Day 3 of Pritam Singh’s trial: Raeesah rebuts pointed questions, defence tries to impeach her

SINGAPORE: The trial of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh entered its third day on Wednesday (Oct 16), with key witness Raeesah Khan continuing in the cross hairs of defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy.
With lob after lob, Mr Jumabhoy attempted to undermine her credibility by asking her about alleged differences in her answers, whether it was before the Committee of Privileges, a Workers’ Party (WP) disciplinary panel, or even in court itself.
Ms Khan, who resigned from the party in late 2021 after confessing to her false anecdote about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, was on the stand as the prosecution’s first witness.
The 30-year-old woman found herself testifying against her former party leader, a man she said she revered and looked up to as a mentor who “really knew everything” and “would have all the answers”.
In her replies, she testified that she had maintained her lie because Singh had given her “advice” along the way, including telling her that he would not judge her if she continued the narrative, and that this “is something we will all have to take to the grave”.
In contrast, the defence team said Singh had never told her to continue the false narrative nor told her to lie.
In an almost-sardonic line of questioning, Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that Ms Khan needed Singh’s directives to tell the truth, but had not needed any directives to make the multiple lies she did.
The former prosecutor had begun his cross-examination on Tuesday, but it was on Wednesday that Ms Khan began reacting more to his questions, raising her voice or looking to the judge when he asked a question she frowned at.
Here’s what went down on Wednesday.
In an emotionally charged exchange, Mr Jumabhoy asked why, if what Ms Khan said about the WP leaders telling her to maintain her lie had been true, did she not confront them when it all fell apart.
Mr Jumabhoy pointed to a hearing Ms Khan attended before a WP disciplinary panel in November 2021, after the lies had been exposed and she was facing disciplinary action by the party.
“So you get to the disciplinary panel on the 29th. They convene another hearing for you. You go in knowing, Mr Singh has already said this is your mistake, and you don’t say anything in that disciplinary panel session to say that – it’s you guys who told me what to do,” said the lawyer.
In response, Ms Khan said: “I think the context that is missing here is the power dynamics in that meeting. I mean, it’s three, to me … very, very powerful people and imagine that these are the people that have been advising you, and suddenly in a meeting … they pretend like, or they don’t even mention they are the ones advising you.”
“I was shocked, I honestly was dumbfounded because it kind of felt like, to them, it didn’t happen.”
Mr Jumabhoy pressed for an answer to his question on whether Ms Khan had said anything to say – “it was you guys who were telling me what to do”.
He pointed out that according to her, there was “no doubt” in her mind that Singh was “putting this squarely on you”.
“I mean at that point in time, I still thought they had the best intentions for me, and I didn’t realise this was what they were doing,” said Ms Khan. “If I did realise that, I would’ve said – look, I know it’s a very tough situation, but you also advised me the entire way. I would’ve said that if … I knew they did not have the best intentions of me.”
Mr Jumabhoy then pointed to a message Ms Khan sent to a group chat with two other WP cadres, where she “knew what (Singh) was doing”.
“I mean, I didn’t know to what extent they were doing that,” explained Ms Khan. “I didn’t know they were taking down notes, they were – almost now retrospectively, almost looks like they were gathering enough evidence to point to the fact that they didn’t advise me in the first place. I didn’t know that.”
“I went in thinking these three leaders … had my best interests at heart. And when you’re confronted by these people you view as giants, it’s very hard to confront them in a negative way, and I didn’t do that at either of the disciplinary panel meetings.”
When pressed by Mr Jumabhoy that she knew “exactly” what Singh was doing, Ms Khan raised her voice: “Yes, because at that point in time, I mean, I didn’t know what extent he would go to absolve himself.”
She added that it “felt scary” to her to confront someone like what the lawyer was suggesting.
“And mind you, there were three people in front of me. I was alone. And you know, it was kind of like, question after question, barrage of questions, and then I mean it felt like it was three against one and how am I in that position be able to say – look the three of you are kind of blaming me for this entire thing,” said Ms Khan.
“I know I’ve taken full responsibility (for) what happened but it was a very scary prospect for me to sit there and say – look you told me what to do. What would the response have been?”
Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Jumabhoy had questioned Ms Khan about how she had been in parliament for over 13 months by October 2021, and how she was 27 and “not a teenager”.
“And you know, don’t you – right from wrong?” asked the lawyer.
He added that Ms Khan had not needed a directive to lie to her friends.
“And you certainly didn’t need a directive when you lied to Mr Singh,” he continued. “So, you seem, according to you, to need a directive to tell the truth?”
In response, Ms Khan said she wanted to go to her leaders for advice after making the “mistake”, referring to her false anecdote.
Ms Khan testified that she thought the lie “wouldn’t come up”. After first telling it in parliament on Aug 3, 2021, she skipped the September sitting due to shingles.
A day before the next sitting on Oct 4, 2021, Singh visited Ms Khan’s home with his wife. Here, Ms Khan claimed that Singh said “something along the lines of – I don’t think the issue will come up but if it does come up he’s not going to judge me for continuing with the narrative”.
