Day 13.

November 08, 2024, 06:22 PM

The prosecution wrapped up its cross-examination of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh during his trial on Friday (Nov. 8).

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock continued to look for inconsistencies during the Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general’s cross-examination.

Proceedings for the day began after a discussion between the defence, prosecution, and judge regarding Singh’s police statements from December 2022.

The statements were allowed to be entered into evidence and Singh was questioned on the contents.

‘Suppressing the untruth’

Ang pressed Singh regarding his meeting with ex-WP cadres Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying on Oct. 21, 2021.

Ang asked Singh whether Loh and Nathan “were not trying to suppress the untruth”.

Singh said he disagreed.

When Ang presented an alternative interpretation that Loh and Nathan were trying to figure out how Raeesah could “articulate the untruth in her personal statement,” Singh also disagreed.

He added that he believed both Loh and Nathan were suppressing the untruth, but Ang said that it contradicts how Singh told the police that they were not suppressing it.

Ang asserted that there was a contradiction, and that only one can be the truth.

“Were you lying in the police statement, or to the court?”

Singh replied, “I wasn’t lying in either statement”, saying that he was posed different questions for each of those answers.

When Singh knew Loh was called to COP

Ang addressed Singh’s comment about an “inaccuracy in the Committee of Privileges’ (COP) notes.”

Singh testified on Nov. 7 that he had given a wrong answer to the COP when he found out the COP called up Loh.

Singh said during the COP hearing on Dec. 10, 2021, that on Nov. 29, 2021, he did not know Loh had given evidence to the committee.

However, Singh said on Nov. 7 that he realised it was a mistake.

This was because he had known by Nov. 29, 2021, that the COP had contacted Loh, having gotten the information from a WP member, Mike Lim, who shared it with him via text that day.

He said he could not recall exactly when he realised that the answer he had given to the COP was inaccurate, but said it was after he reviewed the COP materials ahead of his police interview in December 2022.

Ang noted that in Singh’s police statement on Apr. 4, 2023, Singh said that he did not think Loh would be called and pointed out that Singh would have known the COP had contacted Loh before the interview.

However, Singh said it was “speculative” as he could not recall when he realised he gave an inaccurate answer.

He said he was willing to admit to the court that saying he did not know Loh was going to give evidence to the COP was an “omission on his part”, adding that at that point of his inaccurate answer, he had already been questioned for around seven to eight hours.

Telling her parents about the sexual assault

Ang questioned Singh on his statement to the police on May. 18, 2023, where he told the police that he did not immediately clarify Raeesah Khan’s untruth in October 2021 as he was unsure if Raeesah had told her parents about being sexually assaulted.

Singh said in that statement that he did not clarify immediately “to save her family from any embarrassment”.

Ang asked why Singh said that in his statement, highlighting that Singh had repeatedly said in court that after Raeesah doubled down on her lie on Oct. 4, whether she had spoken to her family about her assault or not was no longer a necessary condition to her confessing.

Singh responded that it was no longer relevant only at the end of Oct. 4 after what Raeesah had said in Parliament.

“So after she repeated the lie, one must wait a few hours before the condition becomes irrelevant?” Ang pressed.

Singh said he was not going to clarify the matter at the time because he did not know why Raeesah had doubled down on the lie, though he believed that it was because she had not told her parents.

“So your position was that the reason why she told the lie had to be dealt with?” asked Ang.

Singh said he would frame the matter as being more about finding out why Raeesah was not telling the truth at that point.

Ang also revisited an earlier line of questioning about whether Singh wanted Raeesah to come clean on Oct. 4, as of his meeting with her on Oct. 3.

Ang said no preparations for a draft clarification were made by Oct. 4, but Singh said that he didn’t think that it would be difficult for Raeesah to be do so.

“You didn’t do any clarification for her. And she, for some inexplicable reason, didn’t prepare clarification. Yet on the 1st of October, you told her that if she lies, if there’s an untruth and if the government knows, she’s going to the COP,” said Ang.

