Raeesah Khan did not need Pritam Singh’s directive to tell the truth: Defence

SINGAPORE: On Wednesday (Oct 16), the third day of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s trial for lying to parliament, his lawyer challenged former party member Raeesah Khan, suggesting that she did not require Singh’s directive to tell the truth.
Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, applied to impeach Ms Khan towards the end of the hearing on Tuesday. 
The application involved Mr Jumabhoy seeking leave from Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan to cross-examine Ms Khan on the alleged inconsistencies between her police statement dated May 12, 2022, and her testimony in court on Monday. 
In impeaching Ms Khan, Mr Jumabhoy is seeking to show that she is not a credible witness, so that the court may place less weight on her testimony.
The court may come to a finding on whether Ms Khan’s credit as a witness has been impeached at any point during the trial after hearing the defence’s cross-examination, up to the judge’s final verdict. 
Mr Jumabhoy questioned Ms Khan about these differences in court on Wednesday. 
The point of contention involves an email that Singh sent to all sitting WP Members of Parliament on Oct 1, 2021, about parliamentary protocol. 
In the email, Singh had stressed the importance of backing up and defending what a person said in parliament, or risk being hauled up before a Committee of Privileges (COP). 
In her court testimony, Ms Khan said that she and Singh had not discussed this email during a meeting on Oct 3, 2021 – a day before the parliament sitting on Oct 4, 2021. 
According to Ms Khan, Singh had said: “I don’t think the issue will come up”. But if the issue did come up, Singh had said he would not “judge me for continuing with the narrative”, she added.
In her police statement, Ms Khan said Singh referred to the parliamentary protocol email and said that “you know, these people may want to bring it up again”, referring to her lie.
When asked if there was a difference between the two lines, Ms Khan agreed. However she clarified: “To me it’s saying the same thing in different ways.”  
Mr Jumabhoy then suggested to Ms Khan that Singh had referred to serious consequences in his email. 
“On the other hand he’s now telling you there’s no judgment to continue the narrative. That’s simply absurd,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
“So absurd, in fact, that it didn’t happen.”
Ms Khan disagreed with this, maintaining that Singh had told her to “continue the narrative”.  
But Mr Jumabhoy argued: “If he’d said two contradictory things – on the one hand showed you (the) email (and) talked about serious consequence and on the other hand tell you there’s no judgement … Any reasonable person would’ve said ‘what on earth are you talking about?'”
Appearing incredulous, Ms Khan replied: “Any reasonable person would question why he didn’t ask for more preparation then if he wanted me to come out to tell the truth.”
After Mr Singh had told her to continue the narrative, and that he would not judge her, he had “left it at that”, Ms Khan said. 
Singh, 48, is contesting two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. He is accused of making two lies before a Committee of Privileges on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, in relation to a lie that Ms Khan had first told parliament on Aug 3, 2021. 
Ms Khan had lied about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, where a police officer allegedly made comments about the woman’s attire and consumption of alcohol.
Ms Khan said she would have made preparations to come clean if Singh had told her to do so on Oct 3, 2021.
“If he had said something different, if he had said: ‘Look you saw my email, you saw that there will be consequences, when it gets brought up again, go up there and tell the truth, and this is how we will prepare’. I would have prepared,” she testified.
Mr Jumabhoy argued that Ms Khan was not a new MP who needed a directive to tell the truth.
By Oct 3, 2021, Ms Khan had been in parliament for over 13 months, Mr Jumabhoy said.  
“So it’s not the case that it’s your first time through the door,” said Mr Jumabhoy.
“And you know, don’t you – right from wrong?” asked Mr Jumabhoy, to which Ms Khan replied “yes”. 
He added that Ms Khan had not needed a directive to lie to her friends, and to Singh. 
“So, you seem, according to you, to need a directive to tell the truth?” he asked. 
In response, Ms Khan, said: “Because when I made a mistake I wanted advice. I wanted to go to my leaders for advice. 
“You say that it’s not my first foot in the door or parliament but this is compared to leaders who have had so many years of experience, so naturally when I’ve done something wrong, I go to my leaders and ask them what should I do because I’m terrified that I’ve made this mistake.”
Mr Jumabhoy then said: “You don’t need a directive to tell the truth, do you? … You were a 27-year-old woman at the time. You’ve told us you know right from wrong.” 
“Yes,” replied Ms Khan.
Mr Jumabhoy and Ms Khan disagreed over whether Ms Khan felt that Singh’s alleged advice about not judging her for continuing the narrative was vague. 
Mr Jumabhoy argued that Ms Khan had thought the statement was vague, but had not clarified with Singh what he meant. But Ms Khan said the statement was not vague to her. 
Continuing this line of questioning, Mr Jumabhoy pointed out that during the Oct 4, 2021, sitting, Ms Khan had texted Singh to ask what she should do. This was when she was being asked by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam to provide further details about her anecdote. 
Mr Jumabhoy said that if Singh had told her what to do, there was “no reason” for her to send this message. 
Ms Khan responded: “I still wanted reassurance at the time and I wanted to make sure he still felt the same way as he did the night before.” 
The trial continues with the defence’s cross-examination of Ms Khan.