October 18, 2024 Update: Pritam Singh’s Trial for Alleged Misrepresentation in Parliament

19:07

Thank you for following our live coverage. Wrapping up today’s proceedings, here are the highlights:

• Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy picked up from where he left off from yesterday’s session and questioned Ms Loh Pei Ying’s redaction of Mr Yudhishthra Nathan’s message in her submission of evidence to the Committee of Privileges (COP). Mr Jumabhoy repeatedly asked if she thought it was manipulative to decide which evidence would help her and her friends. She said yes.
• Notes taken by Workers’ Party (WP) chairwoman Sylvia Lim at a disciplinary panel hearing had Ms Loh calling Ms Khan “naive and stupid”. Ms Loh said she could not remember using those terms, but “definitely would have said naive”.
• Mr Jumabhoy then asked Ms Loh if she would describe Ms Khan as “lao hong”, a Hokkien term used to describe a crunchy snack as stale. He asked if Ms Loh was calling the former MP stale. Ms Loh replied that “lao hong” sometimes meant soft. “I mean she can buckle quite easily under pressure, she’s susceptible to criticism, what people say online about her affects her mental health quite strongly,” she said.
• The prosecution brought in its third witness, Mr Nathan, who told the court that Ms Khan said WP leaders wanted her to come clean but were not sure if she should bring up her personal experience as a sexual assault victim. “I remember I told her that sounds like political suicide… to go to Parliament, to have your MP go to Parliament and say ‘Hey everyone, I lied’ and not even explain how she ended up lying without any context,” Mr Nathan said.
• Mr Nathan said some of his text messages that he redacted for the COP were done without approval in his car at a carpark, because COP member Rahayu Mahzam, who was redacting his messages with him in the Parliament library, had to leave and the library was closing.
• Mr Nathan said he asked Singh during a meeting on Oct 12, 2021, what made the party change its mind on getting Ms Khan to come clean, and the WP chief’s answer was that he was worried the Government was already aware her anecdote was untrue. “My sense at the time was that he was very afraid of minister K. Shanmugam and the Government, and I remember him saying that if the party were to keep the lie, the party would get bad karma for it,” said Mr Nathan.
• Mr Nathan said Ms Loh and himself had shared their “reservations” about party leaders asking Ms Khan to gain the support of her teammates in Sengkang to continue as an MP. He added that through Ms Khan’s accounts and his own observations, he knew MP He Ting Ru “was never a fan of Raeesah and Jamus Lim”, who were candidates in the 2020 General Election.

18:20

‘He Ting Ru was never a fan of Raeesah’: Yudhishthra Nathan on his reservations about WP leaders asking Raeesah to get support from teammates

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy continues asking Mr Yudhishthra Nathan about the views he brought up to the Workers’ Party disciplinary panel on Nov 25, 2021.

Mr Nathan says that Ms Loh Pei Ying and himself had shared their “reservations” about party leaders asking Ms Khan to gain the support of her teammates in Sengkang to continue as an MP.

“We had knowledge that at least one of her Sengkang colleagues was pretty biased against her,” says Mr Nathan.

He says that through Ms Khan’s accounts and his own observations, he knew MP He Ting Ru “was never a fan of Raeesah and Jamus Lim”, who were candidates in the 2020 General Election.

“As time progressed, it became clear to me that He Ting Ru continued to dislike Ms Khan,” he says. “Not saying the same for Jamus, but certainly Ms Khan.”

18:16

Former WP cadres did not inform disciplinary panel that Pritam told them he had told Raeesah he wouldn’t judge her on Oct 3

On Nov 23, 2021, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan had said in a group chat that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap should know that Pritam Singh had told Ms Raeesah Khan on Oct 3 that he would not judge her. This chat was with Ms Khan and Ms Loh Pei Ying.

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks whether this information was conveyed to the disciplinary panel on Nov 25. The panel comprised Ms Lim, Mr Faisal and Singh.

Mr Nathan says: “As it turned out, we didn’t convey to the disciplinary panel what Pritam Singh had told us in his house regarding how he told Raeesah Khan that he wouldn’t judge her.

“That was because we had a lot of points to go through… At that point in time, we were trying to make sure that we could make all of our points in that limited time.”

The DPP then asks Mr Nathan why he and Ms Loh decided to meet the disciplinary panel.

Mr Nathan says: “By that point, it had become apparent to us that this exercise of having the disciplinary panel was more of a witch hunt, and we wanted to convey to the panel various points that we thought they needed to hear.”

He adds that they knew that the panel was getting submissions from various members, “calling for Ms Khan’s resignation, without having the full facts”.

He says these were members who were unaware that the party leaders had already known about Ms Khan’s lie since August and were the ones who directed her to maintain the lie.

“We were very worried that what the panel would eventually do was to come up to say, to the central executive committee, that we’ve met a number of members and the overwhelming majority of them think that Raeesah Khan should resign, that what she did was terrible,” Mr Nathan says.

“We felt we had to go to the disciplinary panel to explain these things, since this channel was open to us.”

18:04

Raeesah was fearful of WP leaders and what they thought of her: Yudhishthra Nathan

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy continues asking about the Nov 13, 2021, text exchange between Ms Raeesah Khan and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan.

Mr Nathan: Where if they ask you about what the leader knew and when, you could damage Pritam’s reputation if you knew the truth.

Ms Khan: I wouldn’t do that.

The DPP asks Mr Nathan to explain his understanding of Ms Khan’s message.

“My understanding was that at that point in time, she was fearful of the prospect of telling the Committee of Privileges that the leaders were involved in her maintaining the lie from August onwards,” he responds.

When Mr Ramasamy prompts him to clarify why he understood it that way, Mr Nathan says he had the impression that Ms Khan was expressing her fear “of wanting to reveal the truth” to the Committee of Privileges, if she was asked to state the chronology of events.

Mr Ramasamy asks him why that is so and Mr Nathan answers: “Because she was afraid of the party leaders, and was afraid of them in general, actually.”

The DPP then asks him to explain.

Mr Nathan says he sensed that Ms Khan had been fearful of the Workers’ Party leaders and what they thought of her since becoming an MP.

He thinks she felt that Singh had sometimes been “a bit harsh” with her, but adds that he thinks this was because she was a new MP.

“I don’t think she was the only new MP who was a tad bit fearful of what the leaders thought of them,” he says, noting that this was “just the way that (Ms Khan) viewed (the leaders) in general, from the start of her tenure”.

“(Ms Khan) essentially became active in the party properly from the time she became an MP and by (that) time, Pritam Singh was already secretary-general so that power structure was there,” he says.

“Whereas for many other members of the Workers’ Party, when we joined, Pritam Singh was not secretary-general yet, he was just the MP.”