He then suggested that Singh knew when he spoke to her on Oct. 3 that she was not going to share the truth on Oct. 4.

“Disagree,” said Singh.

Low Thia Khiang’s testimony

Ang also brought up former WP leader Low Thia Khiang’s testimony regarding a meeting between Low, Singh, and WP chair Sylvia Lim.

Ang pointed out that in a police statement, Singh said that Low did not give them any advice as they were all aware that the only thing left for Raeesah to do was clarify the untruth in parliament.

Singh noted that Low’s view was that Raeesah had to clarify the untruth in parliament, but said the WP leaders “already had that perspective” before meeting Low.

Ang grilled Singh on whether Lim and Singh had explicitly told Low that a personal statement from Raeesah was “the way to go.”

Singh responded that he would not characterise it as such, but that it was the view he and Lim had in mind.

However, Low said in his testimony on Oct. 23, 2024, that he was not informed that Singh and Lim had told Raeesah to clarify her untruth.

Singh responded that he had no recollection of the point and asked Ang to refer to his police statement.

“So he’s lying or you’re lying, isn’t it?” Ang asked.

“It’s up to the prosecution to prove,” Singh retorted.

“We’ll reach a conclusion to that,” said Ang.

Did Singh tell Low Raeesah had confessed to the WP leaders?

Ang continued to press Singh on whether Low had been told that Raeesah confessed her lie to the WP leaders on Aug. 8, 2021.

Singh stated that he believed he would have, but that he does not recall all the details of the conversation.

Singh went on to state that Lim, Low, and he “speak openly about everything” and that “anything that [Low] would have asked, we would have answered him”.

However, Ang pointed out that Low testified in court that he only found out in August 2023 that Raeesah told the party leaders.

Ang asked which was the truth.

“I would stick to what I said in my statement,” Singh replied.

Ang asked if it would be fair for him to say that Singh was doubling down on his position that he did tell Low.

“I would be doubling down on my best recollection and my belief, yes,” replied Singh.

“So in other words, Low must be either lying or has a very bad memory as to what you told him, correct?” Ang asked.

Singh disagreed.

A summary

The prosecution wrapped up its cross-examination by bringing up key points in the prosecution’s case point by point and getting Singh to agree or disagree with each statement.

Ang stated that Singh was content for Raeesah not to clarify the untruth in Parliament, that Singh’s “take it to the grave” comment meant that he was suppressing the truth, that Singh and Lim did not tell Raeesah to clarify the untruth, and lied to Loh and Nathan that he would “not judge” Raeesah.

Ang said Singh gave “clear explicit instructions” on Oct. 12 for Raeesah to clarify in parliament, and said this was in stark contrast to a “lack of direction” before then.

“Disagree,” said Singh.

Ang said Singh had no intention for Raeesah to clarify the untruth in parliament.

“Disagree,” said Singh again.

Ang said the disciplinary panel was self-serving and calculated to distance the WP leaders from Raeesah’s conduct.

“Disagree,” said Singh.

Ang then said the WP leaders needed to distance themselves from Raeesah’s conduct as they had failed to guide her properly and prevent their reputation from being affected.

“Disagree,” said Singh.

Defence re-examination

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy continued with Singh’s re-examination after lunch.

He asked Singh why he said that Raeesah could have clarified the lie in parliament on Oct. 4, but it was “not possible” for her to come clean on Oct. 5.

Singh replied that Raeesah could have provided a “simple” clarification on Oct. 4 that her anecdote was untrue.

But as Raeesah doubled down on her lie on Oct. 4, parliament standing orders dictated that she would have to explain why she lied, Singh said.

He said that a clarification on Oct. 5 would not have been enough and she would have had to provide a personal statement with the reason for her lie.

Jumabhoy also addressed the prosecution’s suggestion that when Singh, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap met with Low Thia Khiang on Oct. 11, he already “had plans” with Lim to fire Raeesah from the WP.

He asked Singh if it was in his power to fire Raeesah.

Singh said no.

He also asked Singh whose suggestion it was to convene a disciplinary tribunal.

“Mr Low”, Singh replied.