At one charged moment in court, Pritam Singh’s lawyer, former prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy (left), confronted Raeesah Khan about her "non-stop lies". - Photo: ST
SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s defence lawyers sought to paint former WP MP Raeesah Khan as a habitual liar from the moment her cross-examination began on the second day of Singh’s trial.
At one charged moment in court, Singh’s lawyer, former prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy, confronted Khan with the question: “You are, in fact, a liar, correct? You tell lies non-stop, don’t you?”
“Yes, I lied,” Khan said in response to the first question. She also asked what Jumabhoy meant by “non-stop”.
At one point, the defence lawyer sought to show that Khan did know what Singh meant when he requested her to substantiate part of an anecdote which turned out to be untrue.
He had circled the anecdote on a printed copy of her Aug 3, 2021, speech and written “Substantiate?” next to it, before it was delivered in Parliament. Khan told the Committee of Privileges (COP) in November 2021 that she did not understand what that meant at the time.
Singh is fighting two charges over his alleged lies to the committee convened to investigate Khan’s untruth in Parliament.
Khan had, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4 the same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.
Singh was charged under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, which makes it an offence to lie in response to questions posed by Parliament or its committee. If convicted, he could be fined up to $7,000, jailed for up to three years, or both, on each charge.
Jumabhoy started his line of questioning from how Khan crafted the untrue anecdote, saying: “In terms of that anecdote, you had put yourself in the police station, but you weren’t there.
“So when somebody says substantiate this because you were there, it’s really asking were you there, were you able to substantiate. And you knew in your mind that’s just not true because you weren’t there. So you did understand what substantiate means.”
Jumabhoy then brought Khan to the text messages between Singh and her on Aug 3, shortly after she delivered the speech containing the lie, in which Singh said: “I had a feeling this would happen. I highlighted this part in your draft speech. You should write to the police to clarify this matter.”
To which, she had responded: “I thought I edited it enough to remove this possibility.”
The defence lawyer asked why she had said “no” when earlier asked if she made an edit based on Singh’s comment.
At this point, Khan asked the lawyer to repeat or rephrase his questions to her several times, as he continued to poke at this apparent inconsistency.
After she asked for clarity a third time, Jumabhoy said: “You’ve told Singh ‘I thought I edited it enough to remove this possibility’. That’s your message there. You are now telling Singh a lie.”
To which, she said: “What was your question again?”
The lawyer repeated his question a fifth time, and Khan answered “no” when asked if she was telling Singh a lie in that instance.
During the COP hearing, Khan had said: “At that point in time, I did not understand what that meant but, upon reflection, I understand now why he circled it and why he said what he said.”
She repeated this in her testimony on Oct 14, adding that she did not make further changes to the speech even after seeing Singh’s comment as she “didn’t really understand the severity of what he wrote”.
“I thought if it was something important, he would sit down and have a conversation with me, but he didn’t, so I didn’t make any changes,” she said in court when the prosecution was leading her evidence.
Jumabhoy later asked point-blank if Khan was saying it is true that she did not understand what “substantiate” meant despite the evidence that she had given so far in court, including when asked about her text about having “edited (her anecdote) enough”.
Khan said nothing, prompting Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan to say: “You’d want to respond to that”.
“No, I don’t think I’ve anything else to say to that,” Khan said.
Jumabhoy moved on by stating that it is “fundamentally different” when her evidence to the COP was that she “didn’t understand” what substantiate meant, but she now stated in court that “substantiate”, to her, meant to “make sure it happened” or “make sure it is true”.
Khan told the court that she feels like she is saying the same things in different ways.
Lies upon lies
Jumabhoy later sought to show that Khan had built upon her original lie with more lies, including telling Singh that the number of the person who put the victim in touch with her was not working any more, and that it was not an organisation she was in touch with, but “someone who came into my friend’s radar”.
“In one message, I think you’ve managed to lie about four times,” the lawyer charged, at one point. “I mean that’s pretty impressive by any stretch of the imagination.”
The lawyer was referring to Khan’s response to Singh when he asked early on when she was still in contact with the woman in her untrue anecdote.
Khan had told Singh then that the details she could recall were that this was three years ago in the early part of the year, and that she had met the victim at the bus stop near the Bedok police station.
When Khan responded to say “I wouldn’t call it impressive, I would call it fear”, Jumabhoy remarked to the court that she is “seen to be well-thinking enough” to be able to add facts to support her accounts.
Khan then said: “I would think being well-thinking would be coming out with the truth.”
Moments ago, Jumabhoy asked Khan about her lies over text, saying “You’re adding more substance, aren’t you?”, “You’re adding more facts to support a lie”, and “So it’s a lie heaped upon a lie. And it’s going to be wrapped up in more lies isn’t it?”.
Khan agreed to all these statements.
Singh is represented by Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, from Jumabhoy’s law firm. Singh’s father, Amarjit Singh, a former district judge, is also part of his legal team.
Khan’s cross-examination is expected to continue for the rest of the day. - The Straits Times/ANN
