| Daily Update of the Pritam Singh Trial – November 5, 2024 |
17:41
Court is adjourned
The trial of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh will resume tomorrow at 9.30am.
17:41
Role of WP disciplinary panel
Judge Luke Tan questions Pritam Singh on the scope of the Workers’ Party (WP) disciplinary panel formed to look into Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie.
Singh says the terms of reference of the panel had been made clear in a WhatsApp message he sent to the WP Central Executive Committee members to ask them to approve its formation.
He adds that Ms Sylvia Lim’s e-mail to Ms Khan asking her to appear before the panel had also informed her of the panel’s scope, which was to “look into her conduct arising from what had occurred in Parliament and to inquire into that particular conduct”.
He also says that under the WP Constitution, such panels usually look at conduct that is prejudicial to the welfare of the party.
17:37
Raeesah’s conduct was under review as she didn’t follow instructions on multiple occasions, says Pritam
Mr Andre Jumabhoy refers to a WhatsApp exchange between Pritam Singh and Ms Raeesah Khan on Nov 22, 2021, where she had asked for a second meeting with the Workers’ Party (WP) disciplinary panel.
She said she did not know the panel would discuss her character and behaviour as an MP and was thus unprepared during the first meeting.
Singh told Ms Khan that it was “precisely (her) character and behaviour” that was under review.
Mr Jumabhoy asks the WP chief what he meant in his reply.
Singh says he was informing Ms Khan that her character and behaviour were under review because of what she had done in Parliament.
Elaborating, he says: “I mean, she had not taken heed of instructions to substantiate; she had not followed up in ensuring that she could substantiate her anecdote.”
Ms Khan also did not “take ownership and responsibility” after he told her on Oct 3, 2021, that the lie might come up again in Parliament, he adds.
17:17
‘There was nothing for me to be afraid of’: Pritam
Then Workers’ Party cadre Loh Pei Ying had warned Pritam Singh about the danger of “cutting (Ms Khan) loose”, as the party would have no control over what she said at the Committee of Privileges (COP).
But Singh says there was nothing to fear. He was unconcerned about any allegations that Ms Raeesah Khan might make against him because party leaders had never told her to do “anything wrong”, says Singh.
“We never told her to take the lie to the grave,” he says.
“I wasn’t concerned about what she would do at the COP, because I never expected her to lie at the COP about what transpired on Oct 3 and what transpired on Aug 8.”
17:13
Raeesah Khan didn’t tell WP leaders that she stuck to her lie under their instructions, says Pritam Singh
Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks Pritam Singh about the Workers’ Party disciplinary panel’s meeting with Ms Raeesah Khan on Nov 8, 2021.
Singh says Ms Khan’s performance as an MP was discussed as the leaders had been “concerned about some feedback (they) had received about her and her contributions”, and wanted to check if Ms Khan’s own accounts were consistent with the feedback.
Mr Jumabhoy then asks if Ms Khan had suggested that she continued with the false narrative because of the directions she had received from the disciplinary panel.
Shaking his head, Singh replies: “Not at all, none whatsoever.”
17:10
Disciplinary panel was made up of 3 WP leaders at Low Thia Khiang’s suggestion
The Workers’ Party (WP) disciplinary panel was formed on Nov 1, 2021, on Mr Low Thia Khiang’s suggestion, says Pritam Singh.
The former WP chief had suggested that the panel consist of just Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, and Singh says he saw no reason to disagree due to the “sensitivity” of the issue.
“The matter involved something that Raeesah Khan shared with us and, out of courtesy, we had kept it to a small group of three of us,” he says.
Singh also says that he had informed former WP cadre member Loh Pei Ying on Nov 2 about the disciplinary panel, contrary to what she had told the court when on the stand.
He adds that he also informed Mr Yudhishthra Nathan separately.
This was before a message was sent out to all WP members on Nov 10 to ask if they wanted to submit their views on the matter.
Asked why he informed them earlier, Singh says there was “nothing untoward” about doing so as they had been involved in Ms Khan’s clarification statement.
