Singapore's WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh leaving the State Courts during a lunch break on Oct 21. - ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/ANN): Former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre Yudhishthra Nathan was cross-examined on Oct 21, the sixth day of WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s trial.
Singh is fighting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened in November 2021 to investigate former Sengkang WP MP Raeesah Khan’s untruth in Parliament.
Ms Khan had, on Aug 3, 2021, told Parliament about 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.
Mr Nathan, now a PhD student at a local university, was a WP member from 2016 to 2022. He served in the party’s media team, policy team, youth wing and grassroots team in Sengkang, and assisted Ms Khan in her duties as an MP.
Here are the key points that came up as Singh’s lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, cross-examined Mr Nathan:
1. Nathan wanted Khan to ‘actively maintain the lie’
The court heard that before attending a meeting with Singh and Ms Khan’s then secretarial assistant Loh Pei Ying at the WP chief’s house on Oct 12, 2021, Mr Nathan was concerned that the party leaders had not come up with a proper plan for Ms Khan to come clean about her lie.
Mr Nathan’s position at that time was therefore for her to “actively maintain the lie”, he testified.
When Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan asked what Mr Nathan envisaged Ms Khan doing in “actively maintaining the lie”, Mr Nathan said she “may go and clarify the age, but not come out and say she had lied about going to the police station”.
Mr Jumabhoy was questioning Mr Nathan about a WhatsApp message that he had sent earlier on the day of the meeting suggesting Ms Khan should not give too many details about her anecdote and just clarify the age of the alleged sexual assault victim.
Mr Nathan told the court he could not recall if he said this in relation to what Ms Khan should say in Parliament, or what she should tell the police, given that Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam had said by then that the police would be looking into the anecdote.
Asked if he was aware at this stage that Ms Khan would have to attend police investigations, Mr Nathan said “yes”. He added: “I was under the impression that party leaders (were) also not putting pressure on her to attend police investigations but I could be wrong about that.”
Mr Nathan testified last week that he was in a phone call with Ms Khan on the afternoon of Oct 12, 2021, when she told him that Singh and WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim wanted her to come clean, but were not sure if Ms Khan should mention the context that she was a sexual assault victim when she did so.
Mr Nathan had told the court that his response to her was that it “sounds like political suicide” to have an MP go to Parliament and admit she lied without explaining how she ended up lying in the first place.
Cross-examined on that point, Mr Nathan said his impression on Oct 12 was that the party’s plan was for Ms Khan to come clean but not mention the sexual assault.
He added that he was “pretty sure” that he did not suggest to Singh that Ms Khan should maintain her lie.
This prompted Mr Jumabhoy to point out that Mr Nathan had “misspoken on two days now”, as he had previously testified that he could not recall if he had made such a suggestion to Singh.
“Now you are saying ‘I am sure that I didn’t’. What prompted that turnaround?” the lawyer asked.
After a long pause, Mr Nathan apologised to the court and noted that they had spoken about many things during the meeting. “I don’t recall having put this suggestion to Mr Singh,” he said.
“This feels like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Is that your final answer?” asked Mr Jumabhoy, drawing chuckles in the courtroom.
Mr Nathan said “yes”.
The defence counsel then grilled Mr Nathan on the possibility that Singh had responded to the suggestion to only mention the victim’s age by saying “don’t even think about covering this up with another lie”.
Mr Nathan said he could not recall that, but accepted that it was possible. He added that he recalled only asking Singh why the party was changing direction.
Mr Jumabhoy said that someone at the meeting must have suggested that Ms Khan continue with her lie, given that Mr Nathan had accepted it was possible Singh had rejected the suggestion.
Mr Nathan said he could not recall if that had happened.
Since the witness had earlier said he could not recall if he had suggested lying about the victim’s age, the lawyer said: “Now you’re sure you didn’t do it?”
In response, Mr Nathan said: “I just can’t remember any context in which he would have said something like that.”
Former Workers' Party cadre Yudhishthra Nathan arriving at the State Courts on Oct 21. - ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
2. Nathan did not question Singh about Khan’s ‘take it to the grave’ message
Mr Nathan told the court he found out only during a Zoom call on Aug 7, 2021, that Ms Khan had lied.
They had discussed the anecdote on a number of occasions between Aug 3 and 7, with Ms Khan saying that she could not get the details of the sexual assault victim whom she had accompanied.
