In an ongoing trial involving Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh, Rahayu Mahzam, a Singapore Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the Committee of Privileges (COP) overseeing the matter of Raeesah Khan’s conduct in Parliament in November 2021, has been named in connection with a controversial redaction of a key message.

As a COP member, Rahayu was responsible for reviewing evidence related to Khan’s parliamentary lie, which ultimately led to Khan’s resignation and a S$35,000 fine.

Rahayu’s involvement in the review process was disclosed during the cross-examination of Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre member and assistant to ex-WP MP Raeesah Khan.

Loh, testifying for the prosecution, was questioned about her role in editing messages from a group chat involving herself, Khan, and Yudhishthra Nathan, a WP cadre member.

A message from Nathan, dated 12 October 2021, suggested withholding details about Khan’s fabricated rape anecdote, which she had shared in Parliament. The message read: “In the first place I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts abt her age accurate.”

Under cross-examination by Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, Loh admitted to deliberately redacting this message before submitting the document to the COP.

She initially claimed the redaction was because the message related to another MP, but when pressed by Jumabhoy, she conceded that this was a “bare-faced lie.”

In response to Jumabhoy’s line of questioning about whether the redaction was intended to “hide information” or preserve the integrity of Nathan, herself, or Khan, Loh responded, “I wouldn’t say that,” but later admitted to hiding the comment, saying, “I hid this comment, yes,” and confirming that Nathan’s suggestion was to “just lie about it some more.”

Loh also revealed during the trial that Rahayu had been involved in the redaction process.

When Jumabhoy accused Loh of dishonesty for arbitrarily redacting messages and providing false reasons for the redactions, she requested to explain the process to the court.

According to Loh, she had worked closely with Rahayu and a senior parliamentary staff member for three hours, reviewing WhatsApp messages that were intended for submission to the COP.

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.”

Although Loh acknowledged that the final decision to redact the message was hers, she believed Rahayu was fully aware of the content of the message and the rationale for its redaction.

Loh explained that her primary reason for redacting the message was to prevent Nathan from facing public backlash, saying, “I didn’t want him to be attacked for his comment.”

Jumabhoy, during cross-examination, suggested that Loh had redacted the message to preserve the group’s credibility, asserting that the redaction was “to preserve Yudhishthra Nathan’s integrity” and that the message gave a “bad impression.”

Loh agreed that the message “doesn’t look good on him,” but clarified that her intention was to protect Nathan from scrutiny, not to interfere with the COP investigation.

Another critical point discussed in court was an exchange between Loh and Khan on 7 October 2021, in which Loh suggested that Khan gather stories from other sexual assault survivors to support her point in Parliament.

The defence suggested this was an attempt to cover Khan’s lie with other stories. Loh explained, “It was a grey area between not lying anymore but still supporting police investigations,” adding that this would allow Khan to “avoid lying again but still address her original point in Parliament.”

When questioned by the judge, she confirmed that the idea was not to obstruct the investigation into Khan’s anecdote, but rather to support broader investigations into how sexual assault victims are treated.

The trial has also explored Loh’s memory of an August 10 meeting with Singh. She initially testified that Singh had nodded during their conversation about whether the issue of Khan’s lie would arise again in Parliament.

However, she later clarified that Singh had actually shaken his head. “My memory is fuzzy,” she explained, and added that they “avoided talking about it explicitly” during their brief exchange.

Another important moment in the trial was the discussion of a message from Khan on 8 August 2021, in which she said she had been told to “take the information to the grave.”

Loh testified that she first saw the message at the time, but it only “fully registered” with her on 29 November, when she was preparing for the COP inquiry. She admitted that she had been distracted when the message first came through, focusing instead on a subsequent message from Khan.

Singh is currently contesting charges that he misled the COP about his actions after learning that Khan had lied in Parliament.

During the trial on Wednesday morning, Andre Jumabhoy, the lawyer representing Pritam Singh, Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, accused prosecution witness Raeesah Khan of repeatedly lying during her cross-examination on Tuesday and sought to impeach her.

