October 17, 2024 Update: Pritam Singh’s Trial for Alleged Misrepresentation in Parliament

18:16

18:12

Loh Pei Ying redacted Yudhishthra Nathan’s message as she didn’t want him to appear poorly, she says

Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questioned Ms. Loh Pei Ying about why she chose to redact the message sent by Yudhishthra Nathan. He asked, “It was to hide information, wasn’t it? To hide information on the issue Parliament was deciding? To preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity? To preserve your integrity and to preserve Raeesah Khan’s integrity?”

Ms. Loh responded repeatedly, “I wouldn’t say that.”

Judge Luke Tan interjected, asking, “Then what would you say?”

Ms. Loh explained that she redacted the message because Mr. Nathan had felt guilty about his suggestion, and she did not want the message to make him look bad, particularly since he had eventually changed his mind. She noted that during the Oct 12, 2021, meeting with Pritam Singh and herself, Mr. Nathan had brought up the message, and Mr. Singh had made it clear that Mr. Nathan’s suggestion to “not give too many details” was not a good one.

Ms. Loh further stated that when submitting evidence to the Committee of Privileges, she assessed the message as “not material to investigations,” which is why she redacted it. She also mentioned that she and her former Workers’ Party colleagues had come clean to the police about the message during the police investigation.

Mr. Jumabhoy then asked, “Pritam Singh shot (Yudhishthra Nathan’s suggestion) down, right? He shot it down?”

Ms. Loh confirmed, “Yes, he did shoot it down.”

18:04

Defence says Loh Pei Ying redacted Yudhishthra Nathan’s message to preserve their credibility

The defence highlighted the redacted message in documents submitted to the Committee of Privileges (COP) and put to Ms. Loh Pei Ying that there was “a lot of trust by the COP that you would not try to deceive”.

Ms. Loh responded, “There is not a lot of trust involved,” and asked to clarify how she prepared the documents.

Mr. Andre Jumabhoy pressed further, saying: “It is clear from what you are doing here, the reason you are taking this out is because it gives a bad impression of what Mr. (Yudhishthra) Nathan is saying.” Ms. Loh agreed.

He added, “And that doesn’t look great on your group,” to which Ms. Loh replied, “That doesn’t look good on him.”

The defence then suggested that the three of them had decided to hide the message to preserve their credibility. Ms. Loh admitted that she was concerned the documents would become public and did not want Mr. Nathan to be attacked for his comment.

She explained that she had prepared the documents while sitting next to parliamentary staff and MP Rahayu Mahzam, who reviewed the document. “They read every single message before I redacted it,” Ms. Loh told the court, adding that they went through all the messages “that were relevant to the COP” and mutually agreed on what could and could not be redacted.

Ms. Loh insisted that her intention in redacting the message was not to interfere with the COP investigations, but to protect Mr. Nathan from any backlash over his comment.

18:01

Loh Pei Ying admits to lying about the reason she redacted a message in documents submitted to Committee of Privileges

The defence referred to a message from Oct 12, 2021, which Ms. Loh Pei Ying had redacted in documents submitted to the Committee of Privileges (COP). Ms. Loh had previously stated that the redaction was made because it was a comment about an unrelated MP.

However, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy, reading out the message from Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, quoted: “In the first place, I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts about her age accurate.”

Mr. Jumabhoy pressed Ms. Loh, saying, “But you’ve redacted it on the basis that it’s about another MP… that’s not true, isn’t it?”

Ms. Loh admitted, “That is not true.”

Mr. Jumabhoy then said, “That’s a barefaced lie, isn’t it?” to which she replied, “Sure.”

When asked if she had deliberately concealed Mr. Nathan’s comments when submitting the document to the COP, Ms. Loh admitted, “I hid this comment, yes.”

As Mr. Jumabhoy continued to press, she acknowledged, “Yes,” when asked if she hid it on the basis that it was about something else.

Mr. Jumabhoy: “You hid (the comment) on the basis that it was about something else.”

Ms. Loh: “Yes.”

Mr. Jumabhoy: “That’s a lie.”

Ms. Loh: “Yes.”

Mr. Jumabhoy: “It clearly isn’t about the issue at hand.”

Ms. Loh: “It’s about her anecdote, yes.”

Mr. Jumabhoy: “It’s clearly about not coming clean at that stage.”

Ms. Loh: “Yes.”

Mr. Jumabhoy concluded by saying, “And Yudhishthra Nathan is suggesting that we should just lie about it some more.”

Ms. Loh responded, “That is Yudhishthra Nathan’s suggestion, yes.”

17:33

Loh Pei Ying wanted to find other stories to support Raeesah Khan’s anecdote

Mr. Andre Jumabhoy referenced a message exchange between Ms. Loh Pei Ying and Ms. Raeesah Khan on Oct 7, 2021, three days after Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam had questioned Ms. Khan about her anecdote in Parliament.

Mr. Jumabhoy read out a message from Ms. Loh to Ms. Khan, which said: “You might want to gather some cases of people who are willing to tell their stories to you and present that instead.”

The defence lawyer suggested that Ms. Loh was encouraging Ms. Khan to cover her lie by using other stories, potentially “obstructing an investigation.”

Ms. Loh responded by clarifying that her intent was to help Ms. Khan substantiate her point — that sexual assault victims often face victim blaming — by finding other stories that demonstrated this issue.