16:59
No prepared replies for Raeesah Khan as ‘the truth was for her to share’: Pritam Singh
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy probes Pritam Singh on the preparation behind Ms Raeesah Khan’s responses in Parliament, asking why he did not script responses to potential questions that could surface in Parliament.
Singh says that the instruction to Ms Khan was to simply tell the truth.
“There was no preparation with regard to what possible questions could be put to her in Parliament,” says Singh.
He adds that he did not want to script this beyond a personal statement, as “the truth was for her to share”.
“I had no concern, no doubt that once the personal statement was made, that she would have had to clarify any question put to her by any MP as appropriate,” he says.
16:50
WP executive committee meeting called to ‘lock in’ Raeesah Khan’s statement, says Pritam
On Oct 29, 2021, the Workers’ Party Central Executive Committee (CEC) met Ms Raeesah Khan to hear her deliver her personal statement.
The meeting was called as the CEC had not known at that point what had transpired in Parliament on Aug 3 and Oct 4, 2021. Singh wanted Ms Khan to read the statement and “have that locked in” and for members to put any questions they might have to her.
He was concerned she might go off script in Parliament, says Singh.
At no point in the meeting did Ms Khan say she had been following the party leadership’s instructions when she repeated the lie, says Singh.
16:47
No party strategy that Raeesah Khan should maintain the lie: Pritam
Mr Yudhishthra Nathan had testified that he questioned Pritam Singh on the change in party strategy when it was decided that Ms Raeesah Khan would come clean.
Singh denies any such strategy, or that Mr Nathan had even questioned him about a party strategy.
He also rejected the testimonies of Ms Khan’s former assistants, Mr Nathan and Ms Loh Pei Ying, who had brought up the impossibility of Ms Khan admitting to lying without any preparation done before.
“I disagree because the only thing Ms Khan had to do was to tell the truth in Parliament.”
Whatever preparations Ms Loh and Mr Nathan considered necessary, such as the management of communications and review of the draft statement, were “not central to the clarification in Parliament at all”, says Singh.
16:46
Raeesah Khan had to draft her own statement
Pritam Singh says Workers’ Party cadre members Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan had offered to draft a statement for Ms Raeesah Khan, but he insisted on Ms Khan taking ownership and responsibility by writing it herself.
He did not object to Ms Loh’s offer to help to edit the statement as long as the truth of the matter had come from Ms Khan, he adds.
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks why WP leaders did not discuss with Ms Khan how the statement would be drafted during their meeting earlier on Oct 3, 2021. Singh says that it was “unimportant insofar as her clarification in Parliament was concerned”.
Singh was also asked about Mr Nathan being put in charge of the communications surrounding Ms Khan’s clarification in Parliament. The WP leader says he did not object to this arrangement as communications was “peripheral” to Ms Khan’s admission in Parliament.
“They really were unimportant. Insofar as her clarification in Parliament was concerned, it didn’t matter what happened. The minute she would have gone out and said I told a lie two times, the party would have taken a hit, and we would have to accept the hit,” he says.
“For me, the critical thing was ensuring she did not tell another lie in Parliament.”
16:35
Pritam Singh says he rejected Yudhishthra Nathan’s ‘ridiculous suggestion’ to ‘triple down on lie’
Pritam Singh recalls his Oct 12, 2021, meeting with Workers’ Party (WP) cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan, right after he met Ms Raeesah Khan and Ms Sylvia Lim.
Singh says the then cadres “did not appear keen” on Ms Khan coming clean, and Mr Nathan had suggested continuing the lie and said that any clarification made in Parliament should just state that Ms Khan could not confirm the victim’s details.
Singh says he does not remember the exact words uttered by Mr Nathan, but says it was clear that his suggestion was “almost a case of tripling down on her lie by manufacturing some other facts”.
The WP chief says he rejected Mr Nathan’s “ridiculous suggestion” and said Ms Khan would have to clarify and make a personal statement.
“They weren’t so convinced,” says Singh.
Singh then says he recalls telling Ms Loh and Mr Nathan that he had on Oct 3, 2021, told Ms Khan to take ownership and responsibility, and that he would not judge her, but she did not heed his instructions.
