News

6 Facts to Know About Pritam Singh Trial on the 4th Day, Whereby a New Witness is Testifying

2024-10-17 , 7:28 pm

After three days of Raeesah Khan as the main witness, the fourth day of the Pritam Singh trial introduced a new witness.

The trial continued with the cross-examination of Ms Loh Pei Ying, former secretarial assistant to Raeesah Khan.

As the second witness for the prosecution, Ms Loh’s testimony focused on her actions within the Workers’ Party (WP), her relationship with Raeesah Khan, and her interactions with WP leadership, particularly Pritam Singh.

Here are six facts you should know.

Redacted Message and Its Consequences

One of the main focuses of the cross-examination was Ms Loh’s decision to redact a message sent by Mr Yudhishthra Nathan when submitting documents to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

The message in question suggested “not giving too many details” and apologizing for inaccuracies in Ms Khan’s anecdote.

Initially, Ms Loh justified the redaction by claiming it related to an unrelated MP. However, under pressure from defence lawyer Mr Andre Jumabhoy, she admitted that this explanation was a lie.

Ms Loh explained that her intent was to protect Mr Nathan and his credibility. She claimed the redaction was not meant to mislead the COP but to shield Mr Nathan from potential public criticism.

Despite her repeated clarifications, Mr Jumabhoy maintained that the omission was intended to protect the credibility of Raeesah Khan and her group.

Judge Luke Tan stepped in, asking Ms Loh directly about her reasons for redacting the message.

Ms Loh reiterated that the message was not material to the investigation and reflected Mr Nathan’s change of heart, leading her to believe it was unimportant.

Efforts to Reinforce Ms Khan’s Account

The defence also questioned Ms Loh about an exchange between her and Raeesah Khan on 7 October 2021, where Ms Loh suggested gathering other stories from sexual assault victims to support Khan’s anecdote.

Mr Jumabhoy accused Ms Loh of trying to cover up the lie with additional stories, potentially obstructing the investigation.

Ms Loh defended her suggestion, asserting that her intention was to highlight broader issues of victim-blaming rather than prolonging the lie.

WP Leadership and Meetings

Further scrutiny was placed on Ms Loh’s interactions with WP leadership.

She testified about an August 2021 meeting with Pritam Singh and Mr Nathan, held at the Aljunied Town Council headquarters.

During this meeting, Ms Loh asked Mr Singh if the ministry or Parliament would follow up on Ms Khan’s false statement.

Mr Singh’s calm and composed demeanor, in contrast to Ms Khan’s earlier claims of his anger, led Ms Loh to believe the issue would not be pursued further.

Judge Tan raised concerns during the cross-examination, pointing out that the defence was focusing on discrepancies in questions posed to Ms Loh compared to those asked during her testimony before the COP.

He questioned the relevance of the implied inconsistencies when the context of the questions had shifted.

The ‘Take It to the Grave’ Message and Party Discipline

Clarification of the August 2021 Message

Ms Loh was also grilled about an August 2021 message from Raeesah Khan, where Khan claimed WP leaders had advised her to “take the information to the grave.”

Ms Loh revealed that she only fully understood the gravity of this message on 29 November 2021, upon reviewing it before appearing at the COP. The defence pointed out inconsistencies in her testimony, as she had previously stated that she only reflected on the message on 4 October.

Ms Loh clarified that her earlier statement referred to a different message, not the “take it to the grave” remark.

WP Disciplinary Process and Leadership Dynamics

Another point of contention in the cross-examination was the WP disciplinary panel session held on 25 November 2021.

Ms Loh, alongside Mr Nathan, expressed that they felt forcing Raeesah Khan to resign was too harsh a punishment. They believed it would set a dangerous precedent for the party and leave residents of Compassvale without representation.

Ms Loh also told Mr Singh that, as Leader of the Opposition, he should have clarified the lie in Parliament earlier, which led Mr Singh to become upset during the meeting.

Ms Loh characterised the disciplinary panel as a “performatory” exercise, suggesting that it was more about managing the party’s image and public opinion than addressing the root issues.

She felt WP members, unaware of the leadership’s role in the situation, were being misled into believing the process was meaningful.

Singh’s Role and Testimony on Party Strategy

Ms Loh further described a 23 October 2021 meeting at Pritam Singh’s home, where they discussed how Raeesah Khan should admit to the falsehood in Parliament.

Mr Singh had consulted with former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang, who advised that the best approach was to clarify the lie.

Mr Singh suggested that Ms Khan omit details about her own sexual assault, a position Ms Loh disagreed with, believing it would provide context for Ms Khan’s motivations and protect the rest of the party.

Ms Loh shared her concerns about the long-term impact of Raeesah Khan’s actions on the party’s public image.

She feared that failure to address the issue properly could damage the Workers’ Party’s reputation for integrity and potentially erode electoral support.

The trial is set to continue, with more witnesses expected to testify.