic way of putting it.”
DAG Ang says: “Oh okay, I’m so sorry.”
Singh replies: “I’m not asking for your apology, but it covers the subject matter that concerns the lie.”
After several back-and-forths, DAG Ang asks: “So, in this e-mail, you actually were telling her that she could go to the COP, correct?”
Singh agrees. He says the e-mail “was (his) way of getting (Ms Khan) to understand that this issue was a live issue and it hadn’t been resolved”.
16:07
Pritam Singh received warning from NEA for WP leaders’ meeting at his home during Covid-19
As the prosecution delves into the Workers’ Party (WP) leaders’ meeting on Aug 8, 2021, with Ms Raeesah Khan, Pritam Singh reveals that the discussion took place at his home, in violation of the heightened Covid-19 pandemic measures at the time.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock says, while questioning Singh on how he dealt with Ms Khan: “Just as an aside, Mr Singh, during this period in August 2021, wasn’t there the heightened Covid-19 measures?”
Singh acknowledges that there were, prompting DAG Ang to ask: “But it was okay to have a meeting at your place with more than two distinct guests?”
With a slight smile forming, Singh says: “It was not okay… Can I just add, I received a stern warning from NEA (National Environment Agency) for that.”
“Oh, I see. I didn’t realise that,” DAG Ang says, before continuing to ask about the WP leaders’ meeting.
16:04
‘But Mr Singh, you are capable of being very firm with Ms Khan, right?’: Prosecution
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh why he did not tell Ms Raeesah Khan off after she lied a second time in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, or ask her why she had done so.
Singh says that when he met Ms Khan with Ms Sylvia Lim that night, the then Workers’ Party (WP) MP was “not in a state” to be questioned.
DAG Ang says: “But Mr Singh, you are capable of being very firm with Ms Khan, right?”
The prosecutor refers to Singh’s testimony in court, during which he recounted how he had told a prevaricating Ms Khan on Aug 7, 2021, to tell him the truth.
“You told Ms Khan, ‘I am the solicitor-general’,” DAG Ang says.
“No, I’m the secretary-general, not the solicitor-general,” says Singh, drawing laughs from the gallery. He agrees he told Ms Khan to be honest with him then.
DAG Ang asks why he would have difficulty doing the same on Oct 4, 2021. “You could have done that. Yes or no?”
Singh says that given Ms Khan’s state, coming down hard on her would have led nowhere and he felt she was being honest when she alluded to telling the truth.
“In my mind at least, I had secured a perspective from her that this anecdote will be clarified,” he says.
DAG Ang asks: “Would you agree that it would have been entirely logical, as the secretary-general of WP, to tell Ms Khan or tell her off for defying your instructions?”
Singh answers: “It would be logical if I was a robot.”
15:58
Pritam Singh says Fica debate kept him busy on day Raeesah Khan lied a second time
Pritam Singh is next asked about the WhatsApp message he received from Ms Raeesah Khan while in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, when she asked him for help while being questioned by Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on her false anecdote.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock notes that Singh responded only after 11 minutes to tell Ms Khan that they will discuss the matter after the Parliament sitting.
Singh confirms he had meant he would meet her only after that day’s sitting was over, as he was busy with a debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act.
“I was leading the debate. I had to get that out of the way,” he adds.
DAG Ang then asks if Singh had replied to ask Ms Khan to tell the Speaker of Parliament that she would like to clarify the matter immediately by telling the truth.
Singh says he did not.
The line of questioning continues and Singh says he did not arrange to meet Ms Khan immediately after his speech because the debate was ongoing and “interventions can be made of my speech”.
Eventually, DAG Ang says: “I would put it to you, Mr Singh, that you didn’t do any of these things because she was just acting according to your guidance from the night before.”
Singh replies: “I would have to disagree very vehemently with that.”
DAG Ang says: “Very vehemently, right?”
Singh says: “Absolutely.”
15:41
Pritam agrees that he has an obligation to clarify lies made by his party members as Opposition Leader
The cross-examination moves on to another point, about whether an MP has an obligation to correct a lie by another MP in Parliament.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks: “If you as an MP are aware of a lie being spoken in Parliament by another MP, you have an obligation to correct it, right?”
Pritam Singh says: “The MP has an obligation to correct it.”
DAG Ang then says he means to ask if Singh has such an obligation.
“I wouldn’t agree with that,” replies Singh.
This prompts DAG Ang to bring up an exchange between Singh and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong during the 2021 Committee of Privileges hearing.
DAG Ang points out that Singh had agreed with Mr Tong when the latter asked the same question.
