Pritam Singh grilled by prosecution in perjury trial over handling of Raeesah Khan’s parliamentary falsehood

In the ongoing perjury trial of Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, Singapore’s prosecution continued an intense cross-examination regarding Singh’s handling of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false statements in Parliament.

Singh faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act related to alleged misleading statements he made to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021 about advising Khan on the lie she told in Parliament.

The charges stem from Singh’s statements to the COP that he had urged Khan to clarify her false claim on 8 August 2021 and later directed her on 3 October 2021 to take ownership if it resurfaced in Parliament.

The prosecution contends Singh’s instructions to Khan were inconsistent, while Singh maintains he aimed to handle the matter with compassion due to Khan’s personal trauma, which she had disclosed to WP leaders.

The cross-examination, led by Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock, a former High Court judge, resumed on Thursday following DAG Ang’s questioning of Singh the previous day.

DAG Ang’s approach focused on what he characterised as inconsistencies in Singh’s recollections and instructions to Khan, questioning whether Singh’s responses aligned with his role as WP leader.

DAG Ang began by probing Singh’s understanding of a “clarification” versus a “personal statement.”

Referring to Singh’s 3 October 2021 conversation with Khan, DAG Ang pressed Singh on his alleged advice to Khan to clarify her falsehood if questioned.

Singh explained he differentiated a simple clarification from a personal statement, which he deemed necessary only after Khan repeated her lie on 4 October.

When DAG Ang challenged Singh’s expectation that Khan’s clarification would suffice without prompting more questions, Singh replied that he “could not predict” MPs’ responses but expected Khan to present “the essence of the truth.”

Tensions rose as DAG Ang challenged Singh’s stance, and at one point, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan intervened, urging Singh to respond directly to yes-or-no questions before elaborating.

However, on at least two occasions when Singh tried to elaborate, DAG Ang instructed him not to repeat or take “chunks” from his Evidence-in-Chief.

Such interactions underscored the contentious nature of the exchange, which saw DAG Ang repeatedly question Singh’s credibility on whether his instructions had been clear and consistent.

DAG Ang continued by examining Singh’s instructions to Khan following her repeated falsehood on 4 October, suggesting that Singh’s delayed public correction until 12 October reflected inconsistency in his guidance.

Singh countered that he allowed Khan time to process the incident due to her personal trauma, an approach he asserted was rooted in compassion and sensitivity.

The prosecution also focused on Singh’s handling of an email from Khan on 7 October 2021, in which she informed him that the police had requested an interview regarding her false claim.

DAG Ang suggested that Singh could have directed Khan to clarify her anecdote with the police as an untruth, thereby halting the investigation.

In response, Singh argued that his approach was in line with parliamentary protocol, maintaining that parliamentary matters should be addressed within Parliament itself due to the separation of powers.

Further, DAG Ang scrutinised Singh’s decision-making process during WP’s internal handling of the incident, specifically the formation of a disciplinary panel involving Singh and other WP leaders.

DAG Ang argued that Singh’s participation raised a potential conflict of interest, especially given prior discussions within the party about possibly expelling Khan.

Singh defended the decision, asserting that his involvement stemmed from a desire to minimise exposure to Khan’s sensitive personal experiences, which he believed could be protected within the small disciplinary group.

DAG Ang also questioned Singh on the timing of a WP press conference held on 2 December 2021, hours before Khan’s COP testimony.

DAG Ang suggested the conference, where WP leaders first publicly acknowledged their prior knowledge of Khan’s lie, was timed to control the narrative before Khan’s COP appearance.

Singh denied this, maintaining that the conference was a procedural step and that WP leaders had met openly with the party’s central executive committee (CEC) without specific concern for the COP’s findings.

Prosecution questions Singh’s lack of follow-up with Khan on the lie

DAG Ang repeatedly questioned Singh on his failure to follow up with Khan regarding her lie, as well as his lack of inquiry into whether Khan had spoken to her parents about her past sexual assault—something he had advised her to do.

DAG Ang pointed out that Singh had multiple opportunities to address the issue with Khan, including during their meetings as MPs.

Referring to a WP Zoom meeting held to formulate the party’s position on the “CECA motion” scheduled for parliamentary debate, DAG Ang asked, “Even though you saw her in these meetings, you didn’t follow up on the lie?”

Singh replied, “Yes,” acknowledging he had not followed up. He explained that he was focused on the CECA motion at the time and believed it was appropriate to allow Khan more time to address her personal trauma before pushing the matter further.

