| Daily Update of the Pritam Singh Trial – October 16, 2024 |
18:03
Prosecution asks for an hour tomorrow to complete re-examination of Raeesah; court adjourns
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy requests an hour from the judge to finalize the re-examination of Ms. Raeesah Khan tomorrow, indicating he has a few more questions for her. Following her re-examination, he plans to call the next witness, former Workers’ Party cadre and Ms. Khan’s aide, Ms. Loh Pei Ying.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan informs Ms. Khan that she must return tomorrow and instructs her not to discuss her evidence with anyone else.
The court has adjourned for the day.
18:02
Prosecution asks Raeesah why she agreed that she assumed it was her untruth the WP leaders told her to ‘take to the grave’
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy revisits a discussion from the second day of the trial, where Ms. Raeesah Khan indicated that she assumed the Workers’ Party (WP) leaders were referring to her untruth when they instructed her to “take it to the grave” on August 8, 2021.
“Can you explain why you said it was an assumption?” DPP Ramasamy inquires.
Ms. Khan clarifies that the defence had asked whether she had clarified with the WP leaders about what she needed to take to the grave, and since she did not do so, she felt compelled to agree that it was an assumption.
DPP Ramasamy follows up, asking Ms. Khan why she interpreted it as the lie that she was to take to the grave. Ms. Khan explains that the conversation had shifted to Pritam Singh’s mention of bringing her before the Committee of Privileges before the instruction to “take it to the grave” was given. “So we weren’t talking about my sexual assault anymore,” she states, highlighting the context of the discussion.
17:53
Defence wraps up cross-examination of Raeesah with questions about her meeting with WP leaders
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy concludes his cross-examination of Ms. Raeesah Khan by revisiting her meeting with Workers’ Party leadership on August 8, 2021.
He first asks if nothing was said to her regarding the untruth she told in Parliament, to which she agrees.
He then confirms if Pritam Singh escorted her to the door as she was leaving. Ms. Khan affirms this.
Mr. Jumabhoy: “And as he took you to the door, he said to you, ‘Speak to your parents, we’ll deal with it later.’”
Ms. Khan: “No.”
Mr. Jumabhoy: “You were never told at this meeting, including by any of the party leaders, that if you were not pressed, you should continue with the narrative.”
Ms. Khan: “Not at this meeting, no.”
Mr. Jumabhoy: “You were never told at this meeting to take the lie to the grave.”
Ms. Khan: “Yes, I was.”
Mr. Jumabhoy: “Generally, the reason that you decided to stick to the untruth, including at the October 4 sitting in Parliament, is because you were frightened that it would expose you as a liar. Do you agree?”
Ms. Khan pauses before responding: “To some extent, but I was also told that if I continued the narrative, Pritam wouldn’t judge me. In the end, I did make the personal statement. So obviously, when I was told that would be the best option, I did it even though I was terrified. (It’s) the same fear I had on October 4.”
17:31
Singh’s lawyer asks again whether Raeesah felt the need to tell the truth in September 2021
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy revisits an earlier line of questioning, asking Ms. Raeesah Khan if she had considered coming clean during the September sitting of Parliament and if she had expressed a need to tell the truth to the disciplinary panel.
Ms. Khan answers no to both inquiries.
Mr. Jumabhoy: At that time, did you feel the need to tell the truth in September 2021?
Ms. Khan: No.
Mr. Jumabhoy: Was the reason that you had shingles?
Ms. Khan: No, can you repeat your question?
Mr. Jumabhoy: Was the reason you didn’t tell the truth in September 2021 that you felt no need to do so, or was it because you had shingles?
Ms. Khan: Because I felt no need to do so.
Mr. Jumabhoy: And was the reason you felt no need to do so because you thought the matter had been dropped? So as far as you were concerned, there was no need to come clean?
Ms. Khan: Yes.
Mr. Jumabhoy: And we agree that’s different from keeping to the narrative?
Ms. Khan: How is that different?
