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 opposition leader took the stand for the third day of a trial over his alleged lies.
Ang suggested to Singh that he never had the idea of former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan clarifying her lies in Parliament until 11 October 2021.
When Singh intended Khan to clarify her lies are central to the prosecution’s case as his two charges are for lying to the Committee on Privileges (COP) he had with her on August 8 and October 3, 2021, she wanted would 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 come clean about his lie until October 11
Ang told Singh that he “never had the idea” that Khan would have until 11 October 2021 to clarify his lie to Parliament.
Singh disagreed with this and said he had on 4 October 2021.
When asked if he did not intend for her to clarify her lie before then, Singh said that from August 8 that year he had intended her to do so.
He said: “From August 8 to October 4 she had to clarify, after October 4 she had to clarify why she lied again.”
Khan first lied to Parliament on 3 August 2021, giving a false anecdote that he accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was allegedly treated insensitively. She repeated her lie on October 4 of the same year.
On 11 October 2021, Singh met with former WP chief Low Thia Khiang and WP chairperson Sylvia Lim to discuss plans to deal with Khan’s lies.
Ang reiterated points raised by Low’s testimony on 23 October 2024, when Low said he told WP leaders that a press conference was not the right forum for Khan to admit her lies, and that Parliament was.
Ang said: “And then, lo and behold, on October 12 when you meet Khan, you say to her for the first time, ‘Ms Khan, you have to go to Parliament and make a personal statement’, don’t you?”
Singh agreed that this was his first time meeting her and told her that she had to make a personal statement.
He disagreed that he did not intend for her to clarify her lie before the meeting with Low on 11 October.
2. Prosecution clashes with Singh over meaning of ‘I will not judge you’
Ang pressed Singh on what he meant when he told Khan at a meeting on 3 October 2021 that “I will not judge you”, a 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’m not going to judge you if you take ownership and responsibility,” he said.
Khan previously testified that she believed Singh meant he would not judge her for going ahead with the story.
On November 7, Ang said: “Mr Singh, let me ask a couple of questions about logic, okay, which will go a long way in showing your level of honesty and sincerity.”
Ang said the phrase “I will not judge you” by itself is often used to tell a person that it is okay to admit wrongdoing to a person.
He said: “So for example, let’s say you don’t want to go to work tomorrow, then you say to your friend, ‘Aiya, I think I’ll get a doctor’s note so I can skip work tomorrow’. And then Your friend says, ‘Okay, go ahead. I won’t judge you.’
Singh replied with a laugh: “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’ll make an excuse, I’m not going’. And your wife says, ‘I’m not going to judge you’ – that’s how it is” I will not judge you” is common, agree?”
“No, I don’t agree,” Singh said.
Ang then asked if Singh meant that if Khan did something correct and good the next day, i.e. the truth, he would not judge her. Singh agreed with this.
“The truth, Mr. Singh, was that you gave her the go-ahead to do something wrong by telling her to continue the story, do you agree?” Ang asked.
Singh disagreed.
Ang also brought up an email from Khan on 7 October 2021 in which 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’re going to take her to task, she’s sending you this email to thank you for ‘caring for me and guiding me without judgement’ – it’s yours evidence that she did this?”
Singh replied that he did not tell her to continue the narration.
In response, Ang said: “Mr Singh, I have to tell you that your evidence is incredible, do you agree?”
Singh disagreed.
3. The prosecution questions Singh about the veracity of his statements to the COP
Ang again reviewed what Singh said in court and to the COP investigating Khan’s lies.
He asked Singh to clarify whether he intended Khan to come clean in Parliament on 4 October 2021, whether the issue came up on that day or not.
Ang said, “Your version in court is that if it comes up, she has to sort it out. But not otherwise, right?”
Singh disagreed and said, “No, that is not my version, that is what I have said in court but if the matter did not come up, she would have to clarify.”
Ang asked if Singh meant that Khan would have to clarify that day even if it was not raised, or if he meant that she would have to clarify at some point in the future.
Singh agreed that he meant she would have to deal with it at some point in the future.