She said she was prepared to lie again on Oct 4, 2021, because she was “terrified of what would happen” if she told the truth, and because “it seemed that Pritam was supportive of me continuing to lie”.
However, when parliament convened that day, Law Minister K Shanmugam pressed her for answers about her anecdote including when it was and which police station it was at.
After texting Singh what she should do and not receiving any immediate reply, Ms Khan told Mr Shanmugam that she would not be giving further answers, citing confidentiality.
“That’s a lie you came up with all by yourself right,” asked Mr Jumabhoy. Ms Khan acknowledged this.
“We’ve seen how you are quite capable of coming up with lies yourself in relation to the minister’s question on Oct 4. After that you went out and you drafted a statement, correct?” asked the lawyer.
Ms Khan agreed. She drafted a statement in her phone that read: “I am disappointed then that the route the government has taken is, instead of deliberating my suggestions, they have instead pushed me to break all forms of confidentiality and consent. If the Minister understood the pain that survivors go through, how much anguish we experience, both physically and mentally, he’d be focused on helping survivors instead of grilling them.”
She did not wind up making this statement, as she sent it to her confidante Ms Loh Peiying, who said “it would be a terrible thing to say”.
Mr Jumabhoy said: “So despite being in a state of fear, you prepared this statement, which basically accuses the government of doubting survivors.”
Ms Khan acknowledged this.
“The government doesn’t doubt survivors. It doubts you. That’s right,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
“Yes,” replied Ms Khan.
The lawyer then said this was “a big difference”, but it was not what her statement reflected. He went on to say that Singh was not involved “at all” as far as Oct 4, 2021 was concerned, and how Ms Khan responded to Mr Shanmugam without being told what to do, or drafting the message saying the government should not doubt survivors.
“That’s all you,” he said, to which Ms Khan agreed.
The lawyer also showed Ms Khan a message she sent to a group chat with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, where Ms Khan wrote: “Pritam has actually been really great.”
When this message was sent on Oct 5, 2021, the false anecdote “was all blowing up”, and her message was that “Pritam has actually been really great”, said Mr Jumabhoy.
“So the people you are praising at this stage are the people who had told you to lie,” he said.
Ms Khan responded that it was not about them telling her to lie, but taking time to advise her and show her what she thought was compassion.
Mr Jumabhoy then suggested to her that Singh never told her to lie in the first place, or to make up more lies.
“That’s all you,” he said.
“He told me to continue the narrative, that I’d been lying,” answered Ms Khan.
“Did he tell you to make up more lies, yes or no?” asked the lawyer.
“No,” Ms Khan said.
Mr Jumabhoy also questioned Ms Khan on whether she had met her WP friends, Ms Loh and Mr Nathan, the night before they were to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges, to align their evidence.
At first, Ms Khan said they did not meet so much to talk about what they were going to say in their evidence. Instead, “we just met kind of just to be there for each other”, she said.
Mr Jumabhoy then questioned her if she had intended to lie about when Singh knew her anecdote was false: “Did you say to Ms Loh that you were going to lie about when Pritam knew?”
“No,” replied Ms Khan.
“And did Ms Loh talk you out of doing that, because it would clash with evidence that she wanted to give to the COP?” asked the lawyer.
“Yes,” answered Ms Khan.
Mr Jumabhoy paused. “You say ‘No I didn’t do that’, I talked about what you wanted to say, then you said – ‘yes, Ms Loh talked you out of that?”
She answered: “I wouldn’t say talk me out of, but … the conversation was, if we were asked, we would come up with the truth. There would be no question about it.”
She then agreed that they had indeed discussed what evidence to give to the COP.
Throughout his cross-examination, Mr Jumabhoy applied at various junctures to impeach Ms Khan’s credit as a witness. 
Ms Khan was asked to step out of the courtroom as the defence submitted its applications, which was made with the ultimate aim of proving that Ms Khan was an unreliable witness.  
Mr Jumabhoy finished his cross-examination for the first application on Wednesday morning, but his second and third applications – both made on Wednesday – were rejected by the judge. 
The defence lawyer then separately submitted an application for Ms Khan to be shown a portion of her police statement on Jun 5, 2022, to refresh her memory. 
This was in relation to her evidence on whether Singh had told her to “just tell the truth” if she was asked follow-up questions in parliament after she came clean about her anecdote on Nov 1, 2021. 
Ms Khan agreed that Singh had asked her to tell the truth in follow-up questions. 
The defence wrapped up its cross-examination of Ms Khan towards the end of the hearing on Wednesday. The prosecution then began its re-examination, where it clarified Ms Khan’s responses during cross-examination. 
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy asked Ms Khan to clarify the sequence of events that occurred on Aug 8, 2021, when Ms Khan had met Singh, WP chair Sylvia Lim and vice-chair Faisal Manap.  
Ms Khan said the group started discussing the speech that she made on Aug 3, 2021 about Muslim issues, before speaking about Ms Khan’s experience with sexual assault, her lie in parliament and then about her sending a statement on the Muslim issues. 
The trial will resume on Thursday with the prosecution’s re-examination of Ms Khan. Thereafter, Ms Loh is expected to take the stand.