Mr. Jumabhoy: Well, the reason you are not coming clean is not because you have been told to stick to a story—it’s because you thought the matter had been dropped.
Ms. Khan: Yes.
17:13
Counsels discuss allowing Raeesah to refer to her police statement to refresh her memory
For about half an hour, lawyers for both sides have been deliberating on whether Ms. Raeesah Khan should be permitted to refer to her police statement from June 5, 2022, to aid her memory.
The judge ultimately grants permission for Ms. Khan to reference a specific part of the document. This discussion relates to her personal statement made in Parliament on November 1, 2021, as well as potential follow-up questions regarding whether Pritam Singh instructed her to tell the truth.
16:10
Defence argues Raeesah’s ‘contradictory’ statements on coming clean in September 2021 provide grounds for impeachment
In the courtroom, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy requests Ms. Raeesah Khan to step out again, highlighting inconsistencies in her explanations for not coming clean about her lie in September 2021. He points out that Ms. Khan’s reasons contradict her claim that Workers’ Party leaders advised her to maintain the narrative.
Previously, Ms. Khan stated that her absence from Parliament was due to shingles, and on the first day of the trial, she mentioned believing the matter would not arise. Mr. Jumabhoy argues that these accounts are “contradictory” and “fly in the face” of her current position.
He emphasises, “There’s no suggestion that she’s not coming clean because she was asked to take the matter to the grave or asked to continue the narrative,” indicating that her statements undermine her credibility and provide grounds for impeachment.
15:42
Defence questions Raeesah Khan about aligning facts with Loh Pei Ying before COP hearing
During the cross-examination, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy asks Ms. Raeesah Khan if she contacted Loh Pei Ying before her appearance before the Committee of Privileges (COP). Ms. Khan replies, “I think I must have.”
When asked if she reached out to Loh to “align facts,” Ms. Khan states she does not recall. Mr. Jumabhoy presses further, asking if she inquired whether they should come up with a story by aligning their facts. Ms. Khan firmly responds no.
Mr. Jumabhoy notes that Loh provided evidence to the COP at the end of 2021, followed immediately by Ms. Khan, and asks if they met prior to their testimony. Ms. Khan admits, “I think I remember meeting her the night before, maybe,” adding that they met to support each other and ensure they were okay.
The lawyer then questions whether Ms. Khan intended to lie to the COP regarding when Pritam Singh knew of her original untruth. She clarifies, “I wasn’t intending to lie, I was just hoping to take full responsibility at the COP.”
Mr. Jumabhoy counters, “But if you’d said that, that would be a lie, right?” to which Ms. Khan concedes, “Yes.”
15:40
Raeesah Khan highlights missing context in disciplinary panel notes from Nov 29, 2021
Ms. Raeesah Khan is questioned about the notes taken during her second disciplinary panel meeting with Workers’ Party leaders on November 29, 2021. The defense argues that these notes suggest her decision to lie on October 4 was due to her own choices rather than external influence.
When Mr. Andre Jumabhoy asks if she accepts the accuracy of the notes, Ms. Khan replies, “I feel like there is a lot of context missing in the notes. I feel like it’s quite sparse. It’s not very detailed.”
She elaborates that the notes do not serve as a “word-for-word record of the meeting,” responding to Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan’s inquiry about their lack of detail.
During this second disciplinary panel session, Ms. Khan met with party leaders Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim, and Faisal Manap at the party headquarters. She notes that the party members appeared to be taking notes throughout the discussion.
15:31
Raeesah cites power dynamics for her silence during disciplinary panel on Nov 29, 2021
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy brings up a WhatsApp message exchange from November 22, 2021, in which Ms. Raeesah Khan requested another disciplinary panel meeting. She previously stated that she felt unprepared to discuss her performance and character as an MP in an earlier panel and preferred to focus on her achievements.
In response to her request, Pritam Singh emphasised that her character and behaviour were under review due to her actions in Parliament and her decision to maintain the lie when questioned again in October. Ms. Khan agrees that Singh was placing the blame on her.
