Pritam Singh's cross-examination concluded, verdict slated for Feb 17

The defence on Nov 8 wrapped up its case in Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s trial without calling new witnesses, after the prosecution spent more than 11 hours over three days cross-examining Singh on his evidence.

Drawing his cross-examination to a close, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock spent half an hour putting to Singh what the prosecution viewed as the true version of events of how the Leader of the Opposition handled the lie told by former WP MP Raeesah Khan, and asked if he agreed with each statement line by line.

Singh disagreed with most of them.

It is the prosecution’s case that Singh tried to, on multiple occasions, cover up his involvement in Ms Khan’s lie to Parliament, including by getting her to not respond to the police when they requested to interview her on Oct 7, 2021.

Mr Ang also made the case that Singh withheld the information that he knew of Ms Khan’s untruth as early as Aug 7, 2021, from former WP chief Low Thia Khiang when they met on Oct 11, 2021.

Mr Low had earlier testified that he only knew in August 2023 about Singh’s prior knowledge of the matter.

The prosecution said the police’s Oct 7 request for Ms Khan to be interviewed and Mr Low’s advice on Oct 11 for Ms Khan to tell the truth were the incidents that set Singh on the path of ensuring Ms Khan’s untruth would be clarified in Parliament.

Singh is contesting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened in November 2021 to look into the lying controversy involving Ms Khan.

Ms Khan had, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament a false anecdote that she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively.

She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 the same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.

Bringing up the police’s Oct 7 e-mail to Ms Khan, Mr Ang said: “You were concerned that if Ms Khan went for the interview with the police, she might reveal the truth and of your knowledge since August.”

In coming to this conclusion, Mr Ang earlier asked Singh why Ms Khan could not just respond to the police if the intention was to have her tell the truth.

He replied that he did not believe she could have done that, as in his view the matter should be addressed in Parliament.

“This is arising from how we as opposition MPs take the separation of powers schema quite seriously. We believe that if you’ve done something wrong in Parliament, then (the matter should be addressed in Parliament),” Singh added.

What the prosecution pieced together

Singh, WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap had known of Ms Khan’s lie in Parliament by Aug 8, 2021, when they met her at Singh’s house to discuss the untrue anecdote.

Summarising the prosecution’s case, Mr Ang put it to Singh that he did not tell Ms Khan to speak to her parents or that she would have to deal with the issue of her lie at the conclusion of their Aug 8 meeting.

This is because Singh thought the untruth would not be brought up again in Parliament, and that the matter was resolved, after Leader of the House Indranee Rajah said at the Aug 3 sitting that MPs had to be ready to substantiate their points when making serious allegations, Mr Ang said.

Ms Khan had earlier told the court Ms Lim said at the meeting that the issue would probably not be raised again, with Singh mentioning that “this is something we would all have to take to the grave”.

By “take to the grave”, Mr Ang said Singh meant the truth could be buried. “As far as you’re concerned, there was no need to discuss this untruth any further... You were content for Ms Khan to leave the untruth unclarified in Parliament,” he added. 

Mr Ang said Singh met Ms Khan’s then aides Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan two days later, as he knew they were close to Ms Khan and aware of her lie.

At this meeting, Singh did not tell Ms Loh and Mr Nathan that the lie had to be clarified in Parliament, or that he had asked Ms Khan to speak to her parents, among other things. This was because he intended to leave the untruth unclarified in Parliament, Mr Ang said.

Mr Ang said that, for this same reason, Singh did not – between Aug 10 and Oct 2 in 2021 – check with Ms Khan if she had spoken with her parents.

Neither did he give any instructions or directions to Ms Khan, Ms Loh or Mr Nathan about the lie, nor discuss the untruth with Ms Lim or Mr Faisal, Mr Ang added.

While Singh had sent an e-mail on Oct 1, 2021, reminding all sitting WP MPs of parliamentary protocols, its real intention was to warn Ms Khan she would have to face the Committee of Privileges (COP) if the Government found out she had lied, Mr Ang said.

“The Oct 1 e-mail was not a prompt for Ms Khan to correct her lie,” he said.

