Committee of Privileges Hearing on 10 December 2021 - Mr Pritam Singh (Part A): Transcript

Preamble:

What follows is a transcript (run through Otter.ai, with minimal editing - I mostly just tagged the speakers) of the govsg video in the title.  

Though speech recognition technology has made leaps and bounds in recent years, it still isn't good enough for very accurate transcripts. So take the below as a free (for you, dear reader, at least) and rough transcript, with no warranty as to accuracy - for convenience instead of an accurate transcript. Nonetheless, I believe this will be helpful, especially for archival purposes.

If anyone wants to do or pay for manual transcription (building on the below or otherwise), that would be great. I'm not going to do 24 hours of manual transcription (with more videos almost certainly on the way).

The official transcripts may well come out publicly later. If they do, please use those instead. In the meantime, you may profit from the following; you can find links to all my COP transcripts at the index post.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  0:00  
Sergeant at Arms I call the meeting to order such a dance please invite the first witness Mr. Pritam Singh the witness Dave Thank you?

Business? Please take a seat for the record, please state your name, occupation and positions your whole I can remove your mask

Pritam Singh  4:10  
Yes, good morning

Tan Chuan-Jin:  4:14  
so for the record please state your name occupation and the positions you hold.

Pritam Singh  4:18  
My name is Pritam Singh, I'm the Secretary General of the Workers Party. I'm also Leader of the Opposition,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  4:23  
okay. The evidence you'll be giving today before the committee will be taken on oath if you so desire can also take an affirmation so clubs please a minister do

Pritam Singh  4:31  
I will take an affirmation

Clerk  4:35  
for the affirmation form in your left hand and raise your right hand. Please say the pronoun I followed by a name full and recite the affirmation.

Pritam Singh  4:45  
I breathe I'm saying Do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence which I shall give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  4:56  
Please be seated. The committee approval Religious is looking into the complaint made by the Leader of the House, Miss Indrani. Raja Gaines, former member of St. John GRC. Miss Raisa Han for breach of privilege. So thank you once again for attending today's hearing. You're welcome to evidence before the committee and to answer the questions which members of the committee would like to put to you? You have taken a solemn obligation to answer our questions truthfully, we refuse to answer questions directly or attempt to mislead the committee. Such behavior will be an offence and in contempt of this committee. I will now call on Mr. Mr. Eben Tong to proceed with his questions.

Edwin Tong  5:35  
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Singh. Morning, Mr. Dahle. Thank you very much for being here. You've heard Mr. Chairman explained the ambit of the inquiry we are conducting. And we will be taking evidence including from you. And what we'll be doing is I'll be asking some questions. And where appropriate, also asked you to elaborate on them. And to the extent that you're aware, if you think there's anyone else who's able to shed light on the issues that I raised with you, please also let us know very well. From time to time, there might also be documents which we might ask you to produce, depending on the nature of the discussion that we have, and what circumstantial or corroborating evidence that might be. So I'll be grateful if you could please keep a note of the various requests as they go along. And feel free to clarify with me if you're not sure, I will do so. Okay. Mr. Singh. The issue that we're looking into, today, this up pertains to a lie being told in Parliament. That's a very serious matter, correct?

Pritam Singh  6:39  
That is correct.

Edwin Tong  6:40  
It's serious in this case, as well, because the lie also impacts the work of the police. Correct.

Pritam Singh  6:48  
I would disagree with that.

Edwin Tong  6:50  
The nature of this lie is that the police had reacted badly to a report made by a sexual assault victim. Correct.

Pritam Singh  7:01  
Mr. Tong, I would disagree. I believe I will explain when you give me the opportunity to but I would disagree that the police put

Edwin Tong  7:09  
it to you this way. The false anecdote is the substance of the lie, right? That is correct. And a false anecdote relates to a occasion when a member of parliament Miss Han says that she had accompany in a sexual assault victim to the police station, correct? That is correct. And she also described the reaction or the response of the police in the context of that anecdote, correct?

Pritam Singh  7:36  
That is correct. And she also clarified that she could not substantiate that island. Mr. Singh on the

Edwin Tong  7:44  
speech, don't jump ahead of me. I tried to anticipate let's take it step by step on the anecdote itself, on the third of August, when he was said in Parliament, without or before the clarification. Okay, that's where I'm looking at that anecdote, which is false. And the thing we agreed on that would have an impact adverse impact on the work of the police, right? I would say it would not, it would not, yes, so it's okay to have a lie on in Parliament, where the lie relates to the reaction of the police. Bad reaction, I might add to a complaint by a sexual assault victim.

Pritam Singh  8:24  
The police are not some broken back organization. They are fully aware that in the course of investigations, I believe I solemnly and sincerely believe if you speak to any senior police officer worth his salt, he will tell you that in the key or she will tell you that in the course of investigations, that can be a number of situations where certain notations are put to a witness, which are uncomfortable for that person. I will not interrupt you. Please proceed.

Edwin Tong  8:50  
Yes, please don't listen to the question. And anecdote. And I'm not talking about general police investigations. We all know how well our police force precisely is regarded. I'm talking about the anecdote and I think you know that I'm focused on the anecdote. So please focus on the anecdote. That anecdote is false. It paints a picture of the police. That anecdote, if true, if left and corrected, would have an adverse impact on the work of the police. Correct.

Pritam Singh  9:23  
In the context in which it was said in Parliament, my answer remains No, that was the early answer I gave you. And I say no, because Miss Khan could not substantiate that allegation. I do not believe the police is a broken back organization is

Edwin Tong  9:38  
the same place. That's my answer. Okay. You apologize to the police. Correct. I apologize that my press conference because I don't think anyone deserves them. Yes. And I work with the police do apologize because you felt that wrong was done to the police, correct? No, I think time was wasted. Exactly. That's wrong done to the police time was wasted chasing that deals for three months, but we're

Pritam Singh  9:59  
talking about correct, Mr. Singh. I disagree because I am not sure what work the police actually did. I remember on the third of August when Mr. Desmond tan stood up, Mrs. Desmond tan stood up. He said the police have no case of this nature. So what Mr. Singh was actually done, I am not aware. I'm not saying no work was done. Obviously work must have been done to check.

Edwin Tong  10:22  
Come on, Mr. Singh, you're a lawyer. I think you're a senior member of the opposition senior member of parliament. You know, that if you make an allegation in Parliament, especially one in the nature of what was done in the false anecdote, the police will have to check and wait for them to come for them to come and say that as not one case, it means that they have gone through all the cases.

Pritam Singh  10:47  
I do not believe I heard that from the police. With I did not hear anywhere that they've gone through all the cases.

Edwin Tong  10:55  
You apologize. On the second December at your press conference, correct?

Pritam Singh  11:00  
Yes, I apologized because the reporter put the question to me. Okay. And I think the police deserved it, anyone deserves it.

Edwin Tong  11:06  
You apologized before the reporter put a question to you. Correct?

Pritam Singh  11:10  
I believe it was after the reporter put the question about the police and the work that they had to do, but I have to check this.

Edwin Tong  11:16  
We'll get there.

Pritam Singh
Please. Please do so.

Edwin Tong
But, you also cleared Miss Khan's statement on the first of November, correct?

Pritam Singh  11:26  
I knew what she was going to say

Edwin Tong 11:29
Mr. Singh. You cleared it, correct?

Pritam Singh  11:30  
I saw the statement. And I said yes. This is what you have to say.

Edwin Tong
So you approved it?

Pritam Singh
I wouldn't say I approved it. Those were her words.

Edwin Tong
You were happy with it?

Pritam Singh
I think I was satisfied. Yeah.

Edwin Tong  11:40  
So you cleared it. Don't play with words, okay?

Pritam Singh  11:43  
I am saying I was satisfied. Okay. You're not gonna put words in my mouth? I'm not saying

Edwin Tong  11:47  
I can't, because the truth has to come from you.

Pritam Singh
Absolutely.

Edwin Tong
And the version that you cleared includes an apology to the police. Correct?

Pritam Singh  11:56  
I will have to look at that. Can I be, can I refer to that?

Edwin Tong
Sure.

Pritam Singh 11:59
Yeah.

Edwin Tong
Please help Mr. Singh with the Hansard, first November. Thank you very much. Do you have it, Mr. Singh?

Pritam Singh  12:30  
Yes, I do. Yeah. Yes, there is a line where Miss Khan says, I wish to, I wish to correct the record by retracting the anecdote that I shared on the third of August and I wish to apologize to the Singapore Police Force. Yes, indeed. So you buy. I said this, I saw this before Miss Khan made the statement.

Edwin Tong  12:46  
And you were happy with this, right?

Pritam Singh  12:48  
This was the least she could do

Edwin Tong  12:50  
No, this, you cleared this, right?

Pritam Singh
I saw it. Yes, I do. 

Edwin Tong
You felt it was appropriate for her to deliver a statement. Correct? 

Pritam Singh
Absolutely. 

Edwin Tong
Including an apology to the police, right?

Pritam Singh
Absolutely, yes.

Edwin Tong
Thank you. That wasn't so difficult.

Pritam Singh  13:01  
No, it was I don't think I was I didn't think I said I didn't want to an apology to be made to the police.

Edwin Tong  13:08  
I I think what you have said is on the record, or it is on the record, you don't need to think that it's on the record. So I think we can move on. If lying in parliament is a grave matter which you accept it. You will accept that allowing a lie to remain on record. If you know it's a lie, it's also a grave problem, correct? That is correct. Possibly a criminal offence as well, correct.

Pritam Singh  13:33  
I disagree, because it is for parliament to address its matters if something has been said in Parliament, the parliament Act. Section five I believe covers freedom of speech, whatever a Member of Parliament says in parliament is for parliament to take action. It cannot be questioned in a committee of inquiry commission of enquiry or any other place outside of Parliament. So I disagree with that point.

Edwin Tong  13:59  
Okay. You appear to know your positions very well. So well.

Pritam Singh  14:02  
I am Leader of the Opposition. Yes.

Edwin Tong  14:03  
Thank you. I thank you for that. I will suggest to you that if a member of parliament is aware of a lie being said in Parliament, and it is not corrected. That's also a very serious problem, correct? That is correct. And it is the obligation and duty of a Member of Parliament, whether it is that member of parliament who spoke the line in the first place or not. If he's aware of a falsehood, or a deception in Parliament, there's a obligation there's an obligation to correct it correct.

Pritam Singh  14:35  
Can you repeat the question?

Edwin Tong  14:38  
If you're a member of parliament and you're aware that there is a deception on parliament, a falsehood has been set in Parliament, you have an obligation to correct it.

Pritam Singh
That is correct

Edwin Tong
Regardless of whether the lie was said by you or that member of parliament in the first place or not, correct?

Pritam Singh  14:52  
Your first question was with regard to a member of parliament who has told a lie. It is an obligation on that member of parliament to correct the lie

Edwin Tong  14:58  
And my second question is if you are a member of parliament, and you are aware that there is a lie or a deception on parliament, regardless of whether the lie came from that Member of Parliament or not, you also have an obligation to correct it. Right?

Pritam Singh
Yes.

Edwin Tong
Thank you. Now, in this case, Miss Khan had given a false anecdote in Parliament on the third of August, right?

Pritam Singh
That is correct.

Edwin Tong:
And by around the seventh or eighth of August, you were aware of it, correct?

Pritam Singh  15:34  
That is correct. I was aware on the seventh of August when she gave me a call. She wanted to keep to her position of not telling me the truth. And then I put it to her, I said, I'm only gonna ask you once, did this happen or not? And then she finally confessed. She said, No, it did not happen. And then, I, that, it was left at that. We met on the eighth with the party leadership in my home. And there I got to know more details about why that lie was stolen, the circumstances the member was laboring under before she told the lie.

Edwin Tong  16:12  
Right. So the answer to my question is yes, that is what you are aware.

Pritam Singh  16:16  
But yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

Edwin Tong  16:18  
And would you say you are fully aware by the time of the circumstances and details of the lie, as you have put it

Pritam Singh  16:24  
To the extent, to the extent that Miss Khan said, so what she told me, the answer would be yes.

Edwin Tong  16:33  
And, you would have, if you're not sure, clarify? Correct.

Pritam Singh
Not sure about what?

Edwin Tong:
If there were any details about the lie? Any matters concerning the anecdote, the circumstances, which gave rise to the lie? If you're not sure about any of these, you would have clarify with her? Right?

Pritam Singh  16:53  
Not necessarily, it would depend on the circumstances of what Miss Khan was laboring under. 

Edwin Tong
Okay. 

Pritam Singh
And the circumstances I would say were highly unique.

Edwin Tong  17:02  
So, when she left your home on the eighth of August, did you have any doubts as to the circumstances which gave rise to the lie? Or... why she told a lie?

Pritam Singh  17:15  
When she left my house, I told her that she had to speak to her parents-

Edwin Tong  17:20  
No. Please, Mr. Singh, answer the question. Do you have any any doubts about you see, if you listen to my question, you will be able to answer it. And 

Pritam Singh
Then you can ask the question again. 

Edwin Tong
Yes, I will. I will just repeat what I said. When she left your home on the eighth of August, did you have any doubts as to the circumstances which gave rise to the lie? Or why she told the lie?

Pritam Singh  17:42  
To the extent that what she had said, I took it on board. To the extent of what she told me, I had no doubt that that was the situation as she described.

Edwin Tong  17:51  
Okay. Did you have any doubt that it was a lie in Parliament?

Pritam Singh  17:55  
No, I had no doubt it was a lie.

Edwin Tong  17:57  
Right. Thank you. Now... A week ago, you gave a press conference? Correct? On the second of-

Pritam Singh  18:10  
Are we done with the circumstances leading up from the third to the seventh? And what happened on the eighth?

Edwin Tong  18:15  
Not necessarily. 

Pritam Singh
So we're gonna jump back to it. 

Edwin Tong
We may come back to it.

Pritam Singh  18:20  
No. Will we come back to it? We make us there's important details I wish to share important evidence I wish to give

Edwin Tong  18:25  
a I'll make a note of it. And thank you. So you said that the seven right up to seventh and the eighth. Okay, I'm happy to let you elaborate, but who we will have to be the judge of what's relevant. Absolutely. Hope you understand. Absolutely. So, last week, second of December, you gave a press conference, correct? Right. Okay. I have taken the liberty of transcribing that press conference with an elect to ask you some question, 

Pritam Singh
Please do so 

Edwin Tong
So I'll hand up a copy of the transcript transcribed press conference to you. If I may ask the clerk to please assist me. 

Pritam Singh
Thank you. Thank you so much.

Edwin Tong
So Mr. Singh, what you have before you is a transcription of the Workers Party press conference on the second of December, happened last Thursday at around 12 Noon. Can you quickly cast your eye over it? And let me also tell you that if you like I can play the video of this press conferenc of any portion if you'd like

Pritam Singh  19:45  
Sure, sure, no problem, but I would take it that this is a accurate transcription.

Edwin Tong  19:50  
Alright, but if you find that there's anything inaccurate or not transcribed properly, please do draw it to my attention. 

Pritam Singh
Sure. Okay. I will do so

Edwin Tong
So you will see that at this press conference, your bottom right hand corner, you'll see the page number. 

Pritam Singh
Yes, I do 

Edwin Tong
From page one all the way until the halfway down page two, was your prepared text. Right? 

Pritam Singh
That is correct.

Edwin Tong
And I take it this would have been something you prepared carefully. 

Pritam Singh
I prepared it, yes. 

Edwin Tong
Carefully.

Pritam Singh  20:20  
To the extent that it was accurately as you prepare to carefully write, I prepared it. I prepared it. If I mean, I think we prepare everything carefully. When we go to a press conference.

Edwin Tong  20:26  
Yes, they are giving you so just focus on my question. Go ahead, answer it. Okay. Now, you would have been very careful to prepare this because you appreciated the gravity of the situation. And gravity of the matters, you were going to be disclosing to the press, correct?

Pritam Singh
Yes.

Edwin Tong
Amongst other things, this is the first time the public gets to know that actually the Workers Party was privy to the lie from a few days after it was set in Parliament, correct?

Pritam Singh
That is correct.

Edwin Tong
And that would be a very serious matter. Correct?

Pritam Singh  21:01  
It would be serious, because there have already been questions in the online space about what the Workers Party had known previously. And that was my focus to at least get that addressed. Because it was out there

Edwin Tong  21:13 
Yes. In fact, I would say to you, that this is something that ought to be addressed, regardless of what's on the online media.

Pritam Singh  21:24  
No, I disagree. I disagree vehemently. Because if somebody tells you that if your MP comes up to you and tells you that she's been, which is what Miss Khan told us on the eighth, I think your calculations would not be so straightforward. That's my view.

Edwin Tong  21:39  
I figured you'd say that.

Pritam Singh
Of course. It's quite obvious. I would say

Edwin Tong
I will get into those details. Absolutely. I'm sure we will. But let's come back to this press statement. You will be very careful to explain the circumstances in which you became aware and the steps to be taken by Miss Khan as a result of you being aware, correct. Repeat the question. You will be very careful to explain to the public the circumstances in which you became aware and the steps that you took to ensure that this lie is clarified. Correct? Yes. And so the steps that you've described in here would be very carefully worded Correct. To the

Pritam Singh  22:21  
extent for the purposes of a press conference, the key facts the key details, yes.

Edwin Tong  22:26  
Whether it's a press conference, a statement in Parliament, the statement before the committee of privileges, the accuracy of what you say is very important. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Now, look at the press statement. I think you remember it very well. So I will just quickly ask you to cast your eye over the first half of it. You set out some background circumstances. three paragraphs from the bottom of page one, you said initially raised us up to the untruth in a communication with me. That was what you had briefly alluded to earlier. Correct. What do you mean, I

Pritam Singh  23:03  
briefly alluded to earlier,

Edwin Tong  23:05  
when you said that she initially you initially spoke with her and she maintained the lie. This paragraph refers to that correct? Is this

Pritam Singh  23:12  
on in the press conference? Are you referring to the press conference?

Edwin Tong  23:17  
I just gave you a document that transcripts a press conference. Oh, particular comment that you made? No, you made it here. Just Yes. I

Pritam Singh  23:24  
hear I said initially, rice I stuck to untruth in a communication with me. It's it's on the record

Edwin Tong  23:28  
is on the record. And you also said this earlier, when you described to me that when you initially called her by earlier you're referring to this Prescott, this committee is not a press conference.

Pritam Singh  23:37  
I said this committee. So are you referring to this committee? What I said

Edwin Tong  23:41  
earlier evidence here? Yes, yes. Yes. Thank you.

Pritam Singh  23:44  
If the question was clear, I would answer it. I think there's no need for this kind of rethought. Mr. So there's no retort. It's just I'm just putting my point of view.

Edwin Tong  23:51  
I think, I think let's, let's put across some rules. Okay. First, I think we don't speak over each other. Don't interrupt me. Okay.

Pritam Singh  23:58  
I hope it works both ways.

Edwin Tong  24:00  
Second, I'll give you an opportunity. But I will interrupt you if it's not relevant. I hope you understand. And I made that clear to you earlier.

Pritam Singh  24:06  
And you would accept that I have to put evidence forward as well. And you also you will have

Edwin Tong  24:10  
an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, will give you an opportunity, but whilst I'm doing a questioning, you will be guided by what I regard as relevant, because

Pritam Singh  24:18  
I hope you accept that sometimes I may ask you to repeat your question. Of course, that's fine.

Edwin Tong  24:21  
And clarify and rephrase. Please do. Also, please answer the question directly. And then if you wish to elaborate, please say so. If I think it is germane to the issue, I will I will allow you to, if not, I'll make a note of it or Mr. chairman will make a note of it. And you come back to it. Okay. Now, let me show you page three. You will ask the question by CNA and your answer below. At the bottom of page three is Certainly an MP cannot be expected to leave an untruth on the record, she would have had to clarify it at some point. That means that the moment and untruth is on the record, it has to be clarified. There's no two ways about it right? At some

Pritam Singh  25:17  
point doesn't necessarily mean that right, because you just said immediately in your question, but here I've, I'm saying on record, that she would have to clarify it at some point.

