Prosecution accuses Pritam Singh of using disciplinary panel to get rid of Raeesah Khan

SINGAPORE: The prosecution continued grilling Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh on Thursday (Nov 7), at one point describing his evidence as “incredible” and asking a series of questions to show his level of “honesty and candour”. 
As his cross-examination of Singh, 48, extended into its second day, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock appeared more impatient with his questions and occasionally expressed disbelief at what Singh said.  
More of the prosecution’s case emerged, with Mr Ang also accusing Singh of convening a disciplinary panel to get rid of ex-WP member Raeesah Khan and to cover up his involvement, even though the panel was ostensibly formed to look into the matter of Ms Khan’s lie in parliament.  
Singh is contesting two charges related to Ms Khan’s lie, which she told in parliament on Aug 3, 2021.
Ms Khan, who was deployed to Sengkang GRC in the 2020 General Election, related an anecdote where she had gone to a police station with a rape victim, when it did not happen. 
Her lie triggered a series of events culminating in Singh being called before a Committee of Privileges (COP) to testify. 
He is said to have lied to the COP on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021.
The first charge relates to an Aug 8, 2021 meeting between Ms Khan and the WP leaders. Singh allegedly lied when he said he wanted Ms Khan to clarify her untruth in parliament at this meeting. 
The second charge alleges that Singh gave false answers to the COP when he said that he told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021 to clarify her story about the rape survivor if the issue came up in parliament the next day.
Mr Ang, who is a Senior Counsel, took Singh through a series of questions in which he suggested to Singh that he was being dishonest with his answers. 
He referred Singh to a meeting he had with Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021 – a day before she repeated her lie in parliament. 
Singh previously testified that he had told Ms Khan to take responsibility and ownership if the issue came up in parliament, meaning that she would have to tell the truth. 
“This was followed by, ‘I would not judge you’? Correct?” Mr Ang asked in court, to which Singh agreed. 
Singh also agreed that Ms Khan appeared relieved and to have understood what Singh said. 
Mr Ang then referred Singh to an email he sent to WP MPs on Oct 1, 2021, where he spoke about the importance of substantiating what was said in parliament or risk being hauled before a COP. 
Mr Ang pointed out that Ms Khan likely knew that she could be sent to the COP, and expressed disbelief that Ms Khan would appear relieved in such a context. 
“The Oct 1 email was fresh in her mind,” said Mr Ang, and Singh agreed. 
“You telling her to tell the truth, and tomorrow she comes clean … She knows that she is going to the COP, so she looks visibly relieved? ‘Thank god I’m going to the COP’?” exclaimed Mr Ang. 
Singh disagreed, noting that Mr Ang had left out what transpired after Singh had told Ms Khan to take ownership and responsibility. 
“She looked uncomfortable, (and) in that context I told her ‘I would not judge you’. After I said that, she looked a bit relieved. I took that to understand that she understood what I was saying,” Singh said. 
Appearing incredulous, Mr Ang asked: “You would have us believe that you were basically telling her to admit to the untruth, expose herself to COP proceedings and she was visibly relieved? Is that your evidence?”
Singh said that was what Mr Ang was arguing. 
Mr Ang then continued: “Isn’t it the truth, Mr Singh, that you told her ‘continue the narrative, I will not judge you’ and she was relieved because she knew then that she does not have to admit to a lie in parliament and she wasn’t being exposed, (or) sent to the COP. Isn’t that the truth?”
Singh denied this. 
Asked by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan to clarify what he meant by “I won’t judge you”, Singh said: “She has told a lie and one tends to form negative opinions about people who lie … (but) if (Ms Khan clears) the matter by telling the truth, I would not judge (her) for the lie.”
“You mean that you will not form a negative opinion of her?” Judge Tan asked. Singh agreed to this. 
At this point, Mr Ang told Singh he would ask a few questions on logic which would “go to show to a great degree (his) level of honesty and candour”. 
He posed several hypothetical examples to Singh and asked if he agreed to them. 
One was an individual who told his friend that he would get a medical certificate to skip work. His friend then said “I won’t judge you”. 
Singh said he had never heard of such a situation before and disagreed with the example, to laughter in the court. 
Mr Ang then gave another example, of a man who wanted to skip a relative’s birthday party, with his wife saying that she would not judge him. 