Focus on “I will not judge you” phrase

A key point of contention in the cross-examination was Singh’s use of the phrase “I will not judge you,” reportedly said to Khan on 3 October 2021 in a conversation regarding her lie.

DAG Ang scrutinised this phrase, suggesting it implied Singh was willing to overlook Khan’s lie should she choose not to come clean. “The phrase ‘I will not judge you’ is often used when someone is about to admit something bad,” DAG Ang argued, citing examples of common usage where people offer leniency or understanding for a wrongdoing.

Singh disagreed with this interpretation, maintaining that he used the phrase to encourage Khan to act responsibly, as he sensed her discomfort. He further noted that Khan looked relieved after he told her, “I will not judge you.”

DAG Ang challenged Singh’s account, insisting that Khan could only have looked relieved because Singh had conveyed that he would not judge her even if she maintained her lie.

Singh countered that if he had wanted to sustain the lie, he would not have sent an email to WP MPs on 1 October reminding them to substantiate their statements, thereby risking a Committee of Privileges (COP) investigation. Nor, he argued, would he have visited Khan’s house on 3 October to discuss the matter further.

Throughout this exchange, DAG Ang employed hypothetical and counterfactual scenarios to prompt Singh’s responses and interpretations.

In one instance, DAG Ang presented two specific scenarios to clarify his understanding of the common usage of the phrase “I won’t judge you.”

In the first scenario, DAG Ang described a man obtaining a medical certificate to avoid attending work, with a friend then responding, “I won’t judge you.”

In the second scenario, he depicted a man expressing reluctance to attend a relative’s birthday party, prompting his wife to reassure him by saying, “I won’t judge you.”

When Singh continued to disagree, asserting that, in this case, he used the phrase to signal empathy and to encourage Khan to come forward with the truth.

DAG Ang then questioned Singh on why he would say, “I will not judge you,” if he expected her to do something he deemed “correct and good” by confessing in Parliament.

Singh replied, “That’s right,” explaining that his intent was to reassure Khan so she would feel confident enough to admit the falsehood.

Prosecution questions Singh’s consistency on the phrase

DAG Ang proceeded to question why Singh used the phrase again on 12 October 2021 when speaking to former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, just after Khan’s failure to come clean in Parliament.

DAG Ang pointed out that if Singh’s intent had been to encourage Khan to admit her lie, his words to Loh and Nathan about “not judging” Khan might instead suggest Singh’s leniency toward her maintaining the false narrative.

When DAG Ang described this behaviour as “puzzling,” Singh clarified that he had intended to reassure Loh and Nathan, who seemed reluctant about Khan’s eventual admission.

“I impressed upon them that this decision had already been made – that we had spoken to Raeesah and this is what we were going to do,” Singh testified. DAG Ang countered, suggesting that Singh’s statement on 3 October could be interpreted as encouragement to continue the lie, a suggestion Singh denied.

DAG Ang pressed further, asking Singh if Loh or Nathan’s statements to the COP reflected Singh’s willingness to tolerate Khan’s lie.

Singh disagreed, affirming his belief that he had acted to encourage the truth. DAG Ang then pointed out that Singh had previously described Loh and Nathan to the COP as “very decent people.”

Singh confirmed this assessment but noted that Loh had previously admitted to lying to the COP, referencing an incident on 17 October when Loh disclosed that she had redacted a message from Nathan in evidence submitted to the COP.

DAG chases alleged inconsistency in Singh’s police statement and court testimony

Another focal point for the prosecution was an apparent inconsistency between Singh’s police statement from December 2021 and his current court testimony.

DAG Ang argued that Singh had initially told the police the matter was “resolved” after parliamentary questioning on 3 August, yet Singh’s actions following Khan’s 4 October statement suggested otherwise.

Singh clarified that he initially assumed Khan’s anecdote was true but that his stance shifted once he learned more details on 8 August.

As the cross-examination continued, DAG Ang pressed Singh on whether his recollection of events and his guidance to Khan had been presented accurately.

Referring to Singh’s suggestion that the disciplinary panel was necessary to address the severity of Khan’s actions, DAG Ang contended that Singh’s personal involvement and prior discussions regarding Khan’s potential expulsion could create an impression of prejudgment.

The session concluded with the court adjourning to allow Singh time to review specific police statements, separately from his legal team.

The hearing is set to resume on Friday, with DAG Ang expected to further scrutinise Singh’s actions and testimony, continuing the intense cross-examination and addressing the complexities surrounding Singh’s role in Khan’s response to the falsehood in Parliament.