Having watched (pause and watch during my free hours throughout the past two days) all of Pritam Singh's session in the COP hearing. Here's my thoughts:-
1) I don't think Edwin Tong's train of questioning is uncalled for. That said, I don't know how he could've phrased them better or delivered them better. I'm no lawyer.
2) I think him not wanting to be interrupted is justified -- the transcriber need to hear them clearly. Edwin interrupting Pritam in return is not uncalled for as well. Because Pritam could be digressing (in Edwin's POV) and he didn't want to waste time on what's not germane and only allow time for Pritam to elaborate if he saw fit to paint a fuller picture.
3) I think Pritam for the most part was well composed and very civil with Edwin in answering his questions and elaborating on his views. And Edwin for the most part was as respectful as a cross-examiner could be.
4) Why Edwin told Pritam to "answer the question" is really for the record -- because no elaboration is relevant if Pritam didn't make it known he agrees or disagrees in the first place. His elaboration will only make sense for a reader of the transcription if they knew his stand.
5) Idiots like WUSG, who only look at snippets which show (out of context) Edwin as obnoxious and Pritam as witty and smart, should really go watch the whole 9 hours. I personally would think the clips from Today and ST are more representative of the full hearing session.
[edit]
6) Now I watched the whole 9 hours, I can only say this: Pritam was assisting the committee to inform about his side of the narrative. There are times where he got impatient with the allegations brought forward by Edwin, which he admitted that they were, at the least, fair.
7) You can see when Pritam was getting impatient -- when he quipped with snark. But to be very honest, that could very well be how he responds to suggestions that he didn't want to admit is true or untrue.
8) I stand by my opinion that the COP wish to be informed enough to ascertain the truth by evidence provided from all angles. Pritam's evidence is important because ultimately he was the one that RK's side identified as the mastermind. Pritam, of course, has to defend against that.
9) As an onlooker, I think Edwin made many logical suggestions (which all were rejected by Pritam) that a layperson would interpret and conclude from the information that was contemporaneously brought forward. So, it stands to reason that Edwin would bring those forward.
10) I think Edwin has the right to be blunt and harsh on Pritam solely as a cross-examiner which wanted to make sure Pritam was consistent to his evidence. Which, mind you, contradicted RK's side's. And Pritam understood very well this was coming, which is why he had prepared for it.
11) You can tell, in between breaks and questions, Edwin was not antagonistic towards Pritam. They greet each other, they showed a little of their casual selves when they spoke in err and wanted to correct their words.
12) Therefore, I believe Edwin said what he said because he was told a different narrative and he wanted to hear from Pritam but trusted him to be robust with his evidence. Edwin's objective, it stands to reason, is to get Pritam to either crack or prove RK's side false.
13) Though the outcome is muddier than ever, I think Edwin appreciated Pritam's robustness to submit his evidence that is internally corroborated. The onus is now on the COP, with what they now know, to ascertain what was the true story.