Prosecution: ‘You are not being very honest in your evidence’, Latest Singapore News

Labor Party (WP) chief and Opposition Leader Pritam Singh was quickly cross-examined for almost five hours on November 6 as the prosecution sought to show that he had not been completely honest in his evidence to the court. It is based on contradictions in Singh’s testimony in many areas.

The exchange became particularly heated when Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor Ang Cheng Hock accused Singh of tampering with his evidence, while trying to establish that the WP chief no longer considered it a prerequisite for former WP MP Raeesah Khan to speak to her family before confessing. Parliament.

Ms Khan told Parliament on 3 August 2021 how she accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was allegedly treated insensitively. He repeated his claim before Parliament on October 4 of the same year, before admitting his lie on November 1, 2021.

Singh is appealing against two charges of allegedly lying to a parliamentary committee that met in November 2021 to examine the lying controversy involving Ms Khan.

He had previously told the court that due to Ms Khan’s seriousness, he did not present a clear plan on how to unravel Ms Khan’s lie in a meeting with WP chairperson Sylvia Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap on August 8, 2021. Khan revealed to them that he was the victim of sexual assault.

Her position at the time was that it was a matter for Ms Khan to “deal with herself”, including speaking to her parents, before making a statement in Parliament.

While Mr Ang testified that he did not ask Ms Khan whether she had clarified the matter with her parents when they met on October 3, 2021, Mr Ang focused his questioning on when Singh’s attitude changed.

But Singh said he made it clear to Ms Khan that she should take responsibility and responsibility for her lie and tell the truth when Parliament meets the next day.

The cross-examination culminated in Mr Ang telling Singh towards the end of the 11th day of the WP chief’s trial that he had not been truthful in his statement to the court.

This came as Mr Ang pressed Singh on why the condition of Ms Khan telling her parents was no longer valid after she doubled down on her lie in Parliament on October 4, 2021.

In response, Singh said that circumstances after October 4 led to Ms Khan having to make a statement rather than simply revealing her lie in Parliament.

When Mr Ang told Singh that he had told the Committee of Privileges (COP) that he was quite sure that Ms Khan needed time to resolve the matter with her family, Singh said: “And that was something she had to do to come forward about it.” expression.”

Mr Ang later said: “I regret to say this but I have to point out to you that you have not been very honest in your evidence. Do you agree?”

Singh disagreed.

The WP chief also disagreed that Mr Ang contradicted his own statement in every statement.

There were several examples where he qualified his answers while doing this; For example, Mr Ang asked whether the WP central executive committee (CEC) should be informed first if Singh wanted Ms Khan to reveal her lie in Parliament on October 5, 2021.

Singh disagreed and said one of the main reasons for the CEC to meet on October 29 was to “lock in on Raeesah’s statement in Parliament”.

Asked whether he meant to say that the CEC did not need to be notified in advance if Ms Khan admitted the lie at the October 5 hearing, Singh said it had not crossed the WP leaders’ minds when they met, after Ms Khan doubled down on her lie. 4 October.

“The most important issue we thought about on October 4 was why Ms. Khan was lying again,” he added. “Our view was that we needed to understand this first and that the timeline was too short to have a CEC meeting.”

At one point, Mr Ang asked Mr Singh whether he had “clearly” stated to Ms Khan that he should confess on October 4, 2021. He said that she was lying and that he would not judge her.

Singh said yes. Mr Ang said Singh was a lawyer “very skilled at using very clear words”. “All you have to say is… if it comes out, please tell the truth. True?”

Singh said that since he was meeting with an MP, “in my opinion, he chose the words that suited him”.

Asked about this at another point, Singh said Ms Khan was an MP in her own right, so he expected her to clearly understand what it meant to take ownership and responsibility.

‘Are you changing your evidence now?’

Mr Ang accused Singh of tampering with his evidence after the prosecutor followed his line of reasoning that he thought Ms Khan was not ready to accept her lie in Parliament on October 4, 2021.

The WP chief had previously stated that as of October 3 he had not been informed whether Ms Khan had told her family that she was also a victim of sexual assault.

