Pritam Singh's defence lawyer grills Raeesah Khan in Day 2 of trial

On the second day of the trial of Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh, Singh's defence lawyers zeroed in on ex-WP MP Raeesah Khan's statements during their cross-examination.

The statements they asked about included the untruths in her Aug. 3, 2021 anecdote said in parliament, as well as her statement to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in late 2021, where she claimed she did not understand what Singh meant when he told her to substantiate the anecdote in her speech.

This is Raeesah's second day on the stand.

Substantiate

Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy pointed out that when Raeesah uploaded her draft speech two days before the Parliament sitting, the draft did not contain the untrue anecdote.

It was only added the day before, and given to the party on the day of the Parliament sitting.

However, Singh commented on her draft, and left a note on her anecdote saying, "Substantiate?"

"You do understand what substantiate means, don't you?" Jumabhoy asked in court.

Raeesah confirmed that she understood what substantiate meant, and Jumabhoy said that despite Singh's comment, she continued with sharing her anecdote in parliament.

Raeesah said that looking back now, she understood how it did not make sense not to take the word seriously.

Jumabhoy continued to dissect Raeesah's anecdote, pointing out that she knew that details such as how someone came out of a police station crying and that officers made comments were "just not true", as Raeesah was not there.

Jumabhoy had asked Raeesah if she had made any changes to the draft after Singh's comment, to which she replied, "No."

However, he noted that Raeesah's subsequent message to Singh said that she thought she had edited the draft enough.

"You are now telling Mr. Singh a lie," he suggested.

Jumabhoy went on to detail the sequence of events that involved Raeesah editing and uploading the drafts, saying it was "pretty clear" then she understood what "substantiate" meant at the time.

When Raeesah asked why he said that, Jumabhoy pointed out that her response suggested she had made edits in relation to Singh's comment, which suggested that Raeesah actually understood what "substantiate" meant.

The judge asked Raeesah to clarify when she had edited the draft exactly, to which Raeesah replied that it had been before Singh's "substantiate" comment.

Raeesah said she thought it was adequately substantiated to remove any possibility of doubts about the incident.

In response, Jumbahoy brought up Raeesah's statement to the COP that she did not understand the meaning of Singh's "substantiate" comment, and asked if that was true.

There was a long silence from Raeesah before the judge prompted her to respond to the defence's question.

"No, I don't think I have anything else to say," Raeesah said.

She then clarified that she did not understand the "severity" of the word.

Jumabhoy said, "I'll put it as simply as I can: In your statement to COP, you did not understand."

Raeesah said that was correct.

"Your answer to the COP, and your answer in court – only one of them can be true. So which one is it?" Jumabhoy asked.

"I think a lot of answers are in retrospection and I stand by what I said yesterday," she responded.

Raeesah had said on the previous day (Oct. 14) in court that she "didn't understand the severity of what [Singh] wrote", referring to his "substantiate" comment.

Jumabhoy pressed Raeesah to confirm if her statement to the COP was true or not.

Raeesah said, "It was true at the time."

"You tell lies nonstop, don't you?"

"You are, in fact, a liar," Jumabhoy then said.

Raeesah answered that she had indeed lied, and he replied, "You tell lies non-stop, don't you?"

He clarified that he was not talking about Khan's general life but her handling of the COP investigations.

He said, citing Khan's original anecdote:

"That's a lie. I mean, it's a flat-out lie. You can't be in any doubt, can you? That you've never accompanied anyone to the police station."

Jumabhoy continued to dissect the details provided in the anecdote — including the victim’s name, the existence of a victim, and so on — and got Raeesah to confirm that she had lied for each of these details.

He then pointed out that Raeesah added more "substance" in a message to Singh later when she said she could pull up the woman's contact, and that she had met the woman at a bus stop.

He said:

"So, it's a lie heaped upon a lie, and then it's going to be wrapped up in more lies, isn't it?"

Jumabhoy then mentioned that Raeesah had previously said she met the woman near Bedok police station, not a bus stop.

"In one message, I think you've managed to lie about four times. I mean that's pretty impressive," he said.

Raeesah responded, "I wouldn't call it impressive, I would call it fear."

Jumabhoy then accused Raeesah of taking time between her messages to Singh to "think up more lies".

He referenced one message where Raeesah claimed that she lost contact with the woman in her anecdote.

"Is that true?" he asked.

"No," Raeesah replied.

"Another lie," said Jumabhoy.

He then cited messages where Raeesah later claimed that she did not meet the woman at an organisation, but that the woman was just someone who came up on her radar, and that Raeesah was trying to get more details about the case.