17:54

WP disciplinary panel seemed like ‘witch hunt’ to kick Raeesah out of party: Yudhishthra Nathan

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy reads out a text exchange between Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and Ms Raeesah Khan on Nov 13, 2021.

Message from Ms Khan: “Hey guys, during the disciplinary panel meeting, Pritam Singh mentioned that if I don’t have the support of immediate teammates, there is no point in me continuing.”

Mr Nathan: “So, by saying this? What does Pritam Singh want you to do, resign?”

Ms Khan: “I think he does.”

Mr Nathan: “And he gets off scot-free? Because right now, people don’t know that he knew it was a lie when you told that to (Law Minister) Shanmugam (on Oct 4, 2021)?”

DPP Ramasamy asks Mr Nathan to explain the context of the exchange.

Mr Nathan says Singh had told Ms Khan that she had to obtain the support of her colleagues in Sengkang to continue as an MP, and adds that he felt Singh’s instruction was “problematic”.

“I didn’t understand why she needed to obtain the support of her Sengkang colleagues regarding a mistake she made in Parliament,” he says.

He adds that Ms Khan, Ms Loh Pei Ying and himself had wondered whether the formation of the Workers’ Party disciplinary panel was a “witch hunt” or a serious investigation that “(he) was sure the party leaders wanted it to look like”.

Mr Nathan says that asking Ms Khan to get the support of her teammates “seemed like an excuse to kick her out of the party”.

17:42

‘Unsure as to whether the disciplinary panel was for show’: Yudhishthra Nathan

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks Mr Yudhishthra Nathan about his reaction to the formation of the Workers’ Party disciplinary panel on Nov 2, 2021.

Mr Nathan says he was surprised as there had been no prior discussion regarding a formal investigation into Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie.

He says: “But also, at that point in time, I was unsure as to whether the disciplinary panel was just for show or whether they were seriously going to investigate her.”

DPP Ramasamy then asks Mr Nathan to clarify what he meant by “just for show”.

Mr Nathan replies: “That they were just possibly forming this disciplinary panel to assuage members of the public.”

17:29

Yudhishthra Nathan says drafting of Raeesah’s personal statement couldn’t have been done in 1 day

Mr Yudhishthra Nathan says that while the initial draft of the personal statement delivered on Nov 1 in Parliament was by Ms Raeesah Khan herself, it saw inputs from him, Ms Loh Pei Ying and a party volunteer called Evelyn, a public relations expert who was then part of the media team.

He adds that there were several iterations of the drafts.

Ms Khan was also present when Mr Nathan, Ms Loh and Ms Evelyn met Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim to discuss the personal statement at the Workers’ Party headquarters. They brought Ms Evelyn up to speed, and thereafter had a general conversation about the personal statement and the drafts, says Mr Nathan.

Mr Nathan says he might have met Ms Khan at least two or three times in relation to the drafts, and that the only other people who might have seen the drafts were Ms Khan’s parents or members of the party’s central executive committee.

While he cannot recall when the personal statement was finalised, he says it must have been close to the time before she sent it to the Speaker of Parliament, as his understanding is that if an MP wants to make a personal explanation, the person has to send a copy of what he wants to say beforehand.

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks how long Mr Nathan was involved in the process, from the first draft of the personal statement by Ms Khan to the time it was finalised.

Mr Nathan estimates it took about half a month.

“Could all of this preparation be done in one day?” the DPP asks.

Mr Nathan says: “No, not in my view.”

17:29

Yudhishthra Nathan recounts what Pritam told him about his Oct 3 conversation with Raeesah

Mr Yudhishthra Nathan tells the court that Pritam Singh informed him and Ms Loh Pei Ying on Oct 12, 2021, that he had visited Ms Raeesah Khan at her house on Oct 3 and told her that he would not judge her, regardless of her decision to maintain her lie or tell the truth.

“He said verbatim ‘I will not judge you’,” Mr Nathan says. “That’s what he conveyed to Loh Pei Ying and me.”

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks about his reaction.

“I don’t think I verbally expressed a particular reaction to that, but I did think in my mind that that was rather indecisive of him at the time,” Mr Nathan responds. “But I didn’t verbally express it. I didn’t see a need to at that point in time.”

The DPP then asks if Singh explained when Ms Khan was supposed to decide to come clean or not.

“No,” says Mr Nathan.

Mr Ramasamy asks if Pritam told him when the issue would come up next.

“He told us that he had conveyed to her that it might come up the next day, on Oct 4, in Parliament,” Mr Nathan responds.

The DPP asks Mr Nathan to clarify his understanding of what Singh meant when he told Ms Khan that he would not judge her.

“My understanding was that he was leaving it open to her, that whatever option that she chose – including the option to maintain the lie – he would have no problem with that,” Mr Nathan replies.

The DPP also asked Mr Nathan about a message that he had sent on Oct 12, at 5.13pm, to a chatgroup consisting of himself, Ms Loh and Ms Khan. In the message, Mr Nathan had said: “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.”

The DPP asked if Ms Khan had evetually taken up the suggestion, and Mr Nathan said no. The WP cadre member also said that as far as he could recall, he did not propose the plan to Singh.

This 5.13pm message had been redacted by Ms Loh from the message logs she submitted to the COP.

17:28

Discussion on Raeesah’s future after coming clean

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks about the third matter discussed, which Mr Yudhishthra Nathan says was about the future of Ms Raeesah Khan’s work as an MP.

Mr Nathan recalls that either Ms Loh Pei Ying or Pritam Singh said Ms Khan would likely not be making speeches in Parliament for a while after coming clean and should focus on ground work to rebuild support from her residents.

“I remember thinking that that was a good idea,” Mr Nathan says.

He says he cited MP Tin Pei Ling as a positive example, as Ms Tin had “in one election appeared to be immature and in the next election, appeared to be mature”.

17:09

My sense at the time was that Pritam was very afraid of Shanmugam and the government: Yudhishthra Nathan

Elaborating on the second broad area of discussions during the Oct 12 meeting with Pritam Singh, Ms Loh Pei Ying and himself, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan says he asked Singh about the change in the party’s strategy, and what made them now want Ms Raeesah Khan to come clean.

He says Singh told him he was worried that the Government might already have evidence, or would somehow know that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament and that the anecdote was untrue.

Mr Nathan says: “My sense at the time was that he was very afraid of minister K. Shanmugam and the Government, and I remember him saying that if the party were to keep the lie, the party would get bad karma for it.”

He says he had also raised concerns about the “management of the media side of things” with Singh.

This included whether they were prepared on the media front, such as fielding questions from journalists on whether he stood by his MP and what she did in Parliament.

Mr Nathan says Singh dismissed it with a wave of his hand and said “that’s a simple matter, I can deal with it”.

He also recalls bringing up that it would not just be People’s Action Party supporters, or those in the middle ground who would criticise the party, but also Workers’ Party’s own members, volunteers and supporters, who, at that time, had no idea that the leaders knew, or that Ms Khan had lied in the first place.