Accusing Singh of telling an “outright lie” when he told the COP that he told her she should clarify the untruth whether or not the issue came up at the Oct 4 Parliament sitting, Mr Ang said Ms Khan was in fact “intentionally guided” that she could choose to continue with the untruth if the issue came up.

Singh had told Ms Khan that if the issue came up, he would not judge her if she were to continue with the narrative, and to that she looked visibly relieved, Mr Ang said.

Noting that no draft clarification for the Oct 4 sitting had been prepared, and how Ms Khan had not told Singh that she had informed her parents that she was sexually assaulted, Mr Ang put to Singh: “You knew it was impossible for her to clarify the untruth the next day because there were no preparations whatsoever for her to do so…

“You knew the only real choice that Ms Khan had, if the issue came up, was to continue the untruth.”

Mr Ang also pointed out that after Ms Khan doubled down on her lie, she could have clarified the untruth when Parliament sat the next day on Oct 5, 2021.

But nothing was done or agreed upon when Singh and Ms Lim met her in his office in Parliament at 11.15pm on Oct 4 because he did not want her to do so, Mr Ang said.

“Ms Khan had suggested to you that there was another path, which was to tell the truth, but you replied it was too late for that,” he added.

Disagreeing, Singh said he believed he said, “Look at the choice you’ve made”, instead.

Mr Ang said that, at that meeting, neither Singh nor Ms Lim asked Ms Khan why she lied again or told her to clarify the untruth because there was no intention at the time for her to do so.

The events on Oct 7 and 11, especially Mr Low’s advice to tell the truth in Parliament, were what set the WP leaders on the new path to ensure Ms Khan would clarify her lie, Mr Ang said.

So Ms Khan heard for the first time in a meeting with Singh and Ms Lim on Oct 12, 2021, that she must make a personal statement in Parliament to clarify the untruth, Mr Ang added. 

Neither leader had tried to find out then if she had told her parents about her own sexual assault, he added. 

Mr Ang said Singh also recounted to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan that he had told Ms Khan he would not judge her if she decided to continue with the untruth if the issue came up on Oct 4.

This was as Singh was explaining to the pair that “it was now time for Ms Khan to come clean because it seemed that the Government may already know that Ms Khan had lied, and that the matter would not be dropped”, Mr Ang added.

The change in Singh’s intention could be seen in how he gave “clear, explicit and frequent” directions in relation to Ms Khan’s personal statement to clarify her untruth on Nov 1, from Oct 12 to 29.

This was in contrast to his “complete lack of directions and preparations” before Oct 12, Mr Ang pointed out.

Mr Ang also said the WP disciplinary panel (DP) formed on Nov 2 to look into Ms Khan’s lies in Parliament had focused more on her general performance as an MP, as opposed to her conduct in relation to the untrue anecdote.

The DP – which comprised Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – disregarded the three leaders’ guidance to Ms Khan on Aug 8, and did not consider the discussion Singh had with Ms Khan on Oct 3, Mr Ang said.

It also did not inform WP’s central executive committee (CEC) that the three leaders had known about her lie from Aug 8, Mr Ang added.

Mr Ang said the DP’s conduct was “self-serving and calculated” to distance the three leaders from Ms Khan’s conduct. 

“You did not want yours, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal’s conduct to be scrutinised within the party... The DP did not act fairly and impartially in respect of the proceedings against Ms Khan... The DP withheld important facts from the CEC,” he added.

During Singh’s re-examination, which lasted about 20 minutes, the WP chief reiterated that the DP’s formation was Mr Low’s idea.

What’s next?

The prosecution and defence have until Jan 13, 2025, to file their closing submissions. Thereafter, they have till Jan 31 to make reply submissions.

Singh’s case will be heard in court again on Feb 17, 2025, when Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan is expected to give his verdict.

The judge could spell out the outcome of the defence’s bid to impeach Ms Khan’s credit as a witness in his judgment.

If the bid is successful, Ms Khan’s testimony would be given less weight.

As Singh left the State Courts on Nov 8, the Aljunied GRC MP told reporters “there’s still work to be done”, as he has not been on the ground in his Eunos ward due to his trial. He said he will resume house visits and return to Parliament at the next sitting on Nov 11.