She explained that this approach represented a “grey area to operate” in, allowing Ms. Khan to “avoid lying again while still addressing her original point in Parliament.”

When Mr. Jumabhoy asked her to clarify what she meant by “grey area,” Ms. Loh explained, “The grey area between not lying anymore but still supporting police investigations.”

The judge interjected, asking, “Police investigations into what, by using these other analogies?”

Ms. Loh clarified, “Supporting police investigations into the fact that police can make sexual assault victims uncomfortable.”

The judge then asked, “So not the police investigations into her anecdotes?”

Ms. Loh confirmed, “That’s right.”

16:43

Loh Pei Ying can’t remember if Raeesah shared Pritam’s email on parliamentary protocol with her

Mr Andre Jumabhoy brought up an email that Pritam Singh had sent to all sitting Workers’ Party MPs on Oct 1, 2021, concerning parliamentary protocol.

In the email, Singh emphasised the importance of backing up and defending their statements made in Parliament to avoid being summoned by the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Jumabhoy then asked Ms Loh if she was aware of the email. She responded that Ms Khan had informed her that Singh had circulated an email, but she could not remember if the email itself had been shared with her.

When pressed about the medium through which she learned of the email—whether it was via email or text—Ms Loh stated, “If it was shared, it would have been by text.”

Mr Jumabhoy continued to inquire about when she received this text, to which Ms Loh replied that she could not recall.

He then asked if Ms Khan had mentioned anything about the risks of being summoned by the Committee of Privileges. Once again, Ms Loh stated that she could not recall the messages, explaining, “It’s been a while.”

16:30

How can you ask if there’s a different answer if the question isn’t the same? Judge tells defence

The defence asked Ms Loh Pei Ying whether Mr Singh had informed her during the Aug 10, 2021, meeting that the matter of Ms Raeesah Khan’s untruth would not come up again, and what her inquiries to him regarding the issue were.

She responded that her memory of the conversation is “fuzzy.”

Mr Andre Jumabhoy then pointed out that she had previously stated in court that Mr Singh was nodding his head during their conversation, but she later revised this to say he had been “shaking his head.”

Ms Loh clarified that he was indeed shaking his head, not nodding.

Mr Jumabhoy continued to press her about the differing account she had given during the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing regarding her recollection of the meeting.

During her questioning by Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong, Ms Loh had mentioned that although they did not explicitly discuss the matter at the meeting, Mr Singh’s acknowledgment of the issue led her to believe he was aware of Ms Khan’s lie.

At this point, the judge interjected, stating, “The question that was asked at the COP is not the same question you are asking now. Then how can you ask if there’s a different answer?”

He continued, “Your point seems to be asking why you are giving a different answer, but if you’re asking a different question, I don’t know what else you can expect.”

16:03

Defence asks for more details of Loh Pei Ying’s Aug 10 meeting with Pritam

Mr Andre Jumabhoy questions Ms Loh Pei Ying about her recollection of her meeting with Pritam Singh on Aug 10, 2021.

“At this meeting, did you ask Pritam Singh if the untruth would come up again?” he asks her.

“I didn’t ask if the untruth would be coming up again. I asked if the minister or ministry would follow up on the matter, like (if) they would ask again in Parliament,” she replies.

When pressed if that was her recollection, she says that part of her memory is “fuzzy”.

Mr Jumabhoy explains that he is asking this question because Ms Loh seemed to be “quite definitive that (she) didn’t ask about the untruth”, instead asking if “the ministry will follow up”.

Ms Loh responds that there are several reasons why her memory of her exchange with Singh is fuzzy.

“We avoided talking about it explicitly; it was a relatively fleeting and quick exchange,” she says. “I did quite a bit of the talking and Pritam Singh… at some point, also had his hands held to his face and listened and nodded.

“My memory of it is fuzzy, but I would have gone to the conversation to verify for myself what the course of action would be.”

15:54

Defence asks when Loh Pei Ying was aware of message that said Raeesah Khan had been asked to ‘take it to the grave’

Mr Andre Jumabhoy inquired when exactly Ms Loh Pei Ying first became aware of the Aug 8, 2021, message from Ms Raeesah Khan in their group chat, where Ms Khan indicated that she had been told to “take the information to the grave.”

Ms Loh stated that the first time it “fully registered” with her was on Nov 29, 2021. She explained that when she first saw the message, she was “a little distracted” as she was getting out of a car, and her attention immediately shifted to Ms Khan’s subsequent message regarding her statement on Muslim affairs, which arrived shortly after. This was the first message in which Ms Khan mentioned that Workers’ Party leaders had told her to take the lie to the grave.

Ms Loh added that she used the term “registered” because, when she was called for the Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiry, she reviewed her text messages to clarify her understanding of the situation. “I recall seeing a message from Raeesah Khan regarding communication with the leaders, and when I saw it, I fully understood…and had a visceral response when I saw it,” she explained.

Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that during the COP, Ms Loh had previously stated, “I genuinely did not deliberate on this until Oct 4.” He noted, “As you’ve just indicated, it’s actually Nov 29.”

Ms Loh clarified that her response to Minister Edwin Tong’s questions regarding the statement on Muslim issues did not relate to the text message. She further explained that Mr Tong had posed two questions, not just one.