Edwin Tong  25:27  
This is why I know is. So this is these are your words, that's when I will explore what at some point means. Sure. Okay. Actually, why don't you explain to us at some point what?

Pritam Singh  25:38  
Well, you'd have to go back, which is why I initially wanted to put in evidence as to what happened on from the third to the seventh. Okay, and thereafter, on the eighth of August may be allowed to do so. Okay, so I can so

Edwin Tong  25:51  
let's put it this way. Okay. As far as the third to the seventh is concerned, you can summarize the evidence, because the key point that is germane to this inquiry is the date on which you became aware, fully aware of the lie. And that's on the seventh of August, which we heard from you earlier. Right. So Bear this in mind, I allow you to elaborate on this, but bear this in mind, what is germane to us is when you knew

Pritam Singh  26:16  
it may be germane to us, but if I have to elaborate on this statement, she would have had to clarify it at some point, then what would be relevant also is my frame of mind my attitude towards Miss Khan, after she claimed in parliament that she had attempted to

Edwin Tong  26:37  
Okay, follow this. Okay. So please explain what you mean by at some point. So,

Pritam Singh  26:43  
if we go back to the third Miss Khan makes this statement in Parliament, this speech in Parliament, she is questioned by Mrs. Desmond tan. She then goes to the ELO office, I get a message that she is crying in the office. I don't understand what is going on. I go to the law office, I said, look, the truth matters. You have to tell the truth. And she and I asked her look, just substantiate this. When did you go? What happened?

Edwin Tong  27:15  
What time was this meeting at the Aloha,

Pritam Singh  27:17  
I will have to check, Mr. Tong, but I would say it was shortly after Mrs. Desmond tan intervenes to say that the police have checked their records. And there's no such case, I believe that they can find. So shortly after the Okay,

Edwin Tong  27:30  
so what did you tell her?

Pritam Singh  27:32  
So I was very clear to her. My I think my legislative assistants were in the office. And I told her the truth matters. Were a part of this conversation. Or they weren't part of the conversation, but they were sitting at the side. But he was sitting on the on the settee, right. Yeah. And so

Edwin Tong  27:49  
in other words, they were part of the meeting. I bet one, your LA's were part of the meeting. They were

Pritam Singh  27:53  
doing, they were doing other things, watching the speeches as they went along. Okay. And so she was crying, and she kept telling me that she can't contact this person, she's unable to contact this person. And so I say, Look, you have to clarify it on the record, that you can't contact this person, if that indeed is the position. And so I told

Edwin Tong  28:14  
her that I told her that. Absolutely, that she has to clarify it on the record, since she can't contact this person. That's right, because that was a representation to me digital, in clear terms, very clear terms.

Pritam Singh  28:25  
I think I have it on WhatsApp chat, and I would like to present that as evidence to the committee. Okay. And thereafter, she seems to be confused as to how to clarify. And she says to clarify this by email, I said, No, you have to clarify it in chamber. And so I based on what she has told me. And because she was completely in a bad state, I draft a short note, based on what she has told me about the episode, that she's not been able to contact this person. I draft the short note. And I say, have a look at it. Do you agree with it? And she says, Yes, I do. Then she adds another line in that statement doesn't check with me, and then makes that statement in. In the house. It's on the record in the house. So the statement that was made by Miss Khan subsequent to the clarification by Mr. Stan was something that you had drafted. Yes, that is correct. Which she revised or did not revise, she revised one sentence in it. I drafted that. And I said look, is this something that you agree with? Because only you know the truth? And she agreed with it. And I have this on? I believe I have this on a whatsapp chat. And then she proceeds to make the statement on the day thereafter I believe Leader of the House rises. And she reminds MPs to substantiate when they make an allegation against, you know, a government body. I'm not sure whether she use these exact words, but I think that was the thrust of her intervention. And the next few days, I and I have this again on WhatsApp chat. I continue to press Reiser to give me details about this episode, what happened Reisa in the course of this tells me I like to check the dates, but it's on record, I can present those those records, whether it's on the third on the fifth, I don't remember exactly. Or the sixth, maybe on my whatsapp chat, she says the person's nickname is and she met her outside below police station. So that's what she sent me. And so my perception, of course, is that episode is true, but she's not been successful in contacting the lesson.

Edwin Tong  30:58  
Let me just pause you for a moment. All of what you're telling us now. You subsequently discovered was false.

Pritam Singh  31:06  
I subsequently discovered it was false. But I think it goes to the point of your earlier line of questioning, which was if you know, Ally has been told, how do you react and behave towards it?

Edwin Tong  31:17  
No, I asked you a question about at some point. At some point what that what that means? Yes, that focus on that.

Pritam Singh  31:24  
Let's go But implicit in what you're saying. And you can disagree, of course, is that there's some cover up? No, it's going to sing because that was your line of questioning to the witnesses. May I beg your pardon? I don't mean to, I don't mean to be argumentative.

Edwin Tong  31:39  
No, no, please don't. Okay. I will be very upfront with you and tell you that I have got no agenda, except to ask questions and work out what the facts are. And there's nothing implicit in my questions. It's direct. And I hope you appreciate that is direct. Okay, if I'm going to make a suggestion to you, I will do so and tell you. Okay, so please don't read into my questions. I'm not making anything that's in fact, I'm

Pritam Singh  32:08  
not. I'm just reflecting on the questions that were put to the first two witnesses, which is now in the public domain. That's where I was coming from. But please, so back, can I just quickly finish some points? Yeah, no, proceed. Sorry. I

Edwin Tong  32:21  
didn't mean to interrupt, you know, go ahead and finish your explanation. Now. I want to hear why what you mean by at some point. Okay. So thereafter,

Pritam Singh  32:27  
I continue asking her and she messages me at some point. And she says, Can I give you a call?

Edwin Tong  32:37  
And can you give me a rough date reference, this would

Pritam Singh  32:41  
be the seventh, this definitely was the second day before she came, she comes to my house. And she asks that I that she, whether she can call me. I said, Yeah, sure. She calls me and I tell her over the phone. I said, Look, you've told me all this, but can you if you can't tell if you don't know who this you're not in contact with this person anymore? Can you tell me who put you in touch with this person? Because it's not as if you know, this victim out of the blue, there must be some NGO, some organization that would have called you. So who are these people? And then she said something to the effect of No, is there any? Is there really such a thing as confidentiality? You know, I said, Look, I'm SGX of this party, and I'm asking you a question. And I want to know, and then I tell I'm only gonna ask this once now, did it happen or not? And then she said, No, it didn't happen. And of course, when I hear that I am really angry and upset. And I got the call. I may have said something after that, like, we'll talk about this, but I'm not sure really. But I was, I know, I was really angry, I got the call. And that was when I first knew, at the end of that call that That episode was actually untrue. Thereafter on the eighth, Reiser comes to my house, we have other matters that we want to discuss as well, between the party leadership, myself and Reiser, and she then tells us that she told the lie because she was laboring under this traumatic thing.

Edwin Tong  34:19  
I'm sorry to cut you off. But I just wanted to tell you that we will get in detail to this meeting. No, that's fine. I can I can always give my evidence then. So so don't worry, you'll have an opportunity. But I want a quick answer from you as to what you mean by at some point, because you said I can contextualize Yes, I understand. I understand. So when I got to know when she said she was she had been when she was 18. I was prepared to give her the time.

Pritam Singh  34:46  
Speak to her parents, settle herself speak to a therapist who she admitted at that meeting of the eighth she was seeing who was aware of her condition. settle yourself and once you've done that, we You'll have to go to Parliament. And you'll have to make a personal statement that was at least my frame of mind. And so that's what I mean by

Edwin Tong  35:05  
at some point. So if I refer you to page one of your press statement, and here is part of your prepared speech, at the bottom paragraph, you said, of immediate concern to me was the fact that Raisa had not previously informed her family members of a sexual assault, which traumatize her greatly. In my judgment, it was important that she did, she did so before she could fully address the reasons behind untruthful conduct in Parliament, and to correct the record this. So you then go on to say that I was prepared to give her the space necessary to address the matter. With her loved ones? Yes. So would that give context to what you mean by at some point? Is what you mean? Yes,

Pritam Singh  35:47  
it would, it would, it would, it would certainly put that in perspective.

Edwin Tong  35:50  
So the key criteria would be whether she has informed her members and whether she your assessment of a state of mind?

Pritam Singh  35:57  
It would be it would be immediate concern to you. It would be whether she had told her parents, okay, yeah.

Edwin Tong  36:06  
Now, I would prefer not to go into specific details which are not necessary concerning the sex sexual assault in this inquiry, where possible, unless you think it is highly germane, because these proceedings will eventually be made public. And I would ask that we try and respect as far as we can, the experience that Miss Khan had.

Pritam Singh  36:31  
I agree, and I hope you also understand that those were the reasons which I was also thinking of very carefully before determining well, at what point will she come up

Edwin Tong  36:41  
until the drum is the thing? I think the circumstances are very different. I would agree they are different. They are very different. Agree. You are your fate, you're talking about clarifying ally in Parliament, as leader of the Workers Party where one of your members had told a lie. And these proceedings here, I think the circumstances are different. I don't disagree. Now. Go on to your go back to your press statement. We were at page three earlier. And so if you go and finish up the rest of your answer to CNA, you go on to say, I beg your pardon. She repeated what was the untruth that you originally communicated? But certainly if you want to continue as an MP, if you want to continue as a respectable political party, you know, of this fact? I think there's only one outcome, it would have to be clarified. Do you stand by this? Yes, I do. I think that is the least that can be done. Right?

Pritam Singh  37:43  
That is the minimum we expect of MPs. If you tell a lie, you have to correct it.

Edwin Tong  37:48  
Thank you. And subject to your views as to what at some point means it must be on your mind that this clarification must happen as soon as possible. Correct. Ideally, yes, of course. Well, ideally, absolutely. Right.

Pritam Singh  38:07  
This is where I think the circumstances, in my judgment, were of such a nature that I was prepared to give the member time in view of her. Again, I respect what you said earlier. I use the word earlier because this was the word Miss price I can use to when she described herself. But if chair and the committee would want me to use sexual assault, I'm happy to use that word. I just used that word because that was the word rice I can't use. Yes.

Edwin Tong  38:36  
So and I prefer not that we don't go into any other details. Unless they're

Pritam Singh  38:39  
I don't I don't really know the details of I'm quite happy to convince you sexual so. Okay, I believe sexual assault. So just just to remember that on record, that's what Miss Khan told us that she was doing she was 18.

Edwin Tong  38:52  
All I'm saying is subject to what you've said. Yes. And the evidence on the record about what at some point means yes. And clarified by the bottom paragraph of the first page of this press statement, which starts with of immediate concern. Subject to that.

Pritam Singh  39:10  
I do apologize. Mr. Mr. Doe, I don't mean to make it difficult for you. Could you just repeat that please say

Edwin Tong  39:14  
no, early on, I put to you that once your statement. Let me just read back. There's only one outcome, it will have to be clarified. That's right. And I said, this is the least that can be done. And you said you agree. That's absolutely. And I put to you that in normal circumstances, this has to be done as soon as possible

Pritam Singh  39:33  
in normal circumstances. Yes.

Edwin Tong  39:37  
I didn't see very urgently, right. In normal circumstances.

Pritam Singh  39:40  
I mean, normal circumstances. I'm not we're not gonna quibble about the words, I suppose my judgment in this case of what was normal. This was to me highly abnormal.

Edwin Tong  39:48  
Well, we'll we'll debate that but the circumstance that in your mind deviates from a usual situation, in this case, was what you have explained earlier, when you were asked you about at some point, and which we looked at in the first page of the press statement, correct. That is basically what makes this case in your mind unusual.

Pritam Singh  40:11  
Now, what makes this case unusual in my mind was the fact that I was dealing with an MP who had shared something highly personal and private to me. And I had to deal with it in my view, as sensitively as I could.

Edwin Tong  40:22  
Yes. And so the circumstances which you say are were of immediate concern to you, whether a family members were informed, whether or not you had made an assessment of a state of mind, these are the circumstances right. Yes, that's correct. Correct. Now, you then go on to say, if I may refer you back to page two of your press statement. Second line of the from the top, it was nonetheless made known to her before the parliamentary setting in October, that any parliamentary clarification on this matter was hers to make in her capacity as an elected member of parliament. Again, you carefully drafted this statement, right? That's right. The word nonetheless means even taking into account the abnormal circumstances in this case, no, I wouldn't go so far. The word nonetheless, is used in this statement, to say that taking into account the circumstances you had made known to her before the October sitting,

Pritam Singh  41:36  
I would go to the central laboratory. Sorry,

Edwin Tong  41:39  
that the clarification was hers to make. agree

Pritam Singh  41:44  
nor disagree. It is, nonetheless, in my mind related to the earliest sentence. Reiser came down with an episode of shingles in September and did not attend parliament that month. But the anticipation is there's sitting coming along

Edwin Tong  42:00  
October, okay. I understand. Yes, no, please put it on record while you're watching me. I just did. No, you you, you will halfway through you said there was a setting coming along in October. So

Pritam Singh  42:10  
that's what so there was a sitting coming along in October, and visa V that October sitting. I made it clear to her that she had to take ownership and responsibility for what had happened. Right.

Edwin Tong  42:20  
So let's unpack this is that statement would have had to be made to her before October? It follows right. Before the October sitting? Yes. Correct. Yes. Okay. And secondly, when you say any parliamentary clarification on this matter, you see the words. Yes. The phrase parliamentary clarification must mean, come clean and tell the truth. Correct.

Pritam Singh  42:48  
The phrase means you have to set the record right in Parliament

Edwin Tong  42:52  
means explain that it was a lie. That's right. And tell the truth now.

Pritam Singh  42:56  
Exactly. Right.

Edwin Tong  42:58  
So therefore, it was known to her before October that she was to tell the truth. Not before October, before the October city for the October sickness right. Now,

Pritam Singh  43:11  
I couldn't repeat that question again, just specifically.

Edwin Tong  43:22  
The last question was, therefore it was known to her before the October sitting that she was to tell the truth. That you my words to her was to take ownership and responsibility of the of the matter, which is, which extends to telling the truth. Yes. Which, in fact, must fundamentally include telling the truth. That's the whole reason that behind the clarification, correct. That's

Pritam Singh  43:47  
to remind her that, indeed, you have to take ownership and responsibility of the matter. You are an elected MP, you've made an oath of Parliament. Mr. Singh, you should you should do what the right note Mr.

Edwin Tong  43:56  
Singh, and I hope Mr. Chairman can make a direction. Please don't rephrase my question.

Pritam Singh  44:01  
I didn't mean to. Okay.

Edwin Tong  44:03  
I apologize if you My questions are, are designed with a yes or no. And you can always clarify later on. Okay. So let me try again.

To just to give you the context, you had said my words to her was to take ownership and responsibility of the matter, which extends to telling the truth. And I said, in fact, it must fundamentally include telling the truth. That's the whole reason that behind making a clarification, correct. Your eyes? Yes. Can I clarify? Yes.

Pritam Singh  44:44  
It also had to us that assumes that she would have closed the issue of with her parents, because to me that was important. It was going to be made public in the event she told the truth that details of a sexual assault to the extent that she made it her eventual state then you would come out. Okay. And I, in my view, I thought it would be very improper if her loved ones didn't know about it. And she told this to the whole of Singapore before that,

Edwin Tong  45:08  
which is the point you articulated in the bottom of the first page of the statement. page one, page one. Yes, that is correct. Yeah. All right. Thank you. The one the paragraph that starts with of immediate concern. Correct. That is the last paragraph on page one. Now, go back to page two, we were there. You then have two more paragraphs which explain this. Briefly. Question by mha. On third October, 4 October,

Pritam Singh  45:37  
I beg your pardon? Which paragraph? Are you? Sorry,

Edwin Tong  45:40  
I stopped at the top paragraph. I'm now going to the second paragraph from the top. So you related what happened on the fourth of October? Yes. And what happened after the fourth of October in the next two paragraphs? Yes. Okay.

Now, in your mind. And again, I know the caveat you made about at some point, okay, bearing this in mind. It was highly imperative for such a clarification of the truth to be made. At some point, yes. It was, in fact, very important to ensure that the deception at Parliament was under would be clarified.

Pritam Singh  46:34  
Yes. I may disagree with the choice of the word deception. But certainly what Miss Khan did was not the truth. Well, and this is not what we expect from Lucas party MPC.

Edwin Tong  46:44  
But not the truth is a deception Mr. Singh,

Pritam Singh  46:48  
they are different words for a reason.

Edwin Tong  46:54  
In your mind, this conversation, or this clarification with her before the October sitting? Was she under any doubt that that was what you had in mind? In your mind,

Pritam Singh  47:06  
I do not believe she would have been under any doubt because she would have connects me? No, just answer the question. I do not believe she would have been under any doubt. And I wish to explain why I think that can I do so please do. So visa V my conduct towards her from the third to the seventh, pressing her for the truth. Given that she is in receipt of rules of prudence, which I signed off and gave to her before and to all the MP all the WP MPs before. Last year, it was after the first sitting of Parliament. And given that I had told her to tell her parents, all these would have informed her that she would have had to come up with the truth. And given what I told her on the third of August, where I visited her, my wife had to drop off some things to meet the mantle of October, I beg your pardon? Third of October.

Edwin Tong  48:09  
We'll come to that. Sure. But I wanted to,

Pritam Singh  48:11  
can I just finish answering the question? And so with all these in with all this information, and I mean, she would know what sort of person I am I would think like all my MPs do, she will know that she would have had to tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  48:28  
So to answer to my question as to whether you thought she was under any doubt or misapprehension as to your clear direction, tanza will be no. Right.

Pritam Singh  48:37  
She would have been clear, yes. The answer would be no. Okay. That's my view. Okay.

Edwin Tong  48:48  
No, Mr. Singh. The timeline was this seven August, you were aware. And the next parliamentary sitting would have been September, you said she had shingles. Just before the sitting I believe

Pritam Singh  49:08  
she uploaded a post a Facebook post about it. And she told me as well. I've got it on a WhatsApp message when she

Edwin Tong  49:16  
might, the point you're making is that she was not present in Parliament and therefore could not clarify

Pritam Singh  49:21  
if she was present in Parliament, but I did not speak to her before the September sitting. I have to put that on record. Right.

Edwin Tong  49:28  
But in October, you were aware that she will be in Parliament. And there was a sitting, right. Okay. So you went to a home on the third of October? That's right, correct. That's right. And you brought up the issue with her. I have the clarification. That's right. I did. I think you were trying to make that point earlier in your life. Because you said your wife had a present. You said

Pritam Singh  49:54  
no, he wasn't a present. She's got a young daughter. I've got young daughters and I think they had something to do and via

Edwin Tong  50:00  
so would be fair to say that you anticipate that it anticipated that the issue might arise the next day on the fourth of October, it would certainly have been possible. Yes. In fact, you anticipated it right.

Pritam Singh  50:12  
I wouldn't go so far. I'm not a clairvoyant, but I it would certainly be, it would certainly be possible to have for it to have come up here.

Edwin Tong  50:19  
And I think well put it this way. You said you didn't speak to her before the September sitting today. And in your account earlier, as to why you believed it was clear to her. You describe to me, August, third to August 7. And then you describe to me October 3, with nothing in between? Right. There was what I took away from your what you said.

Pritam Singh  50:46  
So the issue of can I explain yes or no?

Edwin Tong  50:49  
Was there anything in between that you want to talk there was there was keep telling me?

