The trial of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh resumed on Friday (18 Oct), with intense cross-examination of Ms Loh Pei Ying, former secretarial assistant to ex-WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan.

Singh faces two charges related to allegations that he lied to the Committee of Privileges (COP) investigating the controversy surrounding Khan’s untruthful statements made in Parliament in 2021.

The charges stem from an incident on 3 August 2021, when Khan claimed she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, alleging mishandling by the police.

This account, delivered during a parliamentary speech on issues of sexual violence, was later revealed to be false.

Khan publicly admitted to the lie on 1 November 2021.

Central to Singh’s trial is whether he advised Khan to continue the lie or encouraged her to come clean earlier.

Messages scrutinised in cross-examination

During the trial, defence lawyer Mr Andre Jumabhoy, representing Singh, zeroed in on a series of WhatsApp messages exchanged between Loh, Khan, and WP member Mr Yudhishthra Nathan in the days following Khan’s parliamentary falsehood.

A message from Loh to Khan on 7 October 2021 was brought up during cross-examination, where Loh suggested to Khan, “Since you’re not in contact with the victim anymore, maybe don’t give the police any details about the story.”

When asked by Mr Jumabhoy if this message was effectively encouraging Khan to perpetuate the falsehood, Loh denied such an intent.

“I believe I’ve already given my answer yesterday,” she replied, before clarifying, “I don’t think so.”

However, the defence pressed on, asking if she was, in effect, advising Khan not to disclose the truth. “You might want to gather some cases of people who shared their stories with you and present that instead,” Loh had texted Khan.

Mr Jumabhoy argued that these messages indicated Loh was suggesting an alternative way to justify Khan’s original statement in Parliament.

“Does this message suggest that you were advising Ms Khan to reveal the truth or perpetuate the falsehood?” he asked.

Loh responded: “Not these two specific messages.”

Tone of messages contrasts with expressed emotions

Jumabhoy also highlighted a discrepancy between the emotional state Loh claimed to have felt and the tone of her messages.

During a Committee of Privileges hearing, Loh had testified that she felt “shock” and “fear” when Khan reiterated the falsehood in Parliament on 4 October 2021, after being questioned by Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam.

However, when confronted with a message she had sent to Khan the following day, 5 October, which included “LOL” (laugh out loud), the defence questioned whether her expressed emotions were genuine.

“If it’s true that you felt shock and fear, why did you write that?” Mr Jumabhoy asked, referring to the casual tone of the message.

Loh explained, “Humans are capable of having more than one emotion at a time… we were all feeling very stressed, and it’s not uncommon for the three of us, in stressful situations, to make the situation more bearable.”

After being repeatedly pressed by the defence, she eventually conceded that the message did not fully reflect the fear she had described during the COP hearing.

Evidence redaction sparks debate over manipulation

A major point of contention in Loh’s testimony was her decision to redact parts of a message from Mr Nathan when submitting evidence to the COP.

The unredacted portion of the message, sent on 7 October 2021, read:“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.”

Loh admitted to redacting this part of the message but defended her action by saying it was unrelated to the investigation.

Mr Jumabhoy accused her of being “manipulative” in choosing to conceal certain parts of the evidence.

Initially, Loh disagreed with this characterisation but eventually conceded under sustained questioning: “It is manipulative,” she admitted, though she maintained that her intention was not to hide incriminating details but to protect what she deemed irrelevant to the committee’s inquiry.

Did Loh encourage Raeesah Khan to operate in a ‘grey area’?

The defence also pushed the idea that it was Loh who encouraged Khan to continue operating in what she described as a “grey area.”

Mr Jumabhoy suggested that Loh’s guidance to Khan was neither clearly legal nor clearly illegal, and that she advised Khan to obscure the truth in her dealings with Parliament and the COP.

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

Loh disagreed with the assertion. “I think several people, including party leaders, were likewise thinking in a similar vein,” she said.

However, Jumabhoy pressed her further, stating, “There’s no grey area when it comes to Raeesah Khan’s lie… It’s either tell the truth or don’t – there’s nothing grey about that.”

Loh replied, “To me, there is.” She elaborated that while Khan’s claim about accompanying the victim was false, she believed the latter part of her parliamentary account, which involved a victim’s experience, was true.

Singh’s stance on the lie questioned

Another significant point during the trial was whether Singh had unequivocally directed Khan to come clean about her lie or whether there had been ambiguity in his instructions.

Loh confirmed that by 12 October 2021, Singh, she, and Nathan had reached a consensus that Khan should eventually admit the truth.

However, the defence suggested that Loh and Nathan were still exploring ways to avoid full disclosure.Mr Jumabhoy referred to a meeting on 12 October 2021, where Singh reportedly told the group, “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.”

Loh acknowledged Singh’s firm stance but insisted that she had also been leaning towards truthfulness, though with reservations.

When asked to quantify her commitment to honesty, she replied, “I wouldn’t say it was 100 per cent, but I was very close to it.”

Singh’s legal team emphasised that Singh had always been in favour of telling the truth, with Mr Jumabhoy asserting, “At this meeting, or at least when the meeting started, the only one who thought that the truth should come out was Pritam Singh.”

Loh replied, “No, I thought it too,” although she admitted that her certainty was around “90 per cent.”

The grey area and party consequences

Another notable line of questioning focused on the potential consequences for the Workers’ Party if Khan’s lie was exposed.

