‘Who’s telling the truth?’

Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s version of events is not consistent with Mr Low Thia Khiang’s, the prosecution said as Singh took the stand for the fourth day in a trial over his alleged lies.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock pointed out differences between the Leader of the Opposition’s testimony and the former WP chief’s regarding a meeting between the pair and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim on Oct 11, 2021. 

This date is central to the prosecution’s case, as it is arguing that Singh had not intended for former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan to clarify her lies in Parliament until after the Oct 11 meeting with Mr Low.

Singh’s two charges are for lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that he had, at meetings with her on Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021, wanted her to do so.

Here are the key points from the third day of Singh’s cross-examination: 

1. Prosecution: Singh’s story not consistent with Low Thia Khiang’s

Mr Ang attacked Singh’s account of the Oct 11 meeting with Mr Low, suggesting that he had not formed the intention for Ms Khan to clarify her lies until advised to do so by Mr Low. 

He brought up a statement Singh had given to the police on Jan 16, 2023, where he said that Mr Low had not given the WP leaders any advice as they “already knew that all that was left to do was for Ms Khan to admit to her lies in Parliament”. 

Mr Ang said: “So my point to you is that Mr Low did in fact give you advice, which was that Ms Khan had to clarify the untruth in Parliament, correct?”

Singh agreed, but said he and Ms Lim already had that perspective before speaking to Mr Low. 

Mr Ang pressed him on this, asking: “So it’s not correct for you to say that he did not give you any advice?”

Singh said he replied to the police in that way because he already knew he and Ms Lim wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth. 

“It wasn’t advice to me because we already knew that’s what we wanted to do,” he said.

Mr Ang went on to ask Singh if they had told Mr Low at this meeting that they had already formed this view.

Singh said: “We would have shared something to that effect with him.”

Mr Ang noted then that Mr Low had said earlier during the trial that neither Singh nor Ms Lim had told him they already planned for Ms Khan to tell the truth in Parliament. 

Mr Low had testified as a prosecution witness on Oct 23, 2024. 

Mr Ang added: “Nobody told him at this meeting that this was already the plan. Do you recall that?”

“That may be his recollection,” Singh replied.

Mr Ang continued to press Singh on whether he and Ms Lim had told Mr Low of their plans at the meeting. 

He said: “So your recollection is that you did tell Mr Low that Raeesah would be clarifying her untruth in Parliament?” 

Singh agreed with this.

Mr Ang said: “So who’s telling the truth?... He’s lying, or you’re lying, isn’t it?”

To this, Singh said: “That’s something you have to draw a conclusion on.”

“Yes, I will,” said Mr Ang.

The prosecutor put it to Singh that Mr Low had told the truth – that Singh did not tell him that Ms Khan would be clarifying her lie in Parliament.

Singh disagreed.

Mr Ang also questioned Singh about whether he told Mr Low at the Oct 11 meeting that Ms Khan had already confessed her lie to him, Ms Lim and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap on Aug 8, 2021.

Ms Khan lied to Parliament on Aug 3 that year. She gave a false anecdote about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was purportedly treated insensitively.

Ms Khan repeated her lie on Oct 4 before coming clean on Nov 1 the same year.

Singh said in a statement to the police that Mr Low was told at the Oct 11 meeting that WP leaders had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 8 the same year, Mr Ang noted.

However, Mr Low told the court he came to know of this only in August 2023, almost two years later, Mr Ang said.

Mr Ang said: “Your evidence is that you told Mr Low, and Mr Low said you did not. Which is the truth?”

Singh said he did tell Mr Low: “Yes, as per my statement, that would be my recollection.”

Mr Ang pressed the point, asking: “So if you are right, then Mr Low is lying, right?”

Singh said: “No, I wouldn’t say that, it could be a question of memories.”

Further pressed on whether he thought his memory was more accurate than Mr Low’s, Singh said: “My reply there was really shaped by my relationship with Mr Low, that when we speak about any matter, everything is shared openly.”

