YOU GUIDED HER TO MAINTAIN THE UNTRUTH: DAG
Mr. Ang claimed that Singh had given Ms. Khan the option of telling the truth on October 4, 2021.
” And you guided her to keep the falsehood. Agree”? he said.
” Disagree”, replied Singh.
According to Singh, he thought it was” glass evident” when he told Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, that she had to “take rights and duty” if the issue came up the next day in parliament, indicating she had to tell the truth.
Additionally, Ms. Khan appeared to comprehend him without question, which added to this.
But, Ms. Khan repeatedly lied on October 4, 2021 when Minister K. Shanmugam pressed her for more information about the police station visit in a supervisory speech that neither of them anticipated.
” So on Oct 4 when you were in the parliament chamber, and you heard Ms Khan’s lie being repeated, you did n’t correct it, right”? asked Mr Ang.
” That is correct”, said Singh.
” You did n’t tell her- please correct it now, right”? asked Mr Ang.
” No, I did not”, replied Singh.
” I put it to you that you did n’t do anything ( on Oct 4, 2021 after the lie was repeated ) because she was just acting according to your guidance to her the night before”, said Mr Ang. ” Agree”?
” I will have to believe really vehemently”, said Singh, but in a moderate tone.
He claimed that he had made it” glass evident” to Ms. Khan that she was required to tell the truth if the problem was brought up.
However, when Singh met WP head Sylvia Lim and Ms. Khan in his office late at night on October 4, 2021, Mr. Ang claimed he did not say,” I told you last night I made it crystal clear and yet you disobeyed my guidelines.”
” That is correct”, said Singh.
” And Ms Khan is the one who said ( at this meeting ), maybe there is another way which is to tell the truth”, said Mr Ang.
” Yes, that information I gave at the COP”, replied Singh.
” Right”, said Mr Ang. ” So it clearly means that there was a path she was on and that there is now another way,” she said when she said there is another way that is true.
Singh answered:” I cannot speak for Ms Khan”.
Eventually, the judge inquired about Singh’s decision to ignore Ms. Khan’s repeated omissions on October 4, 2021.
” We did n’t, yes, because she was not, in my view, in a state for us to have a conversation with her”, he said.
” But Mr Singh”, jumped in Mr Ang,” You are capable of being extremely strong with Ms Khan”.
He claimed to be the WP secretary-general and that he had contacted Ms. Khan over the phone on August 7, 2021 to inform him if her story was accurate, and he reminded Singh of what he had said the day before.
Mr Ang misspoke and used the word” solicitor-general” instead, prompting Singh to correct him and drawing laughs from the public.
” I’m sorry”, said Mr Ang in a rare spot of humour in the cross-examination so far. ” Too many generals”.
Another lighthearted incident occurred when Singh freely testified before the judge that the National Environment Agency had harsh instructions for having more than two visitors stay at his home during COVID-19. On August 8, 2021, Ms. Khan, Ms. Lim, and Mr. Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap visited his home.
Therefore, Mr. Ang said to Ms. Khan,” Appearance, I’m the secretary-general of WP, please tell me why you defied what I said the night before and repeat the untruth,” and that it would not have been difficult for him to say that.
Singh said that he was unable to do that because he had evaluated her state and did n’t think coming out against her at that point would help us move forward. She also said that there might be another way to speak about honesty. I had at least a sense that her view may help clarify this anecdote.
Mr Ang next asked:” Would you believe that it would have been totally reasonable as the head, as the secretary-general of WP, to show Ms Khan or show her off for defying your guidelines”?
” It would be logical if I was a robot”, replied Singh.
Mr Ang therefore pressed Singh:” I mean, you’re a solicitor. acquired by the table. You are very adept at using words that are very distinct. On the night of October 3, all you needed to say was,” If it comes up, please just tell the truth.” Appropriate”?
” That is correct”, replied Singh. However, the people I was dealing with was an MP who, in my opinion, would have to assume responsibility and assume rights, and I chose the phrases that suited her.
DAG ON ALLEGED Inconsistencies
Mr. Ang even pressed Singh about two reported contradictions that he admitted to making in court and during his COP responses.
Mr. Ang questioned Singh about the commitment of an MP to right a lie that another MP has said in parliament.
