Key points on Day II: Pritam contradicted himself, says prosecution

Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh was accused of contradicting himself in statements to court and a parliamentary committee as he took the stand for the second day in a trial over his alleged lies.

- Ng Wei Kai and Christine Tan

On Nov 6, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock put it to Singh that he had given contradictory statements about interactions he had with former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan.

The Leader of the Opposition is fighting two charges over lying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) that he had, on Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021, wanted Ms Khan to clarify her lie to Parliament.

Here are the key points from Singh's cross-examination:

PROSECUTION: WHAT SINGH TOLD THE COP ABOUT OCT 3 MEETING WITH KHAN CONTRADICTS WHAT HE TOLD COURT

Mr Ang questioned Singh's accounts of his expectations of Ms Khan on Oct 4, 2021—the day she repeated her lie in Parliament.

He said: "I'm putting it to you that it's contradictory. You have told the court that she doesn't have to clarify (her lie) if the matter is not raised, but at the COP, you have told the COP that regardless of whether it's raised, it was very clear that what you told her was that she has to clarify the next day.

"My question is, so which is the truth?"

Singh said the truth was what he said in court.

He said that from his COP replies, it was quite clear that if the matter had come up in Parliament on Oct 4, he would have expected her to clarify the matter. But even if it did not, it would have to be clarified "at some point," he added.

Singh said in hindsight, it was possible that his words during the COP investigation suggested that Ms Khan would have to come up with a personal statement.

"But at other places in the COP report, I make it quite clear that she would have to clarify the statement on Oct 4 if it came up."

Behind this exchange are conflicting accounts of a meeting between Singh and Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, one day before she repeated her lie in Parliament.

Both parties have offered different interpretations in court of what was said then.