'Worst nightmare', 'lao hong biscuit', 'he won't judge me': Loh Pei Ying's cross-examination on Day 5 of Pritam’s trial

Ex-Workers' Party (WP) cadre member Loh Pei Ying continued fielding questions from WP secretary-general Pritam Singh's lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy  regarding her involvement with Pritam Singh's alleged lie of his knowledge with Raeesah Khan's Aug. 3 parliamentary anecdote.

Loh, along with WP volunteer Yudhishthra Nathan, had worked closely with Raeesah. Loh learned four days after Raeesah shared the Aug. 3 parliamentary anecdote that it was untrue.

She took the stand this morning on Oct. 18, the fifth day of trial, having started testifying on Oct. 17.

"He won't judge me for continuing the narrative": Raeesah

A line of questioning by Jumabhoy on Oct. 18 centred around Loh's interpretation of what it meant for Singh to not "judge" Raeesah.

While it was agreed that Singh had indeed said that he would not "judge" her, Raeesah said she thought he meant that he would not judge her for "continuing the narrative".

What Singh meant when he said he would not "judge" Raeesah is significant, as part of the prosecution's case against Singh is that he "intentionally guided" Raeesah to maintain the untruth even if it came up in parliament, and gave her the impression that she could choose to continue with the untrue narrative, saying he would not judge her.

Previously, on the first day of the trial, Raeesah recounted what Singh told her during their Oct. 3 meeting, saying it was:

"Something along the lines of I don’t think the issue will come up but if it does come up, he won’t judge me for continuing the narrative.”

However, Jumabhoy pointed out that Raeesah had said in her statement to the police that Singh said: "knowing them, they might bring it up again".

Here's what Pritam said about that conversation he had with Raeesah, previously at the Committee of Privileges:

"I told her, I will not judge you. And I will not judge you meant I will not judge you if you take responsibility and ownership. That was the gist of the conversation."

Loh's interpretation of what Singh said

Loh was asked about this in court on Oct. 17, and said she interpreted Singh to mean he would not punish or judge Raeesah, and he would not have a poor opinion of her regardless of what she did.

She added that she was surprised that Singh would say such a thing, saying it was "unclear communication" from him, and that it was "vague instructions”.

However, during Loh's cross-examination today (Oct. 18), Jumabhoy proposed that there were alternate interpretations of what Singh had said.

Singh could have meant that he would not judge Raeesah about whichever course she took, or he could have meant that he would not judge her about her lie on Aug. 3, Jumabhoy suggested.

When asked, Loh conceded that she never clarified with Singh what he meant.

However, she disagreed that it was possible Singh's use of the word "judge" was meant to only refer to the Aug. 3 parliamentary anecdote.

Jumabhoy then asked if Loh recalled Singh mentioning the words "ownership" and "responsibility" — terms that Singh previously told the COP he had said to Raeesah in their Oct. 3, 2021 conversation.

"I dont recall the words ownership and responsibility," said Loh.

Jumabhoy asked if it was possible that Singh said something to that effect, and Loh noted that it was "possible".

Disciplinary panel's meeting with Loh and Nathan on Nov. 25, 2021

Referring to a meeting Loh and Nathan had with the disciplinary panel on Nov. 25, 2021, Jumabhoy asked Loh for details on what she shared.

Loh had testified about "12 points" she had wanted to share with the panel, which she had written down on a piece of paper.

Jumabhoy also tried to clarify Loh's understanding of whether Raeesah had been told to retain her untrue narrative.

"In your 12 points, there was no suggestion that [Raeesah] had been told to lie," said Jumabhoy.

"No," replied Loh.

"Lao hong biscuit": Loh's description of Raeesah

Jumabhoy asked if Loh called Raeesah “naive and stupid”, as reflected in notes taken during the meeting.

Loh said she can't remember if she called Raeesah "stupid", but confirmed she used the word "naive".

Loh apparently also used the term "lao hong biscuit" in her description of Raeesah to the panel, and Jumabhoy asked what she meant by that.

"Would you call a lao hong biscuit a weak biscuit? That's [the way] the usual term 'lao hong' is used. It's just not a crispy biscuit," she said. "In Singapore, lao hong sometimes means it's soft."

She clarified that she meant Raeesah was "susceptible to criticism" and could "buckle quite easily under pressure".

"What people comment online affects her mental health strongly, that’s what I meant," Loh said.

WP's statement on Raeesah's resignation: "Our worst nightmare"

On Nov. 30, the day when WP released a statement announcing Raeesah's resignation from the party, Loh texted Nathan, "I can't believe our worst nightmare had come."

Asked about this in court, Loh clarified she was referring to Raeesah's resignation and that "the party had put out such a statement".

When asked if Loh was concerned Singh would accuse her and Nathan of conspiring with Raeesah in creating the lie, Loh said, she was "extremely concerned" of that, specifically on Nov 29, after the WP leaders strongly recommended Raeesah's resignation.

“And wasn’t there a concern about what she might say about you and Mr Nathan?” 

“Not at all,” Loh replied.

Nathan has taken the witness stand next, with court proceedings resuming at 2:30pm on Friday (Oct. 18) after a break.

Top image via Mothership