DPP Ramasamy asks whether anything else was raised during this part of the discussions.

Mr Nathan says he asked Singh whether former WP chief Low Thia Khiang had been consulted for his view on the matter.

Mr Nathan explains that he viewed Mr Low as a principled man and seasoned politician, whose judgment he trusts.

Singh told Mr Nathan that he had and Mr Low’s view was that Ms Khan should come clean as soon as possible, Mr Nathan adds.

16:48

Ex-WP cadres spoke to Pritam about their view on Raeesah admitting experience with sexual assault, division of labour after her admission

During their meeting on October 12, 2021, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan and Ms. Loh Pei Ying presented several important topics to Pritam Singh regarding Ms. Raeesah Khan’s upcoming admission in Parliament. Here are the key points discussed:

1. Significance of Mentioning Sexual Assault: They emphasized the importance of Ms. Khan addressing her experience with sexual assault when admitting to her lie. They believed this context would be vital for the public and party’s understanding.
2. Need for Assistance: They expressed their concern over not receiving sufficient support from Ms. Evelyn, a public relations expert who had been part of the Workers’ Party media team. They felt that her expertise would have been beneficial during this challenging time.
3. Division of Responsibilities: They talked about how to divide the workload following Ms. Khan’s admission. Ms. Loh would be responsible for managing the expected influx of emails from residents and maintaining the morale of party volunteers. In contrast, Mr. Nathan would oversee Ms. Khan’s social media accounts, anticipating a significant volume of messages there as well.

In response to their points, DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy inquired about Pritam Singh’s reaction. Mr. Nathan stated that Singh was “quite agreeable” to their suggestions. Specifically, regarding the inclusion of the sexual assault experience in Ms. Khan’s clarification, Mr. Nathan noted that Singh listened to their concerns and concurred that it would likely be the best course of action for Ms. Khan when she came clean.

16:47

What Yudhishthra Nathan and Loh Pei Ying discussed with Pritam on Oct 21, 2021

During the proceedings, DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy questioned Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan about the discussions he had with Pritam Singh and Ms. Loh Pei Ying on October 12, 2021. Mr. Nathan outlined three main topics of discussion:

1. Importance of Disclosure: The first matter focused on the necessity for Ms. Raeesah Khan to mention her personal experience with sexual assault when she came clean about her lie. This was viewed as crucial for providing context to her admission.
2. Need for Support: The second topic addressed the feelings of both Mr. Nathan and Ms. Loh regarding the lack of assistance from a party volunteer named Evelyn, who was part of the media team and described as a “public relations expert.” They expressed a belief that they should have received more support during this critical period.
3. Post-Disclosure Management: The third matter concerned the management of the aftermath following Ms. Khan’s admission. They anticipated a significant public reaction and discussed their respective roles: Ms. Loh would handle emails from residents and manage the morale of party volunteers, while Mr. Nathan would be responsible for Ms. Khan’s social media presence.

16:35

Yudhishthra can’t remember if ‘just not give too many details’ message had been approved for redaction

During the proceedings, DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy questioned Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan regarding the process he followed for redacting messages before submitting evidence to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

Mr. Nathan explained that he began the redaction process after delivering his testimony to the committee on December 2, 2021. He recalled sitting next to MP Rahayu Mahzam in the Parliament library, where they reviewed the messages extracted from his phone. He mentioned, “I believe I had to provide a reason for why each message had to be redacted.”

However, as Ms. Mahzam had to leave and the library closed, he was instructed to finish the redactions and email them to the committee. Mr. Nathan noted that he ended up completing this task in his car in the parking lot.

DPP Ramasamy then inquired whether anyone had approved the redactions he made in his car. Mr. Nathan replied that no one had approved them. When asked specifically about the redaction of the message where he advised Ms. Khan to “just not give too many details,” Mr. Nathan admitted, “To be honest, I cannot remember.” He further explained that due to the large volume of messages they reviewed, he could not recall which specific message Ms. Mahzam had stopped at with him. “I mean, there were hundreds of messages we were looking at, so I can’t remember,” he added.

16:24

Nathan redacted messages submitted to COP because he thought they were ‘immaterial’ to the investigation

Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan was questioned about messages sent in a three-person group chat with Ms. Raeesah Khan and Ms. Loh Pei Ying on October 12, 2021, which he submitted to the Committee of Privileges (COP) with redactions.

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy inquired how these redactions were made. Mr. Nathan explained that he was advised by “a couple of committee members” that it would be permissible to redact irrelevant information and similar details from the submissions.

When asked specifically about the redaction of the message where he stated, “I think we should just not give too many details,” Mr. Nathan clarified that he deemed it “immaterial to the COP investigation.” He elaborated that this message was sent after Ms. Khan had repeated her untruth in Parliament on October 4, and by October 12, the three in the group chat were aligned in their understanding that she should come clean.

He noted that the COP was primarily interested in issues like how party leaders treated Ms. Khan, how they handled her departure from the party, and her state of mind during those events. Mr. Nathan emphasized that he believed these concerns were relevant because party leaders had been involved since August, prior to Ms. Khan’s second untruth.

In response to DPP Ramasamy’s further questioning, Mr. Nathan reiterated that he considered the redacted message to be immaterial to the investigation. When asked if he had any specific concerns about the message itself, he responded, “I felt that the message was just something that was not relevant to the investigations.”

16:15

Yudhishthra Nathan explains his message telling Raeesah to ‘just not give too many details’

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy questioned Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan about a message he sent to Ms. Raeesah Khan on October 4, in which he advised her: “In the first place, I think we should just not give too many details, at most apologise for the fact of not having her age accurate.” This message is among those redacted from the documents submitted to the Committee of Privileges.

When asked to clarify his intent, Mr. Nathan explained that he meant Ms. Khan could go to Parliament and clarify that certain aspects about the girl she had met were inaccurately conveyed. He reiterated that he and Ms. Loh were uncertain about whether Ms. Khan should come clean about her lie between October 4 and October 12.

He noted that the message was sent after his phone call with Ms. Khan that same afternoon and before he and Ms. Loh met with Pritam Singh later that night. At that time, he expressed doubts that Singh and the party leaders could effectively handle the media aspects of the situation, especially since Ms. Khan had indicated that the leaders were unsure about her mentioning her experience with sexual assault.

Mr. Nathan stated that the intent of his message was for Ms. Khan to “continue the lie in accordance with the party leader’s position.” He acknowledged that his suggestion was not adopted by Ms. Khan, and he did not recall proposing this plan to Singh or Sylvia Lim.

