'Are you changing your evidence?' Prosecution grills Pritam Singh in trial, Singapore News

PUBLISHED ONNovember 06, 2024 2:15 PMByClaudia Tan

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock and Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh had a tense exchange in court as the prosecution began its cross-examination of the defendant on Wednesday (Nov 6).

Singh is contesting two charges of wilfully giving false answers to the Committee of Privileges (COP), which was convened in November 2021 to look into a lie that former WP MP Raeesah Khan had told in Parliament three months prior.

On Wednesday, DAG Ang questioned Singh on some of the alleged inconsistences between his court testimony and his evidence to the COP.

One of these issues pertains to Singh's second charge, where he allegedly gave false answers to the COP about telling Khan on Oct 3, 2021 to clarify her story about the rape survivor if the issue was brought up in Parliament the next day.

His first charge relates to a meeting between Khan and the WP leaders on Aug 8, 2021. Singh, 48, allegedly lied when he said he wanted Khan to clarify her untruth in parliament at this meeting.

During the COP, Singh had said Khan would have to clarify the matter, whether or not it was brought up by the government.

However, he told the court that she could address the matter at a later date if it was not raised.

"So that is contradictory. And my question is — so which is the truth? What you told the COP or what you told the court?" DAG Ang asked Singh.

The WP chief 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," he added.

Singh said that in hindsight, his words would have suggested that Khan come up with a personal statement on Oct 4, 2021.

Prosecution asks Singh: Are you changing your evidence?

During the cross-examination, DAG Ang sought to show that no steps were taken before that meeting for Khan to come clean in Parliament.

The prosecution took the stance that Singh knew, while heading to the meeting, that Khan would not have been able to tell the truth on the next day.

This was because she had yet to tell her parents about her sexual assault, and she would not have had time to prepare a statement — reasons Singh had told the COP.

But Singh disagreed with this, saying that Khan could have told the truth on Oct 4.

He said he visited her on Oct 3 to highlight that the issue of her untruth might come up the next day, and told her that she would have to take ownership and responsibility.

When asked about his frame of mind before meeting Khan, Singh said he was under the impression that she had not yet spoken with her parents, as she had not come back to him on the matter.

The WP chief had said earlier in court that Khan telling her parents about her sexual assault was a "condition precedent" for her to confess to her lie in Parliament.

Khan also did not tell Singh on Oct 3 that she was ready to come clean, DAG Ang pointed out.

Singh refuted this, saying: "There was no reason for me to opine that she would not be able to tell the truth.

"That’s what ought to be done with an untruth on record in Parliament."

DAG Ang questioned: "Mr Singh, so you're changing your evidence?"

Singh replied: "My evidence is what it is."

The prosecutor then changed gears and asked Singh at which point in time he came to the understanding that Khan could tell the truth, to which Singh said was after the Oct 3 meeting.

"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 Ang.

Noting that the question was "a bit strange", Singh said: "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.

DAG Ang then retorted: "Mr Singh, 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."

The prosecution asked Singh again if he thought on the morning of Oct 3 that Khan was ready to tell the truth to Parliament on Oct 4.

After some back and forth, Singh replied "no", citing that Khan had not gotten back to him about whether she had spoken to her parents.

"The point was... I visited her on Oct 3 because she hadn’t come back with all of this to me and so on Oct 3, I visit her. After I visit her, I get no indication from her that she would have difficulty with telling the truth."