Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh is fighting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened to look into the lying controversy involving Raeesah Khan. - ST
SINGAPORE: The same three Workers’ Party (WP) leaders who learnt of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s lie in Parliament as early as Aug 8, 2021, were also the ones who made up the disciplinary panel (DP) that eventually recommended she be expelled from the party.
On Thursday (Nov 7), Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock used this point to make the case that this was part of WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s attempt to cover up the three WP leaders’ involvement in getting Khan to stick to her lie.
Singh is fighting two charges over his alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened to look into the lying controversy involving Khan.
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 of the same year, before admitting to her lie on Nov 1, 2021.
The DP, comprising Singh, WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap, presented its recommendations to WP’s central executive committee (CEC) on Nov 30, 2021, which voted to expel Khan if she did not resign.
Ang put it to Singh that the WP chief was using the DP process to “quickly close this matter” and get rid of Khan.
“You wanted to cover up your own involvement, Lim’s involvement and Faisal’s involvement... You were figuratively throwing (Khan) under the bus,” he added.
Disagreeing, Singh said he and the WP leaders could not cover up their involvement if there was anything of that sort.
Singh was also asked why the fact that Khan had told the WP leaders about her lie five days after she said it in Parliament was not brought up as a mitigating factor.
The mitigating factors that the DP presented to the CEC included the fact that Ms Khan had corrected the record at the Nov 1 Parliament sitting.
Singh said he would not call her Aug 8 admission a mitigating factor since she was probed about her anecdote multiple times before admitting that she lied, and she had not cleared the record in Parliament by that point.
Singh also said he did not see it relevant to add, as part of his submissions to the CEC, that he did not follow up with Khan on her lie after Aug 8, 2021, as he was busy.
Ang then questioned Singh on the aggravating factors listed in the DP recommendations and asked why he did not see it apt to add that Khan had “dragged her feet” for more than two months, since Singh said he had been waiting on her to tell her parents and get ready to come clean about her lie from Aug 8.
Singh responded that the point was not relevant in his mind when the document was being prepared.
Ang then put it to the WP chief that he did not deem it relevant because he did not want the CEC to know that he was involved as early as Aug 8.
Ang also asked why the fact that Singh had gone to Khan’s home on Oct 3, 2021, to tell her that the issue of her lie might come up in Parliament the next day failed to feature as an aggravating factor as well since she apparently ignored his guidance.
Singh answered that it was indeed an aggravating factor but was not listed in the recommendations.
Ang then suggested that it was because Singh did not want the CEC to know that he had spoken to Khan privately on Oct 3.
Had the CEC known about the exchange, it might have asked “what have you been doing”, added Ang.
Singh disagreed.
Press conference on the day of the first COP hearing
The prosecution then moved to nail down why the WP opted to hold a press conference on Dec 2, 2021, where Singh first revealed to the public, as well as his fellow CEC members, that he had known of Khan’s lie a few days after she first told it in Parliament on Aug 3 that year.
The prosecution’s case was that Singh moved to make his involvement known as he had learnt on Nov 29, 2021, that Khan and her then aide Loh Pei Ying had been called to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges (COP).
In building the case, Ang pointed out that the press conference was arranged on Nov 30, 36 hours before it was held on Dec 2, and that Singh knew that the COP would begin to hear evidence on the day of the press conference.
Ang also noted that a WP volunteer Mike Lim had told Singh on the evening of Nov 29 that Loh and Khan were called to present themselves before the COP.
He then stated: “The reason you did this is because you wanted to make sure that the WP and you announced this fact before that issue could be raised by Loh or Khan at the COP, agree?”
Singh disagreed.
Ang followed up by asking if CEC members had found out about his prior knowledge of Khan’s lie for the first time at the Dec 2 press conference.
Singh said yes, noting that it had not come up earlier as “we had met with the CEC openly and it was free for anybody and Khan to raise” anything related to that.
“It wasn’t something we were concerned about,” he added.