16:11

He told Raeesah that coming clean without bringing up her sexual assault experience was ‘political suicide,’ says Mr. Nathan

Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan recounted a phone call he received from Ms. Raeesah Khan on the afternoon of October 12, 2021. During the call, Ms. Khan informed him that Pritam Singh and Sylvia Lim wanted her to come clean about her false statement in Parliament, and she believed she should do the same.

Mr. Nathan recalled that Ms. Khan expressed uncertainty about whether she should mention her personal experience as a sexual assault victim when admitting to her lie. He told her that doing so without context would be “political suicide.” He elaborated, stating, “To go to Parliament and say, ‘Hey everyone, I lied,’ without explaining how she ended up lying would be problematic.” This highlights his concern about the potential repercussions for Ms. Khan and the Workers’ Party in addressing her lie without adequately contextualizing her personal circumstances.

16:05

Yudhishthra Nathan on the aftermath of Raeesah Khan repeating her lie in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy questioned Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan regarding what transpired after Ms. Raeesah Khan repeated her false anecdote in Parliament on October 4, 2021.

When asked if there were any discussions or plans for Ms. Khan to clarify the truth publicly, Mr. Nathan responded, “Not at all, not until Oct 12.” He explained that between October 4 and 12, both he, Ms. Loh Pei Ying, and Ms. Khan were torn between maintaining the lie in line with the party’s position or deciding whether Ms. Khan should come clean in some form.

Nathan noted that while he and Ms. Loh had varying degrees of belief in whether Ms. Khan should confess, they were primarily concerned about the potential damage to the Workers’ Party’s reputation if she did so. He emphasized that, as loyal party members, they feared the repercussions of Ms. Khan revealing the truth and what it could mean for the party’s standing.

Speaking for himself, Nathan said: “We were afraid that the party’s reputation would take an unrecoverable hit if she were to come clean.” He added that at the time, they were operating under an environment where the party leadership’s stance was still that Ms. Khan should not confess to her falsehood in Parliament.

15:51

Yudhishthra Nathan says texts deleted soon after Oct 4, citing ‘general sense of fear’ about external parties reading messages

During the trial, DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy questioned Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan about several messages that were deleted from the three-person group chat between himself, Ms. Loh Pei Ying, and Ms. Raeesah Khan. When asked why the messages were deleted, Mr. Nathan explained that there was concern about the possibility of external parties accessing the messages, particularly if Ms. Khan’s phone had been hacked.

Nathan stated that the messages were deleted “soon after they were sent” on October 4, 2021. He expanded on the reasoning behind the deletions, pointing to a “general sense of fear” within the Workers’ Party about their communications being read by outside forces.

He recounted how precautions were taken during meetings at Pritam Singh’s house, where they were instructed to switch off their phones and place them in a drawer far from where they were seated. Similarly, phones were kept outside during meetings with the disciplinary panel.

While he acknowledged that concerns about phone hacking weren’t the only reason for such measures, Mr. Nathan emphasized that it was one of the main fears at the time. He added that the deleted messages related to Ms. Khan’s lie in Parliament, although he could not recall specific details.

15:50

Pritam didn’t bring up Raeesah’s lie before Oct 4 Parliament sitting, says Yudhishthra Nathan

During the court session, DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy questioned Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan about the time between the August 10, 2021, meeting with Pritam Singh and the October 4 Parliament sitting, where Ms. Raeesah Khan repeated her false claim.

DPP Ramasamy asked if any steps were taken to clarify the lie during that period or if Mr. Nathan had received any instructions to follow up on the matter, such as checking with Ms. Khan about whether she had spoken to her parents regarding the issue. Mr. Nathan responded “no” to each question.

When asked if he had met with Singh during that time, Mr. Nathan recalled that Singh gave him and Ms. Loh Pei Ying a tour of his new office in Parliament House in September 2021. He added that another person, “Florence,” who was either Singh’s secretary or from the parliamentary secretariat, was also present.

However, Mr. Nathan stated that the lie was not brought up during the tour or the 30-minute discussion that followed, which focused on other party matters.

15:37

Yudhishthra Nathan recounts Aug 10 meeting with Pritam Singh and Loh Pei Ying

Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan provides his account of the August 10, 2021 meeting with Pritam Singh and Ms. Loh Pei Ying in court. He mentions that he had arrived late to the meeting, and by the time he joined, Singh and Ms. Loh were already engaged in a conversation.

He recalls that they were discussing Ms. Raeesah Khan’s false statement in Parliament as well as her sexual assault experience.

When DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks how he knew they were talking about Ms. Khan’s lie, Mr. Nathan explains that he doesn’t remember the full conversation but does recall Ms. Loh sharing thoughts on the challenges sexual assault victims face.

Mr. Nathan further recounts that Singh made a comment during the discussion, stating: “Conservative religious men in our society would not like to have an MP (who) was sexually assaulted.” Mr. Nathan clarifies that Singh said this remark in passing but felt it was worth mentioning.

He adds that there was also discussion surrounding Malay/Muslim issues at that time, though he is uncertain if Singh’s comment came at the very beginning of the meeting.

15:28

Yudhishthra Nathan understood ‘take it to the grave’ message as party leaders instructing Raeesah to conceal the truth about her false anecdote and lie in Parliament

Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan is asked to elaborate on his interpretation of a message sent by Ms. Raeesah Khan in a group chat with him and Ms. Loh Pei Ying. In the message, Ms. Khan had written: “I told them what I told you guys… take the information to the grave.”

Explaining the first part of the message, Mr. Nathan states that his understanding was that Ms. Khan was referring to the fact that she had lied in Parliament.

As for the phrase “take the information to the grave,” Mr. Nathan interprets it as a directive from Workers’ Party leaders—Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim, and Faisal Manap—to keep the truth about her false anecdote and her lie in Parliament hidden.

DPP Sivakumar Ramasamy asks Mr. Nathan, “What was your understanding of what Raeesah Khan was telling you in that message?”

Mr. Nathan responds: “My view was that, as far as party leaders were concerned, this issue of her having lied in Parliament was something the party did not need to address.”

He further adds that from the rest of the message, the focus seemed to shift towards addressing Muslim issues instead. Mr. Nathan notes that there had been significant concern within the party regarding the public’s perception of Muslim-related matters at the time.

15:18

Prosecution questions Yudhishthra Nathan about the Aug 7, 2021, Zoom call where Raeesah Khan first revealed her lie

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy asks Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan about his response during the Zoom meeting on August 7, 2021, when Ms. Raeesah Khan first disclosed her lie, which she had previously shared in Parliament.

Mr. Nathan shares that he felt sad for Ms. Khan upon learning about her sexual assault but was also concerned about the impact her lie would have on the Workers’ Party. He recognized that this situation “was going to become an issue, or rather, a problem” for the party.

“In the Zoom call, I pretty much just consoled (Ms Khan),” he explains.