Ms Loh reiterated that the words “take it to the grave” did not register for her until Nov 29, 2021.

15:23

Keeping Raeesah’s lie a secret ‘weighed on her conscience’, says Loh Pei Ying

Mr Andre Jumabhoy questioned Ms Loh Pei Ying about how she felt when Ms Raeesah Khan confessed her lie during the Aug 7, 2021, Zoom call.

Ms Loh stated that knowing a Workers’ Party MP had lied in Parliament “weighed on (her) personal conscience.” She added, “It felt uncomfortable having to keep the secret without being able to talk about it to other party members and volunteers.”

When asked if Ms Khan had instructed her to keep the lie a secret, Ms Loh responded that she had not.

Ms Loh explained that the Zoom conversation concluded with the understanding that Ms Khan would follow up on the matter with the party leaders.

She also noted, “The fact that she had lied and her confessions as a sexual assault victim came together. The secret for me was also about respecting her privacy as a sexual assault survivor.”

15:10

Defence Questions Loh Pei Ying About Aug 7 Zoom Call and Advice to Raeesah Khan

During cross-examination, defence lawyer Mr. Andre Jumabhoy brings up the Zoom call between Ms. Loh Pei Ying, Ms. Raeesah Khan, and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan on Aug 7, 2021. He asks Ms. Loh if, upon learning that Ms. Khan had lied in Parliament, she was concerned and believed it needed to be corrected.

Ms. Loh disagrees with the assertion, stating, “I wouldn’t say that my concern is in correcting it.”

Mr. Jumabhoy then asks if Ms. Loh had given Ms. Khan any advice on how to correct the falsehood. Ms. Loh responds, “It’s not my role as adviser to tell her to correct it. My role was a friend and adviser.”

She explains that the decision to correct a lie in Parliament is significant and “above (her) pay-grade.”

When asked if she felt it necessary to point out that the falsehood would eventually need to be corrected, Ms. Loh replies, “I didn’t feel an obligation to do that so I did not.” She adds that she was reassured knowing that Ms. Khan had already informed Pritam Singh.

14:52

Defence Opens Cross-Examination, Questions Loh Pei Ying on Relationships with Pritam Singh and Raeesah Khan

Court resumes at around 2:30 PM, with defence lawyer Mr. Andre Jumabhoy beginning his cross-examination by questioning Ms. Loh Pei Ying about her relationship with Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh.

He revisits her earlier description of their working relationship, noting that it was professional, friendly, and primarily focused on her role as a secretarial assistant, with little interaction outside of work. Ms. Loh agrees with this characterization.

Mr. Jumabhoy then shifts the focus to her relationship with Ms. Raeesah Khan, asking if it was “slightly different.” He inquires whether they socialized outside of work, which Ms. Loh disagrees with.

When asked if she would describe herself as a friend of Ms. Khan’s, Ms. Loh replies affirmatively. Mr. Jumabhoy also questions whether her fellow party member, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, was also a friend of Ms. Khan’s, to which she also responds yes.

13:23

13:22

Loh Pei Ying Says She Told Singh at the DP Meeting That He Should Have Stepped Up in October to Clarify Raeesah’s Lie

Ms. Loh Pei Ying continued to outline what she and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan communicated to the Workers’ Party (WP) disciplinary panel on November 25, 2021. She indicated that she told Pritam Singh he should have taken the initiative in October to clarify Ms. Raeesah Khan’s lie. Ms. Loh reminded him that, as the Leader of the Opposition, it was not solely Ms. Khan’s responsibility to ensure accountability and factual accuracy in Parliament, especially since he was aware that a lie had been told.

“He also had every opportunity to step up and clarify—I told him that,” she remarked. Ms. Loh recalled that Singh appeared “quite upset” by her comments, pointing at her with a pen and stating, “I went to her the night before and told her…”

However, Ms. Loh interrupted him, noting that she had only half an hour and many points to address.

During the discussion, she referenced a similar incident involving Singh in Parliament, where he had plagiarised a speech about an ombudsman. In the 2012 Budget debate, Singh called for the establishment of an ombudsman but failed to credit a 2008 blog post from which he drew significant material. He later claimed he had permission from the blogger to quote liberally.

Singh addressed the matter in a Facebook post, asserting, “While my conscience has always been clear on the matter, I leave the public to judge why the PAP (People’s Action Party) officially raised this issue some 16 months after it took place, that too in the context of a completely separate matter.” In a 2013 interview, he described the incident as an oversight, emphasising his concern for keeping the blogger’s identity anonymous.

At the DP meeting, Ms. Loh also shared testimonies from residents who were supportive of Ms. Khan continuing her role as an MP. She expressed her view that Ms. Khan was kind and compassionate, despite her inexperience, and that she was willing to accept the consequences of her actions while committing to the necessary groundwork.

Furthermore, Ms. Loh discussed how Ms. Khan had faced hostility from her team in Sengkang GRC, which impacted her mental wellbeing. She characterised this as an unfair portrayal of Ms. Khan’s overall performance.

13:07

Loh Pei Ying on What She and Yudhishthra Nathan Told the WP Disciplinary Panel on Nov 25, 2021

Ms. Loh Pei Ying stated that she and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan made an appointment to address the Workers’ Party (WP) disciplinary panel on November 25, 2021. During the session, they raised several points of concern.