Mr Jumabhoy then asked Mr Nathan about their Aug 7 Zoom call, which fellow WP cadre Loh also attended.
Mr Nathan said he did not remember Ms Loh and himself giving Ms Khan much advice then, nor did he chastise her for having lied. “Our approach then was to wait and see what the party leaders would do about this very serious (situation),” he added.
The defence lawyer then asked Mr Nathan for his reaction to an Aug 8, 2021, text message where Ms Khan wrote that the party leaders – Singh, Ms Lim and vice-chairman Faisal Manap – had agreed that “the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave”.
Mr Nathan said he was surprised, but “accepted it” after a while.
Asked why he did not respond to this message by Ms Khan then, he said it he understood that the party leaders had taken a position.
Mr Nathan then told the court that Singh did not tell him what had to be done about Ms Khan’s lie when he and Ms Loh met the WP chief on Aug 10, 2021.
Asked why he didn’t question Singh on the leaders’ response about taking the information “to the grave”, Mr Nathan reiterated that he did not do so as he accepted it as the party’s position.
He added that he did not feel the need to further clarify the matter with Singh because he was the party leader.
“First of all, I trusted what (Ms Khan) had said in the message, and secondly, I think if Mr Singh wanted action to be taken, he probably would have conveyed that to Ms Loh and I at some point,” he added.
“On such a serious issue as this, (Singh) would be the one calling the shots,” he said.
Mr Jumabhoy carried on his questioning by noting that Mr Nathan had in 2019 publicly questioned Singh on the party’s position after the WP chief delivered a speech on LGBTQ issues at the National University of Singapore.
Mr Nathan had put up a social media post stating it was disingenuous for a politician to praise his LGBTQ friends for being outstanding citizens, only to refrain from standing up for their rights.
Mr Jumabhoy put it to him that he was “quite happy” to criticise Singh in a public post, and that he was “quite capable” of articulating his position when he disagreed with something that was done.
Mr Nathan said he made the “fair criticism” then because he felt it was “bad media strategy” on Singh’s part.
He added that he did not see a need to go public with his criticism all the time. “It’s a case-by-case basis kind of thing.”
Asked when was the last time he was aware of an MP lying in Parliament, Mr Nathan gave a slight smile and replied: “Possibly when Mr Singh had plagiarised a speech.”
Mr Jumabhoy then directed him to the point that Leader of the House Indranee Rajah made on Aug 3, 2021, after Ms Khan’s speech, about parties needing to be ready to substantiate their points when making serious allegations.
With this in mind, the lawyer asked why Mr Nathan chose to not say anything to Singh on Aug 10, 2021, despite being “quite capable” of challenging party positions and being surprised by Ms Khan’s message about taking her lie to the grave.
“But I’ve also taken Mr Singh’s direction on party issues and matters most of the time when I worked with him,” Mr Nathan replied.
3. Defence claims Nathan was making things up
During questioning by the prosecution, Mr Nathan said he knew Ms Loh and Singh were discussing Ms Khan’s lie when he arrived at the meeting late on Aug 10, 2021, as he remembered the WP chief saying “something to the effect of conservative religious men in our society would not like to have an MP that was sexually assaulted”.
Mr Jumabhoy asked Mr Nathan to clarify if these were really Singh’s words, as they are “pretty offensive”.
Mr Nathan said both he and Ms Loh were seated in front of Singh when the WP chief said it “at a normal volume”, and there was “no doubt” that they both heard what he said.
Asked if he reacted then and called Singh out for giving such a “bigoted response”, Mr Nathan replied: “Frankly, it wasn’t surprising that Singh said that.”
“Was it not?” Mr Jumabhoy said in response.
“No,” Mr Nathan said.
Mr Jumabhoy then asked why Mr Nathan was recounting this anecdote in court three years after that Aug 10 meeting, when he did not mention it to the Committee of Privileges (COP) which sat four months after.
Mr Nathan said he believed he told the police about it in 2022. “By then I had more time to recollect, I suppose,” he added.
Mr Jumabhoy then put it to Mr Nathan that the anecdote was not in the evidence he presented to the COP because Singh did not say it. “You’re just making it up,” the lawyer contended.
“No,” Mr Nathan replied. - The Straits Times/ANN