16:33
Sylvia Lim raised her voice at Raeesah Khan: Singh
At the meeting between Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 12, 2021, Ms Khan initially resisted Singh’s instructions to admit to her lie in Parliament in a statement she would draft, says Singh.
At this point, Ms Lim, who does not usually shout, “raised her voice at Raeesah”, says Singh.
The Oct 12, 2021, meeting is understood to be the first time Singh had explicitly told Ms Khan what she would need to do to come clean in Parliament.
16:32
Team sought Low Thia Kiang’s opinion on press conference
Court resumes after a 15-minute break and defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Pritam Singh about an Oct 11, 2021, meeting with former opposition leader Low Thia Khiang and Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim at Mr Low’s home.
Singh says the meeting was “quite unremarkable” as he and Ms Lim had already decided that Ms Raeesah Khan would have to make a clarification in Parliament, and Mr Low shared their view.
He added that there was a particular point they wanted to seek Mr Low’s views on, about holding a press conference for Ms Khan to clarify her lie.
Asked about why they wanted to hold a press conference, Singh says, it would have been a quicker way to bring the issue to light, as the next Parliament sitting would be in November.
Singh also says that a press conference would not have obviated the need for Ms Khan to make a personal statement in Parliament, because “the untruth was uttered in Parliament and you would still have to go to Parliament to clarify the anecdote”.
16:07
Anything done in Parliament would have to be resolved in Parliament: Pritam
Near the end of the short meeting between Ms Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh and Ms Raeesah Khan after she lied in Parliament again on Oct 4, 2021, Ms Lim had advised Ms Khan to seek legal advice, says Singh.
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam had mentioned further police investigations.
Singh says: “As opposition MPs, we take our parliamentary privilege and our rights very seriously, we take the separation of powers very seriously. And for us, anything that had been done in Parliament has to be resolved in Parliament, and Parliament has the powers to address these matters.”
Still, since there was a likelihood of Ms Khan being investigated by the police, it would be important for her to understand her rights and obligations, says Singh.
Between Oct 4, 2021, and Oct 12 that year – when Singh next met Ms Khan – Singh says he had decided that she would have to clarify the lie in Parliament. Ms Lim agreed with him, but was also thinking of a press conference as a more immediate way of dealing with the issue.
15:52
Time too short to clarify lie by Oct 5: Pritam Singh
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Pritam Singh why Ms Raeesah Khan did not clarify the false anecdote at the Parliament sitting on Oct 5, 2021, a day after she lied again.
Singh says there was not enough time to close the issue with Ms Khan, as he and the other Workers’ Party leaders also had to find out why she decided to lie again.
“The matter took on a very different tone by that point. Once I had come to the view that she was alluding to tell the truth, I was prepared to not rush it (and) take my time to look at the clarification statement that she would make in Parliament,” he says.
15:50
Being ‘sensitive and gentle’ with Raeesah Khan had made things worse: Singh
Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim briefly met Ms Raeesah Khan after she doubled down on her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
He was standing while Ms Khan sat as he asked her to explain what she had done, says Singh.
Ms Khan was in a daze and suggested there could be another way, which was to tell the truth, says Singh.
He then retorted angrily: “Look at the choice you’ve made.”
However, a part of him was assured that since she had made “an allusion to telling the truth”, the truth would come up in Parliament and it would be clarified, he says.
No resolution was made in that 10-minute meeting because it was late in the night, Parliament was sitting the next day and “things had changed after what she had done on Oct 4”, says Singh.
“It was clear that I would have to take a different approach with her. The approach to be a bit sensitive and gentle towards her, to tell her to settle herself, had actually made things worse and I decided I would be following up with her closely,” says Singh.
15:44
Pritam Singh says he was ‘incredibly disappointed’
On Oct 4, 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan continued the lie in Parliament and said that she could not get in touch with the sexual assault victim whom she had mentioned in her false anecdote.
Asked by defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy on his reaction to Ms Khan’s statement, Pritam Singh tells the court he was “incredibly disappointed” because Ms Khan did not take the opportunity to clarify the untruth.
Mr Jumabhoy also asked why Singh did not respond to Ms Khan’s text message to him: “What should I do Pritam”, when Law Minister K. Shanmugam was speaking.