One significant point Ms. Loh made was that sacking Ms. Raeesah Khan from the party or compelling her to resign would constitute a “very severe punishment for something like this.” She expressed that such an action would create a “problematic unprecedented record for the party,” implying that resignation would become the only remedy for any member’s mistakes.

Additionally, Ms. Loh conveyed to the panel that it was “extremely irresponsible” to leave Ms. Khan’s minority seat in Compassvale unrepresented while expecting the other three Members of Parliament (MPs) to cover for her. She stated, “Compassvale will never get the proper representation they deserve.” She further emphasised that it should not be the MPs’ decision to make regarding representation, as there is a democratic process to follow.

Ms. Loh pointed out that it was Ms. Raeesah Khan who had been elected to Parliament. She remarked that it felt convenient for the party leadership to invoke the precedent set by Halimah Yacob regarding leaving a minority seat unrepresented, despite the WP’s clear opposition to the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. She believed that the leadership was more focused on removing Ms. Khan rather than addressing the matter correctly.

Moreover, Ms. Loh suggested to the panel that the appropriate course of action would be to ask the other MPs to step down as well, allowing the residents of Sengkang the opportunity to vote again.

12:55

Ms. Loh Pei Ying: Impossibility of Ms. Khan Coming Clean Without Preparation

During her testimony, Ms. Loh emphasised that it would have been impossible for Ms. Raeesah Khan to tell the truth in Parliament on October 4 without prior preparation. DPP Tan referenced a group chat from November 23, 2021, where Ms. Loh expressed her intention to confront Pritam Singh about his prior conversation with Ms. Khan on October 3, where he had assured her he would “not judge” her.

Ms. Loh asserted that, given her experience as a media representative for the Workers’ Party, it was unrealistic for Ms. Khan to admit to lying without the party’s involvement and preparation. She noted that if Ms. Khan had suddenly confessed to her falsehood during the parliamentary session, it would have been shocking and “very foolish” without the party’s crisis communication strategies in place.

Loh stated, “The fallout would be severe to a very high degree,” and concluded that it would have significantly damaged the credibility of the disciplinary panel if Ms. Khan had confessed on the spot.

12:47

Ms. Loh Pei Ying: Prepared to Confront Singh’s Early Involvement

In a WhatsApp exchange dated November 23, 2021, between Ms. Loh, Ms. Raeesah Khan, and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, Ms. Loh expressed her surprise at how Pritam Singh had worded a message to Ms. Khan. Singh suggested that Khan acted independently without his counsel, despite Ms. Loh’s belief that he was aware of the situation from the start.

Ms. Loh indicated that she was prepared to inform Singh that both she and Mr. Nathan recognized his involvement since August 8, 2021. She emphasised that Singh had previously told Ms. Khan on October 3 that he would “not judge” her, suggesting that he had been more involved in the situation than he portrayed.

12:43

Ms. Loh Pei Ying: Concern for the Workers’ Party’s Well-Being

In her exchange with Pritam Singh on November 10, 2021, Ms. Loh expressed significant concern for the Workers’ Party’s well-being amid the unfolding situation involving Raeesah Khan. She highlighted that the disciplinary panel had not adequately communicated its involvement to the party members, noting that the leadership had known about Khan’s lie since August 8 and had actively participated in preparing her apology.

When discussing the invitation extended to party members to provide input to the disciplinary panel, Ms. Loh remarked that if Khan were to leave the party but still face scrutiny from the Committee of Privileges (COP), the party would have limited influence over her actions and statements. She clarified that her reference to “we” in the message was meant to signify the party, emphasising her role as a concerned member of the WP during that time.

12:34

Ms. Loh Pei Ying: Concerns Over Disciplinary Process and Party Leaders’ Involvement

In court, Ms. Loh expresses discomfort about party members’ perceptions of the disciplinary process regarding Raeesah Khan. She notes that many members wanted Khan to resign and were eager to distance themselves from her mistake, but they lacked awareness of the involvement of party leaders from the onset of the situation.

She emphasises that it is unfair to allow party members to believe they have a say in the process when the leadership was already engaged in discussions shortly after Khan’s initial lie. Ms. Loh warns that if the consultation is perceived as a mere formality, it would lead to dissatisfaction among members who expect their opinions to be valued.

Furthermore, she advocates for transparency from the disciplinary panel regarding their findings and involvement, stating that the three members on the panel were closely tied to the preparation of Khan’s apology and were aware of her lie since August 8. She asserts that providing party members with full knowledge of the situation—while respecting the privacy of those involved—would enable them to make informed decisions.

12:20

Ms. Loh Pei Ying: Warnings on Consequences Underestimated by Leadership

During the court proceedings, DPP Tan highlights a text Ms. Loh sent to Pritam Singh on November 10, where she notes that the party did not anticipate the backlash despite previous warnings and is trying to address the anger.

Ms. Loh explains that she was referring to multiple meetings she and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan had with Singh and other Workers’ Party (WP) leaders. They had discussed the potential ramifications on the party’s public reputation, particularly in the context of the October 12 meeting, where she observed Singh being quite relaxed.

“Throughout her delivery of (Raeesah Khan’s) apology and statement, Singh had been quite relaxed and of the view that this would blow over, so I really felt that he underestimated the consequences,” she asserts.

