Cross-examination of Pritam Singh by Deputy Attorney-General takes on intense, interrogation-like tone

In the ongoing perjury trial of Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock—formerly a High Court judge—subjected Singh to pointed and repetitive questioning that observers have noted at times resembled an interrogation.

The trial, centred on Singh’s handling of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false statement in Parliament, saw DAG Ang challenge Singh’s account of events through a sustained series of questions aimed at uncovering inconsistencies.

Singh faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for statements he made to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021 regarding his handling of Khan’s lie.

Khan’s false statement in question was made on 3 August 2021, when she claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault survivor to the police station, a claim later revealed as untrue.

The prosecution alleges that Singh misled the COP by claiming he had instructed Khan to clarify the falsehood on 8 August and had later told her on 3 October to take responsibility if the lie came up again in Parliament.

Singh, however, asserts that he handled the situation with sensitivity to Khan’s trauma, allowing her time to address the matter on her own.

The cross-examination opened with DAG Ang’s pointed questions on Singh’s integrity.

DAG Ang asked, “Mr Singh, you would hold yourself out as an honest person?” Singh replied, “Yes, I would.” Ang followed up with, “You would not deliberately lie?” to which Singh answered, “No, I would not.”

This opening exchange set a serious and unyielding tone for the session, laying a foundation for DAG Ang’s questions that frequently revisited Singh’s earlier statements to probe for any signs of inconsistency.

From there, DAG Ang moved on to details of Singh’s account, focusing specifically on whether Singh had approved an amendment that Khan added to her parliamentary clarification in August. Singh confirmed that he had cleared the amendment.

However, DAG Ang contrasted this with Singh’s previous statement to the COP, where Singh had indicated that Khan added the line independently, without checking with him.

DAG Ang pressed on this point, asking, “Isn’t that a misleading impression you gave to the COP?” Singh firmly disagreed, explaining that he had provided the COP with all relevant WhatsApp communications as evidence of his transparency.

The tone of the cross-examination sharpened when DAG Ang delved into Singh’s instructions to Khan ahead of the 4 October parliamentary session.

Referring to COP transcripts, DAG Ang repeatedly asked if Singh had explicitly required Khan to clarify the falsehood on that day, regardless of whether the issue was raised.

Singh clarified that he had advised her to clarify only if the matter arose, but DAG Ang rephrased and repeated the question to probe Singh’s interpretation. “So, which is the truth?” Ang asked.

“What you told the COP or what you’re telling the court today?” Singh replied resolutely, “The truth would be what I told the court.”

As the exchanges grew in length and intensity, DAG Ang examined Singh’s claim that Khan’s obligation to clarify the lie was initially contingent upon her informing her parents about her past trauma, a step Singh had previously described as a “condition precedent.”

However, Singh explained in court that after Khan repeated the lie on 4 October, this requirement was no longer relevant.

DAG Ang pointed out Singh’s statement to the COP, where he had mentioned parental notification as a reason Khan might not have come forward sooner.

“Mr Singh, I’m sad to say, but I have to suggest…that you’re not being very honest,” Ang remarked. Singh disagreed, replying, “My evidence is what it is.”

In one tense exchange, Ang questioned why Singh had not fully prepared Khan to potentially address her lie in Parliament on 4 October.

“You made no preparations whatsoever for the truth to be revealed?” DAG Ang inquired. Singh explained that his visit to Khan on 3 October was intended to remind her of her responsibility.

“I show up at her house to tell her that the matter may come up,” Singh said, explaining his approach.

But DAG Ang interrupted, saying, “Please stop. My question is a simple one. After this meeting, you made no preparation for the possibility that the truth might come out?” Singh replied directly, “That is correct.”

At one point, Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, objected to the DAG cutting off Singh’s replies, noting as well, “There are a number of occasions when [Mr Singh] is just cut off!” Jumabhoy argued that Singh needed sufficient space to clarify his responses.

In response, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan advised the prosecution to allow Singh to complete his answers, after which Singh reiterated that he had handled the matter with compassion, considering Khan’s emotional state.

DAG Ang also pressed Singh on whether his instruction to Khan to “take ownership and responsibility” for her falsehood was sufficiently explicit.

“Were your words crystal clear enough for her to understand?” DAG Ang asked. Singh maintained, “As an MP in her own right, I would expect her to understand clearly what taking ownership means.”

Unconvinced, DAG Ang repeated the question in different forms, aiming to highlight any ambiguity in Singh’s directive.

The exchanges continued with DAG Ang questioning Singh’s timeline and intentions, each answer from Singh leading to further scrutiny.

For example, when asked if he was “changing his evidence,” Singh responded, “My evidence is what it is.” DAG Ang continued to press Singh, frequently rephrasing questions and testing Singch’s consistency across his statements to both the COP and the court.

Another exchange saw Ang challenge Singh’s assertion that he had acted responsibly in managing Khan’s falsehood.

He asked Singh if he had considered informing the Workers’ Party central executive committee that Khan might admit her lie on 4 October.

Singh replied that he had chosen not to, explaining, “I thought she would address it if the matter arose.” But DAG Ang persisted, rephrasing to ask if Singh had truly prepared for such an outcome. “The question is a simple one,” Ang insisted.

The lengthy exchanges in court underscored the prosecution’s intent to rigorously probe Singh’s testimony, as DAG Ang frequently circled back to previous statements, dissecting Singh’s responses for inconsistencies.

Each question aimed to test Singh’s narrative, often stretching the line of inquiry to its limits.

The trial is scheduled to resume on 7 November at the State Court, where DAG Ang is expected to continue his cross-examination of Singh.