Singh said he did not see her message as he was listening to Mr Shanmugam.
15:42
Pritam says he told Raeesah at Oct 3, 2021, meeting that he will not judge her if she comes clean
Pritam Singh recounts his Oct 3, 2021, meeting with Ms Raeesah Khan at her house, a day before the Parliament sitting where Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam pressed her about the anecdote.
Ms Khan’s mother had taken Singh aside and asked if “Parliament could not be so serious”, he recalls. “I told her, ‘Auntie, Parliament is very serious’.”
Singh had told Ms Khan that her anecdote would come up in Parliament, and if it did, she “would have to take ownership and responsibility”, he says.
When Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks what the Workers’ Party chief meant by taking “ownership and responsibility”, Singh says: “In my view, those words were clear that she had to tell the truth.”
Singh says Ms Khan started to get “a little nervous and uncomfortable” when he told her to take ownership and responsibility.
“And I followed that up by telling her ‘I will not judge you’. And what I meant by that was, I will not judge you if you take ownership and responsibility.”
The conversation with Ms Khan was “short” and Singh was at her house for about 30 minutes, he says.
15:31
E-mail to WP MPs on parliamentary protocol was directed at Raeesah Khan: Singh
An e-mail from Pritam Singh to Workers’ Party (WP) MPs sent on Oct 1, 2021, about the importance of substantiating remarks made in Parliament was directed at Ms Raeesah Khan, he says.
Singh says preparation for the WP’s debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act had led him to a past parliamentary exchange about the Hendrickson affair between then MP Chiam See Tong and PAP MPs that concerned substantiating what he said in Parliament and not leaving an unsubstantiated remark on the record.
Ms Khan’s still-unclarified lie in Parliament and the fact that he had not spoken to her about it at that point “jogged” him into reminding himself that the issue was still not settled, says Singh.
“It was relevant to all the other MPs and hence I sent it to the WP MPs,” says Singh. But it was directed at Ms Khan, he adds.
“It was the start of this process in my mind to let her know that this issue was still not settled.”
When Ms Khan testified in court on Oct 15, 2024, she had said she did not consider this e-mail from Singh as a prompt to clarify her untruth. She felt that it was a dig at her and also a way to placate the other WP MPs.
15:22
No steps taken to clarify the lie in September 2021: Singh
Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie was not clarified during the September 2021 Parliament sitting, as she had shingles around a week before the sitting, Pritam Singh says.
At the time, the Workers’ Party (WP) was busy preparing for the parliamentary session on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, which the party had objected to, says Singh.
“This was a significant Bill,” he says, adding that WP filed at least 30 to 40 amendments to the whole Bill.
As the party Whip, it was Singh’s job to vet the speeches of the WP MPs and ensure the speeches are consistent with the party’s position, says Singh.
He also had to attend to other responsibilities, including party and town council matters.
“Like most Singaporeans, you have your issues at home,” says Singh, adding that he and his wife were also busy looking for a school for his daughter, who did not get her desired primary school posting.
15:17
Pritam says anecdote was not brought up during Aug 10, 2021, meeting with Loh Pei Ying
Pritam Singh says that Ms Loh Pei Ying did not ask him about Ms Raeesah Khan’s anecdote during their meeting on Aug 10, 2021.
Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks if Singh had discussed the Aug 8, 2021, meeting with Ms Loh. Singh replies no.
The lawyer asks if Ms Loh had asked him if the untruth would come up again. Singh again says no.
Mr Jumabhoy then asks when Singh first heard about the suggestion that Ms Loh had during the Aug 10 meeting asked him whether the lie would be brought up again.
Singh replies: “In this courtroom.”
Earlier during the trial, Ms Loh, a prosecution witness, told the court that she had asked Singh on Aug 10 if the Home Affairs Ministry would follow up with the anecdote.
Ms Loh had also said in court that her recollection of the Aug 10 meeting was “fuzzy”.
15:16
Loh Pei Ying told him sexual assault victims have a tendency to lie: Pritam Singh
On Aug 10, 2021, Pritam Singh met Workers’ Party cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan at his home. The meeting had been scheduled in July, as Ms Loh wanted to discuss what should be done about members and volunteers who made “unbecoming” remarks online.