When asked about her comment on the party trying to quell anger, Ms. Loh elaborates: “For the sake of settling furor on the matter, he needed to be seen to be also upset and needed to be seen to be disciplining Ms. Khan, even though that might not be his core intentions.”

12:11

Loh Pei Ying: Disciplinary Panel Was ‘Performatory’

During the proceedings, DPP Tan references a message from Pritam Singh dated November 10, inviting all Workers’ Party members to share their opinions about Ms. Raeesah Khan’s situation with the disciplinary panel.

Ms. Loh expresses her belief that other party members “had no business” sharing their views, as they were unaware of the “true timeline of events,” specifically noting that WP leaders had known about Ms. Khan’s lie a week after it was made.

“I was extremely angry,” Ms. Loh states.

She further describes the disciplinary panel, formed on November 2, 2021, as “performatory.” “It was an action that Pritam Singh had taken to quell party member and public anger on the matter, but it did not have real consequences,” she explains.

When DPP Tan asks what she means by “no consequences,” Ms. Loh clarifies that “they weren’t gonna take drastic action on her.”

In response to his question about the term “performatory,” she adds, “Kind of like, putting on a show.”

12:10

Raeesah Khan’s Personal Statement and Her Parents’ Concerns Discussed on Oct 23: Ms. Loh

Ms. Loh informs DPP Tan about a meeting held on October 23, 2021, at the Workers’ Party headquarters, attended by Singh, Ms. Raeesah Khan, Ms. Sylvia Lim, Mr. Faisal Manap, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, and a party volunteer named “Evelyn.”

According to Ms. Loh, Ms. Khan arrived with printed drafts of her personal statement and distributed them to the attendees.

“The other party volunteer we brought in was an expert in crisis communications and media affairs, so we wanted to update her on what had happened and seek her advice,” she explains.

They engaged in extensive discussions regarding Ms. Khan’s parents’ concerns about the statement and the necessity of coming clean in Parliament. However, there was no discussion about disciplinary proceedings during that meeting.

Ms. Loh states that the meeting concluded with a consensus that there was no way to avoid clarifying Ms. Khan’s lie. “Ms. Khan would have to address her parents’ concerns on her own; that was her responsibility,” she adds.

They also detailed the steps to be taken, including when Ms. Khan would send the draft to the party leaders and when she should inform the Speaker of Parliament about her intention to make a statement.

“I also briefly reminded Pritam Singh that he would be questioned about when he knew and what actions he took,” she notes. “He indicated that he had that handled.”

Ms. Loh mentions that Singh briefly discussed the possibility of forming a media team to monitor online discussions following Ms. Khan’s statement, but this idea was not pursued.

12:00

Punishment for Ms. Khan Not Discussed; Singh Had Not Instructed Her to Inform Parents: Loh

During a lengthy meeting at Singh’s house, DPP Tan inquires whether punishment for Ms. Raeesah Khan was discussed.

“Not at all. We discussed the Committee of Privileges (COP), but not about party disciplinary matters,” Ms. Loh replies.

She explains that they focused on how the situation should be handled and the necessity of informing the party’s central executive committee (CEC).

“We were very concerned about what party members and the public would think, as well as her residents and volunteers,” she adds.

Singh indicated that Ms. Khan’s legislative assistant, Mike Lim, also needed to be informed. At that point, Loh interjected to emphasise that Ms. Khan’s parents should be informed as well, to which Singh agreed.

Later, DPP Tan clarifies whether Singh had already asked Ms. Khan to inform her parents.

“No, he did not,” Ms. Loh states. “Just to add to that, his reaction was like, ‘oh yeah, you’re right.’”

DPP Tan then asks: “Did Singh say that he had been waiting for Ms. Khan to inform her parents?”

Ms. Loh responds, “Not at all.”

11:58

Pritam and WP Cadres Discussed How Raeesah Should Come Clean

During a meeting on October 12, 2021, Pritam Singh and then Workers’ Party (WP) cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan discussed how Ms. Raeesah Khan should approach coming clean in a personal statement, Ms. Loh states.

They deliberated on whether Ms. Khan should include her own experience of sexual assault. Ms. Loh mentions that Singh was against it, but she believed that omitting Ms. Khan’s experience would disadvantage the party.

“If Ms. Khan did not come out as a survivor herself, other members in the party would be perceived as ‘compulsive liars,’” Ms. Loh argues. “It is important to address the motivations for why she had lied.”

She also expressed concern that sexual assault victims might suffer “severe consequences” and could be unjustly labeled as liars.

DPP Ben Mathias Tan asks if Singh explained during the meeting why the untruth needed to be clarified.

“The main reason was that Minister Shanmugam wasn’t going to let it go,” she explains.

“There is also a strong second reason. It was also for Ms. Khan’s own conscience and for the party,” she adds.

11:51

Loh Pei Ying Says Pritam Told Them He Consulted with Low Thia Khiang Regarding Raeesah’s Lie

Ms. Loh Pei Ying informs the court that Pritam Singh conveyed to her and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan that he had consulted with former Workers’ Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang regarding Ms. Raeesah Khan’s lie.

According to Singh, Mr. Low’s opinion was that the best course of action was to clarify the situation in Parliament and that “the Workers’ Party would survive the fallout that would follow,” she states.