"You weren't trying to get more details, were you? The last thing you wanted was more details, because that would expose the lie," Jumabhoy said.

As he picked apart Raeesah's anecdote, Jumabhoy referred to the woman in the anecdote as Raeesah's "imaginary friend".

Lies did not match her supposed perception

Jumabhoy also brought up Raeesah's use of the word "revered" to describe her relationship with Singh on the first day of the trial.

He argued that Raeesah's "persistent lies" to Singh did not match her supposed perception of him.

"That, for you, is how you treat somebody you revered," he suggested.

Raeesah countered that she was really scared at that point, as she had "let [the lies] snowball". She said she "revered" Singh and did not want to disappoint him.

"I wasn't happy to lie to him, but I did lie to him," said Raeesah.

Did Raeesah initiate coming clean?

Raeesah was also asked questions about how she eventually admitted that the anecdote was a lie.

Raeesah shared that she called Yudhishthra Nathan, an ex-WP member who was then one of her aides, after delivering her speech on Aug. 3, 2021.

She told him she was worried she could not provide enough details when Singh began questioning her anecdote.

Raeesah claimed that she later called Singh on Oct. 7, 2021 as she was "unsettled that she had lied".

However, Jumabhoy refuted this, saying it was "not the reality".

"[Singh] was pushing you to substantiate the anecdote, and there were no more lies you could feed him," he said.

Raeesah replied that she could have continued lying but chose to come clean.

Jumabhoy pointed out that Singh had to ask her "point blank" whether her anecdote was true, and that Raeesah did not "voluntarily offer" information.

She countered that she had made the phone call to Singh precisely because she intended to tell the truth.

"Take it to the grave"

Raeesah was asked about her statement that the WP leaders’ reaction to her lie at an Aug. 8 meeting was that if she were not to be pressed, then "the best thing to do would be to retain the narrative".

She had made this statement to the COP on Dec. 2, 2021.

Jumabhoy asked what would happen if Raeesah were pressed, and said there was no mention in her account to the COP on Dec. 2, 2021 about taking the lie to the grave.

"Not in this account, no," said Raeesah.

Jumabhoy said that prior to Raeesah's subsequent testimony before the COP on Dec. 22, 2021, there was no indication that she had to retain the narrative to the grave.

Raeesah did not agree that she gave two different accounts, but rather, that she had simply given more information in the second account, saying:

“Is it two different versions or just… I mean, from what I remember, they were asking me if I had any more things to say about the event that happened.”

Jumabhoy asked again about what the plan was, should the matter be pressed, and Raeesah said it was assumed by the leaders in the meeting that the lie would not be brought up.

Jumabhoy also asked if Raeesah had sought clarification on what the leaders meant by “take it to the grave”.

Raeesah said no.

Asked if it referred to the fact that she lied, or that she was sexually assaulted, Raeesah said it referred to the lie, as they had already moved on from her being a sexual assault survivor at the time.

Jumabhoy said Raeesah had assumed the leaders were referring to the lie, and that she did not clarify.

The email with "a very condescending tone"

Jumabhoy also pressed Raeesah regarding an email Singh sent to WP Members of Parliament (MP), which she said felt like "a dig" at her.

The email Singh sent on Oct. 1, 2021, mentioned a parliamentary debate, and he wrote that it was important to "back up what you say or risk being hauled up before the Committee of Privileges (COP)."

Raeesah reiterated that she felt the email was "a dig" at her, something she'd said on the first day of the trial.

"It might not have been the case, but that's what it felt like to me," she said.

"It's telling you, isn't it? About the consequences of what would happen in terms of failing to back up your anecdote," Jumabhoy commented, adding that no one else in the party told a lie like she had.

He also pointed out that no one else besides her friends knew about the lie, and Raeesah said she understood.

Jumabhoy further questioned Raeesah about whether she had seen the email as a suggestion that she should come clean.

Raeesah said no, and that there was a difference between sharing a consequence and a directive. She said:

"How is it a directive? It doesn't say, 'Raeesah, if the issue comes up in the next parliament, you need to tell the truth.'"

To this, Jumabhoy said that if Raeesah had told police she was afraid after reading the email, then she should have known what it meant.

“Plainly, you knew what this email was directed at,” Jumabhoy said, adding, “This email is pretty much bang-on point about what was going to happen, wasn’t it?”

When asked if she had told the police about feeling like the email was a “dig”, Raeesah said she could not remember.

The trial will resume on Oct. 16, with Raeesah taking the stand again.

Related articles

Top photos via Aiman Nadzri and Reuben Nathan