Pritam Singh  50:54  
It wasn't directly to her. As Mr. Tong, you would know, we were anticipating that we were preparing for the fika debate in October. In the course of my preparations for the fika debate, I was reading up all Hansard records of the Hendriksen affair. And there was a particular episode where Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chiemsee Tong makes a allegation that NTUC members were paid three to $5 to manufacture a protest against the Americans. I'll tell you why this is relevant. And it then of course, the PAP members in Parliament stood up and said, you know, substantiate this what you know, you should withdraw it. And so that was pretty long exchange, a few pap members stood up and challenged, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Cham said the person who told me about this is actually sitting in the remember, I'll tell you, I'll tell you why this is important. So that episode, then something clicked in my mind, I said, Look, that and I and I send an email on the first of October to all the web members, as I'm preparing for the debate, to say that if you do something like this, and you cannot substantiate what you say, you're going to be be prepared to appear before the committee of privileges. So the Okay, the issue was at the back of my mind, the seriousness of it, the importance of it to, you know, the best standards that really, Workers Party MP should uphold. Okay, and this is unacceptable. I would like to present this I'm sure I can pull that email out. I would like to present this as evidence.

Edwin Tong  52:33  
Please do. Anything else. We were in the period in between. You remember, August, October 3? And now you said October 1 as an email. That's right. Anything else?

Pritam Singh  52:45  
No, I don't believe so.

Edwin Tong  52:47  
I don't believe and all of these occasions form the reasons for your belief that Miss Khan was very clear that she would have to clarify the truth in Petra. That's right.

Now can I invite you to look at miscounts evidence. I'm happy to look at the clock please assist Mr. Singh. And pick up second of December.

Pritam Singh  53:24  
submission to CRP by Miss Reiser con on the second of December. Yes.

Edwin Tong  53:29  
No, sorry. clap. It's the evidence given when Miss can on the second of December.

Pritam Singh  53:42  
I think evidence that she gave to the CRP.

Edwin Tong  53:45  
Yeah. So transcripts.

Pritam Singh  53:53  
Committee of privileges minutes of evidence Thursday, second, December 2021 11am.

Edwin Tong  53:57  
Yes, please. Turn to page 83. Yes. Now just to give you a timeframe, your press conference, the transcriptions of which the transcribed notes of which you have in front of you took place last Thursday? Yes, it was almost at the same time, if not, at the same time as when this up was sitting and taking evidence. Oh, yes. I came to know later. Yes. And both Miss Lowe, who gave evidence as well as Miss Khan. Were not aware of the press conference before they gave evidence. I wouldn't know. I'm telling you that because they were here and they were sequestered. And they were not aware of what was said at the press conference. At the time they gave this evidence. So wouldn't surprise me. Yes, I'm telling you and so look at the evidence in that light. They had no idea Right, or what was being said? Sure. At the press conference? Sure. Okay. Now when you went to see, have the document in front of you, but let me just set the context. You said that you went to miscounts? Home? Yes, sir of October, with my wife with your wife. Can you tell me what happened at this occasion? Sure.

Pritam Singh  55:26  
So we visit her home on the third of October, as I alluded to earlier, my wife had something to, I think they were baby clothes, but I can't be absolutely sure. And this was in the evening, I reckon it was about six plus, but I have to double check my messages. What time it was. She was at home, I knocked the door. Her father and mother were there. We had a short conversation. They, I mean, it was, they're nice people. They're pleasant people. We had a quick chat. Her husband was there, we said hello. And her son was there. I didn't see the daughter, but her son was definitely there.

Edwin Tong  56:07
I'd like you to focus on what you told Miss Khan concerning the clarification

Pritam Singh  56:12  
Sure, sure. There was something interesting that happened to her out of the blue, I didn't expect it because I don't talk to her mother very much. And her mother, Miss Khan's mother told me Parliament can be not so serious or not. It was a fragment. I didn't know what to make of it. But I told her, I said Auntie, parliament is very, very serious. And then her mother goes away. Then I, sit Miss Khan, and I sit with Miss Carr. And I tell her look, I am not sure what is going to happen with this thing that has this anecdote that you've told. But it is entirely possible that there could be a clarification made, somebody may ask you something about it. And it is important that you take responsibility and take ownership of the issue. And I did say, and she started getting a bit uncomfortable when I said that. And then I told her, I will not judge you. And I will not judge you meant I will not judge you if you take responsibility and ownership. That was the gist of the conversation. I didn't get the sense that she was going to be uncomfortable with telling the truth. She never communicated anything of that sort to me. And at no point did she say preterm? I don't know what to do. Please help me. I need guidance. I need advice. Nothing of that sort. I'm just trying to put the context of the third of October meeting. Okay. So and then, sorry, I'm interrupting, you know, are you finished? Okay, no, not yet. And in just that was what I recall from the third October conversation. And then of course, I took my leave and we left. Maybe may have stayed a little while longer because my wife was playing with her son. So

Edwin Tong  58:00  
okay, I don't think we really, really are not. But that that was so just focus on what's germane. Okay. Now, I'd like to show you miscounts recollection. What happened? Please turn to page 83. Yes. Can you go somewhere just after halfway down the page, where you see Miss Fraser Khan says before the October city. So this is yes. This is her account of Yes. The same conversation? Yes. Let me read it to you. Sure. Before the October sitting, I had a conversation with Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh. And the conversation was that if I were to retain the narrative, or if I were to continue the narrative, there will be no judgment. Can you tell us which date this took place? Third October, it would have to be the third of October. Where did this take place in my house? Was there anyone else present besides the two of you? No, there was not joking that

Pritam Singh  58:50  
are there? I think she is she has stolen like that's not true.

Edwin Tong  58:54  
Can I finish?

Pritam Singh  58:55  
I mean, sorry, my apologies. But I mean, you must understand my shock when she says no one was at home, because her whole family was at home.

Edwin Tong  59:03  
Mr. Saying this can't be the first time you're hearing this. And you would have seen the transcript. I saw

Pritam Singh  59:07  
the transcript I was shocked about it. And I want to relate to you that this is not true.

Edwin Tong  59:13  
Go over the page, the discussion for you to retain the narrative and there will be no judgment. Can you give me the interpretation of that? What do you make of that statement? My interpretation was that there'll be no consequences for me to continue the narrative that I had begun in August. In other words, there'll be no consequences on you if you continue to lie and keep up the contention that there was this occasion this anecdote that you had described on third of August, despite it being a lie. That was my interpretation. Yes. And therefore, and there was therefore no attempt by Mr. Singh to ask you to clarify the matter in favor of putting out the truth. Not at a point in time. No, not on third October. No. So you disagree with this. Absolutely. So if this is what Miss Khan said, you will say she's lying. Absolutely. Mr. Singh. Let's see what the common areas are. First of all, you went to a home on third of October, right? Yes. You expected the issue to arise in parliament the next day on the fourth of October, right. I did not expect it to you anticipate that it would, it would be possible. Okay. So you anticipated that it might, it might rise. And you went to her? You raised the topic with her. That is correct. And you did say, I will not judge you,

Pritam Singh  1:00:36  
as I did. But that was a fragment of a larger conversation.

Edwin Tong  1:00:39  
Okay. What else? So these are the points that we agree on. So far. What else from this evidence that I've just read to you? Do you agree with

Pritam Singh  1:00:50  
your talking about Miss Carr is what I just read to you? I don't understand this. No, no.

Edwin Tong  1:00:55  
What else do you agree with?

Pritam Singh  1:00:57  
I just said it's not true. How can I agree with something I've said he's not well, we we agreed on a few points, but that wasn't really relating to this. Okay. Is

Edwin Tong  1:01:06  
there anything else here you agree with? No, no. Okay. So, your position is that as far as this evidence is concerned, Miss Khan will be lying.

Pritam Singh  1:01:17  
Yes, you look if I can be even the slightest bit charitable. She She read, she completely read the wrong thing that I had put to her when I tell you to take responsibility. It means precisely that. If you look at my conduct towards you in the run up to what you had said in Parliament, if I really wanted to let this narrative lie, I don't know where this word comes from. But if I really wanted to do that, I would have just left it where the leader of the House left it, please substantiate in future

Edwin Tong  1:01:59  
now, on the fourth of October, this issue that you had thought might arise did arise, right? Yes. And it arose immediately after peak use, you remember?

Pritam Singh  1:02:17  
We all have to check but yes, I did arise. Yeah.

Edwin Tong  1:02:20  
Let me give you some some decision. Please. You can take it from me. Parliament said at 11am on the fourth of October, and the usual PQ is an hour and a half till 38 ended. At 1230, Mr. Shanmugam stood up to seek the speaker's permission to make a ministerial statement a short ministerial statement.

Pritam Singh  1:02:38  
I think, Mr. Young man, why wanted to say something I remember this

Edwin Tong  1:02:42  
thing y'all remember that? Yes. But just to give you

Pritam Singh  1:02:46  
know, actually, Mr. Tong, I I will accept your recollection of what is what transpired that day.

Edwin Tong  1:02:53  
So

can I please invite you to look at the hands. Could you please assist Mr. Singh?

Pritam Singh  1:03:06  
For I'll just leave this open here.

Edwin Tong  1:03:08  
Yes. I may come back to it

Pritam Singh  1:03:10  
Sure. Is Mr. Young man why it starts with Mr. Malloy. Not surprised. No, no. He wanted to clarify. I think putting this petition

Edwin Tong  1:03:23  
aside four out of 10 showed Mr. Shanmugam, then.

Pritam Singh  1:03:30  
No, it wasn't so bad. Mr. Chairman. I mean, he's entitled to try and put in his view.

Edwin Tong  1:03:34  
Okay. But anyway, what's important for me is this that Mr. Shanmugam starts at 1230. or shortly thereafter after Mr. Loman wise intervention? Yes. Now. You were in chamber at that point in time? Yes, I was. So was Miss can write this. And about four minutes, three or four minutes after Mr. Minister Shanmugam started on his ministerial statement and before he finished, and you can take it from me that he finished after six minutes, so if you go to page three of this handout transcript, where he says, He concludes by saying So sir, through you may ask Miss Khan for those details. That would be around 1236 37 To get from you. Now. Can I Can you leave that transcript open? And please pick up the bundle of documents provided by Miss Lowe on the I think it is the second or third of December? The fairly substantial bundle Yes.

No, sorry, I beg your pardon is not Miss Liu. I'm sorry. It's Miss Khan. My apologies. The bundle should be the Miss Khan bundle on the second of December

so now does go ahead. Do you need anything Mr.

Pritam Singh  1:05:37  
submission to see up by Miss Reiser can seconds? Yes,

Edwin Tong  1:05:39  
yes. So So to give you an orientation of the documents we have everything I mentioned at the start from time to time when we asked you for documents, travails, messages, WhatsApp, Telegram, and so on. And in the course of the earlier witnesses testimony, they also gave us some of the message records, right, email records, and so on. And this came from Miss Khan, right? On the second of December. So if you can go, just have a quick flip over it, you will see that there were some WhatsApp messages in text form. And then near the end, there are some screenshots, you see that at the bottom of the page, you will see a page numbering

Pritam Singh  1:06:25  
I don't see them the only screenshot I see is Reiser claiming on the eighth of August that I had met up with Pritam, Silvia and Faisal, we also spoke via

Edwin Tong  1:06:39  
cloud which I have in mind and then you can assist me

Sorry, Mr. Singh, I think she will assist Oh, the wrong document

to be taken she said that it didn't.

Just give her a moment.

Pritam Singh  1:07:33  
No, no, no problem.

Edwin Tong  1:07:43  
Okay. Okay. So she shared some screenshots of her messages with you, Mr. Singh. So if I could ask you to look at the bundle that has the page numbering below 17. Do you see? Yes. Okay. Turn to page four of 17. Yes. This is a screenshot of her messages with you. Yes. On the fourth of October. Yes. And you will see at 1234. Yes. She says, What should I do? Pritam? Yes, I see that. So she has sent you this message. Whilst Minister Shanmugam was making his ministerial statement. Right. Yes, you are president chamber and this card was President chamber. Why do you think she was sending this message?

Pritam Singh  1:08:30  
I didn't see the message.

Edwin Tong  1:08:32  
Don't I know that? You? You may say that. But my question is a different one. Okay. Why do you think she was saying this message?

Pritam Singh  1:08:42  
I can't read into her mind. But it may well be that she is fearful of coming out with the truth.

Edwin Tong  1:08:50  
At that point in time, according to evidence, there was no doubt in your mind that she knew that. Should the matter come up. For clarification. She would have to clarify. Yeah, the truth. Right.

Pritam Singh  1:09:04  
Yeah. Because I had told her to take ownership and responsibility. So in my mind, it would have been clear what the right thing to

Edwin Tong  1:09:10  
do was right. So this message, four minutes into Mr. Shanmugam speech would come out like a bolt out of the blue. Right. completely at odds with your understanding of what she was to do. Right. I'll tell you exactly when I saw the message. No, that's not my question.

Pritam Singh  1:09:31  
I do so I didn't. Please, please ask your question. Again. I apologize.

Edwin Tong  1:09:35  
Please do focus. I'm not asking you when you saw it. Right. I said that receiving a message four minutes into Minister Shanmugam speech. Concerning an issue which you had contemplated might arise just the day before. Yes, it went to a home to speak about it. Yes. To receive a message at job 34 asking you what should I do preterm? Yes, would be completely at odds with your understanding of what she is to do that is correct. And so I go back to my earlier question, why do you think she would send such a text? I cannot do it has already been made known to her as you told the press.

Pritam Singh  1:10:16  
Mr. Tong, this may seem like a deviation. But we can come back to it and cut me off if you feel it's inappropriate. She revealed some things about her condition some a condition she's laboring under, on the 29th of November to the WP design.

Edwin Tong  1:10:36  
I don't want to go into that now.

Pritam Singh  1:10:37  
But I'm but you're asking me about what she thinks. Now, if

Edwin Tong  1:10:42  
okay, I'm asking you contemporaneously. Because you obviously would not have been aware of absolutely, Bill subsequently.

Pritam Singh  1:10:50  
That's right. That's right.

Edwin Tong  1:10:51  
So let me just sketch it out for you again, right. You went to see her right out of October. Yes. Contemplating the issue might arise, which means that you felt if it arose, you would speak tell the truth. Absolutely. Right. Which means she's ready to do so in your mind. She would have to do so. Yes. And she was ready to do so. Correct? Yes. By the fourth of October, correct.

Pritam Singh  1:11:15  
Whether she was ready was something for her to take responsibility for as an MP of the Workers Party. Yeah, I can surely say that she was ready. But I had communicated to her. You have to take ownership and responsibility may happen on the fourth of October. Right. It could have happened. I wasn't sure I could have in what way? I mean, I like I said, I can't foresee that. The metal could have

Edwin Tong  1:11:39  
come up. Okay. But the matter did come up which you had contemplated. Right? It would be for her to clarify. Yes. And she will have to clarify. Just to clarify, hang on. It will be to clarify and tell the truth. That's absolutely right. You, you felt that by seeing about a third of October, you felt that this might come up? And she would have to come to Parliament and speak the truth. I can't disagree. Yes, yes. So in that context, receiving such a message in the context of everything you told us 37, August 1, October 3 October would be at odds completely at odds with your understanding of what she is to do. Yes. Now you didn't reply till later. So we'll come to that. You reply to this message. But later, yes. But I'd like to

Pritam Singh  1:12:37  
share with you, as I said, will speak after sitting keep chair and I posted

Edwin Tong  1:12:41  
No, you said that later. But I wanted to give you a sense of the timeline. Right. And to do that, I think the best thing to do is to look at the video. Sure. Okay. So if I may ask the clerk to please assist me and look at the video.

Give the volume just pause for a moment. If you'd like Mr. Singh, you can have the hands up transcripts open so that you know where which segment is. If you like so this this segment here, yeah, picks up, picks up from after Mr. Shanmugam has finished, right, which three or four? Yes. Okay. And as I explained to you earlier, this is around the 1236 37 time period. So, two to three minutes after she sent you the text. She gets up to make her first response to Mr. Shanmugam, and this is what it is yes, please play.

Raeesah Khan  1:14:28  
Successful getting in touch with our company and, you know, without the confidentiality or start saying that way. Thank you.

Shanmugam  1:14:48  
So, much identities of the officers could be extended with Cognos

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:14:56  
to facilitate the investigation by police to check in

Edwin Tong  1:15:02  
Please pause. Mr. Singh, we, as you will see that between her first response and a second response this time around, she brings her phone to the podium.

Pritam Singh  1:15:15  
I didn't notice that, but I noticed it now

Edwin Tong  1:15:16  
as well. I obviously didn't notice it then as well. But I'd like to draw your attention. Okay. And later on, you will see that she does look at the phone. And I will make some suggestions to you later. Please play the video.

Raeesah Khan  1:15:37  
With regards to confidentiality with the survivor, I would not like to reveal any of this information. Thank you.

Shanmugam  1:15:44  
Police Station. Confidential.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:15:50  
Ministers asked me about the identity of individuals

Raeesah Khan  1:15:54  
understand but Professor confidentiality I wouldn't like that. I will not be revealing to any other information. Thank you.

Shanmugam  1:16:09  
Speaker has the power to direct and says since the two of us are addicted. He told Which police station in the month. It is a month in which police station

Tan Chuan-Jin:  1:16:28  
miscount? I think that's a fair question. Would you like to respond or your position? The reason is that certain allegations have been made which have been affair and serious and the police, I understand would like to follow up the check to make sure that they can rectify the situation. So any means without divulging the name of it.

Raeesah Khan  1:16:52  
Thank you I still like to remain friends remain confidential. Thank you.

Edwin Tong  1:17:01  
Pause the video. So throughout this question besides the first occasion, when she stood up to answer to answer Minister Shanmugam, I would suggest to you that she bought her phone because she was waiting for an answer from you.

Pritam Singh  1:17:16  
Minister, that's a tall ask for me. I would not know why she brought her phone,

Edwin Tong  1:17:21  
but would be a reasonable assumption,

Pritam Singh  1:17:24  
right. Why I can I make an equally good assumption? No,

Edwin Tong  1:17:28  
let me let me suggest this to you. Minister Shanmugam stands up to speak. issue about by now we know it's a lie. It's come up. Yes. So she's obviously concerned. Yes. She said the leader of a party a question as to what she should do? A very direct question. Yes. And she's being pressed. Yes. To answer several questions. Yes, she as I have pressed her before, yes, both by Minister Shanmugam and by the speaker. Yes. And I suggest to you that she's looking at her phone to see if you would reply, and what your direction would be?

Pritam Singh  1:18:04  
Why can't she be looking at a phone to look at the statement she has made? And to see whether she has already answered the question that Minister has asked her on the phone, we wouldn't know I can't rule it out. But your guess is as good as mine. But my suggestion would not be an unreasonable one. Right? I would reject it because we are trying to project our view onto what ricer Khan's intentions are, of course, but I don't know. I can't.

Edwin Tong  1:18:27  
I'm just asking you to assist this committee, if you might to say that. Taking the phone to the podium in this way, having just sent you a question, a direct question, or what to do about a topic that she's currently addressing? would be not an unreasonable view be that she was waiting for an answer from you, I think

Pritam Singh  1:18:46  
it would be very unreasonable, because she knows full well, how her party leader has dealt with her after by pressing her after she made the initial lie in Parliament, what to do. I pressed her and pressed her and press her until I got the truth out of her. And now you're telling me I'm turning around to say Reiser Can you don't know what to do? She jolly well should know what to do. She has to tell the truth. Member story.

Edwin Tong  1:19:15  
Yes. But nonetheless, she asked you a question,

Pritam Singh  1:19:20  
which I did not see at that time. I actually do you what do you want to know when I saw it?