However, Mr. Jumabhoy notes that Ms. Khan did not mention during the November 29, 2021, disciplinary panel that the party leaders had instructed her to maintain the lie.
Ms. Khan explains, “I think the context that is missing here is the power dynamics in that meeting,” referring to Singh, Workers’ Party chairwoman Sylvia Lim, and vice-chairman Faisal Manap as “very powerful people.”
Mr. Jumabhoy cites notes from Ms. Lim on the November 29 meeting, indicating that Ms. Khan agreed when Singh asked, “Can’t lie, right?” He points out that Singh was placing the responsibility solely on Ms. Khan.
Ms. Khan responds, “At that point in time, I still thought that they had the best intentions for me. I didn’t realise that this was what they were doing. If I did realise, I would have said: ‘Look, I know it’s a tough situation, but you also advised me the entire way.’”
She adds, “When you are confronted by people you view as giants, it’s very hard to confront them in a negative way.”
15:20
Defence argues Raeesah never communicated to party members the reason for maintaining her lie
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questions Ms. Raeesah Khan about whether she ever informed any Workers’ Party (WP) members that her reason for maintaining the lie she told in Parliament was that she had been instructed to do so.
Ms. Khan responds negatively. Mr. Jumabhoy further states that she also did not mention this in her personal statement or during her questioning by Leader of the House Indranee Rajah.
She acknowledges, saying, “Yes, I wanted to protect (the party leaders).”
Mr. Jumabhoy continues, pointing out that she failed to convey this information to several individuals, including Ms. Nicole Seah, Mr. Gerald Giam, her team at Sengkang GRC, and the WP central executive council. She confirms that she did not.
He emphasises, “And most importantly, you had multiple occasions in front of Mr. Singh, Ms. Lim, in front of the disciplinary panel to mention this fact,” to which Ms. Khan agrees.
14:58
Defence asks if Raeesah and Pritam discussed how to handle questions in Parliament after her admission of the lie.
The trial resumes around 2:30 PM, with Mr. Andre Jumabhoy beginning to question whether Pritam Singh and Ms. Raeesah Khan discussed how to respond to questions following her personal statement in Parliament on November 1.
“Did you ask Pritam about how you should deal with those questions?” Mr. Jumabhoy, Singh’s lawyer, inquires.
“I don’t remember having a larger conversation about how my response would be if I was questioned after the personal statement,” Ms. Khan replies.
Mr. Jumabhoy then asks if, during the preparation for her statement, she recalls Singh telling her to tell the truth.
“We had already decided that I would tell the truth,” she responds.
He continues to ask several times if she had a conversation with Singh about potential questions from the House after her personal statement. Ms. Khan reiterates that she does not recall having a more detailed conversation on what her response would be if questioned.
In response to his final inquiry, she states: “No, I don’t remember.”
12:38
The court will reconvene at 2:30 PM. After the break, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy is set to continue his cross-examination of Ms. Raeesah Khan, which he hopes to complete today.
12:37
Defence says Raeesah’s claims that WP leaders told her to continue lying and her non-reaction to Pritam telling her it was ‘too late’ to come clean is inconsistent.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy brings up Ms. Raeesah Khan’s meetings with the Workers’ Party leaders before Oct 4, 2021, during which Ms. Khan claimed they told her to maintain the lie.
The lawyer asks if she would have come clean during the Oct 4 Parliament sitting had she not been instructed to continue lying. She replies yes.
She also agrees that she adhered to the lie because of the advice given by the party leaders.
Mr. Jumabhoy later refers to the night of Oct 4, when Ms. Khan met the leaders after the Parliament sitting. Ms. Khan testified on the first day of the trial that Pritam Singh had said during that meeting it was “too late” when she asked if she should come clean.
Mr. Jumabhoy notes that Ms. Khan did not rebut Mr. Singh’s reply, which he claims would have been the most natural response.
“You don’t say at the meeting: ‘I’m only in this mess because of what you all told me,'” says the lawyer.