The DPP then questions if Ms. Khan had mentioned whether she had informed Pritam Singh about her lie or her assault. Mr. Nathan replies that he does not recall Ms. Khan stating that she had told Singh about either matter.

15:13

Yudhishthra Nathan says he spoke to Raeesah Khan about her anecdote after her Aug 3, 2021 speech.

During his testimony, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan is questioned by Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy about whether he discussed Ms. Raeesah Khan’s anecdote following her August 3, 2021 speech in Parliament.

Mr. Nathan confirms that Ms. Khan called him from Parliament House that afternoon. During the call, she mentioned that she was “being asked to furnish details” about something she had said in her speech.

When asked who was requesting this information, Mr. Nathan says Ms. Khan indicated that it was Pritam Singh. She also mentioned being questioned by the Government regarding the anecdote, which involved a victim she had met while assisting a women’s rights organisation.

Mr. Nathan recalls asking Ms. Khan if she could contact the victim, to which she responded that she could not. However, he notes that he does not remember the conversation verbatim.

The DPP then asks how the conversation concluded, and Mr. Nathan says he believes Ms. Khan mentioned that she would speak to Singh.

He adds that he expressed doubts to Ms. Khan about a women’s rights organisation providing someone’s personal details due to confidentiality concerns. “So I said if you think that’s the case, then you should tell that to Pritam,” he recounts.

15:04

Yudhishthra Nathan describes working relationship with Raeesah Khan.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy questions Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan about how he came to know Ms. Raeesah Khan.

Mr. Nathan explains that he first met Ms. Khan through his involvement with Sengkang GRC. About a year before the 2020 General Election, Pritam Singh deployed Ms. Khan, along with WP candidates Jamus Lim and Louis Chua, to Sengkang to “essentially walk the ground” with the grassroots team, of which Mr. Nathan was a member.

“At the time, the GRC hadn’t been formed, but we suspected that it would be, so Singh sent a team there,” Mr. Nathan says.

Judge Luke Tan once again reminds Mr. Nathan to slow down and pace himself during his testimony.

Mr. Nathan says he interacted with Ms. Khan in two capacities: as a member of the Sengkang grassroots team and as part of the Workers’ Party’s General Election media team.

After WP’s victory in Sengkang in 2020, Mr. Nathan served as the secretary of a committee organising grassroots events in the constituency, which included Ms. Khan and Mr. Lim. He also advised Ms. Khan on social media posts and participated in a chat group where Ms. Khan would share drafts of her parliamentary speeches, seeking feedback.

When asked to describe his relationship with Ms. Khan, Mr. Nathan characterises it as friendly and professional.

14:58

Pritam Singh asked me about being co-opted into the central executive committee, says former WP cadre Yudhishthra Nathan.

As the trial resumes, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan takes the witness stand.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy questions Mr. Nathan about his involvement with the Workers’ Party (WP). Mr. Nathan explains that he was a member of the party for about six years, resigning in 2022. During his time in the WP, his team collaborated with Pritam Singh on media-related matters, including providing feedback on Facebook posts and occasionally contributing to budget or parliamentary speeches.

Mr. Nathan recalls that shortly after Pritam Singh became secretary-general, Singh asked if he would like to be co-opted into the party’s central executive committee (CEC). After some consideration, Mr. Nathan declined the offer.

Throughout his testimony, Mr. Nathan speaks rapidly, prompting Judge Luke Tan to ask him on three separate occasions to slow down and “pace (himself).”

13:11

Judge to decide on defense’s request to vacate trial session for Pritam Singh’s daughter’s graduation; court adjourns for lunch.

Mr. Andre Jumabhoy requests that the morning session of the hearing on October 24, 2024, be vacated to allow Pritam Singh to attend an event at his daughter’s school, where she will be giving a graduation speech.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock objects, stating, “We were given these dates on April 17 this year. Any personal arrangements should have been adjusted.”

Mr. Jumabhoy clarifies, “It’s a personal engagement; (Pritam’s) daughter is giving a graduation speech, and he would like to be there.”

The prosecutor expresses concerns about the potential impact on the trial schedule, noting that the trial is set for 16 days and questioning whether they can make up for the lost half day if the request is granted.

Judge Luke Tan then seeks clarification on the wording of the first charge against Singh. The charge alleges that Singh falsely testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP) that after the August 8 meeting with Ms. Sylvia Lim and Mr. Faisal Manap, he wanted Ms. Khan to clarify her lie in Parliament.

The judge points out that Singh never used the phrase “clarify in Parliament” during his testimony to the COP and asks if this is an inference the court is expected to make.

DAG Ang confirms this, stating that it is not just an inference but the only natural inference that can be drawn, as Singh did not suggest any alternative interpretation.

Judge Tan explains that he is seeking clarification to better understand the charges and gauge the likely duration of the trial.

He ultimately states he would “prefer to see how the trial progresses” before making a decision on the request.

“I appreciate Pritam Singh’s position as a father,” the judge remarks, “but generally, that is not a reason to vacate trial dates. We’ll see how it goes, and maybe we can revisit the matter when it gets closer to the date.”

The court then adjourns for lunch, with proceedings set to resume at 2:30 PM.

12:48

Prosecution questions Loh Pei Ying about clarity on inquiry regarding Raeesah Khan’s lie despite “fuzzy” memory.

The hearing resumes with the prosecution’s re-examination of Ms. Loh Pei Ying.

DPP Ben Mathias Tan asks Ms. Loh about her August 10, 2021, conversation with Pritam Singh. Earlier, she testified that they did not discuss Ms. Raeesah Khan’s lie explicitly, as they were hesitant to say it “out loud.” However, she also mentioned that her brief conversation with Singh suggested he was aware of the issue.

DPP Tan reminds Ms. Loh of her earlier statement: “Your answer was, ‘My memory on this is fuzzy; I recall that I may have asked something to that effect because I recall him sort of nodding his head and affirming that it probably wouldn’t come up again.’” He questions her, asking why, if her memory is “fuzzy,” she maintains that she had this takeaway from their conversation.

At this point, the defense interjects, stating that Ms. Loh’s response is based entirely on her examination-in-chief (EIC) and that if the prosecution had any doubts, they could have clarified it earlier. Mr. Jumabhoy adds, “You don’t get an opportunity now to revisit her EIC and explore it.”

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan expresses that he was also curious about this aspect during the EIC. He then asks Ms. Loh to clarify again.

Ms. Loh reiterates that her memory is “fuzzy” because she cannot recall the exact exchange. “But I’m certain about the takeaway because this is a very severe revelation to me that a Member of Parliament had lied, and I wouldn’t have been so relaxed if I believed we needed to take action,” Ms. Loh explains.

She expresses concern for the party’s performance and success, stating, “I was very concerned that there is this record, and I wouldn’t have left it be if there was a plan.”

Ms. Loh adds, “So I was certain that was the takeaway until she lied again on October 4, 2021. So in that interim period, in my mind, there was no plan and no sense it would come up again.”