The bulk of the meeting that day was about these errant members and volunteers, whom Ms Loh had complained about over their online comments on the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, or Ceca, and the LGBTQ issue, says Singh.
Later on, Ms Loh shared details about victims of sexual assault and “how they have a tendency to lie”, says Singh, adding that Mr Nathan had not arrived yet at that time.
Singh says he understood Ms Loh’s comments to be a reference to Ms Khan, as the MP had earlier told him that Ms Loh and Mr Nathan knew about her sexual assault.
15:05
‘I know how the PAP operates’: Pritam Singh
Pritam Singh says he did not ask Ms Raeesah Khan to continue to lie, adding that he was sure the matter would be followed up by the Government.
Then Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan had made it clear that Ms Khan’s claims would not be swept aside, says Singh.
“I know how the PAP operates,” Singh tells the court, adding that the ruling party would jump at the chance to fix an opposition MP.
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks if Singh had made a decision by Aug 8, 2021, on what should be done about Ms Khan’s lie.
Singh says a specific decision had not been made as he had considered Ms Khan’s fragile state and decided it would be better for her to settle her personal matters first.
15:02
Pritam Singh says he did not tell Raeesah Khan to take her lie to the grave
During the meeting on Aug 8, 2021, the Workers’ Party leaders and Ms Raeesah Khan “did not come to a landing” on what Ms Khan was supposed to do about the anecdote, says Pritam Singh.
Singh says that as Ms Khan left his house after the meeting, he had told her to speak to her parents regarding her lie.
When Judge Luke Tan asks Singh for his exact words to Ms Khan, Singh replies: “It’s quite some time ago. I would have told her, I certainly told her, ‘Speak to your parents. We’ll talk about that matter, we’ll talk about that issue’.”
Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks Singh: “During the meeting, did you tell her to continue the narrative if not pressed?”
Singh replies that he did not.
The lawyer asks: “During this meeting on Aug 8 with Ms Raeesah Khan, did you tell her to take the lie to the grave?”
Singh again replies that he did not.
Singh says that as at the meeting on Aug 8, he had not made a decision on what to do about the untruth, but “knew that the matter would have to be clarified”.
“But because of Ms Khan’s state, in my judgment, I determined it would be better for her to settle herself, and then we would deal with the matter when she was ready,” he says.
14:52
Pritam Singh recounts August 2021 meeting at his house
At the meeting with Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap on Aug 8, 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan broke down, crying “quite uncontrollably”, when she revealed she had been raped in the past.
“We are shocked. I think everybody around the table is shocked,” says Singh.
Ms Khan then said only her husband, her therapist, Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishsthra Nathan knew about her past assault.
Mr Faisal mentioned counselling and Singh asked her, “instinctively”, if her parents knew, because “for such a personal issue, I think one would want to let those close to oneself – in this case her parents – know,” he says.
The conversation then moved to what Singh says was more “politically pressing” at that time – the reactions of some in the Muslim community to her speech on Muslim issues. Singh says this had been the original reason the meeting was called.
The WP leaders did not ask Ms Khan more about the assault because they took her at her word and she was “very emotional”, says Singh.
14:48
‘I’m the secretary-general of this party, I want to know whether this happened or not’: Pritam
Pritam Singh recounts a phone call he had with Ms Raeesah Khan on Aug 7, 2021, when she said she could not reach the rape victim mentioned in the anecdote she raised in Parliament.
Singh says Ms Khan asked “whether there is such a thing as confidentiality”, in reply to his repeated demands for more details.
“I told her, ‘look I’m the secretary-general of this party and I want to know whether this happened or not’,” he says.
“And she told me abruptly that no, it did not happen,” Singh adds, in reference to Ms Khan’s claim that she accompanied a victim to a police station.
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Singh what his response was to Ms Khan’s reply.
Singh says he was very upset and that he had cut the call, telling her that they would discuss this later.
He did not speak to Ms Khan until Aug 8, when they met with WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap.