“Given that Yudhishthra Nathan and I had a lot of faith and confidence in Mr. Low’s opinion, we were very reassured that that was his decision and advice,” she adds.

Ms. Loh also notes that Singh recounted he had a sense that this matter would arise in Parliament on October 4, 2021, and that he had spoken with Raeesah Khan the day before, giving her the choice of whether to come clean in Parliament, assuring her that he would not judge her.

When the DPP asks about her reaction to Singh’s recounting of his exchange with Ms. Khan on October 3, Ms. Loh expresses surprise.

When asked to elaborate, she explains that she was surprised by Singh’s foresight regarding the issue’s emergence and his willingness to say “such a thing to her.”

“It felt like very unclear communication; it was vague instruction,” Ms. Loh tells the prosecution.

11:42

Ms. Loh Pei Ying Was Concerned That Coming Clean Would Affect WP’s Image

DPP Tan inquires about the discussions during the October 12, 2021, meeting with Pritam Singh.

In the “lengthy” meeting, Ms. Loh explains that they talked about the consequences of Ms. Raeesah Khan admitting to the lie, including facing the Committee of Privileges and the potential public perception of the Workers’ Party (WP).

“I was concerned that people would criticise the party as one that lacks integrity and is full of liars,” Ms. Loh states.

When DPP Tan asks her why she was worried, she replies: “It would obviously affect party support and our votes in the next election.”

They also discussed that continuing the lie was untenable, as Minister K. Shanmugam was likely to pursue the matter until it was addressed, she adds.

11:31

Loh Says She and Nathan Wanted to Speak to Singh on October 12, 2021, Because of Existing Relationship with Him

DPP Tan asks why Ms. Loh and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan decided to speak to Pritam Singh on October 12, 2021.

Ms. Loh explains that they were the only two individuals outside the party leadership who were aware that Ms. Raeesah Khan had lied. Additionally, both had an existing relationship with Singh from the General Election, during which they advised him on messaging and communications within the party and how to handle sensitive matters.

In a WhatsApp message within their three-person group chat, Ms. Loh had suggested they should talk to Singh regardless, “to counsel him on what happens in an either or.”

DPP Tan asks her to clarify what she meant by that.

Ms. Loh thought Ms. Khan might have been under the impression that she could persuade Singh that Ms. Khan did not need to clarify the untruth in Parliament.

“But my stance is that, regardless, I wanted to talk to him personally about it and lay out the options and ramifications in the event that she chose to retain the lie or clarify the lie,” she explains.

11:29

Ms. Loh Pei Ying: No Steps Taken to Clarify Untruth Between August 10 and October 4, 2021

Ms. Loh tells DPP Tan that no steps were taken to clarify Ms. Raeesah Khan’s untruth between August 10 and October 4, 2021.

DPP Tan asks her if Pritam Singh, Ms. Sylvia Lim, or Mr. Faisal Manap had given her any instruction regarding clarifying the untruth, and she responds that she did not receive any.

She also states that she did not receive any instructions from any of them to check with Ms. Khan’s parents about her sexual assault during this period.

The prosecution then inquires if she had any interactions with Pritam Singh between August 10 and October 4. Ms. Loh confirms that she did.

“We exchanged messages on some general party matters, including my opinions on some issues concerning other party members,” she tells the court.

She adds that Singh also invited her and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan to tour Parliament and his new Leader of the Opposition office on September 23.

“During this tour, was there any discussion about clarifying the untruth?” DPP Tan asks.

“Not at all,” replies Ms. Loh.

11:21

Ms. Loh States She Understood From August 10, 2021, Meeting with Pritam Singh That ‘Nothing Had to Be Done’

DPP Tan asks Ms. Loh a series of questions regarding her understanding of the August 10, 2021, meeting with Pritam Singh and Yudhishthra Nathan.

DPP Tan: Based on your meeting with Pritam Singh and Yudhishthra Nathan on August 10, what did you understand needed to be done in terms of clarifying the untruth?

Ms. Loh: Nothing had to be done.

DPP Tan: I want to be more specific. Did Pritam Singh tell you and Yudhishthra Nathan that Raeesah Khan must clarify the untruth?

Ms. Loh: No.

DPP Tan: Did Pritam Singh tell you and Yudhishthra Nathan that he had asked Raeesah Khan to speak to her parents about the sexual assault?

Ms. Loh: No, he did not.

DPP Tan: And did Pritam Singh tell you and Yudhishthra Nathan to check with Raeesah Khan whether she had spoken to her parents?

Ms. Loh: No, he did not.

11:18

Singh Was ‘Relaxed and Composed’ During August 10 Meeting

Ms. Loh recalls that Singh’s demeanour was “relaxed and composed” during the August 10, 2021, meeting.

She mentions that Ms. Khan had informed her that Singh “was angry on the phone call” on August 7.

DPP Tan then asks her to clarify certain portions of a WhatsApp exchange on August 10 in a three-person group chat comprising Ms. Loh, Mr. Nathan, and Ms. Khan.

In this exchange, Ms. Loh informs Ms. Khan about their meeting with Mr. Singh, including his concerns that controversial topics might be challenging for her to handle if questioned about them in Parliament.

