Pritam Singh cross-examined by prosecution, accused of giving misleading impression to COP, changing evidence

SINGAPORE: Terse exchanges broke out between the prosecution and Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh, as the former accused Singh of giving the Committee of Privileges (COP) a "misleading impression", less than half an hour into the cross-examination of Singh on Wednesday (Nov 6). 

The WP secretary-general's second day on the stand saw Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock grill Singh about inconsistencies or contradictions between his evidence to the COP and his testimony in court. Both sides also argued over Singh's frame of mind in the events leading up to one of his charges, with Mr Ang accusing Singh of changing his evidence and being "obtuse". 

The Leader of the Opposition took the stand for the first time on Tuesday after the trial judge called on him to make his defence. The 48-year-old was then questioned by his lawyer Andre Jumabhoy the whole day and on the morning of Wednesday before the prosecution began its cross-examination.

The exchange between prosecutor and accused was fast-paced, with parties speaking over one another at times. Mr Ang, who is senior counsel, frequently directed Singh to answer his questions first when the latter tried to elaborate. Singh also often asked Mr Ang to repeat his questions. 

At one point, Mr Ang told Singh: "You see, if you listen to my question, I won't have to repeat it."

Singh is contesting two charges of lying to the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021. 

The COP had been convened to look into a lie that fellow WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan had first said in Parliament on Aug 3, 2021. Her lie was that she had accompanied a rape victim to a police station when such an encounter did not happen. 

The first charge relates to an Aug 8, 2021 meeting between Ms Khan and the WP leaders. Singh allegedly lied when he said he wanted Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in parliament at this meeting. 

The second charge alleges that Singh gave false answers to the COP when he said that he told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021 to clarify her story about the rape survivor if the issue came up in parliament the next day.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS FOR SINGH

On Wednesday morning, Mr Jumabhoy completed his examination-in-chief of Singh within half an hour, making way for Mr Ang to begin his cross-examination. 

Mr Ang promptly started his line of questioning by focusing on Singh's answers to the COP and in particular, to Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong. 

His first question to Singh was if the latter "held (himself) out as an honest person", to which Singh replied: "Yes I would." 

Mr Ang then asked: "You would not deliberately lie?" 

"No I would not," Singh responded. 

In a series of questions of the same nature, Singh continued to maintain that he had answered the COP honestly. 

Mr Ang then turned to a clarification statement that Ms Khan had made in parliament hours after she first recounted her anecdote, on Aug 3, 2021. 

Singh had drafted the clarification for Ms Khan, who added one sentence before reading the statement out in parliament. 

Mr Ang pointed to Singh's testimony to the COP, where he mentioned that Ms Khan had added "another line in that statement, doesn’t check with me, and then makes the statement in the house". 

Mr Ang then directed Singh to a WhatsApp exchange between himself and Ms Khan, showing that Ms Khan had informed Singh of the proposed edit in a message. 

"So you approved what she was going to say in parliament as a matter of clarification. You approved it and she went ahead to deliver that correct?" asked Mr Ang.

Singh said that was correct but added that he had been under the impression that Ms Khan had already agreed to the clarification he had drafted. 

"The additional line, I had expected her to say, I have something to change here and in that context I informed the COP ... she doesn't tell me she was going to make an amendment prior to sending the draft clarification," said Singh. 

Mr Ang then suggested to Mr Singh: "It is clear that you were trying to give the COP the 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 and clearing with you the amendment."

Singh disagreed, saying that this would not be logical as he was the one who offered the WhatsApp exchanges to the COP. 

Towards the end of this exchange, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan asked: "So somewhere in between 'doesn't check with me' and (when Ms Khan) makes a statement, she does check with you whether you were fine with the amendment and you approved, then she makes (a) statement?"

Singh said that this was correct. 

