‘Who is telling the truth?’: Prosecution grills Pritam Singh on contradictions from Low Thia Khiang’s evidence

SINGAPORE: The prosecution on Friday (Nov 8) grilled Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh on the contradictions between his and Low Thia Khiang’s evidence in court. 
Deputy-Attorney General Ang Cheng Hock did not mince his words on the third day of his cross-examination of the Leader of the Opposition, asking if Singh was suggesting that Mr Low, the former secretary-general of WP, had lied.
Singh, who remained mostly calm and collected during the cross-examination, said that the prosecution would have to draw its own conclusions.
He stressed that he would share everything with Mr Low as that was the nature of his relationship with the party stalwart, who stepped down from the position of chief in 2018. 
Singh, 48, is contesting two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021. 
The allegations against him are related to what an ex-WP Member of Parliament, Ms Raeesah Khan, had said in parliament on Aug 3, 2021. 
Ms Khan had related an anecdote about how she accompanied a rape victim to a police station. She later revealed that this did not happen and that she had been a victim of sexual assault herself. 
The trial opened on Friday with prosecution and defence clashing over police statements previously recorded from Singh as part of investigations over the current allegations against him. 
The prosecution submitted six such statements to the court. 
Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy objected to his client being questioned only on specific portions of the statements.
The lawyer alleged that it was “unfair” for a witness to be cross-examined on a single part when Singh could have clarified or elaborated on his answer in other parts of the statement.  
Mr Ang, a senior counsel, pointed out that Mr Jumabhoy could clarify his client’s position during cross-examination or submissions. 
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan ultimately recorded Mr Jumabhoy’s stance and the trial resumed with the prosecution asking Singh about the police statements. 
Mr Ang took Singh to a part of a statement, where Singh said that ex-WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan had not been trying to suppress Ms Khan’s untruth. 
In court however, Singh had testified “repeatedly” that the two were trying to suppress the untruth, Mr Ang said. 
“I will have to put it to you, Mr Singh, that … this police statement where you said that Pei Ying and Yudhishthra were not trying to suppress the untruth, that is in fact the true position. Do you agree?”
Singh maintained that there was no contradiction, leading Mr Ang to ask: “Only one can be the truth, can you tell us, were you lying in your police statement or were you lying in court?” 
Singh replied “I was not lying anywhere”. 
For a large part of the hearing, Mr Ang questioned Singh about details of Mr Low’s evidence. He highlighted the contradictions between Mr Low and Singh’s evidence, pointedly asking if Mr Low had been lying.
Mr Low testified as a prosecution witness during the first tranche of the trial in October. 
Part of his testimony had been related to his meeting with Singh and WP chair Ms Lim on Oct 11, 2021, where the three spoke of Ms Khan’s lie. 
In a brief testimony, Mr Low revealed that he was the one who had suggested the formation of a disciplinary panel to look into Ms Khan’s lie. He said that he only found out that Singh and fellow WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap had known about Ms Khan’s lie since Aug 8, 2021, in August 2023. 
Mr Low then wondered why it took “so long” to reveal that they had known about the lie.
He also testified that neither Singh nor Ms Lim had informed him that they had already told Ms Khan to clarify her lie in parliament. 
Asked in court whether Mr Low had advised the two WP leaders that Ms Khan should clarify the lie in parliament, Singh said that the two leaders already had that perspective before the Oct 11, 2021 meeting.
“We already knew what we wanted to do,” Singh said, speaking for himself and Ms Lim. 
But Mr Ang pointed out that Singh had not told Mr Low that the leaders had already instructed Ms Khan to clarify the lie in parliament.     
Singh disagreed, saying he would have made it known to Mr Low that a personal statement would be forthcoming from Ms Khan.
Mr Ang then asked if Mr Low ‘s recollection was wrong. 
“I wouldn’t say that,” replied Singh, qualifying that the meeting had been unremarkable to him. He added that he could not recall specific details of the conversation, but maintained that the party leaders would have told Mr Low that Ms Khan would have to come clean.  
Honing in on the inconsistency, Mr Ang then asked: “Who is telling the truth?”
“So either you are lying or he is lying. Is that what you are saying?” he asked.
Singh replied that the prosecution would have to draw its own conclusions. 
“I will,” Mr Ang replied. He then put to Singh that it was Mr Low who suggested that Ms Khan go to parliament to clarify the untruth. Singh disagreed. 
Turning to Singh’s police statement, Mr Ang directed his attention to how Singh had answered “yes” when the police asked if Mr Low had been told during the meeting that Ms Khan had confessed her lie to the party leaders on Aug 8, 2021. 
Singh concurred with his answer in the police statement. 
“I believe I would have … but my relationship with Mr Low is such that we speak openly about everything … anything that he asked, I would have answered openly,” he elaborated.
But Mr Low said the leaders did not tell him such a thing, Mr Ang pointed out. 
He asked again if Mr Low or Singh was telling the truth, and Singh doubled down on his answer in his statement. 
Asked if Mr Low was lying, Singh said it was a “question of memories”. 
He stuck to the stance that he would have shared the detail with Mr Low due to his relationship with the former secretary-general.
Mr Ang then suggested to Singh: “I will suggest to you that you never told Mr Low that you found out about the untruth as early as August, do you agree or disagree?”
Singh disagreed.
“The reason you did not do that is because you knew what Mr Low’s reaction would be,” continued Mr Ang.  Singh disagreed with this suggestion as well. 
The prosecution wrapped up it’s cross-examination of Singh on Friday morning with a series of questions putting its case to him. 
Mr Jumabhoy will begin his re-examination of Singh after the lunch break. 
Asked by Judge Tan if he would be calling any defence witnesses, Mr Jumabhoy said he would cross the bridge when it came to that.