14:39
Court resumes with Pritam’s testimony
Court resumes with defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy reading out messages between Ms Raeesah Khan and Pritam Singh that took place between Aug 4 and 5, 2021.
On Aug 5, 2021, Singh texted Ms Khan about the rape victim she claimed to have accompanied: “Curiously, any luck contacting the lady in question?”
He also asked what group had put Ms Khan in touch with the victim.
Singh felt Ms Khan’s answers in Parliament a few days ago were “defensive” and that “there was something more to this”. He was already wondering about “the truth behind her anecdote”.
12:50
Court will resume at 2.30pm
The court breaks for lunch.
12:50
No other witnesses for defence
Mr Andre Jumabhoy says the defence does not intend to call any witnesses besides Pritam Singh at this stage.
12:48
Pritam says Raeesah should ‘square away’ the issue like a responsible MP would
Pritam Singh says that after he met Ms Raeesah Khan at his office, she shared a draft clarification sent to her by then WP cadre Yudhishthra Nathan, which was so scant on details that “the assumption will be that this episode was made up”.
The draft did not address the point that Ms Khan had made about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station, and when he pointed it out, Ms Khan asked if it would help if “someone else came forward with their experience”.
Singh tells the court that it appeared Ms Khan “did not want to deal with the anecdote”, but he told her that since the anecdote was highlighted, she would “have to square away the issue like a responsible MP would”.
He says that he did not find it difficult to clarify then Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan’s questions.
“In the course of Parliament exchanges, it is normal for MPs to stand up and clarify aspects of another MP’s speeches… Any responsible MP would just reply to the questions,” he says.
Eventually, Singh drafted a clarification for Ms Khan, which he suggested she read out in Parliament before the end of the debate on the motion on women’s empowerment. He sent her this draft via WhatsApp.
Ms Khan edited the draft before she delivered it in Parliament, adding a line to say that she believed “consent is imperative, not least to avoid re-victimisation”.
12:29
Raeesah Khan cried in Pritam Singh’s office after she lied in Parliament
Ms Raeesah Khan was waiting for Pritam Singh in his office after Mr Desmond Tan, then Minister of State for Home Affairs, pressed her for more details about the rape victim anecdote in Parliament.
He was informed by his legislative assistant that Ms Khan was waiting for him in the office and crying, says Singh.
“I didn’t quite understand what that was about, so I leave the chamber, I go to my office and I essentially instruct Raeesah to just clarify, give the minister of state the details he was requesting.
“But she said she couldn’t contact that person and she wasn’t sure if she could contact that person.”
12:24
What Pritam meant by ‘substantiate’
Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks Pritam Singh what he meant when he circled Ms Raeesah Khan’s anecdote in her speech and wrote “substantiate” next to it.
Singh says: “I meant that she would have to explain further the details that she was highlighting in the anecdote.
“The details here are scanty and she would have to justify, or she could expect to be asked to justify this particular anecdote.”
During the Aug 3, 2021, Parliament sitting, Mr Desmond Tan, then Minister of State for Home Affairs, had asked Ms Khan for more details about the anecdote. He said the allegation of the police mishandling a sexual assault case was serious and should be investigated.
Mr Jumabhoy reads out a message Singh had sent Ms Khan just minutes after Mr Tan’s question, where he said: “I had a feeling this would happen. I highlighted this part in your draft speech. We should write in formally to the police with clarifications to address this matter.”
Mr Singh says he was asking Ms Khan to request from the police details that Mr Tan had asked for.
“I did not feel that those details were going to be difficult for her to provide and she just had to give them to the minister,” he says.
12:22
Pritam Singh anticipated questions on Raeesah Khan’s rape victim anecdote
The Workers’ Party chief says he saw Ms Raeesah Khan’s false anecdote only on the morning of the Parliament sitting as it was added to her speech late the night before.
He sensed the “scanty” anecdote would have to be backed up: “I could expect someone in Parliament to stand up and say, look, when did this happen, what happened…”
Singh says he printed a copy of the speech in his office, circled the anecdote and jotted “substantiate” next to it. He then got an assistant to pass the copy to Ms Khan.