“That is how ‘I won’t judge you’ is commonly used correct?” asked Mr Ang, but Singh disagreed. 
The prosecutor continued: “Your evidence is if she does something correct and good tomorrow, which is to tell the truth, you will not judge her. Is that your evidence?”
Singh said that was correct.
“The truth, Mr Singh, is that you were giving her the go-ahead to do something wrong by telling her to continue the narrative. Do you agree?
“That’s why you told her ‘I will not judge you’ for continuing the narrative. That’s why she looked visibly relieved,” Mr Ang said.
Singh disagreed with all these statements, adding that one had to look at the context of the whole conversation. 
Mr Ang further questioned Singh about an email Ms Khan had forwarded from the Singapore Police Force, which had asked her for an interview for more details about her lie. This was after Ms Khan repeated the lie in parliament, on Oct 4, 2021. Ms Khan ended off her email by thanking the leaders for their guidance. 
Mr Ang pointed out that Singh did not reply to this email to say that Ms Khan had “got it all wrong” when she repeated the lie on Oct 4.  
“This is because Ms Khan had indeed acted in accordance to your instructions –  your guidance – to continue with the untruth on Oct 4. Do you agree?” asked Mr Ang. 
“I disagree. I did not reply to this email because it was very frustrating to read it … as far as I was concerned, my mind was directed towards having to guide her to make a clarification by way of personal statement,” said Singh. 
Mr Ang then asked why Ms Khan would have sent an email to thank Singh instead of being afraid that she would be taken to task, but Singh maintained that he had not asked Ms Khan to continue the lie. 
“I put to you that your evidence is incredible … It is utterly contrary to how you and her behaved during this material time,” said Mr Ang.
Singh disagreed with Mr Ang.
Mr Ang and Singh also clashed over what the latter had intended for Ms Khan to do after she revealed that she was a sexual assault survivor to the WP leaders on Aug 8, 2021. 
Singh’s case is that during or after this meeting, he indicated to Ms Khan that the matter would be clarified in the future by asking her to speak to her parents.
The prosecution’s case is that Singh had not indicated such a thing, and Singh did not explicitly ask Ms Khan to come clean at that time. 
At the meeting, which was also attended by WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, Singh said he recalled telling Ms Khan to inform her parents about the sexual assault. 
“Given the state she was in, that, in my judgment, was what I believe she could handle at that point, as an indication to her that the matter would be clarified in the future,” he said. 
Mr Ang then asked: “So by saying … talk to your parents, you expected Ms Khan to know that she has to come back to tell you she has spoken to her parents (and that she was ready to clarify the untruth)? You expect her to know all these things just because you told her to speak to her parents?”
Singh said: “Not completely”, and repeated his explanation on how she had to speak to her parents as that was the “missing link”. 
“I believe that would have … communicated to her that this matter would have to be resolved,” he said. 
“In view of the fact that she is an MP, she would know that you can’t lie in Parliament,” Singh later added. 
At one point, Singh admitted to giving two false answers to Mr Ang.
Earlier, Mr Ang had asked Singh if he, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap had discussed what former WP cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan told the COP. The three party leaders had met on Dec 7 and 8 in 2021 to discuss the COP – after Ms Khan, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan had already appeared before the COP. 
Singh disagreed and said the discussions were more focused on Ms Khan. Singh said at the time, he, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were surprised and shocked that Ms Khan said they told her to take the lie “to the grave”.
He also disagreed when Mr Ang said he must have “studied carefully” what the former WP cadres said.
Shortly after, however, Singh said Mr Ang was right that he could not have ignored what Ms Loh and Mr Nathan told the COP since it was published in the media. Still, he maintained that the central issue and deeper concern was about Ms Khan.
Mr Ang asked if Singh was changing his evidence, and Singh said he has “no difficulty in correcting” himself and that he was answering the earlier questions with Ms Khan in mind.
“What you told me twice just now was false. Correct?” asked Mr Ang.
“To the extent of my clarification, yes, correct,” replied Singh.
Mr Ang questioned Singh extensively about his involvement in a WP disciplinary panel convened to look into Ms Khan’s lie.
The party’s central executive committee was asked for urgent approval to set up the panel on Nov 2, 2021. Ms Khan was notified and she met the party leaders on Nov 8 and Nov 29, 2021, for the disciplinary panel sessions at the party headquarters. The panel comprised Singh himself, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. 