Prosecution suggests WP leaders met to ‘get your stories straight’
Ang later zoomed in on the two in-person meetings Singh, Lim and Faisal had on Dec 7 and 8 in 2021.
Singh admitted to the court that the trio met to discuss the evidence of Khan, Loh and Yudhishthra Nathan, who also assisted Khan with her MP duties.
By then, the COP had heard Khan, Loh and Nathan testify on Dec 2 and 3.
Ang pointed out that Faisal had told the COP the three WP leaders had met at the office of their town council for two to three hours on both dates.
Asked what the trio had discussed, Singh said they discussed the COP proceedings that had taken place thus far, with the “most important issue” being that they did not know Khan had sent a text message to Loh and Nathan saying the three WP leaders had told her to take the lie to the grave.
“That was completely new to us. We had our DP notes with us, and we checked, and we were very confused why she would say that,” he added. They were surprised and shocked when they learnt of what Khan, Nathan and Loh had testified, he added.
Pressed on whether the WP leaders met to help each other check the chronology of events in relation to Khan’s lie, Singh said no.
“What we checked was what had happened, insofar as our DP notes were concerned, because we were concerned we had missed something out,” he said.
Singh also disagreed when asked if the trio discussed whether there was anything they had missed out in what Khan, Loh and Nathan had told the COP.
“My memory of that meeting was to look into why Raeesah would say we told her to take the lie to the grave, or continue the narrative or whatever version she was using at that time,” he said.
When they met, the central issue “of deep concern” was why Khan would lie, he added.
Singh later corrected his evidence to say he could agree with Ang that the WP leaders discussed whether there was anything that they had missed out on what Loh and Nathan told the COP, not just in relation to what Khan said.
Ang then put it to him that the WP leaders met for two to three hours each time to “align what you have to say to the COP” and “to get your stories straight”.
Singh disagreed with both propositions.
Ang followed up to state that at these meetings, they would have discussed Khan’s Aug 8 message to Loh and Nathan about the WP leaders’ alleged advice to take her lie to the grave, since this had already surfaced before the COP.
Singh said he did not recall, but added that he believed they would have spoken about it since “it is significant”.
Faisal testified before the COP on Dec 9 that year, Singh did so on Dec 10 and 15, and Lim on Dec 13.
‘Your evidence defies logic’
The prosecution at one point accused Singh of putting forward evidence that “defies logic”.
This was after Singh reasoned that it was for Khan’s benefit that the DP was made up of Singh, Lim and Faisal – the three leaders who knew she was a victim of sexual assault – so that she did not have to reveal details of her sexual assault to other people.
He told the court: “There was a matter of a sexual assault. Instinctively, we did not want to let it go beyond too many people given that Raeesah had already told us that she was raped... We didn’t want her to have to go through all the experience (of reliving it).”
Ang then pointed out that it was not public information that Khan was raped until he told the COP, and the whole of Singapore by extension, and asked if it was essential that he used that word.
To that, Singh said it was important for the COP to understand his frame of mind and why he decided to take a more sympathetic and gentle approach.
Asked why he did not say instead that Khan suffered very serious sexual assault without wanting to go into the details, Singh said he determined that he would just tell the COP exactly the word that was used.
“Yes. That’s your level of concern for her,” Ang said in response.
Before court was adjourned for the day, the prosecution moved to question Singh about portions of a number of statements he had earlier given to the police.
Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy stood up to ask for time to go through Singh’s police statements, saying that they “are being given to us right at the point that the question is being asked, and we’d like some time to read it”.
“There’s obvious prejudice because he’s (Singh) in the middle of being cross-examined, I simply cannot discuss evidence with him,” he said.
The judge allowed Jumabhoy to familiarise himself with Singh’s statements overnight before Ang continues his cross-examination on Nov 8.
Singh is not allowed to see his statements until he is questioned about them in court.
As he is still being cross-examined by the prosecution, he is also not allowed to instruct his lawyer, nor is his lawyer allowed to discuss these statements with him. - The Straits Times/ANN
