Prosecution says Pritam Singh giving ‘obtuse’ answer in tense exchange over plan for Raeesah to come clean

The prosecution's cross-examination of Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh began on Nov. 6, after Singh answered some further questions from his defence lawyer.

Singh faces two charges of lying to Parliament.

The prosecution's questioning focused on the statements Singh had made to the Committee of Privileges (COP) and his testimony in court during the trial, highlighting inconsistencies between them.

On amendments made to clarification statement

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock first asked Singh if he considers himself an honest person, to which Singh replied, "Yes."

He also asked if the answers Singh provided to the COP were true, and Singh affirmed they were, "subject to one particular area."

Singh then provided more "context" about the answers he gave to the COP. He recounted finding Raeesah Khan crying in his office after she made a false anecdote in Parliament on Aug. 3, 2021. Singh said he drafted a clarification for Khan to read out, to which she added a sentence. He did not object to the addition.

The prosecution pointed out that during the COP hearing, Singh had stated that Khan added the sentence without checking with him. The prosecutor asked if this statement was untrue.

Singh clarified that he meant Khan did not inform him she was going to "improve or add on to the draft."

"She didn’t tell me she had inserted a line," he said.

DAG Ang presented WhatsApp messages between Singh and Khan from Aug. 3, where Khan sent an edited version of the clarification note that Singh had drafted.

"Did you read this message where she set out an edit?" DAG Ang asked.

"I believe I would have glanced at it," Singh replied.

The prosecutor then asked if Singh noticed that Khan had inserted "one complete sentence," and Singh agreed. However, Singh added that he had expected Khan to inform him before making any amendments.

He maintained that his statement to the COP was meant to convey that Khan did not consult him before adding another line, not that he had not cleared the statement at all.

DAG Ang further grilled Singh on the inconsistencies of the statements made, with the judge interjecting at one point.

The judge asked if Singh meant is that Khan had added another line, but did not check with him before doing so, and proceeded to make that statement in Parliament.

“But you’re saying that ... somewhere in between ‘doesn’t check with me’ and then ‘makes a statement in the House’, she does check with you whether you are fine with the amendment,” the judge said.

Singh replied: “Your rendition would be correct.”

The judge asked why Singh did not say that Khan did check the final statement with him.

The only reason he said what he said at the COP hearing was because he did not have the WhatsApp chats in front of him to refer to, Singh replied.

When DAG Ang suggested Singh was trying to give the COP "the misleading impression" that Khan added the line without clearing it with him, Singh disagreed, noting he had offered the WhatsApp chats to the COP.

On correcting the untruth

DAG Ang then addressed whether Singh had instructed Khan to clarify her untruth. Singh said he told Khan to take “ownership and responsibility,” which he said equated to telling her to tell the truth.

Singh agreed with the prosecutor's suggestion that his stance on the matter was that if the untruth had not been raised during the Oct. 4, 2021, Parliament sitting, Khan could clarify it later when she was ready.

DAG Ang asked Singh to read parts of his statements to the COP, where he said it was "absolutely" clear he wanted Khan to make a clarification in Parliament on Oct. 4, regardless of whether the issue was raised.

The prosecutor further argued that Singh’s statements to the COP contradicted his testimony in court and asked which was the truth.

Singh replied that the truth was what he stated in court, though Singh emphasised that his answers in court and before the COP were consistent.

He pointed out the "context" of his replies to the COP, in a lengthy exchange.

At one point, the prosecutor raised his voice, suggesting to Singh that it was "crystal clear" that Singh had told the COP that he instructed Khan to clarify, regardless of whether the matter came up on Oct. 4 in parliament.

Singh simply replied, "No, I disagree."

The prosecutor referenced a question from Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong during the COP hearing: “Even if it doesn’t come up tomorrow, you would still do the same thing?”

Singh said in court that when he responded "absolutely", he was referring to "the same thing" from Tong's question, which was to "tell the truth".

Chuckling, the prosecutor asked if Singh's answer was only about telling the truth and whether he ignored Tong's mention of "whether or not it comes up tomorrow."

Singh replied, “I think there’s no other interpretation.”

Singh continued to be questioned on whether he wanted Raeesah to come clean on Oct. 4 in parliament, as of Oct. 3.

"As far as you knew, from your discussion with her, you had no idea if the truth might or might not come up?" asked the prosecutor.

"Yes, I would agree to that," said Singh, confirming that he went to speak to her on Oct. 3 because he thought it might come up.

The judge then stepped in to clarify, confirming that Singh had specifically gone to Raeesah's house on Oct. 3 as he felt that she had no idea if the matter would come up, whereas he felt that it might come up.

Singh agreed, but said he felt that she wouldn’t have difficulty understanding that the issue might come up. He added:

"When I told her to take ownership and responsibility and there’s no clarification from her thereafter, I conclude she understood what I said."

The prosecutor also asked if Singh thought that Raeesah could not tell the truth on her own, if he did not go to meet her on Oct. 3.

Singh replied: “As a person, as a MP, there is no reason to think she could not tell the truth."

This resulted in a tense exchange between Singh and the prosecutor.

The prosecutor said:

"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. If you want to be obtuse, that’s fine. But the question is a very simple one.”

He then asked again if Singh thought that, on the morning of Oct. 3, that Raeesah was ready to tell the truth in parliament.

Singh commented that this question was framed "better".

"Oh, I'm so sorry," said the prosecutor.

"I'm not being sarcastic," Singh then said.

He said his answer would be a "no", as he had not heard back from Raeesah on the matter at the time.

"So on Oct. 3 morning, you had no plan for her to come clean because she had not come back to you," suggested the prosecutor.

"I disagree with that characterisation because she had not gotten back to me and I don't know her frame of mind until I meet her in person," replied Singh.

In the course of the exchange, Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy rose to point out that his client was being cut off.

The prosecutor said Singh had been given time to explain, but Jumabhoy said Singh should be allowed to answer questions "in full".

The judge said he would record Singh's full answers.

Singh then answered the prosecutor's earlier question on Singh not having had a plan for Raeesah to come clean on Oct. 4.

The prosecutor had pointed to Singh's testimony before the COP, and Singh responded by pointing to the context of the question that he had been answering for the COP.

"The point I'm making is that I visited Raessah on Oct. 3 because she had not come back to me, and after visiting her, I had no indication from her that she would have difficulty in telling the truth," he said.

"Are you finished?" asked the prosecutor.

"Yes," said Singh.

The prosecutor confirmed with Singh that it would be false to say that Singh had told Raeesah to clarify the truth in parliament on Oct. 4 even if the issue was not raised.

Proceedings were adjourned for lunch shortly after.

Top photos from Reuben Nathan/Mothership