‘You guided her to maintain the untruth’: Deputy Attorney-General locks horns with Pritam Singh

SINGAPORE: A deputy attorney-general locked horns with Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh on Wednesday (Nov 6) as he continued his cross-examination of the opposition leader in a trial about lies.
The exchanges between Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, a former High Court judge, and trained lawyer Singh were almost unyielding, such that Mr Ang asked Singh at one point to “please stop” talking.
“You haven’t answered my question, which is why we are making no progress here,” said the senior counsel.
Singh, 48, is on the stand as part of his defence in his ongoing trial for two unprecedented charges.
He is accused of lying to the Committee of Privileges in December 2021, when he was being questioned about his intentions regarding former WP member of parliament Raeesah Khan’s false anecdote.
Ms Khan, a new MP who was successfully deployed to Sengkang GRC in the 2020 General Election under Singh’s instruction, had shared in parliament on Aug 3, 2021 that she had gone to a police station with a rape victim.
This anecdote was later revealed to be false. Ms Khan had not gone to the police station with the so-called rape victim, but she had been a victim of sexual assault at the age of 18.
Mr Ang, who began his cross-examination earlier on Wednesday morning, brought Singh through multiple answers he had given to the COP in December 2021 and grilled him on them.
Under Mr Ang’s questioning, Singh agreed that there were several things he did not do with regard to Ms Khan’s lie.
First, he did not ask Ms Khan when he visited her at her father’s house on Oct 3, 2021, if she had told her parents about her sexual assault.
He had told the COP that this was one of the things he wanted to let her do before clarifying the lie.
He did not text or email Ms Khan to ask her if she had spoken to her parents about it, and he did not check with her if she was ready to clarify the untruth in parliament.
He did not ask Ms Khan to prepare a statement for him to look at, in case she had to tell the truth on Oct 4, 2021.
This was when parliament sat again and it was the first time Ms Khan was returning to parliament proper after telling the false anecdote on Aug 3, 2021.
Explaining this, Singh said it was because “I expected her to be able to tell the truth.”
He did not give any alert to the WP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) on Oct 3, 2021, that Ms Khan may admit to her lie in parliament the day after.
“In fact, you made no preparations at all on Oct 3 after having spoken to Ms Khan. You made no preparations at all for the possibility that the truth might come out on Oct 4, correct?” asked Mr Ang.
Singh replied: “Yes, because it was clear that to me after I had communicated with her in the evening that she would not have difficulty clarifying the matter if it came up.”
In a series of exchanges after this, Mr Ang pressed Singh to agree that he had made no preparations whatsoever for revealing the truth on Oct 4, 2021.
When Singh continued to share his side of the story and did not answer Mr Ang’s question directly, Mr Ang said: “Please stop. Please stop. You haven’t answered my question, which is why we are making no progress here.”
He repeated his question, and Singh conceded that it was correct to say he had made no preparations for the possibility of the truth being revealed in parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
“I put it to you, Mr Singh, that the truth of the matter is – that you proceeded on the basis that Ms Khan was not going to come clean on Oct 4,” said Mr Ang. “And that is why you didn’t, on Oct 3, tell Ms Khan to tell the truth.”
Singh disagreed.
Mr Ang charged that Singh had given Ms Khan a choice whether to tell the truth on Oct 4, 2021.
“And you guided her to maintain the untruth. Agree?” he said.
“Disagree,” replied Singh.
According to Singh, he thought it was “crystal clear” when he told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, that she had to “take ownership and responsibility” if the issue came up the next day in parliament, meaning she had to tell the truth.
This was coupled with the fact that Ms Khan asked no questions and seemed to understand him.
However, on Oct 4, 2021, when Minister K Shanmugam pressed Ms Khan for more details of the police station visit in a ministerial statement neither of them saw coming, Ms Khan repeated her lie.
“So on Oct 4 when you were in the parliament chamber, and you heard Ms Khan’s lie being repeated, you didn’t correct it, right?” asked Mr Ang.
“That is correct,” said Singh.
“You didn’t tell her – please correct it now, right?” asked Mr Ang.
“No, I did not,” replied Singh.
“I put it to you that you didn’t do anything (on Oct 4, 2021 after the lie was repeated) because she was just acting according to your guidance to her the night before,” said Mr Ang. “Agree?”
“I will have to disagree very vehemently,” said Singh, but in a temperate voice.
He said that he had made it “crystal clear” to Ms Khan that she had to tell the truth if the issue was raised.
However, when Singh met Ms Khan and WP chair Sylvia Lim in his office late at night on Oct 4, 2021, Mr Ang said he did not say: “I told you last night I made it crystal clear and yet you disobeyed my instructions.”
“That is correct,” said Singh.
“And Ms Khan is the one who said (at this meeting), maybe there is another path which is to tell the truth,” said Mr Ang.
“Yes, that information I gave at the COP,” replied Singh.