“And the reason you don’t say any of these things,” Mr. Jumabhoy adds, “is because (Singh) never told you to lie in the first place.”
12:16
Defence asks Raeesah about WP cadres’ advice to her following her Oct 4, 2021, clarification in Parliament.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questions Ms. Raeesah Khan regarding her WhatsApp messages with Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan and Ms. Loh Pei Ying following her Oct 4, 2021, clarification in Parliament.
The court heard that Ms. Loh advised Ms. Khan to “lawyer up,” while Mr. Nathan cautioned her to be careful about what she told the lawyer.
Mr. Jumabhoy asks if the cadres had told Ms. Khan to own up to lying in Parliament.
She replies no.
He inquires if Ms. Loh’s advice was “effectively trying to block an investigation,” and she disagrees.
He then asks if Mr. Nathan was suggesting that she should not disclose everything to the lawyer.
Ms. Khan responds, “I think he’s just saying, be careful what you say to the lawyer.”
11:50
Pritam was not involved in the drafting of a statement about sexual assault survivors: Defence.
As court resumes after a 15-minute break, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questions Ms. Raeesah Khan about a statement she had drafted but did not use regarding how the Government dealt with survivors of sexual assault, which was “basically accusing the Government of doubting survivors.”
He suggests that while she had asked Pritam Singh on Oct 4, 2021, about what to do, at the same time, she was “able to respond to (Law and Home Affairs Minister) K. Shanmugam without being told what to do.”
“That’s all you, isn’t it?” he asks, to which she responds affirmatively.
She explains that the draft statement was written “in a fit of panic” and that it was not sent out to anyone besides Ms. Loh Pei Ying and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, who were aides she confided in.
He reconfirms that this statement was drafted solely by her, with no involvement from Singh. She agrees.
“The fact that there is no involvement by Singh in relation to all of this is because he’s never told you to lie,” says Mr. Jumabhoy.
Ms. Khan disagrees, stating, “The reason I lied, again, is because he came to my house and assured me that he wouldn’t judge me if I continued the narrative.”
11:17
‘I don’t see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction’: Judge Tan.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan reads the agreed statement of facts (SOF) and informs the counsels that he tends to agree with the prosecution that Ms. Raeesah Khan’s response to the question about why she did not tell the truth could not be interpreted in isolation, as there is a context leading up to it.
He states that there is no dispute that a discussion took place on Oct 3, as the SOF indicates that Pritam Singh visited Ms. Khan at her home.
Judge Tan adds that it appears Ms. Khan was specifically confronted by Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, which prompted her to send the message to Singh.
He notes that it could be argued that Ms. Khan’s response is consistent with what she had claimed Singh told her earlier.
“I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction,” he concludes.
11:15
Defence says Raeesah’s Oct 4 text to Pritam Singh provides grounds for impeachment, prosecutor argues otherwise.
Ms. Raeesah Khan’s Oct 4, 2021, text to Pritam Singh is “materially contradictory” to the evidence she provided in court, says Mr. Andre Jumabhoy.
He argues that the message contradicts Ms. Khan’s account on the first day of the trial. When asked why she continued the lie in Parliament, Ms. Khan stated she felt “confident that she had (Singh’s) support” after their meeting on Oct 3.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock contends that the text aligns with the essence of her evidence.
Ms. Khan did not receive the confirmation she claimed she wanted from Singh and continued to maintain the lie. “She just followed his existing advice,” says DAG Ang.
The court must consider all circumstances, not just the text, to determine if Ms. Khan should be impeached, DAG Ang asserts. Relying solely on the text is “completely inappropriate,” he adds, speaking quickly.
“I would say that there is no material discrepancy,” he concludes, asserting that the grounds for impeachment have not been met.
11:06
Raeesah Khan steps out of the courtroom as defence makes an application for impeachment.
The judge requests Ms. Raeesah Khan to leave the courtroom as Pritam Singh’s lawyers make an application for her impeachment.
