The trial of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh, facing two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee, resumed on Monday (21 Oct) at 9:30 a.m.

The charges stem from alleged false statements Singh made regarding his actions after former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan admitted in 2021 that she had lied in Parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station.

Yudhishthra Nathan, a former WP cadre who had previously testified before the Committee of Privileges (COP), took the stand again.

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy questioned Nathan in detail about his relationship with Khan, his advice to her, and the events that unfolded between August and October 2021.

Nathan’s relationship with Raeesah Khan

Jumabhoy first focused on Nathan’s connection to Khan, establishing that they were close friends by 2021. Nathan confirmed, “It is fair to say that I was someone Raeesah confided in.”

He also agreed that by 2021, their relationship had developed to include social interactions outside of party events.

When asked if Khan was a person he trusted during that period, Nathan replied, “Yes.”

He admitted that he had no reason to suspect that she had lied to him about her actions, explaining, “I trusted what she told me.”

The defence pointed out that Khan had lied to Nathan on multiple occasions between 3 August, when she gave the false speech in Parliament, and 7 August, when she confessed to him.

The 7 August Zoom call

Jumabhoy then asked Nathan to recount the 7 August 2021 Zoom call, which involved Khan, Nathan, and another WP cadre, Loh Pei Ying.

During this call, Khan revealed that she had admitted to Singh that she had lied in Parliament.

Nathan described how most of the call was spent listening to Khan, who was highly emotional.

He stated, “In fact, most of the call was really just us watching her break down.

”When asked if he had advised Khan to come clean, Nathan replied, “I don’t remember giving her much advice. It was really more to hear her out.”

He admitted that neither he nor Loh chastised Khan for lying.

Jumabhoy pressed, “Did you tell her at any point that she needed to tell the truth?”

Nathan responded, “No, I didn’t say that. We were waiting to see what the party leaders would do.”

Meetings with WP leaders and acceptance of the party’s decisions

Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan about a meeting on 10 August 2021, which involved Singh, Loh, and Nathan.

When asked if he had questioned the party’s decision on how to handle Khan’s lie, Nathan said, “No, I’ve come to accept the party position.”

Jumabhoy pointed out that Nathan had previously been vocal in questioning Singh’s stance on LGBTQ issues in a 2019 speech.

Nathan had criticised Singh on Facebook, accusing him of being “disingenuous” for praising LGBTQ individuals while not standing up for their rights.

When asked why he didn’t challenge Singh about the lie, Nathan responded, “It’s a case-by-case basis. I wouldn’t see a need to do that all the time.”

Claim about Singh’s comments on conservative religious men

One of the more contentious moments of Nathan’s testimony involved his claim that Singh had said conservative religious men “would not like to have an MP who was sexually assaulted.”

According to Nathan, Singh made this comment during the 10 August 2021 meeting.

Jumabhoy asked why Nathan hadn’t mentioned this comment in his testimony to the COP in 2021, only revealing it to the police in 2022.

Nathan replied, “I didn’t say it at the COP, but I remember telling the police.”

When asked if he might have misremembered Singh’s words, Nathan conceded, “Possibly a slight rephrasing, but essentially that’s what he said.”

The defence countered, suggesting that Nathan had fabricated the comment since it did not appear in his earlier testimony.

Jumabhoy argued, “And the reason it’s not there is because he didn’t say it, correct? You’re just making it up.”

Nathan disagreed, maintaining that Singh had made the remark.

Deleted messages and recollection lapses

Jumabhoy then turned to Nathan’s communications with Khan, particularly regarding the events of 4 October 2021, the day when Khan repeated her lie in Parliament.

Jumabhoy pointed out that Nathan had deleted many of his messages with Khan.

He stated, “As far as this chat is concerned, there are more deleted messages than messages in which we can see the contents. Do you agree?”

Nathan responded, “Generally, yes.”

When asked why he couldn’t recall details from such a pivotal moment, Nathan said, “Many things had happened by then.”

Jumabhoy suggested that Nathan might have withheld information from the COP because it wouldn’t reflect well on him or Loh.

Nathan denied this, saying, “I disagree with that.”

