Yudhishthra Nathan grilled on why he didn't question WP leaders on Raeesah not coming clean: Day 6 of Pritam’s trial

Ex-Workers' Party member Yudhishthra Nathan was cross-examined by WP secretary-general Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy on the sixth day of Singh's trial on Oct. 21.

He had previously testified on Oct. 18, as a witness for the prosecution.

Nathan was grilled on his relationship with Raeesah, text messages that were deleted from his conversations about Raeesah's lie in parliament, and why he did not question Singh on the party's stance toward Raeesah coming clean about the lie.

Nathan upon finding out Raeesah had lied

Nathan agreed that by 2021, he was someone Raeesah confided in, that they had a “social relationship”.

“Like many other MPs, yes”, Nathan responded.

When asked if Nathan trusted Raeesah, he said, “She was my MP, so yes”.

On Aug. 7, 2021, when Raeesah confessed her lie to Loh and Nathan in a Zoom call, Nathan said he did not chastise Raeesah nor tell her she would have to tell the truth.

“Our approach then was to wait and see what the party leaders would decide on this issue," said Nathan, adding that her response to the situation was not Loh and Nathan's call to make.

"Take it to the grave"

Jumabhoy also brought up Raeesah's claim that Singh told her to take the lie to the grave on Aug. 8, 2021.

When Raeesah messaged Loh and Nathan that Singh said the matter was something that they should "take to the grave” in August 2021, Nathan did not respond in the group chat.

"I think I was initially surprised that the leaders wanter her to take it to the grave but after a while… I… accepted it." Nathan replied, when asked what his reaction was to Raeesah's message.

While Nathan said he thought that the party leaders should have investigated the matter further, he said he did not respond to the message as he "understood that the party leaders had taken a position".

Not questioning Singh on the party's position on Raeesah's case

Jumabhoy then brought up that Nathan had questioned Singh on the positions WP had taken in the past.

Particularly, Jumabhoy referred to a 2019 speech given by Singh at the National University of Singapore (NUS) on LGBTQ issues.

Nathan had made a statement calling it "disingenuous" for a party politician to praise his LGBTQ friends for being honourable citizens, but refrain from standing up for their rights.

Jumabhoy asked if Nathan "didn't favour with it", to which Nathan responded he understood the party's position, but thought it was a "bad media strategy".

"I think it is a fair criticism," Nathan said.

"When you disagree… you are quite capable of articulating that position," Jumabhoy said.

Nathan replied that he was capable, but that he didn't necessarily see the need to do it all the time.

Jumabhoy asked why Nathan did not question WP's position on Raeesah taking the matter to the grave.

Nathan rebutted that he also took Singh's directions on party issues and matters most of the time.

However, he confirmed that he did not say anything to Singh about the decision that WP leaders had taken with Raeesah.

Nathan says Singh commented that conservative religious men would not like to have an MP who was sexually assaulted

Jumabhoy also brought up a statement made by Nathan last week in court on Oct. 18, 2024, where Nathan recalled Singh saying conservative religious men would not like to have an MP who was sexually assaulted.

This was in the context of whether Raeesah should share publioc

The comment was said in a meeting on Aug. 10, 2021, according to Nathan's recount.

Jumabhoy remarked that the comment was quite offensive, and Nathan agreed.

When asked if those were Singh's exact words, Nathan clarified that the words were a possible rephrasing, but said he had no doubt that both he and Loh heard Singh say this comment.

When asked if Nathan had any reaction to Singh's comment, Nathan remarked, “Frankly, it wasn’t surprising that Mr Singh said that.”

Jumabhoy also grilled Nathan on the inconsistencies in his answer regarding Singh's comment on conservative religious men, as Nathan did not mention this when testifying to the Committee of Privileges (COP) in 2021.

Jumabhoy suggested Nathan was "making it up", to which Nathan replied he may not have told the COP, but that he remembered telling the police about it in 2022.

"Vacillating" between alleged party position of maintaining lie and coming clean

Nathan previously told the prosecution that in the aftermath of law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam's questioning of Raeesah in parliament on Oct. 4, 2021, he, Loh, and Raeesah were, from Oct. 4 and Oct. 12, "vacillating" between whether they should maintain the lie, or if Raeesah should come clean in some way.

Jumabhoy questioned why Nathan texted Raeesah on Oct. 4, 2021 to be careful about what she said to a lawyer.

Nathan said he felt she should be careful as WP would be in big trouble if that lawyer were to reveal the info to other people, highlighting that as an example of a situation he was wary of.

Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan about deleted messages from his conversations about the issue and what they contained, but Nathan replied he couldn't remember.

Jumabhoy then brought up a message where Nathan said it might be "too risky" to be honest with the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) about what happened when Loh suggested doing so.

Jumabhoy said that from the messages from Oct. 4 to Oct. 7, "there was nothing in (Nathan's) messages that suggested that (Raeesah) should come clean.”

"I wouldn't say explicitly," said Nathan, adding he was "unsure" if Raeesah should go to the CEC.

The judge asked if Nathan had someone else in mind Raeesah should have disclosed to.

"Not in particular, I didn’t have anyone else in mind at that point in time. It was just a response to Ms Loh’s suggestion," Nathan replied.

Nathan grilled on suggestion to "not give too many details"

During Jumabhoy's cross-examination of Loh last week on Oct. 18, the latter testified that Singh had rejected a suggestion from Nathan at the Oct. 12, 2021 meeting by saying, “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie”.

Loh said Nathan had suggested that Raeesah continue to lie by misdirecting the police query, as he saw that revealing the truth to Parliament and Singapore would be “extremely damaging”.

Nathan was asked about this, as well as a message sent by him which stated:

"In the first place, I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts about her age accurate."

When this was brought up during Nathan's cross-examination on Monday (Oct. 21), Nathan said he didn't recall suggesting this to Singh on Oct. 12.

"So who had you proposed this plan to?" asked Jumabhoy.

A back-and-forth between the two ensued, where Jumabhoy continued to grill Nathan on his memory of what happened at the meeting, and his previous answers on what exactly he could recall.

"I’d like to apologise to the court. Having reflected, I can’t recall because we spoke about many things that day. There are things that I do recall, but I don't recall having put this suggestion to Singh," said Nathan after a pause.

On redacting the message

After the lunch break, Nathan continued to be asked about his suggestion to "not give too many details", and the fact that he had redacted that text message from documents he submitted to the COP.

Last week, Loh admitted in court that she redacted the text message in her submissions as well, and lied about her reason for doing so.

Nathan said he thought the message was "immaterial" to the COP, saying he was told he could redact things which were irrelevant.

However, Jumabhoy countered:

"You knew full well, that it was relevant. It was so relevant, you decided to take it out. Let’s be clear… if it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t have wasted time and effort sifting through to remove it."

Jumabhoy highlighted that Nathan had gone to one message in the chat between himself, Raeesah, and Loh, and took it out.

"Plainly you took it out because you thought it highly relevant," said Jumabhoy.

"I disagree," said Nathan.

"Plainly you took it out because it makes you look bad," replied Jumabhoy.

"I disagree," said Nathan, reiterating that he redacted the message as he thought it was immaterial.

Nathan's cross-examination continues.

Related stories

Top image via