The trial of Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh resumed on Monday (21 Oct), following a lunch break. Singh is facing two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee about his handling of former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan’s 2021 admission that she had lied in Parliament regarding a false anecdote of sexual assault case.

The charges stem from an investigation by the Committee of Privileges (COP), which reviewed the circumstances surrounding Khan’s falsehood.

Testifying as a prosecution witness, WP cadre member Yudhishthra Nathan was questioned by Singh’s defence lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, focusing on a redacted message sent by Nathan to Khan on 12 October 2021.

In this message, Nathan advised Khan to “not give too many details (and) at most apologise for the fact of not having her age accurate.”

The defence contended that this advice encouraged Khan to continue lying, which Nathan had withheld by redacting the message from his submission to the COP.

Defence challenges redaction of messages

During cross-examination, Jumabhoy pressed Nathan on why the message was redacted, arguing that it was relevant to the COP’s inquiry.

“Do you not think that the COP would be interested that (Khan’s) confidant, the man behind the scenes, was telling her to continue to lie?” Jumabhoy asked.

Nathan disagreed with this interpretation, stating, “I felt the message was immaterial,” as it was sent after the key instances when Khan lied in Parliament, on 3 August and 4 October 2021.

Nathan admitted under questioning that his advice to Khan could be seen as encouraging her to withhold the truth but maintained that the COP was investigating events before 12 October 2021.

“Given the specific context of the message when I sent it, yes, I did think that was immaterial at that time,” Nathan said, defending his decision to redact the message.

Jumabhoy pushed further, suggesting that Nathan redacted the message because “it shows you in a bad light.”

In response, Nathan conceded, “I partially agree. I think if people understood my state of mind when I had sent that message then… they might have come to a different conclusion.”

At one point, Nathan stated he believed the COP was primarily interested in the role of WP leaders concerning Khan’s lie in Parliament.

One of the redacted messages that were submitted to the Committee of Privileges

Breaching parliamentary instructions

The defence also questioned Nathan about whether he had discussed the redaction process with Loh Pei Ying, another WP member, despite clear instructions from Parliament not to discuss evidence related to the COP.

Jumabhoy asked, “And you leave Parliament and you do exactly that?”

Nathan admitted, “At that point of time, yes,” acknowledging that he had spoken to Loh about which messages to redact.

Application for redacted messages

As the session progressed, Jumabhoy applied to the court for access to Nathan’s redacted messages, along with explanations for the redactions.

He argued that these messages were essential to assess the credibility of Nathan and Loh’s testimonies, given their close relationships with Khan.

“I’m not here to challenge the findings of the COP… (but) these witnesses’ credibility is very much an issue,” Jumabhoy said.

He suggested that Nathan and Loh were acting independently of WP leadership and might have encouraged Khan to lie, rather than merely following instructions.

Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock fiercely opposed the application, asserting that the redacted messages were not relevant to the charges Singh faces.

DAG Ang gave the Court his assurance that there was no need to see the redacted text in question, which had absolutely no relevance to the present case.

“Nothing in those messages that have been redacted go to any of those truths,” DAG Ang stated, pointing out that Singh’s charges pertain to events in August and early October 2021, while the redacted messages were from after these dates.

He argued that the defence was trying to shift focus to the integrity of the COP’s process rather than addressing the specifics of Singh’s charges.

However, Judge Tan mentioned the principle that the general practice is to allow the Defence to see what has been redacted even if the redacted version ends up being use in Court.

Judge to review message logs

Despite the prosecution’s objections, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan acknowledged that the credibility of the witnesses, including Nathan, was crucial to the case.

The judge noted that the messages in question, though sent after 4 October 2021, might still shed light on Nathan and Loh’s roles in the events leading up to their meeting with Pritam Singh on 12 October 2021.

This meeting, according to testimony from both Nathan and Loh, was when Singh allegedly told Khan he would not judge her, regardless of whether she continued to maintain her lie or came clean to Parliament.

“The issue of their credibility, especially leading up to the 12th, and even on the 12th, is an issue. Because it goes to whether their evidence is to be believed or not,” Judge Tan said.

He added that he would need to review both the redacted and unredacted versions of the messages, as well as the reasons given for the redactions, before making a decision on the question of relevance.

DAG then promised to prepare and place the redacted and non-redacted version before the judge by 5.15pm

The hearing concluded with the court set to reconvene at 11 a.m. the following day.

Both the defence and prosecution will present their arguments regarding the relevance of Nathan’s redacted messages and their impact on the credibility of the witnesses.

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.