Mr Ang said: “So in other words, you actually cannot remember whether you told Mr Low this but you think, based on the way you have this relationship with him, you must have told him.”

Singh said: “Yes, because there was nothing for me to hide from him.”

Mr Ang later said: “Mr Singh, I would suggest to you that you never told Mr Low that you found out about the untruth as early as August.”

Singh disagreed.

“And the reason you did not do that was because you knew what Mr Low’s reaction would be,” Mr Ang added.

Singh disagreed again. 

2. Prosecution: Singh lied to the COP that he did not know Loh Pei Ying would testify

Mr Ang suggested to Singh that he lied to the COP when he said he did not know Ms Khan’s former party aide Loh Pei Ying was going to give evidence to it.

Singh disagreed. 

He had the day before said in court that he had been inaccurate in what he told the COP, and that he had in fact known since Nov 29, 2021, that Ms Loh was going to give evidence, days before the COP began proceedings on Dec 2.

The prosecution had earlier argued that because Singh knew Ms Loh and Ms Khan would be giving evidence, he chose on Nov 30 to arrange a press conference on Ms Khan’s lies. The press conference was held on Dec 2, the same day the COP began proceedings.

On Nov 8, 2024, Mr Ang said: “You have told the court that actually – ‘I did know on Nov 29, 2021, I did know that Ms Loh was going to give evidence before the COP’, you told the court that yesterday, right?”

Singh responded: “Yes. Later, I came to find out.”

Mr Ang then asked him what his position was, to which Singh said: “I think the final position is quite clear. I did not recall the series of messages that Pei Ying and Mike were informed… 

“I think I was into my seventh or eighth hour at the COP. That detail I forgot. I have no difficulty with sharing with this court that it was an omission on my part.”

Mr Mike Lim is another WP cadre who messaged Singh on Nov 29, 2021, to tell him Ms Khan and Ms Loh had been called to give evidence to the COP.

Mr Ang continued to press Singh on when he knew that Ms Loh was testifying. “I’m asking you as of Nov 29, 2021.”

Singh responded: “You see Mr Ang, I have answered it already…

“I have received, as you can see from the police statement, I had received the message, I am not going to deny that.”

3. Prosecution: Singh’s statements to the court and police are contradictory

Mr Ang also contended that Singh’s version of events in court contradicted what he had told the police about a meeting between him, Ms Loh and another of Ms Khan’s former aides, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.

He made the point that Singh had testified – repeatedly – that Ms Low and Ms Nathan were trying to suppress the truth.

“But in your statement to the police, you told the police that they were not trying to suppress the truth.”

This line of questioning revolves around what was said at a meeting between the trio on Oct 12, 2021. 

Mr Ang said Singh stated in his statement to the police that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were not trying to suppress Ms Khan’s lie but, rather, discussing how to articulate it in her personal statement.

Mr Ang noted that the pair, who took the stand as prosecution witnesses, have said in court that they thought if Ms Khan did not reveal her own sexual assault in her clarification to Parliament, it would be very difficult to explain why she lied. 

He said: “That was their position, yes?”

Singh agreed.

When asked if he agreed with this position eventually, he said: “My view was that the statement was for Ms Khan to make, they can retain that view, for me it was about what she was going to say.” 

Mr Ang then asked if Singh agreed with the pair’s view that it would be difficult to explain why Ms Khan lied to Parliament on Aug 3, 2021, without mentioning she was a sexual assault victim.

Ms Khan later explained that she had heard the anecdote in her lie in a support group for survivors of sexual assault which she was also part of. 

Mr Ang said: “So at that time your recollection... that there was no other way for Ms Khan except to say the truth that she was a sexual assault victim, that was your point at the time, correct?”

Singh agreed.

Mr Ang went on to highlight the apparent difference between Singh’s statements to the police and the court, saying that he told the court that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan were trying to suppress the untruth, but he told the police that they were not.

He said: “Both are contradictory. Only one of them can be the truth. Can you tell us, were you lying in the police statement, or were you lying in court?”

Singh said: “I wasn’t lying anywhere.”