Loh acknowledged that she and Nathan had been concerned about the potential fallout for the party.“

His position was that revealing the truth to Parliament and Singapore would be extremely damaging,” she said of Nathan.

However, she stopped short of admitting that she had actively encouraged Khan to perpetuate the lie for the party’s sake.

Loh also confirmed that she had once suggested that Khan resign as MP before the truth came out, as she believed it might help mitigate damage to both Khan and the party.

“I was laying out an option,” she said, though she added that it would have been “irresponsible” for Khan to resign without first coming clean.

On 19 October 2024, Donald Low, an academic and senior lecturer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, issued a formal apology to Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.

This followed Rahayu’s public statement and legal threat concerning what she described as a defamatory social media post made by Low.

In the Facebook post, dated 18 October 2024, Low had commented on the ongoing trial involving Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh.

He expressed concerns about the Committee of Privileges (COP) proceedings, particularly in light of recent court testimony from Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre and witness in the COP’s investigation into former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan.

Low’s post questioned the reliability of the COP’s conclusions, particularly in light of Loh’s testimony about the redactions.

His remarks suggested that the evidence on which the COP had based its findings could now be viewed differently.

He stated in his post, “It looks like the COP got it wrong,” and commented on the involvement of a People’s Action Party (PAP) MP in reviewing the messages submitted to the COP.

In response, Rahayu Mahzam, who is the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information, and Health, posted on Facebook stating that Low’s allegations were false and defamatory.

She wrote: “It has come to my attention that in a recent online post, a Mr Donald Low has made a serious allegation against me in relation to the COP proceedings involving Ms Raeesah Khan. The allegation is wholly untrue and appears to be defamatory. I am seeking legal advice and intend to take action.”

Rahayu, a member of the COP that investigated Raeesah Khan’s conduct in Parliament, made it clear that she was prepared to pursue legal recourse to address the matter.

On 19 October 2024, Rahayu further responded to Low’s post in a detailed Facebook post.

In her post, she addressed not only Low’s comments but also broader public reactions to the trial and the role of online discourse. She reiterated that Low’s statements were false and defamatory and announced her intention to seek legal recourse.

“There have been several news reports and online comments made following Ms Loh Pei Ying’s account in Court of what happened during the COP proceedings. I am mindful that there is an ongoing trial in Court. I therefore need to be careful not to comment on matters which may affect the conduct of the trial,” Rahayu wrote.

She then directly addressed Low’s allegations: “Some statements were unfortunately made by Mr Donald Low which crossed the line and impugned my character and integrity. These statements were defamatory. I have sought legal advice and my lawyers have written to Mr Low for an apology and to state my position.”

Rahayu further explained that while she supports robust public debate, individuals must be held accountable for statements that damage others’ reputations.

“I believe in robust discussions and exchanges of ideas. People are entitled to different views and they are entitled to ask questions, but they are not entitled to make baseless allegations. We need to be accountable for the statements we make. When false and defamatory statements are made, those affected are entitled to seek recourse.”

She also warned of the dangers of misinformation spreading quickly online, urging caution and responsibility in public discourse: “We need to voice out when we see or hear something wrong but do so in a constructive manner and not jump to conclusions. This is especially so, on online platforms, where a piece of information can go viral fast and people’s opinions are so quickly set by what they consume in the digital space. One comment, one statement, can impugn integrity, character and ruin reputations.”

Minutes after Rahayu’s post on 19 October, Donald Low responded with a formal public apology on his Facebook page, retracting his earlier comments.

In his apology, Low wrote: “I, Donald Low, on or around 18 October 2024, made false allegations on my Facebook page in relation to Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Minister of State, Ministry of Digital Development and Information & Ministry of Health, that wrongly impugn her character and integrity. I undertake not to make any further statements on these matters, or to make any allegations to the same or similar effect, in any manner whatsoever.”

Low had earlier made another post to apologise to the Court, stating, “I have taken down my offending Facebook post. I undertake not to publish any post or statement again to the same or similar effect.” He acknowledged that his Facebook post on 18 October prejudged issues in the pending Court proceedings in Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh (SC-902079-2024), and that such prejudgment prejudiced, interfered with, or posed a real risk of prejudice to or interference with the course of the pending Court proceedings.

The controversy stems from the ongoing trial of Singh, who faces charges related to his testimony before the COP regarding whether he advised Khan to admit to fabricating a story she told in Parliament.

The COP’s findings were based, in part, on witness testimony, including that of Loh, who admitted in court to redacting parts of a WhatsApp message from WP member Yudhishthra Nathan before submitting it to the COP.

This message discussed Khan’s earlier false statements in Parliament regarding a sexual assault case.

Loh’s admission that she redacted a portion of Nathan’s message, which she felt “does not look good on him,” raised questions about the accuracy of the COP’s conclusions.

In court, Loh also stated that both Rahayu and a senior parliamentary staff member had reviewed the messages before the redaction.

Loh testified, ‘The entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Rahayu Mahzam, who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone. They agreed it should be redacted.’

She clarified, however, that the decision to redact the message was hers alone: “This redaction is mine,” though she believed Rahayu was fully aware of the content of the message and the rationale for its redaction.

While issuing the defamation claim against Low, Rahayu has not publicly addressed this specific claim made in court, perhaps in concern of sub judice.