DISAGREEMENTS OVER OCT 3, 2021 MEETING

Moving on to events related to the second charge, where Singh is accused of lying to the COP about what he told Ms Khan during an Oct 3, 2021 meeting at her house, Mr Ang pointed out contradictions in  Singh's evidence. The Oct 3 meeting took place a day before Ms Khan doubled down on her lie in parliament. 

During an exchange, Mr Ang accused Singh of changing his evidence in court, with parties speaking over each other. At one point, Mr Ang cuts off Singh's elaboration with an emphatic "thank you", causing Mr Jumabhoy to interject and ask that Singh be allowed to finish his answer.  

The defence lawyer said that Singh was cut off on "on a number of occasions" and should be entitled to complete his responses. Mr Ang disagreed, saying that Singh had been given "ample time" to explain his answer.

Said Mr Ang: "In court, you have told the court that she doesn't have to clarify if the matter is not raised, but here in the COP, you have told the COP that regardless of whether it’s raised, it’s very clear that what you told her was that she has to clarify the next day. 

"So that is contradictory. And my question is - so which is the truth? What you told the COP or what you told the court?"

Singh said he told the court the truth. 

"I would have expected her to clarify the matter. But insofar as what happened if it didn't come up, the matter would be clarified at some future stage," said Singh. He added that in hindsight the words he said would have suggested that Ms Khan would have to come up with a personal statement on Oct 4. 

In the COP report, however, he made it "quite clear" that Ms Khan would have to clarify the anecdote on Oct 4 if it came up, Singh said.

When pressed if what he told the COP was incorrect, Singh said he "would not put it that way". 

"I think my frame of mind in replying to Mr Tong was, as I’ve shared with you, that on (Oct 4), (Ms Khan) would have to clarify and I think I made that clear to her," Singh said. 

Mr Ang then put to Singh that what he told the COP - that Singh had made it clear to Ms Khan that she had to clarify the matter in parliament on Oct 4 whether or not the issue was raised - was false. 

Singh disagreed, adding that there was context to his replies.

Both sides also sparred over Singh's supposed frame of mind before he met Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021. 

The prosecution took the position that Singh knew - while heading into the Oct 3 meeting - that Ms Khan would not have been able to tell the truth the next day due to the reasons Singh previously set out to the COP. The reasons included how Ms Khan had yet to inform her parents about her sexual assault, and she would not have had the time to prepare a statement.

However, Singh disagreed with this. He maintained that Ms Khan could have told the truth on Oct 4. He said he had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3 to tell her that the issue of her lie might come up the next day, and that she would have to take ownership and responsibility. 

After a series of questions framing the Oct 3 meeting, Mr Ang argued to Singh: "I put it to you she could not tell the truth on Oct 4 because as you had said, she had not come back to you on Oct 3 to say she had told her parents, and she was ready to tell the truth." Singh disagreed with this statement. 

Mr Ang noted that Singh's evidence earlier had been that as of Oct 3, when he woke in the morning, Ms Khan had not got back to say if she had spoken to her parents and was ready to tell the truth. 

"You thought she wouldn't be able to clarify the truth on Oct 4," said Mr Ang. 

Singh replied: "No. I would say no, because her position was not clear to me, because I hadn't raised it with her and she hadn't brought it up to me as well."

This led Mr Ang to ask Singh if he was changing his evidence and Singh denied doing so. 

Mr Ang then asked at which point of time Singh "suddenly" came to the understanding that Ms Khan could tell the truth on Oct 4, even though she had not come back to Singh about it before that. Singh responded that it was the Oct 3 meeting.

"Exactly, so before the Oct 3 meeting with her, you didn't think that she could tell the truth on Oct 4 until you met her," said Mr Ang. Singh replied that the question was "a bit strange". 

"I would disagree with that because as a Member of Parliament, there is no reason for me to think she can't tell the truth," he said. 

This led Mr Ang to say that the question was not whether one could "open the mouth and speak". "I think we all know what we are talking about in this courtroom … If we want to be obtuse that's fine but the question is simple."

The trial continues on Wednesday with the cross-examination of Singh.