Prosecution: ‘You’re not being very honest in your evidence’

Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh was cross-examined in rapid-fire style for almost five hours on Nov 6, as the prosecution sought to show that he had not been entirely honest in his testimony to the court, based on the contradictions in Singh’s testimony on multiple areas.

The exchange turned particularly heated when Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock accused Singh of changing his evidence as he tried to pin down when the WP chief no longer deemed it a prerequisite for former WP MP Raeesah Khan to speak to her parents before coming clean in Parliament.

Ms Khan, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was purportedly treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 that same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.

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

He earlier told the court that he did not come up with an explicit plan on how to resolve Ms Khan’s lie at a meeting with her, WP chairman Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap on Aug 8, 2021, due to the gravity of Ms Khan’s revelation to them that she was a victim of sexual assault.

His position then was that this was a matter Ms Khan would have to “settle herself”, including having to speak to her parents, before she could be able to make a clarification in Parliament, he testified.

Mr Ang focused his questioning on when Singh’s stance changed as he had testified that he had not asked Ms Khan if she had cleared the matter with her parents when they met on Oct 3, 2021.

Yet, Singh said he made clear to Ms Khan that she had to take ownership and responsibility over her lie, and tell the truth when Parliament sat the next day.

The cross-examination culminated to a point where Mr Ang put to Singh towards the end of the 11th day of the WP chief’s trial that he was not being honest in his evidence to the court.

This came up when Mr Ang was pressing Singh on why the condition for Ms Khan to tell her parents was no longer relevant after she doubled down on her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.

In response, Singh said after Oct 4 the circumstances had evolved to Ms Khan having to come up with a statement, instead of merely clarifying her untruth in Parliament.

When Mr Ang pointed out to Singh that he had told the Committee of Privileges (COP) he was pretty sure Ms Khan needed time to clear the matter with her parents, Singh said: “And that was something that she would have to do to produce that statement.”

Mr Ang then said: “I’m sad to say but I have to suggest to you that you’re not being very honest in your evidence. Do you agree?”

Singh disagreed.

The WP chief also disagreed that he had contradicted his own testimony each time Mr Ang raised one.

There were several instances where he qualified his answers while doing so, such as when Mr Ang asked if the WP central executive committee (CEC) should have been informed first if Singh wanted Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in Parliament on Oct 5, 2021.

Singh disagreed and said one of the main reasons the CEC met on Oct 29 was to “lock in Raeesah’s statement that she was going to make in Parliament”.

Asked if he meant to say that the CEC need not be informed beforehand if Ms Khan admitted to the untruth at the Oct 5 sitting, Singh said it did not cross the WP leaders’ minds when they met after Ms Khan doubled down on her untruth on Oct 4.

“On Oct 4, the more important issue that we were thinking about was why Ms Khan would tell a lie again,” he added. “Our view was we had to understand that first and the timeline was just too short to have a CEC meeting.”

At one point, Mr Ang asked Singh if he felt he was being “crystal clear” to Ms Khan that she would have to come clean on Oct 4, 2021, when he told her the day before that she had to take ownership and responsibility of her lie and that he would not judge her.

Singh said yes. To this, Mr Ang said Singh was a lawyer who was “quite capable of using words which are very clear”. “All you needed to say... was, if it comes out, please just tell the truth. Correct?”

Singh replied that because he was dealing with an MP, he “chose words that, in my view, were appropriate for her”.

When grilled about this at another point, Singh said Ms Khan is an MP in her own right, so he would expect her to understand clearly what taking ownership and responsibility meant.

‘Changing your evidence now?’

Mr Ang accused Singh of changing his evidence when the prosecutor pursued the line of reasoning that Singh had thought Ms Khan was not ready to admit her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.

The WP chief had earlier testified that as at Oct 3, Ms Khan had not updated him on whether she had told her parents about having been a victim of sexual assault herself.

Singh’s answer was: “No, I wouldn’t say so because her position was not clear to me because I hadn’t raised it with her. She hadn’t brought it up to me as well.”

This prompted Mr Ang to ask: “Mr Singh, are you changing your evidence now?”

