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

THE LIE, THE TRUTH AND THE RETAINED NARRATIVE

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.

DEFENCE SUBMITS 3 IMPEACHMENT APPLICATIONS

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 court room 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.