Edwin Tong  1:19:25  
Obviously, the timely response will give me an indication about the time of your response will give me an indication. Thank you. Now, and that was after the entire exchange. Right? If you if you'd like I can play out the exchange on video. But I think you know, I mean, I think the answer is you know, so she completed it. At the end of the exchange. She repeated her lies. Yes, several times. Yes. And you will remember that after pressing for details several times Minister Sean Wiggum set rather asked for Miss Khan to confirm that everything that she has told us in this house is accurate in that she did accompany such a person and such an incident did happen. And she said yes, yes, that would be a bad face lie. Absolutely. And you will know that right. I will know that. I have known that by then. Yes. And it will be completely at odds with what you had understood she will do if this matter came up in parliament that that is correct. Right. So go back to Miss Khan's bundle. What's happened messages? Yes. WhatsApp messages. You wanted to look at? Your response, right? Yes, yes. So at 1245. You respond? Yes. We'll speak after sitting, keep checking. And I posted. That was your response. That's right.

By that time, I think you said earlier, you knew that what she had said in August was false. That's right. And you also knew that what she had just repeated in Parliament was a reiteration of the falsehoods that is correct. What's worse than lying in parliament is repeating the same lie in Parliament. Two months apart, correct.

Pritam Singh  1:21:21  
Whether it's two months or one hour, it's the gravity is the same. Yes, you have lied. Well, that should not happen. That should never happen.

Edwin Tong  1:21:28  
Yes. So it's worse to have repeated it. Yes, one hour, two months later. Absolutely. So you must have appreciated that by that time. This was a far more serious and grave issue.

Pritam Singh  1:21:40  
All right. The fact is she had not told the truth,

Edwin Tong  1:21:44  
and continued the lie and repeated it several times. Yes. On the fourth of October. That is correct. So you would have appreciated that there was a far greater more grave situation. Yes. Right.

Pritam Singh  1:21:58  
It made it very clear that this decision now was out of her hands, whether she wanted to.

Edwin Tong  1:22:06  
We will come to that. Whether you want to we'll come to that. We'll come to that. Well. I got I finished? No, I'm asking you for your state of mind. Then. Once you heard her, you finish around 1242. Yes. Take it from me. Yes. You would have appreciated that the situation by now at 1242 had become far more grave and serious.

Pritam Singh  1:22:24  
Correct. The situation was uncorrected. Answer my question I said. I mean, absolutely. It was it was terrible.

Edwin Tong  1:22:33  
Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So just answer my question. Don't paraphrase my question. And by that time, you, Miss Sylvia Lim, and Mr. Faisal Manor, were aware of the falsehoods, and by that time, would have appreciated that what she said in Parliament on the fourth of October was a repeat of the falsehoods Correct? My answer to both questions is yes. And so the matter became more grave, not only for Miss Khan, but also for the Workers Party. And I would say in particular for you, as the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Workers Party, agree,

Pritam Singh  1:23:14  
disagree. The matter became grave to the extent that we have an elected member of parliament of the Workers Party who is not telling the truth. What are we going to do about it? That's a fair question. I think this is what you're getting in?

Edwin Tong  1:23:28  
No, I'm I'm simply putting to you a simple proposition, a member of the Workers Party, an elected member of parliament, one of the current serving members of Parliament at that time of Sengkang GRC. Yes. One of your colleagues. Yes. Of which you are the leader of the party? had repeated the lie. Yes, that's factual. Yes. And so it's made it a lot more of a grave situation. We agreed that earlier ourselves. Yes. And for the party? Well,

Pritam Singh  1:23:53  
I have a view on that. I have a view on that you agree or disagree? Tell me I disagree. Because so let me explain. No, you said you told me just now if I disagree, I can explain

Edwin Tong  1:24:03  
this, but let me finish my train of thought. Okay, so that we don't cut across each other. So well understand from you is on the fourth of October. You didn't think that the situation for the Workers Party was great. I didn't say that. Okay. Was the situation for the Workers Party grave? By the fourth of October? The situation? Answer my question. Don't know or face it. No, no. So you see, Mr. Singh don't play with words. Okay.

Pritam Singh  1:24:32  
You're asking about the Workers Party. You switch from ricerca to Workers Party. So now you're gonna get a different answer from me whether you like it. Let me read back to you then. Go ahead.

Edwin Tong  1:24:45  
And so it's paid. So it's made it a lot more grave situation we agreed to read earlier for herself. Yes. For the party. We have a view on that. Do you agree or disagree? I disagree. Let me finish my train of thought don't cut across each other. So what I understand from you is that on the fourth of October, you did not think the situation for the Workers Party was grave. And you said I didn't say that. But your earlier answer was, is made it a lot more gray for the party. You said. You disagree? Yes. So which is the truth?

Pritam Singh  1:25:24  
What are the two propositions again? Put them out again, please.

Edwin Tong  1:25:27  
Mr. Singh? Let's try again. Okay. I think we have your answer on record. But

Pritam Singh  1:25:33  
yes, I think it's Friday.

Edwin Tong  1:25:36  
By the fourth of October, the situation for the Workers Party, having just seen this exchange where Miss can repeated ally. That scenario made the situation a lot more grave for the Workers Party. Agree.

Pritam Singh  1:25:51  
Disagree.

Edwin Tong  1:25:53  
And it would also make the situation a lot more grave for you, as the leader of the opposition, agree, disagree. And it would make it a lot more gray for you and Miss Lim and Mr. FISA man up in particular, because by the fourth of October, the three of you and no one else, were the only people in chamber in Parliament, who are aware that Miss Khan on the fourth of October was repeating allies and deceiving Parliament disagree. Was anyone else was aware? On the fourth of October? No, in Parliament? No. So you agree that only the three of you were aware of information that would tell us that what you've just seen, there was repeated by Miss Khan was a deception on parliament, right?

Pritam Singh  1:26:38  
Yes, only the three of us. Can I be a chair? Can I please explain my state of mind at this time?

Edwin Tong  1:26:44  
Let me let me finish my questions. So you want to explain why you say that the situation is not more great for you. Please explain.

Pritam Singh  1:26:55  
Thank you. So as I have alluded to earlier, I believe the Leader of the Opposition, anyone in Parliament doesn't take an oath, a party leader doesn't take an oath on behalf of all his MPs. Each MP takes an oath on their own standing on their own merit. In my mind, you're a leader of the Workers Party. It's not just in your capacity as a member of a GRC. Every Workers Party MP is a leader, they have to take responsibility. And I will like to, I've already mentioned it, I will advance my rules of prudence to the committee. It's very clear the sort of responsibility that is expected of you. If you honor, the oath that you've taken, it is your prerogative to set the record right. Now, more specifically, I do not know at that point, whether Miss Khan has told her parents what has happened. Only she knows the truth to them. And if I stand up and say, Miss Khan, you told me that you are suffering from a traumatic episode. You are a victim of sexual assault, without knowing that this information has been communicated to the parents. What have I just done? That's something for Miss Khan to own up to and take responsibility for. That was my thinking.

Edwin Tong  1:28:32  
done, I'm done. Falsehood has just been repeated in Parliament, by one of your members. Yes. Leave aside her responsibility, which I think there can be no doubt. I don't disagree with you on this. As the leader of Opposition, you have no duty to correct the falsehood on record.

Pritam Singh  1:28:59  
I have a duty to correct the falsehood on record. The question is, at what time do I do it given the unique situation that concerns this falsehood? It's not a falsehood,

Edwin Tong  1:29:09  
you see, is the thing. Just the day before you had anticipated contemplated that this issue would come up? Yes. And you were in your mind prepared for it to be clarified. If it came up, right. We agreed on this. It could have come up. Yes, yes. And if it came up, you were clarified. Tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  1:29:28  
You come clean. That's what I told her to do that I told her to take ownership and responsibility. And

Edwin Tong  1:29:32  
the very reason why you spoke to her on a third of October is because you contemplated that it will come out on the fourth and she would be prepared to speak on the fourth. Yes. And so all of this, about whether she was ready whether she has told her parents could not have been on your mind. No, absolutely not. It had to be on my mind because your mind at that time because by the third of October you had contemplated it will come up and you are prepared for her to go to Parliament. And you said you will judge her. That's your case theory is no, I'm putting it to you. I disagree with it. It must have been the case. Look, it's logical to you, you told the press that you had made known to her. Yes. made known to her for the parliamentary setting.

Pritam Singh  1:30:14  
How does that contradict anything I've said, I expect her to take ownership and tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  1:30:20  
And she did. She did not unless she did not. Yes. It's not for you now with respect to say, but I thought it's because you did not tell your father. Yeah. Oh, I

Pritam Singh  1:30:31  
completely disagree. I don't know how many victims of sexual assault or sexual crimes you have dealt with Mr. Tong, but I certainly haven't dealt with any,

Edwin Tong  1:30:38  
please don't make reference to me in this person. Let

Pritam Singh  1:30:40  
me reply, because because your your recollection is used to

Edwin Tong  1:30:45  
saying please don't make a reference to me in a personal manner. Mr. Tong,

Pritam Singh  1:30:49  
I think you're being hypersensitive, I am not making any personal reference against please

Edwin Tong  1:30:54  
do not keep it. Please keep it at a level where we deal with the evidence we have been dealing with the evidence. Now. Let me suggest to you again. On the third of October, you go and see Miss Khan, 

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Edwin Tong
You expect the issue to arise the very next day

Pritam Singh
It is possible that it will arise 

Edwin Tong
You expected it. I think of that there can be no doubt

Pritam Singh  1:31:18  
That, that's your evidence.

Edwin Tong  1:31:23  
I think we have already set a record Mr. Lee reminds me. You tell her, I will not judge you. That statement can only mean whatever you say in Parliament, I will not judge you. You agree?

Pritam Singh  1:31:36  
Disagree. It is it was a fragment of a larger statement which you are ignoring, which has to do with taking ownership and responsibility. And in that context, I will not judge you.

Edwin Tong  1:31:48  
Mr. Singh, I mean, we heard your evidence. So let's try not to obfuscate, okay?

Pritam Singh
Nobody's obfuscating

Edwin Tong
Well focus on the evidence. I've been focused on direct and be direct. I have been direct. Okay. Third of October. Yes. You contemplated the issue might arise. Fair?

Pritam Singh
Fair? 

Edwin Tong
Yes. And you told her, I will not judge you. Right?

Pritam Singh  1:32:10  
Fragment of a statement? Yes, I did.

Edwin Tong  1:32:13  
And you had expected that if the issue came up, she would clarify and tell the truth, correct?

Pritam Singh
Yes. 

Edwin Tong
Right. In that context, knowing what we know. Can I invite you to look at your answer again? 

Pritam Singh
Where?

Edwin Tong
The WhatsApp messages. You have it? 

Pritam Singh
Yes I do

Edwin Tong
1245? 

Pritam
Yes

Edwin Tong
We'll speak after sitting here share and I posted this. In the context of everything that I've told you, Mr. Singh. This is a thoroughly underwhelming response by you. Don't you agree?

Pritam Singh  1:32:56  
What am I supposed to say? Oh, no, you seem to know what I would say on WhatsApp.

Edwin Tong  1:32:59  
Well, I'm looking at it from logic and human behavior. 

Pritam Singh
Yes

Edwin Tong
You are the leader of the opposition. 

Pritam Singh
Sorry, looking at it from human behavior. You say?

Edwin Tong
And logic. What, what-

Pritam Singh
Your logic?

Edwin Tong
A matter of logic

Pritam Singh
Right.

Edwin Tong
You are the leader of the opposition. 

Pritam Singh
Yes

Edwin Tong
One of your MPs have come to Parliament to lie. We agreed it is very serious. She's lied again, which is even more serious. You have told her, made clear to her that she was going to clarify in Parliament when it comes up. It has come up. She's repeated the lie. 

Pritam Singh
Mmm hmm

Edwin Tong
And your response is, we'll speak after sitting. See you later.

Pritam Singh  1:33:37  
I fully expect her to be in tatters and crying again, like how she was when she made the lie in the first place.

Edwin Tong  1:33:43  
Mr Singh, that's also a speculation on your part. 

Pritam Singh
Yes. The same way you are speculating, behavior and logic. 

Edwin Tong
No, but the difference between what you are saying what I'm saying is that at 1245, you could have asked to see her and decide for ourselves whether she was indeed in tatters as you put it.

Pritam Singh  1:33:59  
I think I know this lady a little bit better than you, Mr. Tong. I know how she reacted after just the initial lie. No, just under my and so that is my state of mind.

Edwin Tong  1:34:10  
So could you at 1245 have asked to see her immediately, yes or no?

Pritam Singh  1:34:15  
I think there's a parliament. I could have, of cause but I'm Leader of the Opposition. There is a parliamentary session in progress. There are things that are coming up. My mind is on that too, isn't it?

Edwin Tong  1:34:28  
You see, the reason I put this to you, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Okay. But you must also appreciate that there is a flow and there is a sequence of events based on the evidence we you have and you're relaxed. You have told me. I remind you, you told me that you were very clear in your mind that she was to come clean. That was the answer to your questions. Yes. It is untrue. What is untrue. Your evidence of On. Yes, thank you. So she was to come clean the next time it came out in Parliament. Right?

Pritam Singh  1:35:05  
She was to take ownership and responsibility for what she had done. Yes.

Edwin Tong  1:35:09  
Mr. Singh, I told you don't paraphrase my job, but you

Pritam Singh  1:35:12  
said come clean, and I'm giving you my answer. If you don't like my answer, I can't help it.

Edwin Tong  1:35:17  
Then you say no, I, okay. So please focus on my questions. Your understanding of the third of October was that if the matter came up, she would stand up in Parliament and clarify the lie, correct? Yes. And you said that in your mind, there was no doubt that she understood you. Right, right. And so, at 1230 When Mr. Shanmugam stood up, to make his ministerial statement and seek the clarification, in your mind, there was only one outcome? Absolutely. And that would that you would stand up and tell the truth. That is correct. But you saw the exchange, she stood up and she repeated the lie several times. Yes. And you didn't flinch? You send a response like this, which is why I put to you is a thoroughly underwhelming response. I disagree. If if I completely believe you at an understanding with Miss Khan that she would have to clarify, speak the truth and not exacerbate the problem. In your words to the press. Not leave. Correct. The parliamentary record have to be clarified. Can cannot leave an untruth on the record. If all that is true, Mr. Singh, your first response to Miss Khan will not be I see you later. Keep clear. And I posted Mr. Tom. Yes or No?

Pritam Singh  1:36:50  
No. So I this line of questioning, you're fully entitled to make it? Of course I am.

Edwin Tong  1:36:57  
And I will. But so stop at 1245. Could you have asked to see her? I could have asked to see at any time. Yes. Thank you. So the answer is yes. Right. Of course, says it. Please don't answer my question with

Pritam Singh  1:37:11  
a paralyzing, I'm answering your questions.

Edwin Tong  1:37:15  
You know, it doesn't really help. If you've been hurting,

Pritam Singh  1:37:17  
I think it helps putting my perspective across. No, you're here to assist. But I'm not. I'm not suggesting in any way that I'm not assisting you. I'm giving you my evidence, because that's why I'm here.

Edwin Tong  1:37:30  
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm suggesting to you that that could have been any number of responses by someone in your position on the fourth of October, having just seen what I played out on a video. And those responses would include asking to see Miss can immediately to ask her, why didn't she comply with your instruction?

Pritam Singh  1:38:06  
I can disagree with your hypothesis, there could be a number of responses that could have been forthcoming. But if you remember, you talked about timing of this particular intervention by the Minister for Home Affairs. What was happening after this, we had a major debate to get into a fika debate. I was speaking on that on that bill. Miss where my mind was. I know that this has to be clarified in parliament that lie cannot stand. Let me live. And so there is time for us to resolve that problem. I'd love to speak to her confirm with Have you actually told your parents? What's the issue? So there was a lot of things to do, because she did not tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  1:38:45  
Mr. Singh? Yes, let's let's not quibble with this. We all been in Parliament, we know and how could people take you all have five minutes to step out? She steps out and ask her directly? Ask her what? Why didn't you do what we said we were agreed to do this time to do that. You see, if your understanding was that she will go and speak the truth and clarify the lie. And we agreed earlier that it was has to be done as quickly as possible. Then surely you will want to know very quickly. Why that was not done.

Pritam Singh  1:39:28  
Mr. Tong, like I mentioned earlier, same say whether you agree or disagree or disagree, and I think I also have really put it on evidence earlier. Maybe you have forgotten.

Edwin Tong  1:39:38  
I don't forget. Okay.

Pritam Singh  1:39:39  
I'm sure you don't. Which then begs the question. I did ask you. I did say I was not sure whether she had told her parents yet. So And my suspicion was she hadn't stopped.

Edwin Tong  1:39:54  
So why didn't you say as well, which you can do my message. Have you told your parents

Pritam Singh  1:40:00  
Mr. Tom, there? No, that's not my first question to her my wife, when she when I eventually saw her that may relate

Edwin Tong  1:40:07  
to you what you said to the press of immediate concern to me was that Miss rice, I had not previously informed her family members of a sexual assault, it was important that she did so before she could fully address the reasons. So, if that was on your mind, and you seem to tell the press that it was, then I would suggest to you that even if you felt it was so important for you to be in Parliament, sitting in this in chamber, which I appreciate, you could at the very least have asked her on message. Have you told your parents? Why didn't you come clean? What are the reasons for you to repeat the lie?

Pritam Singh  1:40:45  
All these questions eventually did come up, but not after this message, I

Edwin Tong  1:40:51  
would suggest to you that on a matter like this, and let's not dice around with words, because we all voted as dicing with words, I think we're both really enjoy me. Don't interrupt me. On a matter like this, and I said, Don't dice around with words. We all know how serious it is. Your response is just underwhelming and suggest a very different set of circumstances. I completely disagree. He will make no sense. If there was an understanding that Miss Khan would have stood up the moment there was a clarification. To tell the truth. Agree.

Pritam Singh  1:41:28  
Could you repeat the question? We are reading from something i Is this one of the document,

Edwin Tong  1:41:31  
I'm looking at your message? Okay, go ahead. What would we know your message would make no sense. If there had been an understanding between you and Miss Khan, that you would clarify the truth, the next time it came out in Parliament? Disagree. And you had just spoken with her day before? Point contemplate that this will come up. And you tell me How is that connected with this? With this? What's your response? Because your response surprises me, Mr. Singh?

Pritam Singh  1:41:57  
Well, can I be permitted to respond to that? It should not surprise you. Because we communicate in many different ways. I know what I told the member or miss Carr on the third of October. She is fully aware of my state of mind insofar as how I expect MPs to deal with the truth. And I am of course concerned why she did not tell the truth. And all I'm telling her is she will speak after the city now. Maybe. Okay, go ahead. Example accuse me of interrupting you.

Edwin Tong  1:42:29  
Exactly. You know, you said you were very clear that the seven August very clear. First October email very clear. Third October. Very clear. I asked you whether anything else, you said no, these three occasions. So very clear. In your mind, this was going to happen. Yeah. And so I put it to you that normal human behavior. If I expect something to happen on a serious matter, and it doesn't happen, I would react. I would jump.

Pritam Singh  1:42:55  
Let me see. Let me suggest to you, if I had put that question you suggested I should put Have you told your parents? Would I prefer to have this long story after that on WhatsApp, why she didn't tell her parents? Or what I want to tell her meet me in the office. Tell me what's going on? I think the answer is obvious. You're

Edwin Tong  1:43:16  
capable of a long story. You look at the bundles next to you. They're all your WhatsApp messages, and have several other people as well. So it's not beyond you, Mr. Singh, to put in a long story. And I'll show you some long messages that you send to miss candy toys when I was in

Pritam Singh  1:43:31  
parliament in the context of a parliamentary sitting where I am going to make a speech on a major bill. I think we know the truth.

