Pritam Singh cross-examined by prosecution, who accuses him of giving misleading impression to COP

The senior counsel then directed Singh to a WhatsApp exchange between himself and Ms Khan, showing that Ms Khan had informed Singh of the proposed edit in a message. 

“So you approved what she was going to say in parliament as a matter of clarification. You approved it and she went ahead to deliver that correct?” asked Mr Ang.

Singh said that was correct but added that he had been under the impression that Ms Khan had already agreed to the clarification he had drafted. 

“The additional line, I had expected her to say, I have something to change here and in that context I informed the COP … she doesn’t tell me she was going to make an amendment prior to sending the draft clarification,” said Singh. 

Mr Ang then suggested to Mr Singh: “It is clear that you were trying to give the COP the misleading impression that Ms Khan added a line to her clarification that you had drafted and proceeded to read that out to the House without checking with you and clearing with you the amendment.”

Singh disagreed, saying that this would not be logical as he was the one who offered the WhatsApp exchanges to the COP. 

Towards the end of this exchange, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan asked: “So somewhere in between ‘doesn’t check with me’ and (when Ms Khan) makes a statement, she does check with you whether you were fine with the amendment and you approved, then she makes (a) statement?”

Singh said that this was correct. 

Moving on to the events of the second charge, where Singh is accused of lying to the COP about what he told Ms Khan during an Oct 3, 2021 meeting at her house, Mr Ang pointed out contradictions between Singh’s court testimony and his evidence to the COP. 

“In court, you have told the court that she doesn’t have to clarify if the matter is not raised, but here in the COP, you have told the COP that regardless of whether it’s raised, it’s very clear that what you told her was that she has to clarify the next day. 

“So that is contradictory. And my question is – so which is the truth? What you told the COP or what you told the court?”

Singh said he told the court the truth. 

“I would have expected her to clarify the matter. But insofar as what happened if it didn’t come up, the matter would be clarified at some future stage,” said Singh. He added that in hindsight the words he said would have suggested that Ms Khan would have to come up with a personal statement on Oct 4. 

In the COP report, however, he made it “quite clear” that Ms Khan would have to clarify the anecdote on Oct 4 if it came up, Singh said.

When pressed if what he told the COP was incorrect, Singh said he “would not put it that way”. 

“I think my frame of mind in replying to Mr Tong was, as I’ve shared with you, that on (Oct 4), (Ms Khan) would have to clarify and I think I made that clear to her,” Singh said. 

Mr Ang then put to Singh that what he told the COP – that Singh had made it clear to Ms Khan that she had to clarify the matter in parliament on Oct 4 whether or not the issue was raised – was false. 

Singh disagreed, adding that there was context to his replies.

Mr Ang also asked Singh if the WP’s central executive committee (CEC) would have to be informed about Ms Khan’s lie before she made any clarification in parliament. 

Singh said he would agree “in the ordinary course of things”. 

“It would be important for the CEC to know this, because the admission of Ms Khan was going to affect the WP. Do you agree?” Mr Ang asked. Singh agreed. 

The trial continues on Wednesday with the cross-examination of Singh.