Tapping on Singh’s knowledge as a lawyer, Mr Ang asked if the disciplinary panel functioned the way a judge would, meaning that the panel would have to collect relevant evidence, analyse them and make findings. 
Singh agreed that the panel functioned similarly in “some” ways. 
Mr Ang also compared the panel to a disciplinary tribunal which dealt with lawyers who displayed irregular conduct. 
Singh said that these two were “completely different” in some ways as the disciplinary panel was a “party political issue”. He added that the disciplinary panel proceedings related to Ms Khan’s sexual assault, which the leaders had not wanted to reveal to others.  
They also did not want Ms Khan to have to recount the experience, Singh said. 
But Mr Ang pointed out that Ms Khan had already told parliament that she had been a victim of sexual assault on Nov 1, 2021, when she admitted the lie publicly. 
Singh replied that the details of Ms Khan’s sexual assault – that she was raped – were not public information. 
“Yes, it wasn’t public information that she was raped until you said it to the COP, to the whole of Singapore,” said Mr Ang. 
Singh said it was because the COP wanted to know what happened. “It was important for the COP to understand my frame of mind, and why I determined a more sympathetic and gentler approach.”
“You couldn’t have told the COP that she suffered very serious sexual assault, which (you) do not want to go into the details of?” asked Mr Ang. 
Singh said he decided to use the exact word. 
“Yes, that’s your level of concern for her,” Mr Ang commented. 
Mr Ang said that Singh, as a lawyer, should have known that a judge with a personal stake in the matter should not be hearing the matter. 
But Singh repeated the issue of Ms Khan’s sexual assault and maintained there was no reason to suspect any conflict of interest. 
“Let’s make it clear: Do you agree that if there is conflict, or apparent conflict or potential conflict, that the disciplinary members should not be sitting on the panel?” asked Mr Ang. 
Singh replied: “Yes, in the ordinary course of things”. 
Asked to clarify, Singh said the “instinct” was to try and prevent the details of Ms Khan’s sexual assault from spreading. “It was just a way we wanted to protect her, actually,” he said. 
“So coming back to the point, even if there is a conflict or potential conflict, you can still hear this case because it involves (the sexual assault)?” asked Mr Ang. 
Singh agreed to this, leading Mr Ang to comment that Singh’s position changed with every question. 
“I’m asking you now, can you take a final position or – as has been said – what is your final answer?” he asked. 
Singh maintained that the party leaders had found no conflict.  
“You see, Mr Singh, that is exactly my point about you trying your best not to give a straight answer,” Mr Ang remarked. 
Mr Ang then pointed out that Singh could have asked Ms Khan if she would have been comfortable detailing her encounter to other members who could make up the panel. 
Singh said the thought had not crossed his mind and suggested that the idea was “abnormal”. 
“I suggest to you, Mr Singh, that your evidence defies logic. Do you agree?” Mr Ang said. Singh disagreed. 
Singh also thought there was no “pre-judgement” for him to sit on the panel even though, according to the prosecution’s case, there had been talk among party leaders about expelling Ms Khan. 
Former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang had earlier testified that during an Oct 11, 2021, meeting with Singh and Ms Lim, there had been mention of removing Ms Khan from the party. 
Singh denied that there was a plan to expel Ms Khan.
Mr Ang then moved on to question Singh on the contents of the disciplinary panel proceedings. Earlier in the trial, Ms Khan testified that the panel focused on her performance as an MP for Sengkang GRC rather than her lie. 
Asked why, Singh said there had been a lot of “unhappiness” among party members, with WP members sending in complaints about her.     
“Rather than having people go online and make comments, it is better for party members to address this,” Singh said. 
Mr Ang then argued: “The truth is, Mr Singh, you wanted as (many) complaints as possible to be brought to the disciplinary panel because you and Ms Lim already decided that the end result was that she is going to be expelled, correct?”
Singh said that was not true. 
“You were using the disciplinary panel process to quickly close this matter and to get rid of Ms Khan from the WP,” Mr Ang continued. 
“You wanted to cover up your own involvement and Ms Lim’s involvement and Mr Faisal’s involvement.” 
Singh disagreed with both statements. 
The trial will resume on Friday with Mr Ang continuing his cross-examination of Singh.