Edwin Tong  1:43:38  
Mr. Tibor. Let the committee judge? No. And I hope the committee

Pritam Singh  1:43:42  
takes note of this point as well, those messages made in the context of a parliamentary debate that was going to take place.

Edwin Tong  1:43:49  
Well, you you can say that, but I think against this, you must also appreciate that there's a serious matter. There is a expectation on your part, in your view, very clear that she was to come clean if asked. And that didn't happen. Instead, she repeated it several times made the lie was eventing us so I think we will judge will judge you I know that even before the sitting took place now when did you meet with her then?

Pritam Singh  1:44:20  
We met in the Oval Office that day itself. I'll have to check my messages when we met. I think it was the afternoon if I remember correctly, but I don't remember what time I think the times did you meet with her on the fourth? Or the dates or after after this exchange of messages here?

Edwin Tong  1:44:42  
How many?

Pritam Singh  1:44:44  
I reckon I can't remember exactly but I would believe I definitely spoke to at least once in the yellow office. Okay, on this matter in particular,

Edwin Tong  1:44:54  
look at your messages, the same bundle? Yes. At 11:14pm You said hi Ray meet in ello. Office.

Pritam Singh  1:45:03  
Sorry, what page? Am

Edwin Tong  1:45:04  
I looking at the same page we were on? I'm still in the same message. Yeah. 1114 1314 PM.

Pritam Singh  1:45:11  
Actually, that's, that's right. That would have been at night after the debate, but I believe we met earlier. It may not have been captured in this message, because I think Miss Lim brought it to my attention immediately. Did you miss her? Really? Yeah. I'll have to check the facts, because I do believe that. We met before Parliament adjourned. But it's not captured in this WhatsApp chat. Okay, it was in the afternoon. And I really, I don't know what other evidence I can bring to bear. But Miss Lim may have a message asking to me I'm not sure.

Edwin Tong  1:45:54  
So you can't tell me now whether you've met her once or twice or three times on that day?

Pritam Singh  1:45:59  
Definitely. I met her that day to discuss this matter. But whether it was once or twice? I'm not so sure now.

Edwin Tong  1:46:13  
Now when you met with her did you tell her we had an understanding? Why didn't you complain? No. You didn't tell her that? No.

Pritam Singh  1:46:33  
There was no understanding? No, there was no understanding to I beg your pardon. There was no understanding in that sense. That was an answer. There was an expectation that she should take ownership and responsibility of the issue. That was an understanding,

Edwin Tong  1:46:47  
Mr. Political understanding, again, don't dice with words, take ownership and responsibility of the issue can only mean tell the truth. No, no, I'm

Pritam Singh  1:46:54  
not denying that. Yes. Right. Yes, yes. So

Edwin Tong  1:46:56  
let's just keep to absolutely telling the truth. Yes. So there was an understanding, understanding that she would come and tell the truth. Yes. Yes. So when you met with her, and at whatever time it was, and it appears it was at 11:15pm, at least on that occasion?

Pritam Singh  1:47:15  
I don't believe so. Mr. Tong. I'm trying to recall because I, I'm, I'm quite sure we also made you recall, but I do have but definitely at least hold on this on the face of the messages. Yes. After Parliament agenda.

Edwin Tong  1:47:30  
This, by the way, was not when Parliament agenda was generally we passed this.

Pritam Singh  1:47:37  
Like I can show you the record. It could have been a break either. I don't know. I don't

Edwin Tong  1:47:40  
know. I'll show you the video if you like but let me put to you that at 11:15pm. You did leave Parliament chamber. I have it on video. And parliament was still going on? Sure. But I believe I met up early. So no, the point is so much for not stepping out when Parliament is in session. Mr. Singh.

Pritam Singh  1:47:55  
I beg upon Whoa,

Edwin Tong  1:47:56  
what's the relevance so much for not wanting to step out whilst parliament is in session? Because you left at 11:15pm Whilst parliament was in session, what is what were you leading with this? I'm putting to you that at 1245. In answer to my question earlier as to why you couldn't have asked to see her straightaway, you said parliament was sitting.

Pritam Singh  1:48:16  
Mr. Tom, but you conveniently forget that my finger speeches over the debate. I've already made my speech. My focus is now Mr.

Edwin Tong  1:48:24  
Different thing at 1245. He as we saw earlier, Mr. Delman y has set up to make an intervention. It was not a fika debate.

Pritam Singh  1:48:33  
No there after I haven't made my speech yet. Mr. Tong, I think you are now dicing around the issue, you know exactly what is happening. And what your state of mind would be when, for example, you have to present a bill. Of course your mind is on your bill. You're moving a bill in Parliament, you want to focus on that, because you know, members are going to ask you questions about it.

Edwin Tong  1:48:52  
So let me come back to what's germane. Okay, please do. Did you tell Miss Khan when you met her that we just met yesterday? We spoke? This is what I thought you would do? Why didn't you do it?

Pritam Singh  1:49:10  
No. Would you like me to tell you what I told her?

Edwin Tong  1:49:13  
No. I will suggest to you that you didn't do that. Because telling the truth was not your understanding. Correct. Say that again? For Miss Khan to come to Parliament to tell the truth was not your understanding. Absolutely disagree. I thought you were absolutely so tell me one good reason why. After she stood up and repeated her lies contrary to what you expected her to do. You did not tell her when you met her. Or ask her? Why didn't she clarify and tell the truth? Give me one good reason.

Pritam Singh  1:49:55  
I will tell you what happened. I will not give you a good reason. I'll tell you exactly. Whatever, because it's important

Edwin Tong  1:50:01  
to answer my question what the evidence was. Give me the reason and then you can elaborate.

Pritam Singh  1:50:07  
She came to the elbow office, she again was in a distraught state. And I said, What have you done? And then she looks up at me with this dais, look in her eyes and says, perhaps there's another way that is to tell the truth. And I look at her and I said, but look at the choice you've made, you've made your choice. And from that moment, and then of course, she completely starts to break down. And I say, anyway, good. We're gonna talk about this, which is this point she's making about honesty. Pedals.

Edwin Tong  1:50:44  
You see, on your own account, she came to you and said, your own words. And then she looked up at me with this dais look in her eyes. And says, perhaps there's another way that is to tell the truth. Yeah. Your your evidence? Absolutely. Because then you stand by this. Perhaps there's another way? That is to tell the truth. Yes, that means the other way is to lie. That must have been her thinking of the matter. But I would not come up to this committee. I've taken an oath to tell the truth. This is what she said. Please,

Pritam Singh  1:51:25  
she said that. And that's exactly what she said, Because I remember it.

Edwin Tong  1:51:29  
So at the very least, your takeaway from this discussion must be that she is now prepared to tell the truth, even if she wasn't before.

Pritam Singh  1:51:35  
Right. She should have been very clear what the truth was. She

Edwin Tong  1:51:39  
would No, no, no, yet. Please answer my question.

Pritam Singh  1:51:41  
I beg your pardon. I apologize. Please repeat the question.

Edwin Tong  1:51:46  
I said, at the very least based on your account of the conversation, your takeaway must be that at that stage, she was prepared to tell the truth, even if she wasn't previously Correct. Yes, yes. So did you tell her then let's prepare to tell the truth the next day on the fifth of October when Palin was still sitting?

Pritam Singh  1:52:06  
No, I did not. Why not? My thinking at that time was she had not cleared this with her parents yet.

Edwin Tong  1:52:12  
Did you ask her? No, I

Pritam Singh  1:52:13  
did not ask her. But I was quite sure. Because if she had asked if she had told her parents, she would have just told the truth. Right, then then.

Edwin Tong  1:52:21  
So you see, you still depressed that it was of immediate concern to you? Yes. that her father was away. First. Sorry. Did I tell the press that? Yes. That had her father informed her family members, right. And so it was clear that she hadn't to me, which includes her father, right, of course. And it was clear she hadn't she does not come and tell the truth. And she tells you now on your case that the next day, on that day, I am prepared to tell the truth. Why didn't you say, come and do it the next day? She didn't say I'm prepared to tell the truth. She said perhaps there's another way and tell the truth?

Pritam Singh  1:52:59  
Yes. Yes. And so I told her I said, Good. Let's talk about this. No,

Edwin Tong  1:53:04  
you see, again, Mr. Singh, you you are

you must appreciate what you have been. You've been saying. Put it together. I have you've been concerned that she must tell her family members first. Before she comes clean in Parliament. Yes. Right. Yes. She doesn't come to you in Parliament on the fourth of October. Yes. But as a sitting the next day, in fact, just a few hours after yours. Yes. If I believe 11pm discussion at that stage? Wouldn't it have been the normal reasonable? And I would say, proper thing to do. To take steps to have her tell the truth the very next day? My answer is No, sir. No, no. And I'll explain why. If I may be permitted to you can explain but let me finish this line is and if you felt that there was any impediment, such as in your words, something of immediate concern to you, whether her family members were aware, the natural thing for you to do on the fourth of October when you met her would be to ask, are your family members now aware? But you didn't ask?

Pritam Singh  1:54:18  
I do not ask. That's right. And there's a reason for that. She had two whole months to speak to her family members prior to the sitting on the fourth of October. And in my mind, the only reason why she did not come out with the truth was that she hadn't closed the loop with them. If she has trouble closing the loop after two whole months, I have no confidence she can settle this issue in one day. How? Let me finish and this session finishes very late at night. We've got only the morning the next day to settle the issue with her parents, who I'm sure would want to speak to me about it as they did and I said no, this is something for Reiser to do that happens later. But it's very clear in my mind, because I know that by then I would have understood that she actually didn't tell her parents, she had not confronted the parents with this, let me finish. She had not confronted the parents with the issue, and that because of that, she does not want to tell the truth. That was the only reason in this thing.

Edwin Tong  1:55:21  
With respect, I think that's, you see, you are confronting Mr. Khan, on the fourth of October. The most important issue for you precondition, even for you, for her to come to Parliament to tell the truth was, if was whether her family members are aware or not. And you had her in front of you, and you don't ask her that question. And yet you come to this proceedings now. And you say, well, it must have been that her family members were not aware. That's my evidence. But I would suggest to you that that's quite incredible.

Pritam Singh  1:55:56  
That is incredible to you. But I like I said, this is how it happened. And I am telling you exactly how it happened.

Edwin Tong  1:56:03  
And I'm telling you that how this happened has is incredible, because the only the only barrier, as you say, to her coming clean in Parliament to tell the truth was whether her family members were aware. You met with her on the fourth of October, you just heard her third of October, 4 of October. I didn't. You're talking about the meeting at the law office. Yes, on the fourth of October, after she repeated her lies. And you don't ask her whether her members family is aware?

Pritam Singh  1:56:35  
I think I know her family members are not aware No. And events proved me right. Mr. Events prove me right. Because when I went on the 12th of October when I see her for the first time to tell her after this. Look, we'll get there. Please don't interrupt. Well, it's important because you're making a case without knowing know what had actually happened. No missing. And you can do that you can make a case to me without knowing a whole. No,

Edwin Tong  1:56:59  
I always do what has happened. The reason why 12 October is irrelevant for my line of inquiry. Let me explain to you because that was not operative on your state of mind at that occasion on a fourth of October. Okay, what was not operative? What you learned on the 12th of October cannot be imputed to your state of mind on the fourth of October. No, that's what you understand. Yes. Okay. So on the fourth of October, let's keep that you had not had any other conversation on the 12th of October yet.

Pritam Singh  1:57:27  
That this looks logical. Yes, thank

Edwin Tong  1:57:30  
you. So the fourth of October, you have no direct basis for knowing if your most immediate concern, ie whether her family was aware was met or not a very reasonable inference for me to make Listen to me. Go ahead. You have no direct evidence of that agree.

Pritam Singh  1:57:51  
direct evidence? No, absolutely not? Of course not. Thank

Edwin Tong  1:57:54  
you. Yes. And you had the opportunity to meet with her maybe once, probably once or twice, maybe to ask you that question. And you fail to ask the question. Right.

Pritam Singh  1:58:03  
I did not ask you that question. Correct? Because I knew what the answer was.

Edwin Tong  1:58:07  
Let me let me put to you that I think that is just incredible, that the very, the very reason which you believe, stopped her from telling the truth in Parliament. You had her in front of you. You could have easily verified with her if a members family was aware. She was telling you now on your case. Maybe I should tell the truth. She could have done it tomorrow, the very next day on a fifth of October. And if you had verified that the family was aware, that was certainly possible. And so in that context, Mr. Singh, I put it to you again. And help me please to understand why this played out in the way that why didn't you just ask her a direct question? Is your family aware? Because if they are sorry, and if they are, then it clears the hurdles, as far as you say, for her to come clean in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  1:59:14  
I had only one reason in my mind why I did not stand up on the fourth of October to be auditing. Yes, I'm coming to I'm coming to your question. And I know but but I'm focused on your meeting with I am and I am entitled to put that, sir, those circumstan because you're asking me a question of why I didn't do something I can't answer a counterfactual. So you have to understand the circumstances which led me to that point. May I be permitted to proceed? All right, please do. So you are asking me a counterfactual. Why didn't I do something? And I'm suggesting to you that I would have expected her there was no inhibition for her to just tell the truth. If she had already cleared that with her pet for family, the only reason reason in my mind she did not tell the truth on the fourth was because she had not told the family the truth. But that would have been a supposition on your part on the fourth would have been a very reasonable supposition, a supposition, right. Well, let me suggest something else.

Edwin Tong  2:00:13  
No answer my question, please.

Pritam Singh  2:00:15  
What I beg your pardon? What was a supposition? I am sorry, I broke your train of thought. But if you want to look at the record, please put the question to me again, don't

Edwin Tong  2:00:23  
know, please don't paraphrase. And maybe Mr. Chairman can give a direction please don't paraphrase my question when you answer it. Because it makes it makes it very difficult for the transcribers and it makes it very difficult to follow the evidence.

Pritam Singh  2:00:35  
I just difficult for you, but I don't think so why don't you please ask the question? I will I will. I've committed to being as cooperative as I can be.

Edwin Tong  2:00:43  
Thank you. And I will try to help you along. Okay. You said it's the supposition that you put to me? Yes. He said there will be a supposition on your part, because you said there would have been no inhibition on her part. I would have expected her there was no inhibition for her to tell the truth. And I said but that will be a supposition. on your part. You said a reasonable supposition. But I said supposition right. Your answer?

Pritam Singh  2:01:12  
I mean,

Edwin Tong  2:01:13  
I've made it clear the answer is on record already. Just it would be a reasonable supposition. Dan says it is a supposition right. Yes, yes, based on facts of what I've watched, you would be aware and you would have you would have been very easily able to confirm that supposition one way or another right. directly with

Pritam Singh  2:01:34  
again, it's a counterfactual. But yes, yes. And yes. I mean, there could be a number of things I could have said and done. I mean, we can write a whole list of them out. But my state of mind at that point, as I've already put on evidence was that she had not told her parents yet, because that would have been the only thing which prevented her from telling the truth in the first place.

Edwin Tong  2:02:24  
Let me go back to her words to you. Perhaps there's another way that is to tell the truth. Mr. Singh, that is very telling, as to her state of mind. Yes, right. Is very telling. Because if these were her words, and that's your evidence, she was under an impression, and you might see misapprehension, but she was certainly under an impression that she was not to tell the truth. And that's why some other way is to tell the truth. Right. You could guess that's a reasonable way of interpreting what she said to you. Well,

Pritam Singh  2:03:03  
I have another way of interpreting it. No, Mr. Singh? Yes. No, it's not there. My answer is no.

Edwin Tong  2:03:09  
You see, when she comes to you, she's just told the truth, just repeated her lie in Parliament, made it worse for herself. She comes to the Leader of the Opposition leader of a party and says, perhaps there's another way, and that is to tell the truth. She will certainly finish in that context, Mr. Singh. I think one understands now that she was thinking that she was to lie. And perhaps now she's telling you perhaps one other way Mr. Singh, is to come clean, tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  2:03:47  
Let me suggest that correct went wrong. No, I say no, let me suggest another

Edwin Tong  2:03:53  
buy before you do that. And I will let you do that. Yes, you stand by this. She said no,

Pritam Singh  2:03:57  
absolutely. She did. Because I remember this. She was in a dazed state. She said that. And I think it impressed on her. Finally, you are an MP who's taken an oath. You know, what's the right thing to do? You've got rules of prudence that have been signed by your secretary general on how an MP behaves. You know, what your secretary general, how your secretary general got the truth out of you should take ownership and responsibility and I think she was verbalizing what she should have done in the first place.

Edwin Tong  2:04:27  
I know. But you see, you may say that, but I'm not. And we know all these rules of prudence and I understand what you know what they say. But here we have an episode where, again, you know, in context, okay. Sure, which is important for this tribunal to look at things in context and to appreciate conduct in the context of when it occurs. Yes, and also to draw inferences from what is done subsequently. No, I understand. I think as a lawyer, you understand, absolutely understand. So here is an MP who has totally an untruth. You came down hard on her. Right? You propped her on a third year for fears. Yes. Six, seven. She confessed to you. Yes. As she told you to other senior party leaders. Yes. And in your words, several other occasions first October 3 October, you made it clear to her.

Pritam Singh  2:05:20  
And she first began first October, it was to all your MPs. It was a gentle email.

Edwin Tong  2:05:26  
So this was at least your evidence of her state of mind that she was going to come and tell the truth. I would have Yes, yes. She goes to Parliament. And she's question by Minister Shanmugam. Yes. I think we all know what that means.

Pritam Singh  2:05:41  
Yes. But what does that mean? It means what it means it means she's being questioned.

Edwin Tong  2:05:46  
Well, that means that MHA is very concerned, it takes it very seriously once we get to the bottom of this right. So she then says, I repeat my lies in Parliament. She does. She repeats the lies in Parliament, right? In front of you. Yes. In front of the whole house? Well, you and two others in the whole house will only want a new device. Right. So, you know, let's be clear about that. Well,

Pritam Singh  2:06:18  
I think we know that we established that already.

Edwin Tong  2:06:22  
She then comes to you. You say in tatters crying. Yes. And she says

Pritam Singh  2:06:29  
she was she was she was in a daze when she made that remark. Perhaps there's another way.

Edwin Tong  2:06:36  
Okay. So when she comes to you, you summon her? I mean, at least based on what we saw in this, you summon her and she says to you, perhaps that's another way. That is to tell the truth. Yeah.

Pritam Singh  2:06:46  
She said, Perhaps there's another way. That's honesty.

Edwin Tong  2:06:49  
Know, your words. Perhaps there's another way that is to tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  2:06:53  
I think you should I look at the first time I deliver my evidence is the first time if I'm not wrong, it's and that is to tell the truth. She said she uses the word honesty.

Edwin Tong  2:07:03  
Mr. Singh, asked you several times very stable as you confirm, so I'm reading from your wine words. Okay. That's right. Perhaps there's another way that is, tell the truth. So someone coming to you like this, in her state of mind, it would be reasonable to suppose that she was not required to tell the truth by you. And now coming to you and saying this is not working. Perhaps there's another way. And let's now tell the truth. I disagree. And that, in fact, would be entirely consistent with the evidence that Miss Khan gave. I'm not surprised that she gave that evidence. You see, Miss Khan gave evidence that you met her in August. The instruction was to not raise it, if not pressed. Matter again. Let me finish, please. We can we can get to know this for sure.

Pritam Singh  2:08:06  
I stopped myself because I knew I was how I went.