12:04

Loh Pei Ying states that Workers’ Party leaders first discussed the directive given to Raeesah Khan on October 12; court adjourns for a brief recess.

Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questions Ms. Loh about when she first heard the Workers’ Party (WP) leaders explicitly mention what they instructed Ms. Raeesah Khan to do regarding her falsehood.

Ms. Loh confirms that the first explicit discussion occurred during a meeting on October 12, 2021, with Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan and Pritam Singh.

“As I mentioned, I had a meeting with Pritam Singh on August 10, and we had an understanding,” Ms. Loh explains. “But the first time I heard it said out loud was on October 12.”

Mr. Jumabhoy clarifies, “Just so we’re clear, on August 10, Pritam Singh never said to you that the matter would not come up?”

Ms. Loh responds, “My takeaway from the meeting was that.”

When Mr. Jumabhoy repeats his question, Ms. Loh ultimately admits, “He never said that to me out loud.”

Mr. Jumabhoy asks again, “So those words weren’t uttered from his mouth?” Ms. Loh agrees.

The defense attorney requests 20 minutes to confer with Pritam Singh, and Judge Tan consents, leading to a short break in the court session.

12:03

Loh Pei Ying admits to going beyond merely informing Yudhishthra Nathan that he would be called to testify at the Committee of Privileges (COP).

The defense brings up a prior exchange from the COP hearing in which Ms. Loh requested permission from the then-Chairman of COP, Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, to give Mr. Nathan a “heads up” regarding his upcoming testimony.

During the hearing, Mr. Tan instructed Ms. Loh that the discussion should remain confidential. Ms. Loh acknowledged this, stating that Mr. Nathan was willing to testify but preferred not to disclose any details without his consent.

The defense inquires about the specifics of Ms. Loh’s conversation with Mr. Nathan.

Ms. Loh responds, “I said, ‘I can’t believe Pritam said those things to the press; you have to come here and tell the press.’”

Mr. Jumabhoy counters, “That’s not what you told the COP you were going to do.”

Ms. Loh replies, “I did say I was going to share (his) details; I did also say that.”

The defense argues that Ms. Loh “went further” than simply alerting Mr. Nathan about his COP call-up and that she had not obtained permission for this additional communication.

“Yes,” she confirms.

He then asks what she believed Mr. Nathan would do if she had not been truthful with him.

At this point, she expresses her emotional state, explaining that while giving her evidence at the COP, MP Don Wee misinterpreted a news report regarding a Workers’ Party (WP) press conference, leading her to think that Singh had lied about only learning of Ms. Khan’s deception on October 3, 2024.

The WP press conference occurred two days after Ms. Khan’s resignation from the party and took place concurrently with the COP.

During the press conference, Singh clarified that the WP leaders were informed by Ms. Khan that she had lied in Parliament on August 3, 2024, shortly after she made false statements regarding a sexual assault case.

Mr. Jumabhoy asserts that Ms. Loh’s anger stemmed from her working under a mistaken belief, as it was clarified in the subsequent COP session that Singh had not made the statements she had reacted to.

“So angry, with the wrong facts, that you felt the need to speak to Mr. Nathan,” he states.

“I think anyone in that position would have felt the same,” she replies.

“Anyone in that position would have followed the rules,” he counters.

She acknowledges her inability to confirm that but reiterates her intense anger, emphasizing its significance to her.

This is an extract from the COP report.

11:52

Summary of Loh Pei Ying’s Testimony at the Committee of Privileges Hearing:

Loh Pei Ying denied texting Yudhishthra Nathan during her testimony at the Committee of Privileges (COP) hearing. She stated that she messaged him just before entering Parliament and later that day around 5:30 PM. When asked if she texted him while still in the building, she confirmed she had already left.

Judge Luke Tan inquired about messages between 1:41 PM and 2:08 PM that day. Loh acknowledged that Nathan might have texted her during that time. She explained that she called him after her testimony while on a lunch break, with permission from then-Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, to inform him of the situation.

Loh mentioned that she didn’t have the messages on her phone and didn’t know where they were. When pressed, she admitted to deleting messages but could not recall when. She stated that her focus was on a separate issue regarding the identity of a person she had not disclosed to the COP.

Mr. Andre Jumabhoy, the defense attorney, pointed out that her instinct upon leaving was to delete messages, to which she agreed but clarified that it was part of a larger action of cleaning her phone. Ultimately, she confirmed that she had deleted messages from her phone, including those related to her communication with Nathan.

11:23

Loh told Raeesah she was ‘crazy’ for wanting to claim Pritam Singh only learned of the lie in October 2021

Mr. Jumabhoy inquired about the meeting at Ms. Loh Pei Ying’s house on Dec 1, 2021, which took place the night before the Committee of Privileges commenced. Present at the meeting were Ms. Raeesah Khan, two former Workers’ Party cadres, and party volunteer Mike Lim. Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan had yet to receive his invitation from the Committee of Privileges, according to Ms. Loh.

Mr. Jumabhoy then asked if, during the meeting, Ms. Khan expressed her intention to tell the Committee that Pritam Singh had only learned of the lie in October 2021. Ms. Loh agreed.

He followed up with, “When you heard that, you told her it would contradict your testimony.”

Ms. Loh responded, “I told her she was crazy.”

Mr. Jumabhoy pressed further, asking, “But it would contradict your testimony?”

Ms. Loh replied, “Yes, because my testimony would be to tell the truth.”

11:16

Defence suggests that Loh Pei Ying’s ‘worst nightmare’ message refers to possibility of Raeesah Khan revealing damaging information about her and Yudhishthra Nathan

After a short break, the court resumed, with Mr Andre Jumabhoy directing Ms Loh Pei Ying’s attention to a message she sent on Dec 1, 2021. Ms Loh confirmed that she had sent the message.

Mr Jumabhoy then asked if the “worst nightmare” she referred to in her message to Mr Yudhishthra Nathan—regarding Ms Raeesah Khan’s resignation—was tied to the fact that Ms Khan had been “cut loose” from the Workers’ Party. Ms Loh responded that it referred to Ms Khan’s resignation and the party’s subsequent statement.

He then pointed to another message in which Ms Loh stated, “There’s not much we can do to what she says and shares.”

Mr Jumabhoy suggested that her “worst nightmare” effectively meant that Raeesah Khan could say whatever she wanted, a point Ms Loh disagreed with.

He further asserted, “The concern wasn’t about Pritam Singh; the concern wasn’t about what she was going to say about Pritam Singh; it was about a concern regarding what she would say about you and Yudhishthra Nathan, wasn’t it?”

Ms Loh firmly replied no.