Discussion of advice given to Khan about telling the truth

Another key issue discussed in court was whether Nathan had advised Raeesah Khan to come clean about her lie.

Nathan stated that he had “vacillated” on the matter before an important 12 October meeting with Singh.

However, Jumabhoy pointed out that Nathan’s messages between 4 and 7 October showed no evidence of this indecision.

Instead, the defence noted that Nathan had advised Khan to ignore a message from the police requesting an interview.

Jumabhoy asked, “Insofar as (from Oct) 4 to 7, there was nothing in your messages that suggested that she should come clean?”

Nathan replied, “I wouldn’t say explicitly.”

When pressed further, Nathan admitted that there was nothing implicit in his messages either.

At one point, Jumabhoy managed to corner Nathan into agreeing that the messages did not show any uncertainty about whether Khan should tell the truth or maintain her lie.

Nathan conceded, “No, the messages don’t show that, but in reality, I had doubts.”

Nathan added that he was “pretty sure” he had not suggested to Singh that Khan should maintain her lie.

However, Jumabhoy pointed out that Loh, who testified earlier in the trial last Friday, had a different recollection.

She told the court that Nathan did make this suggestion during their meeting with Singh.Loh had also testified that Singh had told Khan, “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.”

Nathan’s testimony appeared to diverge on this point, although he did not definitively contradict Loh’s account.

When pressed further, Nathan admitted to misspeaking on two occasions.

After a pause, he said, “I’d like to apologise to the court. Having reflected, I can’t recall because we spoke about many things that… I don’t recall having put this suggestion to Mr Singh.”

In response, Jumabhoy remarked, “This feels like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Is that your final answer?” prompting laughter in the courtroom.

The defence counsel continued to grill Nathan on whether 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.”

Nathan said he could not recall that, but accepted that it was possible.

He added that he only remembered asking Singh why the party was changing direction.

Admits to advising Khan to maintain lie due to lack of proper plan

Jumabhoy pressed further, suggesting that someone at the meeting must have proposed that Khan continue with her lie, given Nathan’s admission that Singh may have rejected such a suggestion.

Nathan, however, maintained that he could not recall.“So did you or didn’t you?” Jumabhoy asked.Nathan responded, “I don’t think I did, no.”

Jumabhoy questioned Nathan about his concerns following Khan’s meeting on 12 October 2021. Nathan agreed that he was worried WP had not come up with a “suitable plan” for Khan to come clean.

Jumabhoy asked, “And in the absence of a suitable plan, was your position that Khan should lie some more?”

When Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan sought clarification, Jumabhoy specified that he meant “actively” telling more lies, rather than simply not telling the truth.

“At that very specific point in time, because of the circumstances that we had been in, I would say yes. At that very specific point in time,” Nathan admitted.

He attributed this to “the circumstances, the party leaders’ directions for months” and the “lack of a proper plan” when Khan called him after the 12 October meeting.

“So at that point, I vacillated, yes,” he said.

When pressed by Jumabhoy, “Was it your position to actively go out and tell more lies?” Nathan replied, “Yes, at that point in time, given the circumstances.”

Jumabhoy then asked whether this meant his position was for “actively lying some more.” Nathan clarified that it was for “actively maintaining the lie” in relation to Khan’s false anecdote.

Judge Tan inquired what Nathan envisioned Khan doing to “actively maintain the lie.”

Nathan explained, “At that point in time, I had raised a suggestion for her to clarify the age of the sexual assault victim she had mentioned in the women’s support group. So, ‘active’ in the sense that she might go and clarify the age, but not come out and say she lied about having followed the victim to the police station.”

As the police were investigating Khan’s claims at the time, Judge Tan asked if Nathan had expected Khan to relay these new details about the purported survivor’s age to the police.

“I don’t recall if my comment was in relation to the police investigation in particular, or just in general. Like, for example, if she were to be asked about it again,” Nathan said.

He further explained that there had been prior conversations with Khan where there was “some doubt” about the age of the woman in the false anecdote, but he could not recall when those conversations took place.

At this point, Judge Tan announced a break for lunch, and the examination was halted. Proceedings are set to resume in the afternoon, with further cross-examination of Nathan expected.