Deputy Attorney-General argues that Singh gave contradictory statements about his interactions with Raeesah Khan during the trial.
On November 6, 2024, Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh faced allegations of contradicting his own statements during the ongoing trial over his alleged lies to the Committee of Privileges (COP). Singh was accused by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock of providing inconsistent accounts regarding his interactions with former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan.
The case revolves around two charges Singh faces, accusing him of lying to the COP about his role in handling Khan’s false statements in Parliament. Specifically, the prosecution points to two key meetings: one on August 8, 2021, and another on October 3, 2021, in which Singh allegedly wanted Khan to clarify her lie in Parliament.
Key Points from Singh’s Cross-Examination:
Contradictions between court and COP statements:
Mr. Ang questioned Singh’s accounts of his expectations for Khan during their October 3 meeting. Singh had previously testified that Khan was not required to clarify her lie unless it was brought up in Parliament, contradicting his statements to the COP, where he claimed that Khan needed to clarify regardless of whether the issue was raised.
Singh insisted that his statement in court was the truth, explaining that, although he did say Khan needed to clarify her statement if it was brought up, he expected her to do so at some point even if it wasn’t immediately raised. This disagreement highlights the differing interpretations of the conversation between Singh and Khan before she repeated her false claim in Parliament on October 4.
Singh’s involvement in Khan’s clarification:
The prosecution also focused on Singh’s role in clearing an additional line Khan had inserted into her statement to Parliament on August 3, 2021. This line referred to the importance of consent in preventing re-victimization. The prosecution argued that Singh misled the COP by suggesting Khan added the line without consulting him, despite Singh admitting that he had approved the amendment.
WP CEC not involved in Khan’s clarification:
Further questioning centered on whether the Workers’ Party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) should have been informed about Khan’s decision to admit her lie in Parliament on October 5, 2021. Singh defended his decision not to consult the CEC, explaining that the priority at the time was to understand why Khan had lied again. He argued that the timeline was too short for a formal meeting of the CEC before Khan’s public admission.
The prosecution suggested that Singh had avoided involving the CEC in order to manage the situation on his own, potentially to avoid political repercussions. Singh disagreed, asserting that he had given Khan the space to deal with personal issues, including her claim of sexual assault.
As the trial continues, Singh’s conflicting statements about his actions and his role in advising Khan remain central to the prosecution’s case.