11:15

Loh Pei Ying clarifies she did not meet Raeesah Khan on day both parties were invited to COP

Mr Andre Jumabhoy questioned Ms Loh Pei Ying about whether she and Ms Raeesah Khan intended to align their accounts before the Committee of Privileges (COP) in December 2021. Ms Loh responded that Ms Khan had requested a phone call on Nov 29, the same day both parties were invited to appear before the COP.

Mr Jumabhoy asked, “Did Raeesah Khan request to meet up to align the facts?”

Ms Loh replied, “I can’t recall her words about this.”

He followed up, “Is that something she may have said?”

To which Ms Loh answered, “Maybe.”

Ms Loh then explained that she ultimately did not meet Ms Khan because it was “very late.” However, she mentioned that she met with Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and another party volunteer, Mike Lim, on either Nov 29 or 30 to discuss “how much information would be shared” with the COP.

11:06

Defence questions Loh Pei Ying about concerns over ‘conspiring’ allegations

The defence referred to a text message sent by Ms Loh Pei Ying, in which she stated that if Ms Raeesah Khan were to leave the party, “everyone is of the view that we can cut her loose and distance the party from her mistake.” The message continued: “But if she is out of the party, she is still subject to the COP, and there’s not much we can do about what she says and shares when it gets there.”

When Mr Andre Jumabhoy asked for clarification, Ms Loh explained, “I am saying that there’s very little control the party will have over the narrative that will be put forth to the COP.”

He inquired if one reason for wanting to keep Ms Khan in the party was to maintain some control over the situation. Ms Loh conceded, “To some degree, yes,” but then trailed off, apologizing for her scattered thoughts.

Mr Jumabhoy pressed further, asking if she was concerned that Mr Pritam Singh would accuse her or Mr Nathan of collaborating with Ms Khan to create the lie. The Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) intervened, asking if the defence meant “conspiring” instead, and Mr Jumabhoy rephrased the question accordingly.

Ms Loh stated that she was “extremely concerned” about such accusations, particularly after Ms Khan’s resignation, the Workers’ Party announced the disciplinary panel’s decision, and specifically on Nov 29, after Ms Khan called her following strong recommendations from party leaders for Ms Khan to resign.

Mr Jumabhoy continued, asking if their text messages in October provided Ms Khan with options for containment. Ms Loh confirmed, “Yes.”

He then asked if she and Mr Nathan had been the first to speak to Ms Khan on Aug 7, during an hour-long Zoom call where Ms Khan detailed her actions. Ms Loh confirmed this as well.

Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that in her text message on Nov 10, she had expressed concern that if Ms Khan were cut loose, “who knew what she would say?” Ms Loh responded that her background in advising on media matters led her to view the situation as one of narrative control and optics.

He followed up, “Wasn’t there a concern about what she might say about you and Mr Nathan?” Ms Loh replied, “Not at all.”

10:44

Naive, stupid, and ‘lao hong’: Defence questions Loh Pei Ying about her description of Raeesah Khan

Mr Andre Jumabhoy raised a meeting that took place on Nov 25, 2021, between Ms Loh Pei Ying, Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, and the Workers’ Party disciplinary panel.

He asked Ms Loh whether she had referred to Ms Raeesah Khan as “naive and stupid,” as noted in records from the meeting. While Ms Loh did not recall using both terms, she confirmed she “definitely would have said naive.”

Mr Jumabhoy then asked: “Do you accept that you called her stupid as well?” Ms Loh responded that while the points may not have been hers, they might have emerged during the discussion. She also mentioned that the notes were taken by Ms Sylvia Lim, who “could have been describing Yudhishthra Nathan and me as naive and stupid.”

When asked if she remembered calling Ms Khan “naive,” Ms Loh agreed but could not definitively recall describing her as “stupid.” Mr Jumabhoy pressed if it was possible that she had used those words, to which she replied, “Maybe, yes.”

The defence also asked whether Ms Loh had called Ms Khan self-centred and used the term “lao hong,” suggesting it implied weakness and the tendency to crumble under criticism. Ms Loh confirmed that she sometimes viewed Ms Khan as self-centred.

“I wouldn’t use the word weak, but I used that term because I felt she was quite susceptible to criticism,” Ms Loh explained.

Mr Jumabhoy continued: “In your understanding, ‘lao hong’ means weak, correct?”

Ms Loh responded by comparing it to a biscuit, saying: “Would you call a ‘lao hong’ biscuit weak? It’s just not crispy anymore.”

When Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that “lao hong” typically means stale for biscuits, he asked if Ms Loh intended to call Ms Khan that. Ms Loh clarified: “In Singapore, ‘lao hong’ sometimes means soft.”

She further explained: “What I meant was that she can buckle easily under pressure and is very susceptible to criticism. What people say online about her strongly affects her mental health.”

10:34

Loh Pei Ying suggested Raeesah resign before Nov 1, but says it would have been irresponsible

Mr Andre Jumabhoy reads out a text exchange between Ms Loh and Ms Khan on Oct 12, 2021, where the then-WP cadre suggests that Ms Khan resign as MP. This is before she comes clean about the lie in Parliament.

“Whether or not Sengkang survives, or what happens after, don’t worry so much about that,” Ms Loh told Ms Khan. “It shouldn’t come at the cost of your own sense of self being completely compromised.”

Mr Jumabhoy points out that Ms Loh had suggested Ms Khan resign about a month before the disciplinary panel held their first meeting with Ms Khan on Nov 8, 2021.

Ms Loh says she was “laying out an option”.

Mr Jumabhoy: “The option you were laying out was that she could resign.”

Ms Loh: “That’s right.”

Mr Jumabhoy: “And the next message on whether Sengkang survives, don’t worry so much about it.”

Ms Loh : “That’s right.”

Mr Jumabhoy: “As far as you were concerned, it was not irresponsible for her to resign a month before?”

Ms Loh: “Oh, it would still be irresponsible.”

10:32

Defence asks Loh Pei Ying to clarify her interpretation of Pritam Singh saying to Raeesah Khan that he wouldn’t judge her

In court, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy asked Ms. Loh Pei Ying to clarify her understanding of Pritam Singh’s comment to Raeesah Khan that he “would not judge her.” Mr. Jumabhoy suggested two possible interpretations: one, that Singh was referring to not judging Khan for her initial lie; or two, that he was implying she wouldn’t be judged for her future actions, such as continuing the falsehood.

Ms. Loh questioned the difference between these two interpretations, prompting Mr. Jumabhoy to clarify that one interpretation could be taken as allowing Ms. Khan to do whatever she wanted. Ms. Loh continued to question the distinction.

When asked whether she had sought clarification from Singh about the meaning behind his comment, Ms. Loh admitted she did not.

Mr. Jumabhoy then inquired whether there could be an alternative interpretation of Singh’s words. At this point, the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) and Judge Luke Tan intervened to seek clarification on the defence’s line of questioning.