In court, Ms. Loh states that Singh and she discussed Ms. Khan’s Parliamentary performance, with the understanding that the anecdote would not resurface.

She explains: “So the matter at hand that we had to concern ourselves with was future Parliamentary performances. Psychologically, the fact that she had lied would obviously weigh on her conscience and affect her ability to speak confidently in Parliament, especially when questioned.”

11:17

Loh Pei Ying Recalls Conversation with Pritam, Says He Nodded When Asked if Raeesah Had Told Him About the Lie

Ms. Loh tells the court that Singh seemed to confirm his understanding of what she was communicating during their meeting.

“I asked him if (Ms. Khan) had told you about the matter, and he nodded his head,” she states.

When asked to clarify what she was referring to, she explains to DPP Tan that she was talking about the fact that Ms. Khan had lied in Parliament.

DPP Tan then inquires how Singh responded to that, and Ms. Loh replies that he “didn’t say explicitly at first; he sort of nodded and listened.”

She adds that she felt he was reserving judgment on the matter.

Additionally, she mentions that Singh listened to her advice about showing empathy toward Ms. Khan’s experience and expressed his appreciation for it.

The DPP subsequently questions whether she asked Singh if the untruth would resurface. Ms. Loh explains that her memory is a bit fuzzy but recalls that she might have.

“I may have asked something to that effect because I remember him nodding his head and affirming that it probably won’t come up again,” she replies.

11:15

Loh Pei Ying Testifies That Raeesah and WP Cadres Avoided Mentioning Lie Out of Fear Their Phones Were Tapped

DPP Ben Mathias Tan asks Ms. Loh Pei Ying why she did not respond to Ms. Raeesah Khan’s August 8, 2021, message, in which Ms. Khan stated that Workers’ Party leaders had advised her that the best course of action was to “take the information to the grave.”

Ms. Loh explains that she was “moving” at that time and felt “a little distracted.”

“There was an awareness that this lie is severe, and we avoided saying it explicitly in text,” she adds.

At the time of the incident, she, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan—who were then WP cadres—and Ms. Khan shared a “prevalent belief” that their phones might be tapped, Ms. Loh elaborates when DPP Tan asks her to clarify.

“She (Ms. Khan) had received a text from Apple that stated forces were trying to get into her phone,” she reveals.

11:00

10:47

Loh Pei Ying Felt ‘Relieved’ to Know Pritam Knew About Raeesah’s Lie

When Ms. Loh Pei Ying learned of the lie from Ms. Raeesah Khan during a Zoom call on August 7, 2021, she asked if anyone else was aware of it.

Ms. Khan responded that she had informed Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh over the phone earlier that day, according to Ms. Loh.

Ms. Loh expresses that she was “a bit relieved that (Singh) knew already.”

“It’s a big deal, or a stain, I would say, on WP’s history or track record for an MP to have lied about something like this,” she explains, adding that she felt uncomfortable being aware of the situation.

“Knowing that Pritam Singh already knew… made me feel a little relieved because then if something were to be done about it, he would know what to do,” she states.

10:45

Loh Pei Ying Testifies About Zoom Call with Raeesah Khan and Yudhishthra Nathan

The prosecution next asks Ms. Loh when she became aware that the anecdote Ms. Khan presented in Parliament was untrue. Ms. Loh states that she found out during a Zoom call with Ms. Khan and Mr. Nathan.

Ms. Khan had informed them that she “did something bad” and wanted to discuss it, as they had been unable to meet in person. Ms. Loh then suggested a Zoom call instead.

She describes Ms. Khan as being “quite emotional and upset” during the call, expressing concern about the repercussions of her actions.

Ms. Loh notes that Ms. Khan even contemplated resigning from the Workers’ Party while in Parliament.

“We were mainly there to listen, console, and offer her perspectives on the matter,” she tells the court.

Ms. Loh recalls that Ms. Khan put her face in her hands and cried while revealing that she shared the untruth because she herself is a victim of sexual assault.

They also asked questions to ensure they understood Ms. Khan, who was not very coherent due to her emotional state.

“We discussed many matters, mainly about political history and WP’s history,” she explains. “She generally had quite a poor understanding of it. For example, she did not know that former WP Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong had resigned before.”

10:32

Loh Describes Relationship with Pritam Singh as Good

DPP Tan inquires about Ms. Loh’s responsibilities during her tenure as secretarial assistant to Singh.

She explains that her primary duties included organising his Meet-the-People sessions, scheduling volunteers weekly, and “setting up shop” since WP MPs did not have a fixed office. Additionally, she assisted in drafting and fact-checking letters to be sent to various government agencies.

The DPP then asks about her relationship with Singh during this period.

“I would say it was a professional one; we were friendly… it was good,” Ms. Loh replies.

She states that they “worked well together,” with most of their conversations focused on her work as a secretarial assistant. She adds that they rarely met outside of party matters.

“I would bump into him at events I was volunteering at, but it was a professional relationship,” she notes.

Ms. Loh later served as Ms. Khan’s secretarial assistant.

10:31

Roles Played by Loh Pei Ying in the Workers’ Party

Ms. Loh informs Deputy Public Prosecutor Ben Mathias Tan that she began working with the party’s media team in 2012, participating in by-elections in Hougang and Punggol East. During this time, she assisted with recording interviews and summarising news reports.