12:20
WP MPs have to upload parliamentary speeches on portal: Pritam Singh
Explaining the workflow for Workers’ Party MPs, Pritam Singh says MPs are required to upload their draft Parliament speeches to a portal about four to seven days before each sitting.
The shared portal, accessible to all the WP MPs, is designed to ensure the team is aware of what will be said in Parliament.
The portal also allows Singh, the party whip, to check if any of the speeches contradict the party position and also catch arguments that can be “pounced upon” by PAP MPs as problematic, Singh says.
He adds that any MP is free to pass comments on the drafts, as all MPs should be on board with the party’s position on issues. MPs type their comments into the portal, which then show up in highlighted text attributed to the MP who is making the comment.
12:14
Pritam Singh says he expected Sengkang team to encourage Raeesah Khan amid her self-doubt as MP
Mr Andre Jumabhoy asks Pritam Singh to refer to an Aug 4, 2021, text message exchange with Ms Raeesah Khan, a day after she first lied in Parliament.
Ms Khan had messaged Singh: “I wonder, Pritam, if I’m not cut out for this.”
Singh tells Mr Jumabhoy he thought Ms Khan was referring to her role as an MP.
In Singh’s reply to Ms Khan, he asked her to speak to her Sengkang GRC teammates to get feedback.
As to why he asked her to do that, he tells Mr Jumabhoy that he expected her teammates to encourage her.
Singh says: “I expected them to say, ‘Look, you’re part of the team, just keep your head up, keep your chin up, and do the work.’
“And I followed up by telling her that it’s okay to conclude you’re not cut out for something, but never ever look back with regret. This is something I commonly say to people.”
12:04
Pritam Singh outlines workload as opposition MP, relationship with WP cadres
When asked by defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, Pritam Singh describes his workload.
He has to research and prepare responses to parliamentary motions, attend meetings on town council matters such as cleanliness issues, and at times, be involved in closed-door discussions with members of the church and those from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to help build bridges.
“Unlike PAP MPs, our work does not involve People’s Association people… (it) commonly has a constituency director, who assists in managing constituency affairs,” Singh says, adding that much of the opposition MPs’ work is carried out by themselves.
He adds that he gave up his full-time job as a lawyer to devote his full attention to his constituency duties and his role as an MP.
When he became the Workers’ Party secretary-general in 2018, he had to take on more work. For example, he would have to interview every new member who asked to join the party.
As the Leader of the Opposition, he also has to oversee all his party members’ parliamentary speeches.
Ms Loh Pei Ying was Pritam Singh’s secretarial assistant, the one coordinating his Meet-the-People sessions, from 2011 to 2020. The pair did not really have any disagreements in that time, says Singh.
Singh and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan met in 2013 when Mr Nathan was volunteering for Ms Lee Li Lian, who was fielded by the Workers’ Party in the Punggol East by-election that year. After that, Mr Nathan assisted the WP media team in various capacities. There were no disagreements except Mr Nathan’s “unusual” objection to a public speech Singh had made on WP’s position on the LGBTQ issue in 2019, says Singh.
Mr Nathan had put up a social media post detailing his dissent.
12:00
Why Pritam Singh chose Raeesah Khan to be an MP
The Worker’s Party chief met Ms Raeesah Khan at a Meet-the-People session in 2019, and she became his case writer after. Her role was to summarise resident issues for Pritam Singh to read before he spoke to residents.
It became clear to him that “she was a person who was very empathetic to the concerns of residents”, he says. “She listened intently, carefully and had patience.”
These were good traits for public service, adds Singh.
After observing her work for a few months, he deployed her to what later became Sengkang GRC, which needed a Malay candidate.
“Given that I had observed Ms Khan on the ground for a number of months already, I felt that there was some potential there. I asked her whether she would be keen on candidature and she said she was,” says Singh.
11:42
Pritam Singh takes the witness stand
Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh has been sworn in and is now answering questions from his lawyer Andre Jumabhoy on his duties as an MP and a councillor of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.
11:01
Pritam Singh will take stand
“I elect to give evidence before the court,” says Pritam Singh.
