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.

Bryan Lim Boon Heng, Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), voiced concerns over new election advertising laws in a Facebook post on 19 October 2024, following a briefing on election advertising requirements by the Elections Department and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, which he attended with a few of his SDP colleagues.

Lim shared his apprehension regarding the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Act (ELIONA), questioning its fairness in being applied equally to candidates from both the ruling party and the opposition.

The legislation, passed earlier this month, aims to prevent the spread of manipulated online content, such as deepfakes, during election periods.

Lim acknowledged the positive intentions behind ELIONA, which was introduced to curb misleading content generated by AI and other digital tools.

However, he emphasised that its actual implementation would be a test of the government’s commitment to a level playing field in Singapore’s political landscape.

With general elections expected by November 2025, Lim called on the public to help monitor potential misrepresentations of opposition candidates, stressing the importance of quickly reporting issues to the Returning Officer.

Lim also raised concerns over recent amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954, particularly those regarding Traditional Election Advertising (TEA), such as the display of flags, banners, and posters.

These amendments limit the permissible time period for displaying campaign materials to between the Issuance of the Writ of Election and the close of Nomination Proceedings.

Lim implied that this exemption would benefit the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), as it would allow logos at PAP Community Foundation (PCF) childcare centres and the PAP headquarters to remain visible during the restricted period, without being counted towards the permissible TEA limits.

“No prizes for guessing which party stands to gain from these exceptions,” wrote Lim.

Lim further expressed strong criticism regarding the structural disadvantages faced by opposition parties in Singapore.

He argued that elections in the country “will never be free and fair” as long as the Elections Department operates under the Prime Minister’s Office.

Lim highlighted the significant challenges the opposition faces, stating that they are often forced to campaign with their “hands and legs bound” while competing against a ruling party that enjoys substantial resources and the backing of mainstream media.

ELIONA Bill and the new legal framework

The ELIONA Bill, passed by Singapore’s Parliament on 15 October 2024, updates existing election laws to address the rise of digitally altered or generated media, such as deepfakes, during campaign periods.

This legislation applies to both parliamentary and presidential elections, banning content that depicts manipulated and untrue representations of candidates, which could mislead the public.

According to Josephine Teo, Minister for Digital Development and Information, the law focuses on combatting the “most harmful types” of misinformation, especially in light of recent technological advances in AI.

The move was spurred by widespread concerns, with a study by Verian Research revealing that 60% of Singaporeans fear the potential impact of deepfakes on the upcoming elections.

Teo cited other countries, including South Korea and Brazil, as having similar legal frameworks to control deepfake proliferation.

Content restrictions and exceptions

To qualify as prohibited content under ELIONA, the material must meet four key conditions: it must be part of election advertising, digitally manipulated, depict an untrue representation of the candidate, and be realistic enough for public belief.

This encompasses AI-generated content and traditional techniques such as Photoshop or video editing.

However, certain exceptions apply. Content that is clearly unrealistic, such as memes, satire, or minor cosmetic edits, is exempt from the law’s purview. Nevertheless, merely labelling content as altered does not exempt it from regulation, as these labels can be easily ignored or removed when the content is redistributed.

The law covers not just original posts but also the sharing and reposting of manipulated content on public platforms, including large chat groups on apps like WhatsApp and Telegram. Private communications between individuals or within small groups are not subject to these restrictions.

Enforcement and penalties

ELIONA gives the returning officer the authority to issue directives to remove or restrict access to manipulated content during the election period.

The law will apply from the issuance of the Writ of Election to the close of polling, focusing only on officially declared candidates.

Violators may face penalties, with individuals potentially subject to a fine of up to S$1,000, 12 months in prison, or both, for distributing prohibited content. Social media platforms that fail to comply with removal requests could face fines of up to S$1 million.

To strengthen compliance, the government is also developing a Code of Practice, which will require social media platforms to implement safeguards against manipulated content before elections. This code is expected to be finalised by 2025.

Opposition concerns and AI in political campaigns

During parliamentary debates, Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam expressed concerns about how the law might limit the use of AI in political campaigns, particularly for opposition parties that often have fewer resources than the ruling PAP.

Giam questioned whether AI-generated content, even if it conveys an accurate and pre-approved message from a candidate, would be restricted under ELIONA.

Minister Teo responded by clarifying that even AI-generated content, despite being truthful, would be prohibited under the law.

She emphasised that while the script might be accurate, the fact that a candidate did not personally appear in front of a camera to deliver the message makes the content problematic, thereby subject to restrictions under the new legislation.

This clarification raises questions about how opposition parties, which often rely on digital tools to bridge the resource gap with the PAP, will navigate the upcoming election campaigns while adhering to the new law.