On 23 October 2024, Low Thia Khiang, former leader of the Workers’ Party (WP), testified in the trial of his successor, Pritam Singh. Singh is accused of misleading a parliamentary committee regarding his handling of former WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan’s false statements made in parliament in 2021.

During his testimony, Low detailed a meeting he had with Singh and WP chair Sylvia Lim on 11 October 2021, after Lim informed him that Khan had lied in parliament.

Low said he advised both leaders that Khan should apologise and clarify the lie directly in parliament.

“I said that since Ms Khan lied in parliament, the correct forum to apologise and to clarify is parliament,” Low told the court.

He recalled Lim mentioning the possibility of holding a press conference for Khan’s apology, but he advised against it, emphasising that parliament was the appropriate venue.

Low also testified about a discussion during the same meeting regarding whether the government was aware of Khan’s lie.

According to Low, Lim had said that it was unlikely the government knew, as there were “so many police stations in Singapore” and the truth could be difficult to uncover. However, Low dismissed this reasoning, stating, “It’s not the point whether or not the government can (find) out. If she tells a lie, I think she should apologise.”

During the examination by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Tan Ben Mathias, Low was asked whether Singh or Lim informed him that they had already advised Khan to clarify her untruth in parliament.

Low responded, “No.”

He was further questioned about whether either Singh or Lim had told him that Singh had visited Khan’s house on 3 October 2021 to instruct her to address the matter in parliament the next day.

Low again replied, “No.”

“During this meeting, did Pritam Singh or Sylvia Lim tell you that they had already told Raeesah Khan to speak to her parents about the sexual assault?” DPP Tan asked.

Low responded, “No.”

DPP Tan then inquired further, asking if Low had been informed that Singh had visited Khan’s house on 3 October 2021 and instructed her to clarify the untruth in parliament the next day.

Low again replied, “No.”

Additionally, when asked if Lim had mentioned anything about Khan’s sexual assault, Low answered, “No.”

Low also recounted a subsequent meeting on 18 October 2021 with Lim, where she informed him that Khan had agreed to apologise in parliament.

Low said he advised Lim to review Khan’s draft apologies first, explaining, “I told her that we would want to look at her draft apologies… because I do not want an apology (to) end up with another lie.”

During his testimony, Low shared that he only learned in August 2023 that Singh, Lim, and WP vice-chair Faisal Manap had known about Khan’s lie as early as 8 August 2021.

When asked by DPP Tan what his reaction was to discovering this, Low said, “I was wondering why take so long,” adding that it was puzzling why it took so long for the leadership to reveal this information.

The prosecution then explored Low’s suggestion that the WP form a disciplinary panel to investigate Khan’s lie.

He revealed that he made this suggestion either on the day or the day after Khan apologised for her falsehood in parliament on 1 November 2021. Low said that he proposed the panel should comprise the party chair, vice-chair, and secretary-general, namely Lim, Faisal, and Singh.

When asked if he knew at the time that these three party leaders had been aware of the lie since shortly after it was first told, Low reiterated, “No, I only found out in August 2023.”

The prosecution’s questioning of Low concluded after approximately 20 minutes, following which the court took a brief 15-minute recess.

When proceedings resumed, the defence, led by Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, began cross-examining Low. Eng asked only one question: “Mr Low, do you agree that a lie that’s been told on record in parliament would have to be clarified in parliament?”

After asking for the question to be repeated, Low replied, “Yes, I think so.” Eng then informed the court, “No further questions, your honour.”

With no further questions from the prosecution, Low was released from the stand.

The next witness scheduled to testify was the police investigation officer. However, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock requested that this be postponed, and the defence did not object.

Both parties agreed to have the officer on standby for the trial’s resumption the next day.

Defence counsel Andre Jumabhoy informed the court that he would request time to submit written statements after the final witness testified.

Additionally, the court granted an application by the defence to vacate the morning session on 24 October 2024 to allow Singh to attend his daughter’s graduation ceremony, where she is scheduled to give a speech.

As the questioning of the investigation officer is expected to be brief, the trial will resume at 11.30am on 24 October.

On Wednesday, 23 October 2024, the defence in Pritam Singh’s trial was denied access to a set of unredacted messages from former Workers’ Party (WP) cadre Yudhishthra Nathan.

These messages were part of a chat group involving Nathan, former WP Member of Parliament Raeesah Khan, and former WP cadre Loh Pei Ying.

All three individuals are prosecution witnesses in Singh’s trial, where he faces allegations of lying to a Committee of Privileges (COP) regarding Khan’s false anecdote in parliament.

Singh’s lead counsel, Andre Jumabhoy, had requested the unredacted messages on 21 October, asserting that they were pertinent to evaluating Nathan’s credibility.

He also suggested they could reveal whether Nathan and Loh had coordinated their evidence.

In addition to the unredacted messages, Jumabhoy sought access to the redacted versions that Nathan submitted to the COP and the reasoning behind those redactions.

While the defence had been provided with similar documents for Loh, the same had not been extended for Nathan.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock opposed the application, arguing that the defence’s request did not meet the necessary legal threshold for disclosing such messages.

DAG Ang explained that for the court to order disclosure, there must be a basis to believe the messages would affect the accused’s guilt or innocence.

He further noted that the messages in question were sent after 4 October 2021, and that the prosecution had already disclosed to the defence any discussions relevant to Singh’s charges, which relate to events between 8 August and 3 October 2021.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, in addressing the defence’s request, referred to the Kadar disclosure obligations.

These obligations require the prosecution to disclose any unused material that is likely admissible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

After reviewing both the redacted and unredacted messages, Judge Tan concluded that none of the messages met these criteria and, therefore, there was no legal basis to compel their disclosure.

The judge also responded to the defence’s claim that the messages could shed light on the witnesses’ credibility, particularly regarding discrepancies between their testimony to the COP and their evidence in court.

Judge Tan noted that Loh had testified before the COP on 2 December 2021, while Nathan had testified the following day.Both individuals had submitted relevant messages to the COP after their oral testimonies.

However, he pointed out that since the redacted messages were only provided to the COP afterwards, they were not available to the committee during the witnesses’ testimony, making it unlikely that withholding these documents would affect the comparison between their COP and court statements.

In his ruling, Judge Tan stated that there was no doubt as to Nathan’s credibility, a point which extended to all witnesses in the case.

He also made clear that the court’s role was not to comment on the COP’s conclusions or the evidence presented to the committee, as the COP operates under different conditions and objectives from the court.

Earlier in the trial, Nathan admitted that he and Loh had discussed which messages to redact after giving their testimony to the COP, acknowledging that this violated the committee’s instructions.

The COP had been investigating Khan’s conduct after she lied in parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where the victim was allegedly questioned about her attire and alcohol consumption.

One particular message sent by Nathan on 12 October 2021 had already been disclosed by the prosecution.

In it, Nathan suggested not providing “too many details” and, at most, apologising for inaccuracies regarding the victim’s age.

Both Nathan and Loh had redacted this message from their submissions to the COP, with Loh later admitting that she had lied about the reason for the redaction.

During the trial, Jumabhoy characterised this message as evidence of Nathan encouraging Khan to continue misleading parliament about the rape victim.

Judge Tan highlighted that aside from the 12 October 2021 message, which had already been disclosed, the other messages did not undermine the prosecution’s case or bolster the defence’s position.

DAG Ang had wanted to retrieve the two sets of documents (redacted and non-redacted messages) but Judge Tan said he would keep the documents with the court as another court might be looking at them.

The hearing continues with Nathan still on the stand.