Singh’s response was: “No, I wouldn’t say that because his position was not clear to me because I had not raised the issue with him. “He didn’t bring up the subject to me either.”

This prompted Mr Ang to ask: “Mr Singh, are you changing your evidence now?”

When Singh denied this, Mr Ang told the court that Ms Khan had previously told him that she should inform him that she had spoken to her family and was ready to confess before correcting his lie in Parliament, but none of this had happened. It took place on October 3, 2021.

He later told Singh that his mindset on 3 October was that Ms Khan could not confess in Parliament.

To this suggestion, Singh said: “No, I don’t agree with that because on October 3, I went to his house…”

Mr Ang interrupted him and said: “Mr Singh, I am talking about the time before you went to his house… Do you want to change your evidence?”

Singh asked if the prosecutor could repeat the question for clarity “so you don’t think I changed my evidence.”

Mr Ang then asked whether Singh’s mindset before meeting Ms Khan on October 3 was that he could not tell the truth on October 4.

“I’m not sure about that because there is an email dated October 1,” Singh replied.

Before Singh could finish his sentence, Mr Ang said: “Mr Singh, so you are changing your evidence.”

“My evidence is what it is,” Mr Ang interjected. Singh replied: “Okay, so that’s your evidence and we’ll comment on that.”

“Of course,” said Singh.

Deputy Chief District Judge Luke Tan stepped in at one point to clarify parts of Singh’s statement, saying before he visited Ms Khan on October 3 that he felt she could tell the truth in Parliament the next day.

Singh told the court he had no reason to think Ms Khan could not tell the truth before meeting him on October 3.

“He didn’t get back to me until October 3rd before I saw him. “At that point, yes, I didn’t ask him if he was ready to reveal the truth,” he added.

Mr Ang then again pointed out that Singh’s evidence had changed. “Your evidence is that he did not get back to me on October 3, but he could tell the truth on October 4,” he said.

Mr Ang then asked: “At what point was she (Ms Khan) able to tell you the truth that she had cleared the matter with her parents even though she had not gotten back to you?”

Singh said this was a conclusion he drew after his meeting with Ms Khan on October 3.

“Absolutely,” Mr Ang said, adding that this meant Singh’s state of mind before meeting Ms Khan on October 3 meant that he was unable to tell the truth because he had not told her whether he had informed his parents on October 4.

“That won’t be the only conclusion I draw,” Singh said. “He didn’t come back to me, that’s the only truth.”

Mr Ang suggested one of the conclusions he could draw was that Ms Khan had failed to tell the truth on October 4.

When Singh disagreed and reiterated that he had no reason to believe he could not tell the truth, Mr Ang said: “That’s why we took up these questions.”

Singh stood his ground when Mr Ang again questioned whether Ms Khan could have told the truth until he met her before the meeting on October 4.

“Well, that’s a little weird. I don’t agree with this. “As a person, as an MP, I have no reason to think that he cannot tell the truth,” the WP leader said.

Mr Ang insisted. “The problem is not whether the person can open his mouth and speak. I think we all know what we’re talking about in this courtroom.

“So if you want to be obtuse, that’s okay. But the question is very simple,” he said, and posed his question to Singh again.

“You’ve framed it better now. I agree,” Singh said at this point.

Mr Ang responded: “Oh, I’m so sorry,” prompting Singh to say: “I’m not trying to be sarcastic here.”

After arguing repeatedly around the same issue, Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, stood up to object to the way the questions were asked, pointing out that his client was interrupted many times.

The judge then said he wanted to record Singh’s entire answer.

Singh’s broader response was that Ms Khan had not given him an answer as to whether she was prepared to confess in Parliament as of October 3, after giving him time to speak to his family.

“I did not receive any indication from him that he would have difficulty telling the truth,” she said after visiting him on October 3.

Singh objected after Mr Ang said he did not immediately arrange to meet Ms Khan, who doubled down on her lie on October 4 and told her she had only acted on her guidance from the previous night because she had to confess. .

“I would have to strongly object to that,” he said.

He said he did not speak to Ms Khan immediately because the parliamentary debate on the Foreign Intervention (Counter Measures) Bill was ongoing and he may have to respond if other MPs raise questions about her speech on the bill.