He will speak under oath, first answering questions from his lawyer Andre Jumabhoy before being cross-examined by the prosecution.
He is now consulting Mr Jumabhoy. Court will resume at 11.30am.
10:58
Pritam has to answer to charges, says judge
Judge Luke Tan says that the requirements to call upon the defence for both charges are satisfied.
The judge asks Pritam Singh to stand and tells him: “I find that the prosecution has made out a case against you on the charges on which you are being tried.”
He adds: “There’s some evidence that is not inherently incredible that satisfies each and every element of the charges.”
The judge tells Singh that he can give evidence from the witness stand under oath or remain silent.
10:54
Charges are good, no amendment needed: Judge
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan says the current wording of the charges causes no prejudice or unfairness to Pritam Singh. The charges give Singh sufficient notice of what he is charged with, and nor has Singh said that he does not understand the charges.
The defence also did not raise the issue of defective charges earlier in the proceedings, he adds.
The judge says that since Singh had given incomplete answers to the Committee of Privileges, it would be unwieldy to include all answers running up to at least 15 pages for the first charge, hence the prosecution’s move to set out the thrust of his answers.
The main text of the second charge also sets out Singh’s answers in gist, he says.
10:49
No need for a singular answer to a singular question: Prosecution
Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock argues that summarising Pritam Singh’s answers during the Committee of Privileges (COP) does not result in any prejudice or unfairness to him.
DAG Ang notes that the defence never denied what Singh said during the COP.
He adds that the COP had also put questions to Singh about what transpired on Aug 8 and Oct 3, 2021, and Singh had repeated his answers “so many times, he didn’t say it by accident”.
As to whether the law requires that the false answer must be a singular answer given to a singular question, DAG Ang says that while Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act uses the singular, the Interpretation Act makes it clear that words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.
He adds that the purpose of the charges is to allow the accused to know what case he has to answer and to direct the court also to look at what must be proven or not proven. In this case, there can be no doubt what the case is as the minutes of evidence annexed to the charges make it quite clear.
“He knows exactly what the case is to be,” says DAG Ang.
10:24
Judge presses defence on its ‘one question, one answer’ position
Pritam Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy argues that the charge of a false answer must refer to one answer given to one question, and the prosecution’s “amalgamation” of Singh’s answers to the Committee of Privileges was thus unacceptable.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan then queries if the defence meant answers to necessary follow-up questions could not be “put together” and taken as an answer to essentially the same question.
Mr Jumabhoy says: “Essentially, yes.”
The judge asks again whether “bit responses” or answers in parts could not be combined and recognised as a single answer to what is “essentially a single question”.
Again, Mr Jumabhoy says yes.
10:20
False answer should not be based on patchwork of statements: Defence
Responding to the prosecution’s written submissions, lawyer Andre Jumabhoy says Pritam Singh did not use the words former Workers’ Party member Raeesah Khan had alleged that he said to her after her lie in Parliament in August 2021.
Mr Jumabhoy says Singh did not tell Ms Khan to “take it (the lie) to the grave” or to “continue the narrative”, and he did not tell her that he would not judge her for continuing the lie.
If the prosecution says Singh had lied, it should be able to point out that “this is the question that was asked of you, and this was the false answer you gave” at the Committee of Privileges.
The defence says the prosecution should not rely on a patchwork of statements, which were not uttered by Singh himself.
10:00
Defence says there is no case for Pritam Singh to answer to
The defence filed written submissions on Oct 30 asserting that Pritam Singh has no case to answer for both charges he faces, despite earlier indications that it would do so only for the first charge.
In court, Mr Andre Jumabhoy says both charges “must necessarily fail” as they do not set out the questions by the Committee of Privileges, or the alleged false answers Singh gave to those questions.
“What the prosecution is essentially doing is conflating what is required for the purpose of the charge with what is required for the elements of the offence,” he says.
09:46
The trial begins
The trial has begun, with Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan thanking both the prosecution and defence for their written submissions, and saying he has read them.
09:23
Pritam Singh arrives
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has arrived with his lawyers at the State Courts for what is set to be the 10th day of his trial.
When asked if he would be taking the stand, Singh replies: “See what happens in court.”