“Right,” said Mr Ang. “So when she says there is another path which is to tell the truth, it obviously means that there was one path she was on, and now there is another path.”
Singh answered: “I cannot speak for Ms Khan.”
The judge later asked Singh why he did not ask Ms Khan why she lied again on Oct 4, 2021.
“We didn’t, yes, because she was not, in my view, in a state for us to have a conversation with her,” he said.
“But Mr Singh,” jumped in Mr Ang, “You are capable of being very firm with Ms Khan.”
He reminded Singh of what he had said a day earlier under questioning from his own lawyer – that he had pressed Ms Khan over the phone on Aug 7, 2021 to tell him if her anecdote was true, by saying he was secretary-general of the WP.
Mr Ang misspoke and used the word “solicitor-general” instead, prompting Singh to correct him and drawing laughs from the public.
“I’m sorry,” said Mr Ang in a rare spot of humour in the cross-examination so far. “Too many generals.”
Another light moment was when Singh voluntarily told the court that he received a stern warning from the National Environment Agency for having more than two guests at his house during COVID-19. This was when Ms Khan, Ms Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap visited his house on Aug 8, 2021.
Mr Ang then told Singh that there would not have been any difficulty for him to tell Ms Khan – “Look, I’m the secretary-general of WP, please tell me why did you defy what I said the night before and repeat the untruth.”
Singh explained that he could not have done that: “I made an assessment of her state and I did not believe coming hard on her at that point was going to lead us anywhere and the fact that she had said, perhaps there’s another way, that is honesty. In my mind at least, I had secured a perspective from her that this anecdote would be clarified.”
Mr Ang then asked: “Would you agree that it would have been entirely logical as the leader, as the secretary-general of WP, to tell Ms Khan or tell her off for defying your instructions?”
“It would be logical if I was a robot,” replied Singh.
Mr Ang then pressed Singh: “I mean, you’re a lawyer. Admitted to the Bar. You are quite capable of using words which are very clear. All you needed to say on the (evening of Oct 3) was – if it comes up, please just tell the truth. Correct?”
“That is correct,” replied Singh. “But the person I was dealing with was an MP, who, in my view, would have to shoulder responsibility and take ownership and I chose the words which in my view were appropriate for her.”
Mr Ang also pressed Singh on alleged contradictions he made in his answers to the COP and in court.
Mr Ang asked Singh if an MP has an obligation to correct a lie spoken in parliament by another MP.
Singh first said: “I wouldn’t agree with that.”
Mr Ang then showed him the minutes of evidence from the COP, where Singh was asked the same question but gave a different answer – he had agreed that he had an obligation to correct a lie he was aware of by another MP.
Singh then said he had to “qualify” what he said in court, saying that his point that there was “no obligation” was specific to the events of Oct 4, 2021.
“I don’t think, Mr Singh, that I mentioned Oct 4 in my question. So let me ask you again – if an MP, let’s say you. You are aware of a lie being spoken in parliament by another MP. You have an obligation to correct it if you are aware that it’s a lie. Correct?” asked Mr Ang.
“Yes, I would say so,” said Singh.
Applying the same situation but to Oct 4, 2021, Singh then said he would have an obligation to correct the lie, but “I knew the circumstances behind that lie, and in my view, there was a way that the lie would have to be clarified.”
Another area where Singh allegedly contradicted himself was regarding the email he had sent out to WP MPs on Oct 1, 2021.
The email reminded them about the importance of being able to back up and defend what they said in parliament or risk being called up before a COP. Singh had stated in court that this email was directed at Ms Khan and was related to her lie.
“The truth is, Mr Singh, this was a general email, correct?” asked Mr Ang.
Singh disagreed.
Mr Ang then showed him notes of evidence from the COP, where Singh was asked about the Oct 1 email and Singh said – “Yes, the Oct 1 email was a general email to all MPs.”
“So, is it general or not?” asked Mr Ang.
“It’s general because it’s addressed to all MPs but it’s more than that as well,” said Singh.
Mr Ang said: “A few moments ago you said it’s about the lie, and now you’re trying to distance yourself by saying it’s closely associated with the lie.”
Singh replied: “I think that’s a rather pedantic way to put it.”
“Okay. I’m so sorry,” said Mr Ang.
“I’m not asking for an apology,” replied Singh.
Mr Ang questioned Singh about why Ms Khan had not come clean on Oct 5, 2021, a day after she repeated her lie in parliament. 
Singh’s evidence to the COP was that Ms Khan could not clarify the lie because she needed to speak to her parents first. In court, however, Singh said that after Ms Khan repeated her lie, this condition became irrelevant. 
Mr Ang asked Singh: “Even after Ms Khan repeated the lie on Oct 4, 2021, and you were being asked by the COP why she could not come clean on Oct 5, you told the COP there was no way. And amongst other reasons you said she has to close the issue with her parents.” Singh agreed to this. 
But Mr Ang then pointed out that during the period immediately after the lie was repeated, Singh had not asked Ms Khan if she had informed her parents about the issue. 
