It’s day two of the Pritam Singh trial, and I wouldn’t blame you if it slipped your mind.
In fact, if you’ve forgotten why Mr Singh was charged, watch this video to the end first:
While there hasn’t been much buzz, something noteworthy happened today: there’s a possibility Raeesah Khan might be impeached as a witness. Today’s session saw her being cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defence, and it got quite heated.
Here’s a breakdown of what went down.
What Happened in the Morning
The day began with Ms Khan explaining what happened after she admitted to lying in Parliament on 1 November 2021. Her response detailed the subsequent disciplinary actions taken by the Workers’ Party leadership, which included forming a disciplinary panel to investigate her conduct.
Ms Khan stated that she was surprised by the “formality” of the panel, especially since party leaders had previously guided her through the incident. The disciplinary panel meeting on 8 November 2021 focused largely on Ms Khan’s conduct as a Member of Parliament.
She testified that the leaders criticized her for not submitting enough parliamentary questions, not being present enough, and failing to be vocal during party meetings.
She noted that these criticisms were surprising, given that she was a newly elected MP who had been on maternity leave for three months.
During the panel meeting, party chief Pritam Singh reportedly told Ms Khan that she was “on borrowed time” if allowed to continue, criticizing her lack of punctuality and discipline.
Ms Khan took this to mean that Mr Singh doubted her ability to succeed.
Despite her reassurances that she was trying her best, it was clear that tensions had been building between her and the WP leadership.
What Happened in the Afternoon
When court reconvened after lunch, the defence, led by Mr Andre Jumabhoy, began cross-examining Ms Khan.
Mr Jumabhoy questioned Ms Khan’s understanding of instructions given to her by the Workers’ Party leadership before and after she lied in Parliament.
He pressed her on whether she had been explicitly told to maintain her lie if asked, and she agreed that it was part of the advice she received from Mr Singh during their meeting on 3 October 2021.
This is where things started to heat up.
As the cross-examination progressed, Mr Jumabhoy suggested that Ms Khan only revealed the full extent of her lie, including the involvement of other WP leaders, because she knew she could no longer evade questions during the Committee of Privileges hearing on 2 December 2021.
In response, Ms Khan explained that she felt cornered by the evidence presented during the committee hearing and had no choice but to disclose the truth.
The defence then questioned Ms Khan’s credibility, pointing out discrepancies between her testimony and what she previously told the police and the Committee of Privileges.
Mr Jumabhoy asserted that Ms Khan had given two differing versions of what occurred during her meetings with WP leaders on 8 August 2021. In response, Ms Khan admitted to adding more information over time but claimed that the substance of her story had remained consistent.
Tensions in the courtroom escalated during this segment, with Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock disputing the inconsistencies highlighted by Mr Jumabhoy.
Judge Tan himself intervened on a few occasions, calling some of Mr Jumabhoy’s questions unfair and emphasizing that the court must focus on the relevant facts.
Mr Jumabhoy also questioned whether the WP leadership had influenced Ms Khan’s decision to continue her lie. During this segment, Ms Khan admitted there had been a conversation between her, Ms Loh Pei Ying, and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan on 7 August 2021, where they decided to “wait and see” what the WP leaders would say regarding the lie.
The Request for Impeachment
The day’s proceedings took a critical turn when Mr Jumabhoy pushed to impeach Ms Khan as a witness, arguing that her statements showed “material inconsistencies.”
Impeaching a witness means challenging their credibility or truthfulness during a trial, often by presenting evidence that contradicts their statements. When a witness is impeached, their credibility is questioned, and the judge may doubt the reliability of their testimony.
The defence highlighted conflicting statements made by Ms Khan about a 1 October 2021 email sent by Mr Pritam Singh to WP members.
The email, which reiterated the importance of defending statements made in Parliament, was interpreted differently by Ms Khan at different times. In court, Ms Khan insisted she viewed the email as a generic message to all MPs and not as a specific instruction directed at her.
Deputy Attorney-General Ang objected, stating that the inconsistencies pointed out were immaterial and that the impeachment procedure should not be pursued for such minor discrepancies.
However, Mr Jumabhoy persisted, arguing that the two versions Ms Khan gave about the email were significantly different, warranting further scrutiny.
The day then concluded with Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan announcing that he would examine whether there were sufficient grounds to allow the defence’s application to impeach Ms Khan as a witness.
The trial continues tomorrow, when we’ll find out if the impeachment request is granted.
Now, if you want to watch Suits in real life, you know where to be tomorrow.
Here’s a simplified summary of the South Korea martial law that even a 5-year-old would understand:
Read Also:
- Salon Allegedly Charged $880 Treatment Package to Elderly Who Has Hearing Difficulties
- Man Replaces M’sia-Registered Car With a S’pore Plate & Drives It Without a Driving Licence
- Confirmed: Allianz Withdraws Its Offer to Buy Income Insurance
- 10th Floor Resident Leaves Baby Stroller On Air Conditioner Compressor
- $400 Worth of Durians Delivered to Customer; Customer Allegedly Takes Durians Without Making Payment
- Woman Borrows Touch ‘N Go Card From S’pore Driver to Cross JB Checkpoint & Didn’t Return Card
Advertisements