Edwin Tong  2:08:09  
I will definitely give you an opportunity. But again, on the third, we heard her evidence. I know you disagree. But her evidence was you told her Yeah, stick to the narrative. And I'm paraphrasing, stick to the narrative. I won't judge you. And her interpretation of that was keep to the lie. You won't judge her. She goes to Parliament, keeps to the lie. gets questioned repeatedly by Minister Shanmugam is obviously worried as a result of that, then comes to you and says, Mr. Singh, perhaps there's another way, and that is to tell the truth. This is completely consistent with her state of mind as being one where she was not required to tell the truth. But she is now coming to you on the fourth of October in the aftermath of that exchange. And telling you, perhaps this way is not working. Let's find another way, which is to tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  2:09:11  
I agree, or disagree. The evidence that I gave, of what she told me was what it was. That's what she said, Perhaps there's another way, and that is honesty to tell the truth. And you have completely missed out my reaction to that. I was very upset with that. And I said, but look at the choice you've made. And in my point of view, the only reason why she had not told the truth was because she had not squared away the fact that her parents did not know what had happened. And in mice in my point of view, I was actually quite relieved to hear that to be honest, because that means she would have had to come out and take that path. How she would do it is a different question. But she would have had to make a statement in Parliament my in my assessment, you can I think you went down this line to say why not the next day, in my point of view, why not on the fifth of October. And in my view, there was no way from midnight or there abouts until the next morning, she would have been able to come up with the statement, close the issue with her parents, and make that and make that personal explanation in Parliament. That's my assessment. You can criticize that assessment, you can say it's not logical, and so forth. Whatever theory you want to advance, but that's my evidence I'm

Edwin Tong  2:10:38  
trying to be. I'm open to the facts. I want to understand what it is. And I'm putting to you as openly as I can. No, I understand. And I'm surprised when you say I was relieved to hear that. Because that means she would not have to come out and take that path. That path means the path of honesty because

Pritam Singh  2:10:57  
she's really chosen. The path Oh, WP MP should never go on.

Edwin Tong  2:11:01  
No. But why would you be relieved? If your understanding just the day before, in fact, just minutes before she stood up to speak was that she will tell the truth anyway, because it'll be relieved about it. I'm

Pritam Singh  2:11:11  
relieved because she has decided to continue lying. But and this is the first time I'm hearing from her that I'm going down a truthful path. But

Edwin Tong  2:11:19  
well, no. You see, when when she comes to you and says to you, Mr. Singh preface this in a way that is to tell the truth, if that had been if your understanding was that she was supposed to have done it anyway. Yes. A reaction of relief is far from the natural reaction. No, let me finish. Let me finish. You've missed the earlier thing. I said, Okay. But go ahead. If I had understood her to be going to Parliament to clarify it, and speak the truth. And she doesn't do that. And she comes to you now and says perhaps there's another way. Another way? That is to tell the truth. Yes. My first reaction would not be one of relief, Mr. Singh, because you my first reaction would be one off. But we had that understanding. And I thought we had an understanding

Pritam Singh  2:12:04  
my words, but you made your choice, no matter what you have said. And that's on the evidence is

Edwin Tong  2:12:10  
no, Mr. Singh, you see.

Pritam Singh  2:12:15  
And then later on, I said, Actually, I'm relieved to hear that because this is the first time I know that you want to own what you've done in Parliament, something that you have not done.

Edwin Tong  2:12:23  
See if she come, let's take that your case at face value or not. You just say if she says this to you, there's another way tell the truth. You are relief. Now.

Pritam Singh  2:12:34  
I'm not relieved. You're putting your you've missed out an important intervention I make.

Edwin Tong  2:12:39  
Okay. You said the only reason you're not told the truth is because she hadn't squared away the fact the parents didn't know. I was quite relieved to hear that. No, before

Pritam Singh  2:12:47  
that. The first time, I raised this anecdote to the committee as to what happened in my office on the fourth. No, that's not. That's too far back. No, that's not. No, it's very germane to it, because your line of questioning is in that direction.

Edwin Tong  2:13:00  
No, focus on my question. Okay. You had an understanding with her? At least, your understanding. Okay. Thank you, that she would tell the truth. And I asked you earlier, about an hour and a half earlier. Whether you clear you said yes. Any doubts, no doubts, very clear. That's what she was supposed to do. She comes to Parliament and does the complete opposite, which is to lie. Later that evening, you she comes to you and tells you Mr. Singh, perhaps is another way that is to tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  2:13:29  
She doesn't tell that to me directly. She's in a daze. I don't know what she's thinking. But she's saying that the same time I said, I listen, I know I'm not qualifying i I beg your pardon. I'm not qualifying. And by that I stand by she was in a daze, she said then she did say that. And I'm not withdrawing any bit of the evidence I've given

Edwin Tong  2:13:48  
it. So let's focus on the words. Go ahead. Perhaps that's another way to tell the truth. Right. Surely, if you heard that your initial immediate reaction would be, but that's what you were supposed to do. Miss Khan.

Pritam Singh  2:14:02  
And I believe it is on the evidence. I said that they're after that, but look at the choice you've made. You've made your choice.

Edwin Tong  2:14:11  
But you didn't that was No, you didn't say you were supposed to do that. Miss can.

Pritam Singh  2:14:15  
Look, I can only I can only read what I remember. Clearly. I said, I mean, if you think I carry a recorder with me exactly what for what I don't, but I can only communicate on oath. What I shared with

Edwin Tong  2:14:29  
me, you can remember what's important and what's material. And I think this is this is what is the context of this episode. What's important and material is that if you genuinely had an understanding with her, that she will go and tell the truth. Yes. And she didn't tell the truth. Yes. And she came to you with a statement like this. We have another way. That is to tell the truth. Yes. It would have been top of your mind to tell her yes, but we were supposed you were supposed to tell the truth, again that we had discussed it yesterday. And I gave you the assurance that I will not judge you. I think that would have been a natural reaction for someone in your position.

Pritam Singh  2:15:09  
I think it's easy to stitch this narrative, given these pieces of evidence. But at that point in time, I have given you what I've given you the evidence of what happened. And I am telling you that in my state, in my mind, this lady Miss Khan, had not squared this issue away with her parents. But you didn't she would have to I knew, because if she if she had, there would be no reason why she would continue to lie.

Edwin Tong  2:15:34  
But that's my evidence the same time, she's also coming to you to say that on your case, she's not prepared to tell the truth.

Pritam Singh  2:15:42  
She's saying, but And yes, and I'm relieved about that, because this is the first time I hear it from her.

Edwin Tong  2:15:47  
So from from this statement, there are a couple of options for someone in your position. Let me let me suggest them to you go ahead. Number one, would be to say, since you're not prepared to tell the truth, the natural supposition is, I've told my parents that's one, which means your pre condition to come and clean satisfied. Number two, have you told your parents if not, tell them now. Because what you've just done on the fourth of October to perpetuate the lie, to repeat it has made it worse. So now, time is of the essence. In your words earlier, that decision has been taken out of her heads, option two. Option three is to say your parents may not have been told yet. And you will find that out. But given what you have done, it is now important to at least clarify the record. And go and tell Mr. Speaker, or perhaps in Parliament, that that anecdote was false. And you can leave the explanation concerning the sexual assault site. There could be there could have been any of these options. Agree, disagree? These options are possible, right? Anything is possible. Mr. Singh? Please don't be you know,

Pritam Singh  2:17:06  
I'm answering the question. Tell me where I don't answer you.

Edwin Tong  2:17:09  
Answer my question, are these three options, at least would have been possible options, right.

Pritam Singh  2:17:15  
They, to the extent that anything would have been possible? Yes. No, these are all reasonably possible options. Not in the in not in this particular context? Not in this episode. That's my evidence. I mean, you may not accept it. But that's my own case.

Edwin Tong  2:17:28  
If your interest is to be open, transparent, come clean, honest. Then these would have been options you would reasonably consider.

Pritam Singh  2:17:41  
The Yes. And the very fact that I was relieved. No, yes. To some extent. Answer my question. Yes. Yes. What is it about the three options? Yes. If

Edwin Tong  2:17:53  
I said, if your intention is to be open, transparent, completely honest, then these would have been options that you would reasonably consider. Correct? You said yes. No, no, no, I, on the record.

Pritam Singh  2:18:05  
Put the question to me again, I

Edwin Tong  2:18:06  
will correct the record. Well, you said yes. And, again, I will correct the record. I said, if your intention is to be open, transparent, come clean, honest, then these would have been options that you would reasonably consider.

Pritam Singh  2:18:18  
And I said to the extent that anything is possible, those would be reasonable.

Edwin Tong  2:18:23  
I mean, you can those are reasonable options they consider right. Well,

Pritam Singh  2:18:27  
if you say divers, the React divers my position. If you ask me on hindsight, would that have been possible? I would say anything would have been possible, but I can only come to

Edwin Tong  2:18:37  
I know. Mr. Singh, it's not helpful to say anything is possible. No, I think you know that

Pritam Singh  2:18:41  
you I am giving the evidence. Mr. Tom? No, I'm going to give the evidence, which I believe is the evidence that is accurate. So give,

Edwin Tong  2:18:47  
so answer my questions. Okay. So don't don't give the evidence that anything is possible, because I think you appreciate that's just being unhelpful? No,

Pritam Singh  2:18:55  
I believe I've given the context as to why I believed she had not told her parents yet. That was my conclusion. Let the I made that conclusion. If you're quibbling Mr. said that I should not have made that conclusion. Oh, no, Mr. Saying that is entirely your your evidence, not mine

Edwin Tong  2:19:10  
hurt my options, right. My options include the possibility that she has not yet told her parents. So those are your options? Yes. They include the possibility that she has not told her parents. Right. Absolutely. Yes. So they take into account the concerns that you have. And I'm saying that even with those consents that you have, it would have been possible to take one of those options, and the truth would have come out earlier in Parliament. Agree,

Pritam Singh  2:19:38  
disagree. The option as far as I was concerned by the evidence that she gave what she said at the ellos office was there's another path, perhaps is another path to tell the truth honesty, and the way I read it was okay, you're going to have to prepare a personal statement. You're going to have to put the record caught right in Parliament. Yes, that's all I took from it. We know what happened. And but, of course, my viewers, I cannot understand why you've let this drag if I've given you fair warning that something may come out. I've told you also to take ownership and responsibility,

Edwin Tong  2:20:14  
because this was not what you said. You said to her that night. What do you mean? Fair warning?

Pritam Singh  2:20:20  
No, no, no, I'm not. I'm not saying I said that to her on the third. I'm not. I let me let's make that evidence clear.

Edwin Tong  2:20:25  
I did not see the last part of what you said. You didn't say to her. No, you're not on that night? Absolutely. I

Pritam Singh  2:20:29  
think we can have that on. I'm talking about the third of October when I see her at her house. I tell her you have to take ownership and responsibility for what you've done. And ownership and responsibility means to total truth. Absolutely. Exactly. And thereafter, then, on the fourth, she says in her in a day, sort of say perhaps there's another way. And that is honesty. Yes, but and I agree with that, because that's the only way it's not another way. But if you take into account my BVA behavior towards so if you take into account how WP MPs are expected to tell the truth in Parliament. There was only one way.

Edwin Tong  2:21:06  
So you said she came to you. I'm reading for evidence page 124, line seven. As far as I don't have that in front of me. So I'm reading it to you, as far as I was concerned by the evidence that she gave what she said at the ellos office was there's another path. Perhaps there's another path to tell the truth we want to see. Yes. You see, why would she think that telling the truth? Another path? You have to ask her? I actually am asking you because you you have developed a very clear understanding with her. Yes. But she's coming to you after she's told a lie. Come and tell you that another path is to tell the truth. But which path she was on was not to tell the truth, right?

Pritam Singh  2:21:44  
Because yes, all starts? No, because it all starts from the very first SMS she sends and what her state of mind is an SMS. I did not see until the interim report came out, that there's this narrative to take a lie to the grave, something which was never brought to my attention by low paying and Mr. Judicial another, something that if was sent to Silvia or Pfizer was also never brought to my attention. Mrs. And I think she is laboring under that. I state of mind.

Edwin Tong  2:22:15  
I think now you're speculating? No,

Pritam Singh  2:22:17  
I'm telling you what I am saying. I mean, you've asked me speculative questions, what could have happened? What was suggested? So I think I'm entitled to tell you what I think is you

Edwin Tong  2:22:28  
think state of affairs. So So you think on, let me take you on your last evidence. Yes. You think that this was a very elaborate plan, beginning from the eighth of August, when Miss Khan sent that message to Mr. Nothern. And Miss Lowe in contemplation of the day, when she would have been expelled or sacked from the party, but facing proceedings. And then we also use that evidence know that she's so cleverly carefully put in place in August, to come and say there was a state of mind no evidence.

Pritam Singh  2:23:01  
No, that's not my evidence, my evidence. My evidence very simply, is if we're talking about country over party, by country over party, I would have fully expected that SMS to be given to me. Or if for some reason you're uncomfortable with me go to the CDC with it. You're too senior sees your two senior Cabinet members. Tell the CC we've got a rogue SG who's telling us lie. Oh, who's telling our MP to lie? Oh, that's what I believe they should have done? Well, we look at that did not we will come to me at all. I don't even know of it. We will get there. And and this is important because of the point you are making more of her state of mind. Perhaps there's another way the truth. Mr. Singh, we have to interrogate what was her take away from the meeting of the eighth?

Edwin Tong  2:23:44  
We did. And I put it to you. Yes. Put it to me. So you see, Mr. Singh? What the senior cabinet members, as you call them, thought? Yes. And said to you, yes. Both. When you were a member of the DEP and member of the water of the display panel, right. And privately messages to you, we will get to see what they said. Absolutely. But I'm back to where we are in the fourth most Okay, or the meeting you had at the office. One reason why she said the words perhaps that's another way that is to tell the truth would be she was on a different path, a path of continuing with the falsehood, or in her words, continuing with her narrative. But now that she's been questioned quite robustly by the Minister, she is now coming to you and saying that path isn't working. Perhaps that's another way. It's a fair supposition.

Pritam Singh  2:24:48  
It's a fair supposition, but it has a presuppose it has to presuppose on her part on her part who put her on that path

Edwin Tong  2:24:54  
as opposition on on her on her part. on her part. Yes.

Pritam Singh  2:24:59  
So even what she has said, what she has said not what I have said yes. What she has said, I cannot speak for her. But if she says, No, I was told to continue a narrative to lie. No, on the third of October, I will not judge you that there would be no, that the party had given us some direction to take this lie to the grave. Whoo.

Edwin Tong  2:25:21  
I mean, that's her supposition. Yes. But you see whether it's fair, oh, good, god. Okay, we will make a judgement. And I'm asking you to help us make a judgment on that. Alright. And I can tell you, there's an open mind on this. What troubles me and to be very open with Go ahead. What's on my mind is that everything that we have seen? If you believe miscounts account, from August, through to October 3. And now this evening, in your office at the ellos office, where she says perhaps there's another way, if you believe Miss Khan's account, and take miscount account at face value, everything that has happened is consistent with that account. Would you not agree? I disagree. Why would you disagree? Because if she's been told to take it to the grave, not saying anything, don't raise it. If not asked. Isn't that what happened?

Pritam Singh  2:26:21  
What about what I told her on the third of October to take ownership and responsibility? Yes. He also said you will not judge her? Yes. If you don't, if you take ownership and responsibility, you won't be judged. If you take responsibility and ownership.

Edwin Tong  2:26:32  
I showed you her account and her take away of that meeting. Right. So I'm saying to you, right, take it on her account.

Pritam Singh  2:26:38  
I can't take it on her account, because her account is not truthful. I'm asking you to help us because we have to make can help you that I'm so sorry, Mr. Tang, I cannot help you. No, explains the Miss Khan's state of mind was Mr. Singh is a reasonable. Please put it to me. I'll try and answer if I can.

Edwin Tong  2:26:55  
So we take Miss Khan's account as the parameters. I know you don't agree with it. And with all that caveat, okay. Yes. You disagree with it? Yes. And I think you will say you disagree with it vehemently. Fine, really. But on that caveat on her account. Now, you look at the events that took place over the last three months, beginning from August, all the way through to first November. Yes. Okay. Just take that picture. She says she was told to bury it. Take the information to the grave. I know you disagree. But she says that, right. And she didn't share this with any I know, I at least say enough. I leadership. I don't I have no reason. Neither the yudishe. And ping at this point in time. I have no reason to disagree with that. Okay. On the third of October, there was another meeting with you. We've also seen her account. Yes, her account was that she was told by you to continue with the narrative in August, and you won't judge her. That's her account. Okay, that's her account. So I'm asking you to take her account at face value. Based on this account. What happened in the last three months leading up to this occasion was consistent, isn't it? No, it's an inconsistent, I will explain why it must be consistent. Because if she's if she was told, if indeed, she was told on the eighth of August, to take the information to the grave, and not clarify it, if not pressed. It explains why there's just been no activity about clarifying it all the way through August, and September, all the way until first October and email by you to the whole party. And third October to the holistically to all your MPs and things third October to when you met with her at her home. I disagree. All of what she did or didn't do would be consistent with that. No, it would not be because they would have been allowed to explain it. But I'm but follow my train of thought no, I apologize if I cut you off. But yeah, and what she said in Parliament, but also be consistent with that narrative with what you say when in Parliament on the fourth of October. Okay. She, you saw the exchange earlier continued with the narrative ie kept up with the lie that she told in August that there was such a case, there was such a incident and a police station. And she continued with that. So I'm saying to you that just taking her count at face value, would you not accept that everything that has happened is completely consistent with her accounts on the eighth of August, and on the third of October as to what you can in the case of eighth August together with Muslim and Mr. Faisal, and on the third of October with you alone is completely consistent with her account, or what happened right.

Pritam Singh  2:29:46  
To the text. I've answered this question so I'm not I'm not going to. It's a qualified yes. It's a qualified yes, because that account starts from a reading of an understanding. Hi untruthful understanding of the meeting of the eighth that there is a narrative to be told. And that is a lie that has to be taken to the grave. Now, when you start with that presupposition, and you don't clarify it, at any point within two months to the leadership or to me or to anyone, I mean, you've got a hole, your own GRC and Bs, there are so many people that you can speak to and say, Look, I'm being told to cover this lie, I can deal with it. So I have to tell someone, nothing of this sort happens. I would suggest it never happened, because that was never never communicated to her. Okay. And so if you follow a flawed, I'm not saying this is your analysis that is flawed, but if you follow the flawed reading of her interpretation as to what transpired and up to the first of November, then it's there's nothing for me to clarify or, or to even suggest, because to me, you've been told very clearly something can come up you are aware of our code, you are aware of our rules of prudence, you know, what an MP is supposed to do? You know what behavior your SG displays towards, towards you, at least when you were pressed for the truth. And your conclusion is I'm supposed to continue a lie. I think that's highly okay. You

Edwin Tong  2:31:19  
know, I understand, because I understand your call, you say yes, to my qualify the question later, my question earlier, and you say qualify, yes. And you know, explain why you qualify. So you are saying the qualification rests with her misapprehension of what happened on the eighth of August not misapprehension, her total untruth of what happened on the eighth. So if I were to say to you assume for the moment that her account is true,

Pritam Singh  2:31:45  
I can't do I can't even do that. I'm so sorry, I can't help you. I can't even do that. You

Edwin Tong  2:31:50  
would agree that if we assume her account was true, that would remove the qualification, right? If we assume,

Pritam Singh  2:31:59  
Mr. Tom, I know will help you. I know we're going with this or help us with it, because I think you can help yourself with it. Because I think you've really dealt with it in some way. But no, I'm not. I'm not playing the fool here. Don't get me wrong. But if you're asking me to confirm a supposition, no train of thought that Miss Khan has stopped, which is not to be untrue. I'm

Edwin Tong  2:32:20  
not asking you I can't agree with it. Stop. Mr. Singh. I'm not asking you to confirm a supposition. I'm asking you to assume that her account is true.