To this, Ang said: “So she would have to deal with it at some point in the future – so that’s one version. To the extent that there’s a second version, which is that she has to bring it up and tell the truth on October 4 about it comes up or not, would it be false?”
Singh said there is no second version.
Ang pointed out that if one were to read the minutes of the COP and come to the view that the second statement was what Singh said to the COP, this would be a false statement to the COP.
Singh agreed that it should not be what was said.
Ang then said: “That would be a false statement to the COP because you said it is false.”
Singh said: “Subject to what is actually said in the COP, I agree.”
Singh had previously disputed this reading of his statements to the COP.
4. The prosecution says it tests Singh’s credibility
Ang asked Singh if there is a difference for him between a clarification and a personal statement, to which Singh agreed.
He then asked Singh what he meant when he said Khan had had an opportunity to admit her falsehood through a clarification following a speech by Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on October 4, 2021 – where the minister said Khan’s allegations would be investigated .
Ang said: “Are you saying you thought she could just say ‘Mr Shanmugam, the anecdote I gave on August 3 was false’ and then just sit back and wait for further questions from the minister or other MPs?”
Singh replied that he wouldn’t know what the follow-up questions would be, but Khan had to at least 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 August 3, wouldn’t she have been asked for many, many clarifications by MPs?”
To this Singh said, “Subject to her answer, I cannot answer that question.”
Ang then said, “I’m asking you because you’re testifying in court now. We test your credibility. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. We will leave comments on it.
“We have registered that you do not want to answer your question.”
Singh said: “I think I am answering your question, I don’t know what the PAP MPs would ask.”
5. Prosecution: Singh changes his evidence as he goes along
Ang also asked Singh about a meeting between Singh, Lim, Khan and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap on August 8, 2021.
He asked Singh if the three had discussed Khan’s lie after she left the meeting.
Singh said he could not remember and did not have that impression.
The prosecution has previously claimed that at the August 8 meeting, Singh had been prepared for Khan and the WP leaders to “take (the case) to the grave”.
Ang added that Lim and Faisal had also told the COP that there was never any such discussion, asking: “So a serious matter had been revealed to all of you, one of your WP MPs lied in Parliament, made an allegation against the police that can not substantiated, and the three of you did not discuss what the next steps should be taken, is that correct?”
Singh said: “That is correct.”
Asked whether WP leaders never discussed when Khan would correct his lie, Singh replied: “Yes, because we believed the nature of the revelation was deeply, deeply personal, and our state of mind was to handle the matter as sensitively as we could.”
Given that there was no discussion, who would follow up on Khan on the matter, Ang asked.
Singh said that as the party’s general secretary he took responsibility and he believed the expectation was that he – as the supreme leader – would follow through.
Ang said: “Yes, it is clear, you are the general secretary, 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 follow up on this matter?”
Singh said this was correct.
Ang also asked Singh if there were any notes or minutes of the meeting, or any emails or text messages that recorded the serious matter discussed. Singh said there were none, as far as he knew.
Ang said, “So there is no written record at all of this meeting and what was discussed about this lie, right?”
“Yes, that’s right,” Singh said.
Ang then noted that there were messages and emails discussing other issues related to Khan’s speech, but nothing to do with her lie.
To this, Singh said it was their instinct not to express it or spread the matter outside the three, as it included the very personal issue of Khan’s own sexual abuse – which she revealed to the WP leaders at that meeting.
Ang said: “Does that mean you didn’t want to put it on text or email to Mr Faisal or Ms Lim that this was discussed, that she was lying and that she was a survivor of sexual abuse?”
Singh said the trio saw no need for it.
Ang then asked Singh to clarify if the reason they did not release information from the meeting was that it was sensitive and they did not want it to be spread.
Singh replied: “No, let me be clear. The reason we didn’t talk about it is because we all understood what was being said and we didn’t have to commit to writing what had happened.”
Ang said, “You see, Singh, you just change your evidence as you go… Now you say it’s not needed because what’s the point of having it in writing – so what’s the truth?”
In response, Singh said: “The truth is quite clear if you look at my answers carefully. Initially I had mentioned that we did not take any minutes, there is no written record of the meeting, that is a fact.” – Straits Times/ANN