Singh eventually agrees that he has such an obligation.
DAG Ang then asks if rule applies to Singh since he was in Parliament when Ms Khan lied a second time on Oct 4, 2021, and did not correct her lie.
Singh replies that he would have an obligation, but he knew of the circumstances behind the lie and in ihs view “there was a way the lie would have to be clarified”.
“As the Leader of the Opposition, you have a duty to correct falsehoods repeated in Parliament by one of your Workers’ Party MPs, correct?” asks DAG Ang.
“That is right,” Singh replies.
Here is an excerpt of the 2021 COP exchange:
15:33
“Your call”: whether Ms Raeesah Khan was given a choice to tell the truth
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh if he had told Ms Raeesah Khan during their meeting on Oct 3 that it was “your call” whether she would tell the truth on Oct 4.
He adds that what Singh meant by “your call” was that it was Ms Khan’s choice whether to tell the truth in Parliament on Oct 4.
He also says Singh had guided her to maintain the untruth.
Singh disagrees with these suggestions.
DAG Ang continues: “And you were in Parliament, sorry, in the Chamber, when she repeated the untruth, correct?”
Singh says he was.
DAG Ang then brings up Singh’s answers to the Committee of Privileges, where he had said he had made it “crystal clear” to Ms Khan that she would have to come clean.
DAG Ang also refers to Singh’s comments to Ms Khan on Oct 3 that she would have to “take ownership and responsibility” and also that he would not judge her.
He asks Singh if the Workers’ Party leader thought that these words were crystal clear, to which Singh says yes.Singh then adds that since Ms Khan was an MP in her own right, he would expect her to understand that she had taken an oath in Parliament, and that she would understand clearly what taking ownership and responsibility meant.
15:27
No preparation for a confession before Oct 4, 2021
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock presses Pritam Singh on the lack of preparation for what Singh claims was the real possibility of Ms Raeesah Khan confessing her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
Singh’s position is that he visited Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, the day before, to tell her to confess.
The prosecutor asks if Singh had alerted the Workers’ Party central executive committee that Ms Khan might admit to her lie the next day. Singh says no.
Did Singh ask Ms Khan on Oct 3 what she planned to say the next day? Singh says no.
He says this was because it was clear to him, after speaking with Ms Khan on Oct 3, that she would not have difficulty clarifying the matter if it came up.
DAG Ang asks again: “After this meeting, you made no preparations whatsoever for the possibility that the truth may be revealed by Ms Khan at the Oct 4 sitting?”
Singh says: “I show up at her house to tell her that the matter may come up–”
DAG Ang interjects: “Please stop. Please stop… My question is a simple one. After this meeting, you made no preparation for the possibility that the truth might come out.”
“That is correct,” says Singh.
DAG Ang puts it to Singh that, in fact, he proceeded on the basis that Ms Khan would not come clean on Oct 4, 2021.
Singh says: “Then why would I see her on Oct 3? I disagree.”
15:16
Pritam Singh says there’s a difference between clarification and statement
We are back from the lunch break and Pritam Singh’s cross-examination continues.
Singh says there is a difference between what he expected Ms Raeesah Khan to do after her first lie on Aug 3, 2021, and after she doubled down on the lie on Oct 4, 2021.
He says after she first lied on Aug 3, 2021, he was of the view that she should have been able to come clean on her own on Oct 4, 2021, without any preparation, as she would just have to make a clarification in Parliament.
However, after she lied again on Oct 4, 2021, it was no longer a simple matter of her just coming clean on Oct 5, 2021, he says.
Singh elaborates: “There’s a slight difference. The difference being on the Oct 4, it was a question of a clarification that she had to give. And thereafter, after she doubled down on the lie, it was clear that there had to be a statement.”
To this, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks: “So it’s in your evidence that if on Oct 4, she was going to tell the truth, she would just say to Mr Shanmugam, ‘Oh thank you for raising that, what I said on Aug 3 was untrue about me accompanying a survivor to the police station, that’s untrue, thank you, sit down’.”
Singh replies: “She would have had to say that, I don’t know about the ‘thank you, sit down’ part… She would have to clarify the lie.”
Singh adds that he had expected Ms Khan to tell the truth on Oct 4, 2021, if the issue on the anecdote was brought up, but says he had not planned for Ms Khan to issue a formal statement.
DAG Ang then says: “So there’s a difference between making a statement and giving a clarification. That’s what you’re saying.”
Singh replies: “That’s right.”