The defence highlights Ms. Khan’s testimony about why she felt the need to maintain the lie, in which she stated she was terrified and that Singh had seemed supportive.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy continues, noting that Ms. Khan had mentioned Singh did not respond to her message on Oct 4, 2021, asking for advice, and she did not know what to do.
11:05
Defence says Raeesah’s Oct 4 text to Pritam Singh provides grounds for impeachment, prosecutor argues otherwise.
Ms. Raeesah Khan’s Oct 4, 2021, text to Pritam Singh is “materially contradictory” to the evidence she provided in court, says Mr. Andre Jumabhoy.
He argues that this contradicts Ms. Khan’s account on the first day of the trial. When asked why she continued the lie in Parliament, Ms. Khan stated she felt “confident that she had (Singh’s) support” after their meeting on Oct 3.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock counters that the text aligns with the essence of her evidence.
Ms. Khan did not receive the confirmation she claimed she wanted from Singh and continued to maintain the lie. “She just followed his existing advice,” says DAG Ang.
The court must consider all circumstances, not just the text, to determine if Ms. Khan should be impeached, says DAG Ang. Relying solely on the text is “completely inappropriate,” he adds, speaking quickly.
“I would say that there is no material discrepancy,” he concludes, asserting that the grounds for impeachment have not been met.
11:04
Pritam Singh’s lawyer says Raeesah Khan is contradicting herself.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy states that it is “frankly contradictory” that on one hand, Ms. Raeesah Khan claims Pritam Singh’s advice was to maintain her lie if she was not pressed, while on the other hand, she asserts that Singh told her he would not judge her if she continued her narrative.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock interjects, clarifying that the defence was referring to evidence from Aug 8, 2021, when he had been questioning Ms. Khan about her meeting with Singh on Oct 3.
Mr. Jumabhoy rephrases the question and asks whether her recollection of what Singh had told her was contradictory.
Ms. Khan responds that it was not contradictory, as Singh had come to her house on Oct 3 and said he would not judge her for continuing her narrative.
“So, that’s just the development of the conversation,” she adds.
10:45
No reason to text Pritam Singh on Oct 4 if he did tell her to continue narrative: Defence.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy argues that there was no reason for Ms. Raeesah Khan to text Pritam Singh during the Oct 4, 2021, meeting if she had clearly understood his instructions.
According to Ms. Khan, Singh had told her that he “would not judge her” during a meeting the night before the Parliament sitting. She understood this to mean he would not judge her if she chose to maintain her lie.
Shortly after Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam began questioning Ms. Khan about her anecdote, she texted Singh: “What should I do, Pritam?”
Ms. Khan states she sent the message because she still wanted reassurance from the Workers’ Party chief that he felt the same as he did the night before.
“When you’re in Parliament and you’re being confronted by Minister Shanmugam, I think anyone would question what their decision should be or what they should say,” she adds.
10:27
Defence brings up Raeesah’s earlier statement to COP.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy asks Ms. Raeesah Khan if she found the phrase “I won’t judge you” to be vague.
When she replies no, he continues: “So it’s crystal clear in your mind what it meant, correct?”
She agrees. He then refers to the transcript of her questioning by Senior Minister of State for Defence and Manpower Zaqy Mohamad in 2021, in which Mr. Zaqy said: “What if, after your statement, (Singh) comes and says you could have gone the other way because you misjudged his statement of ‘We won’t judge you.’”
At the time, Ms. Khan said that would be accurate, as it could be interpreted as a vague statement.
Mr. Zaqy had then asked her at the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing if “we won’t judge you” could have meant she could “go either way or be non-committal” about her untruth, and Ms. Khan replied that she did not know and did not want to assume.
“So, in court you say it’s crystal clear, and in the Committee of Privileges, you say it’s a vague statement he made,” says Mr. Jumabhoy.
Ms. Khan argues that Mr. Zaqy’s question wasn’t about her interpretation being different but about Singh possibly inferring his own words in his own way.
