No 'serious discrepancies' that support impeaching Raeesah: Prosecution on Day 3 of Pritam Singh trial

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan said he is inclined to agree with the prosecution's position that there are no "serious discrepancies" in the testimony of Raeesah Khan which meet the legal threshold for her impeachment as a witness.

The third day of the trial of Workers' Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh was marked by discussions between the defence and prosecution as to whether there were inconsistencies in Raeesah's testimony which could result in her impeachment.

The application for her impeachment had been made by Singh's lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy on Oct. 15, 2024.

Defence: Oct. 4 WhatsApp message to Singh shows her testimony is "materially contradictory"

On the morning of Oct. 16, 2024, Jumabhoy drew attention to a WhatsApp message Raeesah had sent to Singh on Oct. 4, 2021, while being questioned by law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam in parliament over her anecdote.

At that time, Raeesah had asked Singh, "What should I do Pritam?"

Jumabhoy asked Raeesah why she had felt the need to message Singh on Oct. 4, 2021, at that moment, if she had understood his instructions during their meeting the day before.

According to Raeesah, Singh had told her he "would not judge her" on Oct. 3, 2021. She understood it to mean that he would not judge her if she continued the lie.

When Jumabhoy asked further if her Oct. 4 message meant she was unclear about his instructions, Raeesah replied:

"When you’re confronted by Minister Shanmugam, I think anybody would question their decision or what they should say."

This led to Jumabhoy suggesting that Raeesah saw Singh's instruction as "vague" — to which she replied that Singh had seemed to affirm the continuation of the lie.

Defence makes another application to have Raeesah impeached

Raeesah was then asked to step out of the room when Jumabhoy made another application to have her impeached.

According to Jumabhoy during his application, Raeesah saying that she didn't know what to do on Oct. 4, 2021, and asking Singh, was "materially contradictory" to her saying Singh seemed supportive of continuing the lie.

In response, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock argued that Raeesah had repeatedly mentioned in her statements that her message to Pritam on Oct. 4, 2021 was to seek assurance.

Ang also noted that Raeesah had said, "Either way, I would have followed his advice".

He then submitted to the judge that there was no discrepancy in her statement, pointing out that the crux of one of the charges against Singh is what he had said to her on Oct. 3, 2021.

The judge then referred to the agreed statement of facts and said he tends to agree with Ang as there was a lead-up to what happened on Oct. 4, 2021, in the form of Singh's meeting with Khan the day before.

He added, "She was told something (on Oct. 3, 2021), she went into parliament with that frame of mind."

She was then prompted to send a text message that did not receive a response, he noted.

It could therefore be argued that Raeesah's response is consistent with she said was told to her by Singh on Oct. 3, 2021.

Tan said, "I do not see a contradiction, let alone a material contradiction."

He rejected the application by Jumabhoy.

The matter of coming clean on September 2021

Jumabhoy then made a second application to impeach Raeesah in the afternoon.

In the lead-up to the second attempt, Jumabhoy had questioned Raeesah about why she had not come clean on her false anecdote in September 2021.

She replied that she had shingles and that she thought the matter had been dropped.

Jumabhoy then pointed out that this "(flies) in the face" of how she thought Singh had told her to "take it (the false anecdote she shared in parliament) to the grave".

He also cited notes submitted by WP Member of Parliament (MP) Faisal Manap to the Committee of Privileges, which said she had contemplated doing so.

In response, Ang called on the court to look at a police statement by Raeesah on May 12, 2022, which said she had told the WP's disciplinary panel that she had contemplated disclosing the truth in September 2021.

In addition, Raeesah had also told the police that maybe she might have said it to the panel, but she could not recall, and that in September 2021, she did contemplate disclosing it but was down with shingles.

The statement also captured how she told the police she thought the matter had been dropped, when the officers asked her about whether she had considered disclosing it to Singh, Faisal and WP chair Sylvia Lim in September 2021.

Ang then pointed out that these replies by Raeesah were consistent with what she has said in court.

There is therefore no basis in the law to invoke Section 157 of the Penal code regarding the impeachment of a witness, he added.

The second application was also rejected by Tan.

What else was discussed in court on Day 3:

Top photo by Mothership