Her involvement expanded significantly in 2015, she notes, when she was responsible for updating the WP’s election website and media graphics.

During the 2020 General Elections, she aided election candidates in reviewing their social media posts and speeches. She also assisted Pritam Singh and other party leaders in “thinking through” media statements and preparing candidates for questions during the election season, as she tells DPP Tan.

Additionally, she was part of WP’s policy team, where she and other volunteers were tasked with suggesting possible parliamentary questions and occasionally preparing briefing papers for MPs, among other responsibilities. Ms. Loh left the party in 2022.

10:29

Loh Describes Relationship with Singh as Good

DPP Tan asks Ms. Loh about her responsibilities during her tenure as secretarial assistant to Singh, a role she held from March 2013 to January 2016.

She explains that her primary duties included organising his Meet-the-People sessions, scheduling volunteers weekly, and “setting up shop” since WP MPs did not have a fixed office. She also assisted in drafting and fact-checking letters to various government agencies.

The DPP then inquires about her relationship with Singh during this period.

“I would say it was a professional one; we were friendly… it was good,” Ms. Loh responds.

She mentions that they “worked well together,” with most of their conversations focused on her duties as a secretarial assistant. She notes that they rarely met outside of party matters.

“I would bump into him at events I was volunteering at, but it was a professional relationship,” she states.

Ms. Loh later served as Ms. Khan’s secretarial assistant from July 2020 until the MP’s resignation on November 30, 2021.

10:12

Prosecution Concludes Re-Examination of Raeesah, Second Witness Loh Pei Ying Takes the Stand

The prosecution concludes its re-examination of Ms. Raeesah Khan at approximately 10 a.m. and requests a short break to bring in the second witness.

Next to take the stand is Ms. Khan’s former secretarial assistant, Ms. Loh Pei Ying.

10:11

DPP Presses Raeesah Khan to Clarify Why She Did Not Come Clean in September 2021

Mr. Ramasamy revisited a question posed by Mr. Andre Jumabhoy to Ms. Khan on the third day of the trial, inquiring whether she had considered coming clean in September 2021.

The defence lawyer had suggested that Ms. Khan chose not to come forward because she believed the matter had been dropped, rather than due to any instructions from the Workers’ Party leaders to maintain the lie.

The DPP questioned her about why she believed the matter had been dropped and what she would have done if the issue had arisen.

Ms. Khan explained that the ministry did not contact her regarding the issue and that she had been absent from Parliament in September 2021 due to shingles, which meant there was “no opportunity” for the lie to be addressed.

The DPP then asked her what her response would have been if her lie had been raised.

“It’s very hard for me to say,” Ms. Khan replied. “I mean, I can’t predict something that never happened.”

10:08

Prosecution Seeks Clarity on Pritam’s Instructions to Raeesah Khan

Following Ms. Khan’s opportunity to refresh her memory by reviewing police statements yesterday, DPP Sivakumar expressed that it was unclear whether Singh instructed her to tell the truth regarding the guidance she received from the WP leaders.

DPP Sivakumar suggested that her response yesterday was incomplete.

He inquired, “Could you please clarify whether Singh told you to tell the truth about the guidance you received from him, Ms. Lim, and Mr. Faisal on August 8, 2021?”

Mr. Jumabhoy interrupted to assert that Singh told her to tell the truth, emphasising that there was “nothing ambiguous about her answer.”

The judge requested that the question be posed in a more open-ended manner.

DPP Sivakumar then asked, “Can you clarify what Singh told you to tell the truth about?”

Ms. Khan responded that Singh advised her to tell the truth about the anecdote, stating: “That I should just, because I’m already telling the truth in my statement, don’t be nervous; all you have to do is tell the truth about the lie that you made in Parliament.”

10:00

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy refers to defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy’s earlier questioning of Ms Raeesah Khan regarding her meeting with Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim on Oct 4, 2021, after she repeated her lie in Parliament.

Mr Jumabhoy had asked Ms Khan if she ever told Singh or Ms Lim that she was “only in this mess because of what they told (her) to do,” to which she agreed.

Mr Ramasamy follows up, asking Ms Khan why she said she never spoke to Singh and Ms Lim “in that sort of way.” He asks her to elaborate.

“I never spoke to them in a confrontational way, we didn’t have that kind of relationship,” she replies, explaining that it felt like they were offering advice, and she “just kind of accepted it and moved on.”

Mr Ramasamy also asks Ms Khan to clarify her mention of a power imbalance between herself and the Workers’ Party leaders.

“It’s like a conversation with your bosses,” she explains. “You don’t, you wouldn’t confront your bosses with their own mistake. That’s what I meant by power imbalance.”

09:56

09:40

08:50

Pritam Singh’s trial continues for a fourth day

The trial regarding Pritam Singh resumed today, centered around former Workers’ Party (WP) MP Raeesah Khan’s false statement made in Parliament on August 3, 2021, where she claimed to have accompanied a rape victim to a police station and questioned the police’s handling of the situation. This led to the convening of the Committee of Privileges in November 2021.

This morning, Raeesah Khan is scheduled to be re-examined by Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy, who will follow up on her previous testimony before calling the next witness, Ms. Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre and one of Ms. Khan’s aides.

Other witnesses expected to testify during the trial include former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang and former party cadre Yudhishthra Nathan.