13:30
“If you want to be obtuse, that’s fine” says DAG Ang in tense exchange before lunch
A tense back and forth ensues, with Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asking again if Pritam Singh believed Ms Khan was ready to tell the truth on Oct 4, 2021.
DAG Ang says: “So before the meeting on Oct 3, you didn’t think she could tell the truth on Oct 4, until you met her. Is that right?”
To this, Singh answers: “Well it’s a bit strange, I would disagree with that, as a person, as an MP there’s no reason for me to think that she can’t tell the truth.”
This prompts DAG Ang to say: “Mr Singh, the question is not whether or not one is able to open their mouth and speak. I think we all know what we’re talking about here in this courtroom. So if you want to be obtuse, that’s fine. But the question is a very simple one.”
DAG Ang asks again if Singh thought on the morning of Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan was ready to tell the truth in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
Singh replies: “You framed it better now.”
DAG Ang says: “Oh, I’m so sorry.”
Singh then says: “I’m not trying to be sarcastic here.”
He adds that his answer to whether Ms Khan was ready would be “no”, because she hadn’t come back to him on whether she had spoken to her parents.
To this DAG Ang says: “I think you started off by saying that, then you changed your evidence, now we’re back to square one.”
Singh then says: “The point is that I had not heard from her and I had also not checked in with her, so I can’t say for a fact that she would not be ready to tell the truth.”
DAG Ang does not let up on the line of questioning, and reads back to Singh his answers to the Committee of Privileges as well as in court.
After a while, defence counsel Andre Jumabhoy stands up and complains: “There are a number of occasions when (Mr Singh) is just cut off!”
DAG Ang then interjects to say he had given Singh ample time to explain.
Mr Jumabhoy, speaking over DAG Ang adds: “He is entitled to finish his answer and not be cut off! That is a courtesy that is expected… He’s disagreed and he’s giving his reasons for disagreeing.”
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan then says he will record Singh’s full answer.
Singh then states his point again and says: “The point was…I visited her on Oct 3 cos she hadn’t come back with all of this to me and so on Oct 3 I visit her, after i visit her, I get no indication from her that she would have difficulty with telling the truth.”
Court breaks for lunch.
13:11
‘Mr Singh, are you changing your evidence?’: Prosecution bears down on Pritam’s shifting accounts of Oct 3, 2021
Still on Oct 3, 2021, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock puts it to Pritam Singh that he knew Ms Raeesah Khan could not have told the truth on Oct 4, 2021.
As Singh had admitted, Ms Khan had not told him if she had told her parents about her sexual assault, and this was a “condition precedent” in Singh’s mind for Ms Khan confessing her lie in Parliament, says DAG Ang, citing evidence from the Workers’ Party leader in court earlier.
Neither had Ms Khan told Singh on Oct 3, 2021, that she was ready to come clean, adds DAG Ang.
Singh disagrees, and says he believed Ms Khan could have told the truth on Oct 4, 2021.
“There was no reason for me to opine that she would not be able to tell the truth,” he says, adding “that’s what ought to be done with an untruth on record in Parliament”.
DAG Ang then asks: “Mr Singh, so you’re changing your evidence.”
Singh answers: “My evidence is what it is.”
12:31
Pritam Singh did not ask Raeesah Khan if she had spoken to her parents
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock seeks to show that no steps were taken before Oct 3, 2021, for Ms Raeesah Khan to come clean in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
One of the things that had to happen before Ms Khan could set the record straight in Parliament was to tell her parents about the sexual assault, Singh had said to the Committee of Privileges (COP).
When asked by DAG Ang about this, Singh confirms in court that he told Ms Khan to speak to her parents first as the revelation of sexual assault was serious.
DAG Ang says: “In fact, you have described this at the COP as a condition precedent.”
Singh replies: “That would be correct.”
When asked what his frame of mind was on Oct 3, 2021, before he met Ms Khan, Singh says that he was of the view she had not spoken to her parents, as she had not come back to him on the matter.
Singh also says that he did not ask Ms Khan on that day if she had spoken to her parents.
DAG Ang says: “So as far as you were concerned on Oct 3, when you got up in the morning, if this issue came up on Oct 4, she’s not going to be able to come clean, correct?
Singh answers: “Correct.”
After repeated questioning, DAG Ang says: “The point really is that there was no plan… for her to tell the truth on Oct 4.”
11:34
Prosecution presses Pritam on whether he thought the WP’s executive committee should be informed before Raeesah came clean
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock asks Pritam Singh about his views on when the Workers’ Party’s central executive committee (CEC) should have been told of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie.