Singh first said:” I would n’t agree with that”.
After that, Mr. Ang showed him the transcripts of the COP, where Singh was asked the same question but with a different response. He had agreed that he had to right a lie that another MP had made aware of.
Singh then said he had to “qualify” what he said in court, saying that his point that there was” no obligation” was specific to the events of Oct 4, 2021.
” I do n’t think, Mr Singh, that I mentioned Oct 4 in my question. But let me ask you once- if an MP, this claim you. You are aware of a lay being uttered by an unelected member of parliament. If you are informed that it is a exist, you are required to correct it. Right”? asked Mr Ang.
” Yes, I would say so”, said Singh.
When Singh applied the same circumstance to Oct. 4, 2021, he then claimed that he would be required to correct the rest, but that” I knew the facts behind that lie, and in my opinion, there was a way that the lay would have to be clarified.”
In another reportedly contradictory situation, Singh reportedly referred to an email he sent to WP MPs on October 1, 2021.
They were reminded of how crucial it is to back up and protect what they said in congress or face being summoned before a COP. Singh had claimed in judge that this message was intended for Ms. Khan and was connected to her fabrication.
” The truth is, Mr Singh, this was a common email, right”? asked Mr Ang.
Singh disagreed.
Mr. Ang then showed him copies of the COP’s notes of evidence, where Singh was inquired about the Oct. 1 message and responded,” Yes, the Oct. 1 internet was a common email to all MPs.”
” But, is it public or not”? asked Mr Ang.
” It’s general because it’s addressed to all MPs but it’s more than that as well”, said Singh.
Mr. Ang said,” A few moments before, you said it was about the lie, and now you’re trying to distance yourself by saying that it’s closely related to the rest.”
Singh replied:” I think that’s a rather pretentious way to put it” ..
” Okay. I’m but sorry”, said Mr Ang.
” I’m not asking for an apology”, replied Singh.
SINGH COMMENTS ON Original WP CADRES ,
Mr. Ang even emailed Mr. Ang about his ideas on Ms. Loh Pei Ying and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, two previous WP functionaries. Both had testified for the trial.  ,
Ms Loh was originally Singh’s administrative aide, while Mr Nathan had been part of the Sengkang community group. The pair were Ms. Khan’s advisors and helped her with her MP tasks. Both have since resigned from the organization.
Mr Ang directed Singh to his COP facts, where he had described the piece as “very good” and “good” people who worked difficult for the party.  ,
Clarifying this piece of evidence, Mr Ang asked:” You would describe these two, Pei Ying and Yudhishthra as very decent people” ? , Hesitating slightly, Mr Singh replied:” At the material time, yes”.
The DAG next followed up with:” As of December 2021, do you identify them as really good people”? Singh acknowledged that in the COP, he had stated it.  ,
Mr Ang asked if Singh worked well with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, to which the latter replied:” Yes, they follow instructions”.
” But now that they have given evidence in this case, you think that they are both frauds, am I correct”? asked Mr Ang.  ,
Singh responded,” I did not say that at this juncture. My opinion of them has changed because of the fact that some data was withheld from me.”
However, Mr. Ang made it clear that Andre Jumabhoy, Singh’s attorney, had called Ms. Loh and Mr. Nathan liars.  ,
” Is it your place that they are lying”? he asked.  ,
Singh said” Also, with regards to what transpired in court, yes”.
” So they are frauds”? continued Mr Ang.  ,
” Vis-a-vis what has happened in court, yes”, Singh replied.  ,
These two people, as far as I’m informed, have no cause to want to harm the WP, questioned Mr. Ang. Singh claimed he was unaware.
The prosecutor asked the judge if he knew of any reason why Ms Loh and Mr. Nathan had damaged WP. Singh cited a recent event where he had given a discourse on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual problems at a school.  ,
Mr. Nathan had expressed his opposition to the conversation online.  ,
” Mr. Yudhishthra had spoken out publicly, and it’s not something our members do, and it did cause some consternation in the party,” he said.” I do n’t think it would do any harm, but that’s not how WP ( handles such things ) does.”
Mr. Ang inquired if that was the justification for Mr. Nathan’s admission to court and lying, and Singh responded, “certainly no.”  ,
The trial begins on Thursday with Singh under cross-examination by the prosecution.