Jumabhoy argued that a text message sent by Khan to Singh on 4 October 2021 was “materially contradictory” to the evidence she provided in court.

After Khan was asked to step down from the stand, Jumabhoy formally made an oral application for impeachment. However, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan suggested that Jumabhoy gather more evidence before proceeding. Despite this, Jumabhoy pressed on with the application, claiming that the text message demonstrated a significant discrepancy between Khan’s court testimony and her actions.

In his oral submissions, Jumabhoy argued that the text message showed Khan had acted inconsistently with her testimony. He alleged that this discrepancy undermined her credibility.

However, Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock objected to the impeachment, arguing that the text message aligned with the overall gist of Khan’s testimony.

DAG Ang pointed out that Khan had not received the confirmation she sought from Singh and instead followed his prior advice, maintaining her interpretation of what Singh had allegedly told her during a meeting at her home on 3 October 2021.

Ang further stressed that the court should consider the entire context of the situation, rather than focusing solely on the text message. He argued that relying only on the text would be “completely inappropriate,” asserting, “There is no material discrepancy.” DAG Ang concluded that the grounds for impeachment had not been met.

Ultimately, the judge agreed with the prosecution’s objection and refused the impeachment request.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan, reading the agreed statement of facts (SOF), told the counsels that he agreed with the prosecution’s view. He noted that Raeesah Khan’s response to why she did not tell the truth could not be considered in isolation, as there had been prior discussions that provided important context.

The judge also noted there was no dispute that a meeting between Singh and Khan took place on 3 October 2021, as documented in the SOF. Singh had visited Khan at her home, during which he allegedly advised her on how to handle her parliamentary lie about a rape victim’s experience with the police.

It was further revealed that Khan sent Singh a text message on 4 October 2021, asking for further guidance during the parliamentary sitting, where Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam questioned her.

Judge Tan acknowledged that it appeared Khan was specifically confronted by Shanmugam, prompting her to reach out to Singh for reassurance.

The judge ultimately concluded that Khan’s response was consistent with her earlier claims about Singh’s advice. He stated, “I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction.”

In a separate line of questioning, Jumabhoy challenged Khan’s previous testimony that Singh did not require her to tell the truth about her false statements in Parliament.

He raised an email sent by Singh to all Workers’ Party MPs on 1 October 2021, stressing the importance of backing up statements made in Parliament to avoid facing the Committee of Privileges (COP).

In her testimony, Khan claimed that she and Singh did not discuss this email during their meeting on 3 October.

Jumabhoy suggested that Singh’s email highlighted the serious consequences of lying in Parliament, contrasting with Khan’s claim that Singh told her there would be no judgment if she maintained her false account. He argued that any reasonable person would have been confused by these conflicting messages and would have sought further clarification from Singh.

Khan, however, maintained her version of events, testifying that Singh had advised her to “continue with the narrative” during their 3 October meeting. She stated that if Singh had told her to confess, she would have prepared accordingly and told the truth.

Jumabhoy pressed further, questioning whether Khan, as an experienced MP who had been in Parliament for over a year, needed specific instructions to tell the truth.

He emphasized that she did not need a directive to lie, yet claimed she required one to tell the truth. Khan responded that she sought advice from her leaders out of fear and confusion, as she felt overwhelmed by the mistake she had made.

Jumabhoy continued to argue that Khan should have questioned Singh’s advice if she found it vague or inconsistent with his previous email about parliamentary consequences. He pointed out that Khan had texted Singh during the 4 October parliamentary sitting, asking for reassurance when Shanmugam confronted her, suggesting that if Singh had already told her what to do, there was no need for this additional message.

Khan responded that she sought reassurance to confirm Singh still supported her decision to maintain the narrative, even after their discussion the night before.

Despite these arguments, the judge ultimately sided with the prosecution, ruling that there was no material contradiction in Khan’s testimony and denying the impeachment request.

The trial continues, with Singh facing charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, related to lies told by Khan in Parliament in August 2021 about a rape victim’s interaction with the police.