LivePritam Singh’s trial over alleged lies to Parliament

Not possible for Ms Khan to come clean on Oct 4 without preparation: Ms Loh

DPP Tan makes reference to another text sent in the three-person group chat between Ms Loh, Ms Khan and Mr Nathan on Nov 23, 2021.

Ms Loh explains that she was ready to go to Singh with the knowledge that he had gone to Ms Khan’s on Oct 3, and told her that he will not judge her.

DPP Tan asks if, given her expertise as a media representative for the party, it was possible for Ms Khan to tell the truth in Parliament on Oct 4 without any preparation.

On Oct 4, when Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam asked Ms Khan to furnish further details on her anecdote, she maintained the lie.

“No way,” Ms Loh replies in court. “This lie, obviously, it’s going to be a shock to everyone if she were to come up and just say yes, I lied about it.

“It would be very very foolish of her to just go up and do that without the party, especially the CEC (central executive committee) having some knowledge and preparation beforehand, and for the party to manage in some form of crisis communications… the fallout would be severe to a very high degree.”

“It was to me unthinkable.”

DPP Tan asks if it would have damaged the disciplinary panel even more.

“Definitely,” she replies.

This is an extract from the Committee of Privileges report:

Loh Pei Ying was ready to tell Pritam she knew of his early involvement

DPP Ben Mathias Tan refers to a WhatsApp exchange between Ms Raeesah Khan, Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan dated Nov 23, 2021.

The three of them had been discussing Pritam Singh’s message to Ms Khan, in which the Workers’ Party chief pointed out that it was Ms Khan’s decision to stick to the lie when asked again during the Oct 4 Parliament session.

Ms Loh says she was “very surprised at how (Singh) worded” the message.

“He is giving the view that she acted independently without seeking his counsel and advice in this matter, when she clearly did,” she adds.

DPP asks Ms Loh to clarify a message she sent to the other two, where she said she was “ready to tell him we know”.

Ms Loh says that she meant that she was ready to tell Singh that both she and Mr Nathan knew that he had been in the know since Aug 8, 2021, and had told Ms Khan he “would not judge (her)” on Oct 3.

Ms Loh Pei Ying says she was ‘extremely concerned for party’s well-being’

The DPP continues reading Ms Loh Pei Ying’s Nov 10, 2021, exchange with Pritam Singh. In the exchange, Ms Loh brought up the Workers’ Party (WP) chief’s invitation to the party members to share their views with the disciplinary panel.

“The disciplinary panel hasn’t exactly told the party about its involvement,” Ms Loh had said to Singh, reads the DPP.

Ms Loh says she was referring to how the WP leaders were aware of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie from Aug 8 and were actively involved in the preparation of her apology statement.

The DPP reads Singh’s response: “Despite this, it will be good to hear people out.”

Singh meant despite his knowledge and involvement in the matter, Ms Loh says.

DPP Tan continues to read a portion of Ms Loh’s message: “But if (Ms Khan) is out of the party, and she is still subjected to COP (Committee of Privileges), there’s not much we can do about what she says and does there.”

DPP Tan asks: “Second part of the message, it says ‘there’s not much we can do’, who is ‘we’ there?”

Ms Loh replies: “I’m referring to the party.”

DPP Tan asks: “Why were you referring to the party in this portion of the message?”

Ms Loh says: “Because I was a member, at the time, of the WP, and extremely concerned for the party’s well-being.”

WP members wanted to distance themselves from Raeesah but didn’t know involvement of party leaders: Loh Pei Ying

The prosecution continues to read from Ms Loh Pei Ying’s message, in which she says: “I don’t think it is at all fair to let party members think they have a say in this (disciplinary) process.”

Ms Loh shares that she had been in “several chat groups” with other Workers’ Party members and thus was aware that people overwhelmingly wanted Ms Raeesah Khan to resign and were eager to distance themselves from her mistake.

“I felt uncomfortable that they would all come in and say that, without the knowledge that the party leaders were almost involved right away, (when) she had told her first lie,” she says.

She then refers to the next part of the message, in which she says: “If this is done as a mock consultation exercise, then party members would be unhappy that their opinions weren’t really considered.”

She says that as everyone will call for Ms Khan’s resignation, the leaders will risk angering party members if they did not act on the advice received during the consultation exercise.

“They would feel that the party leadership is not one that listens to the party body,” she says.

The DPP continues to read from her statement: “I welcome the disciplinary panel to be transparent and share their involvement in this, their findings, barring personal information, so that the party can make an accurate decision.”

Ms Loh explains she was referring to the fact that the three leaders on the panel were the same people who were “very involved” in the preparation of Ms Khan’s apology and knew that she had lied since Aug 8.

“They should make this knowledge public and they should provide whatever information they can, obviously respecting Raeesah Khan’s privacy around the nature of her sexual assault and the anecdote that belonged to another victim.

“Then it would make sense to consult the party members, because they would then have the full facts.”

Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan warned Pritam and other leaders, but felt he underestimated consequences

DPP Ben Mathias Tan refers to part of a text Ms Loh Pei Ying sent to Pritam Singh on Nov 10, 2021, in which she says the party did not anticipate the backlash despite warnings and was trying to do something to quell anger.

In court, Ms Loh says she was referring to several earlier meetings she and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan had with Singh and other Workers’ Party leaders, where they discussed the ramifications on the party’s public reputation. This included the Oct 12, 2021, meeting where she earlier testified that Singh had been quite relaxed.

“Throughout her delivery of (Raeesah Khan’s) apology and statement, Singh had been quite relaxed and of the view that this would blow over, so I really felt that he underestimated the consequences,” she says.

As for what she meant when she said the party was trying to quell anger, she says: “For the sake of settling (the) furore on the matter, he needed to be seen to be also upset and needed to be seen to be disciplining Ms Khan, even though that might not be his core intentions.”