Singh replied that this was because things had “changed significantly”. 
“She has doubled down on her lie and at that point it’s quite clear a different approach has to be taken with her,” said Singh, adding that informing the parents was no longer a priority as the matter had worsened. 
“So you want to change what you told the COP, that floating the issue with her parents was no longer relevant at all,” Mr Ang asked. 
Singh replied that there was “nothing to change” and the priority was simply to ensure that Ms Khan told the truth. 
Mr Ang moved on to other areas but returned to this point towards the end of the hearing, with Singh clarifying what he meant. 
“In the sense that it was no longer relevant, post-Oct 4 when we had to come up with the statement, the importance of (informing Ms Khan’s parents) was not important in the context of going towards a statement that would be made in Parliament on Nov 1,” Singh said. 
Mr Ang said his testimony did not square with what he told the COP, namely that the reason why Singh could not have Ms Khan come clean was because she needed time to clear things with her parents. 
Mr Ang then said: “Mr Singh, I’m sad to say but I have to suggest to you that you are not being honest in your evidence.” 
Mr Ang asked Singh for his thoughts on two former WP cadres, Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan. Both had testified for the prosecution. 
Ms Loh was formerly Singh’s secretarial assistant, while Mr Nathan had been part of the Sengkang grassroots team. The pair used to aid Ms Khan in her MP duties and were her confidantes. Both have since resigned from the party.
Mr Ang directed Singh to his COP evidence, where he had described the pair as “very decent” and “good” people who worked hard for the party. 
Clarifying this piece of evidence, Mr Ang asked: “You would describe these two, Pei Ying and Yudhishthra as very decent people?” Hesitating slightly, Mr Singh replied: “At the material time, yes.”
Mr Ang then followed up with: “As of December 2021, would you describe them as very decent people?” Singh agreed that he had said so in the COP. 
Mr Ang asked if Singh worked well with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, to which the latter replied: “Yes, they follow instructions.”
“But now that they have given evidence in this case, you think that they are both liars, am I correct?” asked Mr Ang. 
Singh replied: “I would not say that at this point … The fact that there was certain information withheld from me has changed my view of them.”
But Mr Ang pointed out that Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy had called Ms Loh and Mr Nathan liars. 
“Is it your position that they are lying?” he asked. 
Singh said “Well, with regards to what transpired in court, yes.”
“So they are liars?” continued Mr Ang. 
“Vis-a-vis what has happened in court, yes,” Singh replied. 
“As far as you’re aware these two individuals … they have no reason to want to damage the WP,” asked Mr Ang. Singh said that he did not know.
Asked by the judge if he had been aware of any reason for Ms Loh and Mr Nathan to damage WP, Singh referred to a past incident where he had given a speech on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues at a university. 
Mr Nathan had posted his disagreement with the speech online. 
“Mr Yudhishthra had spoken out publicly, it’s not something that our members do and that did cause some consternation in the party … I don’t think it would extend to damage but that is not how WP (handles such things).”
Mr Ang asked if that was the reason why Mr Nathan would come to court and lie, and Singh said “certainly not”.
Mr Ang questioned Singh about the Oct 11, 2021 meeting between himself, Ms Lim and former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang. Singh’s replies were usually that he could not recall details of the meeting, which had been “unremarkable” to him.
Mr Low was a prosecution witness who gave his testimony briefly in the first tranche of the trial. 
According to Mr Low’s evidence in court, Singh and Ms Lim said they wanted to expel Ms Khan from the party during the meeting. Singh replied that he could not recall the specifics but that the three discussed whether Ms Khan’s matter was something that would result in a member being expelled. 
Mr Ang stated that during that meeting, Mr Singh had failed to tell Mr Low that Ms Khan had already revealed her lie to the WP leaders days after she detailed it in parliament for the first time on Aug 3, 2021. 
Singh replied: “That is correct because the issue was to enquire what was the appropriate way to resolve this issue expeditiously.” 
When Mr Ang asked if Singh remembered “very clearly” that he did not tell Mr Low that the leaders knew about the sexual assault since August 2021, Singh said that he could not answer “affirmatively” as he was “not sure”, leading Mr Ang to respond, “Just now you said you agreed with me … now you say you are not sure.” 
“You wanted a more affirmative answer and I can only come back to my best recollection of the meeting,” Singh responded. 
Mr Low also testified previously that he only discovered that the party leaders had known the untruth in August 2023. 
The judge asked if Mr Low had asked when Singh found out about the untruth, and Singh said he could not recall. 
Asked by the judge how Mr Low found out, Singh could not recall as well. 
Mr Low earlier gave evidence that at the meeting, he asked if the government knew about Ms Khan’s lie. Ms Lim had replied then that the government did not, and it was “not easy to know, because there are so many police stations in Singapore”. 
Mr Singh said he could not recall this exchange, when asked by the prosecution about it. 
The trial resumes on Thursday with Singh under cross-examination by the prosecution.