The judge asked Ms. Loh if Singh’s statement could be interpreted as applying only to Khan’s actions on Aug 3, 2021, when she first lied in Parliament about accompanying a sexual assault victim to the police station. Ms. Loh disagreed with this interpretation.

10:18

Defence asks Loh Pei Ying about Pritam Singh’s position on suggestion to maintain Raeesah Khan’s lie

In court, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questioned Ms. Loh Pei Ying about a meeting on Oct 12, 2021, with Pritam Singh and Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, where they discussed whether Raeesah Khan should tell the truth about her false anecdote in Parliament. Ms. Loh confirmed that a consensus was reached that Ms. Khan should come clean.

Mr. Jumabhoy highlighted that, as seen from earlier messages, both Ms. Loh and Mr. Nathan seemed to consider options to maintain Ms. Khan’s lie. Ms. Loh disagreed with this characterization.

She clarified that while she and Mr. Nathan had differing opinions during the meeting, Mr. Nathan initially believed that revealing the truth would be damaging. His suggestion, which she described as “misdirecting a police query,” was, in effect, a solution to continue the falsehood.

When Mr. Jumabhoy pointed out that “misdirecting” was a way of saying Mr. Nathan was suggesting lying, Ms. Loh agreed.

Mr. Jumabhoy then pressed whether she was fully in favor of telling the truth. Ms. Loh acknowledged having reservations due to the potential consequences for the party, estimating that she was about 90% committed to telling the truth before the meeting.

During the meeting, Mr. Nathan had suggested covering up the lie, but Pritam Singh rejected the idea, saying: “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.” Ms. Loh confirmed this, acknowledging that, at the start of the meeting, Mr. Singh was the only one fully committed to the truth, though she herself was mostly inclined toward it.

10:13

Loh Pei Ying agrees that redaction of evidence was ‘manipulative’

In court, Mr. Andre Jumabhoy revisited the issue of Ms. Loh Pei Ying’s redaction of a message from Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan when submitting evidence to the Committee of Privileges. The message, dated Oct 7, 2021, suggested that Ms. Raeesah Khan avoid giving too many details about her inaccurate anecdote in Parliament.

Ms. Loh initially claimed that the redaction was due to the message being about an unrelated MP. However, Mr. Jumabhoy challenged her on this, suggesting that her decision to hide the message was “manipulative” as it selectively withheld evidence to protect her and her friends.

When asked if she agreed with this characterization, Ms. Loh initially disagreed. But after further pressing by Mr. Jumabhoy, she eventually conceded, saying: “It is manipulative.”

10:05

Defence asks if there is no grey area when it comes to Raeesah’s lie, Loh Pei Ying says there is

The defence’s grilling of Ms Loh Pei Ying continues, with Pritam Singh’s lawyer suggesting it was Ms Loh who advised Ms Raeesah Khan to enter a grey area.

“You told us it was above your pay grade to advise Ms Khan, but the suggestion to operate in what you term is the grey area… it’s from you isn’t it?” he asks.

He rephrases the question: “The suggestion to operate in this grey area comes from you doesn’t it?”

Ms Loh disagrees. “I think several people including party leaders were likewise thinking in a similar vein,” she adds.

Mr Jumabhoy suggests that the phrase “grey area” is one that is “not strictly legal, not strictly illegal”.

“I didn’t see them in frames of legal or illegal,” she replies.

“When it comes to Raeesah Khan’s lie, there is no grey area is there?…It’s either tell the truth or don’t – there’s nothing grey about that,” he says.

Ms Loh replies that what he said is an opinion.

Mr Jumabhoy rephrases his question: “The question I asked you is – there is no grey area when it comes to Raeesah Khan’s lie?”

“To me, there is,” says Ms Loh. “The first part of her lie, which is the part where she said she accompanied the sexual assault victim to the police station – that part is a lie.”

“The latter half of what she shared to me – I believe what she told me and Parliament – I don’t think that part is a lie,” adds Ms Loh, referring to an anecdote that Ms Khan heard from a sexual assault victim.

10:00

Defence suggests Loh Pei Ying advised Raeesah to perpetuate falsehood

During the trial, defence lawyer Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questions Ms. Loh Pei Ying about an Oct 7, 2021, message she sent to Ms. Raeesah Khan. In this message, Ms. Loh suggested that since Ms. Khan was not in contact with the sexual assault victim mentioned in her anecdote in Parliament, she should avoid revealing any information to the police.

Mr. Jumabhoy directly asks whether this message was advising Ms. Khan to perpetuate the falsehood. Ms. Loh responds: “I believe I’ve already given my answer yesterday.” When pressed for a direct answer, she replies: “I don’t think so.”

The defence then brings up another message in which Ms. Loh suggested that Ms. Khan gather stories from other sexual assault survivors to present instead of her original anecdote.

Mr. Jumabhoy questions whether these two messages indicated Ms. Loh was advising Ms. Khan to own up to her lie or to continue perpetuating it. Ms. Loh responds that “not these two specific messages” indicated advice to own up.

09:59

‘LOL please’: Defence asks about message from Loh Pei Ying to Raeesah Khan on Oct 5

The trial begins with defence lawyer Mr. Andre Jumabhoy questioning Ms. Loh Pei Ying about a message she sent to Ms. Raeesah Khan on Oct 5, 2021. This occurred a day after Ms. Khan had doubled down on her lie in Parliament following questioning by Law Minister K. Shanmugam.

Mr. Jumabhoy highlights a discrepancy between Ms. Loh’s December 2021 statement to the Committee of Privileges (COP) and her casual message to Ms. Khan. In her COP statement, Ms. Loh told Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong that she felt “shocked, but my primary feeling was worry and fear” when Ms. Khan stuck to her lie.

However, on Oct 5, 2021, Ms. Khan had suggested she could be brought before the COP, to which Ms. Loh had responded: “Bringing the committee on what grounds, for refusing to answer a question, LOL please.”

When Mr. Jumabhoy focuses on the use of “LOL” and asks if this casual tone reflects her supposed feelings of fear and worry, Ms. Loh clarifies that “LOL” stands for “laugh out loud.” She explains that while she had genuine concerns, in stressful situations it was not uncommon for the three of them—Ms. Khan, Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan, and herself—to use humor to cope.

Pressed further, Ms. Loh eventually concedes that her message did not reflect worry or fear, but rather an attempt to lighten the situation.

09:20

Loh Pei Ying arrives

Ms. Loh Pei Ying, former secretarial assistant to Ms. Raeesah Khan, has arrived at the State Courts. She is one of the prosecution’s witnesses in Pritam Singh’s trial.

Yesterday, under cross-examination by defence lawyer Mr. Andre Jumabhoy, Ms. Loh admitted to having lied when she redacted a message from Mr. Yudhishthra Nathan in documents submitted to the Committee of Privileges.

09:18