When Singh denied this, Mr Ang pointed out that he had earlier told the court that Ms Khan had to inform him that she had spoken to her parents and was ready to come clean before she could correct her lie in Parliament, but none of that had happened as at Oct 3, 2021. 

He then put it to Singh that his frame of mind on Oct 3 would thus be that Ms Khan could not come clean in Parliament.

To this suggestion, Singh said: “No, I would disagree because on Oct 3 to her house...”

Mr Ang cut him off, saying: “Mr Singh, I am talking about before you went to her house… Do you want to change your evidence?”

Singh asked if the prosecutor could repeat his question for clarity “to make sure you don’t feel like I’m changing my evidence”.

Mr Ang then asked if Singh’s frame of mind before he met Ms Khan on Oct 3 was that she could not tell the truth on Oct 4.

“I am not certain of that because there’s an e-mail on Oct 1,” Singh replied.

Before Singh could complete the sentence, Mr Ang said: “Mr Singh, so you are changing your evidence.”

“My evidence is what it is,” Singh replied, as Mr Ang interjected to say: “Okay, so your evidence is what it is, and we will make submissions on that.” 

“Sure,” Singh said.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan stepped in at one point to clarify certain parts of Singh’s testimony, where he said that before visiting Ms Khan on Oct 3, he felt she could tell the truth the next day in Parliament. 

Singh told the court there was no reason for him to think that Ms Khan could not tell the truth before he met her on Oct 3.

“She hadn’t come back to me up till Oct 3 before I saw her. At that point, yes, I had not checked with her whether she was ready to clarify the untruth,” he added.

To this, Mr Ang again pointed out that Singh’s evidence has changed. “Your evidence is that on Oct 3, she hasn’t come back to me, but she can tell the truth on Oct 4,” he said.

Mr Ang later asked: “At which point in time did it come to you that (Ms Khan) can tell the truth on the Oct 4 Parliament sitting even though she has not come back to you that she has cleared it with her parents?”

Singh said it was a conclusion he drew after his Oct 3 meeting with Ms Khan.

“Exactly,” Mr Ang said, stating that this meant Singh’s frame of mind before meeting Ms Khan on Oct 3 was that she could not tell the truth on Oct 4 because she had not told him whether she had informed her parents.

“That wouldn’t be the only conclusion I would draw,” Singh said. “She hasn’t come back to me, that’s the only fact.”

Mr Ang followed up by suggesting that one conclusion he could draw was that Ms Khan was not able to tell the truth on Oct 4. 

When Singh disagreed and reiterated that there was no reason for him to opine that she would not be able to tell the truth, Mr Ang said: “So that’s why we went down these questions, you see.”

Singh stood his ground when Mr Ang again questioned if he did not think Ms Khan could tell the truth on Oct 4 before the Oct 3 meeting until he met her.

“Well, it’s a bit strange. I would disagree with that. As a person, as an MP, there is no reason for me to think that she can’t tell the truth,” the WP chief said.

Mr Ang persisted. “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,” he said, as he posed his question to Singh again.

“You framed it better now. I agree,” Singh said at this point. 

“Oh, I am so sorry,” Mr Ang said in response, prompting Singh to say: “I am not trying to be sarcastic here.” 

After more back-and-forth around the same issue, Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, stood up to object to the way the questions were posed, pointing out that his client was cut off on a number of occasions.

The judge then said he would like to record Singh’s full answer.

Singh’s fuller response was that Ms Khan had by Oct 3 not given him a response on whether she was ready to come clean in Parliament after he had given her time to speak to her parents.

After visiting her on Oct 3, “I got no indication from her that she would have difficulty with telling the truth”, he said.

Singh objected when Mr Ang put to him that he did not arrange to meet Ms Khan immediately after she doubled down on her lie on Oct 4 and told her that she should have come clean because she was just acting according to his guidance from the night before.

“I would have to disagree very vehemently with that,” he said.

He said he did not meet Ms Khan immediately as a parliamentary debate around the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill was ongoing, and he might have to respond if other MPs raised questions about his speech on the legislation.