In doing so, he refers to Ms Sylvia Lim’s testimony to the Committee of Privileges where she relates how the CEC was told on Oct 29 that Ms Khan will reveal in Parliament the next day that she had lied. Ms Lim had said it was only right that the party’s highest body be made aware before the lie was revealed to the public.
Ms Lim had also said that coming clean during the Oct 5 Parliament sitting was “practically, not an option”, given that the statement would have required careful structuring and drafting.
The DAG asks Singh if he agrees with what Ms Lim had said, including that the CEC should be informed first. Singh agrees.
DAG Ang: It would also apply as well, this CEC point, in relation to Oct 5? If you wanted her to clarify on Oct 5 in Parliament, the CEC should be informed first before she actually made the clarification on Oct 5, correct?
Singh: The purpose of… I would qualify my reply to that.
DAG Ang: First, you have to answer the question.
Singh: I disagree.
Singh explains that the purpose of the CEC meeting was to “lock in” the statement that Ms Khan was to make in Parliament, after she doubled down on the lie on Oct 4.
DAG Ang asks if Singh means that the CEC did not have to be informed beforehand if Ms Khan was going to admit her lie on Oct 5.
Singh: “I think that did not cross our minds on Oct 4. On Oct 4, the more important issue that we were thinking about was why Ms 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.”
DAG Ang presses Singh again, asking if he thought the CEC should be informed if Ms Khan was going to come clean on Oct 5.
Singh: It would depend if that was practically possible, given the timelines.
Before repeating his question, DAG Ang: Now, listen to this question. I’m going to ask it, and please listen to my question.
Singh: In the ordinary course of things, yes, I would agree.
DAG Ang: It would be important for the CEC to know this because that admission of Raeesah Khan was going to affect the Workers’ Party, do you agree?
Singh: Uh, I would agree, yes.
11:18
‘Which is the truth?’: Prosecution seizes on Pritam’s accounts of Oct 3, 2021
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock moves on to Pritam Singh’s accounts of what he had expected of Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 4, 2021.
Referring to Singh’s evidence in court yesterday, DAG Ang notes that the Workers’ Party leader said he had told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, that if the matter of her untruth was raised in Parliament on Oct 4, she must come clean.
He then asks: “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 says: “Yes.”
DAG Ang then refers Singh to parts of the Committee of Privileges (COP) transcripts where Singh had said it was “absolutely” clear he wanted Ms Khan to make a clarification in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021, whether or not the issue was brought up.
“So which is the truth? What you told the COP or what you told the court today?” asks DAG Ang.
“The truth would be what I told (the) court,” says Singh.
Singh adds that he disagrees his answers to the COP and in court were contradictory.
He says Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong had asked during the COP: “Even if it doesn’t come up tomorrow, you would still do the same thing?”.
“And my reply ‘absolutely’ was in reference to ‘the same thing’, and the same thing would be to tell the truth,” he tells the court.
DAG Ang says with a chuckle: “So your answer…is only in relation to telling the truth. You’ve ignored Mr Tong’s other part of his question of, ‘whether or not it comes up tomorrow’?”
Singh says: “I think there’s no other interpretation.”
11:00
Judge seeks clarification from Pritam Singh
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan interjects to ask Pritam Singh if what he meant is that Ms Raeesah 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 says.
To which Singh replies: “Your rendition would be correct.”
The judge asks why Singh did not say that Ms Khan did check the final statement with him.
Singh replies that the only reason he said what he said at the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing was because he did not have the WhatsApp chats in front of him to refer to.
DAG Ang asks: “What you’re saying is that you forget that you had cleared the amended statement with the line, correct?”
Singh disagrees.
DAG Ang asks: “Well I suggest to you, Mr Singh, that it is clear… that you were trying to give the COP a misleading impression that Ms Khan added a line to her clarification that you had drafted, and proceeded to read that out to the House without checking with you or clearing with you her amendment. Do you agree?”
Singh disagrees.
10:47
Prosecution grills Pritam Singh on Raeesah Khan’s clarification note
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock repeatedly grills Pritam Singh on his account of how Ms Raeesah Khan’s Aug 3, 2021, clarification in Parliament was drafted, pointing out that what he said in court was inconsistent with what he told the Committee of Privileges (COP).
In court yesterday, Singh had said he drafted the clarification for Ms Khan, but that she added a line which read: “I believe that given the topic at hand, consent is imperative, not least to avoid re-victimisation.”
Pressing Singh on this, DAG Ang asks if he was aware of her edit.
Singh repeats what he said in court yesterday and says that Ms Khan had sent him the amended clarification with the line she added, and he had not objected.
