Pritam Singh cross-examined by prosecution, accused of giving ...

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. 

DISAGREEMENTS OVER OCT 3, 2021 MEETING

Moving on to events related to 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 in  Singh's evidence. The Oct 3 meeting took place a day before Ms Khan doubled down on her lie in parliament. 

During an exchange, Mr Ang accused Singh of changing his evidence in court, with parties speaking over each other. At one point, Mr Ang cuts off Singh's elaboration with an emphatic "thank you", causing Mr Jumabhoy to interject and ask that Singh be allowed to finish his answer.  

The defence lawyer said that Singh was cut off on "on a number of occasions" and should be entitled to complete his responses. Mr Ang disagreed, saying that Singh had been given "ample time" to explain his answer.

Said Mr Ang: "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.

Both sides also sparred over Singh's supposed frame of mind before he met Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021. 

The prosecution took the position that Singh knew - while heading into the Oct 3 meeting - that Ms Khan would not have been able to tell the truth the next day due to the reasons Singh previously set out to the COP. The reasons included how Ms Khan had yet to inform her parents about her sexual assault, and she would not have had the time to prepare a statement.

However, Singh disagreed with this. He maintained that Ms Khan could have told the truth on Oct 4. He said he had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3 to tell her that the issue of her lie might come up the next day, and that she would have to take ownership and responsibility. 

After a series of questions framing the Oct 3 meeting, Mr Ang argued to Singh: "I put it to you she could not tell the truth on Oct 4 because as you had said, she had not come back to you on Oct 3 to say she had told her parents, and she was ready to tell the truth." Singh disagreed with this statement. 

Mr Ang noted that Singh's evidence earlier had been that as of Oct 3, when he woke in the morning, Ms Khan had not got back to say if she had spoken to her parents and was ready to tell the truth. 

"You thought she wouldn't be able to clarify the truth on Oct 4," said Mr Ang. 

Singh replied: "No. I would say no, because her position was not clear to me, because I hadn't raised it with her and she hadn't brought it up to me as well."

This led Mr Ang to ask Singh if he was changing his evidence and Singh denied doing so. 

Mr Ang then asked at which point of time Singh "suddenly" came to the understanding that Ms Khan could tell the truth on Oct 4, even though she had not come back to Singh about it before that. Singh responded that it was the Oct 3 meeting.

"Exactly, so before the Oct 3 meeting with her, you didn't think that she could tell the truth on Oct 4 until you met her," said Mr Ang. Singh replied that the question was "a bit strange". 

"I would disagree with that because as a Member of Parliament, there is no reason for me to think she can't tell the truth," he said. 

This lead Mr Ang to say that the question was not whether one could "open the mouth and speak". "I think we all know what we are talking about in this courtroom … If we want to be obtuse that's fine but the question is simple."

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