Pritam Singh  2:32:28  
I cannot yet do that. I cannot even make that assumption. Because I know for a fact it's not true.

Edwin Tong  2:32:33  
Yes. But if you assume it is true, I have no way to do

Pritam Singh  2:32:37  
that. Mr. Tong, I apologize. Mr. Chair. In this part of

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:32:41  
my perspective, we are trying to understand a few different narratives, one of which you're sharing, from your perspective, your evidence as to what has happened. And that's one account. We have heard from Miss Reza Khan, and a few of associates and some of the messages were shared contemporaneously as things evolve. And that's another possible narrative, which you believe is untrue. So we need to look at the whole train of events as evolve, and to ascertain which may make sense which doesn't make sense. And then that's the premise on which I think Minister Tony is asking,

Pritam Singh  2:33:12  
with respect, with respect to what he is, Mr. Tong is asking me to assume an assumption. So what Megan is asking is, I can make an assumption based on facts I know so true.

Tan Chuan-Jin:  2:33:25  
But if we assume that that particular recount is true, and that whole series of different events, or things that didn't take place, took place, would that be a reasonable way to assess that whole chain of events as an assumption, and I can accept, and you're registered a point that you do not believe that to be true, but if I know that, right, we are trying to ascertain what exactly happened. We have a few different narratives evolving, were trying to ascertain which seems to make sense, which seemed to be true. And if this holds true, and if this account is accurate, then would all the series of events kind of make sense? Is it logical, then there will be another version, which is, for example, as you share as what you believe is true. And that will be one train of events. So we are trying to understand if indeed, this is so would all these things be consistent? And would it make sense? Or would it not make sense? Would your version of it therefore also make sense or not make sense? And that's where we are. So I think it's to help us understand which line would seem credible, and then that's where we are trying to understand them. So that question, I think, on assumption release on that basis, but we fully accept what you have said, which is, as far as you're concerned, it is untrue. Right. But what we're what it means to Tom is asking is, if from our perspective, assume that that what she said and believed to have interpreted was true with these chain of events seem to make sense which you said a qualified yes. Right. So let's get back to that and So please

Edwin Tong  2:35:00  
answer the question, but sorry, go ahead. On the assumption that miscounts account is true. Would you agree that the steps that and her account on the third of October as well as the eighth of August are true? Would you agree that the events that took place or didn't take place, as the case may be leading up to the fourth of October, it will be completely consistent with her account?

Pritam Singh  2:35:26  
I would say no,

Edwin Tong  2:35:28  
it will be completely consistent because the information was not brought up. So the whole of the rest of August, we didn't hear anything. In September, we didn't hear anything. There's no discussion. And it might come up again, on fourth of October, so you want to see her on the third of October. Remember, miscounts account was if not pressed, don't have to clarify. So now you thought, on the third, maybe she might be pressed. So it's time to revisit the issue. Let me move on, sorry. And then she goes to Parliament. And she continues to narrative, which is her account on the eighth of August. And she tells a lie, several lies. And then she comes to your office and say, perhaps there is another way and other path, as you put it. That is to tell the truth. So explain to me in the context of this, why you would disagree that on the assumption that miscounts versions are correct. Why would you disagree? That everything that has happened is completely consistent.

Pritam Singh  2:36:33  
I would disagree, Mr. Tong, because if indeed, we assume from the eighth of August, that there is a narrative to lie. I wouldn't see her on the third of October, would I? Because it's already been established. And that's why I disagree. There would have been no reason to see on the third of October,

Edwin Tong  2:36:54  
I will suggest to you based on based on her narrative that you saw her on the third of October. And you wanted to, first of all share with her your contemplation that the issue might arise, which I think we've gone through earlier. And secondly, I think you chose your words carefully. On that occasion. You said I won't judge you.

Pritam Singh  2:37:19  
Don't forget what I said. That's a fragment of the main thrust of what I was driving at. Well, you have, please go ahead.

Edwin Tong  2:37:28  
Well, we heard evidence earlier and I took it at face value. You said I wouldn't judge you after a series of other messages to her. No, no, we've also I said something before, whatever you conveyed to her. But we've also heard her version of this show. I'll put to you this, that in concluding with the phrase, I won't judge you That phrase is an equivocal phrase. I agree.

Pritam Singh  2:38:03  
Disagree. In seen as a fragment? Yes.

Edwin Tong  2:38:07  
And if you wanted to convey to her that there is no doubt that if it comes up, you will tell the truth. You could have said so in very clear terms. I believe I was quite clear with you could have said so in clear direct terms, and probably even in writing to make sure that there's absolutely no doubt about it. Right

Pritam Singh  2:38:34  
there. Like I said, this is similar to your line of questioning. In other cases, i There are a number of things I could have done, but these are all counterfactuals

Edwin Tong  2:38:40  
No, I mean, I'm putting to you. I mean, we have to understand why it was not done.

Pritam Singh  2:38:44  
Because it was the verbal message that was communicated to her in my mind was very clear. Well, you see, and let me put into context.

Edwin Tong  2:38:53  
Mr. Mr. Singh, you're you're capable of being a lot clearer. And a lot more forceful. In your, in your communication? No, absolutely. I and I believe that. And I believe that if you wanted to leave her and no doubt that she was to tell the truth the very next day,

Pritam Singh  2:39:11  
you would have been perfectly able to make that absolutely clear. I would have thought that it was very clear what she had to do. You are a Workers Party MP. We have struggled to get here where we are. And are we going to throw this all away because of this. Yes, you can. So sorry. Go ahead.

Edwin Tong  2:39:34  
No, I was I wasn't gonna cut you off. I'm sorry. Please. So

Pritam Singh  2:39:37  
in my mind, it was crystal clear. Take ownership take responsibility. What does that mean? Is this another one of those I don't know what substantiate means. No,

Edwin Tong  2:39:48  
no. You see? A, the words chosen could have been clearer, much clearer. Be Could have been in writing and you have had no qualms giving her instructions on how she frames her PQ s and s cues. In writing, you send her messages on that right? Sorry, her PQ s and s Q's parliamentary questions and supplementary question Tech's have you not done? So?

Pritam Singh  2:40:18  
I mean, I could have, but in what context? Are you referring to pick up an excuse.

Edwin Tong  2:40:23  
I, I thought this is a point you would easily agree to you you would have written to her?

Pritam Singh  2:40:28  
No, certainly don't I wouldn't I let me finish? Sorry. Go ahead.

Edwin Tong  2:40:31  
You had on previous occasions, given her guidance on how she frames of parliamentary questions and parliamentary responses, right.

Pritam Singh  2:40:40  
I would have, I am sure, there have been parliamentary questions, which I thought she had put, which were ridiculous. And we had to, again, again, make sure she knows what she's talking about. I'm sure I would have done that I had done that. So you would

Edwin Tong  2:40:55  
have had no difficulty writing to her putting your position down in writing, giving her a clear direction? For something like a parliamentary question. Yes, right. Yes. So I'm suggesting to you that in this case, all the more so when a falsehood has been set, you felt it was going to come up, she would have to deal with it take ownership, like you said, credit, responsibility, truthful, say something in Parliament, that will absolve her of what has happened. Take ownership and responsibility, as you say. And it was a very clear and deliberate intention on your part to reinforce that first, on the first of October, in your general email, and again on the third of October, where you made an attempt to go to her home to do it. Surely putting it down in writing to leave? No room for doubt, would have been quite easy, right.

Pritam Singh  2:41:55  
Mr. I disagree. So my answer is no. I am going to meet her. And rather than talk about it on WhatsApp, I find it sufficiently important to go and meet her to tell her to take ownership and responsibility. So I would disagree.

Edwin Tong  2:42:12  
Well, in the context of the severity of the matter, the importance of the matter, this is not an SQL, this is not a speech, you might make any event, this is not even a speech they might make on a bill or an emotion. And that is important. This is a clarification of a lie that has been set by a sitting member of parliament in Parliament. And at that point in time, on the record for something close to months. It's a serious matter, right, Mr. Singh? No, absolutely, yes. And if my intention as the leader of the party was to ensure that my MP in the words that you've chosen to, in your press conference for her to take responsibility is for her to do so for her to own up because she has the facts, and I don't, as you put it, then surely that point must be absolutely clear and reinforce. And one way of doing it I'm suggesting to you is to make sure it is in writing, right?

Pritam Singh  2:43:06  
I think a more direct way to do it would be to tell it to her in her face, which is what I did.

Edwin Tong  2:43:12  
And you chose words, which I think were crystal clear, could lead to doubt in interpretation. And at least in this case, it was read by Miss Khan differently from you.

Pritam Singh  2:43:24  
Unfortunately, yes, but I believe if you label under the presumption that your leadership is telling you to take a lie to the grave. I can see why she read it that way.

Edwin Tong  2:43:35  
But I also suggest to you that you know what she told you after she told the lies in Parliament on the fourth of October. Perhaps there's another way in her words. I think it's a mia culpa on her part, that is to tell the truth, I think is very suggestive of what her frame of mind was when she was in Parliament, which when she was on the other path, which is the path of continuing with a narrative to keep up with the lie. She told in August. Wouldn't you agree?

Pritam Singh  2:44:01  
I can't do anything about that Mr. Tong. What words she said when she narrated a state of mind to me on the fourth of October. And I cannot assure you that that means she was definitely on a path to continue a narrative tell a lie. I can't make a comment on that, because this is what she told me. And as far as I was concerned, look. And it's quite obvious what you should be doing. And the fact that we're even quibbling about what you should be doing i to me is absolutely ridiculous.

Edwin Tong  2:44:35  
And going going back to my point earlier about how this how the events which unfolded is consistent, completely consistent with her accounts or what happened. Even your reaction. You didn't tell her immediately that it was inconsistent with what she had agreed to in fact, you didn't do that. You didn't check agreed to on the fourth of October. Okay. Your immediate reaction when when you respond to a message, which I do Pritam will speak after sitting keep Chennai posted. Yes, I take your point you have a debate coming up. But you also have a very important issue that has just become worse. I agree. And your response, as I said earlier, was somewhat underwhelming. Well, when you have underwhelming if we believe that there was an pre existing agreement, intention for her to tell the truth, no, it's underwhelming in that context, but completely consistent with an understanding that, in fact, she was to continue with a lie. But now that she's been found out, now that the police has told her, and now you know, in Parliament, that they will continue with the investigations. It is then appropriate to speak about this now and discuss the next steps. Wouldn't you agree?

Pritam Singh  2:45:57  
Mr. Tong? I do apologize. You'd have to put that question to me again. I'm so sorry. It was a long question. And I want you to put it

Edwin Tong  2:46:04  
is a long question, because I want to do explain the context so that, you know, clearly where I'm coming from Sure. I was focused on your response. And I said that your response was underwhelming. Right? But it to you earlier, you disagree, right. But I said, Oh, I'm now also saying to you that it's underwhelming, only if we believe that there was a pre existing agreement or intention for her to come to Parliament. To tell the truth. You understand me so far. Because if she was to tell the truth, such a response, in my view, would be underwhelming. But but she won't let me let me finish. But if there was no such intention, and in fact, her account is the correct one, that she was required, all told by senior party leadership, to continue the narrative to continue the lie. Then, in Parliament, was further told that the police will now step up and carry on with an investigation and interview her. Then in that context, I can understand why you might send a response like this. No, Mr. Tong. My, my proposition to you is, wouldn't you agree, is completely consistent with that now that you know, that carry on with the lie will probably not work. Because the MHA is good to get the police to interview Miss Khan. Now let's discuss will speak after sitting keep chatting I posted. And the first words to you were perhaps there's another way. That is to tell the truth. I disagree coheres

Pritam Singh  2:47:50  
No, it does not gather, and I'll explain why is the thing. I think I've really put it in evidence. But you say my response is underwhelming, I think a very different view, I think there's a very clear choice that she has made. And this is a this is going to lead her down. Definitely a very negative path. She made that choice. And there's not there's really nothing else for me to say you have dug your own grave already by not telling the truth. And so that is the context of will speak after sitting, it's I think it's quite clear that you have basically destroyed your own political career, at least if you tell the truth. You can recover, but you don't tell the truth. What more is there for me to say,

Edwin Tong  2:48:33  
okay, prior to the sitting on the fourth of October, let's get this clear. It was in your contemplation, in fact, very clear. No doubt about it, that if the matter came up in Parliament, she would make a statement to clarify the truth Correct.

Pritam Singh  2:48:48  
To take responsibility and ownership. Yes. And that means clarifying the truth. Yes,

Edwin Tong  2:48:53  
come to Parliament, come clean, make a statement. Tell the truth, confess to the lie. And explain. Right. That's right. So prior to the fourth of October, did you keep your CC informed that this might happen? Or no I do not. And get their approval and consensus. of consensus for well, consensus for the fact that one of your sitting members of Parliament would be coming to confess to a grave infraction and to get clearance for what she will be saying.

Pritam Singh  2:49:30  
I do that when she confirms she's going to make Mr. Miss No I did not Mr. Singh. No, I did not.

Edwin Tong  2:49:36  
I did not know. Right. So you see, no, but I asked later. But you you stepped into Parliament on the fourth of October? Yes. With a very clear contemplation that this might come up and if so she will make a statement and she will tell the truth. Yes, yes. But you didn't tell the CC before that? No, because I don't know what she was gonna say. Let me ask you whether you even ask For a draft of what she was going to say, no,

Pritam Singh  2:50:03  
because you see the yes or no, no, I didn't, because I didn't even know that it was going to come up. It was just my speculation that the issue may come up.

Edwin Tong  2:50:09  
Yes. But it was a very, I mean, you might call it clairvoyant or present, but whatever it is, it was in your mind it. It was It certainly was possible. Yes. And we were told that the Workers Party has established pre parliamentary process of looking at speeches, right. Other speeches. Right? So if you have that process, and if you have an expectation, or at least a sense that this was going to come up fourth of October, yes, on a matter as serious as this, surely you would have asked to see at least an outline speech, if not the full speech of what she was going to be saying.

Pritam Singh  2:50:45  
No, no, no, no, no. This process that we have is for speeches that you make in the course of bills that are about to be coming up for second readings.

Edwin Tong  2:50:55  
And I will say all the morsel of speeches, a speech that you will make, right in confession of a falsehood that you spoke in Parliament. If you even understand we are going to vet speeches to support bills or proposed bills that's important. What's more important is for you as a section of the party, to be aware of what your Member of Parliament is going to be saying. When she confesses to a very serious infraction.

Pritam Singh  2:51:22  
She's not only I disagree, and I'll explain, she is not only going to confess to a serious issues, She's lied in Parliament, she's also going to confess some very deep personal details offers which led her to commit that lie in the first place. And so, in my mind, this is something for her to take ownership and responsibility for, and she should state the truth in Parliament.

Edwin Tong  2:51:53  
Mr. Singh, can we seriously believe that you would have been prepared to let Miss Khan come to Parliament, on an occasion where you anticipated that the issue might arise? Explain that she told a lie. And clarify this, without you knowing in advance what she was going to say. She already

Pritam Singh  2:52:12  
told me what happened. She already told me what the circumstances were which led her to lie in the first place. She was laboring, she was suffering from a traumatic episode that came up which resulted her her putting that anecdote in her speech. I expected her just to say that that's the truth. Mr. Come out and tell the truth.

Edwin Tong  2:52:29  
Mr. Singh, I think your your explanation might have been okay, on his own. If this is just October, we're talking about. But we now know what happened in the lead up to first November, when she did in fact, come and make an explanation. In the lead up to the explanation on the first November, and you can confirm if I'm right or wrong. The CC was informed ahead of time correct.

Pritam Singh  2:52:56  
The CCI called for a yes or no,

Edwin Tong  2:52:59  
just Yes, the CC was important you the CC heard a draft of what she was going to explain on the first of November, correct. And they were free to ask her questions about anything. Yes, you had yourself given comments and edited the draft

Pritam Singh  2:53:17  
code. I did not edit the draft. I give comments to it the draft it was important for us to take ownership of the draft. She put it together. I believe paying and Yudish may have helped her.

Edwin Tong  2:53:26  
But Sylvia Lim was also involved in giving comments on the draft that's a Muslim was also involved. And you had several meetings, including at party HQ on the draft. Correct.

Pritam Singh  2:53:35  
I have to recall, but we were but we had several meetings. That is correct. I

Edwin Tong  2:53:39  
can show you later. But you had several meetings. Sure. I will not dispute them some at your home party HQ. That's right. That's right. You

addition to all of this, you also appreciated the fallout that could happen if she miscount came to Parliament to confess to a lie. And apart from clearing your CC. Looking at the draft, you also ensure that there were activists and volunteers who will pick up on misconduct social media handles, right.

Pritam Singh  2:54:18  
I don't understand your question.

Edwin Tong  2:54:21  
My question is a simple one, you know that the news would be would be big news, of course. And you expected there to be some adverse Fallout, especially a lot of encompass Ville. Right, right. And so, prior to the first of November, you discuss with Mr. Navin and Miss Lowe steps to be taken to answer her emails, what how to explain to constituents how to deal with social media.

Pritam Singh  2:54:48  
No, no, I did not do that. Miss Miss Lowe. I can't remember which one of them

Edwin Tong  2:54:56  
either. Maybe you were aware that these were being done right. They miss Lo

Pritam Singh  2:55:00  
and miss and yudishe told me that they would control her social media. That's what they told me. It wasn't a direction from me.

Edwin Tong  2:55:08  
In fact, beginning from around the 12th of October, all the way through to just the weekend before first November, a period of about two weeks and a few days. CC was told, CC was CC was told on the 29th of October and was aware of a draft Yes. had several meetings to discuss the draft at party HQ, myself, Islam Islam, yes, Miss Khan. And in some cases, Mr. Navin and Miss Lowe as well. Yes, but not just party. Most of them. I think we're in my house. Yes. But at least meetings, if not more than one at party HQ, right.

Pritam Singh  2:55:52  
Uh, we I wouldn't dispute this, but I'll have to check the facts.

Edwin Tong  2:55:56  
Okay. In addition, you also were aware that Miss Khan's father had given input to the statement, right?

Pritam Singh  2:56:03  
He messaged me, yes, yes.

Edwin Tong  2:56:06  
So the any of these steps happen prior to fourth of October? No, that What steps are you referring to any of these steps? See, see? No, no, no, no, they did not. And the reason I'm suggesting to you that they did not none of these steps took place was because it was not in your contemplation on the fourth of October, that the truth will be clarified in Parliament.

Pritam Singh  2:56:30  
No, I disagree. It was not in my contemplation that she would lie on the fourth of October.

Edwin Tong  2:56:34  
Neither is no contemplation that she will lie on the first of November. And yet you took all these steps to clear the draft, review, edit, tell the CC in advance, because she was gonna say, because so often from that, sorry, let me finish. Go ahead. So if we take it on your case, Mr. Singh, that she was going to come to Parliament on the fourth of November and fourth of October, I beg your pardon, and tell the truth, just as she did on the first of November, then all of the steps that we see in the run up to the first of November would have happened in the run up the fourth of

Pritam Singh  2:57:07  
all, I disagree, because you have to remember I did I didn't know for sure whether the matter would come up in October in the study. But it was a reasonable as it could have happened. So the state of mind

Edwin Tong  2:57:24  
as you expected it to a degree sufficient for you to go to misconstrue agree and agree about it. Agree. Thank you.

Pritam Singh  2:57:31  
And so the situation was as such, on the fourth of October, it was entirely possible the matter could come up, Miss Khan was told to take ownership and responsibility. And one would expect very reasonably I would say a Workers Party MP would just go there, tell the truth. What had happened if it had come up now, they after she indicated that there was another path, like I suggested my evidence, honesty, and so forth. And on the 12th. Finally, she gets in touch, and she actually doesn't want to cheat she by call for meeting in my house. She doesn't want to tell the truth. Silvia gets angry. I know because I remember quite clearly. And I tell her look, you have to tell the truth, this is not going to go away. So don't even start. Don't even think that, you know this is going to be just left alone. And the reason why I felt it was important to look at what she was saying was I'm not sure what she's gonna say in a personal explanation on the first of November. So you better show me what you're going to say, don't come up with some cockamamie lie again.

