Yudhishthra Nathan asked again about what Pritam Singh meant by 'will not judge' line to Raeesah on Day 8 of trial

On Oct. 23, former Workers' Party (WP) member Yudhishthra Nathan took the witness stand for a final time for WP secretary-general Pritam Singh's trial.

During this final round of questioning by Andre Jumabhoy, Singh's defence lawyer, Nathan was asked in further detail about the meeting he had with ex-WP member Loh Pei Ying and Singh on Oct. 12, 2021, and about his understanding of Singh saying he would "not judge" Raeesah.

What went down during the Oct. 12, 2021 meeting?

Jumabhoy noted that one topic which came up at the meeting was the communication strategy for Raeesah's false anecdote in parliament.

Nathan said he had asked Singh about why the party was now getting Raeesah to come clean about her lie, although he said he could not remember the exact words he used.

When Jumabhoy asked him why he could not remember, Nathan replied that the meeting was three years ago.

Jumabhoy also asked Nathan if the meeting was also the first time he had heard of the change in party strategy about Raeesah from Singh, and the first time he could, along with Loh, question Singh on the change.

Nathan replied in the affirmative to both questions and said Singh believed the government might already know the truth.

If the party continued to keep the lie, it would get “bad karma” for it, Nathan recalled Singh saying.

Jumabhoy pointed out a change in strategy being shared at the Oct. 12, 2021 meeting was not brought up to the Committee of Privileges (COP) by either Nathan nor his fellow ex-WP cadre Loh Pei Ying.

"Did you hold this info back?" asked Jumabhoy.

"No," said Nathan, adding that he did not recall this "at that time", though he did mention it to the police separately.

He said it was not something that crossed his mind when he was before the COP, adding that it would be a "tall order" for him to remember everything.

Jumabhoy then pointed out that Nathan had been "given the floor" by COP member Minister Edwin Tong.

Jumabhoy referred Nathan to transcripts of the COP hearings, saying:

"He said to you 'Was there anything of significance that happened, other than what we talked about, on the 12th [of October]?'

And you say, 'Anything of significance? No.'"

"He’s not asking you whether you went to the toilet that night. He’s not asking you for your life story that night," Jumabhoy said, and suggested that Nathan was "making it up" when he talked about a change of strategy on Oct. 12, 2021.

Nathan replied: "Absolutely not."

Jumabhoy then suggested to Nathan that he had spoken to Loh and discussed what they should tell the police, including which details should be included or left out.

"I can’t recall, it’s a long time ago," said Nathan in reply.

However, when Jumabhoy suggested that Nathan and Loh had discussed including a "little nugget" about Singh mentioning a change in party strategy, Nathan said, "I don't agree to that."

What did Pritam mean when he said he will "not judge" Raeesah?

Nathan also affirmed that the Oct. 12, 2021 meeting was when Singh had told him about the Oct. 3, 2021 meeting he had with Raeesah.

Nathan also said that Singh had shared about his line that he would not judge Raeesah.

However, Nathan said he did not see the need to clarify the meaning of that line with Singh at that point in time.

When Jumabhoy asked Nathan if Singh had said during the meeting that Raeesah should take "ownership and responsibility", he replied "absolutely not" and that Singh had "never used those words".

Jumabhoy then asked Nathan about a "power imbalance" he had previously mentioned between Raeesah and Singh, given that the two had met when Singh was already the leader of the party.

Jumabhoy then said Nathan had met Singh when he was just an MP, and referred Nathan back to past occasions where Nathan had spoken with Singh on and disagreed with him.

Previously, on Oct. 18, Nathan had been asked to clarify his understanding of Singh's phrase, "He would not judge her".

Nathan had said: "My understanding was that he was leaving it open to her. Whatever option, if she chose to maintain the lie, he would have no problem with that.”

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.

Application for disclosure of Nathan's messages between Oct. 4 and 12 rejected

Day 8 of the trial also saw Jumabhoy's application for the disclosure of Nathan's WhatsApp messages between Oct. 4 and 12, 2021 rejected by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan.

According to the judge, he had examined the redacted and unredacted messages of Loh's and Nathan's WhatsApp messages and found that none of them met the legal threshold for disclosure, also known as the Kadar disclosure obligation.

Under the Kadar disclosure obligation, the prosecution must disclose unused material in its possession which tends to undermine the prosecution’s case or support the accused’s defence.

This includes unused material that is likely to be inadmissible but would provide a real chance of pursuing a line of inquiry that leads to material that is likely to be admissible, and therefore regarded as relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The court is not concerned with the conclusions of the COP or evidence before the COP, the judge said.

The COP had operated under different conditions and terms of reference, he elaborated.

Rather, what the court is primarily concerned with is whether the prosecution has proven the charges against Singh beyond reasonable doubt.

The court also does not have the mandate to comment on the COP, the judge noted.

The judge also pointed out that insofar as the messages submitted to COP are concerned, it was clear this was done after Loh’s and Nathan’s oral testimonies to the committee, and were not referred to while they were actually giving evidence.

He added that while Nathan's credibility is an issue, as is naturally the case with all witnesses, the material he did not disclose is not an issue.

Top photo by Mothership