DAG Ang then points out that Singh had told the COP: “She adds another line in the statement, doesn’t check with me, and makes the statement in the house.”
Describing this as an inconsistency, DAG Ang asks Singh if he had given the COP a “misleading impression” that Ms Khan had read out the edited clarification in Parliament without approval from Singh.
Singh disagrees, saying it is “not logical” as he was the one who offered the COP the WhatsApp chats as evidence.
He adds that what he meant at the COP hearing was that Ms Khan did not check with him before adding the line, but at some point before she delivered the clarification, she had checked if he was fine with the edit.
10:18
I would hold myself out as an honest person: Pritam
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock opens his cross-examination of Pritam Singh, asking: “Mr Singh, you would hold yourself out as an honest person?”
Singh says: “Yes, I would.”
DAG Ang: “You would not deliberately lie?”
Singh answers: “No, I would not.”
Under questioning, Singh says again that he did not lie under affirmation.
10:17
Pritam says he felt Raeesah should ‘be in a position’ to clarify untruth while doing so
Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks Pritam Singh if, as at the Aug 8, 2021, meeting with Ms Raeesah Khan, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, he had decided on how to resolve the matter of her lie.
Singh replies that he had not.
“My perspective at that time, given the gravity of what Ms Khan had shared with us, was that she would have to settle herself and that would include speaking to her parents, seeing her therapist, and essentially being in a position where she would be able to make a clarification in Parliament,” he continues.
“But in terms of an explicit plan, no, there wasn’t.”
Singh explains that he visited Ms Khan at her house on Oct 3, 2021, after reading an excerpt of the Hansard report which “reinforced the importance of substantiating what you say in Parliament”, while preparing for the Parliament sitting the next day.
He says it had occurred to him that the issue of her lie had not been resolved.
Mr Jumabhoy then asks Pritam what he thought then, if the anecdote did come up in Parliament on Oct 4.
Singh replies: “If the issue came up, she would have just had to tell the truth – the fact that the anecdote was untrue.”
10:08
Pritam Singh suggests that Raeesah Khan should consider resigning
Pritam Singh says that given the amount of negative feelings towards Ms Raeesah Khan, and what she had done in Parliament, the disciplinary panel discussed her resignation during their meeting on Nov 29, 2021.
It was something that she ought to consider, particularly also because she did not have the support of her teammates, he says.
There was also serious concern over Ms Khan and whether she could continue, given that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociation, he adds.
“These matters were brought up but it wasn’t like she was told she must resign,” he says. “(The) decision ultimately has to be made by her. And if there was a decision for expulsion, it would have to come from the CEC (central executive committee).”
Eventually, Ms Khan submitted her resignation on Nov 3.
10:05
What Pritam Singh meant by ‘your call’
Under questioning by defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, Pritam Singh explains what he meant when he said to Ms Raeesah Khan, “told you it was your call”, during the Workers’ Party’s (WP) disciplinary panel interview with her on Nov 29.
The words had been recorded in notes taken then and had come under scrutiny since they were unveiled during the Committee of Privileges hearing in December 2021.
According to the notes, Singh told Ms Khan: “Before Oct session, I met you + I told you it was your call. Did need to tell the truth in Parl occur to you?”
Singh tells the court that it was his way of putting to Ms Khan that on Oct 3, 2021, he had told her at her home to take ownership and responsibility of the untruth if it came up.
“That is what I meant by ‘your call’,” says Singh.
Asked if he used “your call” on Oct 3 at her house, Singh says no. He also says there was no suggestion from Ms Khan that the WP leaders had told her to lie.
09:51
‘There was nothing really for me to hide’: Pritam on possibility of facing COP
During a meeting with the disciplinary panel on Nov 25, 2021, former WP cadre Loh Pei Ying mentioned that the Committee of Privileges might look into when party leaders found out about Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie.
Asked about the meeting by his lawyer, Pritam Singh says he did not respond to Ms Loh’s statement at the time.
“It was something that didn’t really concern me,” he says. “My response would be that I had decided, in my judgment, that she needed the time to address herself, to settle the issue. I would expect some criticism from that… but these are the decisions one has to make,” he says.
There was no suggestion from Ms Loh or Mr Yudhishthra Nathan that he had told Ms Khan to maintain the lie, or to take it to the grave, Singh adds.
09:27
Pritam Singh arrives in court
Workers’ Party secretary-general Pritam Singh arrives in court at about 9.20am, accompanied by his lawyers Andre Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng.
Mr Jumabhoy is expected to wrap up his questioning of Singh today, and the prosecution will start its cross-examination.