Edwin Tong  2:58:42  
She by the same token, yes. You had no idea what she was going to say on a fourth of October.

Pritam Singh  2:58:47  
Yes. But I had no idea also that she was actually going to tell a lie.

Edwin Tong  2:58:51  
Yeah, assignment, but I'm putting to you in this context, you you must surely appreciate that this is going to be a grave revelation in Parliament, as it turns out, right. I think we all know that. Oh, I agree. And so it's natural. I mean, the steps that I've just outlined to you leading up to the first of November, I mean, any political party would do that. If you expect that a major concession admission is going to be made in Parliament. You would expect that, but we don't see any of that take place on the fourth of October. Not one step. Mr. Singh, not one step

Pritam Singh  2:59:27  
because I think it is understood what an MP has to do. An MP has to tell the truth. Yes. It's it comes up as a question and not your own personal statement. You tell the truth. There's no ambiguity about this.

Edwin Tong  2:59:40  
It's also understood on the first of November that she will tell the truth and yet you were very careful.

Pritam Singh  2:59:45  
Well, because she was prevaricating on the 12th. She doesn't Sorry. Go ahead.

Edwin Tong  2:59:50  
You you might, you might make that argument about what she will say her statement. But let me come in This from a different angle. However she put the statement if she contains her her clarification and her admission, there will be significant media interest. Yes, I'm sure. And prior to first November, in fact, you appreciated that and prepared a media release on the very same day. Correct?

Pritam Singh  3:00:24  
Which media release? Are you referring to?

Edwin Tong  3:00:26  
I'll show you can please assist Mr. Singh? Thanks, Lindsay. Thank you. On the first of November, you issued this statement? In fact, it's called the Secretary General state. Yes.

Pritam Singh  3:00:46  
Yes, it was a Facebook post I made and then the party put it up. So you prepared this before the first of November? Or no, I

Edwin Tong  3:00:53  
did not on the first of November. So you see, you appreciated that. You had to clear with the CEC. Because it's a big matter, you had to prepare, or you at least had to know that prep steps were being done to prepare the ground in Campbellsville. And in Sengkang, for the adverse publicity, you knew that you had to issue a press statement. All of these steps, has nothing to do with the words that Miss Khan might choose in a personal statement.

Pritam Singh  3:01:25  
So the excuse that you gave earlier, the reasons you explained earlier is why of the excuse. The reasons that you gave earlier as to why first of November is different from fourth of October, doesn't hold insofar as these other statements are concerned. If you agree, I see. No, I disagree. But you understand my question, I understand your question, and I disagree with it. Because Miss Khan, on the 12th of October or did not actually want to come up with a personal explanation. She just wanted to leave the issue as it was. And how do you trust a person like that? You lie. You lie to me, even after the speech you make on the third of October, you insist it's a lady you give me her name and nickname at least you tell me which police station you met her?

Edwin Tong  3:02:14  
Okay, but now,

Pritam Singh  3:02:15  
hold on, let me finish.

Edwin Tong  3:02:16  
Let me let me tell you about coming from maybe you can you can be clearer. And the evidence, you see all of these took place about lying to you about a bus stop and a police station and so on, which took place pre fourth of October, right is now no longer relevant? No, it's very relevant. No, it's no longer relevant because we are now at a stage where we are gearing up towards the first November. And I'll explain why it's very relevant. So keep that in mind. Yes, I'm

Pritam Singh  3:02:41  
keeping it absolutely.

Edwin Tong  3:02:42  
Because you see, you can't use the fact that she liked you in August. She said to me, let me finish. Go ahead. You can't use the fact that she liked you in August, as a reason for requiring her to put a statement in writing to you for the first of November. Because that same reason would also have been operating on your mind on the fourth of October. Alright, so that is not a good reason. I think the reason you so the reasons which require you to now do something differently on the first of November, must be reasons which took place after fourth of October. You followed me? Yes. So focus on after fourth October, let me Don't talk about what happened in August. And I'll

Pritam Singh  3:03:25  
tell you why everything is relevant, and you should see it as a whole. She lies to a Secretary General, even after his queries in August, Secretary General tells her take ownership take responsibility she makes takes no heed of that. She lies in Parliament again. Then she tells the Secretary General on the fourth of October, perhaps there's another way the truth, then she turns around on the 12th of October, not wanting to come out with the truth. What am I supposed to assume? In I'll tell you what I assume. I want to make sure what you say in your statement is the truth. Okay, that's my that's my explanation.

Edwin Tong  3:04:07  
I understand what you say. We will come back to looking at breaking down a little Sure. But you remember we will on looking at the other steps that were taken. Not her statement. Let me just so why why is it that before fourth October when you expected or contemplated that such news might arise? That you didn't see the need to breathe a cc? Tell him what, Allison, just what she was going to say yes, prepare your statement, prepared the ground, ensure that there were steps being taken to deal with the adverse publicity. I mean, you're very seasoned politician, you will know that this will be the fallout no and and we wouldn't expect anything less of you to be fully prepared for that. So the fact that these steps are all missing, pre October the fourth suggest to me that was never in your contemplation that a truth would come out.

Pritam Singh  3:04:57  
And let me assure you Mr. Tom, this statement SD statement wasn't pre planned. It was a Facebook post I made, which then was put up on the web website as it was. There was no planning to prepare the ground in compass Vale and so forth. CeCe was just informed that an MP is going to make this statement. Miss Khan was at Liberty Miss. Miss Khan was at liberty to share what that statement was what the circumstances were. And people did ask her about what had happened. But I know the point you're making Mr. Singh, on the third of on the third, on the fourth of October, there was no assurance that this thing would come up, it may not have come up. What's the you prepare for something which may not have come up before even Miss Khan tells me Look, I have I'm prepared. Now I spoken to my family, I'm going to come up with the truth. Now if she had said that, preterm, I'm prepared. Now I'm going to come up with the truth, I would say, Okay, we've got to prepare, and do the same things that we did the same things that I did, in the run up to the hearing on the first of November, which is to call a CAC meeting and say, Look, this is what's going to happen, because Miss Khan is going to make this statement. So two very different state of affairs. No. And I hope that clarifies matters for you in the committee.

Edwin Tong  3:06:16  
I will take this up. But let me just pick up on a point that you made earlier, your your words, and I will read it to you as it as you as it's been transcribed page 164, line 23. On third, on fourth October, there was no assurance that this thing would come up. It may not have come up. You see if it didn't come up, and it's possible. Did you make any plans to voluntarily come and clarify the point? Which point the lie

Pritam Singh  3:06:50  
at that point? No, because this was something for Miss Reiser can to do.

Edwin Tong  3:06:55  
Yeah. But did you ask what steps were being taken to voluntarily clarify it? Because

Pritam Singh  3:06:59  
he did not? Let me answer the question.

Edwin Tong  3:07:02  
Let me finish. You see, we have been having this discussion on the basis that it might come up on the fourth of October, and then you must tell the truth. But actually a more serious point is being made by you here. Yes. Which is even if it doesn't come up? It should be clarified. Yes. And I don't see any suggestion pre October 4, that there was any agreement, any contemplation, any preparation for the Workers Party, Miss Khan, in particular, to clarify this point of his career on her own volition. Agree, Agree. And I'm suggesting to you that that is yet another step. That is consistent with miscounts takeaway from the August meeting, that if this method does not come up, if you're not pressed key to the August narrative,

Pritam Singh  3:07:53  
I disagree. I this

Edwin Tong  3:07:54  
is consistent. I disagree with the with miscounts interpretation.

Pritam Singh  3:07:59  
I mean, you you have my answer on record. It's not concerned. It's not consistent to me, because I know Miss Khan has to reveal a very personal and deep episode affecting her to her family. And I was prepared to give a space to do that.

Edwin Tong  3:08:12  
Yes, but you see, space, I understand. Yes. But you have to react. And on your own volition clarify the lie, even if it doesn't come up in Parliament, right?

Pritam Singh  3:08:26  
No, she has to do that. I'm going to make sure she does. Yes. How did you make sure that she's going to do that? Well, it's a moot question, because by the time the Minister for Home Affairs rises on the fourth, no, you see, Mr. She has to she has to deal with this. Whatever path she chooses. The truth ought to have come out on the fourth from her mouth. No, sir. It is your I disagree with you. You can disagree. But this is because if you are right, in what you've just said that the truth has to come out as for her to clarify.

Edwin Tong  3:08:53  
Let me go back to the third of October, you went to a home because you thought that it might arise the next day. That's right, actually. And you told her that if it comes up, you clarify the truth, in your words, take ownership and responsibility as you remember. Yes, yes. That's what you said to her. Yes. But actually, a deeper point. And a more important point exists, which is actually you should have gone to her home and told her regardless of whether it comes up tomorrow, you should be in a position to clarify, Don truth. Correct, Mr. Tom? Correct. Answer my question that should have been what was what you would have done? If your intention was to voluntarily and on your own volition, ensure that Miss Khan clarifies the lie.

Pritam Singh  3:09:39  
I disagree that I had, I would have had to put it in that way. But in my view, telling her to take ownership and responsibility, in addition to my behavior, rules of prudence, how you've seen the Workers Party operate, you should have done what you have to do

Edwin Tong  3:09:54  
know, but clearly she didn't know. Well, that's on her and I'm putting it to you That, actually the conversation on the third of October should have been a very simple one. Mishcon regardless of whether it comes out tomorrow. You are now in Parliament tomorrow, shingles is over in September. You should clarify it. Stand up and clarify.

Pritam Singh  3:10:17  
I think I made that clear to her.

Edwin Tong  3:10:19  
I disagree. I don't think that's my American. Take the transcript. I don't think you gave any evidence in any of your discussion on the third of October that you would have that you had told her that even if it didn't come up, you should on your own accord, go and make a statement? That's because

Pritam Singh  3:10:38  
I didn't say that. But I told her to take ownership and responsibility. And if that isn't clear, I'm not sure what is so.

Edwin Tong  3:10:45  
So the same statement that you make to her to tell her to expect it to come up tomorrow should also be read by her to mean, even if it doesn't come up tomorrow, you should still do the same thing. Is that your evidence? Absolutely.

Pritam Singh  3:10:58  
Because this is very clear. It's very clear to me unless we have some different understanding of how MPs should be safe, and what the standard of politics ought to be. Okay. So therefore, there's no other interpretation.

Edwin Tong  3:11:11  
So therefore, your evidence earlier that, Hey, I didn't know whether you will come up tomorrow or not. And therefore, I don't have to take all these steps to prepare the statement to prepare my CC is false, Mr. Singh? No, it's not. I tell you why it's false. I'll tell you why it's false. Because if we believe your last statement, that regardless of whether it comes up tomorrow or not, yes, she was expected to clarify it on her own accord. That's right. You must know. You must know by the third of October, that come hell or high water, he will come up on the fourth of October. There is no if there's no buts, if we believe your evidence. Correct. Repeat the question. I think you know where I'm coming from.

Pritam Singh  3:11:53  
Please repeat. The question is,

Edwin Tong  3:11:55  
I'm saying to you, Mr. Singh. Did your evidence earlier?

That your evidence earlier that you will not sure if the matter would come up in Parliament on the next day on the fourth? is false. And the reason it's false, is because if we believe your last statement, the very last statement you made, which is that your phrase, take ownership and responsibility must mean either it comes up because it's been raised by someone else, or if not on your own accord, you should clarify it. If we believe that statement, then the only answer must be that by the third of October, you knew for sure that the next day on the fourth of October, this issue will arise? No, I didn't know. Please, Mr. Singh, I think I think you know, how

Pritam Singh  3:12:52  
would How would I know I've really put it on evidence it could have come up if I didn't know for sure it would have come up if

Edwin Tong  3:12:59  
it could have come up only if you are resting it on whether someone else raises it. But now you're telling me that actually Miss Khan, from your statements, was expected to know that even if it's not raised, she should bring it up on her own accord.

Pritam Singh  3:13:16  
At some point she would have had to but I didn't tell her. I didn't tell her on the fourth of October, she had to do it on the third of october i On the third of October. It was predicated on the issue coming up. If the issue came up, you have to take ownership and responsibility for it.

Edwin Tong  3:13:34  
Mr. Singh, you're changing evidence. No, I'm

Pritam Singh  3:13:36  
not changing my evidence. If you look at my evidence in totem, no, please, you will realize I'm not changing my evidence at all

Edwin Tong  3:13:43  
a precise, I was very precise. I was very precise, I was waiting for the point. For a point where you might say whether it comes up on a third or not.

Pritam Singh  3:13:54  
I am not sure whether this is going anywhere. Frankly, you're putting you're putting a lot of weight on it. But if you look at the evidence that I've given, it's very clear the matter may come up. If it comes up, take ownership take responsibility. That's the evidence that I've given.

Edwin Tong  3:14:10  
Okay, page 168. Line 11. I said a more important point is I should have gone to a home and told her regardless of regardless if it comes up tomorrow, you should be in a position to clarify the truth Correct? I say correct or not answer my question. And you go on to say in my view, telling her to take ownership, in addition to my behavior. I think it's your conduct rules of prudence. You would have seen how the Workers Party operate, you should have known what you have to do. But clearly, she didn't know. And then you said well, that's on her. I went back to the same point and I said and I'm putting it to you that actually the conversation on third October should have been a very simple one. Mishcon regardless of whether it comes up tomorrow or not. You are now in Parliament tomorrow, shingles over in September. You should clarify stand up And explain. And your answer. I think I made that clear to her. You can disagree. But that's my evidence. So you gave evidence that regardless of whether it comes out Oh, no, no where we will be raised on the fourth of October? No, no. Which means me, let me finish sugar, which means, Mr. Singh, that by the third of October, you knew if your evidence is correct, you knew that it will come up on the fourth of October. And so the evidence you gave earlier about not knowing for sure, and therefore not preparing a statement, not checking with the CEC because it may not arise, or that is not true. No, that's

Pritam Singh  3:15:40  
not Mr. Tom, this is this is completely wrong interpretation of what I've been putting to you right from the get go. I my evidence is on the record. I'm not going to quibble with you on this. I think you know, where I'm coming from the evidence, you know what I meant? You know what I meant when I spoke to her on the third of October, she had to take ownership and responsibility. Yes. And she did not

Edwin Tong  3:16:01  
you see, on the third of October, on your evidence, the one I just read to you? Yes. If we believe that, then, in your mind when you left her home on a third of October, right, you would have no doubt that through one of the methods through either way, this issue will come up in parliament the next day, what methods the two methods or the two ways are either someone asked Miss Karna question, right? Or if not, then she will stand up on her own. No, no, no,

Pritam Singh  3:16:31  
no, no, no, no, not the latter. Not the latter. Mr. Tang. It's a clever try. Not the latter. I made it very clear in my evidence right from the beginning, which is why I said look at my evidence in Totem. Mr. Singh, you look at it in total, you will realize what I had said earlier, and you're trying to catch me in a gotcha moment on one question you put in there. I'm sorry, Mr. Tom, you're a good lawyer. But I'm a good listener. Thank you. Okay. Let me let me let me be very clear about it. And Mr. Singh, Seamus, I think my evidence is on there, I think we can leave, we can put it there. So

Edwin Tong  3:17:04  
I suggest to you that when you left her home on a third of October, if we believe your evidence, as you're telling us today on off, then you could have had no doubt, on the third of October, that the statement will arise. It could have a reason it will arise because No, either she was to clarify it. If it was raised, or on your account, she would have had to do it. On our own, we would have had to tell the truth on her operation, raise

Pritam Singh  3:17:32  
it on own volition on the fourth of No, that's not my evidence. You can put that down. That's not my evidence.

Edwin Tong  3:17:37  
i Well, let me let me say for the metal as a matter of record that I think you're changing your evidence, I don't think I am your qualifying it. No, I'm not. Okay. In fact, you are. I think you realize the

Pritam Singh  3:17:50  
nice dry. That's all I'm saying. You realize

Edwin Tong  3:17:53  
the bind that you find yourself in Mr. Doe, qualify your evidence.

Pritam Singh  3:17:58  
You can't buy me with a piece of sewing thread, because that's what it is.

Edwin Tong  3:18:03  
And going back to my original point. The reason why none of these preparatory steps were taken in the same way, as in the lead up to the first of November, was done for the first for the fourth of October, was because there was never any contemplation on your part. And indeed on miscounts, that the truth would come out in Parliament on the fourth of October, agree, disagree. And even if you had thought that this issue would only arise if she was asked, that means not her own volition. But if she was asked, in your mind, there was a reasonable contemplation of that happening. Correct.

Pritam Singh  3:19:00  
There was a reasonable contemplation of the issue being brought up, it could have come up. Yes.

Edwin Tong  3:19:04  
And she would have to say that she lied. Right? She would have to tell the truth. Yes. So even in that context, assuming you're right in evidence, you will still have had to prepare. Take some steps to prepare. Now, what would that know in advance what she's gonna say? No,

Pritam Singh  3:19:22  
I disagree. It is first tell the truth. What's the truth? Put it on record? We have it on record. Why did you lie? And then the party will have to determine this is the admission what are we going to do with this?

Edwin Tong  3:19:32  
Yeah, I find it hard to believe Mr. Singh that on an issue like this, a member of parliament coming to say that three weeks, two months ago, rather, I had lied in Parliament. And you contemplated that happening on the fourth of October that you will not take steps to try and find out, at least ingest the substance of the statement. I find it hard to believe in Mr. Singh. So please explain to me why I don't

Pritam Singh  3:20:01  
find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe. In my mind, if the issue had come up, it would have to be dealt with by the party. She had to tell that if she had told the truth, Mr.

Edwin Tong  3:20:14  
Singh, let's not digress. No, but I think I've put the evidence quite let's, let's focus on this. Let's focus on it on the occasion, right? It might come up, as it becomes up is big news. We've passed that Rubicon. Right? Yes. So I put to you that, and I'm sharing my doubt with you so that you can help me to ensure that I find it hard to understand why, if you thought such news would come up, where an MP admits to lying, you will not tell your CC in advance, you will not look at the draft or what she is going to say in advance. At the very minimum, these two steps if not more,

Pritam Singh  3:20:53  
number one, as I've established, I didn't know whether it was going to come up for a fact. Unlike on the first of November, which was your initial presupposition. On the first of November, I know it will come up, because I have sight of it. On this particular occasion, I don't know whether it will come up. So there was no other action that was taken. I hope that's clear. I mean, I've I don't want to repeat myself here,

Tan Chuan-Jin:  3:21:16  
but I can may this help me understand this? So you're suggesting to us that because on first November, you know, for a fact that this will come up? That's right. And therefore you went through a process in forming CC, working on a draft, discuss cetera, we didn't work on any draft of our press statement. So as you described, on the fourth, there was a possibility that it might come down. And the gravity of the explanation would be no less significant. But you're not sure, as you said, but there was a real possibility and the significance is no less important. But no similar effort was done and you feel that that's a reasonable that's a reasonable series of steps not to have taken in preparation for Viagra.

Edwin Tong  3:22:08  
With Mr. With Mr. Chairman like to take a short break now, given that they have to reboot and maybe we can

Tan Chuan-Jin:  3:22:14  
we can take a short break and address perhaps now it's 1220 10 Let's come back about 1240 minutes, become better 40 Thank you. Are we sold out?

Pritam Singh  3:22:31  
Sorry, can I am I discharged for 20 minutes

Tan Chuan-Jin:  3:22:34  
for 20 minutes, go back to 40