10:21
Raeesah Khan didn’t need a directive to lie, says defence.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy points out that by the time Ms. Raeesah Khan shared the false anecdote in Parliament, she had been serving as an MP for 13 months.
He refers to her statement during the Dec 22, 2021 Committee of Privileges hearing, where she mentioned that Pritam Singh did not give her a “directive” to clarify the falsehood.
“You’ve seen that, haven’t you, that you don’t need a directive to lie,” says Mr. Jumabhoy to Ms. Khan. She agrees.
He repeats the phrase several times, citing different instances where Ms. Khan had told untruths—in Parliament and to former Workers’ Party cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan.
“And you certainly didn’t need a directive when you lied to Pritam,” adds the lawyer. She agrees.
Mr. Jumabhoy then questions Ms. Khan on why she felt she needed a directive to tell the truth.
10:13
Pritam’s lawyer points out inconsistencies in Raeesah’s responses during COP versus her testimony in court.
Mr. Andre Jumabhoy continues to challenge Ms. Raeesah Khan’s testimony.
He notes that when she first gave evidence before the Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021, she stated that her interpretation of what Pritam Singh told her was that there would be no consequences if she continued the narrative.
She agrees.
He then highlights that in her testimony on Oct 15, 2024, she told the court that it was frightening to face the consequences of her actions.
“So, there’s no way you could have concluded that there would be no consequences for continuing the lie,” says Mr. Jumabhoy.
10:08
The defence suggests Raeesah lied about Pritam Singh telling her ‘no judgment’ on Oct 3, 2021.
The defence highlights that Pritam Singh had pointed out in an Oct 1, 2021 e-mail to Workers’ Party MPs the serious consequences of making claims in Parliament that could not be substantiated. However, Ms Raeesah Khan testified that two days later, he told her he would not judge her if she decided to maintain the lie.
“Would you agree that that’s simply absurd? It’s so absurd that, in fact, it didn’t happen,” Mr. Andre Jumabhoy asks, to which she replies no.
He then confirms with Ms. Khan if Singh ever told her to continue the narrative.
“Yes, he did,” she responds.
Mr. Jumabhoy then points out that any reasonable person would question why Singh was giving her two contradictory messages.
Ms. Khan replies: “Any reasonable person would question why he didn’t ask for more preparation then, if he wanted me to come out and tell the truth.”
To which Mr. Jumabhoy asks: “But you did not question him, did you?”
Ms. Khan says that was because Singh had told her he would not judge her if she kept up her narrative and left it at that.
09:52
The defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, continues to challenge Raeesah Khan on inconsistencies in her testimony. He presents a police statement dated May 12, 2022, where she recounted her meeting with Pritam Singh on Oct 3, 2021. In that statement, she mentioned that Singh had told her the topic might come up in Parliament the next day. However, during her testimony on the first day of the trial, she claimed Singh had told her the issue would not come up.
When initially asked about this discrepancy, Ms Khan did not acknowledge a difference, stating that both statements conveyed the same meaning in her view. After further pressing by Mr Jumabhoy, she eventually agreed that there was a difference between the two accounts.
09:25
What to Expect Today in Pritam Singh’s Trial
Today, we can expect the defence to complete its cross-examination of Raeesah Khan. After that, another witness is likely to be called to the stand. Key upcoming witnesses include former Workers’ Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang, as well as former party cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, who are expected to provide their perspectives on the events surrounding the case.
09:07
Pritam Singh Arrives for Third Day of Trial
Pritam Singh arrived at the courthouse around 9 a.m., accompanied once again by his lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy. Mr. Jumabhoy is expected to continue his cross-examination of Raeesah Khan as the trial progresses today.
08:50
Raeesah Khan Arrives for Third Day of Pritam Singh’s Trial
Ms. Raeesah Khan arrived at the courthouse around 8:50 a.m. today for the third day of Pritam Singh’s trial. Yesterday, the defence argued that there are grounds to impeach her as a witness, citing inconsistencies in her testimony. The judge is expected to review the impeachment request as the trial continues.