Disciplinary panel was ‘performatory’: Loh Pei Ying

DPP Ben Mathias Tan next refers to a Nov 10 message from Pritam Singh to all Workers’ Party members that invited them to share their views about Ms Raeesah Khan’s situation with the disciplinary panel.

Ms Loh Pei Ying says she felt other party members “had no business” sharing views when they were unaware of the “true timeline of events” – referring to how the Workers’ Party leaders were aware of Ms Khan’s lie a week after she told it.

“I was extremely angry,” says Ms Loh.

Ms Loh also says she felt the disciplinary panel, which was formed on Nov 2, 2021, was “performatory”.

“It was an action that Pritam Singh had taken to quell party member and public anger on the matter, but it did not have real consequences,” she says.

“What did you mean by ‘no consequences’?” DPP Tan asks.

“They weren’t going to take drastic action on her,” she replies.

“What do you mean by ‘performatory’?” he then asks.

“Kind of like, putting on a show,” Ms Loh replies.

Raeesah’s personal statement, her parents’ concerns discussed on Oct 23: Loh Pei Ying

Ms Loh Pei Ying tells DPP Ben Mathias Tan that they had a meeting at the Workers’ Party headquarters on Oct 23, 2021.

It was attended by Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, as well as Mr Yudhishthra Nathan and another party volunteer called Evelyn.

According to Ms Loh, Ms Khan came in with printed drafts and distributed them to the attendees.

“The other party volunteer we brought in was an expert in crisis communications and media affairs, so we brought that person up to speed on what had happened and wanted her advice,” she says.

They also had extensive discussions about Ms Khan’s parents’ concerns about the statement, as well as the need to come clean in Parliament. However, there was no talk about disciplinary proceedings at the time.

The meeting ended with the conclusion that there was no escape from the need to clarify Ms Khan’s lie, Ms Loh says.

“Ms Khan would have to address her parents’ concerns on her own – that was her responsibility,” she adds.

They also went into detail about steps that needed to be taken, such as when Ms Khan would send the draft to the party leaders and when she should inform the Speaker of Parliament that she would be making a statement.

“I also briefly reminded Pritam Singh that he would be questioned on the matter of when he knew and what he did,” she tells the court. “And he was like, yeah, he’s got that handled.”

Ms Loh says Singh also briefly discussed if they should put together a media team to monitor discussions online following Ms Khan’s statement, but it was not acted upon.

Punishment for Raeesah Khan not discussed, Pritam had not told her to inform parents: Loh Pei Ying

DPP Ben Mathias Tan asks Ms Loh Pei Ying if punishment for Ms Raeesah Khan was discussed during the lengthy meeting at Pritam Singh’s house.

“Not at all. We discussed COP (the Committee of Privileges), but not about party disciplinary matters,” she says.

Ms Loh says they discussed how the matter should be handled and about having to inform the party’s central executive committee.

She adds: “We were very concerned internally what party members would think and what the public would think, but her residents, volunteers… those were on our mind.”

Singh said Ms Khan’s legislative assistant Mike Lim also had to be informed, at which point Loh interjected to say that Ms Khan’s parents had to be informed as well.

Singh agreed, she says.

Later, DPP Tan clarifies whether Singh had already asked Ms Khan to inform her parents.

“No, he did not,” says Ms Loh. “Just to add to that, his reaction was like ‘oh yeah, you’re right’.”

DPP Tan says: “Did Singh say that he had been waiting for Ms Khan to inform her parents?”

Ms Loh: “Not at all.”

Pritam and WP cadres discussed how Raeesah should come clean

Pritam Singh and then Workers’ Party (WP) cadres Loh Pei Ying and Yudhishthra Nathan discussed how Ms Raeesah Khan should go about coming clean in a personal statement during the meeting on Oct 12, 2021, Ms Loh says.

They deliberated on whether Ms Khan should include her own sexual assault experience. Ms Loh says Pritam Singh was against it, but she thought not including Ms Khan’s experience would be disadvantageous to the party.

If Ms Khan did not come out as a survivor herself, other members in the party would be perceived as “compulsive liars”, Ms Loh says. “It is important to address the motivations for why she had lied.”

Ms Loh also felt sexual assault victims might suffer “severe consequences” and risk being labelled as liars.

DPP Ben Mathias Tan asks if Singh explained at the meeting why the untruth had to be clarified.

Ms Loh says: “The main reason was that Minister Shanmugam wasn’t going to let it go.”

She adds: “There is also a strong second reason. It was also for Ms Khan’s own conscience and for the party.”

Loh Pei Ying says Pritam told them he consulted with Low Thia Khiang regarding Raeesah’s lie

Ms Loh Pei Ying tells the court that Pritam Singh told her and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan that he had consulted with former Workers’ Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang regarding Ms Raeesah Khan’s lie.

According to Singh, Mr Low’s opinion was that the best course of action was to make a clarification in Parliament and that “the Workers’ Party would survive the falling out that would follow”, she says.

“Given that Yudhishthra Nathan and I had a lot of faith and confidence in Mr Low’s opinion, we were very assuaged that that was his decision and advice,” she adds.

“In this part, Pritam Singh also did recount that he had a feeling that this matter would come up in Parliament that day, on Oct 4, and that he went to speak with Raeesah Khan the day before and sort of gave her a choice of whether or not to come clean in Parliament and that he would not judge her.”

The DPP then asks her about her reaction when Singh recounted his exchange with Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021. She says she was surprised.

When asked to elaborate, Ms Loh says she was surprised he had the foresight to see that the matter would come up and also that he would say “such a thing to her (Ms Khan)”.

“It felt like very unclear communication, it was vague instruction,” Ms Loh tells the prosecution.